So boo hoo Jesus, the sacrifice was in vain.
What does God look like?
What does God look like?
So boo hoo Jesus, the sacrifice was in vain.
Re: What does God look like?
Everybody knows God is an old white conservative Christian guy. What's the problem?
Re: What does God look like?
Easy for all those that have seen him...
- god.JPG (21.92 KiB) Viewed 1233 times
Re: What does God look like?
In the USA, it's a no-brainer. God is obviously a conservative old christian white guy.
Re: What does God look like?
He alone is immortal and dwells in unapproachable light. No one has ever seen Him, nor can anyone see Him.
Him being just another word for SEER -Seer being another word for light.
The seer cannot be seen, except in seeing's imageless image as seen. In other words, you have no image of yourself because there is no self, except as a shadowy reflection of light in this conceptual image, namely the word.
God is light and in Him is no darkness at all, why, because light that appears to be the castor of all illusory shadows, casts no shadow.
The mind cannot see the self with the mind. There is only seeing the mind from the self.
Him being just another word for SEER -Seer being another word for light.
The seer cannot be seen, except in seeing's imageless image as seen. In other words, you have no image of yourself because there is no self, except as a shadowy reflection of light in this conceptual image, namely the word.
God is light and in Him is no darkness at all, why, because light that appears to be the castor of all illusory shadows, casts no shadow.
The mind cannot see the self with the mind. There is only seeing the mind from the self.
-
Gary Childress
- Posts: 8469
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Professional Underdog Pound
Re: What does God look like?
I'll go with that. assuming there is such a thing as a God who is anything more than a linguistic placeholder created by humans out of a desire for happiness, justice, and safety. But I'm agnostic, I'm not an expert on things I've never experienced nor witnessed first hand.Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Apr 10, 2023 3:52 pm He alone is immortal and dwells in unapproachable light. No one has ever seen Him, nor can anyone see Him.
Him being just another word for SEER -Seer being another word for light.
The seer cannot be seen, except in seeing's imageless image as seen. In other words, you have no image of yourself because there is no self, except as a shadowy reflection of light in this conceptual image, namely the word.
God is light and in Him is no darkness at all, why, because light that appears to be the castor of all illusory shadows, casts no shadow.
The mind cannot see the self with the mind. There is only seeing the mind from the self.
Re: What does God look like?
“And if Christ be not risen then is our preaching vain, and your faith in vain,” --1 Corinthians 15:14.
If Christ was not raised from the dead, then the gospel message itself is false. Paul says that, in that case, his own teaching would have been vain or worthless. In fact, it would have been false, a lie.
So was Jesus the man, risen from the dead?
I don't think so
dream on.
If Christ was not raised from the dead, then the gospel message itself is false. Paul says that, in that case, his own teaching would have been vain or worthless. In fact, it would have been false, a lie.
So was Jesus the man, risen from the dead?
I don't think so
dream on.Re: What does God look like?
-----Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Apr 10, 2023 3:52 pm He alone is immortal and dwells in unapproachable light. No one has ever seen Him, nor can anyone see Him.
Him being just another word for SEER -Seer being another word for light.
The seer cannot be seen, except in seeing's imageless image as seen. In other words, you have no image of yourself because there is no self, except as a shadowy reflection of light in this conceptual image, namely the word.
God is light and in Him is no darkness at all, why, because light that appears to be the castor of all illusory shadows, casts no shadow.
The mind cannot see the self with the mind. There is only seeing the mind from the self.
What does God look like?
- Attachments
-
- God-image.jpg (7.23 KiB) Viewed 1197 times
Re: What does God look like?
God is a placeholder for your best ideas. My placeholder God is beauty, truth,and goodness; yours and mine are compatible. DAM expresses her God poetically and psychologically and DAM's God is compatible with your God and mine.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Apr 10, 2023 4:05 pmI'll go with that. assuming there is such a thing as a God who is anything more than a linguistic placeholder created by humans out of a desire for happiness, justice, and safety. But I'm agnostic, I'm not an expert on things I've never experienced nor witnessed first hand.Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Apr 10, 2023 3:52 pm He alone is immortal and dwells in unapproachable light. No one has ever seen Him, nor can anyone see Him.
Him being just another word for SEER -Seer being another word for light.
The seer cannot be seen, except in seeing's imageless image as seen. In other words, you have no image of yourself because there is no self, except as a shadowy reflection of light in this conceptual image, namely the word.
God is light and in Him is no darkness at all, why, because light that appears to be the castor of all illusory shadows, casts no shadow.
The mind cannot see the self with the mind. There is only seeing the mind from the self.
-
Gary Childress
- Posts: 8469
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Professional Underdog Pound
-
Agent Smith
- Posts: 1442
- Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:23 pm
Re: What does God look like?
"Here it is, here!"
"What, where?!"
"Here! Stupid! Here!"
"What?! That's a ..."
"Stop! Zip it!"
"Why?! It's a ..."
"Zip! Zippity Zip!"
"Ok, ok"
"This is it! This is ...?"
"Are you asking me? Didn't ya tell me to can it!?"
"This is ...?"
"Well ... er ... a .. a ... mango ... with ... with ..."
"Stop! Hold it!"
"You're freaking me out man!"
"A mango with ...?"
"With ... with ... what is that?"
"Wrong! Try again after 10 minutes!"
"WTF?!"
