Experiencing God

[Sonofason]

Or even if it exists at all. Yet some people seem convinced that they have knowledge that such is true and entirely ignore the fact that they cannot possibly have that knowledge that they claim.

If there is a God, and there is, it is most certainly possible for a person to have knowledge of that God.

 

[godnotgod]

No sir, I believe I am quite certain about my experience. And I believe I still dwell in the realm of belief.

Does this make any sense? If you are quite certain about your experience, then what use do you have for belief? Certainty is knowing beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Isn't what you really mean to say is that, for you, belief equates to Absolute Truth, so that when you say: 'I believe such and such to be true', that is the same thing as saying that it IS true. Is that not so?

So what did your experience of the kingdom of God tell you?

 

[godnotgod]

Well, yes I did say that, and yes I do experience God.



If you think its important that recognize the distinction between the mind and consciousness, I can do that. What you say here seems reasonable to me. Except, it is my belief that if you remove someone's brain, they will not experience anything at all. They will be dead.

What is comical from my POV, is that you are saying the same thing about experience and the brain as the atheists do. IOW, all experiences are based on materialism, even 'spiritual' ones.

What you're not getting here is that the spiritual experience is beyond mind; beyond the machinations of the material brain. Why? Because the brain is the control center for perceptual reality, that is to say, for sensory perceptions via sight, sound, smell, touch, and taste. The divine nature is invisible, silent, odorless, formless. Therefore, you cannot experience the divine nature via perceptual reality, which is the realm of the brain. Sensory awareness must be transcended and Ultimate Reality accessed, because that is where the divine nature dwells. The divine nature is beyond thinking, beyond the mind, beyond the brain, all of which are finite tools which are incapable of encapsulating the divine essence, whose nature is of the Infinite. In addition, the authentic spiritual experience is also beyond the personal view of the limited mind, which is the self, ie; "I". It is for these very reasons that the experience of the true mystic is an impersonal one. The ego has completely surrendered itself and is not part of the equation. You have heard of saints having the experience in total rapture and surrender. There is no sense of self in these experiences any longer, and certainly no room for mere belief. The paradox is that one must reach a point of total doubt for these experiences to occur. As Carlos Castaneda has said: 'In the end, you will know nothing'. The ordinary mind knows nothing about the divine nature. It must, in a sense, be tricked into self implosion so that universal consciousness can then flood in. This is the tradition and purpose of the Zen koan.

The bottom line here is what is referred to by the mystics as 'divine union'. Which leads us back to the statement I made about you becoming the Christ, and to which you protested. We cannot, as conditioned individuals, experience that which is beyond the conditioned mind. Only when the conditioned mind is dissolved away can we become at one with the divine nature, BECAUSE OUR OWN TRUE NATURE IS DIVINE. And that is what Yeshu pointed to when he said : 'the kingdom of God is within you'.*, and why I cannot give any credence to your claim of an authentic spiritual experience. You are still making God an object of the mind, but God cannot be made such an object, as God is beyond all objective reality. Only when the subject and object merge into one (ie divine union) can you know God.

*Much the same thing is being recognized when Hindus bow to one another in reverence and utter the words 'Namaste, ever conscious Self'. They are expressing their respect and reverence to the 'kingdom of God within' the other person.

 

[godnotgod]

If there is a God, and there is, it is most certainly possible for a person to have knowledge of that God.

This is incorrect, because you are still making God an object of the mind, in which you still see yourself as separate from God. What you are actually doing is projecting an image of God onto an imaginary 'other', and then transforming that imaginary image into a reality in the mind. This is a well understood phenomenon in psychology. It is one of the Five Egotistical States of Apparent Love of Others, in this case, that of Idolatrous Love. Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that a divine nature is imaginary, and no, I am not an atheist (nor a not-atheist). But these machinations of the mind must be transcended in order for real spiritual experiences to come into play.

 

[godnotgod]

I have experienced the devil as well, and I can tell you that an experience of the devil is nothing like experiencing God.

