• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Square Pegs, Round Holes

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
I'm a Christian Quaker what do you expect?Quakerism is a very experiential and non-doctrine non-creedial religion with a focus on the inner Light..Also in regards to whether or not I'm a Christian...I consider myself one but personally it depends on your definition of Christianity...You might not consider me one.

I'm curious about inner light for Quakers now. Is this metaphorical or real? I think maybe I'll start a new thread.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
God lives with us to guide us in our lives if we follow dharma, so of course some people are hardwired for God and cannot let go.

A careful dissection of the research indicates too many flaws to draw any meaningful conclusions. Calling something 'hardwired' concerning our nature, nor the nature of life is not a good way to describe life. If anything humans are 'hardwired' to survive and evolve, just as all life on earth.
 

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
Why should anyone follow dharma?
Dharma means doing what is ones duty to oneself (swadharma) in terms of righteous and considered actions: anything one does comes under dharma. The reason to put dharma into the heart of religion is that it protects the individual, in other words, saves the individual from evil. It is said that Jata dharma tata Jaya. In other words where there is dharma there is victory.
 

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
A careful dissection of the research indicates too many flaws to draw any meaningful conclusions. Calling something 'hardwired' concerning our nature, nor the nature of life is not a good way to describe life. If anything humans are 'hardwired' to survive and evolve, just as all life on earth.
I agree that humans are hardwired to survive but in Nature there is conflict because humans have different gunas or attributes: some are good, others routinal and still others evil. If one is of sattvic nature (basically good well meaning individual) one can be persecuted and terrorised by those who are evil (tamasic). They need God's help to survive the persecution. This is done through surrender to God who then guides the individual persecuted into the actions that he needs to perform to thwart evil. It is those of sattvic nature who are hardwired to God because they readily surrender to God.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I agree that humans are hardwired to survive but in Nature there is conflict because humans have different gunas or attributes: some are good, others routinal and still others evil. If one is of sattvic nature (basically good well meaning individual) one can be persecuted and terrorised by those who are evil (tamasic). They need God's help to survive the persecution. This is done through surrender to God who then guides the individual persecuted into the actions that he needs to perform to thwart evil. It is those of sattvic nature who are hardwired to God because they readily surrender to God.

This remains a belief in God and our relationship with God from your cultural perspective, and like the conclusions presented for the research anecdotal and subjective.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Why should anyone follow dharma?

. . . because they believe in dharma, which is the same reason yo follow what you call your view of Jehovah. Do you have any more justification in your claim of following Jehovah than the one who follows what they call dharma.
 

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
This remains a belief in God and our relationship with God from your cultural perspective, and like the conclusions presented for the research anecdotal and subjective.
My theory has nothing to do with cultural perspective but is a fact borne out by extensive investigations on the nature of reality.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Happily! Here you go :)

Not to me. To them.

You said people are deluded when they feel or see the existence of things against all evidence of the contrary. Since I make the assumption that you believe that your God has evidence, while things like Ganesh do not, then this entail that Ganesh has strong evidence of not existing. Ergo, its believers are back to be deluded. Right?

Ciao

- viole
 

Maximilian

Energetic proclaimer of Jehovah God's Kingdom.
. . . because they believe in dharma, which is the same reason yo follow what you call your view of Jehovah. Do you have any more justification in your claim of following Jehovah than the one who follows what they call dharma.

Of course, concrete evidence for Jehovah God's existence as the Almighty Creator of all reality.
 

Maximilian

Energetic proclaimer of Jehovah God's Kingdom.
Not to me. To them.

You said people are deluded when they feel or see the existence of things against all evidence of the contrary. Since I make the assumption that you believe that your God has evidence, while things like Ganesh do not, then this entail that Ganesh has strong evidence of not existing. Ergo, its believers are back to be deluded. Right?

Ciao

- viole

If and only if they refuse to accept concrete evidence for Ganesh's non-existence. Otherwise they're simply uninformed, misled or misinformed.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
If and only if they refuse to accept concrete evidence for Ganesh's non-existence. Otherwise they're simply uninformed, misled or misinformed.

Have you tried? My Hindu friend was very insisting that Ganesh exists, despite all the evidence I showed him of Jesus and such. That was at the time I believed that stuff.

So, deluded. Right? Like about 1 billion of people. Just in India.

Right?

Ciao

- viole
 

GoodbyeDave

Well-Known Member
The problem is so often not that people disagree about interpreting the evidence, but that they can't agree on what constitutes evidence. I believe that Hephaistos exists because I've met him. I believe that Ganesha exists because many other people have met him. I'm prepared to admit that people have met Yahweh, but I know of no evidence that he created the universe.
 
Top