I don't know SS you tend to contradict your statements.
First you say that god had a cause or motivation then end by saying that god fulfilled that motivation is without any cause or requirement.
Structure, structure, structure, i had a real hard time with this line and may have given up on it slightly, I dont know fully what you are saying here, sorry, this is not a slight on you, maybe i'm just blind?
But here goes;
I did not say God had a cause, a cause denotes purpose known, you know what is missing, you know what you are looking for, needs to be done.
God did not know, that was the essence of the purpose, knew there was something that must be done but does not have a clue as to the what,
the clue; enter us and our creation, our reason for being is to answer for God, to show God the way to answer Gods self.
But lets say that is what I said, 'God has a cause and motivation to find Gods purpose', that God was not fulfilled and the cause was to fill (i hope this is what you mean?)
Ok yes i just said that (then at least), at first, but end by saying God filled that motivation is without any cause or requirement. I did not say this exactly, not being even slightly 'exactly' contradictory, but i dont think i understand what you are saying.
I think i see, you are saying I said that 'the cause fulfilled is without cause left to contend?'
Is that what you are saying i said?
That the purpose of God fulfilled no longer becomes purpose, therefore negates itself, both purpose and God?
I am sorry you are hard to interpret or my interpretaion is laborious with this one line, please put it in simpler terms unless i got it correct.
Because i did not say this at all, God is not finished just because God realises Its purpose.
Well fulfillment does not negate requirement or else the requirement was never an actual requirement. If you are hungry, you have a requirement that is food. If you acquire some food, and consume it then you could say you no longer require food? The initial onset most would say yes, the requirement has been met there is no further requirement. But the neglect is on the side of the hunger. This would mean that god has never actually achieved nor could he ever achieve fulfillment if the requirement were a creation. Why? Because if you were to remove the creation, then the need would return. Just like if someone goes without food, they will become hungry.
I have read on and think that your interpretation answer is that i said there was a happy ending, that there was an ending, a finish, that all was right and full and correct and done.
That God no longer needed fulfilment, no longer needed food.
God never ate before he was given the food of our love by us to him, God never knew what he was missing, therefore could not have taken what he did not know was possible.
If the requirement were a creation?
No, no, no, God is not fulfilled because of Gods creations continued existence, God has learned what is needed to fulfil God purpose, knows how to do it, does not mean it does not still need doing. Until the end of time or just us perhaps?
Just because God knows now the how, does not mean God would now knowing enough to be full would now stop his new found appetite form being fed.
Are you saying i said, God now knowing all, would stop creation, would end us?
Maybe God CANT stop this creation.
Maybe it is beyond God to kill, even if given the condition of death, God cannot kill, cannot end.
Enter next lesson,
But perhaps God is smart and knowing enough to not kill, knows and sees it achieves nothing, or as said just dosen't know how how.
Our reason for dying is something that has an answer but has a lesson that we need, and who is to say it is forever?
Our reason for murder has no answer or reason what so ever.
God does not murder, why should we? Not law so much as example.
Please get over the fact we have to die, it is not murder it has a reason, something i would like to expend/expand upon later.
Would that be the evolution of unfulfilment because of continued creation, that God must learn to kill us, is that a point that you are trying to make?
Because it exists, it is not whole?
Is this what you are asking?
Just because you have found your purpose, reason even cause does not then mean it must be over?
And if God is no longer hungry because God is fulfilled does not mean God still wont eat and savor, us especially tasty,
It could be also that which will feed his emptyness or absence of purpose?
God may in turn not let us destroy ourselves. Now there is some hope for you, me us all, we may just get away with humanities destruction of humanity, just hope we are worth enough to/for God to save that which he has sworn to learn from, not teach, not lead, or maybe that is what God is waiting for, Us to destroy ourselves, so God wont have to.
Fulfilment is not an ending.
It is in most respects freedom and ultimate beginning.
But i think I get your point, that if God had found fulfilment. what would be the point of God or of us?
Maybe God has new plans, or is finally letting us make our own without the needed environment needed responsibility.
maybe God knows that love is just the beginning, not an ending (which if i did say contradict, i never meant to say it was an ending).
