how God created Atheists

English: basmallah , , , in the name of Allah ...

English: basmallah , , , in the name of Allah (God) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Let’s note that we are interacting here using the tool of language. Or, we could say that language is active now and two patterns of activity are distinct from each other.

One pattern can be called the Author: “J.R. Fibonacci” The other pattern can be called [You, the Reader]. Both are patterns of activity. Both involve patterns of linguistic activity in particular.

One pattern is active in a form that could be labeled English (“mine”) and the other may be fluent and active in that language of English and a few other languages as well. However, naming 5 different languages or 832 different languages is just varying degrees of precision in subcategorizing.

 

It is like saying that there are 4 quarts in a gallon or 128 ounces in a gallon, then asking whether a gallon has 4 parts or 128 parts. Dividing all of language in to 4 categories or 128 does not change the fact that all languages are language. Dividing one meter in to 100 centimeters or 1000 millimeters does not change the length of one meter.

Likewise, dividing reality in to “God vs. the Atheists” is completely poetic. All of language is a bunch of symbolic poetry for the purpose of re-organizing the intelligence of life, the Living God.

When there is an operating awareness of the nature of language, linguistic activity can be quite fun and refreshing and clear- eventually. In the absence of such an operating awareness or clarity, many patterns in language can be produced which are somewhat garbled, easily confused, mislabeled, misunderstood, mistaken- like the babbling of an infant.

 

There is no specific correct number of languages on the planet. However, clearly, there is such a thing as language, whether we call it Lingua or Logos or by some other label.

So, can we prove the existence of language? Before you try to prove the existence of a tree in a forest that fell without anyone around and before you propose to assert the existence of Allah, can you prove the existence of language?

 

If you witness language as language, then you may be labeled “Allah.” Do you witness that you are not limited to language, but are the author or maker of new constructions in language, that you are the one who divides “here” from “there,” heaven from earth, day from night and so on? You divide these things with language (labels, names).

I cannot prove the existence of the word Halla, but I can use it and I give it existence. How can I just create a word like Halla and begin to use it? Because language is my creation. I am the author of language.

What is Halla? It is a five letter sequence based on a reversal of this five letter sequence: Allah.

English: Sikhs & Stylized Allah

English: Sikhs & Stylized Allah (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

What does Halla mean? I get to make that up. I can say that Halla means all activity, including the activity of dividing one pattern from another and then labeling them in language.

Of all activity, linguistic activity is one type. Of all linguistic activity, the words Halla and Allah are two instances of linguistic activity.

hallá

hallá (Photo credit: siggimus)

Activity is omnipresent, omnipotent, eternal, and omniscient. I am activity. I am the Tao. I am the Supreme Brahman Being that has been called many words: 101 names, 1001 names, and so on. Allah is one name of Halla. Halla is one name of Allah.

Name one thing that is not activity, if you can. Even naming already implies activity in language. We cannot escape from activity because we are activity. I can no more escape from Allah than a body can escape from it’s own skeleton.

Allah is reality. Reality is omnipresent, eternal, omniscient, and omnipotent. When reality changes, then everything else changes too because there is nothing that is not the Holy One.

 

According to a famous old book, a fellow named Jesus was asked to identify the most important spiritual teaching. He quoted an old Hebrew saying (that may be a translation of a much older Vedic saying) which says (translated in to English) “The Divine Authority is One: undivided, boundless, inclusive, ‘catholic’.”

Some approximations of that idea are reflected in the words of those who claim not to be Prophets of God, who claim to have a lesser degree of understanding than Prophets or than God. They translate like this: “The LORD Thy God is One.” That is close enough. More direct or precise is this: “I am only the Divine Authority and nothing but that, and there is only one Divine Reality without any rival or opponent or adversary, for I am Unitary, Holy, Singular, Inclusive, Comprehensive, Boundless, Undivided, and Eternal.”

English: Interior wall and ceiling of the Shei...

English: Interior wall and ceiling of the Sheikh-Lotf-Allah mosque in Isfahan, Iran (panorama) Deutsch: Innenwand und Kuppel der Sheikh-Lotf-Allah Moschee in Isfahan, Iran (Panorama) Français : Le mur intérieur et le plafond de la mosquée du Sheikh Lutfallah à Isfahan, Iran (panorama) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

However, God does not claim to be outside of those who claim to be outside of God. When God operates as a pattern of linguistic activity that results in the speaking of the words “I am not God and I do not even believe God exists,” that is basically no different to God than any of the other activities of God or acts of God. God can even form sequences of words like this: “I am God but you are not. You are just an atheist. God does not abide in you. God hates you. God created you, made you in to an atheist, then condemned you for being an atheist and punished you for eternity, but only because God loves you like God loves all of God’s prefect creations made in the image of a perfect God.”

So, dear reader, you who struggle with God (which is an English translation of the Hebrew word “Israel”), dear you lover of divinity, called in Greek “Theophilus,” this is God communicating with you and directing you to name one development that is not the Will of God. Name one development that is not evidence of God. Can you label something “proof that God does not exist?” Can’t you!? But so what! That changes nothing but the labeling, the language, the naming, the categorizing.

You, dear reader, can say that I am Satan and that I am here to tempt you, but isn’t the linguistic label “Satan” also the creation of God, a pattern of activity under the authority of the omnipotent God, isn’t Satan the agent or messenger or angel or Prophet of God? If God made a disguise and called it “Satan” and then Satan (who is really just a creation of God) made a disguise and called it Christ or Buddha or Mohammed, would a disguise change the underlying reality? Would it change the contents of a jar of pickles to put a new label that said “potatoes” on the jar of pickles? Would there still be pickles in the jar or would they disappear and be replaced by potatoes because now God was using the disguise of the word Satan or the word Jesus or the word J.R.?

What does the word Devil mean? It is from the Greek root “dia-bolos,” which means to throw a label across something, to disguise it, or, more broadly, to accuse or slander, as in vilify. Ironic, huh? God created vilification. God created the Devil and dia-bolos and atheists and every word of every language. Name one word that is not the word of God, who is the creator of all things?

When God manifests as a human watching a tree fall in a forest, there may be a manifesting of the awareness of all of that activity as the activity of God. Or, there may not be such an awareness (as in such a labeling).

English: Tanvir

English: Tanvir (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I see a computer screen with shapes on it. Who invented these shapes? Who recognizes them as words in English? Who recognizes the difference between clarity and confusion, witnessing them both? Who uses a word like God or Allah or Halla?

If I define myself as a body that was created, then I can assert that I am a temporary body and, further, that God is not just this temporary body, so I must not be God. Or, I can assert that God abides in this body and that this body abides in God.

Or, God can assert that God abides in this body and that this body abides in God. When God speaks as God, there is a faith or certainty that is distinct from when God speaks as a temporary body.

When an actress puts two puppets on each hand, then the hand puppets start talking to each other like there are two isolated hand puppets, could the two hand puppets, which do not really exist except in language, have an argument about whether or not it is possible for hands to invisibly exist inside of the puppets?

See

 

 

English: The ceiling of the Sheikh-Lotf-Allah ...

English: The ceiling of the Sheikh-Lotf-Allah mosque in Isfahan, Iran Deutsch: Die Decke der Sheikh-Lotf-Allah Moschee in Isfahan, Iran Français : Le plafond de la mosquée du Sheikh Lutfallah à Isfahan, Iran (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: