God loves me.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Let me see if I can help mediate. Lucid, with your choice of words you are attacking at least 2 men's faith in this one thread. We are in no way attacking what you believe. Free will means you have the right to believe anything you would like. But when you choose words that are intended to question our intelligence you question our faith. Why do you feel the need to question our faith when this thread was about loving one another regardless of religious affiliation?

Why deny us the right to our free will. We are men who are claiming at least part of the bible has to be the truth. How do we know because we have literally been touched by the hand of Christ. This is not something that we say to lord ourselves over you as righteous men. We were far from righteous when Christ was revealed to us.

This is why we always credit Jesus or the father because we know that it is not from our abilities that we have received the gift we have received. This is to keep us humble as servants just as Christ intended. We are men who have put Christ's words not just to mind but into practice and we have received what was promised. The gift is for everyone all you have to do is believe in love and follow it and pursue it with all of your being.

Jesus tells you how, in the simplest terms ever put into print. "Serving" is the foundation of love. "Turn the other cheek", this is the essence of love. If you combine the two and apply them as philosophy to every aspect of your life you will find love, because you have pursued it.

This is the promise. Not the promise I make but the promise Jesus made. I am only a witness that Jesus taught the truth.

Serve your family that you love, always turn the other cheek with the ones close to you. If you can learn to do this with the people you love, God will reveal to you the reason you should do it for all men. Because you will have found love and love is the reason.

Originally posted by Philodemus
I did read your reply. Thank you for taking such time to formulate your speculations. It is an interesting hypothesis even if it uses many common fallacies. I wish you luck with the rest of the thread and with your religion.

May I suggest "Breaking The Spell" by Daniel Dannett as well as, "Atheist Universe" by David Mills if you haven't read them yet.

I gave you actual evidence (of superintelligent design from a first/last cause) for consideration, probably the first time you've seen something workable from a "God-person" in the way of evidence, and in response and reply, you've said it's fallacious without saying precisely why and offered a couple of atheist book recommendations instead.

Isn't that kind of ironic or humorous in a way..?

reply to post by sacgamer25

Let me see if I can help mediate. Lucid, with your choice of words you are attacking at least 2 men's faith

Thank you. I appreciate that you understand I am attacking the faith. People should be open to scrutiny of their beliefs.

We are in no way attacking what you believe.

That's clearly not true. Which is fine by me! What's not fine is you not seeing how this is true. Or not being honest.

when this thread was about loving one another regardless of religious affiliation?

Simple. It wasn't regardless of religious affiliation. If this had been a thread about love and compassion you would have seen wholly different posts from me. This is a distinction neither of you see, despite our efforts.

If either of you would be more open to exploring the divide between god-belief and supposed books that encapsulate god's thoughts, my reasoning for rejection would become more apparent. There are too many things in this dogma contrary to love and compassion, as such I am in opposition to this being the source of supposed love and compassion. What you're both doing is picking the parts out that support what you intuitively understand is moral and good and leave out the bad parts. Which is fallacious at best.

But when you choose words that are intended to question our intelligence you question our faith. Why do you feel the need to question our faith

Why deny us the right to our free will.

Is that what questioning is? Denying free will?

If questioning is denying free-will I wonder then what kind of questioning you employed when exercising your free-will to choose the religion you did.

The gift is for everyone all you have to do is believe in love and follow it and pursue it with all of your being.

Are the non-religious without the faculty of mind and heart that they would be incapable of this wisdom?

I am only a witness that Jesus taught the truth.

Witness? Some of my questions were driving at the underlying reason for your belief. Faith or revelation. You sometimes suggest faith and other times suggest revelation. Which is it? When you say witness, are you saying you're in direct communion with god?

Serve your family that you love, always turn the other cheek with the ones close to you. If you can learn to do this with the people you love, God will reveal to you the reason you should do it for all men. Because you will have found love and love is the reason.

