The One Truth's Lounge Thread

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aragorn

I do not believe in a personal and loving god. In my experience, the creator of the universe is merely consciousness and has no feelings at all, including love. It is simply running an experiment in self-discovery, and evil is a natural consequence of creation ─ there cannot be light without darkness, and there cannot be good without evil. Both must be allowed to exist in order for either one of them to have meaning. They are the two opposite sides of the same coin ─ the Yin and the Yang.

---

Well, I don't want to impose my understanding of the Creator, Brahman, Allah, God or whatever you want to call it or "he", but I suppose that we do have some disagreements about that and it's fine. To me God represents the ultimate Self, the primordial consciousness which is love in it's ultimate form. I think it's both personal and nonpersonal and it constitutes everything. It's also something that transcends human thoughts so we can't really even fathom what "it" is. In the beginning the Self realized itself and it was alone so it created company and also it chose to have a dream which we all are living right now, as through that dream the Godhead becomes even more aware due to all the experiences it accumulates through all of the living beings which are the Creator too.

I do agree with the notion that this universe is dualistic in it's nature so there always has to be the polar opposite to everything as it makes the game worth anything. If there were no suffering then we wouldn't know joy. If there weren't evil then we wouldn't know what good is.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wind

In the beginning the Self realized itself and it was alone so it created company and also it chose to have a dream which we all are living right now, as through that dream the Godhead becomes even more aware due to all the experiences it accumulates through all of the living beings which are the Creator too.

---

This is the part I disagree with, and I will tell you why. :)

You are making two statements there in the same sentence ─ and I am highlighting a few keywords to clarify the contrast between our opinions ─ i.e.:

• It created company because it was alone ─ this is an emotional motivation, but pure consciousness and emotion/feeling are two very different things; and...
• It also chose to have a dream that we are all living in right now ─ i.e. it made a decision.

In my experience, these two are not separate but are one and the same thing. First of all, the Prime Creator is only consciousness, being awareness and pure thought ─ no feelings, no emotion, no judgment whatsoever. And so it wasn't feeling alone, but it is an eternal quantum singularity. It has no beginning and no end, and all of the information it contained was undifferentiated. As such, it had no idea what anything meant, nor what its potential was.

By consequence, Creation did not happen out of a desire not to be alone, but out of a desire to make sense of the quantum information, i.e. to collapse the wave-function and give meaning to everything. And it isn't so much a dream as that it is simply the collapse of the wave-function, which isn't actually a collapse. It simply means that the infinite potential has been poured into a series of finite shapes. And these finite shapes are then comprised of polarities, as well as of things which are not actually polarities, but which are an amalgamation of polarities in such a way that the amalgamation itself starts assuming the properties of a seemingly indivisible complex unit.

Creation is the process of self-discovery of the Prime Creator, and it is the collapse of the wave-function. Many people wonder what the purpose is of life. Well, the purpose of life is simply to be, because that's what Creation is all about. Being one of many is what gives meaning to everything. Or otherwise put: it's all about the subjective experience.

Anyway, like I said, this is my experience, and you are free to hold a different opinion, but I suspect that, given enough time, you will come to see that the concept of an emotional god ─ even with the disclaimer that we cannot understand its mind ─ was in fact instilled by the major religions, and most notably, the three Abrahamic religions.

Hinduism is an entirely different belief system, whereby there are multiple gods, each with their personality and their emotional states. Buddhism comes closer to what I've described, and does not acknowledge the existence of personal gods. Buddhists revere the Buddha, but the Buddha is simply regarded as a mortal man who had attained enlightenment, and who therefore serves as the example that other Buddhists must strive to live up to.

Zoroastrianism precedes the three Abrahamic religions, but lies at their foundation, just as Judaism and Christianity lie at the foundation of Islam and Gnosticism, and Judaism lies at the foundation of Christianity itself. And they are all very different religions on the surface, but they all build upon the same basic principles from Zoroastrianism. Their mythology is different, but their concept of the godhead is pretty much the same.

