Truth: either God exists or He don't.

[MonkeyFire]

Then He does.

But what if He doesn’t?

Then one would believe that he has no obligation to help human beings, you did kill his son btw. **** with him, and he will **** you back. He can't take your hand, unless you take His, but He reaches out.

 

[firedragon]

I hope it is not true what you say here, that would be a very negative attitude (getting pleasure mocking something the other is really serious about)

* Could it not be, that, because these big questions are still unresolved, they genuinely like to know the answer, but theists so far failed to explain it to them, in a way that made sense to them?

* Could it not be, that the mocking is not to get pleasure out of the mocking, but because theists in the past belittled their feelings by imposing their opinions as fact onto them?

Could it be? Anything "could be" mate. Spaghetti monsters, sky daddy's and flying teacups "could be".

 

[stvdv]

Could it be? Anything "could be" mate. Spaghetti monsters, sky daddy's and flying teacups "could be".

Thank you. Valuable feedback

I know. I don't mock people, and I take people serious. That is why it's difficult for me to believe that some mock the feelings of others

But the words you mention here, clearly are good examples that they mock theists. And this also shows their arrogance; hence best to avoid

 

[Samael_Khan]

Ah so god is male is it? No female partner? Very strange.

Technically the Bible considers believers as a group to be God's wife. That is why straying from the "true faith" is considered adultery. It seems that God being a male is for symbolic purposes, to emphasize the close relationship between God and his institution of believers. So for instance, Jesus is considered the Bridegroom and the congregation is his Bride.

 

[Samael_Khan]

The Bible doesn't just describe God; it also describes:

- what God has done,
- what God will do in the future,
- other characters besides God,
- what those other characters have done,
- what those other characters will do in the future.

Getting any part of those right doesn't automatically mean that they got any other part right.

The way that we might establish that the Bible - or rather, @capumetu 's particular interpretation of the JW translation of the Bible - as reliable would be through justification.

As the saying goes, a stopped clock is right twice a day. Sometimes, unjustified guesses end up being coincidentally correct. But the fact that someone made a coincidentally correct guess doesn't mean that you ought to follow their advice for anything else.

The OP asked us to consider the possibility that (his particular version of) God is real. By itself, that has no bearing on whether someone ought to follow his religion. Unless that religion is justified, it would be unreliable and worthless whether or not it was right about God.

I fully agree with you here. What tends to happen is that people see evidence of or or are convinced of a few things in the Bible (or any other religious text) and then jump to the conclusion that there is truth here and that everything is true. How they are convinced of the rest is often through mental gymnastics and logical fallacies. The biggest problem here is that they will fall head first into the religion based on a few things they see as true, and then become trapped when they see something in their book which contradicts their beliefs or reality. I have been there myself. Not a good reason to join a religion.

That wasn't my point, but I appreciate the effort.

OK. Then I misunderstood you.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I like this one. Never go easy on claims others make about God, and therefore impose these them on you, unless they give you proper proof


For myself it makes no sense that "If the Biblical God is true then everything in the Bible is true". But you talk about JW specifically here, so I guess that JW believe that "If the Biblical God is true then everything in the Bible is true"

And for me if "90% of what the Bible says about God is true, then the true God can still be the God spoken of in the Bible". But again, because you speak about JW specifically here, I guess that the JW believe in this way.

So for me, I separate whether the book would be referring to an actual god and whether everything it says about a god is true. For instance I can tell others about you, and you exist, I am speaking about an actual person. But then I will tell others things about you that probably aren't true. That provides a false image of who you are. So the one addresses an existing being as an object, while the other addresses a that being's character, actions etc, which are all that being too. We are our personality, our history, our actions. So in the latter sense I would say that if they get things wrong about that god, that god isn't true.

 

[stvdv]

Technically the Bible considers believers as a group to be God's wife. That is why straying from the "true faith" is considered adultery. It seems that God being a make is for symbolic purpose, to emphasize the close relationship between God and his institution of believers. So for instance, Jesus is considered the Bridegroom and the congregation is his Bride.

My Master in India said something similar. God is male, and all humans are female. There is 1 Religion, the Religion of Love. Don't stray from "true Faith", meaning don't stray from "Love". God indeed is symbolic for "Love". We are all God's children, meaning we all have this "Love" capacity in us. All are sparks of the Divine.

Hence male/female discrimination seems foolish to me. As well as any other discrimination. As well as "My way is the highway for all, except when highway = Love".

"Love" is the Bridegroom and humanity is His Bride

That is how I see it, in it's simplest form
@stvdvRF

 

[Samael_Khan]

My Master in India said something similar. God is male, and all humans are female. There is 1 Religion, the Religion of Love. Don't stray from "true Faith", meaning don't stray from "Love". God indeed is symbolic for "Love". We are all God's children, meaning we all have this "Love" capacity in us. All are sparks of the Divine.

Hence male/female discrimination seems foolish to me. As well as "My way is the highway for all, except when highway = Love"
"Love" is the Bridegroom and humanity is His Bride

That is how I see it, in it's simplest form

The more I learn about religions, the more I discover how similar they are.

