Do you believe in God and why

[thaibeachlovers]

6 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Now i realise that my post was not well worded, i never meant to say that you are a bigot, i was referring rather in general to all the hypocrites who have done bad things in the name of Jesus, and put a indelible stain on Christianity.

Thanks for clearing that up.

None of the people that do bad things in the name of Christianity are actual Christians, as they do not follow the teachings of Christ.

To be a real Christian, one must repent of their sins ( not go out and do a whole lot of bad things ), love their neighbour as themselves, give to the poor, keep the commandments, and acknowledge the Lord is their master.

I can try to do most of that, but given my beliefs I can't call myself a Christian.

I guess I'm just not in the club.

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO, few will ever be "spiritual leaders" of humanity. Most of us just get along best we can. Complaining is sometimes as good as it gets.

I don't know anyone in my whole life that has sought enlightenment.

I was quite religious in my youth, and had I been encouraged I think I might have ended up in holy orders. However, the chaplain banished me from my attempt to become a part of the Church. I guess he never took to heart the teaching of the Christ about "suffering the little children", but certainly I left and never went back. I was lost to the Church on that very day.

Well, i am seeking just a little enlightenment, and for sure i would not want to be a spiritual leader.

I think if i manage in this life to get a better spiritual knowledge than when i was a little child, i will have done some progress.

Btw, i'm quite conscious of the fact that people like me, and maybe you, who are on a spiritual path, are considered a bit asocial by the majority of the people who are living a materialistic dream.

Being a social person, i try to mediate between my spiritual search and the need to socialise, so it's not like in real life i'm harassing people who don't care about spiritual things... Yet i am happy to talk when i meet someone of my tribe, so to speak.

[mauGR1]

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Thanks for clearing that up.

None of the people that do bad things in the name of Christianity are actual Christians, as they do not follow the teachings of Christ.

To be a real Christian, one must repent of their sins ( not go out and do a whole lot of bad things ), love their neighbour as themselves, give to the poor, keep the commandments, and acknowledge the Lord is their master.

I can try to do most of that, but given my beliefs I can't call myself a Christian.

I guess I'm just not in the club.

Well, Jesus forgave his persecutors, so i'd guess he would forgave you and me for not being "perfect Christians".

I believe that if you are able to look into yourself, admit some mistake within yourself, and try (no need to hurry) to better yourself, you are a decent Christian.

[Sunmaster]

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I don't know anyone in my whole life that has sought enlightenment.

 

I've met quite a number of seekers. Most of them were on the same boat as I, but a few were much more advanced. When you meet those, you can sense there's something special about them. It's very difficult to point the finger on what it is exactly. I could describe it as that warm, fuzzy feeling you get when you first fall in love and think that anything in the world is at your reach.

[mauGR1]

3 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

I've met quite a number of seekers. Most of them were on the same boat as I, but a few were much more advanced. When you meet those, you can sense there's something special about them. It's very difficult to point the finger on what it is exactly. I could describe it as that warm, fuzzy feeling you get when you first fall in love and think that anything in the world is at your reach.

A few years ago, i was in quite some distress, having found myself at odds with both of my neighbours without doing anything wrong.

Some friend told me, let's go to the local temple and speak with a monk, so one fay we went.

I could feel something unusual, as i was sitting few meters away, staring at him while my friend was explaining my problem.

Eventually, he asked me to sit close to him, and he imposed his hands on my head, as a blessing.

Suddenly, my tears started to flow like a waterfall, totally out of control, for quite a while.

As i discovered later, he could speak some English, and he told me his story of itinerant monk, who spends most of his time meditating in the jungle.

In the end, he just told me to carry on with my life, without paying attention to the haters, and so i did.

He was at the local temple just few days, and then he went, i felt blessed to meet such a person, definitely out of the ordinary.