If you are still thinking that you are experiencing two different experiences, one of Absolute Good, and the other of Absolute Malevolence, then you are not experiencing God. What you are experiencing is your very own mind, which projects dualistic ideas of Good and Evil onto anthropomorphic images that are embodiments of Super Good in direct opposition to those of Super Evil, all choreographed by yours truly, The Mind. When 'experiencing' God, the Devil is always lurking around somewhere, and when 'experiencing' The Devil, God is somehow always within reach. IT IS ONE EXPERIENCE OF THE MIND ALONG A CONTINUUM FROM ONE EXTREME TO ANOTHER. It only SEEMS as if there are two realities. The Buddha, in his wisdom, recognized this dilemma, and proceeded to formulate his MIddle Path, recognizing that such views are nothing more than extreme views, and therefore, distortions/exaggerations of Reality. This especially was in response to the then current raging arguments between the eternalists, who believed in the atman that survived death, and the materialists, who believed that everything came to an end upon physical death. That argument continues to rage on today, as is evident from the many posts on these forums.

The fact of the matter, is that what you see as God, and what you see as Satan, is nothing more than your very own mind. Once you realize the true nature of mind, these things will fall into place of their own accord, like the churned up mud in a pond eventually settles to the bottom, affording a clear view through and through. Then you can truly have a thoroughly good and hearty laugh and come to your senses.

The answer is not in thinking, but in seeing.

That's when it really starts to get interesting, because now the question is not: 'Does God exist?', but 'Who, or what, is it that is doing the seeing?'

 

[godnotgod]

Fair enough.

But why all the mental acrobatics? Krishnamurti once said: "There are two kinds of people in the world: those who know; and those who don't know."

If you know, there's nothing to do or prove. If you don't know, you spend a lot of time propping things up, rationalizing, and justifying.

One reason why I respect Zen so much: it doesn't beat around the bush, but points directly to the heart of the matter, cutting through all the crap.

 

[godnotgod]

If I had a baby, Id raise him in the wilderness, give him a bible, and see what he makes of it without having the garbage that the world stirs into the mix. Im curious as to what he would define himself as as he got older.

Heh..heh..heh...unfortunately, the Bible is already the mix with the garbage stirred in. You would be doing your son a great disservice. Better to have him sit beside a still, quiet pond to experience Satori at the spontaneous sound of a frog jumping in. Ahhh...it's all in the living moment; not in some dead scripture.

"Chop wood;
carry water.
How miraculous!"

Once he has experienced Satori, THEN give him a Bible. That way he'll know what it is he's looking at.

.... its often better to assume he wasn't the cause which is where faith turns you around corners and on paths that can be quite.. well.. they may just lead you through some pretty dark valleys =)

"That which you are seeking is causing you to seek"

 

[Thruve]

Heh..heh..heh...unfortunately, the Bible is already the mix with the garbage stirred in. You would be doing your son a great disservice. Better to have him sit beside a still, quiet pond to experience Satori at the spontaneous sound of a frog jumping in. Ahhh...it's all in the living moment; not in some dead scripture.

"Chop wood;
carry water.
How miraculous!"

Once he has experienced Satori, THEN give him a Bible. That way he'll know what it is he's looking at.



"That which you are seeking is causing you to seek"

This, along with your posts to which you quoted Son, could be right but could be wrong. Why its wrong to me, though, is simply because it was experiences that first led me to 'god' and Christianity in the first place many years ago, and it was something I NEVER sought. The experiences came to me at a time where I 'needed' to have faith to drag me through some rough times, which in short, kept me looking UP. Atleast, thats what I make of it now. So to me, your wrong, Sorry. If I was seeking for it as a Christian then Id have to say I agree with you.

 

[Cephus]

Maybe you need to grow up.

I'm really getting tired of this pathetic baby talk from atheists Please stop. If you have an argument present it. If not, just keep your mouth shut.

