God is unity - The unification of all things.

Life was not born from the sun alone, water and other vital elements were needed in a process of unification for life to come into being, all life depends on that unification, without it there is no life.

The unification that brought about life enabled nature which embodies harmony and balance. An order of life evolved whereby each life form depends upon another for survival, nothing exists on its own. There is a connectedness that is vital for the continuance of all life. All life forms must be unified to exist in harmony and with balance.

The human population is NOT unified, hence the disharmony and imbalance, ie war, famine, disease.

Religion does not unify people it divides them. Religion is man made not God made.

You won't find God by looking to religion, you will find God by looking to your neighbour and creating unity in your life and your surroundings.

Connectedness is the secret to discovering God.
When the human race is united they will know God.



IMO

NOTE this has nothing to DO with the unification church! I just googled and found thats an actual religion. It's a word that is all!


UPDATE: please see latter posts re fractals and double helix page 3

When the human race is united they will know God.

What does this mean? We abandon all previous notions of intelligent creation and simply call something God?

What does this mean? We abandon all previous notions of intelligent creation and simply call something God?

Imagine the world living in harmony...then we will feel God, God will live within us as part of us. Unity is divine.

In other words we simply call something 'God'. I don't see why it's required, but whatever. So long as an idea of God, or interpretations of God exist, there will always be some degree of conflict.

Imagine the world living in harmony...then we will feel God, God will live within us as part of us. Unity is divine.

imagine alllllllllllllllllll the peeeepoooollllleeeee livingg for todaaaaaaaaaayyyyy ahhhhhh ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh oooooooooooh ooooh.

In other words we simply call something 'God'. I don't see why it's required, but whatever. So long as an idea of God, or interpretations of God exist, there will always be some degree of conflict.

Well this is NOT about an idea of God, it's about unity, creating balance between ourselves and the planet we consume in order that we can live in harmony. The harmony that was implicit in the design. ONLY when we have established that harmony will be experience and know what it is to know God.

For the religions who worship and honour prophets. It is not the messenger that is important it is the message. The messages differ and are 'exclusive' meaning they are NOT messages from God. God is not about excluding anyone or anything. God is unification.

Look at life and how it came into being, look at nature and all the wonder of balance that exists within it. You can't find God, study God of know God. God is a reward that we will reap when we have achieved worldwide unity. When unity is achieved God will be felt in our hearts. God will be seen in the results of our actions.

God is unity..not a thing, the result of unity is balance and harmony and peace.

You are correct Kenny, while people discuss God and fail to agree, unification will never be achieved, that is the end goal. The result of that end goal will be knowing God, but knowing God is not the objective, living harmoniously is.

imagine alllllllllllllllllll the peeeepoooollllleeeee livingg for todaaaaaaaaaayyyyy ahhhhhh ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh oooooooooooh ooooh.


The worlds leaders may want the world to be unifed (UN) but they cannot achieve it becuase greed and power get in the way. Man is as far away from God as he has ever been.

So long as an idea of God, or interpretations of God exist, there will always be some degree of conflict.

The further we try to move towards God, the further we move from each other. God wants us to think about each other and not him.

I encourage my children to spend more time together and love each other more than I encourage them to love me. They will exist longer than me, so their relationhsip between each other is more important than their relationship with me.

Am I suggesting God is finite, no I am not, I am just trying to explain with this analogy why 'unification' is a selfless process.

I am not suggesting we turn our back on God, but turn our front to each other and let that process be the objective.

Well this is NOT about an idea of God, it's about unity, creating balance between ourselves and the planet we consume in order that we can live in harmony.

So, when a lion consumes an antelope, do they live in harmony?

ONLY when we have established that harmony will be experience and know what it is to know God. God is unification.

Aren't you putting the cart before the horse?

God is a reward that we will reap when we have achieved worldwide unity. When unity is achieved God will be felt in our hearts. God will be seen in the results of our actions.

God is not the objective, living harmoniously is.

First of all, you just contradicted yourself and secondly, if living harmoniously is the objective, then we can simply discard any silly notions of gods.

So, when a lion consumes an antelope, do they live in harmony?



Aren't you putting the cart before the horse?



First of all, you just contradicted yourself and secondly, if living harmoniously is the objective, then we can simply discard any silly notions of gods.

So, when a lion consumes an antelope, do they live in harmony?
.

Prey and predator in the animal kingdom, where it is a matter of food is an intricate relationship, one based on harmony and balance. Every living thing consumes something living. Thus unity. If we could exist without the existance of any other form of life, where would be the unity that is the very fabric of our universe?

if living harmoniously is the objective, then we can simply discard any silly notions of gods.

Unity will bring its own reward

meanwhile Q there was no contradiction.
I said God was the reward and then I said God was not the objective

I want my kids to tidy their room, a tidy room is the objective, I reward them with sweets.

Sweets are the reward, but not the objective, where is the contradiction?

Prey and predator in the animal kingdom, where it is a matter of food is an intricate relationship, one based on harmony and balance. Every living thing consumes something living. Thus unity.

If it could, the antelope would disagree with you. Would you be willing to be eaten by the lion in order to achieve unity?

If we could exist without the existance of any other form of life, where would be the unity that is the very fabric of our universe?

I have no idea what you asked?

I want my kids to tidy their room, a tidy room is the objective, I reward them with sweets.

That is not the objective for the kids.

Sweets are the reward, but not the objective, where is the contradiction?

Sweets ARE the objective, for the kids, hence the contradiction.

Theory,

God is unity - The unification of all things.For what purpose?

Life was not born from the sun alone, water and other vital elements were needed in a process of unification for life to come into being, all life depends on that unification, without it there is no life.Not sure that renaming abiogenesis to unification helps here. All you appear to be saying is that a God created life.

The unification that brought about life enabled nature which embodies harmony and balance.I think you have an unrealistic and romantic notion of nature. Nature embodies death, decay, destruction, disease (for all life not just human), injustice, starvation, pain, species extinctions, etc.

An order of life evolved whereby each life form depends upon another for survival, nothing exists on its own. There is a connectedness that is vital for the continuance of all life. All life forms must be unified to exist in harmony and with balance.Take a closer look – nature is essentially kill or be killed. It is a vicious competitive quagmire where only the strongest survive and the weak often perish in agony. I see no harmony in nature. Balance? Perhaps, many smaller creatures are devoured and eaten by fewer larger creatures.

The human population is NOT unified, hence the disharmony and imbalance, ie war, famine, disease.Disease is a feature of nature, not man, and famine is also largely caused by nature. Of course without our science many millions more people would have died without antibiotics, i.e. would be victims of the cruel nature of nature.

Religion does not unify people it divides them. Not really true. Religion is an extremely powerful mechanism for bringing like minded people together and giving them a common aim, goals and culture. Whether such goals and cultures are worthwhile and useful is another matter.

Religion is man made not God made.But god concepts are created within the framework of religious concepts. Both are man made.

You won't find God by looking to religion, you will find God by looking to your neighbour and creating unity in your life and your surroundings. If you think more carefully you will see that you have rendered your god redundant. If we were capable of creating our own unity then what need of your unifying god?

