Who is God and what is it and Why?

[Roland J. Prather]

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/233106-The-Philosophical-Significance-of-Psychopaths-Postmodernism-Morality-and-God

The Philosophical Significance of Psychopaths: Postmodernism, Morality, and God -- Sott.net

This article got me thinking and i want to lay out my thoughts. So i will start off with a paragraph from the article:



"The mixture of evolutionary biology with theology is known as theistic evolution, of which there are various kinds. What all the kinds share, however, is a problem known as the "problem of evil": If God exists and is all knowing, all powerful, and all loving, then evil should not exist (evil in the sense of man-made evil, such as murder, and natural evil, such as hurricanes and polio). But evil does exist. So either God does not exist or God does exist but is not all knowing, all powerful, or all loving."


I wonder has this evolution and maybe the evolution on other planets is the separation from the wheat from the shaft. That There was a spike in psychopathy(evil) and something got out of hand. God if there is a God(all knowing, all powerful, and all loving) lost control of its creation, seeing how all things are possible can negate an all knowing, all powerful, and all loving God, found itself(God) underestimating its creation and now must learn this lesson which now involves all of us. We Prime creator the choice is this hard lesson to learn as there are only lessons, this is one big school. And this suffering that is out of control can only be satiated by a bailout of those that wake up to the disheartening reality. In this sense god doesn’t know everything which would be a hard and long lesson to learn. And this lesson can only be thoroughly learned in the contraption of time. ?????

‎"Now add evolutionary time to this scenario: the mind-boggling amount of pain, suffering, and killing on this planet alone (there may be many more planets such as ours) of untold trillions of creatures spread over hundreds of millions of years - the fear and horror of predation, the torture of parasitism and disease, the agony of starvation, the brutality of temperature extremes - almost all of which never came under human purview or even contributed to human evolution in the slightest. God (assuming God exists) would have to be infinitely coldhearted in order to permit all of this."

Jumping on the side of optimism God or its ray of creation infinetly goes through these cycle of events as there is no begining or end. And this is the way it is. creation allows all to be. And that our human machine including the brain fail at encompassing enough objectivity due to our degredated state. Not that we should have faith in whatever but that questioning our very base is paramount in accordance withobjective scientific knowledge. ??????

Reflecting: this probable ability to escape or acend into a higher density is a failback safe or more respectively the only due course for evolution at this point?

 

[Denis]

Hi Roland JP.

Idk a lot, and all I can offer to you is my perspective and subsequently my understanding. My understanding is that God (or Prime Creator since this implies that Source is genderless) is All-That-Is. Idk if there exists some supreme being who has orchestrated and arranged all this Cosmic theater or not. I do not have access to that information atm, so I will speak only of that which I have learned thus far.

Why does evil exist? Again, from my perspective it exists in order to provide us with a point of reference. If evil didn't exist, we would never be able to know what is good. Maybe it has to be like this- it's all a process of learning after all. Then again, knowledge would be completely useless and unnecessary if evil didn't exist. We would simply be...
How could we ever learn to value pleasure, ecstasy & comfort if we never experienced the opposite: pain, suffering and discomfort?
Isn't the food (especially the meal that we prefer to eat the most- each of us has their unique individual taste/s) most delicious to eat when we are hungry?
Some of us are taught to learn from the mistakes of others (there are no real mistakes per se, more appropriate word would be lessons).
Some of us learn from our own mistakes.
Some of us are incapable of seeing/recognizing the value of water until we find ourselves thirsty in the desert.

I don't like it really, seeing that the design of this physical reality is set up so that life feeds on life- as long as we have this law of attraction there will always be conflicts, pain, misery and suffering on one end of the polarity equation and the opposite on the other side of it. This makes me really sad, and God knows I've cried my eyes out due to this cruel fact: suffering is the fact of life in our world. Either you learn to deal with it or you go under.

