Free Dating Site    

Gods tears of sadness and joy touch me. Gods warmth from the sun warms me, and also scorches me. The breath of God comes in the wind, and the peace of scent from nature tells me where Gods energy is at.

I have read some things written by people who claim to have seen and or been to heaven, and they say that we choose our lives ahead of time, even aborted babies. I kind of like that theory, and feel that if that's the truth, that God does not pick our spouses, our families, our careers, but He knows what we chose and knows how it will all turn out, including how we will mess it all up via free will. I think the free will was given to us for us to learn, and I think the lessons we choose are purposeful.

I guess we'll never know. If we figure God out, what's left?

Well after reading most or all of the post on here I get a little sad. I hope none of you think I am judging you but for some reason we have brought G-d down to the level of man. To believe that the creator the source that create souls, spirit, reality, actually has a personality. G-d is to big for us to try to understand. Epecially if you believe that we live in a wounderful world. This world is the world of deception, therefore what the majority of us believe is Wrong.

When we create situtation such as "The Personality of G-d" are we not creating an idol.

What we should realize is not the personality of a G-d but the Reality of a G-d.

Our basic instinct or attitude in this world is to enjoy ourselves is it not. Thats a desire. That is a carry over in the Super Subconscious of a place that we originally came from. A plane of existence higher than this world, when we look at a baby a child, do you not see the joy of his existence, is that because they just arrived here from a better world.

For me this is hell, hell can have joy in it also because we are here, and we are the ones who bring joy into this world.

The test is simple, we bring heaven to earth, and Christ said to seek heaven look within.

We are trapped in this reality, and G-d sends messengers to allow us to make the decision because G-d gives us Freewill, its up to you how you want to live and where. G-d only interferes when its necessary and its always personal.

All roads lead to Rome, the idea is to take the shorter trip.

Imo,this quote I have highlighted could kick off a whole new thread and possibly draw in a lot of discussion.

Imo, if G_d needed no beginning or end then this would also define this one to be eternal,always existing,infinite and imo,infinite also meaning that something/someone is not growing toward infinity but instead is infinite....is "complete." I could be wrong but I think this one would already possibly have attributes that are infinite as well such as the infinity of knowledge,the infinity of love and so on and all this imo,to the highest form,so personally I don't think I would consider this one being someone that is still in the developmental process.

Well to begin with imo,this is a contradiction within itself for should one look up the word,eternal;
Existing at all times without change; immutable.
Continued without intermission; perpetual; ceaseless; constant.
Without beginning or end of existence; always existing.
Without end of existence or duration; everlasting; endless; immortal.
Continuing without interruption; perpetual.
Forever true or changeless:
Something timeless, uninterrupted, or endless.
Existing unchanged forever
without pause; endless

Continued without intermission,without pause,uninterrupted,changeless,existing at all times without change...I got to be honest,to me I do not think this describes someone taking any kind of time out or down time or being interrupted by change or desire/need for a continual growth. (Please note that I have responded based on the question asked.)

Imo,the first part of the sentence,G_d is being referred to the one that created us but the last part of the quote,it also appears imo,that you either do not accept the consistency within the definitions from the most possible universal sources I could find that define the word,eternal or you do not consider this one to be eternal????

If indeed the word,creation is used in the same meaning as the above quote highlighted,then I must ask;Are you of the opinion that this one you refer to as G_d will adopt our personalities and then by doing so,we become this one you refer to as G_d along with the ability to create others that are also accessible to adopting out their personalities as well?

First sentence is presenting an exclusivity of truth

one should possibly see where things like "needing to grow" and "everything changes" is a contradiction of the word,eternal.

So please,instead of telling us what eternal doesn't mean,how about sharing your personal definition that you use to define what eternal does mean?

It appears that you define G_d as eternal but again the rest of your words contradicts the word,eternal itself in reference to definitions that I have brought to the page from even what one may possibly consider as "secular" sources.

This makes about as much sense to me as another post over here presenting the words,"more perfect"....what I mean say,is there really even such thing as "perfection growing" or "more perfect?'.

In other words if indeed G_d is self existence,worthy of infinite,eternal and all that is defined within the word eternal,then I believe that this one is perfection and instead of thinking this one needs me to help complete this one's identity and all that should define this one,personally for me,instead I believe that I am the one that needs this one to help me grow and help define me!

I actually believe this too, except for the knowing the future part... I think we chose our life and who we will be, but I don't think we know what will happen and since I believe we are the aspects of God, I don't think It (sorry, I refuse to give God a gender unless I'm speaking of someone elses God) knows either... That would take the full experience away... What is to be learned from something that is already set? The lesson would already be done... Although I dig what you're saying, I still don't believe the future exists yet... It is still in the act of creation.

Is there a way you cannot be you? If you learn something new, does that mean you were'nt perfectly being you before you learned it? If you learn something new, does that mean you were'nt perfectly being you before you learned it?That is perfection growing..

As a new life is formed, so is God changing to incorporate the new aspect of Itself... We are eternal, we are the creator and we are eternally growing... The One is eternal, but the One changes... I am sorry if you don't see past the paradox of this, but that is my opinion... No man-made definition will change that.

