GØD IS ? ... IMO, the verb 'to be' is the only verb I can use when I write about absolute being., GØD and the verb 'to be'. Options

[lgking]

NOTE: Because this OLD thread has some relevance to one of the discussions I am currently having with J, about the theological concepts we all do, or do not, hold, I bring it forward to now. Please, ignore it if you feel bored. I WILL be doing some revisions.

The old thread carried the title, interesting perhaps only to me: G�˜D is the matrix of ALL that is, physically, mentally and spiritually speaking

CURIOUS AND POSITIVE, THEISTS, ATHEISTS, PANTHEISTS, PANENTHEISTS, DEISTS, WHATEVER AND AGNOSTICS ABOUT THE WHOLE IDEA OF METAPHYSICS--the kind I feel who love to dialogue about all creative ideas--TAKE NOTE:

In the 1950's, it was recommended to all theological students at the seminary, which I attended, that we read the book, CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, by The Rev. James S. Whale, then President of Cheshunt College, Cambridge, England. He was a well-respected liberal evangelical Congregational minister and teacher. I still have his book.

Chapter one is entitled THE LIVING GOD (1941). It is about, "the reality, nature and purpose of the living God."

IS THERE A GOD?
Then, interestingly, he asks: "But is there a God?"

Amazingly, he answers his question by saying, "Apparently not. God is not apparent to our senses. Nor is he indubitably apparent to human reason."

He goes on to point out that the so-called philosophical "proofs" for the existence of God are not proofs, they are arguments. He admits that, "...it is not compellingly apparent that God is the only explanation of human history", otherwise why would we have the problem of evil? Interesting.

J.S. WHALE PUTS A LOT OF EMPHASIS ON FAITH AND GRACE
=====================================================
"Nevertheless" he continues, "belief in the reality of God is the alpha and omega (THE BEGINNING AND THE END) of the Christian religion. Christian doctrines presuppose and illustrate the fundamental doctrine that God is, and that man's chief end is to know him."

THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION
Beginning with this--1, the Christian doctrine of Creation-- he writes about other doctrines: There are 2, the Christine doctrine of Sin, 3, of History, 4, of the Atonement (life, death and resurrection of Jesus), 5, of the Trinity and the Incarnation, 6, of the Church, of the Word and the Sacraments, and 7, the doctrine of Last Things--life Eternal.

Reading Whale, today, I now realize why--while I still respect the point of view of theism--I need this new perspective which I call unitheism, or panentheism. It sure avoids having to speak of G�˜D as being any kind of separate human-like being.

GØD. Note what my 'puter does with this spelling, at times. It changes it to
G�˜D, IMO, is whatever infinity and eternity are. It does not change in my title or in my signature--when I write as Lindsay.

G�˜D AND THE VERB TO BE
========================
BTW, the verb 'to be' is the only verb which I am comfortable using in conjunction with 'G�˜D'.

IMO, G�˜D is not, in any way an objective human-like being who does, or even wills, this, that, or whatever. For me, G�˜D does not will, or exist; G�˜D is will, or existence. This is why Orthodox Jews write about G-d, not about God. G-d, for them--and I agree--cannot be made into a three-dimensional and objective, even subjective, being.

==========================================
Currently, ' G�˜D', or GOD, is the acronym I choose to use for what I once use to symbolized as 'God'. Feel free to use any word with which you are comfortable. Some agnostics--ones who are not comfortable with theism or atheist--like to speak of Nature
when referring to the ultimate reality--what the theologian Paul Tillich called, "the ground of all being"

I think of G�˜D as the highest good. That is, that which points to all present and potential GOODNESS, all ORDER and laws as uncovered by the sciences, and DESIGN and beauty as created by the arts.

IMO, each of us has the opportunity to be at one with G�˜D

But this will only happen if we consciously choose be at one with what is. The human ability to have FAITH, HOPE, and to be LOVING, indicates that G�˜D is within us. This brings us to the concept of LOVE.

LOVE and WILL are closely related. To understand the spirit of love, at it highest level, please read Paul's great poem on love. It is found in I Corinthians 13. It is in this spirit that I begin this dialogue. And, BTW, I want to think of this exercise as a dialogue--the sharing of mutually valuable ideas--not a debate in which one poster tries to prove that the other is wrong.

