I don't know that theism is actually the word I'm going for, but what I mean is the belief in a god or many gods. Every time an atheist gets on here and babbles about how the bible sucks and that means there is no God, some person who is spiritual but not Christian says that the bible doesn't matter. So ultimately the people who are not Christians never state why they believe in god. The burden of proof does lie on the person claiming that something unseen does exist because our senses tell us that it's not there. There's no reason to think it is there until someone shows us that it is. So please someone tell me! In my life I've never met a person who has even come close to explaining why they believe in a god. In a forum about religion I would expect that someone at some point would, but no one has. So leaving religion and the bible and all that shit out of it, why do you believe?

In case you're wondering, here's why I don't believe: I feel no spiritual connection to an unseen being. I don't feel it there and have never seen evidence of it existing. I see the big bang and random chance as a better answer than a god because it has more evidence backing it and simply makes more sense.

Now it's your turn.

Well, as an argument for theism, I would say many people would argue as Aquinas did: that there must be one who set everything in motion, one who to attribute the first cause to. It seems irrational to a theist that the universe just began out of nothing/nowhere(energy cannot be created, only transferred). Yet to an atheist it seems irrational that God just appeared and set out to create all of this for some unknown reason. Thus agnosticism rules supreme http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Thanks Kiko, 'cept for the "ups" to agnostism http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Glitter, do you even read the responses? There's lots of discussion on here about the validity of theism regardless of specific religion.

MGCBtSOoYG ( http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)) has been extremely sane lately due to most good minds here acknowledging that none of us can really prove our point.

As i said in a recent thread, an obvious pointer to a creator is the strict rules, balance, structure, and harmony that governs the universe. Most of physics is based on extremely simple forumlas (V=d/t,A=v/d,F=ma, etc). That's one piece of evidence that for me, points to some form of creator/manager of the universe.

theBishop

I'm a non-religious beleiver in God. I'm one of those people who say "I'm not religious, but I am spiritual" http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) Here's how I've arrived at my current beliefs.

My spirituality originated from going to church as a kid (and hence beleiving in God because I was told by people I had no reason not to trust that that was the truth). We stopped going to church around age 5 or 6, but later went to "Boys Brigade", basically an organisation like the Scouts but run by the church. I stopped going there after 3 or 4 or something years, and for a while considered myself a Christian who didn't go to church. I was never a full blown "if you disagree with me you're going to burn in hell for all eternity" type. During my later high school years my attachment to religion generally went down. (Last year was my last year of high school). Earlier this year out of the blue my mum bought a Sylvia Browne book called "Past Lives, Future Healing". I've always had an interest in the supernatural and stuff like this, so I thought I'd give this book a read. This was the first book that introduced to me the idea that hell and the devil just don't exist, and that *everyone* gets to heaven because God is all loving, all forgiving, all benevolent etc. who couldn't bare the thought of torturing billions of non beleivers for all eternity. That idea just seemed so right to me. I admit that this book had such an influence on me because of my previous belief in God. However, in this book there is something closer to the evidence that you're looking for. This whole book is full of storied about people who, through hypnosis, remember past lives. Sylvia wrote that before she put all her faith in this practice, she wanted to gather extensive research. Every time someone claimed they remembered a past life during hypnosis, she would go off and find out how much of what the person said was accurate. She said that after she was able to verify hundreds of such cases as accurate, she was convinced that we have all lived in many different bodies at different times. Before I read this book I was kind of toying with the idea that reincarnation might be real; now I'm a believer http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) My next big spiritual "event" was finding the website www.near-death.com. (http://www.near-death.com.) The author of this website has come up with a huge amount of conclusions about spirituality, God, the hereafter etc. based on researching people's Near Death Experiences (NDEs). If this site was simply some guy saying "this is what I think is true", I wouldn't have given it a second glance. However, because the author is obsessed with researching everything he can about NDEs, and because he has so many sources, and because his conclusions are based on research, I was hooked. This site above any of the spiritual stuff I've read gives the best evidence of life after death, God, and all that other stuff. It isn't scientific evidence (in the sense that the results are repeatable and measurable and all that), but it's the closest to it I've ever come across regarding this sort of thing. It was Albert Einstein(!) who said "Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world. All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it."

"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. The religion which based on experience,

which refuses dogmatic. If there's any religion that would cope the scientific needs it will be

Buddhism...."

-Albert Einstein

Monotheism is the worship of a single God; polytheism is the worship of multiple Gods.

Stoyve

Fuck the burden of proof being on me...What i believe is what i believe and im not gona waste my time trying to prove it to others. I was brought up catholic but the things i believe about god and many other aspects of the spiritual world and shit totally differ from the catholic religion. I believe there is one god. I do believe jesus was the messiah and that he will one day come back but because of everyones ignorance his next visit to earth will turn to shit as well. I also believe in reincarnation, because i cant stand to think that after this life there is absolutely nothing, or that your soul is either forced to heaven or hell or even worse purgatory.

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

As i said in a recent thread, an obvious pointer to a creator is the strict rules, balance, structure, and harmony that governs the universe. Most of physics is based on extremely simple forumlas (V=d/t,A=v/d,F=ma, etc). That's one piece of evidence that for me, points to some form of creator/manager of the universe.



Imagine though if the universe wasn't governed by any strict laws and so would be unpredictable...wouldn't that also point to the existence of a manager-god, since you could argue that everything happened as a result of some arbitrary will? If you accept that as a possibility, then you can't also say that having the universe with strict laws within it shows evidence of God also, since you would say there is evidence whether the universe had order or not. (Then again, if you reject my first point it doesn't make any difference)

Yeah....If the universe looked like some random overgrowth like a dense forest or a tumor or something it would be less of a case for god in my opinion.

quote:Originally posted by hazey187:

Fuck the burden of proof being on me...What i believe is what i believe and im not gona waste my time trying to prove it to others.

