The mythological Gods are not the same, but they still could come from the same Source.
Besides, Ahura Mazda is Lord Varuna.
-
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!
Afterlife Exists says Top Scientist
- Thread starter Man of Faith
- Start date
The mythological Gods are not the same, but they still could come from the same Source.
Besides, Ahura Mazda is Lord Varuna.
horizon_mj1
Well-Known Member
I agree. I do not believe however that any of them are completely True, but may contain Truth in some of their beliefs and teachings
As far as a "singular" True Religion, I have yet to find one that not only accepts Science but also includes moral and ethical basis on Humanity reaching for perfection in all areas of existence, not that this would make it the "True" Religion, but at least one that maybe tries a bit harder than others. I still do not get why this makes such a difference when there is no other Truth than the Truth. As far as the names of God you mentioned, who is to say these are nothing more than the names of Angels; after all the True Name of God is to remain hidden until the time of reckoning is it not?
horizon_mj1
Well-Known Member
It is nice to see someone who appreciates simplicity, but in reality there is rarely such simple of an answer, especially when dealing with such intricate and elusive criteria. Come on look at gravity alone, yes it can be seen as something quite simple when in reality there are barrel fulls of algorithms needed to properly explain it.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Except that you haven't presented any actual evidence.
I'll consider them. Are they more than just philosophy? Do they have any kind of evidence to support them? So far, from what you've presented, all I see is religious beliefs like those of Christianity. If you can give me something that shows that they're more than that, I'd love to see it.
marshjohn
New Member
After life exists. There are different planes of existence. Astral plane is what we can call it "spirit world" or "fourth dimension". One would not have any access to astral plane if he/she is astrally not opened. After life can be a very horrible experience to the one who is not really familiar with astral.
Last edited:
I make no such assumption.That assumes that life is equal to soiling.
I just want tangible evidence.
Physical proof of the super-physical is almost by definition imposssible.
BruceDLimber
Well-Known Member
Not so.
I quote the Baha'i scriptures:
"There can be no doubt whatever that the peoples of the world, of whatever race or religion, derive their inspiration from one heavenly Source, and are the subjects of one God. The difference between the ordinances under which they abide should be attributed to the varying requirements and exigencies of the age in which they were revealed. All of them, except a few which are the outcome of human perversity, were ordained of God, and are a reflection of His Will and Purpose. Arise and, armed with the power of faith, shatter to pieces the gods of your vain imaginings, the sowers of dissension amongst you. Cleave unto that which draweth you together and uniteth you."
(Gleanings, CXI, pp. 217-8)
Best!
Bruce
BruceDLimber
Well-Known Member
Meaning no offense, for the record, the correct term is "criterion." "Criteria" is plural.
Peace,
Bruce
Last edited:
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
According to this logic, I could make any claim I want, call it "super-physical" and expect you to believe it. If you can't show actual evidence for something, then don't expect others to take it seriously.
The fourth dimension is time, dude.
No, I would expect evidence; super-physical pink unicorns wouldn't get my belief without compelling evidence. Large numbers of subjective human experiences are EVIDENCE but not physical proof. And veridical NDE's, describing recovery scenes from an above viewpoint start to even approach, but not reach, physical proof. You must discern a difference between 'evidence' and 'proof'.
My point in my post was don't expect people to visit the astral plane and bring back soil samples.
We agree on that statement at least.
Meaning no offense, for the record, the correct term is "criterion." "Criteria" is plural.
Peace,
Bruce
Was there a 'real' point to this post? I can be slow, so maybe I missed something.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
What would a "super-physical unicorn" even be? If it's not physical, how is it a unicorn? Large numbers of subjective human experiences are not evidence.
Veridical NDEs could be evidence, if there was one that showed itself to be real, or even gave us good reason to think it was real and not phony. So far, there is no such thing. So far, each example has all kinds of problems, leading to the conclusion that it's not all it's cracked up to be.
Right, but I can at least expect them to bring back some kind of evidence. For instance, those veridical NDEs, they wouldn't have to bring back soil samples or other "physical evidence". They just have to prove, at least to a reasonable degree, that the experience is real. It could be providing information right when they wake up that they couldn't possibly know unless the experience was real. That's not asking for physical proof, but it's asking for evidence. And even that evidence is absent at this point.
Then I take it you don't expect people to take NDEs and OBEs seriously, right?
False statement. Witnesses can not provide evidence in trials?
So you don't think there hasn't been numerous NDE cases described where the experiencer has noticed things from a calm above the body perspective that would not be reasonable to believe he could have known through normal means (i.e. nurse's activitities while no detectable brain activity was occuring).
Next, I want to point out that in the past on RF I challenged a skeptic to give me a made-up sample NDE experience that he would find as convincing evidence. In every case I was able to show haw a 'skeptic' could debunk it. If it involves any subjective human testimony, I can 'debunk it' if I want to. The point will still remain; do the 'debunking explanations' become unreasonable after a time?
The conclusion was for an NDE to escape the skeptic's challenge, it would require immense amount of documentation and official witnessing in ways that are never done in the real world. Nobody knows when such experiences will happen. And people just talk in the real world, they don't document!
FREE-of-FAITH
FREE-of-FAITH
You call the NDE of one man evidence?! WOW!!
Well, by virtue of that logic everything ever said about life after death is true because there is "Evidence" for it!
Well, by virtue of that logic everything ever said about life after death is true because there is "Evidence" for it!
LOL I never thought about it that way! ^_^
That is true. That who wants the tangible proof is not tangible itself. It holds and grasps but it itself cannot be held or grasped. The fact that it has appeared at some point of time amassing all tangible things around is suggestion enough that it brings about soil around itself.
I do not wish to take a side but i do wish that at least some people may reflect.
Namaste
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
I agree in principle that all NDE afterlife experiences are equally valid even those that appear to be anti-Christian. They are equally valid to the person that experienced them, however what does that tell us or what does that confirm? It could validate the Bible still because there are multiple spiritual beings mentioned in the Bible, strong beings that control this world that could create afterlife experiences to trick and confuse people.