Maybe if you stopped making ridiculous claims and acting smug, people wouldn't have to talk down to you. That's really the thing, this kind of self-righteous behavior does no good, especially in a debate where both sides are supposed to present evidence for their claims, yet you and those like you who operate on pure and utterly blind faith have nothing to present so you just feign moral superiority like that's a workable replacement.

You're welcome to your faith but this isn't an echo chamber where everyone is going to tell you how wonderful your beliefs are. This is a debate forum. There are lots of people here who think you are wrong. Everyone has to stand up and present a defense for their positions.

 

[Cephus]

If there is a God, and there is, it is most certainly possible for a person to have knowledge of that God.

But see, there you go again. Yes, I agree with you that if there is a god, of any kind, it is absolutely possible for a person to have knowledge that such an entity exists. You claim to have that knowledge though but you are utterly incapable of presenting any means by which you came to that knowledge. You claim to know, you haven't shown that you have any way of actually knowing and that's what I keep challenging you on and you keep sidestepping the question.

It's like someone who says "I just know there are aliens!" Okay, how do they know? They have no answer for that, they "just know". No, they believe and have no clue what knowledge is. You can believe whatever you want, but once you start making claims of knowledge, as you do endlessly, people have every right to ask where your evidence is and how you came by that knowledge and we all know, you have none. You're just disguising blind faith as intellectual certainty when it's nothing of the sort.

 

[Hawkins]

But see, there you go again. Yes, I agree with you that if there is a god, of any kind, it is absolutely possible for a person to have knowledge that such an entity exists. You claim to have that knowledge though but you are utterly incapable of presenting any means by which you came to that knowledge. You claim to know, you haven't shown that you have any way of actually knowing and that's what I keep challenging you on and you keep sidestepping the question.

It's like someone who says "I just know there are aliens!" Okay, how do they know? They have no answer for that, they "just know". No, they believe and have no clue what knowledge is. You can believe whatever you want, but once you start making claims of knowledge, as you do endlessly, people have every right to ask where your evidence is and how you came by that knowledge and we all know, you have none. You're just disguising blind faith as intellectual certainty when it's nothing of the sort.

For a purpose, God can make you certain of Him but at the same time making this "encounter" somehow unexplainable. He made it somehow unexplanable such that you will notice that it may not be proper to talk too much about your encounter. Aliens on the other hand, don't have such a motive. For example, Paul had more than on solid encounters with Jesus and angels. However, he claimed that he fought a good fight of faith. And he seldom talked about his experience of how he acquired his theological knowledge from Christ/God. And he only briefly mentioned about his experience in the third heaven.

Normally God brings you certainty but only to a point where your faith is still demanded. Even Abraham requires faith. The big picture is that humans need faith to be saved. That's why I actually disagree

Moreover, God bringing certainty to a person must serve a unique purpose. From my speculation, His certainty will only be brought to His witnesses with an effect that no matter what His witnesses said, others need faith to believe or to reject what is said. This is actually the whole purpose of His Holy Bible.

In a nutshell, His true witnesses seldom put their encounters into great details. However, if you have an encounter with God, you will at least notice a "protocol" of communication. The following verse will strike your mind while others may not be possibly notice its importance.

Moreover, before God grant you a message, He will make sure that you are able to identify Him (an invisible person) as God Himself. Not His every witness mentioned about this. But again, Paul sets a typical example, Jesus used a lightning to temporarily blind his eyes. It is actually a message for Paul (and most likely Paul only) to figure out (either right away or through out his life) that who was talking to him is a capable supernatural entity for Paul to rule out the possibility that what he encountered is other spirit than Christ/God Himself.


The verse:
Acts 14:3
So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to perform signs and wonders.

In a nutshell, this is what I call a time trick for the conveying of unambiguous messages. A prophecy (which is related to a message) can serve the same purpose.

So in a close encounter with God, you will see the following,

1) God will identify Him as God to you (and possibly only you). A supernatural event can be involved for this
2) The certainty will qualify you as a witness of Him. It is thus necessary for a protocol of communication to be learned by you, such that unambiguous messages can be delivered.

After all, your faith will still be preserved to a certain extent. Actually I speculate that the above is so such that your faith will not be completely destroyed.

