Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Atheism vs. God-Belief (the final debate).

page: 11
6
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 

Even iguanas seek out the best and the most comfortable and satisfying rock to lay upon however docile and slow to move they may appear.




posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Part 1) The Fully Informed Eternal Godhead


The God Theory,
by Bernard Haisch


"The God Theory" by Bernard Haisch
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249274834&sr=8-1

Haisch is an astrophysicist whose professional positions include Staff Scientist at the Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory, Deputy Director for the Center for Extreme Ultraviolet Astrophysics at the University of California, Berkeley, and Visiting Fellow at the Max-Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching, Germany. His work has led to close involvement with NASA; he is the author of over 130 scientific papers; and was the Scientific Editor of the Astrophysical Journal for nine years, as well as the editor in chief of the Journal of Scientific Exploration.

an excerpt


If you think of whitte light as a metaphor of infinite, formless potential, the colors on a slide or frame of film become a structured reality grounded in the polarity that comes about through intelligent subtraction from that absolute formless potential. It results from the limitation of the unlimited. I contend that this metaphor provides a comprehensible theory for the creation of a manifest reality (our universe) from the selective limitation of infinite potential (God)...
If there exists an absolute realm that consists of infinite potential out of which a created realm of polarity emerges, is there any sensible reason not to call this "God"? Or to put it frankly, if the absolute is not God, what is it? For our purposes here, I will indentify the Absolute with God. More precisely I will call the Absolute the Godhead. Applying this new terminology to the optics analogy, we can conclude that our physical universe comes about when the Godhead selectively limits itself, taking on the role of Creator and manifesting a realm of space and time and, within that realm, filtering out some of its own infinite potential...
Viewed this way, the process of creation is the exact opposite of making something out of nothing. It is, on the contrary, a filtering process that makes something out of everything. Creation is not capricious or random addition; it is intelligent and selective subtraction. The implications of this are profound.

If the Absolute is the Godhead, and if creation is the process by which the Godhead filters out parts of its own infinite potential to manifest a physical reality that supports experience, then the stuff that is left over, the residue of this process, is our physical universe, and ourselves included. We are nothing less than a part of that Godhead - quite literally.


And just to show that this isn't the idle speculations of a mad scientist (however well credentialled), a colleague of Haisch when working with the very same set of equations actually derived Newton's famous equation of the law of motion F=M/A!


My first inkling that the deceptively simple "Let there be light" might actually contain a profound cosmological truth came in early July 1992. I was trying to wrap things up in my office in Palo Alto so that I could spend the rest of the summer doing research on the X-ray emission of stars at the Max Planck Institute in Garching, Germany. I came in one morning just before my departure and found a rather peculiar message on my answering machine; it had been left at 3 a.m.by a usually sober-minded colleague, Alfonso Rueda, a professor at California State University in Long Beach. He was so excited by the results of a horrifically-long mathematical analysis he had been grinding through that he just had to tell me about it, knowing full well I was not there to share the thrill.

What he had succeeded in doing was to derive the equation: F=ma. Details would follow in Germany.

Most people will take this in stride with a "so what?" or "what does that mean?" After all what are F, m and a, and what is so noteworthy about a scientist deriving a simple equation? Isn't this what scientists do for a living? But a physicist will have an incredulous reaction because you are not supposed to be able to derive the equation F=ma. That equation was postulated by Newton in his Principia, the foundation stone of physics, in 1687. A postulate is a law that you assume to be true, and from which other things follow: such as much of physics, for example, from that particular postulate. You cannot derive postulates. How do you prove that one plus one equals two? The answer is, you don't. You assume that abstract numbers work that way, and then derive other properties of addition from that basic assumption.

But indeed, as I discovered when I began to write up a research paper based on what Rueda soon sent to Garching, he had indeed derived Newton's fundamental "equation of motion." And the concept underlying this analysis was the existence of a background sea of light known as the electromagnetic zero-point field of the quantum vacuum.

from Brilliant Disguise: Light, Matter and the Zero-Point Field, by Bernard Haisch


Next, from Ervin Laszlo

Science and the Akashic Field, an Integral Theory of Everything, 2004
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249275852&sr=8-1

And, his other seminal work
Science and the Reenchantment of the Cosmos: The Rise of the Integral Vision of Reality
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1249275852&sr=8-6

Ervin Laszlo is considered one of the foremost thinkers and scientists of our age, perhaps the greatest mind since Einstein. His principal focus of research involves the Zero Point Field. He is the author of around seventy five books (his works having been translated into at least seventeen languages), and he has contributed to over 400 papers. Widely considered the father of systems philosophy and general evolution theory, he has worked as an advisor to the Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. He was also nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in both 2004 and 2005. A multidisciplinarian, Laszlo has straddled numerous fields, having worked at universities as a professor of philosophy, music, futures studies, systems science, peace studies, and evolutionary studies. He was a sucessful concert pianist until he was thirty eight.

