Does God get a fail in the love category?

[RI Patriots fan]

I'm part of one God, "based on my logic." The sparks littered about the universe, brighter (like me) or dimmer (like, well, we'll say dust, to keep things civil,) are constituents of something greater. The totality of consciousness is God's, and the totality of what we'd call unconscious matter.

But your quibble, as a polytheist, is that by believing in this one God, I damn myself as a polytheist myself. In philosophy, I believe this is known as Sed quid ego te? or, "I know you are, but what am I?"

Your contention is that to say that two competitors for the title of God having a conversation is the equivalent, in kind if not degree, of billions of consciousnesses here and probably many times that number elsewhere, are all capable of subjective consciousness, and by participating in God, are thereby each a separate, distinct deity -- in this, you follow GIA's lead. I differ from GIA in that regard.

My contention is that the multitude of subjective consciousnesses we know are constituents parts of God -- as are all things. It's similar in this regard to the Indian religions (Hinduism/Buddhism,) which regard all people as manifestations of one underlying spiritual source. But I have no need or desire to stick a few million extra Gods in there (the Buddha seemed to have little use for them too, by comparison with the Hindus.)

There is no God but God, as the Muslims would say. And He is in -- in fact, He is, all of us, I'd add.

The etymological roots of the Tetragrammaton are in the causative stem of the verb "to be." In the Torah, God says "I am that I am." He's left us to discover the extent of that being. That which is, is God.

But as you'll note, God is quite literally a verb, in the above. The stories we tell the children have God -- some large and powerful but not omnipresent or omnipotent being -- creates everything, quite apart from himself, ex nihilo. The Kabalists say first he had to create Nothingness in his midst, and then create everything in a very big-bang-like moment. They're much closer to my understanding, but they still require Creation to be separate from Creator.

Part of the divergence is because most of us can't fathom that the most evil things, people, events, etc. on Earth, must needs be part of God. "The problem of evil," they call it in theology. But in truth, they must. You may put them outside of God, make up a competing deity and another split in your Godhead, but you just end up with a splitting godheadache. Then you need a whole apocalypse to put things right, have the bad god vanquished, unify it all, etc.

Think of God as verb, and you understand that the continuous creation is the manifestation that we can understand and observe of the great thought -- of which we are simultaneously constituent parts.

But the difference in scale and kind between our own vaunted thoughts, and the Divine thought-that-subsumes all, is beyond our capability to imagine.

For a time I wondered whether God is consciousness or pure spirit without consciousness. The difference from our standpoint is ineffable. It may look like pure spirit to us, or simply like a collection of particles and forces, if we prefer. I am convinced that whatever the Whole is, it subsumes our thoughts as -- as I said before -- a brain subsumes neurons.

So in sticking to your slightly-bigger-but-manlike god, together with his man-god son, you've got a couple of essentially human but much more powerful characters. The Holy Spirit may be said to be similar, but it's always apart from man, and it's always got nothing at all to do with evil or dust or dung beatles.

For a monotheist, all of these things must be God.

Your complaint is that two divine consciousnesses at once -- indeed, my words -- constitute polytheism. There is One divine consciousness, however, of which we are parts and in which we participate. We may sometimes have a glimpse of the One, the constant creative consciousness we subdivide into "you" and "me" and "that tree" and so on. We have found that at root, reality is in an always undetermined state until observed -- and even then, we are always uncertain either of what it is or of how it is moving.

Those tiny particles are at the root of us, as well as the root of all dust and dung and stars; we cannot even, as "individuals," even fully see them. They are constantly coming into being as probabilities resolve into realities. The entirety seems like nothing so much as a great thought process, in which "our" tiny constituent parts are inarguably swept up.

Who's the observer, then? The One, observing within Himself. Why can our observations cause the collapse of probabilities into positions? Because we are constituents of, not apart from, the One -- and our thoughts are like drops in a great ocean of thought/spirit.

As I always say: because I attempt to put into words something so much greater than my own limitations, I inevitably lie. But it's certainly a lie of omission rather than commission.

I hope that's helpful to you, RI.

