Is God part of existence or cause of existence

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Is not what we live within a condition, is not what we are a condition, is not the cosmos itself a condition, why is it necessary to personify this said condition of the cosmos---------duh!! :nonooo: Zeus and lightning bolts -please!

The Hindu theory of Brahman states that the Brahman is infinite and unpersonified. There is a saying, neti neti (not this, not that) that describes Brahman: it is easier to describe what it is not. The Gita even has a few good riffs on it:

It is called unmanifest,
inconceivable, and immutable...2.25

but the problem with this theory is that, quite simply, it is unpersonified; it is nigh-impossible to identify with it. Brahman may be the GUT of the Universe, the end-all and be-all, the Universe in all its forms and all universes in all their forms, and all the Forms too if they exist, it may be utterly inconceivable and indescribable, but how does this help the average person get closer to it? Answer: it doesn't. And thus devotionalism in Hinduism: the Vedic gods were reconceived as fragments of Brahman containing the whole of Brahman within them (which, not coincidentially, according to the doctrine of atman, we are too); devotionalism allowed one to worship this personification, something one could identify with: basically by worshipping Krishna or Shiva, Vishnu, Parvati, or Kali, among many others, one is substituting a finite and describable god in place of the ultimate and indescribable Godhead.

Now once I realized that, I realized also that the same pattern appears in Christianity: we speak of a God the Father (i.e., Jewish God), God the Son (Christ), and the Holy Spirit; in the Trinity the Holy Spirit seems to be the inspiritive force pervasive in this world, and God the Father the ultimate and totality, but by the grace of his sacrifice, Jesus acts as the intercessor between us and God (the Father); thereby he becomes God the Son--and the really amazing thing is that these are all the same ultimate being! The Trinity describes three different aspects of God, just as the Hindu gods describe different aspects of Brahman.

When considered in this way, it seems to become clear to me that God is both the causer and the caused; that is He is both a part of existence and the cause of existence; any finitude of existence is an aspect of God; this chair is an aspect of God; this desk is an aspect of God; this computer is an aspect of God; we are aspects of God. And this solves your dichotomy, Alan.

2 Replies

@hammersklavier,

hammersklavier; Smile

Yes I think the Hindu tradition recognizes that some people can deal with the unmanifested source while some need something concrete to deal with, but, the problem then arises when people forget that those gods are not the ultimate, but manifestions of that transcendent energy. I suppose that the same thing does happen in the Hindu tradition as in Christianity, what comes to be meaningful, is the idol, an idol which ceases to be transparent to mystery, it of necessity when understood as such is delusional. I would think that mystery is an elemental aspect of spirituality, when one gets stuck to the metaphor/idol, well, its a wash. I suspect however that not as many Hindu's fail to realize the import of what is intended. I once suggested to a Christian friend that the ultimate source was indeed a mystery, thought in many traditons to be a transcendent energy, but no the idol is it for a great many people, it is much simplier to deal with is it not, that picture on the wall shows us where it all comes from. If you lose the mystery, you've lost the sense of spirituality, wonder ceases with the concrete symbol, concrete is not transparent and perhaps scripture then becomes just a moral code.

1 Reply

@hammersklavier,

Hey Theaetetus

Quote:

It wasn't meant to be taken seriously. My comment was only a joke. :perplexed:

I did not pick this up, the use of smileys really help, I use them Smile

Hey hammersklavier

Quote:

When considered in this way, it seems to become clear to me that God is both the causer and the caused; that is He is both a part of existence and the cause of existence; any finitude of existence is an aspect of God; this chair is an aspect of God; this desk is an aspect of God; this computer is an aspect of God; we are aspects of God. And this solves your dichotomy, Alan.

I stated exactly that that we are aspects of god, I cant remember when but I used this exact word on the forum. "I could not agree more with your neat summarization above"

Justin

My quote

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan McDougall
No one can say what God can or what God or what God cannot do."God dwells in the praises of his people"

Your response

Quote:

Sure they can. You do. The bible does. So does every other swinging donkey in the world today and yesterday. They say god does this and god does that and people believe it or fall for it or are simply to caught up in the physical existence and ego to go deeper into the rabbit hole to actually take a look around.

