Simple nature of god

[Twilight Hue]

Why so compared to the other? Thank you.

Have you noticed the symmetry?

Like a puppet. Moves and dances with the life it's givin and the impact that the movement gives back to its puppeteer.

 

[Tumah]

This is a good concrete example. When we die we turn into ashes after loosing all liquid from the body and after decomposition. Like animals and plants we become part of the earth and eventually we go to the sea. You and I will one day continue to make up what we call earth.

In my practice, I give reverence to the earth because I know people I know there are many who died, killed, buried on the grounds we walk on.

This is not the same as saying, "we are part of the earth". One day, we will decompose and our bodied will become dirt. But at the moment, when something starts growing on you, you buy anti-fungal cream. That's the opposite of what we'd be doing if we were part of the earth right now.

Poetry is not words and letters. It is expressions that come from the soul.

I agree that poetry is an expression of the self. But like all expressions, they are not a part of you, they are something you create. They are like the children of the mind: from yourself you create something that is not yourself. It has elements of your self in it, but it is not you. You are not a poem and your poem is not a body or a soul. In the earth example, you and the earth will one day in the far future share similar qualities: you will both be dirt. On that day, you will be part of the earth. But you and your poem will never share similar qualities. You are not your poem.

If you know about the Deaf community and seen ASL sign language, the language and expression not just hand movement is a part of who they are. The language among other things is a part of their identity.

As a gay woman and identify as a gay woman, my sexual orientation isn't just biological. I share many experiences other people like me have. I have a unique (to some of us) of expressing our sexuality-our body, our mind, our soul with people we love regardless if its romantic or not.

I am a African American by US terms. Although to others they think its skin color ans history, that is not all that identifies us.

These separate entities makes up WHO we are. In creation, god is creation. Creation and its identities makes up definition or identity of the "creator". God is no more separate than all I mentioned above.

"A part of" is just differentiating that I am Not a poem (words on a page). The poem is an expression of who I am not what I am.

The difference between all of these things and a poem is that all of these things contribute to your existence. But its you that contributed to the poem's existence. You did not contribute to your own skin color or country of origin. Those things are like your parents. They made you. But you made your poem. It is like your child.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Have you noticed the symmetry?

Like a puppet. Moves and dances with the life it's givin and the impact that the movement gives back to its puppeteer.

Could be. I say that all we know is the puppet moves and the source of the movement is just as much the source as the puppet doing the moving. Since we cant see the puppeteer, it would be illogical to assume just because we cant explain how the puppet dances that it needs an outside party to make do so.

Sperm and egg and other things dont need an outside agent to define why the combination creates a child. The sperm, egg, and all involved is what makes the child from conception to growth and age etc. No creator outside of creation itself

Shrugs. Sitting still let me know that everything and every being living is a part of god for lack of better non ambiguious terms. But thinking I have a creator just because Im here sounds more illogical than knowing I am alive and I cant explain it and THAT mystery is what it is even though others call it is god.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Could be. I say that all we know is the puppet moves and the source of the movement is just as much the source as the puppet doing the moving. Since we cant see the puppeteer, it would be illogical to assume just because we cant explain how the puppet dances that it needs an outside party to make do so.

Sperm and egg and other things dont need an outside agent to define why the combination creates a child. The sperm, egg, and all involved is what makes the child from conception to growth and age etc. No creator outside of creation itself

Shrugs. Sitting still let me know that everything and every being living is a part of god for lack of better non ambiguious terms. But thinking I have a creator just because Im here sounds more illogical than knowing I am alive and I cant explain it and THAT mystery is what it is even though others call it is god.

Actually I take we are the puppeteers animating God. Yet, ultimately the universe still moves our strings.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

This is not the same as saying, "we are part of the earth". One day, we will decompose and our bodied will become dirt. But at the moment, when something starts growing on you, you buy anti-fungal cream. That's the opposite of what we'd be doing if we were part of the earth right now.

Its not pretty but we do contribute to the earth and are part of it. Some cultures ans religious chose to acknowledge the earth as a full burial ground of all our ancestors and others see it as just dirt. It doesnt change we are a part of it even if our religious points of view differ.

I agree that poetry is an expression of the self. But like all expressions, they are not a part of you, they are something you create. They are like the children of the mind: from yourself you create something that is not yourself. It has elements of your self in it, but it is not you. You are not a poem and your poem is not a body or a soul. In the earth example, you and the earth will one day in the far future share similar qualities: you will both be dirt. On that day, you will be part of the earth. But you and your poem will never share similar qualities. You are not your poem.

I cant remember if I kept it, but before I deleted the other two replies I said you are taking this literally. I am not ink and letters. Because the context and expression of these words are from me they are a part of me. I dont separate what I create from me. Thats like tearing me in pieces and defining me just by flesh and blood. Expressions, language,...

The difference between all of these things and a poem is that all of these things contribute to your existence. But its you that contributed to the poem's existence. You did not contribute to your own skin color or country of origin. Those things are like your parents. They made you. But you made your poem. It is like your child.

...race and culture are a part of people too. I do contrubute to my country of origin just by what I do and how I support where I was born and raised. What values I take up and what they stand for. If I were a mother, I would have contribute a part of me to my child as I am to my parent. We are all one unit.

Most mothers I know do not separate themselves from their child in language. They feel that they gave that child life and have a motherly duty to give life (take care of, feed, etc) to that child. The child isnt an isolated human nor in my case my poetry, ethnicity, sexuality, among other things. They make me, me.

What youre saying is like telling me a car door, stirring wheel, tires, and engine dont make up a car (a part of each other in one unit) because a door is not a tire. Im saying, of course the door is not a tire but I see the combination of attributes define why and why we call a car, a car.

Same thing with humans. We just like to think we are more complex.

 

[Etritonakin]

God, in this post, is not Christian, Muslim, Jewish. Is not Pagan. It's not Hindu. It's not Bahai. It's not... In other words, there is no bias in this post (I should say).

With that said:

Which sounds more powerful according to how you define god regardless if you believe he is real or know him as an idea.

1. God IS life itself.

2. God is the GIVER of life.

In the first, if god is life then who and what we interact with, we are interacting with and in god. The "breathe" (aka god or spirit) of life in us that keeps us moving (or you can term it energy, if you don't like religious terms) is what we call god.

I feel this is stronger statement because it isn't separating spirit from life itself. It's letting us know that we are not divided in parts. Spirituality and "naturality" are all intermingled. Unity.

The second one I understand why that would sound strong to many because the source is much more wise and powerful than its creation. In my view, it's a political thinking. When I write, my art is a part of me. I can't separate my poetry from myself. I am not over or under my poetry. I don't have authority of it. It's part of who I am.

That's why I feel the second one doesn't make sense.

How about you?​

A lot of people don't like polls but I'm just curious whether it makes sense to see god (idea, concept, literal, or spirit, or whatever) as life itself or the creator of life.

Does the art have more value or awe when it is seen as part of the artist or the work of the artist?​

I would say the answer is both.

God is everything -everything has always been "alive" in the broadest sense -and "God", personally, is the overall mind of all that is -the original intelligence able to act on everything -both that which can act and that which can be acted upon (whether having developed/self-developed into such or simply always existing as such).

By decision of that original intelligence was caused all else that we would call "life" -essentially as a reconfiguration/subdivision of that which God is.
For example... In order to create an individual human mind, God caused an arrangement which enabled separate decision-making power, etc., but it is still composed of that which has always existed.

If you think about it, no one component of a life form is considered alive -but are considered alive when in a certain configuration -yet the essence of life must be in all things collectively -and so everything is essentially alive -if our specific definition of life can be caused by an arrangement of that which exists.
Parts of our selves may be considered "dead" -hair, fingernails, etc. -but are part of the whole of a an individual life form.
Those things we consider inanimate are not completely still -they are very much moving and animated.

 

[Milton Platt]

God, in this post, is not Christian, Muslim, Jewish. Is not Pagan. It's not Hindu. It's not Bahai. It's not... In other words, there is no bias in this post (I should say).

With that said:

Which sounds more powerful according to how you define god regardless if you believe he is real or know him as an idea.

1. God IS life itself.

2. God is the GIVER of life.

In the first, if god is life then who and what we interact with, we are interacting with and in god. The "breathe" (aka god or spirit) of life in us that keeps us moving (or you can term it energy, if you don't like religious terms) is what we call god.

I feel this is stronger statement because it isn't separating spirit from life itself. It's letting us know that we are not divided in parts. Spirituality and "naturality" are all intermingled. Unity.

The second one I understand why that would sound strong to many because the source is much more wise and powerful than its creation. In my view, it's a political thinking. When I write, my art is a part of me. I can't separate my poetry from myself. I am not over or under my poetry. I don't have authority of it. It's part of who I am.

That's why I feel the second one doesn't make sense.

How about you?​

A lot of people don't like polls but I'm just curious whether it makes sense to see god (idea, concept, literal, or spirit, or whatever) as life itself or the creator of life.

Does the art have more value or awe when it is seen as part of the artist or the work of the artist?​

Seems like a false dichotomy to me.......

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Seems like a false dichotomy to me.......

The last question. Would that be a false dichotomy?

 

[viole]

Why can't HE be both?

Probably because either life does not require a giver, or God created Himself.

For if He is life but He did not give Himself life, then life does not necessitate a giver of life, to start with.

If, on the other hand, life necessitates a giver of life and He is life and the giver of life, then He gave himself what is needed for His existence, which is logically absurd.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Etritonakin]

God can be the original life and the giver of life to all other life by causing them to be configured.

An individual human has the potential to be a giver of life to many life forms by designing and configuring them.
However, there are many humans preceded by many other life forms.
The original life form would be similar -but preceded by no other.

If something cannot come from nothing, and there is obviously now something -then there was never absolutely nothing.

That which became that which now exists has always existed -but is now in a different configuration.

We see that self-awareness happens on a small/individual scale by configuration of that which has always existed -and there is no reason that self-awareness could not exist by configuration on a universal/overall scale.

Many assume that God has always existed in a complex configuration -but that is not necessarily the case, and it is not actually stated in at least the bible.