According to the second law of thermodynamics, processes taking place in a closed system always tend toward a state of equilibrium. Now our interest is in what implications this has when the law is applied to the universe as a whole. For the universe is a gigantic closed system, since it is everything there is and no energy is being fed into it from without. The second law seems to imply that, given enough time, the universe will reach a state of thermodynamic equilibrium, known as the "heat death" of the universe. This death may be hot or cold, depending on whether the universe will expand forever or eventually re-contract. On the one hand, if the density of the universe is great enough to overcome the force of the expansion, then the universe will re-contract into a hot fireball. As the universe contracts, the stars burn more rapidly until they finally explode or evaporate. As the universe grows denser, the black holes begin to gobble up everything around them and begin themselves to coalesce until all the black holes finally coalesce into one gigantic black hole which is coextensive with the universe, from which it will never re-emerge. On the other hand, if the density of the universe is insufficient to halt the expansion, as seems more likely, then the galaxies will turn all their gas into stars and the stars will burn out. At 10[30 ]years the universe will consist of 90% dead stars, 9% supermassive black holes, and l% atomic matter. Elementary particle physics suggests that thereafter protons will decay into electrons and positrons, so that space will be filled with a rarefied gas so thin that the distance between an electron and a positron will be about the size of the present galaxy. At 10[100] years some scientists believe that the black holes themselves will dissipate into radiation and elementary particles. Eventually all the matter in the dark, cold, ever-expanding universe will be reduced to an ultra-thin gas of elementary particles and radiation. Equilibrium will prevail throughout, and the entire universe will be in its final state, from which no change will occur.

Now the question which needs to be asked is this: if, given sufficient time, the universe will reach heat death, then why is it not now in a state of heat death if it has existed for infinite time? If the universe did not begin to exist, then it should now be in a state of equilibrium.

Yesterday I was so happy,I felt the Love of the Goddess inside me,her favor was upon me,she covered me like a cloak,,but today I feel lonely.I blessed others in your name God,,remember me please.

When I die,,be with me.Dont walk away from me in death,,because truth be told,,I dont know what will happen to me.Can I trust you not to turn your back on me?
What if I have wronged you?Will you still love me?

I love you Goddess,and I love you God.
Please be with me forever,give me a place of rest from this weary world,,and dont send me back here to live,my life has seen heartacke and trouble,and I have no desire to return.

Though I think we choose our path, I don't think we know our futures, or maybe are not even intended to know our futures, but I think God does.

Divinity which is limited cannot be the ultimate Divinity. It follows, therefore, that the only quality we can put upon Divinity is that Divinity is WITHOUT LIMIT.
It was believed that anyone who beheld the face of God could not live. On this planet we can barely stand to look at the Sun on a bright day for more than a fraction of a second. It is too bright. Since we cannot behold a bright light, nor can we behold the "face of God," it follows that there is a relationship between the two, and that the first conceivable yet unknowable and unexperienceable aspect of Divinity is brightness beyond any brightness of which we can con-ceive: LIMITLESS LIGHT. This is the belief that many who practice Magick share, you will note that it is quite non-religious and does not offend any specific religion.

I have got to thank you for your responses, I love to chat about this with those who do not know me. As for my friends I can understand why Christ says that a prophet is least known in his own home. Not saying I am a prophet, but my understanding is that those who are closest to you, tend not to really see who you really are. Thankyou Stonestounge.

1)Is there a way you cannot be you? yes,example;I could compromise my true self just to gain the affection of others then I am no longer being true to myself and/or being the true me

What if I told you that perfectly being me is me being imperfect and that I'm perfectly happy being me and I can have the capability to learn something new,but there's a good chance I might still be my imperfect true self

But if we are referring to that which is within this universe as eternal and/or always infinite and always growing/expanding,and as you mention the "we are eternal,we are the creator" ...well,I can't speak for no-one but myself when I say that I know that I am still within this universe....so if one is within this universe and still is of the opinion that he/she is eternal,then wouldn't it be fair to access that this one would need to be living in a universe that is eternal as well?

In conclusion my point is that imo,something/someone that "began to exist" within this universe,this one would not be infinite in every regard of the word because this one "began to exist" a "finite" time ago

If we were to find another universe or many, the laws of thermodynamics would have to be updated

It's impossible for everyone to have the same conception of God.

And where we differ on our concepts on the word,eternal,infinite,and for me not excluding potential infinite,actual infinite among other concepts as well,just know that I have enjoyed our discussion very much/thanx stonestongue

It's impossible for everyone to have the same conception of God. The world would be an awefully boring place if it we did. I think it would reduce us to that of a collective much like a hive of bee's. Harmonious but lacking the one thing that we all take for granted at some time...free will. Gods' personality may always be different for those that need Him for different reasons.

We can become part of an institution where all have the same beliefs--beliefs that differ from those in other institutions--but doing so is contrary to all that is true and good.

