Why isn't unconditional love enough?

water said:
I understand this. But you are basing your differentiation on the assumption that people are essentially different. I do not believe we are essentially different, and I believe truth exists.
Click to expand...
and this is where we interpret reality different. in know that people are different, in everyway.


Yes, I allow ("allow" -- strange choice of words) your truth to be true for you.
But I believe that the truth about God is such that it is true for all people. And this is so because of who God is -- the Creator.
Click to expand...
how can this be so, when people do not have the same expereince of god and a lot of people have no experience of god?

Now, I am not saying that *my* understanding is the ultimate one and the right one. I am saying that an ultimate and right understanding is possible. That truth is not relativistic.
Click to expand...
you want there to be only one reality?
 
Water:

But I believe that the truth about God is such that it is true for all people. And this is so because of who God is -- the Creator.
Click to expand...

I think gods truth is the truth of subjective existential realism. By that I mean that the creator who created us must perforce be a semi-objective entity in the sense that the truth of that entity is self evident. Or not. The ultimate schizm between science and religiospiritual reality perception is that of the fundamental oneness of all. This oneness leads to a realty of perception that is not differentiated by objectivism - in a relative sense. After considering the ethereal nature of the subjective pseudo-reality we call existence, one must conclude that gods role is one of creation as it relates to existential subjectivism. Without this realization, all hope of cogitating the natural vs the spiritual realms of relativistic dualism is doomed to forever be in fluxation. To that end I propose a fusion of reality perceptions into a suprareality matrix of sorts with elements of philosophical discourse from various interdisciplinary disciplines. Or not.
 
ellion said:
and this is where we interpret reality different. in know that people are different, in everyway.
/.../
how can this be so, when people do not have the same expereince of god and a lot of people have no experience of god?
/.../
you want there to be only one reality?
Click to expand...

If there is only one true God, who is the Creator, then there is one reality, and also, all people are essentially the same. Regardless of the experiences with God they have.


EDIT:

I really like your avatar. It's so good.
 
Unless they come from an alternate universe containing many conflictig gods, causing a "god crisis" resulting in a battle of the gods, which destroys their universe. Hence the reason they are in our universe.

QED.
 
superluminal said:
Unless they come from an alternate universe containing many conflictig gods, causing a "god crisis" resulting in a battle of the gods, which destroys their universe. Hence the reason they are in our universe.

QED.
Click to expand...

So what? There can still be one God who is above them all, providing a space in which they can "battle".
 
Yes.

The ubergod could referee the battle of the subgods, but could not place bets due to his omniscience. That would be unfair since he knows the outcome. However, if one subgod casts a future-blocking spell on ubergod - even for just a moment - then the subgods could upset the fundamental spiritual forces of the universe, resulting in it's destruction anyway.
 
superluminal said:
I think gods truth is the truth of subjective existential realism. By that I mean that the creator who created us must perforce be a semi-objective entity in the sense that the truth of that entity is self evident. Or not. The ultimate schizm between science and religiospiritual reality perception is that of the fundamental oneness of all. This oneness leads to a realty of perception that is not differentiated by objectivism - in a relative sense. After considering the ethereal nature of the subjective pseudo-reality we call existence, one must conclude that gods role is one of creation as it relates to existential subjectivism. Without this realization, all hope of cogitating the natural vs the spiritual realms of relativistic dualism is doomed to forever be in fluxation. To that end I propose a fusion of reality perceptions into a suprareality matrix of sorts with elements of philosophical discourse from various interdisciplinary disciplines. Or not.
Click to expand...


Bhagavad-gita 3,3:

The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: O sinless Arjuna, I have already explained that there are two classes of men who try to realize the self. Some are inclined to understand it by empirical, philosophical speculation, and others by devotional service.​
 
superluminal said:
Yes.

The ubergod could referee the battle of the subgods, but could not place bets due to his omniscience. That would be unfair since he knows the outcome. However, if one subgod casts a future-blocking spell on ubergod - even for just a moment - then the subgods could upset the fundamental spiritual forces of the universe, resulting in it's destruction anyway.
Click to expand...

You have way too much time on your hands.
I'm off to bed now. Finally.
 
superluminal said:
Yes.

The ubergod could referee the battle of the subgods, but could not place bets due to his omniscience. That would be unfair since he knows the outcome. However, if one subgod casts a future-blocking spell on ubergod - even for just a moment - then the subgods could upset the fundamental spiritual forces of the universe, resulting in it's destruction anyway.
Click to expand...

sounds a bit like "Insider trading"....ha and Unconscionable conduct.....
 
reality itself is not relative, though many real things are relative to each other.

anyway, unconditional love does exist, it is the love of fools. and your god is not a fool. besides, why do we care about love if "jesus died for our sins" essentially giving us a free pass into heaven if we merely [but genuinely] believe the dogma? or am i wrong? :p
 
water
people are the same, look around you, people are not the same. everyone is diiferent and there is no difference between any body.

why must there only be one reality, if that reality is many realities, can you allow that reality to be one reality and many realities at the same time?
 
And if reality is not my reality then your reality is really real and reality is one of many realities but reality is not reality if reality is really real, I mean, really.

(ubergod wins again!!!)
 
superlum said:
And if reality is not my reality then your reality is really real and reality is one of many realities but reality is not reality if reality is really real, I mean, really.
Click to expand...
in my reality your reality is your reality whether you say it is not or not, but i will allow you to say your reality is not yours or not beacause that is how you are intepreting your reality. if i allow you to have what you see is yours, i am taking nothing form you and you have no need to defend your reality from me.

my reality is really real, and your reality is really real for you. reality is always reality even when it is not seen as real.

the many realities and the one reality are one consensual reality and many individual realities. but this might not be real for you, as i said this is my reality. if it is true for you then it is real too.
 
this egregious use of "reality" must stop. the word "perception" exists for a reason.
 
i like "reality" better than "perception" for know. if i offended you, forgive me.
 
there is a word association thread in the cesspool you guys might enjoy that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top