Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Interesting. For what it's worth, that's a strange paraphrase of John 1:18.John 1:18
No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.
but is it a problem; if man is the image/personification of God?That's a strange paraphrase of John 1:18.
The text of the original says:
θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε [;]
God no-one has-seen ever-yet;
μονογενὴς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς
only-son who is in the bosom of . father
ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο
that has-explained.
Texts that add θεὸς after μονογενὴς (so reading 'only-son god') represent a later theology in which Jesus is being declared a god; so the extra word is a later Trinitarian gloss.
I see the Abrahamic god as made in man's image; and as society has grown more sophisticated, so there's been a retreat from this beginning ─ first from being a member of the Canaanite pantheon to a monogod to a modern god defined largely by what [he]'s not, and no statement of what [he] actually is, on offer.but is it a problem; if man is the image/personification of God?
I see the Abrahamic god as made in man's image; and as society has grown more sophisticated, so there's been a retreat from this beginning ─ first from being a member of the Canaanite pantheon to a monogod to a modern god defined largely by what [he]'s not, and no statement of what [he] actually is, on offer.
Which means that if one engages in introspection, one may find identity between one's self and one's concept of God, but only because one wants to interpret the experience that way ─ an option available to some if they want it.
That seems enormously exaggerated to me. Self-consciousness can lead to social awkwardness, and being divided from one's emotional support can require adjustment and rebalancing, but those are familiar phenomena that don't alter the cosmos."when one becomes self-conscious, or feels divided from something then man falls like adam and eve, like peter trying to walk on the water."
What's 'the universal mind'? If it's universal, why do we need cell phones?when we become aware of self as an aspect of the whole, we raise the kundalini like buddha and the universal mind
Since there are only two ways for things to happen, as an aspect of our physical mental processes, and as an aspect of objective reality, that doesn't look like an accurate statement about reality.if we believe that it can only happen through another as factual and historical truth, we are forever incapable of realizing it for self.
Then either no one has ever believed, or that statement is wrong too."'If you can'?" said Jesus. "Everything is possible for one who believes."
In the East, it is common for people to know and acknowledge those who have realized God. Rumi, Shams, Kabir, Ramakrishna, Milarepa and many others are on that list.
In the Bible, as far as I know only Matthew 5:48 expresses this idea of people becoming God - realizing the state of the "Father":
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your
Father which is in heaven is perfect.
That seems enormously exaggerated to me. Self-consciousness can lead to social awkwardness, and being divided from one's emotional support can require adjustment and rebalancing, but those are familiar phenomena that don't alter the cosmos.
What's 'the universal mind'? If it's universal, why do we need cell phones?
I take it the single wave is the individual and the ocean is the sum of individuals? While we have such phenomena as crowd behavior, social conformity and so on, there is no equivalent of a single entity, the overarching 'sum of all individuals'.The worldviews of a single wave and an ocean are not same.
Assumed? I can demonstrate separateness to you if you wish.Because we have assumed separateness.
I take it the single wave is the individual and the ocean is the sum of individuals? While we have such phenomena as crowd behavior, social conformity and so on, there is no equivalent of a single entity, the overarching 'sum of all individuals'.
Assumed? I can demonstrate separateness to you if you wish.
A wave knows nothing.How would a wave know the ocean?
Then how is it relevant to assert that we have 'assumed separateness'?Waves are separate. That can be demonstrated. No big deal.
low self-esteem in relation to other can lead to passive-aggressive behavior.That seems enormously exaggerated to me. Self-consciousness can lead to social awkwardness, and being divided from one's emotional support can require adjustment and rebalancing, but those are familiar phenomena that don't alter the cosmos.
Infinite IntelligenceWhat's 'the universal mind'? If it's universal, why do we need cell phones?
either the belief is assimilated and practiced, or realized; otherwise it's just a tree bearing no fruit, or salt that has lost it's saltiness.Since there are only two ways for things to happen, as an aspect of our physical mental processes, and as an aspect of objective reality, that doesn't look like an accurate statement about reality.
there are people who believed they were christ, god, buddha.Then either no one has ever believed, or that statement is wrong too.
Vedantic saying is: The knower of Brahman becomes Brahman.
...
The problem, I think, is that many begin to claim to have become Brahman, without qualifying. But at another level, at the essence level, there is only Brahman.
A wave knows nothing.
A human knows some things by instinct, and the rest by sensory input.
Then how is it relevant to assert that we have 'assumed separateness'?
Thank you for the great pointer from Rig Veda Book 1.
That exists only in the imagination. It's not found in reality.Infinite Intelligence
I'm skeptical of many things, and the notion of 'information' as something different to 'data' is one of them.no-hiding theorem - information cannot be created or destroyed, it's simply transferred at the quantum level
The owners of shares in Apple, Samsung, Lenovo and Huawei are solid in disagreeing.people don't 'need' cell phones. people need mindfulness
And in my view not a helpful one. If I wish to make a clear statement, I make it as well as I can, and use metaphors only for backup.Ocean-waves model is a metaphor.
You say you understand separateness, and at the same time you assert it doesn't exist.Replace 'assumed' by 'ignorant notion' if you wish. Or replace 'assumed' by 'apparent'.