Of course, often there is no absolute agreement about what is, or is not, the truth. Therefore, for now, when I run into people with concepts with which I strongly disagree, I will simply say: I beg to disagree, agreeably, and lovingly.

Much of what I say will be prefaced with the phrase, in my opinion. IMO, is a phrase I will probably use often. On with the dialogue.

This post has been edited by Lindsay: May 08, 2008, 07:03 PM

[lgking]

Good to see you are there, Rick! Happy 2006!!!!!

[Rick]

It's good to see you here too.
===========================
LGK: I hope you are serious about feeling good to know I am still here. Don't worry, I have learned to handle rejectionBTW, Rick, did you win that game of chess?

Question: How come you, a Supreme God, appear to be bored with, or afraid of talking about GØD, or GOD? Are you still an agnostic? Or have the prominent atheists--Where have they gone?--converted you?

BTW, notice that I use the acronym 'GOD' because my 'puter keeps playing tricks on me. It takes my preferred acronym, GØD, and displays it as G?D, or G ' D. Not all the time. But when it feels like it.

What happened to TLID, who signs: I'll be back.

[Trip like I do]

Iggie,

Yes, an extremely subjective and relative approach, which is becoming an approach that is a rather cosmopoliton phenomenon.

....good to hear some theology around here.

[lgking]

It's good to see you here too.

Rick. I presume you are a still your positive and good-living, agnostic-humanist self. Did I get that right?

I am not sure if I have ever mentioned this, but I have a friendship, which I have cultivated with a poster from Paducah, Kentucky. My friend is Warren Farr, a starving artist. I am looking for a way to encourage and even to help him.

Way back when, he and I, independently of one another, and of others, developed the word 'unitheism'--G-D is that which is in and through all that IS, including us. I use it as a doublet for pan-en-theism. I also use it to avoid confusion with pantheism--God is all things. The process philosophy and theology of Alfred North Whitehead, mathematician behind the new physics, is very pan-en-theist.

Here is a link to Warren's bio:
http://www.warrenfarr.com/aboutme/biography.html
Here is a linke to something I wrote for him on my take on unitheism:
http://www.unitheist.org/whatis.html
===========================
Rick, Warren and I--and one or two others--while attempting to work out what it means to be rational and non-traditional theists, without advocating out and out "a"theism, have been busy building a rational and open theology, which respect positive agnosticism, including atheism, and does not accept the god-in-the-sky-looking-after-us theory.

If you look at the site you will see that it includes dealing with a couple of anti-thinking and, apparently, anti-clerical yahoos, who prefer to slag and knock. BTW, it is made up of quite a few threads, which the yahoos want to dominate:

http://boomer.invisionzone.com/index.php?showforum=19

If you have time, give it a look see.

I am not suggesting that you waste your time, but it would be interesting for them to hear from a "guest" from CA. Guests can post at the BODY and SOUL section, without having to register.

I would love to see several "guests" challenging the arch-yahoo JDF and his several clones to "think", if they are capable of doing so.

BTW, I found out that JDF--formerly known as Alberta Jon--is from Pincer Creek, the wind-capital of Canada. I have been there. The winds flow in from the mountains of Montana.

[Rick]

Rick. I presume you are a still your positive and good-living, agnostic-humanist self. Did I get that right?

Everything but the agnostic. I oscillate between gnosticism and antitheism. I have a sense of the divine, but can we prove it's not an illusion? I think the history of religion shows we would probably be better off in the future without it, hence the antitheism.

By the philosophic principle of Occam's Razor (the simpler explanation is the better), it's not clear that any description of divinity in the universe adds anything to an explanation of anything. Before adding that element to my model of reality, I need some evidence of its necessity.

Your friend Warren sounds like an interesting fellow, born in the same year as I.

[lgking]

Rick, I offer the following correction:
LGK: "I presume you are still your positive and good-living, gnostic and humanist self."

" Did I get that right this time?" I ask.

Rick: "...but can we prove it's not an illusion?"

LGK: "You mention Occam's Razor. Okay, but what about Pascal's wager? Is it not GOOD to believe the best until the worst is proved? Check out:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/pasc-wag.htm
================================
Rick: "I think the history of religion shows we would probably be better off in the future without it, hence the antitheism."

