There Is No Such A Thing As God.

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:57 pm

Ahso!;1388793 wrote: That's inaccurate. I can read any person's idea of god and have knowledge of it.

Yes, you can have knowledge of their conception of God, or what they believe God may have done for them, for example.. Do you consider that your proof of God--LOL. Say, Asho, I have some good land down in Florida you might be interested in.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:59 pm

Infinite Stop;1388813 wrote: Yes, you can have knowledge of their conception of God, or what they believe God may have done for them, for example.. Do you consider that your proof of God--LOL. Say, Asho, I have some good land down in Florida you might be interested in. ;)NO, I consider it their proof of god. I have no god.

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:23 pm

If there`s no such thing as God might as well rip apart a US dollar bill that says IN GOD WE TRUST. If there`s no such thing as God might as well spit at the clerk of court when he asks me, " Do you promise to tell the truth nothing but the truth. So help me God?" So why you atheists still holding on to that US dollar bill if you do not believe in God? Why not just give it me, mate, because I believe in God. ( smiling )

Vrindavana Das · Post by **Vrindavana Das** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:12 pm

Infinite Stop;1388618 wrote:

Much of what you have in this post is little more than mish mash. I won't attempt it.

In regard to your last paragraph: Well, I'll agree with you there. How CAN we understand the absolute truth of God's existence without the requisite qualification? That's a darn good question you should ask yourself. You talk of God as if you know of God. Tell me, how do you know of God better than you know German? Where did you get that "requisite qualification" for God's existence, and would you please share it with us?

What part of the post you did not understand? Let me know and I shall attempt to clarify.

As for 'requisite qualification' for God's existence, I shall attempt.

To be on a common platform with you, I am taking the liberty of assuming that you want to establish God scientifically and not through way of personal revelations or miracles.

You believe in science but not in God. If God exists, he would be the origin of science also. To become a scientist, you need to study science subjects. And that too under the able guidance of a professor. This process for acquiring knowledge of science is also applicable for acquiring knowledge of God, who is the fountainhead of all kinds of science and knowledge. This science of God is known as religion.

Like you say, to experience God, He must make Himself known through some form of personal revelation. This revelation is there for EVERYONE - the revealed scriptures. Scriptures point towards God. But we have to WALK the TALK and not TALK the WALK. If anyone follows, God makes Himself known. If someone does not follow, all is mere dry MENTAL SPECULATION.

The bible reveals; 'Thou shall not kill'. It is to be followed to understand the science of God. If I do not follow the injunction, and kill innocent animals to satisfy my taste buds, my efforts to seek God are futile. It is like God saying - 'you go east and you shall find Me'... and I choose to go west. Will I find God?!

Funny that we do not follow what God reveals to us, yet we want proof of God's existence. He is the Complete Whole, the Absolute Truth and Supremely independent. He does not need to prove His existence to us. God is not our order-carrier.

Without proper training, things are bound to sound mish mash.

How CAN we understand the absolute truth of God's existence without the requisite qualification? Isn't that's a darn good question you should also be asking yourself my friend.

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:12 am

As for 'requisite qualification' for God's existence, I shall attempt.

To be on a common platform with you, I am taking the liberty of assuming that you want to establish God scientifically and not through way of personal revelations or miracles.

No, you are 180 degrees wrong here. My position is that God will never, NEVER, be proven scientifically. Further I DO believe that God can be known via revelation; not only that, revelation is the ONLY way God may be known. Though I wholeheartedly agree that miracles in general cannot prove God. The one and only obvious exception is the miracle of revelation, of course.

You believe in science but not in God. If God exists, he would be the origin of science also. To become a scientist, you need to study science subjects. And that too under the able guidance of a professor. This process for acquiring knowledge of science is also applicable for acquiring knowledge of God, who is the fountainhead of all kinds of science and knowledge. This science of God is known as religion.

NO, I believe in science and God. I guess I'm coming forth here as a theist. No reason to be coy about it.

Of course you are correct that God would be the source of science. However, I disagree that a person must know the science of religion to attain sure knowledge of God. It's true that religious people are no less likely to experience God as a revelation than an atheist; but I believe that the God of the universe need not acquiesce to the religious beliefs of anyone, if God desires to reveal itself. No doubt, religion does contain many historical truths and useful, wise dictums to live by. However, to suggest as you do that one must seek God via that religion is shortsighted. The message of religion does not prove God, it presumes God, at least for us rational thinkers. In the absence of proof of God, those historical truths and dictums are the product of man's imagination. And what is that proof and where does it come from? I say that ultimately it comes to one via the gift of revelation, personally experienced. In the absence of such proof, Holy books like the Bible and Koran are nothing more than the product of man's toil.

Like you say, to experience God, He must make Himself known through some form of personal revelation. This revelation is there for EVERYONE - the revealed scriptures. Scriptures point towards God. But we have to WALK the TALK and not TALK the WALK. If anyone follows, God makes Himself known. If someone does not follow, all is mere dry MENTAL SPECULATION.

It's entirely possible that what you say here is true. One may be inspired to live in faith based on the Bible, the Koran, or any other "holy" book. This could in theory align their being with the divine, and could result in true knowledge of God in a revelation. Yes, I agree. But the Bible is not proof of God anymore than "War of the Worlds" is proof of martians.

The bible reveals; 'Thou shall not kill'. It is to be followed to understand the science of God. If I do not follow the injunction, and kill innocent animals to satisfy my taste buds, my efforts to seek God are futile. It is like God saying - 'you go east and you shall find Me'... and I choose to go west. Will I find God?!

Ostensibly I agree with you. Yes, I believe that one must walk a certain path in their search for the divine. However, if one remembers how much killing the war God of Canaan is guilty of , is not God itself the biggest violator of that commandment, "Thou shalt not kill"? It's difficult to count in the Bible the times that the God of unconditional love commanded the Jews to slaughter men, women, and children, and animals too, when mercy could have done so much more to prove to the world the Jew's special calling as God's chosen people.

Funny that we do not follow what God reveals to us, yet we want proof of God's existence. He is the Complete Whole, the Absolute Truth and Supremely independent. He does not need to prove His existence to us. God is not our order-carrier.

