Sadism must be one of the foundational values of God

[LordFall]

It's great to think God is purely all loving but when we think about an omnipotent creator of the universe, sadism must by definition be one of its top traits. 

If one was omnipotent there would be no need to use evolution as a way to evolve consciousness, there would be little to learn if you know everything and have infinite intelligence to calculate everything.

One of the traps that such a being could fall into though would very simply be boredom.

So creating billions of creatures that fight amongst each other can perhaps be proved as one of the foundational divine plans and be based in the enjoyment of watching them fight and kill each other infinitely which can simply be recapped as sadism.

 The idea of a hierarchy of values is key because I'm not claiming sadism is God's primary value—reality could easily be engineered to be far more agonizing if pure malice were the objective— but it clearly sits much higher in the divine design hierarchy than conventional spirituality is comfortable admitting.

Edited 5 hours ago by LordFall

[Willy Phallicus]

Then by all measure God is a pervert too but God is all things as the saying goes.  He even cops to it in the bible when he says he administers both good and evil.  They go hand in hand unfortunately but its just God doing God at the end of the day.

Since God can do whatever he pleases he can just wipe this world away like it never happened (which is easy to do since its not) and have a better dream where life doesn't suck balls.

[aurum]

1 hour ago, LordFall said:

It's great to think God is purely all loving but when we think about an omnipotent creator of the universe, sadism must by definition be one of its top traits. 

Sadism is the wrong frame.

The suffering is more a consequence of the structure of infinity itself, not some sadist kick.

 

[LordFall]

56 minutes ago, aurum said:

Sadism is the wrong frame.

The suffering is more a consequence of the structure of infinity itself, not some sadist kick.

 

We're talking about God here not some mid level manager of reality. If there is so much suffering in the world, it must be because of him otherwise he's not that powerful.

I understand that cause and effect needs consequence to make reality tenable but I think it goes far enough to the point that attributing clear sadism to God is warranted.

1 hour ago, Willy Phallicus said:

Then by all measure God is a pervert too but God is all things as the saying goes.  He even cops to it in the bible when he says he administers both good and evil.  They go hand in hand unfortunately but its just God doing God at the end of the day.

Since God can do whatever he pleases he can just wipe this world away like it never happened (which is easy to do since its not) and have a better dream where life doesn't suck balls.

I think post scarcity and biological immortality is the closest thing to heaven on earth that will come. I just don't understand why humanity's history had to be so painful and bleak to get there. The other easier alternative is that God is not all powerful and has to learn through trial and error which is entirely possible but I think time is more relative than that so I don't really buy it. 

Edited 3 hours ago by LordFall

[aurum]

51 minutes ago, LordFall said:

I understand that cause and effect needs consequence to make reality tenable but I think it goes far enough to the point that attributing clear sadism to God is warranted.

You just need an awakening to Goodness / Love / Perfection.

 

[yetineti]

God has control?

God sees a difference in these concepts?

Where is this evident?

Edited 2 hours ago by yetineti

[Xonas Pitfall]

If you'd want to define it as sadism, it'd probably be more accurate to call it masochism haha.

God is, by definition, All, so there is no "Other" entity to be tortured or murdered.

Sadism is usually defined by inflicting pain or suffering onto another being, but from the "highest" perspective, it's more accurate to call God the ultimate masochist, because It's inflicting all kinds of different emotions onto Itself in order to be Itself and know Itself.

Although masochism wouldn't really be the correct term either, since It doesn't really have a preference for pain over pleasure. It's more like some void that must experience everything.

Edited 2 hours ago by Xonas Pitfall

[Yimpa]

17 minutes ago, aurum said:

You just need an awakening to Goodness / Love / Perfection.

 

GLP-One

 

@PsychedelicEagle gets it, heheheh

Edited 2 hours ago by Yimpa

[LordFall]

26 minutes ago, aurum said:

You just need an awakening to Goodness / Love / Perfection.

 

I've had plenty. Don't spiritual bypass me when you get faced with unanswerable questions lol. It's not because you enter states of bliss that life is not suffering for a large proportion of the population and ourselves most of the time.

21 minutes ago, yetineti said:

God has control?

God sees a difference in these concepts?

Where is this evident?

We have control over the suffering we can inflict on others. God by definition should have more control than the average human or it's a moot concept.

God perhaps sees no difference as he incarnates as every being at once but that's what I'm saying. If you're a rapist and raping someone and you don't give a fuck if they're hurting them because you're a detached spiritual being that experiences too much to care about one single perspective then you're not only sadistic but psychopathic lol

12 minutes ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

If you'd want to define it as sadism, it'd probably be more accurate to call it masochism haha.

