Karma

[Guest shiloh357]

It's already comparable because just as most people today couldn't tell the details of Dec 25ths pagan belief's or celebrations, most people can also not tell you the details of karma, they know the principle, and have probably noticed it happening around them, and they know the word karma is associated with the principle but obviously, if people thought the false religion had any credibility, there would less Christians and more karma types.

Yeah, just pretend that no one is smart enough to know what karma really is.

I am not an expert on other religions, but even I know what karma is and I know the difference between karma and "what comes around goes around" and "what you sow you shall reap." None of those have anything to do with karma and to refer to them as "karma" is simply laughable.

It's also not about karma being suitable for Christianity,

It is EXACTLY about being suitable for Christinaity. You cannot use pagan concepts to explain or refer to biblical truths and expect to be able to communicate those truths correctly.

it's about EVERYTHING including the notion of what goes around comes around, coming under the authority of God, and it's under God's authority no matter what word is used or not used. Fixating on not using a specific word to describe a well known principle is wrong.....just explain it correctly.

The problem is that you are not explaining the word correctly to start with. Using the correct words are paramount to proper communication. You are not at liberty to use words in any manner you see fit.

To now shy away from a certain foreign word because it ties in with something they believe is wrong. Better to use the Christmas holiday as an example of how Christianity overcomes false religions. If anything Christians should be much less worried about the word and much more aggressive about taking that principle away from the false God, so that the few who still believe in the false God can start believing in the real God and applying the principle to Him.

Which shows how little you understand this issue and the complexity of it. To you, it is as simple as using a word and supplying it with the meaning you want it to have and insult everyone else's intelligence by pretending they have no idea what the word actually means.

I am sorry, but you just don't have a firm grasp on what you are talking about.

sorry but there is no pretense to to....people who want to know are capable of knowing...most people are not of that religion but still they correctly understand the notion of what goes around comes around..........they just don't care to get to know the blue guy god or credit him with the notion of karma.

Well if you think it's laughable then you MUST be an expert because most people think those concepts are part of karma. Just check the original post to get the common man definition....it's what most people accept karma as, rejecting the notions of a blue guy god at the same time.

The idea of what goes around comes around is not pagan, it's real, applying it to a false god is pagan. But using the word "karma" doesn't mean you're applying it that way. Trust me...........I've used the word without applying it a a false god....it really CAN be done. The word has no power but it's possible to give it power by treating it as some type of threat. It's just a word.

I don't supply the meaning....people already understand the word as generally meaning what the original poster said it meant in his/her "nutshell" definition. And when I have used the word, I've been clear about applying to the true God. And my presumption is that people don't know all the details of whatever god it's incorrectly applied to, but do know that the word "karma" comes from a culture where more people worship false gods than the true God. That doesn't mean they're wrong about noticing that "what goes around comes around" they're just wrong for crediting that to the false god.

Rather than run from the karma, just put the principle into the correct context. If you feel the need to discredit the little micro details, then do that also. Just don't get phobic about the word.

That's a little bit comparable to being afraid of meat offered to idols.

I am sorry, but you just don't know what you are talking about. Your position is akin to an irresponsible adolescent who cannot see the far reaching conseqences of his actions. What you don't understand is that you are not simply using a "word." You are communicating a pagan religious concept and attempting to use it within a Christian context. I realize you think it is harmless, but it isn't.

It is not at all like December 25 and it is not like the issue of meat sacrificed to idols. You are bent on comparing this to other things that are completely dissimilar in nature.

Your irresponsible use of "karma" would be more like someone trying to refer to Jesus as "God's Krishna" or something like that.

You are not even using the word Karma correctly, and that is what makes your position weaker. You are trying to apply it to a concept which has nothing to do with Karma and bears no resemblance to "what goes around comes around except in your imagination. It is pretty bad when you can't even get the word or the concept right but act as if you have some right to use it in that manner.

A mature, responsible Christian will not use the word Karma in the manner you do.

[seekeratthesea]

most people aren't going to be impressed or even listen because they don't believe in that religion anyway....they just know the common man's "what goes around comes around" principle and to them "karma" is just a word to describe it. Let them know that the general principle is correct but incorrectly applied, and you'll reinforce the notion of God's sovereignty over all things.

