Beyond God and Evil

[brokenhead]

Look for God? What a silly notion! How does one look for the everywhere and everywhen?

Dan! You picked up on my sarcasm! There's hope for you yet, mate!

[earnest_seeker]

To be very clear: in my case the God in question is specifically the God of your scenario.

Thanks, Dan. That actually means a lot to me. It implies that you consider that my conception of God is free of contradictions, which is my main aim after criticising the Christian conception of God.

[Dan Rowden]

The internal can exist without the external? That's a neat trick.

Hey buddy, you're the one who believes in an infinity.

Nice evasion. The infinite lacks form and therefore has no internal/external.

Rationality is cast aside when people believe things for purely emotional reasons, thereby truth as well - or more accurately put - the valuing of it.

Prove that the belief is not truth before you castigate it.

This sort of religious belief is irrational by default. I can castigate it on those grounds alone. Belief is not truth by dint of the meaning of the words.

More importantly, prove that the belief is based on emotional reasons rather than rational ones.

There's no credible, rational evidence for it - if you have some, share it; nor is there any sensible reason to believe it - other than emotional. If you have one, then share it. I'm surprisingly open to the miraculous.

[Dan Rowden]

To be very clear: in my case the God in question is specifically the God of your scenario.

Thanks, Dan. That actually means a lot to me. It implies that you consider that my conception of God is free of contradictions, which is my main aim after criticising the Christian conception of God.

Whoa there! I'm not saying that entirely. You'll note in my original post I stated there were false philosophical interpretations within that scenario. I'm simply saying that, barring those, it's quite possible. i.e. it's possible in its essence.

[earnest_seeker]

Dan: The internal can exist without the external? That's a neat trick.

earnest: Hey buddy, you're the one who believes in an infinity.

Dan: Nice evasion. The infinite lacks form and therefore has no internal/external.[/quote]

It wasn't an evasion. David said that form could be either internal or external. Therefore it could be purely internal, in which case the external has no relevance: in which case infinity with form is possible.

This sort of religious belief is irrational by default.

Lovely. :-) Now I'm free to say: belief that women are by nature unconscious is irrational by default. They both fit into the same category, right?

There's no credible, rational evidence for it

Oh, well, then, clearly that justifies you in your belief that it's false. Where did all of that open-mindedness go?

[Dan Rowden]

Laird,

Dan: The internal can exist without the external? That's a neat trick.

earnest: Hey buddy, you're the one who believes in an infinity.

Dan: Nice evasion. The infinite lacks form and therefore has no internal/external.

Laird: It wasn't an evasion.

It was to me because you didn't really address the issue of how the internal can exist absent of the external.

David said that form could be either internal or external.

Yes, because each of those are finite forms dependent on what they are not for their existence and meaning. They can't exist of themselves, however - which is part of their form-nature.

Therefore it could be purely internal, in which case the external has no relevance: in which case infinity with form is possible.

The internal cannot exist without the external. The word itself doesn't have any meaning other than in relation to its dualistic partner.

Dan: This sort of religious belief is irrational by default.

Laird: Lovely. :-) Now I'm free to say: belief that women are by nature unconscious is irrational by default. They both fit into the same category, right?

Your bliss is entirely premature (that's not a trend with you, is it?; if so, don't tell the chicks). I don't say women are unconscious by nature - I say the feminine is and that women are to the degree they are feminine. The degree to which they are, in fact, feminine, can really only ever be a contingent empirical theory, albeit one with a high level of credible evidence.

Dan: There's no credible, rational evidence for it.

Laird: Oh, well, then, clearly that justifies you in your belief that it's false.

Where did I express such a belief? I stated the view that there's no rational reason to believe in its validity due to a complete dearth of evidence. How is that the same thing?

Where did all of that open-mindedness go?

What? How does that follow? I'm open to actual evidence. There is none. That doesn't mean I'm arguing that there can't be any. Get the difference?

