There can be no God in your mind/ empty your mind of God.

reply to post by micmerci

abstraction |abˈstrakSHən|
noun
1 the quality of dealing with ideas rather than events: topics will vary in degrees of abstraction.
• something that exists only as an idea: the question can no longer be treated as an academic abstraction.

A concrete noun points to real things and events. An abstract noun points to ideas. An 'abstraction' is only an idea, and therefore, an abstract noun.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Would you say thought is an abstraction?
I would say that words are an abstraction from the real thing but thought does happen, thought is experienced.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

Much more fulfilling than abstract objects and ideas? Absolutely; but only because they are capable of fulfilling, being tangible, substantiated and real. Your spiritual abstractions? They are about as fulfilling as other things that don't exist outside of dreams. The harder you clutch onto and strive for things that don't exist, the more difficult it is to be fulfilled in any way, unless you begin to believe your own ignorance.

I understand that you are speaking practically, which has always been your strong suit - however, I would argue to the extent that learning to appreciate abstractions makes it easier to come to a middle point where you can understand the practicality of materialism and the security of idealism. Ideas give us the strength to carry on, whereas materialism gives us the reward.

Abstraction is only as useful as what you make of it. If it isn't worth much to you, you don't take advantage of it a whole lot.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

Would you say thought is an abstraction?
I would say that words are an abstraction from the real thing but thought does happen, thought is experienced.

I would say thought is not a thing, but an event or action. So yes, it is an abstract noun, and therefore an idea only.

For instance, if I was to go for a jog, I am not going out to find or build something called a jog, but merely explaining in fewer words that from this time until that time, I will be jogging. Things called jogs don't actually exist outside of linguistic convenience, while me in the act or appearance of jogging does.

However, although words are themselves abstractions, some are concepts about real things, whereas others are concepts about concepts.

Originally posted by Angle

What would having God in your mind make of yourself?

It would seperate you from others. You would differ in a wrong way from other people, yet it would be no problem at all. But spirit God doesn't allow this to be. No shortcuts to the cause of all things. They aren't needed, for you must be what God is.

Is it impossible to have God in your mind?

I suppose so, yes. Your mind is for different things.

Is it an ilness 'having God in your mind'?

I think so. It makes you any effect anymore of the cause of all things.

Can you take the air out of your lungs ? I suppose so, but then you would die. You can't take God out of your mind because God put himself there so that you would know. It doesn't mean you have to respect or serve him, but only that when you give an account to Him when you die from this universe you will have no defense for all of your actions.

So God shall remain in your mind until such time you stand before Him. Now, after the judgement, then and only then can God be removed from you if you are sent to destruction for rejecting Him.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

I understand that you are speaking practically, which has always been your strong suit - however, I would argue to the extent that learning to appreciate abstractions makes it easier to come to a middle point where you can understand the practicality of materialism and the security of idealism. Ideas give us the strength to carry on, whereas materialism gives us the reward.

Abstraction is only as useful as what you make of it. If it isn't worth much to you, you don't take advantage of it a whole lot.

What I was replying to was your remark about materialistic dogma being shallow. I would say the opposite is the case. But I agree with your points on the psychology of these world views.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

What I was replying to was your remark about materialistic dogma being shallow. I would say the opposite is the case. But I agree with your points on the psychology of these world views.

It is shallow. More work for less gratification. Idealism is far more malleable, more flexible for the earnest visionary. Replicate those rewarding sensations through psychological pursuit, and no more thankless materialistic struggles.

Of course, some people find physicality much easier than cognition. I don't have an answer for them, but that's okay...chances are, they already have one. It doesn't take much to make them happy.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


You and PurpleVortex resonate with what I mean.


Here's a

reply to post by AfterInfinity

It is shallow. More work for less gratification. Idealism is far more malleable, more flexible for the earnest visionary. Replicate those rewarding sensations through psychological pursuit, and no more thankless materialistic struggles.

Of course, some people find physicality much easier than cognition. I don't have an answer for them, but that's okay...chances are, they already have one. It doesn't take much to make them happy.

I see what you're getting at. But I would argue that cognition and psychology is still a part of and founded on that materialistic dogma. it is easy to see that without physicality, those processes wouldn't happen at all. So I think calling it shallow is an error.

Nonetheless, idealism is like multiplying zeros with more zeros. If the pursuit of nothings makes one happy, I suppose there is nothing wrong with that.

reply to post by Angle


God in heart and mind is the best thing life has to offer. Having Jesus Christ in your mind and heart will be the best protection and amass for yourself true blessings out of His kindness and love. I have seen it, felt it and know it is true despite all the anti God and anti Christian ramblings from people on these forums.

Find God and find true happiness... I have felt the emptiness of not having God with me and it is the worst experience I have ever had. Nothing even comes close. So to empty your heart of God is truely pure Hell.

Thank you God.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


I see where you're coming from. Physical interaction is an important tool in cognitive development, considering the physical senses are the very first tools we become familiar with in this plane of existence.

