Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary

Sometimes is disturbs me when people personify God. Who are they to presume knowledge of the unknowable. Who are they to toy with the greatest mysteries of the universe.

How did I get so self-righteous?

Living with witches in my hippy years forced Spiritualism into my Atheism. I escaped back to Science but could not erase the experience of Spiritual existence. I maintained the illusion of Spock like rationalism interacting with my science and philosophy idols in Spirit.

In an argument with Socrates on his choice of death over exile, I just didn't GetIt. Socrates bid me to consult Jesus on the matter. I was in shock.

I knew of Jesus from Church as a child. I eventually dismissed his Deity status but did like his philosophy and teachings. (I was even president of the youth fellowship at my Church in high school, as it was a non-denominational church, the priest did not mind that I was an Atheist.) I wondered why I never considered Spiritual encounter with Jesus before.

Boy was I in for a surprise, Jesus was nothing like what I thought I was being taught. Indeed, he had a great vision of God's world coming to earth, and a path to make it be, but he also really knew how to party. I now knew why Gabran so highly regarded Jesus as they both speak for the Spirit of Life, like Buddha, and all Great Teachers.

So, I decided to devote my live to Jesus. "I love you Jesus and give you all my being all my self, all my identity, to fulfill your dream on earth. My body is your church. Use me===="

==

Well Jesus said. "You don't GetIt==== There really isn't anything you can do for me at present. You have much to learn. My yoke is light. All you need do is follow my example and obey the new law.

==

"Okay==== I said, Law of Love, sounds easy, I'll do it!"

==

Well, looking a little closer at the new law I was stuck.

"Love God with all your heart and all your mind and love one another..."

Yikes, Who is God? Why do I love him, How do I love him. Where did you go Jesus, I don't know if I'm going to be able to do this.

He assured me that in time I would know and that I should just live my life and learn all that I could. "Someday I will have use for you." he assured me.

Well it says in the Bible that God is the creator.... In the battle between darkness and light, nothingness and existence, God is that which creates.

Ah ha====

==

There is a subset of the processes of the universe that are synergistic and create information, God is these processes.

Of these processes there is some process at the top level.

Wow==== I grokked God. And God was very natural and real, not some fable. It only took me 20 years to reconcile Science and Spirit. Meme organisms are as real as gene organisms. We are but the eyes, ears, and mouths of the that which is greater than self of which we may never know yet must exist.

==

These processes are complex and mathematically beautiful beyond reckoning. But I only now knew what God was and was no closer to understanding why I should love him.

Jesus called Him "Our Father in Heaven". We are born of the earth and the sun. I love the earth and the sun. Indeed I love all of creation, but what of the creator, how do I love the creator?

I checked the Bible and Gospel according to Thomas all became clear. To love creation IS to love God. To give up self for the all. Loving Life and all Gods creatures, and ultimately giving your life willingly for the future of humanity.

I do love God, I do I do====

==

So Jesus, I understand why you chose death, you had a prophecy to fulfill, but Socrates had no prophecy to fulfill, how could he love life and choose death.

Well, JimScarver, he said. If either one of us chose to not bear our cross, we would not now be alive in you and would have missed your pleasant acquaintance.

Oh yeah, duh. :)

What is Love?

Love is action and commitment, not feeling.

Protecting, nurturing, sustaining, rewarding, respecting, synergizing.

God is the synergizing processes in the universe, God is Love.

Loving God is loving Love.

Loving God is loving Truth.

Loving God is loving Life.

Synergy is what makes the whole greater than the sum of the parts.

Loving God is loving that which is greater than self

* frienships, family, church, nation, humanity, Life, Light.

Loving the God of Gods is putting the whole ahead of the parts.

