If there were a just God

[lightgigantic]

Is your consciousness in touch with your soul?

My question is about your incarnation and/or have you achieved the ultimate aim?

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking.

The ultimate aim is to be able to serve god with unalloyed devotion. Its nature of conditioned life to siphon away that aim and its the nature of applying one's self to theistic practices to remedy that calamity.

 

[earth]

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking.

The ultimate aim is to be able to serve god with unalloyed devotion. Its nature of conditioned life to siphon away that aim and its the nature of applying one's self to theistic practices to remedy that calamity.

I was under the impression the ultimate aim in its puremost state of Gaudiya Vaishnava is pure love of God, thereby breaking the cycle of rebirth?

I'm asking, do you remember previous lives?

 

[lightgigantic]

I was under the impression the ultimate aim in its puremost state of Gaudiya Vaishnava is pure love of God, thereby breaking the cycle of rebirth?

yes

I'm asking, do you remember previous lives?

No, I can't even remember being 3 months old and often make mistakes when recounting events further than 10 years ago. In fact sometimes I can't even remember exactly what happened two weeks ago.

How about you?
Ever misplaced your keys?

 

[spidergoat]

But aside from this, its not really clear what necessity you have that requires god to be like a genie in a lamp in order to be valid.

I require only some indication that he exists, until then, considering human nature, the only reasonable conclusion is that it's a myth. Why is his presence indistinguishable from his absence?

 

[(Q)]

Ever misplaced your keys?

Never, they've always been exactly where I left them.

 

[earth]

yes


No, I can't even remember being 3 months old and often make mistakes when recounting events further than 10 years ago. In fact sometimes I can't even remember exactly what happened two weeks ago.

How about you?
Ever misplaced your keys?

Studies confirm memories of past events are often flawed.

Yes, I've misplaced my keys. My remedy is put them in the same place each time.

 

[lightgigantic]

Never, they've always been exactly where I left them.

lol

 

[Dywyddyr]

Yes, I've misplaced my keys. My remedy is put them in the same place each time.

That's efficient.
It means you only have a single location to forget.

 

[lightgigantic]

Studies confirm memories of past events are often flawed.

Studies have also indicated that it appears certain individuals have recourse to a type of consciousness that was present many centuries ago (for instance some obscure villager able to recount street outlays of a city in a foreign country from 500 years ago).

Yes, I've misplaced my keys. My remedy is put them in the same place each time.

I can just imagine your anguish when you go to look for them and they are not there.

 

[lightgigantic]

I require only some indication that he exists, until then, considering human nature, the only reasonable conclusion is that it's a myth. Why is his presence indistinguishable from his absence?

then we are back to the old pickle of the role application, based on theory, plays in mapping the path to conclusion ....

 

[earth]

I can just imagine your anguish when you go to look for them and they are not there.

The last time that happened my keys were in my coat pocket.

 

[lightgigantic]

The last time that happened my keys were in my coat pocket.

keys, much like shoes, pens, socks, coins, screws, usb flash drives, headphones, torches and spoons, have a funny habit of turning up in strangest places.

 

[earth]

keys, much like shoes, pens, socks, coins, screws, usb flash drives, headphones, torches and spoons, have a funny habit of turning up in strangest places.

The case of the disappearing socks, I gave up on that one.

 

[lightgigantic]

The case of the disappearing socks, I gave up on that one.

I guess if there was a just god, our socks wouldn't disappear, eh?

 

[wynn]

I point out the stupidity of faith in belief instead of faith in facts.

They why do you get up in the morning?

The day that is supposed to come, and everything you might do in that day, places you might go to etc. - are not a fact.
For example, until you actually get there, you don't actually know, for a fact, that the building of your work place is actually there. You merely have faith that it is there, or you have faith in your belief that buildings don't disappear over night.

 

[wynn]

Originally Posted by earth
Is your consciousness in touch with your soul?

My question is about your incarnation and/or have you achieved the ultimate aim?

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking.

