Is God Real?

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:28 pm

Is God Real?

We are moving closer to a time when everyone will be shown God is indeed real, time will prove it in time. Yet he's creeping and cranking up his realness even now! I wish there were some kind of 3D glasses that we all could wear to see it now, but there are not. There are only Spiritual glasses that now allows one to see;

But God even holds a monopoly on them. But one thing I can say; their absolutely free to have; and they last forever.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:56 pm

Mickiel;1385373 wrote: Is God Real?

We are moving closer to a time when everyone will be shown God is indeed real, time will prove it in time. Yet he's creeping and cranking up his realness even now! I wish there were some kind of 3D glasses that we all could wear to see it now, but there are not. There are only Spiritual glasses that now allows one to see;

But God even holds a monopoly on them. But one thing I can say; their absolutely free to have; and they last forever.

I didn't know this was GOD

so somebody tossed over some Milton Bradley over that wall of yours.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:03 pm

littleCJelkton;1385388 wrote: I didn't know this was GOD

so somebody tossed over some Milton Bradley over that wall of yours.

Do you have any walls CJ?

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:39 pm

Mickiel;1385619 wrote: Do you have any walls CJ?

Maybe, though it is more like a picket fence

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 9:50 am

littleCJelkton;1385625 wrote: Maybe, though it is more like a picket fence

Come on CJ, you know you got some walls. You accuse me of what you have yourself.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 12:04 pm

Mickiel;1385786 wrote: Come on CJ, you know you got some walls. You accuse me of what you have yourself.

Do you religious type ever get any new ammunition, or is it like the first rule in religious ranting 101:

when you are called out on your religious B.S use the "No I don't You do" tactic.

you are going to accuse me of doing what I said you are doing, by accusing me of putting up a wall to God, and to that I say no I am not because I don't believe there is a god to build a wall for so therefore, why would I build a wall for something I don't believe in?

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 3:47 pm

Seems to me there are many God's and many followers of all of them, if you need to have something to believe in fine but should faith in your God not be conducted in the privacy of your own home or church?

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 1:59 am

buttercup;1385857 wrote: Seems to me there are many God's and many followers of all of them, if you need to have something to believe in fine but should faith in your God not be conducted in the privacy of your own home or church?

That makes sense yet your god or my god is not good enough because it is not mickel's god and he needs to make it known that his god is the "real" god and yours is not. I am just saying my God and your God, and his God and Her God and their god and one God, and two God and Red God and Blue God are just as real as Mickel's god

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:03 am

littleCJelkton;1385908 wrote: That makes sense yet your god or my god is not good enough because it is not mickel's god and he needs to make it known that his god is the "real" god and yours is not. I am just saying my God and your God, and his God and Her God and their god and one God, and two God and Red God and Blue God are just as real as Mickel's god

Well whoevers god is God, the real question is; " Is God Real?"

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:58 am

There are many followers of gods, and there are many names for God.

That which speaks to your heart in Love is God.

"Be still, and know that I am God..."

-Psalms 46:10

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 10:14 am

LarsMac;1387125 wrote: There are many followers of gods, and there are many names for God.

That which speaks to your heart in Love is God.

"Be still, and know that I am God..."

-Psalms 46:10

Wonderful scripture.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Sun Mar 11, 2012 10:06 pm

Mickiel;1387118 wrote: Well whoevers god is God, the real question is; " Is God Real?"

well that opens it up doesn't it

lets say Person A description of god is a Giant flying one eyed Gumball

and Person B has the traditional god of the bible

and person C has a idea of an inanimate omnipresent power in which is instilled in all people

which one is real?

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Sun Mar 11, 2012 11:39 pm

littleCJelkton;1387260 wrote: well that opens it up doesn't it

lets say Person A description of god is a Giant flying one eyed Gumball

and Person B has the traditional god of the bible

and person C has a idea of an inanimate omnipresent power in which is instilled in all people

which one is real?

