|New Civilization News: If God loves us; then why all these problems?|
14 comments4 Apr 2006 @ 11:59 by nraye @184.108.40.206 : About Natural Laws Nate
- been doing some reading here lately, by coincidence, and found interesting extension to your mention of Natural and Spiritual law. If you do not mind, will try to expound - the text refers to Revelations 5:6 and the mistranslation of Logos into Word. Apparently Logos in the guise of a lamb (lamb of God) with seven horns and seven eyes (the chakras) awaits to embody itself into Matter, to enliven and spiritualise the matter for moving closer to God. In an unrealised body, (matter) the spirit feels as if it has been slain (hence lamb of God):
"And in the midst of the elders, stood a lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent forth into all the earth."
'And behold the lamb of God, which taketh away the sin, of the word' St John 1:29 - this means apparently the spirit assuming the burden of the attributes of matter. For the body the attributes of matter are not a sin; for the spirit they are. So to get to your Laws, Nate, The laws of matter are diametrically opposed to those of the spirit.
St Paul says Galatians (5:17-18) For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary to one another; so that ye cannot do the things you would. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law (of matter).
To expound, as ayurvedic follower, I agree with the next: matter is subject to contraction, cooling, stiffening, hardening and solidification. The laws of Spirit are fire, warmth, heat, expansion and radiation. For Spirit to manifest the attributes of the other is wrong. Similarly for matter to manifest the atributes of Spirit: but only through the Lamb of God can Logos spiritualise matter and return to itself to God, through matter.
Unfortunately, aside from above, although natural law works for nature, when all is balance and nice (not herds of tornadoes), the same is not true for Human kind, we have to work at every single aspect of our existence in order to maintain it - it does not happen on its own accord - as for chimps and whales etc. Whatever we say about religion it certainly ups the equation for many people not able to do more. And I agree, the time may have arrived for more truths to emerge concerning peaceful existence.
4 Apr 2006 @ 15:43 by poetsong : The metaphors and allegories are complex
Interesting perspective. In fact this is an interesting turn of the conversation, which was meant to be more general. John belonged to a group of Zealots, who followeed John the Baptist before they followed Jesus. John the Baptist's father was the acting High Priest for a time- therefore an expert in Jewish Laws. John the Baptist was likely also an expert in the Jewish Laws and Prophets, just as his father was, since the Priesthood ran down the family line.
So John the disciple was somewhat like a student of the ancient Jewish writings before he was a follower of Jesus.
Some imagine the disciples were all unschooled, but this was not the case. They just weren't part of the elite class of society.
John (the follower/not the Baptist) used illustrations, allegories and Metaphors that would have been most familiar to religious Jews, drawn from Ancient Jewish writings. John used the term "Lamb" in the sense of the Jewish Passover Lamb. This was a symbolic name he used multiple times, "The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world." John equated Jesus death with the death of the Passover Lamb, being a means of atonement to pass from death.
The Horn and Eye metaphors are mostly from the Prophet Daniel. One translation of these ancient metaphors used in this passage from Revelation, would be, "The Atonement for Sin who has all power and knowlege"- John's code name for Jesus.
Seven- symbolized completion- as in a seven day week being a complete week. Horn symbolized power according to Daniel- Seven Horns- complete power. Seven Eyes- complete knowledge.
5 Apr 2006 @ 03:36 by James Rigsby @220.127.116.11 : Living the Future
In the quest for happiness. I have found a tribe of people to be around and try to project love and energy when I am around them. I remember before the internet that the global community would be nice if everyone would be of the same purpose. Love and energy on a mass scale has been tried before. I believe the platform for such an invasive feeling advancement had not been laid down nor believed by a significant number of people. When is the next attempt at bringing peace to the (pick a place) by the use of love, transendental meditation, regular meditation, power prayer blast? Not sinical just frustrated.
5 Apr 2006 @ 14:42 by poetsong : I believe in love.
Love is powerful. Unity is another powerful force. Whatever is unified is multiplied, for good or evil. This is why Unity in Love is absolutely important.