 

[Cephus]

For a purpose, God can make you certain of Him but at the same time making this "encounter" somehow unexplainable. He made it somehow unexplanable such that you will notice that it may not be proper to talk too much about your encounter. Aliens on the other hand, don't have such a motive. For example, Paul had more than on solid encounters with Jesus and angels. However, he claimed that he fought a good fight of faith. And he seldom talked about his experience of how he acquired his theological knowledge from Christ/God. And he only briefly mentioned about his experience in the third heaven.

Again, you are making claims about a deity that you have no evidence to support, just because it makes you feel good to think it's true. And the story about Paul, you have no way of verifying if it's true or if it ever even happened. You have faith, nothing more.

Normally God brings you certainty but only to a point where your faith is still demanded. Even Abraham requires faith. The big picture is that humans need faith to be saved. That's why I actually disagree.

More claims without evidence.

Moreover, God bringing certainty to a person must serve a unique purpose. From my speculation, His certainty will only be brought to His witnesses with an effect that no matter what His witnesses said, others need faith to believe or to reject what is said. This is actually the whole purpose of His Holy Bible.

More claims without evidence.

In a nutshell, His true witnesses seldom put their encounters into great details. However, if you have an encounter with God, you will at least notice a "protocol" of communication. The following verse will strike your mind while others may not be possibly notice its importance.

More claims without evidence.

Moreover, before God grant you a message, He will make sure that you are able to identify Him (an invisible person) as God Himself. Not His every witness mentioned about this. But again, Paul sets a typical example, Jesus used a lightning to temporarily blind his eyes. It is actually a message for Paul (and most likely Paul only) to figure out (either right away or through out his life) that who was talking to him is a capable supernatural entity for Paul to rule out the possibility that what he encountered is other spirit than Christ/God Himself.

More claims without evidence.

In a nutshell, this is what I call a time trick for the conveying of unambiguous messages. A prophecy (which is related to a message) can serve the same purpose.

More claims without evidence.

It seems that's all you have.

 

[Hawkins]

Again, you are making claims about a deity that you have no evidence to support, just because it makes you feel good to think it's true. And the story about Paul, you have no way of verifying if it's true or if it ever even happened. You have faith, nothing more.



More claims without evidence.



More claims without evidence.



More claims without evidence.



More claims without evidence.



More claims without evidence.

It seems that's all you have.

What evidence do you need? Can you be more specific?

You can't! Let me give you an example. Human history as a whole is composed of human witnessing with most of them considered unevidenced!

Human witnessing is a powerful and fundamental way of conveying truths among humans. Witnessing on the other hand, may not be considered as evidenced.

Let me give you a grasp of what human witnessing is. I can figure this out because God is so true to me that I have to deduce backward to see what bugs a human mind (like who I was before becoming a believer). And I figured out the following,

=====
Humans rely mostly and heavily on human witnessing to get to a truth of any kind. Christianity is the only religion explicitly employed human witnessing for humans to get to a claimed truth.

Human witnessing is the most fundamental way for humans to get to a truth. Humans get to a truth by putting faith on a small group of humans (witnesses) who are believed to be the closest to the truth itself.

Even science goes this way. You don't examine the existence of black holes. You rely on what is claimed by the scientists to get to this truth. Scientists are the small group of humans (witnesses) who are believed to be the closest to the type of truth such as the existence of black holes.

A multiple account human witnessing with the direct witnesses martyred themselves is already the most can and should be done. All left is for you to put your faith to get to the truth, the similar faith you already put to the scientists to get to the truth that black holes do exists. It is the similar faith you put to the reporters (small group of humans forming the media) to get to any truth occurred in this world on a daily basis. it is the similar faith you put to get to any human history (history = his story, is composed of human witnessing about historical events and figures).

