Inspired by the reference to Lucifer in this question. http://www.inwardquest.com/questions/79767/my-christian-beliefs-crumbled-down-can-one-outgrow-the-teachings-of-the-bible

To me either Lucy was acting on the orders of God, or he was doing us a favor by freeing us from a tyrant who thought he was better than everyone else and cocky enough to let that be his downfall.

A few premises we're operating on. Bible side: God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. In the case of the standard LoA-er interpretation: We are all One, and this One encompasses every moment in existence, past present & future, which already exist. In the case of the latter, omnipresence combined with already creating all of eternity [omnipotence] implies omniscience.

If an all knowing creator creates not only us, but all things surrounding us, it will know how we will process the results. The combined result of omniscience and omnipotence in the same entity preempts and rejects the idea of free will. Free will being a property I happen to be quite a fan of, and something I believe is true.

The presents a few possibilities. One is the absence of free will and freedom (an unfortunate thought! I believe this is untrue, and see no benefit in believing otherwise), another is the claims of an infalliable God are wrong. To me the answer is obvious, as is painted in the very schizophrenic, tripolar, and inconsistent behaviors of the Bible God. Sometimes he says thou shalt not kill, sometimes he says kill all the men and take the women and children as slaves. Doesn't sound like the work of one all knowing God, because One all knowing God could probably have the foresight to have some consistency. Then where'd the legend come from? The image of a perfect all knowing all powerful God is very intimidating. For those looking for a way to herd sheep and/or maintain order, there is really no greater 'my gun is bigger than yours' wager than I know everything and can do anything. I figure as most religions have been, this was just another method of maintaining control over the masses.

Assuming this is/was rooted in truth, I'd speculate these three properties would be represented by separate aspects of God, perhaps the meaning behind the Trinity being the division of these powers being what allows us free will. What this conundrum presents to me is the option between in the case of a predecided destiny Lucifer acting on God's orders, or in the other God not being a single entity nor all powerful, perhaps a council of angels or perhaps an only an idea entirely.

So that's one of the issues I have with just about any monotheistic religion or point of view. This is pretty much the largest collection of free thinkers I've encountered, who've repeatedly found answers to questions my pastors couldn't when I was a kid, I'm interested in seeing responses to this one. I believe in free will.. do you? ^_^y

asked 23 May '13, 11:05

Snow's gravatar image

Snow
6.3k874

My interpretation? 'God' was either the grouping of all the archangels, or perhaps only Michael or some other name. Lucy challenged 'Him'/Them to a game, on the premise if they were the greatest they could win any contest no matter the rules. Made one of the rules the objective being letting other win, or sharing your power, or not being the greatest, etc. Just what makes sense to me though, only because I've never liked the idea of a monotheistic all super-man God.

(23 May '13, 11:24) Snow
1

@Snow - " I've never liked the idea of a monotheistic all super-man God." - You mean like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ42IMu7HIQ

I like to think that He/She is "bigger" than that. :)

(23 May '13, 12:57) lozenge123

snow, on free will it be a yes, on defining the First Cause with human language no. be we a trinity as He yes not unlike a drop of ocean water in the ocean that is similar to It but only a small section of It amongst many. we settle it for ourselves and so live our lives

(24 May '13, 06:44) fred
showing 0 of 3 show 3 more comments

My own concept rests entirely on the presumption of the existence of free will. I have already seen this proven to me by the way that synchronicity operates. For instance, I've seen synchronicities appear for things that did come to pass...but also synchronicities for things that didn't. My personal take is that synchronicities manifest when certain manifestations are "in play", but it doesn't mean they are definitely going to come to pass. One can always align or de-align oneself from the "result."

There can be no predestination; indeed, if there were, there could be no free will...and then what would be the point of existence? Life would be just one robotic theater production, in which we are all just going through the motions like marionettes or automatons.

The discussion of free will is obviously a big one, but for more metaphysical info on that, I recommend the works of Ken MacClean here and here. For a more theological perspective, I recommend the works of the kabbalist Moshe Chaim Luzzato.

But for the moment, let us presume the existence of free will.

Now, if we are to have free will, then any so-called Creator has to allow bad stuff to happen, and people to make bad, even evil choices.

If he doesn't do this, then we no longer have free will.

Hence the ridiculousness of claiming that God must be evil or uncaring to allow horrible things to happen in the world...because the alternative is that we become robots with no freedom to choose at all.

To me the answer is obvious, as is painted in the very schizophrenic, tripolar, and inconsistent behaviors of the Bible God. Sometimes he says thou shalt not kill, sometimes he says kill all the men and take the women and children as slaves. Doesn't sound like the work of one all knowing God, because One all knowing God could probably have the foresight to have some consistency.