But Unity and Love are best served when mixed with insight and understanding. Loving people can unite and do more harm than good if they don't understand what love should do.
There are different viewpoints on influencing the world. One is that humans, corporate and individual, can influence the world. The second is that we humans can only do so much in our own power, and that the greater power is in our influencing the unseen world.
And there are branches on the second view. The question is, "Who has the greatest power to change the world...who do we want to connect too?" I say this because the spiritual realm is not simply made up of good. In another thread I said "Tapping into the wrong spiritual force is the equivalent of sticking your fork in the toaster." You may feel energy and not like it.
But for the sake of the discussion, energy is not the ultimate. The "Will" that directs the power is what is important. How do we influence the will that directs all power? If we do that, there is no problem that cannot be solved. God knows every star by name, and they listen to his voice. His power is incomprehensible.
The beginning of mankind's solution is understanding. "What is the source of all power?" And believe me, there is a source that all power comes from, even the smaller powers, and they are not beyond the will of the one.
5 Apr 2006 @ 15:01 by nraye @18.104.22.168 : Genuine questions sometimes
like this, not always easy to tap in identically, or to speak the identical language, but genuine, and not meant to go off course. Good to hear re St John, he was the youngest was he not? Thank you Poetsong. Your last sentence says the most of all, and is a totally different rendering, language, to something practically identical from where my quote came! Fascinating. Great stuff!
5 Apr 2006 @ 18:22 by poetsong : Thank you.
You are so right about "The same language" Yes, and you are right about John being the youngest, and also the closest of the twelve. He had a viewpoint the others didn't have.
I have always had a fascination with the prophetic, even when I wasn't particularly spiritually mind. LOL- Even when I was an atheist. I was the kind of kid who sat on his bed trying to comprehend eternity. And even as an atheist (which I am not now) I pondered the spiritual realm. If there are powers, where do they come from, if there is life after death, who would know...etc.
It was a bit like being a detective, comparing views and what everyone was saying. I was actually a mythology fan, Norse, Greek, Roman. It was intriguing, because I remembered the prophetic in Norse literature about Gog and Magog, portending a coming war of the gods. It was Apocalyptic.
At any rate, afterwards I looked at Revelation, and didn't quite know what to make of it. It was certainly interesting, but I assumed it was written in a metaphorical allegorical code, and didn't know what parts were meant to be literal and figurative. After years of looking at metaphorical and allegorical language, it made much more sense.
Anyone who reads chapter one is hooked, though I realize some people are scared out of their wigs, and won't go any further. Me, I like to dissect things, look them up in the origional language, go and look in libraries, at maps...etc.
19 Apr 2006 @ 14:27 by rayon : Hi Nate,
by the way is that for Nathaniel? Nice any case! Two things in continuam, one here for your's above, and another on Quinty's log, if you care to see. They are connected by what I thought to let you know for here. In the belief there was a connection between our remarks earlier here above - while resorting to my usual topics, Greek plays, I suddenly realised I could understand what was going on behind the saga of Prometheus Bound, by Aeschylos, the first of the great three playwrighters, Sophocles and Euripides. One of the sadnesses of literature, the two others of this Trilogy, Prometheus, are lost or so they say. Anyway, I just wondered, it is ever such a short play, if you would be interested to check it out with regard to your discussion here. The play has convinced me of some quite important aspects, and would certainly explain how the whole flowering of Classical art and hi thinking in all manner of things came about. Regards. N
Approx lines 438 – 447
You must not think it is thro pride or stubbornness
That I am silent; thought and anger gnaw my heart,
To see myself so outraged. Why, who else but I
Assigned to these new gods their honours, first and last?