The last kind of truth which can only be reached by witnessing is the truth unreachable by humans within a certain time frame. For example, the stone age humans had no chance to get to the truth that black holes exist. However, if you are sent back to stone age, you can "preach" this truth to the stone age humans. They can reach such a truth by putting faith on you. If the existence of black holes does concerns their lives, then you can well say to them that "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one gets to the truth of black holes except through me."
======

Since when humans can recognize the power of witnessing?

While God said,

Isaiah 6:9
He said, “Go and tell this people: “ ‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’


Everyone hears about witnessing but no one ever discovered its true nature (perhaps except me, that's what I have!)

 

[Cephus]

What evidence do you need? Can you be more specific?

You can't! Let me give you an example. Human history as a whole is composed of human witnessing with most of them considered unevidenced!

You're making all of these statements that you have no way of actually knowing if they're true. You're explaining the mind of God without having verified that God is actually real. What you're doing in reality is using your own wishes and desires and stamping God on them. I'm not interested in what you think God has said until you can demonstrate that God is actually real. But of course, you can't do that.

 

[Hawkins]

You're making all of these statements that you have no way of actually knowing if they're true. You're explaining the mind of God without having verified that God is actually real. What you're doing in reality is using your own wishes and desires and stamping God on them. I'm not interested in what you think God has said until you can demonstrate that God is actually real. But of course, you can't do that.

On the other hand, I already told you that you can make a similar claim to almost all the distant historical truth! So what you said here is just an assertion without actually understanding the nature of what a truth is!

 

[Cephus]

On the other hand, I already told you that you can make a similar claim to almost all the distant historical truth! So what you said here is just an assertion without actually understanding the nature of what a truth is!

What makes you think that it's any better to make such a claim about *ANYTHING* that cannot be validated or supported? You're just making an excuse that because some people can do so, you have a right to do so. Maybe you're all wrong?

 

[godnotgod]

This, along with your posts to which you quoted Son, could be right but could be wrong. Why its wrong to me, though, is simply because it was experiences that first led me to 'god' and Christianity in the first place many years ago, and it was something I NEVER sought. The experiences came to me at a time where I 'needed' to have faith to drag me through some rough times, which in short, kept me looking UP. Atleast, thats what I make of it now. So to me, your wrong, Sorry. If I was seeking for it as a Christian then Id have to say I agree with you.

I assume your post is referring to my second comment and not to the first about your son and the Bible.

My quote:

'That which you are seeking is causing you to seek'

was in response to your comment that:

"...faith turns you around corners and on paths that can be quite.. well.. they may just lead you through some pretty dark valleys"

Christianity has nothing to do with it.

 

[Sonofason]

Does this make any sense?

Yes, everything I say makes perfect sense. But that is because I pay particular attention to the words I use.

If you are quite certain about your experience, then what use do you have for belief?

Because to be quite certain is not to be absolutely certain.
To be quite certain is to be certain to a considerable extent, but to be absolutely certain is to be completely or perfectly certain. All it really takes to understand the difference is to take a few minutes out of your day for a brief vocabulary lesson. Perhaps consider a dictionary. They can be quite useful when attempting to understand words, and what words mean.

Now I understand that the word "quite", like most words, has definitions that are somewhat contradictory to each other. You see, I used the word "quite" with the concept of "a considerable extent" in mind. I understand that there are other definitions of the word "quite" as well. One of them says that the word "quite" means "completely or entirely". Well then, it seems that there is a definition that suites my intent, and there is a definition that suites your intent. However, it was I who was speaking, and so the intent of the word that I had in mind when I used the word is indeed the meaning of the word. It was my words, and I own the words I speak. No one gets to decide for themselves what I meant. Only I do. So if you aren't sure what I meant, it would be most appropriate of you to simply ask, rather than assume that you know what I was talking about, because apparently, you didn't.

Certainty is knowing beyond the shadow of a doubt.

No, as I have just proven, that is not the case.

Isn't what you really mean to say is that, for you, belief equates to Absolute Truth, so that when you say: 'I believe such and such to be true', that is the same thing as saying that it IS true. Is that not so?

