— Introduction —
http://threesology.org
| I AM GOD... Introduction | |||||
| I AM GOD 1 | I AM GOD 2 | I AM GOD 3 | I AM GOD 4 | I AM GOD 5 | I AM GOD 6 |
| I AM GOD 7 | I AM GOD 8 | I AM GOD 9 | I AM GOD 10 | I AM GOD 11 | I AM GOD 12 |
Seekers of God as of 9/19/2021
Entry: Friday, December 18, 2015
I came across the following three-patterned YHWH reference that I was not aware of when compiling the "I AM God" text:
Source: "Biblical Literature." Encyclopaeædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.
Entry: Friday, January 8, 2016
If we accept the interpretation that God is God in a singular sense of self-referencing, and that this is a description of Monotheism, then the existence of different references to God is the practice of a type of Polytheism held over from a distant past. Even though we use the word "Monotheism" in describing a belief in a single, supreme God, all religions, when totaled, are actually practicing a modern day version of a pantheon of Gods with different attributes assigned to a single entity. If the acknowledgment of a single God is a single revelation shared amongst humanity, then this God is without need of separate definitions denoted as religions.
I make mention of it because upon reading it, the "voice" or "impression" which kept after me to compile the list, was like hearing the echo all over again. I am not at all trying to attribute any religious significance to it, since it no doubt mirrors events which may be involved in other creative thinking processes that artists of different genres are familiar with. Nonetheless, it was like a thunderclap of recognition, without the flash of light or an attendant noise... like a shooting star amongst stars which fill the night sky in the desert. (I was reviewing different articles in the Britannica Encyclopedia about Moses and the Exodus. It is interesting to note that in one article, he is said to be an obscure figure from Moab: "Moses." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013. )
The statement "I Am God" is not meant to be self- referential nor a list of heretofore undisclosed desires having found a medium of projected narrative imagery. It has been written in the manner in which many poems are relegated to some exposed culminated fashion that may, upon completion, achieve some relevant approximation of that which may have entered one's consciousness along a wayward path of previous obscurity momentarily caught at the corner of one's eye... to be eventually followed with an ensuing force of expressiveness that one feels they are but a go-between- something we can only superficially denote as this and that, here and there, less realization and more realization, no matter how unclear these labels may appear to those seeking some definitive explanation; and would possibly otherwise define with terminology more comprehensible to the mode and manner in which they may make the better usage of for interpretively describable personal conveyance. Such is thought by some to be the realm of present human consciousness in this day and age. We can but skirt about, flirt with, and generalize impressions created by way of the medium of physiologically-transmuted inference(s), whether or not they achieve or receive low or high levels of attendant recognition and repetition.
However, no claim is being made for advocating other than inspiration derived from personal experiences. In other words, although others may want to infer that God had a direct hand in influencing the ensuing material, no Moses-related burning bush nor Michelangelo "Pointed Finger of God" Sistine Chapel portrayal was ever seen or imagined. Indeed, if God has a direct hand in the manufacture of the material, why then are there revisions and accumulated additions... unless one would want to argue such are needed because of my own short-comings that require slow guidance in order to forestall a disarray of spirit (sometimes referred to as madness) that ensues when one is overwhelmed due to circumstances beyond their immediate control. Whatever Pro or Con perspective one would care to agree with, the deed is done... not as a religious confession, but as an expressed exercise of impressions which have come to mind time and again.
In other words, this present reference about the subject God is not meant as an advocacy of any religious interest or conviction, but an exploration into a realm many fear to tread because their faith makes them afraid, which is a supreme hypocrisy and naiveté' about God either as a supreme being or a subject for one's most intellectually sincerest and heartfelt desire to know the truth as best we humans have the capacity for, in this day and age.
It should be noted, just as I have encountered what may be called spontaneously occurring mental representations that reach the "light of day" realization in the writing of several previous poems that "came to mind" or "popped into mind" seemingly out of nowhere, the following material effusively came forth again and again, clamoring for a voiced expression that even now interrupts the flow of thought with a desire to be heard. Even when I have tried to render it mute by ignoring it through a variety of self-imposed distractions, I have even been awakened at night or forced to stop alongside a traveled-upon road in order to jot down some relevant material-ed "message" that "came out of the blue." If I had been a painter, sculptor, architect, weaver, or other crafts-person, the present task may have taken on another expressed form of medium such as being represented in a quilt or seemingly nonsensical collage or scrap book formula, if not a new cookbook recipe.
I am not alone amongst the millions of Earth's inhabitants who, at sometime or another have encountered an expression, be it in the form of writing, painting, sculpture, or some other activity, that we find ourselves momentarily absorbed with the content thereof. We are awe-struck by its presence and may even attempt to conceal our jealousy because it portrays a type of revelation to our consciousness. We wonder to ourselves who could have done such a thing?... only to thereafter realize it is a product of our own hand. Little o' me did that? It is a realization that is interpreted to suggest to our disbelieving self that something or someone other than ourselves had directed our efforts. (Such is one of the quires of humility.) Whereas many would shy away from describing it in terms that might be viewed suspiciously (as a by-product of mental illness), others might readily announce it as an indication of being directed by this or that, good or bad supernatural being or force; whether labeled God, alien, monster, ghost, creature, reincarnated soul, muse, demon, angel, spirit, entity, indescribable presence, ancestor, relative, friend, spouse, victim, associate, or whatever... be they dead or alive, depending on what value or response such an announcement may render in their particular social circumstances.
