Putting Spoilers Upfront

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
paradox3 said:
Excellent post @Pavlos Maros

What if God is actually within us? Been thinking about this a lot lately. Even the most evangelical/ conservative Christians among us talk about an indwelling Holy Spirit.

Personally, I don't see it as something that gets bestowed as a reward for correct belief. But the Spirit of God within us makes sense to me.

Now to define it. . . :p
Click to expand...

The outer search is thus a failure and it fails as err, Eire or Tehran (when the "T" is silenced) for a harsh crossing ... of the maw! On the Terre ...

Thus the howl euree Ka ... someone found something ... relating to Kaye ... Ur with the hot lypsis ... a kind of breakdown in some traditions like fiddler in GEO Ghia ... the spell coming over yah could vary ... as different spots provide differing views! Something to gather 4? Squaring up!
 
paradox3 said:
Personally, I don't see it as something that gets bestowed as a reward for correct belief. But the Spirit of God within us makes sense to me.
Click to expand...
In Indian religion and philosophy, there is the idea that "Atman is Brahman", meaning the spirit within is the same as the divine spirit outside. So we can find God by going inside through meditation, yoga, etc. But there is also external worship, offerings, etc. at temples. It's very rich, complex tradition and that stretches back a long way, at least to the Upanisads, though the dating of those is pretty rich and complex itself.

It's also one of the aspects that leads some in the West to see pantheism or panentheism in Indian tradition, including modern Hinduism. However, it is rather complex and depends on which sect within the tradition you are looking at and which texts your are reading. The Gita certainly suggests it at times, but it depends on how you read it. An Indian lens without exposure to a Western philosophical and theological background might see it differently than a Western scholar.
 
Wrong Indians, though. I am talking about India, not the misnamed indigenous nations of our continent. :giggle: Though both have interesting spiritual ideas that we can learn from.

Jung's thoughts there kind of reflect on some of my own thinking as an agnostic,. The spiritual realm is not really about proof, it's about our subjective view of the world and our relationship to it. Agnosticism basically says we cannot prove something like the existence of God, just take it on faith. That makes it uncertain, not absent. On the other hand, we can study religious texts to try to understand that faith better and provide some kind of historical and philosophical grounding for it. We just can't expect to "prove" the underlying metaphysics in an objective rational or empirical way.
 
Pavlos Maros said:
Oneness becomes either a psychological state, like self transcendence, flow, or a sense of unity with nature or humanity, or a metaphor for ethical alignment and living in harmony with certain ideals. Those experiences can be meaningful and even transformative. Many non theists report similar states through meditation, love, service, or awe in nature.
Click to expand...
Which simply focuses on self.. the cause of the original fall. The moment we divided ourselves from a creator, we divided amongst ourselves also, loosing sight of the fact we may be different bodies but of one spirit..
 
Last edited:
Inhibited transcendence ... in which we cannot inquire about anything from nothing to everything and thus the train stops ... that touches on other chords and strings with the resonance of a fiddler ... crabbing about in the barn! Attempting to catch a snappy lady ... opposed synchronicity? Do Ci Does ...
 
timothyu said:
Which simply focuses on self.. the cause of the original fall. The moment we divided ourselves from a creator, we divided amongst ourselves also, loosing sight of the fact we may be different bodies but of one spirit..
Click to expand...
I'm not advocating for the self, I'm pointing out a distinction that matters: there's a difference between the state of being one and the source of that oneness. For a union to have any real value, it must be a union of two distinct things, not simply the dissolving of one. A marriage requires two people. A reconciliation requires both a creator and a creature. If god isn't a real, objective being, someone genuinely other than us, then 'rejoining' it is nothing more than a psychological shift within our own minds, which would ironically be the ultimate act of focusing on the self.
Without a real gardener, the forest has no one to return to. Without a real creator to reunite with, 'oneness' isn't transcendence, it's just us talking to ourselves in the dark. So my question isn't meant to defend the ego; it's meant to protect the meaning of union itself: Who, exactly, are you becoming one with?"
 
"So my question isn't meant to defend the ego; it's meant to protect the meaning of union itself: Who, exactly, are you becoming one with?"

Thus the ego resonates as an echo in a large dark void ... as if there was nothing to ide! Just iteration coming back at yah ... re iteration in another form?

From there life gets complex due to impact! Is it compulsive, or other ... wise ...

Down here I cannot see the wisdom clearly ... too much cloud! Kind 'awe fuzzy ... situation ethics ... something to get out of it!

It keeps coming back at us and still ... we can't learn what is going about! Maybe an atmospheric environment ... comes in as pacific (specific) patterns of digital form ... not old wave ... it is all in the numbers 1 or nothing? Complications ... the negative character ...

