Let's talk about GOD!!

[Immanuel Can]

Experience requires opening to noesis at the expense of the conditioned glorification of the dialectic or associative thought. For many it is too insulting to consider.

I'd prefer the simple clarity of the Scriptures you quote. The Neo-Gnostic language just hides the point.

[Nick_A]

Experience requires opening to noesis at the expense of the conditioned glorification of the dialectic or associative thought. For many it is too insulting to consider.

I'd prefer the simple clarity of the Scriptures you quote. The Neo-Gnostic language just hides the point.

So IYO what is the point of that passage?

[Immanuel Can]

So IYO what is the point of that passage?

No part of it seems opaque to me. It says things pretty clearly, I would say.

[Nick_A]

So IYO what is the point of that passage?

No part of it seems opaque to me. It says things pretty clearly, I would say.

Funny thing I've experienced about the New Testament. The more I believe I understand it, the more I realize there is to understand of its meanings within meanings..

[Immanuel Can]

So IYO what is the point of that passage?

No part of it seems opaque to me. It says things pretty clearly, I would say.

Funny thing I've experienced about the New Testament. The more I believe I understand it, the more I realize there is to understand of its meanings within meanings..

Well, that's true. But it's different from thinking it's an obscure text, the "real" meaning of which must be ferreted out in defiance of the plain sense, as the Gnostics think. It's not code. It's just profound. So it has a lot of consequences. But the surface meaning is usually so simple and straightforward that even a child can get at least the first layer of meaning.

It's a pretty plain-speaking book, for all its profundity. That's one of the secrets to its durable success -- depth AND accessibility.

[Nick_A]

No part of it seems opaque to me. It says things pretty clearly, I would say.

Funny thing I've experienced about the New Testament. The more I believe I understand it, the more I realize there is to understand of its meanings within meanings..

Well, that's true. But it's different from thinking it's an obscure text, the "real" meaning of which must be ferreted out in defiance of the plain sense, as the Gnostics think. It's not code. It's just profound. So it has a lot of consequences. But the surface meaning is usually so simple and straightforward that even a child can get at least the first layer of meaning.

It's a pretty plain-speaking book, for all its profundity. That's one of the secrets to its durable success -- depth AND accessibility.

You won't like this but it explains the value of scripture for me

“Give me beauty in the inward soul; may the outward and the inward man be at one.” ~ Socrates

The purpose of scripture is to inspire the experiences of metanoia and rebirth. These are only possible for the inner man. The outer man or our personality is acquired in life. It is a mechanical reactive mechanism that responds in life by habit. The living part of the human organism is the inner man composed of qualities a person is born with.

The human condition has made it so that our personalities live our lives for us and the inner man remains immature and disorganized.

Scripture initially falls on our outer personality but is written in such way that it confuses the outer man leaving an opening for the inner man to be exposed to it arousing the inner man to experience the realities normally blocked by our personality. It arouses the questions necessary for the growth of the human essence.

In this way, genuine scripture like the New Testament is really the highest form of art. This art can be received on many levels. Some only touch the outer man yet others bypass the mechanical habitual outer man and arouse the inner man. It can serve to put new wine into new bottles.

[Dontaskme]

But what is clear is that this ineffable reality is not "God".

It is nothing more than nature.
That is no "God" at all.

But this ineffable reality is no God at all, but I'll call it Nature.
You got your head caught in the tigers mouth.

''Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever.''

.

God is the name of a person. I think Nature does not have to bear that burden of proof.

Then prove who is naming ? show who is doing the naming - and then answer: does that ''who'' have a name?
You'll see there is no thing and nothing that can be proven or shown to be naming anything here except what is KNOWN via the conception/ word. All you can do is ask a word for proof, there is nothing else to ask.


So there's no burden of proof for a person, because a person is just a concept known, it's a word.

While concepts are ''known'' ] The ''known'' know nothing of their apparent known-ness because the 'known'' exist only as knowledge which informs the illusory of their nature.

Why illusory? because, Nature never tells itself it is nature. God never tell itself it's God. The sky never tells itself it is blue or grey or black with shiny silver dots scattered around.Babies in the womb never tell themselves they are babies.


Again, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

.

[attofishpi]

Well, I have already pointed to paternity and triunity. And I have explained my basis for belief in both, if you've been reading this message and the ones before. Are you accepting those, to begin with? Or would you insist that you want some further proof of those?

You got nuffin by way of proof.

You do not know this. You will not even specify to me what the word "evidence" (or "proof") would entail for you.

Really? What about this bit you ommitted? (I'll have it for starters thanks):

Where has this 'triune' been observed in physics? The reason things exist according thus far in physics is because 'matter' and 'anti-matter' happen to decay at different rates, thus not annihilating each other.

[Dontaskme]

If some one wants to start a thread with the title; Let's talk about GOD!!, why then start saying things like; "God is ineffable", and, "Why would you want another person to provide proof of God"?

I never said I wanted another person to provide proof of God. Where have I stated that? All I've stated is the word itself is the proof. The person doesn't have the proof, the person is a word and the word is proof, self-evidently.

This thread's purpose is to talk about 'God the ineffable' by using words. And yes of course that sounds senseless talking about what cannot be expressed in words by using words, but words are all we've got and that's why there is a verse in the bible that reads: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

God is an idea within consciousness. Ideas are expressed using words that are unique to the consciousness that is manifesting as a human mind. That's what this talk is about, it's about God talk based on ideas expressed as and through mentation heards as words aka concepts known..

If we WANT to talk about 'God', then why not let us talk about what IS 'God'?

That's just one preference, I suppose.
Again, the purpose of this thread is to talk about God...it doesn't matter how God is defined or talked about, as nothing is rejected or limited to just one ideal.
As far as I know so far, God is what is being talked about for those contributing to this thread, including you.

.

[Dontaskme]

But what is clear is that this ineffable reality is not "God".

This ineffable reality is KNOWN

So, what is knowing the ineffable?

[Dontaskme]

If some wants to just express their BELIEF that some ineffable 'thing' exists, then so be it. But I, for one, would wonder; How would they, themselves, KNOW some thing exists if they, themselves, can not even express nor describe in words what that thing actually is?

Listen, we've been through this many times before, that which knows thing is not a thing. Do you not get that?

I've repeated this to you many times before that it is not a ''someone'' that knows. You are the 'knowing' that cannot be known.

A 'someone' lets call it a person is a concept KNOWN. It is not-known how a concept is KNOWN, for the KNOWN know nothing.

Do you see?

.

[Dontaskme]

Yes I AM maybe the irrefutable truth. But, then we are back to that old question; 'Who am 'I'?'

Only you the one who aks the question can answer that.

When the proper and correct answer to this question is discovered or learned, then ALL of the rest that is said to be ineffable, in the days of when this is written, just fall into place so much easier.

So answer your own question, by asking yourself what is the proper and correct answer to my own question?

.

[Dontaskme]

The problem is that we are not I AM.

Yes we are, when there is no thought present in thee, what is left is the self-evident common denominator of all sentient life forms that cannot be refuted or denied, and that is consciousness without an object...don't forget that a known concept is an object of ''my desire'' within the I AM which has to be first and present prior to any recognition or realisation is made..or for want of another way of putting it, there has to be a consciousness present to know each and every concept as and when it arises.

We are many, but all the many are the same one I AM - this is self-evidently proven through the use of ayahuasca or even through a natural awakening without the use of drugs. Identification with the 'thought self' is ego, it's the false illusory sense of separation which dissolves into oneness when the artifically created id is let go of...albeit illusory since all this ''I AM my thoughts'' is happening as an hallucination of the brain anyway.

You already know all this, so I'm really not sure what exactly is your beef with stuff.

We are many. We are a mixture rather than a solution. This mixture is not mixed well due to the fallen human condition so have become the "wretched man."

The ''wretched man'' is a thought. Prior to the thought, no man is wreched, because there is no man there, man is a thought. Identification with I AM never says it's wretched, thought does, but it's an illusion. There is nothing wrong with being an illusory 'wretched man' unless there is a personal attachment to one which is an illusion.

.

[Immanuel Can]

You won't like this, but...

I never know what the things you say actually are intended to mean, Nick. On a surface level, I'm inclined to think I have some agreement with you. But as you say, you rightly sense that I'm not party to the esoteric readings. I can never be sure how far we're able to agree.

That kind of kills any desire to discuss, actually. There's something deeply deceptive about using language in such a way that it becomes no more than a springboard for one's "secret" meanings, meanings one's discussion partners had, perhaps, no belief in at all. When one can't tell what one's interlocutor is trying to commit one to, it's tempting not even to try.

You might get more traction if you stopped that and just spoke plainly -- more like Scripture does. But if you did, it would take people some time to know that your manner had changed. You don't seem a bad sort...but right now, you're not exactly easy to talk with.

So I can't even tell you what I do nor do not "like" about your claims. I no longer am sure I know what you mean by them.

[Immanuel Can]

Where has this 'triune' been observed in physics?

You are imagining a God who is beneath the physical laws He Himself invented? What you've got in mind is clearly less than "God," analytically. Instead, you've got a comprehensive Physicalism in mind, obviously.