Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
It is only our OWN views (about God) that we ultimately 'take seriously'.
No one is under any obligation to take seriously any other perception others hold. Is this a serious topic? Again, only to any individual who wishes to deem it 'serious'. I don't. It is a question/topic/assumption with no right or wrong answers, because there are no answers. So why is it (the topic, not 'god') 'serious'?
A monk in all seriousness asked his disciple "What was your face before your parents were born? If you answer I will give you 30 lashes. If you don't answer I will give you 30 lashes"
Silouan: Certain passages in the OT are not without their problems when it comes to evil and the nature of God.
"I form the light and create darkness,/ I bring good and create evil;/ I, the LORD, do all these things" (Isaiah 45:7).
Is this the same God of Jesus?
"No one is good but God alone" (Mark 10:18).
But how can the God of Jesus be good who also created evil? Why the need to create evil in the first? But then if God is a creator of good and evil, and man is his offspring, man, too, creates good and evil. Even as God repents for his evil he has done (Exodus 32:14), so also does man.
Buddhism is much different than this. Our life—this world—represents the non-knowledge (avidya) of our self or absolute nature. By its absence, we are driven to discriminate a world which is forever inadequate with the absolute (our true self). It is a vicious circle (samsara?).
For me, the Judeo-Christian God represent man's quest to know himself fully (the good), but which also undermines this quest (his propensity for evil).
A monk in all seriousness asked his disciple "What was your face before your parents were born? If you answer I will give you 30 lashes. If you don't answer I will give you 30 lashes"
With a smile, the disciple took the whip and gave the master 30 lashes. It was a true zen moment where the disciple was instantly enlightened, and his master instantly dead.
True story.
1
DaftChrisSpiritually conflicted. Not of this world.Veteran
edited August 2012
Hello everyone.
Thanks for all of the input so far! I love seeing everyone's opinions and beliefs.
Let's switch things up a little. I'm on other forums and I came across a question called "Final argument for the nonexistence of God the Creator?" Do you think this guy has any validity in his argument or is he just extracting this from nowhere?
Some of the punctuation is a bit off, but whatever.
A perfect being has everything complete in itself! It is complete! Therefore there is no reason to want to create a human being to love ! Why is perfect, it has all the power in itself, would need more power to visualize the worshiping beings other? Something perfect does not need more power, needs no more perfect perfection, the perfect no need even more adoration because all worship is made possible now by itself in itself! If you want to be any more than it has, it's not perfect! What does he have? He has himself and that is enough, since he himself is nothing more perfect than can complete! If he really created the angels and the Universe with its intelligent beings, we perceive a need! But a perfect being can have no needs, since all that is needed is already in itself without rules or limits! Therefore, if any sentient being created us, he can only be an imperfect being who also lives questioning: "How it all began to exist?"! So when you say worship a supernatural being, in fact, you're saying to worship an alien producer of high technology or, at most, a being of some parallel universe that could create a black hole (our universe be inside of this black hole) !
So God can't exist, because if God is perfect he wouldn't be lonely? This actually has to be one of the weaker arguments I've heard anyone have against a creator.
@caz, I think there are problems with it too. If we can't imagine the universe always existing, why can we imagine God always existed? We use God to explain how the universe began because everything has to come from somewhere, has to begin somehow... but don't apply this same reasoning to God. And what was God doing before He created the universe? For how long did He exist and do nothing?
I think our real problem is with "time". We can't imagine infinity either backward or forward, not really. I'm not sure how accurate the scientific theory of the Big Bang is, but I'm interested to wait and see if they find anything out for sure. Time seems to change our theories quite a bit, and that's what I'd like to be around for.
@caz, I think there are problems with it too. If we can't imagine the universe always existing, why can we imagine God always existed? We use God to explain how the universe began because everything has to come from somewhere, has to begin somehow... but don't apply this same reasoning to God. And what was God doing before He created the universe? For how long did He exist and do nothing?
I think our real problem is with "time". We can't imagine infinity either backward or forward, not really. I'm not sure how accurate the scientific theory of the Big Bang is, but I'm interested to wait and see if they find anything out for sure. Time seems to change our theories quite a bit, and that's what I'd like to be around for.
Some people use God to explain how the universe came into existence because they simply did not have the tools to verify, Teachers like the Buddha ( Dont ask me for a Sutra reference ) said that the universe was cyclic and without conceivable beginning but always subject to its own impermanence.
To a Buddhist who is familiar with Buddha's teachings on the nature of life, death, Impermanence the 6 realms and Emptiness. God as posited by the abrahamic traditions is certainly not a valid concept.
In fact the concept of a creator god is very similar to the followers of the Hindu practices (in essence) but these same arguments for its Lordship and existence where debunked by practitioners with insight, If you have read Shantideva's guide to the Bodhisattva's way of life he spend much of one chapter pulling apart the " Creator " Ishvara and by the end of it Ishvara is revealed as a Samsaric god with an ego complex much like the story @Jason mentioned earlier of the MahaBrahama.