Obviously I didn't mean that you always need to be proving your religion to everyone and that otherwise it's not valid. You can think whatever you want. But I was asking a question. I was asking people to explain why they believe. You don't have to. But I do think it's interesting that you got so defensive when asked your opinion about something that you so firmly believe in. It seems like you would jump at the chance to talk about it. But whatever. You don't have to.

quote:Originally posted by GlitterPunk112358:

I see the big bang and random chance as a better answer than a god because it has more evidence backing it and simply makes more sense.

Now it's your turn.

Then what caused the big bang if not God?

I don't much like labels, but I am pretty much a gnostic pagan polythiest.

That is, I do not "believe" in a god or gods--I experience him/her/it/them directly--thus I "know" god. Belief is not an issue.

I acknowledge and know, love, and respect numerous spirits in addition to the Great Spirit which is the creater and sustainer of this local universe. (There are others.)

And, yes, the bible is mostly BS.

quote:Originally posted by NurotiK_SykotiK:

"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. The religion which based on experience, which refuses dogmatic. If there's any religion that would cope the scientific needs it will be Buddhism...."

-Albert Einstein

Well, I think Al is giving humanity a bit too much credit there, but that is a good ideal.

Punk, randomness isn't real, everything is affected by simple circumstance, like how hard you throw the dice, a pre-computed seed based on logarithms (or something), and an unknown yet incredibly complex (because the world is not run simply on basic formulas) order in neurology. Stuff like that. The word you're looking for is chaotic, maybe? Or maybe I'm beign a tad bit existentialist without proving anything.

I rely on what I perceive, in a way. I'm good at perception, I usually have a pretty rational perspective of everything, and in psychology, there is but one true sensation and a perfectly sane healthy person can for the most part interpret it pretty accurately. Granted, it's not perfect, but it isn't like physics which proves that the universe is radically different than how we perceive it to be. That and a mix of the psychophilosophics of Buddhism, the whole detachment from desire and a bit of the basic spriritualism from Taoism, I await for death slightly impatiently.

Well, Glitter, I must say that you haven't been paying attention as you should have, if this is what you are seeking. *tsk tsk tsk* http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

I HAVE stated why I believe in God, so I won't do it again, but I will say that it was a very real experience, and continues to be every day.

The senses you refer to are limited only to the five: sight, touch, sound, taste, and smell.

What about the sixth ?

Yes, that thing you refer to as a "spiritual connection".

You cannot experience this spiritual connection, until you give to God what is rightfully His (your heart, a.k.a. your soul), and in order to do that you must have faith that He exists, not the other way around.

This is NOT circular thinking, this is FAITH.

And the reward for faith is the proof you seek...spiritual connectivity between you and your Maker.

It is the simplest concept, yet ultimately the hardest to achieve. How can one have faith in something that is tangibly not there ?

That is the age old question, yet thousands find a way to believe in Him every day. (so, there IS an answer...it must be sought)

Think upon that sixth sense for a while, and ask yourself:

"Do I really know what my soul feels like ?"

Most people don't.

At least not in the way that they CAN.

And though I have not answered your question directly (I have in previous threads that you have not seen) I think (I hope) I have offered some food for thought.

It is obvious that you are TRYING to believe...unfortunately, you are making a common mistake by using your HEAD instead of your HEART.

(the word "heart" is being used figuratively in a pre-modern sense, where the "soul" is generally referred to as "heart")

Don't feel bad about it...I used my head for far too long. *LOL*

Does that mean I "blindly" chose a life of Faith, because I didn't use my head ?

No, it means I stopped letting my limited human logic get in the way of the one thing that can only be understood by the spirit.

Ever heard of the phrase, "LET GO, AND LET GOD." ?

It seems so simple, and even elementary, but that's how God designed this whole stage of acts and sonnets that we call "life".

Simple.

Even with it's inexplicable intricacies, life/creation is simple.

Everything is connected, and everything is a part of a balance.

That simplicity is not held from us, His most prized creation.

He stands at the door and knocks...you need but open the door.

Only then will the spiritual connection you seek be granted to you.

And it's worth it...believe me, it's worth it.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:Originally posted by KikoSanchez:

Yet to an atheist it seems irrational that God just appeared and set out to create all of this for some unknown reason. Thus agnosticism rules supreme http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Except God clearly states that He is the Alpha and the Omega, translated to "the Beginning and the End."

This does not personify God, but merely paints a word picture for humans about what eternity MIGHT be like.

This verse does not indicate that He "began", nor that He will "end".

In the Hebrew, this translates into "Always was, and always will be."

Meaning, He didn't suddenly appear.

To humans, this is unfathomable, in a linear sense. (meaning, you must start at one point, and end at another. You are born, and you die. You play a game, and you either win or you lose. You make food, and you eat, thus achievihng fullness. Everything starts, and ends.)

God is NOT human...trying to think of a non-human entity is like trying to pour a drink "up" a pole.

It is virtually impossible to achieve it physically, but the idea can produce a certain level of mental fruition.

God says that He has always been around. To humans, who are born and perish every day, this is a foreign concept that the logic in our brains rejects.

That's normal.

What is NOT normal is placing ourselves at a distance from our creator.

The result of that distance is loneliness, depression, hatred, the inability to concentrate...many of the common psychological problems that ail our race can be directly attributed to the distance we have placed between ourselves and our maker.

Oops...I was rambling. Forgive me.

Back to my point: God did not just "appear". He just decided at one point in time that He would try out creation. Were we His first ? Probably not. Will we be His last, I would be confident in saying "no". (if anyone can find a verse that disputes that, please do. I just haven't seen one yet)

He created everything without directly detailing why...because He is God. If He didn't tell us in the Bible, there is a reason for that.

And the scriptures tell us that "all will be revealed" come the judgement day.

He is witholding that information for a greater purpose.

We don't need to know right now.

But it doesn't really matter in the end...the fact remains that He DID create us, and we ought to live our lives for Him.

Atheism and agnosticism rules supreme, not because God doesn't exists, but because man is born unto his flesh, and he LOVES to feed it...entertain it...rub it the right way.

We are called to deny that very flesh, in order to follow God in a manner that will ultimately glorify Him.

It is so much easier to live for the flesh...who wants to live a blameless life ? What fun is that ? Who would choose that over self ?

The answer to that is: ME.

