Define "Evil"...

Love is both eternal and temporal.

The temporal is an "image" of the eternal...

Quote:

Love is both eternal and temporal.

That statement contradicts itself. It is not conceivable.

echi wrote:

Quote:

Love is both eternal and temporal.

That statement contradicts itself. It is not conceivable.

2Co 3:18
But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

RexRed wrote:

echi wrote:

Quote:

Love is both eternal and temporal.

That statement contradicts itself. It is not conceivable.

2Co 3:18
But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

What does that have to do with your (apparent) contradiction?

echi, fun isn't it ?

Rex's basic premise is : The less sense you make, the closer you are to God.

echi,

The problem here is that "universal love" is a common experience in all forms of meditation in which "the self" is transcended. Since there are many meditational techniques and practices some of those involving ritual chanting have become ossified into "holy writ". Of these, some are based on the concept of an anthropomorphic "creator" (monotheism) whilst others such as Hinduism and Buddhism have a more nebulous concept of "creation".

Taking a "systems" overview of the "love" concept, it seems to be an expression of reality as a social construction. Consiousness literally means thinking with others. The "self" is a social self and has "no value" as an independent entity any more than a single blood cell would have value" independently of the corpus. Such a systems view does not involve "causality" or its extrapolation to a god as "prime mover".

So religionists like RexRed will argue that their "god" is so embodied in their particular "holy writ" such that logical contradictions are no more than "surface illusions". The intuitively "know" what is beyond the words but they cannot acknowledge that particular forms of words are arbitrary.

No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

Quote:

No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

or

No man hath seen God at any time. Feelings of the insignificance of self without empathy with others gives rise to the illusion that such empathy "serves some higher purpose" which is called "God".

Give God the glory and God will glory in you...

Quote:

Give God the glory and God will glory in you...

or

Give a social illusion predominance and it will affect all aspects of social life.

echi wrote:

RexRed wrote:

echi wrote:

Quote:

Love is both eternal and temporal.

That statement contradicts itself. It is not conceivable.

2Co 3:18
But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

What does that have to do with your (apparent) contradiction?

It seems you are trying to fit a living universe into a strictly physical model.

RexRed wrote:

echi wrote:

RexRed wrote:

echi wrote:

Quote:

Love is both eternal and temporal.

That statement contradicts itself. It is not conceivable.

2Co 3:18
But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

What does that have to do with your (apparent) contradiction?

It seems you are trying to fit a living universe into a strictly physical model.

Rex, your poetry is beautiful, but it doesn't help explain your reasoning. I am beginning to doubt any exists.

echi wrote:

RexRed wrote:

echi wrote:

RexRed wrote:

echi wrote:

Quote:

Love is both eternal and temporal.

That statement contradicts itself. It is not conceivable.

2Co 3:18
But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

What does that have to do with your (apparent) contradiction?

It seems you are trying to fit a living universe into a strictly physical model.

Rex, your poetry is beautiful, but it doesn't help explain your reasoning. I am beginning to doubt any exists.

Thanks for humbly for the poetry compliment..

Please remind me again exactly what your rub is?

You seem to have some reasoning that God cannot be infinite and also be within the finite.

A human can look in the mirror just as God is mirrored in his creation..

Their image is not actually them but part of their own respective creation.

The image can be seen as finite compared to the actual person. Yet you can recognize the person in the image and it is (depending on the mirror) a true external representation of the person's physical characteristics and resemblance. The spirit mirrors the inner person.

So why can't God have his image in spirit which is "biblically" an extension of the physical world and also an extension of life?

Spiritual light has characteristics of ambiance and diffusion just as physical light. They both can compliment each other.

Light has intelligent design and architecture within.

It is not just a benign piece of mass and energy. It has multi dimensional functionality.

Light also travels through quanta which (quanta) has possibly even more detail than light within.

So the quanta says let there be light?

Light reveals the image and character within the quanta.

What really is your question again?

Light reveals the image and character within the quanta.

echi,

The problem here is that "universal love" is a common experience in all forms of meditation in which "the self" is transcended. Since there are many meditational techniques and practices some of those involving ritual chanting have become ossified into "holy writ". Of these, some are based on the concept of an anthropomorphic "creator" (monotheism) whilst others such as Hinduism and Buddhism have a more nebulous concept of "creation".

Taking a "systems" overview of the "love" concept, it seems to be an expression of reality as a social construction. Consiousness literally means thinking with others. The "self" is a social self and has "no value" as an independent entity any more than a single blood cell would have value" independently of the corpus. Such a systems view does not involve "causality" or its extrapolation to a god as "prime mover".

So religionists like RexRed will argue that their "god" is so embodied in their particular "holy writ" such that logical contradictions are no more than "surface illusions". The intuitively "know" what is beyond the words but they cannot acknowledge that particular forms of words are arbitrary.

the mysterious RexRed wrote:

Light reveals the image and character within the quanta.

And within the next smallest thing?? At what point, exactly, do we reach "God"? Your "God" is no more than his "Creation".

God is both within his creation but he is also outside of his creation.

God is outside his creation as creator and he is inside his creation as a relator.