Do we need a new God

[blazeofglory]

In the Vedic tradition Gods reincarnate. Vishnu reincarnated several times trough epochs and eons.

The question may crop up why He incarnates at different phases. The single most reason is values changes subject to time and space.

What Rama and Krisna preached at one eon fluxed and it is prophesied in some scriptures that he has to reincarnate into Kalki. For what Krishna taught through the Gita needs reinterpretation.

Today people take religions differently than they used to take thousands of years ago, and reinterpretations of them keeping abreast of newer values is utmost necessary.

Today as we know ideologies, religions, faiths are in clash. We need a God that salvages us and bring harmony and unity in this world. We need the universality of religion or spirituality not fractions or fragmentation of them.

We must have a religion or Messiah who integrate us and reinforce our unity.

It seems older religions are obsolete, older values are decaying and older systems are moribund.

Let us reintegrate ourselves.

Man is addicted to or obsessed with religious things, Gods, heaven, hell, eternity and the like and we need a system or religion that once again draws us to togethernes.

We need a Universal God, not a national, racial, sectarian or communal God.

Such a God creates harmony, understanding and fuels the spirit of universality.

Thru this God we get enlightenment.

[Riesa]

We need a Universal God, not a national, racial, sectarian or communal God.

Such a God creates harmony, understanding and fuels the spirit of universality.

Thru this God we get enlightenment.


A beautiful thought, I think you are on to something there. It certainly couldn't hurt to exchange some of these gods humans have for an idea like that, I mean, if one must have faith.

[JacobF]

A nice thought indeed, but all religions will never co-operate with one another, because they all operate under different texts and founding. For example, I'm pretty sure the Qu'ran states that "allah is the only God" or something along those lines (correct me if I'm wrong). But even if this unity of all religions were to happen... minor reforms will begin to appear, then will come individual sects, and so forth, because that is the human way. I don't think all of humanity has ever agreed on one belief, let alone a system of beliefs.

[Riesa]

exactly, most church-goers encounter such problems within their own parish or church community, imagine how we could corrupt an entirely new 'god'. Best to get rid of religion all together. :)

[Pendragon]

Why a new God, Blaze? People don't follow anything that the so-called "OLD" God said, why would they submit to a new one? When Christ came exactly as predicted right down to the town, (Remember, Herod had the scribes check), they wouldn't accept Him.

[Dr. Hill]

People are way too conceited to accept the same god as everyone else. Variety is the only way to make boring people interesting enough.

[Delta40]

We don't have the same laws. We don't live in the same societies. We don't eat the same foods. We don't dress the same. Our politics are different. Hell, we even look different! Why do you think we would have the same God?

[NikolaiI]

I've had fairly extensive discussions with a Muslim on here, Planet earth. They were hugely beneficial to me, and I hope beneficial to him as well. We learned a lot from each other and both of us agree with each other's beliefs of what is sacred; we both believe we are each worshipping the same God although in a different way. I worship Lord Hari, but in devotion, it is quite similar to what Christ taught - that is, that Christ preached God-consciousness. Furthermore Christ was a very powerful saint, spiritual master - whether one accepts him as the same as the Lord or not, we could not have killed him if he did not let us. Again, in my belief - please do not criticize me for it as I certainly will not criticize any other. So, in my religion, it is by the mercy of the spiritual master that one is able to make progress toward God. So we do not see the spiritual master as God, but yet we give him all respect and serve him with devotion, since he is not just an ordinary person. In my religion Christ is also given respect and obesiances because he is a perfect spiritual master, effectively an angel, who preached God-consciousness, love, service, and devotion to God.


In the Vedic tradition Gods reincarnate. Vishnu reincarnated several times trough epochs and eons.

The question may crop up why He incarnates at different phases. The single most reason is values changes subject to time and space.

What Rama and Krisna preached at one eon fluxed and it is prophesied in some scriptures that he has to reincarnate into Kalki. For what Krishna taught through the Gita needs reinterpretation.

Today people take religions differently than they used to take thousands of years ago, and reinterpretations of them keeping abreast of newer values is utmost necessary.