In his view, the zero-point field (or the Akashic Field, as he calls it) is quite literally the "mind of God".

Naming Hal Puthoff, Roger Penrose, Fritz-Albert Popp, and a handful of others as "front line investigators", Laszlo quotes Puthoff who says of the new scientific paradigm:


[What] would emerge would be an increased understanding that all of us are immersed, both as living and physical beings, in an overall interpenetrating and interdependant field in ecological balance with the cosmos as a whole, and that even the boundary lines between the physical and "metaphysical" would dissolve into a unitary viewpoint of the universe as a fluid, changing, energetic/informational cosmological unity."

an excert from Science and the Akashic Field: An Integral Theory of Everything.


Akasha (a . ka . sha) is a Sanskrit word meaning "ether": all-pervasive space. Originally signifying "radiation" or "brilliance", in Indian philosophy akasha was considered the first and most fundamental of the five elements - the others being vata (air), agni (fire), ap (water), and prithivi (earth). Akasha embraces the properties of all five elements: it is the womb from which everything we percieve with our senses has emerged and into which everything will ultimately re-descend. The Akashic Record (also called The Akashic Chronicle) is the enduring record of all that happens, and has ever happened, in space and time."


Downward Causation and the Tangled Hierarchy, with Amit Goswami, Ph.D. Physicist


Originally posted by NewAgeMan




Note: Part One must be accompanied by Part Two, to form a complete argument and to "join the circle" in terms of the evidentiary value of Part One - please bear this in mind if attempting to form a rebuttal to Part One.

In Part Two I will attempt to demonstrate a prime example of evidence for what I call superintelligent design (because it's infinitely intelligent) embedded straight into the first cause and most intriguing of all, intended, like a marker, sign, or "fingerprint" (or what I like to call a "wink and a nod") for none other than we ourselves as ten fingered self aware sentient observers at this moment in earth history, to recognize, implying a partnership with God as the first/last cause or as an infinitely intelligent and fully informed eternal Godhead (call it what you will).

Part Two unfortunately will have to wait however until next weekend at the very least, because to represent it properly I will have to read, highlight and then transcribe parts of a variety of different sources and resources and it's going to take some serious time and energy, and researching, to bring it forward, but eventually I'll get it all in here somehow.

Part Two basically proves the innate infinite intelligence of the Godhead described here in Part One.

Thank you for your patience, and for your continued patience.

Best Regards,

NAM

edit on 19-3-2013 by NewAgeMan because: edit



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by idmonster

Originally posted by stormson
look at the words-




An atheist (and I know this has been said over and over on this thread...but I feel it bears repeating) view is not that there is no god(s)..(that would be an anti-theist) it is that there is no evidence in support of god(s)



negative.

words have meaning.

atheist- noun a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods: (oxford)

antitheist- Antitheism (sometimes anti-theism) is active opposition to theism. An antitheist is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "One opposed to belief in the existence of a god." (wiki)

agnostic- noun a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. (oxford)

as you can see, your definition of atheist fits agnostic. dont blame me, but the dictionary.



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 02:45 AM
link   
reply to post by stormson
 

So then, an atheist, by proper definition (Oxford) is one who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods, regardless and in spite of any evidence whether for or against the existence of God, as differentiated from an agnostic, who takes no position, or an anti-theist who is opposed to or against belief in the existence of God.

Then of course there's the theist who believes or who has faith in God in the complete absence of any evidence or, who presumes to have God, as a certain conception, neatly wrapped up in a personal nutshell however "almighty" his version of God may be (for reasons he cannot explain or define or at best explain by the circular reasoning of "it just is because it's the word of God" i.e.: because I believe what I've been told to believe and accept).

I tell you if there IS a God then "he" must be laughing his ass (or whatever) off!

