What If We Are Gods?, Hypothetically speaking. Options

[MichaelMR]

Behind every story or tale there is some truth behind it. Whether or not the material is made up, some events have lead or partake in helping the creation of that story. Regardless of whether or not that creation is of the mind.

Supposedly, there are scriptures that have been withheld from the bible by the Catholic Church because it is said that it disproves the existence of a supernatural god. They have also put efforts into excavating Sumerian tablets. That’s another story.

Maybe I'm going out on a limb, but I was having a discussion last night with some friends and family and this was an entertaining theory I brought up.

What if we are gods?

Even though I'm an outspoken atheist, I don't rule out the fact that some parts of the bible may very well be factual events and occurrences during their timeline. Call me 3/4's atheist, and 1/4th agnostic, perhaps less.

Anyhow, people who have read the bible and the history that involve are well aware that the bible isn't in its original format. We can thank Constantine for that. I always wondered if god was a metaphor for our existence and abilities. Built in his image, ability to give and take life and to do the things we can. Genetic manipulation, cloning, going to space, atomic research and advanced technology. We are most definitely an alien race if we were to be compared to the other life forms that inhabit this planet.

Without trying to get too Icke or Tsarion on you, I’ll try to explain what I’m getting at. The Sumerians, THOUSANDS of years B.C, recorded the history of their time. That level of history is on par with the Mayan civilization. NASA has also used this texts and tablets to locate the planets in our solar system. These aren’t just bedtime stories, folks.

On to the Sumerians, the Sumerians wrote on tablets of these god-like existences that came to earth. They considered them gods, if we were to look at them from our intelligence, they would be considered aliens. Anyway, according to the texts written by these ancient Sumerians, these “gods” came to this planet interested in our natural resources, primarily gold.

It was written that they had enormous life spans, the ability to genetically alter the creatures that were there beforehand and had unrivaled technology. Mind you, the Sumerians were extremely primitive people at that time. My guess would be that they were still in their humanoid and natural evolutionary state. Yet they wrote of flying objects, enormous and almost atomic-like explosions and detailed this race of people that were superior to them.

Keep in mind, this timeline is before the 6000 year evolutionary leap that catapulted us to our current intelligence level. They didn’t have such elaborate minds to make up and tell farce stories of aliens and advanced technology, a wheelbarrow at that time would’ve been a fascination invention in that timeline.

A bit of reading on it can be found here: http://www.crystalinks.com/sumergods.html

Anyhow, after a while, these “gods” noticed that staying on earth affected their lifespan. They later left.

Humans remained and we evolved. If I continued on with what I want to theorize I’d sound like a nutjob so I’ll just get back to my original topic. Are we gods?

These people, who were once thought by the Sumerians to be gods, were just an advanced, alien race. Yet because of their ability, they were perceived as gods in the eyes of a lesser existence.

Is god a metaphor of us and our abilities, about what we really are? Perhaps I’ve drank too much? Who knows. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/idea.gif)

[painter]

You're close but still no cigar.

What, exactly, is a "god"?

If you are asking, do we have the potential to survive the death of our physical bodies, the answer to that would be "yes" but only if we understand that there are realms of physicality about which we, you and I and educated contemporary humanity, know nothing. Moreover, we'd have to acknowledge that being a "god" does not free one to act irresponsibly or outside the laws that govern the cosmos. Either 2 + 2 = 4 or it doesn't; if it does, it must for all, not just for some.

Let that sink in: If you want to be immortal, you have to learn the laws that govern immortality. That has always been what genuine (esoteric) religion was all about. Exoteric belief was only meant to be one small step along the path.

[MichaelMR]

I get what you're saying, P. I wasn't trying to get that deep into it. I was trying to see if god was a metaphor for the pinnacle of our existence. If it was a comparison to our true abilities or highest possible point of existence. The life after, mortality and literal definition of god wasn’t included.

I don't think God can be fully defined, TBH, not by our standards. It's beyond our comprehension regardless if it's fact or fiction.

[painter]

I get what you're saying, P. I wasn't trying to get that deep into it. I was trying to see if god was a metaphor for the pinnacle of our existence. If it was a comparison to our true abilities or highest possible point of existence. The life after, mortality and literal definition of god wasn’t included.

I don't think God can be fully defined, TBH, not by our standards. It's beyond our comprehension regardless if it's fact or fiction.

I'm not asking for a definition. You asked if we might be gods. I'm asking, what do you mean by that question?

[MichaelMR]

I mean, taking away from the hocus pocus, I-created-the-universe-with-a-fart crap, is the characteristics of god an exaggeration of the abilities of humans?