Well I like the boxer analogy; when your dazed and confused and seeing double and triple; just hit the one in the middle.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 1:54 am

Mickiel;1387262 wrote: Well I like the boxer analogy; when your dazed and confused and seeing double and triple; just hit the one in the middle.

well if your seeing double their is no middle if your seeing triple then I suppose you could go for the one in the middle but your only got a 1/3 chance if your, it is the same reasoning as if i were to say in the same situation if you were an one eyed flying gumball you only have one eye so you only see one person

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 7:02 am

littleCJelkton;1387263 wrote: well if your seeing double their is no middle if your seeing triple then I suppose you could go for the one in the middle but your only got a 1/3 chance if your, it is the same reasoning as if i were to say in the same situation if you were an one eyed flying gumball you only have one eye so you only see one person

Man has a double brain, we see what we can through the left hemisphere, and when God wants to communicaqte he speaks through the right hemisphere.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 11:54 am

Mickiel;1387742 wrote: Man has a double brain, we see what we can through the left hemisphere, and when God wants to communicaqte he speaks through the right hemisphere.

I don't have half of my right hemisphere because at a very young age I my body recognized God as a cancer and my body rejected it so I had to have it surgically removed and get chemo and radiation for God. So, God is a cancer that must be removed.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 9:30 am

littleCJelkton;1387778 wrote: I don't have half of my right hemisphere because at a very young age I my body recognized God as a cancer and my body rejected it so I had to have it surgically removed and get chemo and radiation for God. So, God is a cancer that must be removed.

Strage how we humans can differ on things; I am searching for God and desire him to be in me. Even if hes a cancer, I want it to spread all over me one day.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 2:08 pm

Mickiel;1388012 wrote: Strage how we humans can differ on things; I am searching for God and desire him to be in me. Even if hes a cancer, I want it to spread all over me one day.

Some of us are O.K with cancer and some of us aren't

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:46 am

littleCJelkton;1388053 wrote: Some of us are O.K with cancer and some of us aren't

Some of us are okay with God being real, some are not.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:56 am

Mickiel;1388617 wrote: Some of us are okay with God being real, some are not.
your repeating me now is that really what it your debate has come too??

well O.K so let the repeating begin.

some of us are O.k with cancer some of us are not

Mickiel your turn......

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:57 am

Debate, who am I debating with? Your the only one who has endured this whole thread, your fellows have abandoned you. Its in no manner fair for just one of you to debate me, so I have been soft on you while I basically just continue on God being real. And thats evidence of God being real right there; when you begin to understand certain principles like " Mercy" and " Grace" and you learn how not to be hard on people.

QUOTE]

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 2:48 am

You understand that God is real by testing him. Proving him to yourself. Try him; think of personal ways to try him.

Vrindavana Das · Post by **Vrindavana Das** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:47 am

Mickiel;1388869 wrote: You understand that God is real by testing him. Proving him to yourself. Try him; think of personal ways to try him.

I sense sincerity here in wanting to love and embrace God. How would it be if we understand God from what He tells us as to how He is? Here is an insight:

God says -

All created beings have their source in these two natures. Of all that is material and all that is spiritual in this world, know for certain that I am both the origin and the dissolution.

O conqueror of wealth, there is no truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread.

Deluded by the three modes (goodness, passion and ignorance), the whole world does not know Me, who am above the modes and inexhaustible.

This diving energy of Mine, consisting of the three modes of material nature, is difficult to overcome. But those who have surrendered unto Me can easily cross beyond it.

Those miscreants who are grossly foolish, who are lowest among mankind, whose knowledge is stolen by illusion, and who partake of the atheistic nature of demons do not surrender unto Me.

O best among the Bharatas, four kinds of pious men begin to render devotional service unto Me - the distressed, the desirer of wealth, the inquisitive, and he who is searching for knowledge of the Absolute.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 9:03 am

Vrindavana Das;1388890 wrote: I sense sincerity here in wanting to love and embrace God. How would it be if we understand God from what He tells us as to how He is? Here is an insight:

God says -

All created beings have their source in these two natures. Of all that is material and all that is spiritual in this world, know for certain that I am both the origin and the dissolution.

O conqueror of wealth, there is no truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread.

Deluded by the three modes (goodness, passion and ignorance), the whole world does not know Me, who am above the modes and inexhaustible.

This diving energy of Mine, consisting of the three modes of material nature, is difficult to overcome. But those who have surrendered unto Me can easily cross beyond it.

Those miscreants who are grossly foolish, who are lowest among mankind, whose knowledge is stolen by illusion, and who partake of the atheistic nature of demons do not surrender unto Me.

O best among the Bharatas, four kinds of pious men begin to render devotional service unto Me - the distressed, the desirer of wealth, the inquisitive, and he who is searching for knowledge of the Absolute.