It actually seems fairly consistent to me, if you look at the way things manifest and how prayer and LOA works. God and/or LOA does not seem to do much judging when it comes to manifestation or prayer requests. Hence the saying "Be careful what you wish for."

I'm sure there have been plenty of times in war where a soldier stranded in the midst of a battle prayed for deliverance...and received an answer to his prayer. Perhaps a byproduct of his successful deliverance necessitated the killing of an enemy soldier.

(But if you believe that we are all immortal beings of the spirit, then it's really not such a big deal, is it? In the long run, it's really not all that bad.)

In the same way, according to the Old Testament, the Hebrews had prayed long, hard and consistently for deliverance from the slavery of the Egyptians. Their prayers were eventually answered in a spectacular fashion. Source responded, and according to LOA, the Egyptians must have been a vibrational match for what happened to them as well. As to the "purity" of this tale as it has come down to us, who knows what really occurred? But that is my take on it.

I'd also like to offer an observation that throughout the history of the world, the various differing conceptions of Source or God seem to reflect the sentiments and values of the people from whom the conception issues. So, it seems natural that the concept of a harsh and judgmental Diety would come from an ancient tribe like the Hebrews. Likewise, we have animist "nature Gods" from the Japanese Shinto religion. The ancient Greeks had "Gods" of love and hedonism which they actually prayed to.

So, based on all of the above...

To me either Lucifer was acting on the orders of God...

My take on it (if we are to presume the truth of this story) is that Lucifer was an entity with free will. He made a choice that was out of alignment with Source.

...or he was doing us a favor by freeing us from a tyrant who thought he was better than everyone else and cocky enough to let that be his downfall.

However justified Lucifer may have thought his choice to be, he was essentially waging war against Source....increasing his separation from it.

There was never any chance he could have won...because if he destroyed Source he would have destroyed himself; he would have cut off his own power.

For other reasons they believed were also justified, certain entities (angels) who were aligned with Source decided that Lucifer was being too destructive, and took it upon themselves to defeat and imprison the troublemaker.

If he actually exists, Lucifer may very well be imprisoned somewhere, still bitterly shaking his angry fist at Source. Or perhaps, being possessed of free will, he changed his mind about the whole thing and aligned himself with Source, as suggested in this excellent novel by Michael Moorcock. (Can get it here)

When you think about the whole story, it's actually kind of a neat little tale about the perils of "fighting or resenting Source" and the advantages of aligning yourself with it.

alt text

link

answered 23 May '13, 12:49

lozenge123's gravatar image

lozenge123
6.9k1860

edited 23 May '13, 13:19

"When you think about the whole story, it's actually kind of a neat little tale about the perils of "fighting or resenting Source" and the advantages of aligning yourself with it."

Yes that is correct, the Bible in a nut shell.

(24 May '13, 02:03) Wade Casaldi

Is there EVER an advantage in fighting? Does fighting make anyone feel good?

(22 Aug '13, 00:07) Dollar Bill

This is another good question. I can point to the Tree Of Life as the answer but that is much too esoteric of an answer to see how it fits for most. For this reason I'll use an analogy as that was the best way Jesus taught.

There is an ocean, but this ocean is conscious! There is a big drop of water that comes to think of itself as powerful, so much so that it is greater than the ocean! It says I don't need the ocean I am greater than that! So it departs from the ocean, a few me too drops follow after it. Soon they find a vast emptiness, loneliness like they have never felt! This turns into hate.

Have you ever seen any relationships that were very loving that broke up and turned very hating? The hate comes from the hurt of loss.

As long as these drops believe they are separate from the ocean even against the ocean they can not consciously know the ocean. Therefore they feel they lost or fell from the ocean.

So now from this belief comes hurt, hate, jealousy, envy, ego, pride, murder, rape, rage. This is so different from the, comfort, love, generosity, compassion, unity, happiness, playfulness, of the ocean consciousness.

We could even go as far as to say opposite.

Through this we can see where many acts originate. Division or unity. Christ esoteric title is "The joiner of the opposites." He said "I didn't come to divide."

Existence (as science points out) started as a singularity. One point. Science says this singularity exploded (The big bang) to become our universe. The Kabbalah is a little more specific here. One became two. The first division of polarity. Or the first dimension to the second. To know the first dimension is to be the first dimension. To know of or about the first dimension is to be the second dimension. Continue on to the third, division and fourth. These we know to the fourth (time).

We can as well apply these to directions. The six directions of motion and expansion with the seventh rest in the center.

Now the interesting thing is the fall of the Devil or the fall of Adam and Eve we can see parallels relating to belief. Disobedience is a belief in division thus separation and hence the experience of feeling fallen, but.... As I said to know of the one we needed to become two.

