Intent

[lifegazer]

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.

Nobody ever says nice stuff like this to me.

 

[Atlas]

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

Lifegazer,
We die anyway and God always is. If God experiments in Being and his omniscience fails him once He can always try again.

You know what troubles me is that the solipsistic twists you take between us not existing at all and dieing and taking the universe with us, well someone who isn't as nice as you, say Charles Manson or Jim Jones, can use this same rhetoric like a nihilistic confuser ray. Throw in a little LSD and some speed and your message becomes: I speak for God and he says shape up or die!

Oh wait, the drugs are optional.

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...

God either wants what I want (for everyone that is God), or God wants no being ...

Armageddon cannot happen. My philosophy is the only incentive left to prevent it...

 

[scribble]

Originally posted by lifegazer
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. [/B]

You are blind.

Your philosophy is condemned because it's ridiculous. The reason there are "Attacks on your character" is because it's your fault your philosophy is nonsense. You could build a workable philosophy out of some of the cornerstones you've chosen for your nonsense, if you had any idea how to think rationally or logically.

As it is, your philosophy is irrational nonsense. That might go over well some places, but not here.

 

[uruk]

Yet I never proclaimed myself as the second-coming in the first place.

Yes you do. Well maybe not the second coming, but you claim to be a prophet. look what you wrote here:

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.

Sounds like your trying to start a religion here. Is your way the only way to salvation? What if (this is a big if) we work things out with out your god or philosophy? Are we still doomed?

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.

Man, Russdill, can you call 'em or what.

What a load of poetic obfuscation!

What exactly is god becoming or being? Us? Real? A Platypus?
And when you say "God can only 'be' in relation to other things", are we talking about "real" things or illusionary things. It can't be "real" things because god is the only thing that exists. What excatly does it mean to "be" in relation to an illusionary thing?

O.k. so if "we" (god having this dream or illusion) chooses armgeddon, then it is just god's dream or illusion coming to an end. God is still o.k.;, doing fine; what a nightmare!; let's have another go at it, shall I?
Which brings to my statement: So what! We'er gone. big deal!we weren't real to begin with. God still exists. He'll just have another dream. Not much else to do, being the only thing that exists and all.

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.

What is the difference? The sensations are "real". That's what counts. We can not percieve this god or his realm. All we can percieve is this illusion. There is no difference between a "reality" or an illusion if there is no way for us to experiance beyond this existance or prove that it is or is not an illusion. What do I gain by accepting that this is an illusion that I don't gain by accepting that this is "reality"? Oh. that's right "unity". O.K. we're all god. You and I are the same. What I do to you I do to me. (hmm, sounds familiar. xianinty I think,or was it buddidsim. all of them I think). How does that change my situation? I still have to deal with this "illusion". I gotta get up and go to work. I still gotta eat and sleep. I'm still gonna get sick and die. Same as if I accept this existance as real. So what.

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

Still does not change anything. We still have to deal with this "illusion" as percieved individuals.

"So what?"?! Are you insane? Of course you are... my apologies.

Are you in the habit of constantly insulting god?... Oh wait there's my apology.

First you say:

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

Then you say:

'You' are God. You are sovereign of all you perceive, because all you perceive is happening within you.

Who's the insane one?

That's like asking why somebody who abhors pain would choose to walk through a fire.

Well, maybe it's the lesser of two evils. like either walk through a fire or read these post for an eternity.

Lifegazer is not perfect.

If you can admit this, then you must admit that your philosophy may be mistaken also.

 

[RussDill]

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

And that would make a difference because....

Currently, we are all indiduals with our own thoughts, feelings, emotions, memories personalities, strengths, weaknesses, problems, etc. If we die, we no longer "have" that identity

If we all went along with your thing, we would all be indiduals with our own thoughts, feelings, emotions, memories personalities, strengths, weaknesses, problems, etc. If we die, we no longer "have" that identity. Except if we get along, some diety would make some choice over another, a choice that doesn't really matter, since it would really just be symantics.

 

[RussDill]

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.

So something can happen that god does not want to happen? Lemme spell it out here:

"God who wants to maintain eternal being" vs "this can only happen if we exist in unity"

also, borders, and differing governments are a good thing, just like having one mega corporation would be a bad thing, or even one corporation that controls an industry is a bad thing. Diversity is a good thing, choice is a good thing.

