Who is God?

Discussion in 'Abrahamic Religions' started by Gatekeeper, Mar 31, 2011.

  1. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    Yep, I cought that (good symbolism).
     
  2. Etu Malku

    Etu Malku Mercuræn

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2011
    Messages:
    1,439
    Likes Received:
    2
    I suppose you know this from experience as well? :D
     
  3. donnann

    donnann Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why would you think something with wings wouldnt fly. Birds fly.
     
  4. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    Okay, I am not familiar with your use of the term "break". Are you saying you cannot break up your words into coherent sub-thoughts? That you cannot define your terms? I take that is true given the second sentence about "Unity" and "G!d", but "caused interested" is an interesting term that seems to mean nothing to me.

    I thought it was pretty clear that "follow" was meant in terms of understanding not leadership. Again "not how you are interested" is a neat term of phrase signifying???? What?

    The use of "understanding". Does this mean "understanding understanding"? You must realize that I am not (too) dim. I do not expect you to provide me experience of myself (I have quite enough, thank you). I am asking "what do you mean"?

    Again, "understanding aware" is not standard English, it communicates nothing in this sentence. What do you mean to say? "Uniting to process places" another thing beyond my comprehension. Do you mean "two things unite in a process"? "Experiences G!d's interest continually" what is "G!ds interest"? Is this a focusing on the first thing? "Understands translation continuously", what translation (verbal? movement in space?) ?
    "Life doing something", "saying something with words", and "united truth" mean something to you that I do not understand. What is life doing? What is life saying? I hope you mean metaphorically. This "united truth"... what is it? "This is G!d at the area of Always" again is difficult to understand. Do you mean "G!d has always existed"? The term "area" is what I do not comprehend. Is this the intersection of "experience of G!d's interest" and "understanding translation"? Or is it "life doing something" and "saying something"?

    Do you see my confusion?


    Panta Rhei! (Everything Flows!)
     
  5. Etu Malku

    Etu Malku Mercuræn

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2011
    Messages:
    1,439
    Likes Received:
    2
    These birds have wings and don't fly (emus, ostriches, kiwis, turkeys, penguins, and rheas) . . . on the other hand certain wingless creatures do fly/glide such as flying squirrels and the flying lemur.

    Just saying . . . :rolleyes:
     
  6. donnann

    donnann Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well maybe they got grounded for bad behavior..just saying.
     
  7. donnann

    donnann Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    0
    besides squirrels dont fly they glide big difference.
     
  8. salishan

    salishan freesoul

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2011
    Messages:
    92
    Likes Received:
    0

    Allelyah
    exquisite creature

    my friend Stevi (this past summer) flies out from Chicago for an extended visit
    & one thing u don't do around Stevi is say something half-baked

    in an incautious moment , i foolishly spout something (vaguely pantheistic) like
    Gyd is everywhere & everything
    then i see this grin creep onto Stevi's face , & know i've stepped in it

    it is not GD who u are talking about
    Stevi wryly informs me
    it is GR

    Allelyah
    i will tell u the same thing which Stevi says to me

    this is not Gyd u are talking about
    this is GR
    ("General Relativity")
    not a religious reality , but a secular one

    Einstein's General Relativity is one of science's biggest success-stories , as theories go
    it describes & makes predictions about things larger than an atom
    which are remarkably accurate & reliable

    there are no separate "things" in the universe
    the universe is one single continuous fabric
    an incredibly complicated (topological) fabric which warps & twists & bends
    but just ONE fabric (one surface)
    stretching & expanding from the time of Big Bang to now , & beyond

    according to General Relativity , there is no distinction between u & any other thing
    no distinction between u & me (except the artificial distinction u'r ego or my ego makes)
    separateness is a kind of optic-illusion
    (3-d reality as u or i "know" it is a distortion, is actually
    a kind of hologram , a virtual-reality
    a 3-d picture of "reality" which is projected out from this vast surface
    so that it is this projection which u & i register , with our everyday eyes
    this & not the actual surface of reality , not the fabric of the universe)

    u live in the present moment connected to everything else in the universe
    but the entire past is also encoded within the pattern of this fabric
    (everything in u'r life , everything since the Big Bang is encoded within the fabric)
    in a squashed-down kind of way (as a kind of tracing)

