Truth: either God exists or He don't.

[Trailblazer]

Why not?

Are you asking why I never experienced God or why I never hope to!

Those have two separate answers, but beware, as I might need to cite the Baha'i Writings to answer them correctly, since this is not a personal opinion sort of thing.

 

[The Hammer]

Why can't there be an absolute reality? We can never know it, but it could still exist.

No, Messengers are not God and they never claimed to be God.
Yes, you are a messenger because you speak for Them.
I am also a messenger, a messenger for Baha'u'llah, because I bring His message to other people.

I said the were OF God, not God themselves. Man speaks for his Gods, Gods only speak through feeling.

I was never a Christian so I cannot testify to that experience...

Fair enough, but I never experienced God either, nor do I ever hope to!

You will at least once. More of your lucky. Keep searching within.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then you clearly have a different understanding of absolute reality than that poster does.

If you mean this: Absolute reality is what one is upon realizing one's true nature.....

No, I do not agree with that as the definition of absolute reality, since I do not believe that we become absolute reality, even if we realize our true nature. Moreover, I believe we can know our true nature in this life, but we will be much mire aware of it when we cross over to the spiritual world. In other words, we cannot fully know it in this life.

 

[Trailblazer]

I gave you a choice of two realities. Either you're backpedaling or can't/won't make the distiction.

If you mean the following:

As I see it, transactional reality is what one perceives as an embodied being. A human. Absolute reality is what one is upon realizing one's true nature.

No, I do not believe that these are the two possible realities and we have to choose between them. I can agree that transactional reality is what one perceives as an embodied being, but as I said in my previous post, I do not agree with your definition of absolute reality, since I do not believe that we become absolute reality, even if we realize our true nature. Moreover, I believe we can know our true nature in this life, which I consider our true reality, but we will be much more aware of it when we cross over to the spiritual world. In other words, we cannot fully know it in this life.

Then we might agree, depending on how you're perceiving "God."

I believe that absolute reality is strictly confined to God but we can never know that reality since we can never know what God knows. I do not believe we can "perceive God," as God is transcendent and beyond human perception.

 

[Samael_Khan]

So those concepts and claims are not true?

Is there not an omnipresent existence without any beginning?

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that. I am just saying that there is no evidence. No evidence of something doesn't mean that that something isn't true, but it does mean that there isn't an actual reason based off facts to believe in it yet.

I have no idea if there is an omnipresent existence without any beginning. Nobody has examined what happened before the beginning so until we can do that I will then reserve my conclusion.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I agree.

I just dont think talking about "Thor", "Superman" or the "Spaghetti monster" are of any value, though repeating it makes some people feel like an important person like Dawkins.

The thing is this brother. The OP is not specifying which religion the writer comes from. Thus, either one could clarify "which one". But not quote something like "Zeus" or "Thor" which are the same thing some people repeat every day. When you are clarifying the meaning of an OP, you should just ask. Simple.

Trust me, if people did not see this response of mine, they will eventually bring these incoherent questions. Its inevitable.

Peace.

Notice their response to me in post #71.

They quote the Bible and refuse to play the hypothetical game when it is reversed on them.

I was correct after all. Funny how predictable people can be.

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

There is empirical truth and then there is spi


Really? Some of the most progressive nations in the world are in Scandinavia and they consistently rate as the happiest.

They may report happiness while the drugs and alcohol keep them high, but there comes a time when drugs and alcohol no longer work. I bet they didn't survey the over 50's to see how happy they are

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

That is philosophical BS which is extremely unlikely to happen in the real world. And even then, would you be saying such a thing because you actually believe that or just because you are attempting to play mental gymnastics for your own convenience?

If he has a personality then he is a someone.

Also, the someone I was referring to is not necessarily Jesus. Considering that everything we know about the guy comes from other people's accounts, one of them could be the "someone" I was referring to.

Do you just accept all these things about Jesus because of your feelings and subjective experience, or is there an objective reason that you believe in him. Because you have made multiple claims without backing up why we should believe that they are true.

