KRSNA - as Vasudeva. to Vyasudeva
- Thread starter XianeX
- Start date
There are 3 letters in the word God.
Come on now, this is Christian kindergarten.
How many atoms make up water?
One Hydrogen and two Oxygen atoms make up water.
Just like the Father, the son , and the Holy Spirit make up God.
There is one God, and that one God is the Holy Trinity.
To Christians, God isn't one single entity like Allah.
You can say that the Christian definition of God is different then what you find in a dictionary.
There, that's the Christian perception of God. Not mine.
I for one believe that the Father, whom Jesus praid to is the Godhead. The one and only God. Jesus and the Holy Spirit share the throne with him.
Remember what's written in Genesis?
"Let US create man in OUR image".
Come on now, this is Christian kindergarten.
How many atoms make up water?
One Hydrogen and two Oxygen atoms make up water.
Just like the Father, the son , and the Holy Spirit make up God.
There is one God, and that one God is the Holy Trinity.
To Christians, God isn't one single entity like Allah.
You can say that the Christian definition of God is different then what you find in a dictionary.
There, that's the Christian perception of God. Not mine.
I for one believe that the Father, whom Jesus praid to is the Godhead. The one and only God. Jesus and the Holy Spirit share the throne with him.
Remember what's written in Genesis?
"Let US create man in OUR image".
MIggIDY,
YOU STRESSED, "There are 3 letters in the word God."
SO WHAT? THERE'S THREE IN E-D-J. THAT'S IRRELEVANT. WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT TEACH YOU THAT? SO YOU SAYIN' THAT THE SMEE("g") STANDS FOR SAMETHIN', THE O STANDS FOR SAMETHIN', AND THE D STANDS FOR SAMETHIN'? JUST TO LET YOU KNOW, THE WORD "gOD" IS JUST A TITLE. SO YOU INITIALLY SAYIN' THAT THE THREE LETTERS OF A TITLE MAKE UP A "TRINITY"(WHICH THE WORD AIN'T FOUND IN THE BIBLE)?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "Come on now, this is Christian kindergarten.
How many atoms make up water?
3. BUT YOU FIgURE IT'S BASIC CAUSE IT'S YOUR BELIEFS TOOKEN BAK RIgHT? SO I'M JUST TRYIN' TO gO TO THE ROOT TO SEE WHAT YOU PERCEIVE AND FOR WHAT REASON.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "Just like the Father, the son , and the Holy Spirit make up God.
There is one God, and that one God is the Holy Trinity."
WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY THAT THE ONE gOD IS THE "HOLY TRINITY"?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "To Christians, God isn't one single entity like Allah.
You can say that the Christian definition of God is different then what you find in a dictionary."
SO WHAT DO YOU FIND IN THE DICTIONARY? BUT THERE'S DIFFERENT CHRISTIAN SECTS WITH DIFFERENT VARIATIONS OF THE SAME BELIEF, BUT NOT ALL SO CALLED CHRISTIANS BELIEVE (gOD) TO BE 3 ENTITIES. SOME DO BELIEVE HIS ONENESS LIKE THE MUSLIMS BELIEVE.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "There, that's the Christian perception of God. Not mine.
I for one believe that the Father, whom Jesus praid to is the Godhead. The one and only God. Jesus and the Holy Spirit share the throne with him."
SO YOU SEE THEM AS PART OF A TEAM OR AS ONE FOO'? CAUSE IT CAN'T BE BOTH.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "Remember what's written in Genesis?
"Let US create man in OUR image"."
YUP. SO YOU SAYIN' (gOD) WAS TALKIN' TO HIMSELF LIKE A DUMBASS? OR ARE YOU SAYIN' THAT JESUS WAS WITH HIM AT THE BEgINNIN' AND (gOD) SENT HIM LATER ON AS A RANSOM FOR MANKIND?
YOU STRESSED, "There are 3 letters in the word God."