Connectedness is the secret to discovering God. Wisdom and education is the key to human unity, gods are redundant concepts.

When the human race is united they will know God. More likely the reverse. When we learn to dismiss these meaningless and irrational religious concepts we can focus more on creating a unified world.

Theory,

For what purpose?

Not sure that renaming abiogenesis to unification helps here. All you appear to be saying is that a God created life.


abiogenesis most deffinately not.

Unity is a very simple concept, no need for words that point to something more complex and not related.

I did not say a God created life, I said that all nature is about unity, one thing cannot exist without another thing. Nothing exists on it's own for it's own sake.



I think you have an unrealistic and romantic notion of nature. Nature embodies death, decay, destruction, disease (for all life not just human), injustice, starvation, pain, species extinctions, etc.

Take a closer look – nature is essentially kill or be killed. It is a vicious competitive quagmire where only the strongest survive and the weak often perish in agony. I see no harmony in nature. Balance? Perhaps, many smaller creatures are devoured and eaten by fewer larger creatures.

Disease is a feature of nature, not man, and famine is also largely caused by nature. Of course without our science many millions more people would have died without antibiotics, i.e. would be victims of the cruel nature of nature.


You say I have a 'romantic view' of nature, actually it is the opposite.
In the animal kingdom I do not see the things you mention as negatives, they are necessary and thus not bad, it is part of nature, part of the balance and that which enables living things to live in harmony. I do not intend the word 'harmony' to represent enjoying tea and scones together, I mean 'harmony' as in the relationship that exists between all living things that is required for any living thing to exist. Harmony as is neccessary in music. Notes don't take tea together but it does take more than one note to make music, and those notes need to be different and sometimes the same.



Not really true. Religion is an extremely powerful mechanism for bringing like minded people together and giving them a common aim, goals and culture. Whether such goals and cultures are worthwhile and useful is another matter.

But god concepts are created within the framework of religious concepts. Both are man made.



Religion was about bringing people together, but in the modern world it is creating division and it is exclusive. Religion is entirely man made.

You say God concepts are created within religion concepts, not all of them apparantly.

The first religion did not arise and create 'God' to represent it, The concept of God arose and the religion followed. What happened after that is anyones guess, but concept of God came first.

Is the concept of God man made, of course. But God itself is not man made. God is unity, oneness, equality, respect, love. These things are not concepts, they are real.



If you think more carefully you will see that you have rendered your god redundant. If we were capable of creating our own unity then what need of your unifying god?

.

I never said we need God to unify us. I said God is the result of unity.
We are different to rest of the animal kindom in that we have stepped outside of nature and created an unnatural world to exist in, called civilisation. Now we must find our own path back to nature or at least back to each other, and thus back to God.


Wisdom and education is the key to human unity, gods are redundant concepts.

More likely the reverse. When we learn to dismiss these meaningless and irrational religious concepts we can focus more on creating a unified world.

My representation is NOT a religious one. It is about nature and the accurate observation of how everything in it contributes to the survival of something else. If we cannot contribute to our own survival and to the survival of the planet around us, we will destroy ourselves. We are close to doing so now.

I want my kids to tidy their room, a tidy room is the objective, I reward them with sweets.


oh my god you have kids!

I did not say a God created life, I said that all nature is about unity, one thing cannot exist without another thing. Nothing exists on it's own for it's own sake.


while i agree that one thing cannot exist by itself, it seems completely obvious that as far as mentality is concerned, everything exists only for its own sake, although placed in a complex framework of interrelation with the rest of existence. the key to unity is not so much an environmental or ecosystematic balance, but a mindset manifest in living things of intelligence that values compassion and respect for all life while still recognizing the necessary environmental factors that cause us to exhibit hostility towards and kill one another in the name of survival. that is not a god concept, merely a change in perspective. the problem with it is that, as much as natural systems may appear to desire balance and harmony, the proliferation of organisms, especially those with freedom of choice and action ensures that there can never be such a thing as 100% balance or harmony as long as one thinks or acts differently from the norm. the laws of probability alone can demonstrate why this would never happen.

I want my kids to tidy their room... I reward them with sweets.

As opposed to rationalizing the concept of being responsible?

So, what happens when the sweets run out?

Well this is NOT about an idea of God, it's about unity, creating balance between ourselves and the planet we consume in order that we can live in harmony. The harmony that was implicit in the design. ONLY when we have established that harmony will be experience and know what it is to know God.

What you're doing is arguing for everyone on the planet to be identical. When people differ - even slightly - you will never get harmony. Your whole "harmony that was implicit in the design" is utter horse turd and nothing more.

Theory,

I did not say a God created life, I said that all nature is about unity, But you began by defining God as unity and a unifying entity. If nature is also about unity then it follows that nature and god are the same thing. All I did was remove all the redundant waffle words and see that all you said was that god created life.

God is unity - The unification of all things.
yes, though many religions forget that this is what their prophets teach them.

Life was not born from the sun alone, water and other vital elements were needed in a process of unification for life to come into being, all life depends on that unification, without it there is no life.
remember that this unification is no more directed than any action you take. you are the way you are--you make the choices you do--because of the effects leading to the combination of chemicals composing your genes and their effect and adaption in the specific environment you've lived in. but this does not contradict free-will, rather it defines it; that is what makes you.

The unification that brought about life enabled nature which embodies harmony and balance. An order of life evolved whereby each life form depends upon another for survival, nothing exists on its own. There is a connectedness that is vital for the continuance of all life. All life forms must be unified to exist in harmony and with balance.
yes, and this harmony and balance are dictated by universal relations--what we call these constants like pi or h but that are all merely interactions relative to each other but not bound to an absolute--so that all events are ultimately in balance, though there are different paths, or longer equations to getting there.

and not only is life dependant upon other life for survival, but life is dependant upon everything around it, especially non-life. because, ultimately, we are non-life and our presence is merely a function of chemical and physical reactions. but the specific pattern and structure of those reactions causes a unique interaction in the universe which we label 'life'. life cannot live without the environment around it. we can go into space, but we must take oxygen and water and food with us.

we have gone through a specific process of evolution--each individual having a unique history causing them to be the way they are--which is in balance with the environment we live in. evolution is nature's method of creating balance between the living the living and the non-living. technology, industry, tools, and shelter are all man's methods of creating a balance between themselves and the non-living. but our methods will always be less-effective than nature's because we tend to favor what we are familiar with while nature only favors what happens. i view every action of nature to be like the spilling of a cup--there is water being poured into it and once it reaches a point it just fills up and spills over the top.

The human population is NOT unified, hence the disharmony and imbalance, ie war, famine, disease.

Religion does not unify people it divides them. Religion is man made not God made.

You won't find God by looking to religion, you will find God by looking to your neighbour and creating unity in your life and your surroundings.

Connectedness is the secret to discovering God.
When the human race is united they will know God.
i would have to agree with you. but i think our physiology as humans limits us from attaining complete unity. but we can always get closer. and all religions are based on reality, but through the passing down of these ideas--especially from the person who first thought them to the next--the intended message gets distorted. and also, it should be apparent that we all have some kind of bias based on the environment of our past. unity starts when we realize that all we say in language and all our religions and philosophies and science and math and even our senses are merely metaphors for what really exists around us. but through context and awareness of relation we are able to percieve that reality--not through any sense, but through a collective being.