Why ?

Because this life is temporary. If I can live my life for Him for a SHORT period of time (while I am physically alive on earth), and receive the blessing of standing by His side in heaven, experiencing His glory, and power, and honor, until the end of time (which will never come), then I feel that is a fair trade.

I could, however, live for myself, and do whatever suits me (for my own gain, and pleasure) while I am here on earth, and spend the rest of eternity alone, and wailing for my Father in Heaven.

This is not to say that my actions gain my salvation, rather that my salvation calls me to live for Him, and not myself.

Now, that might all sound like nothing but a fairy tale, but for those of us who have experienced God personally, it is very real.

I speak with conviction and authority on the matter because I know it to be true. I have seen Him, and I have felt Him. (and it did not come easily to me...I was as prideful as they come, as I am sure some of the non-believers here will readily attest to ! *laughs*)

My only prayer is that each and every one of you has that same opportunity, and that you will not let your calloused hearts keep you from eternal happiness. (that was not judgement, but an acute observation of the truth)

I (no doubt) sound like a street corner hippie-preacher, but I am sincere.

I am normal.

I go to PTO meetings every first Wednesday of the month.

I am a successful system administrator for the largest and only health care facility in the Northern Region of Arizona.

I served my country for four years, only to become disenchanted with the lies our government feeds to us.

I sing.

I write.

I read avidly.

I crochet.

I rock climb.

I cry when I get hurt, and I bleed just like anybody else.

I don't tell you these things to toot my proverbial horn.

I don't divulge personal information about my life to gain a "one up" on the debate.

I am illustrating that I am a human being, and am designed in the same fashion and capacity as everyone else.

We all make decisions, based on our personal experiences, but do we limit our personal experiences (or what we can gain from them) by THINKING TOO MUCH ?

As we grow older, we become ever more guarded, and suspicious of life.

We learn lessons that are not soon forgotten, and we hold tightly to our sacks of Experience and Reason. (they are, after all, why we become who we are)

What is produced from these is stubborness.

And that can be a killer.

A relationship breaker.

A job-loser.

Stubborness is directly related to pride, which is quoted to be the downfall of man, in the Bible.

And pride can blind you...it can create the illusion that the human race is far greater than it really is. That individually, we can save ourselves.

But from what ? If there is no God, why the rat race ? Why the ever-present primal desire to succeed above all others ?

Why is everything about, "Me, me, me !", and why is everything, "Mine, mine, mine !"

From birth we have that sense of ownership, of gain.

It's self-preservation, folks. We weren't born with that sense without a purpose.

Because innately we KNOW that physical death is not the end.

What we don't TRULY know, as an entire race, is what happens AFTERWARD.

If there is truly nothing after death, why the fear of it ?

Why the incredible desire to "gain it all" while existing on this planet ?

Just think, people...think about what you do, an WHY.

Think about the way we are, as an entire race, and tell me how it is that evolution just put all the puzzle pieces together perfectly.

Tell me why there is such a great desire for acceptance within us, from whatever source available (a pet, another human being, a spiritual deity, etc).

We all seek something...and it is the same thing. We just manifest it in different ways, because so many empty things are provided/available to us (i.e. drugs, pre-marital sex, TV, alcohol, food, RELATIONSHIPS).

Whatever your addiction, has it ever filled you up completely ? And how long did it last ?

We are told (brainwashed) that to some capacity, these things can fill the void...that void we all feel, and try desperately to suppress and ignore.

Subconsciously, we find things to appease it, to take the edge off of it, if only just for a short while.

But it always ends the same.

Nothingness.

And we are left to look for yet another empty thing that will fill the void.

It is a vicious cycle that follows us our entire lives.

But there is something that will fill it, and we must go back to that simplicity that makes it almost impossible to understand and accept.

GOD.

quote:Originally posted by Gnool:

I'm a non-religious beleiver in God. I'm one of those people who say "I'm not religious, but I am spiritual" http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) Here's how I've arrived at my current beliefs.

My spirituality originated from going to church as a kid (and hence beleiving in God because I was told by people I had no reason not to trust that that was the truth). We stopped going to church around age 5 or 6, but later went to "Boys Brigade", basically an organisation like the Scouts but run by the church. I stopped going there after 3 or 4 or something years, and for a while considered myself a Christian who didn't go to church. I was never a full blown "if you disagree with me you're going to burn in hell for all eternity" type. During my later high school years my attachment to religion generally went down. (Last year was my last year of high school). Earlier this year out of the blue my mum bought a Sylvia Browne book called "Past Lives, Future Healing". I've always had an interest in the supernatural and stuff like this, so I thought I'd give this book a read. This was the first book that introduced to me the idea that hell and the devil just don't exist, and that *everyone* gets to heaven because God is all loving, all forgiving, all benevolent etc. who couldn't bare the thought of torturing billions of non beleivers for all eternity. That idea just seemed so right to me. I admit that this book had such an influence on me because of my previous belief in God. However, in this book there is something closer to the evidence that you're looking for. This whole book is full of storied about people who, through hypnosis, remember past lives. Sylvia wrote that before she put all her faith in this practice, she wanted to gather extensive research. Every time someone claimed they remembered a past life during hypnosis, she would go off and find out how much of what the person said was accurate. She said that after she was able to verify hundreds of such cases as accurate, she was convinced that we have all lived in many different bodies at different times. Before I read this book I was kind of toying with the idea that reincarnation might be real; now I'm a believer http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) My next big spiritual "event" was finding the website www.near-death.com. (http://www.near-death.com.) The author of this website has come up with a huge amount of conclusions about spirituality, God, the hereafter etc. based on researching people's Near Death Experiences (NDEs). If this site was simply some guy saying "this is what I think is true", I wouldn't have given it a second glance. However, because the author is obsessed with researching everything he can about NDEs, and because he has so many sources, and because his conclusions are based on research, I was hooked. This site above any of the spiritual stuff I've read gives the best evidence of life after death, God, and all that other stuff. It isn't scientific evidence (in the sense that the results are repeatable and measurable and all that), but it's the closest to it I've ever come across regarding this sort of thing. It was Albert Einstein(!) who said "Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world. All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it."