I wouyld certainly agree with one thing you said; " The whole world does not know God." I think thats a very true statement which many men would disagree with.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:39 pm

Is God real? There is absolutely no proof that he is not! Yet the laws of Entrophy, Biogenesis, The Anthropic Principles, The Cosmological Arguement, The Ontological Arguement, Paleontology, and the Laws of Conservation are all proof of God being real.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:43 pm

Mickiel;1388739 wrote: Debate, who am I debating with? Your the only one who has endured this whole thread, your fellows have abandoned you. Its in no manner fair for just one of you to debate me, so I have been soft on you while I basically just continue on God being real. And thats evidence of God being real right there; when you begin to understand certain principles like " Mercy" and " Grace" and you learn how not to be hard on people.

QUOTE]

No No No your doing it wrong try again

Vrindavana Das · Post by **Vrindavana Das** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 8:49 am

Mickiel;1388940 wrote: Is God real? There is absolutely no proof that he is not! Yet the laws of Entrophy, Biogenesis, The Anthropic Principles, The Cosmological Arguement, The Ontological Arguement, Paleontology, and the Laws of Conservation are all proof of God being real.

I am in 100% agreement with you. God is the origin and source of all kinds of sciences, knowledge, laws....everything.

We all see a wonderful cosmic creation - huge heavenly bodies floating in empty nothingness, the sun and the moon rising in time everyday, a banyan tree inside a small seed, laws of Newton, all scientific DISCOVERED laws and not INVENTED laws.

It is like seeing a wonderful automobile and speculating whether it has come into existence on it's own or there is an engineer behind it

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:35 am

Vrindavana Das;1389080 wrote: I am in 100% agreement with you. God is the origin and source of all kinds of sciences, knowledge, laws....everything.

We all see a wonderful cosmic creation - huge heavenly bodies floating in empty nothingness, the sun and the moon rising in time everyday, a banyan tree inside a small seed, laws of Newton, all scientific DISCOVERED laws and not INVENTED laws.

It is like seeing a wonderful automobile and speculating whether it has come into existence on it's own or there is an engineer behind it

God certainly is real, and the Universe is not self made.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 12:47 pm

Mickiel;1389106 wrote: God certainly is real, and the Universe is not self made.

So who invented GOD how do you know GOD invented the universe and GOD was not part of the universe to begin with and then when our dirty little human hands got a hold of knowledge of GOD we had to make ourselves more LIKE God so we planted seeds in stories here and there that GOD was like us (Make god have emotions, make his image be that simmilar to a man) Nope god still is a figment of our ego wanting to be better than something than everyone else is.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 1:57 pm

littleCJelkton;1389123 wrote: So who invented GOD how do you know GOD invented the universe and GOD was not part of the universe to begin with and then when our dirty little human hands got a hold of knowledge of GOD we had to make ourselves more LIKE God so we planted seeds in stories here and there that GOD was like us (Make god have emotions, make his image be that simmilar to a man) Nope god still is a figment of our ego wanting to be better than something than everyone else is.

God is not an invention, hes an inventor. He invented me and you. Its not the other way around.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 7:10 pm

Mickiel;1389298 wrote: God is not an invention, hes an inventor. He invented me and you. Its not the other way around.

But where did God come from?

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 9:01 pm

littleCJelkton;1389321 wrote: But where did God come from?

To avoid infinite regression, I believe there has to be at least one being of power and mystery that had no beginning, but it began everythingelse. And that is God. There must be one that always existed in order to bring all that we know into existence. I don't buy the Atheist belief that nothing started everything. Thats like saying the house you live in built itself from nothing.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 9:59 pm

Mickiel;1389322 wrote: To avoid infinite regression, I believe there has to be at least one being of power and mystery that had no beginning, but it began everythingelse. And that is God. There must be one that always existed in order to bring all that we know into existence. I don't buy the Atheist belief that nothing started everything. Thats like saying the house you live in built itself from nothing.

What is the difference? If god can come from nothing so can everything else.

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:58 pm

Ahso!;1342818 wrote: Why must what I highlighted be understood if its untrue to begin with? Thats like saying apples grow in beer cans, it isn't true and in fact its absurd to the point that nobody thinks it, so why would it need to be said: apples do not grow in beer cans - That must be understood.?