Theory,

But you began by defining God as unity and a unifying entity. If nature is also about unity then it follows that nature and god are the same thing. All I did was remove all the redundant waffle words and see that all you said was that god created life.

Show me where I said 'God is a unifying entity', I never said any such thing, I said God is unity, there is a HUGE difference, I could have said God is love but that is too twee.

Thus your removal of 'waffle words' left you with an inaccurate deduction about something I never said.

while i agree that one thing cannot exist by itself, it seems completely obvious that as far as mentality is concerned, everything exists only for its own sake, although placed in a complex framework of interrelation with the rest of existence. the key to unity is not so much an environmental or ecosystematic balance, but a mindset manifest in living things of intelligence that values compassion and respect for all life while still recognizing the necessary environmental factors that cause us to exhibit hostility towards and kill one another in the name of survival. that is not a god concept, merely a change in perspective. the problem with it is that, as much as natural systems may appear to desire balance and harmony, the proliferation of organisms, especially those with freedom of choice and action ensures that there can never be such a thing as 100% balance or harmony as long as one thinks or acts differently from the norm. the laws of probability alone can demonstrate why this would never happen.

I agree with all the above, the human race is doomed :)

Meanwhile, your description about life 'not being a God concept'.
I think you are all missing the point of what I am saying. You are still hung up on traditional roles of god and god being an entity. A divine creator.

I am saying that life and the successful continuance, is as it started out to be, about one ness, being one with your self and one with the universe. It's a spiritual concept I guess. God being the spiritual reward for being true to yourself and environment. The battle against nature and each other takes us further away from our sense of inner peace and well being. Thus when we move back to being at one with self, each other and the world (united) we will again find inner peace and world peace. This is the reward. This is what I am calling God.

Yes.
It is an unusual perspective on God.

i would have to agree with you. but i think our physiology as humans limits us from attaining complete unity. but we can always get closer. and all religions are based on reality, but through the passing down of these ideas--especially from the person who first thought them to the next--the intended message gets distorted. and also, it should be apparent that we all have some kind of bias based on the environment of our past. unity starts when we realize that all we say in language and all our religions and philosophies and science and math and even our senses are merely metaphors for what really exists around us. but through context and awareness of relation we are able to percieve that reality--not through any sense, but through a collective being.

Thank you for your post
I agree complete unity is impossible due to phisiology but as you say we should still aspire to be closer, and in the majority I hope that is true.

Although with the modern world gradually restricting real person contact and relying more and more upon a new virtual world for contact, will we evolve to understand less about true human nature as time goes on.

Will our innate abilities to 'read' people diminish through evoltution. Will we all become like Vulcans who are unable to show emotion and cannot understand (like autistics) emotional responses in others? Will this lack of emotional response to things enable us to establish a more harmonious life style, bearing in mind emotional respeonses are what causes a lot of problems or will this lack of emotion result in reduced empathy and compassion for others, taking us yet further away from unification and the rewards of inner/world peace and harmony.

I agree with all the above, the human race is doomed :)

Meanwhile, your description about life 'not being a God concept'.
I think you are all missing the point of what I am saying. You are still hung up on traditional roles of god and god being an entity. A divine creator.

I am saying that life and the successful continuance, is as it started out to be, about one ness, being one with your self and one with the universe. It's a spiritual concept I guess. God being the spiritual reward for being true to yourself and environment. The battle against nature and each other takes us further away from our sense of inner peace and well being. Thus when we move back to being at one with self, each other and the world (united) we will again find inner peace and world peace. This is the reward. This is what I am calling God.

so basically you are redefining the word god with a completely different concept. words lose their meaning once you give them completely new and unwarranted connotations.

Besides all this having an overwhelming "so what" factor, someone need's to explain to me why "one-ness" is such an overused spiritual feel-good phrase. What's so good about one-ness? What does it mean, exactly, to "be one with yourself"? I thought I was one with "myself" by definition. Schitzophrenics are, by definition, not one with themselves. Nor are conjoined twins. Why is "one-ness" always associated with harmony? I thought harmony required at least two distinct entities to define the concept of harmony - that being a pleasing relationship between entities.

I think all of this one-ness babble is just that. Babble. A black hole is the very definition of one-ness - a singularity no less. What's so good about black holes? They suck. Everything.

Dude, you know, the one-ness of the cosmos is, like, dude, it's all about harmony dude. One-ness is peace, you know? One-ness is, like, the holistic center of all being. It's the center, man, the center. All is one. You just don't get it dude.

No, I sure fucking don't.

Besides all this having an overwhelming "so what" factor, someone need's to explain to me why "one-ness" is such an overused spiritual feel-good phrase. What's so good about one-ness? What does it mean, exactly, to "be one with yourself"? I thought I was one with "myself" by definition. Schitzophrenics are, by definition, not one with themselves. Nor are conjoined twins. Why is "one-ness" always associated with harmony? I thought harmony required at least two distinct entities to define the concept of harmony - that being a pleasing relationship between entities.

I think all of this one-ness babble is just that. Babble. A black hole is the very definition of one-ness - a singularity no less. What's so good about black holes? They suck. Everything.

Dude, you know, the one-ness of the cosmos is, like, dude, it's all about harmony dude. One-ness is peace, you know? One-ness is, like, the holistic center of all being. It's the center, man, the center. All is one. You just don't get it dude.

No, I sure fucking don't.
its because you come to the realization that all things are relative to all other things--its like the butterfly effect, the smallest event takes part in causing the biggest event. even schizophrenics are part of the whole because they, like everything else, are simply an interaction of energy connected through different patterns. and they affect the world too, though a person's affect on the world is largely due to their unique physiology and position in the universe.

when people talk about being one with something its because they feel at that moment just how everything is connecting so fluidly and it hardly takes any motivation at all to keep with everything thats going on around you. its really easy to feel when playing music or sports with a talented, open-minded group of people. its an experience that can't be explained and if you don't know what it is, then you will never know by reading or listening to others talking about it. but like any word or phrase, its just a metaphor for that actual experience and so its open to your interpretation whether you've had that experience or not.

The only way the human race will ever become unified, is when we are presented with a single goal. This will most likely come in the form of worldwide endangerment, which would affect people globally.

Reading this concept of oneness, I could not help but to relate the concept of cycles into it also. Nothing is constant (except proposedly God). Everything which is around for a long period of time WILL undergo change, and many things under go specific cycles of change (ie Weather). Perhaps we have trouble realizing the cycles that take place in our universe simply because we have only been around for a cosmic eyeblink. Maybe galaxy creation in itself is a cycle, as well as the expansion of the universe and its ultimate end of its cycle(I do not believe it will expand forever).

The only way the human race will ever become unified, is when we are presented with a single goal. This will most likely come in the form of worldwide endangerment, which would affect people globally.

