|| Replies ||

User	kanu | 2006-06-11 |
Subject	untitled
Message	There is proof of the nature of death, but that proof is received through the authority of great personalities (that are for the most part attributed to religion). Most of us are not great personalities, but still we demand that these subjects be revealed to us as if we were (namely to our direct senses). Since we come up against a blank wall in this endeavour we relegate the whole issue to superstition or a tool of imagination, which is kind of unfortunate becasue death is a very real thing that visits everyone sooner or later - despite all the confusion that surrounds it nothing is as sure as death. To retreat from death does not mean to retreat from life. On the contrary the opposite is true

User	dismentled | 2006-06-10 |
Subject	untitled
Message	I am more than aware how closely death is tide to religion, and even took part in some of the debate myself;(as to not sound too hippocritical) however didn’t I originally start this thread in relation to thoughts on death? What about the grimm-reaper, doesn’t he deserve some of our attnetion? And what if all our beliefs are wrong and we in all actaullity are as of yet incapable of fathoming the true existance of the feasbale supreme being? I mean is that really too far-fetched since "Proof is a very missable thing if you start with an agenda...And proof can othly be gathered from controlled or inferior atmospheres" so now there’s not even the exixtence of actual proof, only a more likely possabilty? what happened to good old bleak, black, chrimson death knocking at your door as boms are being dropped half a world away on "terrorists"

User	kanu | 2006-06-10 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Proof is a very missable thing if you start with an agenda - like for instance science used to prove that men were smarter than women by taking the largest male skull they could find - packing it full of lead and comparing that to the weight of the smallest woman’s skull they could find - And proof can othly be gathered from controlled or inferior atmospheres - like we are superior to matter, hence we can colect proof regarding matter, but when it comes to proof regarding consciousness and intelligence we are paralysed because the very thing we are seeking to gather is the thing we are gathering with - these statements by the way are the consclusions of contemporary physcists, not religion. So that doesn’t mean that there is no proof in the field of religion, just that to be on the platform to gather it you are required to fulfill some existential conditions Here are just two brief quotes from such persons about the nature of perceiving the proof of god The holy name of the Lord is never revealed to one who is situated in the bodily concept of life and thinks in terms of “I” and “mine.” If one doesn’t reject the enjoying mentality, the transcendental platform will never be attained. Srila Bhaktisiddhänta Sarasvaté Thäkura Prakata-rasa Sata-dusini The Supreme Soul dwells within the core of all living beings, but He does not manifest Himself to everyone. Only persons of superior intelligence and purified vision may perceive Him. Sri Yamaräja Katha Upanisad 3.12 These personalities are credited with perceiving god - and they’re giving their realisations - basically the conclusion is that empiricism has its place in the world, as does direct perception - but if you think that all the mysteries of the world can be ascertained by direct perception and empiricism you are mistaken - there is the question of the qualification of the seer

User	Astra | 2006-06-10 |
Subject	untitled
Message	If I die, I would want to have at least not accomplished, but found something, or discovered something. Maybe it would be a great friend who understands me, or a great story I am actually finishing. I would want that at least, and I would want to know that at least I am loved by friends and/or family. At least have someone or something to lean on in the end, so I can focus on that rather than whatever unfufilled thing or regret.

User	Lost Sheep | 2006-06-10 |
Subject	untitled
Message	"kanu has made a point a couple of times in the past that I think has been overlooked. If you are disinclined to believe spiritual things, then there will never be enough proof or the right kind of proof to satisfy you (generic, collective you) because you are looking for ways to DISprove rather than to prove. If you have your back turned to it because you are looking the other way, then you won’t see it." Proof is defined as "any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something". Proof (real proof, as opposed to belief) isn’t a deniable or missable thing. We know gravity works because we don’t fly. We can verbally deny gravity, we can try to ignore it, if we’re mentally imbalanced somehow, we can even jump up and down, cut ourselves, immolate ourselves or write a book about how gravity is a sham or a hoax. Still, the rest of the world will know that we’re mistaken, because they see gravity working. I’m not really looking to prove or disprove and I’ll be the first to admit that I can’t do either. I also feel that nobody else can prove or disprove it either. I can’t see anyway that something can be proven or disproven without any kind of physical observation. I wouldn’t necessarily be personal observation, but there has to be observation somewhere. Without physical observation, we can’t have factual knowledge and without factual knowledge, there’s no proof. Without proof, our goal shouldn’t be to try to prove or disprove anything. Still, I think to be the most enlightened individuals we can be, we need to look at our beliefs and determine which ones are based in facts and which ones we’re less sure about. I think that’s the key to our worldwide society moving past our differences and working on the things we can fix. Steve

