Why does God not show him/her/itself?

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by tommylama

God must have a Plan. Perhaps that Plan is to use the evolutionary process to generate self-conscious beings, like us humans, and then to further evolve those beings in such a way that Heaven on Earth is produced. When humans treat each other with love and respect and as part of a single family of equals, that Heavenly state of affairs will someday occur. Until then, it is for the humans to work out these problems of humanity. To our way of thinking, God should be able to snap His fingers and eliminate all evil and all suffering. Perhaps creating this universe is God's way of taking the next step along His own inconceivable Path of evolution, and perhaps His own rules prevent Him from interfering with natural evolution. At any rate, it seems probable that all of the suffering attached to individuals is a direct result of the actions of those individuals. Karma is a balancing out process. Where suffering exists as an effect where there is no obvious cause in an individual's life, the cause must have been generated in some other lifetime.

Theosophy and the Alice Bailey teachings outline the Divine Plan for humanity. The evolutionary process involves the development of human faculties in successive root races over vast periods of time, governed by various cycles.

Individuals became self-conscious in Lemurian times and then had to learn to function in dense physical bodies. The next root race, the Atlantean, had the challenge of developing the emotional body. The current race is working on developing mind. Future races will consciously develop the more spiritual aspects. But there are always those who are more advanced than the mass of humanity, just as there are those who lag behind.

So the human race is a work in progress, and those greater Beings who observe our progress do not interfere with the limited free will of humanity. We have to learn from our own mistakes. But (despite appearances) humanity is developing in the right direction, although there is a long way to go before we all "treat each other with love and respect and as part of a single family of equals", when Heaven will be created upon Earth.

For those interested, it is worth studying Blavatsky and Bailey, although they are not easy reading. The Divine Plan they teach makes sense to me, although I realise that this is just another belief system. But then we all have to have some kind of model of creation and how humanity fits in.

Peace.

[tommylama]

Originally Posted by iamthat

Theosophy and the Alice Bailey teachings outline the Divine Plan for humanity. The evolutionary process involves the development of human faculties in successive root races over vast periods of time, governed by various cycles.

Individuals became self-conscious in Lemurian times and then had to learn to function in dense physical bodies. The next root race, the Atlantean, had the challenge of developing the emotional body. The current race is working on developing mind. Future races will consciously develop the more spiritual aspects. But there are always those who are more advanced than the mass of humanity, just as there are those who lag behind.

So the human race is a work in progress, and those greater Beings who observe our progress do not interfere with the limited free will of humanity. We have to learn from our own mistakes. But (despite appearances) humanity is developing in the right direction, although there is a long way to go before we all "treat each other with love and respect and as part of a single family of equals", when Heaven will be created upon Earth.

For those interested, it is worth studying Blavatsky and Bailey, although they are not easy reading. The Divine Plan they teach makes sense to me, although I realise that this is just another belief system. But then we all have to have some kind of model of creation and how humanity fits in.

Peace.

I too am a long time follower of Blavatsky and Bailey, and I would like to add a third - Benjamin Creme. Here is an excerpt from "Rays and The Initiations":

The teaching planned by the Hierarchy to precede and condition the New Age, the Aquarian Age, falls into three categories:

1. Preparatory, given 1875-1890...written down by H.P.B.

2. Intermediate, given 1919-1949...written down by A.A.B.

3. Revelatory, emerging after 1975...to be given on a worldwide scale via the radio.

In the next century and early in the century an initiate will appear and will carry on this teaching.



This third teacher foretold in Bailey's work must certainly have arrived on the scene by now. The only person I can attribute to this role would be Benjamin Creme, whose teachings were given on a worldwide scale via the Internet, which did not exist when her book was published, but radio was the closest thing to the Internet. Unfortunately, Mr. Creme's credibility took a major hit when he claimed that Maitreya, the World Teacher had conducted over 150 television interviews, never mind the fact that not a single shred of evidence has ever been produced to support these grandiose claims. I personally believe that these activities took place in the etheric dimension. The etheric planes are probably not only the multiple dimensions looked for in string theory, but also account for the dark matter and dark energy which must exist according to the greatest minds of our humanity, but have so far eluded detection. Just food for thought.

