It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Reality: I Don't Know. Maybe It's A "Woman Thing"?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:53 PM
And maybe this is why we can't ever know it.

"In the beginning was the Word, and Word was with God, and the Word was God." Seems simple enough. It was there, this Word. It'd always been there, and it was what God used to build everything that God built, and out of nothing - maybe out of the everything that is, was, and always will be God. Maybe it's not something that we, as human beings, can understand; even pursue as knowledge? After all, this is the sacred mystery of God. This isn't physics. It's not biology or cosmology. It's not the sort of natural or mundane process - this question of God's own part in bringing humanity into existence - that lends itself to the primitive inquests of earthbound humanity.

But, what about the fact that this whatever-it-is - this Word, the thing that's always been - lacks a....well, the truth is that everything starts out somehow. Everything that we can touch, or that can touch us. It all started some way or another. Ask anyone. The Earth, the sky, the Moon, all the plants and animals on this planet, the Universe itself and whatever the Big Bang is or isn't; nothing exists that can touch us, or be touched by us, that didn't have a moment - before it was - when it simply wasn't. Maybe that's science, but if it is science, then it's the simplest and most basic science there is. Nothing just is. Not if it's something that we can ever interact with.

In fact, if whatever-it-is wants to reach out and affect us, it'll have to be like us in its most essential nature. That's just fundamental to the broad concept of interaction between whole items; that they share a sub-structural existential foundation. I mean, elemental logic demands that physical interaction be based on commonality at the primordial level. This is the basis of structural consistency, and at least on our side of the interactive congress, this one requirement gives no quarter. If this Word brought everything that we are and that we know into existence, then this Word must be the active physical hand of God; the part of God that shares our existential nature. The part of God that's physical.

So, where did it come from; this Word of God? If spoken from God, and into true and concrete physical existence, then what part of God's eternal non-emergent self shares sub-structural commonality with this Word? Was it the sound of God's voice - ripping into the existential void - that formed nothing at all into the creation hands that were used to gather the firmament, part the light with the darkness, split the seas from the sky, and bring Man from the mud so that life could be breathed into him? What voice? A voice suggests the disturbance of atmosphere - vibrational pressure affecting the slurry of gases to cause waves of harmonic frequencies to spread out from a physical source. A physical source that doesn't exist, disturbing a slurry of gases that didn't exist, with waves of sound that had no point of origin and no place to spread. No, it wasn't God's voice that caused the Word to emerge.

Again, with sub-structural union the essential demand for any and all interaction, what brought the Word into physical manifestation? What bridged the eternal essence of a non-emergent God with the emergent human being and what we know to be a world that - at one time - didn't exist? Or is this a question that can't be asked?

"Git 'er Done"

In the world of men, there's only one brand of hero. The man of action. "Go big or go home." "Don't let your mouth write a check your ass can't cash." "Put up or shut up." The world of men is a world of addressing finite issues, followed by moving on to the next set of finite issues to be addressed. It's a world of uncomplicated wins and losses. A world filled with only two versions of people, places and things; winners and losers. When all's said and done, the entire existential realm splits along those lines, and anyone that doesn't accept the harsh reality of that core essential truth is either in denial or looking to skate out on the tough business of existence.

In a man's world, the bottom line rules, and if something works, then it's repeated until it doesn't work anymore. In a man's world, if the Word of God was with God, and was God, then what difference does it make how it became the Word of God. The deal is that it IS the Word of God, and what's important is addressing what that means to what's sitting directly in front of a person as a consequence of it being the Word of God. And the real question is 'how can it be any simpler than that?' Of course, if reality - as in what's real and what's not real - matters, then where does the true bottom line actually exist? Or is it a case where reality itself doesn't matter; at least it doesn't matter until it does matter? At which point, what aspect of reality will it be that will suddenly matter, and how will that adjustment affect the working parts of what's been left functional of the original reality? Or will any of it be affected if the bottom line is what works, as opposed to what may or may not work?

And who gets to decide what's working, or if that should be the bottom line?

George Washington, the first president of the United States, was killed by his own personal physician. Malpractice. That's what would've been the jury verdict if the crime had occurred in the 21st century. It didn't occur in that century. It occurred in the 19th century. Early in the 19th century, when people were still being drained of blood when they had a runny nose. Balancing the body's fluids was the intent, and leeches were the proven technology in use. Poor Washington. He never had a chance. The bloodsuckers took his resistance right into the dirt and him with it. It was a man's world, and men had been gettin' 'er done with leeches for quite a while by then. Too bad for Mr. Washington. Another in a line of who knows how many who'd been taken down by what'd been working just fine for as long as anyone could remember. But then, folks die. Don't they?

Of course they do. No one lives forever. Not in this reality, they don't.

Not in this one.

