Why did Leo say your are God?

[iTommy]

@Soul-lover 2020 The word nothingness (no-thing-ness), refers to God/Consciousness/Pure Awareness etc. (it has many labels). The very act of defining and conceptualizing those words, this doesn't hold/work since labels can't really accurately describe what they're pointing at. Language has its limits. You're trying to conceptualize what can't be conceptualized. Mental masturbation can be useful in regards to enlightenment, but at the same time it can be easy to get lost in the world of concepts, trying to understand and maybe to experience "God"-Consciousness from the perspective of the ego, which ultimately fails. The contrast between the paradigm/experience of ego-self, and "God", is quite radical.

 

Edited May 22, 2019 by iTommy
Bananas are yellow, except when they're blue. Then they're blue.

[Zigzag Idiot]

A cleansed heart is an excellent organ of perception. Without judging, It discerns the suffering that lies behind those who feed on sour grapes and sour notes.

Edited May 22, 2019 by Zigzag Idiot
Replaced tool with organ

[Shin]

19 minutes ago, Soul-lover 2020 said:

The Holy Bible which includes the books of the Law a.k.a. the Torah - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy - is far, far, far more reliable than the Babylonian influenced sayings of the Talmud.

The Bible refers to God as "I Am that I AM", "Jehovah", "Yahweh", "Holy Spirit", "Immanuel" meaning "God with us" who is Jesus Christ "the Living Word", "the Father" etc, etc.

 

 

Even books that are written right now are full of ignorance and lies,
And you except books written and rewritten for centuries, even thousands of years to be reliable ?

They aren't.

[Shadowraix]

21 minutes ago, Soul-lover 2020 said:

The Holy Bible which includes the books of the Law a.k.a. the Torah - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy - is far, far, far more reliable than the Babylonian influenced sayings of the Talmud.

The Bible refers to God as "I Am that I AM", "Jehovah", "Yahweh", "Holy Spirit", "Immanuel" meaning "God with us" who is Jesus Christ "the Living Word", "the Father" etc, etc.

 

All approximations. 

The Dao that can be told is not the true Dao. 

This is why here we shoot for experience instead, because that does it better justice than words. 

[abrakamowse]

8 minutes ago, Shin said:

 

Even books that are written right now are full of ignorance and lies,
And you except books written and rewritten for centuries, even thousands of years to be reliable ?

They aren't.

Shin, this is the problem... they believe the bible is "infallible"... the problem that they (Christians) can't see is that everybody understand the same words differently, that's why there're so many Christian sects with different beliefs and ideas...

 

Quote

Biblical infallibility is the belief that what the Bible says regarding matters of faith and Christian practice is wholly useful and true. It is the "belief that the Bible is completely trustworthy as a guide to salvation and the life of faith and will not fail to accomplish its purpose. Some equate "inerrancy" and "infallibility"; others do not."

The idea of biblical infallibility gained ground in Protestant churches as a fundamentalist reaction against a general modernization movement within Christianity in the 19th and early 20th centuries. In the Catholic church, the reaction produced the concept of papal infallibility whereas, in the evangelical churches, the infallibility of the Bible was asserted. "Both movements represent a synthesis of a theological position and an ideological-political stance against the erosion of traditional authorities. Both are antimoderne and literalist."

No matter how little common ground was apparent at the time between Roman Catholicism and the Evangelical Right, these two reformulations of scriptural and papal supremacy represented a defiant assertiveness in reaction against the crisis of religious authority that was engulfing Western religion.

 

Edited May 22, 2019 by abrakamowse

[Inliytened1]

@Joseph Maynor now you are doing the same thing back to 7th.  See how this is just a loop?

By this I'm doing it back to you.  It's just an endless loop.

Edited May 22, 2019 by Inliytened1

[Soul-lover 2020]

17 minutes ago, iTommy said:

@Soul-lover 2020 The word nothingness (no-thing-ness), refers to God/Consciousness/Pure Awareness etc. (it has many labels). The very act of defining and conceptualizing those words, this doesn't hold/work since labels can't really accurately describe what they're pointing at. Language has its limits. You're trying to conceptualize what can't be conceptualized. Mental masturbation can be useful in regards to enlightenment, but at the same time it can be easy to get lost in the world of concepts, trying to understand and maybe to experience "God"-Consciousness from the perspective of the ego, which ultimately fails. The contrast between the paradigm/experience of ego-self, and "God", is quite radical.

