>See now we're off topic. The question thats being asked, in
>the fashion its being asked, almost presupposes that you
>hold some conventional belief in God.

ALMOST presupposes and that's only because of the perspective of the poster. We can move through his/her view and get to the root of the question which is how the omni-attributes of a "higher being" relate to the "freewill" of man. Since conventional perspective is flawed, let's toss it and move on to a different way of approaching the topic.


From what I can gather
>from this higher self stuff, your (if you have
>one)conception of God is pretty abstract and probably
>wouldn't be considered conventional.

Nowhere near conventional. And from my perspective, it's not abstract at all. It does take an awareness of a few other concepts and for someone who has been holding or is still holding the conventional overview, it would be difficult to grasp.

>I don't see this dichotomy between self and higher self. It
>seems to new-agey for me.

And "god experiencing our choices" is not "new agey"? You are on point with most of what you said in your original thread. I wouldn't have said "Best response thus far" if i did think so. But as i mentioned, it was still within the realm of polarity. My recommending that you substitute higher self for the word god, was to eliminate the separtion and move beyond the realm of polarity and that damn word "god", because the nature of reality is MUCH more complex, but it's not abstract.....We have our incarnated self in 2003(mau777 & raymond in time/space). We also have our higher self(Who we really are) residing in a higher density(beyond time/space). The higher self is the total composite of all time/space incarnations that are all happening simultaneously.

I'll attempt to give you a visual...Imagine a jellyfish hovering in the air and dipping thousands of its tendrils into the water. The air would be 4th density and higher(No Time) and the water would be 3rd density(linear time/space). The body of the jellyfish is the higher self, the end of each tendril is the incarnated self. Raymond is at the end of one tendril dipped in linear year 2003. There are other tendrils ends(incarnations) dipped all throughout the linear timeline. All have different experiences, levels of spiritual awareness and access to the knowledge possessed by the jellyfish body(higher self).

And, if i was willing to see such
>a dichotomy it would definitely correspond with a certain
>belief in God,i.e. dualism, mind vs body...soul vs material
>needs

There IS KNOWLEDGE concerning these topics and it IS possible to move beyond the box of belief into experience and knowing. But again, it takes saying "I'm tired of the bullshit" and attempting to perceive 'unconventional' possibilities to do it.


>
>As for God being an uncaused cause, people call God the
>creator because that is what he (allegedly) did. He created.
>The strongest (although still worrysome) logical proofs
>concerning the existence of God rest on premises such as
>there is a first cause, there is a first mover etc. So, its
>not that such arguments shouldnt be mentioned because they
>are too abstract. God itself is too abstract to know
>definitely. I introduced this conception of God to show that
>even minimal, seemingly non-polaric notions of God can lead
>to dogmatic interpretations. Thus one could say that
>anything is inherently flawed by subjectivity of conception.
>It is simply easy, empty and nihilistic to do so.

It is pointless attempting to figure out the consciousness that created this physical universe. That info would likely have no effect on daily life. There are much more immediate concerns and knowns to become aware of and they pertain to knowing who we really are and the nature of now experience here. Throwing out the word "god" can greatly assist in becoming more objective in dealing with this.

>
> I also don't agree with the racist part. Simply because
>somebody tries to construct a logical proof that supports
>the belief that one conception of God is stronger than
>others does not mean that they are racist.

No it doesn't, but that's not what i got from what you said...

"But one could also argue that (if there is a God)
God could be NO OTHER WAY than that which Western religion
generally thinks of him to be."

...(IMO)"No other way" doesn't sound like something someone who is just trying to support their BELIEF(NOT KNOWLEDGE)would say. But i can easily envision some missionary shouting "there's no other way" while cutting the heads of those "savages" with a sword in one hand and a bible in the other.

They just must
>realize that it is just that- a logical proof. It is when
>people try to use such argumentation negatively that i see a
>problem i.e. religious intolerance and/or forcing their
>beliefs or will on others

Much like, western religion and theology, western science, western illusions, western military, western etc. has done since the west came up. Sheeeit, how do you think the west came up? It sure wasn't by offering logical proof of anything.

....one mo' thang, none of what i present is "new age" shit by any means.


>peace.

...the dialog is appreciated.

Truth 2 U