User	Lost Sheep | 2006-06-10 |
Subject	untitled
Message	"Hold it, Steve. I didn’t say he shunned anybody. I said he reveals himself to each person individually. That’s a REALLY big difference. mae " I’m sorry if I mischaracterized your idea, Mae. Still, to me, shunning is the logical end to your statement. If God is revealing his/herself differently to each individual, then each some people will get image A, some will get image B, and some will get nothing at all, which is being shunned. Steve

User	kanu | 2006-06-10 |
Subject	untitled
Message	If you want to watch something interesting yet understandable about physics and observation of matter check out (it goes for about 5 mins) http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...4618&q=amazing or if you want to go in to something more in depth at the risk of being incomprehensible try http://www.bvinst.edu/

User	mae | 2006-06-10 |
Subject	untitled
Message	kanu has made a point a couple of times in the past that I think has been overlooked. If you are disinclined to believe spiritual things, then there will never be enough proof or the right kind of proof to satisfy you (generic, collective you) because you are looking for ways to DISprove rather than to prove. If you have your back turned to it because you are looking the other way, then you won’t see it. mae

User	mae | 2006-06-10 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Mae’s comment that God is talking to some people and shunning others. Hold it, Steve. I didn’t say he shunned anybody. I said he reveals himself to each person individually. That’s a REALLY big difference. mae

User	kanu | 2006-06-10 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Interesting what you said about empiricism being distinct from philosophy based on itself - some leading physcists described empiricism as philosophy based on itself - in otherwords observations of the physical world are limited by our perceptions and expectations. The fact that there are different religions indicates that people have different desires in different circumstances - a bonafide religion progressively leads one to surrender in full knowledge -a bogus religion leads one to progressively more attachment to the inferior world. Scripture is taken as the word of god and the pure devotee is the representative of god - Its not so circular but common sense - astronomy books indicate who is a qualified astronomer and a qualified astronomer indicates authoritative astronomy books - the point is tha t the yboth originate from the same potency - you don’t take scripture or the saintly person as ordinary just as you don’t take astronomy books and astronomers as bereft of astronomical knowledge - if you do you never begin to acquire anything in the name of spiritual life or astronomy. As for God’s mercy there are 5 avenues scripture the place of worship chanting of god’s names residence in a holy place god’s devotee of all of these the last, namely the devotee, is most potent because if you get the pure devotee you get the other 4 too. I would hazard that most of people’s reservations about spiritual life are due to the recent trend for disqualified persons to usurp people’s faith in the saintly person - its not that god withdraws his mercy its that we posiiton ourselves sorely to receive it. As for the vast irrevocable differences in religion I’m still not clear what they are - for instance "When you die, you can’t be going both to heaven and be resurrected to work off your Karma." you can - you can go to an elevated material heaven to work off your karma.

