9-18-1
Active Member
If we take 'I AM' as the root of all consciousness, and strip it completely of any/all possible accessory identifications, what is one left with but the name the Abrahamic god equips Moses with upon his descent into Egypt? Importantly, though this god identified itself roughly as "I am that I am" Moses was simply given "I am" to take into Egypt.
If god is/is in 'I AM' and as each their own, this completes "I AM that I am". So how is one then removed from god? Could the relationship between these two be what is being implicated in Michelangelo's Creation of Adam?
...............I am.................................................that.................................I AM.......................
So let us start from two possible roots deriving (from) 'I AM':
'I know...'
'I believe...'
It is obviously possible to "believe" to know <object> rather than actually knowing one <object>. It begs the question: of these two, which has more solid roots? I choose 'roots' here because this is precisely what I understand and suggest as the roots of the two Edenic trees: of life, and of death, along with their relationship to good and evil.
To be like god is to know good and evil. If we consider:
'I know... (about) good and evil...'
'I believe... I know (about) good and evil...'
the former must necessarily be (like) god, the latter not.
Therefor, of principle importance between MAN and GOD is BELIEF.
This is entirely consistent with the notion that the principle modus operandi of satan is to deceive people into "BELIEVING" that satan is actually god. This is not different than making good appear as evil and/or evil appear as good, as the god/satan dichotomy reflects the primordial eternal battle of the forces of good vs. the forces of evil. How does one, then, confuse these two polarities?
Consider: *if* it is in fact impossible for a mortal human being to have full knowledge of good and evil, then at best one can only merely "BELIEVE" to know good and evil, which immediately begs the question whether or not such a person remains immune to the forces of evil (ie. satan) which requires "BELIEF" in the first place. Re-evaluating 'I know...' and 'I believe...' one finds the former as having much more solid roots whence to grow any tree. Else: any tree(s) whose roots are rooted in "BELIEF" are subject to them being untrue. This is absolutely catastrophic for people who identify with/as their "BELIEFS" and protect/defend them at all costs due to the close attachment/association. Such things acts as binds: unsurprisingly not unlike how satan binds adherents by having them "BELIEVE" satan is god.
Further considering the above is an *if*, the only alternative is that it is in fact not impossible for a mortal human being to know good and evil. Here we derive the two possible states/results from eating from the tree:
god: surely die (impossible to 'know' good and evil if true)
serpent: live forever (possible to 'know' good and evil if true)
which renders three possibilities: i. god is right, serpent is wrong ii. god is wrong, serpent is right iii. both god and serpent are right/wrong. So which is correct?
If it is impossible to know good and evil, then at any time ever "believing" to know good and evil is precisely what causes death, in accordance with the warning from god. If it is possible to know good and evil, then at any time those who learn/'know' it are like god, knowing good and evil.
However, if one 'knows' how/why "BELIEVING" to know good and evil causes death (by virtue of the fact [if true] it is impossible to fully know/comprehend good and evil, one can thereby 'know' good and evil and become "like" in accordance to both god and the serpent. This solution satisfies both as one avoids eating, but likewise becomes like god by not eating.
Consider such a solution in "us" vs. "them" rivalries:
Side A "BELIEVES" they are on the side of good and Side B is on the Side of evil.
Side B "BELIEVES" they are on the side of good and Side A is on the Side of evil.
the common factor being: "BELIEF".
And this is precisely how I derive what satan is: "BELIEF" thus there is no virtue in it by virtue of the fact that satan requires "BELIEF" in order that "BELIEVERS" "BELIEVE" that SATAN is GOD (ie. good is evil, evil is good) and such dichotomies are hard-coded into the Abrahamic religions of Christianity/Islam (ie. "BELIEVER" vs. "UNBELIEVER").
How many hundreds of millions are dead? Could this have anything to do with good and evil?
What if there was no Potent exodus (ie. Judaism is false)?
What if Jesus did not rise again? (ie. Christianity is false)
What if the Qur'an did not come from any god (ie. Islam is false)?
How many of these institutions require "BELIEF" and/or testimony statements involving non-living persons?
Given the gravity of the scenario wherein all three happen to be false (which I find to be the case) it stands to reason that not only is "BELIEF" not a virtue, it is by far the most destructive element that underscores the dark ages of man: "BELIEF" in holy books, in holy men, in holy causes, in heavens that await etc. As such, I designate "BELIEF" as the closest possible thing that could ever come to satan: one and the same that has a hold over and binds humanity.
"BELIEF" is simply not a virtue. Not "simply believing" is.
To close: whatever identity one adopts beyond the simple 'I am' becomes their own inner idol that has to be protected, defended etc. Whatever identity this is, the intellect will only function around that particular identity in order to both serve it and defend it if/when necessary. If a neutral polarity is assumed on the external (ie. good balances good and evil) then any/all perceived polarizations originate from within. Therefor, it is only by maintaining a neutral (ie. not "believing" to know good and evil) state which grants one the ability to perceive the reality just the way it is (ie. a state of knowing) rather than "BELIEVING".
