Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Non-sequitur. If God is the composite of all that exists, then the consciousness of each individual is part of the consciousness of God and their experiences and relationship with the concept of God are also. Our subjective experiences of God may, in fact, be the ONLY real "things" that exist. The materialists who like to claim our conscious Self is an illusion may have it backward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash
Sorry , but no . If God is real, then God is an objective being . And if as an objective being it has things it wishes us to know and do, and it had the ability to communicate with some who are able to reach it through meditation, then this one objectively existing God would teach the same things to all people . There might be some slight differences based on cultural bias , but not the total disarray we see from various meditatives reporting totally different experiences with the same God , or in the case of Buddhists and some secular non dualists, no God at all.
To put it in human terms, while 3 witnesses to a hit and run accident might have varying stories depending upon vantage points , they will be slight differences around a central truth . You might see claims of a young woman in a red Camaro, a middle aged woman in a red Mustang , you won't have one person claiming the hit and run driver was a small older Asian woman driving a red Camaro while a second says it was a tall young black man driving a stretch limo, while a third insists it was a fat white guy in a white Chevy pickup .
Which is what we have with the various claims from meditatives around the world and in various traditions .
You are focusing on the wrong things. The central experience from meditatives is of "Oneness" of all things. The interpretations of those experiences and their implications, etc. vary greatly but not that central truth. The central expectation of the myriad religious interpretations is of the need for self-control. The specifics vary greatly but not that central truth. You are confusing the forest for the trees.
Thor certainly has some street cred for being the Almighty:
Oh now Thor has nothing to do with Jesus. I take things seriously but I have great latitude on expression.
Believing in God is not archaic
It doesn't make one naive
Many smarter than all of us believe in a God
The mocking, while comical and appreciative can be as bad as the sinful damnation. Again, at 12 I knew there was no God. Out of straight science, for many years I equated humanity to cancer. I was wrong.
There may be a God. There may not. I have faith there is from my experience. Whether another believes that or not is irrelevant. They are free to choose.
God to me is love, forgiveness, and acceptance. And note: forgiviveness isn't the sons of 'the bible'. It's how we treat fellow humans... And our 4 legged companions
God to me is love, forgiveness, and acceptance. And note: forgiviveness isn't the sons of 'the bible'. It's how we treat fellow humans... And our 4 legged companions
Right on. (Especially the part about our 4-legged companions. )
You are focusing on the wrong things. The central experience from meditatives is of "Oneness" of all things. The interpretations of those experiences and their implications, etc. vary greatly but not that central truth. The central expectation of the myriad religious interpretations is of the need for self-control. The specifics vary greatly but not that central truth. You are confusing the forest for the trees.
Actually no. You wish to brush over major differences and claims of experience with the focus on oneness. Eastern religions are big on oneness , or not twoness, but not so much the Christian ones . There are exceptions like Bernadette Roberts and Meister Eckhart, but generally in the western religions God is God and we are not . Even Eastern Orthodoxy, which stresses union with God more than any other Christian faith and for which theosis is a major doctrine, maintains the separation between God and the human gods by grace .Natural pantheism vs supernatural transcendent theism are serious differences , yet each meditative believes his experience to reveal the true nature of God . You vigorously debate traditional theists because you don't accept the supernatural . They are just as convinced you have gone off the rails by denying the supernaturalness of God . The difference between the Sacred Heart of Jesus and Catholic mystics perceiving themselves as Brides of the Son of God , the Second Person of the Trinity, and Hindus believing that God manifests itself as Ganesh , the elephant headed God, are MILES apart , and doctrinally unresolvable . God cannot reveal itself both as the Savior of the World who is actually the second person of the Trinity, and who must be believed in just the proper way , and also genuinely reveal itself to Hindu contemplative as one of the main but lesser gods of the Hindu pantheon who doesn't require monotheistic devotion to one God and His Only Begotten Son .
And why doesn't God reveal itself to these pesky Buddhists who simply get no visions of God at all , despite likely being the deepest and most devoted meditatives on Earth?
It's not a non sequitur , that is a cheap way of avoiding the problematic points . And it's not not seeing the forest for the trees . The trees are different . You wish to have a forest of pecan, maple, birch, pine, elm , and oak, and pretend they all come from the same root . They do not .
Last edited by wallflash; 07-01-2016 at 07:38 PM..
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,925,051 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stymie13
Oh now Thor has nothing to do with Jesus. I take things seriously but I have great latitude on expression.
Believing in God is not archaic
It doesn't make one naive
Many smarter than all of us believe in a God
The mocking, while comical and appreciative can be as bad as the sinful damnation. Again, at 12 I knew there was no God. Out of straight science, for many years I equated humanity to cancer. I was wrong.
There may be a God. There may not. I have faith there is from my experience. Whether another believes that or not is irrelevant. They are free to choose.
