The Concept of God

[Belinda]

Trokenmariel wrote:

I mean if there is God, who can recognise themself as God, along with the concept of rulership, why are people left to solely look after evolution when people aren't the creators of evolution?

Abrahamic religionists, who include Muslims, Christians, and Jews, believe that God has intervened in this world to "look after evolution" and various other matters. Some of these religious people also believe that God will intervene again at the The Day of Judgement to sort it all out.

[trokanmariel]

???

Sorry. Lost me again. We do not seem to be on the same page, given you ignore questions.

Regards
DL

I mean if there is God, who can recognise themself as God, along with the concept of rulership, why are people left to solely look after evolution when people aren't the creators of evolution?

What a god sees in himself is not relevant.

God is a title that one is given. Even a real supernatural God must be recognized and assigned that title or it is meaningless.

The same would apply to holy, righteous etc.

I can say that I am any of those attributes, but if not recognized and triggered by, ---- you in this instance as my judge and listener, --- the term becomes irrelevant.

As Jesus indicated, Gods are elected.

You decide what you will call your highest ideal or God.

We cannot decide our physical evolution at present, but zipper DNA methods are bringing that closer.

We can and have evolve our thinking, limited by our DNA's initial programming of selfishness, in terms of love and hate biases, which are controlled by many outside factors.

We can individually change the world to whatever we want, but only if we can get enough people to cooperates.

Regards
DL

The last part of your reply; do you think that it's within humanity's reach, to eradicate further evolution, like dogs, crocodiles and monkeys? Not eradicate existing ones, just eradicate the possibility of more?

[Greatest I am]

The last part of your reply; do you think that it's within humanity's reach, to eradicate further evolution, like dogs, crocodiles and monkeys? Not eradicate existing ones, just eradicate the possibility of more?

We have some controls over human life, but Nature decides if our species lives or not.

We are a Banana Republic species at the moment, meaning quite vulnerable to local and universal extinctions, and have never been more vulnerable to a global extinction now that borders are under constant breach and we have screwed up 3/4 of our eco system.

Regards
DL

[Eodnhoj7]

If God is the creator and man is made in the image of God then man is a creator; therefore the creation of the term "God" is man working in image of the creator with the creator creating the creator through the created.

Well said.

What boils my oil, is when people say, oh well, your just contradicting yourself. And it's like, err, how am I supposed to know that unless I didn't know that.

Well in response to what "people say": Point to me what is not a contradiction given we observe through contrast.

[Eodnhoj7]

Spoken like one who fears discussing moral.

Sure they are subjective, but better than 70% of us world wide think the same way, and you and I would not likely disagree on most moral tenets unless you are a immoral and brain dead believer.

That is factual.

Regards
DL

Thus morality is based on personal whim and the majority of people follow a morality based upon their own spirits and appetites.

Basically, correct.

Although if you go by whim, you likely do evil more than the rest who go by logic and reason.

We live in a good system, aided by our instincts that push us to cooperate instead of compete to get ahead.

You sound like you are complaining when you should be joyful and thankful.

Regards
DL

If whim is evil, in the respect one is more likely to commit evil following it, then you are claiming an objective morality; however if your morality is objective, in the respect it is determined by some authority beyond it, then you are acting as an authority. If acting as an authority is moral then it is immoral not to act as said authority yet this objective if determined by some authority beyond the self...thus you are not your own authority and the morality contradicts itself.

In simpler terms one is following an authority beyond there own if they are acting as their own authority; therefore they are not there own authority and they contradict themself.

Dually the laws of reason contradict themselves as evidenced by the math section; what is logic and reason?

[trokanmariel]

The last part of your reply; do you think that it's within humanity's reach, to eradicate further evolution, like dogs, crocodiles and monkeys? Not eradicate existing ones, just eradicate the possibility of more?

We have some controls over human life, but Nature decides if our species lives or not.

We are a Banana Republic species at the moment, meaning quite vulnerable to local and universal extinctions, and have never been more vulnerable to a global extinction now that borders are under constant breach and we have screwed up 3/4 of our eco system.