"What, where?!"
"Here! Stupid! Here!"
"What?! That's a ..."
"Stop! Zip it!"
"Why?! It's a ..."
"Zip! Zippity Zip!"
"Ok, ok"
"This is it! This is ...?"
"Are you asking me? Didn't ya tell me to can it!?"
"This is ...?"
"Well ... er ... a .. a ... mango ... with ... with ..."
"Stop! Hold it!"
"You're freaking me out man!"
"A mango with ...?"
"With ... with ... what is that?"
"Wrong! Try again after 10 minutes!"
"WTF?!"
Re: What does God look like?
What 'God' looks like, in the visible and physical sense, is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY TO SEE and/or BEAR WITNESS TO.
But, to SEE, and UNDERSTAND, 'God', in the invisible sense, just takes some a bit more time to LEARN HOW TO DO, properly AND correctly.
But, to SEE, and UNDERSTAND, 'God', in the invisible sense, just takes some a bit more time to LEARN HOW TO DO, properly AND correctly.
-
Gary Childress
- Posts: 8469
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Professional Underdog Pound
Re: What does God look like?
You have not seen God, then.
-
promethean75
- Posts: 5100
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm
Re: What does God look like?
imma tell u how the anthropomorphic henotheistic monotheisms screwed up when they were working out and designing their doctrines. by stipulating the existence of evil forces (Zoroastrianism is a good'un), they made it impossible for disciples to discern with any certainty the real nature of any entity that might be experienced in the revelatory sense. religions that describe the universe as a field of battle between good and evil agents - gods, devils, angels, demons, etc. - that are able to be experienced in corporeal form... appear to the disciple either in waking, dreaming or hallucinating... create the problem literally of the disciple knowing who's who. it's an ambiguity that makes revelatory knowledge incredible.
how would u know that the divine thing u claim to have experienced was THE god? like the main one. remember there's bad gods and demigods and spirits and all that shit too. take for instance your homeboys Moses and Muhammad. now why would Gabriel appear to Muhammad and tell him one thing while the main god wuz out somewhere revealing shit to Moses that didn't match what Gabriel wuz telling Muhammad? see'um sayin?
our possible outcomes:
1) only one wuz the real deal and the other wuz an imposter.
2) neither were real and both Moses and Muhammad were trippin.
3) both were real but also right becuz god changed his mind and rewrote the script.
we eliminate 3 becuz only a god that wuz an asshole would do such a thing. but god can't be an asshole, therefore 3 couldn't be true.
it's 1 that's the problem, the fatal design flaw in revelatory monotheism. this feature either makes the disciple a kind of functional schizo or forces him out of the game becuz he ain't tryna play that. in the latter case one becomes an atheist not on account of the unlikeliness of a god but becuz of the ambiguity of any possible revelatory knowledge of this god. Aristotle recognized this, the deists recognize this, the pantheists recognize this, but not the christians, jews or muslims. oh no. not them.
u can have design and order in a quantum transhaptic bi-discursive hypo-ontological sense without needing to stipulate the existence of good or evil and an assortment of holy entities, divine beings, spirits and shit. or u can keep the latter but get rid of the former; the universe could be loaded with all kinds of life forms, corporeal or not, but there would be no good or evil. the grand economy of the universe call it. one giant Darwinian game of thrones or something. And if that's the case u wanna go with House Prom.
Aristotle's prime mover, the watch maker, Spinoza's natura naturata, these would work for that model. but the monotheistic religions are just absurd on their face for so many reasons man, not the least of which is this doctrinal flaw and the ambiguity suffered of it.
how would u know that the divine thing u claim to have experienced was THE god? like the main one. remember there's bad gods and demigods and spirits and all that shit too. take for instance your homeboys Moses and Muhammad. now why would Gabriel appear to Muhammad and tell him one thing while the main god wuz out somewhere revealing shit to Moses that didn't match what Gabriel wuz telling Muhammad? see'um sayin?
our possible outcomes:
1) only one wuz the real deal and the other wuz an imposter.
2) neither were real and both Moses and Muhammad were trippin.
3) both were real but also right becuz god changed his mind and rewrote the script.
we eliminate 3 becuz only a god that wuz an asshole would do such a thing. but god can't be an asshole, therefore 3 couldn't be true.
it's 1 that's the problem, the fatal design flaw in revelatory monotheism. this feature either makes the disciple a kind of functional schizo or forces him out of the game becuz he ain't tryna play that. in the latter case one becomes an atheist not on account of the unlikeliness of a god but becuz of the ambiguity of any possible revelatory knowledge of this god. Aristotle recognized this, the deists recognize this, the pantheists recognize this, but not the christians, jews or muslims. oh no. not them.
u can have design and order in a quantum transhaptic bi-discursive hypo-ontological sense without needing to stipulate the existence of good or evil and an assortment of holy entities, divine beings, spirits and shit. or u can keep the latter but get rid of the former; the universe could be loaded with all kinds of life forms, corporeal or not, but there would be no good or evil. the grand economy of the universe call it. one giant Darwinian game of thrones or something. And if that's the case u wanna go with House Prom.
Aristotle's prime mover, the watch maker, Spinoza's natura naturata, these would work for that model. but the monotheistic religions are just absurd on their face for so many reasons man, not the least of which is this doctrinal flaw and the ambiguity suffered of it.