Experiencing God

[Thruve]

Then click on the "Like" button at the lower right corner of that post. Thank you.

I was being sarcastic, and No thanks lol
Your example should include the following:

.
The world tells you Michael Jordan brings peace, One day an event occurs that brings peace to your internal battles, battles you never thought you'd overcome. Events occurred that were too coincidental to be anything but what the described Michael Jordan could have done.
Your called by a man who says rest child, now be at peace. Do you think its Michael Jordan?

That ^ is my example for a man of faith. Do I know its Michael Jordan 100%? Uh, No. I do know it was someone with qualities like Michael Jordan though. So, Ill just call him Michael Jordan.

 

[Koldo]

I was being sarcastic, and No thanks lol
Your example should include the following:

.
The world tells you Michael Jordan brings peace, One day an event occurs that brings peace to your internal battles, battles you never thought you'd overcome. Events occurred that were too coincidental to be anything but what the described Michael Jordan could have done.
Your called by a man who says rest child, now be at peace. Do you think its Michael Jordan?

That ^ is my example for a man of faith. Do I know its Michael Jordan 100%? Uh, No. I do know it was someone with qualities like Michael Jordan though. So, Ill just call him Michael Jordan.

Isn't that a fairly low standard to call someone Michael Jordan?
Every hooker and/or psychologist, to give just two examples, could eventually fall under the description you mentioned.
Apparently there are a lot of Michal Jordan in the world then.

 

[Thruve]

Isn't that a fairly low standard to call someone Michael Jordan?
Every hooker and/or psychologist, to give just two examples, could eventually fall under the description you mentioned.
Apparently there are a lot of Michal Jordan in the world then.

or just one. Hes just given many tittles.

 

[Koldo]

or just one. Hes just given many tittles.

On my line of work I can bring inner peace to people. I have been on situations that can look like too much of a coincidence to actually be one.
Therefore I am god.

Nice to know.

Now worship me.

 

[Desert Snake]

You missed the point. 'Faith' is usually combined with what people consider to be evidence. It isn't a complete matter of 'faith' for most people, they either do not have trouble believing in a Deity, or have experiences indicating Deity. This has nothing to do with irrelevant fictional scenarios of 'worship' for worship sake.

On my line of work I can bring inner peace to people. I have been on situations that can look like too much of a coincidence to actually be one.
Therefore I am god.

Nice to know.

Now worship me.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So was Dawkins correct? Is God really a delusion?

 

[Koldo]

You missed the point. 'Faith' is usually combined with what people consider to be evidence. It isn't a complete matter of 'faith' for most people, they either do not have trouble believing in a Deity, or have experiences indicating Deity.

Of course it is generally combined with what people consider to be evidence. However, as I have been saying through this topic, the rationale behind accepting a particular kind of evidence for the existence of god tends to be quite weak. There is an underlying assumption that certain experiences are related to god, and yet, as I have been explaining there is no basis for that. Now, of course I am not saying that every evidence is like this. Perhaps some people do indeed have experienced something that no matter how one looks at it is too strong to conclude differently. However, when I read testimonies I tend to see nothing more than a lot of bias on them.

This has nothing to do with irrelevant fictional scenarios of 'worship' for worship sake.

The 'worship' part was me making fun of his post, in the case you haven't noticed.

 

[Midnight Rain]

A revelation of what though? Another aspect of ourselves?

Of what is typically the debate. Some say god. Others come to the conclusion it is simply a part of themselves. But what separates "themselves" from everything else is mostly an illusion.

 

[mystic64]

Of what is typically the debate. Some say god. Others come to the conclusion it is simply a part of themselves. But what separates "themselves" from everything else is mostly an illusion.

First Midnight Rain I like what you are saying in what you are posting in this topic! Based on my experience with "what separates themselves" and "experiencing god/God" is that it is what is called "empthy". The feeling of another's feelings and thoughts which the yogi folks call "samadhi". In an empathic state where there are no barriors you become that another (the perfect state or advanced state of samadhi), be it a person, animal, or something that is made up of just spirit or mind energy. And the problem with being highly empathic or in an highly empathic state is the separating of one's self from the minds and emotions of others so that you can maintain the integrity of your own personal experience . Technically "all is one", but experiencing the minds and emotions of over seven billion people at the same time, to use an extreme example, or some lesser portion of that, can be a very unhinging experience. And being in an empathic union with God if one is not trained, or has the help of an other that has been trained, can also be a very unhinging experience depending of course on how much fear one carries in their personality programming. Therefore we create "the illusion" to maintain our own sanity. Once one has been trained to walk in a state of no illusion, then there is not any problem because at that point self does not exist and therefore has no need to be maintained. "How does one know that they are experienceing God, the mind of The Big Fellow?" They know because self ceases to exist and all becomes one. And if maintaining self is not a priority in one's personality programming, then being in a no barrior empathic state with the mind of God (samadhi with God) is not an unpleasent experience and is actually quite addictive .

