He wants to learn, to be surprised again. Omniscience gets dull, I think. Maybe there are things even He doesn’t know, and that’s why we’re here. Don’t mind my blasphemy. Great poem, Paul.
"He" ? There is not evidence that any such entity exists, let alone that it has what we would recognise or consider a 'sex'. Indeed, if the myth believer accounts of such are to be believed, then "He", [It], would be sexless/genderless or, if you like, LBTQIA+ ...
No, we don't. We simply have opinions about "how it ends" which some call 'beliefs' but as none, as yet, have been known resurrection, (except in the Jesus myth), we can't know what happens.
Eternity however, if this is what you mean, is different. We know that we will survive for eternity because of science. What we don't know is not "duration" but in what forms or form we will survive or whether such attributes as some form of conscious 'self' or 'awareness' will be present, which seem extremely unlikely, given that our elements will be severely scattered.
Partly, perhaps, in the sense of early homo sapiens attempting to understand the phenomena in their environment and what it meant. This, I would agree, (if that is what you mean), was the forerunner of 'religion' but my view is that religions developed with a more selfish and deliberate motive, i.e. that of control and self importance by those who realised how powerful it was in to invent connection to mythical deities in order to control and/or manipulate others.
There is no evidence of any "creator" or 'creators', let alone. "The Creator" so your question is based on a false assumption. However, it is an assumption shared by many millions of indoctrinated, generally simple-minded people, who have been taken advantage of by unscrupulous doctrinaires who, prior to the nation-state, largely dictated the rules for how people should live and even who should live. Contrary to popular belief, that is not evidence of its reality but, if mass intellect is to be considered, probably the opposite.
Cutting to the chase - your question contradicts itself. If there is was a "creator", that entity was, by definition, responsible for their creation. That would also imply that such an entity was and is responsible for all that their creation causes to happen.
Those who belief in this "creator" will, on the one hand claim that the entity is responsible for all that they consider to be 'good' or 'right' but yet claim that the entity is not responsible for what they claim to be 'bad', (evil), or wrong. At the same time, they will claim that this "creator" is omnipotent and omniscient. - Clearly, these human beings are all addicted to gambling and not very good at assessing odds or simply just cover every option, in other words don't actually have a clue.
There is not one shed of evidence that any such entity ever existed but increasing mountains of evidence that it didn't. We can only prove the possible but on that evidence. the probability of a "creator" is as good as zero. Your question is therefore moot.
"We are indeed created." - Are we? What makes you so sure? What proof do you have? It is highly unlikely, in my view, because despite how miraculous we may appear to be, we are so full of flaws, both tiny and huge, that an entity capable of creating us would surely not have made. Of course, we can't prove the impossible, only the possible, so the statement is really moot - though what evidence we have suggests that such a claim suggest a highly improbable causation.
Thank you for your response, though I wonder why you made it.
I didn't say or even suggest that you needed to "preface" anything.
There is ample validity in making the point I did.
I am not engaging in a debate to prove theory, rather I am simply expressing an opinion, as you claim to be doing. Do you consider that for some reason I oughtn't to do that?
No, that human beings are "flawed" is not my reason for anything I've said. My reasons are fairly clear for I have given them.
I apologise if, as it appears, that my view has irritated / upset / disturbed /angered or in any other way offended you. I meant no animosity or disturbance to anyone.
I appreciate the poem, as I indicated in my first response. My subsequent responses were related to assumptions within it and responses of others. Evidently, some people consider that one ought not to respond to comments, only to the original post. I don't know why that should be the case but perhaps, to avoid misunderstandings, I ought never to do so. However, my character probably prevents that, unless I stop reading and considering what anyone writes as something to be taken seriously, whether simply an opinion or not. Do you think that is the case and that such is what I should do? I admit that I can be too serious for some, even many. In mitigation, I can only offer that I try to engage with other writers and other opinions both to show appreciation of what they have written, (regardless of whether I agree with it or how worthwhile I consider it to be), and to increase my own understanding and learn from what others think.
One thing I see that is different in our styles is that you engage in absolute statements that cannot necessarily be validated, whereas I accept that absolute statements are a mistake unless they can be validated by evidence of their veracity or by evidence that shows a very high level of probability of their veracity.