[David Quinn]

You want me to prove that a thing cannot exist without its component parts?

Well you were the one who implied that you could, when you wrote above (now snipped): "True, observing things through the senses is a necessary catalyst for provoking the mind into seeking logical truths. However, the proof of a logical truth cannot be found in such observation." (emphasis mine)

I can, but I'm not going to. I'm sure you could work it for yourself with a few seconds thought.

David: The difference between an absolute truth and a transitory truth is as stark as stark can be. A truth is either impossible to falsify or it isn't. There can be no mixing of the two.

earnest: In the context of the ongoing thread, "Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?", how can you ever know that a truth is impossible to falsify?

David: If a truth is timeless, it is impossible to falsify. If a truth is purely logical, it is timeless.

earnest: But how do you know?

David: By looking!

And how do you know that you're not seeing a mirage?

By looking.

earnest: You're relying on your own mind to make that judgement, but how do you know that your mind can be trusted?

David: I answered this in that other thread - Fundamental Assumptions.

I'm ashamed to admit that I'm too lazy to read through the thread to find your answer. Would you be so kind as to quote the relevant words here?

Nope.

earnest: Nevermind, actually, I had a different understanding of what "form" meant than you. To me, form is the entire structure - both internal and external, of a thing, whereas to you it seems to be only the external shape.

David: It can be either.

Well then your notion that form implies finite is false. If it can be either, then form can be purely internal structure, and infinity can have a purely internal structure.

I am beginning to recall why I told you to go away last time. Like Samadhi, you don't put any effort into paying attention to what is being said and you don't put any quality thought into your responses. As always, you're looking for any excuse not to understand anything or affirm anything as true.

I really can't be bothered with you.

I don't even know why you are here. Who said that you could come back? In such a sneaky fashion too.

-

[David Quinn]

To look for Him in unusual places is both unnecessary and misguided. It smacks of egotism and reveals an ignorance of what God is.

Why don't you just tell us where his usual places are, then, and we'll all simply look for him there?

There is no place where He is not. You just have to open your eyes and immerse yourself in Him.

You cannot get it into your head - or rather, your heart, but the head should have some sway there as well - the experiences which Bo1 and I are trying to share are not of our creation. They are of our participation. You do not believe you have a Creator whom you can name. Your ego is too big, far too big. You are not capable of fearing God. All Bo1 and I are trying to say to you is that it is your loss. We are testifying not because we have to but because we give a flying fuck. Why can't you see that? It's like we are trying to talk you into using a muscle you didn't know you had. When was the last time you felt true joy? What to do with the emotions. If you love God, you cannot be misled in love for Woman, or whatever it is that you do fear. Christ's greatest commandment was to love God. Then you can philosophize all you want, after you do that. You, David, neither fear nor love God. Thus, you have yet to truly know him.

You're free to believe what you like. I'll say it again, the God I worship is far too profound to require cheap stunts and parlour tricks as evidence for Him.

You cannot have faith in an idea or a concept, however sublime. If you are going to have faith it must be in a person.

What about faith in a cause? Or faith in an ideal? Or faith in the future? There is no rule that says that faith can only be directed to a person.

The best kind of faith is faith in the truth, even when that truth doesn't comfort our egos.

-

[earnest_seeker]

I'm going to try to summarise the views of the significant participants in this thread:

Oh, how rude of me - I forgot Leyla. Here it is again with Leyla included:

David Quinn: God is everything, but He's not conscious.

Iolaus: God is everything, and He's conscious.

Dan: God is possible, but insignificant.

brokenhead: God is real, but don't talk to me about religion!

Leyla: God is impossible, or at least impossibly vague.

Ataraxia: What the fuck do you mean by "God"?