My main reason for believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, is the fear of being cast into the lake of fire to spend all eternity screaming in unimaginable horrible pain. Jesus will cast everyone who doesn't know Him as Lord and saviour into the eternal lake of fire.
Why would anyone reject His warning, there is nothing more serious and scary in the universe.

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

Well, the Bible promotes alcohol consumption. If someone drinks for the first time and is prone to alcohol addiction then they can become addicts which they cannot help. A person does not know that they are prone to addiction until they are addicted to something. If they become addicted then they cannot help themselves.

And I dunno where you live, but where I come from many children drink alcohol. There was even a time a few decades ago where a parent would dunk a child pacifier in alcohol to calm them down. Then there is also medicine which often contains alcohol. And fruit which ferments.

That is some superstition you have there. I don't remember the Bible saying anything about this.

You are forgetting something here called repentance, which is often spoken about in the Bible. If people are repentant then they will be forgiven of any sin besides the unforgivable one.

The Bible never promotes drunkenness, alcohol was given to those who are dying from terminal disease.
The only people who are prone to drug and alcohol addiction, are those who have a sick and empty spirit. A spiritually healthy person would never dream of consuming any drug or alcohol to alter their state. Only those who are already spiritually sick will find temporary relief in drugs and alcohol.

The Bible calls drug use "Pharmakia", this is the same word it uses to describe witchcraft. God commands us to kill all witches, so this can be applied to drug addicts as well.

There are 2 kinds of repentance, one is a genuine change of heart and the other is showing remorse because you were caught breaking the law and you act remorseful so the judge gives you a lighter sentence.

 

[Samael_Khan]

My main reason for believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, is the fear of being cast into the lake of fire to spend all eternity screaming in unimaginable horrible pain. Jesus will cast everyone who doesn't know Him as Lord and saviour into the eternal lake of fire.
Why would anyone reject His warning, there is nothing more serious and scary in the universe.

So your belief then is based of feelings? Feelings of fear? It sounds pretty horrible. How does that belief affect you?

There are many warnings in many religions. For instance, Islam also warns of a hell. Why are you not following Islam if you believe out of fear. And their hellfire belief is more in depth from what I have been told, thus scarier.

There are various takes on the hellfire belief in Christianity, as it is a contentious issue, with many people saying that if one looks at the historical, cultural and linguistic context, the fire spoken about in the bible isn't a literal lake of fire and torment. The Christian idea of a painful hell generally was developed from Dante's Inferno.

I would only care about eternal torment of hellfire if I believed that it was true. I don't just believe things just because they sound scary, otherwise I would be a very superstitious person.

 

[Samael_Khan]

The Bible never promotes drunkenness, alcohol was given to those who are dying from terminal disease.
The only people who are prone to drug and alcohol addiction, are those who have a sick and empty spirit. A spiritually healthy person would never dream of consuming any drug or alcohol to alter their state. Only those who are already spiritually sick will find temporary relief in drugs and alcohol.

The Bible calls drug use "Pharmakia", this is the same word it uses to describe witchcraft. God commands us to kill all witches, so this can be applied to drug addicts as well.

There are 2 kinds of repentance, one is a genuine change of heart and the other is showing remorse because you were caught breaking the law and you act remorseful so the judge gives you a lighter sentence.

Definitely the Bible doesn't promote drunkenness. It is frowned upon. But it says that a person can drink alcohol, which could lead to addiction. Same with eating and greediness. I am not saying that a persons addiction is the bible's fault.

People who become addicted to something are not spiritually empty.

Genetics, body chemistry and disorders play a big role in addiction.

5 Ways You Are Physiologically Predisposed for Addiction - Drug Rehab Options

My point is about genuine change of heart.

 

[Trailblazer]

There are many warnings in many religions. For instance, Islam also warns of a hell. Why are you not following Islam if you believe out of fear. And their hellfire belief is more in depth from what I have been told, thus scarier.

If Christians fear hellfire, I think they should recognize and believe in Muhammad, because if He is a true Messenger of God, and if they Qur'an says there is a hellfire, Christians will won't be saved from it just because they believe in Jesus.

 

[Samael_Khan]

If Christians fear hellfire, I think they should recognize and believe in Muhammad, because if He is a true Messenger of God, and if they Qur'an says there is a hellfire, Christians will won't be saved from it just because they believe in Jesus.