Reading this concept of oneness, I could not help but to relate the concept of cycles into it also. Nothing is constant (except proposedly God). Everything which is around for a long period of time WILL undergo change, and many things under go specific cycles of change (ie Weather). Perhaps we have trouble realizing the cycles that take place in our universe simply because we have only been around for a cosmic eyeblink. Maybe galaxy creation in itself is a cycle, as well as the expansion of the universe and its ultimate end (I do not believe it will expand forever).
i completely agree. all things are relative to each other and everything interacts with everything else. the only thing absolute is that there is something here, existing. but my idea of god is that web of interactions--its like an analog to our brain. so even god is not absolute.

The only way the human race will ever become unified, is when we are presented with a single goal. This will most likely come in the form of worldwide endangerment, which would affect people globally.

Reading this concept of oneness, I could not help but to relate the concept of cycles into it also. Nothing is constant (except proposedly God). Everything which is around for a long period of time WILL undergo change, and many things under go specific cycles of change (ie Weather). Perhaps we have trouble realizing the cycles that take place in our universe simply because we have only been around for a cosmic eyeblink. Maybe galaxy creation in itself is a cycle, as well as the expansion of the universe and its ultimate end of its cycle(I do not believe it will expand forever).


agreed,
When you consider the life cycle of a fly and the extremely short time compared to ours that it takes to complete, we cannot comprehend the lifecycle of the universe. But what an amazing thing to ponder, I have never pondered about the actual potential life cycle of the universe before?
The birth, the infancy, the maturation, the reproduction cycle, the parenting, the death, what stage is our universe at. Would somebody care to elaborate on this theme and hazzard a guess at to what stage the universe could be in its life cyle and what each of those stages mentioned above could have represented in our history and where we fit into that life cycle?

<s>Isn't this concept like pantheism?</s>

Edit: will we achieve pantheism if we are unified?

and then again the arguments earlier mentioning that it is natural for animals to eat others, then isn't it natural for humans to want to be different etc. and that therefor konflikts, wars, and different groups (religous/political/etc) exist?

Wouldn't it require a ideal communistic society? (that is probably impossible to achieve)

Haha, at this point in our understanding, it is impossible to tell what stage of the universe we are in. One may assume its still relatively young because it is expanding, but who knows for sure? no one

agreed,
When you consider the life cycle of a fly and the extremely short time compared to ours that it takes to complete, we cannot comprehend the lifecycle of the universe. But what an amazing thing to ponder, I have never pondered about the actual potential life cycle of the universe before?
The birth, the infancy, the maturation, the reproduction cycle, the parenting, the death, what stage is our universe at. Would somebody care to elaborate on this theme and hazzard a guess at to what stage the universe could be in its life cyle and what each of those stages mentioned above could have represented in our history and where we fit into that life cycle?
and

Haha, at this point in our understanding, it is impossible to tell what stage of the universe we are in. One may assume its still relatively young because it is expanding, but who knows for sure? no one

You would all hate my answer. Since none of you subscribe much to science, yep. You'd hate it.

Let the blathering continue.

The birth, the infancy, the maturation, the reproduction cycle, the parenting, the death, what stage is our universe at. Would somebody care to elaborate on this theme and hazzard a guess at to what stage the universe could be in its life cyle and what each of those stages mentioned above could have represented in our history and where we fit into that life cycle?

Breast-feeding.

and



You would all hate my answer. Since none of you subscribe much to science, yep. You'd hate it.

Let the blathering continue.


common blather on, tell us, we accept it's hypothetical as are all discussions regarding the origins of life. If the we imagine that the universe itself is a living thing, what stage might it be in its life cycle? Maturation of a life form certainly explains why the universe is expanding though ay? Wonder what the 'life from known as universe' eats? :)

If the we imagine

Yes, superluminal, be like ToR and imagine.

Yes, superluminal, be like ToR and imagine.

Yes superluminal be like Einstein and imagine

after all where would we be re the theory of relativity if he never had any imagination.

God is unity..not a thing, the result of unity is balance and harmony and peace.
I have a question about what you mean with "unity". The principle is easy enough to understand, but "connectedness" can be expressed in different ways. Is it the unity of an intradependent system (like different cells relying on each other to form an organ), of interdependent systems (different organs relying on each other to form a complex system), or of independent systems (different people relying on each other in a society).

I ask because the meaning will affect your argument. It's one thing to say that God is this unity, but that would mean God is (currently) divided, and therefore also not this unity (unless you don't mean "God" in any coherent sense at all). An alternative might be to say that God represents such unity, or "stands for" it - independent of the current situation. To put it simply, people living in harmony (presumably by actively managing their relationships with other people, but still uniquely contributing), would then be in accordance with God's will, which is/was His original design, and those who don't would be deviating from it. What do you think?

For the religions who worship and honour prophets. It is not the messenger that is important it is the message. The messages differ and are 'exclusive' meaning they are NOT messages from God. God is not about excluding anyone or anything. God is unification.
This message that you're bringing, is it exclusive, or can someone who prefers his own kind of unity (say, a single world government under his own rule) also claim it? Are facists and dictators, for example, included?

To put it simply, people living in harmony (presumably by actively managing their relationships with other people, but still uniquely contributing), would then be in accordance with God's will, which is/was His original design, and those who don't would be deviating from it. What do you think?


God is unity as in: inner peace, respect, harmony , love, unification on celluar level, unification on sociatal basis. All the above

Note this is my perspective NOT an argument.

Re dicatators and tyrants, dictating your will onto others is NOT unification, it is what it is, dictatorship.

I am saying God is all those good warm things that fill you up inside when you can relate to all the things that surround you. God is the feeling you exude unto others when you have these 'God' feelings inside you.

VERY simply, take the 'o' out of Good and you have 'God', good feelings, being good = god feelings, being god. Doing good to others, doing god to others.

Roy explains this better than I.

Re dicatators and tyrants, dictating your will onto others is NOT unification, it is what it is, dictatorship.
So your message doesn't exclude them - they exclude themselves?

I think the inital problem arises from using the concept of what humans consider to be unification. You cannot compare man-made governments in an attempt to define supreme unification.

I have a question about what you mean with "unity". The principle is easy enough to understand, but "connectedness" can be expressed in different ways. Is it the unity of an intradependent system (like different cells relying on each other to form an organ), of interdependent systems (different organs relying on each other to form a complex system), or of independent systems (different people relying on each other in a society).
they're basically analogues of the same thing, even though they work in different ways, the interactions on one level are mirrored by the interactions on another level. specialized cells relying on each other in a body are mirrored by specialized humans working together in a society. the things themselves are different, but their interactions are the same because they are relative to each other in the same way. this is only generally speaking, though because every event is circumstantial and can only be defined in context. you can predict the movement of a cloud of gas, but you cannot predict the movement of a single particle of that gas.