Again, no, this is not an argument about words.

Every word in every language has a meaning. I might decide for myself that "buenos dias" means "tomato." but my Mexican neighbors know it means "good morning." My own private definitions have no relevance here.

Jesus did not believe in reincarnation, caste, salvation by works, or a multiplicity of gods. He believed in grace, whereas karma leaves no room for it. But sadly, of course, many "Christians" do in fact subscribe to these heretical notions.

Avoiding the use of such misleading terms is a good place to start.

As I've said before, I've used the term once or twice and nobody has been confused. It's very easy to be clear about things. I think we're getting to the point of word phobia here.

[seekeratthesea]

It's already comparable because just as most people today couldn't tell the details of Dec 25ths pagan belief's or celebrations, most people can also not tell you the details of karma, they know the principle, and have probably noticed it happening around them, and they know the word karma is associated with the principle but obviously, if people thought the false religion had any credibility, there would less Christians and more karma types.

Yeah, just pretend that no one is smart enough to know what karma really is.

I am not an expert on other religions, but even I know what karma is and I know the difference between karma and "what comes around goes around" and "what you sow you shall reap." None of those have anything to do with karma and to refer to them as "karma" is simply laughable.

It's also not about karma being suitable for Christianity,

It is EXACTLY about being suitable for Christinaity. You cannot use pagan concepts to explain or refer to biblical truths and expect to be able to communicate those truths correctly.

it's about EVERYTHING including the notion of what goes around comes around, coming under the authority of God, and it's under God's authority no matter what word is used or not used. Fixating on not using a specific word to describe a well known principle is wrong.....just explain it correctly.

The problem is that you are not explaining the word correctly to start with. Using the correct words are paramount to proper communication. You are not at liberty to use words in any manner you see fit.

To now shy away from a certain foreign word because it ties in with something they believe is wrong. Better to use the Christmas holiday as an example of how Christianity overcomes false religions. If anything Christians should be much less worried about the word and much more aggressive about taking that principle away from the false God, so that the few who still believe in the false God can start believing in the real God and applying the principle to Him.

Which shows how little you understand this issue and the complexity of it. To you, it is as simple as using a word and supplying it with the meaning you want it to have and insult everyone else's intelligence by pretending they have no idea what the word actually means.

I am sorry, but you just don't have a firm grasp on what you are talking about.

sorry but there is no pretense to to....people who want to know are capable of knowing...most people are not of that religion but still they correctly understand the notion of what goes around comes around..........they just don't care to get to know the blue guy god or credit him with the notion of karma.

Well if you think it's laughable then you MUST be an expert because most people think those concepts are part of karma. Just check the original post to get the common man definition....it's what most people accept karma as, rejecting the notions of a blue guy god at the same time.

The idea of what goes around comes around is not pagan, it's real, applying it to a false god is pagan. But using the word "karma" doesn't mean you're applying it that way. Trust me...........I've used the word without applying it a a false god....it really CAN be done. The word has no power but it's possible to give it power by treating it as some type of threat. It's just a word.

I don't supply the meaning....people already understand the word as generally meaning what the original poster said it meant in his/her "nutshell" definition. And when I have used the word, I've been clear about applying to the true God. And my presumption is that people don't know all the details of whatever god it's incorrectly applied to, but do know that the word "karma" comes from a culture where more people worship false gods than the true God. That doesn't mean they're wrong about noticing that "what goes around comes around" they're just wrong for crediting that to the false god.

Rather than run from the karma, just put the principle into the correct context. If you feel the need to discredit the little micro details, then do that also. Just don't get phobic about the word.

That's a little bit comparable to being afraid of meat offered to idols.

I am sorry, but you just don't know what you are talking about. Your position is akin to an irresponsible adolescent who cannot see the far reaching conseqences of his actions. What you don't understand is that you are not simply using a "word." You are communicating a pagan religious concept and attempting to use it within a Christian context. I realize you think it is harmless, but it isn't.

It is not at all like December 25 and it is not like the issue of meat sacrificed to idols. You are bent on comparing this to other things that are completely dissimilar in nature.

Your irresponsible use of "karma" would be more like someone trying to refer to Jesus as "God's Krishna" or something like that.