Two down and one comes up ...
 
Last edited:
How else to address matter with irrational judges .... that are manifesting as prejudice ... thus nothing goes right ... and there the right has nothing but god and all remaining thought goes to the alternate side ... anything left? Not likely as it all incinerated in the conflict as the powers pumped for more competition for humanity ... that latter is Luce'd ... i.e. losing they have to go! Simple reiteration when it comes back at you with considerable resonance in the night ... great thumps ... tome age?

More to record ... and the powers keep burning records ... even Maria cannot see you again ... she went overseas! What hare does ... watered down as a vessel ... that internal glow and smoke 'n desire? Honky ton kangel ...
 
Pavlos Maros said:
A marriage requires two people. A reconciliation requires both a creator and a creature.
Click to expand...
Creator and creature yes, But without a creator we would not exist. If it disappears so do we, so we are connected. As for marriage it is a human male/female attempt at a simple reunion of what was once a singular being. The original adam (man) was both in one.
 
timothyu said:
Creator and creature yes, But without a creator we would not exist. If it disappears so do we, so we are connected. As for marriage it is a human male/female attempt at a simple reunion of what was once a singular being. The original adam (man) was both in one.
Click to expand...
Even if one were to accept that Adam could’ve been male and female in one (I guess because the myth has it that Eve was made out of one of his ribs but men having one fewer rib isn’t scientifically supported) - that’s the weirdest definition of marriage I’ve ever heard. It completely dismisses all forms of love, and human bonding and companionship, sex, whether reproduction results or not.

Love and human companionship, familial bonding - those are human traits. Bonding and companionship of mates is also present in other animals - so did they all start off in a similar manner? Your Adam explanation doesn’t make sense - seems all about loving “self” and bears little resemblance to Jesus.
 
Last edited:
Kimmio Laughterlove said:
Even if one were to accept that Adam could’ve been male and female in one (I guess because the myth has it that Eve was made out of one of his ribs but men having one fewer rib isn’t scientifically supported) - that’s the weirdest definition of marriage I’ve ever heard. It completely dismisses all forms of love, and human bonding and companionship, sex, whether reproduction results or not.

Love and human companionship, familial bonding - those are human traits. Bonding and companionship of mates is also present in other animals - so did they all start off in a similar manner? Your Adam explanation doesn’t make sense - seems all about loving “self” and bears little resemblance to Jesus.
Click to expand...
Your interpretation of Adam supports there being more than one gender. I know that’s not where you were going with that. @timothyu
 
timothyu said:
Creator and creature yes, But without a creator we would not exist. If it disappears so do we, so we are connected. As for marriage it is a human male/female attempt at a simple reunion of what was once a singular being. The original adam (man) was both in one.
Click to expand...
You’re still arguing from within your belief that a creator exists and actively sustains us. My point wasn’t to deny that outright, but to say that the claim of oneness only works if that premise is truly established. Simply restating dependence on a creator doesn’t address whether that creator is demonstrably real or distinguishable from a conceptual framework.

Dependence is not the same as relational union.

Even if the universe had a first cause, that does not automatically imply personal, loving, communicative, relational oneness in the way the New Testament describes.
A deistic creator, for example, would not satisfy that vision.

So the real question becomes:

Is the creator personal and relational, or is “oneness” a poetic way of describing existential dependence?

I’m questioning the foundation, not elaborating the story.
 
timothyu said:
Surrender your separate will. Return. Remember who you are.
Click to expand...
Meister Eckhart aligns almost perfectly with that statement.

He frames the spiritual journey precisely in these terms:

the relinquishment of the separate, created will (self-will, eigen wille),
the return (often Rückkehr or Durchbruch — breakthrough) to the uncreated Ground,
and the remembrance of one's eternal, pre-creaturely identity as one with God in essence.
 
Kimmio Laughterlove said:
(I guess because the myth has it that Eve was made out of one of his ribs but men having one fewer rib isn’t scientifically supported)
Click to expand...
True, The original scripture translated a 'side' (meaning a nature) was used to build around. The duality in a man is complete still , except for the reproductive organs. This half is what was removed to build a woman around.
 
WhyCzar said:
Meister Eckhart aligns almost perfectly with that statement.

He frames the spiritual journey precisely in these terms:
Click to expand...
Never heard of him but the fancy explanations get noticed :)
 
Imagine people studying theology ... skipping anything of the nature of the great Meister ...

Then is a burger Meister noting more than controller of the mind of the community? How do you suppose this is achieved ... psyche wending ... not well understood above the boards ... Plan*X!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top