User	Lost Sheep | 2006-06-10 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Kanu, Once again your astronomy analogy falls short due to the fact that we can prove astronomy based on science. Of course, there’s a lot about the universe of astronomy that we don’t know yet. So, in astronomy, we throw our beliefs away every few years when new information proves us wrong. Your definitions here are still circular. Scripture is defined as things revealed by sanctified people, sanctified people and qualified teachers determined by the standards set forth in the scriptures. This is nothing like astronomy or any other science or verified thing. There’s no empirical observation anywhere, only philosophy based on itself. The key to the whole world is knowledge. All of our beliefs and faiths are based on knowledge and every decision we make, religious or not, starts with knowledge. I think most of our differences stem from the knowledge that we have. I’ve known a lot of devout, God fearing Christians, several honest, believing Hindus, a couple of heartfelt Moslems, a dozen Wiccas and an entire tribe of very religious North American Indians. While I haven’t personally known any Taoists, Confuciunists, Druids or people of many other religions, I’ve studied their faiths and I have no reason to doubt their faith and honest belief. The problem is that they all believe different things. They honestly, openly have heartfelt faith that everyone else is mistaken. No matter how kind they are to other faiths, they refuse to acknowledge them as factual because to do so would mean dumping their own faith. When you die, you can’t be going both to heaven and be resurrected to work off your Karma. For any noncommitted individual, fully accepting any of their beliefs means making a conscious decision that all of the other people are trying, but they’re mistaken. I can’t just write off 90% of the world on a hunch, a gut feeling or some emotion I have that I think might come from God. There are people lining up on the other side with the same emotional feelings that God is telling them their way is correct. I can’t swear that my emotion is from God and theirs in mistaken. We both feel it in our core, yet one of us is dead wrong. Whatever the decision might be, it needs to be based on facts, not emotions, just like every other decision we make in life. The answer to our difference of opinion may lie in Mae’s comment that God is talking to some people and shunning others. In that case, our lot is cast before we even start. Frankly, I wouldn’t want to serve a god that picks and chooses, but I can’t imagine a God that random. If God is worth following, he’s just and loving. Again, if he’s not just and loving, we’re all screwed from the beginning and it doesn’t matter what we believe. With several thousand different religions on this planet and all of them conflicting, we’re faced with two possibilities. It’s similar to a thousand people guessing how many jelly beans are in the crystal bowl. Either everyone is wrong, or one person or group has lucked out and got it right. If we really want to know how many jelly beans are in the bowl, we can either trust the guess of the guy next to us, we can try some newfangled way of counting or we can sit back and wait for the contest to end and be told how many were really in there. I’m still looking for a way to count. Steve

User	kanu | 2006-06-09 |
Subject	untitled
Message	By the way the assembly of saintly people as an authority is not just restricted to adherents of my own faith - it includes all saintly persons from other denominations that basically work by 8 characteristics (againthis info is picked up from scripture) peacefulness, self-control, austerity, purity, tolerance, honesty, knowledge, wisdom and religiousness (BG 18.42) Scripture declares the qualifications of a saintly person and by the association of a saintly person scripture gets transformed into revealed scripture - it is very difficult to enter into any field of knowledge if one is adverse to the th e persons who constitute the numbers in the established community -lol If you think that scripture is a mundane book and if you think that a saintly person is a mundane character then you have just exhausted the two avenues that god offers to understand him (and I guess that leaves you with the third option of god taking great mercy on you and self manifesting in your lounge room or something - which could happen but is quite rare compared to the other two)

User	kanu | 2006-06-09 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Steve not just any book - revealed scripture - just as in say astronomy - not just any book but a book of serious relevance to astronomy Not just any group of people that agree but a group of people that are purified of anger attachment, greed and other vices - again with astronomy - not just any group of people but a group of people qualified in stellar observations Not just any teacher but a person who doesn’t have imperfect senses, does not fall in illusion andtherefore does not make mistakes in relation to the absolute and have a cheating propensity As for the credibility of the vast history of thought on the subject of the next life - it suggests one thing - there is another realm that is governed by superior forces - now some people may be righter or wronger in their observations but your statement .... Catholics are right, Hindus are right, Mormons are right, Dan Brown is right, Pythagorus was right and even followers of Phedre are right. could be a correct statement in the sense that they accept another realm governed by superior forces - At the very least they are more correct than a person who views this life as the all in all. As to whether what anyone happens to be advocating as a religious process to approach the supreme (whether it be in the name of hindu, christian or phedreism) it can be tested by seeing whether the adherants are becoming more attached to god or more attached to name, fame, adoration of the material body and the acquisition of things in relation to the body.