I should have stated "None can say what God can do or what God cannot do with "absolute certainty?" God real mind is just to inscrutable to man

Quote:

God created man because man says he did. God is a 'he', because man said he is. He was a male because men and women were not equal in those days... Therefore according to man, God is a man. LOL. Who said that god created man in his own image?... Another man! I'm not sure what there is to disagree with. If man did not create this god you all are talking about then I'm the pope... because I said I am.

Yeah yeah Justin I am aware of all these silly notions of humans when they talk about god , he/she/it/them what the heck, it makes no difference to the reality whatever that might be. I only used he because this is the most common way of thinking about god

To me god has no gender and is not a being but IS "the reality that pervades all of existence". God simply "IS" undefinable

Quote:

Says who?... MAN. Let's correct this now. You are disagreeing with me and paraphrasing something from a story that man said. So if God created man, then why is man defining god? Man called it god. Heck, god used to be the sun god before we came up with a more fashionable alternative. My point is man created your definition of god and your disagreement is only because you believe another man. LOL. You are not alone in this.

I have a right to disagree with you because like me you are a very limited finite entity with very limited knowledge of all of existence. And I paraphrased no one, my words are my words Of course my brain and memory is full of learning and I might not always be aware from where an idea popped into my mind from.In this I plead guilty

We can twist logic and words painfully until they all fit nicely into our personal thinking and we can reject every idea that is in conflict with ours as stupid, I really hope you are not doing this :perplexed:
.
[QUOTE]If man did not create this god you all are talking about then I'm the pope... because I said I am.[/QUOTE]

In fact I am the Pope and just joined your forum as an observer to see what you silly mortals, so removed from god, (unlike me who has direct access to him) were speaking about :bigsmile:

Justin I have read through your posts and you have disagreed on nearly every point that everyone else have posted Have you no nice comments for we little peasant. I know the peasants are revolting? :perplexed: :bigsmile:

Are you very very angry with this ridiculous idea that there might be an intellect infinitely greater than ours. I really don't think this is silly, after all we are confined to this tiny infinitesimal dust mode in a godforsaken corner of a really minor galaxy in a universe of unimaginable vastness

Out there god demigod beings billions of years ahead of humanity might for all purposes by indistinguishable to us, from our best concept of god

But surely the "buck must stop" somewhere?

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

hammersklavier;

Yes I think the Hindu tradition recognizes that some people can deal with the unmanifested source while some need something concrete to deal with, but, the problem then arises when people forget that those gods are not the ultimate, but manifestions of that transcendent energy. I suppose that the same thing does happen in the Hindu tradition as in Christianity, what comes to be meaningful, is the idol, an idol which ceases to be transparent to mystery, it of necessity when understood as such is delusional. I would think that mystery is an elemental aspect of spirituality, when one gets stuck to the metaphor/idol, well, its a wash. I suspect however that not as many Hindu's fail to realize the import of what is intended. I once suggested to a Christian friend that the ultimate source was indeed a mystery, thought in many traditons to be a transcendent energy, but no the idol is it for a great many people, it is much simplier to deal with is it not, that picture on the wall shows us where it all comes from. If you lose the mystery, you've lost the sense of spirituality, wonder ceases with the concrete symbol, concrete is not transparent and perhaps scripture then becomes just a moral code.

This is indeed true, Boagie, especially in the West. Interestingly enough, at the end of a ritual that requires an idol in Indian tradition they destroy the idol; I've heard that effectively they believe that the idol is just a piece of clay, but in the ritual they summon the god into said piece of clay as a temporary abode and then, by destroying the idol, they release the god. It's sort of like a really long prayer in which they ritualistically ask the god to do something.

Devotional tradition asks us to believe in a finite and identifiable intercessor as an aspect of the unidentifiable infinite, that is, Krishna in place of Vishnu, Vishnu in place of Brahman, or in the West, Christ or the saints in place of God. This is inherently mystical (as opposed to ritualistic, e.g., Judaism, mainstream Islam, Vedic Hinduism) and I do think there are people who do not understand this connection, but by and large in India it would seem the average layman understands perfectly what he is doing.

