Didn't God have Oneness "In the Beginning"?

[Tom]

There was a time before time when all was undifferentiated vastness without so much as a single photon of light to streak across a sky that had yet to be born. You could say that there was just plain nothing, but the stories say an all-powerful and all-knowing and completely loving God existed. God did not reside in the Void because that would be separation. God was the Void. God had complete and perfect Oneness and God - being perfect - could not be improved upon. Actually, my question is this - why couldn't He have kept His mouth shut?

[Timotheus]

:D

[CFTraveler]

Maybe it wasn't about expression- it was about 'being'. Maybe God wanted to be, and to be, expression had to happen. But then that would imply wanting, and wanting is a boo-boo word.
So I don't know, either. Except that here we are.

[VioletImagery]

'In the beginning' implies time is a force outside of God, but I think time and our corresponding linear way of thinking is a consequence of our particular brand of physical existence, for nothing can be outside of God, in my interpretation. There is no beginning and no end. Or, equally, you could say that it is always the beginning and the end.

[wstein]

And the undifferentiated oneness has not changed. You can visit it. I can't say its very scenic 'cause there is nothing to perceive other than a profound experience of sameness.

Your observation of something else is one of the greatest mysteries there is. This paradox haunts me every day :(

[VioletImagery]

And the undifferentiated oneness has not changed. You can visit it. I can't say its very scenic 'cause there is nothing to perceive other than a profound experience of sameness.

Your observation of something else is one of the greatest mysteries there is. This paradox haunts me every day :(

Your post echoes my thoughts exactly. There is no way to tell the difference between infinite void and endless sameness. If all around you it is nothing but pitch-dark or pure white light or endless purple haze or you are blind and can't actually see at all, it makes no difference if that is all you have known. The only way to perceive anything is to have something else with which to compare. So, God makes stuff in order to experience itself, is my (not really original) take on it.

[Beekeeper]

Violet Imagery beat me to it. Beginning and end are time concepts and in all likelihood only unique to some realities.

If God is consciousness then, presumably, God didn't need loneliness to motivate creation (though, it may have been the motivation, who knows?) Consciousness expresses itself: it creates. If we attribute motivation, we're probably creating the Infinite in our own image. Our own image, however, is an expression of the Infinite but one limited to our time, place, species, dimension, etc.

[ButterflyWoman]

And the undifferentiated oneness has not changed. You can visit it. I can't say its very scenic 'cause there is nothing to perceive other than a profound experience of sameness.
Yes, I've been there. Only once, but that was actually pretty much enough. The sensation of the experience was extremely vivid, and I can recall it instantly. That's how deep of an impression it made.

And yes, it's very strange that there is nothing to perceive. There's just... nothing. There's the potential for everything, but there is nothing. No emotion, no thought, no time, no space, nothing to see, just nada.

Oh, and as for "in the beginning", I don't think there actually is a "beginning", other than a beginning of time and space. Creation stories are stories of, well, creation, that is, the material world, including time and space. There is nothing "before" that because there is no "before" or "after" or "during" when there is no time or space....

[Timotheus]

:D

[CFTraveler]

CFT,

why is it taboo to 'want'?-
It is not taboo to want, it is wrong IMO to attribute 'want' to God Undifferentiated, because God knows no lack.
We want because that is what we do when we can perceive separation- we perceive 'want' and then we 'get'. That's part of God manifest, a.k.a. 'The Multiverse'.
No accusers, except my own sense of what's true.
Regards,
C.

[Timotheus]

:D

[Jaco]

God had complete and perfect Oneness and God - being perfect - could not be improved upon. Actually, my question is this - why couldn't He have kept His mouth shut?
Maybe because it wasn't (and maybe still isn't) perfect and it could (and maybe still does) improve itself. :?

[CFTraveler]

God had complete and perfect Oneness and God - being perfect - could not be improved upon. Actually, my question is this - why couldn't He have kept His mouth shut?
Maybe because it wasn't (and maybe still isn't) perfect and it could (and maybe still does) improve itself. :? I guess we all don't define God the same way.

