🙂 Don't hate me, I just have to weigh in, I really don't mean any harm...
mistysailor23 said:Don't take this the wrong way—I have to comment, and I mean no harm.
Why is it that whenever we encounter an omnipresent Trinity, we try to explain it in a way that makes us forget everything we actually knew? Our mathematical logic simply doesn't square with that statement. Honestly, trying to make sense of claims like these is enough to drive a person mad. You’re offering me an obvious falsehood as a definition for everything, but by that very definition, everything becomes a lie and truth ceases to exist.
From a Catholic standpoint—where any claim lacking a biblical foundation is considered occultism—this kind of assertion falls right into that category. It’s pulling its roots from Greek philosophical thought rather than scripture.
I don't truly know Brahma, Vishnu, or Shiva, so a deeper commentary on them would be pointless.
However, I do like this part: The Observer, the Act of Observation, and the object being observed.
There’s a certain point here regarding the mechanics of sight that allows us to perceive an object. You’ve reduced the entire process down to two objects and one action, but in reality, what you see depends on so much more. For instance, the color of the light hitting the object... or if it's pitch black, there is no observation at all. You could stare until you're blue in the face and see absolutely nothing.
And if one God truly has multiple faces, then surely there aren't just three, but an infinite number (from a human perspective, anyway).
If we look at a 2D triangle, it comes out as the most perfect structural shape, and we can fit it inside a circle.
Now, try imagining a 3D object with only three flat sides and attempt to fit it inside a sphere. For example, a tetrahedron has four sides, which is the absolute minimum. Now, maybe that's a bit of a tangent, but I'm just applying math to our points of view and our capacity for perception... 🤷
But what do we actually know??? 🤷 Look, I KNOW that statement, period!!!
There’s zero math logic involved here?! An actual math professor would kick me out of class instantly, though man, that would be hilarious to watch. 🤣
Sure, I’m offering an obvious lie, but I'm also offering an obvious truth. A truth so simple and blatant that even the most brilliant, genius minds can't grasp it! That's why they need all that complicated, defining, analytical, heavy mental industry. But despite all that, it isn't
THAT.🙂 And the lie is obvious because you're expressing yourself through it. 😉
There's no truth left when "Truth" is "figured out" <----- Just try not to blow a fuse thinking about that one.
mistysailor23 said:Don't take this the wrong way—I have to comment, and I mean no harm.
Why is it that whenever we encounter an omnipresent Trinity, we try to explain it in a way that makes us forget everything we actually knew? Our mathematical logic simply doesn't square with that statement. Honestly, trying to make sense of claims like these is enough to drive a person mad. You’re offering me an obvious falsehood as a definition for everything, but by that very definition, everything becomes a lie and truth ceases to exist.
From a Catholic standpoint—where any claim lacking a biblical foundation is considered occultism—this kind of assertion falls right into that category. It’s pulling its roots from Greek philosophical thought rather than scripture.
I don't truly know Brahma, Vishnu, or Shiva, so a deeper commentary on them would be pointless.
However, I do like this part: The Observer, the Act of Observation, and the object being observed.
There’s a certain point here regarding the mechanics of sight that allows us to perceive an object. You’ve reduced the entire process down to two objects and one action, but in reality, what you see depends on so much more. For instance, the color of the light hitting the object... or if it's pitch black, there is no observation at all. You could stare until you're blue in the face and see absolutely nothing.
And if one God truly has multiple faces, then surely there aren't just three, but an infinite number (from a human perspective, anyway).
If we look at a 2D triangle, it comes out as the most perfect structural shape, and we can fit it inside a circle.
Now, try imagining a 3D object with only three flat sides and attempt to fit it inside a sphere. For example, a tetrahedron has four sides, which is the absolute minimum. Now, maybe that's a bit of a tangent, but I'm just applying math to our points of view and our capacity for perception... 🤷
So you're judging my expression from a Catholic perspective? 🙂
Do I even need to respond to that???
mistysailor23 said:Don't take this the wrong way—I have to comment, and I mean no harm.