It is interesting to see the common terminologies between what your master said and what Christianity teaches. Is this common Hindu thought?

God is male, humans/followers are female
God is love
Don't stray from the true faith/ Don't stray from God's love
Humans are children of God
We are all in God's image/ we all have the capacity to love

"All are sparks of the divine" though is the difference as Christianity doesn't state that.

And yes, female discrimination is foolish. Ironically, in the Bible, women tend to be more intelligent than men with more common sense. Men seem to be idiots.

 

[stvdv]

So for me, I separate whether the book would be referring to an actual god and whether everything it says about a god is true.

Thanks for the clarification. Now I understand you even better. But still I have no clue about "an actual true god" myself (not because of you, by the way)

For instance I can tell others about you, and you exist, I am speaking about an actual person. But then I will tell others things about you that probably aren't true. That provides a false image of who you are.

Hence I would call "trying to picture god, frame god in a fixed way" even blasphemy (sitting on god's chair)", though god won't mind it

So the one addresses an existing being as an object, while the other addresses a that being's character, actions etc, which are all that being too. We are our personality, our history, our actions.

I can't address god as an object. Whatever I attribute to god, says something about me (a fact). Maybe it says something about god (no fact, at best a belief)

So in the latter sense I would say that if they get things wrong about that god, that god isn't true.

Aha, very clear.

For me god is always true. My perception is always wrong.

Hence I rather avoid saying "that god isn't true", because that easily gives the wrong idea. I might say "that perception people have about god isn't true". So, that its' very clear that the "isn't true" part always is about the people, it says nothing about god. I think you meant something similar, just put it in different words "that god isn't true" (also correct IMO). As I see it, we both mean the same, only if others fail to read your word "that" the meaning changes immensely. How I phrase it, misunderstanding is less likely to happen. Also the short version, easily could be interpreted that you believe in multiple gods. I believe in one god, with multiple perceptions people have of that one god (hence my non-short description).

Thanks for sharing about this. By writing/sharing I get my own picture more clear, how I see things. Although I still have no clue about the true god
@stvdvRF

 

[stvdv]

The more I learn about religions, the more I discover how similar they are.

#MeToo

It is interesting to see the common terminologies between what your master said and what Christianity teaches. Is this common Hindu thought?

God is male, humans/followers are female
God is love
Don't stray from the true faith/ Don't stray from God's love
Humans are children of God
We are all in God's image/ we all have the capacity to love

Yes, that's what I love about my Master. He makes it One. He did not come to create a new Faith "you have plenty Religions to choose from, pick any, and continue till you reach your goal; all Religions are good for that, also if you choose Atheism or something else, then it's enough to 'Hurt Never, Help Ever' to reach the same goal". So, though born in India, he declares that His Teachings are meant for all humanity, adding Himself even "this is not just for Hindus"

"All are sparks of the divine" though is the difference as Christianity doesn't state that.

If one says "God the Father, and all are His children" then indirectly I read this as "God is Divine, so we are sparks (children) of Divine". So this one matches too

And yes, female discrimination is foolish. Ironically, in the Bible, women tend to be more intelligent than men with more common sense. Men seem to be idiots.

One other key similarity that matches. Ironically indeed. And my Master did not let men get away with it
Because he declared "Women have 7 of the 16 Divine qualities, men only have 4 of the Divine qualities"
So, we men can strike the word seem, according to Bible and what my Master teaches
@stvdvRF

 

[SalixIncendium]

It is interesting to see the common terminologies between what your master said and what Christianity teaches. Is this common Hindu thought?

God is male, humans/followers are female
God is love
Don't stray from the true faith/ Don't stray from God's love
Humans are children of God
We are all in God's image/ we all have the capacity to love

"All are sparks of the divine" though is the difference as Christianity doesn't state that.

"Common Hindu thought" isn't really that common. Hinduism is diverse, with many schools of philosophy and at least three yogic paths (jnana, bhakti, and karma). What @stvdv describes here his bhakti.

As one who identifies as Hindu, being a jnani, I disagree with much of this. For me...

"God" (I really dislike that term) is Nirguna Brahman, the highest principle, without qualities or attributes. Brahman is no deity, so in my flavor of Hinduism, "God" is not a deity.
"God" simply is.
There is no need for "faith." All of my views are evidence-based. There is a path to Self realization and to focus in stabilization in being what one is; Brahman. There is no concern about straying from the love of a deity.
Humans (and all else in transactional reality) are an appearance in/of Brahman.
Since Brahman is formless, we are not in "God's" image.

While @stvdv has every right to have the views of his master and still identify as Hindu, and while other Hindus probably have this view, as I demonstrate above, his view are most certainly not "common Hindu thought."

 

[stvdv]

"Common Hindu thought" isn't really that common. Hinduism is diverse, with many schools of philosophy and at least three yogic paths (jnana, bhakti, and karma). What @stvdv describes here his bhakti.