 

iTommy

The problem here is that you're ignoring the literal dictionary definitions for the words "God" and "consciousness" in favor of your own redefinitions for them.  God is the Creator, not His Creation.  You never created yourself.  You were created biologically by your earthly parents, and your soul / spirit created by God.  There is only one God, but many human beings.

Consciousness is to do with one's awareness of one's own existence, surroundings, time, God, etc .  The ego is to do with one's sense of self-worth (self-esteem).  It's the part of one's mind that mediates between the conscious and the unconscious, and is responsible for reality testing and a sense of personal identity.   

My dictionary definitions have have been taken from www.OxfordDictionaries.com. 

It is entirely possible to know God personally, without resorting to destroying one's ego / sense of self.  Consciousness of Him is otherwise impossible. 

"Mental masturbation" has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

[Shadowraix]

@Soul-lover 2020 People here use language in a more dynamic way than dictionary definitions. If you don't adapt you will not understand. It's not a problem to go beyond dictionaries. It only is for those who restrict themselves to it. 

People here have dissolved the boundary between creator and creation. You will not convince them otherwise because their direct experience says differently. 

[Beeman]

6 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Maybe he has done the work.  Maybe he feels the same about you.  Why do you assume you're right and he's wrong?  Are you walking in his shoes?  Have you walked his path?

Great Answer. 

[Beeman]

@Soul-lover 2020 "It is entirely possible to know God personally, without resorting to destroying one's ego / sense of self. Consciousness of Him is otherwise impossible."

 

I agree. 

[Forestluv]

21 minutes ago, Shadowraix said:

People here have dissolved the boundary between creator and creation. You will not convince them otherwise because their direct experience says differently. 

Nice insight.

My sense is many of us are at different “places” with this. Sometimes a mind wants to protect and reinforce that boundary - this can provide a sense of grounding and stability to the mind and body. Other times a mind is in what subjectively feels like a process of dissolving that boundary. Exploring, questioning, observing, contemplating. This can seem intriguing, fascinating and enlightening. And also ungrounded, unstable, uncomfortable and scary. 

I like how you say direct experience says differently. Without the thought stories, the duality between creator and creation dissolves and there is pure Beingness. 

Is this along the lines of what you are pointing at?

[Shadowraix]

2 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

Nice insight.

My sense is many of us are at different “places” with this. Sometimes a mind wants to protect and reinforce that boundary - this can provide a sense of grounding and stability to the mind and body. Other times a mind is in what subjectively feels like a process of dissolving that boundary. Exploring, questioning, observing, contemplating. This can seem intriguing, fascinating and enlightening. And also ungrounded, unstable, uncomfortable and scary. 

I like how you say direct experience says differently. Without the thought stories, the duality between creator and creation dissolves and there is pure Beingness. 

Is this along the lines of what you are pointing at?

You elaborated on it way more than what I was thinking but yes you wrote it way more eloquently than me. ? I do think it requires more than a dissolution of thought stories, rather a much more radical shift in consciousness. There is something else happening I can't put my finger on. 

I don't think soul-lover is wrong. Reality has many facets. Nonduality includes duality. But when there is disagreement I suspect there is either a communication barrier or it is viewed from other facets. 

[7thLetter]

@Joseph Maynor I didn’t say he was wrong and I didn’t say I was right.

He’s asking a question, and I’m giving my opinion. An opinion from someone who was a Christian/Catholic my whole life, towards another believer of Jesus.

 

[Norbert Lennartz]

"God" is an idea. An idea needs a benefit or purpose. I cannot see it for myself. I guess only the ego knows, but it won't tell.

To say "I am God" is an idea of oneself.

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Shadowraix said:

I do think it requires more than a dissolution of thought stories, rather a much more radical shift in consciousness. There is something else happening I can't put my finger on. 

Same here ?? 

[Norbert Lennartz]

7 hours ago, Shin said:

 

Don't worry,

You'll see the real definition when you'll die,

All your precious beliefs will be destroyed

The better way is if you've already died in your lifetime. 

[TheOne]

 

[abrakamowse]

 

[SgtPepper]

because God is everything.

[Norbert Lennartz]

5 hours ago, abrakamowse said:

 

really good, makes sense to me, but sounds to me in the end very different than the initial thesis of being God