Just to clarify, for the purpose of this thread and argument, I only wish to posit evidence to show the existence of God, not to define God in any way, shape or form, because I don't want to get into any trouble here, amid the obvious predicaments and absurdities.

Best Regards,

NAM

edit on 19-3-2013 by NewAgeMan because: slight word error fixed.



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Use diagrams and puppet shows if you have to.




posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 05:51 AM
link   
I like this thread. I'd like to share what I believe to be true. And, I welcome honest criticism on any of my conclusions, maybe it will send me down closer paths of true gnosis.

As a self-described "Deist" I'd like to point out the evidence...creation itself, your whole universe, and the particular majesty of your singular conciousness. Now unless we are talking quantum vacuum states... Things do not just pop in to existence. Even in this field, I seriously question whether we simply lack the tools to see the quantum foam as a solid thing, instead of a cloud of probability.

I was an athiest from 9-13, a heavily indoctrinated "scientific" school system almost guaranteed this. Than I woke up, and saw the creation for what it was..... intelligently planned and designed.

Now I'm just short of a Nihilist I suppose, but even I, can not deny the obvious evidence of intelligent design, look no further than the world of goo we are surrounded by... We can just call it DNA. Amazing properties this stuff.... The only thing known to code/decode information and propagate itself, besides man-made devices(intelligent design). I won't go into the argument right now but there is a very good argument to support an uncreated creator. I saw it here on ATS a few years back.

Infinite regression is a logical fallacy, we can argue chicken and the egg all day, or in this context what became before god, ad nauseum... At some state you have to acknowledge something just "is" to make progress. Or you can just shout stupid back and forth, that can be fun.
Physicist call this line the Big Bang. (and then look for answers about time, outside the confides of it,while still subject to it...this is the state of science in this field.)Anyways....we tend to have sexist identities.... God(s" Godess(es). This is ludicrous on the surface....Surely if this Deity is beyond the confines of space/time, I would have to say it's most likely has no gender or omni-gender, neither of which we have proper context to understand in the first place.

I concede there exist no "test" for a Deity. The only thing one can offer for proof of a Deity is rational argument and reason. Even if this is extremely lacking and unsatisfying it simply is. Where is the rational logical argument for the lack of a Deity? There isn't one. We resort to the void popping # in to existence which sounds more magical to me, than the tooth fairy. (Turns out there was a tooth fairy, a semi-intelligent creature I generally refer to as mom.) Why? because when we deny the possibility of a creator, it's all we have left...

My personal opinion is this, unless you want to swim in circular logic, and make even grander stories up, about magical voids of nothingness. You accept a Deity in your life. Now again, in my personal opinion, due to overwhelming evidence I've decided this Deity just doesn't care..... If we could name it properly I suppose it'd best be called "Apathy"... It is either unwilling, or unable to pierce our bubble. The existence of "Free Will" only furthers my argument... If you were a clockmaker, would you bust open the clock to fix it, when it obviously didnt need repairs? Wouldn't you sell some of your clocks for a profit and never see them again..

I seriously think anyone who rejects a Deity on physical evidence grounds is blind, and one who would deny it on philosophical grounds is mentally unfit, for philosophical debate. This leads me to a very personal "God" But I would never dare to know it's thoughts, desires, or attempt to personify it in anyway. It's beyond me.... Now as for the major earth religions, I think they made a lot of great bed-time stories.



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 11:19 AM
link   
So...by "final debate", did the OP mean "final rehash of a rehash"?
edit on 19-3-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Mykey057420
 


why do you assume the "existence of free will"?

just curious, what leads you to the conclusion that if indeed man is created, that he has a will which remains separate, independent, and un-influenced by the one who created him??

Soul



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by SoulReaper
 


Free will is implied in that the union
between a male and female which
produces a normal offspring will
result in a separate individual
who has a free will independent
of the creators (male and female).



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 

If you have nothing whatsover of value to offer, and no specific question of any kind, then please save the snide remarks, thank you.


edit on 19-3-2013 by NewAgeMan because: typo



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


There was very little here which could be considered "new" evidence for God, or even a new way of looking at the concept.

For instance, as a theologian, I have long ago embraced the idea that God dwells in "inaccessible light", that "in him we live, move, and have our being". That there will be an eternal reality where we will be "one" with God, or as they put it, become "one with the consciousness of non-locality".

