So, you worship an invisible entity that you've never met or even seen and know very little about?
That makes sense. :crazy:
Right and wrong is determined by God
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
So, you worship an invisible entity that you've never met or even seen and know very little about?
That makes sense. :crazy:
No I haven't.
What makes you think I have?
Why do you believe in something you have no knowledge off?
Why do you believe in something you have no knowledge off?
I wonder what it is that Jan believes in therefore? I don't see how Jan's position works at all.
Most people who believe in a god do NOT pretend to have an evidence that he exists . They see it as a faith and a belief .
Why do you believe in something you have no knowledge off?
What do you mean by "no knowledge of"?
jan.
I keep asking you to tell me the attributes you believe your God has, but you keep dodging, so no.
And i keep giving you those attributes which i believe God has.
Why can't you accept that?
What kind of definitions do you expect?
jan
The way I understand, what the atheists are pointing at with such inquiries as Swarm's above is this:
Without full (or at least sufficient) realization (of God and the path to Him), without the benefit of hindsight so to speak:
how can we now say that we know anything about God,
and how can we now know anything about God?
This is something I have been wondering about a lot as well.
Without the benefit of vijnana, how can we know that a jnana is a correct one?
Sorry Jan, I must have missed the post where you listed them here, at SF, and instead saw the cop out link to the dictionary.
Please, list what you believe to be the attributes of your God, here, in this thread.
Signal,
You can see your material body.
You can see how you can use it to serve you.
Who are you?
If you are separate from your material body, then what are you?
Where did come from?
What happens after the anihilation of the body?
What I am describing here, are two different natures, spiritual, and material.
What are differences?
We start with these questions, in order to realize God.
The various paths are ways to come to this realization.
Fortunately we do have the benefit of vijnana in the form of Bhagavad Gita,
and the souls who have become enlightened. At least for the time being.
As for your question, I don't know.
jan.
You can see your material body.
You can see how you can use it to serve you.
Who are you?
If you are separate from your material body, then what are you?
Where did come from?
What happens after the anihilation of the body?
What I am describing here, are two different natures, spiritual, and material.
What are differences?
We start with these questions, in order to realize God.
The various paths are ways to come to this realization.
Fortunately we do have the benefit of vijnana in the form of Bhagavad Gita,
and the souls who have become enlightened. At least for the time being.
As for your question, I don't know.
jan.
Sorry phlog, but it's not a cop out.
In that link are the attributes you asked for.
What, are you seriously going to continue to pretend that there are no attributes of God in that link?
And pretend that I don't agree with them?
:crazy:
jan.
No Jan, I want you to list them here, not cop out to a dictionary definition. It must be your words Jan, not a link, or a C&P.
Jan,
I'll rephrase my question:
When you speak about God, do you speak with certainty, or some sense of certainty? You seem to do so.
How have you arrived at that certainty?
Was there ever a point in your life where you did not have that certainty?
Can you discern what exactly happened that made you move on from "perhaps" to "certain"?
Signal,
How certain are you, that I seem to do so?
That is probably the kind of certainty I speak with.
Although you may not be a psycologist, you have experience
of psycology which you use analyse pycological situations. Some
conclusions are obvious, some you may not be sure about, but makes
the most sense.
Through the philosophy of God, namely Bhagavad Gita.
I would say pre-understanding of Bhagavad Gita.
I would say the first time the BG started to make sense to me.
I guess everything stems from BG.
How people can conclude that BG was constructed
by primitive people trying explain thunder and rain, is beyond me.
jan.
How certain are you, that I seem to do so?
That is probably the kind of certainty I speak with.
Although you may not be a psycologist, you have experience
of psycology which you use analyse pycological situations. Some
conclusions are obvious, some you may not be sure about, but makes
the most sense.
Through the philosophy of God, namely Bhagavad Gita.
I would say pre-understanding of Bhagavad Gita.
I would say the first time the BG started to make sense to me.
I guess everything stems from BG.
How people can conclude that BG was constructed
by primitive people trying explain thunder and rain, is beyond me.
jan.
How people can conclude that BG was constructed
by primitive people trying explain thunder and rain, is beyond me.
What's to wonder? There's as much primitive myth and superstition in that cult as there is in any other.
Jan -
Well, all I have to go by are your posts here. Perhaps I would have a different impression about your certainty if I knew you in person and in different situations, over a longer period of time.
In forums like these, or in formal meetings, it's easy to get skewed impressions of people. And so they might come across as very certain or very advanced, but a more variegated interaction could suggest otherwise.
Could you, in roundabout, assess how long and how much work it took you to come to that certainty?
Were there any obstacles that you were facing on this path, and if yes, what were they and how did you deal with them?
(But I understand if you don't answer if this is too personal.)
And this was enough for you?
I think the BG makes good sense to me, but I don't feel certain.
I feel plagued by the gap between jnana and vijnana. I feel that someone like me, who at most has jnana, should basically be either silent, or think and speak only in relatives ("I think that ... As far as I understand ..." etc.).
But this has worked out poorly for me. For one, I myself am plagued by uncertainty when I try to explain life to myself, using arguments from the BG.
For two, the people who are nominally on the same path as I have mostly responded negatively to my relativistic and subjective speaking.
Perhaps because the alternative - which is that the BG is a word of God by which we are all obligated - is too uncomfortable to accept.
Especially if there is some notion that it should be accepted within a very short time, preferrably in an instant.
From what I gathered in discussions with atheists and theists, many atheists have the notion that whatever statement is made about God, it is supposed to be accepted instantly, and that this is what theists did. There are also some theists who make it clear that they want instant acceptance without any questioning.
Many atheists as well as some theists are not allowing for some room, breathing space, time for practice and experience when it comes to theism. Instead, they have a "now or never, all or nothing" attitude.
And this atittude breeds a lot of resentment, I think on both sides, a status quo at best, and a sharpening of atheism at worst.
Well, all I have to go by are your posts here. Perhaps I would have a different impression about your certainty if I knew you in person and in different situations, over a longer period of time.
In forums like these, or in formal meetings, it's easy to get skewed impressions of people. And so they might come across as very certain or very advanced, but a more variegated interaction could suggest otherwise.
Could you, in roundabout, assess how long and how much work it took you to come to that certainty?
Were there any obstacles that you were facing on this path, and if yes, what were they and how did you deal with them?
(But I understand if you don't answer if this is too personal.)
And this was enough for you?
I think the BG makes good sense to me, but I don't feel certain.
I feel plagued by the gap between jnana and vijnana. I feel that someone like me, who at most has jnana, should basically be either silent, or think and speak only in relatives ("I think that ... As far as I understand ..." etc.).
But this has worked out poorly for me. For one, I myself am plagued by uncertainty when I try to explain life to myself, using arguments from the BG.
For two, the people who are nominally on the same path as I have mostly responded negatively to my relativistic and subjective speaking.
Perhaps because the alternative - which is that the BG is a word of God by which we are all obligated - is too uncomfortable to accept.
Especially if there is some notion that it should be accepted within a very short time, preferrably in an instant.
From what I gathered in discussions with atheists and theists, many atheists have the notion that whatever statement is made about God, it is supposed to be accepted instantly, and that this is what theists did. There are also some theists who make it clear that they want instant acceptance without any questioning.
Many atheists as well as some theists are not allowing for some room, breathing space, time for practice and experience when it comes to theism. Instead, they have a "now or never, all or nothing" attitude.
And this atittude breeds a lot of resentment, I think on both sides, a status quo at best, and a sharpening of atheism at worst.
Doesn't belief in something you have no evidence for seem a tad crazy to you?