As to your concern that nobody in Judaism can tell me not to think that... sorry, no Pope. Cope.

PFnV

Actually it wasn't helpful at all....not that I'm surprised. I've seen few people who can say so little with so many words.

It seems that you either don't understand or are simply ignoring what it means to be conscious.


"Consciousness refers to your individual awareness of your unique thoughts, memories, feelings, sensations and environment."


Consciousness - What is Consciousness



You say that there is...."One divine consciousness of which we are parts".

Clearly, you and I are conscious. We are aware of our existence, We have unique thoughts, memories, feelings, etc. Yet you say that both of us are parts of God and therefore God.

It is that uniqueness of thought that allows us to say that we are conscious.
So therefore, if we are part of "God" then either God is made up of more than one consciousness or we are not truly conscious.

So either I am a conscious being or I am not a conscious being. If I am a conscious being and I am part of God then God must have more than one consciousness.

Now you can say that we are part of the "one divine consciousness" but if conscious existence is "unique" then to be part of the one divine consciousness we must lose whatever makes us conscious (unique). As a human being, I cannot be truly conscious if I lose what makes me conscious.

So basically you can't have it both ways.

If you and I are truly conscious and our experiences are uniquely our own and if we are part of God, then God must be able to have more than one consciousness.

If you insist that God cannot have more than one consciousness, then we cannot be a part of God since we do have our own unique consciousness.

Since it is plainly obvious that you and I are both conscious, then you and I cannot be a part of God or if we are part of God then God must have more than one consciousness. Either way, you're wrong.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Conceptually, your consciousness is bounded at your "self" so long as you bind it there. Practically, there are those who say you can extend the glimpse you get of the greater consciousness; one would have to experiment to experience. By all counts, going beyond the level to which you have immediate access is a matter of decreasing, rather than increasing, awareness of self; the greater consciousness is not of you but through you. Yet your "own" consciousness within the limit of what we call ego persists.

As always, you embrace and revel in your inability to look beyond yourself, unless it's to an anthropomorphized mini-god.

The insult to your self - your thought that human consciousness is the limit of all consciousness - is what you're reacting against. By the way, I've read a good deal more on the phenomenon of consciousness than some website one-liner. I mean, on the topic of consciousness, a one-liner? Really?

You're sort of displaying the level at which you grasp the phenomenon.

PFnV

 

[Greatest I am]

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

We are not that far off in thinking. The main difference is that you see a supernatural God where I see a non-supernatural natural entity.

I think science is catching up to my personal apotheosis through telepathy, a natural communication method, with experiments in Sudbury as shown in this clip.

I just did it without the machines help and my target ended up being more than I thought it would be.

Through The Wormhole - Is There A Sixth Sense PART 2/2 on Vimeo

Regards
DL

 

[RI Patriots fan]

Conceptually, your consciousness is bounded at your "self" so long as you bind it there. Practically, there are those who say you can extend the glimpse you get of the greater consciousness; one would have to experiment to experience. By all counts, going beyond the level to which you have immediate access is a matter of decreasing, rather than increasing, awareness of self; the greater consciousness is not of you but through you. Yet your "own" consciousness within the limit of what we call ego persists.

As always, you embrace and revel in your inability to look beyond yourself, unless it's to an anthropomorphized mini-god.

The insult to your self - your thought that human consciousness is the limit of all consciousness - is what you're reacting against. By the way, I've read a good deal more on the phenomenon of consciousness than some website one-liner. I mean, on the topic of consciousness, a one-liner? Really?

You're sort of displaying the level at which you grasp the phenomenon.

PFnV

You're not an expert on much (if anything).....I have never been impressed with what you "know". In fact, I've had a good laugh at some of the subjects you've attempted to tackle......very ineptly. So save the "I've read a good deal more on the phenomenon of consciousness" for someone who might fall for your "I'm really smart...just ask me" act. You've been exposed on a number of occasions. The only person who is impressed by your act on this forum is your wife so save it for her.

What I "grasp" is someone caught in a very bad argument and now is trying hard to somehow wiggle their way out of it.

You're trying to change the definiton of consciousness. My consciousness is unique to me. That is exactly what makes me conscious.

