If God is the Creation of Man then God Exists

[Dontaskme]

It's evil that "has no meaning" apart from good. You can tell that because evil is always, inevitably, some kind of corruption or failure of "the good."

Same could be said for there is no meaning in good apart from what isn't good. But this can only be human reasoning, through the knowledge of opposites within the dream of separation. In reality, the universe is neither good nor evil. Human Knowledge only showed up a few seconds ago within the actual age of the entire universe, do you see that? tis only through the language that is the talking species known as human, who only showed up a few seconds ago within the grand scheme of everything that is was and ever will be. Knowledge is just a temporal appearance here. Knowledge can never be absolute knowing, it can only be relative to itself as a finite object.

Think of it like light and dark. "Light" is a thing, but "dark" really is not. It's merely the deficiency or absence of light. That's why light always disspells darkness, but darkness never smothers light. You can see this when you go into a dark room and flip on the light switch: instantly, darkness is gone. But you cannot walk into a lit room and throw on the "dark" switch. That's not a thing.

But a lit room is only light because it's not dark.
Again, that knowing is within the realm of knowledge. In reality there is no such thing as light or dark, except in this conception, within the artificial dream of separation, are you familar with what dream speak is? it's acually no thing being everything. Remember, all life thrives in both the light and the dark. They are both the same phenomena. Out of the darkness of the unborn comes the light of the born. You have to be both dark and light. Close your eyes and see that all images disappear. If you scrunch your eyes tight enough, you can actually see darkness. So if you are just the light, then you wouldn't be able to see the darkness. In pitch black darkness you are still able to function as a living being. The heart is beating in complete darkness.

Is it evil to impose suffering on the unborn

Who "imposes" it?

The knower of sin and evil does.

If you claim to know, then why impose what you know as evil and sinful on another being. Why invite another one to suffer the pain of living, when you can prevent it by not creating the being in the first place? because you already know that sin and evil exist in the world of the born? why would you want to keep reproducing that?

Existence itself is not suffering. It's not in any way automatic that to exist has to be painful. It's often quite nice, actually.

Yes, it's nice, but it's also horrible.
Notice also, that life for sentient feeling creatures live in a constant state of tension always on alert in the drive to stay alive. there's always the striving to move away from negative situations in favor of the nice feeling of comfort. there's no such state as permanent comfort for the sentient creature, this can be proven when we observe the behavior of animals. they are always in a state of alertness in the fear of being eaten and killed, and it's the same for humans.

But the existence we currently have certainly involves suffering, because it is marked by a deficiency of goods we long for. The Christian view is that suffering, like evil, like darkness, is not a thing-in-itself: not meaning that it's illusory or not real, as the Buddhists think, but that the only reason it exists is because the good creation of God has been tainted by sin, and the creature, mankind, has been alienated from the source of light, life, health, happiness, love, and all the good things we long for.

This situation was not intended to exist. But it exists because mankind has rebelled against God. For instance, it's mankind's distance from God that creates loneliness. It's mankind's distance from the Source of Life that creates death. It's mankind's departure from the good that causes us to experience evil. It's mankind's mental distance from the Source of All Wisdom that leaves him foolish. And it's mankind's distance from the Source of Happiness that occasions suffering.

I do not agree with this. I believe we are God, and that we can never be separated from ourselves. I believe evil and sin have to exist for it's opposite to exist, and that they are both one and the same reality. Obviously there is always a natural instinctive movement away from something that feels uncomfortable for us, like pain for example, but only because we know that pain is not an ideal situation, and that it's bad...so there is always a natural instinct to move away from the negative, and we spend our entire lives avoiding the negative in favor of the positive...only to die in the end, and sometimes really painfully and horribly.

But hey, if that's what we love doing then we'll keep on reproducing more of what we love doing. Personally, I think it's a dumb game to play, when we know we do not have to.

There is no god to forgive you but yourself.

[Immanuel Can]

It's evil that "has no meaning" apart from good. You can tell that because evil is always, inevitably, some kind of corruption or failure of "the good."

