The Omnipotent Problem of God

One only needs to take a quick journey through the various forums on the web, to see that the acrimonious conflicts, between those that believe in an Omnipotent God, and those who do not, rarely rise to any real resolution of the deeper contentions, so posed. The atheist position, may or may not be couched in the vernaculars of scientific meaning as expressed, nor are those who defend the classical positions of religious tenets always in agreement, which invariably leads to toxic back and forth accusations of who is right and who is wrong. With no consensus possible between diametrically opposing  viewpoints, the deeper principles as expressed are mangled beyond recognition and the subject drowns in bitter battles where words are stones and swords on the battle-field of the mind. The disputes run deep and are only a glimpse of the cultural animosities simmering across the social definitions of people themselves.

The idea that an Omnipotent God is watching over mankind, from a lofty position high above the clouds, say like in an orbiting spacecraft for more advanced than anything man himself has ever envisioned, an idea which  is of course so beyond the limited recursive mentalities, that it is indeed no better than fiction. Such is the irony…. science cannot comprehend the Command of the biological and the mechanical as one unified principle of superior purpose, even as many leading, so-described, tech-visionaries promote the Cylon-transhumanism myths as the next great thing of evolution.

[“The Cylons of the 1978/1980 series are not the mechanical foils seen throughout the series, but an advanced reptilian race who created the robots (who were referred to as Cylons within the show) to serve them, maintain their vast empire and to man their military forces in the face of a sudden population drop that eventually led to the Cylons’ extinction — seemingly overnight. ”

Someone who identifies themselves as a Christian, cannot find cultural resolution with anyone who defines themselves as atheist, much less neo-cyberist atheists, while catholics take a dim view of Protestants and Moslem’s reject any possibility that their viewpoint is dangerously absurd to any non-believers of  Allah, regardless of religious beliefs so held. The language of religion, mirrors the cultural language, like a map of the mind, with territorial inclusions and exclusions dominating the topology of consciousness/unconsciousness itself. Which God does a man belong to by belief or oath, also defines his place in the world. Having no god simply negates the need for such expression’s  to a relationship to the land. If one looks a bit more closely, it is the lands so held, which determine many of the god to mankind relationships. This is not by accident as kingdoms took dominance where Gods once ruled exclusively.

People become socially defined by their religion, or lack thereof, and these essential differences of identity, in turn help define the external qualities of sub-regional to national cultures. People can then argue which cultural identification speaks the loudest— America the Christian nation, or Protestant, Baptist etc.  versus the secular nation— not surprisingly the battle of ideology uses the very same exclusion and inclusion principles as well to define who can belong. Such are the battles which shape political parties into us versus them mentality, while promoting class division, racial division and other forms of separation keyed to the principles, as expressed. The mass mind is kept in perpetual turmoil— chaos rules and peace is just another empty slogan.

In the English-speaking nations, even where various religious sects use common historical roots, there is still simmering, long-standing, often violent clashes due to the inherent differences of what is considered the proper veneration of the Deity, subject to the systems of authority, so followed as customs and traditions as they evolved/ organized, into a greater religious identity. What is obscured by the tedious, dogmatic doctrines is the fundamental roots of the key words themselves. What did these words pointing to “god” really mean to those that once spoke the “original forms” deep in the past?  The very word “god”  has a meaning in conflict with not only how it used, but why it is used at all to describe a someone—- not just a something.

A very interesting paper on this very subject:

The Origin of the English Word for God [1-2] By Craig Bluemel

“Christendom in Europe thru various Bible translators inadvertently expanded the phonetic vocalization of Gad-Gawd-God connection by substituting, “God,” for the Old Testament Hebrew words Elohim (Literally means, “mightiest of the mighty”), and “GOD” (all capitals) for YHWH (Tetragrammaton, aka Yahweh). In the New Testament the Greek words for deity Theós (Strength) was uniformly replaced by, “God,” and, “Godhead.” Whether by design or be default “God” and “god” as words for “deity” became the universal transliteration, transcending the intended meaning portrayed by the inspired Hebrew and Greek text in scripture.

This universal transliteration of gudh-gawd, which means, “to press,” may have even been another paronomasia, unintentionally playing on the meaning of the Hebrew word for Gad by, “pressing together,” carte blanche every word and word-meaning that describes Yahweh. The one universal transliteration of gudh may have gotten reinforcement thru the Swiss and German Reformers, since this Hebrew cognate closely resembles the Germanic, “Ggt,” later spelled, “god,” and later still as, “God,” in England and other English speaking nations.

