The Debate of God.

[Thief]

Be that as it may... what bad attributes of 'religion' make you wish to separate yourself from being classified as religious, that you think you don't already follow being whatever it is you think you actually are?

You're assuming religion to be bad? and then assuming I might agree?

I simply lean to cause and effect and science as my source.

That others lean to practice in search of belief, is their affair.

 

[PolyHedral]

If the Universe is finite, it is limited in size, and so must have an outer boundary.

No. Where is the end of a donut? (which has finite circumference) Where is the edge of a edge of a sphere? (which has finite area)

 

[Pozessed]

energy = life
energy + matter = physical life

If life = energy when and where does it begin and end?

GL proving me wrong...

 

[godnotgod]

No. Where is the end of a donut? (which has finite circumference) Where is the edge of a edge of a sphere? (which has finite area)

"End" and "edge" are not the same. Their surfaces are their edges, and their curved surfaces are defined by the field within which they exist, which is passive. Both 'curved' and 'finite' are relative terms, and being so, must include their defining relative opposites, 'uncurved' and 'infinite' in order to be understood as such.

BTW, the donut can only be understood by the donut hole which is the empty space it contains, and via the empty space which defines and contains the donut's outer edge.

The two are inseparable, no matter how much you try.

 

[godnotgod]

The comparison certainly isn't physical. I'm talking about minds. All sentient beings possess a divine, immortal Consciousness which is a mirror image of God Himself.

I see. But now you are saying that the finite is in possession of the Infinite. Maybe you mean the opposite, wherein the consciousness you refer to is non-local? If it is non-local, then it is not a mirror image, but is the divine nature itself. The former means 'self and other' while the latter is non-dual. The authors of Genesis who referred to man being made in the image and likeness of God were speaking in terms of 'self and other'.

This is what the Hindus refer to as 'the One in the many, and the many in the One', or

'One Light, though the lamps be many'.

However, I suspect you are saying that each man has an individual, immortal soul.

A drop of ocean water does not possess ocean water, but is ocean water itself.

 

[Prophet]

I see. But now you are saying that the finite is in possession of the Infinite. Maybe you mean the opposite, wherein the consciousness you refer to is non-local? If it is non-local, then it is not a mirror image, but is the divine nature itself. The former means 'self and other' while the latter is non-dual. The authors of Genesis who referred to man being made in the image and likeness of God were speaking in terms of 'self and other'.

I'd have to do a lot of guessing about your meanings here to respond to this. I would need you to explain this further with more simplicity and precision.

This is what the Hindus refer to as 'the One in the many, and the many in the One', or

'One Light, though the lamps be many'.

Perhaps, but again, I'd warn against grouping people by religion and deducing that they must hold to to some official belief based upon their scriptures.

However, I suspect you are saying that each man has an individual, immortal soul.

Not just man. I am saying that all sentient beings are immortal. And I don't know precisely what you mean by "individual", but I'd be inclined to leave that word out.

A drop of ocean water does not possess ocean water, but is ocean water itself.

You are correcting me before attempting to understand me. I said all sentient life is made in God's image. You came back with a badly written characterization of my statement and you say I'm confused for saying that a soul is something you own when you are the only one who ever implied posession.

I'm well aware that the soul is something we ARE.

"We're not droplets in the ocean. We're the ocean." -Muse

 

[Thief]

I don't think this thread is getting anywhere.
It's supposed to be about God.

At great length, it's runs about itself trying to make denial that 'we' exist.

"YOU" can't proceed without 'your' thoughts.

Denial is futile..... pointless.....

And if 'you' can't accept 'yourself' then how do 'you' think 'you' can talk about Someone greater than 'you'?

 

[godnotgod]

I

You are correcting me before attempting to understand me. I said all sentient life is made in God's image. You came back with a badly written characterization of my statement and you say I'm confused for saying that a soul is something you own when you are the only one who ever implied posession.

That is not true. Here is what YOU said, and why I questioned (not corrected) your statement:

"All sentient beings possess a divine, immortal Consciousness which is a mirror image of God Himself."