I ask because the meaning will affect your argument. It's one thing to say that God is this unity, but that would mean God is (currently) divided, and therefore also not this unity (unless you don't mean "God" in any coherent sense at all). An alternative might be to say that God represents such unity, or "stands for" it - independent of the current situation. To put it simply, people living in harmony (presumably by actively managing their relationships with other people, but still uniquely contributing), would then be in accordance with God's will, which is/was His original design, and those who don't would be deviating from it. What do you think?
entities and things in the universe are not inherently divided. as humans, we feel the need to define things by associating them to symbols. in doing so, we create the distinction between things that isn't necessarily there. in reality, all things are dependant on each other and all actions affect all other actions and the overall state of the universe.

my sense of god is this: that the universe acts in a similar fashion as the human mind. the universe is simply a web of interactions and for each interaction there is a point in space which is the fulcrum of that interaction. the analogue of each fulcrum is the neuron or maybe just the synapse in the human brain. so the universe as a whole could possibly have this consciousness made up of a web of interactions, just as our own consciousness is made up of the web of interactions in our brain.

This message that you're bringing, is it exclusive, or can someone who prefers his own kind of unity (say, a single world government under his own rule) also claim it? Are facists and dictators, for example, included?
it doesn't depend on if you prefer your own kind of unity. the unity of the universe exists independant of your acceptance of it. your actions affect the lives of organisms around you, as well as non-living things. your feet leave footprints in the soil. your body disrupts patterns in the wind. how could facists and dictators not be included? they are some of the most powerful living interactions on this planet.

Thanks roy :)

Also Jenyar, its important to realise I do not have all the answers as I am not proposing a new religion. I myself have always believed in God, but could not before define God. Maybe God is my subconscious mind talking to my conscious mind, who knows. Really none of us can know for sure, but I do know that I feel as though I have a an experience of god and that is interactive in my life but its not the traditional view. I decided before I made this thread to ask that silent part of myself how I should define God for the purposes of a new thread . And the word that came to mind was unification, unity. Prior to this I never thought of God in these terms. I did think of god as seperate to myself. But after asking the question, I now feel very much God is part of me. Thus God is part of us all, but not in the form we traditionally expect. More pertaining to a connectedness with self for well being of self, that can then be shared by feelings of goodwill towards others. And the greater the feelings of goodwill towards others, the increase in general harmonious quality of life for all. Feeling God, experiencing God is thus a heightened experience of love and trust within one self that can be felt by others and shared with others to assist them in achieving this heightened sense of well being. It's hard for me to communicate but I know that this sense of connectedness relates to the general makeup of the universe. I have always been aware that without bad there is no good, so have never had issues with believing in God and 'bad' existing at the same time. We need one in order to be aware of the other, to appreciate the other, to embrace and welcome and strive to attain the other.

Some of what I am trying to explain re the connectdness of every living thing that is mirrored in all forms of life can be seen in fractals.

I know very little about fractals, but that is what is now coming to mind.

perhaps Roy can expand and how this may be related.

I am a spiritual person in the sense that I listen to myself, to the quiet instinctive part that others perhaps dismiss in themselves.

Maybe God will always represent something different to those that believe.

Prior to this I never thought of God in these terms. I did think of god as seperate to myself.

It's actually quite charming to see people evolving right before your eyes. Can't say I like all that "oneness" crap, but still.

http://www.fractalus.com/info/layman.htm

Link to fractals

Re the oneness thing, have you never woken on a beautiful spring morning, when the sky is clear, the sun is bright and the air is fresh and crisp

Certainly.

you feel a wonder of nature that fills your heart and makes you appreciate the awesome magnificence that is life. And think..fuck, I am glad to be alive. That feeling is God.

I agree except for your last sentence.

If you can hold onto to it and pass it on..what a wonderful world it would be.

At times everyone is aware that nature is nice, but then some twat comes along and ruins it by trying to sell you some belief in stupid sky beings. What you're doing is replacing perfectly adequate words with the word 'god', but it doesn't make it any less twattish.

Thanks roy :)

Also Jenyar, its important to realise I do not have all the answers as I am not proposing a new religion. I myself have always believed in God, but could not before define God. Maybe God is my subconscious mind talking to my conscious mind, who knows. Really none of us can know for sure, but I do know that I feel as though I have a an experience of god and that is interactive in my life but its not the traditional view. I decided before I made this thread to ask that silent part of myself how I should define God for the purposes of a new thread . And the word that came to mind was unification, unity. Prior to this I never thought of God in these terms. I did think of god as seperate to myself. But after asking the question, I now feel very much God is part of me. Thus God is part of us all, but not in the form we traditionally expect. More pertaining to a connectedness with self for well being of self, that can then be shared by feelings of goodwill towards others. And the greater the feelings of goodwill towards others, the increase in general harmonious quality of life for all. Feeling God, experiencing God is thus a heightened experience of love and trust within one self that can be felt by others and shared with others to assist them in achieving this heightened sense of well being. It's hard for me to communicate but I know that this sense of connectedness relates to the general makeup of the universe. I have always been aware that without bad there is no good, so have never had issues with believing in God and 'bad' existing at the same time. We need one in order to be aware of the other, to appreciate the other, to embrace and welcome and strive to attain the other.

Some of what I am trying to explain re the connectdness of every living thing that is mirrored in all forms of life can be seen in fractals.

I know very little about fractals, but that is what is now coming to mind.

perhaps Roy can expand and how this may be related.

I am a spiritual person in the sense that I listen to myself, to the quiet instinctive part that others perhaps dismiss in themselves.

Maybe God will always represent something different to those that believe.
yeah i think we're getting on the same wavelength here.

God manifests itself in different ways to different people. or rather, i should say that different people see god in different things. i think that is people seeing a glimpse of unity in things, but not being able to grasp or remember it completely. like you are saying, god is that unity of all things. like us, though, god changes as god's composition changes. the universe expands and god's mind expands with it along with all the rammifications of that expansion.

but we don't have to call it god, as many people have pointed out. the only reason to call it god now is because so many people are addicted to the word. what is a word but a metaphor for what actually exists. i am not arguing against the word god in particular, just for an understanding that god in actuality is not what we make it--but the word 'god' is.

that site on fractals is really cool. and fractals are just awesome. awesome in the true meaning of the word, not the overused one. they are like a mirror of life and of god and unity. all natural structures can be described as fractals. they all work on mathematic interactions such as the Golden Ratio. They fit together and combine almost infinitely based on a set of constants--which i believe to be merely a set of quantities relative to each other and by being so, they appear constant because they are always in balance (they are able to change, but energy gained in one side is taken from another and so it evens out).

Thanks Roy, I am interested now in looking at the relationship between maths and god. Maths being the only thing we can really be sure of in this world, the only real truth.

Maybe God will always represent something different to those that believe.
Thanks for the explanation TOR. It's a very basic expression of what I believe, but not that much different. I also believe that relationships are the purest expression of "religion" (or spirituality, if you prefer) - that's what each of the Ten Commandments come down to (Rom. 13:10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=13&verse=10&version=31&context=verse)), and what Jesus taught (Matt. 22:27-40 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:37-40;&version=31;)). Though I don't come to the conclusion that the one is the other, our relationship with people and nature certainly reflects our relationship with God very directly.

In other words we simply call something 'God'. I don't see why it's required, but whatever. So long as an idea of God, or interpretations of God exist, there will always be some degree of conflict.

