Yes, but my "no-thing" is referring to spiritual concept eg. universal knowledge, rather than physical matter.
..well, I would argue that psychology was a branch of science, myself.
Who created God?
- Thread starter muhammad_isa
- Start date
Yes, but my "no-thing" is referring to spiritual concept eg. universal knowledge, rather than physical matter.
..well, I would argue that psychology was a branch of science, myself.
Depending on the definition of nothing, of course, lol ...
The four scientific meanings of nothing
(I go with number four)
Indeed!
It is about use of language. It is from years ago when "He" was used out of respect rather than "it".
Almighty God is neither male or female. It is God who created His creatures in pairs.
..and He is the Wise, the Knowing.
Last edited:
ScholarlySeeker
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 229
- Reaction score
- 126
- Points
- 43
Ooooooooo, that is interesting. But would it also make sense to say we also measure our pleasure by this? Just curious.....
ScholarlySeeker
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 229
- Reaction score
- 126
- Points
- 43
That was a great read, thanks for the link RJM! Good stuff eh?
ScholarlySeeker
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 229
- Reaction score
- 126
- Points
- 43
Indeed!
It is about use of language. It is from years ago when "He" was used out of respect rather than "it".
Almighty God is neither male or female. It is God who created His creatures in pairs.
..and He is the Wise, the Knowing.
I think God is all, therefor its all inclusive, rather than saying what God is not, God is male/female/it........I mean, why not? None of us really knows anyway......at least not yet.
You could say we don't know .. but we can have strong beliefs, and I personally think that they should be coherent.
Does God have male or female genitals?
..makes no sense to me .. Almighty God is a spiritual concept, no?
I got it from @Aupmanyav originally.
ScholarlySeeker
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 229
- Reaction score
- 126
- Points
- 43
We are his image though. And there have been a flood of exegesis on God from antiquity to today which describe God as being physical. Actually, some early Christians took the idea of spiritual as being a more refined physical, but it was still physical. Spiritual is not the opposite of spiritual. Spiritual is just more refined physical.
Tony Bristow-Stagg
One Planet One People Please
I see that the reason we see God as physical is only our limitations of mind.
In this world, the 'Self of God' are those that deliver the Messages from God, they are from the pre-existing Spirit given to a selected person from amongst humanity. They are all we can or will know of God, the Attributes.
The Essence of God is beyond our mind. Just as the painting cannot know the painter.
Regards Tony
Unless it's a self-portrait, as implied in the first chapter of Genesis?
Yes, that is correct.
However, It is the OT you refer to, and I am confident that @RabbiO will point out the same
as me. It is meant in a spiritual context. eg. we understand love, anger, righteousness etc.
Tony Bristow-Stagg
One Planet One People Please
This has also been explained.
If we see the Messenger as the painting of God, then the Messenger can only be the Attributes. They are a reflection of the attributes, the painting is not the essence of the painter and never can be.
The same happens with us as we are a painting of the Messenger. We can only aspire to some attributes and can never cross the line of wanting to see ourselves as the Essence. When we make of ourselves a Mesenger, that is known as the greatest spiritual death, it is the second death talked about in scriptures.
We live in an amazing age, in every age there is an invitation from God, God asks us to surrender to God's Will and to be Born again.
Regards Tony
Tony Bristow-Stagg
One Planet One People Please
The image we are painted in is that of the potential of the perfect man, that perfect man is the Messenger of God, the Self of God amongst us.
There is a lot written on this topic now, there is always an open invitation to pursue.
Regards Tony
I don't understand what you mean by that. I don't see what it has to do with Messengers.
Genesis states that we are created in YHWH image. It doesn't mean that God looks like a man or a woman.
..and while I'm thinking about it, that is a major problem with thinking Jesus to be God. What one REALLY means
is that Jesus' mind/spirit is God.
It makes no sense really, if you think about it. I'm sure Jesus wasn't aware of every leaf that has ever fallen and will ever fall.
[Think Spinoza.]
Last edited:
Tony Bristow-Stagg
One Planet One People Please
I see the creation story is all about the Holy Spirit and the emination of that Spirit into the physical realm.
Thus I see the creation story is that of the Messenger.
The story of Adam and Eve then becomes a story of the birth of the Spirit in the human condition. Adam being man and Eve the Soul.
Gender is a necessary part of this creation. We have surpressed gender to our human condition, but it has much wider implications and when we embrace gender is spiritual terms, we find equality dose not mean sameness.
The human form and mind is the perfection of this material world, God has many worlds.
That perfection needs to be brought out of the animal condition and made spiritual.
Jesus and any Physical body is not God.
Christ and the Holy Spirit are not God, but they are all we can know of God, the Attributes. That is the Oneness of God, that is how Christ is the First and Last, the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End.
The best Metephor is God as the Sun, the Ray's are the Holy Spirit. The rays are the life giving attributes, but they are not the essence of the Sun.
Man will never know the Essence of the Sun.
Regards Tony
Yes .. such as the "99 Names/Attributes" mentioned in Qur'an.
Tone Bristow-Stagg said:
No .. that's according to the gospel of John
That gospel is composed of truth mixed with falsehood. It embraces Greek philosophy, for example.
It is THE ONE GOD that is the First and the Last. Jesus body and mind/spirit is NOT.
I would put it like this, "consciousness is not a thing".
Hubris? Or more like ripping out one's eyeballs so one can look at them? Or both, as in Oedipus' case?
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
'Advaita' Hinduism (non-duality) will agree to this. 'The All' ('Brahman' in Hindu parlance is always referred to as 'It'. It is not considered a 'Being'. It is all things that exist, it is eternal, it is un-involved (being involved is considered a 'vikara', a short-coming, a flaw), it is unchangeable, it has no form of itself, and is perhaps not even bound by the concept of existence and non-existence. 3000 years ago, RigVeda said:
Creation
1. THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.
What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?
2 Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider.
That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.
3 Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos.
All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.
https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10129.htm
Thanks for the Sacred Texts Link. Very comprehensive.
Here is the index page:
https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/index.htm