What of God is manifest in us?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Sorry dude but I see you as a hopeless dummy.

You might consider getting your vision checked. Or learnign the meaning of hopeless. Or wonder what "dummy" might actually mean in regard to somebody obviously much better read than you.

Or you might just leave it at that, and I'm fine with it, too. I see things my own way, and would rather not simply insult you to make a point.

 

[robocop (actually)]

You might consider getting your vision checked. Or learnign the meaning of hopeless. Or wonder what "dummy" might actually mean in regard to somebody obviously much better read than you.

Or you might just leave it at that, and I'm fine with it, too. I see things my own way, and would rather not simply insult you to make a point.

I'm glad that you would rather not simply insult me to make a point, so I will respond to your former criticism.

 

[robocop (actually)]

That is, in essence, totally meaningless.

If you wish to make such a statement meaningful, you first need to describe "what that creation is," followed by "what makes it grand," and then follow that up with your demonstration that it was created so -- rather than just is.

You have a lot of work ahead of you.

But of course, most people would just prefer to make grand, unverifiable statements such as you did. It's a lot easier -- andsince you've provided no date, who can prove you wrong?


However, let's see what we can do with another such grand statement: this one taken from a book called "The Food of France" by NY Times writer Waverley Root, which he wrote in 1958. At one point, he makes the claim (and I am sadly paraphrasing, as I don't have the book in front of me), that "there are those who say anyone who would add lobster to bouillabaisse would poison wells, while others claim that anyone who would leave lobster out, would starve their grandmothers."

Please prove one or the other of those true. And I ask this as a lover of bouillabaisse, especially sitting on the edge of the Mediterranean waiting for the boats of fresh fish to arrive...

There's a Bible verse in the Song of Solomon that says the grandeur of the creator is seen in the grandeur of the creation. That's Solomon, you know the guy who prayed and was granted to be the wisest man in human history. Maybe you should pray. That you can see it in humanity is a simple corollary.

I really don't care if a paradox is a paradox. I have read easily 1000 books.

 

[shunyadragon]

The attributes of the 'Source' some call God(s). The nature of our physical existence also reflect the attributes of the 'Source' of the universe.

 

[Mindmaster]

Romans 1:19

because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.

I can show scripture from different religions that say essentially the same. My query is what is manifest in us that is of God and that has been revealed to all, including the disbelievers?

How believers and disbelievers understand Romans 1:19?

...

I disregard The Bible since it's merely a copypasta of ideas that came before it, but I'll digress that most spiritually fundamentally ends up leading to this point. Jesus himself didn't believe himself to be the "one and only" son of God and referenced it many times in The Bible. But, most notably: (NASB) Psalms 82:6, "I said, “You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High." alluded to this truth. At least in early Christianity, it seems to be understood as such and the difference doesn't happen until much later after The Council of Nicea.

However, this is an oversimplification, at least in the context of what older religions tended to believe. For example, in Hindu thought, God/Brahman doesn't exist. It is non-existent in the measurable way -- pure consciousness and the only thing. The creations, including the people are merely god amusing itself to some extent. They are Maya and not real -- they're just a soundwave rippling through a medium. God is that medium and remains ultimately unchanged despite the temporary movement. Thus, it can become confusing here to say, 'God is in everyone", without quantifying that has nothing to do with one's ego, lol. Your ideas of self are just another ripple in this media -- they don't exist either. You cannot shape, alter, or otherwise possess or reject the media because it doesn't change, die, or become modified. Thus my original point of it "not existing, but existing". The only thing that actually exists is "God", but that's because it is the only thing that cannot be altered. That which is born lives, and dies is merely a "dream" in the mind of the infinite. So, yes, you are part of God (actually all of it, since it doesn't have "parts"), but don't let it get to your head. Whether someone affirms or denies this it remains true, at least from the perspective of this idea, as so on.

 

[Nimos]

Romans 1:19

because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.

I can show scripture from different religions that say essentially the same. My query is what is manifest in us that is of God and that has been revealed to all, including the disbelievers?

How believers and disbelievers understand Romans 1:19?

...

I don't think you can really understand Romans 1:19 without including at least some more verses:

Romans 1:18-20
18 - For God's wrath is being revealed from heaven against all the ungodliness and wickedness of those who in their wickedness suppress the truth.
19 - For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God himself has made it plain to them.
20 - For since the creation of the world God's invisible attributes—his eternal power and divine nature—have been understood and observed by what he made, so that people are without excuse.

