Can We Evolve to Godhood or are we Just a Part of the Whole?

[urhousewifemyhoe]

'Not necessarily. Not that easy I'm afraid. To start with, who's going to take this seriously? It will just be seen as a mildly amusing work of fiction. In fact, your words and indeed most of your work will not be understood or appreciated until some much more advanced scholars develop the ideas you are struggling to express and explain them somewhat more competently. At which point the ideas will be taken up en masse and searches will be undertaken of the archives. They will find this work and be struck by its prescience. You won't make the Einstein grade, but you might manage John the Baptist!

If the piece is meant to convey that a man has a conversation with God...none of the information that is presented can be attributed to you. To satisfy this, all information and ideas belong to God. Only the questions posed and ephiphanys based on what God answers can be attributed to you. You are to be solely a medium. These conditions have been present in all the of man's sacred text through God's prophets. Whether one chooses to believe in God is insignificant. God is Everlasting Truth Unchangeable and Without Fault. Proof in that, the Uni-Verse "God", the collection of all beings, individually and as a whole exists. It is only the interpratation of the Function of God in sentient being's mind that changes.

Conflict with these conditions arise when God says "In fact, your words and indeed most of your work will not be understood or appreciated until some much more advanced scholars develop the ideas you are struggling to express and explain them somewhat more competently." To a critical mind this collapses the idea that you are conversing with God. God using the words "you" and "yours" gives the understanding that the ideas in the piece are YOURS and NOT GOD'S. It gives the idea that it is a man's attempt at promoting his own philosophy as Truth.

As the piece states we have not yet attained "Godhood". Therefore Man cannot speak Truth in the Infinite sense that doesn't change, man can speak truth in a finite sense that with time changes. This makes the ideas finite and not of everlasting truth as the words of God would be and are. In this respect the piece would be more appropriately titled "An Atheist Perception of the Function of God" or "Philosophy For the Succesful Evolution of the Human Race into the Inter-Galactic Community".

To a person that would not take it seriously that the narrarator actually had a conversation with God this slight overlook in the piece's proofing of diction may not stand out or even seem significant. To an authors eye attempting to convey Truth given from THE DEITY this might be more critical. Yet Truth needs no proofing, truth does.

This E-Mail is an attempt at a constructive critique of an Intelligent and Insightful piece. In no way an insult, degradation, or invalidation of the ideas presented. The literary style chosen and the philosophy presented are awesome. However the understanding from this side is that the words in the piece belong to the Man and not to THE GOD. This due in small part to inherent natural skepticism, but confirmed to a point by choice of words.

[HarryStottle]

(Original post and this reply initially in emails but reposted here for the conversation to continue and allow others to join in)

greetings and welcome on board

the piece is, of course, fictional and - had it not become so popular in
its current form - there are many ways in which I would, today, redraft
it. However your particular criticism isn't one I would worry about.

Your implication that "my" truth can't be "god's" truth is unnecessarily
absolutist. It is entirely plausible - and even necessary - that evolving
species on their way to godhood would begin to perceive "the truth" and
begin to express it with increasing accuracy. All that is happening in
this encounter is that god is confirming that I have stumbled across some
parts of the truth and that others will get closer to the "real thing"
later. None of which conflicts with the potential omniscience of a
deity...

Regards
Harry

[urhousewifemyhoe]

I think it is approppriate that you state that we may have an understanding of God and come closer to Truth in our attempt to become as God. At my current understanding the idea of Species attaining 'GodHood' is redundant and paradoxical.

What do you think as in the Idea of multiple Uni-Verse? Uni-Verse of course means One Song how can there be Multiple 'One Songs'? At my current point I see God as a Function...the Uni-Verse completely physical, a colection of all conscienceness and all things existant. How may a species attain "Godhood"?

At my current point i have the understanding that we are all parts of God in its entirety. For a species to acheive 'Godhood' it would have to become all conscienceness and all Physical existance. It would cease to be a single species. The problem is that conceptually'God' 'The Uni-Verse' is always "One" no matter what you add or take away it is always "Whole". That a species will acheive great things is 'Parts of God' exceling.

The Sun, Earth and Moon in its perfect dance allowed the Life we understand to exist. To perceive such a wonder and dare to think that there isn't a conscienceness acting and luck had more to do with it is simply...Retarded. The human mind's thoughts are electrical impulse. The Sun's thoughts are that of Plasma. How much Higher may the Conscienceness Of Stars be? and how close has that species came to 'Godhood'?

As humans we have acheived a entirely different path than other species on earth have. In our arrogance we dare to say we are intelligent life. Yet our characteristics as a whole are in line with those of a virus. All things known have a balance and cyclical process. Except us. As so far. All stories of creation have Humans being an Antagonist to God. The argument of Validity of their factual truth pales in their Truth. Which is that humans are an antagonist to balance and life.

The truth of your piece in line with Truth is that to continue to be a part of God, that is, continue to exist as a species, we must as a species realize that the power to (Level 1) destroy life is actually (Level2) the Responsibility to preserve it.

This ramble reserved for Thinkful minds. Hope you enjoy and hope you critique.

[HarryStottle]

[urhousewifemyhoe]

[HarryStottle]