No, that is not what I mean. I meant what I said, as far as I can tell I am quite certain. I meant that I am certain to a considerable extent. To say that you believe that such and such is true is not the same thing as saying that it IS true. It means that as far as I can tell, it is true. Maybe it isn't. But I'm quite certain it is.

So what did your experience of the kingdom of God tell you?

It tells me that when I'm thinking like Christ, I'm doing well.

 

[Sonofason]

What is comical from my POV, is that you are saying the same thing about experience and the brain as the atheists do. IOW, all experiences are based on materialism, even 'spiritual' ones.

Actually, what I'm saying, and what you are failing to recognize, is that I really don't care if there is a distinction to be made between a conscious experience, and a mind experience. I experience God. And that is the bottom line.

What you're not getting here is that the spiritual experience is beyond mind; beyond the machinations of the material brain. Why?

No, I completely understand that you think it's important to draw that distinction. I don't. I experience God both consciously and mindfully. I experience God consciously, and all the while am fully capable of actually having mindful thoughts while that is occurring.

Because the brain is the control center for perceptual reality, that is to say, for sensory perceptions via sight, sound, smell, touch, and taste. The divine nature is invisible, silent, odorless, formless. Therefore, you cannot experience the divine nature via perceptual reality, which is the realm of the brain.

Maybe you can't.

Sensory awareness must be transcended and Ultimate Reality accessed, because that is where the divine nature dwells. The divine nature is beyond thinking, beyond the mind, beyond the brain, all of which are finite tools which are incapable of encapsulating the divine essence, whose nature is of the Infinite. In addition, the authentic spiritual experience is also beyond the personal view of the limited mind, which is the self, ie; "I". It is for these very reasons that the experience of the true mystic is an impersonal one. The ego has completely surrendered itself and is not part of the equation. You have heard of saints having the experience in total rapture and surrender. There is no sense of self in these experiences any longer, and certainly no room for mere belief. The paradox is that one must reach a point of total doubt for these experiences to occur. As Carlos Castaneda has said: 'In the end, you will know nothing'. The ordinary mind knows nothing about the divine nature. It must, in a sense, be tricked into self implosion so that universal consciousness can then flood in. This is the tradition and purpose of the Zen koan.

I disagree. I can have a conscious experience of God as a result of that which takes place in my mind. It happens all the time. I think thoughts that are pleasing to God, and God draws near to me to the extent that I can feel and be aware of His presence. Dead people don't experience God.

The bottom line here is what is referred to by the mystics as 'divine union'. Which leads us back to the statement I made about you becoming the Christ, and to which you protested. We cannot, as conditioned individuals, experience that which is beyond the conditioned mind. Only when the conditioned mind is dissolved away can we become at one with the divine nature, BECAUSE OUR OWN TRUE NATURE IS DIVINE. And that is what Yeshu pointed to when he said : 'the kingdom of God is within you'.*, and why I cannot give any credence to your claim of an authentic spiritual experience. You are still making God an object of the mind, but God cannot be made such an object, as God is beyond all objective reality. Only when the subject and object merge into one (ie divine union) can you know God.

I experience God, I don't need a false teacher to show me how to experience God. I've already figured that out.

*Much the same thing is being recognized when Hindus bow to one another in reverence and utter the words 'Namaste, ever conscious Self'. They are expressing their respect and reverence to the 'kingdom of God within' the other person.[/QUOTE]

 

[Sonofason]

This is incorrect, because you are still making God an object of the mind, in which you still see yourself as separate from God. What you are actually doing is projecting an image of God onto an imaginary 'other', and then transforming that imaginary image into a reality in the mind. This is a well understood phenomenon in psychology. It is one of the Five Egotistical States of Apparent Love of Others, in this case, that of Idolatrous Love. Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that a divine nature is imaginary, and no, I am not an atheist (nor a not-atheist). But these machinations of the mind must be transcended in order for real spiritual experiences to come into play.

My dear friend, you don't get to tell me how one experiences God. It's too late. I've already done it without your help. I experience God quite often. And it doesn't require me understanding how that happens. All the nonsense adds nothing to ones ability to experience God.