All that you know, and I’ll not speak of. What I did
For mortals in their misery, hear now. At first
Mindless, I gave them mind and reason. – what I say
Is not in censure of mankind, but showing you
How my gifts to them were guided by goodwill. –
19 Apr 2006 @ 16:38 by poetsong : Hi Nraye
I must say this for Ancient Greek writing, I love the poetic form. Prometheus is an interesting story. And it is rather interesting to me that in Greek Mythology, the gods are often more flawed than humans. I imagine they used Greek Senators as their templates. The lore was very interesting to me; and I often wondered what inspired the people to make these stories.
But the implication is that these gods wanted humans to forever remain ignorant, and in the proverbial dark.
Obviously, a set of "gods" of such temperament could not have created a Universe, although that is not how the lore goes, because they couldn't agree much upon anything. And so, worship was never a matter of recognizing divine attributes and reflecting respect, but a matter of sheer appeasment of a big critter with a hair-trigger temper. They were kind of like X-men on steroids.
When I used to view lore through my imagination, it was always peeling back layers, "What came first, how did it come to be..." So even with a childlike mind, I was looking for "truth", wondering if this gave us a glimpse into something more than fairy tales.
The Greeks, Romans and Norse took their gods rather seriously, and fought wars in defense of their names.
For me, looking at Revelation was a completely different event. I went into it out of curiosity, but it was so very specific about events and timelines. Much of mythology was written in a different mytho-poetic style. This was an allegorical metaphorical forest, written like a giant code book waiting to be deciphered.
I found it compelling because at the very beginning, John has an encounter with Jesus, who refers to himself as the first and the last- who was, who is, and is to come- And Jesus says, "Write..."
Yet, the book is written in symbolic language. Is the dragon a dragon, or a metaphor of a person or fallen angel.
And, so you have to get a decoder ring, which is to go back and see where similar words were used before, and in what context re-read each passage. Oh, a beast is an allegorical term once used for heartless violent human figures who set out to dominate:
And since the book ends with a "New Heaven" and "New Earth", it drives a person to reflect, because it hints that things will unfold in such and such a way.
I still love "mytho-poetic" style, which is why I loved J.R.R Tolkien's the Silmarillion. When I read the Silmarillion which is sometimes a brutal book, I find a sense of relaxation, because it is a story. When I read Revelation it is with a sense of dread, because in fact, it seems to be factual in pin-pointing a time in human history, which few readers would ever want to live through. Although afterwards, paradise is restored. It may be that the book was meant to be disturbing, yet it is compelling at the same time. I dare say, people who put it down because they are afraid to read it, don't do so because they think it is dark fiction, it is because they fear its true and don't want to read it.
I on the other hand was rather pig-headed about trying to figure it out.-dutiful reading, rather than entertaining reading.
All the same, I think the greatest book ever written has no pages. It is observable with all five senses. We taste it, breath it, touch it, see it, and hear it. Some of the best pages are on a mountaintop, and others in the valley. For some it's on the ocean, or in the air. This speaks volumns, and never ceases to entertain.
20 Apr 2006 @ 13:12 by rayon : Nicely spoken
Nate, thank you. You are quite right in your observation of the gods here, well put indeed. I think of them merely as unrealised men, for how can one construct a deity in another dimension if one has limited understanding, and ruled in the wrong way. So Prometheus is talking through the dimensions, he has to use references of the one dimension to allude to the existence of the other, supreme one which asks for restraint in all manner of things, internal and external, so that "all things shall be given unto you", when approached from standpoint.
It is always nice to hear you talk of the Revelations, friends do too. The prose flows for you here, and this is an indication of its working? I have not read, because my faith was never in doubt, and went to other things outside the teen years. But I will read, and try to put again, another time, in words what I believe the suggestions it be, to see if I can reach a mutal comprehended agreement on this "thing".!!
There is so much catharsis in Prometheus for me, when momentarily losing the way in an anguished fog. This NCN discussion thing has led to a new discovery and interpretation of a universal truth for me. Your declared reading list and method was so similar to mine would have been boring to elaborate, you would have thought I was simply copying yours!! Anyway, because of this discovery of mine here, I hoped I could coerce without effort some agreement on my conclusions. Your logs cover key areas on the discussion of Life, and I see connections, but am also shy to be brazen, and almost prefer to coax someone else to making my conclusion for me, as I am not possessive in any way of ideas, only protective to make them go as far as possible.