User	mae | 2006-06-09 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Chell, you have indeed apologized numerous times. There is no need for you to apologize again. My last posts were not really complaining about your earlier statements; rather they were about the attitude that considered your comments and those of others on the board to be acceptable while kanu and I are accused by some of forcing our opinions or beliefs on others. I’m sorry you feel I’ve twisted your words. I have not intended to do that; I find it very frustrating when someone does it to me. I’m also sorry you’ve felt insulted or belittled by my words - especially the belittled part. I will admit that in the last week or so I’ve given in to my frustration on this board more than I usually do. I honestly regret that. I can assure you that if I said anything, anything at all, that you felt was belittling toward you, it was unintentional and I apologize. You have stated your beliefs many times, Chell, and I have not cried "foul," as you stated. You even took the opportunity in your PMs to me to, again, recite your beliefs. I did not respond in kind to you. I do not wish to argue with you or have any kind of ongoing feud. It would have been nice if you could have just understood that your words were hurtful and accepted that rather than trying to defend them. But that didn’t happen, and ill feelings grew on both sides. I think that ’proof’ of the existence of God is a one at a time sort of thing. How do you teach a child that a burner is hot? You tell them, but they rarely accept what you say. They have to touch it themselves, each child, individually. Perhaps it is the same with God proving himself. He does it for each person, individually. I know the Holy Spirit has spoken to me - and no, I didn’t hear voices. But it was just as real and because of it and my experiences with God through the years, I am prepared to say and fully believe that God is real. It’s just not something that someone else would accept as ’proof.’ mae

User	ghostknight | 2006-06-09 |
Subject	untitled
Message	well mae, do you feel responsible for all the people you drive away? if they weren’t destined for hell before, you’ve sure set them on the path. irony, irony.

User	Chell | 2006-06-09 |
Subject	untitled
Message	It’s funny, Mae, in one of your pm’s to me you said you didn’t "want this to become a finger-pointing exercise. That would not help in soothing anyone’s feelings, yours or mine." And yet you twist my words and claim I have called you arrogant, absurd, egotistical, and prideful. I think, in light of the fact that we can’t discuss religious ideas and the thought patterns behind them without offending each other that religion may not be a debatable topic. We’re arguing over opinions. Genereal statements and questions are being taken as sarcastic and insulting personal attacks. Why do you insist on taking my beliefs as attacks on you personally? You, also, have been sarcastic, insulting, belittling, and flat out rude to me Mae. But, instead of draggin our personal issues out in a public forum I attempted to keep it between us. I tried to reach out privately. I have apologized more times than I care to count for stating my beliefs. And you keep going back to your original gripe. Mae, I have asked and asked for forgiveness for anything I said that you decided to take as an attack upon you personally. Please forgive me for stating my opinions and let this go. I never intended to hurt you. I have no reason to. You have the right to your opinion. You have stated you opinion many times, and yet, when I do the same you cry foul. I have the right to my opinion. I have the right to voice my opinion. If you decide that my statements apply to you, that’s your choice- not mine. I am simply voicing my opinion, not a judgement call on you personally. For example, when you. on 2006-01-09. said, "What I will say is that without Jesus Christ as the Lord of your life, you ARE on the road to hell", I could have been offended. Kanu could have been offended. Any non-mainstream Christian could have been offended. I found it to be your opinion. Your belief. Just as valid for you as my belief in Love being the key is for me. I will not be respondig to this , or any other religious thread, again. People’s feelings are getting hurt, and that’s not a good thing. Take Care All,

User	Lost Sheep | 2006-06-09 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Mae, I’ve hesitated to get involved in the apparent hassle between you and Chell. I’m really not just jumping in to defend my wife, LOL. Still, even if Chell’s questions apply to you indirectly as a member of a group, they’re not an attack. Chell asked the question "I mean, isn’t it a bit egotistical to believe that you have been lucky enough to stumble across the ONLY true way to God?" Similarly, I’ve asked Kanu "Still, how do you reconcile your belief to the fact that it has no proof other than the fact that the people around you believe the same things?" These questions are on differnet topics, but they’re both honest questions asking for clarification, not personal attacks. To me, personally, it does seem egotistical that any individual could feel that they’ve found the only way to succeed in making God happy. I realize that you have a different view and I currently don’t understand it. I’m curious about that. You mentioned "The only objection I’ve had to these discussions is that the standards seem to be different for those of faith than for those who do not profess any faith." There’s no difference other than that inherent in taking the positive side of any debate. Steve

