Eternal Conscious Torment

[The Tanager]

As of right now I would consider myself an Annihilationist in regards to my view of Hell. I'm not looking to try to push Annihilationism or get into a debate between the various views. I want to look more deeply into the issues around what Hell is with other minds and I would love to hear from those who believe in the eternal conscious torment view, to the various reasons you believe it makes sense within Christianity. I'm looking to challenge my view and I was hoping you all could help me out.

[William]

[Replying to post 159 by The Tanager]

What reasons can you give me that no matter how often that this might happen, the individual will always and forevermore opt for the choice of remaining in their hell?

True free will does not equate to forever making bad decisions.

The only reason I give is that it's a free will. I'm saying that, by definition, there is no guarantee that the individual will eventually choose to free themselves because of the anomaly. So, there is a possibility, in your view, of eternal suffering. To say this definitely will not happen (and that is what your view seems to require of you) negates free will by definition.

So, then you are faced with a GOD who knew this possibility of eternal suffering and (1) went ahead with it anyway or (2) did away with true free will to make sure eternal suffering would not result.

But you haven't as yet attempted to answer my question regarding your understanding of free will.

What you have done is suggest that there might be a situation no matter how bad where the individual suffering that situation would opt to choose to continue doing so....

...forever.

So it is one thing to have a theology which determines that the GOD would judge people to have to suffer forever in hell, thereby removing all free will in order for this to happen - based on the premise that 'they had ample opportunity to use their limited free will while briefly alive in this physical universe to make the choice not to go there', and another thing to have a theology which aligns with a far fairer system of reintegration, and then criticize that fairer option on the basis that - for reasons not given, an individual would opt to choose to remain forever in hell.

In relation to that, forever is eternal so time is irrelevant in regard to when an individual might decide enough is enough, which is fundamentally different from no longer having free will and having to suffer eternal hell without the option of reintegration.

It is interesting that you used the analogy of a brick wall to represent the wholeness of GOD. Is there a particular reason for doing so?

Not that I'm aware of. I'd be open to using a different one, it's just what popped in my head.

The subconscious is worth listening to. There are always reasons why we think things the way we each do.

What exactly was it about my own diagrams which propelled you to change the analogy to a brick wall?



I will expand on this image a little. It is a cross-section 2D representation of an idea and unlike the image of fractals {which I also used as a means of trying to express the concept involved within the creativity of the mind of GOD (First Source)}, it excludes any other universes which might be involved in the process from First Source wholeness into aspects of GOD within human form.

So I am simply using 3 domains as it were.

1: First Source Reality (GOD undivided)
2: The physical universe we are experiencing. (Aspect of GOD referred to as 'The Universal Entity' who's wholeness represents the entire universe, and is subsequently broken down into galaxies [Galactic Entities] )
3: Planet Earth - 'The Earth Entity' (Aspect of the Galactic Entity [Milky Way] who's wholeness is subsequently broken down into planetary systems)

and, in relation to the Earth Entity, us... aspects of the Earth Entity who's wholeness is subsequently broken down into biological life forms.

The pattern of the process doesn't change. It is a traced back to First Source Consciousness which uses this process as a means of imbuing Its consciousness into its creation and experiences Its creations through that process.

As I said, the diagram describes a cross section which means that First Source Reality encompasses the others like a sphere. Worlds within worlds.

On your view (analogically speaking, of course) am I actually a red brick or a blue brick right now? Not what will I eventually become, but what am I right now?

Given that you seem to believe that our consciousness is actually separate from GOD consciousness as in - it is a completely different created from something called 'nothing' which exists outside of GOD, I would say (given your brick wall analogy) you are a red brick who thinks it is a blue brick.

If I am red, then how can I think I am blue...

As I have explained - it is all in the way you choose to self identify.

I would believe something false and therefore, by definition, not be red.

If you believe that you are a separate consciousness, created separate from GOD consciousness, and self identify as such, and that is false, then you are a blue brick thinking it is a red brick.

But GOD does not see you this way. So what is likely more truthful...how you see yourself or how GOD sees you?

Just because you think of yourself as a blue brick does not mean that you are a blue brick.

If I am blue, then I am either separate from GOD (who is a wall made up of only red bricks) or GOD is not a wall made up of only red bricks and, therefore, GOD has some blue, some imperfection in GOD.

Getting back to free will then, you are choosing to see yourself as a blue brick, you are contributing to the (so called) imperfection of the wall, which is allowed to happen because GOD does not see Itself as imperfect or see you as a blue brick in reality. It is your illusion not GODs. If you changed the way you self identified, , that illusion would cease.

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying falsehoods may actually really be a perfection?

Do you think that your self identifying as being separate from GOD consciousness is perfection?

What I said was;

Our perceptions of what is perfect are likely presently imperfect.
Therefore bringing perfection into the argument isn't productive anyway.

Q: Do we know the Fullness/Wholeness of GOD as something we can experience in this universe as human beings?

A: No, we do not and we cannot.

Q: Does this mean that we are in an imperfect situation?

A: Yes - in relation to being able to experience the wholeness of GOD.

Q: Does this mean that we are imperfect?

A: No. We are perfect in relation to the situation we are within.

Q: Why then is evil in the world?

A: Because we believe we are separate from GOD-consciousness.

Q: Why do we believe this?

A: Because we have been taught to believe this and our situation makes this 'seem' obvious.

Q: How can we change this?

A: By changing the way we self identify and subsequently believe things to be.

etc...

You seem to be using 'real' in multiple ways. You think consciousness is actually experiencing an illusion right now (this is a real experience), but this experience will not last forever. What you seem to be saying is that the experience is real, but not everlasting. So, what does it mean to say the "illusion = not real"? It is a real experience, but it will eventually go away, right?

Yes. If you were to reread what I have shared you will see that this is what I have been saying all along.
The word 'illusion' is simply to distinguish between 'things' and GOD-Consciousness (First Source Reality)

We experience this universe as real. We call it a reality. Atheists call it reality in that there is nothing else which is real except the material universe.
Theists acknowledge the reality of the physical universe but also include GOD (various ideas of GOD) as the non material source of the material.
In that, GOD is the reason why things exist.

Any thing which is not eternal - in comparison to GOD the eternal, is 'not real' because it is not eternal.

So I use the word 'illusion' to underline the differences between the creator and the creation.

Thus, if one is to think of their self as being separate from GOD, by either following a belief in a theology which teaches that OR by believing GOD does not exist and self identify as a human being who's consciousness is emergent of the brain ...or was created from 'nothing' and placed into the human form...(explain the difference, because I see none in particular between those two positions)...

either way, one is self identifying with the creation rather than with the creator.

So the use of the word 'illusion' specifically denotes that position in relation to the idea that we are all aspects of GOD-consciousness and any belief in separation from that is 'illusion'.

Well, I don't think these are illusions. I don't believe (a) or (b) are true above. Are you asking if (b) above is true and there are these separate consciousnesses, then why would GOD place them into illusions and expect them to react truthfully? It doesn't make sense to me, and so, would be a reason to not believe (b).

Well I have elaborated on why I use the word 'illusion.'
Correct me of I am mistaken but you appear to be saying that if GOD is real then everything GOD creates (no matter how deep the process goes) is also real?

I can go along with that idea...

...So then, If GOD creates 'things' then those 'things' are real. However, GOD is not 'created' So the first thing to tick is that;

IF:

GOD is real

AND IF:

GOD is eternal;

THEN:
Everything GOD creates (things) also have to be eternal in order for them to be equally as real as GOD.

Since that is the case, then everything which is NOT eternal either wasn't created by GOD (which - as an idea - is what I would call a 'looped rabbit hole' as in, it goes nowhere but is deep enough to explore as a labyrinth with an 'in' but no 'out', and good luck with that)

Rather, if we now just focus on the human being, we see already that the form is NOT eternal. It has a use-by date and cannot be occupied forever.

So why did (or how could) GOD create the human form if it is real based on the assumption that all things real have to be eternal?

Therefore, it can be included that some real things are not eternal but are created by GOD for a purpose which is not eternal but designed to be temporary.
And this is where I use the word 'illusions' to denote the differences.

Therefore we might agree then that some real things are temporary and some real things are permanent.

We could also possibly agree that the permanent real things are more real than the temporary.

The point being, GOD-consciousness is not a 'thing' and in that - or related to that, even permanent things are different from GOD because they are things.

This swings back to the problem of annihilation. If the consciousness within human form is NOT eternal (GOD-Consciousness) then it is not real in relation to GOD being real.

This is the idea of your theology - that it is not permanent and therefore can be - well - sent back to this 'nothing' through what GOD created it from.

The idea is preferable to the idea that GOD creates human consciousness from 'nothing' and then - depending on whether that consciousness accepts or rejects this idea of GOD as true while experiencing being human, if they choose not to, then they get to suffer for eternity in a place called hell.

The whole idea of hell is repulsive to me, but I include it nonetheless because of data to do with it in relation to Astral experiences individuals have had and how it has been consistently observed and experienced as being something which allows impermanent creations to happen through the individuals belief systems when they experiences the Astral Realm.

So, then what about (a)? This seems to conflict with your view that GOD, as GOD (do you call that FSC?), is perfect and untouched.

(a) GOD itself becomes imperfect (with the ability to experience illusion)

GOD is perfect regardless of the situation.

Experiencing the illusion of impermanent things is not 'imperfection'.

Some of the impermanent things are proven to be 'not ideal' to the creative process - they tend towards destructiveness (which we might refer to as 'evil').

I expand on this idea in my members notes;

What I think about consciousness in relation to this reality.

