What is **G0D**, Part 1

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
We are all a result of something, that something can be one of two things.

Deliberate orchestration to simply observe-which makes it a bored benevolent being, but as it is already all knowing, this defeats purpose of benevolence.

or

Observe and create in order to understand self and perpetuate self infinitely.

The former is how we evolved the inane 'old man in the sky' concept, e.g. a God that is strictly transcended, separate and apart from it's creation and requiring nothing but adoration and submission.

The latter makes so much more sense to me. As you say, "we are part of it as much as anything else in the universes is." I think that people sometimes forget or have never known their own divine roots.




Cheers

[edit on 29-9-2009 by Neo__]

Ahh zazzy we think alike again!

The latter is a happier concept to me. It means we are all connected. The people, the trees, the animals...all of it is us and we are all them

-Kyo

and I'll clarify here, though I place the 2 options out there, I do not subscribe to the first , but granted with quantum different outcomes are possible...lol!

Originally posted by KyoZero
You are totally free to think I am a whackjob...seriously...but I believe this is the case. The creator existed. One day the creator made in himself/herself/itself...whatever....made the creations in itself and bam! life

I think it's not the best analogy you made. Bill Gates and Windows 7 are tangible. We can touch them. Spirituality doesn't have to be so tangible. In fact I consider it the toughest questions in the world.

just my opinion of course

-Kyo

Whackjob isn't what I think. Just not understanding of certain things is all. One of the main joys in life is learning and coming to understand things, so it's something all people do and is the point IMO to begin with.

The Bill gates reference is due to Bill Gates being outside the program/creation itself. IE: Not part of Bill Gates. That you know and can touch Bill Gates and is tangible is kind of the point of the analogy. Meaning, just because that what you are talking about is outside this existence, doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all. It is mostly in reference to looking within, rather than out there in creation for god.

Why I disagree with it is because you are still defining things through attachments/possessions, and not really what it is that is possessing things. This is part of being blind to what/who you really are. It is seeing yourself as physical/flesh and that is the error in it IMO.

I think seeing the universe is all connected and stuff is a step in the right direction, but I personally can't figure out a way to combine the observation and the observer into one, only a relationship between them.

The only thing I think is whacky is your acceptance of your religion(or any). But that is your choice/freedom and none of my business.

Originally posted by Neo__
Yes, this last sentence makes a lot of sense to me. As soon as you say "God is this" or "God is that" then you separating God apart as the observed since the statement implies an observer. God cannot be this or that while at the same time be defined as the " All Encompassing". It's counter intuitive. The Buddha himself understood this and Buddhism as therefore been accused of being an atheistic religion because of it.

Yes, and for that reason it becomes a difficult topic to talk about.

The real difference between the father(god) and the children(us) is perspective/knowledge. Not that which is physical, and is what determines the perspective/knowledge and ride.

I am not my body, place, time or such. Those are things which define my current experience. I am that which experiences these things. That "I am" is in each of us.