Nonetheless, idealism is like multiplying zeros with more zeros. If the pursuit of nothings makes one happy, I suppose there is nothing wrong with that.

Well...let's put it this way: learning to be happier with less is a helpful strategy in a world where it's all too easy to have less than other people. Like I said, emotional security. It makes you comfortable with not being the Jones family, you know? And that makes it easier to place less importance on the things that won't matter when you're on your death bed. Having a $5,000,000 mansion with an indoor pool and two Ferraris in the garage won't help you when you're on life support and exhaust yourself just trying to pee.

That's when being comfortable with less comes in handy, because at that point, all you have to occupy yourself is your memories. Getting that promotion to production manager doesn't matter as much as watching your children pretend to be fairies in a magical kingdom. Knowing that someday, your children will live in a better world than you did. Knowing that you lived a life to be proud of - not for what you managed to buy for yourself, but for what you managed to teach others. And those lessons you leave behind are what some would call abstractions. They don't pay the bills, but they are all that's left of you.

Your abstractions are your legacy. Money burns, houses trade hands, cars break down and get scrapped...but your lessons last forever. How to love, when not to fight, sharing what you have....these are the things that make others want to remember you. Not for what you gave them, but for what you showed them to give to others, what you taught them to be grateful for.

I hope that was a clearer message. Like I said, you have a very good point, but sometimes, materialism distracts us from the things that leave the biggest mark. A new bicycle is all well and good, but what you remember most is your parents teaching you how to ride.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

I hope that was a clearer message. Like I said, you have a very good point, but sometimes, materialism distracts us from the things that leave the biggest mark. A new bicycle is all well and good, but what you remember most is your parents teaching you how to ride.

I think that's a great answer. But putting ideas into practice, expressing them, teaching them, speaking them, writing them down, and concerning them with concrete things ie. teaching a son to ride a bicycle, learning to live with less, learning to cope with emotions, are practical uses of ideas because they are concerned with concrete material things. I think your examples are still based on a materialistic world view.

But when they are concerned with such abstractions as God, freedom, equality, democracy, love, consciousness—which are not things in the slightest, but unattainable ideals—value gets misplaced. We can see people value the concept of God higher than a very real, physical and tangible human. Indeed, some will even kill real things while striving for these ideals. Hitler is a great example of one of these idealists.

So I agree with everything you say, except I think you're more promoting a physicalist view.

God must be experienced in the complete physical being, not only in thoughts. When doing meditation there is a thing one might not lose or returning physically in the world as you were is blocked. The essence of ones self one may not lose.

What I said might not be completely as it is, but what I mean can be comprehended.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

So I agree with everything you say, except I think you're more promoting a physicalist view.

Not exactly. I'm trying to remind people that using idealism to better understand the true value of materialism is just as important as everything else. Otherwise, you get too dazzled to think straight.

reply to post by Angle


You know what? If you were to substitute 'God' with 'ET' you'd be able to talk at length with so many about how our species came into being (one way or another) and how primitive man cited every event with these visitors as being with gods or angels.

But start from the opposite direction... saying God first, and the conversation ends before it begins.

Very few people seriously consider that God and angels are, almost by definition, ET. We have so many preconditioned concepts that merely using one term and not the other seems to erect a blast wall through which a common ground is impossible.

reply to post by redoubt

Very few people seriously consider that God and angels are, almost by definition, ET. We have so many preconditioned concepts that merely using one term and not the other seems to erect a blast wall through which a common ground is impossible.

I doubt that. Let's consider the fact that extraterrestrials have thus far shown the very good sense to avoid extended visitations on our planet. "God", however, knew exactly what would come of our involvement here on Earth - and he still did it.

I gotta say, ET's are geniuses compared to that old fart. I wouldn't insult them by implying any similarity between Zeus and Paul (the alien who adventured with Simon Pegg and Nick Frost - please, keep up with your cinematic education).

I gotta say, ET's are geniuses compared to that old fart. I wouldn't insult them by implying any similarity between Zeus and Paul (the alien who adventured with Simon Pegg and Nick Frost - please, keep up with your cinematic education).

edit on 5-3-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Which old fart? The Jewish/ Christian deity? Why does it always default back to Him? If ET's are a higher intelligence, (which they would have to be considering they got here and we can't get there), then that begs the question, who created them?

Which of all the 'made-up' Gods is best?

reply to post by micmerci

Which old fart? The Jewish/ Christian deity? Why does it always default back to Him? If ET's are a higher intelligence, (which they would have to be considering they got here and we can't get there), then that begs the question, who created them?

Because if it weren't Judaic or Christian, it wouldn't have been "God", due to the amount of baggage attached to the word. It would have been something more partial to the religion concerned, like Allah or Great Earth Mother.

I would guess other aliens created them.

Originally posted by region331
Which of all the 'made-up' Gods is best?

So by this statement you are a strict materialist, correct?