I've never said that human consciousness is the limit of all consciousness...show me where I've said that....good luck finding it.

Even if I could "extend" my consciousness beyond myself (foolishness) it would still make me unique in that I have my own thoughts. I would be no less conscious if I extended my consciousness or didn't extend it and if God is "all", then God would still be the sum of more than one consciousness.

Unless you're now saying that God is the sum total of just the "extended" consciousness (again foolishness) in which case he isn't "all".

The bottom line is that if a person is truly "conscious" and they are part of God (your words) then there is more than one consciousness in God. There's no way around it unless you want to change the definition of consciousness to support your argument. If that's the case, then, in your definition do we lose of our uniqueness? How else has the defintion changed?

I guess you have a little more reading to do

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Righhhht, RI.

In any event, since this drek deserves no response, I thought I'd post a link to yet another subject over RI's head, "What if Jesus Really Meant All That Stuff?"

Pretty endearing, from my POV.

What if Jesus Meant All That Stuff? - Red Letter Christians

 

[RI Patriots fan]

Righhhht, RI.

In any event, since this drek deserves no response, I thought I'd post a link to yet another subject over RI's head, "What if Jesus Really Meant All That Stuff?"

Pretty endearing, from my POV.

What if Jesus Meant All That Stuff? - Red Letter Christians

You're nothing if not predictable.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I'd say the same of you, but would omit the "if" clause at the end. Not to say you're not predictable, of course.

You've got a tiny, narrowly bounded process you profess to compare to God -- as in the case of GIA. You've got a tiny, illusory understanding of self, and still have not managed to even to preserve even the simplest understanding of monotheism, having split your very finite God into three (and let's not forget Satan.)

But we'll leave the characters of the old stories behind. I understand, which is what matters, that I'm after monotheism. You do not. That is not surprising.

What's slightly more interesting is that you evidently believe God to be absent from your thoughts, absent from the atoms of your body, absent from the dust, absent from anywhere.

Do you believe God absent from your thoughts? Do we differ in this?

Do you believe God absent from the dust? Do we differ in this?

Do you believe God absent from your person, and the persons of others? Do we differ in this?

Let's leave aside the cast of celestial characters and the grand old books, and let's hear the answer. Has God left any of these things? Is God not in the trees of the forest and the birds of the air, and the bed bugs of New York?

Categorize for me, if you so desire, the places, beings, and thoughts that God is not. For your triumphant screeching once again proclaims your victory, this time over the oneness of God.

Where is God absent, RI? Please enlighten me, o sage.

PFnV

 

[Greatest I am]

Just got back from the can and saw God with a paddle trying to fight the current but to no avail.

I have to give him credit for big balls though. On the way down the pipes I could hear him singing ------

J-O-H-N-N-Y C-A-S-H - I've Been Everywhere - With Lyrics - YouTube

Regards
DL

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Careful. You'll fall into one of these...

Ring of Fire Johnny Cash - YouTube

 

[Greatest I am]

Careful. You'll fall into one of these...

Ring of Fire Johnny Cash - YouTube

I did the one time and was rewarded with apotheosis. I am not sure how many of those are available to us but I have not been able to do it again. Perhaps one is all that is ever given. If I could find the fire again I would not mind.

In esoteric alchemistic terms, it is the purifier.

Regards
DL

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Anybody's guess. I'd use the word epiphany, because it's a glimpse at most. Apotheosis "becoming God," which if you think about it, you've either done it or not. It's not something that can happen twice.

Of course, from my POV, it's a momentary realization of what you're part of (hence an epiphany.) Given the difference of scale and kind, I am not sure whether you can fully embody/comprehend the One, even momentarily; you can only fully realize the union in which you're bound... perhaps you can be fully free of the illusion of self and fully integrate into the all.

But if you think about it (ha!) it would seem you could have no sufficient memory of such a moment, because memory would be too small to encompass it -- whether visually, verbally, or through a combination of the two. At the very best you would have to build a primitive model of the experience, using the coded map of language or comparative stick-figure visuals to represent the whole of the One.