LGK: "Are you saying that all religion, including the benevolent kind, is evil?"

Rick: "By the philosophic principle of Occam's Razor (the simpler explanation is the better)"

LGK: "What is simpler than saying, "G-D is the oneness of what IS? G-D unites us. Interestingly, the literal meaning of 'devil' (diabolic) is that which splits, or separates, us."
=====================================
Rick: "Before adding that element (G-D) to my model of reality, I need some evidence of its necessity."

LGK: "What is more necessary than the whole of which we are a part? If G-D is the whole, how can we say: We are not a part of the whole?"
=====================================================
Rick: "Your friend Warren sounds like an interesting fellow, born in the same year as I."

LGK: "Feel free to get in touch with and encourage Warren. He is an artist, and an intellect. He also needs to sell his art. I am trying to figure out some way that our Family Life Foundation can be of some help to him. If we can get our hands on some money, we could buy some of his art. This would help him financially, and personally, while helping him feel good about who he is.

"I know what he is going through. I have a daughter and a son-in-law, both artists, living on a floating house, on the west coast of Vancouver Island, Tofino. My wife, using some of our pension income, and I are helping them, by buying some of their art. Quite a story."

[Rick]

... but what about Pascal's wager? Is it not GOOD to believe the best until the worst is proved? Check out:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/pasc-wag.htm

Quoting from that site:

"According to intellectualism, deliberately choosing which beliefs to hold is practically impossible; according to the many-gods objection, Pascal’s wager begs the question and hence is irrational; according to evidentialism, Pascalian reasoning is epistemically irresponsible and hence immoral; and according to various paradoxes, reference to infinite values is decision-theoretic non-sense."

So Pascal's wager is not only philosophically invalid, it is unnecessary: merely observe who Christians say was entrusted with the keys to heaven (Peter, who denied Christ three times).

Are you saying that all religion, including the benevolent kind, is evil?

To the extent that a belief is untrue, holding it is harmful. A person's first duty is to know reality, and false beliefs corrupt that knowledge. To propagate false belief is to contaminate otherwise innocent minds, and is therefore unnecessarily harmful.

What is simpler than saying, "G-D is the oneness of what IS? G-D unites us."

It is simple, but unnecessary. No statement at all would be simpler than one that adds no explanatory power.

[Guest_lgking_*]

Rick, I am having a problem logging in, under my name, so I am putting my name in the guest slot.

you quote from the site on Pascal's wager:

"According to intellectualism, deliberately choosing which beliefs to hold is practically impossible; according to the many-gods objection, Pascal’s wager begs the question and hence is irrational; according to evidentialism, Pascalian reasoning is epistemically irresponsible and hence immoral; and according to various paradoxes, reference to infinite values is decision-theoretic non-sense."

Rick: I am willing to look at most any argument with an open mind, but the one above makes little or no sense to me. I find it very easy to believe that it would be immoral for me murder someone and then kill myself. I also find it practical and possible.

So Pascal's wager is not only philosophically invalid, it is unnecessary: merely observe who Christians say was entrusted with the keys to heaven (Peter, who denied Christ three times).

You comment:

"To the extent that a belief is untrue, holding it is harmful. A person's first duty is to know reality, and false beliefs corrupt that knowledge. To propagate false belief is to contaminate otherwise innocent minds, and is therefore unnecessarily harmful."

I assume you realize that I am not advocating that we must believe that which is contrary to reason and reality, false and harmful. I also assume that Pascal's wager applies to all religions, not just the Judaeo/Christian one.

I asked: "What is simpler than saying, G-D is the oneness of what IS? G-D unites us."
And you responded: "It is simple, but unnecessary."

Unecessary?

This is an opinion. Therefore, because I respect all opinions, I ask, in whose opinion? It is my opinion that ALL that is G-D, which is self-evident to all my senses (physical, mental and spiritual), is VERY necessary, for me.

Then you add: "No statement at all would be simpler than one that adds no explanatory power."

I ask: Explanatory power, what does this mean?

I assume that without differing explanations and opinions we would not be having this interesting dialogue. Or is it a debate? I prefer dialogue.

