Intent

[scribble]

I do not condemn the God in you by condemning the plonker in you. I condemn 'plonkerism'.

No, you're wrong. ALL is god. That includes Plonkerism. We're all in God's mind. The plonkerism is as much a real part of god as the man is. Tough break, but that's your philosophy.

 

[Upchurch]

Calling God a plonker. That's gutsy.

 

[lifegazer]

No, you're wrong. ALL is god. That includes Plonkerism. We're all in God's mind. The plonkerism is as much a real part of god as the man is. Tough break, but that's your philosophy.

'Plonkerism' is a trait or characteristic, much like good, bad, nasty, sad, depressed, murderous, sensitive, etc. etc..
Clearly, some traits are more preferable than others. Who here, for example, would not condemn outright nastiness?
Hence, I condemn plonkerism because I see it as a negative limited trait or characteristic. I don't want to see God exhibiting such a trait. I want to see the glory of God.

 

[uruk]

Mine is the God of all existence: omnipresent; omnipotent; omniscient. God is you. Therefore, be careful what you condemn.

I condem that god part of me that dream me up as an ugly, dull, poor person! Damn me and my poor choice of illusion!

Hence, if mankind as a whole chooses armageddon, then God shall experience eternal death (to being).

Notice he wrote god is [omnipresent; omnipotent; omniscient.] and then wrote [God shall experience eternal death (to being)]in the same post . Amazing.

Tell me, how can we kill god if he is all that omni-stuff?
If he can die then how can he be omni-anything?
And what happens if god dies? And what does it matter to us?

Stop condemning my philosophy if you don't understand it.

How can you understand that which makes no sense. Judging by your contradictory statements, you don't even seem to understand it yourself either.

The experience is real - the emotions and sensations are real.

So what part of this is an illusion? If we are illusions and this existance is an illusion, then it IS REAL to us. What does all that other god stuff matter to us then? We are god, god is us. So what? We still have to deal with this "reality".

And I would also add that unless you and they seek unity, then they and the earth are doomed.

I do agree with you here (except the earth part. we have the ability to annihilate ourselves but not the planet). We have to unite in our concern for our fellow man. But we have to do it for ourselves. No god in any religion has ever helped or will ever help us. And THAT'S reality

 

[scribble]

'Plonkerism' is a trait or characteristic, much like good, bad, nasty, sad, depressed, murderous, sensitive, etc. etc..

All of which exist in God's mind, just as you and I do.

Clearly, some traits are more preferable than others. Who here, for example, would not condemn outright nastiness?

Not I! Not you! But how can we speak for all that is God? All we can hope is to speak for each our own tiny part.

Hence, I condemn plonkerism because I see it as a negative limited trait or characteristic. I don't want to see God exhibiting such a trait. I want to see the glory of God.

But you cannot know what God wants. It is unfortunate. You are like unto a neuron in the brain of God, unable to know what is being thought, only to fire your own synapses when you are stimulated.

If only we could all achieve unity, then we would be able to see the big picture that God is thinking.

 

[Atlas]

Tell me, how can we kill god if he is all that omni-stuff?
If he can die then how can he be omni-anything?
And what happens if god dies? And what does it matter to us?

Uruk,
I'll bet you go right to the head of the plonker line for that. I mean, sure I had that same thought...what does it matter to us, if god dies to "being"? (But I would never say it.)

And then it occurred to me that, here on the outer edges of the limitless vastness, there is probably a lot of illusion counting on us. The primal-cause primal-caused a whole great big illusion of stars and planets - only one of which gives the primal-cause eternal "life" within his own singularity.

Do you really want to be responsible for the day when:God shall experience eternal death (to being)? What if he's not ready? Besides, would he ever do that to you if the situation were reversed?

Think about it... Maybe somebody's deity should get an apology

 

[uruk]

Do you really want to be responsible for the day when:God shall experience eternal death (to being)? What if he's not ready? Besides, would he ever do that to you if the situation were reversed?

If we achieve unity and god wakes up or ends this illusion: we're gone!
If we deny god and god dies: we're gone too!
If god stays in this dream state and god is lost in the illusion, then god is ineffectual as a deity.
so we're on our own.

It doesn't matter. We have no choice in the matter. So why worry.

Think about it... Maybe somebody's deity should get an apology

But I am god. So I'm waiting......

 

[RussDill]

Notice he wrote god is [omnipresent; omnipotent; omniscient.] and then wrote [God shall experience eternal death (to being)]in the same post . Amazing.

Naw, what really makes me laugh, is that lifegazer has this all powerfull god cooked up, that is outside of time. And then he claims that to find out if that god wants life or death, that god has to run a "simulation". Wha? A) That is making the statement that he does not know something and must engage in a complex process of experimentation to discover it and B) That there is a before simulation/decision for god and a after simulation/decision for god. and lifegazer will a) ignore this post or b) wave his hands about frantically hoping that he will be able to make it magically go away.

 

[Wudang]

'Plonkerism' is a trait or characteristic, much like good, bad, nasty, sad, depressed, murderous, sensitive, etc. etc..
Clearly, some traits are more preferable than others. Who here, for example, would not condemn outright nastiness?
Hence, I condemn plonkerism because I see it as a negative limited trait or characteristic. I don't want to see God exhibiting such a trait. I want to see the glory of God.

Thank you for that clarification. Do you see your misuse of words such as singularity and infer as being negative characteristics which God should not exhibit? Do you see an inability to acknowledge one's mistakes as a negative that God should not exhibit? Do you condemn these when you see them in yourself? Or, as I earlier asked, are you here to preach unity or indulge yourself?
That which you call plonkerism I call a desire for consistency.

 

[uruk]

and lifegazer will a) ignore this post or b) wave his hands about frantically hoping that he will be able to make it magically go away.