[VincentRJ]

On 11/8/2019 at 9:55 AM, Sunmaster said:

"A hypothesis or idea that there might be some sort of intelligent creator, which we know nothing about,..."
That's simply not true. While I agree that we can't fully comprehend Spirit, humanity has spent 1000s of years trying to map out the inner landscapes of consciousness and the paths that ultimately lead to become one with it. 
The fact that one might believe these findings or not has no relevance whatsoever on their efficacy. 

 

If you'd given more thought the second part of the sentence, you might have understood what I meant. Here's the full sentence I wrote.

 

A hypothesis or idea that there might be some sort of intelligent creator, which we know nothing about, involved in the creation of life on our planet, is similar to the idea expressed thousands of years ago, in Greece and India, that all matter is composed of fundamentally indivisible particles called atoms.

 

However, I admit that my choice of the word 'nothing' might have confused you because even an imaginary idea about something that does not exist in reality, is still in a sense 'something', even if that 'something' is just a pattern of neuronal activity in the human brain.

 

Such patterns of neuronal activity can have consequences that are real in both good and bad ways. For example, it has been scientifically established that a belief in your medical practitioner will contribute towards the efficacy of any drug prescribed. Even if the drug is just a fake sugary pill, known as a placebo, it will still have some beneficial effect if you have a sufficient belief that it will work.

 

So, to clear things up, I agree that belief and faith are real 'things', in the sense of 'patterns of neuronal activity' in the human brain which can now be seen with fMRI scans.

 

However, the question remains whether or not those 'interpretations' in the human brain correspond with reality outside of the human brain. If they don't, disaster can result. The beliefs of ISIS members is an extreme example which is so awful that I don't wish to spoil my post by dwelling on that example. ☹️

 

Let's consider a more ordinary example, such as a person who has a phobia about snakes. A phobia is considered to be an 'unrealistic' fear of something which is not rationally justified. Imagine someone taking a walk in a park or forest, who has a phobia about snakes. She is a bit worried about the possibility of coming across a snake in such an environment. Suddenly, she see something that resembles a snake, a curved piece of rope lying across the path. Because of her phobia, she is unable to calmly examine the rope to determine whether or not it really is a snake, and immediately jumps to one side, tripping over a boulder and smashing her head on another boulder, and dies. This is a bad consequence of an irrational belief.

 

From the dawn of civilization to the present day, there have been thousands of hypotheses or ideas about the nature of so many aspects of life, our environment, and the origins of the universe. Finding out what is true, and debunking or falsifying that which cannot be rationally supported, is always a 'work in progress' with much more to learn.

 

If we rely upon ideas, or have a faith in ideas, which cannot rationally be tested and shown to be at least provisionally true, then disaster can result, and often does result. ☹️
 

[Sunmaster]

6 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

If you'd given more thought the second part of the sentence, you might have understood what I meant. Here's the full sentence I wrote.

 

 

 

 

However, I admit that my choice of the word 'nothing' might have confused you because even an imaginary idea about something that does not exist in reality, is still in a sense 'something', even if that 'something' is just a pattern of neuronal activity in the human brain.

 

Such patterns of neuronal activity can have consequences that are real in both good and bad ways. For example, it has been scientifically established that a belief in your medical practitioner will contribute towards the efficacy of any drug prescribed. Even if the drug is just a fake sugary pill, known as a placebo, it will still have some beneficial effect if you have a sufficient belief that it will work.

 

So, to clear things up, I agree that belief and faith are real 'things', in the sense of 'patterns of neuronal activity' in the human brain which can now be seen with fMRI scans.

