Paraprakrti
Custom User
thomasedison said:I think here is where we differ. Although I do not believe in God, the only position of God I can accept is that of the creator of material world and the giver of free will and consciousness to man even though that is not in accordance in science.
No, if you are going to accept God hypothetically then you should accept the concept fully. Otherwise, why have this discussion? I am trying to give you an answer by elaborating on the given qualities of the concept we term "God". If you will not accept then what else can we do?
thomasedison said:Abstract concepts such as truth, morality and reason exist because the human mind and consciousness exists. Morality and reason are not applicable to animals.
Animals typically act purely out of nature. They have consciousness, but it is not as developed as humans'. If we accept God, at least hypothetically, then we must accept that God is the ultimate truth, morality and reason. If there is nothing higher than God, then where can there exist a truth external from Him?
thomasedison said:Reason is the faculty to draw conclusions based on verifiable facts. Reason tells what is right and wrong.
Morality consists in doing what is right. Thus morality is based on reason.
Ok. God is the conclusion of reason; the conclusion of what is right. The ability to reason is also divine. For the fact that if that ability was not there in God, it would not be present in us. The difference is that God has nothing to reason external from Himself. Because He is the conclusion of reason, His reasoning is only to benefit those who need it. Just like you may not accept that God is the conclusion of reason, so God may try to persuade you by other methods. For example, the method of persuasion for attaining heaven over hell. For some people that does not work. Another method may be more philosophical. Still, many are atheists and so any concept of God is often immediately rejected. In this case we have certain religions that are more fitting, i.e.: Buddhism. These are all stages of trying to get people to come to that final conclusion. This is how God reasons.
thomasedison said:Everything we do should be based on reason. If God is reason then everything we do should be based on God? How can anything anyone does be based on anyone. It can be based on the good of oneself or somebody but how can it be based on someone or something's existence?
Yes, everything we do should be based on God. That means that we should act in service to God. God is very merciful. It is not that God expects us to ignore our material necessities and serve Him. But He asks that when we engage in our daily material activities that we always think of Him. There is a certain amount of material sense gratification that cannot be avoided so long as we are here. God prescribes that instead of acting for the satisfaction of the senses, we should act for His satisfaction. This does not mean that God needs to be satisfied by us. God is eternally satisfied in Himself. But we need to re-establish our relationship with God. By serving Him, The Enjoyer we become enjoyers as well. To try and be an enjoyer in ourselves is what causes us to suffer.
thomasedison said:That is what I am asking. If God exists, then God made man. God made his nature and God decided who should Man be dependent on.
Why did God (if he exists) make man such that Man be dependent on God?
You have misunderstood my reply. I said that our being dependent on God is the eternal designation. Eternal here means "without beginning and without end". So it is not that God made man to be dependent. The soul existed before man was made. These souls are eternally dependent on God. The reason man was made was because at some point in existence these souls desired to be enjoyers apart from God.
The argument I could possibly see in reply to this would be why doesn't God make us enjoyers in ourselves? Why doesn't God change the eternal relationship? But of course, the problem lies in the reasoning that if you want God to help you then that contradicts wanting to be an enjoyer separate from God. So either you are separate from God, or you want Him to help. God did not make it this way. It IS this way.
thomasedison said:No, I do not want God to make anything better. If God exists, I want him to give reasons for what He did. If the reasons are valid, I will gladly accept them.
There are no reasons for what God did because He did nothing in creating these eternal circumstances. We are all part and parcel of God. That is our eternal designation. We either accept and live in our constitutional position free from birth and death, ignorance and suffering... Or we reject our relationship with God and suffer through ignorance. It is not a matter of why did God create us this way. God did not create you. You are spirit-soul. Spirit is eternal.
thomasedison said:You said that we are not creators, enjoyers and controllers. But we can try to be. Yet the "are not" implies that nobody has tried to be the creator, enjoyer or controller. In effect nobody has tried to be God. How is then any person responsible for what he/she does if nobody is the creator, enjoyer and/or controller?
In ourselves we are nothing. Through God we are more than we can imagine. This is what I meant when to say that we are neither creators, enjoyers nor controllers. That must be understood, first and foremost, because we are currently in a diseased condition. Just like if your doctor tells you not to eat any candy for a few months. It is not that you cannot enjoy candy ever again; it is just that you must follow this instruction in order to be healed from your affliction. We are conditioned under the idea that we are (or can be) creators, enjoyers and controllers in ourselves. But that idea is an illusion; the Sanskrit word for this illusion is 'Maya'. Maya is very strong, as we can all agree when we simply look around at all the people (even those who claim theism) who are seeking to be creators, enjoyers and controllers with little to no regard for God. Because we "are not" these things does not conclude that we have not (and do not) *tried (try)* to become them.
thomasedison said:If we are not enjoyers, then what does anybody mean when he/she says "our happiness"?
I apologize that I had not clarified this before. We are not enjoyers apart from God. The only enjoyment we receive is because God has given it. Still, the most enjoyment is in our constitutional position; eternally devoted to God. By seeking to be the enjoyed, we become enjoyers as well. By trying to be our own enjoyers, we fall because our power is very limited.
thomasedison said:Promiscuity gives pleasure. But it destroys our self-esteem. It does not give happiness. Happiness is a feeling of elation and contentment. Of having pride in knowing what you have done and what you can do. Pleasure is not the same.
I am only thinking of the term "pleasure" by the root word "pleased". You are apparently talking about something more specific; some material pleasure.
Someone may also say, "I took great pleasure in knowing what I had done". Could they not?