Do you wish to re-phrase?

 

[godnotgod]

I don't think this thread is getting anywhere.
It's supposed to be about God.

At great length, it's runs about itself trying to make denial that 'we' exist.

"YOU" can't proceed without 'your' thoughts.

Denial is futile..... pointless.....

And if 'you' can't accept 'yourself' then how do 'you' think 'you' can talk about Someone greater than 'you'?

Can you show me the thinker of your thoughts?

 

[Prophet]

That is not true. Here is what YOU said, and why I questioned (not corrected) your statement:

Do you wish to re-phrase?

Not really. Even if I didn't phrase it well enough for you, you are splitting hairs. You're attached to words, but it is the meaning behind the words that is important.

I hold to my point that you care too much about words and you throw actual intended meaning away in favor of making weak debate points.

 

[godnotgod]

Not really. Even if I didn't phrase it well enough for you, you are splitting hairs. You're attached to words, but it is the meaning behind the words that is important.

I hold to my point that you care too much about words and you throw actual intended meaning away in favor of making weak debate points.

So how is one to know the intended meaning unless words are used correctly, especially on a forum?

If you do not wish to rephrase, it means that you stick by the idea that sentient beings are in possession of a divine nature. The distinction I was trying to make is not trivial. It means the difference between a personal consciousness and a universal consciousness.

You do not 'possess' anything.

I point to the moon and instead of looking at the moon, you attach to my pointing finger.

 

[Prophet]

So how is one to know the intended meaning unless words are used correctly, especially on a forum?

I suggest starting by asking questions. In this instance, it is a fairly simple matter of asking for my meaning outright, or, if you happen to be a bit more clever you can ask clarifying questions like "Can you sell your soul?"

What I see from you suggests you don't care about intended meaning.

If you do not wish to rephrase, it means that you stick by the idea that sentient beings are in possession of a divine nature. The distinction I was trying to make is not trivial. It means the difference between a personal consciousness and a universal consciousness.

While I have some understanding of your "point", it is highly trivial to me.

You do not 'possess' anything.

This is also highly trivial to me.

I point to the moon and instead of looking at the moon, you attach to my pointing finger.

Your finger is pointing long before you bother yourself with a sincere attempt to understanding anything it is pointing at.

 

[godnotgod]

I suggest starting by asking questions. In this instance, it is a fairly simple matter of asking for my meaning outright, or, if you happen to be a bit more clever you can ask clarifying questions like "Can you sell your soul?"

I DID ask, but you became defensive almost immediately, in a manner that shows that you are attached personally to your answer. You said:

Originally Posted by Prophet
All sentient beings possess a divine, immortal Consciousness which is a mirror image of God Himself.

...to which I ASKED, in all sincerity:

Maybe you mean the opposite, wherein the consciousness you refer to is non-local?

What I see from you suggests you don't care about intended meaning.

That's plain silly! If I did'nt care about meaning I would'nt be pursuing the issue as far as I have.

If anyone does'nt care, it is you, since you refuse to have a discussion.

While I have some understanding of your "point", it is highly trivial to me.

This is also highly trivial to me.

If it appears trivial to you, it is because you fail to understand the significance of the difference between personal and universal views.

pooh poohing the issue won't turn it into insignificant minutiae just to satisfy one's ego.

Your finger is pointing long before you bother yourself with a sincere attempt to understanding anything it is pointing at.

...which is precisely why it silently points in the first place, rather than make undefended claims, such as that "sentient beings are in possession of divine consciousness".

Seems you just want us all to accept this without question, and when it is questioned, you become highly defensive, as you are personally attached to the statement. This is beginning to wreak of fundamentalism.

 

[Prophet]

It would be similarly obnoxious if I went around reminding people whenever I overhear them discussing their possessions that they are actually stewards of what they are deluded into believing to be their possessions and that the truth is that they belong to the universe while they ignorantly fool themselves into thinking that pieces of the universe belong to them. I don't think I'd have many friends if I conducted myself in my life the way you do on these forums.