Yeah, I kinda agree with this. I've always thought, ever since I was 3 years old, that it might be possible that I've already died before. Sounds gay, fucked up, and stupid, but I distinctly remember thinking about this when I was 3. I even told my Dad about it, and he gave me the whole religious speech.

But, I was thinking about this. Maybe, it's possible that when you die, that's it, you're dead. For a while. You know nothing, you can't do anything, and you basically don't exist. But somewhere along the line, you're born again as a baby out of your (new) mother's womb, and life starts over. You don't remember anything from your previous life because during that "non existant" time you lose all your knowledge that you once had.

You become a completely new person, but parts of your personality is still the same as it was before. You look different, and do different things. Hell, it might not even be you as you are now, it will be a different you.

Think about it. If you already died, how would you know? Or better yet, how do you know you DIDN'T die already?

When I die, if its not instantanious (from old age, or a disease that takes a while) I would make damn sure that I try my hardest to remember what happens. I'd like to be the first guy to KNOW what happens when your dead, and not have everything based on hypothesis and theories.

I think, that if infact I died already, I probably did try my hardest to remember what happened when I died. I tried, and tried, and tried. But somewhere along the line, I just couldn't remember. It was almost impossible. I was born again and I am now me.

Maybe, the thought popped into my head when I was 3, because part of my mind still remembers a piece of what happened when I was dead.

I think taking on this philosophy would be more gratifying to one's self than following strict rules set by a religion. I don't like the idea of "you can't do this, you can't do that or you'll burn in hell, blah blah blah."

The only thing that is certain is death. You shouldn't have to obey rules based on something you've never even seen.

If you think like this,

"Yes, I will die one day. But, that's not the end, I can always start over."

Then you're free to do anything, and everything, you want.



[This message has been edited by Cash Stealer (edited 10-15-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by ArmsMerchant:

And, yes, the bible is mostly BS.

For someone who doesn't like labels, you sure are quick to hand them out !

And whose educated opinion is that statement based on ?

Have you yourself studied it ? Don't lie, because I will ask you things about it that you would know, if you had.

quote:Originally posted by Cash Stealer:

Then you're free to do anything, and everything, you want.

Oh, GOD BLESS YOU !!

This is my point, exactly !

This is the underlying drive of every man, woman, and child on this planet.

And this is the VERY REASON why people reject the idea of God.

No one wants to give up self...and this guy just proved it.

Dear Glitterpunk112358:

First: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Second: Simultaneous global religious synchronicity necessitates the presence of a common denominator of metaphysical realities.

Third: Religious experience.

Fourth: Scientists are recently discovering what religion has known for millennia before.

If you require elaboration on any of these points, please let me know.

-Tyrant

Conqueror of Heaven

I don't know that theism is actually the word I'm going for, but what I mean is the belief in a god or many gods. Every time an atheist gets on here and babbles about how the bible sucks and that means there is no God, some person who is spiritual but not Christian says that the bible doesn't matter. So ultimately the people who are not Christians never state why they believe in god. The burden of proof does lie on the person claiming that something unseen does exist because our senses tell us that it's not there. There's no reason to think it is there until someone shows us that it is. So please someone tell me! In my life I've never met a person who has even come close to explaining why they believe in a god. In a forum about religion I would expect that someone at some point would, but no one has. So leaving religion and the bible and all that shit out of it, why do you believe?

In case you're wondering, here's why I don't believe: I feel no spiritual connection to an unseen being. I don't feel it there and have never seen evidence of it existing. I see the big bang and random chance as a better answer than a god because it has more evidence backing it and simply makes more sense.

Now it's your turn.

Digi, I've fealt that overwhelming sensation of God you talk about, but not from prayer and not from christianity.

In fact it didn't happen until a few years after being black sheeped from my church.

It can be experienced in all things regardless of faith. It is the buddha consciousness, or if you prefer the Christ consciousness. May sound blasphemous to a hardcore christian such as yourself, but I think it was what Christ was getting at.

Have you read the gospel of Thomas? It sounds almost like the Tao De Ching (sorry it it's mispelled I'm tired.)

Even without the gospel of Thomas, just the red letters in the bible sound VERY VERY buddhist/hindi/wiccan/etc. (I've expanded upon this in other threads.)

I experienced this consciousness earlier today as a matter of fact. Yesterday as well. The feeling of the pressence of God, this acute awareness of all things natural and beautiful, blissful being. You swim in existence while others drown, life smiles upon you. The last time I went to church was when I went home for Christmas to watch my mother sing in the chior.

It is true that you can't logically say we exist, without saying there was a begining and something that started this. As to say otherwise would be to deny the causal principle, which if you deny you deny everything science has ever discovered as ALL scientific inquiry is based off the principle that all events are caused. Presupposing a first cause.

This isn't to say that this proves the existence of the Christian God. Or any God more then any other.

Recognize that if there is a God that we are ALL his children (not just Jesus, not just christians.) and that we are more then likely his eyes, ears, overall consciousness here on earth. In fact this might be where the metaphor of all knowing and all powerful creator came from. After all the collection of all human consciousness would be the knowledge of everything. The collection of all human effort is very obviously effective at creating. We have created such a vast artificial existence. Look around you, what would be there if it weren't for man? We've practically created consciousness in the form of these computers.

The east seem to understand this as they clasp their hands together to signify recognition of the diety when they greet eachother. Well we at the west are still stuck in our little egos and try to crush eachother's hands with our "ME BETTER THEN YOU" philosophy.

quote:Originally posted by I_Like_Traffic_Lights:

Recognize that if there is a God that we are ALL his children (not just Jesus, not just christians.) and that we are more then likely his eyes, ears, overall consciousness here on earth. In fact this might be where the metaphor of all knowing and all powerful creator came from. After all the collection of all human consciousness would be the knowledge of everything. The collection of all human effort is very obviously effective at creating. We have created such a vast artificial existence. Look around you, what would be there if it weren't for man? We've practically created consciousness in the form of these computers.

I disagree with that theory.

This says that God "needs" us, in order to be all-knowing.

