There isnt that much freedom it seems...and INFINITY

[unity100]

Who is defending an almighty God here? I've explained...even apologized out of respect, albeit I needn't defend the use of such a simple word as "God", or the philosophical concept of the word "nihilism" when in fact God is humorously a word for me that[b] very definitely is the exact same as Infinity for you,[/b] albeit you disagree. It offends your sensibilities. I understand. But short of your providing a list of words which are out of bounds for discussion, I would once again invite you to not look for what is not there. There was never one single mention in my post of an almighty God. God is Infinity (for me)...(but need I truly reiterate this when it was already explained in my previous post?) May we concentrate therefore on keeping our eye on the ball and have an academic discussion on concepts as opposed to personalities. My apologies for the 4th time?

Thank you. I may with this statement then utilize the word "God" as being synonymous with "The One Infinite Creator" then. Its so much easier on my fingers. And herein lies the difference in our interpretation. I am not offended in your interpretations. I am in fact intrigued by them. I get that you believe Infinity and "God/The One Infinite Creator" are somehow differentiated. I don't get that you suggest that Ra states this. May I disagree to your disagreement, for which we are here for, to explore our understandings academically, and give you my reasons without umbrage?

Thank you once again. I may again with this statement then utilize the word "God" as being synonymous with "The One Infinite Creator" then. Its so much easier on my fingers. Herein then is my take on the point of God and Infinity being one and the same and thus undifferentiated. May we explore together?

almighty god, an infinite god, an infinitely powerful god, they are all the same for me. however this is not about sensibilities.

the bold part in the above post is where you are mistaken. what i understand as infinity, and what you name as 'god', are not the same, if we are talking on a basis of Ra.

according to Ra, what is called 'god' or 'creator' is as below :

http://lawofone.info/results.php?session_id=13&ss=1#5

13.5 Questioner: Thank you. Can you tell me of the first known thing in the creation?

Ra: I am Ra. The first known thing in the creation is infinity. The infinity is creation.

Category: Cosmology

13.6 Questioner: From this infinity then must come what we experience as creation. What was the next step or the next evolvement?

Ra: I am Ra. Infinity became aware. This was the next step.

Category: Cosmology

13.7 Questioner: After this, what came next?

Ra: I am Ra. Awareness led to the focus of infinity into infinite energy. You have called this by various vibrational sound complexes, the most common to your ears being “Logos” or “Love.” The Creator is the focusing of infinity as an aware or conscious principle called by us as closely as we can create understanding/learning in your language, intelligent infinity.

Category: Cosmology

13.8 Questioner: Can you state the next step?

Ra: I am Ra. The next step is still at this space/time nexus in your illusion achieving its progression as you may see it in your illusion. The next step is an infinite reaction to the creative principle following the Law of One in one of its primal distortions, freedom of will. Thus many, many dimensions, infinite in number, are possible. The energy moves from the intelligent infinity due first to the outpouring of randomized creative force, this then creating patterns which in holographic style appear as the entire creation no matter which direction or energy is explored. These patterns of energy begin then to regularize their own local, shall we say, rhythms and fields of energy, thus creating dimensions and universes.

the creator, aka god, is focusing of infinity as a conscious, and aware principle called the intelligent infinity.

creator, aka god, is NOT infinity. infinity, is infinity.

we understand that infinity is differentiated from intelligent infinity, from the information Ra gives us, as above.

1. Is it not our understanding that differentiation is an illusion?

the 'illusion' term here, is apparently used as derogatory, meaning 'unreal', or 'fake', or 'actually not real', regarding any kind of existing reality.

that is incorrect. there is no 'illusion'. everything that happens, regardless of how they are, or, everything that can be imagined, are moments, existing entities, any kind of 'existing', 'be'ing concept inside infinity. they are all real.

it wont change anything dubbing any existing state, or experience, or reality an 'illusion'. if a focus point goes back in time, and views a particular state in a particular locale of infinity, that moment, entity, existence, is still there, at that point in infinity.

just like how Ra went back in time, to check what was causing the tape recorder malfunction.

differentiation, even before that, is apparently real, according to Ra, since they say that infinity became aware. it means, infinity could not be dubbed as 'aware' before (or, above), and the differentiation that aware infinity is, different from infinity.

2. Making an argument therefore for God being differentiated, as if God is not Infinity, is tantamount to the very very first and primary act of investing oneself into the illusion fully itself to begin with. It is making an argument from the very beginning, even before creation, that the illusion is indeed differentiated.

this differentiation is made by Ra in the first place, not me.

and on top of that, there is the 'illusion' misconception. everything is real, at that point in infinity, both in regards to space, time and state of things.