To be more precise, I would call my path ParaBhakti (click for more info)

Para bhakti is a Sanskrit term referring to devotion that transcends all worldly concerns and is pure, transparent and simple. It generally refers to devotion to the Divine, or God, and is a supreme state of love and respect. Para bhakti is considered pure, selfless and humble.

@stvdvRF

 

[SalixIncendium]

@Israel Khan, if you're genuinely interested in what Hindus have in common, here's a great thread on the topic: What makes a Hindu a Hindu - Version 2

 

[stvdv]

It is interesting to see the common terminologies between what your master said and what Christianity teaches. Is this common Hindu thought?

Shivananda, a well known and revered Indian Master explains jnana & devotion (Para Bhakti) in Hinduism beautiful; better than I can

Prahlada prays to Lord Hari from the bottom of his heart: "O Lord, in whatever birth I may pass, let me have unswerving devotion to Thy lotus-feet." The world needs today such devotees to disseminate Bhakti throughout the length and breadth of the land.

When the heart is purified, the mind is naturally turned towards God. The aspirant is attracted towards God. Eventually he is absorbed in the Lord, through pure love, self-surrender and worship. The Bhakta now becomes a cosmic entity. He has cosmic life. He has one continuous life. The individuality becomes a cosmic entity.

What is Jnana? To see threads in cloth, clay in pots and jars, gold in ornaments, iron in various kinds of implements, wood in chairs, benches and doors is Jnana. To see God or Atman in every living being and to feel that God is seated in your heart and in the hearts of all is Jnana (vasudevah sarvam iti). Bhakti, when it gets ripe, brings Jnana. When Bhakti gets matured, Jnana dawns by itself. The fruit of Ananya Bhakti is Jnana.
xxxxUpasana is of two kinds viz., Prateekopasana and Ahamgrahopasana. In the first kind, Prateeka or symbol is used for meditation. In the second kind, Prateeka or symbol is used for his very self as the object of meditation. The previous one is the Bhakta’s method. The latter one belongs to the non-dual Vedantins. One who has outgrown the first kind of Upasana is recommended to take up the higher Ahamgrahopasana wherein he meditates on his own Atman as his own pure Self.
xxxxJnana is the fruit of Bhakti. Bhakti destroys hatred, jealousy, lust, anger and greed, fills the heart with divine love and removes all barriers that separate man from man. When this is done the aspirant beholds oneness everywhere, realises unity of the Self, and experiences the cosmic vision which is beyond description.

Devotion to Atman is Bhakti, according to Advaita Vedanta. This is the highest Bhakti. This includes Prema Bhakti, Para Bhakti, Apara Bhakti. An Advaita Vedantin is a worshipper of Lord Siva, Hari, Rama, Krishna, Durga, Gayatri, Allah, Jehovah, etc. He is not a sectarian Bhakta. His heart is expanded ad infinitum.

Devotion to Atman is the highest form of Bhakti. This is known as "Paramarthika Bhakti". The Jnana Yogic student worships his own Self as Atman: "I am Sat-chit-ananda Akhanda Paripoorna Brahman". Is there any devotion greater than this?

Prahlada, the noble son of Hiranyakasipu meditated through his pure mind and enjoyed bliss in the supreme differenceless Nirvikalpa Samadhi. He seated himself statue-like in Nirvikalpa Samadhi for 5000 years.

@stvdvRF

 

[firedragon]

Thank you. Valuable feedback

I know. I don't mock people, and I take people serious. That is why it's difficult for me to believe that some mock the feelings of others

But the words you mention here, clearly are good examples that they mock theists. And this also shows their arrogance; hence best to avoid

Alright alright brother. I take that back. For your sincere thoughts.

 

[capumetu]

So you see no reason apart from God and (what you consider to be) his commandments to care about other people?

There is no doubt in my mind that Jehovah's way is best. When I was not a Christian I lived the satanic philosophy: "I say to you whoever smites you on the right cheek, smash him on the other, return to him fourfold, aye, a hundred fold"

Now I am living the command to do unto others as you would have them do to you, quite a difference. But you know what? Peace and happiness is a result. I like myself now, and have many more actual friends.

 

[stvdv]

Alright alright brother. I take that back. For your sincere thoughts.

I was happy with your previous reply. I needed your example of Flying Spagetti Monster to see that some indeed mock others. I was too naive.

 

[capumetu]

And what would you be losing out on if Thor exists?

Anything he has to offer, as I serve Jehovah exclusively.

 

[capumetu]

And i am sure he does not exist, there is no evidence either way just as there is no evidence for pink unicorns.

And pray tell how an innocent child can be so sinful as to be struck down dead with leukaemia? Who sinned so badly that a mosquito evolved to kill 10% of all humanity?

I perceive you have a very keen sense of justice maam, however it is misplaced. You didn't say how you would have reacted to the sin of Adam, you simply accused the wrong God. If you are going to place the blame on someone, place it accurately. Jehovah said not to eat of the tree, satan said be your own god.

 

[capumetu]

Yes, I know. But it could be that there is another God. Or, better, a goddess, right?

Ciao

- viole

Sure, it could be, you have the floor maam.