On 27 May, 06:51, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > I would say that the moment of conception of "something else" sort of > defines the landscape of theological evolution. However that hinges on > the belief that spiritual awakening is a very personal process that is > to a lesser extent shared through rituals and other communication. You > could say I believe in that intimate exploration. > > I guess my view on God would look like multiple intelligences and hold a > critical view of the extroverted and simplified political feedback > version used for propagandist purposes (quantitative ends). To me it is > much more interesting to understand what and why people believe than the > fact of it. Anyways- I sort of navigate many views depending on the need > or desire, with a personal tendency toward constructive analysis (it > comes out in person/phone discussions). Sometimes I view theology, > cosmology and metaphysics much like an engineering challenge neutrally, > sometimes as a profound experience full of meaning and at others I mourn > the stone cold lack of meaning. There are many arts and sciences I use > in exploring those archetypal 'pathways', I don't trust a single one > enough to become branded with and much prefer an eclectic mix. This is a > very simplified answer and any one of these topics could turn into > voluminous discussions. > > "In second place to my statement, if God is not the old wise man, then, > what is God? > Could God be the energy or the cosmos of the universe?" > > I don't see why not, actually one of my favorite ideas is that the > domain of experience and material existence are the same thing from > different viewpoints and switch between or try to work out the > science/metaphysics. I began with asking 'why', learned a bit of 'how', > and found a great question in 'what if'. That's the nutshell version (no > finale)... :) >
I would go so far as to just say, yes, God IS the energy, or, more properly, energy is the 'substance' of God. It is neither created nor destroyed (like God) after making that link, the rest is down to the geometry of the system. Given the right geometric spaces (time included as a slightly defective approximation of 'eternity'), then energy and mass can easily convert back and forth between one another and account for all that we encounter in this universe. Consciousness, however, is slightly trickier, but fields of 'consciousness energy' are easily manipulated given the number of dimensions afforded by string theory, and string theory even allows for the 'atemporal spaces' required for eternal consciousness as well as regions where abstract concepts can be stored (in a Platonistic way) given the right topology WITHIN the right geometry. > On 5/25/2010 5:33 PM, Manfraco Frank Elder wrote: > > > > > It make sense to me, because I believe that everyone of us believes > > and sees things in a different way, and therefore, if you do not see > > God or religious beliefs like me it is ok. > > Now, if I say that God might not be an old wise man as most of us have > > been thought to believe; but he/it could be something else, what would > > you say to that? > > In second place to my statement, if God is not the old wise man, then, > > what is God? > > Could God be the energy or the cosmos of the universe? > > My regards > > Manfraco > > > On May 23, 9:27 am, Ash<[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Manfranco, I don't mind at all, besides I think you were here first. :) > >> There seemed to be some similarity between FSM and Cthulhu (the octopus). > > >> Before answering your questions directly I would like to give you an > >> idea what I think of 'beliefs', as there could be many kinds or we could > >> have two very different ideas of what they are. I have personal > >> experiences that inform beliefs that I don't have words for, and the > >> ones that do I usually seek to make an accord with reality in a more > >> universal sense. So I allow a long leash for my 'romantic' side, and the > >> analytical looks more like a meta-battlefield. > > >> Belief in absolutes is incomprehensible to me, I can no longer associate > >> any sane expression to that. I am trying to make peace with the world of > >> potentials I've found myself in, and my association with it. This is all > >> difficult to describe, as I've been losing the distinction between > >> belief and disbelief. Many of the symbols and ideas in the world have > >> been stepping stones for me. I am speechless when confronted with this > >> question, not being evasive, there are no convenient answers at my > >> disposal but I can assure you somehow I manage to believe in many