At this moment, what comes to mind as a means of providing an example of how I was (and still am) at times overwhelmed by the tide of information spewing forth; is the old motion picture entitled "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" in which Richard Dreyfus plays the part of an "innocent, ordinary, everyday person, with little to distinguish him from millions of others", who has been reached out to by an inexplicable force that provides him with a message in the form of a mental image.
The image becomes all consuming to the extent he can do little else but focus on that which preoccupies what may be termed the embodiment of his soul that he comes to portray in the form of an earthenware sculpted representation that he has created by a means and method that makes him appear crazy to those nearby. (But the image is not to be construed with what some might describe as an Epiphany, though the later connection to another image might be construed as such.) Fortunately, for the sake of his own sanity, shortly after having reached some similitude of finality of approximation in his capacity to make a portrayal of that which had come again and again to mind with a forcefulness that superimposed itself on his waking (if not sleeping) state, he witnesses a similar (but larger) image on a televised news report that influences a psychic connection to be made between the two... thereby influencing and encouraging further participation in a search for some "conveyed" inexplicable truth that must be sought out. The connection makes him appear impulsively desirous to seek out the larger "real" image by way of making a trip (to a point of origin?), irrespective of how his family feels or what others may think. The expressed images are so overwhelming that little else occupies his manifested energies in intervals of time measured by a clock he alone hears the heartbeat-like rhythm thereof. It truly is the beat of a drum that not only he, but others as well hear... and yet he nor they truly comprehend the significance thereof nor provide a means of explaining what to others interpret as being somewhat irrational when defined by so-call normalcy. Hence, you may think my efforts at the present "I Am God" form to be the product of a similar type of madness... since I too can provide but a sketchy reason for having compiled the information.
Nonetheless, it should be mentioned that many people have conjectured about that which we call God. Those advocating a religion would necessarily claim that God and religion are one and the same. But those of us who are not attempting to advocate a religious doctrine do not feel it is appropriate to propose that God and religion are one and the same. It seems rather silly, if not ludicrous that so many people accept this view without question. While some would counter that this is what has been believed for thousands of years, I would counter that it is quite possible, if not probable that such a view has been wrong for thousands of years. God does not belong to religion and neither does one's morality. Religions who claim ownership thereof are engaged in a type of magical thinking commensurate with an antiquity of stone-age inferences.
Why in the world would any sentient being permit any select group of (religious) people to define how the concept of (or belief in "a") God is to be defined, when history is replete with so many examples of both innocently and deliberately mis-defined interpretations? Just because they (religions) assume this right, and in some instances create circumstances that eventually lead to the killing (socially, financially, physically, etc.,) off of those who don't agree with them, does not provide them with any greater clarity of truth or justification for their beliefs... Religion did not create God or morality but it does try to fashion both to fit its very many peculiarities and thus try to make people think that the practice of a particular religion breeds a greater God and morality.
And this is one point of our intellectual adventuristic demarcation: What if God, assuming that such an entity does in fact exist, has nothing whatsoever to do with past considerations? Such a perspective can also be analogistically applied to our concept called Peace. Whereas many hold to the immature standard that peace is an absence of war or conflict, most people don't extend this appreciation to an absence of poverty, hunger (malnutrition), homelessness, illness, crime, exploitation, etc...
Whereas the old song's refrain... "All we are saying, is give peace a chance," should be re-sung with a more enlightened appreciation of what peace actually means in terms of a common definition. And this meaning should be a clear definition... if not what peace is, then what peace isn't. As it now stands, there is no widespread adopted definition of what Peace is or isn't. While there are articulated proposals as to the meaning of Peace, and there are proposals as to the meaning of God, there is no widespread definition of what Peace or God is or isn't. And even if we did achieve a consensus, this does not mean we would be any closer to a realization thereof.
While some would be quick to claim that Peace is not war, peace also is not hunger... or is it? Likewise, some would be quick to claim that God is not evil, God also is not disease... or is "it?" Is God disease? Is God "All things" or only those which we, from one perspective or another care to advocate? And if we should advance the perspective of what God isn't, do we arrive at a closer approximation of what God is, or may be?
Now that you've got a footing, let's begin:... (as it is said, as it is written, so shall it be done... by placing one foot in front of the other to take the first step...)
Page Initially Created: Thursday, November 13, 2014, 5:42:08 AM
Updated Posting: (involving comments about YHWH): Saturday, January 2, 2016
Updated Posting: (involving comments about Monotheism): 10-Jan-2016... 02:25 PM
Updated Posting: (involving HTML update of all I AM GOD pages): Tuesday, 01-Mar-2016... 01:16 PM
Updated: (contents for series is included, HTML update): Sunday, 9/19/2021... 4:17 AM