God is not seperate from us. You could call seperation or the self an illusion. So when God creates it is not done in the way in which a painter creates a painting or a poet creates a poem. Rather it is done in such a way as when a dancer creates a dance. There is no seperation in the dance and the dancer. One can not exist without the other; rather they are one. It is unrealistic to try to imagine a dance existing seperate from the dancer. So you could consider your self to only be deluded when you try to imagine yourself being seperate from God. I believe that this is what the buddhists must mean when they say you can become a god. The fact is you can't become a god if you already are god. You only lift the veil that has been draped over eyes your entire life up to that point. I believe that this is what Jesus did when he helped the blind see. If you believe that physical sight is what is being talked about in the bible you are only looking at the surface of things. Why didn't the Jews believe in the miracles of Jesus? I'd say it would be pretty hard for people to understand and believe when you help a person realize that they were blind? I don't think that those Jesus healed were even aware that they were blind until they actually saw the world for what it truly is. Maybe thats just me.
I know what you are saying...and I quite agree...the Bible is a figurative thing a lot of the time...I mean...Jesus spoke in parables...I think that's a hint... Also, the thing that you can be a god...I know what you are refering to...in Hinduism (I'm not sure totally about Buddhism) each person, animal, what have you is considered to be part and parcle of one Supreme Being (God) and that part dwells within them (called Super Soul)...and the thought is that we are to get in touch with that part of God within us (if this could be equivalent to the Holy Spirit...I'm not sure) and that is why it is often said to not look up for God, but to look in...
u say one cannot live without the other....so how was ANYTHING created if something was not there to create it in the 1st place.......god was there from the begining,without no other god.
actually it is not. although i will agree with you when i say that i am not being original. what i am talking about would be similar to panentheism. "Panentheism is very different from pantheism, with which it is often confused. Pantheism (without the en) identifies the universe with God; God and the universe are coextensive (literally, 'everything is God'). Pantheism affirms only God's immanence and essentially denies God's transcendence; though the sacred is present in everything, it is not more than everything. But panentheism affirms both transcendence (God's otherness or moreness) and immanence (God's presence). God is not to be identified with the sum total of things. Rather, God is more than everything, even as God is present everywhere. God is all around us and within us, and we are within God."
when is this beginning you speak of? big bang, which is only a theory of course. that is the only point in which we may refer to as 'the beginning' because there is no way we can obtain knowledge of what was before. big bang theory only reinforces panentheism. " The Big Bang Theory would imply the boundary of our universe is expanding into something. If our universe is expanding into something, this would imply our universe is, in a sense, embraced by something. Perhaps it is embraced by its Creator. If it is not lying within its Creator, what would it be lying within? If it is lying within its Creator, the Creator is what we would call omnipresent in relationship to the universe. The universe would be finite, a part of, a piece of the Causative Force. This is panentheism. If the universe begins shrinking, the same argument applies. Expanding/contraction, exploding/imploding - the argument is still the same. If the universe is not lying within the Creator, as present day religions profess, then it would have to be expanding into something that is not a part of the Causative Force because the Causative Force, as religions say, would ‘transcend’ the universe. But this argument undermines the very foundation of religion. This argument implies the Causative Force is not all present because the universe lies elsewhere."
Why can you accept that there was no cause for god, but not that there was no cause for the universe? If you say all things have a cause, and say God is the cause, then what caused God? You can't logically just arbitrarily say "god doesn't need a cause." If you could, you could say the same for the universe, and not complicate matters by positing the existance of some mystical creator. Thus, the First Cause Argument is a dead end and doesn't solve anything. And to Ghost of the River, the Big Bang model does not imply the universe is expanding INTO anything, although it would seem that way. It's a complicated, seemingly paradoxical issue, but if you read up on it, it would make sense. I don't really know how to explain it, nor is this the place, so I won't.
dont patronise me *glares* i am not cute! iv not lost the plot....this is the whole confussing cuase of the cause of the cuase thing....yet again