 

However, the question remains whether or not those 'interpretations' in the human brain correspond with reality outside of the human brain. If they don't, disaster can result. The beliefs of ISIS members is an extreme example which is so awful that I don't wish to spoil my post by dwelling on that example. ☹️

 

Let's consider a more ordinary example, such as a person who has a phobia about snakes. A phobia is considered to be an 'unrealistic' fear of something which is not rationally justified. Imagine someone taking a walk in a park or forest, who has a phobia about snakes. She is a bit worried about the possibility of coming across a snake in such an environment. Suddenly, she see something that resembles a snake, a curved piece of rope lying across the path. Because of her phobia, she is unable to calmly examine the rope to determine whether or not it really is a snake, and immediately jumps to one side, tripping over a boulder and smashing her head on another boulder, and dies. This is a bad consequence of an irrational belief.

 

From the dawn of civilization to the present day, there have been thousands of hypotheses or ideas about the nature of so many aspects of life, our environment, and the origins of the universe. Finding out what is true, and debunking or falsifying that which cannot be rationally supported, is always a 'work in progress' with much more to learn.

 

If we rely upon ideas, or have a faith in ideas, which cannot rationally be tested and shown to be at least provisionally true, then disaster can result, and often does result. ☹️
 

This has been discussed several times before in this thread. 

Of course the scientific method has been and is very important for the development of our species and it has done us a huge favour weeding out the facts from fiction (age of the Earth VS biblical age for example).
However, science is nothing more than a tool, albeit a very effective one, to investigate and make sense of a very specific environment. As soon as it moves towards fields that are on the edge of that environment, things become very fuzzy and suddenly science becomes "pseudo-science" and "alternative science".

In short, for specific environments you need specific tools. 
You wouldn't perform surgery with a sledgehammer, would you?
If you expect a machine to give you an answer about a man's spiritual driving force, you'll be left wanting. That lack of a satisfying answer will then reinforce your belief that there's nothing to discover in the first place, apart from a placebo effect perhaps.

So what then is the right tool for the job?
This too has been covered over and over. To find out if the teachings about Spirit are valid or not, there's only one way: get your own hands dirty. Don't wait for some scientific study that may or may not come out to show it to you. What is at stake here is far too important. It's an evolutionary imperative that each and every one of us becomes a "spiritual scientist" and starts digging within.

 

[CMNightRider]

The Bible is the only book in the world that has accurate prophecy 

 

When you read the prophecies of the Bible, you simply have to stand back in awe.  There are over 300 precise prophecies that deal with the Lord Jesus Christ in the Old Testament that are fulfilled in the New Testament.  To say that these are fulfilled by chance is an astronomical impossibility.  

 

The Bible is the word of God.  This is not rocket science.  All you have to process is common sense to figure this out.  You have until you take your last breath to accept Jesus Christ as your saviour and repent of your sins.  After that it is a done deal.  Heaven or Hell, it's your choice.  Just remember, your choice will last for an eternity. 

[giddyup]

16 minutes ago, CMNightRider said:

The Bible is the only book in the world that has accurate prophecy 

 

When you read the prophecies of the Bible, you simply have to stand back in awe.  There are over 300 precise prophecies that deal with the Lord Jesus Christ in the Old Testament that are fulfilled in the New Testament.  To say that these are fulfilled by chance is an astronomical impossibility.  

 

The Bible is the word of God.  This is not rocket science.  All you have to process is common sense to figure this out.  You have until you take your last breath to accept Jesus Christ as your saviour and repent of your sins.  After that it is a done deal.  Heaven or Hell, it's your choice.  Just remember, your choice will last for an eternity. 

See Post #3241

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

So what then is the right tool for the job?
This too has been covered over and over. To find out if the teachings about Spirit are valid or not, there's only one way: get your own hands dirty. Don't wait for some scientific study that may or may not come out to show it to you. What is at stake here is far too important. It's an evolutionary imperative that each and every one of us becomes a "spiritual scientist" and starts digging within.
 

Good point, although a bit obvious. We live in the modern era of science and technology which is enormously successful and has provided us with the health, security and comforts that were unknown in the past, even among the rich and powerful who were susceptible to all sorts of diseases, and genetic disorders because of interbreeding, because they had no idea that interbreeding was disadvantageous, health-wise.