    to the point where past & present become meaningless distinctions
    (& the future does not exist , is just recycling & slight realignment of the fabric)
    "time" does not exist (in a practical sense) , there is only a kind of "eternity"

    in GR , everything can be thought of as "predestined" , no actual "change"
    just new twists in the old fabric
    (one great Continuum)
    a kind of trans-cosmic Inertia

    much of what u appear to be describing , Allelyah
    is not a spiritual reality , but a material reality

    reality according to GR

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    so
    what is wrong with this picture ?
    this picture of material reality ?
    (aside from the fact that u
    don't need to speak of the Divine to embrace it) ?

    the problem (here) lies in
    maybe what u call "wind wings" , Allelyah
    or what physicists call
    QM

    General Relativity may work just fine
    describing molecules & rocks & stars & galaxies
    things bigger than an atom , but

    go subatomic & the fabric begins to shred
    there , space exists the way space exists to a horse with blinders on
    a kind of tunnel-vision which frames-out everything else

    matter (per se) can hardly be said to exist
    (a thing's position & velocity are indeterminate , a blur)
    the only real existence is an "event" (a quantum of energy)

    & even this event is merely statistically-predictable
    (whereas) looked at in-isolation , each event is "random"

    (here) in "Quantum Mechanics" (QM) , space virtually does not exist
    from the Big Bang onward there is only "time"
    (a montage of zillions-upon-zillions of micro-events , each narrowly-framed)

    the moment of the Big Bang ? (then) the universe is at its most orderly
    & as the universe (afterwards) cools & expands , it becomes increasingly disorderly
    increasingly random , its endgame being (ultimate) Entropy

    (Entropy , the wind from the Big Bang
    micro-events , wind wings)

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    GR & QM , two theories
    which equally-well account for the facts of nature

    reality is actually pretty simple
    Stevi informs me
    except , every theory which posits "unity" (or posits "emptiness")
    has its opposite (equally true) theory which similarly posits a single vision


    in his PhD thesis , Stevi initially sets out to solve the "Theory Of Everything"
    (TOE) unifying GR & QM , the grail of modern Physics
    but ends up arguing (in his final draft) that unification of the two theories is unattainable

    true reality is binary
    Stevi believes
    need a new paradigm entirely
    (beyond either a fabric-like surface or a montage of discrete frames)

    & maybe this is where religion
    actually begins to enter in


    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Allelyah
    by describing Gyd's existence & works in terms of GR & QM
    (as Inertia & as Entropy)
    u are describing Gyd as a material entity , as a fact (or first-law) of nature
    (as a pantheistic deity)

    are u sure this is what u
    actually want to do ?

     
  9. donnann

    donnann Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    0
    The earthly universe exists of course. The soul and spirit is sealed away. However the human immortals souls and spriits are not , they are in eternal condtion. Then there is the actual Heavenly kingdom or universe as you may want to call it. The earthly universe was created in the image of it. However the heavenly kingdom , all beings have wings literally , are way way way bigger and consist of much more well light. Thats where GOD lives literally the father of the heavenly kingdom and the earthly kingdom. So as you can see there is more than one aspect to things.
     
  10. voice

    voice Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2011
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    G.D Father is Spirit(sun ). Mother is holy ghost ,knowledge and wisdom of salvation (moon ). Son is spiritual man (morning star or new and morning sun. )
     
  11. Dream

    Dream New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    3,677
    Likes Received:
    1
    First time I've heard of kiwis or rheas.
     
  12. Etu Malku

    Etu Malku Mercuræn

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2011
    Messages:
    1,439
    Likes Received:
    2
    Kiwis
    [​IMG]

    Rheas
    [​IMG]
     
  13. donnann

    donnann Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    0
    The term seems to be lost somehow. Its two one male and one female that even though are two are also one as well as well as three. A very complex entity. This is the creator. In the original oldest texts its singular but also plural because of this reason. This complex entity is love literally. The whole thing is center. So what do you call it? Cant just say mother thats half. Cant just say father thats half. Maybe just creator(s) is correct but whats the one word that says that?
     