Should probably include more, but think these 3 at least makes it rather clear.

Which to me means that Romans 1:19 is about denying God, so basically non believers or atheists, which have had the "truth" revealed to them by God, but despite that, they keep denying him.

What has been revealed to everyone is, God and his word/teachings, but yet people keep worshipping false idols etc.

 

[Fool]

no. Only Truth is pure. Love can be pure or impure in an infinite number of ways.

please cite the verse?

I'm guessing you won't find the word "only" in it. Nor will it be implied by context.

Your claims about Love are true but incomplete. It's a consistent pattern that I've noticed. Incomplete truth is even more venomous than a simple lie.

one who serves love only offers truth.

love is boundless and can be unconditional, infinite and eternal


proverbs 10:12

 

[atanu]

I don't think you can really understand Romans 1:19 without including at least some more verses:

Romans 1:18-20
18 - For God's wrath is being revealed from heaven against all the ungodliness and wickedness of those who in their wickedness suppress the truth.
19 - For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God himself has made it plain to them.
20 - For since the creation of the world God's invisible attributes—his eternal power and divine nature—have been understood and observed by what he made, so that people are without excuse.

Should probably include more, but think these 3 at least makes it rather clear.

Which to me means that Romans 1:19 is about denying God, so basically non believers or atheists, which have had the "truth" revealed to them by God, but despite that, they keep denying him.

What has been revealed to everyone is, God and his word/teachings, but yet people keep worshipping false idols etc.

I wanted this analysis to come in. But first we must know what of God is manifest in us and that has also been shown?

...

 

[shunyadragon]

I disregard The Bible since it's merely a copypasta of ideas that came before it, but I'll digress that most spiritually fundamentally ends up leading to this point. Jesus himself didn't believe himself to be the "one and only" son of God and referenced it many times in The Bible. But, most notably: (NASB) Psalms 82:6, "I said, “You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High." alluded to this truth. At least in early Christianity, it seems to be understood as such and the difference doesn't happen until much later after The Council of Nicea.

This could said for all ancient scriptures including yours that have been compiled, and edited over time without known author.

 

[shunyadragon]

I wanted this analysis to come in. But first we must know what of God is manifest in us and that has also been shown?

The claim as to what is 'shown?' is a subjective claim and very variable between different religions, churches and other belief systems.

 

[rational experiences]

Like the theme God teaching O spiralling light gases moving burning, cooling in the void spatial vacuum, the spirit moves upon the face of water.

We live as humans like God on the face of the water body.

We also have o cells in our bodies as in the image of God, movement in natural light.

Jesus, is the man/male human Image communicated from the ground use of the UFO radiation mass, satellites, to their transmitting mountain temples, to ground temples, to the pyramid cause. How image off the ground were put up into the heavens with God.

The story said, and my previous science original spiritual innocent male Father had done the same in his past. He sacrificed my baby life back then and did it again in the Year end 33AD. How it was taught.

Science tried to copy GOD O the movement of gases burning as light cooling in a spatial vacuum on the face of water and named it science and maths....why we got sacrificed, as simple as the explanation was.

 

[Mindmaster]

This could said for all ancient scriptures including yours that have been compiled, and edited over time without known author.

True, but in Advaita, the scriptures aren't greater than the goal, thus to some point they are only considered relevant until realization is achieved. (true nature of the self, etc.) Thus, they are important, but not more important than the aim. To some extent, they're even admonished in the vein of mistaking them as being more significant.

 

[dybmh]

one who serves love only offers truth.

Again, it's an incomplete statement.

One who serves love only offers *one kind of* truth. There are other forms of truth outside and beyond Love.

love is boundless and can be unconditional, infinite and eternal

Correct, but also incomplete.

Love is not unique in its boundlessness, unconditional, eternal, infinitude.

proverbs 10:12

Proverbs 10:12 does not show that *only* love is perfect. Your claim is below.

only love is perfect is perfect per proverbs

Proverbs correctly identifies love as a garment, a shell, an empty vessel which has utility, to cover over all sins. But it is only a garment, an empty vessel.

Proverbs 10:12 does not support your claim.