Same could be said for there is no meaning in good apart from what isn't good.

No, that's not so. Good can exist, so to speak, "on its own steam," "on its own two legs." However, you are correct if you were to say that a person living totally in goodness would not comprehend what "evil" means; but one who is evil knows the good, for he knows what he has denied, corrupted or abandoned.

Evil is derived from damaged good. Good is not derived at all from evil.

Sickness is a description of non-health, a non-good. Suffering is a description of the deprivation of a good. Apples can go bad, because rot is a corruption of the apple; but bad apples never "go good."

Knowledge can never be absolute knowing...

Human knowledge is never absolute, it's true; but that's not to say there is nothing being known. Reality exists independent of the state of our knowledge of it. If I don't believe a poison will kill me, it will not help me if I drink it. Reality will dictate what happens, no matter what I think I know. If I'm fortunate and wise, my knowledge will most closely match such realities; but that I do not know all things need not trouble me at all.

It certainly doesn't mean that my lack of knowledge proves reality doesn't exist, or that truth doesn't.

Think of it like light and dark. "Light" is a thing, but "dark" really is not. It's merely the deficiency or absence of light. That's why light always disspells darkness, but darkness never smothers light. You can see this when you go into a dark room and flip on the light switch: instantly, darkness is gone. But you cannot walk into a lit room and throw on the "dark" switch. That's not a thing.

But a lit room is only light because it's not dark.

Of course. But the light isn't derived from the darkness. Light is a thing: it can even be studied and debated by science. Dark is not a thing: it's merely the absence of light.

Is it evil to impose suffering on the unborn

Who "imposes" it?

The knower of sin and evil does.

Who is that? God? The parents of a baby? Malicious others?

Can you specify?

... life for sentient feeling creatures live in a constant state of tension always on alert in the drive to stay alive.

Not my life, nor, I suspect, yours. For you have leisure to type this message; so there must be many moments when survival is not on your mind. In point of fact, we are both likely rather comfortable and well-provided, I suspect...certainly in comparison to some jungle-dwelling native eking out a bare existence among savage beasts.

That's not us.

I believe we are God,

Heh. God help the world if we are.

[Dontaskme]

No, that's not so. Good can exist, so to speak, "on its own steam," "on its own two legs." However, you are correct if you were to say that a person living totally in goodness would not comprehend what "evil" means; but one who is evil knows the good, for he knows what he has denied, corrupted or abandoned.

Evil is derived from damaged good. Good is not derived at all from evil.

See this is where you and I clash IC....

You take the word ''Good'' as a literal state that exists in and of itself, self-standing, but to me that simply is not the case. Good is a concept known within the conceptual illusory dream of separation, where ultimately the mysterious not-knowing of pure being, is then realised as knowledge as and through the concept known by no one.

But knowledge IC can only point to the illusory nature of concepts, they are made of pure dreamscape, apparently real, not actual real, only imagined real. But this is where you appear to disagree with me, and there is nothing I can say further to make you see what I see. You can only see what you see.

For me, good can only exist because it's opposite is not a feeling liked. Making the liked feeling seem as though it exists in and of itself in it's own steam as you say...but that's not what's really going on here, but I cannot make you understand that if you've already made up your own mind of what's really going on here.

I think it's the no one concept you do not like IC, I understand that not liking, but ultimately no one means everyone, no one is everyone and everyone is no one. If you cannot see this obvious truth, then so be it. You'll have your own interpretation of truth, and that too will be ok.

.

[Dontaskme]

Not my life, nor, I suspect, yours. For you have leisure to type this message; so there must be many moments when survival is not on your mind. In point of fact, we are both likely rather comfortable and well-provided, I suspect...certainly in comparison to some jungle-dwelling native eking out a bare existence among savage beasts.

You are correct in the sense that most humans live in a relatively civilised society in comparison to the savage beastly cave-man days.

But once a cave-man, always a cave-man in my logic. It's not until shit happens to you personally IC will you understand what it means to live in a constant state of alertness. Being alert and in a state of being aware that danger can strike you at any given moment is a very intelliegnt way to live your life.