  14. Bhaktajan II

    Bhaktajan II Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,265
    Likes Received:
    109
    Sanskrit Translation and English commentary
    by Bhaktivedanta Swami (1896-1977):

    Bhagavata Purana Canto 2 Chapter 7 Verse 47:
    “What is realized as the Absolute Brahman is full of unlimited bliss without grief. That is certainly the ultimate phase of the supreme enjoyer, the Personality of Godhead. He is eternally void of all disturbances and fearless. He is complete consciousness as opposed to matter. Uncontaminated and without distinctions, He is the principle primeval cause of all causes and effects, in whom there is no sacrifice for fruitive activities and in whom the illusory energy does not stand.”

    Commentary by Bhaktivedanta Swami:

    The supreme enjoyer, the Personality of Godhead, is the Supreme Brahman or the summum bonum because of His being the supreme cause of all causes. The conception of impersonal Brahman realization is the first step, due to His distinction from the illusory conception of material existence. In other words, impersonal Brahman is a feature of the Absolute distinct from the material variegatedness, just as light is a conception distinct from its counterpart, darkness.

    But the light has its variegatedness, which is seen by those who further advance in the light, and thus the ultimate realization of Brahman is the source of the Brahman light, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the summum bonum or the ultimate source of everything. Therefore, meeting the Personality of Godhead includes the realization of the impersonal Brahman as realized at first in contrast with material inebriety.

    The Personality of Godhead is the third step of Brahman realization. As explained in the First Canto, one must understand all three features of the Absolute—Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan.

    . . . Cont’d . . .

    http://www.interfaith.org/forum/260685-post52.html

     
  15. brijesh

    brijesh New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2012
    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    0
    1> Grammer has big difference between creation and creator. Existance has no difference. They can not exist without any one.

    For me God is creation and creator both, For me God is Beyond both.

    2> Grammer has biggest difference in creation and distruction but existance has no difference.

    Anything which gets created in timeframe will definately destroy in timeframe. Infact destruction always exist with creation, it is just a matter of quantity. At the time of creation, destruction is less compaired to creation and vice versa. Every creation gives birth to destruction. Every destruction gives birth to creation.

    So for me God is creation,creator,destruction,destructor. Infact the whole existance is God. All lights,all darkness,all goods, all bads,all greats all sins. Infact this goods and bads are man defined accordingly to their belifs and acceptability. Existance has no difference in these all

    www.royalmonk.in your personal tour guide in north india
     
  16. Nephilim48

    Nephilim48 Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is a cop out. God is an invention of man to explain that which he does not understand. There is no god and never has been.
     
  17. Etu Malku

    Etu Malku Mercuræn

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2011
    Messages:
    1,439
    Likes Received:
    2
    The god is Within each of us, it is our Genius, our non-duality . . . it is US in the perfect state of singularity. It is the Gold of the Philosopher's Stone, the KIA of Chaos.

    "The genius is not something added to oneself. Rather it is a stripping away of excess to reveal the god within." - Peter Carroll 'Liber Null"
     
  18. wil

    wil UNeyeR1

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    21,279
    Likes Received:
    1,706
    and isn't it wonderful?

    Welcome aboard, is this a drive by or will you be staying awhile?

    Now it is often those that join a sandbox for the express purpose of kicking sand in others faces don't have the wherewithal or the inclination to sit down and discuss what is troubling them so that they act out to find love, nor why they have yet to discover the fact that all they have to do is ask....that bullying is not the best method to that end.

    Yes...you and I IS one....
     
  19. Etu Malku

    Etu Malku Mercuræn

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2011
    Messages:
    1,439
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hi Wil,

    I'm not sure if this is what you're getting at but, I don't mean that 'we' are all One and connected to an "All". Rather, we are all 'individual' gods and that what most of us perceive as god is not in fact a god but the Ordered Universe (Objective Universe) which we have personified as said God.

    This theory fits nicely with the Gnostic idea of the Demiurge and with Pagan/Polytheistic Beliefs.
     
  20. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,765
    Likes Received:
    1,664
    No, that's a cop out.

    What it says is, there will always be things man cannot understand, so don't even try to understand it.

    Stick with what you can understand (the finite) and just deny the possibility of anything else (the infinite).

    I think it's a betrayal of our nature.

    God bless,

    Thomas
     

Share This Page