While we do not know what happened historically, we do know that word names meant something and that spurious transliterations were occurring all the time throughout history. Again, I suspect the idea of being, “compressed together,” is the European intended meaning for, “gudh,” which means, “to press.” Over the course of time the intrinsic meaning of gudh (i.e. – to press together) diminished. All variations of the word, “God,” in Europe amalgamated into one central phonetic usage, usurping other less-used words for deity.

Subsequent to the invention of the printing press, the frequent use of the word ‘God’ in Christian literature, notably the King James Version of the Bible, became so widespread it became a substitute term for Hebrew and Greek words, whose pronunciation in transliterated form was too difficult for the general populace. Spain’s explorers may have brought this word to India and beyond, accounting for its Indo-European origin.

Remember, ecclesiastical powers held strong sway and perhaps this was yet one more ploy by Reformationists to validate their support of the bastard doctrine known as the “trinity,” with its triune “godhead.” This is not that far of a stretch either, because may of them were German or Swiss or Belgian (e.g. – Zwingli). All we can be certain of is that much of Yahweh intrinsic characteristic qualities, which hold so much value in meaning and in application to the life of the true believer can never be squelched by the bastard renderings of some pagan ‘Gad’-god’ substitution on the part of lazy Bible translators. True seekers today in 2005 have the tools at their disposal to find the truth, thru individual search in Hebrew and Greek lexicon dictionary definitions.

Jesus said to those who had believed in Him, “If you abide in my word hold fast to my teachings and live in accordance with them, you are truly my disciples. And you will know the Truth, and the Truth will set you free!” On the other hand, Yahweh’s warnings to those who continue following in the footsteps who offer sacrifice to the “god” of “Gad” he has this warning:

Isaiah 65:11-12 But you who forsake the Lord, who forget and ignore My holy Mount Zion, who prepare a table for Gad the Babylonian god of fortune and who furnish mixed drinks for Meni the god of destiny. I will destine you says the Lord] for the sword, and you shall all bow down to the slaughter, because when I called, you did not answer; when I spoke, you did not listen or obey. But you did what was evil in my eyes, and you chose that in, which I did not delight. “ AMP

Aben Ezra, Kimchi, and the rabbis generally suppose that by Gad the planet Jupiter was intended, which they say was worshipped throughout the East as the god of fortune, and this is now the prevalent opinion. “The word Gad,” says Gesenius, “means fortune, especially the god Fortune, which was worshipped in Babylon.” He supposes that it was the same idol, which was also called Baal or Bel (compare the notes at Isaiah 46:1), and that by this name the planet Jupiter.[24]

The Vulgate renders this in Isaiah 65:11, “Fortunae” meaning, “to Fortune.” The Septuagint uses even stronger language still as, “to daimonioo,” meaning, “to a demon.” The Chaldee renders it simply, “lªTa`waan,” which translated means, “To idols.” It is agreed on all hands that some idol is here referred to that was extensively worshipped in the East; and the general impression is, that it was an idol representing Fortune.

The same deity was worshipped by the Syrians and Philistines by the name of Astarte, or Ashtaroth, the queen of heaven; and if the name Gad be supposed to represent the sun, the name Meni will doubtless represent the moon. The goddess Ashtaroth or Astarte, was a goddess of the Sidonians, and was much worshipped in Syria and Phoenicia. Solomon introduced her worship in Jerusalem (1 Kings 11:33). Three hundred priests were constantly employed in her service at Hierapolis in Syria. She was called ‘the queen of heaven;’ and is usually mentioned in connection with Baal.

Gesenius supposes that the planet Venus is intended, regarded as the source of good fortune, and worshipped extensively in connection with the planet Jupiter, especially in the regions of Babylonia. It seems to be agreed that the word refers to the worship of either the moon or the planet Venus, regarded as the goddess of good fortune. The leading idea of the prophet is, that they were deeply sunken and debased in thus forsaking Yahweh, and endeavoring to propitiate the favor of idol-gods.

The King James Version of Isaiah 65:11 is the only Bible that uses, “…for that troop,” and perhaps there is nowhere a more unhappy translation than this. Barnes notes read, “It has been made evidently because our translators were not aware of the true meaning of the word, and did not seem to understand that it referred to idolatry. The translation seems to have been adopted with some reference to the paronomasia occurring in Genesis 49:19; ‘Gad,’ a troop shall overcome him’ – Gaad gªduwd yªguwdenuw – where the word Gad has some resemblance to the word rendered troop. The word Gad itself, however, never means troop, and evidently should not be so rendered here.”[25]

To say the KJV translators were, “not aware of the true meaning,” shows how culpable even scholars can be. That Gad was a euphemism for “God” and a minced form of the word appears in popular use between 1600-1611 AD, the exact same time the KJV translators were preparing their text from the manuscripts, shows woeful ignorance. No doubt at the time serious compromises and suppression of the truth occurred. Had the same awareness occurred today there would be an outcry against this pollution of the scriptures.

