Posted by Philoman on January 24, 19101 at 15:33:33:
In Reply to: Re: Christ OS posted by Loretta on January 24, 19101 at 14:54:19:
Loretta wrote:
: So, to me, impersonal, is okay.
: Philoman, does your metaphor apply to enlightenment? Can you concieve of an Avatar OS? a Guru OS? a Shaman OS?
Hmmm. You folks are really stretching me, here. I'm not really sure just how far the OS analogy will go, to be quite frank. The insight I had just pertained to how human nature had been "upgraded" by Christ.
But. . . now that you ask, let us suppose that the ultimate nature of the upgrade was subjective, intentional, personal--however you want to conceive it. Let's suppose the OS wasn't just an "it," but a "thou."
It's conceivable that all the software running on it could know the OS as an "it"--as a profound field of intelligence that enabled it (the software) to do what it was encoded to do. It might even be "awake" to itself at the level where it's coding communed with the OS, and experienced itself as one with the OS. Such, as I understand it, would be an analogy to enlightenment.
But what would it take for one to know the subjective or personal nature of the OS?
That, I believe, would be the responsibility of the OS. "It" would have to put forth some batch of code, or something to enable software that was properly upgraded to receive, comprehend, and act on this. An analogy here would be javascript on a web browser; if the browser is not javascript enabled, then the browser just won't "know" all the helpful and dippy things that javascript makes possible.
So, for God to be known personally, God must first extend God-self in such a way that allows us into God's heart. Otherwise, we just know the immensity, mystery, etc., and it can feel pretty impersonal.
Namaste