Why is God?

[Eren Eeager]

@Leo Gura  It is like I always hit the wall when I try deeply to analyze God, like there is something but I cannot put my finger on it.

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, Eren Eeager said:

@Leo Gura  It is like I always hit the wall when I try deeply to analyze God, like there is something but I cannot put my finger on it.

Psychedelics help lubricate the mind.

It's like you're jerking off without lube

[Eren Eeager]

@Leo Gura that's a good one 

[Nak Khid]

3 minutes ago, Eren Eeager said:

Why is God? 

That's like asking  "why is chair"
It doesn't make grammatical sense 

 

[Inliytened1]

@Nak Khid that clears everything up

 

[Eren Eeager]

11 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

@Nak Khid that clears everything up

 

how is that ?

[Inliytened1]

Just now, Eren Eeager said:

how is that ?

Was matching sarcasm with sarcasm.

[Eren Eeager]

@Inliytened1 

[Nak Khid]

25 minutes ago, Eren Eeager said:

how is that ?

If you ask somebody "why is shoe?"  
it does not make sense unless you ask something like "Why do shoes exist?" 

 

[ivankiss]

@Nak Khid You're a trollyjolly 

The question is perfectly clear. I find it even more appealing the way the OP phrased it.

[Eren Eeager]

@Nak Khid the question is intended to be nonspecific because i cannot pin point exactly what i am asking about

[Inliytened1]

11 minutes ago, Nak Khid said:

If you ask somebody "why is shoe?"  
it does not make sense unless you ask something like "Why do shoes exist?" 

 

Just stop.

[Javfly33]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

If you don't know why, you don't understand God.

The solution to that is Awakening.

Why is not a fruitless question. You can become directly conscious of the answer. Since you are God.

The answer would be love?

[Leo Gura]

6 minutes ago, Javfly33 said:

The answer would be love?

You don't know.

[Javfly33]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You don't know.

I´m actually trying to make of sense of a trip I had 4-5months ago were the "love" component was involved. I basically saw how reality broke down in front of my eyes and I "resucitated" reality only just because of Love (no other reason). Maybe this is a re-contexualization I am doing after reading all the love you guys talk about. Idk, what do you think? @Leo Gura

Edited May 30, 2020 by Javfly33

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, Javfly33 said:

I´m actually trying to make of sense of a trip I had 4-5months ago were the "love" component was involved. I basically saw how reality broke down in front of my eyes and I "resucitated" reality only just because of Love (no other reason). Maybe this is a re-contexualization I am doing after reading all the love you guys talk about. Idk, what do you think? @Leo Gura

Go back and find out what's true. Not from me, from you.

[Nemo28]

@Javfly33 Die to the flesh and be reborn of the Spirit

[Sockrattes]

8 hours ago, The observer said:

God does not give birth.

Meister Eckhart disagrees

"Here, in time, we are celebrating the eternal birth which God the Father bore and bears unceasingly in eternity, because this same birth is now born in time, in human nature. St. Augustine says, 'What does it avail me that this birth is always happening, if it does not happen in me? That it should happen in me is what matters.' We shall therefore speak of this birth, of how it may take place in us and be consummated in the virtuous soul, whenever God the Father speaks His eternal Word in the perfect soul."

[The observer]

@Sockrattes

Sure. He's referring to the process of infinite regression. In that context, we could say that God gives birth to itself, because God is all of its forms. The eternal change of forms is God. There's no contradiction.

[Sockrattes]

15 hours ago, The observer said:

@Sockrattes

Sure. He's referring to the process of infinite regression. In that context, we could say that God gives birth to itself, because God is all of its forms. The eternal change of forms is God. There's no contradiction.

Or he is talking about God deliberately making reflections of him/his consciousness.

I like the idea that Shankaracharya, Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya were equally right.