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by tommylama

I too am a long time follower of Blavatsky and Bailey, and I would like to add a third - Benjamin Creme. Here is an excerpt from "Rays and The Initiations":

The teaching planned by the Hierarchy to precede and condition the New Age, the Aquarian Age, falls into three categories:

1. Preparatory, given 1875-1890...written down by H.P.B.

2. Intermediate, given 1919-1949...written down by A.A.B.

3. Revelatory, emerging after 1975...to be given on a worldwide scale via the radio.

In the next century and early in the century an initiate will appear and will carry on this teaching.



This third teacher foretold in Bailey's work must certainly have arrived on the scene by now. The only person I can attribute to this role would be Benjamin Creme, whose teachings were given on a worldwide scale via the Internet, which did not exist when her book was published, but radio was the closest thing to the Internet. Unfortunately, Mr. Creme's credibility took a major hit when he claimed that Maitreya, the World Teacher had conducted over 150 television interviews, never mind the fact that not a single shred of evidence has ever been produced to support these grandiose claims. I personally believe that these activities took place in the etheric dimension. The etheric planes are probably not only the multiple dimensions looked for in string theory, but also account for the dark matter and dark energy which must exist according to the greatest minds of our humanity, but have so far eluded detection. Just food for thought.

Good to encounter a fellow student of the Ancient Wisdom. Yes, the third teacher must have arrived on the scene, but I do not know who that teacher might be. I have always had doubts about Benjamin Creme because, as you say, there is no obvious evidence to support his claims.

Your comments on the etheric planes are interesting. I would agree that science can never explain the manifest universe until they acknowledge the etheric planes because these are the energy planes which support the gaseous, liquid and dense physical universe.

The Tibetan in the Alice Bailey books also suggests that the next step for humanity is to develop etheric vision, even if only on the lowest etheric subplane. This will radically change many things, not just in physics but also biology and medicine. And it will also affect how we consider the death of the physical body. Conventional science may resist such new ideas but eventually they will be accepted. As someone said, new truths which threaten conventional thinking are first ridiculed, then resisted, and finally accepted.

Peace.

[tommylama]

Originally Posted by iamthat

Good to encounter a fellow student of the Ancient Wisdom. Yes, the third teacher must have arrived on the scene, but I do not know who that teacher might be. I have always had doubts about Benjamin Creme because, as you say, there is no obvious evidence to support his claims.

Your comments on the etheric planes are interesting. I would agree that science can never explain the manifest universe until they acknowledge the etheric planes because these are the energy planes which support the gaseous, liquid and dense physical universe.

The Tibetan in the Alice Bailey books also suggests that the next step for humanity is to develop etheric vision, even if only on the lowest etheric subplane. This will radically change many things, not just in physics but also biology and medicine. And it will also affect how we consider the death of the physical body. Conventional science may resist such new ideas but eventually they will be accepted. As someone said, new truths which threaten conventional thinking are first ridiculed, then resisted, and finally accepted.

Peace.

We seem to have a lot in common. May I have your permission to email you? It's not everyday that I find someone who cares to discuss Blavatsky and Bailey!

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by tommylama

We seem to have a lot in common. May I have your permission to email you? It's not everyday that I find someone who cares to discuss Blavatsky and Bailey!

Of course. The Blavatsky/Bailey material provides plenty for discussion. We can connect via the private messages on this forum and I'll give you my email address. I look forward to hearing from you.

Peace.

[r6r6]

Originally Posted by Compendium

God is in everything including you we are all part of the whole if you want to find God all you have to do is look within.
Namaste`

.."God is in everything",,,


Do we have picture of this God in my soup, cirregrrettes, solid wastes, etc.


What size is this "God"? Can we get God out of cornr kernal, pea, atom or quark or photon or electron?



.."we are all part of the whole"...


Whole? Whole what exactly? If God is in everything then God is in the parts not just that whole. Whatever this undefined "whole" and "God" are exactly, is not explained.


Is this "God" occupied space?


If truly non-occupied space exists, is that also "God"?.


Is metaphysical-1, mind/intellect concept of a triangle, baseball, space, time, god, concepts, numbers also "God"?