Is it a metaphor, not a literal one, of what we are or perhaps what we could be? Is that a possibility?

[painter]

I mean, taking away from the hocus pocus, I-created-the-universe-with-a-fart crap, is the characteristics of god an exaggeration of the abilities of humans?

Is it a metaphor, not a literal one, of what we are or perhaps what we could be? Is that a possibility?

Do you or do you not undrstand that your perception of the world (including yourself in it) IS a creation?

We do not see reality as it is at all. What we see is a construction that is the result of energy bombarding our senses, being translated into electromagnetic impulses, which then get restructured within our brain/neuro-physiology to create for us an experience of 'being in the world'.

You do get that, right?

No light gets past the retina. That 'luminescence' that we observe as 'light' is actually a quality of our neurophysiology. IOW, we do not see light, what we see is the neurophysiological RESPONSE to light energy. Same is true for all our senses. Our whole experience of being is a neurophisological response to energy cascades, most of which are being filtered automatically, mechanically, at pre-conscious levels.

[MichaelMR]

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/doh1.gif)

I don't think you get what I'm saying, P. I completely understand what you're saying. The five senses can only comprehend 1/10th of actual reality. This is entirely unrelated to what I'm trying to say. We’re pretty much off topic right now..

I don't know if I can put this in Layman's, but basically what I'm getting at is if the explanation of what God is in the bible could be a metaphor for what humans are in an exaggerated form. I'll reiterate it; I'm NOT talking about supernatural abilities or anything to that effect. Absolutely NOTHING involving some all powerful god or whatever. Just written text and perhaps its underlying meaning.

Again, you’re looking too deep into what I’m saying. Don’t take it so literally. When I say if we are gods it's not suggesting that we can create and do things magically. I hope you get what I’m saying now.

[painter]

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/doh1.gif)

I don't think you get what I'm saying, P.

That is possible

I completely understand what you're saying.

I doubt it.

The five senses can only comprehend 1/10th of actual reality.

The five senses can not "comprehend" anything. "Comprehension" is a higher brain function. If what you meant to say is that our five senses can only represent a small fraction of the energy available, that is true; probably far more true than you know.

This is entirely unrelated to what I'm trying to say. We’re pretty much off topic right now..

I don't know if I can put this in Layman's, but basically what I'm getting at is if the explanation of what God is in the bible could be a metaphor for what humans are in an exaggerated form. I'll reiterate it; I'm NOT talking about supernatural abilities or anything to that effect. Absolutely NOTHING involving some all powerful god or whatever. Just written text and perhaps its underlying meaning.

What do you know about the underlying meanings of esoteric texts? All religions are esoteric in their origin -- that is, have meaning only to those who have the capacity to experience on levels beyond the ordinary and every-day frame -- and only later become exoteric as a result of misapprehension and subsequent misrepresentation based upon that misapprehension.

Again, you’re looking too deep into what I’m saying.

Gee, excuse me.

Don’t take it so literally. When I say if we are gods it's not suggesting that we can create and do things magically. I hope you get what I’m saying now.

Literally? We ARE using words to attempt to communicate. Either we know what those words mean and use them in a way that allows us to understand one another or we do not.

What I've bolded indicates what I perceive as the problem. The entire experience of reality that you have, including yourself in it, is a creation of your own neurophenomonelogical system -- and apparently you don't find that the least bit interesting or worthy of comment. What I'm saying is, it is, indeed VERY interesting and worthy of a lot more attention and marvel than we give it. The entire universe of human experience -- from its heighest heights of elation to its deepest pits of depravity and everything in between -- is contained within our neurophysiology. That is a truly remarkable thing when anyone stops to think about it -- which, of course, no one ever does. We take ourselves, our experience of being for granted without ever even guessing that it is the threshold of something far greater. There is no limit to what we can or COULD BE if we fully understood what we actually are. I'm not being the least bit metaphorical and only slightly metaphysical (properly understood).

The gods (neters) are tautologically more real than we (mere mortal human beings) are. They 'understand' (are consciously imbedded within) a realm of cosmic principals that appear as magic to our ignorant and superstitious minds. Being isn't just mere existence. There are qualitatively different levels of being. The amazing thing is, our level of being is not static but can change as a result of an intentional and conscious re-focusing of our attention.

[Cary]

Interesting convo gentlemen.

What's really amazing is how our experience as human beings is totally through the filtration system of language or our linguistic system. Everyone has likes/dislikes, makes sense/doesn't make sense, good/bad, right/wrong, etc. linguistic filtration systems (prejudices which are just opinions, value judgements, assessments, etc.) that guide us through life. Sometimes effective, other times damaging as hell. Why do several witnesses to the same event have entirely different "stories" about that same event? Because of the prejudiced linguistic structures we all live with, but don't see.