[Jaco]

I guess we all don't define God the same way.
Given the number of different religions and belief systems and the variety of "viewpoints" within specific religions and belief systems, yeah, there are different definitions of god. :wink:

[Tom]

I'm only just getting started. I had to pause, though, and ask why it is that God seemed to have exactly what modern spirituality seems to be striving for - and God shatters it into so many pieces?

[ButterflyWoman]

I just read this, and thought of this thread:


We are consciousness becoming conscious of itself, the Self experiencing the Self, the Divine forgetting who it is so that it can awaken to the incredible joy of remembering who it is, more and more and more.

In case anyone is interested, I read that here: http://www.youaretrulyloved.com/enlight ... -a-school/ (http://www.youaretrulyloved.com/enlightenment/life-is-not-a-school/)

[Beekeeper]

God wanted more since God knew that growth would be infinite.

[Jaco]

I'm only just getting started. I had to pause, though, and ask why it is that God seemed to have exactly what modern spirituality seems to be striving for

If you assume that god is a perfect onennes and everythingness, then it would include everything what modern spirituality seeks, everything what the other spiritualities seek and have sought, and everthing else the any kind of spirituality is not seeking, and everything else that is not spirituality.
So whatever you are looking for you will find it, since god is everything.

But if god is not everything, then either "he" has the properties the modern spirituality attributes to "him" and the modern spirituality has finally known the true nature of god, or “he” has not the attributes the modern spirituality gives him, and the spirituality's view is flawed in some way.
But the main question here is what do you mean by modern spirituality: what properties do you think the god has, and why do you think it has those specific properties?


and God shatters it into so many pieces?

I am sorry, I do not understand what do you mean by that. Could you please explain what exactly do you mean? What is shattered?

:)

[Tom]

Whether you call it "separation" or "duality" it is generally regarded as bad. Or the Taoist thing, the One became Two and the Two became Ten-Thousand. Now all us tiny little pieces are trying to regain the lost Oneness.

[Timotheus]

:D

[VioletImagery]

Duality in itself can't be 'bad' or 'good'—those are dualistic concepts and cannot describe the whole. Things just ARE. To see from a dualistic perspective is not wrong, it is a way of setting limits in order to perceive things. If you want to measure anything, you need to define a reference, a zero--where things split into positive and negative. Humans, it seems, get tired of see-sawing back and forth on the balance of opposites after a while, and want to remember what it's like to perceive the undifferentiated whole. I suppose it would be like always looking at the world through only one eye at a time and forgetting how to see any other way. Everything you see is flat and things shift a little way to the left or a little way to the right, depending on which eye you look through. Transcending the dualistic perspective would be like remembering how to open both eyes at once. What you are looking at hasn't changed at all (and neither have you), but instead of perceiving flat images that shift back and forth, you see them both at once and integrate them to 'create' this 'new' quality of "depth."

This is just how I understand it intellectually. I have not had the sort of experience of oneness that spiritual masters describe so I could be way off base with my analogy. I am currently reading Be As You Are by Sri Ramana Maharishi to understand more. http://enlightenedawareness.wetpaint.com/page/Be+As+You+Are+-+Sri+Ramana+Maharishi

[Tom]

I think everyone is jumping ahead of me. I really am just asking (1) Did God have the Oneness that everyone seems to be seeking now? and (2) Was there really a good reason why God chose to create this instead?

[ButterflyWoman]

Did God have the Oneness that everyone seems to be seeking now?
No. Because where there are not many (or at least more than one), there cannot be Oneness. There cannot be unity where there is no division.


Was there really a good reason why God chose to create this instead?
Probably, but maybe it was just to alleviate God's boredom. I cannot claim to know the mind of God as to why God would do this. Perhaps it's just God dreaming....

[Tom]

It just feels like (almost) everyone is trying to turn lemons into lemonade here rather than even considering the possibility that God might not be perfect and all-knowing. Maybe God, too, felt the need for personal growth and development. Maybe God didn't anticipate the development of opposing anti-God forces like the serpent in the Garden of Eden. Maybe God owes us an apology for creating us without asking if we wanted to be created, or at least for giving us only an illusion of free will.

For what it is worth, I'm not actually in the mental and emotional turmoil it may seem. I'm just trying to get a grip on what Christianity is about and going back to "In the Beginning" seemed like a good first step.