Today as we know ideologies, religions, faiths are in clash. We need a God that salvages us and bring harmony and unity in this world. We need the universality of religion or spirituality not fractions or fragmentation of them.

We must have a religion or Messiah who integrate us and reinforce our unity.

It seems older religions are obsolete, older values are decaying and older systems are moribund.

Let us reintegrate ourselves.

Man is addicted to or obsessed with religious things, Gods, heaven, hell, eternity and the like and we need a system or religion that once again draws us to togethernes.

We need a Universal God, not a national, racial, sectarian or communal God.

Such a God creates harmony, understanding and fuels the spirit of universality.

Thru this God we get enlightenment.

I apologize, I did not read the original post but the rest of the posts in the thread. I was replying to those in a hurry, because I saw they were very limited, to not take in the greatly numerous occasions there is work done toward inter-faith progress.

In response to you, Blaze, the Gita is sacred to me because it is the words of Krsna. A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada is the spiritual master of the ISKCON movement, the movement of Krishna consciousness. You may not know of him. He founded 108 temples in his life and translated more than 70 books from Sanskrit and wrote many as well. He translated Bhagavad-Gita and Sri Isopanisad and Narada Bhakti Sutra as well as others; and he also translated Srimad Bhagavatam which is so very important for civilization today. One thing he said was that the way to understand the Gita is to look at what the Gita says about itself, to take it as it is. The Gita describes medicine, and just as you must take medicine the way the doctor perscribes it, as in once or four times daily, you must also take this medicine of the Gita the way it is prescribed. Only a rascal will use the Gita for an impersonalist motive. If the Gita is not spoken by Krsna or if Krsna is only an ordinary person, then it holds no value, because Krsna says in the Gita that he is the source of all material and spiritual worlds. He says that he is the transcendental vibration OM, he is the taste of water, he is the sunlight, the ability in man. If he is the original source of all, then he is the source of all the forms of Godhead - Govinda, Gopala, Radha, Rama, Hari, Visnu, they are all from Krsna.

The Gita does not need reinterpretation because it is very clear.


According to Vedic opinion, there are two ways of passing from this world — one in light and one in darkness. When one passes in light, he does not come back; but when one passes in darkness, he returns. [8.26]

Although the devotees know these two paths, O Arjuna, they are never bewildered. Therefore be always fixed in devotion. [8.27]

A person who accepts the path of devotional service is not bereft of the results derived from studying the Vedas, performing austere sacrifices, giving charity or pursuing philosophical and fruitive activities. Simply by performing devotional service, he attains all these, and at the end he reaches the supreme eternal abode. [8.28]




If one offers Me with love and devotion a leaf, a flower, fruit or water, I will accept it. [9.26]

Whatever you do, whatever you eat, whatever you offer or give away, and whatever austerities you perform — do that, O son of Kunti, as an offering to Me. [9.27]

In this way you will be freed from bondage to work and its auspicious and inauspicious results. With your mind fixed on Me in this principle of renunciation, you will be liberated and come to Me. [9.28]

I envy no one, nor am I partial to anyone. I am equal to all. But whoever renders service unto Me in devotion is a friend, is in Me, and I am also a friend to him. [9.29]


Engage your mind always in thinking of Me, become My devotee, offer obeisances to Me and worship Me. Being completely absorbed in Me, surely you will come to Me. [9.34]

Krsna is described in the Gita as Bhagavan, Paramatma, and Brahman. Brahman is not the highest realization of God that there is, it is only a beginning one (we are spirit and not matter). The impersonalist doctrine is that the highest achievement is to merge into the impersonal Brahman, or Absolute Truth. The practice of bhakti, however, never relinquishes individuality. We are always individual souls, and the souls is never separated or destroyed. Brahman is one form of the Lord and it is like the sunlight. Paramatma is like the surface of the sun globe, while the inside of the sun globe is like Bhagavan, or the Supreme Person of Godhead. Bhagavan is the Lord, the Lord's Body and the Lord's Soul. All of these are non-different since the Lord is Absolute. On the material plane, there is a difference between the name and form of a person, but on the absolute platform the name and form of the Lord are the same. The Lord, Krsna, Sri Bhagavan, is the Absolute Truth whose body is absolute bliss, knowledge, and it is eternal and the source of all other matter and spirit. Krsna did not become the Lord, he is the source of all that exists.