User	mae | 2006-06-09 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Chell, you don’t need to single me out for those statements to apply to me. You know - everyone on this thread knows - what I believe. A general statement about those beliefs would also include me. How could they not? mae

User	Lost Sheep | 2006-06-09 |
Subject	untitled
Message	"So with Phedre you would have to look at his activities and characteristics and see how they correlate with scripture. Again the authorities are scripture, guru and the assembly of saintly persons - if these three don’t add up there is a good chance that its bogus" So all Phedre (a woman BTW LOL) would need is a book accepted by many, a local person that believes and a body of others that believe??" "Again, words are credible evidence if they come from a credible source - the fact that there are literally tons of great thinkers who attest to the existence of something transcendental should offer some creedence to the claim that this world is not the all in all." The weakness in this argument is again it’s circularity. "Credible" means "capable of being believed". So if people can believe it, it’s credible and by your argument, if it’s credible then people should believe it. By this statement, Catholics are right, Hindus are right, Mormons are right, Dan Brown is right, Pythagorus was right and even followers of Phedre are right. The mere fact that people believe it means that the belief is correct. If we back it up a bit, to say that only things found credible by most people are right, then we have to accept that Christ rules most of western europe, but he has no power in India, where Vishnu rules. Of course, by the same standard, the world used to be flat and the sun used to revolve around the earth. Obviously, I’m being silly, and you don’t mean any of these things. Still, how do you reconcile your belief to the fact that it has no proof other than the fact that the people around you believe the same things? Please understand this isn’t an attack, it’s an honest question. Steve

User	Chell | 2006-06-09 |
Subject	untitled
Message	The definition of absurd is "inconsistent with reason or logic or common sense" I never said you (Mae) were absurd for believing that Jesus is the only way to heaven?. In a post, dated 5/25/06, I said, “ It is absurd to believe that God, in all his glory and infinite wisdom, is going to turn his back on his children because they found him through an alternative form of worship.” I never mentioned anything about your (Mae’s) belief that Christ is the only way or used your name in that post. At this moment that post is on page 16. If God is kind, loving, and just, then I believe it is inconsistent with reason or logic or common sense that He would turn His back on any of his children because of the religion they choose to follow. (To reiterate, this is my opinion.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In another post, dated 5/31/06, I submitted a bunch of questions to the forum in general. I never used your name. My questions in that post were to everyone. Apparently you have chosen to take this paragraph personally. “If Love is the concept that gets us back to God, is it really a good idea to be bickering about who’s right and who’s wrong? I mean, isn’t it a bit egotistical to believe that you have been lucky enough to stumble across the ONLY true way to God?” I tried to clarify all this in a couple personal messages, and yet, you still feel the need to hold onto those two comments as if I had singled you out, targeted only you with those questions. They are just questions. Ones that I had hoped someone, anyone, could answer. In the pm addressing the arrogant, egotistical, prideful comments I said: “I think the reason people feel mainstream Christians are egotistical is because, often, the jargon used can come across as arrogant, or egotistical, without the listener being able to hear inflection, see body language, make note of the sackcloth. How does one show humbleness, meekness, and love while telling others that they are horribly wrong, in danger of going to hell because of their religious choices, and that you are saved because you have chosen the religion that works best for you? When you profess to have the Only truth, the Only way, the assurance of salvation, or state another is wrong in their beliefs and the only proof you have is faith, a personal testimony, and a few select scriptures from your chosen religious tome to back your theory (which I can do too) it is belittling to those reading. And that comes across sounding like a person who as an inflated idea of their own importance. But I never called you egotistical. I didn’t use anyone’s name in that post.” I started the whole thing with “I THINK”. I was stating my opinion, my belief. I wasn’t asking you to agree with me, just understand my thought processes. - - - - - - - - - - I am, again, apologizing for any discomfort my opinions, beliefs, or questions may have caused you. But, please, stop claiming that I singled you out in those two posts, Mae. It’s simply not the truth.