What is the differrence between defintion of God and definition of whole, and definition of Universe?

[tommylama]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

.."God is in everything",,,


Do we have picture of this God in my soup, cirregrrettes, solid wastes, etc.


What size is this "God"? Can we get God out of cornr kernal, pea, atom or quark or photon or electron?



.."we are all part of the whole"...


Whole? Whole what exactly? If God is in everything then God is in the parts not just that whole. Whatever this undefined "whole" and "God" are exactly, is not explained.


Is this "God" occupied space?


If truly non-occupied space exists, is that also "God"?.


Is metaphysical-1, mind/intellect concept of a triangle, baseball, space, time, god, concepts, numbers also "God"?


What is the differrence between defintion of God and definition of whole, and definition of Universe?

It's really about logic. It's hard to imagine where the singularity came from that Big Banged 15 billion years ago, so we say it came from God. So the universe is what we call God Immanent and the Guy who created the universe is God Transcendent. There can be nothing anywhere, any time that is not God according to this model, and I think it is sound logic. An excerpt from the Bhagavad Gita sums it up: "Having pervaded this entire universe with a fragment of Myself, I remain."

[r6r6]

Sorry Tommyland, if there is some logic in your below I cannot find it. You can say "it came from God" but that still is meaningless because nobody ---other than myself--- has been much effort into defining with any rational, logical common sense what God is exactly.


Ive see God is the whole but they dont say whole what exactly.


Ive see a lot of God is love. My guess is that the word will be like the word spirit and 10, 20 30 differrent/enumerated definitions.


Same goes for the word soul.


Ive been very clear, specific and concise with defining of all of the above.



Not so with anyone else. Maybe I just missed those definitions and explanations or maybe I forgot them.


Playing hokey pokey mind-games can be fun at any age.


Being rational, logical and using common sense is a mature process that actually takes a little effort to communicated clearly.

Originally Posted by tommylama

It's really about logic. It's hard to imagine where the singularity came from that Big Banged 15 billion years ago, so we say it came from God. So the universe is what we call God Immanent and the Guy who created the universe is God Transcendent. There can be nothing anywhere, any time that is not God according to this model, and I think it is sound logic. An excerpt from the Bhagavad Gita sums it up: "Having pervaded this entire universe with a fragment of Myself, I remain."

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by tommylama

It's really about logic. It's hard to imagine where the singularity came from that Big Banged 15 billion years ago, so we say it came from God. So the universe is what we call God Immanent and the Guy who created the universe is God Transcendent. There can be nothing anywhere, any time that is not God according to this model, and I think it is sound logic. An excerpt from the Bhagavad Gita sums it up: "Having pervaded this entire universe with a fragment of Myself, I remain."

Indeed, there is nowhere where God is not, including the soup, corn kernel, etc.

Some religions seem to only worship God Transcendent, or a God which is separate from and beyond creation. The idea of God Immanent (ie everything is Divine) is not so acceptable to some people. And yet, if God is omnipresent then there is nothing outside of or separate from God. There are no gaps in God.

Speaking of the Big Bang, some are now positing the idea of a Big Crunch. So it all begins with a Big Bang where it all came into existence, and it will end with a Big Crunch where it all goes out of existence. Then comes another Big Bang, and so on.

All of which is very similar to ancient teachings about cycles of manvantara (the out-breath of God when creation comes into existence) and pralaya (the in-breath of God when creation dissolves and goes out of existence).

Peace.

[markings]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

.."God is in everything",,,

Do we have picture of this God in my soup, cirregrrettes, solid wastes, etc.

What size is this "God"? Can we get God out of cornr kernal, pea, atom or quark or photon or electron?

.."we are all part of the whole"...

Whole? Whole what exactly? If God is in everything then God is in the parts not just that whole. Whatever this undefined "whole" and "God" are exactly, is not explained.

Is this "God" occupied space?

If truly non-occupied space exists, is that also "God"?.

Is metaphysical-1, mind/intellect concept of a triangle, baseball, space, time, god, concepts, numbers also "God"?

What is the differrence between defintion of God and definition of whole, and definition of Universe?

The answer to all and each above is YES.