The Debate of God.

[Thief]

You are obviously confused: rocks and individuals does not translate to their being 'separate'. Neither can exist as such without their being 100% interconnected with everything else. That you see some sort of 'separation' is your delusion. Show me where this separation occurs.

As previously answered....birth.

[This is obviously a loaded question, folks, LOL]

I am neither God, nor not-God.

As neither....you have no line to draw...no statement to make.
And your participation in this thread has been a sham.

If you have no separation from God then this thread of responses you've made was God speaking through you?

If you are separate of God then your responses come from your belief.
'You' do then exist as 'you'.

Either way...'you' cannot separate 'yourself' from 'your' beliefs.
'You' are what 'you' believe.

 

[Gui10]

I am neither God, nor not-God.

You see, this is where you are wrong. You are not-god.

 

[godnotgod]

You see, this is where you are wrong. You are not-god.

You see, this is where you are wrong.

In order to not be God, one must know what being God is. But that makes God a relative entity subject to duality, instead of the Absolute that God is, the "which of which there is no whicher". When I tell you that I am neither God, nor not-God, I am telling you that I am not subject to your concepts as to what God is or is not. My true nature is neti, neti: "not this, not this", or "neither this, nor that".

However, YOU are God pretending not to be God, but then further pretending to be someone called 'Gui10'

 

[godnotgod]

As neither....you have no line to draw...no statement to make.
And your participation in this thread has been a sham.

If you have no separation from God then this thread of responses you've made was God speaking through you?

If you are separate of God then your responses come from your belief.
'You' do then exist as 'you'.

Either way...'you' cannot separate 'yourself' from 'your' beliefs.
'You' are what 'you' believe.

That is the same false idea as: "I think, therefore, I am", which is ridiculous. When you are not thinking, then you are not? When you are not believing, you are not? \

Come now, Thiefie dear: You know it's more profound than mere belief.

Try again.

 

[Gui10]

You see, this is where you are wrong.

In order to not be God, one must know what being God is. But that makes God a relative entity subject to duality, instead of the Absolute that God is, the "which of which there is no whicher". When I tell you that I am neither God, nor not-God, I am telling you that I am not subject to your concepts as to what God is or is not. My true nature is neti, neti: "not this, not this", or "neither this, nor that".

However, YOU are God pretending not to be God, but then further pretending to be someone called 'Gui10'

I am Gui10, I am not god, neither are you.

You see, regardless of what you think god is, there are actual deffinition of the word ''god''. If you do not correspond to those deffitions, you are not god. It is really that simple, there is no need to go into the deeper meanings of word because like you say, it is all relative and subjective to each individual.

I would like to know your deffinition of god. If your deffinition does however not concur with the popular deffinition then it means you just took it on your own personal will to transform the deffinition of god.

 

[godnotgod]

I am Gui10, I am not god, neither are you.

You see, regardless of what you think god is, there are actual deffinition of the word ''god''. If you do not correspond to those deffitions, you are not god. It is really that simple, there is no need to go into the deeper meanings of word because like you say, it is all relative and subjective to each individual.

I would like to know your deffinition of god. If your deffinition does however not concur with the popular deffinition then it means you just took it on your own personal will to transform the deffinition of god.

I am very sorry, but not one single definition of God will do, as they all are encapsulations, and as you and I know very well. God cannot be so encapsulated. The only possible way we can speak of God is to say what God is not.

When you say 'regardless of what you think god is, there are actual definition of the word 'god'' * , you are saying the same thing, as any definition of God is what anyone thinks God is, and the moment you attempt to do so, god has slipped away. You may as well tell me you have caught the wind in a box. A defined god is a dead god.

When I said that you were subjecting God to relative values, it did not have to do with subjective, personal views. When you attempt to answer the question as to whether God exists or not, you have already entered into a dualistic view, when the nature of the divine is Absolute. So the question as to whether God exists or not makes little sense, as God is beyond all dualistic concepts such as 'existence' and 'non-existence'. So this suggests that all dualistic concepts must be transcended in order to get in touch with the divine nature.

You are wrong that I have a personal view of God, because I am not attempting to define God, as you are. All definitions of God are limited, personal views. The nature of the divine essence cannot be encapsulated in concept, idea, form, or definition, and if you knew that, you would not have asked me to define God.