Now, I know that there are people who've had other experiences ─ emphasis on "experience", as opposed to "belief" ─ but in that case, I suspect that an entity far "lesser" in power or magnitude would have made sure that these people had said experiences, so as to get them into worshiping said entity. The Biblical Yahweh is described in the Bible as having told Moses that he ─ Yahweh ─ is "a jealous god". And one cannot be a jealous god if there are no other gods, right?

So whoever this Yahweh was, he had peers ─ beings who were his/her/its equal in power, and he/she/it did not want humans to worship any of these other beings. Or at least, if the Bible is to be believed on account of that interaction between Moses and Yahweh. Because after all, that part of the Bible was supposed to have taken place roughly some 5'700 years ago. There's no way of verifying what really went on there on that mountain top. But whatever it was, it has spawned a great number of independent and yet related religions, starting with Judaism.

It may sound strange, but quantum physics actually comes a lot closer to the truth than those religions and belief systems from thousands of years ago, which were all distorted because of the countless translations. And then there's the human interpretation factor, which is why Christianity in and of itself has so many different offshoots, from the fairly close-to-the-original Protestantism all the way over to the Latter Day Saints (i.e. the Book of Mormon).

The mistake people make all too often is that they look at the narratives and study them, instead of studying the part of divinity that we all carry within ourselves. And that part is pure consciousness, devoid of emotion, feeling, injury or judgment. Pure thought. That's where it all begins. :)

By consequence, Creation did not happen out of a desire not to be alone, but out of a desire to make sense of the quantum information--Aragorn

Is 'desire' ie, yearn for, want, not an emotionally underpinned concept as well? I am honestly curious, not just playing devil's advocate here.

It seems to me that emotion and sensation are so primary to our experience that we aren't able to argue any point about creation itself, without it. It might be inextricably linked with the creative act, or we may be unable to extricate ourselves from it, subsequent to the act of creation.

I find a similar thing when people are trying to describe the concept of 'time' and say--there really is no such thing...everything is happening all at once. "happening all at once," is a time based concept.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Octopus Garden

By consequence, Creation did not happen out of a desire not to be alone, but out of a desire to make sense of the quantum information--Aragorn

Is 'desire' ie, yearn for, want, not an emotionally underpinned concept as well? I am honestly curious, not just playing devil's advocate here.

It seems to me that emotion and sensation are so primary to our experience that we aren't able to argue any point about creation itself, without it. It might be inextricably linked with the creative act, or we may be unable to extricate ourselves from it, subsequent to the act of creation.

I find a similar thing when people are trying to describe the concept of 'time' and say--there really is no such thing...everything is happening all at once. "happening all at once," is a time based concept.

---

I do realize that I've worded it a bit poorly. It is not a desire in the emotional sense, but rather an intrinsic property of being conscious.

If you see something moving in the corner of your eye, then you will automatically look at what it is. Not because it would be frightening or worrisome, nor that it would be interesting. It's simply curiosity, in the sense that you feel a compulsion to identify what it is you were observing. And by identifying it, you create order out of chaos. You collapse the wave-function of the undefined information and you give meaning to it ─ or stick a label to it, if you will.

It is the nature of consciousness to want to do this, i.e. to identify, to create order out of chaos. This, as opposed to mere awareness, which is consciousness minus thought. Thought is the differentiating factor between the two.

Thought is what creates. Awareness is passive, and thought is active. This is the first Yin/Yang dichotomy. Order out of chaos is the second. Self and Other is the third, and is thereby also the creation of subjectivity. :)

Funny, just today I was thinking my Cat could argue that 'no such thing as time' idea pretty well...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aragorn

Creation is the process of self-discovery of the Prime Creator, and it is the collapse of the wave-function. Many people wonder what the purpose is of life. Well, the purpose of life is simply to be, because that's what Creation is all about. Being one of many is what gives meaning to everything. Or otherwise put: it's all about the subjective experience.