True that.

 

[SalixIncendium]

If you mean the following:

As I see it, transactional reality is what one perceives as an embodied being. A human. Absolute reality is what one is upon realizing one's true nature.

No, I do not believe that these are the two possible realities and we have to choose between them. I can agree that transactional reality is what one perceives as an embodied being, but as I said in my previous post, I do not agree with your definition of absolute reality, since I do not believe that we become absolute reality, even if we realize our true nature. Moreover, I believe we can know our true nature in this life, which I consider our true reality, but we will be much more aware of it when we cross over to the spiritual world. In other words, we cannot fully know it in this life.

In my understanding, there is nothing to "become." One already is. Tat tvam asi. Thou art that. One is just ignorant of this knowledge because of avidya, incorrect knowledge, as a result of Maya.

I believe that absolute reality is strictly confined to God but we can never know that reality since we can never know what God knows. I do not believe we can "perceive God," as God is transcendent and beyond human perception.

Most humans do not perceive "God." But there are those that have had glimpses of "God" through spontaneous mystical experience and others who have realized "God" and are stable in this state of being.

 

[Polymath257]

And you will never see any evidence for spiritual bodies until you die and inhabit one.

Or not, as the case may be.

So why would I believe in such without evidence?

 

[Polymath257]

Don't count your chickens before they hatch. There are prophecies that are very exact, so exact that I could believe in Baha'u'llah with no other evidence, although I have a lot of other evidence. These prophecies validate not only Baha'u'llah but also the Bible prophecies, OT and NT.

Example?

 

[Polymath257]

That is plausible but the priests did not write the Bible.

That is not so clear on some of the books. But the priests *were* the ones that assembled it.

However, the resurrection stories could have been written to gain power, and it worked.

You are free to believe that if you want to, but it makes no sense that Moses or Jesus or Muhammad or the Bab or Baha'u'llah would fit that bill.

From what I have discovered, Moses was mythical, Jesus was misunderstood and probably rather disappointed on the cross, Muhammed was power hungry, and Bab and Baba'u'lah seem like pretty typical religious nuts to me.

You never will know the motivations of deities but you can know the motivations of their Messengers..

I'm not sure it is ever possible to know the motivations of a stranger.

 

[37818]

Yes, and all causes are within the universe. Which means the universe as a whole is not caused.

The universe is still made up of causes. What is not caused? What is caused is not uncaused.

Which means the universe as a whole is not caused.

How does that follow?

Yes, and all causes are within the universe.

If we define universe to mean everything, indeed the universe would include what has no beginning. So only that part of the universe is uncaused. The universe as a whole is still caused.
The universe is like a box. What is in the box is not the box. Now if you want to argue the box has no beginning. But our definition of the unverse being everything, the universe would include what was in the box too. So the box not having a beginning is again not the things in the box. The box not the universe has no beginning. The universe has no beginning only because it includes the box. We must define the universe as everything.

So from the stand point of there being God. God being infinite and omnipresent would be a part of the universe by reason the universe means everything. But all the caused things in the universe are not God, the omnipresent infinite without a beginning.

Summary:

Universe - everything.
God - without a beginning, infinite and omnipresent.

The universe also has no beginning by reason it includes God.

God is not the universe by reason God is not the caused things which also make up the universe.

The universe is not God by reason it is made up of caused things too.

 

[capumetu]

So, you don't want to take back your statement that things are getting worse and worse in the world and that it is a sign that Jesus is coming back soon?

No sir, it's the half glass scenario. True, many things have gotten so much better, for many of us. Technology is both a blessing and a curse however, each and every day brings us closer to extinction, it simply is not affecting you at this point in history. Time will reveal to you that soon it will. Every day it affects more and more of the population.

 

[Wandering Monk]

No sir, it's the half glass scenario. True, many things have gotten so much better, for many of us. Technology is both a blessing and a curse however, each and every day brings us closer to extinction, it simply is not affecting you at this point in history. Time will reveal to you that soon it will. Every day it affects more and more of the population.

Could you drill down into this a bit? What thing(s) are bringing us closer to extinction and in what time frame?