God is "neutral"

[kx000]

Love & Perfection, and their passive son. No one needs the bible to believe Jesus existed, other than to hear his name.

God can not be neutral, that is not productive. Love is the God, who else?

So what about the Imagination? She must be smart beyond Heaven himself. Anything I can imagine must be obtainable to raining hamburgers.

 

[Saint]

My analysis is this.
1. God is eternal.
2. God can think of anything.
3. God is thinking eternally before creation of anything.
4. God can think of good and evil.
5. So, the ideas of good and evil exist eternally, because God is thinking eternally.

Anyone can analyse this?

 

[kx000]

Anyone can analyse this?

I think morality decelerates alliance with such a thing.

Love, or Pass Man who is great?

 

[Saint]

I don't understand your English.
I am an Asian.

 

[kx000]

I don't understand your English.
I am an Asian.

Get familiar

 

[wellwisher]

If you read the story of Genesis, the story goes that God did not want humans to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; laws of good and evil. They were punished for eating of knowledge of good and evil. Good and evil was an option but not the first choice of God.

Original sin was connected to the polarization of human perception into good and evil, away from neutral. The tree of life, was like life and nature, which acts in the best interest of evolution and advancement, based on the circumstances. There is no right or wrong, if the lion kills to eat. The tree of life is not about human subjective judgements, which are often manipulative and self serving. Liberal laws of good and evil (Satan's tree) are there to promote their own philosophy. Even if you don't need it the nanny state will define laws of good and evil for you.

Since humans defaulted to morality, early in civilization, and wanted to be polarized, the rest of the old testament is about differentiating the concept of good and evil into the extremes of good and evil, so people would chose good.

By the time of Christ, the righteous man was not under law (of good and evil) but was under faith. Paul said, all things are lawful, but not all things edify. All things were neutral but not all were healthy for you. But most humans still prefer the tree of knowledge of good and evil (law); children of the bondwoman. The children of the promise are neutral. It is faith that they follow their inner voice like instinct.

 

[spidergoat]

I don't understand your English.
I am an Asian.

I don't understand him either, and English is my native tongue.

 

[Bebelina]

lol fancy words.

and by the way...Hitler LOVED his NAZI Germany nation)))

He sure did.

Well, just stumbled upon this topic because of a discussion I had with a person earlier.

She claimed she has started to believe in God, which I seriously doubt, but anyway, do you see, apart from religious dogmas, the "god" consciousness as ONE or TWO, or even THREE components? I'm of course thinking about the good and evil concept and yin and yang. She believes God to be one and also all good, out of fear of going to hell I suppose. But how can ONE entity evolve, I think the paradox of duality is necessary for a consciousness to function, what do you think?

 

[hansda]

He sure did.

Well, just stumbled upon this topic because of a discussion I had with a person earlier.

She claimed she has started to believe in God, which I seriously doubt, but anyway, do you see, apart from religious dogmas, the "god" consciousness as ONE or TWO, or even THREE components? I'm of course thinking about the good and evil concept and yin and yang. She believes God to be one and also all good, out of fear of going to hell I suppose. But how can ONE entity evolve, I think the paradox of duality is necessary for a consciousness to function, what do you think?

"Good and Evil" are not same as "Yin and Yang". Good and Evil are opposite to each other but Yin and Yang are complement to each other. Yin and Yang can unite to be one. Thats why GOD is ONE.

 

[Bebelina]

"Good and Evil" are not same as "Yin and Yang". Good and Evil are opposite to each other but Yin and Yang are complement to each other. Yin and Yang can unite to be one. Thats why GOD is ONE.

If we take away the values of good and evil and see the concepts as pure energy instead, then I believe they are the same as yin and yang and complement eachother in the same way too.

Of course one can see the sum of everything aka "God", as one. One that contains everyhting that exists. Including all complementary energies, values and whatever. Therefore "evil" is also a part of "God".

 

[lightgigantic]

He sure did.

Well, just stumbled upon this topic because of a discussion I had with a person earlier.

She claimed she has started to believe in God, which I seriously doubt, but anyway, do you see, apart from religious dogmas, the "god" consciousness as ONE or TWO, or even THREE components? I'm of course thinking about the good and evil concept and yin and yang. She believes God to be one and also all good, out of fear of going to hell I suppose. But how can ONE entity evolve, I think the paradox of duality is necessary for a consciousness to function, what do you think?

conditioned consciousness (ie consciousness that seeks a type of enjoyment exclusive to material nature) has a requirement for duality.
IOW a type of happiness that requires things that will shortly cease to exist requires duality.

What to speak of god, there are numerous arguments for the living entity not being constitutionally relegated to dualistic existence

 

[wynn]

conditioned consciousness (ie consciousness that seeks a type of enjoyment exclusive to material nature) has a requirement for duality.
IOW a type of happiness that requires things that will shortly cease to exist requires duality.

What to speak of god, there are numerous arguments for the living entity not being constitutionally relegated to dualistic existence

I am I and you are you, and God is God. What's wrong with that?
There is nothing wrong with dualistic existence, as long as this dualism pertains simply to beings having identities.

The problems of the dualism of seeking happiness in temporary things are due to those things being temporary, not due to the dualism.

 

[Bebelina]

conditioned consciousness (ie consciousness that seeks a type of enjoyment exclusive to material nature) has a requirement for duality.
IOW a type of happiness that requires things that will shortly cease to exist requires duality.

What to speak of god, there are numerous arguments for the living entity not being constitutionally relegated to dualistic existence

Well, the God entity experiences duality in the existence of humans for example. If a being is omnipresent then it also experiences everyhting that all parts of its being experiences. The privacy of I and you are also experienced by the God consciousness.