One of my biggest qualms with religion is that they tout moral domain. That compassion and goodness is begot from religion and not from human nature. Some even go so far to say morality is completely absent in atheism and non-religion. In fact, you have said this yourself

Perhaps you needed religion for this, but others do not and never did.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


While I can't speak for sacgamer25, I thank you for putting my love to the test. It taught me something that I find rather extraordinary about the standard of the love itself, and what it means for the one who's really committed to it, and as a result I've come to see things in a new way that I only intuited before but that has now become part of the logos of love that I would like to follow.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


You're welcome then

and what it means for the one who's really committed to it

Sigh.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Logos (thought/logic) can work beside love, but is not an inherent part of love's nature. There is no logic to love, but that' doesn't mean love can't be seen in logic. Logic is a means, not a motivator. Love is a motivator, but not a means. Together, they form the road and the journey.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Philodemus

 

Would you like to clarify? Don't assume anything now.. there could be more to it than you think...

Speculation

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Let me clarify by asking you this - Although sentient life beyond earth is all but a certainty, where else in the entire universe (where stars outnumber grains of sand) can a bipedal, ten fingered, self aware sentient observer look up and see their single, giant moon (by compare to the host planet), perfectly eclipse the circumference of their sun?

How are you certain that sentient life is all but a certainty? Speculation
How do you know that of the millions of earth-like planets that are speculated to be in our universe that none of them observe similar things to what we do? Speculation

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

And to clarify still further, let me add the following for your consideration, before you walk away all smug while tugging your lapels.. lol

How do you know I have a smug look on my face? Speculation

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

:14 sec in; By the video’s admission there are coincidence. As such, to read anything more into them is (say it with me), Speculation

:19 sec in; The video claims the average distance to the moon is 380,000km. It isn’t it’s 384,000km. I know it’s not much but the extra 4,000km makes a huge difference when we are talking about objects that close to earth. More specifically, it makes a radical difference in the ratio referred to a few seconds later in the video.

:24 sec in; This measurement is off by 402,113km. Not much really, I might be splitting hairs.

:32 sec in; The actual ratio is 389.6 times further if we don’t fudge numbers.

:40 sec in; The measurement for the diameter of the sun is misrepresented. It’s closer to 1,390,000km; a difference of 10,000 km.

:47 sec in; The first “coincidence” is not a real coincidence if we don’t used fudged numbers. With the actual measurement of the sun this ratio is 408, not 395.

1:41; Although I will not refute that solar eclipse happen do to the relative sizes/distances of the two objects from earth, I do not see why we have to fudge numbers. What’s more, I do not know how you or the video can make the hyper-inflated claim that “there is nowhere in the universe to find three celestial bodies kind of precise coincidence. Do you realize the exaggeration of this claim? Don’t you see that we have barely begun to see other earth-like planets in the past few decades and that is to say, we have zero working knowledge of any of their satellites? This is manipulative and speculative.

1:47; Is this natural? When we have exhausted our search of other planets and their moons and found none to even closely resemble ours, then perhaps we can consider artificial. But until such time to assume anything other than natural is foolish and presumptuous. Unless of course, upon completing our inquiry, if we find that no two planet/moon systems are even remotely alike, then we again should assume only natural causes and that we are merely the lucky recipients of chance.

1:51; Neither are planets.

2:29; That’s the beauty of science, though. As our data increase we can make better assessments of the systems that we study. And we have had a massive jump in knowledge since the days of Asmiov. But perhaps the most interesting thing about making a claim that something like the moon should or shouldn’t be or behave the way it does is that such claims are based on extremely limited knowledge. Unless Asmiov was privy to knowledge the rest of the scientific world doesn’t have (most importantly, the actual origins of the moon) then his statement, though educated, is a guess. In other words, speculation.

First, let me state for the record, that I have not made reply to your posts in an endeavour to somehow change your mind or make you understand my point of view. That is a hopeless cause. Nor have I done so from pride or in the self interest of saving face. I have other things I could and should be doing right now. I am however, acting on an instinct that has been speaking to me these past few days. This instinct is telling me that I should at bare minimum attempt to counterbalance the blatant errors found in your thinking to the best of my ability, if for no other reason than to give accurate symmetry for any young and impressionable minds that my chance to read our little back and forth. Consider it my act of ablution.

