No such thing as God

[Faceless]

10 minutes ago, Dodo said:

Created by us means created by God. You are separating yourself from reality

He means thought with its divisive/dualistic nature created your idea of god. 

Only thought( the conditioned consciousness) self, identifies. 

The subtle act of identifying implies duality 

Edited June 6, 2018 by Faceless

[Ibn Sina]

39 minutes ago, Dodo said:

The thing is, even if Brahma is what you say it is, some sort of creator, it is Brahman that created Brahma, so actually Brahman is the creator. 

Brahman has no intention for creation unlike Brahma. Things appear and disappear  inside Brahman. Hence there is a difference between it being a creator which simply forms things without intent (as doing so is it's nature) or it being a creator like Brahma. Brahman is the name of ultimate reality, it has no personality or intention, or anything,  it is distinct from Brahma, and actualized.org is interested in this Brahman even IF it is a creator , it doesn't create things  like one human being giving birth to another, it creates things like a mountain forming rocks as it breaks down. Those two kinds of creations are not the same, hence Brahma and Brahman are not the same though both of them come under the category of 'creator'. Just because they both are creators does not mean that they are both the same.

Edited June 6, 2018 by Ibn Sina

[Highest]

1 hour ago, Dodo said:

Created by us means created by God. You are separating yourself from reality

I am reality, but your notion that awarness is God is simply false. It's mind-made as it has to be. Awarness itself never claimed to be ''God''. Nor does it idenitify itself with mind-made words or concepts.

[Leo Gura]

10 hours ago, Highest said:

If God is existence or consciousness, what does it matter if we say God is existence or existence is existence? The majority believe God is a personified thing, we invented a personified God, we gave God a personality, now we found out that this not the case. Existence is non-personal, impersonal. Consciousness/existence exists, God does not. An ultimate causer may exists, but there is no need to call it anything, not God, nor anything.

It matters a lot. God is not merely "existence" or "consciousness". God is God. It's the actual God. Existence is deeply personal.

The word "God" is the most accurate word. More accurate than "existence" or "consciousness". The problem is, very few of you here have actually directly experienced God.

God is all-powerful, all-loving, infinite, intelligent, omniscient, deeply personal, eternal, formless, awesome, terrifying, magical, divine, singular, deeply paradoxical, has human-like qualities, and utterly beyond the human mind's ability to comprehend.

Call it whatever you like, but it's there to be discovered.

The word "God" is not confusing because it is wrong, but because it is right, but you have no reference experience for that word in your mind. I might as well be talking about colors to a blind mole rat.

- - - - - - - -

First, you awaken to discover there is no God.

Then, you awaken deeper and discover how stupid you were the whole time for denying it.

[Highest]

18 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It matters a lot. God is not merely "existence" or "consciousness". God is God. It's the actual God. Existence is deeply personal.

The word "God" is the most accurate word. More accurate than "existence" or "consciousness". The problem is, very few of you here have actually directly experienced God.

God is all-powerful, all-loving, infinite, intelligent, omniscient, deeply personal, eternal, formless, awesome, terrifying, magical, divine, singular, deeply paradoxical, has human-like qualities, and utterly beyond the human mind's ability to comprehend.

Call it whatever you like, but it's there to be discovered.

The word "God" is not confusing because it is wrong, but because it is right, but you have no reference experience for that word in your mind. I might as well be talking about colors to a blind mole rat.

- - - - - - - -

First, you awaken to discover there is no God.

Then, you awaken deeper and discover how stupid you were the whole time for denying it.

So you have experienced something with these attributes, and it doesn't suprise me that the word God comes easy and right for you because it is deep rooted within us to believe in a creator or God. However, even if you accept or experience this something or no-thing with all those attributes, it is in the end your projection if you call it God or whatever else. If you don't call it anything, it still exists, it still IS with all it's attributes, the only difference now is that you don't give it a name like you would give to your pet. It's just a word in the end, it has meaning yes, but it can be as meaningless and pointless as existence itself. I would never call anything ''God'' because I know it's my projection, and there is no need to call the nameless for names.

[Leo Gura]

15 minutes ago, Highest said:

I would never call anything ''God'' because I know it's my projection, and there is no need to call the nameless for names.

