Jan,
If so since it is in fact a being, how did it come to be without there first being something alive before it ?
Does the text address this question ? ”
“ Chapter 10, Verse 8.
I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who know this perfectly engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts.
Again is not an answer. So the texts don't address what was before this being came to be ?
We are minute parts and parcels of God. This means we are qualitively
the same as God, but quantatively different. Because of this we have a free will, because God has a free will. Due to misuse of this free will, we decend into the material atmosphere where we play out our fantasies in various guises. God bothers with us because He wants us to give up these fantasies and return to our natural position (pure spirit)
The above represents claims of knowledge. Don't you see, all of these statements you are making about god are claims of knowledge and your are thus defining god. How can you know this ?
“ It states that it came to be at the beginning of our existence. ”
I don't get you.
Please explain by using texts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita
"Within the text of the Bhagavad Gītā itself, Lord Krishna states that the knowledge of Yoga contained in the Gītā was first instructed to mankind at the very beginning of their existence."
But then goes on-
"Therefore, the history and choronology of Bhagavad Gita may be taken to be clear from the text itself, by its adherents. Although it may seem to some that the original date of composition of the Bhagavad Gita is not clear, its teachings are considered timeless and the exact time of revelation of the scripture is considered of little spiritual significance by religiously-motivated scholars such as Bansi Pandit, and Juan Mascaro.[1][21] Swami Vivekananda dismisses concerns about differences of opinion regarding the historical events as unimportant for study of the Gita from the point of acquirement of Dharma"
Yet, the date of the texts appears to be around 500BC
"As with all of the Mahabharata, the text of the Gītā cannot be dated with certainty. The entire epic went through a lengthy process of accumulation and redaction during roughly the 5th century BCE to the 5th century CE. Scholarship has tended to place the composition of the Gītā within the earlier phase of this period, between roughly the 5th and the 2nd century BCE"
So those who don't want to have pesky facts that could contradict the claim of "at the moment of our existence" just call in unimportant.
This is the problem I have with religious texts. They are making claims of knowledge yet when facts learned afterwards don't line up they just wave their hands around like they don't matter. And I want to say, don't matter WTF, your basing your entire belief system on these things. Don't matter give me a break.
But:
This from here I like,
http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/disc/disc_147.html
and what is being missed in all of the belief systems IMO.
Krishna was not distressed at the agonising condition of the mind of Arjuna. He did not weep, cry or beat his breast. He spoke words of wisdom laden with the profundity of the experience of life which, incidentally, opened up the gates for a solution to all conflicts in life. Not merely Arjuna's conflict, but your conflict, my conflict, and anyone's conflict at any time found a solution herein. All problems, all conflicts, all disharmonies, in everyone’s mind, in every pattern of society, and for all times, were dealt with effectively. Thus it is that the Bhagavadgita became a scripture of universal significance. Though it arose on account of a historical context, it gradually bordered upon timeless questions and the eternal problems of mankind, or humanity as a whole. The Bhagavadgita teaches not the Hindu religion, but religion as such. It is not my religion, or your religion, but it is the religion of the human soul that is spoken in the words of the Bhagavadgita. It is an answer to the questions of mankind, not merely the themes of some religion, cult or creed. It is 'man' putting a question to God. Not any particular person or any particular faith or association or affiliation raising a problem, but man, signifying humanity, raising a problem before the Maker of all things
These are tales not to be taken literally and not to be concerned with details and not to cling to as facts but to learn the moral of the story. Often missed in the details of insignificance is the moral. Which we then too often forget.
These are not mean't to be claims of knowledge in god but to be educational tools for us in how we live with each other, treat each other etc.
That is their value.
Which is why those who teach it don't care about any of the pesky facts because they see it as insignifant as well. The point being, they are simply teaching a way to be that they feel brings them closer to one with the universe or god.
We has humans need to learn to get along so that we can move forward, we don't need religion to do this. If it works for some, great. But obviously many use it as a wedge to create problems instead of solutions.
This the greatest difficulty with the subject of religions. The ability and capacity to do so much good and so much bad at the same time. And it comes down to us, not the religion we use as a guide or no religion.