SO WHAT? THERE'S THREE IN E-D-J. THAT'S IRRELEVANT. WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT TEACH YOU THAT? SO YOU SAYIN' THAT THE SMEE("g") STANDS FOR SAMETHIN', THE O STANDS FOR SAMETHIN', AND THE D STANDS FOR SAMETHIN'? JUST TO LET YOU KNOW, THE WORD "gOD" IS JUST A TITLE. SO YOU INITIALLY SAYIN' THAT THE THREE LETTERS OF A TITLE MAKE UP A "TRINITY"(WHICH THE WORD AIN'T FOUND IN THE BIBLE)?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "Come on now, this is Christian kindergarten.
How many atoms make up water?
3. BUT YOU FIgURE IT'S BASIC CAUSE IT'S YOUR BELIEFS TOOKEN BAK RIgHT? SO I'M JUST TRYIN' TO gO TO THE ROOT TO SEE WHAT YOU PERCEIVE AND FOR WHAT REASON.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "Just like the Father, the son , and the Holy Spirit make up God.
There is one God, and that one God is the Holy Trinity."
WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY THAT THE ONE gOD IS THE "HOLY TRINITY"?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "To Christians, God isn't one single entity like Allah.
You can say that the Christian definition of God is different then what you find in a dictionary."
SO WHAT DO YOU FIND IN THE DICTIONARY? BUT THERE'S DIFFERENT CHRISTIAN SECTS WITH DIFFERENT VARIATIONS OF THE SAME BELIEF, BUT NOT ALL SO CALLED CHRISTIANS BELIEVE (gOD) TO BE 3 ENTITIES. SOME DO BELIEVE HIS ONENESS LIKE THE MUSLIMS BELIEVE.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "There, that's the Christian perception of God. Not mine.
I for one believe that the Father, whom Jesus praid to is the Godhead. The one and only God. Jesus and the Holy Spirit share the throne with him."
SO YOU SEE THEM AS PART OF A TEAM OR AS ONE FOO'? CAUSE IT CAN'T BE BOTH.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "Remember what's written in Genesis?
"Let US create man in OUR image"."
YUP. SO YOU SAYIN' (gOD) WAS TALKIN' TO HIMSELF LIKE A DUMBASS? OR ARE YOU SAYIN' THAT JESUS WAS WITH HIM AT THE BEgINNIN' AND (gOD) SENT HIM LATER ON AS A RANSOM FOR MANKIND?
All this ends with the fact that I said this whole idea is the Christian "perception" of God. Oh yeah then the fact that you said that the word "God" is just a title.
Why don't you pick one up?
The answer is there in every dictionary
This muthafucka called me a foo! LOL! Literately, that made me laugh out loud
I see them as a team.
Remember, Jesus always said he sits at the right of his Father's thrown. And this is later confirmed by John's Revelation.
LOL! Sorry man, you brought out laughter in me again.
Don't get offended by it as I mean no offense by it.
You know we coo.
Anyways, yes I believe God said those words because Jesus was there with him, in OUR beginning.
You see here's where people get it twisted, Genesis starts with our creation along with life on Earth.
People make the assumption that everything was created at once, and the account written in Genesis is it.
Jesus could've been created long before our begining you know what I mean? When Jesus said I am the the Alpha and the Omega, how do we know he wasn't reffering to the beginning as our beginning only?
This is what's going through my head right now.
I touched on it before but it goes very deep.
We need to chop it up and talk about this shit bro....
Why don't you pick one up?
The answer is there in every dictionary
This muthafucka called me a foo! LOL! Literately, that made me laugh out loud
I see them as a team.
Remember, Jesus always said he sits at the right of his Father's thrown. And this is later confirmed by John's Revelation.
LOL! Sorry man, you brought out laughter in me again.
Don't get offended by it as I mean no offense by it.
You know we coo.