[earnest_seeker]

David: You want me to prove that a thing cannot exist without its component parts?

earnest: Well you were the one who implied that you could, when you wrote above (now snipped): "True, observing things through the senses is a necessary catalyst for provoking the mind into seeking logical truths. However, the proof of a logical truth cannot be found in such observation." (emphasis mine)

David: I can, but I'm not going to. I'm sure you could work it for yourself with a few seconds thought.

Well call me dense but I can't. Will you oblige me?

David: The difference between an absolute truth and a transitory truth is as stark as stark can be. A truth is either impossible to falsify or it isn't. There can be no mixing of the two.

earnest: In the context of the ongoing thread, "Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?", how can you ever know that a truth is impossible to falsify? Anyhow, the mask is off and I have a new signature.

David: If a truth is timeless, it is impossible to falsify. If a truth is purely logical, it is timeless.

earnest: But how do you know?

David: By looking!

earnest: And how do you know that you're not seeing a mirage?

David: By looking.

I look at the mirage and I think that I see something real, when really I don't.

earnest: I'm ashamed to admit that I'm too lazy to read through the thread to find your answer. Would you be so kind as to quote the relevant words here?

David: Nope.

Then please forgive me for recalling that none of the answers that you provided to that thread stood the test of challenge, and that all were undone by the reasoning of others.

earnest: Nevermind, actually, I had a different understanding of what "form" meant than you. To me, form is the entire structure - both internal and external, of a thing, whereas to you it seems to be only the external shape.

David: It can be either.

earnest: Well then your notion that form implies finite is false. If it can be either, then form can be purely internal structure, and infinity can have a purely internal structure.

David: I am beginning to recall why I told you to go away last time. Like Samadhi, you don't put any effort into paying attention to what is being said and you don't put any quality thought into your responses.

That's a non-responsive cop-out. As far as I'm concerned, what I wrote is perfectly sensible. Let me say it in different words just so that I can be sure that it gets through to you: you write that form can be either external or internal. Well then, in the case of the infinite it can be purely internal, in which case the infinite has form, and infinity does not equate to formlessness.

As always, you're looking for any excuse not to understand anything or affirm anything as true.

My basic philosophy is "You can never be sure", so I guess that you're right.

I really can't be bothered with you.

I'm sorry to hear it. We seemed to be having a decent dialogue.

I don't even know why you are here. Who said that you could come back? In such a sneaky fashion too.

Oh, and would you have welcomed me back with open arms had I announced "Hi Genius Forums, it's Laird! Remember me?" I don't have that much of a need to challenge you. It seemed that this "sneaky" approach was gentler for both of us.

Anyhow the mask is off and I have a new signature.

[Dan Rowden]

That's a non-responsive cop-out. As far as I'm concerned, what I wrote is perfectly sensible. Let me say it in different words just so that I can be sure that it gets through to you: you write that form can be either external or internal. Well then, in the case of the infinite it can be purely internal, in which case the infinite has form, and infinity does not equate to formlessness.

I see your problem: you keep thinking of the infinite as a "set" with content, therefore having an internal content but with no "external" - because that would make it finite. This is the wrong way to think about it. Dualistic notions like internal/external cannot be ascribed to the infinite at all. As soon as this happens, error occurs. Only things that possess the attribute of "external" can have an "internal" attribute. One cannot begin to conceive of an internal without an accompanying external - because it's the contrast that creates the possibility of the designation of either.

[Iolaus]

No, he meant ignostic. Agnostic wasn't agnostic enough. Look it up.

Well, I was wrong then. Imagine it if you can.

If I related to you an anecdote about how my budgerigar told me to drive around the corner and sure enough there was a fellow waiting for a jump start as proof of birds diviinty--you'd rightly suspect i should seek psychiatric help.However if a deluded Chriusitain says it--and on a forum dedicated to discovering truth no less--I'm supposed to show respect.

I mean no disrespect, but comments like this hardly rate as evidence that you're able to think straight, much less engage in serious discourse or contemplation of the deeper mysteries of existence. Also shows your bias, since you are so mocking, it means you have no intention of actually considering evidence of God.