The problem with that exists in the very first book of the Bible: Genesis.

It specifically states that God was all-knowing, prior to the creation of man.

He knew all our actions, thoughts, and sins, before we were even "born".

The way you describe it, He needs our experience in order to be what He has already proclaimed Himself to be.

That would make the Bible a lie, and therefor Christianity would be, too.

I don't think it has ever crossed my mind that a person can NOT experience spirituality without God. After all, Lucifer is still afoot, even when God is not.

And he comes to tempt, cheat, and steal you out of your own soul...the very soul that God gave to you.

He is so clever that he can emulate within you the very "spiritual connectivity" you crave. You have achieved that spirituality, and unfortunately, it is coming from the wrong place.

And let me just say at this point that I am not judging you, nor condemning you. I am merely stating what the Bible says about it.

If it is not "for" God, then it is "against" Him, and if the spirituality you are experiencing has nothing to do with the Christian God, then it is for the Christian Devil, because that is all there is.

I am not blinded into thinking this...I know the spirituality you are feeling, because I have been there.

And it is entirely different that the connectivity you feel when you are filled with the Holy Spirit of God.

Vastly different.

I appreciate your point of view, though...as always, it was intellectually stimulating, and well-put.

I regret that your church black-sheeped you. That is NOT their right, and they did you (and God) a disservice.

He will not bless a church that sees fit to judge it's believers.

"Cause not the little children to stray, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." (paraphrasing)

I will try and address the rest of your post later.

God bless.

quote:Originally posted by StoneMan:

Then what caused the big bang if not God?

It has been proven that even before the earth and our universe was formed, HYDROGEN existed.

If, in fact, evolution occurred as evolutionist's believe it did, then that "nothingness" came from hydrogen.

Where then did the hydrogen come from ?

Dear I_Like_Traffic_Lights:

Not that you necessarily asked me, but I agree with DS here.

First of all, as Digital_Savior has already stated, God exists independently of human consciousness or awareness, exactly like dinosaur bones, subterranean oil, cellular organelles, and black holes existed before our knowledge of archaeology, geology, microscopic biology, and astronomy.

Second of all, a Buddhist or Taoist would fall down dead if you told him that the Eastern philosophy agrees with the concept of creation. In fact, one of the fundamental cornerstones of Buddhism is the impermanence of the physical and material. I can't imagine him looking around at the world in which we live and saying, "Gee, look at all these great things we as humans have accomplished; we sure know a lot of things!" In fact, I'd less respect for him and accuse him of violating Buddhist conduct if he said anything except, "None of this will resist change - all of this will crumble to dust."

As a side note, I wish to address a certain misconception concerning the collectivist perception of humanity, which will bring me to the third dissension I have with your post.

Whenever someone talks about the scientific progress humanity has made, they generalize one person's attributes to the whole of civilization. For example, someone can very easily say, "We as humans can travel to the moon with our fantastic technology." TWELVE people (all Americans) have been on the moon to date since the first moon landing thirty-five years ago. I doubt I could find that many people in my town that pump their own gas. Not to mention that, as far as the sciences go, concerning the greater questions of life, purpose, and ultimate truths, even scientists shuffle through the folders and cabinet drawers in their Ivory Tower and shrug their shoulders at the lack of significant answers.

My point is, the actual tactical skills of the average human is minute in comparison to what a few select elite men have done. It's rather ludicrous, therefore, to assume that all these people lumped together have either (A) the knowledge of everything, as you so boldly stated, or (B) the slightest inclination of what God truly encompasses.

In short, please don't look at modern technology and think it's a reflection of God, because it's exactly the opposite.

-Tyrant

Man of the Gods, thus King of the Men.

Do not misunderstand me. Modern technology was an example of what this over all consciousness envelopes, as is man. So Tyrant, you completely missed the point. I'm sorry I didn't explain better.

God doesn't need us, we need God. However, to me God is a metaphor, a symbol for a concept we shall never be able to put into words. In fact I, and indeed all, are doing God a disservice simply by having a word for it. When you label something that's infinite, beyond our understanding, and try to put it into a box with the boundries of words calling it "God" then it is no longer infinite. You have seperated it from the everything that is God, you've created a word that further confuses.

Words do little justice to anything that they attempt to express, but above all this word. God.

I am not saying that the Bible is a lie, and Christianity is a lie. I am saying that the Bible is a story, Christianity a story. All myths, just like every religions of come into contact. Read my "Same Story Different Accent" post for more on this. Because beating behind all of these stories is the exact same meaning. If you are prepared to read between the lines, not accept everything like it's supposed to be taken literally, and give everything a chance.

Who's to say your "spiritual connectivity" does not come from the wrong source? Not to say that's what I believe, merely performing double think for the sake of my point. My point is it comes from the same place. I think that the concept of a duality such as the God/Satan scenario is an illusion we must see past in order to uptain an awakened state and find heaven within. If, however, the God/Satan scenario were true who's to say that the God in the bible is not satan, and vice versa. Afterall, Satan has the deceptive abilities to control what we're overwhelming inclined to believe(Descartes).

I am not judging you or condeming you either, I have a somewhat argumenative nature philosophically. I ask, and ask, and ask, and ask trying to get to the heart of everything. If I can get to the heart of the person I am talking with (especially if I disagree with them) I feel I'm closer to getting to the heart of myself and indeed everything.

How can one deny the parallels between Jesus and Buddha? I said there was a first cause because it must be logically so. That is not to say I believe in the literal genesis creation story. In all likely hood the beginning came from the end. The universe works in cycles so far, so why should it be any different when it ends/begins? The explosion that destroys the cosmos may very well be the big bang. Hell that would even agree with the Alpha/Omega scenario.

quote:Originally posted by I_Like_Traffic_Lights:

God doesn't need us, we need God. However, to me God is a metaphor, a symbol for a concept we shall never be able to put into words. In fact I, and indeed all, are doing God a disservice simply by having a word for it. When you label something that's infinite, beyond our understanding, and try to put it into a box with the boundries of words calling it "God" then it is no longer infinite. You have seperated it from the everything that is God, you've created a word that further confuses.