Regards
DL

If God is real, and with that comes the natural responsibility of the protection of life, is it a sound theology of God, that people can become extinct?

[Belinda]

The last part of your reply; do you think that it's within humanity's reach, to eradicate further evolution, like dogs, crocodiles and monkeys? Not eradicate existing ones, just eradicate the possibility of more?

We have some controls over human life, but Nature decides if our species lives or not.

We are a Banana Republic species at the moment, meaning quite vulnerable to local and universal extinctions, and have never been more vulnerable to a global extinction now that borders are under constant breach and we have screwed up 3/4 of our eco system.

Regards
DL

If God is real, and with that comes the natural responsibility of the protection of life, is it a sound theology of God, that people can become extinct?

Trokenmariel expresses the problem of evil, which no theologian has satisfactorily solved.
The problem of evil is: "If God is both all-powerful and all-loving how is it He lets evil exist?"

[Dontaskme]

The problem of evil is: "If God is both all-powerful and all-loving how is it He lets evil exist?"

Because God is just another word for Love which is purely all allowing, and fully accepting.

The one who claims to know knowledge, is the only one responsible for their own actions.

The question is who knows knowledge?

Ask yourself who knows knowledge, if you say I do, then only I is responsible for I's actions.

The problem of evil is solved in that simple realisation.

[Belinda]

The problem of evil is: "If God is both all-powerful and all-loving how is it He lets evil exist?"

Because God is just another word for Love which is purely all allowing, and fully accepting.

The one who claims to know knowledge, is the only one responsible for their own actions.

The question is who knows knowledge?

Ask yourself who knows knowledge, if you say I do, then only I is responsible for I's actions.

The problem of evil is solved in that simple realisation.

I am almost sure the problem of evil applies only to theism, but it does not apply to non-dualism.

[Dontaskme]

The problem of evil is: "If God is both all-powerful and all-loving how is it He lets evil exist?"

Because God is just another word for Love which is purely all allowing, and fully accepting.

The one who claims to know knowledge, is the only one responsible for their own actions.

The question is who knows knowledge?

Ask yourself who knows knowledge, if you say I do, then only I is responsible for I's actions.

The problem of evil is solved in that simple realisation.

I am almost sure the problem of evil applies only to theism, but it does not apply to non-dualism.

The problem applies to the knower of evil.

Non-dualism is simply pointing the knower back to it's origin which is this immediate not-knowing.

Nonduality is a philosophy, which says that there is just One Eternal Spirit in existence, and that everything in the Universe is an inseparable part of it. At the same time, nonduality also says that the world is not real. ... Nonduality is derived from the Sanskrit word Advaita, meaning not two and non-separation.

Notice the correlation between the nondual philosophy and the theist philosophy.

John 17:14 - I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

...John is basically saying, concepts are not real, they are only imagined to be real.

Here is another example: John 16:33
''These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world''

[Belinda]

Because God is just another word for Love which is purely all allowing, and fully accepting.

The one who claims to know knowledge, is the only one responsible for their own actions.

The question is who knows knowledge?

Ask yourself who knows knowledge, if you say I do, then only I is responsible for I's actions.

The problem of evil is solved in that simple realisation.

I am almost sure the problem of evil applies only to theism, but it does not apply to non-dualism.

The problem applies to the knower of evil.

Non-dualism is simply pointing the knower back to it's origin which is this immediate not-knowing.

Nonduality is a philosophy, which says that there is just One Eternal Spirit in existence, and that everything in the Universe is an inseparable part of it. At the same time, nonduality also says that the world is not real. ... Nonduality is derived from the Sanskrit word Advaita, meaning not two and non-separation.

Notice the correlation between the nondual philosophy and the theist philosophy.

John 17:14 - I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

...John is basically saying, concepts are not real, they are only imagined to be real.

Here is another example: John 16:33
''These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world''

I don't understand the verses from John. thanks for the gloss on advaita which i understand and appreciate.