No, I don't think our consciousness is an absence of anything. It's a real thing; not nothing.

But your theology states that a real thing came from something not real. (nothing is not real is it?)

I'm not sure what exactly you are asking, though. I am not saying that a thing (like ourselves) can come from nothing uncaused. There must be a cause. God is the cause that brings what didn't exist into existence.

My question to you in relation to this theology is to explain how GOD creates something from nothing - or why your theology even accepts that this 'nothing' exists.

My question was not asking you to explain the cause, but to explain how something can be created from nothing.

That doesn't mean we moved from one container (non-existence) to another, different container (existence). To not exist means there is no container. It's that we did not exist and now we do.

However, in light of the above, you will have to also explain what container GOD is within.

Why? Because you have stated that "To not exist means there is no container." so therefore, since GOD exists, GOD is contained in something. Please explain what that something is.

Because my theology says that GOD is no 'thing'(form).

You are saying that without a container (thing/form) one cannot exist.

How would that make our life an illusion? It is who we really are.

How do you know this? Isn't it rather that this is what you believe? This is what I mean by illusion. Believing our selves to being the human form - self identifying incorrectly. Believing our consciousness was created from nothing by GOD and is thus separate from GOD.

We are free to believe what we will, and anything after this which we will experience is more than likely going to have a great deal to do with what we believe now.

I'm not sure why you think "out of nothing" is the same thing as "not real."

I was relating that to the specific distinctions in our individual theologies. My theology sees 'nothing' as being 'not real as in, it does not exist, even as a potential.
It is literally, nothing, and thus does not exist, and thus cannot produce something - or cannot be used to produce something.

To be real is to actually exist.

True that. But using the analogy of a simulation experience, (remember I mentioned a roller-coaster?) It is not necessarily the experience which is real but that which is having the experience.

So what is REAL is that which is having the experience not necessarily that which is being experienced.

I'm saying we actually exist. We weren't real before being created, before we existed, but now we do exist/are real. So, you can be real and not have come out of nothing (i.e., you could have always existed) or you can be real and have come out of nothing. (i.e., you have not always existed, but do now).

And all my theology is doing is cutting out the unnecessary ideas in relation to that.
In other words:

A: So, you can be real and not have come out of nothing (i.e., you could have always existed)

Is... true and

B: or you can be real and have come out of nothing. (i.e., you have not always existed, but do now).

Is... explained as an illusion. Why? Because the universe we are experiencing had a beginning, and through the processes I have explained, we ended up within this universe to experience what it is like to have a beginning, and in order to achieve this we had to go through a process which gave us (as aspects of the eternal being (GOD) a means in which to experiencing having a beginning.

See? We do not have to include the notion/belief that we were created (made real) from nothing (which isn't even real). By including such a notion, we self identify as being separate from GOD in a way which is really irreconcilable.

Which in itself perpetuates notions of eternal hell and damnation as a natural consequence of such theology.

I'm not saying there is anything logically impossible about your view of sourced consciousness (in and of itself...I think contradictions come in what you do with that, but that is beside the point here). I was just wondering if you thought it was logically impossible for a consciousness to create another consciousness. I don't think it is. Do you?

No I don't. It is not logically impossible and my theology/cosmology etc explains how this is achieved. My point is rather, that the 'other' is derived from the same source and is not concidered 'other' in that sense. Much like you and I are 'other' to each other through the perception of our individual subjective experience here and now, but in relation to the EE, we are 'same' - in relation to FS, we are 'same'. There is no 'other' really. It is form (things) which allows for the opportunity to believe that perception and it is the perception which I am speaking of as 'illusion'.

However, as he reader should clearly be able to see in that, I do think it is logically impossible to create consciousness from nothing. That is the fundamental difference in our theologies.

What do you mean by "out of no consciousness"? You seem to be saying you need to already have something there in order to make it a consciousness? But then something is already there, so you aren't creating anything. Maybe you are changing some things around, but you aren't creating anything.

I think I have already clarified enough for you to have a better idea of what I mean. If not, please ask again.

It is clear in Genesis 2:7 that we are both physical and spiritual.

No it is not.

Spirit animates matter.

And we are spirit, not matter.

(See "how we self identify and how this affects our beliefs about our-self in relation to our environment and theologies etc." as per my theology.)

This verse is not talking about being made in the image of God. Being made in the image of God comes in Genesis 1:26-28. What does image of God mean, from the actual textual content? "Then God said, 'Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that..." So that, what? What does it mean to be in God's image? "so that they may rule..." Ruling as God rules requires having consciousness, rationality, goodness, but why does it require us to be the same consciousness of GOD? Why can't there be a separation and us still share some qualities.

Well...who are 'us' in that verse and more to the point, what in the physical universe can be shown to example how GOD 'rules' and then tell me about how the world would be if humans were to rule in the same manner.

Why share 'some' qualities' but not all? How are we supposed to know the mind of GOD if we are not an aspect of the mind of GOD? Why would it be supposed that a consciousness created out of nothing be expected to share even 'some' qualities of GOD?

By understanding that Consciousness begets consciousness through using its own consciousness rather than beveling GOD can use nothing to beget 'a type of sort of maybe similar' consciousness to GOD-Consciousness, we effectively cut out that unnecessary medium of explanation. Not only unnecessary but potentially a theology which can be misused.

(for more on that, see my members notes;)

Separating any idea of GOD from All other Consciousness.

The Dangers of Separating Human Consciousness From Any Idea of GOD

I quite agree, however, that if we truly and consistently saw ourselves and others as images of God, we would behave differently than we often do and this would create the world God wants.

So, all I can ask of you is to seriously consider the rationality of my theology in relation to us being actual aspects of GOD-consciousness rather than altogether separate.

Indeed, the notion is really only a slight tweak in degree of belief. Being out even a fraction may not seem important - any surveyor will tell you how important it is to be precise in ones measurements. A degree out has its unwanted and unnecessary consequences.

I agree. But Adam isn't just God's breath either. It's put in a body formed from the ground which was formed from nothing.

The ground (Earth/Galaxy/Universe)was not formed from 'nothing.'

Adam is breath and body; soul and matter.

So is "William' and 'The Tanager' etc, but we are not those beings. We are presently experiencing life as human beings, and impermanently.

Let me explain the analogy better. Using something like intellect may be confusing, so let's talk about beauty. Picture a beautiful and talented young woman artist that is about to paint a portrait. She is beautiful. The image she paints is beautiful. But they are two separate instances of beauty; they aren't the same beauty. Analogically, your view seems to be saying that for that painting to be beautiful, it actually has to be the same beauty the painter actually has.

I do not make distinctions/acts of judgment regarding what 'types' of beauty exist. beauty is beauty. That is how the eye of this beholder sees beauty.

But is your analogy what I am saying?

For example, the woman artist is real and the painting only real in that it is a painting of an image which (lets say she is doing a self portrait) is not real. It is a rendition.

If this analogy applies to what you are thinking in terms of 'being created in GODs image' and involves form (the human form) then that idea of GOD also has to have a human form.

In that, an aspect of who we are is the form, but only a rendition of the form of GOD.

So you have to allow in your theology that GOD has a form.

My theology says that GOD has no form. Thus, 'made in the image' is metaphor and is therefore referring to that which is not form. My theology says that that which has no form is Spirit/GOD-Consciousness.
Thus 'made in the image is metaphor for 'made of the same consciousness.'

As to the human form being made, this has more to do with function and purpose - created in the mindfulness and imagination of GOD (specifically the local GOD, EE).

[The Tanager]

In relation to that, forever is eternal so time is irrelevant in regard to when an individual might decide enough is enough, which is fundamentally different from no longer having free will and having to suffer eternal hell without the option of reintegration.

We seem to be talking past each other a little bit. This talk of when may help us to get on the same track. I am addressing (a) whether there will be a when or not, whenever that when occurs. And you seem to be asking me something like: (b) "why would that win not take place?" These are two different questions, the latter depending upon how we answer the former.

(a) So, let's look at the former at first. I am saying that free will REQUIRES the possibility that a when will never occur. If you believe in free will, you are logically required to believe that one's self-induced hell may go on forever.

But you think that there will be a when for everyone. If you believe in free will, you can't guarantee that. So, why think everyone will have their [iwhen[/i]?

(b) At the general level, the when may not take place because of logical necessity. That's just what free will means. It's like saying the reason why a square will never be round is because a square, by definition, has four angles.

But, you seem to be asking: if this happens, why would Person A specifically never have their when? What would have motivated them to exercise their free will always for self-induced illusion. I thought (a) was the important issue and how it plays out to be secondary, so I wasn't responding to that. Here, I would say you could probably place all sorts of possible explanations. Person A would never chooses to submit to another or is so self-centered that they don't even seriously consider the anomaly that is trying to help them see. They like the illusions of pleasure too much. I'm sure we could list many possible reasons.

But you haven't as yet attempted to answer my question regarding your understanding of free will.

If I didn't answer it, please remind me what it was.

So it is one thing to have a theology which determines that the GOD would judge people to have to suffer forever in hell, thereby removing all free will in order for this to happen - based on the premise that 'they had ample opportunity to use their limited free will while briefly alive in this physical universe to make the choice not to go there',

What do you mean by them having free will completely removed? How are they being turned into beings without free will? It was their choices that led them here. And, at least in Lewis' view of Hell, it is locked from the inside.

and another thing to have a theology which aligns with a far fairer system of reintegration, and then criticize that fairer option on the basis that - for reasons not given, an individual would opt to choose to remain forever in hell.