Anyways, yes I believe God said those words because Jesus was there with him, in OUR beginning.
You see here's where people get it twisted, Genesis starts with our creation along with life on Earth.
People make the assumption that everything was created at once, and the account written in Genesis is it.
Jesus could've been created long before our begining you know what I mean? When Jesus said I am the the Alpha and the Omega, how do we know he wasn't reffering to the beginning as our beginning only?
This is what's going through my head right now.
I touched on it before but it goes very deep.
We need to chop it up and talk about this shit bro....
Jesus says it in Matthew I think.
But I'm certain he does say it.
Yeah I think God says it literately when he says that Jesus is his only begotten Son.
Otherwise there wouldn't be no meaning to the idea that he loves us so much that he sacrificed his son for our sins ya know?
Do I believe Jesus was created?
The whole idea that he's the Son says it all.
I know Heresy doesn't agree and I'd like to know why, since I'm just gettin started with this religion stuff.
There's still a lot of stuff that I don't know.
I'm only speakin on the shit I've learned so far.
It's a trip when you read the bible yourself and compare it with the way every denomination interprets it. It makes you wonder where they get their shit from.
I think we all need to kick it and share ideas.
That's what will take to get to the bottom of this....
But I'm certain he does say it.
Yeah I think God says it literately when he says that Jesus is his only begotten Son.
Otherwise there wouldn't be no meaning to the idea that he loves us so much that he sacrificed his son for our sins ya know?
Do I believe Jesus was created?
The whole idea that he's the Son says it all.
I know Heresy doesn't agree and I'd like to know why, since I'm just gettin started with this religion stuff.
There's still a lot of stuff that I don't know.
I'm only speakin on the shit I've learned so far.
It's a trip when you read the bible yourself and compare it with the way every denomination interprets it. It makes you wonder where they get their shit from.
I think we all need to kick it and share ideas.
That's what will take to get to the bottom of this....
Isaiah 44:24
im not tryin to take part in this convo. the reason why i dont agree may be found on pages 3, 4 and 5. I dont see why this is hard to grasp.
when you find ONE greek, latin, or aramaic text that TRANSLATES to something like "JESUS WAS CREATED" you will have a point. 2 Corinthians, chapter 11, verse 4
please research ARIUS and ARIANISM. WHEN YOU STATE THAT YESHUA WAS A "CREATED" BEING **YOU** (WHOEVER WOULD STATE THIS) ARE PRACTICING ARIANISM. THIS DOCTRINE WAS CREATED BY ARIUS ( APPRX 325 A.D.) AND WAS *NEVER* ORIGINAL CHURCH DOGMA/DOCTRINE.
RESEARCH BEFORE YOU FOLLOW SOMETHING AND ENDORSE IT.
im out of this convo DONT reply to me. simply take the info and reserach it.
:h:
im not tryin to take part in this convo. the reason why i dont agree may be found on pages 3, 4 and 5. I dont see why this is hard to grasp.
when you find ONE greek, latin, or aramaic text that TRANSLATES to something like "JESUS WAS CREATED" you will have a point. 2 Corinthians, chapter 11, verse 4
please research ARIUS and ARIANISM. WHEN YOU STATE THAT YESHUA WAS A "CREATED" BEING **YOU** (WHOEVER WOULD STATE THIS) ARE PRACTICING ARIANISM. THIS DOCTRINE WAS CREATED BY ARIUS ( APPRX 325 A.D.) AND WAS *NEVER* ORIGINAL CHURCH DOGMA/DOCTRINE.
RESEARCH BEFORE YOU FOLLOW SOMETHING AND ENDORSE IT.
im out of this convo DONT reply to me. simply take the info and reserach it.
:h:
Quote: “@9165150 - I swear if I quoted everything that that you've been saying you contradict and repremise your every argument. LMAO.”
Only by the unintelligent is it seen this way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: “I know that Vasudeva is another name for KRSNA. that's what I told Vyasadeva at the beginning of this thread (in so little words).”