Nothing is revealed by God unless it is proven that God is the source of any text or knowledge. In the absence of proof, those works are the product of man's effort. The Bible, the Koran, or any other work is from the mind of man, not God, unless it can be proven without doubt that God inspired those works. And yes, God may be the "Absolute Truth and Supremely independent," but that truth and independence cannot be known irrefutably outside a personal revelation, I say. Whatever you believe the attributes of God to be, those attributes must be personally experienced to be known. Mere paper and ink, no matter what the content, will ever prove God. If you want a loving God, then that love must be personally experienced; if a forgiving God, then that forgiveness must be personally experienced; the power of God, then that power must be personally experienced. There is no other way. That's my contention.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:03 pm

Infinite Stop;1388767 wrote: I had a hard time grasping what you have here; it seems rather confused. I'll do my best to respond.

I'll use your analogy in the 2nd paragraph and say, it's not about whose God is more credible, or whose revelation is better than someone elses. I already said that anyone who had attained knowledge of God could not even prove it to their self, let alone anyone else; so comparisons are next to meaningless aside from their testimonial value which may inspire others to faith.

This is what I am saying: Science can't prove God. Therefore if you or anyone else wants to know God, it will come via the miracle of revelation. Further, that revelation will have been a gift from God, perhaps as a result of prayer. You would not be able to prove that miracle to yourself or anyone else, because miracles cannot be logically proven; though your testimony may inspire others. And finally, that knowledge you would have gained in the experience would be the highest and only proof of God. There could be no greater proof than your belief that God had personally intervened in your life. Any other attempt to prove God is little more than hearsay.

In regard to your last paragraph: I did not say that one who has had a revelation of God is better than anyone else. Many people that claim to have had an experience of God are nuts, or criminals, or misguided. And by saying this I don't disprove my own claim of revelation as the only means of knowing God. I'm not saying that there aren't crooks and crazies; I am simply saying that revelation is the highest proof possible. You and I may not like it, but that's the way it is.

And of course, I would never condone "maleficent" behavior toward anyone, for any reason. Why you threw that in my face I don't know.

In short, if you want to know God, then that knowledge will come as a result of God's proactive participation. God will have granted you an experience in which Its existence will be self-evidently true. If you want to know of God's love, forgiveness, or power, then you must experience that love, forgiveness and power.

So your saying an apple is an apple and and an orange is an orange, though it is okay to say an orange is an apple if god told you so and that is O.K because if you so happen to be chosen by god to get his revelation, though you can not prove you have his revalation to yourself or to others it is O.K to things others can't because you have gods love, or forgiviness, or kiss gods behind or whatever it is you have chosen to do with the god you can not prove to yourself or others. It is O.K think you can do things that others can't because you have gods ("whatever") and they don't and expect there not to be anything maleficent being done???

Vrindavana Das · Post by **Vrindavana Das** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:34 am

Infinite Stop;1388916 wrote: .

No, you are 180 degrees wrong here. My position is that God will never, NEVER, be proven scientifically. Further I DO believe that God can be known via revelation; not only that, revelation is the ONLY way God may be known. Though I wholeheartedly agree that miracles in general cannot prove God. The one and only obvious exception is the miracle of revelation, of course.

God says -

buddhir jnanam asammohah ksama satyam damah samah

sukham dukham bhavo 'bhavo bhayam cabhayam eva ca

ahimsa samata tustis tapo danam yaso yasah

bhavanti bhava bhutanam matta eva prtag-vidhah

Intelligence, knowledge, freedom from doubt and delusion, forgiveness, truthfulness, control of the senses, control of the mind, happiness and distress, birth, death, fear, fearlessness, non-violence, equanimity, satisfaction, austerity, charity, fame and infamy - all these various qualities of living beings are created by Me alone. B.G.- 10.4-5

Your belief that God can never be proven scientifically is correct. You also say you are a 'rational thinker'. So I will say, God can be explained rationally and experienced indirectly.

Science and intelligence, God is the source of both. In fact, God is the source of EVERYTHING. Thus, everything is inferior to God in nature. With inferior energy, using instruments and machines made from inferior energy, we cannot prove the existence of superior source. This understanding is rational & scientific. We can, however, understand the source's existence indirectly, through perception. To clarify: During daytime I see light outside my window. Even if I do not see the sun due to cloudy sky, I can logically understand the source of light - the sun exists. Similarly science, intelligence, you, me...everything emanates from God as their source. It is rational therefore to conclude that the source of all that be - God, also exists.

I disagree that a person must know the science of religion to attain sure knowledge of God.

Are you saying that if I say, 'to attain sure knowledge of mathematics, I should read mathematics books' is an incorrect statement and you disagree?

I believe that the God of the universe need not acquiesce to the religious beliefs of anyone, if God desires to reveal itself.

I totally agree with you here. God is supremely independent. He can reveal Himself to anyone, anywhere if He so desires. However, your platform is incorrect. 'Religious beliefs' should be read as 'scientific beliefs'. Religion is SCIENCE as opposed to your understanding of it being PERSONAL FAITH.

However, to suggest as you do that one must seek God via that religion is shortsighted. The message of religion does not prove God, it presumes God, at least for us rational thinkers.

I differ on this point with you. You say that religion does not prove but presumes God. This statement shows that you have not gone into the depth of religious scriptures. Just like everything, science of religion also emanates from God. Therefor it is BY God and it is FOR God. Religion is not a convenient tool to sculpture the God of your or my PERSONAL BELIEFS. It is is a RATIONAL SCIENCE OF KNOWING GOD. Just like Mathematics, Chemistry or Physics.

'To seek the truth of Newtons laws or Einstein's theory of relativity, knowledge of Physics is needed.' Is this statement irrational or will you term it shortsighted?

In the absence of proof of God, those historical truths and dictums are the product of man's imagination. And what is that proof and where does it come from? I say that ultimately it comes to one via the gift of revelation, personally experienced. In the absence of such proof, Holy books like the Bible and Koran are nothing more than the product of man's toil. It's entirely possible that what you say here is true. One may be inspired to live in faith based on the Bible, the Koran, or any other "holy" book. This could in theory align their being with the divine, and could result in true knowledge of God in a revelation. Yes, I agree. But the Bible is not proof of God anymore than "War of the Worlds" is proof of martians.