[blazeofglory]

Nikolai, you are a voracious reader of great scriptures and your referrals and inferred ideas speak enough of it.

At times, however when I read something you write conclusively I feel you get swayed by faiths not by reasoning. We at times confuse ourselves. Taking things granted or reading and accepting things in scriptures literally we simply distance ourselves from understanding truth.

In the Vedas there is a word Neti. The Vedas and the Gita are great sciences. The word Neti means in Sanskrit not end. This means the searches persists in the Vedas and it has no yet made conclusions. That is why the Vedas I say are great books.

[NikolaiI]

Blaze, I disagree with you very much about some of these things. We are confused by the illusory energy of Maya. We are confused and we misunderstand our position, and in a confused state we attempt and desire to be Lord of everything we may. In actuality we are a part of the whole, just like parts of a tree, parts of an animal's body, etc. We cannot function if we are separated from the whole. Just like a hand which has been severed resembles still a hand but does not carry out any of the functions of a hand, we also lose our function if we are separated from the whole. My main point is that our natural position is in service to the whole. The only way we can do this is by serving authority - not randomly, but correct authority. Since there are very wrong things going on in higher levels of our "society's government," there is much which needs correcting in this life - all will agree. So we must live as we can, primarily trying to align our own inner characteristics to that which we believe is guided by the divine, which leads to perfection. We can only do what we can - and in this I agree with you that we should do things philanthropically. But philanthropy is not the ultimate responsibility. There is more to us than the body, there is also the soul, and the soul is not satisfied if merely the body is. So in this vein, it is a responsibility of the human to learn about what satisfies his soul. And the only thing which will satisfy the soul is to connect to the Supreme Soul.

Blaze if you disagree with me, I implore you to try to give more substance in reply and specifically address the points in my posts, and describe a little more than simply you disagree with them. I am not accepting things without thought, I am presenting my views and looking for a discussion, but if you simply say that I have accepted something without thinking, and say nothing more, then I cannot reply, and find the discussion I was looking for.

And I will say again that the Gita does not need reinterpretation. It can only be misinterpretated to support an impersonalist viewpoint.


According to Vedic opinion, there are two ways of passing from this world — one in light and one in darkness. When one passes in light, he does not come back; but when one passes in darkness, he returns. [8.26]

Although the devotees know these two paths, O Arjuna, they are never bewildered. Therefore be always fixed in devotion. [8.27]

It says explicitly, be always fixed in devotion. "When one passes in light, he does not come back." This is actually something Plato also said. So this is central to what the Gita teaches. Enlightenment - according to the Gita, is divine consciousness. The divine, the Lord, has full divine consciousness. All the living entities, the jivas, are part of the marginal energy of the Lord. They are originally pure, but they can either be spiritual or material, this is why they are marginal. There is no alternative to these two. So either something is enlightened, spiritual, and pure, or it is covered or by the influence of Maya and material nature. In our bodies, in our material consciousness, we are covered by the material energy and we cannot see the soul. In fact we think that everything is material energy. The sun, the sky, all on earth, the whole universe, we think this is all material energy. And it is. But we don't think there is anything beyond. We don't know we are the soul. We don't believe in any spiritual realm, or anything beyond the material one. Since we think that we are this body, and nothing more, then we don't believe in the soul.

Now I am saying all this not as an enlightened person, but merely as one who has made a first few tentative steps. I have had very occasional glimpses of something which I could only describe as the spiritual realm. I have also had experiences similar to this nature. I know this is not reason to convince anyone. As I said I am not enlightened. I do feel that it is the pressing goal of life - that which cannot wait - to search for enlightenment, and to search for God. George Harrison often said this, that the search for God cannot wait. The reason for this is that God is the all-attractive. The soul, being pure, can only be satisfied by something pure, something beautiful and true. Therefore the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is the source of all that is beautiful, is also attracting all the minds in the universe.