[Iolaus]

Hello Earnest,

You have no idea about what? That God is wise without a process? Or that it's a precedent?

Don't know whether God has processes. I'm not sure the question really computes. The personhood of God is something I struggle over. I suspect that much of what people attribute to the God/Source/Creator of the universe comes from lesser entities.

Please explain what you meant then, because I seem to have missed it.

I mean that we view what is going on as if it were the only part of reality, but there are other things we generally don't see. Some people, for example, don't see a spiritual side to life at all. Others do, but it is quite murky. But I sometimes get glimpses. There is a pure core to all people, and our evil is not as serious as it appears to us down here on the ground with our limited vision.

Sure, that means that those people are operating under different constraints.

But then you can't attribute it to human nature itself. So you feel like a controlled being? That you have not developed your own constraints?

I'm curious to know what you base your belief in God on. For example, did you once read a book that described things in a way that you liked, so that you adopted that perspective? Did you simply think about it and decide, "Hmm, yes, this makes sense to me - I'm going to believe in this". Or what?

I have doubted God but never really disbelieved in God. However, when I pondered existence and realized how shocking it is that anything can manage to exist, that it is a puzzle whose answer must lie outside the structure of my mind's abilities, I have never doubted God again. The nature of this God, however, is to be discovered.

But I'm not arguing against God, I'm arguing against His omnipotence.

True. Many people throw out God when it is really religion they don't want, or in your case, omnipotence.

Oh well, you just don't seem willing to acknowledge the inconsistency of your view of God. All I'm saying is that an omnipotent God would be able to achieve perfection in His creation, and hence - because He loves His creation and wants the best for it - He would do that.

I see that as exactly what is happening.

You're contradicting yourself. You explained earlier that to sin means to "miss the mark", i.e. to fall short of perfection, and - being an average man - I sin, ergo I am not intrinsically perfect.

There is more than one layer going on.
You are intrinsically perfect, there is no sin, all is always forgiven and there is nothing to forgive.

And yet, you believe that ultimately everyone will make the choice to say "yes". If this is the necessary and predestined outcome, then it's an illusory choice, isn't it? It's just that the process of reaching the final destination is polluted with unnecessary suffering.

It appears that one can dally into evil deeply and for a long time. But it is ultimately going to hit a ceiling of some sort, because it doesn't align with reality. It's difficult to imagine a limited, relative entity living in a changeless state. Eventually, I think they would change toward the good, because that is reality. You can only buck it for so long. I do want to understand very evil beings better, though, because I wonder if the strong and powerful ones are quite deluded as the petty ones are?
The choice isn't illusory because one is free to make reality as unpleasant as one likes, and remain shut off from God. One's reality is really a matter of perception. What you perceive - that is your reality. The choices are made in a state of freedom, but we are all contained within one reality, which is God, from whom there is no alternative. God is the only choice. It's terrifying, I know. I was raised in a slightly more intelligent religion than most, and I was told that hell consisted in those who hate God being unable to escape from God, because God is the upholder of all existence, including theirs.

earnest: Oh, I don't know its source, but I can describe it. Creative power is that which inspires great works of art, witty come-backs, inspiring new engineering works, etc.

Iolaus: When you know its source and substance, you might deserve an opinion on these matters.

Oh, I didn't realise that I was forbidden from saying what I already know, just because I don't know everything.

But you are trying to dictate how God could have made things work, without really knowing what you're made of.

earnest: Well sure, it could be herself. But if God is omnipotent, then He is capable of overriding her choice, isn't He?
Iolaus: I don't know whether he can
Jeez, you really have a limited definition of "omnipotent", don't you? More and more I think that your God is not omnipotent in the sense that it is usually intended.

The God you are wanting isn't good.

Oh, I see: God's a wimp.

I am somewhat sad and distressed that you simply cannot grasp the ultimate goodness of refraining from the use of force against other, especially weaker entities.