You say that so flippantly because you haven't even come close to experiencing God. That's your ego talking. And ego hates God.

The name/word is given so that we can communicate effectively with one another. Right now, you are missing the communication because you believe God cannot exist. And I'm tell you, you're wrong. You are further complicating your error by appeal to the argument, "But God is just a word." Which is like doubling-down on your mistake.

Platypus is also just a word. But there is such a thing as a platypus that you can discover. It's a remarkable creature which would shock and delight you had you never seen a picture of it before. Starting a thread on a platypus forum that goes: "Platypus Do Not Exist: platypus is just a word" only makes you stuck.

Open your mind to the possibility that God does exist. Then proceed with your practices. And then maybe one day, in 10 years, you will discover something amazing that you couldn't imagine in a million years.

[Erlend K]

The word "God" with a capital G referes to a sentient Being characterized by omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence. If, like Leo, this is acctually what you are refering to, then "God" is a good choise of word. If you refere to anything else, then using the word "God" to describe it is just going to cause people to misunderstand you and talk past you. That is simply a bad articulation of what you wanted to communicate.

 

[Highest]

17 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You say that so flippantly because you haven't even come close to experiencing God. That's your ego talking. And ego hates God.

The name/word is given so that we can communicate effectively with one another. Right now, you are missing the communication because you believe God cannot exist. And I'm tell you, you're wrong. You are further complicating your error by appeal to the argument, "But God is just a word." Which is like doubling-down on your mistake.

Platypus is also just a word. But there is such a thing as a platypus that you can discover. It's a remarkable creature which would shock and delight you had you never seen a picture of it before.

You don't know what I have experienced. I have no problem if God exists, that would be awesome. And I'm not saying that God cannot exist, I'm saying that the concept is mind-made. The word points to something with those attributes, however I'm saying why call it anything? It certainly does not call itself ''God'', it just is, with all it's attributes. To call it God is your projection upon it, doesn't matter how right it feels. It's mind-made, correct me if I am wrong.

Edited June 6, 2018 by Highest

[Dodo]

8 minutes ago, Highest said:

You don't know what I have experienced. I have no problem if God exists, that would be awesome. And I'm not saying that God cannot exist, I'm saying that the concept is mind-made. The word points to something with those attributes, however I'm saying why call it anything? It certainly does not call itself ''God'', it just is, with all it's attributes. To call it God is your projection upon it, doesn't matter how right it feels. It's mind-made, correct me if I am wrong.

You have an allergy towards words? Perhaps use the Bulgarian version: Бог

[Faceless]

A mind that is seeking experience of (any kind) is still acting in accordance to its conditioned responses by the senses. Therefore still caught in duality. All experiences are still the movement of time. 

 

Does one see that the motive (desire/will) to expand consciousness is still a movement of ones own conditioned consciousness?

 

Its important to see that all dualistic movement/positive action, is all the movement of the experiencer. Any activity/movement that the experiencer makes towards GOD is futile and only perpetuates further contradiction/time/conflict. 

 

 

 

 

The ultimate question is, can one become free of the bondage of experience? 

 

Can one remain alone, empty, nothing, without escaping back into the pattern of duality/time?

 

This is the most difficult thing it seems. To be in such harmony that there is no movement of time whatsoever. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 6, 2018 by Faceless

[Highest]

Dodo, you call anything whatever you like. It doesn't matter what we call anything. It's not difficult to understand that langauge itself and all it's meanings are mind-made. But it is difficult to accept something, with all it's attributes, simply for what it is, without calling it anything.

If it exists, it does not matter what we call it. Langauge is in the mind, existence just IS, it is nameless. We found something with some certain attributes, then we called it God. But no, that's our projection. It just IS, what does it now matter what we call it? Why is the word God so important? Is a tree a tree? No, we invented that! The tree is a thing, but we gave it a name. Just like we did with God. It's pointless, it does not matter what we call a tree, nor does it matter what we call God, because what matters is that it exists. Words in that sense becomes meaningless, pointless, just there so our mind can better simplify the situation.