Do some research on the "ontology of language" or "ontological design" "ontological reconstruction" "Fernando Flores" "Julio Olala" "Humberto Maturana" and see what you find. I haven't recently, but there should be some good stuff there.

Merry Christmas to all.

[painter]

Yes, Cary, language is a big part of it. As you say, most of our "comprehension" of the world is linguistically formulated. How do we 'know' what anything is except by constructing verbal concepts around them?

What I'm point to is beyond that, though. I'm talking about our direct, sensory experiences without the necessity of any linguistic overlay. Even here we discover that what is experienced is an energetic translation. I use the instance of light because I believe it is the easiest for most people to get. Light does not penetrate into the brain via the optic nerve; what reaches the brain are electromagnetic signals which the brain INTERPRETS (that is, represents to 'our' experience) as light. And this 'representation' is this 'luminescent' quality; which, strictly speaking, is NOT a property of LIGHT (the photons that physics study) BUT OF MIND (awareness) itself.

To me, that is where things get truly interesting. We do not experience reality -- physical reality -- at all. What we experience is a neurophenomenological representation of physical reality which, of course, to us, is identical with physical reality. We think stars "shine"; nothing could be further from the truth. They RADIATE; and that radiance is represented within us as 'shine'.

As interesting as all that is, though, its only when you get to the possibility of genuine feeling -- in the ancient language it was called CONSCIENCE -- that things open up. One begins to understand WHY faith has played such a significant part in human history -- for better and worse. VALUES (Love, Truth, Beauty -- the quality of being represented by these words) may not be inherent in human experience but may need to be brought into our experience through education -- which is the passing of in-form-ation through time exogenetically.

[MichaelMR]

So your entire argument is based on the misrepresentation of language and how reality is only experienced in the brain? I wasn't being perfect, pal. I really didn't want to get into this, it's a real simple question. But whatever, I’ll bite.

You're right on the money. The sense of sight, touch, smell, taste and hearing is all a comprehension of the brain. I really doubt anyone needs you to tell them that, P.

But you seem think that only certain variables are required for the perception of reality. What I'm getting is that you feel that we should pay much more attention neuro-phenomenological aspect of what is real. Do you understand that everything that exists affects our comprehension of reality? Light, colors, shapes and sounds, they all vary and affect the way the brain perceives reality. These aren’t created by the brain.

There are ways to induce epileptic seizures through frame by frame images. You can manipulate the brain into doing many things that in regular scenarios it wouldn't. The brain itself does NOT conclude total reality; you're leaving out such large variables that affect our existence itself.

This entire world we are in composes of energy and rapidly moving particles that make up matter. Hell, that's all we are if you were to look at it from that stance.

You also mentioned conscience, which is another comprehension of the brain. This isn't something just out there that tells us you're doing something good, bad, relevant or irrelevant. From your past experiences, up-bringing and life you develop morals and your own sense of justice that's imbedded in your personality.

What you need to understand is that the brain is a tool. Our eyes do not see but it is also another tool, what it does is relay an outlook to the brain which, in turn, we can understand visually. All of these are interconnected which help us to understand what our surrounding is and the reality that we can understand.

Neither YOU nor I can intelligently conclude what total reality is and I mean this is every scenario possible. We can go back and forth and we still wouldn’t get anywhere. What my only question was that if there is a possibility that the god that has been described to us is a subliminal, metaphorical description of the pinnacle of humanity. You took it literally.

You’re a genius, there’s no doubt in my mind, Painter. But it was pretty stupid to take a simple theory to this level. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

This post has been edited by MichaelMR: Dec 24 2006, 09:12 PM

[painter]

<s>
You’re a genius, there’s no doubt in my mind, Painter. But it was pretty stupid to take a simple theory to this level. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

[MichaelMR]

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Most likely..

Oh well, let's get loaded and sing Christmas carols. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) [xmass]

[painter]

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Most likely..

Oh well, let's get loaded and sing Christmas carols. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) [xmass]

Wish I could. Just had another serious bleed, here. First since Friday ER. Looks like I got it under control by myself though -- with a little help from the cocaine I ripped off from the ER. You can't get 'off' on it; it just constricts the capillaries in the lesions temporarily so I can get a clot going.

I'll take a picture and show you what my bathroom sink looks like.

Here ya go:

(IMG:http://www.offrampstudios.net/painter/BRS.jpg)

The doc said this would happen periodically for the next couple weeks. Can't wait for it to happen at work. Everyone is gona freak.