---

With this statement I agree completely.

However, I'm still very much of the opinion that God is extremely conscious love.

God also favors the good as God is good. :)

What is the hardest thing for us humans to grasp the fact that we are the Creator too. We are love, light and bliss incarnate.

We only imagine ourselves to be these mortal sacks of meat whereas in truth we are incredibly powerful beings.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aragorn

The Biblical Yahweh is described in the Bible as having told Moses that he ─ Yahweh ─ is "a jealous god". And one cannot be a jealous god if there are no other gods, right?

So whoever this Yahweh was, he had peers ─ beings who were his/her/its equal in power, and he/she/it did not want humans to worship any of these other beings.

---

I believe this entity to have been a "dark angel".

We all know which the most famous one is called.

There are hierarchies in the spiritual world, going both up and down.

Our Sun is a conscious entity too and you could call it a "mini"-God too.

There are lesser gods, arch-angels being also the direct messengers of God.

Truth to be told, there isn't even a rock to be found which wouldn't be conscious.

However, there are different levels to consciousness. That makes all the difference.

I don't claim to know the truth, but these are the results of my research, experience and intuition.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wind

I believe this entity to have been a "dark angel".

We all know which the most famous one is called.

---

Yes, but Lucifer does not exist. The myth of Lucifer was an artifact of the poor reading skills of whoever translated Isaiah 14 from Latin to English in the King James translation of the Bible.

Isaiah 14 is an angry and very sarcastic letter from Isaiah to the then king of Babylon, a mortal man. And in said letter, Isaiah calls the king a (false) bearer of light ─ in Latin, "lucifer" ─ and proceeds to compare the king to an angel on account of what he had been given and entrusted with, and yet the king had become corrupted. The translator interpreted said letter as if it was a tirade against a fallen angel named Lucifer; apparently he did not understand Latin enough and interpreted the noun lucifer ─ a term that was also already used for the morning star, i.e. the planet Venus ─ as a proper name. Only the King James translation of the Bible has this artifact, because all other translations were correct in their interpretation.

It was then through John Milton's "Paradise Lost" that the newly created character of Lucifer was further elaborated upon, and deemed to have been one and the same as the snake in the Garden of Eden ─ a story which was at the time (and is by many still today) interpreted literally, even though it was only a metaphor, and for that matter, one that is still not being interpreted correctly.

The Catholic Church later followed Milton's lead and adopted the myth of Lucifer into its official lore, even though there is no mention of any angel named Lucifer in the Bible ─ short of that King James translation, of course ─ just as they had done with the equation of Mary Magdalene to the prostitute that Yeshua saved from being stoned to death. The prostitute was never mentioned by name in the scriptures, and if you study them, you will also come to see that Yeshua already long knew Mary Magdalene ─ she was a respected and well-educated woman from an equally respected family ─ before he saved the prostitute from execution.

They were two different women, but the Catholic Church was founded by Peter and Paul, and Peter was a misogynist. Yeshua had always favored Mary Magdalene among his apostles, and Peter couldn't stand that a woman had authority over him. Nevertheless, it wasn't Peter who changed the scriptures. That was done at the Council of Nicaea in 325, when disparate gospels and legends were all poured into a single, state-endorsed religion under Emperor Constantine ─ himself not exactly a saint either, for that matter.

Another thing is that if you look at the Old Testament, the character of the Satan has a similar story. First of all, Satan is not a name but a title ─ it literally means "the adversary, the opponent" ─ and the Satan was described as a being in Heaven, who exposed the sins of Man before Yahweh. In other words, he was merely a kind of prosecutor, and his case against Man was that Man would not worship Yahweh anymore if Yahweh weren't overloading them with prosperity and long life. And to prove the Satan wrong, it was Yahweh, not the Satan, who put Job through all of his ordeals, so that in the end, Job would come out as a man who had never lost his faith, regardless of the ordeals he had been put through.