You are not even using the word Karma correctly, and that is what makes your position weaker. You are trying to apply it to a concept which has nothing to do with Karma and bears no resemblance to "what goes around comes around except in your imagination. It is pretty bad when you can't even get the word or the concept right but act as if you have some right to use it in that manner.

A mature, responsible Christian will not use the word Karma in the manner you do.

Sorry but I do and it's very easy to be clear and specific and to use that word without confusion. Nobody ever had a conversation with me and thought I believed in the blue guy. I think you realize that you could also have the conversation and be clear....it actually takes about one extra sentence, and wasn't really necessary anyway.

If you have issues with the word, than as with people that had issues with meat sacrificed to idols you shouldn't use it, same would apply to the Christmas comparison. But that's your issue. Most people can use the word AND keep a sensible perspective about it and not attach power to it that doesn't really exist. You seem to be applying to many of your own fears onto others.

What do you think would really happen to Christianity if all Christians started using "karma" as the word to describe "what goes around comes around", applying the principle to God where it originates from, and rejecting all the reincarnation stuff? I see it as a threat to the false religion, NOT Christianity.

Edited July 21, 2008 by seekeratthesea

[nebula]

Because of WRONG association.

The notion of good begets good is genuine, applying it to a false god is wrong.

First of all, Buddhism is not a false god - it is a complex system. Buddha isn't even considered a god.

I had a friend who was into Buddhism, and I can just imagine a conversation between you and her over this. She would have been in 100% agreement with you - and still 100% lost in sin and separated from Jesus. She thought all religions worshiped the same God, they just had different ways to worship Him.

She also believed that God was an impersonal force, not a personal Being (I AM).

How would your "God is Karma" theology have witnessed to her and testified to Jesus?

Secondly, I bring up again:

There is no grace nor mercy in karma. Karma leaves no room for repentance and forgiveness.

Although "reaping and sowing" is a Biblical principle, it isn't the center of the Gospel. Reaping and sowing is an application of the Lord's discipline - which is meant to lead us to repentance. But it is not an extension of the battle of good versus evil - which Karma is based upon.

The knowledge of good and evil is the forbidden fruit. But this is what the yin-yang, Karma balance is founded upon.

A viceroy butterfly may look like a monarch butterfly, but it isn't.

Karma may look like reaping and sowing, but it is a corruption of the truth.

Using the word "karma" without wrongly associating it with a false god is no more wrong than using Dec 25 as a celebration day for Christ's birth.

No . . . to blame consequences on karma is to believe in a legalistic "God" - not the God who's love and mercy extend beyond the reaches of the world, or a God of righteousness and justice who desires all men to come to repentance. Karma is the "Go directly to jail, do not pass Go, do not collect $200" system.

The God we know is above all that.

It is sad to me you do not understand the difference.

[nebula]

..........they just don't care to get to know the blue guy god or credit him with the notion of karma.

The concept of karma doesn't come from some blue guy god. Karma actually originates with the Hindi religion - which is known for absorbing all gods and beliefs into whatever system people like.

The idea of what goes around comes around is not pagan, it's real, applying it to a false god is pagan. But using the word "karma" doesn't mean you're applying it that way. Trust me...........I've used the word without applying it a a false god....it really CAN be done. The word has no power but it's possible to give it power by treating it as some type of threat. It's just a word.

Just a word? And who or what is the power behind karma?

I don't supply the meaning....people already understand the word as generally meaning what the original poster said it meant in his/her "nutshell" definition. And when I have used the word, I've been clear about applying to the true God.

But in reading the Bible, you should see that the LORD can't be bound by such a nutshell. He isn't that legalistic.

David knew this. Taht is how he could have boldness to cry for God's mercy after his sin.

A karma god would have been unapproachable.

Rather than run from the karma, just put the principle into the correct context. If you feel the need to discredit the little micro details, then do that also. Just don't get phobic about the word.

Then call it by the Biblical concept, not the false.

What do you think would really happen to Christianity if all Christians started using "karma" as the word to describe "what goes around comes around", applying the principle to God where it originates from, and rejecting all the reincarnation stuff? I see it as a threat to the false religion, NOT Christianity.

First, the principle is:

7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. 8 For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life. (Gal. 6)

Karma is whatever you want to make it to be. (Classic Hinduism).

