|
|
Re: If god exists, what created god?
James R Olson (jamesols@uhunix4.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu)
Sat, 6 May 1995 12:31:20 GMT
In article <3o3nvn$pps@master.easynet.co.uk> ng@easynet.co.uk (Nasser Gazi) writes:
>In article <D7u59H.8rF@crash.cts.com>, roosen@crash.cts.com says...
>>
>>: On 29 Apr 1995 16:14:15 UTC,
>>: in article <3ntokn$hhj@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU>,
>>: wrightjp@ucsub.Colorado.EDU (WRIGHT JACOB PHILIP) asked:
>>: > . . . If [God] is all-powerfull, can he create or destroy himself?
>>
>> What I want to know is, if God can do anything, can he make a
>>rock so big that he can't lift it?
>
>
>There's no denying that this is a good question, and, as a sentient
>creation of God who has been given the ability to ask the question, you
>do deserve an answer.
>
>If you're really looking for the answer, then you'll find it waiting for
>you in your heart. No wait, don't laugh! (at least, not in derision).
>Listen...
>
>The answer to this question can NOT be expressed in words simply because
>it belongs to the realm of non-duality, where this no big/small,
>good/bad, male/female, in fact, no relativities at all. Words and mental
>concepts, by their very nature, deal with relativities and so do not have
>access to the formulation of such answers. However, human intuition, or
>the "Eye of the Heart" for want of a better phrase, DOES have access to
>it. You just need to want to find the answer badly enough, and seek it
>SINCERELY enough. But if the answer could be given to us in words,
>then it would have been taught to children in schools as soon as they had
>learnt their ABC's. Clearly, this is not the case, and instead children
>who ask the question (as many children do) are usually fobbed of with
>some religious, dogmatic cliche or other. (Most of these children then
>grow up either becoming some kind of religious, exclusivist fanatics, or
>else entirely cynical about religious words in general. But both types
>have this in common that they lose touch with the wisdom in their
>hearts, which is their birthright, and without which they would not have
>conceived of the question in the first place).
>
>Many sages in their compassion have written books and left behind
>sayings as to what you can do to find the answer. Is there a need to go
>into a bibliograohy of these books now? I don't think so. Each of us has
>our own path by which we shall find the Answer. However, the key thing to
>remember is that the sages have told us what to DO. They have not given
>the answer to us on a plate. Why? Not because they were being secretive,
>but simply because, as I have explained, it's not possible to give the
>answer on a plate. The answer to your question is not something to LEARN,
>but something to BECOME. You have to invest your whole being into it.
>Not just your mind and your email account.
>
>"Seek and ye shall find". There are many sages living in the world now
>who can tell you how to find the answer. If you thirst for the answer to
>your question, if you are sincere enough, and even if you don't know
>that you are, will meet upon one of these men or women, whose existence
>in the world is proof of God's mercy, and whose very existence gives
>meaning to your ability to ask such questions. And if you follow what
>these sages say, then you will certainly come upon the answer. However,
>as long as you continue to be flippant about it and throw down the
>question as a cynical challenge without expecting anybody to give you a
>meaningful reply, you may think of yourself as a "seeker" but it's
>unlikely that you'll ever become a "finder".
>
>
>--
>Nasser
>"Whatever can be said about the Tao is not the Tao" - Lao Tzu
>
This is a hard post to comment on. There are some very good points, but
I can't help feeling that the essential point has been missed.
First, we need to realize that "God" is a verbal construct, not a thing
or a person, just as your name is a construct, and just as someone's idea about
your character is a construct. Questions like God and the big rock are
important because they show us
that the verbal construct "God" doesn't work. The question of what the th the
question of what causes the construct "God". It could be that something which
is adequately described by "God" is its cause, but, in light of the vast amount
of argument gathered around the construct (even among those who believe in
it), I consider that to be unlikely. The best chance for an answer would come
from a survey of all the descriptions of "God", or more precisely, the
phenomena associated with the experience of "God", looking for common factors.
The experience called epiphany is what you want to look at.
Lesson over, back to fun.
JimmyO (cannibalizing past papers for cheap fun)
|