Still, every rose has it's thorn!

BTW.
It looks like that “God” is terrorizing the United States by Hurricanes. Can FBI incorporate “God” into the terrorists list?

That reminded me about Tsunami over Lisbon which Voltaire used as a manifestation of the “fact” that the deistic approach is the most correct in depicting the reality. He pathetically exclaimed 'where is the God' and heard nothing in response and jumped to conclusion.

What if Voltaire misunderstood Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz? Actually how Voltaire could understand Leibnitz… Definitely Sir Isaac Newton perceived Leibnitz ideas. It is so pity that there is no cozy place for the gentlemen on earth to drink a cup of tea together, yet.

Maybe that place still must be constructed?
I am still looking for gentlemen who can construct that place.

Who will venture to construct new city for Enki and his friends?

Maybe we should call GOD 'The Synaptic Spark" for God created the initial spark of life, as he moved upon the waters of heaven and earth....may God ignite your light....or 'PLUSQUAMPERFECTION' - the spark of wisdom....

....the duality made into unity, so that out of a single beam of light, two are issued and compounded, and so on....the conquering of death and darkness, transmuting darkness into light, mortality into immortality (Jesus Christ).

God (the bright beam of wisdom) is the first begotten wisdom that dwells in the universal waters of this world.

When I am exalted I will draw all bodies into me....Jesus Christ

God - the universal soul of the world and head of the fountain of light.

....the mutiplying spirit of light (God in creation did say increase and multiply and inspired (ignited) into every creature a certain germinating and vegitating spririt).

God - ripples of the Big Bang, where all information is stored.

God - the mental beam of light.

I received an email from an MSN group called Living Universe. Here it is:


Hi All,
after reading many theological discussions from other groups, I decided to give mine, so this is my belief.
 
 I believe that God is the Universe, I know it exists, and it's in a state of constant evolution. The Universe is composed of all "Matter" and "Energy" and is niether reactive or interventionist in the relation to our existance, we are all part of it, and therefore subjrct to it's laws.
 
We are also aware, or conscious, and the fact we're a product of the Universe, it must therefore be" Alive". Our solar system and planet are subject to what ever forces of the Universe that It comes in contact with, and "Adapts" or "Evolves" accordingly, as do all other things in it.
 
I believe the above,even though I can't explain how or when it began or will end. I just believe it's infinate.
 
Religion,on the other hand is a "Human Invention", and appears to be used with sinister intentions. I believe religion creates chaos in the guise of order.
 
Regards dioscept

I think Christian religion has evolved in sinister ways but was never it's original intention when introduced by Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour.

When a person has eyes and yet cannot see, we call that person blind.
When a person has ears and yet cannot hear, we call that person deaf.
When a person has a nose and yet cannot smell we call that person anosmic.

When a person has a brain and prays, yet cannot detect God, what do we call that person?

How about "sane"?

unworthy of God's divining light?

The mind must be pure!

what's this about divining? yet another waste of sleeping time.

Dear Trip, I am sorry that I write in short, I really very impressed by your art. I will respond with delay in about 25 days on all your comments (I am sorry for such delay), and I have a very interesting idea about one painting I hope you will be able to draw for the New Einstein the Providence is planning to find and inspire.

I was impressed by your art, esp the way you choose the colors. You have exceptional perception of the reality. I think you are ready to draw something related with the “Wavelengths” as well.

I think you will become very Famous, just keep working. You understand some specific things in a way, which few are able to understand hope you can visualize that as well, I hope that that will get reflected in your art, actually I feel elements of that reflection. Such Art can inspire many and open new perspectives. I think you can draw even the Keys.

So I will be back after about 25 days. I am very happy that I got an opportunity to find you my dear Knight of Brush and Rainbows.

With best wishes,
Yours truly,
Enki

WE ARE, or can be, EXTENSIONS OF GOD--goodness, order and design
=============================================
GOD dwells in me as Goodness,
As Order and Design.
All live in perfect harmony
Within this soul of mine.

GOD's not some distant person,
Who lives in heaven, apart;
But very being, life itself
Within the human heart.

We members of humanity,
When we but give the nod,
Become, with each and every breath,
Extensions of... Hmmm! GOD.
======000000000============

Fellow posters, please take note of the revision, above, which I made to the short poem I wrote last August.

Someone suggested, I think, that I include something about the spirit of evil--the devil. Inspired by this suggestion, this is what I wrote, just now. Thanks, muse!

=========================
Of course we have the freedom
To open up our door;
We're free to welcome evil
And goodness to abhor.

So, go ahead! It's up to us
To take a goodly breath,
which leads to life, eternally
And not eternal death.

For me? The choice is evident,
And as I think things through.
Goodness, order and design,
Suite me! And you?

=========0000===============================================================
In 2006, may each of you have the good sense to be wise enough to choose the way of GOD--goodness, order and design, and not the way of chaos--disorder, meaningless and purposeless design.