Another thing to consider in that regard is that the Old Testament also does not ascribe angels with an identity or personality of their own. Or to put it differently, according to the Old Testament, angels do not have free will, because they are merely emanations of Yahweh himself, representing different aspects of Yahweh's personality ─ a healer, a messenger, the angel of death, and so on. And if an angel doesn't have free will and is only an emanation of Yahweh, then they also cannot fall.

So you see, the whole thing is intrinsically self-contradictory. :)

I'm well aware of all of that and it's true that a lot of the information in the Bible doesn't make sense.

I suppose that focusing on the name itself is just getting tangled up with semantics. There is the counterforce though.

I'm just lounging around, thinking about Gods...

I wonder what mankind has created through its beliefs and actions regarding a perceived entity called Lucifer/Satan.

The TV show spawned a couple good tunes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koax9cr9uzo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfwVIfYwBhY

That's the problem with getting hung up on words...I can be seriously sidetracked by 'listening' to words because they are just not accurate enough. When I was studying math, my biggest complaint was that textbooks were written by mathematicians and their ability to lay down the written word truly sucked. Words are not equal to the task of 'explaining' mathematics. Of course, my Pontiff, my Professor just laughed at me.

It takes a long time and a lot of thought to get to the meat of linguistic analogies which in my estimation is what the Bible is about. One of the reasons the purported 'Bible code' is so tantalizing.

"I love me" ... Trump has found a theme song. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wind

With this statement I agree completely.

However, I'm still very much of the opinion that God is extremely conscious love.

God also favors the good as God is good. :)

What is the hardest thing for us humans to grasp the fact that we are the Creator too. We are love, light and bliss incarnate.

We only imagine ourselves to be these mortal sacks of meat whereas in truth we are incredibly powerful beings.

---

This abrahamic god is not good and does not favour good.
It created both sides of the coin and favours neither.
So the books say

That is not quite accurate in my opinion. There are subtle counter-balances in the New Testament for the Old Testament. The notion of progressive revelation is all important. What is revealed is 'manageable' by the receivers. For example, it would have, in fact, made no sense for Abraham to be told to love his neighbor when his neighbors were busy trying to enslave him and/or beat him into submission. One could argue that it is no different now but it is. We've had a few more thousands of years of social conscience/conscious development. We understand more, much more, hence progressive revelation suggests that the times, they be a changing.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aragorn

I do realize that I've worded it a bit poorly. It is not a desire in the emotional sense, but rather an intrinsic property of being conscious.

If you see something moving in the corner of your eye, then you will automatically look at what it is. Not because it would be frightening or worrisome, nor that it would be interesting. It's simply curiosity, in the sense that you feel a compulsion to identify what it is you were observing. And by identifying it, you create order out of chaos. You collapse the wave-function of the undefined information and you give meaning to it ─ or stick a label to it, if you will.

It is the nature of consciousness to want to do this, i.e. to identify, to create order out of chaos. This, as opposed to mere awareness, which is consciousness minus thought. Thought is the differentiating factor between the two.

Thought is what creates. Awareness is passive, and thought is active. This is the first Yin/Yang dichotomy. Order out of chaos is the second. Self and Other is the third, and is thereby also the creation of subjectivity. :)

---

Thanks for responding Aragon,

You didn't word it poorly at all. Language is limited. I understand the point you were making now. This statement made me think,

Awareness is passive, and thought is active.

Quote:

---

Thought is what creates. Awareness is passive, and thought is active. This is the first Yin/Yang dichotomy. Order out of chaos is the second. Self and Other is the third, and is thereby also the creation of subjectivity.

---

This is a great phrase. So succinct.

Quote:

---

This abrahamic god is not good and does not favour good.
It created both sides of the coin and favours neither.

---

I agree wholeheartedly. And we have been seeing the results of this.

I personally look to nature and creation for guidance and inspiration rather than god. I don't kneel to the abrahamic god.