 

A 'spiritual scientist', is a person who examines the spiritual or extrasensory concepts from the scientific perspective. In order to do that, one needs a basic understanding of the 'methodology' of science, and a certain degree of faith that using that methodology of science can be effective. Such faith should not be difficult, because we are surrounded by the benefits of that methodology every day of our lives.

 

I was first impressed with Buddhism when I came across the Kalama Sutta, because that Sutta implied an understanding of the methodology of science. In other words, the Buddha taught, 'don't accept something merely because it's written in the scriptures, or claimed to be true by some renowned teacher or authority, but examine the claims in relation to your own experiences and understanding, and see if the claims make sense, before accepting them.

 

A 'spiritual scientist' who does not have at least a basic understanding of the methodology of science, is really a 'spiritual nincompoop'. ????
 

[FarFlungFalang]

How is it possible to discuss something which does not exist?If it does not exist there can be no name for it there can be no concept of it there can be no definition of it there can be no discussion of it's existence there can be no awareness of the subject under discussion by discussing the subject one has a percieved concept of the subject by having a perceived concept of that which is under discussion one is accepting it's existence.How can one have a concept of something if they believe it doesn't exist?Is god a concept?If god is a concept then surely god exists as a concept.

Skeptic7 refers to god as an imaginary friend,therefore god exists for Skeptic7 as an imaginary friend.Therefore god exists even for Skeptic7?

Edited November 9, 2019 by FarFlungFalang

[Sunmaster]

6 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Good point, although a bit obvious. We live in the modern era of science and technology which is enormously successful and has provided us with the health, security and comforts that were unknown in the past, even among the rich and powerful who were susceptible to all sorts of diseases, and genetic disorders because of interbreeding, because they had no idea that interbreeding was disadvantageous, health-wise.

 

A 'spiritual scientist', is a person who examines the spiritual or extrasensory concepts from the scientific perspective. In order to do that, one needs a basic understanding of the 'methodology' of science, and a certain degree of faith that using that methodology of science can be effective. Such faith should not be difficult, because we are surrounded by the benefits of that methodology every day of our lives.

 

I was first impressed with Buddhism when I came across the Kalama Sutta, because that Sutta implied an understanding of the methodology of science. In other words, the Buddha taught, 'don't accept something merely because it's written in the scriptures, or claimed to be true by some renowned teacher or authority, but examine the claims in relation to your own experiences and understanding, and see if the claims make sense, before accepting them.

 

A 'spiritual scientist' who does not have at least a basic understanding of the methodology of science, is really a 'spiritual nincompoop'. ????
 

This is your interpretation and your definition of a "spiritual scientist".
For me, a spiritual scientist is someone who, like a true scientist, wants to find Truth and uses the right tools to do so. These tools are not necessarily scientific tools,... they are meditation, introspection, psychology, anything that can help uncover the core of what you truly are.

There's no need to know the scientific methodology to know one's true self. 
What is needed is an honest, fearless self-inquiry.
 

Apart from this, we seem to be in agreement, especially on the Kalama Sutta, which has been one of my guidelines for the past 25+ years.

[CMNightRider]

1 hour ago, giddyup said:

See Post #3241

Please refer to the KJV Bible instead of viewing nonsensical demonic inspired videos.  Don't allow Satan to confuse you.  

[FarFlungFalang]

"You wouldn't perform surgery with a sledgehammer, would you?"

I have seen footage of a doctor using a sledgehammer during surgury and I'm not trying to be funny and I found it to be quite surreal but nonetheless it did happen.Try googling it.

Edited November 9, 2019 by FarFlungFalang

[giddyup]

15 minutes ago, CMNightRider said:

Please refer to the KJV Bible instead of viewing nonsensical demonic inspired videos.  Don't allow Satan to confuse you.  

None so blind....

