Go back to previous topic
Forum nameOkay Activist Archives
Topic subjectRE: Interesting
Topic URLhttp://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=22&topic_id=25574&mesg_id=25579
25579, RE: Interesting
Posted by Whateva, Fri Mar-18-05 03:40 AM
>I agree but, that depends on who is going to influence the
>flow. I don't think God will, so we are waiting and accepting
>a certain course for nothing if we continue to wait for that.

>>My theory: God is all and emcompasses the absolute "nadir"
>>you choose to look at it that way) of existence, which is
>>Evil(Satan), as well as the greatest good(Christ). God is
>>absolute good, evil, and everything else that "exists".
>>atom is apart of a system that is God. Thus God can
>>duality because, the nature of God, both good and evil, is
>I don't think nature is dualistic, as animals show us that
>some kill, and some die, in order to maintain the life cycle.
>Human beings kill in order to satisfy greed.
I think there is
>a difference, and I think the actual term 'dualistic' should
>be applied with more care.

When I said nature I meant the texture of existence.
The reason I settled on dualism is because everything is a positive or negative of some sort on some level to someone or something. As a side note I believe we're all motivated by survival including the Socrates' of our race(human race). Detriments are evil. Assists are good. Like electrons, either + or -.

We cannot simply sweep everything
>into a nutshell and call it Nature, or 'God' because 'Nature',
>and 'God' are two very different things. God is a social
>construct, which constructs norms, beliefs, value's. And
>Nature, is an eco construct, which constructs natural process
>and the motion of blood in the body. Nature is universal,
>culture (norms, beliefs, value's) is subjective. Meaning,
>nature is universal as a man in an igloo, will investigate,
>and construct his habitat, just as a man in china will,
>however, the difference in that construction, is influenced by
>SOCIAL inclination, or subjective norms, beliefs, and values.
>In that sense, God is a subjective being, that is portrayed as
>an Objective Omnipotent being, that encompasses all which I
>think is incorrect. Perhaps, Nature encompasses God, and God,
>just as us is contained by something, truly beyond
>comprehension and actually omnipotent. God is subjective,
>because God affects all levels of human life and society,
>however, it does not govern Animals, as by our standards,
>animals are not even allowed to go enter the same heaven.
>Clearly, even in our own social construct, we have ironically
>proven that Nature and God are two different things, and
>perhaps all that I just said, is the natural process that can
>be found between the two, a natural relationship, that neither
>GOD, nor Nature understands. Such as a positive charge, and a
>negative charge. However, we are human beings, and thus we are
>on a plane, that is the see saw between the two. I think if we
>continue to wait for nature or god, we will never attain
>peace, or the balance between duality.


Some would say God is all means everything, including the smallest
building block of existence, whatever that might be. The God you're refering to as a social construct is different cultures' personifications of forces that occur in "nature". What you're referring to as nature, is what I'm referring to as God. When I think God I'm really not thinking of a superior being as much as everything that possibly is. The seemingly infinite number of parts that make up everything that is, including the unfathomable, is related in some way like the individual parts of an organism. That's an ultimate constant. All that is. God encompasses all that is including our concept of nature, even if the concept is a perfect duplicate of that which contains it. In your final statement, it almost seems as if you're trying to conclude that true power for humans lies in embracing the world of the material. Is this an accurate assessment?