Perhaps I should ask the question another way. Why is it you suppose others believe humans came from Apes?

I had a debate with Dorids at religionforums.org. It considers itself an aquatic animal (that is what it told me). But if ever it evolves it wants to be a giant redwood tree. I asked why? It said the tree is more evolved than human beings. The tree provides shade, shelter for every living entity under it or above it. That it sustains every living entity that uses oxygen to survive. That without trees every living thing dependent on trees dies. While Dorids I considered what it posted was a food for thought, I replied that human beings have this nature trees lack. & this nature is to destroy. So which is superior that which sustains or that which destroys?

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Sat Mar 31, 2012 1:22 am

rajakrsna;1389325 wrote: I had a debate with Dorids at religionforums.org. It considers itself an aquatic animal (that is what it told me). But if ever it evolves it wants to be a giant redwood tree. I asked why? It said the tree is more evolved than human beings. The tree provides shade, shelter for every living entity under it or above it. That it sustains every living entity that uses oxygen to survive. That without trees every living thing dependent on trees dies. While Dorids I considered what it posted was a food for thought, I replied that human beings have this nature trees lack. & this nature is to destroy. So which is superior that which sustains or that which destroys?

Nothing is destroyed only changed and re-used again the very nature of sustaining destroys that which is sustaining in order to change its energy to sustain that which it sustains between animal life and plant life there happens to be a cycle of sustain -destroy- sustain the energy used by animals during it's life is broken down and reused for other animals and plants as it goes through it life up until it dies. From the moment something is created it begins the process of destruction by sustaining something else. Some things have a longer destruction-sustaining process than others but everything eventually ends in the process of providing for something new.

You know that is what sex is all about right, and eating, oh and the sun continues to be on a hundred-billion-year path of destruction while sustaining all life on earth.

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Sat Mar 31, 2012 11:48 am

littleCJelkton;1389403 wrote:

You know that is what sex is all about right

In your a Hindu, your lucky if you are a man. It is the woman who will sustain and support you if she decides to ask for your hand in marriage. If you are a Muslim, you are not lucky if you are a man. It`s you who will sustain and support the women you want to marry. If you are a Christian, you are lucky if the woman you ask to marry loves you. & yet Christians, female or male, are luckier than a Hindu or Muslim since the only requirement for marriage between Christians to consummate it is LOVE.

Vrindavana Das · Post by **Vrindavana Das** » Sat Mar 31, 2012 7:51 pm

Mickiel;1389322 wrote: To avoid infinite regression, I believe there has to be at least one being of power and mystery that had no beginning, but it began everythingelse. And that is God. There must be one that always existed in order to bring all that we know into existence. I don't buy the Atheist belief that nothing started everything. Thats like saying the house you live in built itself from nothing.

yo mām ajam anādiḿ ca

vetti loka-maheśvaram

asammūḍhaḥ sa martyeṣu

sarva-pāpaiḥ pramucyate
SYNONYMS

yaḥ — anyone who; mām — Me; ajam — unborn; anādim — without beginning; ca — also; vetti — knows; loka — of the planets; mahā-īśvaram — the supreme master; asammūḍhaḥ — undeluded; saḥ — he; martyeṣu — among those subject to death; sarva-pāpaiḥ — from all sinful reactions; pramucyate — is delivered.

TRANSLATION

He who knows Me as the unborn, as the beginningless, as the Supreme Lord of all the worlds — he only, undeluded among men, is freed from all sins.

PURPORT

As stated in the Seventh Chapter (7.3), manuṣyāṇāḿ sahasreṣu kaścid yatati siddhaye: those who are trying to elevate themselves to the platform of spiritual realization are not ordinary men; they are superior to millions and millions of ordinary men who have no knowledge of spiritual realization. But out of those actually trying to understand their spiritual situation, one who can come to the understanding that Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the proprietor of everything, the unborn, is the most successful spiritually realized person. In that stage only, when one has fully understood Kṛṣṇa's supreme position, can one be free completely from all sinful reactions.

Here the Lord is described by the word aja, meaning "unborn," but He is distinct from the living entities who are described in the Second Chapter as aja. The Lord is different from the living entities who are taking birth and dying due to material attachment. The conditioned souls are changing their bodies, but His body is not changeable. Even when He comes to this material world, He comes as the same unborn; therefore in the Fourth Chapter it is said that the Lord, by His internal potency, is not under the inferior, material energy, but is always in the superior energy.

