On The Topic of Religion...

[n9newunsixx5150]

God Is Love, and from here is where all Gods actions originate.

I have no problem with this sort of answer, so long as you're not implying that God creates because He loves creation. Such an answer invariably commits the fallacy of begging the question.

In short, if the question is: why does God create? then the answer can't contain the word "creation" nor in any way imply it. Because if you say that God created due to His love for creation, then all you're doing is forcing me to re-word my question to: why does God love creation? Usually, in my experience, the answer from most theists (often Christians) boils down to "well, we don't really know." But I like to take this issue a step further. Even if we do not know exactly why God creates, my next question would be: why MIGHT God create? In other words, what is a possible reason a self-sufficient, eternally blissful being would create a world of fleeting forms?

 

[1God]

Why not? He's God.

But if you thought from my point of view, that question would be nothing but a waste of time. I need to see it to believe it. Remember, I'm only talking about God the creator, not spirituality in general.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

...And is that Krishna?

In terms of God having a form? Yes.

Krishna is explained in various Vaisnava texts as being the Supreme Personality of Godhead. There are many forms and expansions of God in the Vedic texts, but only Krishna displays His most confidential and transcendental features in toto. More information on this is found in the Bhakti-Rasamrta-Sindhu, aka The Nectar of Devotion, which can be found here: Nectar Of Devotion. However, if you haven't already, I'd recommend first reading the Bhagavad-gita As It Is, otherwise you might have trouble understanding the NOD.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

Why not? He's God.

But if you thought from my point of view, that question would be nothing but a waste of time. I need to see it to believe it. Remember, I'm only talking about God the creator, not spirituality in general.

Why not, what? I'm not sure what you're responding to here.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

In regard to God as creator, let me put it this way...

God just so happens to have created. He could have equally decided not to create at all. However, God couldn't have decided to not be the owner and controller of all potencies. God couldn't have decided to not be the reservoir of all ability, knowledge and bliss. These items are core to what it means to be God. "Creator" is not. Therefore, I find it appropriate to draw this distinction.

When people stress the concept of God as including "creator," I always ask what they think about God before He created. Is God not God before He creates? However, for me, this is purely hypothetical since I don't subscribe to a linear model of time. The Vedic conception is cyclical. In other words, God is sometimes creating, sometimes maintaining and sometimes destroying. And there is no conceivable beginning to this process since, of course, God created time along with it.

 

[Dhadnot]

Well, whatever Indra can do, he got it from Krishna.

Sho you right.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

Dhadnot demonstrates what I mean by Krishna displayig the most confidential and transcendental features of God.

Indra, for example, might demonstrate great power to some extent. Now, Indra isn't considered as an incarnation of God. Rather, Indra is appointed by God to serve a certain post. But the basic idea is the same with incarnations of God. Parasurama, for instance, is an incarnation of God who demonstrates great physical power. However, Krishna demonstrates more than just physical power. He also demonstrates His lilas (pastimes) in various flavors of loving relationships. The name Krishna means all-attractive, and that refers to the 6 attractive features or 6 opulences: beauty, strength, wealth, knowledge, fame and renunciation. Krishna, in contrast to all others (including other forms of God) contains all of these opulences in full.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

Dhadnot demonstrates what I mean by Krishna displayig the most confidential and transcendental features of God.

Indra, for example, might demonstrate great power to some extent. Now, Indra isn't considered as an incarnation of God. Rather, Indra is appointed by God to serve a certain post. But the basic idea is the same with incarnations of God. Parasurama, for instance, is an incarnation of God who demonstrates great physical power. However, Krishna demonstrates more than just physical power. He also demonstrates His lilas (pastimes) in various flavors of loving relationships. The name Krishna means all-attractive, and that refers to the 6 attractive features or 6 opulences: beauty, strength, wealth, knowledge, fame and renunciation. Krishna, in contrast to all others (including other forms of God) contains all of these opulences in full.

 

[NZTECHFAN]

Dhadnot demonstrates what I mean by Krishna displayig the most confidential and transcendental features of God.

Indra, for example, might demonstrate great power to some extent. Now, Indra isn't considered as an incarnation of God. Rather, Indra is appointed by God to serve a certain post. But the basic idea is the same with incarnations of God. Parasurama, for instance, is an incarnation of God who demonstrates great physical power. However, Krishna demonstrates more than just physical power. He also demonstrates His lilas (pastimes) in various flavors of loving relationships. The name Krishna means all-attractive, and that refers to the 6 attractive features or 6 opulences: beauty, strength, wealth, knowledge, fame and renunciation. Krishna, in contrast to all others (including other forms of God) contains all of these opulences in full.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

I could've sworn I just said all that...

 

[1God]

But Krishna was born, too, was he not? His whole life was written in books, from a baby to a teenager, to a man. So how could he be the creator? I ask this because I haven't read the books you listed, even though I have them, and more, in my household.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

But Krishna was born, too, was he not? His whole life was written in books, from a baby to a teenager, to a man. So how could he be the creator? I ask this because I haven't read the books you listed, even though I have them, and more, in my household.

Krishna appears in the womb of Mother Devaki, but that doesn't constitute the beginning of His existence. Krishna appearing to take birth and grow like a normal child is part of His internal yogamaya potency. This is better explained in the book Krsna: The Supreme Personality of Godhead, which is pretty much a story book form of the tenth canto of the Srimad Bhagavatam.