Sure, reintegration is (at least on the surface) fairer to the individual if they have the freedom to resist it and fairer to the community as a whole if the individual resisting it cannot cause harm to the rest of the community.

My criticism, however, is really your criticism. You said eternal suffering is a mark against a theory. In your view, eternal suffering is possible.

What exactly was it about my own diagrams which propelled you to change the analogy to a brick wall?

Because I didn't think it accounted for the ideas of a perfect GOD and imperfect individual aspects of GOD as clearly as different colors would. If the domains of our reality and our environment within our reality contain imperfections, then the First Source Reality (since it contains the other two domains) contains imperfections. But don't you think the First Source Reality is perfect?

Given that you seem to believe that our consciousness is actually separate from GOD consciousness as in - it is a completely different created from something called 'nothing' which exists outside of GOD, I would say (given your brick wall analogy) you are a red brick who thinks it is a blue brick.

But GOD does not see you this way. So what is likely more truthful...how you see yourself or how GOD sees you?

So, we have (me) that thinks it is a blue brick, when it is a actually a red brick and (GOD) that sees I am a red brick. But this is the same consciousness, not separate ones? That's the logical contradiction to me. How can the same consciousness think it is a red brick and think it is a blue brick?

Experiencing the illusion of impermanent things is not 'imperfection'.

Some of the impermanent things are proven to be 'not ideal' to the creative process - they tend towards destructiveness (which we might refer to as 'evil').

So, not knowing who you are isn't an imperfection?

Correct me of I am mistaken but you appear to be saying that if GOD is real then everything GOD creates (no matter how deep the process goes) is also real?

Real (as in actually exists), yes. Eternal, no. Those are different concepts.

IF:

GOD is real

AND IF:

GOD is eternal;

THEN:
Everything GOD creates (things) also have to be eternal in order for them to be equally as real as GOD.

Real just means existing. Things don't have to be eternal in order for them to be equally as existing as GOD. They don't exist in the same way but still exist. GOD is self-existent and without beginning or end (eternal). Creation is contingent and with a beginning and (possibly) without an end.

So why did (or how could) GOD create the human form if it is real based on the assumption that all things real have to be eternal?

I don't understand why you make that assumption. Real and eternal are two different concepts that aren't necessarily tied together. Real things can be eternal or temporary.

True that. But using the analogy of a simulation experience, (remember I mentioned a roller-coaster?) It is not necessarily the experience which is real but that which is having the experience.

So what is REAL is that which is having the experience not necessarily that which is being experienced.

I see that on your view. So, GOD, who is supposedly all-knowing and is the only thing that is 'real,' is having an experience where GOD doesn't know who GOD is.

[The Tanager]

Analysis of my view...

But your theology states that a real thing came from something not real. (nothing is not real is it?)

What do you mean by 'from'? Not in the sense of a statue coming from a block of marble. I believe something was not real (i.e., didn't exist) and then was real (i.e., existed). That change came as a result of something real (God).

My question to you in relation to this theology is to explain how GOD creates something from nothing - or why your theology even accepts that this 'nothing' exists.

My question was not asking you to explain the cause, but to explain how something can be created from nothing.

Nothing is not a thing that exists, so I don't accept that this 'nothing' exists. Nothing is the absence of things. Creation ex nihilo is talking about the cause of a thing that begins to exist.

However, in light of the above, you will have to also explain what container GOD is within.

Why? Because you have stated that "To not exist means there is no container." so therefore, since GOD exists, GOD is contained in something. Please explain what that something is.

Because my theology says that GOD is no 'thing'(form).

You are saying that without a container (thing/form) one cannot exist.

I was using it in a metaphorical sense. (If I meant it literally, you'd still be making the formal fallacy called 'denying the antecedent,' but that is beside the point). Replace things with marbles. The marbles that exist, you can put in a jar. The marbles that don't exist can't be put into anything, because there is nothing to put in any container. There isn't a container that holds non-existent marbles.

I was relating that to the specific distinctions in our individual theologies. My theology sees 'nothing' as being 'not real as in, it does not exist, even as a potential.
It is literally, nothing, and thus does not exist, and thus cannot produce something - or cannot be used to produce something.

I don't think nothing produces something (God produces creation). And God isn't using 'nothing' to produce creation. God makes it start to exist. It wasn't waiting around for God to start creating it.

The whole idea of hell is repulsive to me, but I include it nonetheless because of data to do with it in relation to Astral experiences individuals have had and how it has been consistently observed and experienced as being something which allows impermanent creations to happen through the individuals belief systems when they experiences the Astral Realm.

Hell doesn't delight me either. I include it because I believe in free will.

How do you know this [that us being created out of nothing isn't an illusion]? Isn't it rather that this is what you believe? This is what I mean by illusion. Believing our selves to being the human form - self identifying incorrectly. Believing our consciousness was created from nothing by GOD and is thus separate from GOD.

And is that any different than what you've been sharing? We each are sharing what we believe is the case. Neither of us can prove with 100% certainty. We are both offering reasons for why we believe what we do.

[The Tanager]

Genesis on creation:

No it is not.

Genesis 2:7 reads "Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground"...physical, matter..."and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life"...spiritual, soul..."and the man became a living being" which is still matter AND soul.

What is the dust of the ground, in your interpretation of this verse? It doesn't say the individual breath/spirit starts to experience an illusion. It says a human is made of matter and soul breathed into it by God.

Well...who are 'us' in that verse and more to the point, what in the physical universe can be shown to example how GOD 'rules' and then tell me about how the world would be if humans were to rule in the same manner.

The us is, culturally, probably a plural of majesty. It would fit with Trinitarian theology. What is 'us' in your interpretation, if there is only One?

But, more to the point, nothing actually rules as God would. That tells us that we are separate from God. We don't always act rationally and out of goodness. We act selfishly.

Why share 'some' qualities' but not all? How are we supposed to know the mind of GOD if we are not an aspect of the mind of GOD? Why would it be supposed that a consciousness created out of nothing be expected to share even 'some' qualities of GOD?

Because if we shared everything the same, there would be no difference. There couldn't be a thing that is omniscient and part of it be unknowing.

So, all I can ask of you is to seriously consider the rationality of my theology in relation to us being actual aspects of GOD-consciousness rather than altogether separate.

I am. Rationally, it seems to me that if we are not separate from God, who is all-knowing and perfect, than we would have to be all-knowing and perfect and we wouldn't be messing this world up like we are.

The ground (Earth/Galaxy/Universe)was not formed from 'nothing.'

How do you interpret Genesis 1:1, then? What is the "beginning"?

If this analogy applies to what you are thinking in terms of 'being created in GODs image' and involves form (the human form) then that idea of GOD also has to have a human form.

Analogies are used to make a specific point. The point I was making was that being made in the image of something else does not mean we are the same thing. I can share a quality with a computer (the ability to compute) without it being the same thing. The computer can compute and I not be computing. The artist can give the quality of beauty, out of her own beauty, to the painting, but it's a separate beauty. If the painting is destroyed, she still has the beauty within her. If she dies, the painting still has beauty. I'm wondering why this doesn't hold for consciousness.

This doesn't mean I'm committing myself to believing our relationship to God is everything a painting's relationship to the artist is or my relationship to a computer I program.

[William]

[Replying to post 163 by The Tanager]

Genesis 2:7 reads "Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground"...physical, matter..."and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life"...spiritual, soul..."and the man became a living being" which is still matter AND soul.

What is the dust of the ground, in your interpretation of this verse? It doesn't say the individual breath/spirit starts to experience an illusion.

As can be seen, the way I interpret the story is quite acceptable in relation to the verse quoted.

I use the word FORM and the story uses the word MAN.
The dust of the ground is metaphorical for 'the material of the planet' from which the form evolved.
The pertinent thing is that the form of the (hu)man was lifeless.

The story uses 'breath of the GOD' and I use 'GOD-consciousness.'

The story does not specifically name the GOD except by title. The LORD. I use the title Earth Entity.

The story does not detail the creation of the forms of the planet. The theory of evolution does.

The story is metaphorical.

My point throughout has been to promote the idea that when one self identifies as the FORM, one is under an illusion.

It says a human is made of matter and soul breathed into it by God.

And I say that the container is not who we are. We are in essence the LIFE within the form. It is that LIFE which makes the matter living.

The us is, culturally, probably a plural of majesty. It would fit with Trinitarian theology. What is 'us' in your interpretation, if there is only One?

I draw your attention to the process I have been writing about. Inclusive of First Source, the aspects of FSC are the 'us' spoken of. Universal Entity, Galactic Entity, Earth Entity (which for arguments sake can include the whole Solar System - the earth being the position in which the creation of biological life takes place) The aspects - specifically the localized ones, are the 'us' being referred to.

But, more to the point, nothing actually rules as God would. That tells us that we are separate from God. We don't always act rationally and out of goodness. We act selfishly.

You said;

Ruling as God rules requires having consciousness, rationality, goodness,

I asked;
"what in the physical universe can be shown to example how GOD 'rules'"

Your reply above seems to say that we MUST be separate from GOD consciousness because;

nothing actually rules as God would.

Assuming that there is no system of government on the planet ruling as GOD would, how does this equate with 'we must all be separate consciousnesses from GOD-consciousness", in light of what I have been sharing?

If there truly is no example of how GOD rules, then how is it possible to know, and why would there be consequences for not knowing when we should know, which was the basis of your argument in the first place when you claimed that one lifetime should be enough to make the choice and there is no 'excuse'?

My theology says that we do know, but that we are under an illusion of being separate from GOD and thus, that knowledge, due to the way we are taught to self identify as being separate from GOD.