[Lindsay]

Rick, et al: Here it is, April 3. I just got back from a Florida holiday. Excellent.

Beginning where I left off: I assume that all readers understand that I am not dogmatically saying that we must be prepared to believe that which is contrary to reason and reality and, therefore, is false and harmful.

Over the holiday, and in the spirit of dialogue--not debate, or dogma--the following theological words and ideas came to my mind: GOD is not just the absolute. G-d is the relative, and g-d is the personal.

In the spirit of dialogue, I add the following concepts: First, perhaps it is possible to think of GOD (and I wish I could put a dash "-" through the O to indicate the "mystery" of it all)--as the totality of ALL being. That is, the absolute, whatever the absolute is.

Second, perhaps it is, also, possible to think of G-d as that which is within family, the community, and social being. That is, G-d is that which is relative--that which is measureable and scientific in nature.

And, third, there is g-d--our personal, moral and ethical consciousness. That which is within us as human, personal and spiritual beings, which inspires us to treat one another as we want others to treat us, lovingly.

[Lindsay]

The theology of unitheism in four line:
=============================
GØD enters every human being each time we take a breath;
As well as every human mind and heart that's filled with love.
And as we turn our thinking into deeds, and not just creeds,
We'll build a better future life beyond the fear of death.
=======================================
I am off to the good of Maritimes, and Mount Allison U Class of 1951 reunion (55).

[Lindsay]

You might be interested in the following dialogue I had, recently, at another site:
0JDF, Nov 23 2005, 09:33 PM

...I am not questioning the sincerity of your belief in G-d. I just wonder how you think you could, scientifically, prove anything about your G-d. What you seem to be suggesting--correct me if I am wrong--is that it is possible to have objective, verifiable evidence for G-d. As I noted above, I am a relativist when it comes to God talk. I think God language is necessarily subjective not objective. Subjective, objective.

NOTE: My responses, below, were given before I started using GØD for the divine name. I responded:
Why not both? For me, G-d is also abstract and concrete, absolute and relative, near and far, the microcosm and the macrocosm, the chaos and the cosmos, whatever.

BTW, I like your attitude, JDF. It looks like we can agree to disagree agreeably. BTW 2, have you changed your name? And when did you join?

I don't want to sound more sceptical than I am. I am a believer in a Universe that remains mysterious, wonderous, awesome, beyond comprehension even. I am a believer in a Spiritual Realm. But I doubt that I or anyone else could ever scientifically prove any of my beliefs about the Universe. They are simply the way I order my response to existence.

No argument here, from me.

Keep in mind that much of what I write will be a repeat of what I have written before. It is hard to believe that I have been writing to this forum--How long noe? Is it since 1999? Or before? I can't recall.

If you will allow me to describe what I mean by G-d, or GOD (goodness, order and design), here is my take on things:

There are, in my humble opinion certain things--physical, mental and spiritual--which are self-evident.

Like the American constitution begins: "We hold these truths to be self evident " therefore, it is self-evident to me that I exist, and I exist within a vast and, as you say, mysterious universe.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH
I happen to think that Rene Descartes (1596-1650), the philosopher, mathematician and inventor of analytic geometry got it right when he began with the idea that the only thing he was certain of was that of his own existence. Thus he wrote: "Je pense, donc je suis"--I think, therefore, I am.

From this point on, he went on to say that the idea of "a" perfect being cannot arise in the mind of a doubting and imperfect (incomplete?) creature like man." Then he added: "A perfect idea must have a perfect cause, and this is God."

DESCARTES' CONCEPT OF GOD
Keep in mind that Descartes was a mind-body dualist. It seems that Descartes' concept of God was as follows: God, for Descartes, was the originator of the perfect and the complete idea of all that is. As indicated, he was, a dualist, and a great mathematician. For an over-all view of the ideas of Descartes the dualist, check out:

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~histor.../Descartes.html
for a closer look at his philosophy, check out:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/descarte.htm
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/Mind/Table.html

In my humble opinion, Descartes--and I do not blame him for this, in any way--ommitted what I think of as the third factor as to how we operate as human and thinking beings. I call this third factor, the pneuma factor--that which makes us more than just a body and a mind.