I am he, as you are he, as you are me, and we are all together--John Lennon wrote that after reading the tibetan book of the dead. As far as hell is concerned Hell is a state of seperation from G-d, I agree there are many hells, approx 6.4 billion of them at last count. For me, we are here to try to make a connection to G-d in this lifetime, if not, then we continue to come back until we do. To me thats compassion coupled with freewill, eventually we will learn at our own speed.

I think "god" exists in the absolute.. a realm of no "space/time" where all IS, NOW. I think that top experience itself it made the dichotomy, or the dualistic universe.. as in the absolute all is indistinguishable from all else.. and there isn't an "else" or "other" because it is absolute. From this "place", "god" created the dualism of our realm to experience itself...

The absolute is kind of like an artists canvas... the POTENTIAL is already there in the artist, but to be seen he must actually place brush to paint to canvas and use it as a medium for expression. God, if it is anything, is a creator... maybe the universe, the duality, is it's canvas?

You know, it reminds me of a child starting out with duplo blocks, then advancing up to great creations, ones that are more interactive.

The holy trinity: think Three Stooges.

nexthyme wrote (Msg: 53)
I personally don't have enough information to challenge your view point.

nexthyme wrote (Msg: 53, cont'd)
Since you speak with complete conviction, I won't dispute that any of your reasonings are incorrect, or implausible, unless I knew what authoritative source you derive your convictions from. Then had my own authoritative sources to completely dispute the legitimacy or validity of your sources.

nexthyme wrote (Msg: 53, cont'd)
Nor do I believe I can find a completely reliable source that is authoritative on this subject, and can speak from complete provable knowledge as to the actual true nature of what God is.

If God needed no beginning or end,

how did It/He/She develope personality?

How were likes and dislikes distinguished in the morals of God?

How did God learn what was good and what was bad, what was pleasure and pain?

If God could grow and was eternal, wouldn't God always be growing?

I am concerned only with whether or not my propositions stand or fall in themselves, i.e. under their own merits. Are my propositions logically valid? Is there independently verifiable evidence that contradicts any of them? To answer both these questions, an understanding of my propositions is all the information required. Anyone can challenge them.

The sources of my propositions are irrelevant. The validity, coherence, and consistency of a proposition can be determined without ever considering the source from which it was derived. More importantly, validity, coherence, and consistency are not determined by the character or circumstance of the source; such would be the genetic fallacy 'argumentum ad verecundiam'. It is wrongheaded to think that Smith's belief that 'X' is invalid because it came from Charles Spurgeon, while Jones's belief that '¬X' is valid because it came from Christopher Hitchens. My propositions involve indicative conditionals with material implications, i.e. 'if it is the case that A, then it is the case that B'. They can be analyzed in themselves, to see if the consequent follows from the conditional validly and coherently

Also, the strength of one's conviction is irrelevant. One might believe with impressive conviction that '3 is a prime number because the moon has basaltic lava flows', but the strength of their conviction has no bearing on the validity and coherence of their belief..

The sheer ubiquity of this problem renders it moot. As a matter of fact, you cannot find a "completely reliable" source on any subject at all, nor can any source at all speak from "complete provable knowledge" on any subject.

The sheer ubiquity of this problem renders it moot. As a matter of fact, you cannot find a "completely reliable" source on any subject at all, nor can any source at all speak from "complete provable knowledge" on any subject.

Who told you this? or where did you get this information? and is it a fact?

Our understanding is not the measure of a being who's throne is in the waters of heaven.

Ask Him

I give you all the answers you seek once I developed technology that is not fire based in some way such as even the hydro power is based on the sun big fire.

Wouldn't attempting to discuss the "personality" of "god" be presuming to "know the mind god?"

Which is a "sin".....isn't it?

There are many things that have "complete provable knowlege", IE: fire is hot. If a person is held under water long enough they will drowned. X Radiation does not have a known theshold as to when it become dangerous, however it is known to be dangerous. The list can and does go on, as to what is varifiably known, however as does the list of things that are theories, speculations, conjectures and beliefs.

When it comes to God, all can be right, or all can be wrong. Who really knows for sure?

nexthyme wrote (Msg: 99)
As I stated before, they are valid if they are valid to YOU.

nexthyme wrote (Msg: 99, cont'd)
[If your opponent does not already share your view], then it will depend if your proposition has logical evidence to back it up.

nexthyme wrote (Msg: 99, cont'd)
Three is a triangular prime number, however the reason does not fall under basaltic lava flow, but rather based on a numerical system. To argue about such a question based on something that has no logical connection would make the persons argument very unbelievable... Thus 'argumentum ad verecundiam', has occured.

nexthyme wrote (Msg: 99, cont'd)
There are many things that have "complete provable knowlege", IE: fire is hot . . . The list can and does go on, as to what is varifiably known . . .

nexthyme wrote (Msg: 99, cont'd)
If you have more knowledge as to what God is, and as to the great plan that God has for man kind, and of earth. Please feel free to share, I am never closed minded in my knowledge and am always seeking information that makes the most sense in seeking the truth of Gods purpose and plan...

Stonestongue wrote (Msg: 100)
The instructions for this computer turned out to be completely reliable... It showed complete provable knowledge about this computer.