[tocarm]

Dear Painter,

Use simple CAYENNE PEPPER available from any grocery store in either powder form or in any liquid form - pour it on what's bleeding - and it will clot.

- tocarm

[painter]

Dear Painter,

Use simple CAYENNE PEPPER available from any grocery store in either powder form or in any liquid form - pour it on what's bleeding - and it will clot.

- tocarm

Thanks tocarm. A little skeptical of putting cayenne up my nose, though. That is where the abrasion is. Got hit in the face by the far end of a bungee chord that snapped loose.

The cocaine realy does the trick. Has made a believer out of me -- just to get this thread back in the direction of a topic related to this forum. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

[tocarm]

Dear MichaelMR...

Regarding all of us "being gods"...

To properly discuss those things dealing with religion, spirituality and our proper relationship to/with this "All" in which we all move, live and have our being, one simply MUST get his/her/their doctrinal theology correct!

The ontological fact of the matter is that, YES!, all of us human beings ARE created in the Image and Likeness of God. Now what does THAT mean? That we are in possession of 'The Divine Nature' which is the Personal Possession of God Himself?

No.

To understand "being created in His Image and Likeness", we must first grasp the doctrinal and theological assertions that God Himself is 1) Omniscient 2) Omnipresent and 3) Omnipotent.

Since the whole lot of us do not have an INFINITE nature (or 'Beinghood' if you prefer), the whole lot of us DO have a FINITE nature - meaning "limited in scope".

To have a "limited in scope" nature simply means none of us are 'OMNI' anything.

None of us are 'OMNIscient'. None of us are 'OMNIpresent'. And none of us are 'OMNIpotent.

But our FINITE 'created in His Image and Likeness' human spiritual nature DOES afford us a certain degree of 1) 'scient-ness', 'consciousness' or 'awareness 2) 'presence' somewhere or other within this 'All' of His Creating, and 3) 'potency', meaning we CAN employ our free wills to do just about anything our natures are capable of doing with its finite consciousness and presense.

"Who COERCED God in creating His Creation?" The answer to that is NO ONE. God created Creation via a pure Divine Act of His Divine Free Will. Hence, since we are created in His Image and Likeness - the whole lot of us human beings CAN likewise freely use our FREE WILLS to do pretty much just about any darn thing.

All of us employ/make manifest actions and activities of our own FREE WILLS based on 1) our Knowledge, Understanding, Wisdom & Courage - and all of either choose to do those things God desires us to do FREELY or we choose FREELY to do those things God forbids us to do.

In other words, we all utilize our FREE WILLS to either do what God wants done or what WE (individually as well as collectively as human beings) want to do.

If we want "Heaven on earth" - we all simply must do what God wants us to do here on earth. As Christ's prayer instruction has it "Thy Will be done ON EARTH as it is in Heaven".

Since so many people nowadays want to be "their own god/goddess", each and every last one of them doing their OWN wills instead of want our Creator God desires us to do with these FREE WILLS of ours - what we are confronted with is having to put up with, having to endure, having to suffer a "living hell on earth".

Make sense?

- tocarm

[painter]

Dear MichaelMR...

Regarding all of us "being gods"...

To properly discuss those things dealing with religion, spirituality and our proper relationship to/with this "All" in which we all move, live and have our being, one simply MUST get his/her/their doctrinal theology correct!

The ontological fact of the matter is that, YES!, all of us human beings ARE created in the Image and Likeness of God.<s>

But isn't what MichaelMR is saying just the opposite; that there is no "Creator God" -- that that personification is merely a projection outward onto some wished for divine entity of our own human natures? I admit I'm not quite sure what he's saying but I don't see him acknowledging the existence of any "Creator God" -- least of all one with "desires for us." I'm beyond skeptical of that one myself.

[tocarm]

Dear Painter,

Since it IS Christmas Day - the day set aside during the liturgical year of the various 'seasons' of the Church to celebrate the the Birth of Christ - what many people across the world ARE DOING (whether knowingly or unknowingly) by observing Christmas (The Mass of Christ Day) is making the public declaration or implied assertion of the Chrisitan Church's theological/doctrinal announcement:

"God Became Man" or "God Took On Our Human Nature"

To be sure, there are any number of people throughout the entire world who neither profess nor accept that God Himself took on our human (incarante) nature in the Person of Jesus, God's Own Christ to the entire world & its human race.

Christmas makes/professes/proclaims that the Unseen, Transcendent God decreed to take on our seen, finite human incarnate nature. Christmas is an over denial that any of us are 'gods'. Christmas is a denial that Divinity is somehow blatantly "Immanent" which simply means God, the Creator is "equal to" His Creation and His creatures.