 

[kx000]

Would an entity of Know be ambiguous to know all things even that which has not occurred, or would Know stay in the present?

If you had general Faith, would generality of Omniscience fall from a heavenly state they created? You believe, think about it.

Entities that can be 'God;' Love, Pacifism, Faith, Science, Know. Does anyone see this, this evolution of emotions to have occurred before any material. Matter, light, they could enjoy it. If their is a consciousness existing outside of ourselves, it would enjoy warmth. Is there a spirit realm, and what we see here and now is its body? The spirit having been first, then the body evolving in accordance to nature after a specific amount of time?

Truly, could Love comprehend such an amazing feet, as to being the Father? Can I be In Love, truly, to an imaginative world?

I think God is Love. I think Love is that thing which could begin this. Maybe we are complete nothing. I don't see how a series of beeps or dots, light, or static is comprehensive to be our Father over an entity Love. Maybe he occurred like its sun, free from the constraints of time until she was born.

To be faith, must my Love have the capabilities to have been the thing which is our universal Father? I can say I am in love, I can do anything even be a God? Is it elementary? Maybe we are in for a good chuckle when we learn the essence of what we are. Can we be a bunch of A's, and B's to Love-verse?

 

[kx000]

"Good and Evil" are not same as "Yin and Yang". Good and Evil are opposite to each other but Yin and Yang are complement to each other. Yin and Yang can unite to be one. Thats why GOD is ONE.

Evil doesn't oppose morality. To be real evil, you must be moral to a 't.' Until that day when evil must rise to the occasion.

Its all abstract! All emotions. A body for every soul. What emotions would small minded bugs host? What would a sun ray of light host? Its a body that evolved for us to live in! Check it out! I don't know my way around out there in the cosmos, but I have a good theory just pick from it.

We easily constructed from a series of emotions. How could matter just appear one day? Im not sure, but I see how Love could. My question, is Love, the bond great, or is the son Pacifism?

Sorry to rant, but seriously. What else are we? Tiny human syndrome?

 

[Bebelina]

Would an entity of Know be ambiguous to know all things even that which has not occurred, or would Know stay in the present?

If you had general Faith, would generality of Omniscience fall from a heavenly state they created? You believe, think about it.

Entities that can be 'God;' Love, Pacifism, Faith, Science, Know. Does anyone see this, this evolution of emotions to have occurred before any material. Matter, light, they could enjoy it. If their is a consciousness existing outside of ourselves, it would enjoy warmth. Is there a spirit realm, and what we see here and now is its body? The spirit having been first, then the body evolving in accordance to nature after a specific amount of time?

Truly, could Love comprehend such an amazing feet, as to being the Father? Can I be In Love, truly, to an imaginative world?

I think God is Love. I think Love is that thing which could begin this. Maybe we are complete nothing. I don't see how a series of beeps or dots, light, or static is comprehensive to be our Father over an entity Love. Maybe he occurred like its sun, free from the constraints of time until she was born.

To be faith, must my Love have the capabilities to have been the thing which is our universal Father? I can say I am in love, I can do anything even be a God? Is it elementary? Maybe we are in for a good chuckle when we learn the essence of what we are. Can we be a bunch of A's, and B's to Love-verse?

So poetic and emotional.

So you think emotions are entities themselves and not just signals within the human body? Interesting thought. It could be like that.

I don't really like the concept of "Father" though, sound a bit too Christian and patriarchal for me.
In the vastness of all existence human religions are like tv-commercials for ...the combined mass of a persons reincarnational lifetimes.

This entity of Know, you mean a separate entity that would know everyhting? Then I would guess time is irrelevant and all knowledge is available regardless of when and where it was gathered.

Is knowing a feeling to you, or something else?
What is knowing?
A feeling of certainty based on experience?

But if we go back to the God concept then all these other possibilities are present within it.

Love is one feeling, what tiny little semi-God are you refeering to?

 

[lightgigantic]

Well, the God entity experiences duality in the existence of humans for example. If a being is omnipresent then it also experiences everyhting that all parts of its being experiences. The privacy of I and you are also experienced by the God consciousness.

I think it would be more correct to say that god contextualizes it, since god has recourse to an existence that is greater than the parts under the duress of dualistic existence (and even a greater existence than the parts not under the duress of such an existence)..

 

[Bebelina]

I think it would be more correct to say that god contextualizes it, since god has recourse to an existence that is greater than the parts under the duress of dualistic existence (and even a greater existence than the parts not under the duress of such an existence)..

I don't know under what category God would file dualism, but since some part of God experiences it, it's valid. Nothing is nothing.

 

[lightgigantic]

I don't know under what category God would file dualism, but since some part of God experiences it, it's valid. Nothing is nothing.

my point is that god is not defined by it (like we are).

Its kind of like prison wardens and prisoners: both experience jail, but due to the qualitative differences between the two, one is limited by it and the other controls/regulates it (on top of having experience above and beyond the prison system that the prisoners don't have recourse to) .

 

[Bebelina]

my point is that god is not defined by it (like we are).

Its kind of like prison wardens and prisoners: both experience jail, but due to the qualitative differences between the two, one is limited by it and the other controls/regulates it (on top of having experience above and beyond the prison system that the prisoners don't have recourse to) .

Due to the dualistic nature of your reply the God consciousness must evaluate the scenario for a while.

In this pretty little picture, are the wardens God and the prisoners the duality?

If the God consciousness is the sum of everything, then it is also defined by duality as it is by everything else, but what percent of God that partakes in duality I not know, 50?