“ If you believe in evolution that would be over 100,000 years ago. Do you believe the text to be that old ? ”
I don't believe in Darwins theory of evolution
Why, it has no relevance on your religion and it's supported by so much evidence that it's beyond a reasonable doubt that we evolved.
“ Or do you believe all fossil evidence and the like are fraudulent ? ”
I haven't really given it much thought.
But how do you know that what you're being told is correct?
You should read a book called ''Forbidden Archeology''.
What I am being told ?
Science isn't basing these ideas off pure story telling. Science presents the evidence for all to see. If something can be shown to change the storyline based on evidence then it becomes part of this evidenced based story. Not something made up and has to be taken on faith.
It's interesting that you bring up the book "Forbidden Archaeology" to question the idea of evolution. When it in fact should make you question the whole idea of the beliefs in the hindu religion. If we have been here many times over, 40,000,000 million years + then we should be finding human fossils throughout all of that time as well, but we are not.
This is the biggest joke about that book. His argument is actually making his belief invalid because his case is so weak on the one side but the evidence on the other is overwhelming. On top of that, most of his arguments don't if true have any impact on the theory of evolution anyway. So it's nonsense.
Here:
http://ncse.com/rncse/19/3/review-forbidden-archaeologys-impact
for a more in depth commentary.
I believe you are being fooled into thinking everything can and should be explained by modern science.
But you are not being fooled into believing everthing can be explained by religious texts which were never mean't to explain the how's and when's but the why only.
You don't believe in God, so what do you expect a God inspired text to look and sound like.
Something that is not a story created by man.
You, I, or anyone do not have the brains or intelligence to scrutinize God.
Correct, nor define him.
You may as well not bother about God, and get on with material life.
But somehow I don't think you will, as you know there is something to all of this. That is my opinion anyway.
Of course there is, but I don't look at god to explain this, I am more interested in what is out there in the universe (we can call that god) and what is going on with my family and friends and those that I can have an impact either positive or negative. It's important to stay grounded as best you can, which is what I believe most religions want to teach anyway.
The story of Darwinian evolution is being forcibly shown to every child who have access to books, tv's, cinemas, video games.
These stories cannot be proven or shown to be correct, they have to be taken at (cgi) face value
Wrong, they are being shown and children are being educated with the information because it has evidence to support it and anyone who chooses to look and learn can take it as far as the information available will take them. With more to come I am sure about that. The case for evolution I am sure will get stronger and stronger as time goes by. With every new find the picture will be more complete.
“ Again, nobody can know if there is a god or not so what's the point in fighting about such unknowns. ”
What makes you think individual people cannot know if there is a god
I think people can think they know there is a god. They can delude themselves or mis-interpret an experience.
But if people can know there is god, it would be able to be defined, it would be testable and thus proveable.
Since nobody has been able to prove there is a god, then nobody has proven to know there is a god.
Religions are a different matter, as I stated, they are making claims of knowledge which is the same as me saying there is no god as fact, not a lack of belief. ”
Can you elaborate on this?
Give an example of what you mean by ''they are making claims of knowledge''.
Yes see here, your very next statement.
Religion, as I stated before, is supposed to be an education for the conditioned soul, to learn how to come to the platform of goodness
Fine
In this way God becomes accessable. That is the idea.
That is the idea and a claim of knowledge that god can become accesable.
Has anybody accessed this god ? Ever ?
If so how would you know they are not lying to you ?
“ Based on me questioning my understanding of all of my experiences of what I deem as reality, the only god that I could believe exists is one that would be indistinguishable from the universe itself. ”
This is flawed. You don't know all you experiences'
What experiences you do know are but a minute part of your being.
Since the moment you were concieved, your experiences began. Every single
moment, you are experiencing (maybe moments are too big a time measurement), and have been ever since, and will be right up to the moment your body stops (assuming we're talking about bodily experience).
To base your life on your waking experience could be like basing you understanding of a photograph by a pixel or two IMO.
There is nothing logical about what you said to claim that my statement is flawed.