The devil's lie is misunderstood. His lie wasn't that we would become as Gods but that we are or ever can be separate from God. Remember the words of the Elohim after Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge, "Behold they have become like us", in other words self conscious.

link

answered 23 May '13, 15:53

Wade%20Casaldi's gravatar image

Wade Casaldi
36.2k21692

edited 24 May '13, 01:57

@Wade Casaldi - "The Kabbalah is a little more specific here. One became two. The first division of polarity. Or the first dimension to the second. To know the first dimension is to be the first dimension. To know of or about the first dimension is to be the second dimension. Continue on to the third, division and fourth. These we know to the fourth (time)." I'm intrigued by these ideas. Can you recommend a source for further information on this topic. Thanks in advance, and all best.

(24 May '13, 15:10) lozenge123

I have studied a lot of kabbalah books. The Llewellyn books are good. But I might have got that information from one of my Rosicrucian books.

Thankfully now those are all online free, mine are old hard back.

Also Kabbalah, spelled many ways. With a C and even with a Q so don't miss those for spelling.

One more thing there is Christian and Jewish also.

(24 May '13, 17:27) Wade Casaldi

This link I like, it explains what I was saying fairly well. http://www.kabbaloney.com/geometry-existence/

(26 May '13, 00:40) Wade Casaldi

I really like this (and many) of the answers here. However I do think the idea we feel negative emotions from being disconnected, as well as the idea this is normal or we should or it is intended is both a disempowering belief and an 'incorrect' one [at least for me; if there were even 'incorrect' beliefs to be had].

I believe the purpose of this experience IS that separation, during which we can and should be happy. Just IMO though.

(29 May '13, 03:59) Snow

@Snow Yes exactly, for us to learn who we are, we had to separate from what we are.

We can not know the answer to a problem from within the problem. Observation is done from outside of the problem.

We return to God because we want to, not because we have no choice.

(29 May '13, 22:56) Wade Casaldi

@Wade Casaldi - Thanks for posting the info, Wade. Will check it out.

(30 May '13, 02:34) lozenge123

@Wade Casaldi - well said, you have great knowledge and understanding. Kabalisticaly there is a balance. The Middle Pillar with the Christ consciousness at Tiphareth. I don't see fighting. Just balancing. Unity, not division. Oneness, not loneliness.

(22 Aug '13, 00:14) Dollar Bill
showing 2 of 7 show 5 more comments

For me this is quite simple. The word 'god' is masculine and 'goddess' is feminine. The biblical god is obviously masculine and no better than mankind. Now hold on before anyone gets their shorts twisted in a knot. The bible tells us exactly that - "The LORD/YHWH is a man of war; the LORD/YHWH is his name." Exodus 15:3. The Source of all Creation is energy and energy has no gender, nor does it have human attributes such as anger, jealously, etc., After having read a lot of the forbidden gnostic material, I have come to the conclusion the biblical god is an archon and a big wannabe. He's an imposter. Since the bible tells us Christ prophesied through the apostle John that the true Christians would be killed and that a false church would replace them, then it is the beliefs of the ones massacred that represents the true teachings of the man known to us as Christ, and not the teachings of the ones that survived.

link

answered 24 May '13, 09:09

crosby's gravatar image

crosby
4911

YHVH kabbalah is representation of Higher divine Masculine and Feminine and lower divine masculine male and female. The name for Jesus is actually YHSVH the joiner of the higher and lower. No longer separate but one.

(24 May '13, 09:35) Wade Casaldi

crosby, YHWH, the incomplete creation with all powers of nature, his mother, but in reality an abortion with absence of spirit

(28 May '13, 18:56) fred

There is another scenarion. And thats that Lucy didnt ever exist as a present day or historical character. For that matter all the bibles characters , apart from Christ never existed as people.

The whole book could well be a selection of stories told to pass on certain truths, these truths contained within these accounts. The stories themselves being parables.

My take is that the whole drama of the bible with all the stories and characters is contained " within you" The whole books about you, all of it. Its not historically true, its eternally true.

The only character who is real is Christ, and Hes awakening within all of us, as us.

Of course there are many who would vow and declare that everything thats spoken of in this selection of spiritual writings actually happened. They will say that God and Satan had a heart to heart over the life of Job for instance.

And thats fine, im sure there are millions of people who believe this, im sure millions are trying to believe that Jonah really was swallowed whole by a large whale or fish. And that he lived happily in the whale for 3 days.

My belief is that that never happened, and that contained within that "story" are many deeper truths.

If im wrong then i hope that if there is a God external to myself, he will cut me a bit of slack concerning not believing this stuff.....after all , he must realise i wasnt around when this happened, or didnt happen.

link

answered 24 May '13, 03:39

Monty%20Riviera's gravatar image

Monty Riviera
14.1k1842

1

There is an ancient Aramaic saying. "I'm in a fish over this." Today we say, "I'm in a pickle." So to use modern English and retell the story, Jonah was swallowed by a big pickle for there days!