Now i indeed have a slightly different perspective of how these concepts manifest themselves into our reality, but the concepts themselves are somewhat "old hat".

There is a limit to what Science could ever possibly discover or define regarding the attributes of the "void", or the "unseen reality" or the "consciousness of non-locality".

In theology we propose that a partial aspect of God can be known through what has been made, namely his divine power and eternal nature. What has been made, or creation, is a finite manifestation of God which science can reach out to investigate and draw conclusions from. Those conclusions however will only ever reveal a partial aspect of God and would never allow man to truly "know" his person.


In order for man to truly "KNOW" God, he must reveal himself to us in another way, beyond the revelations given through his handiwork 'creation', with a special revelation which reveals a far more compelling aspect of his being, the purpose, desires, and intentions of his mind.


Now it is interesting that in the videos you brought, the physicist was ever so careful to avoid the implication that the consciousness which gives birth to causality actually bore any resemblance to a God sitting on a throne whom brings forth causality according to the functions of a mind, through purpose, will, and intent. This is a coy trick which reveals much about the very nature of man.

You see, if there is a God who "causes" reality to conform to his will, purpose, and intent, then man himself as part of this reality must also conform to Gods' will, purpose, and intent. This very possibility awakens the fear which resides close to the heart of every man, it raises the possibility of accountability and subordination.

You see all men struggle with fear, it is in the core of our very nature, we all employ many different methods to cope with this fear. The end result of these efforts will turn each and every one of us into "kingdom builders", we seek to carve out for ourselves a kingdom of our own, where we control our own destiny and no one can impose upon our supposedly "free will". We build for ourselves a throne for our will and would wish that all of reality would conform to our own purposes.

Of course this kingdom that we have built for ourselves comes under assault every time we run into any other conscious being whom has his/her own kingdom to maintain. A battle of wills ensues, and we seek to "conquer" and subordinate all who would oppose the purpose or intents of our hearts and minds. Naturally we are not always at odds with those whom we engage and so we can coexist more easily with people who are in many respects "like-minded" and indeed these sort are almost always the type of people we surround ourselves with. For in this way we can reduce the number of encounters where our kingdom can be threatened, where the throne of our will could be cast down and we would be forced to "bow" at throne of the will of another.

This indeed is the root of all conflict in the world, people running about seeking to establish and increase the purposes and intents of the will, or seeking to establish their own kingdom of the self and to hell with anyone who gets in the way. We all want to be our own lord or king.

It is also this condition which causes man to be at enmity with God, for God calls himself the "King of kings", the "Lord of lords" and claims to sit on a throne of Sovereign Power, ruling over an eternal kingdom which cannot be conquered by the will of man. Thus man responds in fear and denial, for he cannot in his flesh give up his illusion of "freedom" and self governance, rather he will turn his back on God to continue in his fantasy. The acknowledgement of a greater eternal kingdom and of one who rules that kingdom with a sovereign will and purpose would bring man down off his throne and to his knees in humility, in subordination to the will of God. There is nothing that man will endure less readily then this crushing of his pride and usurping of his self made throne. Hence man finds it easier to ridicule anyone who would dare even speak of such a God, and in his scientific pursuits, he determines going in that no matter what he finds, the eternal throne of God must be denied. He goes out of his way to perceive a different reality where his own self made kingdom can be preserved.

Your physicist is no different


Soul
edit on 19-3-2013 by SoulReaper because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by SoulReaper
 


Free will is implied in that the union
between a male and female which
produces a normal offspring will
result in a separate individual
who has a free will independent
of the creators (male and female).



This does not even remotely correlate to the relationship of a creator God, to his creation, man.

Man and Women do not "create" anew when they conceive of a child. They did not create their own dna, nor the process by which a child is manifested in the womb. We as humans are merely making use of resources which we possess through no creative effort of our own.

Sorry if this does not suffice for me. I suppose if it suffices for you then that doesn't matter to you in any case.

Soul



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by SoulReaper
 

That was just Part One of a two part argument (which makes no claim to be "new" even though the ideas and concepts are relatively new), who's only purpose is to posit evidence of the existence of God as superintelligent Creative Agency, nothing more. At most it's a pointer.