In my humble opinion, we are more than just a body-mind dualism; we are a spirit-mind-body trialism--a new word which, thanks to Rene, I just coined. Yes, I do accept that, pneumatologically speaking, we can be in touch with all great pneumas.

Now, getting in touch with Hebrew thinking, keep in mind that: The Hebrew alphabet is made up of 22 consonants. The vowels--AEIOU--were, originally assumed without being written. Later, in the Middle Ages, symbols, in the form of dots and dashes were added to the consonants.

For example, the Hebrew for the personal name of God is, YHWH--all consonants. In English, we translate this as, Jehovah--by adding e,o, and a. For us, the word literally means, I am who I am.

Out of the same Hebrew root comes Jehovah-shuah, which contracts to Josuah, which means: the iamness within us is what brings us physical, mental and spiritual healing, or, holistically speaking, salvation.

In the Greek, the Hebrew, Joshua, is Ieasau. From this, by adding a hard verskion of "J", we get our word, Jesus. The Greek and Hebrew words literally mean: I am is the healing power within us which brings health and salvation. In other words, the healing power within you is your consciousness of you own self and well being. In my humble opinion, this can be used to heal or to destroy. Power is neutral. How we use it is up to us.

BACK TO DESCARTES
Back to Descartes and his comment: I think, therefore, I am.

One can just as easily say: I touch the universe with my senses. Therefore, the universe IS. If G-d is infinity and eternity, then G-d is in and through the things that are near--that is, the local part of that infinity--as well as in and through the things that are beyond what I can experiences with my senses.

I love travelling to the east coast. When I go there, I can scoop up handfuls, and more, of the Atlantic ocean. When I do this, I have a very positive feeling and evidence that the Atlantic ocean,even though I do not have the time to explore it all of it, is vaster than it seems.

Using science and reason, if I choose, I can certainly explore what I experience as the Atlantic ocean, near to me. Furthermore, by faith--the kind of faith that does not need to go contrary to science and reason--I have a strong feeling that, if I were willing to take the time, there is much more to explore.

Take note: I am not trying to prove that there is "a" God who exists in an objective form separate and apart from all things, small or large. Any god who can be encapsulated in an objective form is too small, for my way of thinking. But, meanwhile, I can experience that part of G-d which is close enough to me to experience. For example, every breath that I take convinces me that I am physically dependent on that part of G-d we call air. The same is true for every glass of water I drink and food that I eat.

Looking back I am glad that since I was a student I have always been deeply interested in the natural and social sciences. Over the years, as I read more and more about the new physics, genetics and the work of scientists like Alfred North Whitehead, etc., I am becoming more and more interested is the practical application of faith, imagination, and intuition. I have experienced the saving of health and lives, including that of my daughter.

BTW, having studied under several great teachers, I am qualified in the art of hypnosis. My basic undergraduate education was in philosophy/psychology, which were in the same university department in my day. Psychology grew out of philosophy.

I think I know something about how faith healing works, when it does work. It is related to the hypnotic trance--often present when people practice deep prayer/meditation. And just like medicine and surgery, it has it share of failures. Knowing this, one can almost predict when an attempt to use faith will fail.

LET'S RESURRECT THE SERIOUS STUDY OF THE SPIRIT
Under the general heading, pneumatology, I call what I do, pneumatherapy--hypnosis without the hype and the hocus pocus. Physiologically speaking, I believe it can be used to direct genes and hormones to do their thing.
================00000000000000=====================

[Guest]

It is not possible to define the ultimate reality -- God, Brahman or Atman -- as this or as that, for any such definition would only result in limiting Brahman.
Hence, the Upanishads indicate its nature by the negative modes of saying -- that it is not this, not that: neti, neti.
When one wakes up from cosmic delusion or maya, one realizes one´s identity with the Absolute.

[Guest]

It is not possible to define the ultimate reality -- God, Brahman or Atman -- as this or as that, for any such definition would only result in limiting Brahman.
Hence, the Upanishads indicate its nature by the negative modes of saying -- that it is not this, not that: neti, neti.
When one wakes up from cosmic delusion or maya, one realizes one´s identity with the Absolute.