Again, theologically speaking from the distinct Christian POV, while God is in fact Omnipresent, He is most assuredly TRANSCENDENT (above and beyond) His creation and creatures.

Many of the eastern religions - Hinduism, for example - believe in 'Immanance' since they adopt a 'non-duality' view of an individual vis-a-vis the creation, the 'All' in which he/she/they move, live and have their being. Following this sort of theological proposition on/about the Divine Nature of God Himself to its logical conclusion - one must eventually accept that he/she/they are "already part of God"...hence, that they already share in the 'Divine Nature' since God is "Immanent" and "part and parcel" of Creation.

Naturalistic religions ALL come to this point - believing that incarnante spirits are ALREADY 'Divine'. The glaring theological error made by these sorts of 'Immanance Based' cults, sects, religions, etc. is that their either make no effort to distinquish between that which is merely 'spiritual' and that which 'Divine'!!!

Anything 'spiritual' in their mindset/belief creeds is GRANTED the focused attention upon 'The Divine'. This is the very essense of 'gnostic' thought - that mankind (or for that matter 'created elemental spirits') CAN become 'God'.

All the occult, esoteric, gnostic, kabbalistic, hermetic, theosophical, masonic, rosicrucian "spiritualities" hold out creatures endowed with 'spirit' - i.e. incarnate spirits such as human being OR elemental spirits such as 'angels' or 'demons' CAN ATTAIN ONTO THE DIVINE NATURE by their own efforts.

A quick review of the two Genesis accounts reveals this notion, this 'desire', on the parts of either human beings (OR elemental spirits) to attain to the possesion of God's Own Divine Nature is the very essense of 'Original Sin'.

While God has revealed to us human being that it is His Divine Desire TO grant us the Divine Nature so as to possess 'Eternal Life' in/with/for Him, for His Good Pleasure and for our Eternal Benefit - God Himself has TO GRANT US that 'Act' of divinizing us in similar fashion as He granted us our incarnate natures by a simply Act of Creative Divine Will.

None of us can or are capable of 'endowing ourselves' with His Divine Nature as if we could somehow 'steal' Divine Life from God.

To theologically summarize therefore - God is Divine. God is Transcendent. We are all God's creatures. We are all utterly dependent upon God for our very existance as well as for our hope of having Eternal Life. Make sense?

- tocarm

[painter]

<s>
Make sense?

You're obviously very educated along theological lines. You have all the right words in the right order and have succinctly presented the immenense/transcendence dichotomy the way one based in the 'transcendent camp' would. It "makes sense" the way good paragraphs "makes sense."

If you're asking if I agree with your epistemology, I don't. I'm more in the "God is closer to you than your jugular vein" camp. Am I qualified to discuss this with you at your intellectual level? Obviously not. My knowledge of these things isn't derived solely from reading books -- although I have done far more of that in my lifetime than all my gene pool all the way back to Adam.

The most profound influences upon my understanding of these things has come directly, experientially, what you might call 'mystically' -- and only after-the-fact intellectually. I have experienced first hand the presence of the Divine and the remarkable thing about saying such a thing is that I know it can not be said without lying while simultaneously attempting to speak the truth. It did not happen long ago and far away; such things do not 'happen' in time at all; at least not the kind of time you and I experience here and now. Moreover to speak of a 'me' that experienced it which, although true on one level, is quite untrue on another. It was a Return of the Prodigal Son; it was a Return to a Home one can truly never leave; a Reconciliation of apparent dualities and a Revelation that no such dualities can ever, except apparently, exist.

But, of course, all that is just words creating a picture imaginatively within the mind. This 'picture' is not it. It was not a thought. It was not my imagination. It was not a vision -- or, at least, not only a vision. It was an experience more real than that of me sitting here typing this now. It left me shaken, prostrate and weeping for a full 24 hours. It was 'only a moment' and it was Eternal; it wasn't the first nor was it the last but the one to which I'm pointing was the most profound, full-on immersion in what I call "the Sacred."

Did it "change my life"? Yes and no. It didn't change it the way I thought it would. It didn't turn me into some kind of saint, that is for sure. Nor did it make me 'wise' or even 'smart'. I call myself an 'artist' -- and that gives me a lot of excuses for questionable behavior. Still, I look at the world a certain way and, occasionally, something comes through me into the work that arrests the attention of a few, becoming 'objects of contemplation' of a sort. Here is an example:

(IMG:http://www.rawpaint.com/ebos05/new05/penumbraweb.jpg)

So, yes, your words "make sense" so far as they go. However, I remain uncomfortable with the intrinsic dualism your exegesis seems to represent.