I''ve had some really bad shit happen to me in life, I've also been held at gunpoint in broad daylight by an escapee from prison while walking home from the library, I was pushing my young baby in a pram, with also a toddler in tow, at the time. The whole experience was terrifying, luckily someone ran over to me and scared the nutter away. That gun he was pointing at me was loaded according to the police report, who later caught him. The guy was high on drugs and was just looking for money, which I didn't have on me at the time.

Also, I live in a what's known as the middle of a hornets nest. There is a lot of drug dealing going on where I live. But it never used to be like this, when I moved here 30 years ago it was a very different place, it was a friendly loving neighborhood back then. But now, there is this long low wall that I can see from my kitchen window, it is a meeting area for dark hooded youths to pass drugs between themselves.
The police do patrol the area often, but there is nothing they can do about the intimidating presence of these hooded youths while they are just sitting on a wall for what can be all day sometimes. Some of my neighbors have packed up and left, but I've stayed because I refuse to be intimidated, I understand they only care about getting their fix, so it's not like I'm in danger, but it does feel intimidating at the same time, especially living alone in the house as I do. Who knows how desperate these druggies can get, and what they might do to get their fix..the thought that they may break into my house and rob me for money never leaves my constant and vigilant attention.

Anyways, the point is, I do not believe we can ever relax totally in life, there's always going to be some nutter that will appear out of nowhere to cause absolute havoc.

[Dontaskme]

The knower of sin and evil does.

Who is that? God? The parents of a baby? Malicious others?

Can you specify?

The knower of sin and evil is who ever it is to claim they know the concepts.
For example, to know of a sinful action, is to bear witness to the action and call the action sinful. Who does that? the answer is you do. Same goes for the knowing of the word God, who knows that concept? you do, right?

Therefore, it is incumbent of the knower to take full responsiblity for their actions knowing the consequences and the law of cause and it's effect. In essence, if you say you know, then only you are responsible for what you know, and that knowing does not come from some eternal place outside of your own knowing, that's why to know the concept God, means that you are god, because you have created the idea.

I believe we are God,

Heh. God help the world if we are.

Who else is being God but you the knower of the concept?

Who else IC..who?

There is nothing outside of your consciousness except you.

Consciousness is just another word for God or being, and being is being everything and nothing simultaneously.

[Dontaskme]

Of course. But the light isn't derived from the darkness. Light is a thing: it can even be studied and debated by science. Dark is not a thing: it's merely the absence of light.

Sorry but science know nothing of what light is, they like everyone who is knowledgable of concepts, use concepts to describe reality that cannot be known, only imagined.

No one has ever seen light, it's just a concept known in consciousness, and no one has ever seen consciousness. You cannot see or know what you already are IC..this is the mother of all illusions appearing real, it's the mother of all paradoxes and contradictions, and not many people fully understand that the contradiction is a vital part of understanding the non-dual nature of reality.

So again, you are talking about man-made concepts IC...mentally constructed concepts are not literal things in and of themselves, imagined things, are as empty as thin air itself.. IC..we are literally made out of the same empty space we are appearing in, contrary to popular belief.

Does light itself know it is light? does the darkness know it is dark? No of course not, you know, who are you? you are the concept that is known but cannot know how it is known...knowledge points us back to that not-knowing mystery of being.

And I know that's not a satifactory answer IC...but knowledge is only apparent within the dream of artificial separation. The dream of I and the dream is all there is. And yes, the dream is real, insofar as the concept, is imagined to be.

[Belinda]

Of course. But the light isn't derived from the darkness. Light is a thing: it can even be studied and debated by science. Dark is not a thing: it's merely the absence of light.

Sorry but science know nothing of what light is, they like everyone who is knowledgable of concepts, use concepts to describe reality that cannot be known, only imagined.

No one has ever seen light, it's just a concept known in consciousness, and no one has ever seen consciousness. You cannot see or know what you already are IC..this is the mother of all illusions appearing real, it's the mother of all paradoxes and contradictions, and not many people fully understand that the contradiction is a vital part of understanding the non-dual nature of reality.