If god is/is in 'I AM' and as each their own, this completes "I AM that I am". So how is one then removed from god? Could the relationship between these two be what is being implicated in Michelangelo's Creation of Adam?
...............I am.................................................that.................................I AM.......................
So let us start from two possible roots deriving (from) 'I AM':
'I know...'
'I believe...'
It is obviously possible to "believe" to know <object> rather than actually knowing one <object>. It begs the question: of these two, which has more solid roots? I choose 'roots' here because this is precisely what I understand and suggest as the roots of the two Edenic trees: of life, and of death, along with their relationship to good and evil.
To be like god is to know good and evil. If we consider:
'I know... (about) good and evil...'
'I believe... I know (about) good and evil...'
the former must necessarily be (like) god, the latter not.
Therefor, of principle importance between MAN and GOD is BELIEF.
This is entirely consistent with the notion that the principle modus operandi of satan is to deceive people into "BELIEVING" that satan is actually god. This is not different than making good appear as evil and/or evil appear as good, as the god/satan dichotomy reflects the primordial eternal battle of the forces of good vs. the forces of evil. How does one, then, confuse these two polarities?
Consider: *if* it is in fact impossible for a mortal human being to have full knowledge of good and evil, then at best one can only merely "BELIEVE" to know good and evil, which immediately begs the question whether or not such a person remains immune to the forces of evil (ie. satan) which requires "BELIEF" in the first place. Re-evaluating 'I know...' and 'I believe...' one finds the former as having much more solid roots whence to grow any tree. Else: any tree(s) whose roots are rooted in "BELIEF" are subject to them being untrue. This is absolutely catastrophic for people who identify with/as their "BELIEFS" and protect/defend them at all costs due to the close attachment/association. Such things acts as binds: unsurprisingly not unlike how satan binds adherents by having them "BELIEVE" satan is god.
Further considering the above is an *if*, the only alternative is that it is in fact not impossible for a mortal human being to know good and evil. Here we derive the two possible states/results from eating from the tree:
god: surely die (impossible to 'know' good and evil if true)
serpent: live forever (possible to 'know' good and evil if true)
which renders three possibilities: i. god is right, serpent is wrong ii. god is wrong, serpent is right iii. both god and serpent are right/wrong. So which is correct?
If it is impossible to know good and evil, then at any time ever "believing" to know good and evil is precisely what causes death, in accordance with the warning from god. If it is possible to know good and evil, then at any time those who learn/'know' it are like god, knowing good and evil.
However, if one 'knows' how/why "BELIEVING" to know good and evil causes death (by virtue of the fact [if true] it is impossible to fully know/comprehend good and evil, one can thereby 'know' good and evil and become "like" in accordance to both god and the serpent. This solution satisfies both as one avoids eating, but likewise becomes like god by not eating.
Consider such a solution in "us" vs. "them" rivalries:
Side A "BELIEVES" they are on the side of good and Side B is on the Side of evil.
Side B "BELIEVES" they are on the side of good and Side A is on the Side of evil.
the common factor being: "BELIEF".
And this is precisely how I derive what satan is: "BELIEF" thus there is no virtue in it by virtue of the fact that satan requires "BELIEF" in order that "BELIEVERS" "BELIEVE" that SATAN is GOD (ie. good is evil, evil is good) and such dichotomies are hard-coded into the Abrahamic religions of Christianity/Islam (ie. "BELIEVER" vs. "UNBELIEVER").
How many hundreds of millions are dead? Could this have anything to do with good and evil?
What if there was no Potent exodus (ie. Judaism is false)?
What if Jesus did not rise again? (ie. Christianity is false)
What if the Qur'an did not come from any god (ie. Islam is false)?
How many of these institutions require "BELIEF" and/or testimony statements involving non-living persons?
Given the gravity of the scenario wherein all three happen to be false (which I find to be the case) it stands to reason that not only is "BELIEF" not a virtue, it is by far the most destructive element that underscores the dark ages of man: "BELIEF" in holy books, in holy men, in holy causes, in heavens that await etc. As such, I designate "BELIEF" as the closest possible thing that could ever come to satan: one and the same that has a hold over and binds humanity.
"BELIEF" is simply not a virtue. Not "simply believing" is.
To close: whatever identity one adopts beyond the simple 'I am' becomes their own inner idol that has to be protected, defended etc. Whatever identity this is, the intellect will only function around that particular identity in order to both serve it and defend it if/when necessary. If a neutral polarity is assumed on the external (ie. good balances good and evil) then any/all perceived polarizations originate from within. Therefor, it is only by maintaining a neutral (ie. not "believing" to know good and evil) state which grants one the ability to perceive the reality just the way it is (ie. a state of knowing) rather than "BELIEVING".