The map is not the land: you cannot "know" all the land, no matter what Johnny Cash says. Yet the One God knows all the land, and I don't just mean terrestrial land, and I don't just mean knowing where Route 66 passes this or that billboard or landmark. I mean every quark, photo, electron, neutrino, every gravitational well, the true nature of it all at the quantum scale, through the very large universal -- or multiversal -- scale.

PFnV

 

[Greatest I am]

Anybody's guess. I'd use the word epiphany, because it's a glimpse at most. Apotheosis "becoming God," which if you think about it, you've either done it or not. It's not something that can happen twice.

Of course, from my POV, it's a momentary realization of what you're part of (hence an epiphany.) Given the difference of scale and kind, I am not sure whether you can fully embody/comprehend the One, even momentarily; you can only fully realize the union in which you're bound... perhaps you can be fully free of the illusion of self and fully integrate into the all.

But if you think about it (ha!) it would seem you could have no sufficient memory of such a moment, because memory would be too small to encompass it -- whether visually, verbally, or through a combination of the two. At the very best you would have to build a primitive model of the experience, using the coded map of language or comparative stick-figure visuals to represent the whole of the One.

The map is not the land: you cannot "know" all the land, no matter what Johnny Cash says. Yet the One God knows all the land, and I don't just mean terrestrial land, and I don't just mean knowing where Route 66 passes this or that billboard or landmark. I mean every quark, photo, electron, neutrino, every gravitational well, the true nature of it all at the quantum scale, through the very large universal -- or multiversal -- scale.

PFnV

You give God too much credit and it looks like you have just turned God into a wish list.

You have no way of knowing the truth of your statement unless you are claiming apotheosis.

That is the problem with many religions who have made their imaginary Gods Omni-everything.

I prefer to keep things real, so to speak.

Regards
DL

 

[PatsFanInVa]

As Hamlet tells his buddy Horatio, there are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. I think that's true for you, and for me, as well. Not for God.

In the preceding I think I attempted to explain what apotheosis means, and how it's certainly beyond what I think one could experience. That's why I prefer the word epiphany.

As a monotheist, I accept I'm part of God, but cannot be identified with the whole of God. As a polytheist, you may name each person a god, as soon as he achieves "apotheosis," by which you mean -- in my frame of reference -- an epiphany.

To me, it looks like you've promoted epiphany to apotheosis. But then, I'm after bigger game. Ya pay yer money, ya take your choice. The atheist would say we're all bonkers.

I do not know what you mean by a "wish list."

"Keeping it real" depends on what's real. So from all I've seen, been, read, experienced, been through, etc., these ramblings are my notions of what's real.

The same applies to your description of what you believe to be real, or what RI likes to say is real.

 

[Greatest I am]

Your views are not that poor except for a few points where we do not quite see the same way.

As above so below.

Let me shift tack here if I may.

My apotheosis had one basic recommendation to make. I was to try to think more demographically and doing so changed my way of view of God. Here on earth we have what is a pyramid type od demographic commons. Like the pyramid on the dollar bill.

Heaven is somewhat like that to me with a top that can and is replaced by whatever soul is master shall we say of the issue at hand.

Your God is always at the top and never moves from there.

Do you see the demographic common in heaven as completely flat with no hierarchy at all, --- the same as what a true communist system would look like?

Regards
DL

 

[IcyPatriot]

I'm not sure but he gets an A+ with a gold star in the murder and killing category.

 

[Greatest I am]

I'm not sure but he gets an A+ with a gold star in the murder and killing category.

Murder?

Christians tell me that God killing us is just good old God-like justice. Even the children and babies that are all deserving death for being so evil.

Only Christians can see babies as evil.

What the hell is wrong with them?

Regards
DL

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Your views are not that poor except for a few points where we do not quite see the same way.

As above so below.

Let me shift tack here if I may.

My apotheosis had one basic recommendation to make. I was to try to think more demographically and doing so changed my way of view of God. Here on earth we have what is a pyramid type od demographic commons. Like the pyramid on the dollar bill.

Heaven is somewhat like that to me with a top that can and is replaced by whatever soul is master shall we say of the issue at hand.