So, for the moment, all I can say is that we are each a unique human being with all that such entails. We probably have some similar views, some different views and, about some issues, no views at all. I meant no ill and have no ill-will towards you, regardless of the reality that I don't agree with some of them.
Since you asked, I will answer. You know what they say about , to assume something? Well, I assumed anyway. That you were speaking in terms of , however one individually interprets the words , divine or a greater power or being. God or the creator. Speaking to fate.
“An absentee father” that is a fair question. Does he have a responsibility ? Of course he does. You are right. He will never mend, nor does he care to. And how then does
“…he know from the start how it all ends” ,if he is never around to find out. Why though is it assumed,predetermined , that in every situation not having a father is a fate sealed “…only to sink before it can float.”
Sometimes there are others who wrap their arms with love and support. The path forward is not always paved with only the rubble of the past. Sometimes it only takes an ember in the ashes.
Actually, the poem is referring to both Creator and created. Using the term “absentee father” was probably an error on my part Since you asserted the creator has no responsibility for their creation, I just likened your response to that kind of situation.
"Liberated"? Gee, I'm missing much here. Humanity has never been more trapped in its own insanity and selfishness, nor more captive to illusion, delusion, abuse, mindlessness and apathetic response to the very great likelihood of its own, self induced, extinction.
Thanks to @The Rewind for sharing this—I’m grateful!
He wants to learn, to be surprised again. Omniscience gets dull, I think. Maybe there are things even He doesn’t know, and that’s why we’re here. Don’t mind my blasphemy. Great poem, Paul.
I have thoughts in the same vein,
Thanks, Mike.
"He" ? There is not evidence that any such entity exists, let alone that it has what we would recognise or consider a 'sex'. Indeed, if the myth believer accounts of such are to be believed, then "He", [It], would be sexless/genderless or, if you like, LBTQIA+ ...
Sure. All language is metaphor. Of course there is no He.
We all know how it ends
The question is the duration.
Three-score-ten and thensome!
I am now into the then some.
Me too!
Me too. Not too bad.
No, we don't. We simply have opinions about "how it ends" which some call 'beliefs' but as none, as yet, have been known resurrection, (except in the Jesus myth), we can't know what happens.
Eternity however, if this is what you mean, is different. We know that we will survive for eternity because of science. What we don't know is not "duration" but in what forms or form we will survive or whether such attributes as some form of conscious 'self' or 'awareness' will be present, which seem extremely unlikely, given that our elements will be severely scattered.
Thanks for the well put comment.
I was thinking life as we currently know it, birth to burial.
Be well.
Tudo termina , ou nada existe ?
🌞
Tudo queima.
Tudo acaba.
Mães, pais, filhos, amigos.
O tempo é uma flecha que nunca se curva.
Tudo queima.
Tudo acaba.
Everything burns.
Everything ends.
Mothers, fathers, children, friends.
Time is an arrow that never bends.
Everything burns.
Everything ends.
Tudo é criação
Do fogo da nossa alma que pelo coração que usa a mente para manifestar e aprender
Mas tudo se transforma com o olhar
Tudo
Tanto para dentro quanto para fora
Thought provoking as the commenters prove.
Translation?
Everything is creation
From the fire of our soul that by the heart that uses the mind to manifest and learn
But everything changes with the look
All
Both inside and outside
Wonderful. I needed that boost of positivity.
Eternal question, yes, why religions developed.
Partly, perhaps, in the sense of early homo sapiens attempting to understand the phenomena in their environment and what it meant. This, I would agree, (if that is what you mean), was the forerunner of 'religion' but my view is that religions developed with a more selfish and deliberate motive, i.e. that of control and self importance by those who realised how powerful it was in to invent connection to mythical deities in order to control and/or manipulate others.
There is nothing in your answer that I disagree with.
Manufacturing fear for the purpose of control is the genesis of organized religion. No doubt.
I will say, thought provoking.
“How many of these
does he create,
the one who makes
but never mends,
and why continue,
it’s fair to ask…”
Who ever said that it is the responsibility of another to mend?
