Goddess Worship And The Babel Religions

reply to post by Wandering Scribe


mammu, i'm pretty sure is a later babylonian figure, not part of the original sumerian story. the black sea flood buried the cities of sumer under 8ft of flood silt. as a result, the cuneiform tablets of sumer, were also buried and the sumerian histories were hidden for a very long time. people had to piece together what happened before the area was inundated by reading the surviving akkadian and babylonian texts. the mainstream babylonian texts were all following what is known as the marduk version of the past. examples being:

turning the water gate called the abzu into a deity named abzu.
the first references to tiamat as a separate part of the abzu.
the references to marduk creating everything and the covering up of the older creation accounts, which btw, were quite similar to the biblical one. marduk laying claim to all the exploits of anu, enlil and enki. etc

reply to post by Wandering Scribe


that video is interesting. personally, i think jesus was the last pharaoh of egypt, the son of cleopatra. i don't personally believe that he is the mean vindictive guy as portrayed in the new testament, particularly since it completely contradicts the rest of it, such as the passage that says you should forgive your enemies and pray that your enemies are blessed, be long suffering, kind, charitable, understanding, etc, which is a contradiction of the other passages. he doesn't support forcing other people to believe, in fact, the whole point of "shaking off the dust" was a reference to leaving people alone about it, don't go back to their house harrassing them about it, and so on. forced indoctrination was a no-no.

i think where the video is especially off target is to assume that everyone that has a christian world view, automatically believes the catholic interpretation of the passages, or the baptist version for that matter.

Text Red
My two cents lingers with the idea that:

1) He tramples the serpent... which bruises his heel.
The result of that is that he is forced down on one knee to lessen the pain.
Even then... he is in so much pain that his head is bowed.
All this occurrs whilst she stands before him.
His bowed head comes to rest on her stomach whereas she carresses his head with her hands.

Hair is pronounced "Higher"
Stomach is pronounced "Is Too Much"

That is the veneration of the goddess.
It can even be said that she is a dgree higher than her man.

The garden cried out... "That's two things I need to learn...?" "That's too much!"
Joke of the ages. Bitter tummy.
The knowledge of good and evil is too much.. 2 much!
No one ever really enjoys the evil that awaits them for a lesson learned.
Adam was such a creature.

2) Sympathy for the devil...
He saw gods most glorious creation and knew she would never look upon him as she did Adam.
So... he spooked her with the status of a goddess.
My two cents...
1) God-Disappointed... 2) Goddess Appointed.

reply to post by Wandering Scribe

Further, in Matthew 5:18-19 Jesus has this to say:

"For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

The above passage is Jesus advocating for all of the Old Testament laws. He says that whoever does not teach and abide by the old covenant, as well as the new, shall be "called least in the kingdom of heaven". So, the rape, slavery, murder, and other horrible things taught in Leviticus or Deuteronomy? Jesus fully approves and endorses them.

No, he didn't. In Matthew 5:17, Jesus said that he didn't come to destroy the law or the prophets, meaning he didn't come to destroy the Old Testament scriptures. The books of Moses and the prophets testified of Jesus and he said he came to fulfill what was written in them about him, as stated in Luke 24:44.

Matthew 15 shows us what Jesus thought of some of the Mosaic laws. He called them commandments and traditions of men. He made it clear that not washing hands, pots and pans, or what a man ate WAS NOT what defiled them. It was the words that came out of their mouth. Jesus himself was accused of breaking the Sabbath when he healed the sick on that day.

We also know from Matthew 5:20 that Jesus said that unless their righteousness exceeded that of the Scribes and Pharisees that they would not enter into the kingdom of God. The Pharisees had a continual habit of not practicing what they preached and that is primarily what Matthew 5:18-19 is referring to. Jesus never claimed one way or the other what he preferred when it came to the Mosaic laws, he just made it clear that whatever you were going to teach, you better be practicing it yourself. In the meanwhile, the only commandments that Jesus expounded on immediately after making these statements in Matthew 5 were all related to the Ten Commandments, not the Mosaic laws.

reply to post by Deetermined


I really have to wonder about this scripture. It seems to me that "GOD" would know that washing one's hands after handling sick people, their dishes, cups and pots, is a necessary hygiene to prevent the spread of germs. People in those days knew that certain diseases were contagious, that's why the sick and the cripple were banished to live outside the city gates.

Also, one CAN become ill from eating bad food or poison, so what goes onto ones' mouth certainly CAN defile one.