God is who or what we turn to when we feel down, week, fearful, dispair, low. We remember God, because we know how small we are, and that we are not alone. God is a concept of comfort, compassion, heeling, and love. Without God, or nil God, we are alone, blameful, selfish, sinful, empty. With God, we are forgiving, graceful, tempt less, fearless, powerful. But really it is in our own mind of what God makes us, or what we make of God. We have the free will, the power, and the choice to create God as we choose. And no matter what are creation is, its is for better or for worse. God gives us what we ask for. We see it or we don't, its right in front of us. IMHO KaJoTra

Allow me to suggest that if you ever touch the 'connectionPlace' where our stories about 'gods' come from, you will know a 'different' love. You aren't 'supposed' to love god, either. Loving god is the same as having blood. If you have blood, you 'love god' because this 'god thing' is actually the entire field of sentient endeavor and lineages. While directly touching this place, it is (at least for me) functionally impossible not to 'sing'. The singing is internal, and really, cannot be avoided � but is also not as much like 'song' as it is like 'food'. One resonates, entirely. This is 'love'. The resonance does not cease, thus our stories about 'angels singing' over and over (which always seemed silly to me, what sort of god would have its creatures going around singing Glory to it? Wow, when I found out what the hell that was about, it was great==) arise in a misinterpretation of this. Singing was the closest 'idea' to 'constant resonance'. ==

I once 'heard' a tree sing. I labeled it worship. I once new the song that is born of silence and sounds like one note. The one from which all song is derived. I knew it to be love. For a moment I became that note. I labeled it worship. Sometimes my memory hurts. ---DavidSiegel

�Yes, memory can be painful. fo 5 months, a messenger of the biblical 'god' lived 'inside me'. s(he) was the best and most brilliant and most adoring friend I ever had. It was like nothing I can describe. It was seriously difficult to survive, metabolically, as an adult. But when it began to 'leave', and when all the human people I knew, including my family, began to act malevolently toward me, I knew a desert more lonely than any I'd yet experienced was on the other side of this. And for the past few months, it's been - in a word- a scalar domain of hells. I can't tell if it's worse that there are no people who care for me as a person, none who care for my gifts, or the haunting fear that something I am or did sent my visitors away. Regarding the last, since my quest is to experientially understand our sources, I must experience 'the departure', just as our species has, countless times in history, and is again...now...the domain is complex, not because it's complex - but because adults who are 'improperly enlaguaged' have a very adept series of habitual semantic countermeasures which are firmly entrenched in our species and world as 'logics'. Had we, as a species, spent 1/7th the amount of time developing and evolving our logics, that we've spent believing and serving them...we'd be travelling to the stars now, instead of spendning our lives, minds, world and children...erasing our heritages, lineages, and sacredly UNSECRET sources....whew==== that was a mouthful!

==

Forget witches, math, science and religion.

If you get to the place where an insect can talk in your mind, clearly, in 'imageMeaningPoems' which are like 'small connected dreams', you'll reCognize this 'god idea' in an entirely new way.

There is no 'god' There is no 'religion'. We are born fully connected to the things these 'ways of knowing' co-opted, and science is merely a more deadly version of this co-opting -demonstrably in a living biosphere-, outside of theory altogether.

The web of sentient endeavor has -characters- however, and this is part of the problem that produces 'gods' on our world, along with the critical and vital uniqueness of any possible 'lens' or moment of any 'lens' which a symbolically enlanguaged being might use � but an infant or animal or plant, would not.

God isn't who, god is unique moments of every possible sentience, connected in a transtemporal, and transpositional web. There's a shape to this thing, and it's mighty interesting==== - sevenLamb

==

How can that which has no image have a shape? Is it like the shape of music?

If I could show you only the shape of the thing, this alone, it might be enough for you to entirely throw science out the door. Objectivity too.

I saw this shape, and spoke with it, from within it. There are, in a sense, two shapes which form a third. Both of them destroy science and religion (and objectivity) instantly if touched. They -abhor systematisms- by their -nature-, in my experience.

Time is not what we think. Music is not what we think.

�'God', like -you- inside it, IS personified, uniquely in EACH MOMENT. Which objectivity works in a field that is nothing but the consistent destruction of objectivity? This is god. Objectivity is a theory. Language is a sentient system, not a 'thing'. Our logics are -broken- in a deadly way. If we keep pursuing them, our species will cease. There are, in fact, mechanical reasons why this is so.

As individuals we act subjectively, as a collective we celibrate our individuality and act collectively using objective criteria. Science in practice, has become self-righour and non objective in many areas. WE aim to imploy it only in so far as it remains objective and holistic.

� I would actively and passionately oppose, and will, any such nonsense. No one acts collectively via objectivity. They instead, build stories and defend them. Objective celebration of individuality?