The English word for “God” has become a source of confusion for Christians since at least the Anglo-Saxon era. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary says that the origin of the word ‘god’ comes from a Germanic word ‘gad,’ pronounced as “gohdt.”

The following information on the origin of the word ‘god’ will help to understand why we use it in our vernacular.

GOD – The English word God is identical with the Anglo-Saxon word for “good,” and therefore it is believed that the name God refers to the divine goodness. (See Oehler’s Theol. of Old Test.; Strong’s and Young’s concordances.) (From New Unger’s Bible Dictionary) (Originally published by Moody Press of Chicago, Illinois. Copyright (C) 1988.)

Further information on the source of our word for ‘God’ is listed below:

—–Word origin: God – Our word god goes back via Germanic to Indo-European, in which a corresponding ancestor form meant “invoked one.” The word’s only surviving non-Germanic relative is Sanskrit hu, invoke the gods, a form which appears in the Rig Veda, most ancient of Hindu scriptures: puru-hutas, “much invoked,” epithet of the rain-and-thunder god Indra. (From READER’S DIGEST, Family Word Finder, page 351) (Originally published by The Reader’s Digest Association, Inc., Pleasantville New York, Montreal; Copyright (C) 1975)

Now if the sources noted above are accurate, then the word that we use for the Supreme Being, God, comes from a very pagan origin. Thus the word god is used generically by many different religions to refer to their deity or “invoked one.” ”

Now do people ever stop to consider that the word so used, does not mean, what they assume they say? Not likely…. and when wide-spread use simply distorts the original meanings into garbled forms, where clarity was once the Norm, the resulting ambiguities only further the antagonistic retorts so heaped. People argue incessantly over whether or not one believes in a Omnipotent God, while ignoring the deeper implications of why the word so used is used at all.

—-“…who prepare a table for Gad the Babylonian god of fortune and who furnish mixed drinks for Meni the god of destiny.” —

I suppose it would be too much of a stretch, for the god Meni– to have  become money and was added to the God to Trust with our good fortunes? Or is this another occult hint at what the “Trusts” were actually defining in such clever, masked meanings? Whose system of belief is really being used here? A pagan occult belief wrapped inside a disingenuous application of secular economics. How clever.

Atheists simply reject the resulting false quality of the imposition while ignoring the resulting absurdity so defined, the result of which is that what they believe is equally just as false. Instead of just saying, no I do not believe in this specific pagan god–which was worshiped so long ago– that no relationship to that now unknown ‘somebody’ can be sustained by any invocation of its proper name— they simply go to the extreme and reject the minor relationship as a refutation of greater Divine possibilities altogether. The reality of that former “someone” to those people is gone, but this has nothing to do with the deeper question of a higher-order of Existence. A religious cult bloomed and died alright, but the cult itself merely switched to a new purpose of social control. The cultural relationship has no meaning for people today,  and thus the word,  which invokes that specific quality is genuinely false. This does not refute the question silently posed— did this entity-Gad– actually exist? What genuine relationship did this entity have with mankind at that time? Do people even realize what they are claiming?

The atheist assumes he is smarter than some dumb religious believer for having such beliefs, while never questioning his beliefs may equally be as dumb for entirely different reasons. Both sides have ceased looking for truth and actually argue over whose falsehood is semantically greater. My God is greater than your god— no mine is more supreme yet— my Deity rules the universe– no mine — and on it goes like school kids arguing in a sand box. Meanwhile, the truth is lost on both sides that their claims of god has nothing to do with the Creation. The Proof of the knowledge is reduced to Faith and is easily refuted by basic science.

Gad the ruler of his regional mankind, was no more than the sum of his kinds cultural heritage. Gad was just another one of his kind ruling over the earth, whose superior culture endowed him with abilities too lofty for the simple men of his kingdom to comprehend. Those non-terrains liked this arrangement— they bred mankind like pigs and sheep to reinforce this relationship genetically— men born to worship his Superior Beings— but of course the scientific sophistries of today reject the sublime truth in favor of the absurd. Which they can knock around without effort. This form of smug misrepresentation is nothing new and it is quite effective.