I'm sorry, but there is no way out of the box.

 

[Fool]

Again, it's an incomplete statement.

One who serves love only offers *one kind of* truth. There are other forms of truth outside and beyond Love.


Correct, but also incomplete.

Love is not unique in its boundlessness, unconditional, eternal, infinitude.



Proverbs 10:12 does not show that *only* love is perfect. Your claim is below.


Proverbs correctly identifies love as a garment, a shell, an empty vessel which has utility, to cover over all sins. But it is only a garment, an empty vessel.

View attachment 41491

Proverbs 10:12 does not support your claim.

I'm sorry, but there is no way out of the box.

There is no truth apart from love. Love does no harm. Justice is the ultimate form of love.

What you call truth is nothing more than light.

Light came from love

 

[EsonauticSage]

Romans 1:19

because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.

I can show scripture from different religions that say essentially the same. My query is what is manifest in us that is of God and that has been revealed to all, including the disbelievers?

How believers and disbelievers understand Romans 1:19?

...

This is also reflected in John 17:20-24 too:

“I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word,
that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.
The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,
I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.
Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.

Very nondualist.
There is a lot of this stuff in the Qur'an as well.

 

[EsonauticSage]

My submission/answer is: Everything and Nothing.

If the God in your question is the Abrahamic G-d, then I would refer you to Genesis 1:27 where the masculine component represents "Everything" and the feminine symbolizes "Nothing".

Very interesting.

In my own view (not just from Beresheet 1) the feminine symbolizes the divine's ability to apprehend itself, this kind of dualism gives way to the great chain of being.
The masculine by itself doesn't know itself and has nowhere to go to.
Both together create a system of self-recognition where the Will itself (the masculine) manifests itself through love (the womb), which is All-Things.

It is both a blessing and a curse, because then we have infinite generation seemingly for it's own sake.

In microbiology though there is asexual reproduction in single celled organisms but they experience death as an immediate discontinuity between the birth of new cells, whereas for the divine masculine and feminine it is a process of disjointed continuity between birth and death.

 

[dybmh]

There is no truth apart from love. Love does no harm. Justice is the ultimate form of love.

Yes, there is. There are many:

Examples:
True regret
True surrender
True compromise
True aversion
True foundation
True dominion
True Wonder
True Faith
etc...

What you call truth is nothing more than light.

Not at all. You don't know what I know. Truth is truth, it is unique. Light is its own "word" and has its own meaning truth has it's own "word" and its own meaning. It seems like you simply don't know about any other "words".

Light came from love

True but incomplete.

No, the statement is false. Light did not come from love. What you seem to be talking about is "craving" not love. And this craving/love was an unintentional side effect of the separation of Light from Darkness.

Note: craving is not evil, it has it's good points and it's bad points. One of its bad points is self delusion. Craving deludes itself by thinking Lust is the same as Love.

 

[dybmh]

Love does no harm

I hear you, and that's easy to say, hard to prove.. What Love does and did, is what Love does and did.

Nothing can change that. You have one of the stones? She has given her consent to be possessed? Fine. Consent was given, therefore, I don't want to interfere. But a claim that no harm has been done would need to include more opinions than just your own.

You may call yourself the-fool, but you are no fool. If I were in your position, I would clean house.

 

[Nimos]

If the God in your question is the Abrahamic G-d, then I would refer you to Genesis 1:27 where the masculine component represents "Everything" and the feminine symbolizes "Nothing".

How do you reach the conclusion based on Genesis 1:27 that females or feminine symbolize "Nothing"?

 

[Fool]

Yes, there is. There are many:

Examples:
True regret
True surrender
True compromise
True aversion
True foundation
True dominion
True Wonder
True Faith
etc...

Not at all. You don't know what I know. Truth is truth, it is unique. Light is its own "word" and has its own meaning truth has it's own "word" and its own meaning. It seems like you simply don't know about any other "words".


True but incomplete.

No, the statement is false. Light did not come from love. What you seem to be talking about is "craving" not love. And this craving/love was an unintentional side effect of the separation of Light from Darkness.

Note: craving is not evil, it has it's good points and it's bad points. One of its bad points is self delusion. Craving deludes itself by thinking Lust is the same as Love.

I'll stick with the ancient understanding. Love is not a respecter of one person's truth vs another.