Why would you think the "word" God is a metaphor ?

The ancient Hebrew texts use a different context for His name entirely. The word for God in Hebrew was created as a alternative to His actual name, because they believe it to be too holy to be uttered by humans.

It's not a metaphor for anything. As you said, it is a title, to determine "who" we are in reverence of.

God cares very little WHAT He is called. The concept is all that matters.

quote:Words do little justice to anything that they attempt to express, but above all this word. God.

I agree.

BUT, the word is not what matters. The concept, however, does.

God knows you are thinking of Him, or talking to Him, when you do.

You could call Him Bob, and He would still know you were referring to Him.

quote:I am not saying that the Bible is a lie, and Christianity is a lie. I am saying that the Bible is a story, Christianity a story. All myths, just like every religions of come into contact. Read my "Same Story Different Accent" post for more on this. Because beating behind all of these stories is the exact same meaning. If you are prepared to read between the lines, not accept everything like it's supposed to be taken literally, and give everything a chance.

The "stories" in the Bible are actual events.

They are told in the whimsical style of storytellers, so that they can be easily consumed.

To give "everything a chance" would be to take away from God what is rightfully HIS.

quote:Who's to say your "spiritual connectivity" does not come from the wrong source? Not to say that's what I believe, merely performing double think for the sake of my point. My point is it comes from the same place. I think that the concept of a duality such as the God/Satan scenario is an illusion we must see past in order to uptain an awakened state and find heaven within. If, however, the God/Satan scenario were true who's to say that the God in the bible is not satan, and vice versa. Afterall, Satan has the deceptive abilities to control what we're overwhelming inclined to believe(Descartes).

God does.

His word and teachings are very clear.

If you read them, you will see how easy it is to determine what is of God, and what is not.

There is no such thing as "heaven within", because that would mean we are able to achieve our own salvation (a.k.a. heaven), which we are completely incapable of doing.

Also, if there were a heaven within us, there would be no need for heaven in the afterlife, and therefor no point to life.

If there is nothing after death, then there is nothing in this life.

Satan does have an immense amount of control over this earth. God gave him that right.

But God can conquer all things for those that let Him. He can squash Satan any time He wants. He's God.

The trick is to be wise enough to know what invitations are from Lucifer, and which are from God, and accept and reject them accordingly.

quote:I am not judging you or condeming you either, I have a somewhat argumenative nature philosophically. I ask, and ask, and ask, and ask trying to get to the heart of everything. If I can get to the heart of the person I am talking with (especially if I disagree with them) I feel I'm closer to getting to the heart of myself and indeed everything.

Argumentative is fine, as long as objectivity is a prevalent factor.

I haven't had a problem with the way you post here, and don't suspect I ever will. Your format is fine. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Your outlook is a good one.

quote:How can one deny the parallels between Jesus and Buddha? I said there was a first cause because it must be logically so. That is not to say I believe in the literal genesis creation story. In all likely hood the beginning came from the end. The universe works in cycles so far, so why should it be any different when it ends/begins? The explosion that destroys the cosmos may very well be the big bang. Hell that would even agree with the Alpha/Omega scenario.

Being an avid follower of the Christian faith, and not at all an avid follower of the Buddhist philosophy, I would be interested in hearing what YOU perceive as the parallels between Christ and Buddha.

Say that the scenario you are presenting is correct. It still does not rule out the creation of the "first" creation. Even if our present universe is the direct result of the last universe's expiration, there was still the creation of that previous universe, or the one that created it, or the one that created that one.

There is still a beginning, at some point. The difference between what you are talking about and what i am talking about in regards to the "Alpha/Omega" concept is that you are talking about a tangible universe that HAD to be created (thus nullifying the possibility of it's infinite existence) and God, who is a self-proclaimed "Alpha/Omega" entity that cannot be studied, explained, or experienced with the basic 5 senses.

It is not far fetched to say that God is "Alpha/Omega", and that the universe, or the many that precluded the current universe, is not.

Who/what caused that beginning, assuming that we are not the first ?

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 10-15-2004).]

Hey glitterpunk I just realised those numbers after your name are fibonacci sequence. Life makes sense now..

I think me and you agree on the concept being what's important, but have percieved disagreement due to different use of words and understandings of these words. Which is kind of funny because it's what I'm talking about. I still feel, however, that giving God a title and a consciousness, even personality traits along with this is limiting indeed. I suppose these are far lack of a better word.

How can you claim the stories in the bible to be actual events? Did people really live to be over 900 years old? Do snakes really talk? These are symbols of a deeper meaning that is near impossible to explain without them, and even more impossible to understand without them. Giving everyting a chance this way, to me, isn't taking away from what rightfully belongs to God, because everything belongs to God so I'm just trying to experience and understand as much of God as I can. Be it Yahewah, Allah, Shiva, Krhisna, Unumbotte, or Bob.

The point I was making with while playing devil's advocate(no pun intended) about who is God and who is Satan is that with as little that is know for SURE about pretty much anything. If these dieties existed, it's just as plausible to say the one called God is the evil one devouring souls to remain eternal. These are not my thoughts, just things I kick around.

Now to the purpose, the Christ/Buddha.

Knowing their thoughts Jesus said "Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts?"

Buddha wanted his followers to cast out thoughts of desire as well. (After all who could deny that at the heart of ever sin is desire?)

Jesus said "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick."

Buddha comes to the world as a physician to the sick. A parable of the Buddhist nature compares existence, reality, "the world", as a house on fire. Buddha has left the fire but all his children stay in the house on fire out of fear. The father says, "come outside children, I have presents and toys out here for you."(heaven)

Jesus went into the desert to have his personal battle with "satan", all the evil lustful thoughts and desires, and he fasted and prayed.

Buddha went to sit under the tree, battling his lustful thoughts and desires, and he fasted and prayed(meditated).

Buddha was a prince who saw suffering and renounced the treasures of the kingdom to do so, while meditating and seeking many "devils" tempted him "You would do better to return to the castle, for the whole world will soon belong you you."