And "what goes around comes around" implies that you will be given what you have dished. But the principle of reaping and sowing doesn't work like that. The former implies a backlash; the latter implies far reaching consequences that can be much more subtle and far more outreaching.

Karma is not God's principle but a corruption of God's principle.

I pray one day you can understand this.

[seekeratthesea]

..........they just don't care to get to know the blue guy god or credit him with the notion of karma.

The concept of karma doesn't come from some blue guy god. Karma actually originates with the Hindi religion - which is known for absorbing all gods and beliefs into whatever system people like.

The idea of what goes around comes around is not pagan, it's real, applying it to a false god is pagan. But using the word "karma" doesn't mean you're applying it that way. Trust me...........I've used the word without applying it a a false god....it really CAN be done. The word has no power but it's possible to give it power by treating it as some type of threat. It's just a word.

Just a word? And who or what is the power behind karma?

I don't supply the meaning....people already understand the word as generally meaning what the original poster said it meant in his/her "nutshell" definition. And when I have used the word, I've been clear about applying to the true God.

But in reading the Bible, you should see that the LORD can't be bound by such a nutshell. He isn't that legalistic.

David knew this. Taht is how he could have boldness to cry for God's mercy after his sin.

A karma god would have been unapproachable.

Rather than run from the karma, just put the principle into the correct context. If you feel the need to discredit the little micro details, then do that also. Just don't get phobic about the word.

Then call it by the Biblical concept, not the false.

What do you think would really happen to Christianity if all Christians started using "karma" as the word to describe "what goes around comes around", applying the principle to God where it originates from, and rejecting all the reincarnation stuff? I see it as a threat to the false religion, NOT Christianity.

First, the principle is:

7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. 8 For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life. (Gal. 6)

Karma is whatever you want to make it to be. (Classic Hinduism).

And "what goes around comes around" implies that you will be given what you have dished. But the principle of reaping and sowing doesn't work like that. The former implies a backlash; the latter implies far reaching consequences that can be much more subtle and far more outreaching.

Karma is not God's principle but a corruption of God's principle.

I pray one day you can understand this.

Point remains the same, feel free to take out "blue guy god" and insert "hindu guy god"

There is no power behind karma...it's a word that in common usage means what the original poster defined it as "what goes around comes around".....that's the usage I'm using even though it may be a slang type definition, and despite the fact that eastern religions also use the word. Relax.........the word has no power....it's not magic

I didn't say God could be bound in a nutshell and the fact that I used the phrase "nutshell definition" doesn't mean that either.

There is no karma god and therefore approachability isn't even an issue...this is something else that a Christian shouldn't need explained to them.

I didn't say God could be mocked and you didn't answer the question so here it is again...I'd really like to know your answer because I think this is all about word-paranoia and a wrong belief that Christianity is some fragile house of cards that's going to fall apart as soon as it bumps into something wrong, when in truth, greater faith should be telling all Christians to welcome this stuff as a means of explaining how all things come under Gods power...... so here's the question again.

What do you think would really happen to Christianity if all Christians started using "karma" as the word to describe "what goes around comes around", applying the principle to God where it originates from, and rejecting all the reincarnation stuff? I see it as a threat to the false religion, NOT Christianity.

And "what goes around comes around" does not necessarily imply a backlash and BOTH can have far reaching consequences or short reaching circumstances, depending on different situations and behaviors.

It is not possible to corrupt any of God's principles.........God, His principles, and Christianity are stronger than you can imagine and grow even more so when tested.......I hope you can find a stronger faith because Christianity deserves it.

Edited July 21, 2008 by seekeratthesea

[seekeratthesea]

Because of WRONG association.

The notion of good begets good is genuine, applying it to a false god is wrong.

First of all, Buddhism is not a false god - it is a complex system. Buddha isn't even considered a god.

I had a friend who was into Buddhism, and I can just imagine a conversation between you and her over this. She would have been in 100% agreement with you - and still 100% lost in sin and separated from Jesus. She thought all religions worshiped the same God, they just had different ways to worship Him.

She also believed that God was an impersonal force, not a personal Being (I AM).

How would your "God is Karma" theology have witnessed to her and testified to Jesus?

