If god is everything, what's god not?

[ThaChozenWun]

Book Of Chozen

1 Chozen is thy name, without Chozen there breathes nothing. No man, no flying insect, no water mammal shall exist without him.

2 In the beginning all things created were works of Chozen. The days the nights, the seas and land. The darkness and the light.

3 No god is greater than no, shall no god be treated equal to.

4 Lord Chozen in all times and all lifes shall be worshipped. Those who fail to acknowledge him as such shall bring rains upon the wet, sun among the dry. He will send winds of fury from sea, shake the land in anger. : Truthicus 1:1-4

Well that book says it so its as true as the next one.

 

[supaman4321]

Well that book says it so its as true as the next one.

what book? Study up on the intricacies of the language in the Qur'an and then explain how your mock attempt was anything close.

This is exactly why i don't bother with this board too much anyway why mock me instead of actually thinking about what i post? You're not doing anything that the arabs didn't try to do during the early advent of the Prophet Muhammad (saws) and your attempts are as pathetic and laughable as theirs were

I answered the question pretty completely i'd say but of course a kafir's gonna be a kafir

good for a laugh sometimes at least

Wa alaikum

 

[ThaChozenWun]

23 For many shall denounce Chozen as your God.

24 For do not accept the words of false story tellers, Chozen is your truth, your light, and your creator.

25 Many shall pronounce multiple gods, be it not more than one exist, all others are not and shall never be.

26 Many stories will be passed on from pasts, many tales of false gods. In the time of knowledge he will speak, and he will reveal himself to the world.

27 No man, nor child who ignores him will live. These mammals shall be dealt a land of sickness for fourty generations.

28 When the twenty fifth generation comes to be, they will be spared, for all shall now believe and have witnessed.

29 Glory is Chozen, preach his word and accept his blessings. - Some Random Guy Whos Dead But Goes By Steve 2:23-29

The book of Chozen is what book. By pass me with all of your religious texts, mine is real, I know the man who wrote it, and have a personal relationship with Lord Chozen.

 

[ThaChozenWun]

what book? Study up on the intricacies of the language in the Qur'an and then explain how your mock attempt was anything close.

This is exactly why i don't bother with this board too much anyway why mock me instead of actually thinking about what i post? You're not doing anything that the arabs didn't try to do during the early advent of the Prophet Muhammad (saws) and your attempts are as pathetic and laughable as theirs were

I answered the question pretty completely i'd say but of course a kafir's gonna be a kafir

good for a laugh sometimes at least

Wa alaikum

Lol Yea im an disbeliever or infidel or false bearer of news whatever you use Kafir as, your book isnt legit, the christian book isnt legit. They arent wrong per say but they arent really telling you about the god you think.

 

[supaman4321]

Lol Yea im an disbeliever or infidel or false bearer of news whatever you use Kafir as, your book isnt legit, the christian book isnt legit. They arent wrong per say but they arent really telling you about the god you think.

And you would know this how?

How can they not be telling me about the "god i think" if there's only one?

 

[supaman4321]

23 For many shall denounce Chozen as your God.
24 For do not accept the words of false story tellers, Chozen is your truth, your light, and your creator.
25 Many shall pronounce multiple gods, be it not more than one exist, all others are not and shall never be.
26 Many stories will be passed on from pasts, many tales of false gods. In the time of knowledge he will speak, and he will reveal himself to the world.
27 No man, nor child who ignores him will live. These mammals shall be dealt a land of sickness for fourty generations.
28 When the twenty fifth generation comes to be, they will be spared, for all shall now believe and have witnessed.
29 Glory is Chozen, preach his word and accept his blessings. - Some Random Guy Whos Dead But Goes By Steve 2:23-29

The book of Chozen is what book. By pass me with all of your religious texts, mine is real, I know the man who wrote it, and have a personal relationship with Lord Chozen.

I don't get it....is this....supposed to be funny?

 

[ThaChozenWun]

Prove to me my book is wrong? What gives your book more validity than mine?