Jesus said "If anyone wants to be the first, he must be the very last, and servant of all"

That is VERY Buddhist, I don't think I have to explain why.

One of the final teachings of Jesus reads "I have come into this world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness"

One of the final teachings of Buddha was "Make of yourself a light.....Make my teachings your light."

I can't remember the specific Jesus quote but I imagine you can see how Jesus could say something like this, though it is from Buddha.

"The teachings which I have given you, I gained by following the path myself. You should follow these teachings and conform to their spirit on every occasion. If you neglect them, it means that you have never really met me. It means that you are far from me, even if you are actually with me; but if you accept and practise my teachings, then you are very near to me, even though you are far away."

Buddha and Jesus are very close to saying the same thing, they just use different words. "Heaven"/"Nivrana", "The Father"/Buddha-consciousness", etc.

There's plenty more as well, just something to chew on.

Ugh. I haven't been checking this thread enough and there is now no way that I can read everything posted.

DS: You said that you posted why you believe in God in another thread. I don't read every thread. I don't know why you would think I do. Why don't you just tell me now? That's the point of the thread. Please just explain to me what makes you believe. I don't understand this sixth sense. Why would you trust it? Why would you go against logic, the only thing we have really? Why have faith? I still don't understand any of this. There's no evidence of a God other than the creation of the universe. But that's a shitty argument because as easily as you can ask what created the big bang, you can ask what created God and you'll be in the same place. I just skimmed everything, so I don't know what you're hydrogen statement was about, but it's irrelevant and probably not true. Nothing before the big bang singularity is known. There could have been tons of shit before that, but before doesn't even make sense because that would mean before time (our time).

quote:Originally posted by Aphelion Corona:

Hey glitterpunk I just realised those numbers after your name are fibonacci sequence. Life makes sense now..

Guswut is the only other totsean ever to make that observation. You win a prize

Dear I_Like_Traffic_Lights:

Who's to say your "spiritual connectivity" does not come from the wrong source?

I just read over your "Same Story Different Accent" thread, and I think you'd be most interested in either Carl Jung or Joseph Campbell. I have yet to read Campbell, but his books are supposed to be required reading for anyone studying religious synchronicity. I could go into describing it, but it would rob you of the pleasure of discovering the mechanics behind this understanding.

Here's your required reading list:

Joseph Campbell: The Hero With a Thousand Faces. Deals exclusively with the hero myth, and how it reoccurs throughout all cultures.

Edward Edinger: Ego and Archetype. A very accurate Jungian analyst that describes the relationship of the individual (ego) to the supreme God forces, alternatively labeled the Godhead (Self).

Carl Jung: Memories, Dreams, Reflections. Carl Jung's autobiography, and probably the closest thing to a concise collection of his psychotherapeutic philosophy in literature.

How can one deny the parallels between Jesus and Buddha?

Even though this wasn't directed to me, I was actually browsing through Barnes & Noble tonight before coming home from work, and I came across a book called Going Home, by Thich Nhat Hanh, who apparently wrote several books concerning the fundamental philosophical parallels between Christianity and Buddhism.

Dear GlitterPunk112358:

Why would you go against logic, the only thing we have really?

...

I don't know what you're hydrogen statement was about, but it's irrelevant and probably not true.

In the very same post.

Simply because you don't understand something does not mean that it is irrelevant. If you're going to make a bold statement like 'it's irrelevant and probably not true,' then at least know what you're disregarding. Please be respectful, since this is a nice discussion - that you started.

-Tyrant

Slayer of Titans

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:



Simply because you don't understand something does not mean that it is irrelevant. If you're going to make a bold statement like 'it's irrelevant and probably not true,' then at least know what you're disregarding. Please be respectful, since this is a nice discussion - that you started.

-Tyrant

Slayer of Titans

I don't know what DS meant exactly, but I do know that saying that something happened or existed before the big bang singularity makes no sense. You might tell me that you ate blue my jurisprudence 7 yesterday and I won't know what the hell you mean, but I know it's not true because I don't have a jurisprudence 7 (something that doesn't exist).

There's a significant difference between discarding something because it doesn't make sense linguistically and refusing to understand something because it doesn't make immediate sense to you.

Learn the difference and know your place.

-Tyrant

Keeper of the Sacred Flame

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

There's a significant difference between discarding something because it doesn't make sense linguistically and refusing to understand something because it doesn't make immediate sense to you.

Learn the difference and know your place.

-Tyrant

Keeper of the Sacred Flame

Whatever, dude. I'll trust Hawking over random person on TOTSE

Then why did you start this topic?

Good point, Tyrant.

I'll get back to you, Glitter.

And you as well, Traffic.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

There were no parallels between christ and buddha except for that christ didn't exist and was probably created by taking small aspects of buddha among other figures.

Christ beleived in 'god' with a capital G.

He beleived in the creation, he beleived in salvation and he beleived he WAS GOD and god in the flesh.

Buddha did not beleive that he was an incarnation of vishnu and directly denoted this. He did not beleive in Vishnu or Brahmin and said he was not an incarnation of Brahmin nor was there a concentration of Brahmin in him. While Buddhism does acknowledge external beings people worship as gods, they worship none of this. Buddha is not a god and is not to be worshipped as well as all Buddhas and all Bodhisatvas. Buddha denoucned an ominpotent, omniscient being and denoucned creation, Buddhists and Buddha don't neccesarily beleived there ever had to be a creation in the first place.

Christ taught unconditional love for everything...where as in Buddhism love is the greatest affliction and attatchment that keeps us in the endless cycle of death and rebirth, a monk once said that if there were an affliction greater then love, then it would be impossible to cultivate. Unconditional love for everything is that greater affliction. Jesus was a jew.

End of story.

quote:Originally posted by GlitterPunk112358:

I don't know that theism is actually the word I'm going for, but what I mean is the belief in a god or many gods. Every time an atheist gets on here and babbles about how the bible sucks and that means there is no God, some person who is spiritual but not Christian says that the bible doesn't matter. So ultimately the people who are not Christians never state why they believe in god. The burden of proof does lie on the person claiming that something unseen does exist because our senses tell us that it's not there. There's no reason to think it is there until someone shows us that it is. So please someone tell me! In my life I've never met a person who has even come close to explaining why they believe in a god. In a forum about religion I would expect that someone at some point would, but no one has. So leaving religion and the bible and all that shit out of it, why do you believe?