Your God is always at the top and never moves from there.

Do you see the demographic common in heaven as completely flat with no hierarchy at all, --- the same as what a true communist system would look like?

Regards
DL

Rather the reverse, DL. After all, Marx was a Jew, God -- or if you prefer a person, Moses -- was not a Marxist.

Yes, I do believe, actually, that God, which encompasses all, is on the top. And on the bottom. And in between. If you've read anything I've written here, it should be clear that I don't think of God as one of many human-like (but much more powerful) beings. If all is One, my friend, you still get to be on top.

Unfortunately, it sounds like -- to use your ideological metaphor -- you've got a very Ayn Rand-like religious notion there.

By the way, "As above, so below" -- other than a line in a Genesis song -- is sort of meaningless in a modern context, unless one is a true believer in one or another pre-scientific stream of thought. After all, what is "above" and "below" in an absolute sense, in terms of the measurable, physical universe?

PFnV

 

[Greatest I am]

Rather the reverse, DL. After all, Marx was a Jew, God -- or if you prefer a person, Moses -- was not a Marxist.

Yes, I do believe, actually, that God, which encompasses all, is on the top. And on the bottom. And in between. If you've read anything I've written here, it should be clear that I don't think of God as one of many human-like (but much more powerful) beings. If all is One, my friend, you still get to be on top.

Unfortunately, it sounds like -- to use your ideological metaphor -- you've got a very Ayn Rand-like religious notion there.

By the way, "As above, so below" -- other than a line in a Genesis song -- is sort of meaningless in a modern context, unless one is a true believer in one or another pre-scientific stream of thought. After all, what is "above" and "below" in an absolute sense, in terms of the measurable, physical universe?

PFnV

That term has nothing to do with the universe. It is an esoteric term.

That aside.

God cannot hold more than one position in a demography unless his is the only consciousness within it. Then we could hardly call it a demography and would just call it God.

Where will your consciousness be when you get there or as God, will you become all there is and will that not be rather lonely?

If not then I repeat my question and ask you to describe the demographic pyramid in heaven?

Regards
DL

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I don't speculate about "Heaven," and particularly not a "pyramid" in Heaven. These speculations, as you indicate, are a mirror of the experiences in normal, mortal -- and I'd add, somewhat illusory -- life.

"As above so below" is indeed an esoteric mantra, deriving from pre-scientific thought. It has an interesting echo in what we know as we look, during the present era, into the smaller and smaller bits of matter -- then breaks down at the smallest levels.

Five hundred years ago, people were comfortably painting God as literally enthroned on clouds. The Russkies trumpeted, when they sent up Sputnik, well, we're above ALL the clouds now, and didn't see him.

Of course, people elsewhere had also taken planes above the clouds, been inside the clouds, de-mystified the clouds, etc. There was no longer any special reason to think of clouds as a place where God would live; the theists were ready. No big deal.

We're at that level, however, with all physical places, as we've heretofore understood God to "live."

This has much to do with why I look to the universe as we know it, and think of God as not separate from his creation. And the more I think about it, the more I think that God is One, which precludes exclusion of our individual consciousnesses, or the tiny building-blocks of non-conscious matter, from the Supreme Being.

Good news: You're part of the most enormous, most powerful entity imaginable, and then some -- because the One is beyond your ability to comprehend, particularly using that very limited faculty we call "consciousness."

Bad news: no, you didn't have an "apotheosis," if you end up following me down my rabbit-hole. You may have had an epiphany, a glimpse of something, a spiritual awakening.

To use the standard terminology, you're not "God." You're just a teeny bit of God. Believing it's so doesn't make it so; it just puts you back in the position of the infant or toddler, who knows all things as things for him to exercise absolute power over. Some of them realize that they hear the word "No!" and it's an expression of power over them -- and make of it a totem. They say "No!" reflexively, to the great consternation of their parents.

Others take the transition in stride -- the realization that they are part of a greater whole, and don't get what they want; that they can will something to be the case, and have it not materialize.