Ok.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: “you said that Vasudeva was Krsnas Earthly father. where in the vedas does it say Vasudeva was on earth in material form?”
There is no reference to Krsna’s earth father not having a material body. Everything that is described of him pertains to him being materially conditioned. So it can be understood by default that Vasudeva had a material body. You would have nothing to back up believing otherwise.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: “also the absolute is NOT limited from being limited. metrics is the evidence of this.”
The material energy has its origin and is overall sustained by Krnsa Himself. Now, just because Krsna personally descends upon the material world does not mean He is covered by it. And Him not being covered by matter does not conclude Him being limited. Matter is His constituent, not the other way around.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: “if the absolute is all things what is NOT the absolute?”
Quality versus quantity. We’ve discussed this. Because you are part and parcel of the absolute you are similar in quality but obviously not in quantity. And because your quantity is so miniscule and that you are covered by material conditions you are prone to forget your constitutional position as a spirit-soul serving the supreme.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: “if a father is not the cause of his son how is a son caused?”
Well, since a father really only has some control over the begetting of the material body, and because Krsna has not a material body… Figure it out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: “what living thing is NOT caused by material birth”
That which does not have a material body.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: “I thought you said that Krsna WAS NOT material or born into it?”
He is not material. He was not born with a material body, although He did appear in the material world. I never said He was not born into the material world. I said He was not born materially, therefore He has not a material body.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: “so youre saying krsna was BORN with a spiritual body through spiritual beings? the same rules apply born is born.”
Krsna appeared with His purely spiritual body uncontaminated by the material energy. Whereas Vasudeva and Devaki, being spiritual beings also, do have material bodies. Krsna paced Himself into a position that appeared subordinate to His parents because He does such things for His devotees. As a child, Krsna would accept the scolding of His mother because He has a very special communion with His devotees. It may appear that Krsna is subordinate in these cases, but the intelligent understand it is by His mercy that He places Himself into these positions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: “but I thought you said that Krsna WAS born material?”
You thought wrong.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: “so krsna is limited i.e. temporary, and is a PERSONAL MANIFESTATION. that means he is not ABSOLUTE”
No, it is you who believes that Krsna is a temporary manifestation of the impersonal absolute. I am stating that the impersonal conception of the absolute comes from Krsna, not the other way around.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: “if the Absolute is a deity then the absolute is not absolute.”
This does not follow. If all things come from this deity then it concludes that He is the absolute. Stop trying to bound the concept of Krsna by putting your materially contaminated self into His position. Understand that, as a person, Krsna, the supreme, is not limited in the ways you or I are.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: “finally you've answer my question subordinate and i will disagree
everything is "in ordinance" nothing can be actually subordinate to the absolute when all things are a part of it. everything happens in ordinance to the destination of the absolute when you look at everything being part of the absolute. but it is seen as subordinate when you look at it as a constituent metric.”
Once again, quality versus quantity. Ignorance is part of the absolute then and we portray that ignorance, whereas Krsna is all knowing, He is not contaminated by this ignorance. Thus we are subordinate to Him.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: “when you look at a car driving you make no distinction of whats in it that actually is the car. therefore even though you can remove its constituencies and it still remains a car as long as it has constituencies it is what it is. just as the the absolute is what it is. but the difference is that the shard is an inseperable piece of the absolute. but it is called shard because of metrics.”