God to me is love, forgiveness, and acceptance. And note: forgiviveness isn't the sons of 'the bible'. It's how we treat fellow humans... And our 4 legged companions
Does one really need a god to have love, forgiveness, kindness and acceptance? What is it about an external, invisible, unknowable, omnipotent and omniscient entity that is required to be adulated to have the human qualities you describe?
There is no need, and to evolve a faith around such an entity does not enhance being loving, forgiving, kind and accepting. In fact, if one follows the creed of many of the religions that have evolved, and in particular the Abrahamic ones, good arguments can be made that those religions in fact do the exact opposite, and foster hate, retribution, rejection and discrimination, and acrimony. Most will, outside of a theological perspective, agree that those are not positive attributes, yet as soon as their theological hat is put on, cast the humanist perspectives aside, and in fact justify and promote those negatives.
It is that reality that many of us have little use for religion, and in fact, actively rail and lobby against it. It is only through reason that faith can be mitigated against, and all the negative attributes faith is comprised of. Yes, we are well aware that faith and various religions promote positives also, however, it is only humanist philosophies that do not also promote the negative.
Although I guess that does suggest a higher standard for one's ox than for one's slave.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3
Does one really need a god to have love, forgiveness, kindness and acceptance? What is it about an external, invisible, unknowable, omnipotent and omniscient entity that is required to be adulated to have the human qualities you describe?
There is no need, and to evolve a faith around such an entity does not enhance being loving, forgiving, kind and accepting. In fact, if one follows the creed of many of the religions that have evolved, and in particular the Abrahamic ones, good arguments can be made that those religions in fact do the exact opposite, and foster hate, retribution, rejection and discrimination, and acrimony. Most will, outside of a theological perspective, agree that those are not positive attributes, yet as soon as their theological hat is put on, cast the humanist perspectives aside, and in fact justify and promote those negatives.
It is that reality that many of us have little use for religion, and in fact, actively rail and lobby against it. It is only through reason that faith can be mitigated against, and all the negative attributes faith is comprised of. Yes, we are well aware that faith and various religions promote positives also, however, it is only humanist philosophies that do not also promote the negative.
Not at all. One can have love, compassion, and forgiveness and not believe in God.
To me, that's what embodies God and Jesus' teachings. Equifinality is something I hold dear. Many paths. I also don't believe God needs adoration, worship, and sacrifice. Rituals and adherence don't make a human 'good'. How we treat our fellow humans, animals, the environment... That's what defines us.
'Sin', to me, is not something solely outlined by the bible. Sin is knowingly committing heinous acts against 'life', mostly on things the vast majority would agree. I 'can' judge sin by the legal code of man. I can't judge sin in the metaphysical context of God.
Actually no. You wish to brush over major differences and claims of experience with the focus on oneness. Eastern religions are big on oneness , or not twoness, but not so much the Christian ones . There are exceptions like Bernadette Roberts and Meister Eckhart, but generally in the western religions God is God and we are not . Even Eastern Orthodoxy, which stresses union with God more than any other Christian faith and for which theosis is a major doctrine, maintains the separation between God and the human gods by grace .Natural pantheism vs supernatural transcendent theism are serious differences , yet each meditative believes his experience to reveal the true nature of God . You vigorously debate traditional theists because you don't accept the supernatural . They are just as convinced you have gone off the rails by denying the supernaturalness of God . The difference between the Sacred Heart of Jesus and Catholic mystics perceiving themselves as Brides of the Son of God , the Second Person of the Trinity, and Hindus believing that God manifests itself as Ganesh , the elephant headed God, are MILES apart , and doctrinally unresolvable . God cannot reveal itself both as the Savior of the World who is actually the second person of the Trinity, and who must be believed in just the proper way , and also genuinely reveal itself to Hindu contemplative as one of the main but lesser gods of the Hindu pantheon who doesn't require monotheistic devotion to one God and His Only Begotten Son .
And why doesn't God reveal itself to these pesky Buddhists who simply get no visions of God at all , despite likely being the deepest and most devoted meditatives on Earth?
It's not a non sequitur , that is a cheap way of avoiding the problematic points . And it's not not seeing the forest for the trees . The trees are different . You wish to have a forest of pecan, maple, birch, pine, elm , and oak, and pretend they all come from the same root . They do not .
Sooner of later you will find out that Mystic has devised an admirably cunning god -claim. He claims "God" as an undeniable fact, and he quotes the Bible (NT, as far as I can recall) as Evidence.
But you try to pin him down and you will find that the God of Mystic is Everything...but not actually Anything. So you have nothing to argue with.
And the NT is quoted as unquestionable truth..but just show it up and it becomes unreliable (at least) writing that he isn't obliged to stick up for, but is utterly true as a teaching metaphor by this "God".
A thoughtful response, but it doesn't really answer the question. People taking LSD, Peyote or similar stimulants have reported visions that moved them, but does that make them real?
You don't need to apply a materialistic definition to what you call LSD and people to say what's going on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