I think you'll like this video, it's short but it goes straight to the point: (in this case pay attention to the message, not the messenger ;)).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_sEyky7NlY

In Lak'ech

 

[Psalehesost]

This may be relevant for you both:
http://cassiopedia.org/glossary/Being_vs._Non-Being

It goes into the metaphysics - Being and Non-being, "Good/light" and "Evil/darkness" - in detail.

 

[Roland J. Prather]

This may be relevant for you both:
http://cassiopedia.org/glossary/Being_vs._Non-Being

It goes into the metaphysics - Being and Non-being, "Good/light" and "Evil/darkness" - in detail.

I read the Being and Non-Being a few times but what I'm an posting above is another perspective on the article that may help myself and another to grow and understand. its not enough to have a refrence point and place it at ones feet as a quick fix and not have a conversation up to it, in this case Being and Non Being. my questioning comes from the article. because I thought if someone cannot think on their feet one will always be without an internal understanding. I think something that grows from picking apart what is said and comtemplating the parts.

 

[Buddy]

My take on the article is that the author does a very good job talking about psychopaths, but when he starts with theology, his logic becomes ambiguous and perhaps relies on the reader to have the same assumptions and definitions for "God", "evil", etc., as he.

I think when we lose the anthropomorphic "God" concept, and make the effort to define our terms a bit clearer, a lot of things would probably become a bit clearer.

In "Gurdjieff: Making A New World", J. G. Bennett discusses his understanding of the "cosmoses" within the "Ray of Creation" described by Gurdjieff.

Basically, there are twelve gradations of materiality and spirituality and the existing world is continuous interaction between them. Between these different levels is a perpetual exchange of substances. This cosmic exchange by which there occurs aggregation, disaggregation, the becoming more active and more conscious, the dissolving and becoming more inert, and even dissolution into the primary state is the universal process of energy transformation.

This is all very much as it is viewed by physical science in our present day, with the all-important distinction, however, that the transformation of substances, for Gurdjieff, does not stop at the physical world or even the world of life, but goes all the way through to the experiences of thought and feeling and to the higher spiritual experiences of love, union and creativity.

This conceptualization did not actually originate with Gurdjieff, but G did have a slightly different take on it: where G's concept mainly differs - and it is an important feature of his system - is in presenting the different states of existence as each complete in itself and representing, as it were, a certain plateau or level which, while exhibiting inner variations, is still very different from the levels above and below. This is connected with his doctrine of cosmoses, or individualized states of existence, which are all constructed according to the same cosmic model and differ only in size and their external functions.

So we can probably say there is no need to even posit a "God" that is allowing or disallowing anything at our level, except in this sense: if the 48 laws that govern man and this world exist then they exist and will have their manifestation and influence regardless of what any of us "thinks" about it.

Mankind is mostly "victimized" first by his own ignorance, then by those who will take advantage of it, OSIT.

 

[anart]

I read the Being and Non-Being a few times but what I'm an posting above is another perspective on the article that may help myself and another to grow and understand. its not enough to have a refrence point and place it at ones feet as a quick fix and not have a conversation up to it, in this case Being and Non Being. my questioning comes from the article. because I thought if someone cannot think on their feet one will always be without an internal understanding. I think something that grows from picking apart what is said and comtemplating the parts.

I think it's important to understand, Roland, that one cannot control the way a thread develops. 'Picking apart and contemplating' can be helpful at times, but if one starts from a shaky base, it can also be nothing more than wiseacring. In this case, I think the latter is more accurate. You seem to be building your discussion from a base of understanding that is in a bit of conflict with the knowledge base of this forum - that of an external 'god' and 'good and evil'. I think, in fact, that the recommendation of the article on Being and Non-being is quite appropriate since you seem to not have grasped it in your previous readings.

 

[Joe]

creation allows all to be.

Sounds reasonable.

[quote author=Roland JP]Reflecting: this probable ability to escape or acend into a higher density is a failback safe or more respectively the only due course for evolution at this point?
[/quote]

Sounds reasonable, although it might have more to do with a natural balancing function of the Universe.

 

[Roland J. Prather]

Yeah I definetley conflicted two understandings. I got caught up in the sott article trying make sense of it.