Secondly, I bring up again:

There is no grace nor mercy in karma. Karma leaves no room for repentance and forgiveness.

Although "reaping and sowing" is a Biblical principle, it isn't the center of the Gospel. Reaping and sowing is an application of the Lord's discipline - which is meant to lead us to repentance. But it is not an extension of the battle of good versus evil - which Karma is based upon.

The knowledge of good and evil is the forbidden fruit. But this is what the yin-yang, Karma balance is founded upon.

A viceroy butterfly may look like a monarch butterfly, but it isn't.

Karma may look like reaping and sowing, but it is a corruption of the truth.

Using the word "karma" without wrongly associating it with a false god is no more wrong than using Dec 25 as a celebration day for Christ's birth.

No . . . to blame consequences on karma is to believe in a legalistic "God" - not the God who's love and mercy extend beyond the reaches of the world, or a God of righteousness and justice who desires all men to come to repentance. Karma is the "Go directly to jail, do not pass Go, do not collect $200" system.

The God we know is above all that.

It is sad to me you do not understand the difference.

I didn't say God is Karma. I don't know your friend but given the way you're misrepresenting me and assigning things to me that I never said.........I suspect you may well be doing the same thing with this "friend"

I also didn't say there was grace or mercy in karma, that's another untrue implication, it's at the point of making things up to have arguments about.

And using the word karma is not associating it with anything as long as you're clear about what you mean by the word, as was done by the original poster and has also been done by me.

[nebula]

What do you think would really happen to Christianity if all Christians started using "karma" as the word to describe "what goes around comes around", applying the principle to God where it originates from, and rejecting all the reincarnation stuff? I see it as a threat to the false religion, NOT Christianity.

What happened to Israel when they built a golden calf and claimed it was God?

What opinion did the Lord have of the High Places of worship, even though people worshiped Him there?

What if a Christian were to use the Wiccan phrases "Blessed be" and "Merry meet" - after all, aren't we to bless each other?

It is not possible to corrupt any of God's principles.........God, His principles, and Christianity are stronger than you can imagine and grow even more so when tested.......I hope you can find a stronger faith because Christianity deserves it.

The most dangerous enemy is not the one you can see, but the one you can't see.

If you are not sensitive to how good the enemy is at deception, you are that much more vulnerable to be snared.

"A fly ruins the ointment" - that's a verse in Proverbs. Take God's principle and add a little lie to it - and the principle becomes corrupted. Satan does this all the time.

When we look for God's truth in other sources, we need to filter it through the entire Word and sift out the lies.

"What goes around comes around" is not the Biblical principle. It may sound similar, but it still is not the principle of reaping and sowing.

And it is unScriptural to claim words do not have power. After all, it was through spoken words that God created the universe and the world. Moses was told to speak to the rock (and was punished for not doing so). Several prophets were commanded to speak words of prophecy in order for them to take place. Jesus often spoke specific words when healing and performing other miracles.

Jesus spoke the written Scriptures to rebuke Satan - not another religion's concept of the principle.

[nebula]

I didn't say God is Karma. I don't know your friend but given the way you're misrepresenting me and assigning things to me that I never said.........I suspect you may well be doing the same thing with this "friend"

What is with putting "friend" in quotes?

If she was still alive, she wouldn't appreciate this either.

