God to You

Bhaktajan,
I'm not sure how to respond... :eek: :confused: :) :mad: :cool: well, I'll tell you, I couldn't help but laugh.
You got me good. Thanks... needed a laugh!
GOD is laughter to me at this moment. :D
 
radarmark said:
Pretty straightforward reply to the OP. In terms of probability physics presents a very hard choice to the Cosmologist. First, the likelihood that a virtual particle metamorphized into the universe (pretty much the only physics-based explanation) is just too small to be calculated. All other theories of the origination of the universe assume that something "beyond physics" was responsible for the act of creation. I like the latter because it seems more probable (I am not saying it was a personal creator god).
Click to expand...

Neither do I defend the theistic opinion of a personal God. Einstein did not, and neither did Jesus himself, if you read John 4:24.

Einstein died pretty much a lone hold out to advancing science. Like Mach (who never did accept atomic theory), Einstein never accepted quantum theory (thus probably would have added little with his TOE). And his G!d was not a personal creator god but merely a creator who never ever could act in the universe.
Click to expand...

You are right. Einstein could never conciliate with the theory of quantum mechanics. God does not play dice, as he said.

Well, this one is really up in the air, but again very pertinent to the OP. The origin of the universe (as Hitchhiker's Guide put it) is a big, really big problem, you just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is. So I am not surprized we haven't solved it yet, when we have only know about it for 50 years or so (when the steady state theory was first diproved). Science and physics may not lead one to G!d--but at least they no longer say He does not exist (a la LaPlace).
Click to expand...

I do imagine the size of the problem about the origin of the universe. But instead of bashing those who are supposed to produce the answers, I rather press for the introduction of God albeit under the concep of probability. I believe that would ameliorate much of the atheistic frustrations.

Ben
Click to expand...
 
God to me is the creator of the Universe. Not the creator of all things as they are, but the creator of the fabric and the laws that move all things: the physics, the biology, the material.

God is the total of all true relationship, all true love, all true recognition.

God is the original home and source of intelligent life, the whole from which each of us initially separated and to which we will eventually all return. By intelligent life I don't just mean humanity, but countless species in countless worlds.

God doesn't manage each life and each and each event, but placed within each of us a connection to God's will, God's power and God's grace.

It's through this connection that God intervenes in the world (and all worlds), calling the separated to reunite in God's ultimate unity.

So the Universe then is a place of free will and separation, but with this attraction of God underlying everything, calling all beings to forgive, to come out of hiding, and to return.

That's how I see it. My views are based on what I feel in my heart after 17 years of studying and practicing the New Message from God.
 
FutureHumanDestiny said:
god to me operates at the limits of my understanding. beyond that, he is incomprehensible to me.
Click to expand...
Isn't there a lot of things beyond human comprehension? I don't see them as god, or god as that. I see god as an archetypal image embedded deep within the human psyche. The more you understand about your Self the more you understand what this god-thing is and isn't.
 
God to me is a little bit like a funnel, if I imagine the bottleneck as occurring right above my head. God, then, is everything beyond that tiny bottleneck.

God to me is a little bit like a funnel, beginning somewhere within me (in terms of consciousness, Life, energy or Being) and reaching outward, as if in spiral fashion. This may be active or inactive, conscious or below the threshold of awareness ... and energy transfer is certainly in both directions.

God to me is inclusive of all that I am, have been or will be, both Immanent and Transcendent, only possible in the former expression because of the latter, yet inaccessible in God's Transcendence without the open doorway which is God's Immanence.

God can be no less than all of this, every smallest particle of Cosmos, as well as every single link or connecting strand of energy, that binds us all. Even the slightest quiver of this Great Web of Being ... is owing to and thanks to God, while also constituting God and - for the astute Observer - Revelatory of God.
 