I call God an it sometimes - I can't see God having a gender, but he works just fine for me. It's a language thing... I find people calling God she irritating though
@RebeccaS, Why irritated? Wouldn't it make even more sense to think of God as female, being a creator of life and all? Even better... of all sexes and none, predating such diversity as gender.
I think a lot of it is silly. They (or tradition) say God made man in His image, so people think of God as looking like a man. So what, before there was a universe or anything else, there was this all-knowing all-powerful man in the middle of an infinite void? Ha! The very thought just makes me want to break out laughing. It can very easily be reasoned the opposite way, that man made God in his image. Much more reasonable given man's ego.
Besides, why would God have a penis? Even if He did look like a man, it would be a genderless man would it not, and so not really a "man"? There'd be no reason to have genitalia. Take away gender-specifics that are for procreation and that would be what's left of the human form... no penis, no vagina, no anus of course, no breasts... it would be neither male nor female. And why would He have a mouth, if not to eat or to speak, when He would neither need food nor have anyone to speak to or any medium to speak through? Or eyes if there were nothing to see, and no light yet? Or any other senses for that matter? Or even a biological humanoid form when there's no reason for a body of that type? Basically God would be mind without specific form...
I just don't know. There's very little reason or logic or common sense in the story, though there's plenty of wisdom in the parts that deal with actual human activity, about how we should live and the consequences for our selfish actions. And of course Jesus teaching about loving one another can't be undersold.
Undersold, or rather closer to what I meant is "understated" or "under-emphasized". It's really the most important thing, and if we just followed that we wouldn't have problems with each other.
@songhill You are approaching Christianity with an exterior analysis looking for what appears to me reasons to disprove God, and validate your own beliefs. As I have offered explanation to these same questions which are now dressed slightly different throughout this discussion before and not only to you.
When one's faith becomes internalized through a process of initial investigation and then personal experience you no longer see teachings, scripture, practice, or what have you outside yourself, but as a reflection of what's happening inside. The scripture you are externally using to disprove God proves the opposite for me internally, and the concepts you have introduced have no concern for me as they are nonsense to my tradition and to me as a part of it.
Enlightenment and Illumination are both very much personal experiences. The meaning of “The Kingdom of Heaven Is Found Within” applies to every spiritual path.
In the end you have your position and I have mine, and I think we can agree on that.
I think there are problems with it too. If we can't imagine the universe always existing, why can we imagine God always existed? We use God to explain how the universe began because everything has to come from somewhere, has to begin somehow... but don't apply this same reasoning to God. And what was God doing before He created the universe? For how long did He exist and do nothing?
I think our real problem is with "time". We can't imagine infinity either backward or forward, not really. I'm not sure how accurate the scientific theory of the Big Bang is, but I'm interested to wait and see if they find anything out for sure. Time seems to change our theories quite a bit, and that's what I'd like to be around for.
I think you, @Cloud , are exactly right. Time is the key, and yes as you might have guessed coming from me it has been addressed in Orthodox Theology.
God is without origin, uncreated, and outside of time. Creation is seen as the beginning of time.
Here is an excerpt from Vladimir Lossky's book “The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church", that I had previously mentioned:
“In Genesis we read that the heavens and the earth, the universe in its entirety in fact, was created 'in the beginning'. St. Basil saw this has the beginning of time; but 'as the beginning of a road is not yet the road, and the beginning of a house is not yet the house, so the beginning of time is not yet time, not even the smallest part of it. If the divine will created 'in the beginning', it means that 'its action was instantaneous and outside of time; but with the universe time also begins. According to St. Maximus it is motion, the change which is proper to created things whose very origin was in change, which is also the origin of time, the form of sensible being. It is time whose nature is to begin, to endure, and to have an end...
The creation is a work of the will and not of nature... and thus it is not co-eternal with God. For it is not possible that which is brought from not-being into being should be co-eternal with that which exists always and without origin. We are, therefore, dealing with a work which has a beginning; a beginning presupposes a change, the passage of not-being into being. The creature is thus by its very origin, something which changes, is liable to pass from one state into another. It has no ontological foundation either in itself (for it is created out of nothing), nor the divine essence, for in the act of creation God was under no necessity of any kind whatever. There is, in fact, nothing in the divine nature which could be the necessary cause of the production of creatures: creation might just as well not exist. God could equally well have not created; creation is a free act of His will, and is the sole foundation of the existence of all beings.”
This is just a snippet on the subject. Further reading of the material is obviously required.
Comments
No one is under any obligation to take seriously any other perception others hold.
Is this a serious topic?
Again, only to any individual who wishes to deem it 'serious'. I don't.
It is a question/topic/assumption with no right or wrong answers, because there are no answers. So why is it (the topic, not 'god') 'serious'?
"I form the light and create darkness,/ I bring good and create evil;/ I, the LORD, do all these things" (Isaiah 45:7).
Is this the same God of Jesus?
"No one is good but God alone" (Mark 10:18).