The description is not the described.

The fact that you claim to be Gui10 and not God is just another way God is playing the cosmic game of Hide and Seek with you, hiding within your form, and pretending not to be God, so thoroughly that God has convinced himself that he is not who he really is, and that he really is this character you call 'Gui10', who is a total fraud!

The experience of divine union shows us that the divine essence is the same for everyone, just as the saltiness of the sea is the same everywhere. Why should it be any different?

"..and the Word BECAME flesh, and dwelt amongst us".

"The kingdom of God is within you"

....and so, the divine nature is within each of us, as well as within all things so thoroughly that you do not know it is there, just as the fish born into the sea does not know he is in the sea, and the sea is within him. The divine nature is infusing every pore of your being at this very moment, but you still think you are Gui10 and God is elsewhere. God is your very marrow, like dye dissolved in water.

And so, I can state the following, taken from Vivikenanda:

"The universe is the Absolute [itself], as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation".

Remove these conceptual filters, and you will see things as they actually are, rather than how your useless definitions tell you they are. In fact, you will see that what you call God has been right under your very nose all along.

*I take note that you actually said: 'definitions of the word 'god', and not 'definitions of God'. The word 'god' is itself a definition, and therefore, a symbolic encapsulation.

But to be fair, here is a definition of God that you can swirl around your brain for a spell:

"God is a circle whose circumference is endless and whose center is everywhere"

Hope this helps.....

 

[Thief]

You see, this is where you are wrong.

In order to not be God, one must know what being God is. But that makes God a relative entity subject to duality, instead of the Absolute that God is, the "which of which there is no whicher". When I tell you that I am neither God, nor not-God, I am telling you that I am not subject to your concepts as to what God is or is not. My true nature is neti, neti: "not this, not this", or "neither this, nor that".

However, YOU are God pretending not to be God, but then further pretending to be someone called 'Gui10'

The above is a brief description of the word game you've been playing at length throughout this thread.

As if no one gets it....as if you know.... and no one else can see the shallow effort.

YOU are just pretending to be enlightened.
The only person YOU have convinced is YOURSELF.

If you and God are as one....God does not exist.
YOU are an illusion and therfore so is....God.

 

[Thief]

That is the same false idea as: "I think, therefore, I am", which is ridiculous. When you are not thinking, then you are not? When you are not believing, you are not? \

Come now, Thiefie dear: You know it's more profound than mere belief.

Try again.

So that famous quote is bogus?...ridiculous?
Now that would be arrogance to the extreme.

But in any case.....how about?....
You are what you believe.

I happen to think it is true.
And as the last breath eludes us, we become what we believe.

I shall forsake the flesh, become the spirit I truly am,
YOU apparently will become a small pile of dust in a box, in the ground.

 

[godnotgod]

The above is a brief description of the word game you've been playing at length throughout this thread.

As if no one gets it....as if you know.... and no one else can see the shallow effort.

YOU are just pretending to be enlightened.
The only person YOU have convinced is YOURSELF.

If you and God are as one....God does not exist.
YOU are an illusion and therfore so is....God.

Well, if you believe I am playing some sort of word game, that is your problem, not mine.

The fact is, everyone DOES know, but act as if they don't. All I have been doing is to point out that fact. All along, I have never claimed special knowledge. In fact, it is quite ordinary knowledge, but only seems special because people are asleep.

I have never claimed to be enlightened, so what are you talking about?

After all this discussion, you are still not getting it:

Everyone and everything is already one with the divine nature, but not everyone realizes it. They don't realize it because they think they are separate egos acting upon the world, and THAT is what the illusion is, NOT that we are all one with the divine. When this realization of oneness occurs, your illusion of separation will dissolve away along with the fraudulent character that is called 'Thief'. It is the egoic character that wishes to perpetuate itself after death so it can go on enjoying adulation in the form of ego gratification, and it will do anything to get it, including lying, cheating, stealing, and making up stories such as an afterlife in which it will get the upper hand over those who it creates as being 'undeserving' and who will roast in a hell that is also the making of this clever ego, with the purpose of even more gratification in mind. And it won't stop there. After achieving the afterlife, it wants to overthrow the ruler of that realm out of sheer pride and jealousy, only to be tossed out on it's ear once again only to go through repeated cycles ad nauseum.

