Love me or else (Part Two) (Where is it now?)

by BBella , Monday, December 24, 2012, 06:55 (4354 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

[BBella]But, I cannot equate the two. This God that speaks with his creation with the God that is "The" All That Is. 
> > 
> > I still have a very open mind about this and would truly like to hear your, Tony's, opinion on how or why you believe I am wrong, about these being two different Gods, or do you?
> 
> 
>[Tony] First, I would ask why there needs be the distinction? Why can the creator of all not have a personality? Is there a good reason for that supposition or is it simply because it doesn't fit our concept of what a God should be?-Maybe there is not a distinction, but maybe there is. As for suppositions, I dispersed man made ideas of what a God should or shouldn't be along with religious beliefs a number of years ago (as much as possible). As to why God can or cannot have a personality, why should creation itself (what some call God) have to have a personality? If there are beings that created us, and if they have been watching over us as our God/s, guiding us as children in some sense, and they too, being a much older race of beings than we, evolved, then who is to say they are speaking for creation (The All That Is)? Why would creation itself have to even come from a God or have a creator in the first place? Maybe creation has always been and always will be, and is made up of such a malleable fabric that evolution and What Is and has become, is a natural product of it. -With the possibility that creation may have always been, then it's unlikely we are the pinnacle of creation. Ancient archaeology, as well as very old indigenous tribes, and scriptures speak of others here before us, much further advanced than we are now. Those beings, who spoke to the ancients that books have been written about, were definitely more advanced than we are, you agree. So if there are advanced civilizations that have gone before us, somewhere out there, who is to say they are really in touch wit a so called "big guy?" What if the big guy is just someone more advanced than we, or maybe even than they are? -Of course there is no way for either of us to know for sure. But the evidence, for me, balances a bit more to the side that if there is a God, within and without all that is, that God would have no need to use surrogates to speak to us, if he even needed to speak at all, as that God would be us. Even those of old who made and fulfilled prophecies and such, told of a time we would come to realize we no longer need guidance and/or teachers, as we would understand/know more about ourselves and the creative properties from which we have sprung. Whether that is a weaning off process of our need for them, or just a misinterpretation of it's meaning, is neither here nor there in this conversation. We all are on a path to understanding who we are, more or less and whatever each finds helpful is the right path to take. I find it more helpful, at this time in my life, to know me by my own observations and less by others interpretation of me and my origins. 
 
> 
> Even the bible admits the existence of other gods. It merely names YHWH as the head cheese of Gods. -As well he may be the head cheese of the gods. But that doesn't mean he is the creator of all things, or creation itself.->If using the biblical form of Elohim, or powers, then yes, I believe in a myriad of gods, or beings that are more powerful than humanity. I also believe that there is a hierarchy. There are numerous references to a spiritual organization and different functions for different spiritual creatures inside that organization. From a more outside perspective, I see the universe as inherently organized and to me that reflects back on the nature of the creator.-Or, it may reflect the nature of creation itself, not necessarily a creator.->If the creation is organized, so to is the creator.-Organized or not, does not necessarily mean there is an organizer or creator of it. Creation, itself, may have always just been. Yes, we have been told there is a creator God, but is that creator God just a part of creation itself? There still remains that possibility. 
 
>I also see that nature was created lovingly, beautifully, and with great care....I do not find that to reflect on the concept of an impersonal, unfeeling, uncaring creator. So, the short answer to your question is, as regards God with a capital G, no, I do not think there are two. They are one in the same.-I see nature in all it's glory as well, but for me, I also see the reflective quality of the malleable fabric of nature and of that we see. From this fabric, "What Is" has evolved, which includes those gone before us and those evolved beings that still seem to communicate with us thru books and stories and have great hold on our societies still today without appearing to lift a finger. The beauty as well as the horror, of all that we see, no doubt may have been created literally just for us. Whether it has or hasn't, I have faith that it was for good intent, as it would be difficult for me to sleep at night if I didn't. But I also believe that those who created this "paradise" gone wrong, can make it disappear in a moment. Not because they are creation that made this possible, but because they made it possible the very same way our scientist or creators, here on earth, do the same everyday. By taking "What Is" and manipulating it for a purpose. I can only hope their purpose is for our best.