It's my belief that this scripture was inserted by pro Pauline doctrine supporters, that set out to condemn the "Law", in spite of the continual teachings of Jesus to honor the law.

reply to post by Wandering Scribe

Because if he was, then the Jews who wrote all of those prophecies, would recognize him as the messiah as well.

Well, no, from the beginning in Psalm 22, the scriptures stated that the Jews would not recognize Jesus as the Messiah, which is precisely why Jesus quoted the first verse of this Psalm 22 during the time of his crucifixion. It's also why the chapter ends in verses 30-31 stating that a seed (remnant) shall serve him and declare his righteousness unto a people that "shall be born" out of it.

Instead, only a small portion of them (the Jews for Jesus) do. The majority say Jesus did not fulfill the prophecies, and is not the messiah.

This is why the world has Judaism, in all its varied denominations, and then Christianity, in all its myriad denominations: the Jews and the Christians do not agree on Jesus being the messiah.

The Bible tells us that a time will come when the Jews will all look back and mourn for not having recognized Jesus when he came.

reply to post by windword


This is what I was trying to point out earlier. Jesus understood their need for cleanliness, but he said it was not a means for salvation. In Matthew 15, Jesus was trying to make a point that not meeting every Mosaic law was not what defiled a man (that which kept them from salvation), although some of the Pharisees were teaching just that. When someone teaches that tradition should be held higher than performing the works of God, then it was considered a sin.

reply to post by Wandering Scribe


There are many other flood myths from other parts of the world which are not officially accepted as having had contact with European cultures when they were developed.

en.wikipedia.org...

There are also many other cultures which had giants occupying the land with early humans.

reply to post by undo

 

mammu, i'm pretty sure is a later babylonian figure, not part of the original sumerian story.

Actually, there is no Mesopotamian goddess named Mammu.

Mami is the nearest phonetically that I am familiar with. Mami is a Babylonian mother-goddess. Depending on which accounts one is reading, Mami is either a title ("mother") for Damkina (Ninhursag) when she helps Ea (Enki) create human beings, or, a name for Ishtar (Inanna) in myths where she fills the same role.

There is also a Mamitu, a Babylonian Underworld goddess who controls the fortune and fate of the dead. This goddess is actually a Babylonian variation of Ereshkigal, the Queen of the Underworld, and sister of Inanna. You can further validate this by comparing their Babylonian names: Mami (Inanna), and Mamitu (Ereshkigal).

Nammu is a Sumerian goddess though.

Nammu: Mesopotamian

A Sumerian goddess of the primeval waters
Mother of An and Ki
Mother of Enki and Enlil, some say

She is said to have made humans from clay. In some versions, the same as Abzu, the sweet waters. Some versions say that she generated An and Ki, others that she was An's consort.

The Dictionary of Mythology, pg. 733

Additionally, there's more information available about Nammu as well:

NAMMU

Origin: Mesopotamian (Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian) [Iraq] Cthonic creator and birth-goddess.

Known period of worship: circa 4000 BC until circa 1750 BC.

Synonyms: none.

Center(s) of worship: mainly identified with Ur.

Art reference(s): stele of Ur-Nammu (circa 2050-1950 BC), etc.

Literary sources: creation epics, including Enki and the World Order; Sumerian and Akkadian temple hymns and poems.

Nammu is identified in various texts as the goddess of the watery deeps. As a consort of An she is the mother of Enki and the power of the riverbed to produce water. Alternatively Nammu is the progenitrix of An and Ki, the archetypal deities of Heaven and Earth. She also engendered other early gods and in one poem is the mother of all mortal life. She molded clay collected by creatures called sig-en-sig-du and brought it to life, thus creating mankind. She is attended by seven minor goddess, and ultimately may have become syncretized with Ninhursag.

Encyclopedia of Gods, pg. 176

Nammu is an ancient goddess of the watery deep, a figure recognized and worshiped among the Ubaids (the people who occupied Mesopotamia before the Sumerians), and then adopted by the Sumerians, before being transformed into Apzu and Tiamat during the Babylonian/Assyrian period.

the mainstream babylonian texts were all following what is known as the marduk version of the past.

Marduk was a state-god; the patron of the city-state of Babylon. When Babylon became the economic and cultural center of Mesopotamia the Babylonian accounts overcame the Sumerian accounts in popularity.

