Thread: letter from god

Originally Posted by PatienceMarie

WE are mother nature? O_o

I don't get that statement....

I thought mother nature was the wind, the earth, the water, and such forth. Things that NO ONE can control really.

I think I'm misinterpreting something here.
Probably.... I'm blond.

-patience

The teachings I identify with teach that we are in a way the elements themselves and that the physical body is just a form of manifestation of those elements.


How can one control what one percieves as seperate from themselves? Then again is control really necesary?

I appreciate these few words you put up here.! They have helped put something in perspective for me. Thank you !

From my experience with blondes, they stereotypcally may not understand what they see but they seem to see more simply and more clearly. There is an advantage to that you know...

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

This sort of follows in what I see as- " one cannot manipulate what is seen as constructive subject and object by thinking from the point of view of being either subject or object". Toss aside such thinking and one then can then connect with what you call "ultimate potential".

The direct approach does not yield results, a measure of subtlety is required to make the connection. Fair assessment? Yes /No?

At least this is what I am finding myself...

Maybe it's the fact that I haven't slept for 35 hours but I find all that hard to grasp.

Would you mind elaborating some more?

Originally Posted by thegnome54

This message only applies to the semi-deluded, really.

Truly deluded individuals will not accept it, as it was written by 'scoob' and not 'god'. What does scoob know about what god thinks?

People who don't believe in a god (like me) see this is an almost humorously skewed piece. Humans are not in control of the world, and the world was not made for us. We are A PART of mother nature, just like ants and cows and apple trees; just like refrigerators, wrenches and automobiles. We will never "hurt" mother nature, we can only hurt ourselves as a species - and keeping in mind that we ARE mother nature, then it's natural for us to hurt ourselves anyways so we're not antagonizing nature after all.

Good rapping, anyways.

We can't hurt nature, we can only hurt ourselves, but... we are nature and so by hurting ourselves we are hurting nature but somehow not antagonizing it? You sure come up with some convoluted bullshit sometimes.

It's so true; it's amazing. I'm an atheist but the point is so true.

Originally Posted by Merlock

Maybe it's the fact that I haven't slept for 35 hours but I find all that hard to grasp.

Would you mind elaborating some more?

Ok, lets start here with what you said:

Second, to understand the essence of ultimate potential one needs to understand the difference between that very ultimate potential and physical sciences. Science in the modern day world allows for progress out of curiosity. Anything beyond the physical works on a completely different principle, the metaphysical, not the physical. Curiosity is never enough to achieve anything of true meaning.

I am of the opinion that the physical can be affected by the non physical, but- not by continuing in the same thinking based on physical terms .

And third, you can't soar from the ground and fly because you don't know how. As said above, we are conscious self-aware beings. That isn't a physical trait, it's a mental one. We have the infinite potential to learn. If you want to fly, you need to find out how, not cast it aside because it isn't public knowledge. And more so, you must not merely "find out" (curiosity isn't enough) but have a true purpose to figure out the path towards a certain goal and then nothing will stop you and that path will appear beneath your very feet.

Goes along with what I said above

You're right in saying that wishful thinking causes illusion. Hence all the various telekinesis sites and whatnot online, for example. They state things such as "focus on the object and move it with your mind"...they lack the quintessence: the world is constructive and requires mechanisms for anything to be achieved. Wishful thinking isn't a mechanism affecting the physical and thus is folly.

Again, goes along with what I said. One cannot focus dierctly on the physical, thinking of such in the usual physical terms to affect a physical change through the non physical.


Is that more helpful?


If so, Am I understanding you correctly?

Oh, aye, exactly.

Originally Posted by Merlock

Oh, aye, exactly.

GReat! I have been reading your comments on ultimate potential and such for many weeks thinking such was on the same page as I am but wasnt quite sure till now.

Question:

Where must the thinking be in order to realize said potential?

And I know words do no justice, but have you anything to offer at all?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

We can't hurt nature, we can only hurt ourselves, but... we are nature and so by hurting ourselves we are hurting nature but somehow not antagonizing it? You sure come up with some convoluted bullshit sometimes.

Perhaps I should simplify this, so that you may understand

If lions were to start over-killing in Africa, and the balance was upset, we would consider this a 'natural' occurrence. Why? Well, lions are natural, so whatever they do is natural. Right? We'll call this 'point A' - namely, whatever natural creatures do, is natural.

Anthills, bird's nests, and termite mounds are 'natural', right? This I will call 'point B' - anything a natural creature makes is also considered natural.

Finally, 'point C' is simply that humans are natural creatures. We're animals, after all.

Put it all together now - if you combine C and B, you see that everything we make is natural - refrigerators, wrenches, automobiles... all are a part of nature, just like bird's nests and anthills. If you combine A and C, you see that whatever we do is also natural - CO2 emissions, control of CO2 emissions, the Green movement, Industrialization, deforestation, conservational attempts - it's all 'natural' for us to do.

With all of that in mind, it's a bit ridiculous to claim that we are antagonizing nature. We can't destroy the environment unnaturally any more than an ant hill or a beaver's antics. When we 'hurt nature', we're hurting ourselves, because of C. Because of B, this hurting of ourselves is also a natural occurence.

Therefore, everything we do is natural, whether it be considered harmful to ourselves and others or not - and so we cannot possibly antagonize nature.

Hopefully that works better?

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Perhaps I should simplify this, so that you may understand

If lions were to start over-killing in Africa, and the balance was upset, we would consider this a 'natural' occurrence. Why? Well, lions are natural, so whatever they do is natural. Right? We'll call this 'point A' - namely, whatever natural creatures do, is natural.

Anthills, bird's nests, and termite mounds are 'natural', right? This I will call 'point B' - anything a natural creature makes is also considered natural.

Finally, 'point C' is simply that humans are natural creatures. We're animals, after all.

Put it all together now - if you combine C and B, you see that everything we make is natural - refrigerators, wrenches, automobiles... all are a part of nature, just like bird's nests and anthills. If you combine A and C, you see that whatever we do is also natural - CO2 emissions, control of CO2 emissions, the Green movement, Industrialization, deforestation, conservational attempts - it's all 'natural' for us to do.

With all of that in mind, it's a bit ridiculous to claim that we are antagonizing nature. We can't destroy the environment unnaturally any more than an ant hill or a beaver's antics. When we 'hurt nature', we're hurting ourselves, because of C. Because of B, this hurting of ourselves is also a natural occurence.

Therefore, everything we do is natural, whether it be considered harmful to ourselves and others or not - and so we cannot possibly antagonize nature.

Hopefully that works better?

And to go right along with this then, it would make sense too that our individual personalities are also "natural" and the interactions between each personality whether judged good or bad by the onlooker are also "natural".

Under these directives of nature, all is merely a big puppet show with nature pulling all the strings. We only think we pull our own strings.

Question: what is, if anything, outside of nature?

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

Under these directives of nature, all is merely a big puppet show with nature pulling all the strings. We only think we pull our own strings.

Yes, that's a rough approximation of causal determinism.

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

Question: what is, if anything, outside of nature?

I don't think anything is. Everything which 'is' is natural.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Yes, that's a rough approximation of causal determinism.



I don't think anything is. Everything which 'is' is natural.

New Question:

If one comes to the point of recognizing that they do not pull their own strings, then is that awareness, or conscious recocgintion of "something else" pulling the strings, natural also?


The immediate urge is to say yes, but thinking on it I'm not so sure.

On the one hand you have the thing pulling the strings which is natural by our inquiry, but then on the other hand there is this entity doing the recognizing. Seeing what it believes itself to be being controlled like a puppet.

Do you see the dilema?