Having mocked the essential principles, the modern-day man is free to re-cast the moral compass to have no purpose, thus,  to reject the claim of moral purpose  itself. Why of course it is now natural for unnatural behavior to be taught as normal. There is no absolute right or wrong when the measure is like a rubber ruler stretching the inch and the foot as if neither mattered at all. Why a pound is a rule of thumb and a dollar is just a market commodity like beans and corn. People are not their skins, or their sex, but try explaining the more subtle truth to someone who identifies themselves by sexual orientation alone. Can a Lesbian cultural  identity ever be shared by males or other females not inclined to judge themselves solely by their sexual need for gratifications?

The hedonistic principle so held by gay men is a selfish one and the lesbian more yet. By their very definition NOBODY else can ever be included in their little circle of absurdity. Should normal men hate themselves for not being lesbian, or specifically Monosexuals? People so inclined often demand unconditional love even as they mock why it is there at all. Heterosexuality is the NORM, for males and females or there would be no species of man. Without science to prop up the absurdity inherent of monosexualism, specifically, nature does not favor their claims, but then again pounding a square peg into a round hole is the sum of their futility to cheat life of its own rules.

When Jesus told people they were to be like children entering into the Kingdom of Heaven… he specifically meant… there is no carnal mind. I know this to be true as I noted such a qualitative distinction of awareness, while in Heaven. There were no biological compulsions, period. The biological body which is dense, is no longer the State of Being… the Soul awareness is free of its organic limitations. By extending this simple observation, that no Being In Heaven, has any needs of the biological body, there is no corresponding function of its use. Complete freedom from the tyranny of the organic body is joy unmatched by any similar quality while of the Earth. This leads to yet another simple observation– the Father of Heaven— a term of Honor and Respect— has never been bound to such organic demands and cannot be confused with any god, as a sub-set of Deities, which have lived as we do ourselves.

From the scientific viewpoint, the ancient Deities, who have been compressed into a singular quality of gods and an Omnipotent God, are simply the superstitions of men too dumb to understand the natural world, who had to invoke imaginary creatures to soothe their fears.  The simplistic accounting of why so many diverse “beings” played so many roles in the daily affairs of ancient mankind in general deserves a much deeper look than most are willing to attempt. And that includes those of a religious nature. Atheists are quite happy to ride the coat-tails of scientific reductionism, while dismissing the salient point: these other “Beings” gave advantages to those that swore their allegiances to them and gave such followers “knowledge” which had no other origination so defined. This elevation of knowledge lead such diverse tribes of mankind to develop skills otherwise unreachable by standard assumptions. Science has done a fine job of ignoring blatant factors to favor one-sided arguments which betray a purpose far removed from simply explaining social evolution.

Just for example: Did Khufu really build the great pyramid? If the purpose was to keep himself and his wealth forever protected from thieves, his achievement was a total, spectacular failure. As was his sons as scientifically defined. Oddly enough, no religious beliefs claim a specific God built the pyramids and I rarely encounter any supportable speculations as to why Yahweh would build such an edifice for himself, but use Khufu as his builder. This raises an absurdity… did the Omnipotent Lord not know a mere mortal king had out-shown him in greatness? Was he surprised such a feat was possible? Why did Yahweh never build himself far superior structures? How about Allah? Was he not impressed by this burial House of Khufu? Did Khufu ever write a single line of text that he was a Muslim? How does one claim Horus was a Muslim manifestation of Allah?

1.Islam and Muslim are both words used to describe the religion revealed to the Prophet Mohammed.
2.Islam and Muslim both have the same origin in the Arabic verb s-l-m.
3.Islam is the act of submitting to the will of God whereas a Muslim is person who participates in the act of submission.
4.To be correctly used, Islam or Islamic should describe the religion and its subsequent cultural concepts whereas Muslim should only describe the followers of the religion of Islam.

Mohammed, ‘the Praised One’, the prophet of Islam and the founder of Mohammedanism, was born at Mecca (20 August?) A.D. 570.

“After Pharaoh has become an oppressor and declared himself as a God of Egypt!! What did he say to his people, consider this:“Fir‘aun (Pharaoh) said: “O chiefs! I know not that you have an ilâh (a god) other than me.”( AlQassas : 38). To that extreme extent, his challenge and arrogance reached. However, the Pharaoh did not stop, he wanted to challenge God`s power and build a high monument in order to climb it to see who is Allah Almighty. Therefore, the Pharaoh wanted to prove to his people, the ones who were like him, that Moses (peace be upon him) is not honest, and that the Pharaoh is the only God of the universe!!