I know this because I just got done reading the Quran about 4 days ago in its original language and I read the bible in it's original language as well. Go learn to and read them in the original form and I bet your view on them change. You might not totally discredit them speaking of a real god like I do, but you will no longer say "Yup this is definently 100% truth and is speaking on a true god that I absolutely must follow".

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

I think you're trying to make it to difficult,

if you make a painting are you a part of the painting? the same with a plane, car, meal, or anything that humans "create" (construct would be more accurate but i'm using your language)

Just because you create something doesn't mean it's a part of you i think you're mixing "creating" with "begetting" God creates he does not beget

You would be incorrect to think that. It is this notion or idea that seems to be difficult, not my intention that is difficult.


The painting would be part of me. Part of my mind, or consciousness or being. It was a creation of my mind/consciousness and was made manifest. If I had not given part of myself to create it, how did it get created? Of it's own self?

And if god is everything, can I truly say it is I who gave of myself and created the painting?

 

[wordsRweapons]

And you got a contradiction.

How could god CREATE everything, yet not BE everything? Or how could everything not be part of god? It had to come from somewhere, so where did it come from? Yet if god created everything(as you agree), how could anything be created outside of god if god created EVERYTHING?

And if god CREATED everything, then from god comes EVERYTHING, to come from god, is to be a part of god. Unless god has creating things outside itself, is that what you are saying?

I made a sandwich this afternoon. I am not a sandwich.

He must mean outside himself

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

I made a sandwich this afternoon. I am not a sandwich.

He must mean outside himself

Did you make a sandwich you liked?

 

[Rock_Well]

And you got a contradiction.

How could god CREATE everything, yet not BE everything? Or how could everything not be part of god? It had to come from somewhere, so where did it come from? Yet if god created everything(as you agree), how could anything be created outside of god if god created EVERYTHING?

And if god CREATED everything, then from god comes EVERYTHING, to come from god, is to be a part of god. Unless god has creating things outside itself, is that what you are saying?

No it is not a contradiction.

God created good and evil. Yet God is good.

The problem you running into is a result of blending incompatible doctrine from other religion with what the Bible teaches. Keep the New Age stuff new age. Keep the Bible stuff Bible.

 

[DOPEdweebz]

[video=youtube;DrctpX71r-Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrctpX71r-Q&feature=related[/video]

random but...

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

No it is not a contradiction.

God created good and evil. Yet God is good.

The problem you running into is a result of blending incompatible doctrine from other religion with what the Bible teaches. Keep the New Age stuff new age. Keep the Bible stuff Bible.

Why don't you explain something to me instead of just saying, "no it isn't, you're just confused".

 

[supaman4321]

Prove to me my book is wrong? What gives your book more validity than mine?

I know this because I just got done reading the Quran about 4 days ago in its original language and I read the bible in it's original language as well. Go learn to and read them in the original form and I bet your view on them change. You might not totally discredit them speaking of a real god like I do, but you will no longer say "Yup this is definently 100% truth and is speaking on a true god that I absolutely must follow".

if you have read the Qur'an in it's original language then you should see how ridiculous your mock attempt at matching it should look to me, The Qur'an has more validity than your "book" because we've only been able to prove some of the things that it says scientifically as being true even though it came from an illiterabe arab in the desert 1400 years ago so i would think that would give it a bit more validity than your "book" or the few lines that you created.

I've been reading It in the original language and if anything it's strengthed my faith because you obviously lose something in translation so if reading the actual thing is meant to make me disbelieve in it someway then you're talking to the wrong one and you still didn't answer my question which is WHAT GOD IS IT TELLING ME ABOUT! You tell me to read it in the original language but that isn't anything that i haven't been doing so once again i will ask, what God is it telling me about?

 

[supaman4321]

You would be incorrect to think that. It is this notion or idea that seems to be difficult, not my intention that is difficult.


The painting would be part of me. Part of my mind, or consciousness or being. It was a creation of my mind/consciousness and was made manifest. If I had not given part of myself to create it, how did it get created? Of it's own self?