You may ask - why is there a God who created a creation, only in order which to bring it to enlightenment? Well this is a very pressing question, but please put it aside for a moment. What I will say now may not come through to anyone. We cannot know God if we have never believed in Him, if we have always scoffed at the notion of any believer. We cannot know Him instantly just becuase someone describes their faith to us. Not even if this faith is described well.

Well - nevermind. I follow the Gita and Krishna and I will preach whenever I can. The reason for this is that I know, I know that in my life it has made a fundamental difference. To me it makes sense that I am spirit and not the body. Life is part of the infinite, and therefore it is very long, it is eternal, much longer than we would first imagine. All is part of this original expression - The Absolute Truth - and all is only some distortion or accurate reflection of this. The Gita says that for one who passes in light, they do not return, while one who passes in darkness returns. "Therefore be always fixed in devotion." The rest of the Gita is important as well, but this is the very simple fundamental bit. Krishna is saying "Here I am, accept and worship me. Your natural position is service of Me, and simply to know Me is to satisfy your soul fully - your soul, of which you are at present not even aware."

[Redzeppelin]

Why a new God, Blaze? People don't follow anything that the so-called "OLD" God said, why would they submit to a new one? When Christ came exactly as predicted right down to the town, (Remember, Herod had the scribes check), they wouldn't accept Him.

Hear, hear, good sir. We don't even understand this God and we hardly even give Him a fair chance by examining His character and evaluating His Word with an open mind; and we're looking for a new one now (preferably one made in our image, apparently).

[billyjack]

Hear, hear, good sir. We don't even understand this God and we hardly even give Him a fair chance by examining His character and evaluating His Word with an open mind; and we're looking for a new one now (preferably one made in our image, apparently).

you said it man. so why is it that without understanding him many make claims about his character, including yourself red?

an open mind would, in my opinion--if it was truly open, look beyond scripture

[Redzeppelin]

you said it man. so why is it that without understanding him many make claims about his character, including yourself red?

an open mind would, in my opinion--if it was truly open, look beyond scripture

Ah - billyjack gives and takes away, apparently.

My claims about God's character are based upon scripture - the Bible is the authority on God's character. Without it nobody can make any objective statements about who God is. If I'm looking beyond scripture what am I looking at to determine the character of God? Why don't you show me where I've fabricated who God is so I can answer your charge?

Most people who don't like God have not bothered to carefully and fairly examine how the scriptures portray Him; as well, most people who don't like God refuse to evaluate Him as God, but more as some sort of "super-human" which is patently silly.

[billyjack]

Ah - billyjack gives and takes away, apparently.

My claims about God's character are based upon scripture - the Bible is the authority on God's character. Without it nobody can make any objective statements about who God is. If I'm looking beyond scripture what am I looking at to determine the character of God? Why don't you show me where I've fabricated who God is so I can answer your charge?

Most people who don't like God have not bothered to carefully and fairly examine how the scriptures portray Him; as well, most people who don't like God refuse to evaluate Him as God, but more as some sort of "super-human" which is patently silly.

the bible, the torah, the koran, the upanishads--all of these claim objective truth of god. you can't all be right? and to say your religion is the only right one is to be a bit shortsighted. if you were born in, say, iran, you'd probably be claiming the same objective truth about islam;s Allah

also, the nature of objectivity is in its observability, not readability.

i've examined, been confirmed-methodist, looked closely. i know how he's portrayed in the scriptures. i'm not a fan

[Redzeppelin]

the bible, the torah, the koran, the upanishads--all of these claim objective truth of god. you can't all be right? and to say your religion is the only right one is to be a bit shortsighted. if you were born in, say, iran, you'd probably be claiming the same objective truth about islam;s Allah

also, the nature of objectivity is in its observability, not readability.

i've examined, been confirmed-methodist, looked closely. i know how he's portrayed in the scriptures. i'm not a fan

You're right: if I was a Moslem I would be expressing the same certainty -and would you be lecturing me as you are now? How about if I was a devout Jew? Would you still be implying that I'm narrow minded for my views? Or does only Christianity get this kind of challenge?