While historical flooding may have aided this process, in reality it was because the Sumerians, as an ethnic identity, had already been completely assimilated into the Semitic Akkadian peoples.

Therefore, since there were no native Sumerians left, no one made a fuss about overhauling the mythology to better suit Babylonian cultural traditions, beliefs, and worldviews.

Placing Marduk into the Sumerian myths was a political move.

the black sea flood buried the cities of sumer under 8ft of flood silt. as a result, the cuneiform tablets of sumer, were also buried and the sumerian histories were hidden for a very long time.

The Black Sea deluge hypothesis is believed to have occurred around 5600 BC. This would put it during, or before, the period of Ubaid occupation. The Sumerians, as an ethnic people, did not occupy Mesopotamia during the time the supposed flood would have occurred.

Further, cuneiform, as a proper script for writing, did not emerge in Mesopotamia until around 3500 BC, placing it nearly 2000 years after the supposed flood. Here's a very brief timeline for you, of the Sumerian cultures:

6000-4000 BC: the Ubaid people settled in southern Mesopotamia
4000-2500 BC: the Sumerian people settle the land of Sumer
2500-2100 BC: the Semitic Akkadian empire assimilates the Sumerians
Circa 1900 BC: the Assyrians rise to power in northern Mesopotamia
Circa 1800 BC: the Babylonians rise to power in southern Mesopotamia
Circa 600 BC: the Chaldean (Neo Babylonian) empire arises
Circa 500 BC: the Persian empire conquers Mesopotamia

While the Black Sea deluge is probable, and most likely historical, it is not applicable in explaining why the Sumerian mythology was overwritten by the Semitic Babylonian variations. Political power plays are much more likely, considering the rise of Babylon's popularity.

~ Wandering Scribe

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

There are many other flood myths from other parts of the world which are not officially accepted as having had contact with European cultures when they were developed.

A flood myth, and the historicity of a global, world-wide flood, are two different things.

Rivers flood. Seas caused them to do so.

The existence of thousands of local floods, which became immortalized in cultural myths, does not mean that the entire world was flooded in a single deluge at one point in history.

Instead, it identifies a mythological motif, a pattern present in world mythology, due to its importance in early human development.

Because we, as a species, settled near rivers when we moved out of our hunter/gatherer phase, the yearly floods, and especially unexpected deluges, became very important events in our history. When the river supported crops then the people survived. When the river overflowed and destroyed crops, then the people died. As all floods could not be predicted, the people assumed it was somehow related to their actions offending the river, the river's god, or local river spirits.

There are also many other cultures which had giants occupying the land with early humans.

I am aware of this. Kur and Asag in Mesopotamia; Ullikummi and Illuyankas in Anatolia; the Titans in Indo European mythology; the Nephilim in Judaism; the Fomhoire in Celtic mythology; and the Eldjotnar / Hrimthusar / Bergrisar from Norse myth. Again, this is a mythological motif, not records of an actual historical period.

There was no world-wide flood. There was no world-wide species of giant. They are myths meant to explain the mysteries of the world, and convey moral, ethical, and spiritual lessons to the cultures who told them.

~ Wandering Scribe

reply to post by Wandering Scribe


oh i misread it as mammu and was wondering why you were using mammu in your description. now nammu is an interesting subject. she's a personification of a part of the abzu. remember how i mentioned that tiamat was separated from abzu in enuma elish and personified? well there you have it. this is why some try to say that a woman (tiamat, nammu) created everything, because everything was created from the abzu, the primeval abyss, the nun. a part of abzu, was deified in enuma elish by marduk's scholars as tiamat and earlier, as nammu. the abzu is a variation on this (super massive black holes), which are responsible for the creation of the universe's planets and stars.



so tiamat or nammu is a function / feature of the abzu. since abzu is the water gate, what is the nammu or tiamat? the wormhole generated by the water gate. what happened was, early occultists assumed the similarity of a woman's birth canal as equivalent to the abzu - things are created by it, water is associated with the creation event, there's a tube that leads from the opening (the gate) and the place of creation (the womb, the singularity). in effect, they deified and personified the creative process of black holes. the entire universe was created by super massive black holes and when the event to begin creation was triggered, they started to suck up gas and spew out material that formed the planets and stars, and etc. look up active galaxies

observe enoch's encounter with an active galaxy event


the only reason i can come up with for why they separated them from abzu was because at one point, the abzu gate is literally turned off by enki. then the wormhole, that is tiamat/nammu, connects to the kingu gate instead. i personally don't think the kingu gate was on earth.

hajj is a re-creation of the creation of the universe. look at them all circling around the black stone in the middle, which is encased in a womb cave, and as they circle, they get closer and closer to the middle. it's a super massive black hole

reply to post by undo


I don't personally have any opinion concerning the parallels between ancient mythology, occultism, and modern astronomical science. I don't have any comment on whether or not Nammu is representative of a black hole.