I choose B.

 

[Wudang]

and lifegazer will a) ignore this post or b) wave his hands about frantically hoping that he will be able to make it magically go away.

He seems to be following his usual strategy when demonstrably wrong: he keeps quiet for a day or two then will start a new thread and ignore the old threads apart from an occasional comment about how right he was in them.

 

[lifegazer]

Notice he wrote god is [omnipresent; omnipotent; omniscient.] and then wrote [God shall experience eternal death (to being)]in the same post . Amazing.

Tell me, how can we kill god if he is all that omni-stuff?

Because we are that God. We are God being (or 'becoming'). Therefore, if we - as God being - choose armageddon, then we - as that God - choose death to being.
God can only "be" in relation to other things. God is absolute. But if, whilst being, God chooses armageddon, then God chooses death to [relative] being. Please note however, that this does not kill God's absolute existence - just his relative being.

God does not die if man dies. But God's being does die if God, as man, chooses death to being.

If he can die then how can he be omni-anything?

God doesn't die.

So what part of this is an illusion?

The sensations, thoughts & feelings, are all really happening to God. What isn't real, is the things which God discerns from those sensations, which God imagines exists externally to awareness.

If we are illusions and this existance is an illusion, then it IS REAL to us.

There is no "us". There is only God, thinking of itself as us. God can be anything - hence the diversity of mankind.

What does all that other god stuff matter to us then? We are god, god is us. So what?

"So what?"?! Are you insane? Of course you are... my apologies.
'You' are God. You are sovereign of all you perceive, because all you perceive is happening within you.

We still have to deal with this "reality".

Yes... and the time is fast approaching when we shall deal with this reality as the God that we are.

No god in any religion has ever helped or will ever help us. And THAT'S reality

God gives you the sensations, thoughts & feelings, which constitute ~your~ very existence. And God gives to you what you give unto yourself.
We are God. We must ordain miracles to see miracles.

 

[lifegazer]

Not I! Not you! But how can we speak for all that is God? All we can hope is to speak for each our own tiny part.

I speak for the God who wants to maintain eternal being. I speak for the God who knows that this can only happen if we exist in unity, in the knowledge of our oneness as God. I speak for the God who chooses love, peace, joy, and equality. I speak of a world with no borders and one government, truly for the people by the people, where the first shall come last and the last shall come first. I speak of our destiny.

But you cannot know what God wants.

God either wants what I want (for everyone that is God), or God wants no being (death to being). The question begs - if God chooses the latter - why God would choose to be in the first place if God so abhors being. That's like asking why somebody who abhors pain would choose to walk through a fire.

Armageddon cannot happen. My philosophy is the only incentive left to prevent it. For it will happen unless man comes to know his singular identity.

 

[lifegazer]

Uruk,
I'll bet you go right to the head of the plonker line for that.

No... Russ is chief plonker here.

I mean, sure I had that same thought...what does it matter to us, if god dies to "being"? (But I would never say it.)

We are God's being. If God's being dies, then the universe dies... and we die.

 

[lifegazer]

Naw, what really makes me laugh, is that lifegazer has this all powerfull god cooked up, that is outside of time. And then he claims that to find out if that god wants life or death, that god has to run a "simulation". Wha? A) That is making the statement that he does not know something and must engage in a complex process of experimentation to discover it and B) That there is a before simulation/decision for god and a after simulation/decision for god. and lifegazer will a) ignore this post or b) wave his hands about frantically hoping that he will be able to make it magically go away. [/B]

God is absolute existence. Nothing else exists. God has no form, since God exists at boundless singularity.
God is... "I AM".

Those ancient Jews were aware of this, it seems.
So, God cannot be anything unless God creates a realm-of-things to which God can relate.
This realm must exist as an illusion, within God's awareness, since God is absolute existence and nothing else exists.

Thus, being is perceived as an illusion, but is an expression of God's diverse potential.

 

[scribble]

I can't respond to most of what you've said because frankly, it's gone past the point of being entertaining and back into stupid. Ah, well, it was fun for a day.

Originally posted by lifegazer The question begs - if God chooses the latter - why God would choose to be in the first place if God so abhors being. That's like asking why somebody who abhors pain would choose to walk through a fire.

You're telling me God chose to exist in the first place?

What's more - you're telling me God could have chosen to never exist in the first place?

That's one dilly of a pickle there!

 

[lifegazer]

Do you see your misuse of words such as singularity and infer as being negative characteristics which God should not exhibit?

Lifegazer is not perfect. He certainly does not claim to be a poet or a master of the English language. He freely admits to having no academic credibility. He has no social standing or financial power.
Yet he has a philosophy which can save the world, if but that world embraced his philosophy.
Forget lifegazer and think about his philosophy.

 

[lifegazer]

You're telling me God chose to exist in the first place?

What's more - you're telling me God could have chosen to never exist in the first place?

That's one dilly of a pickle there!

You aren't thinking about what I have written.
God exists.
God's being proceeds God's existence.

 

[Dymanic]

lifegazer, I'd like to thank you for reinforcing the importance of critical thinking by providing examples of the the types of conclusions reached through alternative methods. Keep up the good work.

 

[lifegazer]

He seems to be following his usual strategy when demonstrably wrong: he keeps quiet for a day or two then will start a new thread and ignore the old threads apart from an occasional comment about how right he was in them.

Hardly Sir.
What usually happens is that I start a thread - in this case about "intent" - and after a while the original content of that thread is ignored or forgotten whilst we discuss lifegazer's imperfections, such as his inability to spell or use words correctly. More often than not, my philosophy is condemned because I'm not judged as morally or ethically perfect. Yet I never proclaimed myself as the second-coming in the first place.