Response to the Logician: 070603: Part II of IV

 

 

...Logician

 

You write so much about the ripple effect, a notion that has been in existence for a very long time, do you recall the film about a man about to commit suicide at Christmas but is saved by an angel working for his wings. James Stewart played the title role. This is a very contemporary version of tales that have been thrown around in human history for eons. There are if I am correct in remembering quite a few versions in Arabian mythology along with Hindu philosophy that use this parable too. If a person has made up their mind to commit suicide then who are you or anyone else for that matter to say they can’t by using scare tactics of damnation for eternity reliving the dreadful deed in vivid colour and all of it’s effects upon the myriad of people that are always effected by such an act. You are no better than the Bible.

 

 

Djs:

Regarding suicide:

 

You state: then who are you or anyone else for that matter to say they can’t …

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t think I stated anywhere that they ‘can’t’…

 

…. by using scare tactics of damnation for eternity…

 

Nowhere did I use the concept of ‘damnation’, rather I simply stated one’s consciousness is timeless and the breadth of their consciousness would expand upon physical death and would include complete awareness of the impact of their actions as well as inactions.

 

This is not damnation. This is simply a case of one reaping what it is one sews.

 

 …would include reliving the dreadful deed in vivid colour and all of it’s effects upon the myriad of people that are always effected by such an act.

 

I did not state one would ‘have’ to relive it but rather that one would have the said knowledge.

 

You are no better than the Bible.

 

The phrase ‘no better’ is not analysis rather the phrase ‘no better’ is judgmental in nature. I am not taking offense here, rather I am simply pointing out how easy it is to digress from a strictly analytical path.

 

 

 

 

 

Logician

 

You also state that you are not a Christian believer, or follower yet your work screams of Christian doctrine.

 

Djs:

I don’t believe I stated anywhere in the work that I was not a ‘Christian’. I do know I stated in several places that I was a Christian. I also emphasized how it is the model of reality demonstrated by symbiotic panentheism does not preclude non-Christians from ‘heaven’. The work demonstrates how it is we all, Christians and non-Christians alike, will experience ‘heaven’ and ‘hell’.

 

 

 

Logician

 

 

Don’t worry you cannot avoid it, anyone trying to do what you do will be accused of it as no-one yet has succeeded in writing better books that those of The Bible, Qu’ran etc… as they all deal with the same source matter. You also grew up in a Christian/Judean faith country which you ventured from in your latter years as you began to become wise to the idiocy of their doctrines.

 

Djs:

I do not perceive it so much as having ‘ventured from…’ as ‘broadening’ and thus ‘broadening’ their doctrines.

 

 

 

 

Logician

 

 

I state idiocy as that is what any singular belief structure is. You know as well I, even though at the time of writing the books in question were undoubtedly the only method able to contain and sustain societies struggling for independence and conquest of other nations, they all lack one vital understanding, namely; respect for all.

 

Djs:

OK

 

 

Logician

 

 

Anyway young man, although I agree whole heartedly with your version of the truth to a point, I do see problems with the re-establishment of G_d. You cover it up with a new title and dress it up with new dogma in the guise of a causative force. Ever heard of Hans Christian Andersen? He wrote the single most brilliant short story in the entire history of humankind, “The Emperors New Clothes”. I do so understand your workings and writings and the message that they contain, but you must realise you are repeating the same faults as so many who came before you and undoubtedly will come after. You’ve taken the ideology of a deity and given it a “New Century Face-Lift” to make it plausible to a new generation of believers. I applaud you Sir, I really do. If this world had a few million like you it would be a very different place indeed, a far better place. As far as your understanding of the “ripple effect” goes please understand simple logic; the ripples of others cancel each other out. I am sure that you are an educated enough young man to believe in the laws of Newton; cause and causality, actions and reactions etc… but what if I were to tell you that it’s wrong? Would you be able to take a leap of logic and understand that everything is a reaction to a single action that happened a few billion years ago? If you are treading the path of logicians then think wider than the universe, wider than a creator. Your work like all others I have met along my “journey” stop at the creator’s door. You state in your work that there is nothing beyond the creator and if people go there then they want to know the same old, “who created the creator’s creator’s creator etc.. scenario.” Well, who says there has to be a creator? Just because humans haven’t decided to go beyond this stumbling block doesn’t mean that it cannot be surpassed. Scientists are stuck at the same place too. They are currently searching for the building blocks of all matter at the proton level and beyond calling them the primary elements. The have come to the conclusion there are twelve of them, all with stupid names that do nothing but injustice to them, but suit a quantum mathematicians wet dream. Their present hindrance is the medium in which all these elements reside and how they are created in the first place, an element they have called Higgs. Due to physics stopping at this level and not possessing the logic of the universe they are blind to the fractal element that belies everything, but that is for you to ask about and not to get into quite yet.

 

 

 

Djs:

            When you state: …Your work like all others I have met along my “journey” stop at the creator’s door. I think you missed a few sections including:

 

  1. The War and Peace of a New Metaphysical Perception, Tractate 17 : The Beginning - Theoretical Metaphysics - Introducing the Problem of the End http://www.panentheism.com/Pages/0000322.html

 

Keep in mind when reading this tractate, the Metaphysical term ‘Being’ is Ontologically ‘God’.

 

  1. You and I Together, Chapter 1: http://www.panentheism.com/Pages/0000024.html

  

Whatever one’s belief, the fact remains that man has, to our knowledge, always conceptualize God, or a form of God in some sense, and therefore perhaps this small seed, this nugget of universality of man is true.


Some say wait a minute. Not so fast. If there is a God, and God is God, and if by definition God is the creator of our reality, then who created God’s reality. If God is the omnipotent, then who had the omnipotence to create God the Omnipotent. If all things have a beginning, and God is the Beginning of all things, then who began the beginning of God, and wouldn’t that force in fact be God? A perplexing problem but perhaps not as perplexing as one might think.

The answer, by definition, is simply, God is the initiator of mans’ reality. God is man’s direct or indirect creator, whatever the greater of the two cases may be. The force that began the reality of mankind, The force that lies beyond our universe and which is responsible for the creation of the universe and the creatures within it, is our God. Its as simple as that.

Then one might say this does not truly explain who the God of God, the creator of God’s reality, and the who God of that God is, etc. That is true. Then one might say, well I want to know who the God of God is and the God of that God. That is unfortunate. You are jumping ahead of yourself or should I say you are jumping ahead of mans’ position in our space time continuum. For as one cannot understand the subatomic particles until one understands the concept of an atom, and as one cannot understand the function of a mitochondria until one understands the concept of a cell, one cannot understand God’s God until one understands his own God. Thus, until we as a relatively intelligent and philosophical species have a better grasp of our own creator, we are just going to have to wait for any significant insight into the picture greater than God. Man is not a patient animal but sometimes he has no option but to wait.


Does this mean we are to stop our search for our true spiritual Creator? By no means! We have always and will always need to search, if for no other reason than it is an intuitive part of our nature. In order to obtain the beginnings or a better realization of who God’s God is we must first obtain a better understanding of who our God is.


Does this mean we should stop believing in our God? Quite the contrary, for our beliefs, our traditions, our heritage and religious customs give us peace, tranquillity, security, roots, guidance, civility, and a rock upon which we may weather our doubts until we in time come to understand the true and focused picture of God. In the meantime don’t despair, for at some point we will obtain a better picture of God, and also in the meantime, keep in mind that God is God and will remain so regardless of what we do or wish to believe, or regardless of how we wish to paint Him.

 

 

 

To be continued: Part III of IV

 

Logician

 

 

What I would like to address is I understand fully the need for a better world, but ...