As to self discovery, communion etc. that's another matter where at the heart of God is spirit and truth (objective reality) relative to which the egoic pride of man (locked in the delusion of the stratagem of Narcissus), upon reflective examination in the light of truth, has little option but to surrender to the greater Reality and be reborn as an authentic person. The final knowledge of God then as the one condition of Reality, resides is the personal knowledge of the humor of true understanding, something that we can explore as a sideline, to explore and reveal the utter folly and absurdity of the ego's will to power in relation to God's will to love where virtue is power restrained for the sake of freedom including the freedom to freely love without which love is not possible.

Therefore any invitation to enter into the domain of God-realization or communion with God must be all-inclusive, unconditional and non-coercive.


The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let the one who hears say, “Come!” Let the one who is thirsty come; and let the one who wishes take the free gift of the water of life.

~ Revelation 22:17 (at the end of the Bible)

What is the water of life but the non-dualistic free flow of eternal life as it is

edit on 19-3-2013 by NewAgeMan because: edit



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by SoulReaper
 

The final knowledge of God then as the one condition of Reality, resides is the personal knowledge of the humor of true understanding, something that we can explore as a sideline, to explore and reveal the utter folly and absurdity of the ego's will to power in relation to God's will to love where virtue is power restrained for the sake of freedom including the freedom to freely love without which love is not possible.

edit on 19-3-2013 by NewAgeMan because: edit




In my opinion this concept that "power is restrained for the sake of freedom" and that "love is not possible without freedom" is a human concept, cleverly designed to "compliment" or "defend" the nature of God, while still maintaining that man retains his own personal "sovereignty". It is a clever ploy, to posit these presuppositions as if the main focus of these positions is to admire "virtuous limitations" on God, while the true purpose of them is to keep man secure on his throne.

It cannot be proven that God must or does restrain himself for the sake of human freedom. In fact it is slightly irrational to contend such a thing in my view of the matter, but that is an entirely separate discussion.

Further, it is simply not true that love is not possible without freedom. First, God does not receive anything from man that was not first given to man by God. Second, God is not lacking in his nature for anything, and as such has no need which man can fill. Thus, it is quite natural to understand that man will love God only because God has set an example in his own expressions of love. It is only because of him that we have any perception or comprehension of what it even means to love. To posit that Man came up with this concept all on his own, with no influence or purpose of God is quite a stretch. We did not create love with which we can then "bless" God, it is rather the other way around.

Man is given freedom to act according to how he finds himself to be. This is a limited freedom however, for it is not possible to separate, "how a man finds himself to be" completely from the influence or purpose of God. Well i suppose i should clarify, it is not possible according to the God that has revealed himself to me. I am sure that a lesser being could be described whom is subject to every whim of mans will, and I suppose there are many who would be quite happy to acknowledge such a God who places man upon his own throne. I suppose i simply am not one of them.


Soul
edit on 19-3-2013 by SoulReaper because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-3-2013 by SoulReaper because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 






Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy.”
“Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”
Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

(Revelation 22:11-15 ESV)


If we are going to bring the holy scriptures into the discussion, we must bring it in context. Verse 17 is preceded by the above, and the waters of life along with the tree of life are within the city of God and those who "have the right" to be there will be allowed to freely take. For then they will truly be free from the shackles of carnality and will be able to commune with God in Spirit and Truth. There will however be those who are "outside" who will not have access to the life which proceeds from the throne of God.

Soul



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by SoulReaper
 


Amen



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by SoulReaper
 


I'm not using freedom and love to posit the existence of God as an invisible unknowable and unprovable separate entity who's the most Godly when he doesn't exist at all.

I was simply pointing out the attribute of Virtue which has the capacity to express power, strength and influence even in it's apparent weakness for the sake of and to be true to love as the very rock upon which our truest self expression and personal knowledge resides.

As per Part One - the idea here in this argument is that of one which is for intelligence and intentionality and purpose vs. or opposing randomness and chaos "by accident".

As to what you said I'm not referring to man's enthronement except when hand in hand with the spirit of God with us to his right, and so and on so forth, preferably all the way around as I said earlier so that there are no "goats to the left" in the final analysis and in the fullness of time and history ie: that eventually we'll all get the joke at our own expense and at the expense of the whole of our absurdity and blind ignorance, in the end, somehow..