That you have consistently denied your divine nature as being one with God only demonstrates the fact that you are deluded, while thinking that you are correct in seeing yourself as 'separate'. It is because of your distorted view of who and what God is that you fail to reallize the true nature of the divine within. Until your conceptual framework about the true nature of reality comes crashing to the ground and you become humble to the truth of the matter, you will not come to the realization of divine union, and you will continue to see it as a falsehood, causing you to seek it outside yourself, only to perpetuate your own delusional self-seeking even into some idea of an 'afterlife'. Either you get it now, or you will be led on by the nose for eternity.

It does'nt cost anything to stop and take a closer look before you leave this earthly realm. Everything you need to know is right under your very nose, right here, right now.

It's no big deal.

 

[godnotgod]

So that famous quote is bogus?...ridiculous?
Now that would be arrogance to the extreme.

But in any case.....how about?....
You are what you believe.

I happen to think it is true.
And as the last breath eludes us, we become what we believe.

I shall forsake the flesh, become the spirit I truly am,
YOU apparently will become a small pile of dust in a box, in the ground.

I have explained WHY that famous quote is bogus. Did you understand?

Belief is a model of what reality could be, concocted by the conceptual mind. It is NOT reality itself. Only reality is reality, and the way to realize it is to SEE it exactly as it actually is, not to THINK about it, or form a BELIEF about what it should be.

You form concepts of 'flesh' vs 'spirit' and BELIEVE them to be separate things because you have been fooled by the rational mind, when, in reality, they are one and the same.

"you" don't 'become' anything; dust is dust and flesh is flesh. Both are form. What you are is beyond mere form; beyond birth and death.

You are still attached, via fear, to dust and the grave. When you lose this terror, you will be free of them both. You want to escape dust and the grave, but in so doing, are only perpetuating your attachments to them. Stop trying to escape, because there is no one who is trapped in the first place. That you think you are trapped and must escape is your delusion. The more you struggle, the more entrapped you will become. This is one of the paradoxes of life.

Accept your fleshy existence and your spirit will rejoice. Stop the war between them that is causing you all your grief. Otherwise, you will never be free. :angel2:

 

[Gui10]

when the nature of the divine is Absolute.

The fact that you claim to be Gui10 and not God is just another way God is playing the cosmic game of Hide and Seek with you, hiding within your form, and pretending not to be God, so thoroughly that God has convinced himself that he is not who he really is, and that he really is this character you call 'Gui10', who is a total fraud!

just as the saltiness of the sea is the same everywhere. Why should it be any different?

You seem very closeminded. It is a sad thing. Truly.

You arguments seem to reflect the close-minded idea that god absolutely exists. You are a human, like me. Both us cannot be ''absolutely'' right about ANYTHING.
Even if you claim to be god, but not him, but a piece of him, or whatever you want to call yourself, you do not have the ability to make that decision.

You see, the difference between you and me is that I make objective arguments so anyone can hear them and if it makes sense to them it will lead them to think that god does not exist. When you say that ''the nature of the Divine is Absolute'', you lose all credibility.

EDIT: to make things clearer. I do not believe that the god of which christianity, islam or judaism talk about exists. However, it is possible that I find common grounds with believers in ''god'' if they are thinking about ''some sort of driving force that set the universe into action''. Although I would not use the word ''god'' for this but simply the word ''nature''.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

However, it is possible that I find common grounds with believers in ''god'' if they are thinking about ''some sort of driving force that set the universe into action''. Although I would not use the word ''god'' for this but simply the word ''nature''.

This is at least an indication your mind is not totally lost,...keep your mind open to the possibility of another level of mind awareness beyond the conceptual process.

What is important to understand is not the label 'god' or 'nature', but the one and same indivisible reality represented by them. This understanding is not a conceptual one for that implies duality, but direct realization of non-dual awareness.

 

[godnotgod]

You seem very closeminded. It is a sad thing. Truly.

You arguments seem to reflect the close-minded idea that god absolutely exists. You are a human, like me. Both us cannot be ''absolutely'' right about ANYTHING.
Even if you claim to be god, but not him, but a piece of him, or whatever you want to call yourself, you do not have the ability to make that decision.