So please forgive me Nate, if this is any way an intrusion upon your own special leanings which are so enjoyable, and upright!! Ni.
22 Apr 2006 @ 19:35 by poetsong : Dear, you are never an intrusion
I enjoy your contributions. So always feel free to share your ideas.
Regarding the gods, I believe we are speaking to the core of mankind's search for meaning. If the gods cannot help, then they are not worthy of my affection? If the gods are indifferent, then why bother? If the gods are evil, then should any worship them? Now, I might be a little pig-headed, and stubborn, but in my mind, I think I really pondered, if God/gods were evil, then I would stand true to my convictions even if that meant dangling over hellfire for eternity.
Of course, that is a big think to ponder, and not the kind of thoughts that I suppose most people thought. Yet, I hoped for better, and imagined it wouldn't anger God for me to try to sort through things. But I figured, "How will I ever know?"
And so, when I looked at Norse mythology, I thought Thor was a cool guy, but he was not any different than a human, better than his brother, but not without flaw. And if you looked at the "gods" from either Roman, Norse or Greek perspectives, they were always bickering and bartering, and using humans as chess peaces for there games. They didn't love us, and give us intrinsic value. We were constantly fodder for their shifting whims- not a very stable surface to build on. LOL
When I looked into the Universe, I saw order. When I looked at the mirco-cosm, our cells, I saw even greater order and logic. Genetics brought me to brink of disbelieving in random evolution, or the Lucky Ooze Theory. I didn't know exactly what to believe, but it wasn't random chance.
Now, I don't say there are not contradictions to ponder, but I saw ingenius thought in the Universe, and realized the portrayal of a bunch of warring gods undermining each other, with flawed personalities, as an impossible force of creation. Imagine Thanksgiving dinner where warring uncles have to make nice for a few hours a year, and try to get something done. They wind up arguing and insulting each other, and the family goes away wondering if they'll ever subject themselves to this again.
It seemed to me that my quest would lead me to a far greater intelligence than my own. It would lead me to a being of far greater character than fickle humanity could muster. And so, I believed we wanted to have gods in our image; but that God would have to be so far superior to our image, that to see God, we would indeed want to know God better, not want to run from him.
But the questions I had were more specific, If God existed, which I was coming to believe, "Did he care about me?" Why would I, an insignificant spec in the Universe (in my view) be of any value to God, a reason for him to pause to think of me for even a moment?
Yet, I reasoned, if I could love my pets, would God love them less? If I could love a human, could God love them less? Was it possible for me, a flawed being, to love more than God? I might be limited by time and space and my character flaws, but God would not be limited by either. So if it was possible to spend eternity with everyone, couldn't it possible for him to love everyone- at least their core potential self- minus all the barnacles that get added on? In fact, he would be the one ingenius enough to see past what we were (flaws and all) to what we had the potential to be- beautiful.
Of course, my reasoning was flawed in many ways, but it seemed to me that looking at the world and Universe, if God did indeed exist, he had to be far superior to me; but what was his primary motivation, and why would he care for humanity?
23 Apr 2006 @ 00:55 by sprtskr : God must of been really bored
Thats probably the best answer I can come up with.So now maybe hes even more bored waiting for us to make some kind of great move that will change something or anything to show that we're growing up.Look how long its taking God to throw something into the mix,what is God waiting for? It has to be us.