So again, you are talking about man-made concepts IC...mentally constructed concepts are not literal things in and of themselves, imagined things, are as empty as thin air itself.. IC..we are literally made out of the same empty space we are appearing in, contrary to popular belief.

Does light itself know it is light? does the darkness know it is dark? No of course not, you know, who are you? you are the concept that is known but cannot know how it is known...knowledge points us back to that not-knowing mystery of being.

And I know that's not a satifactory answer IC...but knowledge is only apparent within the dream of artificial separation. The dream of I and the dream is all there is. And yes, the dream is real, insofar as the concept, is imagined to be.

I agree with DontAskMe. What DAM explains is identical with what in western metaphysics is called idealism .

[Walker]

If God is a creation of Man then Man assumes the role of creator and thus is God; Man exists therefore God exists as God is made in the image of Man and Man is God as the creator of God. God is made in the image of God.

You forgot to define God. Define God, and we start to listen to you.

(Just kidding).

[Walker]

Evidence of the Supreme Ordering Principle of the Universe:
1. Natural selection.
2. Evolution.

Is not order something that is imposed upon chaos, by someone?

It can be.

However, just because folks figure that since humans are entities capable of establishing an order limited by the capacity of the particular human who is establishing the order, then the order of the universe must be established by an entity, that is an entity like a human is an entity.

When the concept of man is exclusively the body, then “created in the image of God,” means created in the image of a body.

When the concept of man is not exclusively the body, then “created in the image of God,” means created with the capacity to impose order upon chaos, but due to human limitations, humans cannot Supremely order life, the universe, or it’s processes.

This did not discourage Frankenstein, nor* does it discourage abortionists who seek to re-establish the order that was inconveniently interrupted by pregnancy.

So, tell me who we are, where we came from, and where are going … and be sure that it conforms with what I know because if it doesn’t, I’ll take the closed-minded Leftist approach of not hearing, and like a Leftist I’ll be quite smug and insulting about it, like an asshole. (Hardly seems like an fair demand and characterization ... too bad.)




* edited to replace or, with nor, to properly order the communique.

[Walker]

I agree with DontAskMe. What DAM explains is identical with what in western metaphysics is called idealism .

Two short sentences and limited thinking are one way to play it safe with composition.

So is nit-picking on thinkers ...

[Walker]

Evidence of the Supreme Ordering Principle of the Universe:
1. Natural selection.
2. Evolution.

Is not order something that is imposed upon chaos, by someone?

It can be.

However, just because folks figure that since humans are entities capable of establishing an order limited by the capacity of the particular human who is establishing the order, then the order of the universe must be established by an entity, that is an entity like a human is an entity.

When the concept of man is exclusively the body, then “created in the image of God,” means created in the image of a body.

When the concept of man is not exclusively the body, then “created in the image of God,” means created with the capacity to impose order upon chaos, but due to human limitations, humans cannot Supremely order life, the universe, or it’s processes.

This did not discourage Frankenstein, nor* does it discourage abortionists who seek to re-establish the order that was inconveniently interrupted by pregnancy.

So, tell me who we are, where we came from, and where we are going … and be sure that it conforms with what I know because if it doesn’t, I’ll take the closed-minded Leftist approach of not hearing, and like a Leftist I’ll be quite smug and insulting about it, like an asshole. (Hardly seems like a fair demand and characterization ... too bad.) **




* edited to replace or, with nor, to properly order the communique.
** second edit to clean up grammar, for the same reason.

[Immanuel Can]

I live in a what's known as the middle of a hornets nest.

I'm sorry about that.

[Belinda]

I agree with DontAskMe. What DAM explains is identical with what in western metaphysics is called idealism .

Two short sentences and limited thinking are one way to play it safe with composition.

So is nit-picking on thinkers ...

One would rather be too brief than risk being tediously long winded.

[Belinda]

I live in a what's known as the middle of a hornets nest.

I'm sorry about that.