God says -

ajnas casraddadahanas ca samsayatma vinasyati

nayam loko 'sti na paro na sukham samsayayatmanah

But ignorant and faithless persons who doubt the revealed scriptures do not attain God consciousness; they fall down. For the doubting soul there is happiness neither in this world nor in the next. B.G. - 4.40

I have never been to Mount Everest. I see a book that tells me about Mount Everest. I can choose to say the book is just a product of man's imagination. Unless I personally experience, Everest is nothing more that the product of man's toil. I am right to the extent that Everest does not exist for me unless I personally experience it. I am wrong at the same time because Everest does exist and there are persons who have experienced it. To experience Everest, I should follow the path shown by them because they have been there. Is it not rational?

However, if one remembers how much killing the war God of Canaan is guilty of , is not God itself the biggest violator of that commandment, "Thou shalt not kill"? It's difficult to count in the Bible the times that the God of unconditional love commanded the Jews to slaughter men, women, and children, and animals too, when mercy could have done so much more to prove to the world the Jew's special calling as God's chosen people.

God says;

tasmat tvam uttistha yaso labhavsva

jitva satrun bhunksva rajyam samrddham

mayaivaite nihatah purvam eva

nimitta-matram bhava savya-sacin

Therefore get up. Prepare to fight and win glory. Conquer your enemies and enjoy a flourishing kingdom. They are already put to death by My arrangement, and you, O Savyasachi, can be but an instrument in the fight. B.G. - 11.33

Like you said earlier, if a Judge orders someone's killing, can you hold him responsible for committing the crime of murder? He is just doing his duty and is above that law. Violence also has it's application just like non-violence. If you see a man trying to rape a woman. You cannot choose to be non-violent there. Non-violence there is worse than violence! Time, place and circumstance, all needs to be taken into consideration to understand any event. God knows the past, present and future. He is giver of fruits of our labor to us all. He is the supreme judge, supreme controller and the supreme enjoyer.

Nothing is revealed by God unless it is proven that God is the source of any text or knowledge. In the absence of proof, those works are the product of man's effort. The Bible, the Koran, or any other work is from the mind of man, not God, unless it can be proven without doubt that God inspired those works.

Suppose a book was authored by Mr. X 500 years ago on how to reach Mr. X's house. Today I say unless it is proven that the book was authored by Mr. X and not by some Mr. Y, this book is rubbish. What is the solution then? The solution is to follow the book and see where I reach. Till such time we get down to DOING it, we are just HYPOTHESIZING, going in circles and arguing for the sake of argument. Is this rational?

Whatever you believe the attributes of God to be, those attributes must be personally experienced to be known. Mere paper and ink, no matter what the content, will ever prove God. If you want a loving God, then that love must be personally experienced; if a forgiving God, then that forgiveness must be personally experienced; the power of God, then that power must be personally experienced. There is no other way. That's my contention.

God says;

tad viddhi pranipatena pariprasnena sevya

upadeksyanit te jnananam jnaninas tattva-darsinah

Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized souls can impart knowledge unto you because they have seen the truth. - B.G. 4.34

You are right when you say God is the Absolute Truth and Supremely Independent. Absolute Truth encompasses everything in it's total completeness - love, forgiveness, power...everything. But at the same time that Absolute Truth is a 'SUPREME PERSON'. You say 'those attributes must be experienced to be known'. My friend, we have to acquire the requisite qualifications to experience those attributes of God. Like I had said earlier, God is not our order carrier. We all must first DESERVE and then DESIRE that 'personal experience'. God is the master of innumerable universes. In fact it is, those attributes must first be known and understood through practice of 'science of religion' to be experienced. Also, my 'personal experience' arises from my limited sense perception. With my imperfect senses, I cannot even see my own hand if I bring it too close to my face; any sound above or below the audible frequency of humans cannot be heard by us; in twilight, my mind tells me that a rope on the road is a snake; in extreme heat, my intelligence tells me that mirage on the desert is water...how can I expect 'personal experience' of God with such imperfect senses, mind and intelligence? Only way to know is to follow the time tested and proven path shown. That's the ONLY way. That's a FACT.

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:19 am

littleCJelkton;1389018 wrote: So your saying an apple is an apple and and an orange is an orange, though it is okay to say an orange is an apple if god told you so and that is O.K because if you so happen to be chosen by god to get his revelation, though you can not prove you have his revalation to yourself or to others it is O.K to things others can't because you have gods love, or forgiviness, or kiss gods behind or whatever it is you have chosen to do with the god you can not prove to yourself or others. It is O.K think you can do things that others can't because you have gods ("whatever") and they don't and expect there not to be anything maleficent being done???

I'm sorry to say this, but I really wish you would try harder to be more forthright in opinion. I'm finding it very hard to make sense out of this post of yours. It's almost incoherent to me. There's bad diction, and it lacks lucidity.

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:53 am

Even if I do not see the sun due to cloudy sky, I can logically understand the source of light - the sun exists. Similarly science, intelligence, you, me...everything emanates from God as their source. It is rational therefore to conclude that the source of all that be - God, also exists.~[Clipped from Vrindavana Das]

This is a poor analogy, and it is also circular reasoning. First, your knowledge of the sun is based on previous experience. You know it exists and the rays it produces. It's hardly a leap in logic to conclude the sun from the rays it produces. Had you never seen or heard of the sun and were subjected to the sun's rays in a confined room for the first time, then most likely you'd have no idea of the source of the phenomenon. It could be anything from a white light projector to a supreme being as cause or anything in between. You might spend an eternity trying to discover the source of those rays without actually experiencing the sun as the source.

Then there is clearly circular reasoning here. You say that...everything eminates from God; then from that you state that it is rational to conclude the source of "all that be" (a.k.a. everything) is God, so God also exists, in the same way the sun must exist because of the rays it produces, if we follow your analogy.

I don't understand how you can post something like this and expect others to take you seriously. I'm going to go back to that post again and see what else I can find.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 12:43 pm

Infinite Stop;1389097 wrote: I'm sorry to say this, but I really wish you would try harder to be more forthright in opinion. I'm finding it very hard to make sense out of this post of yours. It's almost incoherent to me. There's bad diction, and it lacks lucidity.