 

[RussDill]

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.

looks like wild waving hands it is. Anyway, the jews most definately believed in beings besides god, take satan for instance. And anyway, in genesis, a listing of all of existence is made, god, and the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god, whatever, whatever. *Then* god created the heavens and the earth. So that would be something new, beyond the word/god.

So, God cannot be anything unless God creates a realm-of-things to which God can relate.

More handwaving, god exists, you said it yourself, he exists with or without imaging that he is all of us. Also, the "realm-of-things" is just his imagination and an illusion according to you. So to say he is being only because he relates to an illusion of his own creation makes him sound like a bit of a nutcase to say the least.

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.

More handwaving. The above statements add nothing to your argument, and match with none of the points I made.

 

[lifegazer]

Sounds like your trying to start a religion here. Is your way the only way to salvation? What if (this is a big if) we work things out with out your god or philosophy? Are we still doomed?

We all know that mankind will never live in peace and equality unless, as a whole, he chooses to do so. Our species, divided, will eventually crumble away to nothing.

What exactly is god becoming or being? Us? Real? A Platypus?

God is being whatever has being. Yet all things have being in relation to each other. God has no being except absolute being... and that relates to no thing that we know. God is existence. Everything else is a relative illusion within the awareness of The Absolute.

And when you say "God can only 'be' in relation to other things", are we talking about "real" things or illusionary things. It can't be "real" things because god is the only thing that exists. What excatly does it mean to "be" in relation to an illusionary thing?

Relationships can exist between concepts or between illusory entities. Our ability to define a system is not contingent upon the reality of that system.
I gotta go. Might finish replying later.

 

[Wudang]

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,

I try to make my points with a little humour but maybe I should be clearer. You are the one who made personalities an issue by issuing a personal insult. Again, the choice is yours, be personal or not. I prefer not.

 

[Wudang]

We all know that mankind will never live in peace and equality unless, as a whole, he chooses to do so. Our species, divided, will eventually crumble away to nothing.

God is being whatever has being. Yet all things have being in relation to each other. God has no being except absolute being... and that relates to no thing that we know. God is existence. Everything else is a relative illusion within the awareness of The Absolute.

Hold on, so if we don't unite, then God's "being" "dies" but God goes on as the eternal. Sounds like a good thing to me - all illusion brushed aside, total unity with the Absolute, etc etc, instead of some boring perfect life where, to be frank, once you seen 1 lion lie down with a lamb, I would guess the spectacle to lose interest.

 

[lifegazer]

Hold on, so if we don't unite, then God's "being" "dies" but God goes on as the eternal. Sounds like a good thing to me - all illusion brushed aside, total unity with the Absolute, etc etc,

God had that before the creation. God wanted more, obviously, otherwise the creation wouldn't have happened.

instead of some boring perfect life where, to be frank, once you seen 1 lion lie down with a lamb, I would guess the spectacle to lose interest.

Then you have made your choice. Death to being.

 

[Wudang]

God wanted more

But there isn't anything apart from God so how can there be more? Since you said that God limits himself by "being" then surely God wanted *less*? Which strikes me as a bit odd. Which kind of leads back to my previous point.

 

[lifegazer]

But there isn't anything apart from God so how can there be more?

There can be the experience of more (than God's absolute existence). We are having that experience.

Since you said that God limits himself by "being" then surely God wanted *less*?

I see your point. But God doesn't obliterate itself in the perception of our being. Therefore, God gains more by having both absolute existence and relative awareness.

 

[Wudang]

There can be the experience of more (than God's absolute existence). We are having that experience.

I see your point. But God doesn't obliterate itself in the perception of our being. Therefore, God gains more by having both absolute existence and relative awareness.

I am sorry but you still have not reconciled, as far as I can see, your previous statements that all awareness is within God as "it" is the creator and experiencer of all "its" awareness. You have also, to my mind, not explained why the removal of this "illusion" is a bad thing.

 

[lifegazer]

I am sorry but you still have not reconciled, as far as I can see, your previous statements that all awareness is within God as "it" is the creator and experiencer of all "its" awareness.

Why not?
The mind creates its own subjective sensations upon awareness. External reality - even if it exists - neither knows nor cares what sensations or emotions or thoughts are. The mind is clearly the creator (the primal-cause) and experiencer of its own abstract awareness. This is obvious if you think about it.