What I can say, though, is that she was most certainly representative of the Persian Gulf, the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, and the flood plain of the Fertile Crescent. Because the Ubaids, Sumerians, and Akkadians all understood how vital to their continued existence those watery systems were, they personified them as Nammu.

As for the Abzu, you're still a little bit off.

There is only one "abzu" in Sumerian mythology, and it is called the É-abzu, and means "House of the Subterranean Waters". The É-abzu was a building in the city-state of Eridu, where the statue / idol of Enki was kept.

Numerous other temples, or "houses", existed in various city-states across Sumer. For example:

The É-ana (House of Heaven) was originally the temple of An, but was later assimilated by the priest and priestess of Inanna. It was located in the city-state of Erech (Uruk).

The É-kur (House of the Mountain) was the temple of Enlil located in the city-state of Nippur. Inside is where the priest kept the statue / idol of Enlil. This particular temple served as a place of pilgrimage for the faithful, and for other idols' alike. In times of crisis the idols of Enki, Inanna, Utu, Nanna, and other prominent Anunnaki were brought from their own temples to the É-kur for a divine conference.

There are dozens more temples that were located all over the Mesopotamian landscape. You can read an extremely brief synopses about each in that link. You'll have to read the works of Samuel Noah Kramer, and other prominent Sumerologists to learn more intimate and detailed information about specific temples and practices.

It would take much more time and space than I have left to explain the cultural differences between the Sumerians and the Babylonians, but, by coming to understand that you will be one step closer to understanding why the old regime, the Mother Goddess cult, was done away with by the warrior-cast society of Babylon, and then replaced by a state-god and All-Father cult.

~ Wandering Scribe

reply to post by Wandering Scribe


the abzu is the abyss which is symbolized in solomon's temple as the apsu. (dyslexic letter flip). the abyss is also the bottomless pit (abyssos). it was a gated doorway to another place, involving water. it is also the nun, which is referred to in egyptian texts. and was in the days of the egyptian narmer (et.al, enmerkar and therefore nimrod), also the word "abydos." the etymology is in egyptian: abdju. abdju is pronounced abzu, as the dj is pronounced z. like djoser is pronounced zoser. take my word for it, this has been my main subject of study for a very long time.

the e.abzu was also called the e.nun

en.wikipedia.org...

babel = KA.DINGIR.RA
info on ka.dingir.ra

this is the occult version of the gate opening. they believe interdimensional portals are opened by sex magick, which this scene in ghostbusters is supposed to depict. it's my opinion, that it is incorrect. it is taken from older occult rituals based on the idea that a woman's sexual organs were powerful magical devices, due to the symbolism of the abzu/nun, creating the universe and a woman creating new life.





more recently a couple of these occult rituals were undertaken, one by aleister crowley with a couple friends, called the alamantrah working, during which he supposedly summoned this guy which is really nothing more than a drawing he did of sexual congress (the head of Lam is the head of a man's private part, and the furry coat is, well you guessed it-- a woman's private part. crowley was an irreverent sort of guy and probably had a good laugh while drawing this. today, people think it's a grey. i don't. it looks a bit like a grey but it's just a depiction of sex magick, up close and personal.



in addition to the alamantrah working, was the babalon working, performed by the founder of jet propulsions laboratory, Jack Parsons, and L. Ron Hubbard (yeah the scientology guy). they were attempting to summon forth from some alternate dimension, what they called, the moon child. the moon child was to lead a magickal war against christianity and religion in general.

as far as i'm concerned, that is a bunch of hooey. i think it was a massive cover up from the very beginning, thousands of years ago. if listening to that enoch video i posted in a previous post above doesn't convince you, nothing will.

reply to post by undo


I think our confusion all stems from a simple misunderstanding. The É-abzu and Abzu are two different things that happen to share the same, or similar, names.