In this verse the words vetti loka-maheśvaram indicate that one should know that Lord Kṛṣṇa is the supreme proprietor of the planetary systems of the universe. He was existing before the creation, and He is different from His creation. All the demigods were created within this material world, but as far as Kṛṣṇa is concerned, it is said that He is not created; therefore Kṛṣṇa is different even from the great demigods like Brahmā and Śiva. And because He is the creator of Brahmā, Śiva and all the other demigods, He is the Supreme Person of all planets.

Śrī Kṛṣṇa is therefore different from everything that is created, and anyone who knows Him as such immediately becomes liberated from all sinful reactions. One must be liberated from all sinful activities to be in the knowledge of the Supreme Lord. Only by devotional service can He be known and not by any other means, as stated in Bhagavad-gītā.

One should not try to understand Kṛṣṇa as a human being. As stated previously, only a foolish person thinks Him to be a human being. This is again expressed here in a different way. A man who is not foolish, who is intelligent enough to understand the constitutional position of the Godhead, is always free from all sinful reactions.

If Kṛṣṇa is known as the son of Devakī, then how can He be unborn? That is also explained in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam: When He appeared before Devakī and Vasudeva, He was not born as an ordinary child; He appeared in His original form, and then He transformed Himself into an ordinary child.

Anything done under the direction of Kṛṣṇa is transcendental. It cannot be contaminated by material reactions, which may be auspicious or inauspicious. The conception that there are things auspicious and inauspicious in the material world is more or less a mental concoction because there is nothing auspicious in the material world. Everything is inauspicious because the very material nature is inauspicious. We simply imagine it to be auspicious. Real auspiciousness depends on activities in Kṛṣṇa consciousness in full devotion and service. Therefore if we at all want our activities to be auspicious, then we should work under the directions of the Supreme Lord. Such directions are given in authoritative scriptures such as Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and Bhagavad-gītā, or from a bona fide spiritual master. Because the spiritual master is the representative of the Supreme Lord, his direction is directly the direction of the Supreme Lord. The spiritual master, saintly persons and scriptures direct in the same way. There is no contradiction in these three sources. All actions done under such direction are free from the reactions of pious or impious activities of this material world. The transcendental attitude of the devotee in the performance of activities is actually that of renunciation, and this is called sannyāsa. As stated in the first verse of the Sixth Chapter of Bhagavad-gītā, one who acts as a matter of duty because he has been ordered to do so by the Supreme Lord, and who does not seek shelter in the fruits of his activities (anāśritaḥ karma-phalam), is a true renouncer. Anyone acting under the direction of the Supreme Lord is actually a sannyāsī and a yogī, and not the man who has simply taken the dress of the sannyāsī, or a pseudo yogī.

You can find all this information here:

Bhagavad-gita As It Is Chapter 10 Verse 3

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Sun Apr 01, 2012 12:52 am

This is taken from an article by Nandagopala Jivana dasa..

The Vedic knowledge is sometimes compared to a 'jungle of knowledge'. Not just an ordinary jungle but a very dense jungle. In the Vedic literature there are various opinions.

In the Visnu Purana it says that Visnu is Supreme. In the Siva Purana it says Siva is the Supreme. In the Markandeya Purana it says that Durga is Supreme. And in the Upanisads it is mentioned 'aham brahmasmi' - 'I am Brahman'. So one may think that there are many Gods, or that there are so many Gods that there is no God at all. We may think that what the Vedas say cannot be true because there are too many apparent contradictions. Or we may take 'aham brahmasmi' as the ultimate conclusion and then conclude that we are all God. This is what happens to persons who study the Vedas without the help of the bona-fide guru.

Srila Vyasadeva after dividing Vedas into four and compiling the Upanishads, Puranas and other literatures, wrote Vedanta-sutra. Vedanta means the end of knowledge. After he completed Vedanta-sutra however, Vyasa still did not feel satisfied. He was not satisfied within himself. He crossed the ocean of knowledge but still he was not satisfied. Then the guru of Vyasadeva, Narada Muni, came and Vyasadeva inquired from his guru why he did not feel satisfied. Then Narada Muni said, "Without directly coming to describe the Lila of Krsna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead you have not done justice to truth. Now you have to give the meaning of all these things in one book." Then Vyasadeva wrote the Bhagavata Purana, Srimad Bhagavatam.