The pharaoh asked Haman, his deputy and partner, to build a huge monument to prove to the people that God does not exist. Here Pharaoh resorted to the technique used at that time in construction which was lighting fire on stones in order to pour the needed stones for the monument. The Pharaoh said after that: “So kindle for me (a fire), O Hâmân, to bake (bricks out of) clay, and set up for me a Sarh (a lofty tower, or palace) in order that I may look at (or look for) the Ilâh (God) of Mûsâ (Moses); and verily, I think that he [Mûsâ (Moses)] is one of the liars.”( AlQassas : 38).

But what was the result? Look and think of the fate of the Pharaoh, Haman and their soldiers, the Almighty says: (And he and his hosts were arrogant in the land, without right, and they thought that they would never return to us * So We seized him and his hosts, and we threw them all into the sea (and drowned them). So behold (O Muhammad (peace be upon him)) what was the end of the Zâlimûn [wrong-doers, polytheists and those who disbelieved in the Oneness of their Lord (Allâh), or rejected the advice of His Messenger Mûsâ (Moses) (peace be upon him]. .( AlQassas : 39-40).

One might ask, is the monument the same as the Pyramid? We say it is not often. The monument is high as a tower or high lighthouse used in order to ascend to high altitude. Allah punished the Pharaoh and destroyed him. Allah Almighty also destroyed his monument to be a verse for the ones who comes after him. This monument that he build to challenge God was destroyed and we do not find it anywhere. The story of the Pharaoh and his black fate was told by Allah in this verse: “And we destroyed completely all the great works and buildings which Fir‘aun (Pharaoh) and his people erected.” ( Al Aaraf: 137 ). Already some scattered stones were found buried by sand during thousands of years.”

This pyramid related account is from a Muslim writer, which while quite interesting is still missing the essential facts. Allah did not build nor erect the pyramids of Giza and no Egyptian of that period invoked Allah as Egyptians of that period were not Islamic. Why does an omnipotent god need a prophet when the world itself is subject to his will? Why speak to one when all men can know the message all at once?

And how about YWHW:

“In the Hebrew Bible the name is written as יהוה (YHWH), as biblical Hebrew was written with consonants only. The original pronunciation of YHWH was lost many centuries ago, but the available evidence indicates that it was in all likelihood Yahweh, meaning approximately “he causes to be” or “he creates”.[8] The origins of the god are unclear: an influential suggestion, although not universally accepted, is that the name originally formed part of a title of the Canaanite supreme deity El, el dū yahwī ṣaba’ôt, “El who creates the hosts”, meaning the heavenly army accompanying El as he marched out beside the earthly armies of Israel; the alternative proposal connects it with a place-name south of Canaan mentioned in Egyptian records from the Late Bronze Age.[8][9]

By early post-biblical times the name Yahweh had ceased to be pronounced aloud, except once a year by the High Priest in the Holy of Holies; on all other occasions it was replaced by Adonai, meaning “my Lord”. [7] In modern Judaism it is one of the seven names of God which must not be erased, and is the name denoting God’s mercy.[7] The Vatican has banned the use of “Yahweh” in vernacular worship since 2008,[10] and the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has directed that the word “Lord” and its equivalent in other languages be used instead.[11] Almost all Christian Bibles substitute “the LORD” and “GOD” for the tetragrammaton, although the Sacred Name Movement, active since the 1930s, propagates the use of the name Yahweh in Bible translations and in liturgy.

The origins of the worship of Yahweh are obscure, but reach back at least to the early Iron Age and probably to the Late Bronze Age.[1] His name may have begun as an epithet of the god El, head of the Bronze Age Canaanite pantheon (“El who is present, who makes himself manifest”), or he may have been a god from northern Arabia (the Kenite hypothesis).[2] In either case, the name appears to have been unique to Israel and Judah, and is not clearly attested outside the two kingdoms.[3]

In the oldest biblical literature (12th-11th centuries) Yahweh is a typical ancient Near Eastern “divine warrior” who leads the heavenly army against Israel’s enemies; he and Israel are bound by a covenant (a feature unique in ancient Near Eastern religion) under which Yahweh will protect Israel, and Israel in turn will not worship other gods.[4] At a later period Yahweh functioned as the dynastic cult (the god of the royal house),[5] the royal courts promoting him as the supreme god over all others in the pantheon, notably Baal, El and Asherah, (the last of whom may have been his consort).[6] Over time Yahwism became increasingly intolerant of rivals, and the royal court and temple promoted Yahweh as God of the entire cosmos, possessing all the positive qualities previously attributed to the other gods and goddesses.[5][6] With the work of Second Isaiah (the author of the second half of the Book of Isaiah) towards the end of the Babylonian exile (6th century BCE), the very existence of foreign gods was denied, and Yahweh was proclaimed as the creator of the cosmos and true God of all the world.[6]”

