The Creation of the Term "God"

[Sculptor]

Yes and rich is poor, dogs are all cats, and black is white.

In the conceptual dream of dualistic mental separation, there are opposites. A cat is a nought but a thought. A thought requires a thinker, and hey presto...you've got the notion of two things, an object and a subject. However, a thinker is not separated from the thought it thinks....is it not? it's all one unitary function, is it not?

The external world existing of conceptual things, is the projection of invisible thoughts ...ok? what the heck was a cat until a thought thought the concept into existence? does the cat know it's a cat, NO cats do not inform themselves they are cats...knowledge does...where does knowledge come from? ....it comes from words, and where do words come from?

Life is a dream, dreamt by no thing.

No thing can dream it is a thing.

Can a tree know it is a tree? No, concepts know nothing, concepts are known by nothing.

There is no thing knowing a thing.

All this nonsense appears like an oxymoron and could not be any other way, as you are both the moron and the knower of the moron simultaneously.

Reality is totally non-negotiable

Only silence is real and true, everything else is a poor substitute, a myth, a story full of noise and fury told by a fool signifying absolutely nothing.

God never reveals itself, God is the revealing, and revealed both, as ONE unitary action.

God being just another word for you, and you is just another word for consciousness, and consciousness is just another word for beingness, and beingness is just another word for nothingness, and nothingness is just another word for everything....

...are you getting the gist as to where this is going yet?

Please refer to the posts I have made previously

[Dontaskme]

Please refer to the posts I have made previously

Sculptor you call my responses to you ''salad''

And you'd be right. That's the whole point of terminology, there is nothing outside of human language that can be known conceptually.

You know you exist because the words '' I know I exist'' inform you.

You knew nothing at all when you were inside your mothers womb. Same for everyone who is born, all they know is what other people have informed them. Every conceptual word with associated meaning, has been ''imagined'' into existence.

Imagine that Sculptor.

If you do not believe that every word and it's meaning is imagined, then the onus is on you to name the 'real' author of all the words we use to communicate with.

If you do not answer this overlooked question, then I'll just take it that you do not know, just like the rest of us.

That is the whole point of this thread, and you are too dumb to address it.

You are even dumber to those who do address it, by calling them the morons. Why don't you just man up and face the truth?

[Sculptor]

Please refer to the posts I have made previously

Sculptor you call my responses to you ''salad''

And you'd be right. That's the whole point of terminology, there is nothing outside of human language that can be known conceptually.

You know you exist because the words '' I know I exist'' inform you.

You knew nothing at all when you were inside your mothers womb. Same for everyone who is born, all they know is what other people have informed them. Every conceptual word with associated meaning, has been ''imagined'' into existence.

Imagine that Sculptor.

If you do not believe that every word and it's meaning is imagined, then the onus is on you to name the 'real' author of all the words we use to communicate with.

If you do not answer this overlooked question, then I'll just take it that you do not know, just like the rest of us.

That is the whole point of this thread, and you are too dumb to address it.

You are even dumber to those who do address it, by calling them the morons. Why don't you just man up and face the truth?

Please refer to the posts I have made previously

[Dontaskme]

Please refer to the posts I have made previously

You didn't make them, you only imagined you did.

End of discussion.

You claim the OP is nonsense. As if it had to make some sort of sense for you. If that be the case, then make up your own sense. But do not deny others theirs. That's just dumb.

[Sculptor]

Please refer to the posts I have made previously

You didn't make them, you only imagined you did.

End of discussion.

You claim the OP is nonsense. As if it had to make some sort of sense for you. If that be the case, then make up your own sense. But do not deny others theirs. That's just dumb.

Please refer to the posts I have made previously

[Dontaskme]

Please refer to the posts I have made previously

NO

I can think for myself thank you very much.

Why or what are you even doing on this thread, if you only have your truth, you have no argument.

I'm just agreeing with the OP as being conceptually correct. You're just being an arrogant knob.

[Sculptor]

Please refer to the posts I have made previously

NO

I can think for myself thank you very much.

Why or what are you even doing on this thread, if you only have your truth, you have no argument.

I'm just agreeing with the OP as being conceptually correct. You're just being an arrogant knob.

Please refer to the posts I have made previously
Since, according to you, all your threads are illusions I cannot comment on them.

[Lacewing]

If God is the creator and man is made in the image of God then man is a creator

Yet, if a creator were to create something in its image, how extensive would that reproduction be? Would it be a complete replication of attributes and capability? Would it be mostly symbolic, as an image?

Elements throughout nature replicate themselves all the time. They are produced and sustained by a system of factors. If some of the factors change in the system, the elements adapt or cease. There is no specific creator demonstrated (although man may superimpose his imagination to claim such a thing).

Humans continually replicate themselves too, and they are dependent on a system of factors. But because their brains have evolved to imagine separation and use it for self-serving purposes, many imagine a distinct and separate creator from which they must surely spring... and they make it a 'grand/ultimate creator' who favors them, and whose image they are in, and whose WILL they are representing (and who can assure them ever-lasting life). So they create their creator and claim that their creator created them. It's absurd.