Awww, look he is running out of ways to turn (0=1, apple=orange, jew=nazi, and revelation=truth) for an individual into (0=1, apple=orange, jew=nazi, and revelation=truth) for everyone I guess he is not a wizard after all, oh well.

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 12:43 pm

Like you said earlier, if a Judge orders someone's killing, can you hold him responsible for committing the crime of murder? He is just doing his duty and is above that law. Violence also has it's application just like non-violence. If you see a man trying to rape a woman. You cannot choose to be non-violent there. Non-violence there is worse than violence! Time, place and circumstance, all needs to be taken into consideration to understand any event. God knows the past, present and future. He is giver of fruits of our labor to us all. He is the supreme judge, supreme controller and the supreme enjoyer.

I can't buy into this at all. First, I might object to the notion that simply because a judge or anyone else orders me to kill that I am above the law. Morally it's questionable.

It's true that violence may at times be justified. However, in the New Testament Christ (God in the flesh for some) commands us to "love our enemies and pray for our persecutors," while in the Old Testament God leads his chosen people in to Canaan to kill, destroy, and conquer. Did not the people of Canaan live for love and happiness as did the Jews? Were the Canaanites not worthy of God's love? Did not God understand His own commandment, "Thou shalt not kill"?

If you want to believe in such a God then that's your business. For me, the only God that makes sense is one that would never partake of any evil acts, and certainly not killing. The Jews were no more deserving of God's love than any other race or culture. They were constantly acting like disobedient children, reaping God's wrath as punishment. The idea that the God of the universe would condone genocide to fulfill His Abrahamic promise makes God no better than Hitler wanting Austria. How could God be the moral adjudicator of the universe and also be guilty of the worst crimes one can commit? That's not a wise or loving God; it is instead a immoral, capricious God acting no better than a thug. I cannot accept a thug for my God.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 1:19 pm

Infinite Stop;1389122 wrote: I can't buy into this at all. First, I might object to the notion that simply because a judge or anyone else orders me to kill that I am above the law. Morally it's questionable.

It's true that violence may at times be justified. However, in the New Testament Christ (God in the flesh for some) commands us to "love our enemies and pray for our persecutors," while in the Old Testament God leads his chosen people in to Canaan to kill, destroy, and conquer. Did not the people of Canaan live for love and happiness as did the Jews? Were the Canaanites not worthy of God's love? Did not God understand His own commandment, "Thou shalt not kill"?

If you want to believe in such a God then that's your business. For me, the only God that makes sense is one that would never partake of any evil acts, and certainly not killing. The Jews were no more deserving of God's love than any other race or culture. They were constantly acting like disobedient children, reaping God's wrath as punishment. The idea that the God of the universe would condone genocide to fulfill His Abrahamic promise makes God no better than Hitler wanting Austria. How could God be the moral adjudicator of the universe and also be guilty of the worst crimes one can commit? That's not a wise or loving God; it is instead a immoral, capricious God acting no better than a thug. I cannot accept a thug for my God.

So what makes god animate as apposed to inanimate?

If God was just like a universally present molecule it wouldn't have human like notion of good or evil, love or hate.

Maybe that is why It doesn't really G.A.S about such things, and it is up for humans to make the best decisions for their own lives and is up to them to decide if what they do is for the betterment of me or for the betterment of us.

Then again there is always God doesn't exist which would still mean humans got to make up their own mind as to how what they do effects their suroundings.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 1:23 pm

If you want to believe in such a God then that's your business. For me, the only God that makes sense is one that would never partake of any evil acts, and certainly not killing. The Jews were no more deserving of God's love than any other race or culture. They were constantly acting like disobedient children, reaping God's wrath as punishment. The idea that the God of the universe would condone genocide to fulfill His Abrahamic promise makes God no better than Hitler wanting Austria. How could God be the moral adjudicator of the universe and also be guilty of the worst crimes one can commit? That's not a wise or loving God; it is instead a immoral, capricious God acting no better than a thug. I cannot accept a thug for my God.

Creating God in your own image.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 1:27 pm

AnneBoleyn;1389128 wrote: Creating God in your own image.

He is already trying to make revelation=proof, I think that is the next step isn't it? My image=God then Me=God.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 1:30 pm

littleCJelkton;1389131 wrote: He is already trying to make revelation=proof, I think that is the next step isn't it? My image=God then Me=God.

These discussions can be fun, but are fruitless, & ultimately devoid of any truth except one's own.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:16 pm

Vrindavana Das;1388856 wrote: What part of the post you did not understand? Let me know and I shall attempt to clarify.

As for 'requisite qualification' for God's existence, I shall attempt.

To be on a common platform with you, I am taking the liberty of assuming that you want to establish God scientifically and not through way of personal revelations or miracles.

You believe in science but not in God. If God exists, he would be the origin of science also. To become a scientist, you need to study science subjects. And that too under the able guidance of a professor. This process for acquiring knowledge of science is also applicable for acquiring knowledge of God, who is the fountainhead of all kinds of science and knowledge. This science of God is known as religion.

Like you say, to experience God, He must make Himself known through some form of personal revelation. This revelation is there for EVERYONE - the revealed scriptures. Scriptures point towards God. But we have to WALK the TALK and not TALK the WALK. If anyone follows, God makes Himself known. If someone does not follow, all is mere dry MENTAL SPECULATION.

The bible reveals; 'Thou shall not kill'. It is to be followed to understand the science of God. If I do not follow the injunction, and kill innocent animals to satisfy my taste buds, my efforts to seek God are futile. It is like God saying - 'you go east and you shall find Me'... and I choose to go west. Will I find God?!

Funny that we do not follow what God reveals to us, yet we want proof of God's existence. He is the Complete Whole, the Absolute Truth and Supremely independent. He does not need to prove His existence to us. God is not our order-carrier.

Without proper training, things are bound to sound mish mash.

How CAN we understand the absolute truth of God's existence without the requisite qualification? Isn't that's a darn good question you should also be asking yourself my friend.