things > >> both great and small. > > >> I could conceive of a cosmos wherein the FSM and any arbitrary > >> combination of other beliefs also reside. I consider it all 'narratives > >> of truth' at this time. If it makes sense to you, that makes one of us. :) > > >> On 5/20/2010 6:26 PM, Manfraco Frank Elder wrote: > > >>> Hi Ash! Your link is very colourful and fun, but it seems to me a > >>> direct attack to God and all religious beliefs; are you sure you are > >>> on the right tracks? Anyhow, I hope you don't mind my coming in these > >>> discussions, as I would like to ask you a question about beliefs; Do > >>> you believe in any god? And if you don't why? As I am under the > >>> impression that you don't believe in anything; Am I right? > >>> Greetings > >>> Manfraco > > >>> On May 19, 10:12 am, Ash<[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>> 'Obey your noodley master' -http://www.venganza.org/materials/#flyers > > >>>> That was Lovecraft right? > > >>>> On 5/18/2010 7:37 PM, Chris Jenkins wrote: > > >>>>> /Ia Ia/! Yog Sothoth > > >>>>> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Ash<[email protected] > >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > >>>>> Please forgive our ignorance Gabby.>:) > > >>>>> FF may be referring to the belligerent Demiurge (Yaldabaoth?) > >>>>> presiding over this universe, and it's acolytes. Purely > >>>>> speculative. > > >>>>> On 5/18/2010 1:18 PM, gabbydott wrote: > > >>>>> Pat is mistaking himself for God, but he's not the only one > >>>>> here, > >>>>> which makes them bearable. > > >>>>> On 18 Mai, 16:16, DarkwaterBlight<[email protected] > >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > >>>>> I must be missing something here FF... Who's the > >>>>> determinist conmen > >>>>> that "we" are mistaking? I also have no feeling that God's > >>>>> understanding is anything less than infinite. The illusion > >>>>> that the so > >>>>> called "haves" have created, has been a veil of > >>>>> perception. I think I > >>>>> can agree on that point provided I am understanding you > >>>>> correctly. > >>>>> Would you care to continue in your discourse and > >>>>> elaborate? > > >>>>> On May 16, 10:18 pm, Fiercely Free<[email protected] > >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > >>>>> Pat, > >>>>> God's understanding is infinite. There's no doubt > >>>>> about that. > >>>>> When we mistake some determinist conmen for omnipotent > >>>>> entity, we get > >>>>> the feeling that God's understanding is not infinite. > >>>>> This ignorance > >>>>> gives rise to illusion which, in turn, prompts us to > >>>>> assume that > >>>>> opinion of "haves" represents the entire cosmic > >>>>> awareness... > > >>>>> On May 7, 8:09 pm, Pat<[email protected] > >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > >>>>> On 7 May, 15:53, RP<[email protected] > >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > >>>>> God is the mind which concieves the universe , > >>>>> He is the mind which > >>>>> runs it, and He is the mind which destroys it. > >>>>> He does not see in the > >>>>> manner in which we see each other and He does > >>>>> not act in the manner in > >>>>> which we act. His awareness and action is > >>>>> transcendental in nature. In > >>>>> our vanity we may pretend to comprehend Him, > >>>>> but we do not see or > >>>>> accept the fact that our intelligence is not > >>>>> infinite but only a few > >>>>> grades above that of animals. We have to just > >>>>> look at animals to > >>>>> realise that , after all our understanding > >>>>> also is finite. We are > >>>>> learning and growing day by day , but we are > >>>>> far from being Supreme. > > >>>>> Well, He does see as we do, but He also sees in a > >>>>> way we do not. When > >>>>> you look at something, in reality, it is Him that > >>>>> is seeing (and > >>>>> hearing and every other sensation any of us > >>>>> sense). And His ability > >>>>> to multiprocess all our awarenesses (and the > >>>>> awareness of all living > >>>>> things!) is a part of what defines His > >>>>> transcendant abilities. But > >>>>> there are more (unseen) places than just this 4-D > >>>>> universe and His > >>>>> wareness includes all that, as well. You're also > >>>>> right about our > >>>>> level of consciousness being not that much above > >>>>> other animals. It is > >>>>> our conceit that leads us to believe we are far > >>>>> greater than they > >>>>> are. But we're not. God can think like a tree > >>>>> (and, in fact thinks > >>>>> like each tree, as each tree's awareness is, in > >>>>> fact, His), yet no > >>>>> animal can. I'm not sure that > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