In case you're wondering, here's why I don't believe: I feel no spiritual connection to an unseen being. I don't feel it there and have never seen evidence of it existing. I see the big bang and random chance as a better answer than a god because it has more evidence backing it and simply makes more sense.

Now it's your turn.

I luv u Glitterpunk... You so smart...

There were no parallels between christ and buddha except for that christ didn't exist and was probably created by taking small aspects of buddha among other figures.

Every religion on the face of the planet, Buddhism included, acknowledges that Jesus was a living, breathing, walking man.

Christ beleived in 'god' with a capital G.

He beleived in the creation, he beleived in salvation and he beleived he WAS GOD and god in the flesh.

Buddha did not beleive that he was an incarnation of vishnu and directly denoted this.

I will give you this point.

He did not beleive in Vishnu or Brahmin and said he was not an incarnation of Brahmin nor was there a concentration of Brahmin in him.

To my own mind, the assertion that Sakya (the clan to which the historical Siddattha belonged) did not believe in God is wholly unsupported. Nay, his whole scheme is built upon the belief that there are powers above us which are capable of punishing mankind for their sins. It is true that these "gods" were not called Elohim, nor Jah, nor Jahveh, or Jehovah, nor Adonai, or Ehieh (I am), nor Baalim, nor Ashtoreth--yet, for "the son of Suddhodana" (another name for Sakya Muni, for he has almost as many, if not more than the western god), there was a supreme being called Brahma, or some other name representing the same idea as we entertain of the Omnipotent.

-Dr. Inman

The Faith... began with the belief in a celestial, self-existent Being termed Adi Buddha or Iswara. Rest was the habitual statement of his existence. "Formless as a cypher or a mathematical point and separate from all things, he is infinite in form, pervading all and one with all.

-Dr. Simpson

And of course he didn't believe he was an incarnation of Brahmin; he wasn't a brahman. He was a ksatriya, one caste level down.

While Buddhism does acknowledge external beings people worship as gods, they worship none of this. Buddha is not a god and is not to be worshipped as well as all Buddhas and all Bodhisatvas.

He was called the Lion of the Tribe of Sakya, the King of Righteousness, the Great Physician, the God among Gods, the Only Begotten, the Word, the All-wise, the Wa, the Truth, the Life, the Intercessor, the Prince of Peace, the Good Shepherd, the Light of the World, the Anointed, the Christ, the Messiah, the Saviour of the World, the Way of Life and Immortality

-Ganga Prasad, Indian writer

Buddha denoucned an ominpotent, omniscient being and denoucned creation, Buddhists and Buddha don't neccesarily beleived there ever had to be a creation in the first place.

The first point has already been addressed, and I've never seen anything affirming or denying that last sentence there.

Christ taught unconditional love for everything...where as in Buddhism love is the greatest affliction and attatchment that keeps us in the endless cycle of death and rebirth

Here the distinction is between natural and supernatural love, between love based on the senses and love based on will and liberty. The former is, in fact, conditioned by feeling and is not free, since it does not stir until confronted by an object corresponding to a tendency... The Ariyan path of awakening does not recognize love in this sense, and regards it in all its forms as a limitation and an imperfection.

Different is amor intellectualis, which, though preserving the characteristics of an affective state sui generis, is based not on sensibility but, as we have said, on will and liberty. In Christian theology this is "loving all creatures in God"; which means that we here remember each individual's transcendental source, liking in him that which he is in the impersonal, metaphysical sense, and resolutely excluding any like or dislike proceeding from our particular nature. In this case... love becomes the purer and sign of higher liberty the less it depends upon particular satisfactions and attachment to single beings.

-Julius Evola

The Doctrine of Awakening

"The Four Jhana: The 'Irradiant Contemplations' "

p. 161-162

And, to respond to the claim therein, I address certain key texts signifying a deep synchronicity between the archetypes both Jesus and Buddha. References to Jesus are made in italics, Buddha in bold. Words coming directly from their mouths are identified by quotation marks.

EVANGELISM:

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching to obey everything I have commanded you."

"Go forth in all the world, for the good of the many, for the welfare of the many, in compassion for the world. Preach the teaching, magnificent as it is in the beginning, magnificent as it is at the end. Preach a life of holiness, perfect and pure."

THE PATHS OF LIFE

Buddha(Jesus) was born of a virgin named Maya (Mary). His birthday was celebrated on December 25, as was Jesus'. He was visited by wise men who acknowledged his divinity, much like Jesus' three wisemen. The life of Buddha (Jesus) was sought by King Bimbasara (Herod, who feared that some day the child would endanger his throne. At the age of twelve, Buddha and Jesus excelled the learned men of the respective temple in knowledge and wisdom. His ancestry was traced back to Maha Sammata, the first monarch in the world. Jesus' ancestry is traced back to Adam, the first man in the world. Buddha and Jesus were transfigured on a mountaintop. His form was illumined by an aura of bright light. Jesus was likewise transfigured on a mountain top.

All I feel like writing now, but it is an indisputable fact that you are wrong.

-Tyrant

Knight of the Swan

[This message has been edited by Tyrant (edited 10-18-2004).]

I didn't read the posts replying to it, but the big bang theory was originally proposed by a catholic, hubble just got credit for confirming it was possible 2 years later. It completely supports creationism, something from nothing, and scientists cannot prove what set off the big bang either. Science is not at odds w/ faith, they compliment each other.

My defenition of God = Everything, natural law, gravity, etc. Logically, at some point in time, the raw material everything is made of had to pop out of nowhere, there is no other way. Sciences best guess is no better than this explanation. So whatever formed the earth and the stars, made natural law, etc. is what I call God. Not neccesarilly personified, but there is no doubt my defenition of God exists.

All that stuff is merely a physical manifestation of the effects of the supernatural dimension, from which originates all eternal 'cause.'