God is, by definition, All, so there is no "Other" entity to be killed, tortured, or murdered.

Sadism is usually defined by inflicting pain or suffering onto another being, but from the "highest" perspective, it's more accurate to call God the ultimate masochist, because It's inflicting all kinds of different emotions onto Itself in order to be Itself and know Itself.

Although masochism wouldn't really be the correct term either, since It doesn't really have a preference for pain over pleasure. It's more like some void that must experience everything.

If I decide to beat you half to death and enjoy my power over you, that's sadism. If a human can be sadistic why not God? 

I feel like you guys are spiritually bypassing hard lol. Go watch combat footage and realize that your little bubble of solipsism has gaping holes in terms of sound reasoning. Welcome to reality. 

https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/

 

Edited 2 hours ago by LordFall

[aurum]

13 minutes ago, LordFall said:

suffering for a large proportion of the population and ourselves most of the time.

That is NOT sadism.

Sadism is something very specific. It's a mistake to conflate the existence of suffering with sadism being a top value of God.

[yetineti]

26 minutes ago, LordFall said:

We have control over the suffering we can inflict on others. God by definition should have more control than the average human or it's a moot concept.

By what definition? Is power the same thing as control?

Quote

God perhaps sees no difference as he incarnates as every being at once but that's what I'm saying. If you're a rapist and raping someone and you don't give a fuck if they're hurting them because you're a detached spiritual being that experiences too much to care about one single perspective then you're not only sadistic but psychopathic lol

Would that not be you, then, not God?

Edited 1 hour ago by yetineti

[Xonas Pitfall]

28 minutes ago, LordFall said:

If I decide to beat you half to death and enjoy my power over you, that's sadism. If a human can be sadistic why not God? 

I feel like you guys are spiritually bypassing hard lol. Go watch combat footage and realize that your little bubble of solipsism has gaping holes in terms of sound reasoning. Welcome to reality. 

We aren't spiritually bypassing. We are correcting a limited definition.

If you want to try to define or describe God, God is the ultimate masochist and sadist, lover and enemy, creator and destroyer, giver and taker, merciful and wrathful, friend and adversary, source of pleasure and source of suffering.

But these descriptions only make sense from the perspective of finite beings like us.

Ultimately, God is defined as that which has no other. God is all. Therefore, concepts such as pleasure and suffering cannot be used as something being done to another being, because there is no "other" separate from God. Everything is within God.

This is why terms such as sadist and masochist lose their meaning at that level. Those concepts require a distinction between the one experiencing something and the other toward whom it is directed.

From the finite human perspective, however, God can be all of it, depending on how your ego is treated throughout this life, both by itself and by the environment around it.

Quote

Welcome to reality. 

https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/

I could equally say that this proves God is incredibly masochistic, and that masochism is a "foundational" value of God, because God is also the person being killed, slapped, and dismembered, as well as every person who has ever experienced violence in combat.

But this would still be a limited perspective that needs to be expanded. That is precisely why we are challenging you.

Edited 1 hour ago by Xonas Pitfall

[yetineti]

I see more psychological bypassing through intellectualization on this forum than spiritual bypassing.

Spiritual bypassing is pretty obvious. Someone adopts a spiritual framework that lets them avoid an uncomfortable emotional or practical reality.

But you can do essentially the same thing in the opposite direction: intellectualize everything, reduce disagreements to psychological explanations, analyze the other person’s ego, trauma, attachment, development, etc., and never actually engage with what they’re saying.

That brings up a further issue where disagreement itself can become evidence of the diagnosis.

Both can become ways of explaining something away instead of confronting it.

 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

14 minutes ago, yetineti said:

I see more psychological bypassing through intellectualization on this forum than spiritual bypassing.

Overthinking, overanalysing, separates the body from the mind. Explanation =/= understanding. 

[LordFall]

37 minutes ago, aurum said:

That is NOT sadism.

Sadism is something very specific. It's a mistake to conflate the existence of suffering with sadism being a top value of God.

If you build a reality that's particularly hard and you have control to change it however way you like, it must be because you enjoy it that way. Why else is reality built like this?

I'm using deductive reasoning to come to this conclusion, I'm not sure it's the case but I haven't seen any good argument in this thread to prove the conclusion wrong.

@Xonas Pitfall Your point is very incomplete though, you haven't thought it through. The only way non-dualism makes sense is that there is one universal mind that subdivides itself into other minds to experience reality from a limited being's perspectives. Those limited beings are still real and even if they merge with God in the end, their pain is real.

To think in just one mind without subdivisions is insane lol, that's like saying you wrote this post or I wrote your comment. 