Iolaus wrote:There is no alternative to God.
Which makes free will irrelevant then, doesn't it?

We are free to manipulate our consciousness so as to not see God. How can there be an alternative to God when there is nothing else than God?

That doesn't really answer my question. Let me simplify it for you: do you believe that the universe is God's body?

It's the best analogy.

Again, you misunderstand me. I'm not "looking to God for answers", I'm inferring his nature.

I do not misunderstand you. You are looking to God for answers and you don't see that the answers lie within us all, and that understanding this IS the answer.

Iolaus: I got news for you. Your God is a big statue made of sugar, and he got melted a long time ago. You're on your own.
I don't know what that's supposed to mean.

I meant that Aslan is not a tame lion.

Iolaus: I know nothing of God's path. God is not perfect, he is everything.

I'm sorry, but you are contradictory beyond measure. Earlier you wrote that I am perfect, and now you write that God is not perfect. So what, I am more perfect than God?

I mean that people use platitudes like calling God perfect, when the idea hardly computes.

Iolaus: Yes, we are talking past each other. Please try to understand just one little thing: this is not about God's power, about what he 'could' do if he wanted.

And why not?

Why don't you just beat your wife or girlfriend, if she doesn't do what you want. I mean, you're strong enough, right?

Oh, but that only invites the question: "If God can be causeless and self-existent, then why not the universe?" It seems like you're trying to "prove" God, but there is no proof.

Because there cannot be more than one "way" or attribute for an entity to be causeless and self-existent. If the universe were self-existent, then the universe is God. Whatever is causeless and self-existent is God. Whatever is less than that, derivative of that, is not God but derivative of God.

No, I didn't miss the point. The point is that there are things that are beyond God's control. For me, it's the rules of the battle between good and evil. For you, it's the rules of logic and things like the need for souls to learn through suffering.

But its a crucial question. Who's in control and making games that God has no choice about? This entity has more power or equal power to God. How can that be? In that case, your God is a nice guy, but isn't God. In what does this power consist?

[Iolaus]

Dan,

So? That scene essentially portrays what you're suggesting you accept as evidence. I want to know the grounds upon which you do.

Well, then, if the movie were true, it would constitute evidence for something, wouldn't it?
I don't have a particular for instance, but I do read and have found good books or websites regarding consciousness surviving the body and not being located only in the brain.

Also, there is good evidence for mind to mind communication, with two good examples having been given on this thread. You are mired in 18th century scientific thinking. Try reading Science and the Akashic Field.

Or the Holographic Universe.

The concept that the universe is a place of meaning, in itself. Oh, and btw, the statement that David thinks of the universe as a "futile" place is a mischaracterisation of his view in at least two ways and a projection of your own misunderstanding: 1) the universe is not a place; 2) no teleological or "meaning" label can be applied to it.

Rather, it is I who think of David's universe as a futile place.
1)The universe is the only place.
2) That is because existence is the foundation of all meaning and any other, lesser meanings are derivative.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Is Being of 1 a Christian?

[Beingof1]

David Quinn:

Your story sounds amazing on the surface. However, I immediately begin to think about possible past incidences which may have triggered these dreams.

Past experiences allowed us to talk to each other in a dream that we both remembered the conversation verbatim?

Perhaps the two of you have had religious conversations in the past which had a connection to the kind of imagery you experienced in the dreams. You need not have talked specifically about shadows coming out of the heart, but maybe you had conversations in the past about death, or sin, or redemption, or whatever. Just as ordinary hedonists have frequent dreams about sex, Christians no doubt have frequent dreams involving Christian themes.

You are not getting this.

Past conversations that influenced us to hold an identical experience and conversation in a shared dream? JR could recall everything I said to him in his dream that was oddly enough, identical to what I had said in my dream.

You did not experience this but I did. I will not deny this very real life experience as it happened in the real world.