The Great Divide

The first person to ever conceive of a real that is anything but real - assigning that real the authority over this real, and the omnipotence to establish the parameters of what would be real for the entire realm inhabited by that person, and all other people and whatever else exists along side those people - was not a person who suffered from a lack of self confidence. An extremely aggressive inability to grab a notion and chase the impact of that notion through to any semblance of full expression? Definitely a lack there, but in a man's world, where was the need for such an effort? In a man's world, an immediate impact is all the impact that exists. The reflection required to progress that impact beyond the confines of direct responsibility is the sort of thing that causes one to slow down. To lose momentum. To lose.

Real men don't lose. Okay, they may lose, but they don't intentionally do whatever it might be that will increase their chances of losing. Like reflecting too much on a course of action. Or obsessing over an interpretation of available data. And it certainly isn't feeding the bottom line to bother with the possibility of data that doesn't even exist, and may not exist. Especially if there's an explanation that's been working just fine since anyone can remember, and everyone's already comfortable with it. Like applying fluid-balancing leeches to the intellect, to the soul in some cases - with more folks pulling through than not - and besides, there's plenty more that still needs to be done about things that can't wait. Things to make and things to mend. Winning yet to be done, and losing to be averted. And anyway, that's what priests and ministers and gurus and rabbis get paid to worry about. Let 'em do their job.

At some point, the men of our world decided that the realm of God wasn't going to be real in the same way that they knew - that we all know - real to be within our own realm. That entire reality wasn't going to play by the same basic rules of structure and organization that we deal with in our reality. It was decided that the entire realm of God would be somehow more that ours, even as it would lack a comparable impact on those who occupy that realm - at least until our own realm was finally taken apart by God Himself, and we were all somehow transfigured into beings that would make sense within that realm which literally bears no sub-structural resemblance to our own.

This determination was made and this version of God's own eternal nature was signed off on - if reality can be said to represent anything at all beyond a confusing premise - using no possible reference to anything that could've ever been directly experienced by those who made it. Misinterpretation? Oh sure, for the genius craftsmen of that Godly realm, misinterpretation was a distinct possibility. But anything resembling a direct experience to use as a guide for this authoritative design? Not possible. Like I said, a sub-structural commonality would've been the least of requirements for a direct experience. No commonality, no interaction. It's as simple as that. But to these men, nothing ever revealed itself as a barrier to what must've seemed like an inspired solution. "Git 'er done", and then on to the next pressing issue.

True men of action, and not a loser in the bunch.
edit on 1/15/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:50 PM
reply to post by NorEaster

"In the beginning was the Word, and Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Perhaps it is a woman thing.
The first sentence says it all.
Where lies the word?
In the masculine...

The word became God.
But God is more than the word
There is a whole other side to God
He is also the mysterious female.

posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 03:47 AM
reply to post by NorEaster

I don't know that this would really mean anything to you but, Jesus Christ called himself the Word. So, he was declaring that he was there for the creation. He always was around. Like I said, I don't think it adds to the discussion but it is an interesting thing to me, anyway.

posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 07:04 AM

Originally posted by PhantomLimb
reply to post by NorEaster

I don't know that this would really mean anything to you but, Jesus Christ called himself the Word. So, he was declaring that he was there for the creation. He always was around. Like I said, I don't think it adds to the discussion but it is an interesting thing to me, anyway.

Actually, John says that Jesus was the Word "made flesh". That's a distinction between Jesus being the Word itself. This distinction - for many who have made the study of John's Gospel their life's work - is akin to the difference between "the truth" and "the impact that the truth has when it is manifest within actual application".

But then, John was clearly a Gnostic thinker, as was Paul. Both men worked hard to elevate the notion of Jesus as being more than a man who had a mission to die on a cross as a blood sacrifice for the sins of the world. They both had a much more "feminine" view of the transcendence of "the Christ", and are likely much closer to the actual potential truth concerning what Jesus the archetype represents.

Yes, Jesus is the most fascinating subject that's made its way to us through the centuries. There's a lot more to that whole subject than meets the eye as one opens the bible and checks off the usual scriptures. The layers are many and brilliantly crafted. The allegories alone are genius.

posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 07:16 AM

Originally posted by NorEaster
"In the beginning was the Word, and Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Did you know that this phrase .. one of the most beautifully written and most quoted biblical phrases of all time ... coming from St. John who was one of the deepest mystics the church has ever had ... is actually PLATONIC? He pretty much said something like this first.

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 09:03 PM
Jees! that was deep..Starts off with the Word..The word of who?..The word of the guy that wrote the book? as ages pass the God concept gets changed to suit the mores of the time. Forget about the word its just a passing fashion.
This is true....Arthur C Clark..Isac Asimov..and L.Ron Hubbard were having a coffee..and L.Ron Hubbard said "its ok for you Arthur you've got a real job..I'm not selling that many sci fi Books"..Arthur had a think..then said.."You know what you should do?..start a religion it would suit your creative style and think of the tax breaks"..The rest is History and Theatre. But thats not to say their isnt "Truth"out there but you have to stick to the facts.


posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 07:10 AM
Perhaps God is in reference to the structuralising principle amidst chaos. Thus, a violation to the rules would result in a return to the chaotic state.

new topics

top topics


log in