Now, my search for this William R. Sheldon, a “scientist”, and any reference to him or his work outside of three or four chat rooms containing material posted by “hollow moon” theorists, has been pro forma and perfunctory, resulting in relatively little to no information whatsoever. In fact, outside of the quote cited in the video, there is nothing else to be found on him or from whence the quote came. For the record, I too could be considered a “scientist” because of my active participation in furnishing data for several universities and research programs, such as Cornell, Zooniverse, DataONE and several others in the citizen science initiatives open to you too, if you'd like, which can be found at www.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science. My intention in bringing this up, is to help further tear down the walls of what is takes to consider someone a reputable scientist. But also, to show what it takes to actually be considered an authority. In a world where everyone can be a scientist, it takes a special kind of someone to be considered an authority. And those of us who are active in several areas of research ought not to be expected to take just any John Doe, “a scientist's”, word for anything.

Incidentally, I do not have anything in peculiar against the quote used. It is a straight-forward statement that only takes a wrong turn with the speculation of the video's author. And that is where I become disputatious. This is the sort of appeal to the supernatural that has been going on for all of recorded time. Because we don't yet fully understand something, its explanation is submitted to a supernatural cause. In ancient Greece, a falling arrow would have to have been directed by some or another god. Thankfully, Newton came along and helped us out with this error, resulting in “god” being pushed further off the linear knowledge assembly line. In other words, what the first video you asked me to watch is forwarding, is the idea of the “God of the gaps”. But this is an intrinsically weak position for a theist or deist to take and one that garnishes little to no respect in the scientific community and does little to motivate true scientific inquiry. In fact, the argument can be at least postured that this attitude acts as an immunization to scientific inquiry.

Why should I be motivated to adopt that the moon's location, orbit, relative size, etc is anything but natural? What if Einstein assumed that the effects of inertial positioning was governed by a god? What if Crick assumed the same? Kepler tried it for years. Being a devoutly religious man, he strove for decades to fit the observations he made into his theory of “Divine Geometry” without success and to the end of his eventual abandonment of the theory because the theory didn't support the facts. But still, all these centuries later we have among us yet, creationists that continue to insist on “Divine Geometry” in one iteration or the next. It seems to me that whether you assume God did it or nature did it, if you stay true to the science, you invariably come to the same conclusion; a natural explanation.





I would like to propose a different theory in respects to the moon/earth set-up we currently observe. Let's presume that the planet was formed by any means other than supernatural. What means could have formed our planet in the “just right” position it is in? Have we even observed exo-planets being formed? Turns out we have. The following article shows just one of the many ways a planet can be formed. This article just happens to show actual observation of a planet being formed by a means called the “filament” formation.

Planets forming naturally



With this information in our minds, let us consider the possible natural explanations for the formation of the moon.

For many years it was assumed that the moon was broken off of the earth hundreds of millions of years ago by some immensely catastrophic collision by an asteroid with the earth. Currently, this theory has fallen into disrepute largely because samples returned from the moon have shown that it doesn't share enough similarities in composition to be considered a viable theory. Let us ask ourselves then, if it is at all possible that the same filament formation of the observed exo-planet above, could account for both the formation our planet and the formation of our earth's moon?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


IF I'm here because of and for the sake of love and the desire to share a mutual experience THEN therefore, my purpose is to love.

If love is the very reason and purpose of creation, then indeed it IS a catalyst to creation and loving action.

Also, for anyone who's been to "the space of nothing" they will understand that from the unconditioned ground of all being, that love is the only thing that makes sense or is worth doing, and therefore both a reason and logic as well as a catalyst to action.

Imagine if you will, a debris field around our sun being pulled in by the sun's gravity, both causing the formation of our planet and simultaneously fuelling our sun by adding to its solar mass. As our planet forms the elements making up its composition would be altered by the growing intensity or diffusing intensity of our home sun, along with other factors such as flares and solar winds. As our planet grows and its gravitation field begins to strengthen it reaches a point that it can compete with the sun's gravity on a greater level, allowing it to pull in its own debris field. Now we have a solar engine, a planetary engine, and a satellite engine all of which are fighting for the fuel from the debris field, and all of which are altering the fundamental composition of the debris on a now complicated filament “conveyor belt”. The sun's gravity fuelling it's surface and the earth and moon's gravity fuelling what is now their cores. In this tug and pull, a harmony is struck between the three bodies, a harmony based on the “chance” of the earths formation location, that could have almost no other result than the one we currently enjoy; a moon the size it is, at the distance it is, made up of what it is.