3. A child is born into its body unaware. It may even be argued that an adult with a heavier veil fully intact, and more resistant to even simple observations with respect to the sensitivities of life, or those all about him, is an individual less aware as a result than might be his brother next door. His or the child's awareness or lack thereof does not make him or the child someone else or something else other than who he is, an unaware energy. Becoming aware is not a separation or differentiation or an individuation. The child becomes aware. You state you believe in patterns. Here is perhaps the very single first and primary pattern to all of CREATION. AWARENESS. The child is more of itself for becoming aware, every bit as much as is the adult who became more aware than as a child. WE are not making an analogy to Comic Awareness here. This is simply a simple step of recognizing.........."I AM". Seems I've read that somewhere before in a book somewhere. "I AM THAT THAT I AM". A statement such as this sounds a great deal like an energy that became aware. But IT is still IT. It may therefore be seen that God, i.e. The One Infinite Creator, was unaware before It became aware, but was God nonetheless. This is unity. This is an undifferentiated state, albeit now more evolved.
4. God is continuing to evolve as such. Given we agree that God is continuing to evolve, is it then suggested that IT is becoming less of ITself as such due to IT's ever increasing evolvement, which is presumably IT's entire purpose, rather than more of ITself through IT's ever increasing awareness?
5. Lastly, I am fully aware of the quote that Ra made as regards Infinity becoming aware. I suggest that IT (GOD) and Infinity are One AND THE SAME as the "I AM-NESS" undifferentiated, but now aware, every bit as much as is the simple child who becomes aware, yet is still the child, as much as is 1D to 3D becoming more aware, but is IT-self nonetheless.

comparing a child to infinity, is quite wrong. let me correct it :

every state has to be present in infinity, for it to be infinity.

infinity cannot 'become' aware and start 'recognizing', and being 'i am' or 'he is he' or anything.

for infinity to be truly infinite, the state of that 'awareness' has to have been present in ALL forms, variations and varieties, so that infinity, can be named infinity.

that includes the full state of awareness of ANYthing.

actually that includes the concept you name as undifferentiated state, and differentiated state. this cannot be changed by attributing 'I AM THAT I AM' or any kind of other concepts. 'i am', ie, being, is another concept, state within infinity. it has to exist, with the concept of 'not being' - ie 'i am not'. and there also has to exist any infinite variations of these, like the complementary concept 'we' instead of 'i'.

moreover, that includes the concepts 'different' and 'indifferent'.

moreover, that includes the concepts 'exist' and 'not existing'.

even more, it would encompass the concepts 'infinite' and 'finite'.

therefore , infinity cannot 'realize' or 'become aware' or do ANYthing, because everything that can be done, has to have been done, in all infinite varieties and forms, for infinity to be infinite.

anything other than that, infinity cannot be infinite.

therefore, the infinite intelligence, aka god, aka creator, whatever you dub it, cannot be infinity itself. because, it is aware, it is doing things, it is creating, experiencing.

6. The first distortion was not AWARENESS. This was not what Ra stated. The first distortion was FREE WILL, then LOVE, then LIGHT.

7. The first act of INFINITY was AWARENESS, which preceded the first distortion.

8. Thus, even after INFINITY became AWARENESS, INFINITY was still undistorted...as in ONE, as in UNIFIED, as in an ALL ENCOMPASSING ONE INFINITY.

9. God simply became aware, who was Infinity unaware, at which point it became "I AM" for the first time as the status of ITS awareness.

if you dont want to use the word distortion, use differentiation instead.

it doesnt make any difference. infinity, became aware, and its result is in a few steps intelligent infinity.

intelligent infinity, is intelligent. it is not infinity. infinity, is STILL infinity, but, intelligent infinity is a first 'differentiation' (since you dont want to use the word distortion) among infinity.

along with, whatever complementary counterpart it has, to complete it to full infinity.

if 'god' 'became' anything, that means it wasnt that before. if 'god' became 'aware' of anything, it means it wasnt aware of it before.

that means, the state of being aware of that thing, was not found in it, before.

this, does not validate the concept of infinity. because, in that case, before that 'god' became aware, the state of being aware of whatever it was aware has to be found in infinity for infinity to be infinite.

therefore, infinity always had the state of 'being aware of x', and being unaware of that x. it still has them both.

therefore, 'god' is not infinity.

Thank you. And here again is where my interpretation comes in as regards what may be understood philosophically simply as Nihilism. The concept that there never was a Creator and that there never was a Creation as the antithesis that there surely was, may be viewed as falling into this philosophical category named as Nihilism.

I readily admit that either for the limitations of my understanding or the syntax of you verbiage, that I often do not understand your responses. Can you keep it simple, clear, concise and so direct that it answers the dilemma directly of the contradictions philosophically quite naturally created? If you respond to nothing else in this post, may we explore this? Whats the point if your as wrong as I am correct, or that you never were as much as you are, or that nothing ever existed if it did. It is a state of negation and neutrality that obliterates the expansion of consciousness (that also never was), as much as Infinity itself (that also never was).

incorrect. this is not about 'nothingness'.

for infinity to be infinite, there also has to be a creator along with its 'not being'. anything that can be imagined, are sure to be found within infinity. along with anything that cannot be imagined yet, infinite times.

however, that makes such a 'creator' NOT infinity itself. infinity is still infinity, in which anything happens, nothing happens, and any concept complementing any other concept is found.

As alluded to in my previous post, in order to sustain your position, you must also in an INFINITE state (that you argue for) also concede your position. If you respond to nothing else in this post, may we explore this fascinating position which you ascribe to?

i dont need to concede anything, for what im saying encompasses and surpasses your argument :

for infinity to be infinity, any concept must be found in it, along with any state. along with their nonexistence. therefore 'an infinite creator creating' has to be also found in it, along with its not being. the point these two complementing concepts combine, is point infinity, the stillness.