By calling any ultimate reality--God, Brahman--Atman--or an ultimate reality---one has already limited it by defining into expression…it is further limited by stating …all that it is not…neti, neti is in itself…a definition…a thought.

The ultimate essence of beingness cannot be realized without thought…how did you come to the realization that you share…did you not first sense it, perceive it, think about it? To have no thought, one must first ‘think’ this, then pursue the thought of it…in which to experience “no thought�….and once no thought is experienced…the very experience instantly emerges into thought/perception.

All little thoughts are reflections of one thought…

Neutralize the polarities…and the percieved bottle of the mind is understood as the creative force that it is.

The nature of thought must be understood, in which to fully realize the ‘ultimate reality’, for thought is as its child, and not separate from it.

The child cannot be ‘taken home’ through abandonment or denial.

[Lindsay]

It is not possible to define the ultimate reality...

I agree.

Interestingly, I recently heard Professor Seth Lloyd--obviously a spiritually-minded scientist--who is a particle physicist and professor of engineering at MIT. On TVO, he gave a brilliant lecture on the universe as a quantum computer--facinating.

I heard him make the same kind comment, as above, about the "reality" we think we do know--the cosmos, the universe. Or are there multiple cosmoses and universes? I heard him admit that he did not know many things about nature and functions of the universe and why it behaves the way that it does. He went on to say, "What I do know is that it does. I also know how to co-operate with the principles and laws that I find, and get things done."

Guest, how about the following questions: What is it that GØD is not? For example, I do not think that GØD is any kind of objective male or female being who is located in any one area of space.
What about dimensions? Mass? Is it not possible to say: GØD does not have dimensions, or mass?
I think it was Augustine who said: "God is like a circle who centre is nowhere, and whose circumference is everywhere."

I find this a useful way to talk when talking to children about GØD. I used it when I talked to my own two children about GØD. My oldest, a daughter who is an artist and a poet, just turned 50. My next, a son, is a teacher and musician, just turned 47. Both are deep thinkers, thank GØD . I am now using this approoach when talking with my grandchildren. One is 17, another 15, and the third is 11.

I think I understand what you mean when you say

When one wakes up from cosmic delusion or maya, one realizes one´s identity with the Absolute.

This poses the question: Does the Relative--that to which we are obviously related--have any value, meaning or purpose?

[Guest]

Does The Absolute, Atman, have a circumference !?
Does the Relative have any value, meaning or purpose ?
Is there anything in the Universe without meaning or purpose !?

AWAKENING -- http://www.geocities.com/the_wanderling/awakening101.html


"I am in everyone´s heart as the Supersoul ...
In My unmanifested form I pervade all this creation. All things are resting in Me, but I am not in them.
Intelligence, knowledge, freedom from doubt and delusion, forgiveness, truthfulness, self-control, calmness, pleasure and pain, birth, death, fear, fearlessness, nonviolence, equanimity, satisfaction, austerity,
charity, fame and infamy are created by Me alone..."

Bhagavad Gita

[OnlyNow]

"God is like a circle who centre is nowhere, and whose circumference is everywhere."

I like that quote.

Is it possible that that when we dismiss the God depicted by most world religions, we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater? I think that if God exists, she's an entity unlike anything we can even begin to imagine. She's not really a "she," not a "he," and possibly not even an "it."

Science makes sense of our every day existence. But will the ultimate questions get resolved scientifically? Imagine a day in the future when every single thing in the universe has been figured out, measured, explained and understood. Won't we still be left with the question of how it all started? What caused it? Why/How is it here? Why am *I* here? Can science really provide answers to these very basic questions? Maybe, but if so, OMG, do we ever have a long road ahead of us! Maybe science is a only tool to understand all things within the universe. But to fully grasp the universe as a whole, maybe an alternate angle must be employed. Would this be God? If only I could ask her!

[Guest]

Shiva, the Divine androgynous, whose right half is male and left half female, divided his body of fire, to let His Shakti (power, the glowing ardor) out to start the Cosmic dance of creation ...

OnlyNow,
Do You know the role of Vishnu in creation ?

[Guest]

Things are not as they appear to be
Thought is that which creates form
Thought is formless potentiality, once perceived, potential becomes.
Through form, we experience
Through experience, we awaken

We rest in the bosom of experience
Wisdom gained through experience has no form
Yet through form, all experience occurs.