================================00000000=====================================

God is all, and that includes harmony and what may be considered disharmony. Those who see God within themselves care for the further realization of God, and look upon the actions of others not as a comedy, nor as a tragedy, but simply as what is, and are indifferent to all but God.

===================================000000000000000000000000===============================
====
currently, i label myself a: panentheist/tototheist/unitheist. g-d/g-d, imho, is not a personal being with a form like us, separate and apart from us and things. "the kingdom of g-d" is within and through every unit of being. let us dialogue about this--i.e., share our opinions, lovingly and with respect. for details regarding the above, welcome to: http://www.flfcanada.com
=====================================000000000000000======================================
===

(douglas @ jan 6 2006, 11:51 pm)
"i am sure there are, as trev has observed, some differences between his unitheism and some of the other monotheisms. but surely these are differences of form not subtance."

i responded: there certainly are "some differences", douglas. and, imo, they are great. the monontheism in which i was raised says:

monotheism: there is a personal god, called god. he existed before there was anything. then, out of nothing, he created everything. he is separate and apart from his created world. hebrew monotheists say that g-d, after a couple of bad starts settled on setting up a tribe of people who became his chosen people.

though there is much confusion in the bible about this, most christian monotheists say: he had one son, jesus...well...you should know the story. if you do not, let me know.

islamic monotheists say something quite different.
=====================================
on the other hand, unitheism speaks of totality of being, in an through all that is--total, universal and all encompassing. imo, there can only be one unitheism. if need be, if it would make the meaning clearer, i would be willing to drop the word 'unitheist' and change it to 'tototheism' . my short way of saying all this is, g-d, or g-d, not a god.

imo, every human being, every separate thing, is a piece of g-d, not a child of g-d.
now, with this in mind, do you insist on saying that

douglas adds: "the difference seems to be as jdf has observed parallel to differences between flavours of ice cream. in spite of all the various flavours they are still in the end ice cream."
from my perspective as an atheist or maybe even more specifically a non believer in any god of any kind or any flavour, i see little difference between any one's god. ultimately they all rest on faith and unproven assumptions about the universe."

i responded: "this is, perhaps, because you are still thinking in terms of a mono god, out there.

douglas, is the universe physically real, to you?
i presume that, using your senses, you have no problem accepting the reality of the physical universe. am i right? if your answer is: "i accept that the universe is a reality. i may not fully understand what the universe is all about, but i do accept that it is there."

i would agree with you. so do i, i accept what my senses, aided by the natural sciences tell me, for now. and, i also accept that the future could be full of surprises. there could even god-like beings in other galaxies. or, the universe could eventually revert back to being one huge black hole. all things are possible. i am comfortable with being a gnostic, or an agnostic.

pope, the poet--essay on man--indicated that nature is the body of god
as a unitheist, or tototheist, i look upon the universe, as perceived by my senses, as the physical body of g-d. that aspect of g-d is, imo, a real and hard fact, which i love exploring. what g-d is mentally and spiritually is more than i can imagine. but it, too, is real, to me.

do i claim that i am right? no, absolutely not. i am merely describing/defining what i believe, at this point. if there is a separate being called god who wants to reveal to me that i am wrong, and want me to know that he is there, i am open to return to monotheism, at any time.

if, on the other hand, atheism is willing to demonstrate that all life ends at death; that material reality is the only reality, bring me the hard facts. i am open to that, also.

meanwhile, for me, panentheism/unitheism/tototheism it is. dialogue--the sharing of different opinions can be a lot of fun when done openly, eh?

you may not agree with my definition/description of g-d, but please do not think of it as the same as the monotheist god, as described in the bible, and by the traditional religions.

btw, i readily accept that not too long ago i would have been burned at the stake for my views by many kinds of monotheists. have you heard of dr. michael servitus? interestingly, he was sent to the stake, not by bigotted rc's, but by the so-called great reformer, john calvin, who, ironically, preached the gospel of love. check out
http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi689.htm and
http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/ashes.htm
==================================
for those interested in a lively dialogue on theology, check out:
http://boomer.invisionzone.com/index.php?s...t=0&#entry24439

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/01/04/italy.jesus.reut/

Unknown: I am very much a fan of much of what Spinoza wrote.

BTW, within the last three weeks, a group of us, here in Toronto, Ontario Canada, has stated an organization called PATHWAYS, which is based on the ideas of the retired Episcoplaian Bishop, John Shelby Spong. We meet twice a week to discuss new ways of understanding theology. Let me know if you have heard of Spong.

Good to see that there are still readers of the theological topics.

I suppose the answer to the question is: A god that can be made is not G-D.

I write the divine name as I do to indicate that G-D, may interpenetrate that which is objective, and be involed in that which we call subjective, but G-D can in no way be confused with it. In my humble opinion, G-D is all that is--physically, mentally and spiritually speaking.

When I write of the divine in community, I like to write G-d. When I write of the divine in you, I am comfortable writing g-d.

Perhaps the important question is: What is the practical value, the use, of any kind of theology. Like William James, I am a pragmatist: everything needs to be of use? The purpose of theology could be looking for G-D in all that is, including you.