DEFINITION OF GOD To those who say that God does not exist, I answer, you are undoubtedly right given your definition of God. However I would suggest you continue looking until you find a definition of God that does exist. Part of the problem is that people have preexisting concepts of God that prevent them from seeing the real God. Concepts such as CREATOR, "God created me", etc get in the way, because anyone sensible will see being created as an infinite ARC break. Stripping down God to what God really is, can be usefull, something like LIVING, the living oneness that underlies the conscious many. Now most meatballs consider life to be but chemistry bubbling away at 98.6. This is incorrect, life is not a space time mechanism or process. Life is consciousness, and although it looks like conscoiusness arose out of MEST, MEST in fact arose out of consciousness which preexisted all possible created universes of whatever kind. Not sure what the problem is. "God" is what you define it to be, in this case the AllThatIs. Thus saying that the AllThatIs is not God, because God is such and such is meaningless. One can only argue with definitions of words if it can be shown that such definitions limit one's perceptions of alternative or deeper differentiations. For example if we define responsibility as 'obeying orders' what then do we call "knowing willing cause with full awareness of the consequences." Limited definitions of God define out of existence more broader actualities that are more useful to talk about. If the only God one can conceive is the Christian God, then one is quite dead. The idea is that the AllThatIs is a conscious multi being, capable of multiple simultaneous viewpoints, and that each of us is one of those I AM's in carnation. Speaker used to have a problem with this definition of God because he had some preexisting concept of what God was, and he knew (probably correctly) that such a God didn't exist. However to claim that the Adorian God, defined as above, does not exist, is to claim that you do not exist, so it becomes silly to enforce prior incorrect and useless definitions of God onto a totally new perspective. The idea is that the universe is conscious BEING rather than MEST. This will seem nuts to those who believe that consciousness arose from MEST and is in fact just MEST in operation, but will make complete sense to those who realize that MEST is illusion in conscious dream time. Just because we see out there, doesn't mean there IS out there. "Well ", I can hear someone say, probably Rogers, "isn't looking like its out there the same thing as being out there?" No, illusions of separation are not actual separation. If they were, there would be no need for the word illusion, you see? By claiming that LOOKS LIKE means the same as IS, one has just defined ILLUSION out of existence. By claiming that reality is the same thing as actuality, one has just defined being wrong out of existence, by destroying a perfectly good word (reality) to refer to it easily. When people collapse words of different meanings into one meaning, they begin the process of defining out of existence the other meanings no longer conveyed. One would need to word clear the word illusion, reality and actuality until one gets it, and the importance of the differentiation between them. The same issue arises with God and MEST, is God made of MEST, or is MEST made of God? "The existence of a multi faceted operating actuality is self evident". We call this thing God by definition. The end difference is that God doesn't actually make anything, as nothing can be made, as "to make" is an in time concept and thus based in illusion of separation. God merely is, and we are it in carnation (in 'body' literally, in spacetime viewpoints), observing itself from those many viewpoints, sometimes even sequentially :). God the creator is a lie of separation, separation between God and what is created, and between when it was created and now etc. The truth is everything just is, past, present and future, its all here to be accessed by any part of God that wishes to view any part of himself. That is a monsterously big idea not to be laughted off by the small minded worshippers of separation. Homer Gary F. York (gfyork@mchsi.com) wrote: >Ken, >I was delighted to see you posting here again; welcome back. >As much as I respect you as "The Pilot," this is -- way out gradient for >me and, I suspect, for many former scientologists. Specifically, it >omits the part about how you came to a belief in God and why anyone else >should do so. There are certainly some scientologists, ex or otherwise, >who more or less believe in some kind of God -- the eighth dynamic >rather allows for that; but I came to the subject at a time when no >specific avowal of belief in God was encouraged or required. >Fortunately so, as that would have seriously discredited the subject in >my eyes. >I don't recall your earlier work as positing a God, so it seems you've >come to that -- understanding -- since then. Care to backfill a little? >Best >G. >Gary F. York >The Pilot wrote: >> subj : super scio tech - PRINCIPLES OF EXISTANCE >> >> By Ken Ogger >> aka The Pilot >> >> This is a work in progress. It is a roadmap from the >> Godlike state down to the human condition. Here is what >> I've got so far. >> >> Best, >> Ken >> >> >> ============ >> >> >> >> 1. We are fragments of God trapped within the created >> universes. >> >> God is the ocean and we are the drops. The water is all >> the same. The difference is only a matter of scale. >> >> You can find God within you. And you can find the entire >> universe within God. And then find yourself inside of that >> universe. And God, yet again, within that self. And the >> universe, yet again, within God. And so on ad infinitum. >> All is one, full circle. >> >> And the waters run everywhere, permeating everything and >> carrying everything within them. And normally the drops >> run freely, moving here and there within the wonders of the >> ocean and the water easily finds its own level. >> >> But sometimes the drops become trapped or encysted. Frozen >> in position like ice on a cold winter's morning. And this >> too can be wonderful and beautiful, like an ice sculpture >> shining in the morning sun. But it is in the nature of the >> water to move and when the drops are too long frozen, they >> begin to hurt and cry out for relief. >> >> The answer is not to shatter the structure, for the beauty >> of creation is the breath of life itself, but to melt the >> bonds and swim freely within the divine sea of creation. >> >> >> -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink (607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com Mon May 21 13:28:34 EDT 2007