Why is it that whenever we encounter an omnipresent Trinity, we try to explain it in a way that makes us forget everything we actually knew? Our mathematical logic simply doesn't square with that statement. Honestly, trying to make sense of claims like these is enough to drive a person mad. You’re offering me an obvious falsehood as a definition for everything, but by that very definition, everything becomes a lie and truth ceases to exist.
From a Catholic standpoint—where any claim lacking a biblical foundation is considered occultism—this kind of assertion falls right into that category. It’s pulling its roots from Greek philosophical thought rather than scripture.
I don't truly know Brahma, Vishnu, or Shiva, so a deeper commentary on them would be pointless.
However, I do like this part: The Observer, the Act of Observation, and the object being observed.
There’s a certain point here regarding the mechanics of sight that allows us to perceive an object. You’ve reduced the entire process down to two objects and one action, but in reality, what you see depends on so much more. For instance, the color of the light hitting the object... or if it's pitch black, there is no observation at all. You could stare until you're blue in the face and see absolutely nothing.
And if one God truly has multiple faces, then surely there aren't just three, but an infinite number (from a human perspective, anyway).
If we look at a 2D triangle, it comes out as the most perfect structural shape, and we can fit it inside a circle.
Now, try imagining a 3D object with only three flat sides and attempt to fit it inside a sphere. For example, a tetrahedron has four sides, which is the absolute minimum. Now, maybe that's a bit of a tangent, but I'm just applying math to our points of view and our capacity for perception... 🤷
That's a fair, respectful answer! I'll write about them if the need arises.
Basically, they are just symbols of the "complementary" "forces" of Consciousness. Just a description...
mistysailor23 said:Don't take this the wrong way—I have to comment, and I mean no harm.
Why is it that whenever we encounter an omnipresent Trinity, we try to explain it in a way that makes us forget everything we actually knew? Our mathematical logic simply doesn't square with that statement. Honestly, trying to make sense of claims like these is enough to drive a person mad. You’re offering me an obvious falsehood as a definition for everything, but by that very definition, everything becomes a lie and truth ceases to exist.
From a Catholic standpoint—where any claim lacking a biblical foundation is considered occultism—this kind of assertion falls right into that category. It’s pulling its roots from Greek philosophical thought rather than scripture.
I don't truly know Brahma, Vishnu, or Shiva, so a deeper commentary on them would be pointless.
However, I do like this part: The Observer, the Act of Observation, and the object being observed.
There’s a certain point here regarding the mechanics of sight that allows us to perceive an object. You’ve reduced the entire process down to two objects and one action, but in reality, what you see depends on so much more. For instance, the color of the light hitting the object... or if it's pitch black, there is no observation at all. You could stare until you're blue in the face and see absolutely nothing.
And if one God truly has multiple faces, then surely there aren't just three, but an infinite number (from a human perspective, anyway).
If we look at a 2D triangle, it comes out as the most perfect structural shape, and we can fit it inside a circle.
Now, try imagining a 3D object with only three flat sides and attempt to fit it inside a sphere. For example, a tetrahedron has four sides, which is the absolute minimum. Now, maybe that's a bit of a tangent, but I'm just applying math to our points of view and our capacity for perception... 🤷
🤷 Why even say anything besides "you're overcomplicating it"? It’s honestly just one simple thing...
mistysailor23 said:Don't take this the wrong way—I have to comment, and I mean no harm.
Why is it that whenever we encounter an omnipresent Trinity, we try to explain it in a way that makes us forget everything we actually knew? Our mathematical logic simply doesn't square with that statement. Honestly, trying to make sense of claims like these is enough to drive a person mad. You’re offering me an obvious falsehood as a definition for everything, but by that very definition, everything becomes a lie and truth ceases to exist.