I use possession simply as a familiar manner of speaking, and it is a hell of a lot clearer to most people than your babble about locality. Not that there aren't cases out there who need to be shown that their possessions are negatively affecting their state of mind, but you haven't bothered with that step. You just don't like the way I talk. I reiterate, I find your not liking the manner in which I speak trivial.

So, can you demonstrate my familiar manner of speaking of "possession" of an eternal soul to be actually significant by negatively affecting my state of mind without prejudice on your part? It would require you to ask questions.

 

[godnotgod]

It would be similarly obnoxious if I went around reminding people whenever I overhear them discussing their possessions that they are actually stewards of what they are deluded into believing to be their possessions and that the truth is that they belong to the universe while they ignorantly fool themselves into thinking that pieces of the universe belong to them. I don't think I'd have many friends if I conducted myself in my life the way you do on these forums.

I use possession simply as a familiar manner of speaking, and it is a hell of a lot clearer to most people than your babble about locality. Not that there aren't cases out there who need to be shown that their possessions are negatively affecting their state of mind, but you haven't bothered with that step. You just don't like the way I talk. I reiterate, I find your not liking the manner in which I speak trivial.

So, can you demonstrate my familiar manner of speaking of "possession" of an eternal soul to be actually significant by negatively affecting my state of mind without prejudice on your part? It would require you to ask questions.

It is the 'familiar manner of speaking' into which most of us have become lulled that causes us to believe in our delusions, in this case, that there is a 'possessor' of an immortal consciousness called 'soul'. This is the illusory self, the idea of a 'doer', a separate ego acting upon the world that is the cause of so much suffering and misery throughout history.

Trivial.

I don't care if you think of me as being obnoxious to point this out. I see it as a queue for people to awaken from their immersion in Identification.

However, I do not, as a rule, go around reminding people of their delusive states in everyday life. I do here on this forum because it is the appropriate setting we set aside to formally seek what is real, mercilessly scrutinizing everything that tries to pass for 'truth'.

But to return to the topic at hand, the idea of being created (as a distinct separate 'creat-ure') in the 'image and likeness' of God creates the idea of 'self and other', which is separation from the Source, when no such separation is possible, because there is no such self that is an 'image and likeness" that can be separated.

That your 'familiar manner of speaking' is 'clearer' to most people is only true in the sense that most people believe their delusive state to be reality. Of course the prisoners in Plato's Cave will agree wholeheartedly with you that the dancing shadows on the cave walls represent reality. Keep telling them that so you can be thought of as a 'friend'.

 

[Prophet]

It is the 'familiar manner of speaking' into which most of us have become lulled into that causes us to believe in our delusions, in this case, that there is a 'possessor' of an immortal consciousness called 'soul'. This is the illusory self, the idea of a 'doer', a separate ego acting upon the world that is the cause of so much suffering and misery throughout history.

Trivial.

Extremely.

 

[godnotgod]

Extremely.

If the suffering and misery of others is trivial for you, then you have no understanding of spirituality and your claim to the enlightened state is fraudulent.

Extremely.

 

[otokage007]

So, can you demonstrate my familiar manner of speaking of "possession" of an eternal soul to be actually significant by negatively affecting my state of mind without prejudice on your part? It would require you to ask questions.

If you believe that, u could believe anything without the need of proper evidence. We couldn't trust you, for example, to achieve a VIH cure, because there's a possibility that you will claim that it cures VIH without any evidence backing u up, the same u do when u state there's an eternal soul. That's why believing in God or in anything supernatural, is not a very good scientific position.

 

[godnotgod]

Just to clarify one thing here: I am not saying that a divine consciousness is not present in all sentient beings; just that it is not personally owned in the sense of it being 'my' consciousness.

"You are the universe looking at itself through your eyes"
Deepak Chopra

 

[Thief]

Just to clarify one thing here: I am not saying that a divine consciousness is not present in all sentient beings; just that it is not personally owned in the sense of it being 'my' consciousness.

"You are the universe looking at itself through your eyes"
Deepak Chopra

So now you admit the possibility of being a 'person'?
And your awareness sets 'you' apart from others?