This is just my theory and admittedly one that I have not even slightly researched, but that is neither here nor there. My theory, even though it may be wrong, stands a better chance of being right simply because it is based on observable phenomena. Speculation? Yes. But speculation based on observation. Ask yourself, what have you observed that might help you speculate ANY of the ideas you put forth? The point I am trying to make is that, if we keep ourselves open to the wide and dramatic possibilities found in nature, there is not a single case of unexplained phenomena that requires us to resort to a supernatural explanation. That is unless we are not satisfied with, “I'm not sure at the moment” as an answer. This tends to be the case in many of the supernatural explanations. Because we as a race are restive and impetuous, being told “you'll have to wait on the answer”, never quite sits properly with us, does it? Why, even the theory of a broken symmetry phase in an early super-luminary universe goes a much longer way in explaining the current order of the universe than merely saying “God did it”. But as you so eloquently put it,

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Philodemus

 

No worries "to each his own" as they say.

Now in "light" of that, still further, please look at this rather interesting geometrical relationship

translated to the flower of life and vesica pisces

Can you explain the significance of drawing shapes around arbitrarily placed earth/moon likenesses?

As near as I can figure with what I have learned of the cosmological circle, is that it is a artistic rendering of many years of false impressions of the order of the cosmos. If the ideals that the ancient used to form this diagram of unknown origin are truly put in to the context of the time it is not just the moon that revolves around the earth, but all of creation.

I am not sure I see how all of creation endeavours to achieve the perceived “harmony” of the cosmological circle and for someone who is attempting NOT to be conceded or narcissistic it is quite in opposition to your intent to imply that the whole of the universe revolves around humanity either literally OR figuratively, is it not?

I fail to see anything from the data of WMAP that would signify anything close to the above picture and the FLRW models most definitively doesn't support such a claim.

What it all boils down to is symbolism. When I look at the past and our ancestry, what I see is the keen awareness and the boundless ability of our very human, very intelligent fathers. We don't give them and their observatory powers enough credit. Assigning the perceptiveness of these men to anything supernatural is to diminish their accomplishments. But all of it is still, symbolism and anything else would be...speculation

reply to post by Philodemus

Did you write that yourself?

Remember too that I'm not just referring to the moon's composition but also to it's geometrical relationship, not only with the sun but also the earth as well which reveals something "programmed" in favor of life as we know it.

Edit That geometrical relationship between the diameter of earth and moon is called "squaring the circle" which is a highly complex geometrical transformation only discovered or proven recently.

I have never claimed that the cosmos rotates around the earth as the center, you've misinterpreted the data that I've presented including the astronomical coincidence of the solar eclipse, all of which taken together reveal a design embedded straight into the first/last cause from the beginning with intent and anticipation.

I'll return later on to explain it's significance in more detail.

Regards,

NAM

Now if you'll consider this

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

Jesus Christ is the Phi Ratio Son of God

The Golden Proportion is analogous to God’s relationship to creation

The Golden Section, or Phi, found throughout nature, also applies in understanding the relationship of God to Creation. In the golden section, we see that there is only one way to divide a line so that its parts are in proportion to, or in the image of, the whole:

The ratio of the larger section (B) to the whole line (A) is the same as the ratio as the smaller section (C) to the large section (B):

Only “tri-viding” the whole preserves the relationship to the whole
And so it is with our understanding of God, that we are created in His image. Not by dividing the whole, but only by tri-viding the whole does each piece retain its unique relationship to the whole. Only here do we see three that are two that are one.

The Book of John begins with these words that capture the essence of this:

In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.

Jesus, in John 14:9, expressed a similar thought:

Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.


Conclusion:

The human Jesus (the Son of Man) is to the divine Jesus (the Son of God) as the divine Jesus (the Son of God) is to God (the Father or whole).

www.goldennumber.net...

There isn't much to be said to this. Mostly because you didn't say very much yourself. But I'm sure you've heard that before and then just said the person objecting to this sort of nonsense is just obviating.

and then to top it off I would like to invite you to consider how.

Jesus Christ as son of God perfectly reflects the light of God (God consciousness and will to love and to share) even in the darkness, as the moon does the sun, which is both an allegory and a physical symbol/sign embedded right into the creation as a first/last cause, a sign that Jesus as a trained Magus was most certainly well aware.