Etu Malku said:
Isn't there a lot of things beyond human comprehension? I don't see them as god, or god as that. I see god as an archetypal image embedded deep within the human psyche. The more you understand about your Self the more you understand what this god-thing is and isn't.
Click to expand...

yes, debunking is an essential component of spiritual growth, however, how can we comprehend the incomprehensible?
 
FutureHumanDestiny said:
yes, debunking is an essential component of spiritual growth, however, how can we comprehend the incomprehensible?
Click to expand...
Through Knowledge of the Self, everything known in the entire universe is already stored in our minds, expand do not contract the mind, free do not chain the mind to ignorance.

You already know all the answers . . . just look in the right places.
 
G!d/d!ss is everything you write about and more. H! is all that there is from this tiny quark I see zipping off to the Moon and back to the entire Kosmos of cosmology from the tiniest prehension of a measurement calling for change and manifestation (on the part of that quark) to the most grandious creation of mind (relativity? quantum? Lazarus Long? The Illuminatus Trilogy? Finnegan's Wake?--- I dunno).
 

this summer , my friend Stevi tells me

we are only "conscious" of space
we are only "aware" of time

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

by "space" , Stevi is specifically referring to
the surface or "fabric" of things
which constitutes the cosmos
as defined by General Relativity

by "time" , Stevi is pointing to
the tiny frames or "vibratory pitch" of events
which drive the cosmos
as defined by Quantum Mechanics

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

one brain process ("consciousness") contains the software to prehend "space"
(but consciousness has no ability to prehend "time")
consciousness is only conscious of the physical (& intellectual) architecture of things

a separate brain process ("awareness") contains the software to prehend "time"
(but awareness has no ability to prehend "space")
awareness is only aware of physical (& emotional) drives

consciousness & awareness
2 different software programs which
have no common platform

Stevi might be wrong , but
he usually isn't about such things
the implication (of Stevi's paradox) being

if u have an encounter with the Divine
u are at best having "half" an encounter
u are blind & deaf to the "other half"

if u are "conscious" of the presence of Gyd
u are unaware of any new event transpiring in front of u

if u are "aware" of the presence of Gyd
u are unconscious of any(novel)thing appearing in front of u

this is why "to know Gyd" is impossible

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

to Stevi , the universe is a binary machine
made up of the most exquisite fabric & melody

but the universe is unknowable as a unity , as "1" entity

whenever i go that way (this summer) in our conversing
Stevi says to me
2x.5

this is Stevi's shorthand for
"we can know things (or events) as 2"
"we can know things (or events) as half"
"& even though the net-effect will be '1'
we can never know things as 1"

& if this is true of the universe , then
then this is certainly true of u'r "knowledge of Gyd"

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

but my ace-in-the-hole (in my conversations with Stevi)
is my love of art

the great artists are not the artists who
tell the biggest & best stories , but
the artists who break the rules , who create new platforms

theirs is
often clumsy & inarticulate software
until u learn to look the way the artist does
& new avenues onto the universe begin to ...

open up

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

creatures (smart as humans) continue to evolve
"consciousness" & "awareness" are not the endgame , just
a stage (just 2 tools at one stage) in an ongoing developmental process

humans will produce new brain-software for prehending the universe
(which will look clumsy & inarticulate , at first
but will earn first a "cautious" then a "general" acceptance , in time)
though i have no clue what this brain-software will look like

but when it gives us a complete picture of the physical universe
(the very large to the very small) in a singular prehension
this one step
will (then) bring us that much closer to

Gyd

 
Hi friends......
At time of my graduation, i am good student and performing to good. but after some time my performace going to fall and i am total depressed. And at that time my parent take me to temple and say to me that you feel better, For a month i stay in temple and as time spend i feel better and again become normal. Then after when i feel too sad or depress i go to temple and spend some time their and work their, it really make me alive again and problem going to solve. i like thanks to god that they bless me.
David
hotelquito.com
 

seattlegal said:

