God thinks mostly in the lower dimensions because this is easier on his Universal energy brain. So basically God limits his own potential because He is scared of trying to put some effort into being in higher dimensional thought. God therefore must constantly be learning and improving from his mistakes. You know he has them: it's all those little things that make you think, "that's fucked up". Therefore, the Universe's potential will all be used one day. This is essentially logical evidence of God's evolution.
I guess that's why in the bible it talks about God being able to work with the lowest of the low much more easier than the big and mighty. I was reading about the YOD yesterday. The YOD is the smallest character in the hebrew language, like the DOT of the internet, everything begins and ends with the YOD. Most people when they write a sentance think that because they put the period on the end, it complete's the thought. Why is this? Why does the smallest of characters define the thought. The . symbolizes a complete set of instructions. So by definition it is the completion, but also the beginning; because you are not able to begin until you reach completion.
But in my opinion he can work with the lwoest of the low easier not because his standards are set to them it's because the lowest of the low are willing to do anything to get themselves to a higher standard of living becasue God says he can do that for them. It's kind of like God coming and saying "Hey BILL GATES, would you like a thousand bucks?" He'd be like... "Who in the fuck are you. I'm rich, I don't need your money." But if God came to a poor old homeless guy and asked him the same thing, he would gladly take the money and praise him for doing that for him.
bkadoctaj may seem to make absolutly no sence, because you haven't experianced similar events that describe what he is writing about. Don't be so proud of your view point, that you don't want to expand it; That said, most people are pretty proud of the view point that they have established in life and would not trade it for anything; However the danger to maintaining a view point is that you have learn to reject ideas, instead of learning to accept them.
He isn't talking about the bible. He is not talking about the God your fond of. He is explaining the "God of All Things" if you will.. our collective councousness. Everyones' and everthings'. Men created our fond memories of God. In bkadoctaj's case he means the higher power of everything, not a deity from a religion.
Pardon me, but if anyone, and I really mean anyone, claim to know anything about how any god is supposed to be or think or behave, then they are quite simply full of themselves and their own little fancy ideas. "God thinks mostly in the lower dimensions!" How much drivel is that? More importantly, why claim such a thing? Somebody is not telling all they really want to tell. But I'll be happy to push things to shove. Tell me again please about your god? What have he done for us, and equally important, what do he promise for us. And, not least, what happens to all those that like to keep a sane mind and, you know, not have faith in anything unproven?
Well he states he is enlightened. If it's his own imagination that thinks this, or he actually is enlightened... we won't know
He can state anything he wants to, even beeing "enlightened", though I think that is pushing the term quite far. I find it more dim than anything else, but that is me. And I do use that in the literal sense, as being not entirely bright. You see, enlightenment requires insight, and insight requires an understanding of reality. Reality is defined by what we can prove or make plausible. Where light shines, truth is revealed. Mystics haven't got a clue as to operate a light of discovery, much less use it to good effect. That is why we got science and scientist, to seperate bullshit from good ideas. The difference is, bullshit just leads to misery, whilst some fraudster get rich. Good ideas, the proven ones, leads to technology and progress. And everyone prospers from it.
The OP was simply trying to explain how a universal consciousness requires the input of many parts. Anyways even if that's not exactly what he's saying, you should try and get the just of the argument. I'm not sure what your talking about. I'm a Universal Unitarian, I believe in the study of all religions that point towards Good. Just because I quote from the bible does not mean that I am not critical of it, just like I would be critical of any other piece of information that I read.
That's quite a cool thought. Makes sense to me. Ever wonder why I type in correct grammar for the most part? Also, why do you suppose I use careful punctuation? haha Precisely. Lower-level "concept-forms" would simply require less work on God's part. According to the Bible, even God enjoys a rest, correct? Right, the poor guy you describe would probably have less of an ego. Generally harder to have one in his position, I'd imagine. I'm sorry to hear that. Apparently there was something that drew you to post that here? Because you say so it is right? haha Isn't that what bothers you about what I say? That I can't give your brain the logical proof it's addicted to? And what is proof to you? How do I know what/how God thinks? How do you know what you think? Can you tell me that? And if you know all of your thoughts and how you come to them, certainly you have none you wish to be rid of, since they are so transparent to you, right? I appreciate the support. Surely you all know by now that I post ideas simply as such: ideas. You may make what you will of them. I am always about accepting new ideas. Mind expansion (open-mindedness) involves learning that all possibilities are there, at once. Is that too hard to accept for anyone? That is putting words in my mouth, but okay. The point is, I'm trying to reach the most people in the most effective way. So I choose "ambiguous", emotional words at times to nail home the idea of open-minded perception. No mental filters, guys. You'll be fine once you stop trying to compartmentalize everything. Asserts Zylark. The word "drivel" always seems to me like something a limited debater might use to belittle his opponent. I'd try being more open-minded and -hearted. I wouldn't be happy to push things or to shove them unless I knew for damn sure they were right. A sane mind? As defined by the spiritual community? Oh, never mind. I see that you meant to ignore the connotation that word would have with respect to them. So, let me get this straight: you define reality as what is defined by what we can "prove" (ambiguity) or "make" "plausible" (also ambiguous)? Alrighty then. I try to avoid limiting definitions.
I'd like to explore this thought slightly further: God wouldn't feel shame for taking the easy way out. He would make no real attempt to cover up his laziness. He wants to be "Self"-evident. Thus, he will always inspire the material dimensional Universe to improve on its spirituality and relative concept of self. In other words: He is self-regulating, self-empowering, and self-destining. EDIT: I just had another thought: God's faults are His essence. Thus by the very profound meaning of the concept of a fault, God must be ever expansive, as he must learn from and improve on each one.
Believe me, I have tried to explain to people who god is. All that happened is that they think that I am a fool. Everyone has to come to the realization of God by themselves, all we can do is point the way.
Believe me, I have tried to explain to people that there probably is no god. All that happened is that they acted a bunch 'o damned fools. Everyone has to come to the realization of no God by themselves, all we can do is point the way.
Seriously, how can I examplify my point any better than this quote. It is not difficult arguing against religion, when the opposition provides all the ammunition. Tell me again how you know all this about god? Not least, how you were told all this. And to close the argument, where do these concepts come from? Tell me please it is from divine intervention, god spoke to you. If god really did speak to you, and revealed all his little plans to you, well, then you got a serious credibility problem. And I'd call you insane. For the simple reason that there is nothing sane about believing any god did anything, ever, to reveal any understanding of anything to anyone. and if you believe a deity, an invisdible father in the sky, speaks to you, well.... Besides following the tolerance and independence word of Buddha and Jesus ofcourse, that is being nice and keep you beliefs to yourself. Something christians at least have seemed to forgotten alltogether. Buddhists not. If you pardon the pun, god I love buddhists
To the OP If God is considered omnipotent and omniscient why would God need to go through any type of evolution?
Does He really? Or are we just trying to approximate to ourselves in words exactly how this "sudden [to God]" ascension to perfection/existence occurred as little links in an infinite chain?