Why share 'some' qualities' but not all? How are we supposed to know the mind of GOD if we are not an aspect of the mind of GOD? Why would it be supposed that a consciousness created out of nothing be expected to share even 'some' qualities of GOD?

Because if we shared everything the same, there would be no difference.

My point is that it is not consciousness which is different any more that a drop of water is different from a lake of water.
A drop of water taken from a lake and placed into a container, is in a different position, but is still the same substance.
If the water represents GOD-Consciousness, it is GOD Consciousness experiencing being within an individual container (the human form) rather than the lake (The Earth Entity...etc)
Self identifying with the container - as being the container - suppresses the knowledge of GOD.

There couldn't be a thing that is omniscient and part of it be unknowing.

GOD is not a 'thing' GOD can still be omniscient while aspects of it are not. Being 'unknowing' is caused through the creation of things and placing aspects of GOD-consciousness into those things...and when those things give one the impression of having a beginning, then what is happening is that one is blocked off from the knowledge of prior existence.

One is a clean slate aspect of GOD-consciousness but not separate...except in their beliefs that they are. Individuals can activate those source codes in order to reconnect with the Wholeness of GOD in a meaningful manner but they have to do so by dumping how they have learned to self identify. The must be 'born again' in 'spirit and in truth.'

Rationally, it seems to me that if we are not separate from God, who is all-knowing and perfect, than we would have to be all-knowing and perfect and we wouldn't be messing this world up like we are.

We don't have to be 'all knowing and perfect' we just have to self identify correctly.

The planet can handle being 'messed up' The universe is perfect for this type of reintegration and so too is the next phase of our ongoing existence and journey into reintegration.

The ground (Earth/Galaxy/Universe)was not formed from 'nothing.'

How do you interpret Genesis 1:1, then? What is the "beginning"?

The beginning of this physical universe. Why do you interpret that the physical universe came from nothing? How can anything which exists, come from nothing which exists?

I have shared in more detail my theology that everything exists within 'the mind of GOD' and this is why it can be experienced as real.
Only consciousness can experience anything real or not. We are aspects of GOD consciousness exploring and experiencing its own MIND.

Every aspect of GOD-consciousness in turn, has its own 'mind' as par for the course - a natural pattern, no matter how infinitesimal the form becomes in relation to aspects of First Source Consciousness occupying and experiencing them.

Analogies are used to make a specific point. The point I was making was that being made in the image of something else does not mean we are the same thing. I can share a quality with a computer (the ability to compute) without it being the same thing. The computer can compute and I not be computing. The artist can give the quality of beauty, out of her own beauty, to the painting, but it's a separate beauty. If the painting is destroyed, she still has the beauty within her. If she dies, the painting still has beauty. I'm wondering why this doesn't hold for consciousness.

Consciousness neither dies or is form. A computer, a beautiful woman, a painting - all are perishable - non permanent things.

The form may have been made from perishable materials, but the consciousness is eternal. The image of GOD is not 'FORM'. It is essence.

This doesn't mean I'm committing myself to believing our relationship to God is everything a painting's relationship to the artist is or my relationship to a computer I program.

No. It means that you have been doing so as per having learned to do so. Self identifying with the object rather than the subject. That relationship to that idea of GOD has been specific to you believing you are separate from GOD, rather than reintegrating with GOD through simply changing your perceptions in order to do so.

Becoming ONE with GOD is not to become GOD, but to acknowledge you have only ever been separate from GOD through the illusion of self identifying with the form and - of course - believing that GOD created a separate consciousness from nothing (which doesn't actually exist) and that no existing place is where you derive from.

The breath of GOD is of GOD, not separate from GOD, nor something made from nothing.

As I said, it only requires a tweak in ones belief systems in order to realign.

[William]

[Replying to post 161 by The Tanager]

We seem to be talking past each other a little bit.

This has to do with the theologies presented. You are arguing from the position of your theology and I am arguing from the position of mine.

The basic difference in these is;

Your theology believes that GOD created human consciousness and indeed, this whole universe , from a non existent place.
My theology says that everything derives from GOD/ First Source Consciousness.

This talk of when may help us to get on the same track.

Hopefully.

I am addressing (a) whether there will be a when or not, whenever that when occurs.

In relation to eternity, 'when' is always a potential. 'Never' is not.

I am saying that free will REQUIRES the possibility that a when will never occur.

Only in relation to impermanence. In relation to eternity, 'when' is always a potential.

If you believe in free will, you are logically required to believe that one's self-induced hell may go on forever.

In relation to free will within eternity, I am required to understand that since there is an option, the potential for the individual to choose the option is part of the equation. The option is as eternal.

But you think that there will be a when for everyone. If you believe in free will, you can't guarantee that. So, why think everyone will have their [iwhen[/i]?

Because forever is eternal and the potential for them to choose is always available.

(b) At the general level, the when may not take place because of logical necessity.

Give an example of a "logical necessity".
Does the logical necessity occur because there is no free will involved?

That's just what free will means. It's like saying the reason why a square will never be round is because a square, by definition, has four angles.

What does this analogy have to do with free will? Rather it is saying that if a square had the will to become a circle, it cannot become a circle because its will is not free in that sense that it has no choice but to remain a square because it cannot become a circle no matter how much it wills to do so.

That drifts far and wide from my argument.

But, you seem to be asking: if this happens, why would Person A specifically never have their when? What would have motivated them to exercise their free will always for self-induced illusion.

That is what I am asking.

As long as they have the option then 'when' remains as potential and free will is not interfered with. Take away 'when' then potential ceases and free will is no longer theirs to use.

I thought (a) was the important issue and how it plays out to be secondary, so I wasn't responding to that.

(a) assumes that no matter that the option is always available, the individual will never choose the option. (REQUIRES the possibility that a when will never occur. ) If the assumption is that the individual might never choose the option then one has veered away from the fact of the environment of eternity in order to reach that conclusion.

Never implies that there is a time where the option is withdrawn. That there is no option available.

But you think that there will be a when for everyone. If you believe in free will, you can't guarantee that. So, why think everyone will have their when?

Because not to is to imply that an aspect of GOD consciousness is stuck in an eternity of pain and torment and tortured by demonic beings and given the option will always choose to remain in that situation.
Does that sound sensible to you? Does that sound like anything GOD would choose to endure forever, with Its free will?

If not, then why suppose that an aspect of GOD-consciousness would so choose?

This is primarily where our two theologies talk past each other. When you think GOD created a totally separate consciousness from Its own, out of nothing, you can then presume that the consciousness could conceivably use its free will to always choose to remain in a bad situation - forever.

What do you mean by them having free will completely removed?

Like forever having to be a square when one could transform into a circle through choosing to do so.

How are they being turned into beings without free will?

By having the option removed.

It was their choices that led them here.

To a place where they then have no choice but to stay. All this theology says is that humans have limited free will while on earth and in that they are required to make a choice, and if they do not use their free will to choose that particular idea of GOD, then their free will is taken away from them and they are forever locked in hell, regardless of whether they want to be there or not.

As I have said, it is a juvenile belief system which is unjust.

And, at least in Lewis' view of Hell, it is locked from the inside.

Which is synonymous with what I am saying regarding option. (free will remains) The key is in the lock.

My criticism, however, is really your criticism. You said eternal suffering is a mark against a theory. In your view, eternal suffering is possible.

No. In my view it is non permanent, because the option always remains. In my view it is more likely that eventually any individual in such a position will choose to remove themselves from it, through the act of free will.

Because I didn't think it accounted for the ideas of a perfect GOD and imperfect individual aspects of GOD as clearly as different colors would. If the domains of our reality and our environment within our reality contain imperfections, then the First Source Reality (since it contains the other two domains) contains imperfections. But don't you think the First Source Reality is perfect?

I think perhaps you are conflating realities with conscious experience of those realities.

The realities are separate things. FSR encompasses all other realities.

Arguing 'perfection' regarding this is bound to be wrought with misperception.

It is better to assume that - for arguments sake - FSR is perfect in its wholeness, and that all other realities which it encompasses are separate from FSR but are still perfect for their job. They are not imperfections.

FSC (First Source Consciousness) creates different realities (universes/realms etc) but in that would only experience these realities objectively.
in order for FSC to experience the realities subjectively - well I have explained the process involved with that.

Are we to assume (based upon our likely misperception of perfection) that FSC acts imperfectly if it experiences Its creations subjectively?

I think that this misperception is the basis of all organised religious doctrines which insist on GOD consciousness being separate from all other consciousnesses.

So, we have (me) that thinks it is a blue brick, when it is a actually a red brick and (GOD) that sees I am a red brick. But this is the same consciousness, not separate ones? That's the logical contradiction to me. How can the same consciousness think it is a red brick and think it is a blue brick?

All aspects of FSC, including us individual units of consciousness have been GIFTED with our experience through that process. We have been given the same thing as what GOD is. The experience of being an individual. The ability to say "I AM".

FSC has found a way in which to do this. To create 'other' from 'One' so that 'other' can experience the Joy of being - even through something which First Source never ever experienced.

Through having a beginning.

So we know through this experience that having a beginning necessitates having to develop from that point and learn what "I AM" signifies - rather than always knowing that as with First Source.

Thus, we - within the structure of free will and the human instrument - are able to self identify as we please.

Is this GIFT imperfect?

There is no logical contradiction in relation to the process which gave the opportunity. You will always see a logical contradiction while you self identify as NOT being an aspect of GOD consciousness. There is no way around that, except to accept.