Are you astonished now?

How is this supposed to be astonishing. I mean, I see what you are trying to do, but I fail to be taken by a bait and switch. You want to reduce your faith to “which came first”? Fine. Then the allegory did; long before your Jesus.

Enough about the moon and making theories fit facts, let's talk about some of the other things you asked me.

I would also be curious to know in what areas and to what degree you would reduce the stature of the human being in the creation i.e.: as nothing but animals, or "things", etc. Thanks.

Before I begin, let me say that the way you worded this question is telling. I am not “reducing” anything. Perhaps it is a reduction from your inflated and solipsistic view, but it isn't a reduction if we are looking at the fact straight on and calling a spade a spade. Accepting our place in the realm of nature, as evidenced through scientific research is not reducing our stature. If anything, an honest approach is the first step toward raising our stature.

I thought that by inference you would be relatively certain as to my views on humanity based on my responses to both yourself and specifically to Lucid Lunacy but, to be quite blunt, yes, I believe we are nothing more than animals. Highly evolved animals, who by order of the level of evolution we have attained are intrinsically responsible for both our actions and the actions of our fellow mammals, as well as the well-being of our distant cousins further down the evolutionary concatenation. But all that, as I have said, should have been accessible to you via extrapolation, so the only motive you might have in this line of questioning would be to further lead me in your ideology and to continue not address the underlying issues that thinkers like myself and Lucid are purposing for your consideration and defence.

I anticipate that based on my view of humanity there will most be likely a devolution into a discussion on other perceived coincidence in nature and perhaps a tryst through the bog of finding absolutes without an absolute law-giver. If this is your intent, please note that I do not wish to participate in any tiresome and pedantic dialogue.


“In a technological age, ignorance is wilful.”

-?????

Also I'm not talking about "religion" but an authentic spiritual experience founded on the same logical premise that Jesus clearly made use of in his evaluation as to our relationship to the Absolute Godhead, and to one another.

Technically, what you are talking about is your speculation on this topic. It is not fact. Gravity is a fact. The earth's rotation is a fact. The bend of space/time is even closer to fact.

Furthermore, you are ineluctably talking about religion. The very nature of your base speculative assumption is that it creates a system of further beliefs which are built upon the initial assumption. This system is more commonly known as religion.

Collins and Gage, Dictionary 2006

religion n 1 belief in or worship of God or gods. 2 a particular system of religious belief: the Islamic religion. 3 a matter of zeal and conscience

Even if you refuse the application of the second definition with all the ardent passions you posses, your theology and your actions (posting threads of such a nature as this one) put you squarely in the receivership of the first and third.

I have been fed this “side step” my whole life. For 20 years I have been told that what I should be seeking is a personal relationship with God and not a religion. But wouldn't you know it!?!?! That relationship invariably requires I change many, many, MANY things about my lifestyle. Hence, I get the impression that it is indeed a religion being dealt.

Listen, we will go back and forth with this junk all year and get nowhere. Your thread has been fun, but I really must be going. Good luck with everything.

Daniel

Originally posted by Philodemus

3 a matter of zeal and conscience

Even if you refuse the application of the second definition with all the ardent passions you posses, your theology and your actions (posting threads of such a nature as this one) put you squarely in the receivership of the first and third.

I will accept the third.


Best wishes to you also, for real, Big Time even,

Robert

P.S. Re: the first. It all depends on what you mean by worship, because if it means to appreciate, to love and adore, then I'll have to admit to that as well because I love God. Don't, and can't fully understand God but I love him in spite of his mysteriousness, as he does me in spite of my many flaws, and in part for loving him also because love is always a two way street. So in loving God God draws near even if he starts out as an imagined perfect observer! (even God thinks that's funny being self aware also).

We laugh with God you see, laugh along with him at our prior selves, and at the true unknowable and mysterious predicament that he (we) have placed ourselves in, but yet like two lovers destined to eventually meet up in eternity. So I greatly appreciate the set up, to be partners with God in laying the foundation of heaven on earth, that's our unfathomable and mysterious calling (see my signature for more).

