I'm Nicer than God

You don't have to be grumpy or a drunk atheist to reject the idea of a human collective. By the way, I think we're going off topic?

 

You do not have to change the temperture of the sun to make certain nations not able to oppress the entire world and starve many of it's inhabitants to death.

God had no trouble obliterating civilizations in the past, or creating satan, or that sort of thing, but he won't kill a few evil fuckers.

Nope, pretty sure god is the most evil fucker in the universe, he made the concept of evil, after all. Given that he made it ALL, there's no reason he had to make any one thing evil to accommodate another thing, because he made BOTH of those things. And having to compromise to such a great degree as to fuck the world up like has isn't very godlike, either.

 

I'm pretty sure the concept is made by us humans. Don't hate on the creating force. Ah well, you're free to do that... it just seems so very pointless to me. It's like an obese person blaming mcdonalds for creating fat. Just that there may be a god that brought us all in existence doesn't mean it's going to perform a miracle when WE fuck the world up. How do you know so surely there's no reason to 'bring evil' in the world, I think it's nothing like that though, it's all about choice and human thoughts that bring evil in the world. Both our views on the biblical god and satan have been clearly under the influence of human projection. To look for the reason of evil behind all creations both godly, human, concrete and abstract is anybody's choice to do so but why connect it to the niceness of something higher? To still think in this day and age that evil should be stopped by the creating force of our existence seems childish naive to me.

 

lol indeed

 

hahaha yep!

 

Right?

The guy we've got makes Mao look like a teddy bear.

 

What guy do you mean?

 

he means 'God'

 

Ah, I guess I better asked who he ment with 'we' then. I thought he didn't believed in the abrahamic god. Also don't see any serious use in comparing god with Mao (unless you're perhaps an indoctrinated chinese orrr of course one of those bitter atheists that can't look past the evil god from the OT).

 

The World needed chaos in order to evolve - both societally and physically.That's why we don't have a perfect World.If the world was perfect from day one,nothing would have happened - no Art,.History or Culture to speak of;just stagnation and stasis.It is the danger inherent to existence that makes life worth living;it is what makes us Human.There is no reason to believe that God could be like a "nice person", even though sometimes that is what we may want.(And certainly in the Old Testament God was a monster.)This is the danger of anthropomorphising God - usually as a paternal male figure.This is certainly a result of cultural evolution.But let's pray and try and be good anyway.

 

To meet a need is a perfect arrangement. We do not meet with imperfection in this life, only accusation. What is to prohibit the perfect from moving and growing perfectly?

 

Agree. Compare God to the sun. Without the sun there would be no life. Yet, it causes sunburns, skin cancer, doesn't shine enough in the winter, shines too much in the summer. It's all accusation, because reality differs from this perfect idylic image we have in our heads of the way things should be.

 

Simple yet effective comparison

 

Remarkably, if I do not complain I find I have fewer complaints.

 

I'm not sure everyone who suffers would find much salve in that there piece of sophistry thedope!

(Not a complaint, just constructive criticism! ;D)

Seriously though, your question, "What is to prohibit the perfect from moving and growing perfectly?"

Nothing is the 'simple' answer of course. But the matter, to us, is as complex as we are. What would it mean for example, if we were ultimately to grant perfection to 'everything' as opposed to everyone? ( in more than our mealy old metaphysics I mean.) Suffice to say I don't credit such a disaster with anything more than its possibility. Human perfection needn't be beyond us. We will, eventually, either by conscious desire or sheer need, look deeply into our higher emotions and their sources, for they have many!

 

I said fewer complaints. It is not a matter of philosophy but of energy exchange. Complaining dissipates. It is like the heat that escapes as an inefficiency of work, an effort not applied to the task at hand. It's only use is to temporarily reduce friction, but it never removes the antagonists that create it.

Our complaints can be safely laid aside as they are based on remembered or projected coordinates that do not currently exist. In other words they are inaccurate.

For instance you could say I am cold or you could adjust your micro-clime by putting on another layer or starting a fire. What is errant about the statement, I am cold, It is the fact that you are temperate. You experience many levels of of temperate comfort everyday. If you conceive the world as unacceptable then you cannot meet it acceptably. I would point out that you usually do what is necessary regardless of the intervening complaint, however it takes considerably more time and energy to do what you would habitually do anyway. The words we use and the emotional tones that generate them create the tenor of our experience.

One of the most effective practices for refining the lens of perception is to resist the temptation to express what you construe as negative emotion.
We have no idle thoughts and negative expressions in this vain are an active assault against sanity because their prepositions are not true.

It would carry the same weight as our current measures. There is one reality, one I, one thing. By our words we are justified.

 

thedope:

It does have the use of bringing attention to the antagonists so that they may be addressed.
Its import being in situations where an individual may require the assistance of others.

More accurately, they're symptomatic.

Does sanity lie in conceiving infinity as singularity? In resisting or giving way to expression, no matter our intent, we are nevertheless expressed. - Only by our existence are we justified.

It's because I agree with you that I can disagree with you in words, so to speak. Individuality affords itself every concession where there is freedom of expression.

 

Asking for assistance doesn't seem like an expression of negative emotion to me.



.

As much as any phenomena. They are symptomatic of internal conflict and occur when what you imagine to be is not what appears.

Sanity in this case lies in consistency. Negation is self defeating.
By justified I mean explained. In other words the perceived phenomena appears to us as we insist it must be.
As far as legitimate expression all matter is absorptive, reflective, or polarized. You may have thoughts and/or you may think. You may speak silently and/or out loud.

I honor every mind and delight in any query.

 

Complaints can be with us before we are fully aware of them.

Yet complaints are not only limited to the mental states accompanying distress. I read well your saying that 'our complaints can be laid safely aside', I offer up these interpositions in no vain hope of such a things realization the world over. That they be gotten over.

Humanly speaking, the matter being finally our own, the consistency of our conception is realized only in what is given birth.

I really hope I can too. There seems so much more to it than simply my decision to!

In here, in words, the pleasure of bringing to light the ambiguities of language, of fixing fast meaning with the longing to have it open up...well, if that can't be treated to a loving accusation, then by all means let it be damned by every maker of maxims there ever was! lol

 

The thought always comes first.

I have tried to be succinct in using a particular symbol representing a particular aspect of our experience. That symbol could have been missed in the body of text, specifically, when I say complaint, I mean what you construe as negative emotion. So the practice I am speaking of is to resist the temptation to express what you construe as negative emotion.

I do not mean to abandon the critical mind in terms of analytic objection.
The symbols we use to tell the truth look and sound the same as the symbols we use to tell a lie, so distinctions are made. We have a legitimate use for being able to tell one thing from another.

We cannot bring truth to illusion and thereby make illusion real. We need bring an illusion to truth and truth will dispel the illusion. Another way to put this would be, if you punish a lie the effects of the lie will seem real to you even though a lie is not the truth. If you simply uphold the truth then the lie is given no energetic regard at all. Truth dispels the illusion as illusion is a type of energetic mental/emotional engagement.

Some would say that to disregard your negative emotion to be a kind of dishonesty, however the discomfort does not stem from honest assessment.
What is not true does not exist. A lie does not alter reality, it only makes it seem obscure if you believe the lie has meaning or substance. There is a real view that will dispel any nightmarish vision.

Bodies are transient. Our conceptions/creations are permanent. We may visit our creations frequently or infrequently. Our creations propensity to manifest depends on frequency or pitch, and duration.

No, we just change our minds.

The accusation I speak of is not one of love or truth but of evil or wrongness. Conditions are conditional to spoken parameters.