For the sake of argument, let’s admit that God exists.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

That is what they said and I repeated.

daskakik
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

That is what they said and I repeated.

One God. Not three.
One substance.
RCC may have divided the one and that may be the trouble - one is divided and that makes for conflict.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

I never said three gods. I said that they said god had three "personalities", I'm an atheist so I could care less how many parts anyone chooses to slice that imaginary pie.

daskakik
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

I never said three gods. I said that they said god had three "personalities", I'm an atheist so I could care less how many parts anyone chooses to slice that imaginary pie.

edit on 9-1-2014 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

So what is your point - you have nothing to offer in the way of denying ignorance if you know nothing about the subject.
You come and argue points but don't believe in them.
What a wonderfully delightful world.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

Actually I was responding to something that galastry posted and you let yourself in and asked me about Spinoza's view. Somewhere along the path you said that "Christianity's root is non duality. The father and son are ONE." and I stated that the church and most denominations consider them to be three.

I don't hold their views but knowing their stance so I can say that they probably would disagree.

daskakik
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

Actually I was responding to something that galastry posted and you let yourself in and asked me about Spinoza's view. Somewhere along the path you said that "Christianity's root is non duality. The father and son are ONE." and I stated that the church and most denominations consider them to be three.

I don't hold their views but knowing their stance I can say that they probably would disagree.

Thank you for your interpretation of what you think RCC thinks.
I do believe that they would also say that there is just one God though.

The word God just means that which is real - reality. Reality is one - not two.
However, it has to 'seem' as two otherwise there would be nothing seen.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

Really, you post a link about the trinity which states that god is "three divine persons" and them tell me that this is not what those people meant to say.

You missed what this whole thead was about. It was about how people can't come to a consensus about what god is.

reply to post by daskakik


There is nothing separate - there is only ever what is - all arises from the one and all that proceeds from the one is made of the one and all is conceived by the one - it is always one.
Why not delve deeper by listening to the talks I posted and look beyond RCC? It is not as though you are an advocate of RCC - what have you got to lose?

RCC is just one way of pointing to the one.
One plays hide and seek with itself.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

I have never looked to the RCC for anything. I was just posting how they see god in three parts while you stated two.

If all is one, have you ever asked yourself why the one seeks to experience individualism?

daskakik
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

I have never looked to the RCC for anything. I was just posting how they see god in three parts while you stated two.

If all is one, have you ever asked yourself why the one seeks to experience individualism?

God is dreaming and God forgets he is the dreamer and dream - the whole thing (which is not a thing).
It is just the game oneness (God) plays.

Oneness creates the light that is seen (the dream scene/movie playing) and the light appears to divide that which is whole.
An individual arises - it is energetic - it seems to be apart from all there is and then a dream of individuality happens - it is hell.
Heaven returns when the individual is found to be just a dream of separation - that there is nothing divided.
All finite things arise and subside in/as the one.

daskakik
If all is one, have you ever asked yourself why the one seeks to experience individualism?

Here is a very good explanation and answer to the question you pose.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

But why?

daskakik
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

But why?

That is the mystery.
The mind is trying to solve a problem - the mind thinks life is a problem that has to be solved because the mind is always seeking and that is why the mystery cannot be seen for what it is.
It is astounding.
The mind will not let you rest in peace because it always wants to know - eat from the tree of knowledge and you cannot eat from the tree of life.

What is this thing called reality/existence? It is right here - see it, hear it - what is it? It cannot be named (God is another word for the unnameable) - no word can describe what this is. Prior to any concept or idea this is.

It isn't wrong to say the Father and son are as one, and at the same time you can say three since the Holy Spirit is also one with them. But saying the Father and Son are one is still a correct statement. It isn't supposed to be a riddle, but it is amazing how it is always twisted into one.

daskakik
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

But why?

Does it seek? Or Does the illusion of individualism happen when stage of life reaches a point when there is competition with other lifeforms in order to fullfill security and Desires. It is a must.

Itisnowagain
That is the mystery.
The mind is trying to solve a problem - the mind thinks life is a problem that has to be solved because the mind is always seeking and that is why the mystery cannot be seen for what it is.
It is astounding.

Funny, my mind doesn't seem to have that hitch.

What is this thing called reality/existence? It is right here - see it, hear it - what is it? It cannot be named (God is another word for the unnameable) - no word can describe what this is. Prior to any concept or idea this is.

It is just another name. "Any other rose" comes to mind but it doesn't really answer the question of why the one would seek to experience individuality or why there would be individuals that would rebel against themselves.

daskakik
"Any other rose" comes to mind but it doesn't really answer the question of why the one would seek to experience individuality or why there would be individuals that would rebel against themselves.

The one does not seek to experience individuality. It is what happens.
The 'why' is the question a 'who' would ask.

Who wants to know what?
Watch and listen to the video I posted if you really want to know.

daskakik

Itisnowagain
That is the mystery.
The mind is trying to solve a problem - the mind thinks life is a problem that has to be solved because the mind is always seeking and that is why the mystery cannot be seen for what it is.
It is astounding.

Funny, my mind doesn't seem to have that hitch.

Can your mind see and hear?
Do you not see that the mind is of the appearance? Thoughts appear and disappear, they come and go - move and change. Thought is part of the ever changing scenery.

Itisnowagain
Watch and listen to the video I posted if you really want to know.

I have seen it before and it didn't really answer anything that I didn't already know. It sure didn't answer why the "one" seems feels the need to be

daskakik

Itisnowagain
Watch and listen to the video I posted if you really want to know.

I have seen it before and it didn't really answer anything that I didn't already know. It sure didn't answer why the "one" seems feels the need to be

That's right - there is no reason why.
The one does not 'need' to be or not to be but it appears to be.