Perhaps each of you are having minor chest or heart problems (you are getting on a bit, aren't you?). Or perhaps you had watched a TV program or read an article which made you think of him, and he you. The possibilities are endless, really.

The possibilities are endless David?

I agree with what you said - however, it is clear you do not believe what you say yourself. Anything is possible - oh? But one notable exception; what you do not hold in your ideological worldview. I find it difficult to reconcile this experience with a bowl of bad chile that I ate the night before. He verified my dream verbatim, are you able to believe this?

We could both recall what I said in the dream verbatim and we both remembered the identical experience of interacting with each other and what happened. This was not an identical dream - we interacted with each other in the dream.

In this way, the conditions were set up for similar dreams to take place, in coincidental fashion, with both of you aware that you would meeting together on the morrow.

They were not similar dreams - please pay attention. This is the only time in my life I have ever experienced this dynamic and have never read nor heard of this occuring anywhere.

I'm not sure about the other two, but I know that Susan Blackmore had a major out-of-body experience in her youth and was convinced of their reality when she began her research. In other words, she was very much a believer. But her mind was changed with the weight of evidence garnered in her research. She was turned into a sceptic by her research.

You simply do not believe what you teach at this point.

Nothing is impossible to them that believe.

You have not because you ask not.

-- Yeshua

The difference between you and I David is I have put faith to the test and found amazing results. You have never attempted because you 'knew' it was all a bunch of hoo before you tested the results. Beside that, faith takes looking foolish in front of others, something you have a hard time with regardless all your thinking man mindfield. You are not willing to go all the way - your image of being a sage will not allow you to.

You think this dream example is all I have seen and witnessed of the nonordinary? I did not build my philosophy on sand, this is a mild example. I have seen that which transcends Newtonion physics. Do you know why I have seen so many of what can only be termed 'miraculous' David?

Because I am a believer and have been an eyewitness to the results of faith. You lack faith because you think it smacks of 'delusion' - when in truth, it is the gift that propels you into transcendant being where you actually experience, in real life, what you say at this forum.

There are talkers and there are doers.

I trust his method, the method of scientific testing. Since paranormal phenomena are empirical in nature, and involve the making of empirical claims, scientific testing is the the most appropriate tool for investigating their credibility.

The most appropriate tool for investigating would be you yourself conducting the experiment. Isn't this your philosophy? Why do you not believe your own philosophy?

It is so simple and so easy to experience the universe in all of its wonder - just simply do not doubt - and ask and you would receive. If you want to use the scientific method(of which you have railed agains't), then do your own testing and thinking about it. Isn't this what you champion, being your own thinker? This is how I know for a fact you have never attempted to seriously test faith, you would have seen the results.

I'm not really dissing non-ordinary experiences as such. I'm simply questioning the importance that people want to place on them. God is in all things, both ordinary and non-ordinary. Such categories as ordinary and non-ordinary don't even exist in God's eyes.

They most certainly do in your eyes - once again - you do not believe in what you say yourself.

One should be able to see the full majesty of God in the simple act of placing a cup on a table, or watching a tree swaying in the breeze. To look for Him in unusual places is both unnecessary and misguided. It smacks of egotism and reveals an ignorance of what God is.

I guess excluding God from experiences that do not fit into what you say can and cannot happen in God's universe is okay? You are just posturing.

I did not call to attention this subject, you did, and you are the one making it exclusive, can you not see this? I am simply saying the only limits you experience are the ones you apply. You have most certainly put a full stop on God's universe.

Take the words of Jesus - and put them to the acid test and find out for yourself what the dynamic of pure belief can accomplish. This is exactly what the Buddha said to do with holy scriptures. Put them to the test and see what awaits.

