If God is the Same then Why is God Different?

It's a dawn of a new day

zaman, if one may believe in god who does not physically exist, then one should be allowed to NOT believe in mother-in-law who physically exists ...

If I can imagine god INTO existence, then why not imagine mother-in-law OUT OF existence?

This argument is my only chance of dealing with the witch ... do you think I have a case?

#69 its worse than that - there is 4 billion years of zero sum game that life has played on earth and to which mankind is heir to. the negativity on chowk illustrates this.

Re: # 68
sattar2...
first, you have to treat your mom-in-law as god...then.....

there is no god. seeing how we behave i can only suggest that the dna of life on earth was dropped into our oceans by some extra terestrail flying saucer, and we are leftovers of some strange experiment that life forms of superior intelligence conducted.

#68

God is either/or, based on your belief. God by definition does not belong in the physical realm, your mother-in-law does. You CAN pretend away your mother-in-law by ignoring that witch (a “witch� by your definition – remember, everything is “relative� – and the pun is intended). You CANNOT pretend away God. God is either/or, your mother-in-law isn’t.

re #67 ... I wish this applied to my mother-in-law also. Then I could simply ignore the witch and pretend she doesn't exist :)

God exists if you believe He does, he doesn't if you don't. Arguing about it is just a waste of time.

The man behind the mask

A Surya Prakash

As he comes to the end of his term as Prime Minister, Mr Manmohan Singh has decided to serve up a daily dose of vitriol in order to convince the people of India that he is not a weak Prime Minister. But, not everybody is taken in by his strident denunciations and what many regard as his unrighteous indignation. How will history judge him, specially when it evaluates him through the prism of constitutionality and the rule of law? Let us seek answers through the stories of four men — Jagdish Tytler, Sajjan Kumar, Ottavio Quattrocchi and Mr Navin Chawla — and guess what future generations would make of his prime ministership.

The Justice Nanavati Commission of Inquiry, which investigated the anti-Sikh pogrom unleashed by the Congress following the assassination of Mrs Indira Gandhi, has provided gory details of the large-scale massacre of members of a small religious minority by this party’s goons. The report says that in all 2,732 Sikhs were killed in those riots — 2,146 in Delhi and 586 in some other towns in north India. Thousands of others were grievously injured. Congress supporters roamed the streets and torched every known Sikh establishment including factories, businesses, homes and motor vehicles. But, how did the ‘secular’ Congress, which was at that time presided over by the ‘secular’ Rajiv Gandhi, respond in the face of this barbaric assault on the Sikh community?

The Nanavati Commission says that in Delhi, just 587 First Information Reports were filed in police stations in respect of these incidents. Of them, 241 cases were filed as ‘untraced’ by the police and 253 cases ended in acquittals. The police obtained convictions in just 25 of the 587 cases!

After Justice Nanavati submitted his report in February, 2005, the UPA Government headed by Mr Singh presented the mandatory ‘Action Taken’ Report to Parliament. In reality, it was a report on inaction and the irony is that it was presented by a Government headed by India’s first minority Prime Minister, and one who happened to be a Sikh. For example, when the commission said, “There is credible evidence against Shri Jagdish Tytler to the effect that very probably he had a hand in organising the attacks on Sikhs�, Mr Singh’s Government desperately clung to the words “very probably� and said no person can be prosecuted simply on the basis of ‘probability’.

Similarly, in respect of Sajjan Kumar, the commission concluded that “there is credible material� against him and that witnesses had accused him of inciting people to kill Sikhs and loot and destroy their properties. Yet, Mr Singh silently watched as his party nominated Sajjan Kumar as a candidate for the ongoing Lok Sabha election.

The Congress announced the party’s tickets to Jagdish Tytler and Sajjan Kumar on March 22. The Prime Minister remained a passive spectator and even pretended that he was unaware of the clean chit that the Central Bureau of Investigation had given Tytler. Mr Singh’s shocking acquiescence to something so dreadful and unjust provoked a Sikh journalist to take the law into his hands. Eventually, this journalist’s ‘soleful’ riposte bestirred the soulless Congress and forced it to cancel their tickets. Yet, Mr Singh wants us to believe that he is a sensitive man; that he is a ‘secular’ man; and that he is not a weak Prime Minister!

Let us now turn to Ottavio Quattrocchi, Ms Sonia Gandhi’s Italian friend who got a commission of $ 7.3 million when we bought field guns from Bofors for our Army. The money first came to Quattrocchi’s Swiss Bank account and when non-Congress Governments began dredging up the truth, it was transferred to bank accounts in London. The National Democratic Alliance Government headed by Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee moved the UK authorities and ensured that those accounts were frozen. Mr Singh quietly unlocked Quattrocchi’s London bank accounts and ensured the Italian knocked off the commission.

His Government also dragged its feet on Quattrocchi’s extradition after the latter’s arrest in Argentina. It even hid information about Quattrocchi’s bail from the Supreme Court. The CBI claimed that it had not been informed about it by the Foreign Office. So, while in Jagdish Tytler’s case Mr Singh claims that the CBI never told him that it was giving the man a clean chit, in the Quattrocchi Case, the CBI said it was kept in the dark by the Foreign Office.

However, Mr Singh would like us to believe that he is an honourable man; that the country’s defence establishment is safe in his hands; that under him, the rule of law prevails at all time; and he is only concerned about the ‘aam admi’ and not about 10 Janpath’s ‘khaas admi’!