So, not knowing who you are isn't an imperfection?

No. Because it is not permanent. It is great if one can gain that knowledge through acceptance while experiencing the physical universe. But there are contingencies in place as a matter of natural necessity, in the next phase of the reintegration process.

I see that on your view. So, GOD, who is supposedly all-knowing and is the only thing that is 'real,' is having an experience where GOD doesn't know who GOD is.

No. That is not what I have been saying. I will tweak that for you.

GOD-consciousness, who is all-knowing and is in all essence that which is 'real', is having subjective experiences within impermanent environments where those aspects of GOD-Consciousness don't know who GOD is, but are still able to access and obtain that knowledge.

[The Tanager]

As can be seen, the way I interpret the story is quite acceptable in relation to the verse quoted.

I use the word FORM and the story uses the word MAN.
The dust of the ground is metaphorical for 'the material of the planet' from which the form evolved.
The pertinent thing is that the form of the (hu)man was lifeless.

The story uses 'breath of the GOD' and I use 'GOD-consciousness.'

The story does not specifically name the GOD except by title. The LORD. I use the title Earth Entity.

The story does not detail the creation of the forms of the planet. The theory of evolution does.

The story is metaphorical.

You seemed to talk about this verse being a clue to your interpretation over against other interpretations. This type of approach doesn't make it a clue. You've already got the answer you want and are trying to fit the Bible to your text, not vice versa. You can do that if you want, but let's be plain about what we are doing. This doesn't mean your theology is wrong, of course. But there is nothing in the Biblical text itself that points directly towards your particular interpretation. That is my point. You can make it fit by plugging in the ideas you want, but the ideas you are plugging in come from your theology, not from the text itself.

Interpreting it the way you are, you could substitute just about anything and claim Genesis' creation account was as equally as metaphorical of that. This kind of metaphorical reading makes it too easy to justify just about any interpretation you would want to put in the text, making the text worthless.

Assuming that there is no system of government on the planet ruling as GOD would, how does this equate with 'we must all be separate consciousnesses from GOD-consciousness", in light of what I have been sharing?

The problem I see is really what I've been talking about with analogies like the brick wall. You talk of GOD being water and us being a drop of that water and this being the same consciousness. From GOD's perspective, GOD knows there are illusions, aspects that are unknowing, does evil, etc. Yet GOD knows they are all GOD, who is omniscient and all-good. These sound like different waters. Seemingly from GOD's own perspective and knowing (since GOD knows they are illusions), not just from ours.

If there truly is no example of how GOD rules, then how is it possible to know, and why would there be consequences for not knowing when we should know, which was the basis of your argument in the first place when you claimed that one lifetime should be enough to make the choice and there is no 'excuse'?

I didn't say there wasn't any example. I was talking about us humans not getting it right. I think God gives us an example of how He rules in the Bible and in the Life of Jesus Christ and in the moral law He placed within us.

Because not to is to imply that an aspect of GOD consciousness is stuck in an eternity of pain and torment and tortured by demonic beings and given the option will always choose to remain in that situation.
Does that sound sensible to you? Does that sound like anything GOD would choose to endure forever, with Its free will?

Which means the aspects of GOD don't really have free will. GOD without things is the one with free will and determines that the aspects will choose to escape the illusions eventually.

Which is synonymous with what I am saying regarding option. (free will remains) The key is in the lock.

That's my point. You seemed to fault Lewis' version of hell (a sub branch of eternal torment), but don't fault your own.

There is no logical contradiction in relation to the process which gave the opportunity. You will always see a logical contradiction while you self identify as NOT being an aspect of GOD consciousness. There is no way around that, except to accept.

So, I see a logical contradiction but GOD doesn't see a logical contradiction. Yet I am really the same "one" reality, which is GOD. So, the same consciousness sees a logical contradiction and doesn't see a logical contradiction. That's a logical contradiction.

No. That is not what I have been saying. I will tweak that for you.

GOD-consciousness, who is all-knowing and is in all essence that which is 'real', is having subjective experiences within impermanent environments where those aspects of GOD-Consciousness don't know who GOD is, but are still able to access and obtain that knowledge.

There is only one 'it' in your view, right. So, you've still got to tweak this. GOD-consciousness (the only 'it') is having experiences where 'it' (broken into distinct aspects, but still truly 'it') doesn't know who 'it' is. That's more accurate because it's all one consciousness, all one 'it.'

[William]

[Replying to post 166 by The Tanager]

Interpreting it the way you are, you could substitute just about anything and claim Genesis' creation account was as equally as metaphorical of that. This kind of metaphorical reading makes it too easy to justify just about any interpretation you would want to put in the text, making the text worthless.

Well, since you claim that, please give a number of different examples of how this idea of GOD breathing life into the nonliving form, can be interpreted.

I noticed too that you preferred to ignore my interconnected remarks about being 'born again' and 'that which is spirit', which also supports the theology that we are all of GOD-consciousness.


From previous posts in this thread;

If there truly is no example of how GOD rules, then how is it possible to know, and why would there be consequences for not knowing when we should know, which was the basis of your argument in the first place when you claimed that one lifetime should be enough to make the choice and there is no 'excuse'?

Being made in the image of God comes in Genesis 1:26-28. What does image of God mean, from the actual textual content? "Then God said, 'Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that..." So that, what? What does it mean to be in God's image? "so that they may rule..." Ruling as God rules requires having consciousness, rationality, goodness, but why does it require us to be the same consciousness of GOD? Why can't there be a separation and us still share some qualities.

Why can't there be no separation and not share all of the qualities? I have been explaining 'why', but my point here is that if it is good for the goose of your theology then it is equally good for the gander of mine. Right?

I quite agree, however, that if we truly and consistently saw ourselves and others as images of God, we would behave differently than we often do and this would create the world God wants.

That which is flesh is flesh. Being 'born again' means realigning your image of self indentity to accommodate the truth.
Generally the world consistently sees each other as 'that which is flesh'. Incidentally, the world is troubled.

If there truly is no example of how GOD rules, then how is it possible to know, and why would there be consequences for not knowing when we should know, which was the basis of your argument in the first place when you claimed that one lifetime should be enough to make the choice and there is no 'excuse'?

I didn't say there wasn't any example.

Nor did I say that you said that. I asked for an example. I said that 'IF there was truly no example..."

I was talking about us humans not getting it right. I think God gives us an example of how He rules in the Bible...

So you believe that the bible contains the only example of 'how GOD rules'?

Generally the bible seems to show that GOD rules through worldly systems of authority where human beings in powerful positions are the mediums.

The bible has some interesting data within it, but for me, it is not 'The Word of GOD' as many believe it to be. You would have to believe it is, if you were to take that position of argument.

My own thoughts on this claim are also in my Members Notes;

Is The Bible Really The Word Of GOD?

...and in the Life of Jesus Christ and in the moral law He placed within us.

Please explain this 'moral law' and why it you think it was not in human beings until Jesus 'placed it within us' and also when exactly do you think this happened.
Also, do you have any other examples as to how - in the nature of the universe, one can clearly see 'how GOD rules?'

Which means the aspects of GOD don't really have free will. GOD without things is the one with free will and determines that the aspects will choose to escape the illusions eventually.

Which explains adequately that GOD used Its free will to accomplish this, knowing that those aspects of Itself would not be lost to the full knowledge of Itself, eventually.

You are also inferring that it is acceptable for any being to create conscious beings out of a supposed 'nothing' give them a taste of an imperfect experience of life and then, if they don't exhibit perfection, they are either reverted back to 'nothing' (in relation to annihilation) or they are sent to hell for eternity with no possible hope of leaving. Where in either of those two options is free will engaged? Why is it acceptable for you to believe this while arguing that the theology I am writing of denies free will? (even that it actually doesn't, as i have pointed out.)

That's my point. You seemed to fault Lewis' version of hell (a sub branch of eternal torment), but don't fault your own.

In what way have I 'seemed to fault Lewis' version of hell '? I don't even know his version of hell, but apparently you must have mentioned it some time back in this thread. Perhaps you can point me to that post so I can see what it is you are speaking about.

Mean time, your last post was the first time I became aware of any 'lock on the inside' but as can be seen, I didn't see any difference in the metaphor of that idea in relation to my own. One doesn't need to be there and can choose to 'unlock the door' and leave.

So, I see a logical contradiction but GOD doesn't see a logical contradiction.

Correct. Is that so hard to believe? Your seeing a logical contradiction is based upon your belief and subsequent self identity as being separate from GOD.

Yet I am really the same "one" reality, which is GOD.

But you do not believe that, do you?

So, the same consciousness sees a logical contradiction and doesn't see a logical contradiction. That's a logical contradiction.

But you do not believe you are the same consciousness. You believe you are a different consciousness. One created from 'nothing'.

I have maintained the same argument that the problem is in how you (most) choose to believe/see things.

You are under the impression that IF you truly were an aspect of GOD consciousness, THEN you should see things the way GOD does.

However, you cannot seem to see that you have been TAUGHT to see yourself as separate from GOD consciousness, and in that - you have allowed the subsequent thoughts which manifest with this belief, to keep you in that position.

IF you changed your self identification from being separate to being the same, the logical contradiction would begin to be seen as no contradiction at all.

THEN you would eventually see no logical contradiction, as GOD see's no logical contradiction.

No. That is not what I have been saying. I will tweak that for you.

GOD-consciousness, who is all-knowing and is in all essence that which is 'real', is having subjective experiences within impermanent environments where those aspects of GOD-Consciousness don't know who GOD is, but are still able to access and obtain that knowledge.