So long as there is subjectivity there will be some degree of conflict. And were there no subjectivity, there would be nothing to be conflicted. "conflict" is the expression of divergent value (in the broadest economic sense of utlity). Divergence can be resolved if the parties involved "can relate" and are willing to comprimise.

So as long as there are people, there will be some degree of conflict, god or no god.

Well said wesmorris. Can I quote you?

So as long as there are people, there will be some degree of conflict, god or no god.

Except without God, there would be substantially less than there would be if there is.

All of the most religious regions are currently at each others throats.

Except without God, there would be substantially less than there would be if there is.

All of the most religious regions are currently at each others throats.
Which non-religious regions/countries have you factored into this appraisal?

God is unity - The unification of all things.

Life was not born from the sun alone, water and other vital elements were needed in a process of unification for life to come into being, all life depends on that unification, without it there is no life.

The unification that brought about life enabled nature which embodies harmony and balance. An order of life evolved whereby each life form depends upon another for survival, nothing exists on its own. There is a connectedness that is vital for the continuance of all life. All life forms must be unified to exist in harmony and with balance.

The human population is NOT unified, hence the disharmony and imbalance, ie war, famine, disease.

Religion does not unify people it divides them. Religion is man made not God made.

You won't find God by looking to religion, you will find God by looking to your neighbour and creating unity in your life and your surroundings.

Connectedness is the secret to discovering God.
When the human race is united they will know God.



IMO

NOTE this has nothing to DO with the unification church! I just googled and found thats an actual religion. It's a word that is all!

That's lovely, but totally unrealistic. Not to mention- how you define human balance? As far as I can see we don't actually exist within any paradigm of nature to which we can revert. Or perhaps advance to.

I think arguing for balance is like saying all humans are created equal. Regardless of whether you personally believe humans were 'created' or not, that notion is utter bullshit.

There will always be competition. That is natural. What human's have created as their society, that is not natural. In any form or shape. I hope you're not arguing for some communist bullshit. Even though it would be an ideal form of existence, in practicality it denies human diversity, and for some reason has always turned into dictatorships.

You may argue that humanity is as far away from this notion of unity or god as you want, but you need to define many things before you can propound such a belief.

Which non-religious regions/countries have you factored into this appraisal?

My point was strong religious countries, not non-religious.

I was talking about America and the Middle East of course.

I hope you're not arguing for some communist bullshit. .


No, I'm not a communist and I think you need to read the rest of the thread

This is so awesome

http://www.damienmjones.com/tools/external?50th

Neat fractals. It is interesting to consider the organization of things, because if you think about almost everything is organized in the same way.
At the base level, you have the pieces which compose everything else. These pieces organize themselves into localized systems, following entropy and other laws. These systems interact with each other, forming larger more complex systems capable of more complicated tasks. The interesting thing is that you can break it down, or build it up almost an impossible number of times. I think this is what you guys are saying when you say all things are connected, right? In which case I would agree.

You can see this process everywhere, if you know how to look for it. Here on earth we see this organization in almost all life: cells,tissues,organs,organ systems,etc..
Taking it beyond the scope of this planet: atoms, matter, solar systems, galaxies, universe, multiverse? etc.. (im sure im missing some steps here) Each is a part of the previous, and of course part of the whole.
The level of organization is amazing, and definitely beyond the ability of human thought.

"They fit together and combine almost infinitely based on a set of constants"
Hmm, like the constant speed of light, and other electromagnetic waves? I wonder if there are other constants we are not aware of yet? THE UNIVERSE IS A GIANT FRACTAL, AHHH!

Neat fractals. It is interesting to consider the organization of things, because if you think about almost everything is organized in the same way.
At the base level, you have the pieces which compose everything else. These pieces organize themselves into localized systems, following entropy and other laws. These systems interact with each other, forming larger more complex systems capable of more complicated tasks. The interesting thing is that you can break it down, or build it up almost an impossible number of times. I think this is what you guys are saying when you say all things are connected, right? In which case I would agree.


Indeed, this is it exactly



You can see this process everywhere, if you know how to look for it. Here on earth we see this organization in almost all life: cells,tissues,organs,organ systems,etc..
Taking it beyond the scope of this planet: atoms, matter, solar systems, galaxies, universe, multiverse? etc.. (im sure im missing some steps here) Each is a part of the previous, and of course part of the whole.
The level of organization is amazing, and definitely beyond the ability of human thought.

"They fit together and combine almost infinitely based on a set of constants"
Hmm, like the constant speed of light, and other electromagnetic waves? I wonder if there are other constants we are not aware of yet? THE UNIVERSE IS A GIANT FRACTAL, AHHH!


"THE UNIVERSE IS A GIANT FRACTAL"
If the universe was a giant fractal, might this explain why it 'appears' to be expanding. Fractals are infinite are they are not? Except they appear finite based on whatever limits of vision are applied. It is only with closer inspection, greater tools of detection, we see more...and more...and more.....and more

:)

Next thought - Double Helix


The origin of all life = double helix
double helix found in space

http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/cosmic-dna-double-helix-spotted-in-space
"The double helix shape is commonly seen inside living organisms, but this is the first time it has been observed in the cosmos.

“Nobody has ever seen anything like that before in the cosmic realm,” said the study’s lead author Mark Morris of UCLA. “Most nebulae are either spiral galaxies full of stars or formless amorphous conglomerations of dust and gas—space weather. What we see indicates a high degree of order.”

These observations, made with NASA’s Spitzer Space Telescope, are detailed in the March 16 issue of the journal Nature.

Disk-driven shape

The DNA nebula is about 80 light-years long. It’s about 300 light-years from the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way. The nebula is nearly perpendicular to the black hole, moving out of the galaxy at a quick clip—about 620 miles per second (1,000 kilometers per second)."



:)

Double helix only commonly found in living organsims, so universe is a living organism then?

Well said wesmorris. Can I quote you?

So long as I recieve the royalty checks promptly. :p

Yeah of course you can.

Double helix only commonly found in living organsims, so universe is a living organism then?

No. Much like a cloud that has the shape of a man's face doesn't make the cloud human.

No. Much like a cloud that has the shape of a man's face doesn't make the cloud human.

:rolleyes: ..........Aside from the fact it's not a cloud

I have never seen a cloud with a mans face , have you?
I have seen puffy white things though, some people like to 'construct' images much like they do with ink blots, but the images are not actaully there. They are in the persons head and are individual to the onlooker. However, a double helix under a microscope is a double helix, a double helix through a telescope is a double helix. Unless those double helix's under the microscope are also akin to fluffy white clouds?

No, I'm not a communist and I think you need to read the rest of the thread

Perhaps you could extend the same courtesy?

:rolleyes: ..........Aside from the fact it's not a cloud

However, a double helix under a microscope is a double helix, a double helix through a telescope is a double helix. Unless those double helix's under the microscope are also akin to fluffy white clouds?

If you'd read the article and understood it, you'd realize the double helix throught the telescope IS a cloud, of gas and dust.

:rolleyes:

If you'd read the article and understood it, you'd realize the double helix throught the telescope IS a cloud, of gas and dust.