The shard forgets and is prone to fall down. Compare that to Krsna who does not forget or fall down. Also, if any constituency of the car decides not to serve its function to the whole it makes no progress. The difference in analogy though is that Krsna is not dependent on the parcel living entities. Rather, we are dependent on Him and when we forget our relationship with Him we suffer. Another analogy here is that of the hand deciding to keep food for itself instead of putting it in the mouth to feed the stomach. When it does this the hand only suffers from lack of nourishment to the body. We are likened to this when we selfishly do things purely for our own gratification. It should be known that we are neither the creators nor enjoyers of what we do. You are correct that the shard spirit-soul is an inseparable piece of the absolute, but even in a higher spiritual sense there is discrimination between the individual soul and the supreme soul. They are one in communion but they will never be one in quantity.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: “THINK. if Vasudeva and Devaki are spiritual entities and Krsna by your words is a "purely spiritual" entity you are saying that krsna before Vasudeva and Devaki existed created them so that he could be born to them. are you saying Krsna desired to be a son of his creation? if krsna is omnipotent what is the purpose of him becoming a child??? is it because he is a "temporary manifestaion" of the absolute?”
Krsna descended to correct irreligious ways. He put Himself into the position of a son for His pure devotees. This kind of communion will not be understood by impersonalists. Just because Krsna is omnipotent does not mean He cannot show mercy. His mercy for His devotees is immeasurable. His mercy for His non-devotees is immeasurable. Both ways, everyone receives exactly what he or she requires to reach Krsna, the supreme personality of Godhead.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: “you said I concocted shit but look at your own delusions.”
No, I actually read and study the scriptures.
Only by the unintelligent is it seen this way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: “I know that Vasudeva is another name for KRSNA. that's what I told Vyasadeva at the beginning of this thread (in so little words).”
Ok.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: “you said that Vasudeva was Krsnas Earthly father. where in the vedas does it say Vasudeva was on earth in material form?”
There is no reference to Krsna’s earth father not having a material body. Everything that is described of him pertains to him being materially conditioned. So it can be understood by default that Vasudeva had a material body. You would have nothing to back up believing otherwise.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: “also the absolute is NOT limited from being limited. metrics is the evidence of this.”
The material energy has its origin and is overall sustained by Krnsa Himself. Now, just because Krsna personally descends upon the material world does not mean He is covered by it. And Him not being covered by matter does not conclude Him being limited. Matter is His constituent, not the other way around.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: “if the absolute is all things what is NOT the absolute?”
Quality versus quantity. We’ve discussed this. Because you are part and parcel of the absolute you are similar in quality but obviously not in quantity. And because your quantity is so miniscule and that you are covered by material conditions you are prone to forget your constitutional position as a spirit-soul serving the supreme.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: “if a father is not the cause of his son how is a son caused?”
Well, since a father really only has some control over the begetting of the material body, and because Krsna has not a material body… Figure it out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: “what living thing is NOT caused by material birth”
That which does not have a material body.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: “I thought you said that Krsna WAS NOT material or born into it?”
He is not material. He was not born with a material body, although He did appear in the material world. I never said He was not born into the material world. I said He was not born materially, therefore He has not a material body.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: “so youre saying krsna was BORN with a spiritual body through spiritual beings? the same rules apply born is born.”
Krsna appeared with His purely spiritual body uncontaminated by the material energy. Whereas Vasudeva and Devaki, being spiritual beings also, do have material bodies. Krsna paced Himself into a position that appeared subordinate to His parents because He does such things for His devotees. As a child, Krsna would accept the scolding of His mother because He has a very special communion with His devotees. It may appear that Krsna is subordinate in these cases, but the intelligent understand it is by His mercy that He places Himself into these positions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: “but I thought you said that Krsna WAS born material?”
You thought wrong.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: “so krsna is limited i.e. temporary, and is a PERSONAL MANIFESTATION. that means he is not ABSOLUTE”
No, it is you who believes that Krsna is a temporary manifestation of the impersonal absolute. I am stating that the impersonal conception of the absolute comes from Krsna, not the other way around.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: “if the Absolute is a deity then the absolute is not absolute.”