There is only one 'it' in your view, right.

First Source Consciousness in First Source Reality.

So, you've still got to tweak this. GOD-consciousness (the only 'it') is having experiences where 'it' (broken into distinct aspects, but still truly 'it') doesn't know who 'it' is. That's more accurate because it's all one consciousness, all one 'it.'

As I have continuously been pointing out, the aspects come about through things, which also have aspects. The universe is one thing, but within this, there are multitude aspects to it.

I have also written that the universe itself cannot contain all of GOD-Consciousness, but only an aspect of it. Human forms, even more so. The processes involved in aspects of GOD-Consciousness being able to incarnate human form require a stepping down approach. In terms of timespace, billions of years.

I have also written that things act as barriers to the full knowledge of GOD, as well as beliefs do.

You have decided for some reason not to include what I have written in order to make you 'tweak' above. In that, you are not representing correctly, what I have been sharing .

The main thrust of the theology I am espousing is that GOD can be whole AND separate (experience a sense of separation) within Its creations simultaneously.

We have the GIFT of the process. (Please re-read what I wrote about GIFT in my last post.)

You are allowed to self identify as you will. You are allowed to believe what you have been taught, as you so choose.

In that, if you choose not to think yourself an aspect of GOD consciousness, this does not mean you are not an aspect of GOD consciousness. GOD is still right there in every detail of your experience, knowing you more than you know yourself. Knowing you beyond your own choice to self identify as 'other than' GOD consciousness.

Nothing of you is hidden from GOD. How does GOD achieve this? Because GOD is intimately conencted to ALL of Its asepcts of consciousness, regardless of whether those aspects know it, or not.

GOD is not absent.

GOD is no thing, not 'nothing'.

You believe something called 'nothing' in which GOD created matter and consciousness from, independent of Itself. Like the wizard/magician conjuring up something out supposedly - 'nothing'.



The mind of GOD contains everything, and in that, 'nothing' simple does not, and can not exist.

You seem to believe otherwise.

Explain to me an example of 'nothing'. Where in this universe is there 'nothing'?

[The Tanager]

(1) An analysis of your view:

You have decided for some reason not to include what I have written in order to make you 'tweak' above. In that, you are not representing correctly, what I have been sharing.

I'm not ignoring it. You gave your view about aspects, things, process, etc. And my critique came out of how it seems to me that you are holding incongruent beliefs. I know you think they fit together and think that your posts show them fitting together. I said why I don't think they logically fit together. Repeating your view about aspects, things, processes, etc. won't change my mind. You've got to directly engage what is wrong about my critique.

The main thrust of the theology I am espousing is that GOD can be whole AND separate (experience a sense of separation) within Its creations simultaneously.

But that is logically contradictory. Something cannot be both whole and non-whole at the same time. It violates the law of non-contradiction. How is this not a logical contradiction?

The way you seemed to me to try to get around this was to say that it's not truly contradictory; it only appears contradictory from my perspective and that if I only had GOD's perspective I'd see GOD is only whole. If so, then you are saying GOD isn't separate at all, which contradicts with what you say about aspects of GOD like you and me.

I'm saying (in your view) from GOD's perspective, (a) GOD is whole and (also from GOD's perspective) (b) certain aspects-of-GOD experience the illusion of separation (but will eventually come to their senses). From GOD's perspective something is both whole and non-whole at the same time. This is a contradiction. It either is whole or non-whole. It can't be both from the same perspective.

I have maintained the same argument that the problem is in how you (most) choose to believe/see things.

You are under the impression that IF you truly were an aspect of GOD consciousness, THEN you should see things the way GOD does.

Exactly. How I choose to see things. While, at the very same time, GOD sees things differently. That means I'm not the same consciousness as GOD, because the same consciousness sees things in one unified way.

As I have continuously been pointing out, the aspects come about through things, which also have aspects. The universe is one thing, but within this, there are multitude aspects to it.

But is it truly a distinct thing/entity/'it' from GOD? If not, then the one IT is having experiences where IT doesn't know who IT is. If the answer to the question is yes, then you are admitting they are separate ITs.


(2) On your view of free will:

Which explains adequately that GOD used Its free will to accomplish this, knowing that those aspects of Itself would not be lost to the full knowledge of Itself, eventually.

Yes, but I thought you were saying the aspects of GOD-consciousness had free will. I was arguing that they can't in your view without contradicting this belief of yours above. So, you think we (the aspects of GOD-consciousness) don't have free will, right?

In what way have I 'seemed to fault Lewis' version of hell '? I don't even know his version of hell, but apparently you must have mentioned it some time back in this thread. Perhaps you can point me to that post so I can see what it is you are speaking about.

His possible view (at least in The Great Divorce) is of eternal separation from God where people are basically 'torturing' themselves because they are so focused on themselves that they live in isolation, loneliness, emptiness, etc. You don't think a good God would allow such a thing to continue for eternity.

If you still want to maintain that we aspects-of-GOD have free will, then your view allows for the same thing. Hell would be potentially eternal. Your theology can't allow even for the potentiality of such an actual state of affairs. So you say that GOD's free will will trump the aspects-of-GOD's will, which really just means they don't have free will. We are determined to return to GOD, not by our choice, but by GOD's choice.


(3) On Biblical interpretation:

Well, since you claim that, please give a number of different examples of how this idea of GOD breathing life into the nonliving form, can be interpreted.

Many latter-day saints seem to interpret the verse as speaking to God putting premortal spirit children into mortal bodies. One could interpret it as an origin story of function. Humans materially existed, separate from God, and then God comes and breathes purpose into them. One could interpret humankind being formed of the dust of the ground as metaphorical that humans are not eternal at all. The breath will remain only as long as the body remains and then the breath will be gone. There is no mention of the breath returning to God in the text. I'm sure people could (and have) come up with others.

It can affect other verses we haven't looked at. Eve's creation from Adam's side was maybe just a vision showed to Adam to convince him that Eve, already present, was to be his equal and perfect companion.

I noticed too that you preferred to ignore my interconnected remarks about being 'born again' and 'that which is spirit', which also supports the theology that we are all of GOD-consciousness.

I'm sorry I didn't directly address that. It seems to me to be more of the same as you do with interpreting Genesis 2:7. The Biblical words don't seem to directly speak of being born again as having the illusion of separateness dumped or activating source codes to reconnect with the wholeness of GOD.

John 3 is talking about changing our perspective on reality, yes, but that is believed by multiple theologies not just yours. And Jesus goes on directly from here to talk to Nicodemus about Jesus' coming death which is what will bring eternal life, the kingdom of God.

The bible has some interesting data within it, but for me, it is not 'The Word of GOD' as many believe it to be. You would have to believe it is, if you were to take that position of argument.

Of course. And it was clear you don't. That's my whole point about you using your text (not necessarily another written text, but your theology as a whole) to re-interpret Biblical passages in ways the Biblical passages don't present themselves as meaning.


(4) Analysis of my view:

So you believe that the bible contains the only example of 'how GOD rules'?

No, I also included the person of Jesus and the moral law. I don't think there are any other clear examples of how God rules. Other texts and people may have bits and pieces, but no clear, justified example. I don't just assume that, however, but reason to it in various ways that would need to be specified in light of any specific counter-examples.

Please explain this 'moral law' and why it you think it was not in human beings until Jesus 'placed it within us' and also when exactly do you think this happened.

Sorry, I didn't mean that Jesus placed it in us, but God did at creation. This moral law would be the common moral sense (it used to be called the Law of Human Nature), the common moral principles.

You are also inferring that it is acceptable for any being to create conscious beings out of a supposed 'nothing' give them a taste of an imperfect experience of life and then, if they don't exhibit perfection, they are either reverted back to 'nothing' (in relation to annihilation) or they are sent to hell for eternity with no possible hope of leaving. Where in either of those two options is free will engaged? Why is it acceptable for you to believe this while arguing that the theology I am writing of denies free will? (even that it actually doesn't, as i have pointed out.)

That's not my view. I think God made us where we could have perfectly experienced life. But we chose not to. This created the imperfection in our experience of life. Our free will choice, not GOD's free will choice (as in your view), led to imperfection. But God doesn't give up on us. God already gave us the moral law within to convict us of our imperfection (if it came) and show that we need God and were made to live life in concert with God. God incarnates to restore that broken relationship and make us new so that we can live life in the perfect experience. And we have the free will (our free will choice, not GOD's) to be caught up in that life or not.

You believe something called 'nothing' in which GOD created matter and consciousness from, independent of Itself. Like the wizard/magician conjuring up something out supposedly - 'nothing'

The mind of GOD contains everything, and in that, 'nothing' simple does not, and can not exist.

You seem to believe otherwise.

Explain to me an example of 'nothing'. Where in this universe is there 'nothing'?

You are treating 'nothing' as some thing existing independent of God. That's not how I view it. Nothing isn't a thing that exists. You can't point to it because it's not an it. It is the absence of 'it'. And then, in a sense, yes, God conjures something up that didn't exist before like a magician. What's the logical problem with that? 'Nothing' is a negative concept; it doesn't have positive content. 'Nothing' is absence. There was a state of affairs that included nothing except God. Then there was a state of affairs that included God and separate beings because of God, not because of 'nothing'.

[William]

[Replying to post 168 by The Tanager]



When I read your reply I thought to myself, "this person is saying pretty much the same as I am, but because his belief in GOD-consciousness being separate from all other consciousness, he expresses his argument as if we are speaking of different things."

Your addition in arguing perfection, free will and logic from the limited human perspective - while interesting - are not following what I have already written about regarding the theology I support as being the most likely truth.