So there's another type of fear, and another joy to be had, but one that was otherwise in the domain of the unknown unknown or what we didn't even know we didn't know but now are aware of and are open to (the mystery of being and becoming).

It's self knowledge as the knowledge of personal experience, and of childlike wonderment and awe.

Originally posted by Philodemus
I thought that by inference you would be relatively certain as to my views on humanity based on my responses to both yourself and specifically to Lucid Lunacy but, to be quite blunt, yes, I believe we are nothing more than animals. Highly evolved animals, who by order of the level of evolution we have attained are intrinsically responsible for both our actions and the actions of our fellow mammals, as well as the well-being of our distant cousins further down the evolutionary concatenation. But all that, as I have said, should have been accessible to you via extrapolation, so the only motive you might have in this line of questioning would be to further lead me in your ideology and to continue not address the underlying issues that thinkers like myself and Lucid are purposing for your consideration and defence.

Fair enough, but is that the underlying nature of your own true human experience, what I mean is you can't point to the human being as a thing, without also factoring in the unique qualia of one's own personal experience.

Don't get me wrong, of course we are highly evolved animals who stand atop the whole animal kingdom and are thus preceded by the animals and evolutionary biology - but just WHAT and WHO are we what is our own very nature? "I am an animal" just doesn't seem to capture the totality of the human experience if you know what I mean.

I purport that we, in our deepest most fundamental experience, we are as inscrutible, unfathomable and as incomprehensible to ourselves as God himself is to us and what I mean by that is God as a fully informed infinitely intelligent, self aware spirit of the universe (non local consciousness), who also lives through us and through our own experience, loving him loving us loving him, and then turning and loving neighbor as self and as we are first loved by God by virtue of our own inclusion (and invitation to participate).

“God cannot be explained. He cannot be argued about. He cannot be theorized, nor can He be discussed and understood. God can only be lived.

To understand the infinite, eternal Reality is not the GOAL of individualized beings in the illusion of Creation, because the Reality can never be understood; it is to be realized by conscious experience.

Therefore, the GOAL is to realize the Reality and attain the “I am (of) God” state in human form.”

~ Meher Baba – from the book “God Speaks”
(of) added by me in recognition of God as higher power and infinite intelligence begetting us i.e.: sharing everything with us with intention, hope and the expectation of a future wedding day.

Please see my signature for more regarding this unfathomable partnership we seem to have with none other than God.

"Life is a Mighty Joke. He who knows this can hardly be understood by others. He who does not know it finds himself in a state of delusion. He may ponder over this problem day and night, but will find himself incapable of knowing it. Why? People take life seriously, and God lightly; whereas we must take God seriously, and take life lightly. Then, we know that we always were the same and will ever remain the same.......the Originator of this joke. This knowledge is not acheived by reasoning.
But it is the knowledge of experience."

~ Meher Baba

And he's not kidding. He's not messing around.

I'm fast becoming a very mirthful and charming person in most if not all circumstances ie: fearless, and that's a much better way of life imho, which starts with a sigh and with peace, patience, time, and all manner of resources available via an unconditionally supportive and loving framework. If it's a projection ie: a "God Delusion", that it's also the most workable thing imaginable gets God himself laughing, within us, at the absurdity, and the magnificence that such a framework for mutually shared koinonia is even possible to begin with.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

I purport that we, in our deepest most fundamental experience, we are as inscrutible, unfathomable and as incomprehensible to ourselves as God himself is to us and what I mean by that is God as a fully informed infinitely intelligent, self aware spirit of the universe (non local consciousness), who also lives through us and through our own experience

I am not against that. I would also be lying if I said I didn't have beliefs singing a similar tune.

However when the Bible is factored in. We now have a box with finite dimensions capable of capturing infinity and its unfathomable and incomprehensible nature. Therein lies the conundrum.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


to actively LOVE someone....is always the toughest choice we have to make, in personal experience, even our enemies..

however, in my personal experience, I've always wondered why I took so long...

isn't it awesome to step out of the boat~!

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

I'm sure there are many passages in the BIble as well regarding the inscrutable, ineffable nature of the mystery of the eternal Godhead, including the reflection of that mystery in the magesty of all creation including ourselves. All these things no matter what the source, are just pointers pointing since there are no words capable of adequately capturing the true essence and nature of the mystery.