The other part about love is also a contradiction. Not only is it a human emotion, but it is not something that can arise free of conditions, despite what many would argue. There is obviously a condition for the arising of love otherwise you would experience it either all the time, none of the time, or completely and utterly randomly without any explanation. It doesn't happen like that so it is conditional. Love also requires a fluctuation or else it becomes washed out and numb. It is the flippant aspect of the emotions themselves which bring you back to it. When those don't happen love loses it's sense experience and fades. If you were constantly in love and experienced nothing else, you would soon not even know what it was. It is through the process of experiencing something else that it becomes definable. So if you are not experiencing anything else then you lose the ability to define the experience.
I agree tentatively with what you, I think you are saying about love.
God learned love from us, to use it anyway, did I not say that? the condition was to become us.
'Love all the time, none of the time, utterly randomly without explanation'
I get what you are saying I think, that love is only provable through an act, an example, to know it exists?
But this is what i am saying here and now; apart from love being our purpose, love is there if you believe in it and even if you dont, ask for it, create it, it is there just waiting, at the least waiting to be found.
God finally found love and may very well still be baffled that it was his creation (or maybe, just maybe, God was existed as love and being the only thing God did not create has no idea about what love is meant for) when he did not even know it was in Him, baffled that it was his creation that has to fill God, not as is popular that God fills us, that has to be earned and as said asked for.
God fills us if we ask God (even when we dont), we fill God whether God needs it, asks for it, or not.
We can find love not necessarily within God, but do not doubt that it is because of God we are abled to do so, the first thing in existence is love, so God does not even know where he or love comes from?
not knowing that God had it as we have it, not knowing what it meant to use it, and give it as well as receive. God did not know.
Who is to say we dont experience it all the time? but just dont know how to which is the fulfilment part, we may not have reference, it is sanctity gift, it is there to be given first not just received.
You could be saying 'You dont know you have love unless you give it,'
Also i hear you say 'Love is only conditional in that we must share it in order to know it.'
Doesn't mean it's not there all the time.
Love dosen't fade or go numb, WE DO.
You can only take something for granted that is always there?
But the fact we have purpose and a need to find it means we need to realise it first.
And it is only in doubt that distractions such as hate and fear arise.
Distraction could mean that we were that which created these things, not God. There goes our free will again.
God has never been distracted, therefore God did not create the distraction of even as far as evil (which is one why i dont really believe in evils existence, another time).
Well the fact God now is fulfilled may give God the chance/time to enquire into these things further such as hate and fear.
God felt them in his moment of doubt and pain as man could should and would and finally through this experience found that his love was needed to be given/gifted freely, found that he had it to give.
No longer contingent upon any law but for the asker asking.
Truely free but for need.
We all need love, to do or to be.
Maybe that is another thing that gets written off? For a deity, love is completely different and does not require any conditions. But if you really want to use that then why even start with god having a requirement in the first place? They can't be both true.
'For deity love is completely different', only that God is love, and god couldn't know himself until he found that he was without, until he found he was man child and not just love, not just God alone.
God didn't know what God was until he met and was us.
Did I say requirement?, I suppose evolution of anything is required to grow.
God didn't need to give us love (purpose found) God chose to do so, God needed to only upon fulfilment.
'They cant both be true'?
What? that God is love without condition, but requires to know it?
Requirement again denotes God knowing what it was that would fulfil It's self, self before family.
I do not stand in the camp that God knew all to begin with, was an all knowing being, maybe now, not then.
I hope i painted that my God and understanding of Gods understanding is a journey, is an evolutionary God and Man is a purpose quest justice.
We were the first experiment that could choose their own pattern?, choose their own history, present, future, WE ARE THE FIRST, (even if it is going on on in other planes and planets and peoples)
God created something It did not know what direction it would choose, I think else why give us the ability why choice?
And if this then unknowing God that created It's comparative in order to know by example Its Self,
And by our example, our example, It evolved, meaning it was less before and became more after.
And i think the contradiction you mistake me for making; Is that God finding this more, this fulfilment as i call it, will then stop evolving, can now turn off his evolutionary purpose?
Perhaps, perhaps not.
Maybe there is more for God to learn and grow into, but i hazard to say it wont necessarilly include us? If the two are ever seperateable?
But that would also mean God would have to abandon his newish Human nature his human understanding, human fulfilment. His family, his now responsibility. We need his there to love.
And where as a father may abandon themselves,
the Children never truly abandon their Mother or Father.
I know this probably doesn't come close to answering what you put, but i did try.
Answer; I didn't exactly contradict myself, you tried to do it for me, good effort though.
Thanks for your time
---------- Post added 12-13-2009 at 04:51 AM ----------
What were the specific statements i made that were contradictory? this may help us for next time.