Through unfolding the knowledge, created through the experience of the self
The knowing of Self unfolds.

There is only Self, in the reflection of a self…

How can the eye…
See itself?

[Guest]

Shiva…represents the heart and mind…sensing to thought
To be divided by fire…is to become conscious…to perceive…to feel and to think…thus fire is as the ‘activity’ of Shiva…or the thought from no thought…or the self from no self…consciousness.

Through sensing we think, through thought we experience…the cosmic dance of becoming.

[Lindsay]

Shiva…represents the heart and mind…sensing to thought
To be divided by fire…is to become conscious…to perceive…to feel and to think…thus fire is as the ‘activity’ of Shiva…or the thought from no thought…or the self from no self…consciousness.

Through sensing we think, through thought we experience…the cosmic dance of becoming.

Guests anonymous:
Don't be shy! Would it be possible for each one of you to do one of the following: Give yourself a number, a nick name, the name of your town, or city, whatever, so that I will not be confused. I would like to know who is saying what. Is this impossible?

Keep in mind that you can still remain anonymous, if you wish. BTW, since I am not wanted by the police, or any of my three wives, yet, I am willing to share my name address and phone number with anyone who would like to have it.

[Guest]

There are two guests here, two different styles, minds and souls ...
Our nature is revealed in what we say and in how we say it.

[psikik joe]

There are two guests here, two different styles, minds and souls ...
Our nature is revealed in what we say and in how we say it.

..and dear guests, I conclude that you are both psychic.
For, you presume that those who wish to travail in conversation with you are psychic as well!!

[Guest_Dianah_*]

There are two guests here, two different styles, minds and souls ...
Our nature is revealed in what we say and in how we say it.

..and dear guests, I conclude that you are both psychic.
For, you presume that those who wish to travail in conversation with you are psychic as well!!

I think its quite obvious who I am...by the style of writing and the philosophy shared...as for the other guest...psychic abilities are required...

just laziness on my part...

[Lindsay]

To clarify for those who want clarity, the following posts are from me…
all better now?

Very much so! Keep it up, and, thanks.

[Lindsay]

BTW, as the moderator of this section, I will do my best to assure that all involved in this thread will be more than just tollerated; you will be taken seriously and accepted. You will be loved as you need to be loved, and I assume you will return the favour.

[mike-1]

BTW, as the moderator of this section, I will do my best to assure that all involved in this thread will be more than just tollerated; you will be taken seriously and accepted. You will be loved as you need to be loved, and I assume you will return the favour.

Hi there LGK .. 'tolerated' is the way it is written ... this is my first post here by the way.

[OnlyNow]

BTW, as the moderator of this section, I will do my best to assure that all involved in this thread will be more than just tollerated; you will be taken seriously and accepted. You will be loved as you need to be loved, and I assume you will return the favour.

Sounds like I picked the perfect thread to post on. I've never felt so loved and accepted at brainmeta.

Mike1, I hope you know that fastidious spell checkers will not be tollerated here. Aside from that, welcome to the forum!

[mike-1]

BTW, as the moderator of this section, I will do my best to assure that all involved in this thread will be more than just tollerated; you will be taken seriously and accepted. You will be loved as you need to be loved, and I assume you will return the favour.

Sounds like I picked the perfect thread to post on. I've never felt so loved and accepted at brainmeta.

Mike1, I hope you know that fastidious spell checkers will not be tollerated here. Aside from that, welcome to the forum!

I was just teasing LGK. It wouldn't be the first time!

[OnlyNow]

BTW, as the moderator of this section, I will do my best to assure that all involved in this thread will be more than just tollerated; you will be taken seriously and accepted. You will be loved as you need to be loved, and I assume you will return the favour.

Sounds like I picked the perfect thread to post on. I've never felt so loved and accepted at brainmeta.

Mike1, I hope you know that fastidious spell checkers will not be tollerated here. Aside from that, welcome to the forum!

I was just teasing LGK. It wouldn't be the first time!

I was teasing you, too. I had a hunch you might know Lindsay.

To answer a question by our ubiquitous "guest," yes, of course I know the role of Vishnu in creation. Why do you ask?