23 Apr 2006 @ 05:16 by iamramtha : God is not relative
The bottom line is God and all of us sre one.We are one and the same. We came here to create. And we are doing this every minute of every day. God has no judgement toward what we create. His will for us is our will for ourselves. Humans speak of a god who they think of as human. God is love, and he loves all that we do. In the finite right,wrong, up, down cold, hot don't exist. These are relative terms we use as tools while why we inhabit this human body. The way you look to god is to look inside. This is where he is to be found. Because we are all one, Connected. inseperable. He has no plans for us aside from the plans we have for ourselves. Nothing is evil lest thinking make it so. And the same can be said for good. Search no more,question no more, the answers are all inside if we will only open ourselves to the possability. Life truly is what we make of it, How we preceive it to be. We can't lose at this game. It just takes some of us a little longer to realize this.
24 Apr 2006 @ 12:10 by poetsong : Interesting comments
First- Is God bored. No. God has the capacity for loneliness on a scale we cannot fathom. It's hard to explain this, but picture a parent with four children. A parent can have the greatest relationship with three, and no relationship with the fourth. The parent is not satisfied in 3/4. That parent will Pine away until the fourth relationship is restored.
At first this seemed beyond comprehension. However, in a world with dual core processing computers, we can get closer to understanding the mind of God. Computers are attempts to construct machines to perform mental functions. A dual core processor is like two minds in one computer working in harmony.
God's mind is far beyond concepts we can comprehend, but we have these little analogies to get us in the ballpark. God is able to be completely aware of every person that has ever lived in real time. (Not linear thinking)He is aware of you, me, our parents, our children, our brother's and sisters- in real time. This means God can have a one-one relationship with every living thing and (focused attention) to you right now, all the time, every day.
Now, God has the capacity for love greater than our own. And so God is always the "longing" partner- waiting to be noticed. Humanity has the great capacity to give God great joy, or great sadness, in that we can snub our noses at God, be indifferent to God, be angry to God. And it's never as though some stranger is angry, indifferent; it is as though his closest friend, beloved, doesn't care that he exists- every time any human decides to ignore him.
So, God has a capacity for sorrow that we cannot fathom. But he also has a capacity for joy when people do notice him. Every single person is potentially God's spiritual partner for all of eternity, and we also have the free will to decline. So within us is the ability to wound God or give God joy. It's all within our grasp.
As far as God is relative, evil is relative, we only have to connect to us and realize we are God- then why do people claim to have a separate relationship with God as a distinct being, and those who are inwardly focused become self-centered and less lovely? We have the capacity for both inward focus and outward focus. Love is outward minded- other minded- not inner oriented. I lose myself in loving others.
Now, I can't impart an experience, but I will say take a look at those who have had experiences, and are they all the same- do they lead to the same fruit? The most self-centered people would seem the most loving people. However, experience tells us the most selfLESS people are the most loving people, not consumed with the great "I/ME/MINE" as George Harrison sang. "All through the day, I ME Mine, I Me Mine..." Well, George was a sensitive man, and percieved that goodness wasn't "self" centered. Is there evil? Ever been to an exorcism?
29 Apr 2016 @ 09:26 by Bandar Togel @22.214.171.124 : brilliant! I would like to share this ar
Togel Online Singapore
Togel Online Hongkong
Bandar Togel Singapore
Togel Online Terpercaya
Bandar Togel Online Terpercaya
Agen Togel Online Terpercaya
Agen Togel Online
Other entries in Spirituality
31 Jul 2010 @ 16:29: Innovation Yantra
31 Jul 2010 @ 16:01: Randy Paush - Lessons for Life
30 Jul 2010 @ 16:30: from Baudrillard to Verger: Diversification Vs Global Norms
22 Jul 2010 @ 13:16: Cartographers of No Man's Land
22 Jul 2010 @ 02:28: PUNISH BUSH & NEO-CONS FOR WAR CRIMES!
20 Jul 2010 @ 14:24: Getting other people to do stuff
16 Jul 2010 @ 22:57: Considerations on writing
14 Jul 2010 @ 14:53: Therapy Dogs Serve our Wounded Warriors
14 Jul 2010 @ 13:35: Consciousness of Pattern
13 Jul 2010 @ 17:04: What is Consciousness? - My answer on Quora.com