your approach does admit something alright....

If we say that God is an eternal becoming then we are saying that it is without a beginning, it means that nothing existed before it. Thus, we, the universe are just the expression of that intelligent becoming of its Being. To become aware of that intelligent becoming is to receive its eternal being; it is to be progressively anointed with its Chrism, with its being, with this eternal intelligent becoming.

Any religious book is logically the work of one or more anointed people. The Old Testament in the Hebrew Bible contains the sayings of several anointed Prophets, or individuals who receive the Chrism (Christ). The New Testament contains the spiritual development of the Chrism on Jesus, the Anointed, the Christ, the intelligence.

The Koran teaches the revelations of the anointed Prophet Mohammed.

The founders of all religions are historical intelligent personalities who through their anointment brought the same teachings of Chrism.

All sacred scriptures explain the way this Chrism was developed on one or more individuals; and taught this anointment according with the existing idiosyncrasy in different periods of the history of mankind.

The Greek word Chrism is anointment and can be applied to anyone who is anointed with the Spirit of God. Any intelligent judicious individual can understand perfectly that not all the population of the world speaks Greek, therefore the word Chrism (anointment in Greek) can be found in Hebrew as Messiah, and obviously in many other languages. However, these words will be always associated with the development of the Spirit of God within many, many, anointed individuals.

Statements like the above justify all religions as being one and the same thing.

This is why the Hebrew Bible or any other sacred Bible of any race of the world is regarded as the intelligent work of anointed individuals. And, if these individuals received the same Chrism, they are undoubtedly joined in a spiritual brotherhood, so, it is wrong to claim that only Jesus was anointed in the past.

We must understand that the Chrism is a ritual of spiritual intelligent development effectuated in any one who submits him/herself to it.

So, Christ, the Greek Spirit of Chrism, is not trapped within the Hebrew Old or New Testament, it is not trapped within the Koran either, or within any other sacred book.

Christ, Avalokiteshwara, Kuan Yin, Quetzalcoatl, Ahura Mazda, Allah, etc., is an intelligent entity that is eternally becoming, it is the intelligence of the Universe.

And if you call it intelligent design, it would be one of the eighteen thousand things that I really don’t mind!

Right. Well, I say your label is the no-label you call "that which is unknown and uncertain." Your mysticism is anti-mysticism. And if you don't like it, because my concepts do not match your concepts, then, you should now understand what you are doing to others!

The Thesis vs. AntiThesis is played out upon an unknown battleground; nevertheless, and even if one side proclaims victory, no knowledge is acquired unless it is understood that within the very battleground itself is the synthesis between opposites.

Every concept has its proper and improper place. To place one fanciful concept rigidly into every scenario is something like placing a round peg in a square whole, on the other hand, to categorically reject a concept based upon the fact that people use it incorrectly and ignorantly is quite hypocritical. So what if lazy people use God to justify their lazyness, if ignorant people use God to justify their ignorance, etc. To go about telling everyone that God is just this or that is nothing more than a reflection of your understanding of God, not anyone elses.

Your approach, your concept, empowers man? No, I think not, it leaves him in ignorance! Man is what he is regardless of whether or not he believes himself to be wise or if he believe's himself to be dumb. Concepts are valueless, they mean nothing. To live in concepts, to reject concepts, means nothing. Old, dusty, often reapeated and worn out concepts of yesterday are precesely that which impeads the eternal becoming of now. Just because you have discovered the God concept of the lazy and hypocritical "believer" in no way whatsoever implies that you have understood God.

Why fight about a concept? Do you love your concepts very much? Or do you do you love your fellow man?

in the way i think you mean love:
i don't "love" concepts.

i don't "love" man.

WRT "gods":
without evidence of existance of a higher order being, they are a myth, and nothing more. Of the same category of anything else imagined by man that lacks evidence of existance.

yes, my label for the unknown is "unknown" or undetermined. facts is facts.




on the contrary: if man looks at what he is, and searches for the answers to that which he does and does not know, the framework is empowering. Even if the framework is proven wrong by the search, it provded the basis for the search.

On the other hand, if man casts himself into a set role or station in life, he will never aspire to discover his true potential. It is like the elephant at the circus: as a baby, it is chained to a peg in the ground it can not pull out. It learns it can not pull the peg out after trying when first chained. As an adult, even though it could easily pull the peg, it does not try for it has conditioned itself to think it can not and hence does not try. The "god" approach does this to man. All of the "god" mythologies do this to man. Whenever something fantastic happens involving man, it was not man, but some "god". This leaves man forever chained to that post when he could easily break free.

You have not understood me because this is what I just said. So, follow your own advice and tug that chain of yesterday that states that God is just this or that, becuase I am telling you that chain can be broken and something you do not yet have knowledge of can be known. The "god mythologies" are not what you think (nor what those other people think). You have not yet understood them. Your understanding of mythologies is very crude and ignorant.

In other words, if you accomlish the perfect transvalution of the eternal moment of now, then you are in fact eternally becoming. That is God.

recast the def of god to hold onto your god mandate if you will. the problem is that you and loge are approaching the whole concept with the notion that there is a "god", to be defined, a priori. (thus you dance around the terminology to grant you this god you so seek. that is the untimate limitation)

let me simplify it for you:

states under which each model holds:

-->my approach: works if god exists, if gods don't exist, if the universe is sentinent, if it is not sentient, if the universe is alive, if the universe is not alive

-->loge's approach: works only if god exits and that god is a sentient living universe.



in other words, loge's approach is a subset of my approach. given we can not rule out that which we have no evidence to rule out, which model is the limiting model?

i was not going to get into the silliness of loge's attacks, but just remember when you fling mud, the mud is coming from the pile you stand on (by calling my approach stupid, loge called himself stupid)

Let me simplify it for you:

Loge approaches the whole concept with a direct experience perception of what is only a belief in people and what is not a belief in you.

Your approach: works if god exists, if gods don't exist, if the universe is sentient, if it is not sentient, if the universe is alive, if the universe is not alive, because you do not have the senses in order to experience the eternal flowing of becoming; so, you can only theorize about it!

Loge's approach: works only with the awakening of the superior senses in order to have a direct experience perception of that intelligence. This is why Loge does not believe in what he perceives with his superior senses because he knows it exists. i.e. Loge does not believe in the air because he breaths it and lives thanks to it; so, Loge senses the air and knows it exists.

In other words, Loge's approach is a direct experience perception while your approach is just a theory. Loge can rule out that which Loge has evidence to rule out with the risk of being mocked, even when for his senses the model is the right model!

One cannot prove but only theorize about the light to a blind person!

You cannot get into the silliness of Loge's attacks, because you have no evidence as he has of what he is talking about, but just remember when you fling mud, the mud is coming from the pile you stand on (by calling your approach stupid, Loge called himself stupid for the sake of the blind)

n=1

senses decieve (or can you not see that?)

built on direct experience? when is it you experienced an atom in such a way as to know what it really is?

you put FAR too much faith in yourself. You think you have all the answers when you have yet to see the questions.

sorry, the more you talk, the more you discredit yourself.

Again:
One cannot prove but only theorize about the light to a blind person!

that is a false light you see. perhaps you have been wearing blinders too long.

enough of this: you offer no evidence, so stop rambling on about your mighty inner sight. It is all within you. That makes it a dream, a fantasy, a creation but not reality.

"on the contrary: if man looks at what he is, and searches for the answers to that which he does and does not know, the framework is empowering. Even if the framework is proven wrong by the search, it provided the basis for the search."

So, the evidence is within you, but unfortunately, you don't have the sense to perceive it!

the framework comes from the mind.

the evidence comes from outside the mind.

the evidence i have from within me is that there are no gods (no matter what the definition of the day is). This comes from deep meditation. however, i don't offer it as evidence to any framework external to me (like the one offered here) because it is totally subjective and has a sampling of one. Thus it carries no proof on its own. The same can be said of your inner evidence.

knowledge begins only after you realize you know nothing. You have yet to reach that point, it seems.

In order to make the light visible to the blind one has only to theorize about darkness. And in order to manifest the truth one has to allow the opportunity of doubt. The darkness is necessary for the light, and the possibility of error is necessary for the temporal manifestation of the truth. If the Atheist does not intercept the idea of God, the light of God would be lost in the void of theories and beliefs, thus manifesting infinite madness in the universe.

then you should try that.

Don't worry, I know what I should and should not try!

really?

your closed-mindedness would indicate otherwise.

The evidence of life enters us, into our organism, in the form of mere waves. Therefore we cannot understand life if we do not comprehend the waves that reach our mind.

There does not exist anything such as external life. We are stating something really revolutionary since all people believe that what is physical is what is real.

However, if we dig a little deeper into our minds, we have to realize that what we are really receiving each moment, each instant, through our senses are just waves.

If we see an individual that pleases us or displeases us, the first things we obtain are waves of that nature. Life is an eternal becoming, it is a succession of waves or impressions. It is not like the many too many believe: a physical thing of exclusively material nature.

The reality of life that we perceive is just impressions or waves. It is evident that the ideas we are stating here are very difficult to understand, to comprehend.

The person we see sitting in a chair, for example, with such or such other color suit, the one who greets us, the one who smiles at us, etc. is a real thing to us, right?

But if we meditate profoundly on all this, we arrive at the conclusion that what is real for us is just the impressions or waves captured by our senses and that were emitted by that object or subject.

These impressions or waves naturally reach the mind through the windows of our sense organs. If we did not have sense organs, for example, eyes for seeing, ears for hearing, or a mouth to taste food, would that which we call the physical body exist for us? Of course not, absolutely not.

So, life in its eternal becoming reaches us in the form of impressions or waves and that is where the reality of life or the evidence of anything in the universe exists.

i understand exactly what you have been saying since the first post.

however, non of your arguments provide any evidence for a "god", even if you wish to redefine "god" to meet your needs.

i wouldn't consider what you are suggesting as revolutionary since the concept has been around for quite some time now. the problem is that there is no evidence to support it. This "new age" approach fails because it gives an authority of perception to the object rather than the perceiver. That is to suggest thoughts, interpretations, etc are decided not by the reciever, but by the transmitter. You are anthropomorphizing the universe. Not really a surprise since that is what all "god" theories end up doing in one form or another.

The mind can trick. One can not be certian of truth of anything found solely in the mind. Also remember that the senses deceive. You can not be certian of any of your sensory information, as the receptors are limited, and the mind pre-processes it. Of course our senses are the gateway to our world, but that does not suggest nor support what you are proposing.

You are failing to account for there not being any sentience to the universe itself. It is a large leap to include that as a requirement for your model to work, and to suggest that any other approach is "stupid" or "absurd" because it does not is in itself "stupid" and "absurd".

"You are failing to account for there not being any sentience to the universe itself. It is a large leap to include that as a requirement for your model to work, and to suggest that any other approach is "stupid" or "absurd" because it does not is in itself "stupid" and "absurd"."

And in the end, nothing really does matter
Aren't I smart

Of course our mind receives the waves of matter and the matter sends its waves to all minds.

But, if the minds do not understand, never mind it does not matter!