That would be fine if the Bible did not make it clear that in order to follow the law one must eat meat and that Jesus himself eat meat - see Exodus 12 and Luke 22.

Indeed, the Bible specifies that the animals are there for our food - see Genesis 9:3

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:30 pm

Thou shalt not kill means murder. Other types of killing, including warfare, was justified by society.

You shall not murder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 11:45 am

If you want to believe in such a God then that's your business. For me, the only God that makes sense is one that would never partake of any evil acts, and certainly not killing. The Jews were no more deserving of God's love than any other race or culture. They were constantly acting like disobedient children, reaping God's wrath as punishment. The idea that the God of the universe would condone genocide to fulfill His Abrahamic promise makes God no better than Hitler wanting Austria. How could God be the moral adjudicator of the universe and also be guilty of the worst crimes one can commit? That's not a wise or loving God; it is instead a immoral, capricious God acting no better than a thug. I cannot accept a thug for my God.~Infinite Stop

AnneBoleyn;1389128 wrote: Creating God in your own image.

Yes, that's it exactly.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:27 pm

Infinite Stop;1389357 wrote: Yes, that's it exactly.What exactly do you mean by this?

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:36 pm

Ahso!;1389359 wrote: What exactly do you mean by this?

I'm talking about the God of the Bible. The Jews created God in their own image. When they were naughty, God punished them; when the were Good, God rewarded them; when they were faithful, God blessed them; if apostasy, God cursed them. The God of the Jews was conceived solely from the minds of the Jews as a reflection of their own learned traits. They created God in their own image. And until I get proof that some or all of the Bible is divinely inspired, that's what I believe.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:56 pm

What about your God? A description of God would be nice.

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:27 pm

Ahso!;1389368 wrote: What about your God? A description of God would be nice.

My description of God is that He`s funny. He`s a cheat. He loves girls. He is a genius. He loves to wine and dine. He loves to sing and play a musical instrument. He is an expert in dancing. He thinks creating the universe is boring. He is not destructive but uses Siva to destroy His creation after it has served its purpose. He is not the author of the Ten Commandments. But He`s responsible for this version of the 11th Commandment, " Thou shall not get caught." He is a smoker. He likes to smoke pot. He has no need for a savings account in the bank. All He does if He needs money is go to the casino. He wins all the time on the table, slots, poker and roulette. He has a facebook and tweeter account. He loves to listen to the music in you tube. Sometimes He visits X-rated websites or go to a bordello and watch the girls dance. He loves to drink ice cold beer and brandy. Wine actually is not His cup of tea. The latter has low alcohol content. When it`s winter He migrates to Boracay in the Philippines. When it`s summer He migrates to Switzerland. He carries a senior citizen card although He is only less than that years old. He pays taxes diligently. He does not carry any health card because He does not get sick. He has no insurance policy since He is the founder of the life insurance firm carrying the logo," I`m the Way, the Truth and Life."

Post Script

------------

Do you think God is limited to just being good? If I were this type of God then I rather be a doG.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Sat Mar 31, 2012 1:44 am

rajakrsna;1389383 wrote: My description of God is that He`s funny. He`s a cheat. He loves girls. He is a genius. He loves to wine and dine. He loves to sing and play a musical instrument. He is an expert in dancing. He thinks creating the universe is boring. He is not destructive but uses Siva to destroy His creation after it has served its purpose. He is not the author of the Ten Commandments. But He`s responsible for this version of the 11th Commandment, " Thou shall not get caught." He is a smoker. He likes to smoke pot. He has no need for a savings account in the bank. All He does if He needs money is go to the casino. He wins all the time on the table, slots, poker and roulette. He has a facebook and tweeter account. He loves to listen to the music in you tube. Sometimes He visits X-rated websites or go to a bordello and watch the girls dance. He loves to drink ice cold beer and brandy. Wine actually is not His cup of tea. The latter has low alcohol content. When it`s winter He migrates to Boracay in the Philippines. When it`s summer He migrates to Switzerland. He carries a senior citizen card although He is only less than that years old. He pays taxes diligently. He does not carry any health card because He does not get sick. He has no insurance policy since He is the founder of the life insurance firm carrying the logo," I`m the Way, the Truth and Life."

Post Script

------------

Do you think God is limited to just being good? If I were this type of God then I rather be a doG.

I agree God as you describe him is a human tough that kinda doesn't help the cause that God is God and I or you or him or her or they or us or them are not God.

That being said God (if GOD is GOD and not Me, you, him, her, us, or them) based on your description would look on the people and be terribly upset that being 1000 different people will have 1000 different descriptions of who/what God is, there are people that find it so important to prove there version of God is real that they don't treat others with the same respect and generosity that they would treat a person who is the embodiement of their Ideal version of God.

Vrindavana Das · Post by **Vrindavana Das** » Sat Mar 31, 2012 5:42 am

Infinite Stop;1389122 wrote: I can't buy into this at all. First, I might object to the notion that simply because a judge or anyone else orders me to kill that I am above the law. Morally it's questionable.

It's true that violence may at times be justified. However, in the New Testament Christ (God in the flesh for some) commands us to "love our enemies and pray for our persecutors," while in the Old Testament God leads his chosen people in to Canaan to kill, destroy, and conquer. Did not the people of Canaan live for love and happiness as did the Jews? Were the Canaanites not worthy of God's love? Did not God understand His own commandment, "Thou shalt not kill"?

If you want to believe in such a God then that's your business. For me, the only God that makes sense is one that would never partake of any evil acts, and certainly not killing. The Jews were no more deserving of God's love than any other race or culture. They were constantly acting like disobedient children, reaping God's wrath as punishment. The idea that the God of the universe would condone genocide to fulfill His Abrahamic promise makes God no better than Hitler wanting Austria. How could God be the moral adjudicator of the universe and also be guilty of the worst crimes one can commit? That's not a wise or loving God; it is instead a immoral, capricious God acting no better than a thug. I cannot accept a thug for my God.

My friend, even I would like to give my own interpretation of 'my God'. It will be a good exercise and would definitely give me a high every time I advance in my realization of God based on my level of understanding. I may or I may not like it, but the fact is that God has told us -'THIS IS HOW I AM' in the scriptures. What is the need to speculate then as to how He is? Is it not just a waste of valuable time...or just another form of sense gratification: speculation - mental sense-gratification.