You have also, to my mind, not explained why the removal of this "illusion" is a bad thing.

God created "this" because God obviously desires to be. What God becomes, however, is a matter of choice. The history of mankind is the history of God's choices.

It is reasonable to expect that God itself does not desire complete death-to-being, since if God did desire this state-of- affairs, God wouldn't have created this realm-of-being in the first instance. Also, I believe God yearns for the experience of eternal peace and joy etc. - "heaven of being", so to speak... thus: unity of being. This is God's purpose, in my reasoned opinion. I think it will win through, regardless of what we have yet to endure.

 

[uruk]

We all know that mankind will never live in peace and equality unless, as a whole, he chooses to do so. Our species, divided, will eventually crumble away to nothing.

I agree with you here. but no religion has been able to do that in over 10,000 years of known history. In fact, religion has helped to cause alot of that division. As in: if your not a member of our religion, then your doomed, evil, dead, etc...To force or coerce people to follow or believe one philosophy is a dictatorship. we must embrace and deal with our differences. Only when we accept each other for what we are and not dehumanize or devalue those who are different from us, will we achieve the unity you seek. After all we are all the same in one respect. We are all human.

 

[Atlas]

God created "this" because God obviously desires to be. What God becomes, however, is a matter of choice. The history of mankind is the history of God's choices.

It is reasonable to expect that God itself does not desire complete death-to-being, since if God did desire this state-of- affairs, God wouldn't have created this realm-of-being in the first instance. Also, I believe God yearns for the experience of eternal peace and joy etc. - "heaven of being", so to speak... thus: unity of being. This is God's purpose, in my reasoned opinion. I think it will win through, regardless of what we have yet to endure.

You know, I believe that dinosaurs once roamed the Earth. You once agreed that even spiders show intent. All predators do. And of course that came from a free-willed primal-cause.

God gave the dinosaurs many many millions of years to work out their bloody, devouring, and death filled illusion. Perhaps this harmony angle you're pushing is exactly the wrong idea. Especially if the end is Armageddon. It actually sounds like the creator of this illusion prefers the slaughter of animal and humans and if all we're going to do is procreate he's going to enforce the rule of world scale horrible terrible death, as you have foreseen.

Why isn't that an equally apparent and reasonable explanation of the working out of dinosaur and human history as far as the illusion goes? With a universe of exploding stars and planets, isn't it possible you have misjudged the INTENT of the one you say yearns for the experience of eternal peace and joy...

 

[uruk]

God created "this" because God obviously desires to be. What God becomes, however, is a matter of choice. The history of mankind is the history of God's choices.

But god already "is". and that choice is his only, because we are him. If mankind choses armageddon then it is he who chooses armaggedon. We only exist in his mind.
you keep getting lost in your own argument.

The god you envision is a solitary being that can nothing but dream up illusions. It can't die and it can't change it's condition except through fantasy. It has total control over it's dream. but that's it. not quite omni-anything except to it's little imaginary playthings. Kind of sad if you think about it.
That's the implication if you boil down your philosophy.

 

[lifegazer]

If mankind choses armageddon then it is he who chooses armaggedon. We only exist in his mind.

True. But God makes "his" choices through our being. Therefore, it is 'we' that actually make those choices, as God's being.
We are God. Our choices are God's choices. We cannot absolve ourselves of responsibility for what lies ahead.

The god you envision is a solitary being that can nothing but dream up illusions. It can't die and it can't change it's condition except through fantasy. It has total control over it's dream. but that's it. not quite omni-anything except to it's little imaginary playthings. Kind of sad if you think about it.
That's the implication if you boil down your philosophy.

You mock the illusion, yet you fell for it hook line & sinker, such is the apparent reality of it all.

 

[Wudang]

Why not?
The mind creates its own subjective sensations upon awareness. External reality - even if it exists - neither knows nor cares what sensations or emotions or thoughts are. The mind is clearly the creator (the primal-cause) and experiencer of its own abstract awareness. This is obvious if you think about it.

Sigh. No it's not at all obvious. Yes I have thought about it. That the mind creates its own experiences is what you have to prove, not something that you can use as part of a proof.
I've demonstrated elsewhere that the mind is not the unitary element you posit. In fact I would say that the brain injuries discussed in another thread suggest that there is no "Mind" as you mean the term.