Where Did God Come From?

n9newunsixx5150 · May 2, 2003

@X

quote:
"If I told you the truth about the prabupada people you'd lose it. I bet you have yet to read the hidden agenda in their text. the organization is small now due to the many that have seen the blatant propaganda in the translation of the actual text. LOL. you have been deceived."

Who are the "prabhupada people"? I quoted one person.

There are people who take Prabhupada's teachings and use them for propaganda toward their own benefit. It was someone who studied under him that poisoned him.

LOL, you are sorely mistaken.

FoeTwin · May 4, 2003

Re: ...

FoeTwin said:

Xianex:

Is there any Truth in a lie?

How about a myth ???

According to the Greco-Romans, Hezues was the first creator of all things and the god of Judgement.

So who did they believe created him ???

They believed that before Hezues there was an omnipotent god of darkness named Kronos who created Hezues..

Now, most Christian denominations teach that Geezus was the son of God, or God in the flesh...

I also believe this, only I know that Yeshua's power is YHWH manifested in the form of an Holy Spirit... He in fact did walk (and still does in various forms of existence) amungst US poor wretched sinners. Because He knows the wickedess of OUR hearts, He sacrificed Himself by delivering his fleshly temple into the hands of Pontious Pilate the Roman judge and was sentenced to death by His very own "chosen" people who believed not in HIM. He sojourned so that WE may attain the knowledge to have ETERNAL LIFE.

And Xianex, your inquiry was how can light exist without darkness ???

It is a dualistic concept of nature. It's almost like asking, "What is Day?", without waiting for Night....

Can you have the Ying without Yang?

Man without Woman?

Peanut butter without Jelly??

Well, you overstand what I'm getting at, anyways...

No man can righteously comprehend "God," our minds are too finite... All WE can do is either accept HIS word, or become living examples of the fulfillment of HIS prophesy. HIS judgement is inevitable; will you be obedient to HIM, or fall by the wayside and curse YOURSELF into eternal damnation on this astral plane of existence???

I mean, even I have had dreams about the earth being no more than a mere freak experiment...the aliens were angels who shrunk themselves into a disk shaped time warp machines to travel into the antimatter we call outerspace to deliver the Word and sup with prophets here on earth. And we were only one of the planets with life; we were just a miniscule electron orbiting around Hell (the sun in my dream)...the proton, or source of souls who were lost in their life experience, who after being judged with HIS righteous sword were bound to serve as witnesses to all creations that are to come after this world has been destoyed and made anew... Providing energy and inspiration as well as thirst, hunger and strife to life on other astral planes of existence....

Can I fathom god?

Nope...

I am just a human being who awaits my final destination, or the acention of my soul back home, where I was before I was here I was with the Creator...:eyecross:

m.w.merlino · May 6, 2003

these questions all come up because...in the mind of the religious they have no other choice but religion....so when they wonder about things like "where did god come from", it doesnt even enter their brain that, maybe there isnt one....expand your horizons...the universe was created by the big bang...just because we dont understand how it happened doesnt mean there is a "god" that made it happen, it all goes with the human mind trying to get a grip on its own surroundings, anything it cannot comprehends can easily be answered in religion...thats why so many people are christian, they simply cant think for themselves...try finding a religious astronomer, physicist, overall intelligent person....YOU CANT, they know better, they have a greater understanding of our world and they didnt stop at religion in their search for answers, why should you?

FoeTwin · May 6, 2003

@Kryptic:

Who/what was the driving force behind this "big bang" that you're speaking on?

Oops, I forgot to blaspheme (There is no facade ??), but I believe I have hinted at the answer already...

XianeX · May 7, 2003

@9165150 - the void of response which i left you was the "Zero" that you asked for. as far as the prabuphada people you are now reaching at straws. notice how much you may have gleaned from my lack of context. notice that there are many perspectives that can be attributed to that one void.

hence, the substance of a void is the acknowledgement of the lack thereof. hopefully that ism doesn't elude you

not being is a part of the absolute being. I hope you are gleening something from all that I am saying. or at least someone is that may read this.

duality stems from having two perspectives on one thing.

hence a "god" to those who observe, worship, and benefit from that god that deity is looked at as "good".

in controverse those who anti-observant, anti-worshipful, and are effected in a malific fashion by that god see that deity as "evil"

this is duality, but beyond this is the triality

those who do not observe, worship and benefit form that god see that deity as either ridiculous nothing or a nuisance. giving an "agnostic" perspective

every perspective of a one thing adds a demension to it. these are 3d's to the existance of a deity.

darkness is the absence of light. by this assessment light can be measured. If one attributes god as light they limit their god and say that he can be divided by the lack of or the magnitude of his presences. light obviously does not rule the universe. therefore it can not be all powerful. albeit that it has the capacity to be all useful.