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Sat Mar 31, 2012 8:57 am

Vrindavana Das;1389411 wrote: My friend, even I would like to give my own interpretation of 'my God'. It will be a good exercise and would definitely give me a high every time I advance in my realization of God based on my level of understanding. I may or I may not like it, but the fact is that God has told us -'THIS IS HOW I AM' in the scriptures. What is the need to speculate then as to how He is? Is it not just a waste of valuable time...or just another form of sense gratification: speculation - mental sense-gratification.

It`s hard Vrndavan my dear friend for some people to realize that God can assume any form he wants maybe in the form of Lord Siva. They rather want to experience associating with God in the form of Jesus of Nazareth. A God who is meek, kind and loving. But what if God manifests before them in this form?

NRSIMHADEVA - YouTube

Pappy · Post by **Pappy** » Mon Apr 02, 2012 5:55 pm

rajakrsna;1389419 wrote: It`s hard Vrndavan my dear friend for some people to realize that God can assume any form he wants maybe in the form of Lord Siva. They rather want to experience associating with God in the form of Jesus of Nazareth. A God who is meek, kind and loving. But what if God manifests before them in this form?

NRSIMHADEVA - YouTube

Loving God hmmmmm,lets see he killed what over 2 million in the Bible not to mention women and children...yeah I would say this is the kind of god man would create. Odd how the myth writers only made Satan kill 16. You see something wring with this picture?

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:03 pm

Ahso!;1389368 wrote: What about your God? A description of God would be nice.

If you'll allow me to be bold and use my own alleged revelation of God, I'll tell you.

In brief, I am convinced that God responded to my prayer. Even though I had serious doubts about God's existence, I prayed anyway, out of desperation. God then came to me with a profound healing. In that experience, God was revealed to me as truly existing.

From that, the best I could do is try to infer God's attributes. This is purely academic, since it is irrelevant to the knowledge of God I attained in the experience. And I am aware of the apparent contradiction in what I just said. How can I know God, and yet be uncertain of God's attributes? Well, in the same way I can be convinced of a stranger's existence while not also knowing their personality. I may be able to infer certain things from their appearance or behavior, but beyond that I know little. In the same way, I can try to know of God:

Since I'd prayed and God responded, that to me implies that God is omnipresent. Since my prayer was spontaneous in time and place I infer as a possibility that God is not confined in time and place. I prayed in no place in particular, and God was there to hear it.

Since I was emotionally and physically "healed" in the experience, I may safely infer that God is loving and compassionate.

Since the physical healing was beyond rational explanation and instantaneous, I can infer God's miraculous power to heal.

Since my emotional healing resulted from an act of mercy by God for my sins, I safely assume God's moral authority and power to forgive.

Since, in the experience I learned of God's existence, God proved Its ability to convey the truth of Its existence to at least one human (me), and presumably others if it so chooses.

So I can surmise some things with fair degree of confidence. All these qualities or attributes are surmised from certain elements of the experience; but these inferred attributes are not the heart of the revelation. The revelation occurs in the mind. It's an intuitive cognition that causes one to realize God in the experience. A profound event has just taken place, but the cause of the event cannot be proven; it is only by the power of intuition one will know that God--and only God--was the cause of that great experience.

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:56 pm

cancel

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:59 pm

Pappy;1389803 wrote: Loving God hmmmmm,lets see he killed what over 2 million in the Bible not to mention women and children...yeah I would say this is the kind of god man would create. Odd how the myth writers only made Satan kill 16. You see something wring with this picture?

After I reread your post I realized my reply was bad. Stupid question but how does one totally erase a post? I don't see an erase button anywhere. I'm new in here, so I feel I have an excuse to be dumb.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 1:00 pm

Why did God ignore the prayers of so many others but heard and responded to yours?

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 1:05 pm

Ahso!;1389947 wrote: Why did God ignore the prayers of so many others but heard and responded to yours?

I can only guess. For one, I was desperate and in need of a miracle; not everyone needs a miracle. It wasn't because I was so holy or anything like that. On the contrary, I was freakin' mess. I will add, I think by not answering prayer, God is in a way indeed answering prayer. If we pray and things don't go our way, then God's silence could be construed as a response to prayer. Just because love doesn't always go our way doesn't mean that love doesn't care. I guess all one can do is have faith in God's higher wisdom and intelligence to know the best way. Easier said than done.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 1:13 pm

We can only guess then that God felt you'd be of better service by living and being healed, and someone like Lisa Steinberg would be better off dead after living a short life of Misery and torture? Why you and not Lisa? You know God, ask God for me, will you? I've been wondering why he turned his back on poor Lisa.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 1:35 pm

Infinite Stop;1389946 wrote: After I reread your post I realized my reply was bad. Stupid question but how does one totally erase a post? I don't see an erase button anywhere. I'm new in here, so I feel I have an excuse to be dumb.

Edit post then delete - the facility can only be used in the first day after posting.

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 1:52 pm

Bryn Mawr;1389961 wrote: Edit post then delete - the facility can only be used in the first day after posting.

I must be stupid. But tell me, where is the "delete" button? I mean, this shouldn't be that hard. It's probably right under my hair-ridden nose. I go into EDIT and I look and look, but it's nowhere to be seen. I hate looking stupid like this.

I claim to know of God's existence, yet I am too stupid to find the delete button. What a laugh.

)

Pappy · Post by **Pappy** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:04 pm

Infinite Stop;1389950 wrote: I can only guess. For one, I was desperate and in need of a miracle; not everyone needs a miracle. It wasn't because I was so holy or anything like that. On the contrary, I was freakin' mess. I will add, I think by not answering prayer, God is in a way indeed answering prayer. If we pray and things don't go our way, then God's silence could be construed as a response to prayer. Just because love doesn't always go our way doesn't mean that love doesn't care. I guess all one can do is have faith in God's higher wisdom and intelligence to know the best way. Easier said than done.

So other than what you say what external proof do you have some god did this?

I guess all one can do is have faith in God's higher wisdom and intelligence to know the best way.