Bhagavatam is the natural commentary on Vedanta-sutra (bhasyam brahmasutranam). The message of the Bhagavatam is summarized in the beginning, krsnas tu bhagavan svayam (SB 1.3.28). So that is the meaning. Of all the Devas, of all the incarnations of the Supreme Lord, Krsna is the Supreme and original. Vyasadeva revealed in Bhagavatam that Krsna is the Supreme asraya-tattva. In other Vedic literatures Vyasadeva only revealed the asraya-tattva in part, not in full. If you are a ghost then Siva, who is known as Bhutanatha, is your asraya (shelter). If you are a materialist then Durga is your asraya. But when we are ready for the perfection of life, Vyasadeva revealed, "Narayana is the asraya-tattva, because Narayana resides in Vaikuntha, which is above this material world".

But in Srimad Bhagavatam, Vyasadeva revealed that the highest plane is called Goloka. Goloka Vrndavana is above Vaikuntha and in that place Krsna is the Supreme, Sri Sri Radha-Krsna are Supreme (Krsna is the visaya [enjoyer] and Radha is the asraya [shelter]). Vyasadeva therefore described that the lotus feet of Krsna are the Supreme shelter of all living beings.

So the dearmost representative of Krsna comes to the world to represent this message of Vyasadeva -‘Krsna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead'. There have been many gurus in the world since the time of Vyasadeva, but all of them did not represent the ultimate conclusion of Vyasadeva. Someone may ask, "Is there any thing special about your Prabhupada?" Naturally we will say, "Oh of course, about Srila Prabhupada there are many special things”.

__________________

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:46 am

Is God Real? Well I think he is, and I don't think a greater being can be conceived. Since existence is possible, and to exist is greater than to not exist, then God must exist. If God didnot exist, then a greater being can be conceived, but you can't have something greater than that which no greater can be conceived.

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Sun Apr 01, 2012 7:06 am

Mickiel;1389529 wrote: Is God Real? Well I think he is, and I don't think a greater being can be conceived. Since existence is possible, and to exist is greater than to not exist, then God must exist. If God didnot exist, then a greater being can be conceived, but you can't have something greater than that which no greater can be conceived.

If only ants could communicate with human beings they`d tell us we are the greatest. What if we were ants in God`s eyes and we are able to text and communicate our feelings about ourselves to God. What would we say to God? That God is the greatest? Of course, but God will only laugh at us. God knows he is not the greatest. God knows the greatest is Krishna-the primeval Lord Govinda. You see the term God is a generalized or deceptive form of describing a Person whom we consider is the greatest. He is the greatest because he is the origin of matter. Matter did not manifest itself out of nothing. It came from Krishna`s glancing at his own effulgence ( brahmajyoti. ) It`s similar to the metaphor of which came first, the egg or chicken. For example, do you have a car? If you have, the car that you owned did not manifest by itself from the money you used in buying the car. It originated from you dreaming someday you will have your own car not the toy car your parents gave you last Christmas. I would not be a licensed doctor if I did not dream of becoming one since I was a kid. Did you get my point? That this universe is not the only one. There are also multi-verses we thought did not exist. This multi-verses are the spiritual worlds. Scientists has got to find a way to reach what others call are the parallel worlds. Not by building giant telescopes or space crafts but simply using the power of your MIND after following the instructions of one who knows how to get there and back.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Sun Apr 01, 2012 10:29 am

Is God Real? The future of humanity, its " Real" future, is soley based on this question. There are those who are content with believing that humanitys future is based on humanity; I don't have that kind of confidence in humanity. But I need more confidence in Gods reality.

To believe God exist requires some level of confidence, which is different than blind faith. This is something you need to prove and reprove to yourself, inspite of your faith. Blind faith is emotional committment, confidence is factual assurance; and there is a difference.

And I want to go into that difference.

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Sun Apr 01, 2012 10:44 am

Mickiel;1389548 wrote:

And I want to go into that difference.

From Christ consciousness to Krishna consciousness.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Sun Apr 01, 2012 9:53 pm

rajakrsna;1389456 wrote: In your a Hindu, your lucky if you are a man. It is the woman who will sustain and support you if she decides to ask for your hand in marriage. If you are a Muslim, you are not lucky if you are a man. It`s you who will sustain and support the women you want to marry. If you are a Christian, you are lucky if the woman you ask to marry loves you. & yet Christians, female or male, are luckier than a Hindu or Muslim since the only requirement for marriage between Christians to consummate it is LOVE.