I said why I don't think they logically fit together. Repeating your view about aspects, things, processes, etc. won't change my mind. You've got to directly engage what is wrong about my critique.

Well I am not engaging with you in order that through this exchange you might 'change your mind.' There is a whole ongoing process set up for that called 'afterlife'.

The main thrust of the theology I am espousing is that GOD can be whole AND separate (experience a sense of separation) within Its creations simultaneously.

But that is logically contradictory. Something cannot be both whole and non-whole at the same time. It violates the law of non-contradiction. How is this not a logical contradiction?

[center]PART ONE.[/center]

In relation to your own theology regarding something being created from nothing, how can you state one as a 'logical contradiction' while supporting the other, which is really the logical contradiction?

The way you seemed to me to try to get around this was to say that it's not truly contradictory; it only appears contradictory from my perspective and that if I only had GOD's perspective I'd see GOD is only whole.

But it isn't what I have been saying. You won't somehow have 'GODs perspective' simply by learning to understand you are an aspect of GOD-Consciousness rather a consciousness created from GOD through an independent (from GOD) source which doesn't exist as anything but can nonetheless be used to create something.

What a change of personal perspective [re self identity] allows for is the potential for one to begin to understand GODs perspective and in that, understanding of all things being of GOD, and all consciousness being of GOD, the perception of separation diminishes accordingly.

Each individual who would do this is one less individual who does not, thus contributes to the wholeness reintegration.

One can deny ones relationship with GOD in this regard, as a child might with a parent, but the parent (in this case) will always see the child as an aspect of itself which will not be forced to change its mind if it does not want to.

From GOD's perspective something is both whole and non-whole at the same time. This is a contradiction. It either is whole or non-whole. It can't be both from the same perspective.

The difference being that you see no potential while GOD sees otherwise. You understand the perspective of non potential because it is available under the assumption that we are created from nothing. We are not related to GOD consciousness whatsoever. We were created in order to see if we would be able to accept a certain idea of GOD which is consciously separate from ourselves, rather than intimately connected.

Those who don't 'pass' the test (have no potential) are either annihilated, or sent to an existence of hell and torment forever. (losing whatever limited free will they had, in the process).
I have already said that the idea of this type of reasoning is juvenile, and haven't yet seen you disagree with my analysis.

You are under the impression that IF you truly were an aspect of GOD consciousness, THEN you should see things the way GOD does.

Exactly. How I choose to see things.

I have said nothing different.

While, at the very same time, GOD sees things differently.

Which is also what I have been saying.

I'm not the same consciousness as GOD, because the same consciousness sees things in one unified way.

Whereas you choose to see things in opposition to the point of view of GOD-consciousness, thus proving to your positional logic, that you MUST therefore be a separate consciousness from GOD consciousness, which GOD created from nothing.

However, there is no thing at all preventing you from seeing differently if you were to use the same power of choice to understand yourself as being an aspect of GOD consciousness. If you were to choose to see it that way, then you would be able to - at some point from that - understand and say "I am an aspect of GOD consciousness and understand that there is no real separation, as I once thought there was, due to my former beliefs."

As a person believes, so the person is - in their own beliefs.

As I have continuously been pointing out, the aspects come about through things, which also have aspects. The universe is one thing, but within this, there are multitude aspects to it.

But is it truly a distinct thing/entity/'it' from GOD?

[Are the creations in your mind truly distinct from you?]

The Universal Entity is a unique individual consciousness having a specific experience as the universe. How it sees itself determines whether it believes it is a distinct entity from First Source.
That is one part of it. The other is that it can see itself both as a unique individual entity AND an aspect of First Source Consciousness (GOD Consciousness.)
In that it can self identify as being an aspect of GOD consciousness having the experience of being this physical universe, as a unique Entity.

The same applies to Galactic Entities. These are having unique experiences as different Galaxies but are still aspects of the Universal Entity. They are both unique individuals unto themselves, AND aspects of a unique individual who is the Universal Entity, who Itself is an aspect of another unique Entity - First Source.

The same applies to the Solar Entity. It is a unique Entity having an experience as a Solar System, within one unique Galaxy System. It is both a unique Entity unto itself and an aspect of the Galactic Entity.

The same applies to the Earth Entity. It is both a unique Entity unto Itself, and an aspect of the Solar System Entity.

The same goes for individual human beings. We are all unique Entities and aspects of the Earth Entity.

Each Entity is experiencing Its own unique subjective experience, and the data of experience is transmitted through the same constant - GOD Consciousness.

All the data of experience of biological life forms on this planet imbued with consciousness is transmitted to the Earth Entity and is regarded as part of the totality of Its subjective experience as a unique individual being.

All the data of experience of our Solar System Entity is transmitted to the Galactic Entity as part of the totality of Its subjective experience as a unique individual being. Other data from other Systems within the Galaxy are the other sources of that data of experience.
All the data of experience of these Systems imbued with consciousness is transmitted to the Galactic Entity and is regarded as part of the totality of Its subjective experience as an unique individual being.

All the data of experience from every Galactic Entity is transmitted to the Universal Entity as part of the totality of Its subjective experience as a unique individual being.

All the data of experience of the Universal Entity is transmitted to the overarching reality outside of this universe - and this pattern of data of experience transference is an unbroken chain of aspects of GOD consciousness all the way to First Source Reality, and is regarded as part of the totality of Its subjective experience as a unique individual being.

But is it truly a distinct thing/entity/'it' from GOD?

Each are distinct and all are representative of GOD consciousness (First Source) which is the only attribute which allows anything to be experienced. Thus, from the subjective point of view of First Source, they are all distinctly aspects of Itself, and not separate.

This is why I used the metaphor of the universe as being both One thing, while obviously having the appearance of being many separate things.

We would be remiss to regard the universe as being separate from the Earth. The Earth has, is and will continue to be for a long time, a unique individual aspect of the Galaxy, but even so, never separate.

Earth has not ever been separate from the heavens. It is much 'in the heavens' as everything else which is in this Universe.

[center]PART TWO[/center]

Exactly. How I choose to see things. While, at the very same time, GOD sees things differently. That means I'm not the same consciousness as GOD, because the same consciousness sees things in one unified way.

Now that I have covered how GOD is able to see things both as We unique entities do AND as It as a unique Entity does, it is time to engage your statement above as you were meaning it to be.

You are saying that IF you are truly an aspect of GOD consciousness, you SHOULD see thing as unified rather than separate, as a matter of consistency of logic.

Why is it that it is not the case?

I have explained one reason. You chose not to, but you could just as easily choose to.

However, you might argue that if it were the case, you (and all of us) should just naturally live within the truth of that knowingly and there should be no reason to have to choose - one should just be born with that understanding and express ourselves accordingly.

Since we do not, the obvious assumption to make is that we are NOT aspects of GOD consciousness. But rather (as your argument goes) we HAVE to have been created from nothing and in that, are NOT aspects of GOD consciousness, but are separate from having anything at all to do with GOD consciousness.

Unless of course we had a prior experience and different existence to our present one.

As an example, member ttruscott't own theology also believes we were created from nothing but includes a prior existence we experienced before this one, and in that say's we made the choice then to rebel against the idea of GOD consciousness we were exposed to, and opted to think- not only were we not created by this particular idea of GOD, but that we purposefully chose not to want anything to do with it.

This in turn lead to the physical universe being created as a final means of sorting out the true rebels from the simple followers, as it were.

In light of the theology ttruscott follows, at least more time [prior] has been given in which to 'make the choice' but ultimately, by all accounts, the GOD already knows what choice each will make and this is specifically why the physical universe was created.
Eventually though - the idea of hell as an eternal separation from GOD Consciousness is inclusive of this theology.

So whereas most Christian sectored theologies might believe that one individual lifetime is enough 'time' in which to make the choice, ttruscott's theology allows for a great deal more time, but effectively one human life time (with prior memory suppressed) is the endgame of that extended time period of supposed 'grace' and is apparently based on the conditions of the physical universe as the final part of that process.

Even so, there is no answer to the question "if we - as conscious beings are aspects of GOD consciousness, how then do we not always know this to be the case and thus never have to move away from that default setting?"

My understanding is that as First Source Consciousness created different universes to explore within its mind, in doing so, some of those universes effectively acted as things which helped to hide the the full knowledge of our true selves from those aspects of GOD consciousness experiencing such universes and in that, they became 'lost' in the disconnect and had to create reasons as to why they existed, and different paths were created to explore those reasons - metaphorically - in pattern to the paths of the fractal process.



Our physical universe - the one we presently find ourselves within, is one such result of this quest to know the answers we are looking for in our journey from 'lost' to 'found.'

However, we are not completely utterly lost. We still retain the ability to work things out and reconnect with the truth regarding our self. The 'Source Codes' are behind the makeup of who are taught to think we are and can be activated through the individual willfully believing so.

[Source Codes are like unto "you shall know the truth...and the truth will set you free, etc"]

(2) On your view of free will:

Yes, but I thought you were saying the aspects of GOD-consciousness had free will. I was arguing that they can't in your view without contradicting this belief of yours above. So, you think we (the aspects of GOD-consciousness) don't have free will, right?

You brought the notion of free will into the argument. If you go back and re read what I did say about free will you will notice that I understand this as not being something absolute, but - depending on ones situation, is limited in relation to that situation.

So I think that we do have limited free will. In relation to your argument that an individual might choose to endure hellish torment forever, the notion is absurd, because it is still based on your understanding of who GOD is, as a separate entity and in that the individual will continue to rebel against THAT notion.