This does not follow. If all things come from this deity then it concludes that He is the absolute. Stop trying to bound the concept of Krsna by putting your materially contaminated self into His position. Understand that, as a person, Krsna, the supreme, is not limited in the ways you or I are.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: “finally you've answer my question subordinate and i will disagree
everything is "in ordinance" nothing can be actually subordinate to the absolute when all things are a part of it. everything happens in ordinance to the destination of the absolute when you look at everything being part of the absolute. but it is seen as subordinate when you look at it as a constituent metric.”
Once again, quality versus quantity. Ignorance is part of the absolute then and we portray that ignorance, whereas Krsna is all knowing, He is not contaminated by this ignorance. Thus we are subordinate to Him.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: “when you look at a car driving you make no distinction of whats in it that actually is the car. therefore even though you can remove its constituencies and it still remains a car as long as it has constituencies it is what it is. just as the the absolute is what it is. but the difference is that the shard is an inseperable piece of the absolute. but it is called shard because of metrics.”
The shard forgets and is prone to fall down. Compare that to Krsna who does not forget or fall down. Also, if any constituency of the car decides not to serve its function to the whole it makes no progress. The difference in analogy though is that Krsna is not dependent on the parcel living entities. Rather, we are dependent on Him and when we forget our relationship with Him we suffer. Another analogy here is that of the hand deciding to keep food for itself instead of putting it in the mouth to feed the stomach. When it does this the hand only suffers from lack of nourishment to the body. We are likened to this when we selfishly do things purely for our own gratification. It should be known that we are neither the creators nor enjoyers of what we do. You are correct that the shard spirit-soul is an inseparable piece of the absolute, but even in a higher spiritual sense there is discrimination between the individual soul and the supreme soul. They are one in communion but they will never be one in quantity.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: “THINK. if Vasudeva and Devaki are spiritual entities and Krsna by your words is a "purely spiritual" entity you are saying that krsna before Vasudeva and Devaki existed created them so that he could be born to them. are you saying Krsna desired to be a son of his creation? if krsna is omnipotent what is the purpose of him becoming a child??? is it because he is a "temporary manifestaion" of the absolute?”
Krsna descended to correct irreligious ways. He put Himself into the position of a son for His pure devotees. This kind of communion will not be understood by impersonalists. Just because Krsna is omnipotent does not mean He cannot show mercy. His mercy for His devotees is immeasurable. His mercy for His non-devotees is immeasurable. Both ways, everyone receives exactly what he or she requires to reach Krsna, the supreme personality of Godhead.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: “you said I concocted shit but look at your own delusions.”
No, I actually read and study the scriptures.
((( You've got to be fucking kidding me! AGAIN? )))
You have already been compromised
I will no longer indulge inorance for the sake of discussion.
I only have 3 posts until the end of my endorsing the siccness by my presence. They will not be wasted in mundane banter.
__616_shards__ find the significance. I am the one.
You have already been compromised
I will no longer indulge inorance for the sake of discussion.
I only have 3 posts until the end of my endorsing the siccness by my presence. They will not be wasted in mundane banter.
__616_shards__ find the significance. I am the one.
quote:
"You have already been compromised"
empty accusations. I have answered all your questions and you continue to ask the same ones in new ways.
quote:
"I will no longer indulge inorance for the sake of discussion."
You indulge ignorance without me. And even more importantly...
ignorance indulges you.
quote:
"I only have 3 posts until the end of my endorsing the siccness by my presence. They will not be wasted in mundane banter."
Then you better make those posts about poetry or something. Anytime you decide to get into philosophical conversations everything that comes out of your mouth is mundane speculation.
"You have already been compromised"
empty accusations. I have answered all your questions and you continue to ask the same ones in new ways.
quote:
"I will no longer indulge inorance for the sake of discussion."
You indulge ignorance without me. And even more importantly...
ignorance indulges you.
quote:
"I only have 3 posts until the end of my endorsing the siccness by my presence. They will not be wasted in mundane banter."
Then you better make those posts about poetry or something. Anytime you decide to get into philosophical conversations everything that comes out of your mouth is mundane speculation.