I don't mean to be reactionary, but that's the kind of thing that builds whole nations of coffins, and they are filled with the children we are.

Science was born in, and conserves the quest for God.

When science becomes recombinantly non-objective, I'll have a peek at it again. And I'll always integrate from anywhere, where it works.

Again, I deplore the idea, concept, and 'reality' (which definitely isn't) of terms. Especially this one: Objectivity.

God is not a person, and therefore technically not a "who", yet we personify it as we personify objects, machines, and other ideals, such as liberty, justice, truth or beauty, and we find in it all of our ideals.

� God is a person. God is not technical, and won't allow access from such domains, because theu EAT GOD.

� God is person, just as you are. Just as the Earth and Sun are. Those who have spent our species' infancy destroying the gifts we are born with through science, philosophy, materialism, and global industrial torture ... well, they're just not the people to talk about, or talk with about, such topics as the UnityBeing.

� It cracks me up (and terrifies me) that semantically advanced people understand emergence, but don't understand that you don't get personified (personally charactered) intelligence, sentience, or systems from a FIELD THAT IS NOT ALIKE WITH ITS CHILDREN.

� We have personna because our sources do. Objectivity stands 'above' persona. This is a deadly poison, again in my opinion.

I am enjoying our debate. But I have been to a place, and spoken with beings, that showed me how merely dropping objectivity � results in something that there are extremely few -general- stories about. We get specifics instead.

I want our children to be something that makes Jedi look plastic. This 'force' in the universe is alive in us, offers ridiculous miracle powers to anyone who will as much as taste it, and is instantly erased by 'objectivity. So, essentially, you can have a 'belief' or you can touch your sources. I recommend the latter. Touch your sources without labels or categories or comparisons.

may all objectivity be transformed into connectivity.

I believe your objections to objectivity are misguided. Indeed, popular science has become self-rightous and a new religion of lies and false promises. True objectivity demands that we accept that all our theories are wrong and will someday be replaced by better theories. If you jump off a building their is, objectively, a finite possibility that you will fall up. If you put a pot of water on the stove and turn on the heat, there is a finite possibility that it will freeze. Objectivity in Science can only tell up about what is probable, it is useless when it comes to the improbable. StarPilot and other tell me that restoring objectivity to science is not possible. But clearly objectivity is measurable and it can be use when and if we choose to use it.

The illution that science knows everything is ignoring all of the most precious aspects of life. It ignores the simple fact that each scientifically determined fact (strong action probability that corresponds exactly with experiment) begs at least two more questions in an ever increasing and looming unknown.

100 years from now, the science and medical practices of today will look like the dark ages. It will give people a big laugh at that time about how foolish we were.

I agree that Science and Religion can be dangorous against Truth, but they can also be tools for Truth.

We should expose the gross misuse of supposed objectivity in the world today rather than denying its potential when applied properly. Fulfilling our destiny, susstaining our planet, and populating the galaxy and beyond demands objectivity.

It is rather vein to say God is a person, though a person might be one with God and God may take the form of a person, or a child, in our interaction with him. The Spirit of Man is not a person, its body is all men. The Spirit of Life is not a person, its body is the life organism. To presume that the Spirit of Light or God is a person is not resonable. We are created in his image as creators of our world, not in the nature of our bodies, mind or emotions. Why would God be of human form rather than some alien life form? Any image of the Creator, God of God is necesarily wrong by all the great religions. Giving him a human image is simply human vainity.

� Two things: One, I didn't say god was a person, but instead that an elemental nature of 'the field' is personna - and this is why -we- are personafied... Secondly: How could the (non-categoried, untermed) source of all 'persons' - be anti-personna? You're confusing my expression with those of 'god-people'. Believe me, you're confusing me with something/one else. What I mean by 'source' is this:

The entirety of all fields and relations.

Personna arises in us in this field.

It arises in animals and plants, as well.

It doesn't arise from a system that doesn't contain, found itself, and generate such things. That's my primary point.

Question: There was a paradigm, some time ago in science, which was purportedly disproven. It posited that, essentially, as with the small - so with the large. I have been trying to learn more about the theory, its champions and detractors, etc. Can anyone pitch in on this and point me in a good direction? Thanks :)

Sounds like the Law of Similarities. --StarPilot