Comments on: born naked

By: MARK SOHLDEN

MARK SOHLDEN — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:24:50 +0000

Hey, you are dead right and dead wrong at the same time, check it out,
on my website truthislifelifeistruth.com, and you will see that God has always been unclothed forever, and yet most christians reject what their own bible says about it.

comment on my web site, click the links….tell me what you feel

By: Dwight

Dwight — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 12:21:06 +0000

I appreciate your taking the time to comment, and I'm glad you find nudity consistent with theism. Your words are nice-sounding, but I guess I am too literal-minded to comprehend them. I give a few examples where I cannot follow what you write.

...if man is a fallen manifestation of an unfallen and unmanifest God, then for the Christian theist, it is appropriate (rather than infantile) to consider God as masculine. After all, God’s greatest and most influential defender in the realm of the real is the manifest Jesus.

I suppose that the word "man" here encompasses both male and female (or are you saying God "manifested" men but not women?), so your argument is that because God created people in both masculine and feminine versions it follows that God must be masculine. Well, I can't see how that follows. Your next sentence doesn't help me. In that sentence you argue that because Jesus, who is male, is "God's greatest and most influential defender" why of course God must therefore also be male. Again, I can't see why. My wife is probably my "greatest and most influential defender" but it doesn't follow that I am female or feminine because she is. I'm sure it makes sense to you, but it just baffles me. Here's something else I am too literal-minded to understand.

“God” is the “one-ness” of all, where “one” is “none”, the sum of all being zero. In other words, God is the “unmanifest”.

So, if "one" is "none" then doesn't that make God the "none-ness" of all. Doesn't none mean zero. And to say that God is "unmanifest" sounds to me like saying that God is just an idea or concept not brought into existence yet. Combine that with saying God is zero or none, and it seems like you should find atheism very agreeable. Why are you a theist if you believe that God is some sort of nothing or none-ness? But then I read your next sentence

Satan, then, is the “manifest” and is in direct to opposition to God by the nature of being manifest.

and I think, well, by "all" you mean God (the "unmanifest") plus Satan (everything "manifest", the earth and all our bodily lives). But you also said that the sum of all is zero. But if the sum equals zero, then instead of God being

the “one-ness” of all, where “one” is “none”

it would seem that God must actually be negative, else how can God plus Satan equal zero? Or maybe you intend that everything "manifest" is negative and everything "unmanifest" is positive. Or maybe you mean that Satan and God are both zero, and so of course zero plus zero equals zero, and we have no need for negative or positive. Never forgetting, naturally, that Satan is really us human beings:

First, there is the “fallen Satan”—body of man. Then, there is the “unfallen Satan”—soul of man.

Does this mean Satan is masculine too? Fortunately there's always Hinduism with its "language of pseudo-profundity". Good thing we haven't been swayed by Hinduism's nonsense about reincarnation, or the supposed

wisdom of “knowing” that we “were never born” and that we “will never die”

Taken literally, I'd agree that's absurd. You are right to dismiss it, confident in the assurance that

“God” is the “one-ness” of all, where “one” is “none”, the sum of all being zero

and ever mindful that human beings are Satan manifested in body and soul and summed to zero with God. Did I get it right?

By: theisticphilosopher

theisticphilosopher — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 20:23:58 +0000

If I say that God is real or that God exists, it is likely that the listener is hearing much more than what was actually said. The listener is hearing the whole of what all others have claimed God to be. All I am saying is that God is real; nothing more, and nothing less. Indeed, it is a part of my philosophical and theistic belief that each man must come unto God thru himself, for the realization of divinity is not a thing that can ever be truly realized thru “the other”. This is why I support the “radical individulaism” of the existentialists and Ayn Rand’s “virtue of selfishness”. I have “come unto the Lord” thru Jesus only in the sense that I feel I have arrived at a deep understanding of the life words of Jesus, a man who possessed, for whatever reason, a prodigious understanding of the divinity of self and its relationship to the one true God.

By: theisticphilosopher

theisticphilosopher — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 20:10:14 +0000

Further, it is worth noting that the word “God” has become unpopular simply because it evokes many images, one of which is the dictatorial deity present to some degree in all three great monotheistic religions (Islam, Judaism, Christianity). Other images are those of the mystical and mythological representations in polytheistic religions, such as Hinduism, which seek to explain man’s life and existence thru the language of pseudo-profundity, telling us that is “ignorant” to believe anything other than the wisdom of “knowing” that we “were never born” and that we “will never die”. While many of the specific myths and symbols of the Hindu religion contain pearls of practical wisdom that might do man well enough to note, as theology or faith…Hinduism is absurd.

By: theisticphilosopher

theisticphilosopher — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 18:01:54 +0000

In addition, the naked self IS the holy self. It is thru the Trinity of “alive-ness” that a man realizes that he is more noble, more divine and special, than either his boot or the clothes on his back.

By: theisticphilosopher

theisticphilosopher — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 17:40:15 +0000

The “naked me and naked you in naked life” is actually consistent with my Christian theism, which encompasses Luciferian concepts (Lucifer meaning “Light-Bringer”).

“God” is the “one-ness” of all, where “one” is “none”, the sum of all being zero. In other words, God is the “unmanifest”. Satan, then, is the “manifest” and is in direct to opposition to God by the nature of being manifest. Yet, the manifest nature of Satan is two-fold. First, there is the “fallen Satan”—body of man. Then, there is the “unfallen Satan”—soul of man. For man, the avenue to the soul is the tunnel of the body, and the avenue to God is the tunnel of the soul. Those consumed by pure body shall be consumed by the one-ness of nothing. But those who can retain a love in the soul that is pure and true shall pass thru the tunnel of the soul to a realm of spirit where he or she shall not be consumed by the nothingness, but will dwell forever in the “house of the Lord”.

Much in the same way that each of us is an individual spark of the divine and a reflection of the one true God, the holy are united with God, yet they retain a spark of the divine self that was manifest on earth in bodily form. Recognition of this divine spark in others and in one’s self is the true meaning of “consciousness”. It is the trinity of “alive-ness” present in the actual Christian Trinity—the Father (mind/God), the Son (body/man), and the Holy Spirit (soul/Lucifer). This last, soul or spirit, is the moral conscience and the inner voice of Truth; thus, it can be said to be “angels as thoughts”.

Also, if man is a fallen manifestation of an unfallen and unmanifest God, then for the Christian theist, it is appropriate (rather than infantile) to consider God as masculine. After all, God’s greatest and most influential defender in the realm of the real is the manifest Jesus.