Zero: Man is God
Topic 29 · 20 responses · archived october 2000
~KitchenManager
Sat, Oct 25, 1997 (01:32)
seed
Zero is the religion founded to uphold the claim that Man is God,
and there is no God but Man. It is a synthesis of rationality
and irrationality, and therefore a reflection of modern Man.
This topic is for nurturing ideas which offer the freedom
and provide the power needed to walk the world as a God.
~stacey
Mon, Oct 27, 1997 (11:08)
#1
Would this be considered a pagan religion considering the population of mankind? Shall we delve into sexism? Brings to mind the song, "Saved By Zero."
~terry
Mon, Oct 27, 1997 (11:38)
#2
Let's delve away.
~ddv
Mon, Oct 27, 1997 (12:53)
#3
Hi. I'm the guy who started Zero.
> Would this be considered a pagan religion considering the population of
> mankind?
It's a religion based on Atheism. Zero provides answers to questions about
death, morality, self-identity, etc. without using the classical God or the
supernatural. Because it's not based on faith, its answers can be used by
people of any faith, or no faith.
> Shall we delve into sexism?
You wouldn't believe how many times I've heard that one. The slogan has
been changed to "Each Of Us Is A God", or "U R God".
~stacey
Mon, Oct 27, 1997 (13:05)
#4
Hmmm... I AM GOD... I like the idea. Maybe not the responsibility.
So not only is Man God, each is his own god?
~ddv
Mon, Oct 27, 1997 (14:09)
#5
Yes, you are a God. A "global God" emerges from the
population of the world, but that's really not the focus
of Zero. Zero focuses on the individual.
As for the responsibility, you're not responsibile for
the whole universe, just for yourself and the things you
care about.
You and the important things in your life come first. In
this sense, Zero's a "bottom-up" religion, while most
classical religions are "top-down".
~KitchenManager
Wed, Oct 29, 1997 (01:15)
#6
Hello, David glad you could make it in,
and hope you'll look around the conferences some.
WER
~KitchenManager
Wed, Oct 29, 1997 (01:16)
#7
..........Hello, too, stacey and terry,
imagine seeing you here!
WER
~stacey
Wed, Oct 29, 1997 (11:18)
#8
How does Zero assimilate the forces imposed upon Man as God? If you are responsible only for yourself are the forces of nature, other Gods and physical constriants considered irrelevant? Are they considered external or is everything regarded as an incarnation of the internal?
~ddv
Wed, Oct 29, 1997 (16:19)
#9
: How does Zero assimilate the forces imposed upon Man as God? If you are
: responsible only for yourself are the forces of nature, other Gods and
: physical constriants considered irrelevant? Are they considered external or
: is everything regarded as an incarnation of the internal?
Reality exists (sorry Buddhists), other Gods (people) also exist, as do the
laws of physics. All of these constraints limit us in some way.
But not as much as you'd think. For example, just because the laws of physics
say I can't fly doesn't mean I can't fly. I can take a plane. As Gods we find
ways around the things that get in our way.
At this point I really have no idea what our real limits are. Will we be able
to create life someday? To create universes? I honestly can't answer "no" to
questions like this. The potential of each human being is amazing.
=-=
David de Void
Homo Deus
~stacey
Thu, Oct 30, 1997 (09:43)
#10
And the potential of two human beings together?...
~ddv
Thu, Oct 30, 1997 (12:38)
#11
: And the potential of two human beings together?...
It depends. Often groups can do more than indivduals. No indivdual
could beat the worst professional football team at football, no matter
how good that individual was.
And of course there's always love, which doesn't work so well with just
one person.
But sometimes one person can do things that a group, no matter how large,
cannot do any better. Remember the joke about a manager assigning 9
women to make a baby in a month?
Sometimes groups are important, sometimes they get in the way. By
concentrating on the individual, we cover both cases
=-=
David de Void
Homo Deus
~jgross5
Mon, May 18, 1998 (18:30)
#12
I am the succubus of zero, and I now swerve into position.
Oh, wait, there's an abscess on my formula. I must take a
moment to consult with Wahabi the Crybaby. Okay, done. I
am back down and off the camel. Eugh, what a fluid motion
that was. I can talk untrammeled with a tambourine in my
hand. And I no longer wanna be the succubus. I suck enough
as it is. Frankly, and rankly, and blankly, I do confess to
the notion that the individual is an illusion. Groups are
too. Don't listen to me on this. I don't. But if we are
stripped bare of all ideals, then we have eliminated the
negative.....and that allows the positive. The positive is
love. But love isn't love. And positive isn't positive.
I mean, this stuff really doesn't have much to do with the
use of words, y'know. Boy, I am really pooped. This took
a lot outa me. Did you know I didn't know I was gonna say
ANY of this? Well why didn't you tell me. Say sumthin'
next time.
~stacey
Mon, May 18, 1998 (19:01)
#13
hey Leplep...
looks like you blew a gasket there!
~jgross5
Mon, May 18, 1998 (21:08)
#14
I think, I guess, it got too individualized.
I really like, though, the idea of starting with nothing.
In that nothing, or with it, that's the closest we get to spirit.
So what is spirit? And what is zero? And man? And god? And nature?
Are these things nothing and not real?
Probably just another way of saying it doesn't have anything to do
with thoughts and images.
What does it mean to say: closest we get to spirit?
That spirit is something good? Desirable?
The way words run together and act on each other in the mind.....makes
me wonder what's the meaning of meaning, too.
What does it mean for the mind to be saying something
like: beyond the mind? Is the unknown totally mixed in
with the known and the real? Is the real very well known?
Or is the real mostly just assumed to be real well known?
My feeling is that if we start with the simplest, most real
thing [what's going on in the present, the here and now],
that what we see in that [the present], is where the spirit
meets the really real. Yeah, but so what? What if the meaning
there in that is actually so close to zero that it is zero?
~stacey
Tue, May 19, 1998 (17:54)
#15
mathematically it certainly is possible.
~BANDS
Thu, Dec 16, 1999 (03:06)
#16
PROPHECY...
Before Bill Clinton leaves office on January 20, 2001, The Lord Of Hosts will utterly Destroy the United States and both its neighbors, with an all consuming fire that can never be quenched.
Sound far fetched?
Well it won't.
Not if you consider the hundreds of supporting Scriptures found at:
http://www.rt66.com/~bandsrpt/FAQ.html
~terry
Thu, Dec 16, 1999 (14:48)
#17
And don't forget, Pete Rose will make it into the Baseball Hall of Fame,
thanks to Second Chance Bill.
~MarciaH
Thu, Dec 16, 1999 (15:50)
#18
Do you mean SC Bill has his hands in that pie as well as everything else he can get into? Oh dear... We ARE doomed!!!
~terry
Fri, Dec 17, 1999 (10:02)
#19
Bill isn't about to leave the scene, he'll be making waves for a long
time. I have the feeling Hillary will back out of the Senate race and be
appointed head of the World Bank (doesn't require confirmation and it
would help the Clintons raise some spare change).
~MarciaH
Thu, Dec 30, 1999 (21:46)
#20
They'd better not reach into my pockets. The only hand allowed there is Terry's!