Another assumption...man this forum is full of them.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:07 pm

Infinite Stop;1389969 wrote: I must be stupid. But tell me, where is the "delete" button? I mean, this shouldn't be that hard. It's probably right under my hair-ridden nose. I go into EDIT and I look and look, but it's nowhere to be seen. I hate looking stupid like this.

I claim to know of God's existence, yet I am too stupid to find the delete button. What a laugh.

)

With apologies, I've just been in to check and you do not have the ability - all you can do is edit the part you don't want out.

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:09 pm

Pappy;1389974 wrote: So other than what you say what external proof do you have some god did this?

Another assumption...man this forum is full of them.

Were you more familiar with my line of argument you would know that there can be no external proof. The "proof" cannot extend beyond the mind of the one who has had a revelation of God. If you haven't already, you can find out my views on the subject in the thread, "Science will never prove God."

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:11 pm

Bryn Mawr;1389977 wrote: With apologies, I've just been in to check and you do not have the ability - all you can do is edit the part you don't want out.

That's strange. You'd think if I can erase a post down to a few characters I'd also have the ability to erase a post in entirety.

Pappy · Post by **Pappy** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:31 pm

Infinite Stop;1389978 wrote: Were you more familiar with my line of argument you would know that there can be no external proof. The "proof" cannot extend beyond the mind of the one who has had a revelation of God. If you haven't already, you can find out my views on the subject in the thread, "Science will never prove God."

You have no argument thats the trouble.......god or gods are figments of the human imagination and nothing more. I can have a revelation from the toilet but that don't mean the toilet told me to write or say it.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:46 pm

Infinite Stop;1389943 wrote: cancel

Dear God, please delete this post.

There... Done.

Vrindavana Das · Post by **Vrindavana Das** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 7:37 pm

Pappy;1389974 wrote: So other than what you say what external proof do you have some god did this?

The external proof is in the scriptures revealed for us to understand the 'attributes of God.'

Another assumption...man this forum is full of them.

Let me throw the question back at you. Other than what you say about God being a figment of man's imagination. What proof do you have that God does not exist?

Vrindavana Das · Post by **Vrindavana Das** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 8:01 pm

Infinite Stop;1389950 wrote: I can only guess. For one, I was desperate and in need of a miracle; not everyone needs a miracle. It wasn't because I was so holy or anything like that. On the contrary, I was freakin' mess. I will add, I think by not answering prayer, God is in a way indeed answering prayer. If we pray and things don't go our way, then God's silence could be construed as a response to prayer. Just because love doesn't always go our way doesn't mean that love doesn't care. I guess all one can do is have faith in God's higher wisdom and intelligence to know the best way. Easier said than done.

The answer to your question lies in your post. You had 'surrendered' to God at that point in time, and therefore God came down to your level of consciousness and answered your prayers. Such surrender cannot be 'faked', it comes from the 'heart' and not from 'mind' or 'intelligence'. That is why many others do not 'experience' God in their prayers.

What is below, comes from the following link: About Saranagati

Some excerpts:

The same has been confirmed by Sri Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita.

The conclusion of Bhagavad Gita is surrender, wherein Sri Krishna advises Arjuna to abandon all varieties of religion and simply surrender unto Him.

sarva-dharman parityajya

mam ekam saranam vraja

aham tvam sarva-papebhyo

moksayisyami ma sucah

"Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear."

Also:About Saranagati

"The six ways of surrender through saranagati are humility, dedication of the self, acceptance of the Lord as one's maintainer, the consciousness that Krishna will surely protect me, execution of only those acts favorable to pure devotion, and renunciation of conduct adverse to pure devotion.

"Sri Nanda Kumar, the youthful son of Nanda Maharaja, hears the prayers of anyone who takes refuge in Him by this six fold practice of surrender.

Pappy · Post by **Pappy** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 3:04 am

Vrindavana Das;1390078 wrote: The external proof is in the scriptures revealed for us to understand the 'attributes of God.'

Let me throw the question back at you. Other than what you say about God being a figment of man's imagination. What proof do you have that God does not exist?

What proof do you have that God does not exist?

What proof do you have that he does? None. Define god? Without moving goalpost please. If no one here can define god then whats the use in trying to prove an infinite number of negatives. If god wrote and said all he did and his word is final and without change or contradiction then how come for example there are 3000 different sects of christianity each claiming to know what this god wants? Matthew 7:7 "ask and you shall receive" really? How many times will you ask before you get it? There is a greater chance you will get nothing!

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 3:29 am

Pappy;1390081 wrote: What proof do you have that he does? None. Define god? Without moving goalpost please. If no one here can define god then whats the use in trying to prove an infinite number of negatives. If god wrote and said all he did and his word is final and without change or contradiction then how come for example there are 3000 different sects of christianity each claiming to know what this god wants? Matthew 7:7 "ask and you shall receive" really? How many times will you ask before you get it? There is a greater chance you will get nothing!

There`s a God who takes away your possession or everything blocking your way to him There`s a God who is all-merciful because he turns the water in your faucet to brandy so you`ll get tipsy. If you get sick with KANSR he lets you chant, " Raja Krsna Raja Krsna Krsna Krsna Raja Raja " but if your sickness is due to KRSNA CONSCIOUNESS he refers you to his younger brother God who takes away all your sins (even your underwear). So you wont get lost if you want to go Home Back to Godhead. M point here is that why is this younger God does not want his followers to get rich. That to him gold and currency are stools? The elder God however is kind, meek, peaceful, obedient, etc. It seems these Brother Gods are walking in the opposite directions, so to speak. Maybe it has something to do with ASSOCIATION. One example of God`s associate is AGNI. He is the fire that burns the food in your stomach. He`s is also the God who ignites your house so he can light a stick. There is also a small God who rules Hell. He is Yama Raja. But greatest of them all God`s associates is Sambhu. We mistake him for Govinda, the primeval God. If he does not bring with him his Trident & Naga snake. Described also as Siva, he destroy worlds in the end. which God Vishnu has sustained for billions of years. On the other hand, the small God who creates the worlds came from the navel of Vishnu. His elder brother, Balaramaji is the abode where Vishnu finds rest ( Shesha). Opps! I guess this post ZOOMS out here. RED LIGHT`s coming. :guitarist

Vrindavana Das · Post by **Vrindavana Das** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 3:36 am

Pappy;1390081 wrote: What proof do you have that he does? None. Define god? Without moving goalpost please. If no one here can define god then whats the use in trying to prove an infinite number of negatives.