From a Catholic standpoint—where any claim lacking a biblical foundation is considered occultism—this kind of assertion falls right into that category. It’s pulling its roots from Greek philosophical thought rather than scripture.
I don't truly know Brahma, Vishnu, or Shiva, so a deeper commentary on them would be pointless.
However, I do like this part: The Observer, the Act of Observation, and the object being observed.
There’s a certain point here regarding the mechanics of sight that allows us to perceive an object. You’ve reduced the entire process down to two objects and one action, but in reality, what you see depends on so much more. For instance, the color of the light hitting the object... or if it's pitch black, there is no observation at all. You could stare until you're blue in the face and see absolutely nothing.
And if one God truly has multiple faces, then surely there aren't just three, but an infinite number (from a human perspective, anyway).
If we look at a 2D triangle, it comes out as the most perfect structural shape, and we can fit it inside a circle.
Now, try imagining a 3D object with only three flat sides and attempt to fit it inside a sphere. For example, a tetrahedron has four sides, which is the absolute minimum. Now, maybe that's a bit of a tangent, but I'm just applying math to our points of view and our capacity for perception... 🤷
It's just a metaphor! Like a signpost pointing to something way beyond the third concept...
It's like that whole finger pointing at the moon thing... if you point at the word "chicken," is it actually a chicken, or are we just agreeing that it's a chicken? ...
God has an endless, infinite number of faces, and honestly, three isn't even close to enough... that’s just a way to describe the different attributes of Consciousness. It’s like this diamond with infinite facets—some are brilliant and sparkling, others are dull or rough, and you just can't even wrap your head around all the variations. But the best part is that those faces aren't separate from the diamond itself...
mistysailor23 said:Don't take this the wrong way—I have to comment, and I mean no harm.
Why is it that whenever we encounter an omnipresent Trinity, we try to explain it in a way that makes us forget everything we actually knew? Our mathematical logic simply doesn't square with that statement. Honestly, trying to make sense of claims like these is enough to drive a person mad. You’re offering me an obvious falsehood as a definition for everything, but by that very definition, everything becomes a lie and truth ceases to exist.
From a Catholic standpoint—where any claim lacking a biblical foundation is considered occultism—this kind of assertion falls right into that category. It’s pulling its roots from Greek philosophical thought rather than scripture.
I don't truly know Brahma, Vishnu, or Shiva, so a deeper commentary on them would be pointless.
However, I do like this part: The Observer, the Act of Observation, and the object being observed.
There’s a certain point here regarding the mechanics of sight that allows us to perceive an object. You’ve reduced the entire process down to two objects and one action, but in reality, what you see depends on so much more. For instance, the color of the light hitting the object... or if it's pitch black, there is no observation at all. You could stare until you're blue in the face and see absolutely nothing.
And if one God truly has multiple faces, then surely there aren't just three, but an infinite number (from a human perspective, anyway).
If we look at a 2D triangle, it comes out as the most perfect structural shape, and we can fit it inside a circle.
Now, try imagining a 3D object with only three flat sides and attempt to fit it inside a sphere. For example, a tetrahedron has four sides, which is the absolute minimum. Now, maybe that's a bit of a tangent, but I'm just applying math to our points of view and our capacity for perception... 🤷
I don't have the bandwidth for this, and you already know math isn't exactly my thing... 😉
I've got something else on my mind. I’ve basically laid my soul bare through everything I write, so you probably know me better than I even know myself... then you just show up and start throwing your own stuff at me...
Just a tiny speck... Come on, you didn't even give us a little intro or open up about who you really are...
So first I’d write out what I actually believe in, like if I'm a Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, or an Atheist...
And I can see how you're being all vague about whether this is Christian, Jewish, or whatever else...
Then why don't you actually pitch an idea for how it should work? It’s easy to just sit there and tear everything apart without even explaining your own perspective...
I only finished my junior year of high school, but that doesn't mean I'm intimidated by people who act all "intellectual" and complicated. Just be fair, be decent, and maybe show a little tolerance once in a while... 😉