BaSICCally · May 7, 2003

XianeX said:

futility could be zero but it is not. The reason it is not zero is because, futility is the result of an action. i.e. cause and effect. Like Einstien said: "in order for something to happen something must move". Proving that this universe is in constant flux. I believe this constant flux is controled by a Mover. This Mover, I and billions of others call God.

XianeX · May 7, 2003

Actually I wrote futility as an exasperation.

in the futility of him asking me something so ridiculous.

but in your response you've shown that just one word that has a direct purpose can be permutated by perspective and lack of information into a wealth of information totally devoid of its original intention.

kinda like the premise of "god"

from the conventional context of how one expects my response; two absolutely distinct and different responses to 9165150 by association lead you to a conclusion that (although very insightful) was out of sync with the original purpose that I printed it.

kinda like the premise of a "bible"

but in line with your response I LIKE that pespective. I LIKE the concept of the mover or the proverbial "original mover".

I even entertain the thought of what was the original "mover" or where the original "move" found inception.

A good question is was the movement initiated from within or without.

That is grounds for what I think may be a more productive debate on the boards.

instead of arguing "gods" "deities" and other foolishiness. argue what may be the "natural" cause of all causes. I know one theory is the big bang but who said that it had to be a bang. why can't is be the little woosh.

think about it. it only takes one snowflake to cause an avalanche. although it rides on the strength of millions that insignificant flake alone is a catalyst for great things.

even in context with the thread. "what if". what if your god the cause of causes is an accident or a fluke of nature? what if a rock that cracced of an asteroids caused a wind that spurred a chain reaction of events began the events of "creation"

I find the quest for the cause rather than lump summing it into the concept of "god" is a much more productive way of deciphering the universe than catechism.

the alludes back to my theory of science eliminating god.

im done

BaSICCally · May 9, 2003

Monkey see, monkey do. You have yet to show me zero.

It had to come from within! Once again you have failed to produce a concise example of something in which is "without" or what I was fishing for in the earlier posts, Zero. Basically there goes that argument.

Huh!? We can't use this. This goes totally against the premise of science. Where is the sufficent evidence that backs up this woosh? That argument is thrown out too.

Science has millions of years to even catch up to God. You have about 60 years left in your life. Does science go with you when you die? I wish you luck....:classic:

XianeX · May 12, 2003

you miss the forest for the trees. i feel sorry for your ineptitude.

you are falling into the category of what ive coined as the "ridiculous notion".

there is no "evidence" to bacc up the existence of god, a woosh, or the big bang. there is nothing in my assertion that goes against any premise of science so your logic is flawed. science is a process of questioning answers, theorizing and postulating.

even more your premise is flawed from the "fact" that religion was, has, and is practiced in a scientific way therefore "God" and science are equivalent of age.

proof of this is shown in the fact that man using scientific principles theorized by what was unknown to him that a god must exist. you amuse me.

neither science or god "go" with you when you die either. both are human concepts limited to this incarnation of existance. you have no objectivity because you bias your argument to the assumption that a deity exists. not yet have I asked you to prove your perspective, you and i both know that you couldn't.

you ask me to show you Zero. show me where Zero isn't.

n9newunsixx5150 · May 13, 2003

@Xianex

quote:
"@9165150 - the void of response which i left you was the "Zero" that you asked for. as far as the prabuphada people you are now reaching at straws. notice how much you may have gleaned from my lack of context. notice that there are many perspectives that can be attributed to that one void."

you brought up the "prabhupada people". In which you have small knowledge...

the "void" or "zero" perfectly resembles the agnostic "premise". Its actually VOID of premise. Fathomed from the mind completely in the dark and in pure speculation.

The real debate here was "personal versus impersonal". I do not see the logic which says that consciousness came from an absolute, lacking this very thing. Just as I do not accept that life, (or consciousness), is a product of material circumstances.

quote:
"not being is a part of the absolute being."

define being. By "not being" do you mean "not manifest"?

quote:
"duality stems from having two perspectives on one thing.

hence a "god" to those who observe, worship, and benefit from that god that deity is looked at as "good".

in controverse those who anti-observant, anti-worshipful, and are effected in a malific fashion by that god see that deity as "evil"

If one accepts that there is a God, then they understand that their existence is completely dependent on God. Under the influence of material nature they will suffer just as they may at times feel pleasure. People who let their knowledge of God sway because of these material circumstances are being fooled by maya. Maya, (if you do not know), is the illusive external energy of Lord Krsna....