God is defined as follows:

The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Kṛṣṇa, is always full with six opulences—namely complete wealth, complete strength, complete fame, complete knowledge, complete beauty and complete renunciation.

If god wrote and said all he did and his word is final and without change or contradiction then how come for example there are 3000 different sects of christianity each claiming to know what this god wants?

God is one. I can choose to interpret what He wants, to suit my convenience. Thus, different opinions arise. If God wants, say - 'thou shall not kill'. I am habituated to meat-eating to satisfy my taste buds. I choose to interpret it as 'this means thou shall not kill other humans.' Who is to blame then?

Matthew 7:7 "ask and you shall receive" really? How many times will you ask before you get it? There is a greater chance you will get nothing!

Are you willing to take it? It is all here... Bhagavad-gita As It Is Chapter 1 Verse 1

Pappy · Post by **Pappy** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 3:50 am

Vrindavana Das;1390085 wrote: God is defined as follows:

The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Kṛṣṇa, is always full with six opulences—namely complete wealth, complete strength, complete fame, complete knowledge, complete beauty and complete renunciation.

God is one. I can choose to interpret what He wants, to suit my convenience. Thus, different opinions arise. If God wants, say - 'thou shall not kill'. I am habituated to meat-eating to satisfy my taste buds. I choose to interpret it as 'this means thou shall not kill other humans.' Who is to blame then?

Are you willing to take it? It is all here... Bhagavad-gita As It Is Chapter 1 Verse 1

Myths and legends do not make a god nor do they make him real. Hinduism is no different, based on myths and legends.

The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Kṛṣṇa, is always full with six opulences—namely complete wealth, complete strength, complete fame, complete knowledge, complete beauty and complete renunciation.

The above is one of what 10 million definitions of a god.....there agian like I said no one has a definition consistent with what a god is......its a mind game, your mind is your god, sorry.

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 4:24 am

Pappy;1390088 wrote:

The above is one of what 10 million definitions of a god.....there agian like I said no one has a definition consistent with what a god is......its a mind game, your mind is your god, sorry.

Hey Popsy! Why don`t you and I go to Las Vegas. We can use our minds there playing crazy poker. Call?

Vrindavana Das · Post by **Vrindavana Das** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 4:42 am

Pappy;1390088 wrote: Myths and legends do not make a god nor do they make him real. Hinduism is no different, based on myths and legends.

Denying God's existence does not make him un-real as well

Like I had said - what proof do you have that He does not exist!

God is not our 'order-carrier' who shall prove to us because we want Him to prove His existence! You've got it wrong my friend...

Religion is not about any 'ism'. Hinduism, Christian-ism, Islamism, Buddhism...all these are religions of individual faith. Today my faith is in Hinduism, tomorrow it can be Islamism, then Buddhism and so on. These are not religion. Religion is the nature of soul.

The above is one of what 10 million definitions of a god.....there again like I said no one has a definition consistent with what a god is......its a mind game, your mind is your god, sorry.

You had asked and I had supplied. You choose not-to-believe because YOU THINK its a mind game. Your thinking is higher in your mind than the revealed scriptures. Without caring to read or know the revealed scriptures, you want to debate God's existence. It is not so cheap sir. It is not seeking

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 5:00 am

Vrindavana Das;1390096 wrote: Denying God's existence does not make him un-real Yes it does, nonexistence is never challenged or shown to be incorrect.

Vrindavana Das;1390096 wrote: Like I had said - what proof do you have that He does not exist!We have all the evidence in the world, take your pick. It's believers who refuse to acknowledge the evidence.

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 7:10 am

IF THERE`S NO SUCH THING AS GOD WHY IS THAT

-------------------------------------------

By rajakrsna

When I go to an e.casino to play the SLOTS I win at first. I always win if one has a budget say between 3000-5000 pesos. I normally start with a machine at 20 lines with a 10 peso bet. As expected I am not surprised anymore if the SLOT awards me with bonus spins or excellent patterns wild features in between. If my initial deposit or balance is 500 in an hour or two the balance have risen already to 2000-3000 pesos. Since I find its still too early to go home ( 10 PM ), I decide to up my ante to 20. Believe it or not, the machine starts no matter how try at auto play or turbo the end result is the 500 pesos I deposited is lost. I deposit again this time 1000 pesos until when I am just short ( last 500 ) of losing entirely my sanity, the machine begins to give me free spins & wild combinations that by the time I have recovered my loses plus winnings ( 3000 pesos ) I realize it`s already past 3 AM.

I have briefed my wife regarding not to text or call me on my mobile phone asking me for my location is this part when my balance like a B52 bomber on a mission hit by Nazi fire starts to dive. Yap! I mean it dive as in really dive. No free spins, no wild features. When the smoke has cleared it is already day time. My wallet`s empty. Everything is empty as I pondered on what I would say to my wife.

This scenario, believe it or not, is 5 years old. It is so predictable that I have learned to accept this fate of always winning then losing. The question is why can`t I say " Collect!!!" My mind is telling me to collect and go home & yet my tongue or fingers wont cooperate. Of course, I enjoy playing the SLOTS even if I know I always win but crazy not to collect the remaining balance. CAN ANYONE HERE EXPLAIN WHY?

Post Script

------------

NOBODY can know GOD`s existence unless he knows who GOD really is. GOD is a PERSON. In other words, GOD is not a dog or cat. GOD is a unique individual. SO, for us to know the PERSONALITY of GOD we have to consult the authorities who know GOD as a PERSON. If GOD is a PERSON then GOD has a face, body & genitalia. So, class raise your hands who says has read Srimad Bhagavatam & Bhagavad-Gita? If these books were movies you have to see it for yourself. Are you one of the MULTITUDES PRETENDING HE DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. Yet deep in his heart he knows? Here`s a tricky question: If God is God how come he has no descendants?