29 minutes ago, yetineti said:

By what definition? Is power the same thing as control?

Would that not be you, then, not God?

Depends how you define God but by using the definition of Actualized.org it would be a universal consciousness that experiences everything that makes up the sum totality of the universe. In that case it should have power over everything and it chose to make a reality where people can hurt each other in all kinds of ways.

The fact that humanity itself is getting to the point that we're making a VR reality where you'll be able to live in a sandbox and kill others if you want but with no consequences leads me to believe that God could've shaped reality the whole time this way. The reason he didn't must be that it was more enjoyable to do it this way or its power is limited and he had no other choice but to do it this way. I don't believe the latter makes sense so it must be the former. 

19 minutes ago, yetineti said:

Both can become ways of explaining something away instead of confronting it.

Confronting what? 

Edited 1 hour ago by LordFall

[Xonas Pitfall]

8 minutes ago, LordFall said:

@Xonas Pitfall Your point is very incomplete though, you haven't though it through. The only way non-dualism makes sense is that there is one universal mind that subdivides itself into other minds to experience reality from a limited beings perspectives. Those limited beings are still real and even if they merge with God in the end, their pain is real.

To think in just one mind without subdivisions is insane lol, that's like saying you wrote this post or I wrote your comment. 

To think in just one mind without subdivisions is insane lol, that's like saying you wrote this post or I wrote your comment. >

It is one mind. That's the entire point of Leo's Actualized.org. It's most likely that you simply haven't had these experiences, whether through psychedelics, meditation, sobriety, introspection, or other means. Which is totally ok; that's why we are in this forum to help each other 

At the highest level of awakening, you experience the collapse of the separation between Self and Other. The Self becomes all, and the "Other" is also recognized as the Self.

I'm not trying to make this unnecessarily difficult. Yes, from our ordinary human perspective, the world is filled with beauty and horror, love and hatred, pleasure and suffering, creation and destruction, compassion and cruelty, and countless other apparent opposites.

But once you start talking about God, nonduality, or the highest perspective and "values", your definitions have to change accordingly. Concepts such as sadism and masochism depend on there being an "other" toward whom an action is directed. From the highest nondual perspective, that distinction no longer exists. All apparent dualities collapse into one because there is no separate "other" outside of the One.

That's literally what nonduality means (it is in the word itself - not DUAL, not TWO): there is no fundamental second thing, no separate Other, no independent contrast. There is only One.

When we apply dualistic human definitions to the highest nondual context without first redefining the context, we are imposing distinctions that the nondual framework itself has already dissolved.

Edited 1 hour ago by Xonas Pitfall

[Natasha Tori Maru]

7 minutes ago, LordFall said:

To think in just one mind without subdivisions is insane lol, that's like saying you wrote this post or I wrote your comment. 

But don't we do this all the time when we conceptualise and define things from the relative / absolute domains? That distinction exists for precisely the reason we are having issue with - definitions change when you flip between relative/absolute.

I suppose your premise is being defined from the relative domain?

[Xonas Pitfall]

Just now, Natasha Tori Maru said:

But don't we do this all the time when we conceptualise and define things from the relative / absolute domains? That distinction exists for precisely the reason we are having issue with - definitions change when you flip between relative/absolute.

I suppose your premise is being defined from the relative domain?

Yes.

If Lordfall's point is simply that, from a relative perspective, there is a lot of pain and suffering, then yes, absolutely. You'd be foolish to ever deny that.

However, when you start using terms like God, nonduality, ultimate, foundational value, etc., you are usually implying a more absolute, nondual frame. This is why people corrected your post.

From this frame, there are no fundamentally separate minds or "others" upon whom God can be sadistic. There is only God being God, one reality, one mind.

[aurum]

5 minutes ago, LordFall said:

Why else is reality built like this?

The answer was given: suffering is a structural consequence of the infinite nature of reality.

Life cannot not contain suffering to some degree.

But of course, unless you understand that answer, it doesn't mean anything to you.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

3 minutes ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

Yes.

If Lordfall's point is simply that, from a relative perspective, there is a lot of pain and suffering, then yes, absolutely. You'd be foolish to ever deny that.

However, when you start using terms like God, nonduality, ultimate, foundational value, etc., you are usually implying a more absolute, nondual frame. This is why people corrected your post.

From this frame, there are no fundamentally separate minds or "others" upon whom God can be sadistic. There is only God being God, one reality, one mind.

100% which is why, if anything, masochism would be the best fit 

But we can go further and do away with masochism entirely - its just sensation, data to harvest, experience - for God. There is no judgement. No good or bad. No unwanted experience. No unwanted thing