Modern Egyptologists, scoff at the notion that Khufu did not build the great pyramid, while ignoring the odd factor that for the people of those times their beliefs of their Superior Deities, was not to be questioned, or ridiculed. If a scientist was transported back in time to that period and told the people Ra was just another  figment of their collective imagination I doubt that scientist would return in one piece.  By the use of a modern generalization of name,  a curious defect of logic permeates the identification to whom these non-human Beings were— as a race not of this Earth by origination.  

If mankind was indeed re-imaged[biologically changed] to be genetically bound to this other Race, to serve them in their needs, no amount of evolutionary evidence is going to explain such a radical departure from the natural norm, which is why evolution, as an answer to the unstated question itself, has to erase this link. If science  did not disconnect the obvious relationships such an arrangement required, then people today would never accept any authority from religious cults, much less, obvious amateurs trying to emulate beings more evolved than themselves.  Mere men cannot compete with a race whose life-spans were measured over hundreds, perhaps thousands, of human generations. What Pope has ever beaten old age or death? What king has ever left his throne and ascended to the stars in relative recent history? The so-called divine qualities of todays royals is absurd when compared to even the most modest of attributes of an Allah or a Yahweh.

People of different educational backgrounds may scoff at the idea that men today are only placing false words in the mouths of the ancient people, as if only a minor factor is involved. A deeper examination reveals those who called upon their Deities by a proper name, followed them into war against other such Deities, along with their armies, in bloody, real life games of conquer, or be conquered. To acknowledge the race which fashioned mankind for their own purposes, does not negate a Supreme Creator, it simply places those “gods” on the same playing field of the people of the ancient earth, whose activities resulted in mankind becoming their servants—:

[service (n.) c.1100, “celebration of public worship,” from Old French servise, from Latin servitium “slavery, servitude,” from servus “slave” (see serve). Meaning “act of serving” is attested from early 13c. Sense of “duty of a military man” first recorded 1580s, hence “the military as an occupation” (1706). Meaning “the furniture of the table” (tea service, etc.) is from mid-15c. Service industry (as distinct from production) attested from 1941.”

Many scholars contend that there is no Hebrew word meaning worship in the sense that people are using it, by meaning, as found in our culture today—-:

[worship (n.) ” Old English worðscip, wurðscip (Anglian), weorðscipe (West Saxon) “condition of being worthy, honor, renown,” from weorð “worthy” (see worth) + -scipe (see -ship). Sense of “reverence paid to a supernatural or divine being” is first recorded c.1300. The original sense is preserved in the title worshipful (c.1300).”]

Thomas Aquinas wrote in the Summa Theologica: “Whatever does not imply a contradiction is, consequently among those possibilities in virtue of which God is described as omnipotent. But what does imply a contradiction is not subsumed under the divine omnipotence…”

Aquinas was addressing  “The Omnipotence Paradox” which is an age-old problem. Can God create a rock so heavy even he cannot lift it— is a very popular example.

Can God create a being more powerful than himself? Is Satan that Being?

Can God create a universe he does not comprehend? Our own?

Can God create a world he can lose himself in Toto, in order to experience death? The earth?

Each answer is just a possibility of logic so defined by the rules of the question.

As for the rock question— this is a variation of the chicken and egg— can a chicken lay an egg that is not a chicken? Can a God do [something] which is impossible by the rules as known to mankind? Better yet, can God violate his Own rules to be God?

If God can create a rock from matter unlike himself, he has to become something which he is not to do something else normally impossible. If one starts down this road it is about impossible actions creating even more impossible results. To create a rock so large it becomes greater than God means the rock is now omnipotent. The rock now rests in a State of Existence superior to that which created it— if not, then there is no such rock which can be created, simultaneous to God. The scale of the rock merely suggests that size is a measure of power, which is not true. To lift is to move against the force of gravity— where there is no gravity there is no lift to be measured. In a state where scale is only determined by a Frame Perspective– that which is small is not always the least powerful— while a pebble thrown against a mountain is only adding to the countless other pebbles so defeated at the base, the release of energy from the atoms of that pebble,  might very well reduce the mountain back to dust.