[Timotheus]

:D

[Palehorse Redivivus]

Whether you call it "separation" or "duality" it is generally regarded as bad. Or the Taoist thing, the One became Two and the Two became Ten-Thousand. Now all us tiny little pieces are trying to regain the lost Oneness.

See, this is what I question -- IS it really? Are our only choices "separation," which is usually equated with conflict and suffering, OR merging with Source but giving up our individuality? Or are there other options?

I'm finding that as I go along, my appreciation for uniqueness, diversity, and desire for more experiences, learning and self-expression (though not necessarily here) is only growing. At the same time though, my ability to coexist peacefully and connect with a wide range of other beings is also growing alongside it. So am I regressing? Well... I hope not. :P But this particular piece has no real urge to merge. I think I've had about enough of earth, but in another sense I feel like I'm just getting started on this whole "being me and having fun with it" thing. :)

As for the original question, I've been kicking around ideas and I think I'm actually getting *less* sure about the true nature of the situation... though I think I lean toward a vague idea that a thought arose from Source, which was a thought of itself since it is All There Is -- and then since this thought was a reflection of the All, there was an effect like you get with two mirrors facing each other. Long story short, the One is still One, but it's becoming self-aware, through a process of exploring all probable realities through conscious beings like ourselves. It stands to reason IMO that this process has no beginning or end. I don't believe the "object" is to merge with the Source, because there is no object, and all is Source... identifying with the Whole is just one possible experience in the ocean of infinite probabilities.

[ButterflyWoman]

even considering the possibility that God might not be perfect and all-knowing.
I've considered that possibility. I just wasn't getting that that's what you're fishing for. ;)


Maybe God, too, felt the need for personal growth and development.
I've even suggested that (in different words, but same idea) in a couple of threads now and then.


Maybe God didn't anticipate the development of opposing anti-God forces like the serpent in the Garden of Eden.
I don't actually believe that myth is literal, so I can't help you there.


Maybe God owes us an apology for creating us without asking if we wanted to be created, or at least for giving us only an illusion of free will.
Maybe. The Bible isn't actually at all clear on what God was doing. It just says God did it. And for the record, it does NOT say in the creation story (either of them; there are two in the book of Genesis, one right after the other) that God is all-loving or anything of the sort.


I'm just trying to get a grip on what Christianity is about and going back to "In the Beginning" seemed like a good first step.
Well, for heaven's sake. If you're interested in Christian dogma, you should have said so. ;)

[Tom]

I'm not even thinking at the level of individual Christians and judging them by their beliefs. It is the same with any religion involving humans in that real life usually gets in the way - but I just can't even comprehend the beliefs themselves. In trying to formulate my question I kept getting stuck on this one: Why do the "universe" thing at all? I was planning to go to Genesis next and ask about the serpent in the garden. Adam didn't put the snake there and neither did Eve. The tree of life was there, but God didn't just say "eat this". Before eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve were basically just little children - and they were exactly the kind of little children that God created them to be. Even humans know you don't just throw children outside and have it not occur to you that they might do something you told them not to.

[ButterflyWoman]

Well, the thing is, prior to Christianity, there was Judaism. Christianity is sort of hitched onto that (and not always that successfully, in my personal opinion). So the first thing you need to do if you want to go back to the beginning and wrap your head around the foundation, is to start with the ancient Hebrews and Yahweh, their God. The Jewish God (the God of Abraham) is not a very nice deity, as portrayed in the Old Testament. There's not much mention of "loving" in context with that God. There are plenty of passages where a prophet says that God told him to tell the Jews that God loves them as His special people, but that's not really the same thing as a universally loving God.

The teachings attributed to Jesus Christ are radically different from the Old Testament laws and rules and traditions. The picture Jesus gave of God is radically different, as well. Christianity is a very different religion from Judaism, and in my personal estimation, it's quite difficult to reconcile most of the Old Testament to the New.

I keep editing this post because the way Christianity, which was originally very much a mystical tradition, got forced into being a dogmatic, legalistic, official state religion is one of the topics I can go on and on and on about, and I don't want to go on and on about it. ;)

[Jaco]

It is the same with any religion involving humans in that real life usually gets in the way - but I just can't even comprehend the beliefs themselves.

That's why it's a dogma :) It doesn't matter that it goes against common sense, doesn't explain all the unknowns, doesn't give plausible reasons, contradicts itself, goes against the views of other religions and the knowledge we get from science. The dogma is required to be viewed as the truth, without any questioning. It is like that because someone say so, period. :) But you'll find dogma in many (all?) religions. :)

[ButterflyWoman]

To quote a favourite film of mine: It doesn't make sense! That's why you've got to believe it! If it made sense, it wouldn't be a religion!

;)

[Tom]

To quote a favourite film of mine: It doesn't make sense! That's why you've got to believe it! If it made sense, it wouldn't be a religion!

;)

So the difference is that other people's religions can be called cults, but not one's own?

[Timotheus]

:D

[Tom]

To be honest I didn't understand what you were telling me. :)

I think I get it now.

In many ways it seems like I have to understand Christianity to have a better understanding of most of the people around me. It seems impossible. I thought I had to start with the foundation and move my way up from there. The problem seems to be, like with Buddhism, that things tend to be unsatisfactory. The solution seems to be getting passage into Heaven. Unfortunately there is the part about having to die to get there. Until then ... I seem to still be getting caught up on the reason for being here at all. It seems to be a bad risk. Infants are all but guaranteed entrance into Heaven but that passage is at risk from early childhood on and by the teenage years the risk of "going south" seems to rise dramatically. It isn't just Adam and Eve because we all fall down.

[star]

The difference between being really big and growing even bigger and being "perfect" is really evident to me. Can you imagine talking to a single cell? But the size is more exaggerated. Also, creating is awesome. havn't you ever read literature that was enjoyable, or become engrossed in a TV show or even a movie? Creative creation!!! :)

[VioletImagery]

It seems to me that Christianity and other organized religions have a lot in common with modern advertising. They tell you that if you use their product/system (only theirs, of course) you'll be happy and your life will be perfect FOREVER and/or if you don't use their product everything will be horrible and ruined forever. Christianity has a great advantage in that the supposed payoff of their product is not in this life, so there is no way to claim false advertising. So you don't get tired of waiting for the promised pay off, they constantly remind you of the promised rewards/consequences. And, of course, it's total blasphemy to suspect that maybe there's something a little fishy with the assumption that you need ANY product to 'fix' you in the first place.

[Jaco]

it's total blasphemy
There's nothing bad about little blasphemy. In fact I rather like it ;) :D

[CFTraveler]

This thread started out as an interesting discussion about philosophical interpretations of what God is and what all this 'oneness' and spirituality is all about, and I'm sorry it took 'the usual' turn. Oh well, I can always hope.

[Timotheus]

:D

[Timotheus]

:D

[ButterflyWoman]

So the difference is that other people's religions can be called cults, but not one's own?
Actually, the term "cult" doesn't really apply to the beliefs. It's the way the group acts and treats its members. There are very clear and common patterns associated with cults, which are NOT limited to religious beliefs. You should do some research on the topic of cults and find out for yourself. BUT... I never mentioned anything about a cult. I quoted a joke from a comedy film.


This thread started out as an interesting discussion about philosophical interpretations of what God is and what all this 'oneness' and spirituality is all about, and I'm sorry it took 'the usual' turn.
Yes, it would seem so. I'm going to stop adding fuel. ;)

[Timotheus]

:D

[star]

IMO - I feel that beings can be as lowly as a thought form and evolve to the level of a "That God we keep mentioning" if it is the same one.
From my experience entities Archangel sized need to break into smaller pieces before they can interact with with us, "God" (IMO) also has this issue, but that doesn't mean much. It just means that the big kahuna that everyone talks about is just too big and too busy to be the guy who actually answer prayers and helps out people who pray or are in need. Its other entities (IMO) Sometimes other gods or angel/demon labeled creatures of intellegence. Or not so much intelligence.

Even demons can reach an "archdemon" level. Sheesh. Things just evolve on different paths. *Oops, not everyone is the "same"??* Love seems like a great path to take too. But only as far as you want it. Control of emotions and removal of energetic blocks doesn't have to be done with love.
Philosphy is hard for me to understand, thats why I seek out first hand experience in as many cases as possible.
If I don't have that I go to someone who seems to have the ability to find out for themselves, and explain it plainly.