Source: my Aramaic Bible translated from the Peshitta eastern text.

http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Bible-Ancient-Translation-Peshitta/dp/0060649232/ref=cm_srch_res_rpli_1

(24 May '13, 12:38) Wade Casaldi

There is a lot of discussion about what people "think" concerning Kabbalah which is well and good but highly subjective. Go to the source- the rabbi's themselves if you want to learn their mysticism. Here is a blog that is very good concerning authentic Kabbalistic ideology: http://jeffjudaism.blogspot.com/

link

answered 19 Aug '13, 09:05

mekubal's gravatar image

mekubal
(suspended)

mekubal, many ideologies yet all spoiled from the natural by ratiocination. he does not see any 'authentic' religious beliefs passing the intended litmus test

(20 Aug '13, 04:37) fred

Fred, each culture develops its own subjective ideologies and iddeals of the objective- passing them on from one generation to another within their own respective ethno-centricity. This is a beautiful lineage specific to each cultural context and to usurp the transmission by falisifying and corrupting it with an ecclectic variation of other cultural machinations is an "inauthentic" and disrespectful approach. If one speaks in the "Name" of something (i.e. Kabbalah, Buddhism, Taoism, etc) then they should speak in the right context and not simply pervert it with their own imposed ideals which sully the tradition itself.

(20 Aug '13, 08:16) mekubal

Fred, each culture develops its own subjective ideologies and iddeals of the objective- passing them on from one generation to another within their own respective ethno-centricity. This is a beautiful lineage specific to each cultural context and to usurp the transmission by falisifying and corrupting it with an ecclectic variation of other cultural machinations is an "inauthentic" and disrespectful approach.

(20 Aug '13, 08:17) mekubal

If one speaks in the "Name" of something (i.e. Kabbalah, Buddhism, Taoism, etc) then they should speak in the right context and not simply pervert it with their own imposed ideals which sully the tradition itself.

(20 Aug '13, 08:17) mekubal

@mekubal, the answer box should only be used to provide answers to the original question and is not intended for making comments. Please do not answer multiple times per question. If you wish to make a comment on an existing answer, your own answer, or to existing comments, please click on the "Add New Comment" link available under each answer. Thanks. I'm converting your "answer" into a comment.

(20 Aug '13, 08:41) Barry Allen ♦♦

mekuba, what if one speaks in the name of 'what is'and not in the prepackaged blured vision versions of cultural ideals that seduce one caught in self-centeredness. if all that is real and true be relegated to poetry, myths and rituals, then there ought be a certificate of authenticity issued to one who truly thinks. but scarce few be able to sit at the round table of such decisioning making and award presentation

(20 Aug '13, 15:21) fred

We are all an individuated ego and that ego manifests itself in a particular context for a particular purpose. Our goal is not to suppress or annihilate the egoistic self as the purpose of our existence is to garner experiences of this nature which are framed in a dualistic context and thus contribute to the generating of self-awareness of the "All." The variety of experiences is what is important and is the purpose of diversity in our world.

(21 Aug '13, 08:29) mekubal

It is an error of thought to conceive of a unified physical existence wherein everyone is everything to one another. This is not to negate the idea of spiritual evolution which leads to altruism but that does not negate the egoistic self, it merely reframes the ego. Culltural edifices and ideologies, while at the core share a perennial base, are nonetheless a heritage to each collective type of individuated ego's which form via a community, heritage and culture- a concensus reality.

(21 Aug '13, 08:29) mekubal

Each reality, whether it be individual or a concensus, is an expression of consciousness that generates unique awareness that cannot be generated via any other means. Thus it is appropriate to respect and honor a particular expression of consciousness without trying to usurp it which in and of itself is a mis-direction of the ego.

(21 Aug '13, 08:29) mekubal
showing 3 of 9 show 6 more comments
Click here to create a free account

If you are seeing this message then the Inward Quest system has noticed that your web browser is behaving in an unusual way and is now blocking your active participation in this site for security reasons. As a result, among other things, you may find that you are unable to answer any questions or leave any comments. Unusual browser behavior is often caused by add-ons (ad-blocking, privacy etc) that interfere with the operation of our website. If you have installed these kinds of add-ons, we suggest you disable them for this website

Tags:

×312
×25
×19
×14

Asked: 23 May '13, 11:05

Seen: 1,249 times

Last updated: 22 Aug '13, 00:14








Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here

By RSS:

Answers

Answers and Comments

Markdown Basics

  • *italic* or _italic_
  • **bold** or __bold__
  • link:[text](http://url.com/ "title")
  • image?![alt text](/path/img.jpg "title")
  • numbered list: 1. Foo 2. Bar
  • to add a line break simply add two spaces to where you would like the new line to be.
  • basic HTML tags are also supported



Related Questions