You are in such a position. If God is limited to what you can achieve, that's the tiniest God I can conceive of. In fact, it's just the adoption of an important-sounding name. That's something you do if you're extremely power-less. Declaring yourself as "God," as in, the most God-like among a pyramid, seems to me ultimately ego-driven, as we've talked about in these exchanges.

I don't think God dies, or gets fired, or has to choose among various desires, as humans do. I think God persists, despite an individual death, for example; and the level at which each of us still partakes in God is then independent of any such hierarchy we're used to among humans. The strongest still dies (in a medieval-style description.) The smartest of us dies. The "most spiritually advanced" of us dies.

Does some echo of this "self" remain, within the One? The One comprises an enormous assortment of patterns and dynamism, in my worldview, not to mention particles and forces. There is room in this idea for patterns to persist, or to persist in a transformed way. I have not thought about that, possibly because the religion I begin with has only so much emphasis on life after death.

So your "pyramid of heaven" baffles me.

Since I am only a tiny piece of God, not God, I have to go to work now.

 

[Greatest I am]

I don't speculate about "Heaven," and particularly not a "pyramid" in Heaven. These speculations, as you indicate, are a mirror of the experiences in normal, mortal -- and I'd add, somewhat illusory -- life.

"As above so below" is indeed an esoteric mantra, deriving from pre-scientific thought. It has an interesting echo in what we know as we look, during the present era, into the smaller and smaller bits of matter -- then breaks down at the smallest levels.

Five hundred years ago, people were comfortably painting God as literally enthroned on clouds. The Russkies trumpeted, when they sent up Sputnik, well, we're above ALL the clouds now, and didn't see him.

Of course, people elsewhere had also taken planes above the clouds, been inside the clouds, de-mystified the clouds, etc. There was no longer any special reason to think of clouds as a place where God would live; the theists were ready. No big deal.

We're at that level, however, with all physical places, as we've heretofore understood God to "live."

This has much to do with why I look to the universe as we know it, and think of God as not separate from his creation. And the more I think about it, the more I think that God is One, which precludes exclusion of our individual consciousnesses, or the tiny building-blocks of non-conscious matter, from the Supreme Being.

Good news: You're part of the most enormous, most powerful entity imaginable, and then some -- because the One is beyond your ability to comprehend, particularly using that very limited faculty we call "consciousness."

Bad news: no, you didn't have an "apotheosis," if you end up following me down my rabbit-hole. You may have had an epiphany, a glimpse of something, a spiritual awakening.

To use the standard terminology, you're not "God." You're just a teeny bit of God. Believing it's so doesn't make it so; it just puts you back in the position of the infant or toddler, who knows all things as things for him to exercise absolute power over. Some of them realize that they hear the word "No!" and it's an expression of power over them -- and make of it a totem. They say "No!" reflexively, to the great consternation of their parents.

Others take the transition in stride -- the realization that they are part of a greater whole, and don't get what they want; that they can will something to be the case, and have it not materialize.

You are in such a position. If God is limited to what you can achieve, that's the tiniest God I can conceive of. In fact, it's just the adoption of an important-sounding name. That's something you do if you're extremely power-less. Declaring yourself as "God," as in, the most God-like among a pyramid, seems to me ultimately ego-driven, as we've talked about in these exchanges.

I don't think God dies, or gets fired, or has to choose among various desires, as humans do. I think God persists, despite an individual death, for example; and the level at which each of us still partakes in God is then independent of any such hierarchy we're used to among humans. The strongest still dies (in a medieval-style description.) The smartest of us dies. The "most spiritually advanced" of us dies.

Does some echo of this "self" remain, within the One? The One comprises an enormous assortment of patterns and dynamism, in my worldview, not to mention particles and forces. There is room in this idea for patterns to persist, or to persist in a transformed way. I have not thought about that, possibly because the religion I begin with has only so much emphasis on life after death.

So your "pyramid of heaven" baffles me.

Since I am only a tiny piece of God, not God, I have to go to work now.

God cannot be everything if you are you when you get there.
If you are not you then you are just a redundant toy for God and you will eventually just disappear. Your consciousness will be wasted.

Regards
DL