[giddyup]

13 minutes ago, FarFlungFalang said:

"You wouldn't perform surgery with a sledgehammer, would you?"

I have seen footage of a doctor using a sledgehammer during surgury and I'm not trying to be funny and I found it to be quite surreal but nonetheless it did happen.Try googling it.

They use a big mallet for hip replacements.

[canuckamuck]

38 minutes ago, FarFlungFalang said:

How is it possible to discuss something which does not exist?If it does not exist there can be no name for it there can be no concept of it there can be no definition of it there can be no discussion of it's existence there can be no awareness of the subject under discussion by discussing the subject one has a percieved concept of the subject by having a perceived concept of that which is under discussion one is accepting it's existence.How can one have a concept of something if they believe it doesn't exist?Is god a concept?If god is a concept then surely god exists as a concept.

Skeptic7 refers to god as an imaginary friend,therefore god exists for Skeptic7 as an imaginary friend.Therefore god exists even for Skeptic7?

Skeptic is not really at the friend level. For him God is more like a neighbor that he doesn't like but hasn't bothered to talk to him yet.

[canuckamuck]

24 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

This is your interpretation and your definition of a "spiritual scientist".
For me, a spiritual scientist is someone who, like a true scientist, wants to find Truth and uses the right tools to do so. These tools are not necessarily scientific tools,... they are meditation, introspection, psychology, anything that can help uncover the core of what you truly are.

There's no need to know the scientific methodology to know one's true self. 
What is needed is an honest, fearless self-inquiry.
 

Apart from this, we seem to be in agreement, especially on the Kalama Sutta, which has been one of my guidelines for the past 25+ years.

I don't see why a scientific reasoning cannot be used in someone's investigation of the spiritual. Of course it would be necessary to abandon concepts like, everything must have a natural explanation, and if it can't be measured it doesn't exist.

[mauGR1]

21 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

I don't see why a scientific reasoning cannot be used in someone's investigation of the spiritual. Of course it would be necessary to abandon concepts like, everything must have a natural explanation, and if it can't be measured it doesn't exist.

Scientific reasoning is telling me that the physical senses are limited and imperfect.

Thus science, being based on the physical senses, is not perfect by definition.

Logic is telling me that, although i cannot prove it, there are serious clues of intelligent design.

[FarFlungFalang]

49 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

I don't see why a scientific reasoning cannot be used in someone's investigation of the spiritual. Of course it would be necessary to abandon concepts like, everything must have a natural explanation, and if it can't be measured it doesn't exist.

In my definition: God = Everything = The Universe which I mean literally,then in my view then the concept that "everything must have a natural explanation" it is not necessary to abandon this concept.Of course scientist put forward many theories about things that were not able to be measured at the time but as technology advanced these thing were able to be measured and supported these theories and indeed were seen to prove certain theories.   

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

I don't see why a scientific reasoning cannot be used in someone's investigation of the spiritual. Of course it would be necessary to abandon concepts like, everything must have a natural explanation, and if it can't be measured it doesn't exist.

I never said it can't be used, I said it is not necessary. 

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

There's no need to know the scientific methodology to know one's true self. 
What is needed is an honest, fearless self-inquiry.

This is what the scientific methodology includes, an honest and fearless inquiry into whatever issue is under investigation, whether the 'self', or the effects of CO2 increases on climate, or the effects of certain drugs, both short term and long term, or the effects of Buddhist meditation on calming the mind.

 

However, certain issues require tools that were not available at the time the concept was first thought of, so it has often required centuries of scientific development before a particular hypothesis could be confirmed, such as the hypothesis that the Earth and other planets in our solar system all revolve around the sun, or that all matter is composed of indivisible particles called atoms.

 

Even when modern tools are available to help the investigation, a lack of honesty can be disastrous.

[mauGR1]

59 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

3 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

There's no need to know the scientific methodology to know one's true self. 
What is needed is an honest, fearless self-inquiry.