[Highest]

Yeah it is nice to talk about it, it's also nice that something as what Leo described above exists, at least from his experience. And if it feels right to say God then that's fine. I have believed in God almost my entire life, but I have contemplated this deeply, and it seems like it's pointless to call it anything when it exists. '

I would easily accept it and it's attributes, but to call it anything in the end is to me pointless. Unless it tells me ''I am God'', I have no reason to say it. It doesn't matter, it's just my mind, my projection of language. What matters is that it exists! I do not need to say it is God, no matter how much godly attributes it has. It IS, therefore it doesn't matter what name I give it. It's beyond it all togheter. 

[Faceless]

31 minutes ago, now is forever said:

you might have to become a monk for that or to live on the streets

Hehe ? 

Even the majority of monks are caught in duality/time. The life of a monk is very dualistic indeed. 

 

The only way we will know is to see for ourselves. Don’t say it can or cannot be done. See for oneself.

 

If one with a job/children can do it, anyone can. 

 

Just takes religious awareness/self reflection of ones daily happenings. 

 

Edited June 6, 2018 by Faceless

[One Maranatha]

Do you think that the absolute infinity of existence wants to be self-aware?

I think that we call THE Absolute, God because of our religious background; but that religion background happened by the will of the absolute existence; in a way IT let that happen; so if a lot of us decide to use the word God, Christ, Brahman; Budha; Consciousness; Reality; Existence; YHWH; UFF, or whatever is just a word, a finger to that ineffable realization, there is no right word to call that (  ). Because that is bigger than anything "you" can conceptualize. (        ) is bigger than language. And if some people decide to call that God; don't let your arrogance or intellectual understanding to distract you from realizing (         ). 

[i am I AM]

@Leo Gura Why does this "god" leave into an inaccessible (even temporarily according to perception) existence?

[egoless]

The God exists. It is alive, infinitely intelligent, formless and shapeless. The God thinks out reality into existence. The God is personal. It has personality. Personal God is Jesus. Jesus is the face of the God. Search sincerely and you will find him. 

[i am I AM]

I respect your belief, but can you help clarify for anyone who cannot objectively tell the difference between good and evil (I assume you think the majority can) or otherwise can't choose to think/behave/etc. that way. Are they still able to find Jesus?

[egoless]

3 minutes ago, i am I AM said:

I respect your belief, but can you help clarify for anyone who cannot objectively tell the difference between good and evil (I assume you think the majority can) or otherwise can't choose to think/behave/etc. that way. Are they still able to find Jesus?

I consider that evil exists and it is also a choice. God did not design you as a programmed robot. You were designed as a free spirit with willpower and choice. Evil is everything what is against the God. What is God? God is unconditional love, life, kindness, forgiveness and compassion. Now you were also given the gift of critical mind and therefore you can differentiate between good and evil. But in the end the choice is yours to make! God does not force or punish you. You punish yourself by choosing to be away from the God. 

[reez]

1 hour ago, Highest said:

You don't know what I have experienced. I have no problem if God exists, that would be awesome. And I'm not saying that God cannot exist, I'm saying that the concept is mind-made. The word points to something with those attributes, however I'm saying why call it anything? It certainly does not call itself ''God'', it just is, with all it's attributes. To call it God is your projection upon it, doesn't matter how right it feels. It's mind-made, correct me if I am wrong.

The "thing" existed before humans created the concept. The concept was made to understand something that was already there. In trying to understand "what is already there" we have created a concept that in itself can't be understood without first having known the "real deal".

 

But how can you talk about something, without calling it something? God is the best descriptive word for this "something". That doesn't mean that the word in itself is descriptive in explaining "all there is" about this "something". It's just the best word we have.

[Highest]

21 minutes ago, egoless said:

The God exists. It is alive, infinitely intelligent, formless and shapeless. The God thinks out reality into existence. The God is personal. It has personality. Personal God is Jesus. Jesus is the face of the God. Search sincerely and you will find him. 

I have tried, the closest I came was receving energy from something I tought could only be from God. But on second tought, it was not enough to convince me, it could simply have been a force from the universe etc. I think only with death is there a possibility to find Him/it. Or 5 meo, which I will try some beatiful day. Still there something in me that tells me that it's pointless whatever I call it, that it's beyond language and meaning all togheter. Or maybe I just don't appreciate the meaning of God enough, I don't know but I quess I will find out one day. 

By the way, have you experienced the God yourself since you believe in it?