The idea of GOD which I present is not something which I can imagine anyone would reject forever, because what is been rejected? The idea that the individual is an aspect of GOD -consciousness who has been lost to that understanding but is given opportunity to regain it? What is there to rebel in that?

For example, what about the idea compels YOU to make the decision to continually resist accepting of, forever? Perhaps if you were to answer that question, I might understand better your argument.

In what way have I 'seemed to fault Lewis' version of hell '? I don't even know his version of hell, but apparently you must have mentioned it some time back in this thread. Perhaps you can point me to that post so I can see what it is you are speaking about.

His possible view (at least in The Great Divorce) is of eternal separation from God where people are basically 'torturing' themselves because they are so focused on themselves that they live in isolation, loneliness, emptiness, etc. You don't think a good God would allow such a thing to continue for eternity.

Which idea of GOD was Lewis in support of? Is it the one in which he believes that he is a separate consciousness from GOD consciousness and was created from nothing?

Do you really think that an individual who is;
...'torturing' themselves because they are so focused on themselves, living in isolation, loneliness, emptiness, etc would reject the information that the idea of GOD they had been lead to believe (and subsequently rejected) was a misrepresentation of GOD in the first place and then having access to the data that they are not separate from GOD Consciousness or being punished in some way with having to put up with their own company, and that they didn't need to be in that place they were in,
...would choose to reject that idea as well?

Why would anyone in such a position do that?

If you still want to maintain that we aspects-of-GOD have free will, then your view allows for the same thing. Hell would be potentially eternal. Your theology can't allow even for the potentiality of such an actual state of affairs. So you say that GOD's free will will trump the aspects-of-GOD's will, which really just means they don't have free will. We are determined to return to GOD, not by our choice, but by GOD's choice.

The notion of hell being eternal was never a part of any of my theology. You brought it into the discussion and I went along with it as a matter of curiosity, to see what you were getting at and where it might lead.

If you were to go back to say...post # 115 and read through what I have been saying, you will note that I have never said in any of my posts that I believed that hell was an eternal place where individuals stay forever.

In relation to your question in that post;

Why must there be sign of real growth?

My whole interaction with you on this has been about a third option, rather than just the two which you have your focus upon.

1: Annihilation of the individual.
2: Eternal Conscious Torment.

My answer to your question was this;

Because growth is the nature of learning, developing, setting aside juvenile concepts and accompanying behaviors, etc.
This based upon my own understanding that we - as consciousness - GOD consciousness - in form, having an experience in this universe, cannot be annihilated in some other reality (afterlife) and our experience in this current universe (and perhaps even prior to this) has acted like a veil over our awareness as to our true nature, in this regard.

I go on to explain further;

Annihilation of the veil, sure. Annihilation of GOD- consciousness is impossible. By 'GOD consciousness' I am not referring to being conscious of some idea or another of GOD, but along the lines of the analogy of Genesis where the GOD breathes [His] life into the form. We are literally GOD in the form of human beings.

So the third option I introduced is based upon this idea, that we are all aspects of GOD consciousness, and as such, simply cannot be annihilated.

We can be reasoned with, learn new things, understand our selves in this new light and grow with that knowledge.

Your thinking that anyone who has access to this knowledge would choose to remain in
an Eternal Conscious Torment forever rather than accept that knowledge, is illogical reasoning as far as I can see, and you haven't really provided any reasonable argument as for why this would happen.

Even so, for argument sake I will go along with your thinking on this and take it at face value.

To me, what you are describing is an individual who simply doesn't like being alive, and this is the core problem.

Since the individual is a product of both GOD-Consciousness and data of experience, which of the two do you suppose would be able to be annihilated?

So, in humoring your argument from your position of belief that human consciousness was created from nothing and is separate from GOD consciousness, which produce options 1 & 2, I would think it reasonable that after a long period of time and effort it becomes apparent that the individual has no interest in being alive - in existing, their data of experience [DoE] is deleted (the GIFT is taken from them - remember what I said related to GIFT?) and what remains is GOD - Consciousness without the DoE and that is naturally reintegrated into the wholeness of First Source Consciousness, like the drop of water is placed back into the lake.

However, as I have said, I do not think such a thing would be the case if the individual is allowed the opportunity to reintegrate of their own accord after been shown the data and accompanying explanations, and allowed ample time in which to reintegrate. It is still a far more mature option than 1 & 2, don't you think?

They have basically used their free will to say "I do not like existing" after being fully informed.

(3) On Biblical interpretation:

Your comments regarding this only serve to show that the bible is able to be interpreted in many number of ways, and in that, my own interpretations are not exempt, or somehow inappropriate.
Indeed, if you were willing to understand that we are all aspects of GOD consciousness, you would find reading the bible in that light is a good 'wheat from chaff' sorter.

So you believe that the bible contains the only example of 'how GOD rules'?

No, I also included the person of Jesus and the moral law. I don't think there are any other clear examples of how God rules. Other texts and people may have bits and pieces, but no clear, justified example. I don't just assume that, however, but reason to it in various ways that would need to be specified in light of any specific counter-examples.

The examples I asked for had to do with being "how GOD rules" being seen within the physical universe.

The bible can be seen as existing in this universe, but as I said, the examples related to GOD ruling, are clearly mostly done through mediums such as political authorities, organised religious institution, doctrine and dogma, priests and prophets.

Jesus clearly is not to be seen in this universe as an example of GOD ruling, other than within the above examples - where his name is used as an authority for such religious and political structures, or - in the case of the JWs, - he is secretly the hidden head of a 'spiritual government' already involved (since 1917 if I remember correctly) in ruling humanity - but even so, this cannot be said to be an example which can be shown.

That said, I do not recall any words which are attributed to Jesus in relation to how GOD is seen to rule in this universe.

It seems to me that you are saying that GOD is seen to rule in this universe through the medium of Jesus, yet Jesus is not seen to rule in this universe, specifically on this planet.

Sorry, I didn't mean that Jesus placed it in us, but God did at creation. This moral law would be the common moral sense (it used to be called the Law of Human Nature), the common moral principles.

But does this not also have to fall under your 'logical contradiction' argument?
IF it is in us, why is it the world has problems?

For example, why do people have different interpretations as to what 'common moral principles' are?

That's not my view. I think God made us where we could have perfectly experienced life. But we chose not to.

I was born in 1962, in a world full of problems which hardly aligns with your belief we were 'made' and placed in a situation where we can have a perfect experience of life, but chose not to.

Unless you are saying that life can be imperfect but we can chose to respond to it perfectly. Is that what you are saying?

This created the imperfection in our experience of life. Our free will choice, not GOD's free will choice (as in your view), led to imperfection.

Well as any atheist can argue, if free will can lead to us making imperfect choices, then it is not a perfect thing to be having in the first place. We were essentially created from nothing, given an imperfect thing called free will, and placed into an imperfect environment, by an idea of a GOD who is supposed to be perfect.

When humans separate GOD consciousness from their own, they inevitably create theologies which attempt to make GOD perfect while that which GOD creates is imperfect. This is contrary logic. It is also juvenile. It is also part of why the world has problems.

But God doesn't give up on us. God already gave us the moral law within to convict us of our imperfection (if it came) and show that we need God and were made to live life in concert with God.

GOD doesn't give up on us. This is because GOD sees us as aspects of Itself. There is all the time in eternity in which to bring us back - individual by individual - into the full knowledge of GOD.

God incarnates to restore that broken relationship and make us new so that we can live life in the perfect experience.

The 'broken relationship' has to do with the idea that we are separate from GOD consciousness. Restoration has to do with the individual understanding that the are NOT separated from GOD consciousness.

And we have the free will (our free will choice, not GOD's) to be caught up in that life or not.

I think if you were to view what Jesus was attributed as saying while thinking that you are an aspect of GOD consciousness rather than separate, you would not be able to see in that, anything where Jesus say's differently - specifically to that subject.

But of course, part of your belief system is that this is one life on this planet is the only opportunity the individual will have to make the connection. After that. "Sorry - too late. No excuse. Hell or [perhaps] annihilation."

So - on that point, where is Jesus attributed with saying annihilation was an option?

You are treating 'nothing' as some thing existing independent of God. That's not how I view it. Nothing isn't a thing that exists. You can't point to it because it's not an it. It is the absence of 'it'. And then, in a sense, yes, God conjures something up that didn't exist before like a magician. What's the logical problem with that? 'Nothing' is a negative concept; it doesn't have positive content. 'Nothing' is absence. There was a state of affairs that included nothing except God. Then there was a state of affairs that included God and separate beings because of God, not because of 'nothing'.

The theology above is unnecessary and also involves the problematic. If 'nothing' is absence then the absence is in GOD, as GOD hasn't yet created anything which doesn't exist (thus it is still absent) BUT when GOD does create something in is "In GOD." not something somehow outside of GOD (separate from GOD).

Which is precisely what the theology I am speaking of is pointing at.

You said;

"You are treating 'nothing' as some thing existing independent of God."

In relation to my questioning your theology that our consciousness is separate from GOD consciousness.

But it is YOUR theology which is treating 'nothing' as some thing existing independent of God." as it is YOUR theology which is claiming that GOD created our consciousness independent of Its own.

All I have been doing is trying to point that out to you. You cannot have it both ways. Either there is some place outside of/ independent of GOD in which GOD can use in order to create consciousnesses specifically NOT as aspects of Itself, OR such theology has to be upgraded in order to align with the idea that there is no thing independent of GOD, or separate from GOD.

Like I said, it only requires a small tweak, but a significant one at that.