This is what the scientific methodology includes, an honest and fearless inquiry into whatever issue is under investigation,

Yet everyone who cares to have a honest look into the academic world, can notice the fear to put forward some theories which may not agree with the mainstream theories.

Zecharia Sitchin has been ridiculed, and branded a pseudoscientist by his colleagues, yet other scientists find his work interesting.

 

Sumerian seal, about 3000 BC, according to Z.Sitchin the solar system was known by the Sumerians, yet they had no telescopes.

Edited November 9, 2019 by mauGR1

[FarFlungFalang]

23 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Yet everyone who cares to have a honest look into the academic world, can notice the fear to put forward some theories which may not agree with the mainstream theories.

Zecharia Sitchin has been ridiculed, and branded a pseudoscientist by his colleagues, yet other scientists find his work interesting.

 

Sumerian seal, about 3000 BC, according to Z.Sitchin the solar system was known by the Sumerians, yet they had no telescopes.

The figure on the right bears a remarkable resemblance HR Giger's Alien!

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, FarFlungFalang said:

The figure on the right bears a remarkable resemblance HR Giger's Alien!

Had to google it, he may have been inspired by ancient sculptures and bas-reliefs.

[Sunmaster]

There are lots of unexplained mysteries. One of my favourites is the Antikythera Mechanism. At around 2000 years old, it predates anything remotely similar by at about 1500 years.

 

 

Edited November 9, 2019 by Sunmaster

[mauGR1]

Baalbek megaliths, Lebanon, those are very strange too.

[FarFlungFalang]

10 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

There are lots of unexplained mysteries. One of my favourites is the Antikythera Mechanism. At around 2000 years old, it predates anything remotely similar by at least 1800 years.

 

 

Intriguing.

[VincentRJ]

5 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Yet everyone who cares to have a honest look into the academic world, can notice the fear to put forward some theories which may not agree with the mainstream theories.

Zecharia Sitchin has been ridiculed, and branded a pseudoscientist by his colleagues, yet other scientists find his work interesting.

 

Sumerian seal, about 3000 BC, according to Z.Sitchin the solar system was known by the Sumerians, yet they had no telescopes.

You don't need telescopes to see the stars and the planets at night. Nor do you need telescopes to distinguish between a star and a planet. All the stars move across the sky in unison, whereas planets have their own trajectory which is independent of the motion of the stars.

 

The image you've shown is a part of 'Cylinder Seal VA 243'. What might appear to be the sun surrounded by 11 planets is more likely a major star surrounded by other stars, that is, a constellation, according to Sumerian scholars.

 

The following article explains why Zecharia Sitchin's theory doesn't stack up to the standards of the methodology of science.
http://www.michaelsheiser.com/VA243seal.pdf

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, VincentRJ said:

You don't need telescopes to see the stars and the planets at night. Nor do you need telescopes to distinguish between a star and a planet. All the stars move across the sky in unison, whereas planets have their own trajectory which is independent of the motion of the stars.

 

The image you've shown is a part of 'Cylinder Seal VA 243'. What might appear to be the sun surrounded by 11 planets is more likely a major star surrounded by other stars, that is, a constellation, according to Sumerian scholars.

 

The following article explains why Zecharia Sitchin's theory doesn't stack up to the standards of the methodology of science.
http://www.michaelsheiser.com/VA243seal.pdf

Yep, i know what your talking about, Sitchin's theories has been truly debunked by Heiser and company, yet i am sure that Sitchin and others are onto something.

Why the central star has rays and other stars have not ? According to official science, the Sumerian knew only 5 planets of the solar system, but that's just another theory.

I am still convinced that "official science" is not buying a lot into mysteries, and probably rightly so, yet i am sure that, despite our distant ancestors being mostly ignorant, there must have been somebody around who had some exceptional knowledge.

Consider that, at those times, very few people could write and read, and paper and books were probably very rare, or not even existing yet.