We are indeed created. The mystery is up to us to figure. All we can do is find the miracle in the now until however long or short our forever is.
So, the Creator bears no responsibility for their creation?
There is no evidence of any "creator" or 'creators', let alone. "The Creator" so your question is based on a false assumption. However, it is an assumption shared by many millions of indoctrinated, generally simple-minded people, who have been taken advantage of by unscrupulous doctrinaires who, prior to the nation-state, largely dictated the rules for how people should live and even who should live. Contrary to popular belief, that is not evidence of its reality but, if mass intellect is to be considered, probably the opposite.
Cutting to the chase - your question contradicts itself. If there is was a "creator", that entity was, by definition, responsible for their creation. That would also imply that such an entity was and is responsible for all that their creation causes to happen.
Those who belief in this "creator" will, on the one hand claim that the entity is responsible for all that they consider to be 'good' or 'right' but yet claim that the entity is not responsible for what they claim to be 'bad', (evil), or wrong. At the same time, they will claim that this "creator" is omnipotent and omniscient. - Clearly, these human beings are all addicted to gambling and not very good at assessing odds or simply just cover every option, in other words don't actually have a clue.
There is not one shed of evidence that any such entity ever existed but increasing mountains of evidence that it didn't. We can only prove the possible but on that evidence. the probability of a "creator" is as good as zero. Your question is therefore moot.
I don’t disagree with you. Perhaps the poem is not meant for you. Not every poem is.
"We are indeed created." - Are we? What makes you so sure? What proof do you have? It is highly unlikely, in my view, because despite how miraculous we may appear to be, we are so full of flaws, both tiny and huge, that an entity capable of creating us would surely not have made. Of course, we can't prove the impossible, only the possible, so the statement is really moot - though what evidence we have suggests that such a claim suggest a highly improbable causation.
I did not need to preface , that this is my opinion. That is a given.
Let me rephrase. There is no validity to argue this point. And this is not a debate to prove theory.
It is simply what I live and breathe. Now, if you go by
“Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be changed from one form to another.” (Albert Einstein).
Then that is a debate for the ages. Very interesting , but one which I don’t plan to partake in.
We humans are “flawed”.
That is your reason that a God or ‘divine entity’ could not possibly have created us?
Or maybe you’d like to delve into the imperfections, the flaws of every being. Evolution. Genetic mutation.
Every living being has flaws. Except for maybe the cockroach. It probably would be considered perfection. It cannot be destroyed…
Thank you for your response, though I wonder why you made it.
I didn't say or even suggest that you needed to "preface" anything.
There is ample validity in making the point I did.
I am not engaging in a debate to prove theory, rather I am simply expressing an opinion, as you claim to be doing. Do you consider that for some reason I oughtn't to do that?
No, that human beings are "flawed" is not my reason for anything I've said. My reasons are fairly clear for I have given them.
I apologise if, as it appears, that my view has irritated / upset / disturbed /angered or in any other way offended you. I meant no animosity or disturbance to anyone.
I appreciate the poem, as I indicated in my first response. My subsequent responses were related to assumptions within it and responses of others. Evidently, some people consider that one ought not to respond to comments, only to the original post. I don't know why that should be the case but perhaps, to avoid misunderstandings, I ought never to do so. However, my character probably prevents that, unless I stop reading and considering what anyone writes as something to be taken seriously, whether simply an opinion or not. Do you think that is the case and that such is what I should do? I admit that I can be too serious for some, even many. In mitigation, I can only offer that I try to engage with other writers and other opinions both to show appreciation of what they have written, (regardless of whether I agree with it or how worthwhile I consider it to be), and to increase my own understanding and learn from what others think.
One thing I see that is different in our styles is that you engage in absolute statements that cannot necessarily be validated, whereas I accept that absolute statements are a mistake unless they can be validated by evidence of their veracity or by evidence that shows a very high level of probability of their veracity.
So, for the moment, all I can say is that we are each a unique human being with all that such entails. We probably have some similar views, some different views and, about some issues, no views at all. I meant no ill and have no ill-will towards you, regardless of the reality that I don't agree with some of them.