:rolleyes:

They know what the composition is of the double helix found in space is do they? Put DNA helix in space and what will it look like?

and what is the composition of the DNA helix?

"The DNA-Helix
..................

Each rung is composed of two base pairs. Either an adenine-thymine pair that form a two-hydrogen bond together, or a cytosine-guanine pair that form a three-hydrogen bond. "

hydrogen ay?

Hydrogen for the benefit of Q

"Hydrogen (Latin: hydrogenium, from Ancient Greek: hydro: "water" and genes: "forming") is a chemical element in the periodic table that has the symbol H and atomic number 1. At standard temperature and pressure it is a colorless, odorless, nonmetallic, univalent, tasteless, highly flammable diatomic gas (H2). With an atomic mass of just 1.00794 g/mol, hydrogen is the lightest element of the universe. It is also the most abundant, constituting roughly 75% of all the universe's elemental matter."

I have never seen a cloud with a mans face , have you?

Actually yes, every now and then.

I have seen puffy white things though, some people like to 'construct' images much like they do with ink blots, but the images are not actaully there.

And what you're doing is "constructing" an image of a "living organism" universe because you've seen a particular 'cloud' that is reminiscent of DNA.

That was the point.

Actually yes, every now and then.



And what you're doing is "constructing" an image of a "living organism" universe because you've seen a particular 'cloud' that is reminiscent of DNA.

That was the point.

I haven't seen anything dear boy, scientists have and they are the ones who reported it as a double helix. You have issue with your God, (science incase it went over your head) take it up with them.

Oh and when I look at sky all I see is sky and fluffy white clouds, I do not manifest things I hope to see. You clearly have a desire to see a divine being hence you often do? Interesting...........

I haven't seen anything dear boy, scientists have and they are the ones who reported it as a double helix. You have issue with your God, (science incase it went over your head) take it up with them.

Well, to my knowledge they weren't the ones saying {pp} "it must be a living organism because it looks like DNA". As a result, I'm taking it up with you.

Oh and when I look at sky all I see is sky and fluffy white clouds, I do not manifest things I hope to see. You clearly have a desire to see a divine being hence you often do?

Just the other day I saw a banana shaped cloud. It doesn't mean I have this desire to see a divine banana. Please, stop being a twonk.

However, I did take a picture the other week that sort of had the look of a hand of fire reaching to a hand of darkness. Was gonna print loads and sell them to religious fools, and I probably would have done if it had have been a cheese toastie instead, but hey.. there ya go.

http://img323.imageshack.us/img323/7844/goodvsevil14gv.jpg

Btw the pic is copyright to me. I know Woody will want a copy so msg me and I'll sell it to you. And remember, using that pic is still theft and god wouldn't be very please about that now would he?

I wouldn't think anyone would buy that pic so good choice not to try to sell it, saves disappointment.

Well that's just too harsh. {/end sarcasm} Admittedly the picture doesn't work so well at a few hundred pixels, but at 20" it's not so bad.

Meanwhile, why are you quoting me with something I never said? Are you now seeing things in my posts as well as in fluffy clouds?

"Double helix only commonly found in living organsims, so universe is a living organism then"

From the actual site you linked to, you missed the one important word: "shape", even though you actually quoted it.

maybe you should seek medical advice.

I'm a doctor. Perhaps you should just pay attention to what you type? Then again it's no surprise considering you edited it from your original statement.

Also what is a twonk?

That's open to debate. Was used a bit in Red Dwarf.

One thing I am glad of Snake, I did think you had zero imagination, at least with all this 'cloud' fascination, I see you do have a little

Yet clearly not as much as you. I'm envious, no really.

the structure of a form in our universe is largely due to both the composition of the structure and the forces that resulted in it. DNA by itself does not hold and active consciousness (as far as we know) like what we experience everyday--it is more like the carrier for a potential. the active consciousness we experience is simply due to the of energy through the product of DNA.

I'm not surprised that a double-helix has been found on the scale of a galaxy. the universe reuses her shapes quite often--its very efficient. whether or not it plays into a large-scale consciousness, i cannot say. if it were a conscious entity, then i would be inclined to include all galaxies as some sort of living thing. but we might be jumping the gun on this kind of assumption. to understand something like that we would have to understand quite a number of other things first, such as the nature of our own consciousness with its respect to our DNA.

in my opinion, at a certain scale, we cannot differentiate between living and non-living. and the term 'living' is just another human defined concept which has no actual distinction. yes, we have characteristics of all living things, but only on the large scale. we must remember that we are all made of different cells working together. it would be as if all humanity had a consciousness and each individual human were a cell. and even past that, all cells are made of molecules--all molecules made of atoms and then quarks and then energy. we are not living anymore than everything else in the universe is living.

If anything the double helix shaped cloud supports that similar processes govern the large(10 light years across helix), and the small (DNA helix). I dont know why you guys are getting into this personal sidecrap.

Admittedly the picture doesn't work so well at a few hundred pixels, but at 20" it's not so bad.

I'm a doctor. Perhaps you should just pay attention to what you type? Then again it's no surprise considering you edited it from your original statement.

Yet clearly not as much as you. I'm envious, no really.


Snake you are still misquoting me, you missed a very important question mark, thus I asked a question I did not make a statement, HUGE difference.

Meanwhile your picture is crap, deal with it :)

AND AGREED I do have more imagination than you, I am an original thinker, right out the box, thus I am likely to have an original thought, Something you can only dream of.

If anything the double helix shaped cloud supports that similar processes govern the large(10 light years across helix), and the small (DNA helix). I dont know why you guys are getting into this personal sidecrap.

Thank you BS and Roy for getting back to the point.

Meanwhile BS, google 'double helix fractal' and see what you get :)

I personally am finding this very interesting.

http://fractogene.com/

Fractogene?

"Claims

Biophysicist of Information Geometry of Nature. For Neural Geometry, developed Tensor Network Theory of the Cerebellum, experimentally verified and F15 Fighter plane was controlled at NASA by artificial cerebellum. For this work, received the Humboldt Prize from Germany. In DNA Geometry, he established Helixometry Company (2001) and submitted FractoGene Patent (2002, pending), which is the only mathematical (fractal geometrical) interpretation of the Full Genome, including the 98.7% of "junk DNA" (in the human). As a result of Geometrization of Neuro- and Genome biology, the Cerebellum is the only part of the CNS that is mathematically explained both in its structuro-functional properties (sensorimotor metric tensor of the spacetime manifold) and in its physiological and pathological growth of its brain cells (the Purkinje neuron): the genetic code is mathematically explained from the DNA repetitive sequences in terms of fractal geometry; FractoGene."

Snake you are still misquoting me, you missed a very important question mark, thus I asked a question I did not make a statement, HUGE difference.

Certainly, and my response to you was an answer to that question.

"No, much like a face in a cloud isn't a real face".

Wakey wakey.

Meanwhile your picture is crap, deal with it

Well perhaps, but that was hardly the issue. We were discussing clouds and how they can look like other things. I posted that because it kinda looked like a firey hand reaching out to a dark hand, (although at that size you might have to brighten your monitor to see the dark hand).

