So... is God incompetent or uncaring? Which of the two?

sojourner · Jun 22, 2012

remember that we ARE God! All that you feel, suffer, celebrate, learn... God experiences THROUGH you. Every thought and sensation you have is ultimately God's.

This mostly makes sense, although, how do you account for the particularity of each individual, and the particularity of God, if this is your view?

Storm · Jun 22, 2012

sojourner said:
This mostly makes sense, although, how do you account for the particularity of each individual, and the particularity of God, if this is your view?

I don't understand the question - what do you mean by particularity?

Koldo · Jun 22, 2012

sojourner said:
Since I'm a Christian, the only theology I can speak to with any authority is Christianity. I thought that was implied. My bad. From a Christian theological perspective, we are part of God.

Once again, that is wrong.
It is part of your theological perspective.

waitasec · Jun 22, 2012

So... is God incompetent or uncaring? Which of the two?

if you're talking about the god in the bible, then i would say both.

sojourner · Jun 22, 2012

Koldo said:
Once again, that is wrong.
It is part of your theological perspective.

Romans 14:8

Psalm 139.

John 1:12

Nope. Not wrong.

sojourner · Jun 22, 2012

Storm said:
I don't understand the question - what do you mean by particularity?

We are each particular individuals with particular senses of being. We sense God, also, as a particular being apart from us (while at the same time sensing God within). How do you resolve that particularity, if we are "all God?"

Storm · Jun 22, 2012

sojourner said:
We are each particular individuals with particular senses of being. We sense God, also, as a particular being apart from us (while at the same time sensing God within). How do you resolve that particularity, if we are "all God?"

Ah, thanks.

God is me, but God is also everything else. That's why it feels slightly-yet-not alien... my ego cuts me off from the vast majority.

Koldo · Jun 22, 2012

Storm said:
Yes. These are two of the three primal elements, the third being arn or life force. All that we can EVER observe springs from the interactions of these elements.

Hmmmmm..... I'm not entirely sure of the point you're trying to make, but - brain death happens when the rhys is lost without causing the physical death of the body.

Whoa, no! Nothing supernatural.

The rhys is the observer and its memory. When shed of the seeming, it does retain a... let's say 'character' to distinguish from the incarnations... a character of its own. However it is utterly dependent on the other elements to learn and grow.

So the 'rhys' does have a character with memories then?
You said the spirit contains the personality traits and that the memories belong to the psyche.

Storm said:
Absolutely, so long as its understood that neither is definitive to the incarnation.

Both and neither.

In the beginning (), rhys was one - undifferentiated, but also passive and without form (thought). It saw all and knew nothing. Through interaction with matter and arn, it evolves into thought, emotion, memory. The ego (illusion of separation) is vital to this process, but not the culmination.

The culmination is reaching the point where the ego can be shed without destroying the individual rhys-form's character and wisdom, reintegrating into perfect awareness of the whole. E pluribus unum!

Perhaps. That said, remember that we ARE God! All that you feel, suffer, celebrate, learn... God experiences THROUGH you. Every thought and sensation you have is ultimately God's.

But it is ultimately doing it for itself, isn't it?
If it has higher priorities than wanting the greater good for everyone, then that settles the issue.

What benefit is there to the 'rhys' by following God's plan?

Koldo · Jun 22, 2012

sojourner said:
Romans 14:8

Psalm 139.

John 1:12

Nope. Not wrong.

None of them mention humans being part of God.

Storm · Jun 22, 2012

Koldo said:
So the 'rhys' does have a character with memories then?

Yes, but:

You said the spirit contains the personality traits and that the memories belong to the psyche.

For the incarnation, not the rhys.

But it is ultimately doing it for itself, isn't it?

"I have no use for that distinction."

If it has higher priorities than wanting the greater good for everyone, then that settles the issue.

Not what I said. I said "happiness." The Becoming IS "the greater good for everyone." The happiness of the incarnation is fleeting.

What benefit is there to the 'rhys' by following God's plan?

Couple misconceptions here:
1) I rather doubt God has a plan to begin with. Growing up is inevitable.
2) If such a plan exists, rhys has no choice but to follow it. "There's no use asking if the air is any good when there's nothing else to breathe!"

Between the two, your question is rather moot. Unless I misread.

Koldo · Jun 22, 2012

Storm said:
"I have no use for that distinction."

Why is there no distinction if you have a character?

Storm said:
Not what I said. I said "happiness." The Becoming IS "the greater good for everyone." The happiness of the incarnation is fleeting.

Once God becomes mature, what happens?
If becoming is the process and if the process will be over and if the process is the greater good, what then?

Storm said:
Couple misconceptions here:
1) I rather doubt God has a plan to begin with. Growing up is inevitable.
2) If such a plan exists, rhys has no choice but to follow it. "There's no use asking if the air is any good when there's nothing else to breathe!"

Between the two, your question is rather moot. Unless I misread.

If this God can make suffering cease to exist, and it is benevolent to any degree, then it has to have a reason as to why it doesn't. From what you said it has probably to do with its will to grow up. If that is not the case, then we go back to the question as to why God doesn't cease all suffering that exists.