Very few consider that God might find another way to lift such a rock, or change himself to another state where every rock regardless of scale is still just a pebble. This of course ruins the paradox which can only remain a paradox, so long as the rules which produce the paradox are themselves not changed. The chicken and the egg paradox works the same way— So long as the conditions do not change the tension of the two factors they remain equal— no resolution… no answer.

Science itself creates a paradox with the Big Bang… what went bang and why was it big? How about the previous state was summed to the highest order of energy–resolution— and then transcended the previous state so completely the previous will never exist again? Or the paradox where science invokes dark matter to explain why there is not enough matter to explain— what they think— they see— as a Cosmos. Is red-shift now the bane of cosmic science? Religion and science are not adversaries they are co-conspirators pointing to the scales of truth, by examples they create— that mock the truth they claim to seek. If red-shift is wrong why hold onto it with a death-grip? Why ignore the electric-plasma descriptions which correspond to actual data so observed? If electric-theory better explains what is observed, why pretend otherwise?

If Khufu built a pyramid, which was so useless as constructed, to hide or protect his actual wealth, by its very design, he defeated the very purpose of  building it at all. This a paradox as well. The structures of Giza did not store wealth or serve as tombs. Why did a man build something he could not use as intended? How can slaves build something so massive they had no idea how it was done? Well, science tells us that they were actually skilled workman, which contradicts the most ancient of such recollections, but what did those closer to that time know anyway… right? So what… that such men upon completion did not brag far and wide and their descendent’s just the same  for centuries on end about such an edifice. That bragging would be normal. Why of course after the completions of the Giza pyramids, not a single other culture paid a visit, wrote a papyrus, erected a monument, or even mentioned the largest such structure found anywhere in their neck of the woods. The fact is— it is in the absence of  positive knowledge which allows such paradoxes. 

The church needs science to maintain such paradoxes or it loses power. Science needs the church to up-hold false assertions of the past, so specific ideas can be mocked easily, thereby, giving a false illusion of superior knowledge. Each has a specific purpose dependent upon the other or people might very well come to understand why the past is not the one they believe to be true. The pattern is reinforced by excluding any [knowledge or interpretations] examinations of prior human activities in situ or preserved in language/writing. This exclusion has been quite extreme for so long it is regulated to myths of conspiracy. Without such exclusions the pyramids resort back to being created by that other race, both science and religion dare not speak one word about in any positive manner. They have created a false paradox— which is now a Painted Corner. They boxed themselves in with a lie so bold they cannot admit how big it really is without losing everything.

A moment of Criticality thus approaches… A lie so big it is like a rock, neither science or religion can lift? Science and religion are both cults serving the same purpose. My experiences have taught me that neither one will give me the time of day for the same reason… I know what they are lying about, but proving the big lie is not so easy. Each side has used a very sophisticated set of rules which when Inclusive cannot be refuted by any rules so excluded. Math proves only math not reality. While math is quite exceptional and so important to everyday needs it cannot be ignored for what it is in truth… the best description our MINDS can work with to explain our world as known through our senses. When I stepped out of the body by Death I witnessed a different quality of Reality, neither science nor religion can explain. They are excluded from this perspective of Truth for the same reasons they exclude anyone else who does not ACCEPT their Rules to describe Reality. In essence I defeated the irrationality of both sides and became a paradox to both.

I see Jesus as the personification of the Father, of this Age…  He is our Ages Saviour just as in prior Ages his predecessors, had the same role and used the same rules. When the world enters the next age another Saviour will rise up and become that Ages personification, of the Father as the Son. There is no paradox here only missing information of which the knowledge has been suppressed, or changed into a form only recognized by those so intended for its use.   I see a purpose of Existence so beyond the Norm it transcends all inferior beliefs held today. Well, at least those I know of personally, as it is quite possible such beliefs are already out there quietly waiting to be realized when the time is right.

Having not fallen into the logic trap of Gods versus science, or personal gods versus other forms of Deity, I have already transcended the paradox of which is greater or inferior. No matter how illogical the measures become, as argued, my position eliminates the root of the paradox itself. These ancient Beings while likened unto Gods are not the Supreme One… which man himself in ignorance produced as a resolution of that race. That Race spoke of their Order and mankind adopted that Order as his own. Their knowledge was indeed superior to mankind’s, but man himself was not limited to what only they knew for themselves.  The fault lies in claiming they are the Supreme beings as exclusive to all other possibilities. Mankind served them in their needs not the greater One, whose needs did not include any quality of the flesh and never will.