If we look at all of nature with its immense and extraordinary variety and interconnected influences, why would we conclude there is a single creator in a single form? Why would we conclude that only man is in the image of a 'god', and further, only particular men (according to some perspectives) are actually and truly aligned with that god? Such self-service is too pathetically transparent to take seriously.

Why would we also think that such a god would be so laser-focused on man, while the magnificent immensity of all of nature and its workings are just a backdrop for man's story? It's outrageous.

The human idea of a god is self-serving. There is no other reason for the idea of a god so identified with humans and their ideas of separateness and judgment.

Everything throughout nature creates. It is vast and seemingly infinite in scope, and is beyond self-serving human notions. Civilizations and cultures come and go. What if we stopped defining life based on our own image, and observed how much more there is?

Man as the image of God is man as an extension of God

Such is what man likes to claim. Why isn't everything else an image and extension of God?

...thus God creating Jesus is God manifesting himself in time and space through his own will.

You seem desperate to make sense of senselessness. Many 'enlightened' masters and miracle workers have walked this Earth. Some have been made into idols. Many have been misinterpreted or misunderstood. They have delivered many different 'messages' to serve those who want to follow them. It's not that hard to see the creatively self-serving nature of man, and how it doesn't add up to ONE FUCKING STORY.

The creation of reality is beyond Good and Evil.

I agree. Such elements can be manifested by humans, but they are not otherwise naturally occurring throughout nature.

[Eodnhoj7]

This is nonsense.

If this is nonsense then what is 'sensical'?

Plenty.
If nothing is sensical then your question is meaningless.

You are proposing a syllogism.
If god is the creator
If man is made in god image
THEN
Man is the creator.

This is a false syllogism.

You can examine a logical syllogism by exchanging the elements for something more familiar..

If carpenter is the creator
And tables are made in the image of carpenter
THEN
Is a table the creator.

FUCK NO.

1. "Man is a creator" not "the creator". You are misquoting me.

2. A table creates space to hold items.

[Eodnhoj7]

If God is the creator and man is made in the image of God then man is a creator

Yet, if a creator were to create something in its image, how extensive would that reproduction be? Would it be a complete replication of attributes and capability? Would it be mostly symbolic, as an image?

Elements throughout nature replicate themselves all the time. They are produced and sustained by a system of factors. If some of the factors change in the system, the elements adapt or cease. There is no specific creator demonstrated (although man may superimpose his imagination to claim such a thing).

Humans continually replicate themselves too, and they are dependent on a system of factors. But because their brains have evolved to imagine separation and use it for self-serving purposes, many imagine a distinct and separate creator from which they must surely spring... and they make it a 'grand/ultimate creator' who favors them, and whose image they are in, and whose WILL they are representing (and who can assure them ever-lasting life). So they create their creator and claim that their creator created them. It's absurd.

If we look at all of nature with its immense and extraordinary variety and interconnected influences, why would we conclude there is a single creator in a single form? Why would we conclude that only man is in the image of a 'god', and further, only particular men (according to some perspectives) are actually and truly aligned with that god? Such self-service is too pathetically transparent to take seriously.

Why would we also think that such a god would be so laser-focused on man, while the magnificent immensity of all of nature and its workings are just a backdrop for man's story? It's outrageous.

The human idea of a god is self-serving. There is no other reason for the idea of a god so identified with humans and their ideas of separateness and judgment.

Everything throughout nature creates. It is vast and seemingly infinite in scope, and is beyond self-serving human notions. Civilizations and cultures come and go. What if we stopped defining life based on our own image, and observed how much more there is?

Man as the image of God is man as an extension of God

Such is what man likes to claim. Why isn't everything else an image and extension of God?

...thus God creating Jesus is God manifesting himself in time and space through his own will.

You seem desperate to make sense of senselessness. Many 'enlightened' masters and miracle workers have walked this Earth. Some have been made into idols. Many have been misinterpreted or misunderstood. They have delivered many different 'messages' to serve those who want to follow them. It's not that hard to see the creatively self-serving nature of man, and how it doesn't add up to ONE FUCKING STORY.

The creation of reality is beyond Good and Evil.

I agree. Such elements can be manifested by humans, but they are not otherwise naturally occurring throughout nature.

1. Adaptation is creation as creation is the change of a phenomenon to a new context. This may occur through evolution, where the universe is creating itself in time and space, or the simple act of forming a piece of mud to adapt to holding water as a bowl. Given all phenomenon exist through mirroring (ie repetition) the absence of said mirroring is an absence of said repetition thus a variation occur. Variation is "being" mirroring "nothing".

2. Given all phenomenon occur through "variation" then "variation" is a common source. Given the multiplicity of phenomenon share the same attributes of dividing, division is a common source as a perpetual action which exists across all of being. Being as divisive necessitates being as sharing the same nature of formlessness given division is an absence of form where one thing does not exist within another. In more abstract terms the sheer multiplicity of phenomenon unite under the single phenomenon of "multiplicity".