Religions are mutually exclusive - they all claim the truth, and their visions of God contradict each other. Either one is right, or all are wrong. They can't all be right - that is logic, not dogmatism speaking. All religions believe theirs is correct and others are wrong - because to say they're all correct is to entertain things that violate the law of non-contradiction - the most fundamental law of logic that cannot be violated.

If you're not a fan of God, no problem.

But I will tell you what I tell my students when I assign them a book to read and they respond that it's "stupid," or "boring" or "irrelevant" - I tell them that they may indeed by right; the other choice is that they a) didn't really understand the book, b) aren't ready for what it has to teach them, c) may not have given the book a fair chance because they already made their mind up ahead of time as to whether they were going to like it or not. There are many reasons why someone rejects God. But since the Bible reveals as many admirable things about God as it does about some of the more disturbing things, I wonder how many relationships any of us would have if we subjected them to the same criteria as God - "I want all good, and nothing that makes me uncomfortable."

Just a thought - and I'm still waiting for you to provide examples of where I've made up things about God not based on a reasonable interpretation of scripture.

[billyjack]

You're right: if I was a Moslem I would be expressing the same certainty -and would you be lecturing me as you are now? How about if I was a devout Jew? Would you still be implying that I'm narrow minded for my views? Or does only Christianity get this kind of challenge?

all of em deserve questioning, Christianity is just the most prevalent one in my neck of the woods


Religions are mutually exclusive - they all claim the truth, and their visions of God contradict each other. Either one is right, or all are wrong. They can't all be right - that is logic, not dogmatism speaking. All religions believe theirs is correct and others are wrong - because to say they're all correct is to entertain things that violate the law of non-contradiction - the most fundamental law of logic that cannot be violated.

precisely. now throw your logic in with my argument about the geographic relativity of religion. muslims with a similar intellect as yours have come to your exact same conclusion. that said, salvation basically means god favors certain parts of the world more than others. absurd


If you're not a fan of God, no problem.

But I will tell you what I tell my students when I assign them a book to read and they respond that it's "stupid," or "boring" or "irrelevant" - I tell them that they may indeed by right; the other choice is that they a) didn't really understand the book, b) aren't ready for what it has to teach them, c) may not have given the book a fair chance because they already made their mind up ahead of time as to whether they were going to like it or not. There are many reasons why someone rejects God. But since the Bible reveals as many admirable things about God as it does about some of the more disturbing things, I wonder how many relationships any of us would have if we subjected them to the same criteria as God - "I want all good, and nothing that makes me uncomfortable."

for most books i would agree. this isnt just a book though, to say so and use this for your argument is a fallacy of non-similars--bc people think its gods word. you're book is making enormous claims, non-objective claims, about our relationship to the universe. I reject the idea of a totalitarian universe because their is nothing we've observed as a species that supports or corresponds to this flawed, irrational idea. then your book makes claims with regards to this irrational, unproven totalitarian universe about a supposed, unproven afterlife where the same rules apply for all eternity. finally, the bible uses this shaky foundation to scare people into submitting to its word and follow its morality with penalty of eternal hellfire for non-acceptance. its immoral. i'm not a fan


Just a thought - and I'm still waiting for you to provide examples of where I've made up things about God not based on a reasonable interpretation of scripture.

you havent--which is why you're fun to chat with. but i dont buy the idea of objectivity coming from the bible. its a leap of faith to do so. faith is an overrated virtue that's begging to be attacked by common sense reasoning

[Cat_Brenners]

I certainly don't need a new god.....as in idols to me....I already have the one and only God. The one that answers my prayers and I have seen mean many, and I do many, times that my prayers were answered. I have tried God and he was found to be true. Why would I want anything else but a loving God? No thanks.
Hugs, Cat

[skasian]

I certainly don't need a new god.....as in idols to me....I already have the one and only God. The one that answers my prayers and I have seen many, and I do many, times that my prayers were answered. I have tried God and he was found to be true. Why would I want anything else but a loving God? No thanks.
Hugs, Cat

Likewise. Holding to your one and true God and appreciating Him everyday I believe is the most important thing in our daily lives.