But how can the God of Jesus be good who also created evil? Why the need to create evil in the first? But then if God is a creator of good and evil, and man is his offspring, man, too, creates good and evil. Even as God repents for his evil he has done (Exodus 32:14), so also does man.
Buddhism is much different than this. Our life—this world—represents the non-knowledge (avidya) of our self or absolute nature. By its absence, we are driven to discriminate a world which is forever inadequate with the absolute (our true self). It is a vicious circle (samsara?).
For me, the Judeo-Christian God represent man's quest to know himself fully (the good), but which also undermines this quest (his propensity for evil).
True story.
Thanks for all of the input so far! I love seeing everyone's opinions and beliefs.
Let's switch things up a little. I'm on other forums and I came across a question called "Final argument for the nonexistence of God the Creator?" Do you think this guy has any validity in his argument or is he just extracting this from nowhere?
Some of the punctuation is a bit off, but whatever. So God can't exist, because if God is perfect he wouldn't be lonely? This actually has to be one of the weaker arguments I've heard anyone have against a creator.
Also alien technology (?).
I think our real problem is with "time". We can't imagine infinity either backward or forward, not really. I'm not sure how accurate the scientific theory of the Big Bang is, but I'm interested to wait and see if they find anything out for sure. Time seems to change our theories quite a bit, and that's what I'd like to be around for.
To a Buddhist who is familiar with Buddha's teachings on the nature of life, death, Impermanence the 6 realms and Emptiness. God as posited by the abrahamic traditions is certainly not a valid concept.
In fact the concept of a creator god is very similar to the followers of the Hindu practices (in essence) but these same arguments for its Lordship and existence where debunked by practitioners with insight, If you have read Shantideva's guide to the Bodhisattva's way of life he spend much of one chapter pulling apart the " Creator " Ishvara and by the end of it Ishvara is revealed as a Samsaric god with an ego complex much like the story @Jason mentioned earlier of the MahaBrahama.
I think a lot of it is silly. They (or tradition) say God made man in His image, so people think of God as looking like a man. So what, before there was a universe or anything else, there was this all-knowing all-powerful man in the middle of an infinite void? Ha! The very thought just makes me want to break out laughing.
Besides, why would God have a penis? Even if He did look like a man, it would be a genderless man would it not, and so not really a "man"? There'd be no reason to have genitalia. Take away gender-specifics that are for procreation and that would be what's left of the human form... no penis, no vagina, no anus of course, no breasts... it would be neither male nor female. And why would He have a mouth, if not to eat or to speak, when He would neither need food nor have anyone to speak to or any medium to speak through? Or eyes if there were nothing to see, and no light yet? Or any other senses for that matter? Or even a biological humanoid form when there's no reason for a body of that type? Basically God would be mind without specific form...
I just don't know.
Why can't Jesus teaching about loving one another be understood?
You are approaching Christianity with an exterior analysis looking for what appears to me reasons to disprove God, and validate your own beliefs. As I have offered explanation to these same questions which are now dressed slightly different throughout this discussion before and not only to you.
When one's faith becomes internalized through a process of initial investigation and then personal experience you no longer see teachings, scripture, practice, or what have you outside yourself, but as a reflection of what's happening inside. The scripture you are externally using to disprove God proves the opposite for me internally, and the concepts you have introduced have no concern for me as they are nonsense to my tradition and to me as a part of it.
Enlightenment and Illumination are both very much personal experiences. The meaning of “The Kingdom of Heaven Is Found Within” applies to every spiritual path.
In the end you have your position and I have mine, and I think we can agree on that.
God is without origin, uncreated, and outside of time. Creation is seen as the beginning of time.
Here is an excerpt from Vladimir Lossky's book “The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church", that I had previously mentioned:
“In Genesis we read that the heavens and the earth, the universe in its entirety in fact, was created 'in the beginning'. St. Basil saw this has the beginning of time; but 'as the beginning of a road is not yet the road, and the beginning of a house is not yet the house, so the beginning of time is not yet time, not even the smallest part of it. If the divine will created 'in the beginning', it means that 'its action was instantaneous and outside of time; but with the universe time also begins. According to St. Maximus it is motion, the change which is proper to created things whose very origin was in change, which is also the origin of time, the form of sensible being. It is time whose nature is to begin, to endure, and to have an end...
The creation is a work of the will and not of nature... and thus it is not co-eternal with God. For it is not possible that which is brought from not-being into being should be co-eternal with that which exists always and without origin. We are, therefore, dealing with a work which has a beginning; a beginning presupposes a change, the passage of not-being into being. The creature is thus by its very origin, something which changes, is liable to pass from one state into another. It has no ontological foundation either in itself (for it is created out of nothing), nor the divine essence, for in the act of creation God was under no necessity of any kind whatever. There is, in fact, nothing in the divine nature which could be the necessary cause of the production of creatures: creation might just as well not exist. God could equally well have not created; creation is a free act of His will, and is the sole foundation of the existence of all beings.”
This is just a snippet on the subject. Further reading of the material is obviously required.