KRSNA Book

 

[1God]

Wow, you seem to know your stuff. You said Krishna was introduced to you on The Siccness, yet you know way more than me. What did you believe in before Him?

 

[Dhadnot]

Dhadnot demonstrates what I mean by Krishna displayig the most confidential and transcendental features of God.

Indra, for example, might demonstrate great power to some extent. Now, Indra isn't considered as an incarnation of God. Rather, Indra is appointed by God to serve a certain post. But the basic idea is the same with incarnations of God. Parasurama, for instance, is an incarnation of God who demonstrates great physical power. However, Krishna demonstrates more than just physical power. He also demonstrates His lilas (pastimes) in various flavors of loving relationships. The name Krishna means all-attractive, and that refers to the 6 attractive features or 6 opulences: beauty, strength, wealth, knowledge, fame and renunciation. Krishna, in contrast to all others (including other forms of God) contains all of these opulences in full.

Does that mean I can throw thunder bolt bombs and shit my nia?

 

[1God]

Yes, it does, my friend. Go wild.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

Wow, you seem to know your stuff. You said Krishna was introduced to you on The Siccness, yet you know way more than me. What did you believe in before Him?

As you can see, I've been a member of this message board since November of 2002. At that time, I was sort of toying with idea of a supreme being. My understanding was akin to the impersonal Brahman conception of God. You know when someone says they believe in a supreme source or higher governing power? It was sort of like that. I wasn't necessarily opposed to the idea of a personal God, but I wasn't quite at that stage.

However, I considered myself atheist most of my growing up. My father was/is atheist and I attached myself to his arguments. It wasn't until I was 18 that I really started looking beyond my father regarding religious philosophies. It started with a bit of Taoism, The Kybalion, and even a little Kabbalah. I never fully got into any of these ideologies, but, rather, took bits and pieces from them. Then, near the end of 2002, I came on here and met a user who went by the name Vyasadeva. Some people here might remember him. I'm sure Heresy does. Anyway, this Vyasadeva was talking about Krishna and I was immediately attracted to the philosophy. I contacted him on here and he sent me a Bhagavad-gita, which I read three times over while on a 6-month west pacific naval deployment in 2003. The rest is history.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

Does that mean I can throw thunder bolt bombs and shit my nia?

Brahmastras are pretty pimp, if you ask me. The brahmastra is an ancient weapon described in the Vedas that is very similar to modern atomic weapons, but the difference is that the brahmastra can supposedly be focused to only kill one or a select few people.

 

[NovaFire]

In short, if the question is: why does God create? then the answer can't contain the word "creation" nor in any way imply it. Because if you say that God created due to His love for creation, then all you're doing is forcing me to re-word my question to: why does God love creation? Usually, in my experience, the answer from most theists (often Christians) boils down to "well, we don't really know." But I like to take this issue a step further. Even if we do not know exactly why God creates, my next question would be: why MIGHT God create? In other words, what is a possible reason a self-sufficient, eternally blissful being would create a world of fleeting forms?

It's a fair question, why would a self sufficient and blissful being give life? Or in other words create. I can only think of one answer, the natural extension of his love moved him to want to share it with others. Not because he needed to or had to, but so that other beings might enjoy the same bliss and love as he.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

It's a fair question, why would a self sufficient and blissful being give life? Or in other words create. I can only think of one answer, the natural extension of his love moved him to want to share it with others. Not because he needed to or had to, but so that other beings might enjoy the same bliss and love as he.

You're still dealing with the same logical problem with this answer. For one, when you refer to "the natural extension of God's love," this boils down to saying that God creates because it is His nature to create, which begs the question. Secondly, when you refer to "other beings" you're talking about creation, which also begs the question.

The problem isn't just with God needing or having to do something. It is also with God wanting to do something that places Him in an inferior position. One of the key reasons we are understood as being fallible is because we are attracted to the temporary things of this world. Your answer above implies that God is also attracted to these things.

 

[1God]

As you can see, I've been a member of this message board since November of 2002. At that time, I was sort of toying with idea of a supreme being. My understanding was akin to the impersonal Brahman conception of God. You know when someone says they believe in a supreme source or higher governing power? It was sort of like that. I wasn't necessarily opposed to the idea of a personal God, but I wasn't quite at that stage.

However, I considered myself atheist most of my growing up. My father was/is atheist and I attached myself to his arguments. It wasn't until I was 18 that I really started looking beyond my father regarding religious philosophies. It started with a bit of Taoism, The Kybalion, and even a little Kabbalah. I never fully got into any of these ideologies, but, rather, took bits and pieces from them. Then, near the end of 2002, I came on here and met a user who went by the name Vyasadeva. Some people here might remember him. I'm sure Heresy does. Anyway, this Vyasadeva was talking about Krishna and I was immediately attracted to the philosophy. I contacted him on here and he sent me a Bhagavad-gita, which I read three times over while on a 6-month west pacific naval deployment in 2003. The rest is history.

I've noticed people who "find" Krishna connect with him more than any other God or Prophet. What is Bhagavad-gita about? It's about two meters away from me, so I could start reading it anytime I feel ready. My father read it first when he was in University, and he wrote down notes beside each paragraph. You're convincing me more to check it out, but I know it's not gonna change my no-God beliefs.