The É-abzu was a physical building, an actual structure that existed in Eridu. Inside of the É-abzu was placed the idol of Enki so that he could oversee the daily activities of the people of Eridu. Abzu (Apsu) was a mythological figure present in the Enuma Elish account of creation. Outside of sharing the name "abzu", the two are not the same. One was a building, the other a sea-serpent.

Now, the Nu (Nun) is a feature in two Egyptian cosmologies: the Ogdoad and the Ennead.

The Ogdoad centered around four pairs of archetypal creators who give rise to a fifth. The four pairs were formed from male and female companions. They were: Nu and Naunet (the world-sea); Huh and Hauhet (space); Amun and Amaunet (air); and Ku and Kauket (darkness). The fifth force, arising from the collective will of the previous eight, was light, known as Rē. The Ogdoad ("Group of Eight") was worshiped in Hermopolis during the Old Kingdom period of Egyptian history.

The Ennead centered around a physical creation schematic (where the Ogdoad was philosophic). In the Ennead cosmology Nu (the world-sea) simply is. There's no explanation of where Nu comes from. All of a sudden Atum (the self-begotten) is sitting on a mound that rose from the Nu. Atum creates Shu and Tefnut (air and moisture) from spit or semen, and they give birth to Nuit and Geb (the Heavens and the Earth), who give birth to the vegetation (Osiris), the celestial bodies (Isis), the desert (Set) and the Underworld (Nephthys). Osiris and Isis then give birth to Horus, whose great deeds and actions unify Upper and Lower Egypt. The Ennead ("Group of Nine") was worshiped in Heliopolis during the Old Kingdom of Egyptian history.

What both of these share is a common time period: the Egyptian Old Kingdom. Now, the Ogdoad was worshiped between Dynasty III and Dynasty VI, putting it between 2600 BC and 2100 BC. The Ennead was primarily worshiped between 2300 BC and 304 BC, meaning between Dynasty VI and the Ptolemaic period.

Comparatively, the Sumerians were in decline by this point, having been conquered and assimilated by the Semitic Akkadian invaders. So, Nu (Nun), and Apsu being similar is, more than likely, due to the interaction between the Semitic Akkadians and the Egyptians, not because of any connection to the Sumerians and their native mythology.

At the end of the day though, there's nothing wrong with believing that Enki's temple, the Babylonian deity of fresh water, the Egyptian concept of the primeval sea, and other mythological motifs are one and the same.

While the actual history and archaeology goes against such theories, I've found that very few people actually use hard science when studying their spiritual paths and beliefs, choosing instead to trust their intuition.

I don't agree with that, as I don't agree that the É-abzu, Apsu, and Nu are the same. But, people are people, and once we're set on something, we hardly ever change, even in the face of undeniable evidence.


~ Wandering Scribe

READ ALL OF THIS BEFORE YOU ANSWER

nope. abzu wasn't personified until enuma elish. what you're suffering from is the result of the sumerian texts beng buried under flood silt till about 100 years ago. consider it was samuel noah kramer who was the first to officially translate the sumerian cuneiform. that means even after the cuneiforms were found, they were not translated till recently. college textbooks and books written by assyriologists of the last 300 years, have not as yet, assimilated the resulting information, primarily because the data appears to step on the toes of books written prior to their discovery and translation, and also because they tend to corroborate the historicity of other ancient texts, such as the pentateuch (torah), which had already been declared a book of fairy tales with no support for its historical value from the actual locations the events were said to occur in, in the text.

it's like frederick wolfe's contention in his critical text, the homeric problem. before the advent of the science of archaeology, mr. wolfe proclaimed that the ancient greeks couldn't write during the time their histories, epics and political and financial records were said to be written. 40 years later, after the advent of archaeology, this was proven to be incorrect, however, it was too late for ancient greek texts -- they had been ruled mythological, and no amount of evidence to the contrary would erase that. too many high profile and respected authors had chimed in on the subject and most of the ancient world had been ruled a myth as well, by that time. so they refused to recant the original position. to this day, historical texts in universities teach that most ancient texts are not historical in any way, and that they are all just fairy tales.

Samuel Noah Kramer said in his book "Enki Builds the E-Engurra":

The lord of the abyss, the king Enki, Enki the Lord who decrees the fates, Built his house of silver and lapis lazuli; Its silver and lapis lazuli, like sparkling light, The father fashioned fittingly in the abyss.

Then Enki raises the city of Eridu from the abyss and makes it float over the water like a lofty mountain.