[Beingof1]

I see your problem: you keep thinking of the infinite as a "set" with content, therefore having an internal content but with no "external" - because that would make it finite. This is the wrong way to think about it. Dualistic notions like internal/external cannot be ascribed to the infinite at all. As soon as this happens, error occurs. Only things that possess the attribute of "external" can have an "internal" attribute. One cannot begin to conceive of an internal without an accompanying external - because it's the contrast that creates the possibility of the designation of either.

Well said; this is exactly true of the infinite. The infinite is not made of the sum of its parts, is not subject to the law of identity, and yet contains all things. The infinite is not subject to being only what it can be.

The only set, in set theory that comes close is the empty set. The empty set contains and intersects all other sets and is unique amongst all other sets as there is and can be only one empty set.

[brokenhead]

You're free to believe what you like. I'll say it again, the God I worship is far too profound to require cheap stunts and parlour tricks as evidence for Him.

I see you still do not get my point. God does not require anything. There simply is evidence for Him. You are the one who insists on calling that evidence "cheap stunts." I am saying this event had meaning and was not a coincidence. I am saying the deeper your faith in a personal God, the more your God participates in your life because you are inviting Him to. He participated in in my life by helping me out with a problem and underscoring His help because He chose to do so in this fashion. To me, this underscoring was a gift, a gift which I am trying to share and one of which you evidently want or need no part. And that's fine. Beyond this, I am simply not claiming anything else. Certainly nothing for you to scoff at.

What about faith in a cause? Or faith in an ideal? Or faith in the future? There is no rule that says that faith can only be directed to a person.

Could you be more obtuse? Faith in a cause always, and I mean always, involves having faith in people - that other people will believe in the same cause and act accordingly. Faith in the future is general and vague enough, but it certainly involves having faith that a future exists - and this means nothing more than having faith in God and in other people, that your life will continue into a future where the people on whom you rely and about whom you care will also have lives that extend into it, and that other people will not act in such a way as to take any of that away from you (like pushing the requisite nuclear buttons.)

Look David, I know you sincerely want to make me out to be a misguided and ignorant fool who puts my belief in parlour tricks like the doty fat twats who hold seances with their bourgeois friends, but I am simply not that person. Anahata chakra, David.

[Steven Coyle]

Wtz,

If you described the creative spirit involved in God consciousness, others may be able to bypass their own logical blindspots. As it stands, there isn't much tangible in it - throw some poetry or somethin. Yeah, the One Mind is all around, but to pierce Maya, one's got to up that "creative madness". As a hummingbird hovers outside my window...

[Steven Coyle]

Just read Leyla's conception of God. + _ 0

"God is impossible. Or at least impossibly vague."

Don't be anthromorphizing, now.

[Carl G]

As a hummingbird hovers outside my window...

...I, posting all the way, descend into my madness.

[brokenhead]

As a hummingbird hovers outside my window...

...I, posting all the way, descend into my madness.

As Steven Jung looks outside that same window for his scarab...

[Steven Coyle]

snake_eyes,

The Abyss at 2:21 past the noontide.

-

Bh_balance,

Steven the "Jungian/Shaman" has scoped a slew of "quasi-golden" synchronistic scarabs over the past week... They were even causally attributed 'soul's (psyches) of other persons... ("soul transmigration"). Only to be resynchronized in time at a later date (retrocognition).

The bubblegum whiz raves, "Gaia is conscious!"

[brokenhead]

snake_eyes,

The Abyss at 2:21 past the noontide.

-

Bh_balance,

Steven the "Jungian/Shaman" has scoped a slew of "quasi-golden" synchronistic scarabs over the past week... They were even causally attributed 'soul's (psyches) of other persons... ("soul transmigration"). Only to be resynchronized in time at a later date (retrocognition).

The bubblegum whiz raves, "Gaia is conscious!"

Ah! I see the Jungian/Shaman has patience - an admirable Virtue.

[Steven Coyle]

Indeed. Slew of patience.

[Carl G]

Shred some scabbage with a dollop of Maya and you got Coyle Slew.