[Vabrugar]

Heaven may be an spritual world while earth is a material world. We know the bible said, God created heaven and earth. But where was God before He created heaven and earth? Any thoughts?

[harmonygirl]

I think She was everywhere and nowhere, because 'where' did not exist.

[Vabrugar]

Hi Harmonygirl. What do you mean by "where" did not exist? What is the place called nowhere and everywhere?

[harmonygirl]

Before She made heaven and earth, there was no 'place' as we think of it today. If there is no thing, then there can be no where. Space is a function of time and vice versa. Nothingness is everythingness because 'thing' does not exist. so there is no meaning to no-thing or every-thing because thing is not yet defined. Place does not exist. Nowhere does not exist. Everywhere does not exist. Where does not exist. In that time. Today, there is place, thing, nothing and everything because thing exists. Before the Goddess, no simple definitions apply.

[Guille]

If there is (being), there are things and wheres but not nowheres or nothings nor everywheres or everythings. If there is not (before existence), there are no things or where but there are nowheres and nothings, and everywhere and everythings.

[Vabrugar]

Imagine, a human in an empty island creating a farm and a house. Can you relate farm as earth, house as heaven and island as a place where God was before He created heaven and earth? A place where no humans ever think of.

[mkirkpatrick]

The absolute,or God if you prefer,both are equal to the whole,where was this
this absolutness before ideation of universes became focussed?That is an interesting question,of which no being can know!However I would suggest that the absolute would be within itself reposed.


kind regards michael.

[harmonygirl]

Interesting interpretation Michael. Would there be an itself, tho? If wholeness (and I like your interpretation here) exists, how can there be something by which to distinguish itself from not-itself? In another way, wouldn't everything be itself (and so the concept would be superfluous?)

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl Interesting interpretation Michael. Would there be an itself, tho? If wholeness (and I like your interpretation here) exists, how can there be something by which to distinguish itself from not-itself? In another way, wouldn't everything be itself (and so the concept would be superfluous?)

You are of course absolutely correct,Harmony,of course
the absolute being the Absolute Whole of all that ever was,and all there ever
will be,to say "itself" is incorrect,the difficulty is in any discription or attempt
to say what the absolute,is or is not,and to say what "IT" was doing before
the universe was thought into "shape" is at best rather futile.I should have
maybe said,"in meditation deep the Life force that is all,contemplated the
"shape" of "things" to come,from within "itself".


kind regards michael.

[harmonygirl]

I like the way you put that Michael. (sorry if I'm quibbling, occupational hazard!)