---------------

Just so you know, Kramer also translated Abzu to be Abyss.

p.s. you said, "All of a sudden Atum (the self-begotten)", and my response is: well yeah atum is creator of the atum (atum=adam). moses chose to name the creation after the creators. and the creators, he gave the mesopotamian title elohim, which is really alulim (see sumerian kings list) which is really adam. adam is a plural word, so is atum, elohim and alulim.

btw, read my post above. i expect you to honor mr kramer even when he says things you can't turn into the babylonian version of history, where inanimate objects become gods, considering you already dropped his name in an attempt to prove your own points. so argue with kramer's abyss.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by WashMoreFeet

 

"God" didn't create us from nothing.

Yet we are told that He did. Explicitly.

"God" used parts of creation, within the creation to create the creation.

No, He used sound and light and spoke a new dimension into being. Then the density of that initial dimension began to split among itself, yet remain connected= toroidal hypersphere

We, as human beings, perceive four of those dimensions-- Time plus the three dimensions of space.

Creation itself is a closed system. At our fall, corruption and death were unleashed, kicking off the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Before that, there was only the potential for corruption. The latent potential for something is not the same as the existence of it. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil would inevitably lead to corruption, which always leads to death. Because men are not God, only God can consume corruption and withstand the effects of it, and remain perfect and unchanged. Men can only be corrupted by it.

We will reach a maximum state of chaos and corruption= entropy.

Entropy is a measure of the number of specific ways in which a system may be arranged , also taken to be a measure of disorder. The entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium, which is the state of maximum entropy, or the maximum state of disorder, aka corruption.

God can easily prove science. It is science that tries to disprove God.

Nothing comes from nothing. Not even God.

It does if you're God.

I believe "GOD" to be an encompassment of everything that exists, did exist, will exist and never existed, didn't exist and won't exist.

Then you are a pantheist, which is the basis for the belief systems of Hindu, Buddhist and Neopaganist beliefs.

God is personal. He is an individual. He is the blueprint from which we--- our unique, complex selves--- were designed.

There is nothing outside of existence, not even God, if a God exists.

Our existence is but a dimension. A grain of sand in God's proverbial hand.
God cannot be confined. We are told there was a primordial abyss, then we are told that God spoke.
And you know the rest.
At the very least, we know that before creation began there was 1.) God; and 2.) a primordial abyss

I am telling you truths that many have spent lifetimes trying to understand, but you do not have the ears to hear it. The Holy Spirit is the revealer of all truth. Without Him, infinite truths sound like nonsense. We were warned this many times in the Bible. "The Light has come into the world but the darkness cannot comprehend it."

Pearls being trampled underfoot.

Originally posted by WashMoreFeet

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by WashMoreFeet

 

"God" didn't create us from nothing.

Yet we are told that He did. Explicitly.

No. We are told that we were formed from the dust of the earth.

"God" used parts of creation, within the creation to create the creation.

No, He used sound and light and spoke a new dimension into being. Then the density of that initial dimension began to split among itself, yet remain connected= toroidal hypersphere

Sound and light are part of creation, ie. existence.

God can easily prove science. It is science that tries to disprove God.

God would first have to prove that it exists.

Nothing comes from nothing. Not even God.

It does if you're God.

Who created God? Where did God come from?

Then you are a pantheist, which is the basis for the belief systems of Hindu, Buddhist and Neopaganist beliefs.

So were the Hebrews. Then, so be it, however I don't like being put in a box, like you do.

Buddhists and Hindu can coexist, but Buddhists don't necessarily hold the same doctrines or believe in the "gods" of the Hindi. I don't believe in gods, a savior, or in one single personal god either. I believe that we are all part of the one god and there is no separation from God.

That's an illusion, as were all are part of a god that manifests in infinite times and ways.

God is personal. He is an individual. He is the blueprint from which we--- our unique, complex selves--- were designed.

I don't believe this. God is NOT a person, an inventor or a scientist.

There is nothing outside of existence, not even God, if a God exists.

Our existence is but a dimension. A grain of sand in God's proverbial hand.
God cannot be confined. We are told there was a primordial abyss, then we are told that God spoke.
And you know the rest.
At the very least, we know that before creation began there was 1.) God; and 2.) a primordial abyss

There is no existence outside of existence.

I am telling you truths that many have spent lifetimes trying to understand, but you do not have the ears to hear it.

So you believe in reincarnation? So do I. How does this fit in with your Christian view of salvation and a personal God?