Oh and 4th yr student of anthropology is not quite the same as 'Doctor' is it Carl?

Seems you've got me confused with Skinwalker. Nevermind.

AND AGREED I do have more imagination than you

Clearly, (by your choice of makeup). Wanna play 'hooker' anyone?

Anyway, we done with the funny remarks?

You asked is the universe is a "living organism" because of a shaped cloud. I answered. K?

unity
it won't happen.
Not on our own accord.
Why?
Because of our inherent selfish nature and the compulsion to please self first before pleasing other. Even the pleasing of other is for self's benefit.

The only way to harmony is when everyone chooses to please other first.

This concept of GOD in unity is not a new concept.
It is an old one.

But I won't discuss GOD here as I think TOR, in her original post, if I'm not mistaken, wanted to discuss the possibility of such unity and harmony existing.

For unity to happen we must change the world one person at a time and convince the world that it is in its best interest to seek the other's good first.

That will require an enormous amount of trust from a world full of deceit and lack of trust.
Only perfect love can overcome and endure that.

unity
it won't happen.
Not on our own accord.
Why?
Because of our inherent selfish nature and the compulsion to please self first before pleasing other. Even the pleasing of other is for self's benefit.

The only way to harmony is when everyone chooses to please other first.

This concept of GOD in unity is not a new concept.
It is an old one.

But I won't discuss GOD here as I think TOR, in her original post, if I'm not mistaken, wanted to discuss the possibility of such unity and harmony existing.

For unity to happen we must change the world one person at a time and convince the world that it is in its best interest to seek the other's good first.

That will require an enormous amount of trust from a world full of deceit and lack of trust.
Only perfect love can overcome and endure that.



we are onto fractals and double helix's now finewine, you have some catching up to do :)

Meanwhile do post a link re the 'old' concept of god being unity in the context I have outlined as oppose to the Christian or other religious context as I'd be interested to read it.

So the cerebellum, the part of our brain that, "processes input from other areas of the brain, spinal cord and sensory receptors to provide precise timing for coordinated, smooth movements of the skeletal muscular system. A stroke affecting the cerebellum may cause dizziness, nausea, balance and coordination problems.", has been mapped accurately via a fractal program.
Essentially this is the "networking" part of our brain that connects together all of our movement.
I wouldnt be surprised if we found all of the connections forming everyday (mostly by internet) which links a collective human population followed the same rules. We are still at the dawn of the information era, and many more "connections" will come. Its a giant CNS! and we are cells!

Its a giant CNS! and we are cells!

yep

:)

if you google CNS and fractals, you will find some more fascinating stuff.

It's all out there

so which one is the hooker pic?

Would you be upset if I said all of them?

But you know their lingo
kerb crawler? never heard that before! =)
/sarcasm

They know what the composition is of the double helix found in space is do they?

Uh, yeah, it's in the article. Try reading it.

Put DNA helix in space and what will it look like?

It may have a similar shape but not really. The strands in the nebulae are turning round a center, the dna strand does not.

You are once again letting your silly imagination run amok.

http://img506.imageshack.us/my.php?image=copyofleah12060047ip.jpg
http://img61.imageshack.us/my.php?image=copyofleah12060155mu.jpg
http://img100.imageshack.us/my.php?image=leahinkarkiapril069pa.jpg
http://img74.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sophieandadammarch060058hv.jpg

so which one is the hooker pic?

Wow, I've never seen anyone post their picture on the net as much as you do. You're absolutely obsessed with yourself, it's shameful, really.

Wow, I've never seen anyone post their picture on the net as much as you do. .

And again clearly you are blind, I don't know about the net, but you only have to check the picture thread here to see who has posted pics of themeselves to see who has posted more and it's not me. In the lead are

Muslim
Avatar
pshycho


The reason you are aware of my pic more Q is due to your obsession. It's like when women are pregnant, suddenly they notice other pregnant women whereas before they did not and it seems every woman is pregnant.

Thus you read all my posts, follow all my threads, keep looking at me in picture thread, probably saved all my pics to your hard drive, wallpapered your walls with them, have them stuck to your fluffy dice in the car and thus to YOU it seems I am everywhere. I am nowhere anywhere else on the net and 'myspace' is private not public.

So as usual your stalker obsessive ways are visible for all the world to see.

Why do you follow all my posts Q?
Why do you dig up my old threads?
Why do you go into my old threads and copy and paste ancient quotes of mine?
Why did you stray from your little niche to follow me around the forum?

Obsession
Unrequited love

LOSER

I have exhausted my views on this topic so shall continue my thoughts elesewhere, sorry you won't be privvy to them Q, I know how you hang on my every word. Maybe I'll throw you a crumb now and again but for the most part you'll be ignored.

Plaigiarists earn no respect from me.

As are you, and i agree, you should be ashamed, plagiarist and ToR obsessive

Hilarious, you've been caught plagarising yourself and you're accusing others of the same thing!

We can add hypocrite to your extensive woo-woo resume.

Ban me, you know you want toput a G on the end of that BAN, I know I want to.

Back to the concept of a cyclical universe, heres an interesting read.

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/060514_bouncefrm.htm

I have never plagiarised anything

so every thought you ever had was an original?
every deed you ever did was an original?
every phrase you ever said was an original?

i find it impossible to believe that you would give credit to the originator of everything that was not your own.
especially since you are a supposed businesswoman.

TOR
why on eath would you pm me if i was on your ignore list hmmm?

edit
i was going to post the pm you sent me but i feel pm's are private.
but for your information i am up nobodys ass okay?
instead of telling me my remarks are snidy and sarcastisc why don't you answer the questions that i posed to you?

I was about to start another thread. However the name of this thread fits well with this other perspective on god.

The Borg of Heaven (http://www.nobeliefs.com/heaven.htm)

excuse the thread jack :p

Godless

LIAR

I have never plagiarised anything

Love me all you want Q, this is the last word, LIE all you want, plagiarise all you want, invent quotes from me it's not hard.

Yes, you have plagarised and you've been called on it only to lie about it. So, it appears you are the one who is a plagarist and liar.

And no, my post wasn't deleted for lies.

Yes, you have plagarised and you've been called on it only to lie about it. So, it appears you are the one who is a plagarist and liar.

And no, my post wasn't deleted for lies.

Q liar and a plagiarist
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=55318

so if not for lies, deleted for name calling...such a man aren't you Q, such a big man.

Theoryofrelativity
Q = Plagiarist

Unrequited (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrequited_love)

:D

Theoryofrelativity
Q = Plagiarist

BTW - you are committing the very act you accuse me, again.

From my perspective, and I dont know who is plagiarizing or not, but seeing how defensive your getting Q would lead me to believe you got something to hide. Or you have some weird motivations driving your posts.

From my perspective, and I dont know who is plagiarizing or not, but seeing how defensive your getting Q would lead me to believe you got something to hide. Or you have some weird motivations driving your posts.
i can understand (Q)'s motivations.
this person TOR claims that they have never stolen anything but if you notice they are at this moment carrying on a conversation in a advice column thread created by TOR. now i ask you how original is that? isn't that in a sense stealing? or better plagiarizing?