>>
>>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"
>>(if
>>>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".
>>Every
>>>atom is apart of a system that is God. Thus God can
>>experience
>>>duality because, the nature of God, both good and evil, is
>>>dualistic.
>>
>>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 -.

I see. So, in your mind you also see that dual nature is stronger than single nature? Perhaps, I'm misreading, but it seems that survival has programmed animals with a dual nature as well. Perhaps animals, as we think of and percieve them, are truly 'metaphors' for dual true nature. Killing only when necessary to survive, and not just flesh, but anything. Those are all pipe dreams though, and will not be possible in our time unless.... ....

>
>
> 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.
>
>
>>
>>peace.
>
>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?

That's very interesting. I think I agree with you in your definition of god, also, I think that god is not any weaker than human beings are, and human beings are not any weaker than god, but both are more powerful then the other. a dual nature of strength that makes the other weaker, yet both function in a relationship. in a metaphor, god needs human beings, just as much as human beings need god. and as we may be a tool of discovery on this level of existence, god, or, all that is, functions in a way, understanding the outcome of any possible event that takes place here. but, what is lacking, is the experience, and human beings experience on a physical plane. in a sense, yes, i think that human beings must embrace the world of the material, and we already are doing that...some intoxicate themselves with their strength and leadership quality, losing sight of true ideals as the potential of that strength is unravelled, ultimatley, we have choice, and it seems choice is war (insert every theory known to man related to social, psychological, spiritual on why), and the blood bath's that follow. that can make anyone reject the material, as it seems the material is total destruction. The tools for peace and such exist, they are just not being used. So, how can we expect god to put them in motion? They are our tools. God already put his/her tool in motion. Peace.

>
>>>


~
This is the life I chose, or rather the life that chose me
If you can't respect that, your whole perspective is whack
Maybe you'll love me when I fade to black
If you can't respect that, your whole perspective is whack
Maybe you'll love me when I f