You see, the difference between you and me is that I make objective arguments so anyone can hear them and if it makes sense to them it will lead them to think that god does not exist. When you say that ''the nature of the Divine is Absolute'', you lose all credibility.

EDIT: to make things clearer. I do not believe that the god of which christianity, islam or judaism talk about exists. However, it is possible that I find common grounds with believers in ''god'' if they are thinking about ''some sort of driving force that set the universe into action''. Although I would not use the word ''god'' for this but simply the word ''nature''.

What is sad is your misunderstanding of the use of the word 'Absolute'. I never said that God absolutely exists; I said that God is [another name for] 'The Absolute', as compared to being in the realm of relative duality, relative duality being simply two halves of the same Oneness, but where each halve is erroneously seen as separate and opposite to the other, rather than integrally joined at the hip.

I am also saying that the universe and the Absolute are one and the same, and that we, as humans with minds in the state of Reason and Logic, look at the universe through the arbitrary overlays of Time, Space, and Causation, distorting our apprehension of the universe as being the Absolute itself, 'Absolute' in the sense that there is no other to compare it to, and NOT in the sense that it is 'absolutely correct'. Therefore:

"The universe is the Absolute [itself] as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivikenanda

And so, you and I, being 100% integrated with the universe, are also what the essence of the universe is. It is your delusion that you think you can separate yourself from it to view it as an object. You cannot. As Deepak Chopra said:

"You are the universe itself looking at itself through your own eyes"

I also am not arguing 'right' vs. 'wrong' with you.

A drop of sea water contains everything the entire sea contains. As Rumi put it:

"You are not just the drop in the ocean; you are the mighty ocean in the drop"

It is not a matter of 'right' or 'wrong'. If that is what you think, your mind still operates in the world of duality. It is a matter of knowing what your true nature is.

Your arguing that God does not exist is based on the idea that God does exist. That God does not exist cannot be argued unless God's existence is also a factor. If anyone is espousing an absolute, it is you, as you seem to be putting forth the absolute truth that God does not exist, which, as pointed out, must necessarily include the argument that he does.

As I stated, to argue either position is pointless, since the nature of God is necessarily beyond all dualities, and beyond the rational mind that attempts to argue 'existence' and 'non'existence'.

So I stand by my statement, that God neither exists, nor not-exists.

The problem with your 'objective' approach, which you congratulate yourself on, is that it is flawed from the get-go, as the nature of the divine is also beyond the dualities of objective/subjective. In order to get close, you need to abandon all intellectual, rational, logical approaches to the question. God is beyond all of that nonsense, and yet, God is as close as your next breath.

Part of our miscommunication is in the idea of God. I am not using the term as an anthropomorphic entity as you think I am, and, judging from your response, neither are you.

edit: That 'the nature of the divine is Absolute' is to say that all is God, as anything else is illusion. It is illusion because nothing else exists apart from it to compare to it.

 

[Gui10]

][/COLOR]

I also am not arguing 'right' vs. 'wrong' with you.

It is not a matter of 'right' or 'wrong'. If that is what you think, your mind still operates in the world of duality. It is a matter of knowing what your true nature is.

So I stand by my statement, that God neither exists, nor not-exists.

I did not argue right or wrong either.

Who you are to say that the existence of god is not an objective question?

I believe it is.

As the concept of Santa Claus exists in our minds, it does not mean that to say that he ''does not exists'', we must also accept that he ''exists''...

The problem with our debate is that we do not have the same deffinition of god. What you call god, I call nature. What you call divine, I call nature.

 

[Gui10]

God usually refers to the single deity in monotheism or the monist deity in pantheism.[1] God is often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of humans and the universe. Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence.

Wikipedia.

That is what I mean when I write ''god''. You have no authority to tell me that that is not what ''god'' is.

 

[godnotgod]

Who you are to say that the existence of god is not an objective question?

I believe it is.