3. We know man and woman, and the rest of being in time space, exist in the image of God given all being replicates. This replication can be seen in the forking of lighting, streams, capillaries, veins, nerves, trees, plants, cracks in the ground, etc. as well as the replication of a cell in its movement from point A to point B (ie the cell repeats itself in point A1 then point A2, etc.).

4. Nature as being the backdrop of man necessitates God as paying mind to nature through paying mind to man given nature is the context which defines man. Paying mind to one context necessitates paying mind to another given all contexts connect.

5. If the failure of man is that fact that civilizations come and go then the failure of nature is the fact that organisms come and go as well. Everything repeats therefore man has just as much right to claim equality with nature.

6. All masters point toward a higher power with each message being the higher power expressing itself through the context of the time and place. Different people can only dissolve different degrees of truth. Dually to claim that all masters have a varied message is to unite these interpretations under a single interpretation therefore making yourself a "master". Are you a "master"?

7a. To say good and evil is an interpretation founded by humans and not within nature is to define nature through the perspective of a human.

7b. To say good and evil is not found within nature is implied as a good where good and evil being founded within nature as implied as bad, thus good and evil exist. To say something exists beyond good and evil is to say good and evil exist therefore are parts of said reality.

7c. We are a result of the context from which we come, ie nature, therefore any interpretations of reality are by default a result of nature expressing itself. If, according to you, man's interpretations are to diversified for a common source to occur then it is a result of nature given man is a result of nature.

[Dontaskme]

If this is nonsense then what is 'sensical'?

Plenty.
If nothing is sensical then your question is meaningless.

You are proposing a syllogism.
If god is the creator
If man is made in god image
THEN
Man is the creator.

This is a false syllogism.

You can examine a logical syllogism by exchanging the elements for something more familiar..

If carpenter is the creator
And tables are made in the image of carpenter
THEN
Is a table the creator.

FUCK NO.

1. "Man is a creator" not "the creator". You are misquoting me.

2. A table creates space to hold items.

Excellent, well said.

[Sculptor]

If this is nonsense then what is 'sensical'?

Plenty.
If nothing is sensical then your question is meaningless.

You are proposing a syllogism.
If god is the creator
If man is made in god image
THEN
Man is the creator.

This is a false syllogism.

You can examine a logical syllogism by exchanging the elements for something more familiar..

If carpenter is the creator
And tables are made in the image of carpenter
THEN
Is a table the creator.

FUCK NO.

1. "Man is a creator" not "the creator". You are misquoting me.

2. A table creates space to hold items.

I think it's the way you tell 'em!

[Dontaskme]

Plenty.
If nothing is sensical then your question is meaningless.

You are proposing a syllogism.
If god is the creator
If man is made in god image
THEN
Man is the creator.

This is a false syllogism.

You can examine a logical syllogism by exchanging the elements for something more familiar..

If carpenter is the creator
And tables are made in the image of carpenter
THEN
Is a table the creator.

FUCK NO.

1. "Man is a creator" not "the creator". You are misquoting me.

2. A table creates space to hold items.

I think it's the way you tell 'em!

Why is Eodnhoj7's response so funny, when it is obviously correct in the metaphysical sense of conceptual context?

It is funny because you agree or disagree?

Why don't you just say what you really want to say. It's hard to distinguish whether your intent is to crap all over the thread, you know, like you once accused me of doing to one of your threads. Are you being a hypocrite now? Hmm, seems like it. That's the problem with you, you accuse others of doing what you do yourself.

Why not ask for clarification before writing something off with 3 lol's ... or are you agreeing ...why not say what's really on your mind?

Are you laughing because you agree...

Or are you laughing because you are mocking the response ?

[Sculptor]

1. "Man is a creator" not "the creator". You are misquoting me.

2. A table creates space to hold items.

I think it's the way you tell 'em!

Why is Eodnhoj7's response so funny, when it is obviously correct in the metaphysical sense of conceptual context?

It is funny because you agree or disagree?

Why don't you just say what you really want to say. It's hard to distinguish whether your intent is to crap all over the thread, you know, like you once accused me of doing to one of your threads. Are you being a hypocrite now? Hmm, seems like it. That's the problem with you, you accuse others of doing what you do yourself.

Why not ask for clarification before writing something off with 3 lol's ... or are you agreeing ...why not say what's really on your mind?

Are you laughing because you agree...

Or are you laughing because you are mocking the response ?

A table is in inanimate object so may never "create" which is an active verb.
That is what is funny

[Dontaskme]

A table is in inanimate object so may never "create" which is an active verb.
That is what is funny

A table is known as physical matter. Matter is anything that has mass and volume (takes up space)

An object known is made of the same stuff it's known to be appearing in. There is no object without space, and there is no space without object.
Inanimate simply means in animate.

Now that is funny.

Funnier still... is that while concepts are KNOWN, no known thing has ever been seen.

A concept is the ''looked upon'' that cannot look at itself.