I wonder what Stevi has to say about Buddhist "mindfulness" as compared to Taoist "flow?" ;)
Click to expand...
Seattlegal
exquisite creature

there is bit of both in Zen , isn't there ?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Stevi often seems a fan of both Buddhism & Taoism

but then , when he is expounding an idea
i will point to some parallel idea from my college-
days' knowledge of one of these two powerful traditions
& Stevi will give me that wry sad look of his &
sometimes (for my benefit) , he will add a single word
coincidence

Stevi is fixated on his own definitions

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

after (the above) posting , yesterday afternoon
i head out & take a walk up the beach
returning via city streets & , as i look at my surroundings while i walk

i am conscious of the houses & the trees & the sidewalk & the parked cars
Stevi's architecture of relationships in space
but i am not really conscious of my "walking" , just
my shifting perspective

then i change gears &

i become aware of my own walking , the movement of a car (here) & a cat (there) & wind in the trees
Stevi's dancelike movement thru time
but i am completely unaware of this "place" as a whole , aware only of
the total choreography of events which catch my eye

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

no matter what i choose to call them
("consciousness" & "awareness" or "Zabriskie-x" & "Zabriskie-z" , for that matter)
there are two discrete neural-networks at work , here (inside my brain)

i can utilize one or the other , but
i cannot utilize both during the exact same moment

(which may be reason enough , to take a long look at Zen ? )

 

seattlegal said:

Oh, you can use them both at once, but it's sorta like "drunken gung fu."
Click to expand...
Seattlegal
exquisite creature

saw that movie , too
Drunken Master (1978) , starring Jackie Chan

(& yeah , there ain't much Jackie Chan can't do !
or break bones , attempting)

ancient world would have declared Jackie Chan
a god

 
Etu Malku said:
I'm sure this must have been done to death somewhere here but I thought I'd 'resurrect' this question? :D

Explain what God is to you, your Belief, or what it is Not.
Click to expand...


On the premise that God is a parental figure/s, and on the premise that God is love as written in 1 John 4, I will try to explain who I view God to be and why. Also, this will perhaps give you some insight on how I view Jesus as well. Feel free to examine and pick apart what you consider to be a logical fallacy.


** Part of parental love is correcting our children. God corrects us through the law of cause and effect. We are God's offspring (according to scripture) thus we are all a part of this family unit that is the God-head (Father-mother-offspring). Let me explain: Our Father is Spirit (love), our mother is the material universe, and we are the offspring of both. Scriptures state that God is spirit, just as the scriptures state that we were formed from the dust of the ground (material universe).


** We, as God's offspring, are required to learn from our mistakes by the consequences that come as a result of our actions. Our individual mistakes not only affect us but the entire family of God. We are one, and it is love (our Father) that will bring us together as a functional family. Jesus taught us to love, he said the father (love) was in him, and he lived his life as a shining light for the rest of us to see. Jesus' Father is our life force, just as it was Jesus' life force, through which we are able to live peaceably with our brothers and sisters (humanity), whereby we are able to know life abundantly.


** Our father, who is love, is the head of our family unit, just as our mother, the material universe, is the one who rears us. Our mother supplies our physical needs, just as our Father supplies our spiritual needs. Together they make up God [plural] and we, their offspring, complete the God-head (Family). Our Father is love and our mother is loving. Love is the Spirit of our parents (God), and when both are embraced fully, their love enables us to live abundantly. We are part of the God-head (family) but in order for us to live abundant lives, we are required to value both mother and father, then live through the love they both represent.


Take Genesis for example:

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” This suggests that God is plural and not a singular. It also suggests that we are to be caretakers and good stewards over all living things.


Also, consider Acts 17:

So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is [God] served by human hands, as though [God] needed anything, since [God] gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.


And as [God] made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward [God] and find [God]. Yet [God] is actually not far from each one of us, “‘In [God] we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said, “‘For we are indeed [God's] offspring.’ Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the God-head is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man.