Man was warned not to become a servant of the flesh…. the carnal mind, thus, to rise above that mind is to see the higher truth such a mind cannot include. Carnal excludes the Divine as science excludes the religious.  When religion excludes the Divine, then we have a problem. Religion has become too carnal to be Divine. The Church did this to themselves by becoming an empire of wealth, political power and quite adversarial to those who discover Truth belongs to no one man.   One has to ask which God it is they actually serve, as the one they preach publicly would have to smote them in an instant.  Why has the RC church become so befouled of Satanic qualities they have become an absurdity unto themselves? Jesus never bowed down before Satan…. and no man who calls upon him does either. Those that call upon Satan as their God, are quite secretive about this truth and hide themselves like wolves among the sheep. The sheep think they are wolves. Such is the absurdity of the world today.

The paradox of  the Omnipotent God is no true paradox when one examines the facts, as curious as they may be, as no such contradiction can arise from the highest Order of Truth. If the truth must be crouched in terms which produce paradoxes, that is the sign the truth is not to be found. A false attribute only produces more false-hoods as each form of the lie leads to another even more absurd. Mankind DOES not understand Creation and the Church has apparently been sitting on a bad egg for so long, they cannot change their infallible nonsense without destroying the very reason they claim to exist at all.

The church is now like the great pyramid, as neither can fulfill the purpose for which it was claimed to be built, as a stone piled upon a stone is a fortress. The great pyramid was a weapon, whose power needs was the explicit necessity of its structure. Form followed purpose and mankind had no hand in its construction or use. The reason why it has to be built by Khufu is to destroy the truth it was built by Enki and his sons. In-house power generation for a beam weapon in the capstone now missing.  A red-colored beam weapon known as the EYE of RA whose power smote the foolish, unwary and enemies alike. The Muslims of that time were quite terrified of this “complex” and did not venture too close by land or the Nile. My first hand account cannot be believed, as it refutes science and religious dogma the way a hot knife refutes butter. Awareness is multi-dimensional. I witnessed stars across the skies rotating counter-clockwise just before my journey began to that time period. What machine can move the stars so seen? None of course–I was actually the one moving, without moving which also did not require a machine. I had no idea where I was going, only that I was going back in time.

Time by this function is a measure of speed and distance between any dimensions, not just those which include stars and space. Time is a measure not a force. The Will from the Supreme Being to his agents to myself, included the omnipotent function. When seen in this light a truth emerges which  expresses that Will. From my perspective the science of that action is superior to any inferior demand of proof. Proof is in the doing and is not up for review like a movie or a claim unreproducible on demand. Those doing the demanding are in a quandary not me. I am under no obligation of any kind to share anything, or even acknowledge such demands. The rules do not depend on science or religion as they are Excluded. I simply went from being excluded to being included and returned to my previous state when the journey was finished.

I did not set out the purpose–I simply fulfilled my role in that purpose. There is still a unique possibility that I can prove my journey was real, but it would require traveling to the area where I went. About three hours downstream or so from the Giza complex. For I had traveled up the Nile by boat, my guides used poles to push the boat through the dense reeds along the shoreline. I did not recognize the Giza complex due to its blinding whiteness until nearly there… I was the only one who survived the beam weapon which destroyed the boat and killed the men instantly. I felt and heard that weapon as it turned on us. Ponder that for a while.

My adventures into other reality states may seem like silly stories to those who have no such experiences and no means to measure the truth of them. That is the nature of the inclusion principle— that which is excluded has no place to speak of such omnipotent functions. Men trapped in a mind-set too small for miracles have no conscious-experience to properly comprehend the truths so revealed. This too is a form of ignorance which becomes like cement. The hard-headed men either of science, religion, or any other so described, all have the same problem: having painted themselves into a corner— much like a rock so big they cannot move it…. too big for any other to even want to undertake such an endeavor, they are stuck where they stand until they can change their Own minds.

The false paradox of an ancient race now known as God, has become like an iron chain such men, so bound, cannot break. I am thankful my experiences set me free at a time I was still foolish enough not to be stranded by false concepts, religious or scientific. The world is a far more interesting place when one can believe awareness is multi-dimensional, immutable and can move across scales of distance as if they were mere inches to a foot. I left my hand and foot prints on a distant world as a notice… that world was of unusual golden clouds, of such heights I knew where I was at… I visited that world of that Race… too bad I was only there to leave a message: No ship was needed for the Omnipotent function to reach out to them either. Being a mere messenger does have its perks. NASA has nothing on me.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: