A list of questions to the PBKs

DEDICATED to PBKs.
For PBKs who are affiliated to AIVV, and supporting 'Advanced Knowledge'.
User avatar
Narsatya
Posts: 67
Joined: 28 Feb 2010
Affinity to the BKWSU: PBK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: To discuss various aspects of knowledge, from 'limited' and 'unlimited' perspectives or viewpoints.
Location: Delhi, India
Contact:

Re: Q&A: PBK Murli discussions

Post by Narsatya » 13 Nov 2012

Dear Arjun Bhai,
W.r. to Disc.CD No.233, dated 9.1.07 at Arakonam:

Baba said: Father shows sons. Is the Father more powerful or are the children more powerful? (Someone said – The Father is more powerful) So who would reveal whom first? (Someone said something) The one, who is the Father, reveals the children first – whether they are 8 children or 108 or whether they are 16108. The Father reveals the children first. Later, the children reveal the Father. ‘Son shows Father’ is a matter of the later times. The Father reveals the children first. The Father does not get revealed himself first. The hidden rostum gets revealed later on. The soul of Ram would get revealed in front of the world in the last. That is why the God of Gita (in the form of Krishna) continues for 2500 years. Does he play a part in a revealed form or does he play an incognito part?
I want to verify my personal interpretation to Baba's statement:

Does Father reveals children first following which children reveal Father mean he makes us realize our roles or position in the rosary and gives answers to ‘who am I?‘ first thereby we become faithful intellect and reveal him by doing what he wishes?

User avatar
Narsatya
Posts: 67
Joined: 28 Feb 2010
Affinity to the BKWSU: PBK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: To discuss various aspects of knowledge, from 'limited' and 'unlimited' perspectives or viewpoints.
Location: Delhi, India
Contact:

Re: Q&A: PBK Murli discussions

Post by Narsatya » 13 Nov 2012

W.r. to Disc.CD No.229, dated 5.1.07 at Saatshankh, Orissa

Baba replied: This Godly knowledge is such that at last (i.e. in the end) it would get proved from every point of view that the Godly knowledge alone is true. Astrologers would say that this knowledge alone is true. Those who are scientists would say – No, this Godly knowledge alone is true. Those who are historians would say that this Godly knowledge alone is true. The Godly knowledge would be proved to be true from every point of view.
I wish to verify my personal view of how scientist would realize knowledge and soul, etc based on what narrated above in quotes:

How will scientific community develop faith in soul or Supreme Soul when there is no significance of their existence in any field?
Astrology, it’s OK as it is connected w religion. But how would science draw a conclusion about their existence is intriguing. How can non material thing be traced through material means? It seems to me signal starts from soul they will trace origin of signal using techniques and tools of hard-science. Is it so?

User avatar
arjun
PBK
Posts: 11513
Joined: 01 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: PBK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: to exchange views with past and present members of BKWSU and its splinter groups
Location: India

Re: A list of questions to the PBKs

Post by arjun » 14 Nov 2012

narsatya wrote:Does Father reveals children first following which children reveal Father mean he makes us realize our roles or position in the rosary and gives answers to ‘who am I?‘ first thereby we become faithful intellect and reveal him by doing what he wishes?
I agree with you narsatya. Besides, the Father also helps us identify our hidden talents and encourages each child to become perfect in its specialities.
How will scientific community develop faith in soul or Supreme Soul when there is no significance of their existence in any field?
Astrology, it’s OK as it is connected w religion. But how would science draw a conclusion about their existence is intriguing. How can non material thing be traced through material means? It seems to me signal starts from soul they will trace origin of signal using techniques and tools of hard-science. Is it so?
I cannot say how the scientists will be able to prove the existence of soul or the Supreme Soul, but I do believe that the soul and the Supreme Soul will be revealed by the performance of such tasks which may appear impossible for a normal human being to perform.

User avatar
button slammer
PBK
Posts: 226
Joined: 17 Jul 2006

Re: A list of questions to the PBKs

Post by button slammer » 17 Nov 2012

The research of many scientists whose work challenges 'big bang/evolution' don't get their papers published in scientific journals as those journals are controlled by atheists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VHLl9Q1 ... re=related

The above link is independent research by a Christian scientist, who went on to create synthetic coal and oil within months. His research suggests the geographic environment may have occurred in a much shorter time frame than currently believed by the scientific community at present.
Big bang/ evolution believes a random event approx 13.5 billion years ago led to another random event, of the creation of a simple cell/origin of life on earth. Is like saying the computer on your desk arranged itself out of myriads of components...in perfect working order.... please.

User avatar
button slammer
PBK
Posts: 226
Joined: 17 Jul 2006

Re: A list of questions to the PBKs

Post by button slammer » 17 Nov 2012

button slammer wrote:Big bang/ evolution believes a random event approx 13.5 billion years ago led to another random event, of the creation of a simple cell/origin of life on earth. Is like saying the computer on your desk arranged itself out of myriads of components...in perfect working order.... please.
Credit goes to the author below for summing up succinctly my thoughts and feelings on the absurdity of the evolutionary belief system/atheist brain washing/mind control/denigration of the human spirit.

http://www.deism.com/deism_vs.htm

DEISM VS. ATHEIS

In George H. Smith's book ATHEISM - THE CASE AGAINST GOD, it is stated that rationality will not lead to God. That instead, God can only be brought about by rationalization. The book describes rationality as first finding evidence, then arriving at the idea, like Newton seeing the apple fall to the ground and then discovering the law of gravity. It then describes rationalization as first accepting an idea and then searching for evidence to support it, like someone inventing the idea of God and then saying God created the universe. Deism says it is rationality and reason that leads to God. To the Deist, the evidence is the creation and the idea of what brought about the evidence is the Creator. There is absolutely nothing known to man that created itself. For example, if someone shows us a computer, and tells us that all the individual parts that make up the computer just came about by chance, that they somehow just formed into a perfectly working computer system all by themselves, we would be foolish to believe that person. Reason, if we use it, won't let us believe a statement like that. Likewise, if someone tells us the ever growing creation and its perfect order "happened" by pure chance, we are under no obligation to believe them. From our own experience we know everything created has a creator. Why then should the creation itself be different? There is, however, one quality the creation has that makes leaving its existence to chance even more remote. That quality is motion.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests