4 ms·
God answered this already. "So others can know me" Knowing and being known by God is life changing.
by pizzafeelsright 3y ago
God answered this already.
"So others can know me"
Knowing and being known by God is life changing.
- tomrod 3y agoDidn't realize "god" was purely ego.
- throwawaaarrgh 3y agoYep; We are God. It says so in the bible: he's made in our image. (some dumb copy editor just mixed up the order a couple thousand years ago and they've been misprinting since)
- tomrod 3y agoA non-traditional blasphemy I can get behind! We are god and are in constant effort to create it where it lacks. Or better expressed: we are the universe experiencing itself.
- oh_sigh 3y agoSeems a bit egotistical
- ARandomerDude 3y agoDoes it? If you were omniscient and knew definitively that you were goodness itself, wouldn’t it be loving to share yourself with others?
- oh_sigh 3y agoNot really sure how "goodness itself" can exist when only one thing exists in the universe?
- keepamovin 3y agoIn truth a being like that would probably be beyond ego. It’s just a human projection onto them to make it easy for us to talk about that we think in those terms. so in a sense it’s us being egotistical by projecting our perspective onto God to talk about It, and by assuming that God has ego. I think in a sense, God is beyond all our concepts of morality and everything, so They are unknowable unfathomable. The great mystery. Man In Sky could be read as the ultimate human ego trip, and we keep repeating it with anthropocentric distortions about UFOs and so on. This is just one perspective. The concept in reality it’s probably so big that it’s going to be impossible for us humans to agree, natural for there to be disagreements and, even when there’s apparent disagreements, still contained within the totality of whatever it is that God is. In fact, I think it's even egotistical of us to believe that we can think our way through the concept of God, that we can even talk about it. In a sense, I think there's validity to the approach of some traditions that say that God can't even be talked about, can't even be named. A stance that reflects the required humility. Again, this is just another perspective of an infinite concept. I'm not saying I'm right about this. I'm just theorizing and speaking from my experience and ideas. Of course, there will be disagreements. And I think it's natural for there to be. What's unnatural and stupid, I think, is to persecute each other over any disagreements that we have of a concept that is seemingly so large as it could contain all these things without contradiction. So, please be kind to each other in your talks about God.
- ryanklee 3y agoYeah, well he did a shitty job of accomplishing his goal, then.
- mistermann 3y agoMaybe it's a team effort - even instant ramen requires some effort from the end user.
- ryanklee 3y agoYeah, blame the user.
- mistermann 3y agoI am simply making an observation about the nature of causality, don't blame me for what you overlay upon it.
- ryanklee 3y agoNot blaming you. Pointing out it's dubious to say God's not responsible for his own failures.
- mistermann 3y agoBut here you're declaring yourself to being correct rather than wondering if you are. Faith comes in many forms, because it is fundamental to consciousness and culture.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ryanklee 3y agoIt's not clear what assertions you are referring to.