** Although most Christians don't view God as I do, my views have a biblical basis, just as they have a basis in reality, as in we are both spiritual creatures and physical creatures who derive from two parents instead of one as many believe. God equates to our parents who are our ultimate reality, and the Godhead equates to God's family of which we are a part of.
 
I apollogise to the adminsitrators here ---I posted this content below recently ---in the wrong thread ["What is actually duality"]. This is the correct thread that I wanted to post this:


((((((((((((((((((((((((((O))))))))))))))))))))))))))
The following is my 2-pence compulsion:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hi-Ya Folks!
I found a note I made to myself ten years ago, “Godhead defined with Brahman mentioned” followed by singular verse number “2.7.47” ---this verse citation is from an ancient scripture of India. That Bhagavata Purana was the last text written 3,000 BC by Vyasa-deva, the literary incarnation of Godhead.

Please take note of the nectar infusion,
Bhaktajan

*******************************
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.

Pratibodha-matram is just the opposite conception of material existence. In matter there are material miseries, and thus in the first realization of Brahman there is the negation of such material inebrieties, and there is a feeling of eternal existence distinct from the pangs of birth and death, disease and old age. That is the primary conception of impersonal Brahman.

The Supreme Lord is the Supreme Soul of everything, and therefore in the supreme conception affection is realized. The conception of affection is due to the relationship of soul to soul. A father is affectionate to his son because there is some relationship of nearness between the son and the father. But that sort of affection in the material world is full of inebriety.

When the Personality of Godhead is met, the fullness of affection becomes manifested because of the reality of the affectionate relationship. He is not the object of affection by material tinges of body and mind, but He is the full, naked, uncontaminated object of affection for all living entities because He is the Supersoul, or Paramatma, within everyone’s heart. In the liberated state of affairs, the full-fledged affection for the Lord is awakened.

As such, there is an unlimited flow of everlasting happiness, without the fear of its being broken as we have experienced here in the material world. The relationship with the Lord is never broken; thus there is no grief and no fear. Such happiness is inexplicable by words, and there can be no attempt to generate such happiness by fruitive activities by arrangements and sacrifices.

But we must also know that happiness, unbroken happiness exchanged with the Supreme Person, the Personality of Godhead as described in this verse, transcends the impersonal conception of the Upanishads. In the Upanishads the description is more or less negation of the material conception of things, but this is not denial of the transcendental senses of the Supreme Lord. Herein also the same is affirmed in the statements about the material elements; they are all transcendental, free from all contamination of material identification.

And also the liberated souls are not devoid of senses; otherwise there cannot be any reciprocation of unhampered spiritual happiness exchanged between them in spontaneous unbroken joy. All the senses, both of the Lord and of the devotees, are without material contamination. They are so because they are beyond the material cause and effects, as clearly mentioned herein (sad-asatah param).

The illusory, material energy cannot work there, being ashamed before the Lord and His transcendental devotees. In the material world the sense activities are not without grief, but here it is clearly said that the senses of the Lord and the devotees are without any grief. There is a distinct difference between the material and spiritual senses. And one should understand it without denying the spiritual senses because of a material conception.

The senses in the material world are surcharged with material ignorance. In every way, the authorities have recommended purification of the senses from the material conception. In the material world the senses are manipulated for individual and personal satisfaction, whereas in the spiritual world the senses are properly used for the purpose for which they were originally meant, namely the satisfaction of the Supreme Lord.

Such sensual activities are natural, and therefore sense gratification there is uninterrupted and unbroken by material contamination because the senses are spiritually purified. And such satisfaction of the senses is equally shared by the transcendental reciprocators. Since the activities are unlimited and constantly increasing, there is no scope for material attempts or artificial arrangements. Such happiness of transcendental quality is called brahma-saukhyam, which will he clearly described in the Fifth Canto.
 
God is ultimate concern.
God is love.
Love is resonating, and striving for what is best.

The only way an perfect (lacking potential), unchanging God could influence change (ie creation) and still be perfect/unchanging is to be attraction... concern/love.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top