That has nothing to do with the destruction of something for the sustaining of something else or "Transfer of Energy" other than some religious traditions on what should happen before sex though I know pretty much world wide for a long time now the act of sex "which is a process of destorying something to sustain another" has been going on regardless of what traditions you have and often happens before those traditions are fufilled regardless of religion

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Mon Apr 02, 2012 9:26 am

rajakrsna;1389550 wrote: From Christ consciousness to Krishna consciousness.

One should go where their consciousness leads them, in hopes its the right direction for them. Mine is inclinded toward Christ, in hopes of one day complettely knowing him.

And I have no qarrell with another mans direction.

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Mon Apr 02, 2012 9:33 am

Mickiel;1389720 wrote: One should go where their consciousness leads them, in hopes its the right direction for them. Mine is inclinded toward Christ, in hopes of one day complettely knowing him.

And I have no qarrell with another mans direction.

If you are point A & the man`s going in the opposite direction is point B there`ll come a time when point A and point B comes face to face again.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Mon Apr 02, 2012 1:52 pm

rajakrsna;1389724 wrote: If you are point A & the man`s going in the opposite direction is point B there`ll come a time when point A and point B comes face to face again.

I think we all are destined to meet our orgin of beliefs. And at that point, all eyes will be opened.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:28 am

rajakrsna;1389724 wrote: If you are point A & the man`s going in the opposite direction is point B there`ll come a time when point A and point B comes face to face again.

Not if it is super man fling through space in one direction and the green lantern going in another then you have an a crazy ever expanding amount of space in either direction

Pappy · Post by **Pappy** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 am

Mickiel;1389548 wrote: Is God Real? The future of humanity, its " Real" future, is soley based on this question. There are those who are content with believing that humanitys future is based on humanity; I don't have that kind of confidence in humanity. But I need more confidence in Gods reality.

To believe God exist requires some level of confidence, which is different than blind faith. This is something you need to prove and reprove to yourself, inspite of your faith. Blind faith is emotional committment, confidence is factual assurance; and there is a difference.

And I want to go into that difference.

To believe God exist requires some level of confidence, which is different than blind faith.

How so?

Blind faith is emotional committment, confidence is factual assurance; and there is a difference.

There are no facts that prove a god exists. The whole basis for it is based on religious text written by desert dwellers who apparently were in the sun to long. The entire statement is nothing more than assumption based on belief and what the religious brain washers have driven down peoples throats for the last 2000 years.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 10:43 am

Pappy;1389813 wrote: How so?

There are no facts that prove a god exists. The whole basis for it is based on religious text written by desert dwellers who apparently were in the sun to long. The entire statement is nothing more than assumption based on belief and what the religious brain washers have driven down peoples throats for the last 2000 years.

No, there are no facts that you can see and discern as proof, conversely, there are thousands of proofs of God that I can see and discern. You simply are speaking for yourself and your comprehension. There are over 100 proofs in this thread alone; proofs of God are like any other points of evidence; they must be understood before they are accepted.

Concerning confidence; thats another tenant of understanding evidence; there is evidence that has no confidence in, and evidence that your consciousness is complettely confident in. Consciousness itself is a stellar proof of God; Consciousness can only come from consciousness, as life can only come from life; and I consider any other interpitation as to how consciousness and life appeared- outside of God, as a myth.

Pappy · Post by **Pappy** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:06 pm

Mickiel;1389897 wrote: No, there are no facts that you can see and discern as proof, conversely, there are thousands of proofs of God that I can see and discern. You simply are speaking for yourself and your comprehension. There are over 100 proofs in this thread alone; proofs of God are like any other points of evidence; they must be understood before they are accepted.

Concerning confidence; thats another tenant of understanding evidence; there is evidence that has no confidence in, and evidence that your consciousness is complettely confident in. Consciousness itself is a stellar proof of God; Consciousness can only come from consciousness, as life can only come from life; and I consider any other interpitation as to how consciousness and life appeared- outside of God, as a myth.

Smooth dance... what other steps do you know to avoid an answer? The rest is agian only assumption and no proof of any god. Speaking in parables will not change the scenario.