[Greatest I am]

Thus morality is based on personal whim and the majority of people follow a morality based upon their own spirits and appetites.

Basically, correct.

Although if you go by whim, you likely do evil more than the rest who go by logic and reason.

We live in a good system, aided by our instincts that push us to cooperate instead of compete to get ahead.

You sound like you are complaining when you should be joyful and thankful.

Regards
DL

If whim is evil, in the respect one is more likely to commit evil following it, then you are claiming an objective morality; however if your morality is objective, in the respect it is determined by some authority beyond it, then you are acting as an authority. If acting as an authority is moral then it is immoral not to act as said authority yet this objective if determined by some authority beyond the self...thus you are not your own authority and the morality contradicts itself.

In simpler terms one is following an authority beyond there own if they are acting as their own authority; therefore they are not there own authority and they contradict themself.

Dually the laws of reason contradict themselves as evidenced by the math section; what is logic and reason?

If, is a lousy way to start a sentence.

I did not posit an objective moral tenet.

Whims, like all things, has a dualistic nature holding both good and evil aspects.

Your last is foolish.

Who is the authority you bend the knee to?

Who does your choosing and judging of morals for you?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

The last part of your reply; do you think that it's within humanity's reach, to eradicate further evolution, like dogs, crocodiles and monkeys? Not eradicate existing ones, just eradicate the possibility of more?

We have some controls over human life, but Nature decides if our species lives or not.

We are a Banana Republic species at the moment, meaning quite vulnerable to local and universal extinctions, and have never been more vulnerable to a global extinction now that borders are under constant breach and we have screwed up 3/4 of our eco system.

Regards
DL

If God is real, and with that comes the natural responsibility of the protection of life, is it a sound theology of God, that people can become extinct?

Sure. Why not?

To nature, and gods perhaps, life is life, and it does not care which life/species is alive.

What makes you think it is a god's or natures responsibility to protect life?

Surely not the bible and it's satanic genocidal life killing p**** of a god.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

We have some controls over human life, but Nature decides if our species lives or not.

We are a Banana Republic species at the moment, meaning quite vulnerable to local and universal extinctions, and have never been more vulnerable to a global extinction now that borders are under constant breach and we have screwed up 3/4 of our eco system.

Regards
DL

If God is real, and with that comes the natural responsibility of the protection of life, is it a sound theology of God, that people can become extinct?

Trokenmariel expresses the problem of evil, which no theologian has satisfactorily solved.
The problem of evil is: "If God is both all-powerful and all-loving how is it He lets evil exist?"

Only a supernatural good and not evil god has a problem of evil.

It is stupid to have duality in everything except god, who even while genocidal, is all good.

Nature, our real creator and sustainer has no problem of evil as evil is how it allows for our evolution.

Stop the small evil we suffer, and you end the really great good that our continuing evolution gives us.

Regards
DL

[Eodnhoj7]

Basically, correct.

Although if you go by whim, you likely do evil more than the rest who go by logic and reason.

We live in a good system, aided by our instincts that push us to cooperate instead of compete to get ahead.

You sound like you are complaining when you should be joyful and thankful.

Regards
DL

If whim is evil, in the respect one is more likely to commit evil following it, then you are claiming an objective morality; however if your morality is objective, in the respect it is determined by some authority beyond it, then you are acting as an authority. If acting as an authority is moral then it is immoral not to act as said authority yet this objective if determined by some authority beyond the self...thus you are not your own authority and the morality contradicts itself.

In simpler terms one is following an authority beyond there own if they are acting as their own authority; therefore they are not there own authority and they contradict themself.

Dually the laws of reason contradict themselves as evidenced by the math section; what is logic and reason?

If, is a lousy way to start a sentence.

I did not posit an objective moral tenet.

Whims, like all things, has a dualistic nature holding both good and evil aspects.

Your last is foolish.

Who is the authority you bend the knee to?

Who does your choosing and judging of morals for you?

Regards
DL

To say one is the sole authority is to submit to a law stating one is the sole authority thus a contradiction occurs as one is not the sole authority if following a law.