In Christianity, the inherently devotional heart of the faith has been hidden over the millenia by an increasingly complex web of theology and dogmatism; instead of believe one's own heart, which is what Jesus seems to have wished for, they choose instead to believe those who came before and take them as irrefutable authority; thus instead of pursuing one's own knowledge (in service to God, of course), they simply take another's knowledge as their own. This is a very fast path to ignorance. And so, Christianity's more dogmatic aspects, and believe me, for every dogma the Protestants stripped, they propped up two more in their place, have clouded the mystical essence of the faith.

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall wrote:

I have a right to disagree with you because like me you are a very limited finite entity with very limited knowledge of all of existence.

Herein lies the problem with humanity. We limit ourselves with our thinking. Our Ego becomes us and our ego is limited by the physical existence. You have every right to disagree though and most people do, hence the state of our world today and it's direction.

Alan McDougall wrote:

And I paraphrased no one, my words are my words Of course my brain and memory is full of learning and I might not always be aware from where an idea popped into my mind from. In this I plead guilty

I've sent you a PM concerning this EXACTLY. Watch that sword you are swinging around.

Alan McDougall wrote:

We can twist logic and words painfully until they all fit nicely into our personal thinking and we can reject every idea that is in conflict with ours as stupid, I really hope you are not doing this.

Oh really. Well then, we should follow someone then... maybe a religion or some of the ancients.

Alan McDougall wrote:

Justin I have read through your posts and you have disagreed on nearly every point that everyone else have posted Have you no nice comments for we little peasant. I know the peasants are revolting?

This is your perception and that's fine. I don't necessarily disagree I simply comment. It's not about saying nice comments. Let's get one thing straight, I'm not stroking anyone here.

Alan McDougall wrote:

Are you very very angry with this ridiculous idea that there might be an intellect infinitely greater than ours. I really don't think this is silly, after all we are confined to this tiny infinitesimal dust mode in a godforsaken corner of a really minor galaxy in a universe of unimaginable vastness

Do I sound angry when I post? Because I'm not angry at all. This ridiculous idea you keep bringing up is an idea that came from another man. If your buck stops at the feet of another man, then that's your thing and it doesn't have to be mine.

The truth is I know there is an infinitely greater intellect there but it's not greater than ours it is ours. That's the difference... the rest lies in the awakening that intellect or God within.

Now, Alan, after carefully looking at some of your posts, I've found that much of what you write is copied and pasted from other places on the Internet. You very well could have written stuff for Deepak Chopra or other unknown authors but I'm not sure. So this makes it hard to communicate or even argue a point with someone who doesn't speak from within themselves. You stated:

Alan McDougall wrote:

...my words are my words Of course my brain and memory is full of learning and I might not always be aware from where an idea popped into my mind from. In this I plead guilty

So I understand that your speaking from memory or learning things from a remember and repeat education. Either way, I try to speak and argue points from inspiration not from traditional education because, 'I aint got none'.

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

(first real post)
I may not be the smartest person in the world, but I would still like to understand something.
Some of you are saying that you think God is EVERYTHING. But, how could everything be God? If you are including everything, then aren't you also including contradictions (love and hate, for example)?
What conclusion do you come to by believing God to be everything? It seems to me that this statement gets you nowhere.

1 Reply

@Smiley451,

Smiley451;68191 wrote:

(first real post)
I may not be the smartest person in the world, but I would still like to understand something.
Some of you are saying that you think God is EVERYTHING. But, how could everything be God? If you are including everything, then aren't you also including contradictions (love and hate, for example)?
What conclusion do you come to by believing God to be everything? It seems to me that this statement gets you nowhere.

Hi Smiley welcome,

The God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam seem to be a supreme being a lord of the universe if you like. He sits on a throne, lives in heaven etc

My belief is that God is everything except what he created. The universe and us are his thoughts made concrete reality.

Just like a car is not the designer, it is the designers thoughts make concreter I know this is a huge simplification but who could I a finite entity ever explain the Infinite Cause of all exigence outside ITSELF

I believe God allowed , indeed created the duality of love/hate/dark/light/positive/negative/death/life for a good reason for without the one we would never know the other

Peace to you Smiley

0 Replies

Is God part of existence or cause of existence

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know