Amos

I might add here that this concept is not unique to the Catholic Church because Brahma is the creator of the universe in Buddhism and in the term Aham Brahmasmi "I am" the centre of the Universe.

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

hinduwoman

In that case Christian contention that God is the god of love and mercy, that he cares for human beings and performs miracles is mistaken. All these are human emotions and perceptions.

hinduwoman

Myth began as a way of attempting to explain the physical universe.

What do you mean by "more than God was needed". Does this not contradict the omnipotence of God?

hinduwoman

Don't know in detail about Buddhism, but in hinduism, "I am" is not that I am the centre of the universe. The belief is God is a part and parcel of our soul, which our attachment to material desires prevents from realizing to the full. I am God. So is everone and everything --- from the mountain to the ant to Amos.

Blu

thoughts about the word "Creation."


I have heard so many times here that God couldn't have created this...and God couldn't have created that.

People think like people right? So when they think of something "creating" something they relate the word "create" to what humans think of as "creating." I believe a higher power created the Universe etc. but not in the way most human minds think.

God is such an abstract subject. And people are simplifying God so much that they end up getting into arguments over the simplification.

In order to even come close to trying to figure out what God is supposed to be, you need to think like a non-human, detach all earthly and human characteristics and word meaning from God. I know this sounds weird... but I have found a way to do it.

Atheist believe God doesn't exist ...period. I believe that God, in the sense that people think of God, doesn't actually exist. I have trouble even attaching a "name" to this aspect.

I believe everyone believes there is something yet undefinable in human terms. But atheists are mostly against human ideas involving God. This is the idea that keeps coming to mind as I read these discussions.

Amos

If it can be said that myth "began" (to which I have no objection), it was as a way of explaining the renewal of our mind and body during and after menopauze. From the insight gained through this change (metamorphosis) the physical world can be explained, I agree).

I hold that God is the creator of the essence that changes with each generation and Lord God is the physical representation of the created image of God -- which in a tree is the image of the tree and in humans is the image of each man (man is the neuter from and human and woman are the masculine and effeminate genders).

For God to be the creator of the essence and not to be the tree itself communication must exist between the tree itself and God to make this change possible (which is obvious). In man this takes place between the conscious mind in which we are human and the subconscious mind in which we are man (neuter). As humans must we observe and perceive changes made by the environment through our senses (as observed by the conscious mind) and these sence perceptions are to be tied down and retained in our subconscious mind (soul) through which they will become modifiers in the soul of the next generation(s) for the purpose of its survival and replication.

So what else is needed beside God?

Lord God is needed as the manifestation of Gods essence. This will be the suchness and the thatness of that particular tree.

A physical awareness is needed to observe the local environment so the tree can prosper and bloom.

The local environment is needed as negative stand wherein the tree can prosper and bloom.

Now please don't ask me if trees can "think" but it must be true that they are aware because they respond different to various conditions and can adapt to environmental changes to some extent in each generation (obscurantists call this "natural selection").

Amos

Agreed but in Buddhism the concept "I am" as the centre of the universe is an expression made and a postition held.

My point is that once this proclamation is made that the spiritual "I AM" is the centre of the universe it is wrong to agree that the sun is the centre of the universe.

Datheron

Blu,

Alas, the biggest problem is the fact that in describing God, theists often have to adhere to their definitions and descriptions of kindness, mercy, etc. upon God, allowing him to be classified and understood by the human mind.

Here, you have just taken the position that God exists, but is incomprehensible. But what good does that do? By definition, God cannot be understood, hence no evidence exists for him. He cannot be rationalized, hence no logic argues for his existence. He may have an impact on us, but we cannot hope to comprehend any such thing. By Occam's Razor, such a hypothesis should be ignored.

But your definition of this "something" is so vague and undefined that it is ultimately pointless. "Earthly" and "human" are the only ways we can think; try to come up with a 4th spacial dimension in your head, and you'll find that it is impossible to visualize such a thing. Similarly, while we may be able to abstractly describe the concept of God, of his timeless nature, etc. - there is no way for us to actually understand the extent of what we're referring to. We cannot "detach human characteristics" from God, and have him be God.