Storm · Jun 22, 2012

Koldo said:
Why is there no distinction if you have a character?

The rhys has a character distinct from its current incarnation.

I don't comprehend. I do not experience a fleeting happiness.

No? Even if you live out your days with not a single twinge of sadness, that happiness dies with your incarnation.

If this God can make suffering cease to exist, and it is benevolent to any degree, then it has to have a reason as to why it doesn't. From what you said it has probably to do with its will to grow up. If that is not the case, then we go back to the question as to why God doesn't cease all suffering that exists.

It does have a reason. That's what I've been trying to explain. I'm not sure where I lost you.... :shrug:

Storm · Jun 22, 2012

Koldo said:
Once God becomes mature, what happens?
If becoming is the process and if the process will be over and if the process is the greater good, what then?

When the Becoming is complete, all ego will be gone. We (speaking of rhys here, not incarnations) will be reintegrated, yet retain our distinct character, the countless voices of the cosmos united in a single melody. God will be complete, and together, we will take our place among equals.

All else depends on what we choose.

idav · Jun 22, 2012

If god could do anything about the state of the world he would have already. Many religions continue to promise that god will fix it but looks to me like it is up to us.

A god that is one with the universe would be limited to the laws of the universe. Still the universe is plenty powerful. Nature doesn't seem to concerned about suffering but then it is already bound and set by whatever precedes it.

Sir Doom · Jun 22, 2012

Koldo said:
I don't think we have much to talk about though. It is not like you are defending the omnimax concept of God either way.

Hehe, good point

sojourner · Jun 22, 2012

Koldo said:
None of them mention humans being part of God.

If, as the Psalm says, God is everywhere we may go, it only stands to reason that, as implied in Romans, God is also within us, we belong to God and are, therefore, part of God.

Koldo · Jun 23, 2012

sojourner said:
If, as the Psalm says, God is everywhere we may go, it only stands to reason that, as implied in Romans, God is also within us, we belong to God and are, therefore, part of God.

1) Belonging to God doesn't entail being part of God. I have a pen that belongs to me and yet it isn't part of me.

2) Omnipresence has been interpreted as being present everywhere and yet being separated from creation. Much like as I am present in my bedroom but my bedroom is not part of me ( even if i lived my whole life in it ). If this wasn't the case, then christians would widely consider/recognize themselves to be panentheists which is not the case.

Koldo · Jun 23, 2012

Storm said:
The rhys has a character distinct from its current incarnation.

I lost you here. I thought you were talking about the distinction between you/us and God. What did you mean when you said "I have no use for that distinction."?

Storm said:
It does have a reason. That's what I've been trying to explain. I'm not sure where I lost you....

Isn't the reason the growth?

Storm said:
When the Becoming is complete, all ego will be gone. We (speaking of rhys here, not incarnations) will be reintegrated, yet retain our distinct character, the countless voices of the cosmos united in a single melody. God will be complete, and together, we will take our place among equals.

All else depends on what we choose.

But what exactly do we gain from this?
It is unclear to me how exactly our lives would be improved.
Try to imagine the best human life you could ever have with God providing everything you ever wished for, and now compare it to what we gain when this process of maturation is complete. What is the advantage, for us, of the latter over the former?

sojourner · Jun 23, 2012

Koldo said:
1) Belonging to God doesn't entail being part of God. I have a pen that belongs to me and yet it isn't part of me.

2) Omnipresence has been interpreted as being present everywhere and yet being separated from creation. Much like as I am present in my bedroom but my bedroom is not part of me ( even if i lived my whole life in it ). If this wasn't the case, then christians would widely consider/recognize themselves to be panentheists which is not the case.

Yet, Genesis tells us that we contain God's breath, and that it's that breath that makes us alive. Breath is certainly part of us.

The very basic belief that God became Incarnate states that God became "one of us," implying that we, also become part of God.

This oneness is implicit throughout the history of Xy.

Koldo · Jun 23, 2012

sojourner said:
Yet, Genesis tells us that we contain God's breath, and that it's that breath that makes us alive. Breath is certainly part of us.

Is your breath part of you?

Also, if you want to use Genesis in your favour then we will have to bring up to the table Genesis 18:20-21, Genesis 3:8-13, and Genesis 11:5.

sojourner said:
The very basic belief that God became Incarnate states that God became "one of us," implying that we, also become part of God.

That isn't implied.
If i were to become a muslim ( for example ), i would be one of them.
But it is not implied that i am going to become a part of other muslims.

sojourner said:
This oneness is implicit throughout the history of Xy.

That's just how you see it.

So... is God incompetent or uncaring? Which of the two?

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

ThrUU the Looking Glass

Outstanding Member

Veteran Member

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

ThrUU the Looking Glass

Outstanding Member

Outstanding Member

ThrUU the Looking Glass

Outstanding Member

ThrUU the Looking Glass

ThrUU the Looking Glass

Being

Cooler than most of you

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Outstanding Member

Outstanding Member

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Outstanding Member