That was a bad play you made with this retort. You want to attack me - fine. But don't attack my friendship with her. You have no clue what we have been through together. No clue at all.

~~~

As for my friend, she understood what karma is. After all, it was an element of her belief system.

And no, you didn't say, "God is Karma;" however, karma in the religion it comes from is regarded as if it were a diety - perhaps not expressed as such, but the people fear it as if it were. This is what I meant.

Sure you think it is OK to use the word "karma" as you see fit, but if you ever went on a mission trip to India and spoke of karma, you would be opening the door to a world of hurt.

I also didn't say there was grace or mercy in karma, that's another untrue implication, it's at the point of making things up to have arguments about.

No, you didn't. But this is the nature of karma.

And using the word karma is not associating it with anything as long as you're clear about what you mean by the word, as was done by the original poster and has also been done by me.

I highly disagree with this belief.

If I were to visit my relatives down South, and while there I asked for a Coke, and the person handed me a Sprite (for down South, they call all soft drinks "Coke"), I would have a problem with this. I asked for Coke; I expect Coka-cola, not Sprite. I don't care if it is "all Coke" to them, it is not "all Coke" to me. And I refuse to accept calling a Sprite a Coke just to make them happy.

In the same way, there is no way that I can accept karma outside of its origins and the context for which the Hindis and Buddhist believe and understand it to be. And if you speak with one of them, they won't either.

As for the OP:

Well as we all know Karma in a nutshell is "What goes around comes around" and what we also know is most Christians disagree with this theory (Im NOT one).

The OP made a claim that "we all know Karma in a nutshell is 'What goes around comes around'" - but this is false. This is an opinion, not a fact. And we all do not ascribe to this.

I personally believe Christians believe in it too, just they don't call it Karma. I may be reading it wrong or such, if I am.. tell me.

The OP is then asking if we agree or disagree.

In what I have posted to you, I have been answering his appeal. In my case, I disagree.

Heres one;

Luke 6:378, "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged : Condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.

Sounds alot like what goes around comes around, or what you do to others will be done to you.

Perhaps it does. But this is not what true karma is.

That is all I am saying.

[seekeratthesea]

I didn't say God is Karma. I don't know your friend but given the way you're misrepresenting me and assigning things to me that I never said.........I suspect you may well be doing the same thing with this "friend"

What is with putting "friend" in quotes?

If she was still alive, she wouldn't appreciate this either.

That was a bad play you made with this retort. You want to attack me - fine. But don't attack my friendship with her. You have no clue what we have been through together. No clue at all.

~~~

As for my friend, she understood what karma is. After all, it was an element of her belief system.

And no, you didn't say, "God is Karma;" however, karma in the religion it comes from is regarded as if it were a diety - perhaps not expressed as such, but the people fear it as if it were. This is what I meant.

Sure you think it is OK to use the word "karma" as you see fit, but if you ever went on a mission trip to India and spoke of karma, you would be opening the door to a world of hurt.

I also didn't say there was grace or mercy in karma, that's another untrue implication, it's at the point of making things up to have arguments about.

No, you didn't. But this is the nature of karma.

And using the word karma is not associating it with anything as long as you're clear about what you mean by the word, as was done by the original poster and has also been done by me.

I highly disagree with this belief.

If I were to visit my relatives down South, and while there I asked for a Coke, and the person handed me a Sprite (for down South, they call all soft drinks "Coke"), I would have a problem with this. I asked for Coke; I expect Coka-cola, not Sprite. I don't care if it is "all Coke" to them, it is not "all Coke" to me. And I refuse to accept calling a Sprite a Coke just to make them happy.

In the same way, there is no way that I can accept karma outside of its origins and the context for which the Hindis and Buddhist believe and understand it to be. And if you speak with one of them, they won't either.

As for the OP:

Well as we all know Karma in a nutshell is "What goes around comes around" and what we also know is most Christians disagree with this theory (Im NOT one).

The OP made a claim that "we all know Karma in a nutshell is 'What goes around comes around'" - but this is false. This is an opinion, not a fact. And we all do not ascribe to this.

I personally believe Christians believe in it too, just they don't call it Karma. I may be reading it wrong or such, if I am.. tell me.

The OP is then asking if we agree or disagree.

In what I have posted to you, I have been answering his appeal. In my case, I disagree.

Heres one;

Luke 6:378, "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged : Condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.

Sounds alot like what goes around comes around, or what you do to others will be done to you.

Perhaps it does. But this is not what true karma is.

That is all I am saying.

You also know that I wasn't talking about karma as a deity so that's not an excuse to the God karma comment. It's been explained more than once in this thread that I'm using the definition that in the OP. That whole phrase is your term...all of it, not mine.

You also know that I wasn't speaking of it terms of going to India for a conversation about it and if I were, the definition in the opening post wouldn't apply anyway. You're actually creating things to argue about here that weren't said or implied.

And I wasn't talking about you accepting karma either. It's been clear in my own posts that I don't accept it myself, I just don't get phobic about applying the word to the "what goes around comes around" notion with the understanding that in reality it comes from God since he's the obvious creator of everything.

Twice so far I