And if god is everything, can I truly say it is I who gave of myself and created the painting?

It did not create itself but because you constructed it does not mean you would be a part of it, so you would think it justifiable for painters to call themselves paintings because they make it and it's a part of them? Th Iere's a difference between being connected to something and being a part of something, I write a song and it's a part of me insomuch as it went from my mind to the sheet music, but am i song? of course not, is the song a human being? of course not, they're two completely different created beings that may share a connection through the means in which they came into existence but that doesn't make them one in the same.

I already explained the view of "God being everything" in Islam it's a logical fallacy from the jump so there isn't anything else for me to argue, if you see it it CAN'T be God or comparable to God because he isn't like anything that you've ever seen or could compare Him to.

God is not everything but you STILL can't say it was you who created it because as I've said before human beings haven't and cannot created anything we construct things out of material that's already here CREATED by God, every outcome good, bad, or indifferent has it's final say so from God, so whether or not you'll actually be able to "create" something isn't up to your own will in the end, i could earnestly want to make a video game before i die but any number of things could happen that i have no power over that could prevent me from being able to do that, that's why muslims are commanded to say "insha'Allah" or "God willing" when saying we will do something because in the end it's not up to us whether we'll actually do it or not

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

It did not create itself but because you constructed it does not mean you would be a part of it, so you would think it justifiable for painters to call themselves paintings because they make it and it's a part of them?

No what I am saying is part of them is in the painting. Part of their mind, their being or their consciousness, is in the painting. The painting did come out of nothing, it came out of their consciousness and was made manifest.

Th Iere's a difference between being connected to something and being a part of something, I write a song and it's a part of me insomuch as it went from my mind to the sheet music, but am i song?

Right here you are saying the same thing I am saying. You took part of your mind/consciousness and made it manifest in the form of a song. YOU are not the song, but the song is a part of you because it came from you.

of course not, is the song a human being? of course not, they're two completely different created beings that may share a connection through the means in which they came into existence but that doesn't make them one in the same.

If the song is a part, that came from the whole(the human being) how could the part be greater than the whole to say that the whole is the part?

if you see it it CAN'T be God or comparable to God because he isn't like anything that you've ever seen or could compare Him to.

Then we should really stop making books about god.

God is not everything

How is god not everything?

but you STILL can't say it was you who created it because as I've said before human beings haven't and cannot created anything we construct things out of material that's already here CREATED by God,

So what about immaterial things? The things that dwell in our consciousness; the poetry, the music, the art, the thoughts? Creation imo, is when something is 'taken' from consciousness and made manifest utilizing material things to contruct that consciousness into the world of matter.

every outcome good, bad, or indifferent has it's final say so from God, so whether or not you'll actually be able to "create" something isn't up to your own will in the end, that's why muslims are commanded to say "insha'Allah" or "God willing" when saying we will do something because in the end it's not up to us whether we'll actually do it or not.

Hence why I said if everything comes from god that has come, is to come and will come, could I really say I created it?

 

[TX_Made713]

Hes not petty, he has no reason to be

"Im a jealous god!"

 

[supaman4321]

No what I am saying is part of them is in the painting. Part of their mind, their being or their consciousness, is in the painting. The painting did come out of nothing, it came out of their consciousness and was made manifest.

Right here you are saying the same thing I am saying. You took part of your mind/consciousness and made it manifest in the form of a song. YOU are not the song, but the song is a part of you because it came from you.

If the song is a part, that came from the whole(the human being) how could the part be greater than the whole to say that the whole is the part?

Then we should really stop making books about god.

How is god not everything?

So what about immaterial things? The things that dwell in our consciousness; the poetry, the music, the art, the thoughts? Creation imo, is when something is 'taken' from consciousness and made manifest utilizing material things to contruct that consciousness into the world of matter.

Hence why I said if everything comes from god that has come, is to come and will come, could I really say I created it?

I think the problem we're running into here is you're applying the way human beings create/construct/fashion things and applying it to God when I already explained to you that he is incomparable to anything. A "part" of the painter may be in the painting but he is not the painting they're two totally separate things i can't believe we're still going in circles about this if a woman gives birth to a blind child is the child's deformity a part of her as well? Back to what i said about the song, how would you explain the people that only perform songs and have nothing to do with the lyrics or the music being crafted? are they just as much a "part" of the song even though it didn't come from their mind/consciousness?

The part is greater than the whole? where did you get that from? I'm saying that they're both separate and you're talking about the whole being the part and whatnot i wish you wouldn't purposefully make this so difficult they're separate there's nothing further to discuss on that point.

Why should we stop making books about God because there's nothing we can compare Him to? In Islam, people recognize God through his names or attributes (99 attributes) and through his ayah (signs, revelations, verses, etc) He is Ar-Rahman (the Beneficent), Ar-Rahim (the Merciful), Al-Badi (the Originator)and so on and so fourth, you don't have to be able to describe his physical attributes because those aren't necessary for being able to understand your True Lord and shunning false idols. When you don't know what IS God and what ISN'T God then you fall into shirk which leads me to my next point...

God is NOT everything because that causes people to fall into shirk which is the gravest and only unforgivable sin Islam, shirk is worshiping, adoring, praying to or assigning partners to, or calling on help from anything besides God alone. So to say that God is everything that opens the door to the Sun is God, Jesus is God, we are God, and all kinds of other ridiculous notions that couldn't be further from the truth. That is why i posted Surah Iklhas so you would more accurately see where i'm coming from if whatever a human being chooses worship no matter the name that they give it falls under those guidelines (one, does not beget and is not begotten,in need of nothing while everything needs it, and eternal and absolute, not comparable or shares no equality with nothing else in creation) then it can accurately called God...

This is another place that we dispute, I view creation as something completely from nothing with the help of no outside forces or materials that were already in existence, this is why from my viewpoint God is the only Creator, who created the wood and metals that form the Guitar, i sure didn't do it and i've never come across a human being that could create a tree or metal so it had to be God, who created the paints that are used in the painting or the brush that you used to get the idea from your mind onto the blank canvas? Was it you or was it God? This is how i view creation and also why i said i didn't want to use the word but was using the language of the person that started the thread. Human beings don't create and fashion or construct things from materials that are already here and that is the difference.

And lastly it did not "come" from God in the sense that it is a part of him but it came from him in the sense that he created it through his will and willed it into being, i think we might be arguing over semantics but i think we agree on this part but are just saying it differently

Salaam

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

A "part" of the painter may be in the painting but he is not the painting

That is what I said in my earlier post. “YOU are not the song, but the song is a part of you because it came from you“.

if a woman gives birth to a blind child is the child's deformity a part of her as well?

Depends, if it is a genetic thing that the mother has passed on. Even if it were not, a part of the mother is still a part of the child, biologically and mentally.

Back to what i said about the song, how would you explain the people that only perform songs and have nothing to do with the lyrics or the music being crafted? are they just as much a "part" of the song even though it didn't come from their mind/consciousness?

I don’t think they be would ‘as much a part’, as the creator of the song. As far as also being a part of the song, I am not sure, but it is something I should like to think more on.

The part is greater than the whole? where did you get that from?

That is not what I said, though it did come out a little confusing. I had said “If the song is a part, that came from the whole(the human being) how could the part be greater than the whole to say that the whole is the part?”. I am not saying the part is greater than the whole, I am saying the part cannot be greater than the whole and this is why/how the whole(the human being) is not the song(the part) but only a part of it.

I'm saying that they're both separate

How could they be separate if out of one came the other?

i wish you wouldn't purposefully make this so difficult they're separate there's nothing further to discuss on that point.

I am by no means trying to make this so difficult, I ask questions and wonder about things and present them to others for discussion so that myself and others can think out the errors or misunderstanding within.

When you don't know what IS God and what ISN'T God then you fall into shirk which leads me to my next point...