The ultimate aim is to be able to serve god with unalloyed devotion. Its nature of conditioned life to siphon away that aim and its the nature of applying one's self to theistic practices to remedy that calamity.

My interpretation of Earth's question is that a yes/no answer in direct relation to yourself is expected.

It's the sort of question that, for example, a Christian would likely answer with "Yes, I am saved".

So your answer (offering a doctrinal argument that does not seem to reveal anything about your own level of realization) seems like avoiding to answer the question.

My question here is (since I have witnessed you do that before as well): Is such avoidance deliberate? Is it part of your discussion strategy? Or is it part of the doctrinal position you are coming from ? Can you even talk about it? Is there more to it?

Namely, many religious discussions seem to be based on the principle of "my realization vs. your realization" and it is implied that one person will then have to succomb to the other person. Not that one argument would be better than another, but that one person is more worthy than the other. Which then translates into a particular relationship between a superior and an inferior (in which the superior can get away with all sorts of lowly things).

 

[wynn]

Its possible to not believe in god but god's potencies (namely the material energy) takes the slack. IOW belief in god is characterized by service and disbelief in god is characterized by service to the material energy (IOW we're all nitya das, its just a question of the object of service)

What atheists mean by "belief in God" is then something different than what theists mean by "belief in God" (and even theists differ in that)?

What are the differences between the two?

That atheists take pratyaksa and anumana as the final authority on what constitutes "knowledge of God" or "belief in God", while theists give that authority to sabda?

 

[earth]

Originally Posted by earth
I point out the stupidity of faith in belief instead of faith in facts.

Originally Posted by Signal,
They why do you get up in the morning?

Because I owe, I choose to do so.

The day that is supposed to come, and everything you might do in that day, places you might go to etc. - are not a fact.
For example, until you actually get there, you don't actually know, for a fact, that the building of your *work place is actually there. You merely have faith that it is there, or you have faith in your belief that *buildings don't disappear over night.

I’m okay with *realistic faith, there isn’t anything to deflate.

Speaking on behalf of God,
I would rather use facts to guide my mind than inequitable belief enshrined.

 

[lightgigantic]

Can you even talk about it? Is there more to it?

perhaps

But unless one is familiar with the language and terms that surround the topic, its kind of pointless

Namely, many religious discussions seem to be based on the principle of "my realization vs. your realization" and it is implied that one person will then have to succomb to the other person. Not that one argument would be better than another, but that one person is more worthy than the other. Which then translates into a particular relationship between a superior and an inferior (in which the superior can get away with all sorts of lowly things).

Probably a good reason why its better to speak in a general sense about it. IOW rather saying " I am superior and this is why", its better to say "these are the qualities of being superior" and let the knowledge speak for itself in terms of who is or isn't like that.

 

[Grim_Reaper]

why would that be a cause for concern, unless you are a criminal?

Lots of personalities are in (or would if they could) be in a position of always watching their dependents (like parents for instance, especially of young children). Generally such a state is interpreted as a consequence of intense love when the dependent is not in a state to be properly independent. Of course Machiavellian personalities might also be desirous of such a state, but that says more about their intentions than the state itself.



Given this piece of information ....

BG 2.20 For the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time. He has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain.

... what specific crimes are you suggesting god is an accomplice to?

IOW if death in the material world is simply a closure to a mere chapter of an individual's pursuit of desire (and subsequent consequences) that gives rise to another similar chapter (until such a time as we get a proper grip on the whole desire thing), what's the problem? Sounds like a perfect rehabilitation program to me.


You're presenting arguments against the notion of god's existence.

I am simply pointing to inconsistencies in the argument.

What actions he has done to make him a criminal well have you read the Bible. Did you get to the part about the great flood how about that one for instance. And do say man brought that on him self as that may or may not be the case that is like saying the world brought it on them selves before ww1 and ww2. There is the Tower of Babel were he devided the races and deliberatly made every one not speak the same language and in do that caused mistrust and hatred among his Children. Things like that.