It's a submission, or a humility and surrender of the ego relative to a standard of simple truth and reason, and love, so laughing we re-enter the fray willing to take the lowest place at the table and then discover to our happy dismay that we are moved up-table closer to the right of the power which is the height of virtue and humility and love and life as it is (in eternity). There's a throne somewhere in the universe where man draws close to the Godhead and God lives with man in spirit, so we are drawn to the height of virtue where there's also a representation of that throne in us in terms of what God has intended and reserved for us for the sake of a shared experience or an actual reality i.e.: better than nothing at all.

There are two arguments at play here then: one involving evidence of intelligence design with intent, as opposed to randomness, by accident "formative" causation.. the other, this idea that love and the knowledge of personal experience might have embedded within itself the highest form of reason and truth, especially when we consider it by comparison to what is//was unloving and unreasonable (this is where the humor comes in) and in relation to the first idea might even be the very reason for the creative intent in the first place i.e.: made just for us, with us in mind from the beginning. This implies a partnership with God.

So when we look around, whether for design, or complete random coincidence - what do we see? This is the only outward evidence available whether for or against the existence of the eternal Godhead - the manifest creation itself.

We can freely look at both of these two tracks as an approach to whether or not God exists, on the one hand by looking around at the creation, and on the other within ourselves as to whether there is a rock of absolute truth and reason conjoined with a spirit of absolute liberation with God as our very condition once the principal of our ego is undone, and that's FUNNY!

One God, one condition, one spirit.

Is there an invisible one who created it with intent so that we get to enjoy this mutually shared experience? That's the question really when it boils right down to it, and if there is such a one who's willing to share at this magnitude of incalculable value (assigned to the human being in creation), then that's rather generous, and to make of it an unconditioned ground of being still available, well my that just takes the cake, God has outdone himself in his giving, and freedom and liberation, if we so choose.

So I think there's also a doorway, a gateway into new pasture from which we can freely enter and freedom come and go to the point that we wouldn't want to leave anymore, and then more and so on and so forth in the domain of all possibility and all manner of personal knowledge and experience via spiritual and psychological growth and increased communion, including the ecstatic humor of true understanding and recognition as the very action that we are performing through every given moment and from moment to moment, it was an action where we were in a predicament or dilemma and an action which will be be the action of healing and that's a process or a work done in God.



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by SoulReaper
 

Would you close the door on your neighbor though?

I know if I was let in that I wouldn't do that, but would instead be found at the door inviting in as many as possible.

The whole work and the whole treasure is available because the treasure is his love.

It's an issue of love and the mutual brotherly love of man in relation to his fellow man.

It's all available, free, to freely eat and drink, so what are we to do but receive it and then extend it in the same spirit to others.

May Love and forgiveness, mercy, and grace upon grace be yours also, amen.


edit on 19-3-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by SoulReaper
 

Would you close the door on your neighbor though?

I know if I was let in that I wouldn't do that, but would instead be found at the door inviting in as many as possible.

The whole work and the whole treasure is available because the treasure is his love.

It's an issue of love and the mutual brotherly love of man in relation to his fellow man.

It's all available, free, to freely eat and drink, so what are we to do but receive it and then extend it in the same spirit to others.

May Love and forgiveness, mercy, and grace upon grace be yours also, amen.


edit on 19-3-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)


It is only by doing this that we find more love, that wells up inside to the point of pure joy, a feeling that comes to those who pursue love. My addiction to love has become of greater value to me than my life itself. To stop pursuing love would leave me worse than before. If I abandon love now what could possibly become of me.

No I will pursue love because the Joy received in the pursuit of love is quite possibly the only reason to take my next breath.

If you think being addicted to love is crazy, please don't try to help me, nor should you try to stop me. Because is love is for me no one can stand against me. God is love.



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by sacgamer25
If you think being addicted to love is crazy, please don't try to help me, nor should you try to stop me. Because is love is for me no one can stand against me. God is love.

Isn't it, isn't HE funny though? Don't you think?

You're nuts, and so am I (see the link in my signature for more - but I can see you've already joined the cause and that you're "all in" for the love of God and the brotherhood of man => [moves pile of chips forward])



Nothing else makes any SENSE! So it's the joke that once you get it on one level just keeps getting ever funnier, until you're left with an ultra-rational smile (for no reason at all).

Crazy truth, willy to go mad if need be only to be real and true as we were intended to be, not unlike little children.






top topics



 
6
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join