Any god that can be seen as an object cannot be an absolute. God as object is necessarily a relative entity. Is it then God? To see God as object means that other objects are 'not-God', and that makes God relative and dual. In other words, the existence of such a God is dependent upon that which is not-God. If God is not dependent, then it is Absolute, and the rest is illusion. You have stated that 'god' to you means 'nature', but YOU are nature. So you, as nature, are making nature an object, which cannot be done, since that involves separation of the observer from the observed, and nature, being singular and seamless, is indivisible. All you can really say is that you are nature itself looking at itself through your eyes.

As the concept of Santa Claus exists in our minds, it does not mean that to say that he ''does not exists'', we must also accept that he ''exists''...

It's just that to argue existence, you must include non-existence, and vice-versa.

The problem with our debate is that we do not have the same definition of god. What you call god, I call nature. What you call divine, I call nature.

OK, but nature is an absolute, as it applies to everything. I am using the term 'universe', which, of necessity, is Absolute, in the sense that there is no 'other' to which it can be compared. I am further saying that the universe is the same thing as the Absolute is the same thing as 'God' is the same thing as nature is the same thing as Tao. In fact, 'Tao' translates as 'nature' or 'way'. Again:

"The universe is the Absolute as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"

We can talk about Santa as existing or not, but Santa is not of the same nature as either

Using Santa as an example does not apply, as Santa is known to be a fantasy.

 

[godnotgod]

God is often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of humans and the universe.

Wikipedia.

That is what I mean when I write ''god''. You have no authority to tell me that that is not what ''god'' is.

Well, as a matter of fact, I do, if I can demonstrate that any part of that definition is flawed. The definition given in general describes a supernatural entity ruling over nature in a way which separates that entity from nature.

Show me where that separation occurs.

Defined as a creator-god, the perennial question as to the origin of the material used to 'create' the world has never been answered, either by the theologians, nor by the scientists, the assumptive premise being that the world is 'real'. Not only is the universe thought to be real, but it is portrayed as a seriously created production, neither of which is necessarily true. In fact, the theologians can only 'explain' such origins in a way that is equal to a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat, while the scientists have now come face to face with the totally perplexing reality of Quantum Mechanics.

re: 'conceived of as....'

This makes clear that this idea of God is a concept born of man's mind, as a projection of man's image. As ben d pointed out:

This understanding [of indivisible reality] is not a conceptual one for that implies duality, but direct realization of non-dual awareness.

....and direct realization does not involve forming concepts or images of God, as the very nature of God cannot be encapsulated in concepts, images, forms, etc.; direct realization involves seeing into the nature of reality, without forming such concepts. What this boils down to is seeing reality directly exactly as it is, as compared to forming concepts about reality and then creating a bellef system around such concepts. The definition by Wikipedia, which you seem to put stock in, is only conceptual which people have formed beliefs upon. Beliefs and concepts are merely models of reality, and not reality itself. Direct seeing into the nature of reality is to experience this reality itself.

There is no longer any need to believe, when one sees the truth.
Al-Alaw

How may we perceive our own nature? That which perceives is your own nature.
Hui-hai

Tas atvam asi

 

[Gui10]

Well, as a matter of fact, I do, if I can demonstrate that any part of that definition is flawed. The definition given in general describes a supernatural entity ruling over nature in a way which separates that entity from nature.

The deffinition is not flawed; you just do not accept it.

The word ''god'' is used too widely. The word ''god'' should not mean more than one thing. The word ''god'' does not mean what you say it does, only religions have gave different deffinitions to it.

 

[Quagmire]

The word ''god'' is used too widely. The word ''god'' should not mean more than one thing.

If, as many people believe, God is everything, how can the word not mean more than one thing?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The deffinition is not flawed; you just do not accept it.

The word ''god'' is used too widely. The word ''god'' should not mean more than one thing.

Well please tell who or what is the infallible source that defined this flawless definition of the unknowable God?

You are correct that the word "god" is used widely, but you know what,...there wouldn't be two people in existence whose conceptual interpretation of any definition of the reality that the word "God"is meant to represent that is exactly the same.

Definitions are conceptual representations that are meant to stand for some reality, but they are actually not that reality. Don't ever fall into the error of imagining that mental constructions, be they words, concepts, formula, symbols, numbers, definitions, etc., are one and the same as the reality they are meant to represent. Reality is forever on the other side of mental cogitation and construction, and which are really just the result of neuron firing brain patterns.