The third example is that of Mr Navin Chawla, the Secretary to the Lt Governor of Delhi during the dreaded Emergency in 1975-77. Mr Chawla displayed fascist tendencies when he ordered the Superintendent of Tihar Jail to “bake� Mrs Indira Gandhi’s political opponents in cells with asbestos roofs. The Shah Commission of Inquiry, which examined the systematic assault on democracy during the Emergency, said Mr Chawla had behaved in an “authoritarian and callous� manner. It indicted him and two other officers and said, “They grossly misused their position and abused their powers in cynical disregard of the welfare of citizens and in the process rendered themselves unfit to hold any public office which demands an attitude of fair play and consideration for others.� In its concluding remarks on the conduct of Mr Chawla and other officers, the commission said, “...tyrants sprouted at all levels overnight — tyrants whose claim to authority was largely based on their proximity to power....�

However, this very person, who was declared “unfit to hold any public office� and who was virtually described a tyrant by Justice Shah, was appointed as Election Commissioner by Mr Singh in 2005. Mr Chawla assumes the charge of Chief Election Commissioner this week. Please note: Mr Singh is an honourable man; he is a man of character; and our democracy and our Constitution is safe in his hands!

So, how will history remember Mr Singh? As an honourable, ‘secular’ man as his shrill declamations would have us believe or as a Prime Minister who lacked the moral fibre to stand up for the Sikh community, of which he was himself a member? As a man who enforced the rule of law or as one who ducked responsibility to help the Italian friend of his mentor? Finally, will history remember him as a man who had deep respect for constitutional and democratic values or as one who sacrificed these values at the altar of political survival and admitted an unfit person to the sanctum sanctorum of democracy — the Election Commission ? Let us leave it to history.

God is same, god is different - which is true? Here’s another way of viewing the issue, this time through mundane examples and without involving the abstract notion of an invisible god.

An incident … any incident … may appear differently to observers depending upon their viewing angle. Furthermore, as one observer narrates the incident to others who were not present, and the account is narrated over and over again, from one person to another, across the dimension of time, details change. Over time an almost infinite number of accounts appear, each with its own set of distinct details.

And all this started with a single event, which was perhaps as mundane as a traffic accident between a car and a motorcycle on a busy street.

Considering varying human experiences and biases, it would be surprising if there was consensus regarding notions of the divine.

Re: # 24; Shoaib

you are right ... Dawkins said the following:

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; petty, unjust, unforgiving, control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty, ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevent bully."

this could easily be extrapolated to HIS arabised version too!

then we have people trying to give it 'philosophical' bend and attemting to fudge over the reality ... the only people they fool is themselves! ... especially with confused remarks such as "one" doesn't inply a "numerical" figure as we mere mortal humans understand it!! unbelievable ... if there is such great divide between God and his creation, why do we need him in the first place? he can live happily in his domain and leave us in ours ... this is essentially what justifies the existence of these individuals ... if it hadn't been for their confused 'explanations', we'd be happy enough ... they operate under the garbs of 'enligtened' philosophers (with circular easonings), mullahs, priests, rabbis etc ... that is the only way they can maintain a living ... by teaching the masses that the whole thing is far too complex for the ordinary man to cmprehend! then they come in pretending to 'explain it all'!! as if God's message needs an 'intermediary' to interpret/decipher its 'true' meaning

to be honest, I can't be asked to be arguing with retards anymore ... like I said before, they are welcome to their delusions as long as they leave others alone (from a political perspective).

dear author,
that is some insight. so u have found the answer, long though it may have been in coming. i assume, i mean i should accept (shouldn't i?) without question or even shadow of a doubt that this answer is definitive --- no ifs and buts about it. the poor guy up there with the long flowing beard (i wonder if it is sharia compliant?) is no more than a piece of human imagination.

isn't it ironic though that the bible teaches us the same thing; that verily man/woman made god in his/her own image? i hope yours adheres to proper hijab per the standards that soon likely to be upon us!

Re: # 25

I was wondering when `Religion' was going to appear because GOD is clearly a lot more than religion. The spiritual messages of Buddha, Mahavirs, Jesus, Muhammad and other great souls were not religions. They became religions when their followers formalised these into scriptures, rituals and religious customs that were practiced in their places of worship. Sadly however the thoughts of the founders have been universally twisted by the Monks, Mullahs, Pandits, Padres, Rabbis and other professional priests who claimed to be the `sole selling agents’ of their brands of GOD because all religions are big businesses trading on the gullibility of their devotees.

The founders of all religions were simple human beings who had love and compassion for all humanity. Professional priests later mythified these prophets, apostles, saints, sages, etc., and raised them to a sacred status to enhance their own power usually by attributing miracles and distorting the words and actions of the founders into the sacred scriptures that they wrote centuries after the founders or prophets. Most of the `gurus’, `pirs’ and `babas’ deserve the same skepticism because many, despite their huge followings, are often surprisingly narrow-minded and ignorant. So it is refreshing to read an article uncluttered by all their claptrap.

#55, we need to stop making a fuss over these things. Spies are killed all the time.

Every religion on this planet at its core is/was monotheistic. It is the adherents who have added gods to satisfy their own inadequacies. Even Hinduism which boasts about 900 million dieties and counting was originally a monotheistic religion. It is their priests who corrupted the religion to what it is now.

This proves that Allah has sent 124,000 prophets to every nation in this world at different times to convey to them the message of monotheism. There is only One God. Allah-o-Akbar.

If God is the Same then Why is God Different?
It is elementary dear Saima. God is the Same because he has a center in all of us, in all consciousness.

Then Why is God Different? Because God has no CIRCUMFRENCE