Hence why I ask questions and contemplate the nature of god.

So to say that God is everything that opens the door to the Sun is God, Jesus is God, we are God, and all kinds of other ridiculous notions that couldn't be further from the truth.

Yes I should have been clearer. I should have said, satan is a part of god, jesus is a part of god, the sun is a part of god, etc etc etc not that they are god.

This is another place that we dispute, I view creation as something completely from nothing with the help of no outside forces or materials that were already in existence, this is why from my viewpoint God is the only Creator, who created the wood and metals that form the Guitar, i sure didn't do it and i've never come across a human being that could create a tree or metal so it had to be God, who created the paints that are used in the painting or the brush that you used to get the idea from your mind onto the blank canvas? Was it you or was it God? This is how i view creation and also why i said i didn't want to use the word but was using the language of the person that started the thread.

We are in agreement here.

Human beings don't create and fashion or construct things from materials that are already here and that is the difference.

Is this statement what you meant to say? It seems to be kind of going in the opposite direction of what you have been saying.

And lastly it did not "come" from God in the sense that it is a part of him but it came from him in the sense that he created it through his will and willed it into being,

Did god create everything from something outside itself? Like if god is all there was, and then had the thought to create things, did these things come from the mind of god and then were made manifest or did god create these things from the nothingness outside itself?

 

[supaman4321]

That is what I said in my earlier post. “YOU are not the song, but the song is a part of you because it came from you“.

Depends, if it is a genetic thing that the mother has passed on. Even if it were not, a part of the mother is still a part of the child, biologically and mentally.

I don’t think they be would ‘as much a part’, as the creator of the song. As far as also being a part of the song, I am not sure, but it is something I should like to think more on.

That is not what I said, though it did come out a little confusing. I had said “If the song is a part, that came from the whole(the human being) how could the part be greater than the whole to say that the whole is the part?”. I am not saying the part is greater than the whole, I am saying the part cannot be greater than the whole and this is why/how the whole(the human being) is not the song(the part) but only a part of it.

How could they be separate if out of one came the other?

I am by no means trying to make this so difficult, I ask questions and wonder about things and present them to others for discussion so that myself and others can think out the errors or misunderstanding within.

Hence why I ask questions and contemplate the nature of god.

Yes I should have been clearer. I should have said, satan is a part of god, jesus is a part of god, the sun is a part of god, etc etc etc not that they are god.

We are in agreement here.

Is this statement what you meant to say? It seems to be kind of going in the opposite direction of what you have been saying.

Did god create everything from something outside itself? Like if god is all there was, and then had the thought to create things, did these things come from the mind of god and then were made manifest or did god create these things from the nothingness outside itself?

I think i may have made a typo, what i meant to say was that human beings don't create they fashion or construct things using materials that God has created. This may be off topic slightly but i came to the conclusion that there is nothing new under the sun, meaning that everything you said in some way shape or form has already been here from the beginning, they could've had computers 100's of years ago if they would've had the intellect on how to construct them i think.

"I am saying the part cannot be greater than the whole and this is why/how the whole(the human being) is not the song(the part) but only a part of it."

I finally understand where you're coming from, now that i see what you're saying i guess do agree to a degree, but instead of saying that they are a "part" of them per se I would say that they're a reflection of them, the song reflects the frame of mind that the artist was in when he made it, which is why some artists can't recapture the magic of their earlier work in their career because they're totally different people. To further illustrate what i mean i'll give an example, when i was younger before i reverted to Islam I made a "diss" record to God (astaghfirullah) that oddly enough deleted itself but that's neither here nor there, the point i'm making is that the song was a reflection of where my head was at, now that i'm a Muslim i wouldn't dream of making anything like that and i can't believe that i did it then, it's a reflection of where i was at that point in my life but it's not a part of me. I dunno if you can use the words "reflection" and "part of me" interchangeably i think they have different connotations attached to them but i think do understand what you've been asking finally.

Very good discussion

Salaam Alaikum