I'll get more of this later...

n9newunsixx5150 · May 13, 2003

@Xianex (cont...)

quote:
"those who do not observe, worship and benefit form that god see that deity as either ridiculous nothing or a nuisance. giving an "agnostic" perspective"

But it is those ignorances that make one not realize that their very existence is dependent on God. If God is "ridiculously nothing", then the agnostic is less than that.

These people are like little children who think they are ready for the adult world. They feel all puffed up and full of false ego, so they put on daddy's shoes and play out daddy's activities. Unfortunately for them, because they have forgotten their relationship with their father, they suffer.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
"every perspective of a one thing adds a demension to it. these are 3d's to the existance of a deity."

perspective 1: God is supremely good
this perspective is in knowledge. When one understands his or her eternal relationship with the supreme they *realize* this in fact.

perspective 2: God is good-evil
this perspective is under the sway of the material modes of nature. One in this perception sees circumstances in their own life and decides, based on that, whether they "like" or "dislike" God. This conception of God usually changes as the circumstances do.

perspective 3: No God
The most ignorant perspective. The idea that one is fully independent of the source. As if life is merely a combination of material substance and their self-conscious existence is purely accidental. The rays of the sun forgetting they came from the sun sphere.

n9newunsixx5150 · May 13, 2003

@Xianex (and finally...)

quote:
"darkness is the absence of light. by this assessment light can be measured. If one attributes god as light they limit their god and say that he can be divided by the lack of or the magnitude of his presences. light obviously does not rule the universe. therefore it can not be all powerful. albeit that it has the capacity to be all useful."

First of all, light is used more or less as a metaphor. Also, the rays of light emanate from the source of this light. God (the supreme person) is not the rays, He is the source. Nope, the rays do not rule the universe. But, the rays are completely dependent on the source. Everything comes from something. The concept of something coming from nothing displays this age of kali perfectly.

XianeX · May 13, 2003

--yawn--

you have no evidence to the amount of knowledge i have or lack. i respect that you have an opinion . . .
you amuse me. what is the difference in being and "being" manifest???

if i said that i believe in god why would you assume that because i have that belief i need any reason to "understand that their existence is completely dependent on God" that is a fallacy. just because i believe there is food does not necessitate that i eat, cook, or even look at it for that matter.

I know what maya is but i dont care. . .

the words of proselytization pass through my mind as blah blah blah. i have no desire to conform into opinionized preaching on subject matter that can not be justified by the fundamental laws of nature. if your mythology suits you let it suit you. it is meaningless to me. I find all religion beneath me and my caliber.

if your metaphor is innefficient in stating your premise use a better one.

i hate that you have a subjective approach assimilating and dissemenating information. beyond your opinion and catechism you have yet to validate any of your claims with any circumstantial logical truth.

I'm finished with this discussion. i am bored and beyond this point i will become personally offensive to you and lose any level of political correctness.

i

adjure (i love my vocabulary) you to desist.

BaSICCally · May 13, 2003

You humor me. Do you go to Harvard?

2-0-Sixx · May 13, 2003

BaSICCally said:

Why would you have to go to Harvard to be above religion? Last time I checked Harvard isnt known for its religious classes.

Hit The Blunt · May 13, 2003

2-0-Sixx said:

LOL.

BaSICCally · May 13, 2003

Check again Harvard has a school of Divinity. Harvard is also founded by the Pilgrims(my pedigree), the orginators of freedom of religion. Some of the greatest philosophers have graduated from Harvard, such as Ralph Waldo Emerson and William James.

XianeX · May 14, 2003

Harvard what? I'm lost {:<
wtf

--yawn--

BaSICCally · May 14, 2003

I just figured that SINCE you were from such a high caliber that you might attended Harvard or another ivy leauge school. Because I was just trying to figure out the level of your caliber. Personally I feel if you go to Harvard or any ivy leauge school that you are of a high caliber, if not the highest. By your response I take it that you don't go to Harvard or any ivy leauge school.

Either do I. I was just wondering what high caliber, I and the rest of the board was dealing with.

Do you think you are of a higher caliber then the fellows of Harvard's school of divinity?

2-0-Sixx · May 14, 2003

BaSICCally said:

I'm sure some great philosophers graduated harvard, but there are many idiots that graduated from harvard and other ivy league schools as well.

If you were rich, or son of a politician, I promise that you too could go to harvard.

Where Did God Come From?

Anti-feminist

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Anti-feminist

Anti-feminist

Anti-feminist

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG