That's typical. If he is so mighty why doesn't he make it a straightforward business to get to know him. Doesn't he know that sane people do not believe in miracles ? Jesus as depicted in the Bible was an illusionist. Who would believe that Lazurus ,whose body would be putrefying after three days, could be brought back to life.The brain is irreversibly damaged within half an hour after death.
Will this convert you to believe in God?
- Thread starter NDS
- Start date
That's typical. If he is so mighty why doesn't he make it a straightforward business to get to know him. Doesn't he know that sane people do not believe in miracles ? Jesus as depicted in the Bible was an illusionist. Who would believe that Lazurus ,whose body would be putrefying after three days, could be brought back to life.The brain is irreversibly damaged within half an hour after death.
Inextricably correct.
By the by, what the F does necromancy necessarily have to do with a deity???
---------- NDS ----------
As for the optimum religion, that depends on where some one is situated.
The highest is this
BG 12.8: Just fix your mind upon Me, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and engage all your intelligence in Me. Thus you will live in Me always, without a doubt.
The lowest is this
BG 12.11: If, however, you are unable to work in this consciousness of Me, then try to act giving up all results of your work and try to be self-situated.
with the further range of descending value between texts 8 and 11
Actually the whole 12th chapter is a good over view of different levels of religious practice in general
Buddhism is sometimes defined as upadharma in the vedas, meaning it deals exclusively with subreligious principles (ahimsa, humility, etc). When I suggest that buddhism is somehow lesser, I mean to suggest that there is not a completeness in the practice since the philosophy doesn't adequately deal with issues of the self.
It is true that there are many non-existent and false aspects of the material self, but as a further point there is an eternal nature to our individual existence. Coming to this realization necessitates a concomitant realization of god - IOW realization of our eternal individuality is realized to the degree that we realize god.
The perfection of buddhism offers a type of liberation where one merges into transcendence, but because we are eternally individual, the need for activity pulls one from that state of liberation. We are pulled towards activity. - kind of like if you had a really dreadful life of harassment and pain at the hands of others, and somehow left it to eternally reside in a vacant field by yourself, sooner or later you would want to do "something" - a fuller picture has activities that can also be performed while in a state of liberation. These transcendental activities are unalloyed activities of love and devotion towards god and things connected to god.
The notion of dissolving the self is attractive for someone who's sense of self is ultimately painful (which is what the material self actually is - but due to the nature of illusion we don't perceive it). The discipline of buddhism involves breaking that material illusion of the self. A further religious principle is not only dissolving the material self but coming to understand the nature of the real self.
The difference may appear very slight but the implications are vast.
In the absence of realizing god, we are left with a focus on subreligious principles, and/or, dry mental speculation/book knowledge about god, none of which offer a steady platform of existence. These things advance the cause of religious causes but are not perfections.
A god that punishes anyone for eternity (what to speak of persons who are slightly skewed in their religious sentiments) offers a very difficult to worship. Actually the truth is the opposite - god pays more attention to the good things we do rather than the bad things - if it wasn't the case, there would be no scope for anyone leaving the material world once they chose to enter it.
Other things to know - well there's tons.
A good place to start might be understanding what is the unique nature of god, since that is fundamental to understanding what is unique about our selves.
In the vedas, a common word for god is bhagavan, which means possessing all opulences (commonly categorized as six in nature)
Here is an audio lecture on it that gets straight into it (after a first minute of sanskrit recitation)
Once again, if there were more sincere christians or buddhists in the world, I wouldn't be complaining (since sincerity in religion is all about devotion to god, and since god is not ultimately a religious fanatic - he is not christian, muslim or hindu - a sincere christian is a million times better than an insincere hindu - another common article of miscommunication in theism is "the lowest of our guys is greater than the highest of your guys" - lol)
BG 8.5: And whoever, at the end of his life, quits his body, remembering Me alone, at once attains My nature. Of this there is no doubt.
BG 8.6: Whatever state of being one remembers when he quits his body, O son of Kuntī, that state he will attain without fail.
BG 8.7: Therefore, Arjuna, you should always think of Me in the form of Kṛṣṇa and at the same time carry out your prescribed duty of fighting. With your activities dedicated to Me and your mind and intelligence fixed on Me, you will attain Me without doubt.
BG 8.8: He who meditates on Me as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, his mind constantly engaged in remembering Me, undeviated from the path, he, O Pārtha, is sure to reach Me.
In short, what one will be remembering at the time of death depends on the nature of one's consciousness in regards to one's activities.
For instance if a man says that he believes his wife is the most attractive woman deserving of his full attention yet his actions indicate otherwise, it tends to indicate a lack of sincerity.
In one sense, jesus is the founder guru of christianity (at the head of the disciplic succession to god)
Actually the issue is not so much about denomination since these things are only means.
Generally there are two approaches to the problem of achieving transcendence
BG 12.1: Arjuna inquired: Which are considered to be more perfect, those who are always properly engaged in Your devotional service (aka dualists) or those who worship the impersonal Brahman, the unmanifested? (aka monists)
to which the reply is
BG 12.2: The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Those who fix their minds on My personal form and are always engaged in worshiping Me with great and transcendental faith are considered by Me to be most perfect.
the short way
BG 12.3-4: But those who fully worship the unmanifested, that which lies beyond the perception of the senses, the all-pervading, inconceivable, unchanging, fixed and immovable — the impersonal conception of the Absolute Truth — by controlling the various senses and being equally disposed to everyone, such persons, engaged in the welfare of all, at last achieve Me.
and the long way.
PS - skinwalker - if you want to edit this post because it contains too many scriptural quotes, can you please PM me first?
what is the same thing that is repeated?
A good general principle of any endeavour is to have the association of like minded people.
As for the optimum religion, that depends on where some one is situated.
The highest is this
BG 12.8: Just fix your mind upon Me, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and engage all your intelligence in Me. Thus you will live in Me always, without a doubt.
The lowest is this
BG 12.11: If, however, you are unable to work in this consciousness of Me, then try to act giving up all results of your work and try to be self-situated.
with the further range of descending value between texts 8 and 11
Actually the whole 12th chapter is a good over view of different levels of religious practice in general
There is a type of religious fatalism, probably prominently culturally established by some abrahamic theistic scholars around the 12th century, that you either get it spot on or are lost to hell.
Buddhism is sometimes defined as upadharma in the vedas, meaning it deals exclusively with subreligious principles (ahimsa, humility, etc). When I suggest that buddhism is somehow lesser, I mean to suggest that there is not a completeness in the practice since the philosophy doesn't adequately deal with issues of the self.
It is true that there are many non-existent and false aspects of the material self, but as a further point there is an eternal nature to our individual existence. Coming to this realization necessitates a concomitant realization of god - IOW realization of our eternal individuality is realized to the degree that we realize god.
The perfection of buddhism offers a type of liberation where one merges into transcendence, but because we are eternally individual, the need for activity pulls one from that state of liberation. We are pulled towards activity. - kind of like if you had a really dreadful life of harassment and pain at the hands of others, and somehow left it to eternally reside in a vacant field by yourself, sooner or later you would want to do "something" - a fuller picture has activities that can also be performed while in a state of liberation. These transcendental activities are unalloyed activities of love and devotion towards god and things connected to god.
The notion of dissolving the self is attractive for someone who's sense of self is ultimately painful (which is what the material self actually is - but due to the nature of illusion we don't perceive it). The discipline of buddhism involves breaking that material illusion of the self. A further religious principle is not only dissolving the material self but coming to understand the nature of the real self.
The difference may appear very slight but the implications are vast.
In the absence of realizing god, we are left with a focus on subreligious principles, and/or, dry mental speculation/book knowledge about god, none of which offer a steady platform of existence. These things advance the cause of religious causes but are not perfections.
I agree
A god that punishes anyone for eternity (what to speak of persons who are slightly skewed in their religious sentiments) offers a very difficult to worship. Actually the truth is the opposite - god pays more attention to the good things we do rather than the bad things - if it wasn't the case, there would be no scope for anyone leaving the material world once they chose to enter it.
Other things to know - well there's tons.
A good place to start might be understanding what is the unique nature of god, since that is fundamental to understanding what is unique about our selves.
In the vedas, a common word for god is bhagavan, which means possessing all opulences (commonly categorized as six in nature)
Here is an audio lecture on it that gets straight into it (after a first minute of sanskrit recitation)
The understanding of hell might not be sound, but there are many other things that are valid, just as there are many other things that are valid in buddhism. What seems to be lacking in christianity is detailed information of god, and also, detailed information of the self.
Once again, if there were more sincere christians or buddhists in the world, I wouldn't be complaining (since sincerity in religion is all about devotion to god, and since god is not ultimately a religious fanatic - he is not christian, muslim or hindu - a sincere christian is a million times better than an insincere hindu - another common article of miscommunication in theism is "the lowest of our guys is greater than the highest of your guys" - lol)
Lets just say the modern bible has complex hermeneutic issues - I don't think it is practical to take the view that every word and every syllable of the bible is non-different from god. I would say that this is the case with the vedas, on the provision that it is approached in connection to a disciplic succession
actually the implications of this verse
BG 8.5: And whoever, at the end of his life, quits his body, remembering Me alone, at once attains My nature. Of this there is no doubt.
BG 8.6: Whatever state of being one remembers when he quits his body, O son of Kuntī, that state he will attain without fail.
BG 8.7: Therefore, Arjuna, you should always think of Me in the form of Kṛṣṇa and at the same time carry out your prescribed duty of fighting. With your activities dedicated to Me and your mind and intelligence fixed on Me, you will attain Me without doubt.
BG 8.8: He who meditates on Me as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, his mind constantly engaged in remembering Me, undeviated from the path, he, O Pārtha, is sure to reach Me.
In short, what one will be remembering at the time of death depends on the nature of one's consciousness in regards to one's activities.
I would say it is false, but the point of religion is to a positive attraction to god and not just merely a negative attraction to hell- IOW unlike the issue with buddhism and the nature of the self, the exact details of hell are not so important. It's simply enough to know that its a place one wouldn't want to visit (or alternatively, visit again).
I think even sincere christians would admit that there is more to "believing" in jesus than lip service - IOW "believing" can be unpacked to include a whole lot of procedures in line with jesus's teachings.
For instance if a man says that he believes his wife is the most attractive woman deserving of his full attention yet his actions indicate otherwise, it tends to indicate a lack of sincerity.
And part of understanding that is to accept a spiritual master
In one sense, jesus is the founder guru of christianity (at the head of the disciplic succession to god)
Actually the issue is not so much about denomination since these things are only means.
Generally there are two approaches to the problem of achieving transcendence
BG 12.1: Arjuna inquired: Which are considered to be more perfect, those who are always properly engaged in Your devotional service (aka dualists) or those who worship the impersonal Brahman, the unmanifested? (aka monists)
to which the reply is
BG 12.2: The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Those who fix their minds on My personal form and are always engaged in worshiping Me with great and transcendental faith are considered by Me to be most perfect.
the short way
BG 12.3-4: But those who fully worship the unmanifested, that which lies beyond the perception of the senses, the all-pervading, inconceivable, unchanging, fixed and immovable — the impersonal conception of the Absolute Truth — by controlling the various senses and being equally disposed to everyone, such persons, engaged in the welfare of all, at last achieve Me.
and the long way.
PS - skinwalker - if you want to edit this post because it contains too many scriptural quotes, can you please PM me first?
Last edited:
Please Take Sermons and Preaching to a Theological/Superstition Site or PMs
how is this being risen from the dead, and who say's it is a christian/jew/muslim god but not a "pagen" god(if any, could nutcase workin expermint or kids pulling a weird prank)
onlinerotter1
Registered Member
commun mob discussion.....the mou(greek--means "my god")...why people stuck on the word (god, christianity, deth, afterlife etc.) everything is placed in the right way of nature. if someone find the proof of the existent of god ( whats kinda difficult), but than he has found the answer of "why me exist). but i think thats not the point. the whole point is to understand and o find an acceptable way to get the knowledge about things are really are. Ask u self whats menkinds way is: burn, growing up, get an adult and being in the position to make another men(kid), getting older and dieing. thats nature way. before and after is just a combination of all descrption of humans mind. just for this.....everything needs power to live and to exist. also human. sokrates said in the composium that god is energy (everywhere).....human exist just to product this energy. how and all the other question needs answers with a lot of time for explaining. ( im trully sorry for my english).i believe. the soul is humans energy. human get positive and negative expirence. he loadet it....(scince said: when human is sleeping he fill up his battery....) i believe when he is sleeping he emptyed his battery.....when god is energy than this energy needs to get supported. and this is humans work. for this and only for this he exist, like a part of the whole energy. when he diet ...his energy is gettin "back" to the whole energy of universe, just to get comibinated with it and than to be a part with other particles of energys, when a new human is getting born. this aswers to all relions, to all philosophys and its logic... and thays all....
Well, to me, the other end of the problem is, "I don't understand it, but it can't be God."
Basically, from what I've seen on this poll and the comments, there is really nothing that God (assuming he exists) can do to prove his existence to humans who are ready to deny literally any phenomenon as possibly being caused by a god. Why do atheists keep asking for evidence of God's existence, when literally nothing, not even the most outrageous miracle, can prove to them that he exists?
Anything is possible to me. There could be another realm of existence which none of us can understand with our limited thinking capacities, but, to use your point, just because we can't understand it doesn't mean that it can't exist.
It's also interesting though to note that, assuming God made us, it is impossible for anyone in the world to ever have 100% faith in the existence of a God because of the limited thinking capacities he gave us. Even Jesus said that if someone had the faith of a mustard seed, then they could move a mountain. So this tells me that no one has ever had 100% faith or even close to that, because it is impossible to have 100% faith in something which can't be proven through our senses. And again, even Jesus said, "Why have you forsaken me" on the cross which says that maybe not even he had 100% faith, but something less than that.
So no christian, muslim, or anyone can say with 100% belief that God exists or that Jesus was the son of God because it just isn't possible. They can make themselves "think" that they believe with 100% perfect undoubting faith, and kind of manufacture that belief in their head, but it still isn't 100% genuine. There is always some doubt, in everyone, including possibly even Jesus (not to say Jesus couldn't have been son of God without 100% faith).
Using SnakeLord's example of the Leprechaun existence, I can never make myself truly believe with 100% certainty that leprechauns exist, but I can definetely make myself believe that I believe that leprechauns exist, like a "surface" belief which isn't a true belief but a created one.
That said, it still doesn't make it impossible that something exists which we can't fully believe in or understand. That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Last edited:
this acutaly my theory on why god truly exisist