Take care. Stay safe. ☮️
I think that question is part if the mystery. I’ll say , no.
Like an absentee father?
Ok , I had to take a moment to ‘press rewind’
and read again.
Since you asked, I will answer. You know what they say about , to assume something? Well, I assumed anyway. That you were speaking in terms of , however one individually interprets the words , divine or a greater power or being. God or the creator. Speaking to fate.
“An absentee father” that is a fair question. Does he have a responsibility ? Of course he does. You are right. He will never mend, nor does he care to. And how then does
“…he know from the start how it all ends” ,if he is never around to find out. Why though is it assumed,predetermined , that in every situation not having a father is a fate sealed “…only to sink before it can float.”
Sometimes there are others who wrap their arms with love and support. The path forward is not always paved with only the rubble of the past. Sometimes it only takes an ember in the ashes.
Actually, the poem is referring to both Creator and created. Using the term “absentee father” was probably an error on my part Since you asserted the creator has no responsibility for their creation, I just likened your response to that kind of situation.
When you pass through experience that awakens this knowledge gratitude chases it oddly enough.
Gratitude that we're still here, that there's still life, that we can choose to worship whatever it is we choose to worship or choose not to.
That we’ve been liberated.
That, too, Patris
"Liberated"? Gee, I'm missing much here. Humanity has never been more trapped in its own insanity and selfishness, nor more captive to illusion, delusion, abuse, mindlessness and apathetic response to the very great likelihood of its own, self induced, extinction.
«Από το τίποτα στο τίποτα»
It’s a philosophy
I agree, Patris—It’s philosophy, not science, and we could debate as to whether either is doing the world much good, but let’s not.
Tapped out a while ago..
Tears wash eyes so you can see clearly
Fair question, indeed!
Thank you, M.M.
when he knows
from the start
how it all ends?
This question haunts me all the time.
I don't think you're alone, Ayesha A. Thanks for reading and commenting!
Thank you, Paul. Will do and make no more of this in comments. My apologies.
Absolutely Beautiful work, Paul
Thank you, Shondra, for reading and commenting!
d”eus = dos eus
In Portuguese eu means I
Then eus here in this case means plural
Deus = God
a pun that I always
use
e cabeça explode em excesso dos elementos
não é ?
sinto muito
❣️
muito ar , muito fogo
como estão seus pés agora?
e tuas águas , como estão sendo filtradas ?
Muitas vezes nos sentimos desconectados da natureza, mas como pode ser isso, já que os elementos que nos compõem vêm da natureza?
A vida é uma dança dos elementos
Na natureza aprendemos a observar quando relembramos e praticamos
Observando os ciclos
Percebemos hoje em dia claramente quando os ciclos estão alterados
As vezes os elementos que também nos compõe estão alterados , em desequilíbrios em nossos ciclos naturais
Isso causa muitas doenças nos nossos
corpos
O que faz um e excesso do elemento ar no nosso corpo por exemplo ? ❣️
Por isso quando nos reaproximamos
natureza temos mais oportunidade de observar fora o que está dentro
E como está
E começamos a reaprender os ciclos naturais e fluidos
Uma maneira de reequilibrar os elementos em nossos corpos é ritualizar com os elementos
Honrar , agradecer
Pertencer
Reconhecer
E então a distância em que nós nos víamos >>>separados da natureza<<<
começa a diminuir
Yes
D”eus meu todo poderoso ❣️
Não está no outro
Nem precisa de intermediações
Lhe pergunto
para ficar mais poderoso , d’eus está separado ou ligado as forças da natureza ?
>>>Olha o quanto você criou aqui , d’eus meu mais amoroso e inteligente <<<
Olha quantos momentos você cria em ambientes interativos diferentes
Olha quanto recursos você manifesta quanto você foca
Olha quanta briga e desentendimento já causou por aí
Olha quanto abertura de processos e “impossibilidade” você já manifestou no mais alto nível de complexidade
Quanto de cura você pode manifestar ?
Quanto de amor podemos manifestar?
Quando de saúde podemos manifestar?
I do like this…..
Thank you, Teàrlach - Loved your poem of remembrance for your friend, Daniel
The words of that poem of yours song so easily