 

[Midnight Rain]

Because I believe the Bible is entirely true. I believe all of the authors said what they said in all honesty. I believe that they perceived what they claim to have perceived. I believe they recorded historical facts as they truly perceived them. I see no cause to discount any of it. And I like knowledge.

This is where you and I change pages I think. I don't believe that anyone could have a perfect image of "god". And that even though I don't believe any of the Author's of the bible were lying it still stands to reason that their revelations were reflective of their own selves rather than universal truth.

 

[mystic64]

This is where you and I change pages I think. I don't believe that anyone could have a perfect image of "god". And that even though I don't believe any of the Author's of the bible were lying it still stands to reason that their revelations were reflective of their own selves rather than universal truth.

Midnight Rain , you and I do not disagree. I agree with what you are saying. And the "universal truth" can not be put into words. It is beyond language and can only be understood if it is experienced. The Bible or any other holy scripture can not contain universal truth because it/they are made up of words. They can contain history and moral messages to be used to pattern and guide ones life on, but they can not contain "universal truth" in any way that can be understood. If universal truth is attempted to be explained in words, then it comes out as poetry, parables, and other "Zen" like stuff which can only be understood if you have experienced it. "Oh that is cool what does it mean?!" Nobody knows, but it is universal truth you know .

 

[Midnight Rain]

Midnight Rain , you and I do not disagree. I agree with what you are saying. And the "universal truth" can not be put into words. It is beyond language and can only be understood if it is experienced. The Bible or any other holy scripture can not contain universal truth because it/they are made up of words. They can contain history and moral messages to be used to pattern and guide ones life on, but they can not contain "universal truth" in any way that can be understood. If universal truth is attempted to be explained in words, then it comes out as poetry, parables, and other "Zen" like stuff which can only be understood if you have experienced it. "Oh that is cool what does it mean?!" Nobody knows, but it is universal truth you know .

My post had been in response to SonofSon. I don't think we disagree. I am sure at some point we could find something that we disagree on but so far I have not seen it.

Part of the experience with god and the "universal truth" (which is a very bad way to describing it) and it being beyond words would be intrinsic to the nature of god. Being only part of the whole we would not logically be able to understand it. In fact our own revelations about god have more to do about ourselves than it does about "god". Unfortunately its merely a name or label we put on something we have yet to understand.

 

[Thruve]

On my line of work I can bring inner peace to people. I have been on situations that can look like too much of a coincidence to actually be one.
Therefore I am god.

Nice to know.

Now worship me.

Nope. Your not the cause of coincidence, your the point on the map where coincidence occurs. The cause is god, however you define god that is, but your nothing more than the center point on the angle of a grid that probably spans larger than mine because of your skills and expertise. You also overlook coincidence, so you blind yourself.

 

[mystic64]

My post had been in response to SonofSon. I don't think we disagree. I am sure at some point we could find something that we disagree on but so far I have not seen it.

Part of the experience with god and the "universal truth" (which is a very bad way to describing it) and it being beyond words would be intrinsic to the nature of god. Being only part of the whole we would not logically be able to understand it. In fact our own revelations about god have more to do about ourselves than it does about "god". Unfortunately its merely a name or label we put on something we have yet to understand.

Know thy self and you will know God (if you choose that option, otherwise you become self-realized and you become God ). Anyway Midnight Rain, I look forward to reading your past and future posts and I was wondering if it would be ok with you if I became registered as one of your followers? If so I will send you a request.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Know thy self and you will know God (if you choose that option, otherwise you become self-realized and you become God ). Anyway Midnight Rain, I look forward to reading your past and future posts and I was wondering if it would be ok with you if I became registered as one of your followers? If so I will send you a request.

I don't think its a request based system. If you hit follow I don't think I have a choice..

But I don't mind it either way!

 

[mystic64]

I don't think its a request based system. If you hit follow I don't think I have a choice..

But I don't mind it either way!

Thank you you are very advanced at this stuff .

 

[Koldo]

Nope. Your not the cause of coincidence, your the point on the map where coincidence occurs. The cause is god, however you define god that is, but your nothing more than the center point on the angle of a grid that probably spans larger than mine because of your skills and expertise. You also overlook coincidence, so you blind yourself.

How do you know I am not the cause of coincidence?
I am. Therefore, God I am.

 

[Cephus]

You missed the point. 'Faith' is usually combined with what people consider to be evidence. It isn't a complete matter of 'faith' for most people, they either do not have trouble believing in a Deity, or have experiences indicating Deity. This has nothing to do with irrelevant fictional scenarios of 'worship' for worship sake.

But this imaginary evidence is completely faulty. Evidence for anything draws a direct causal link between an event and a cause for that event. There is no evidence whatsoever that shows a direct causal link between anything and any supernatural entity. All people are doing is picking things that they don't understand and blindly attributing them to a supernatural entity that they cannot prove. When in doubt, God did it. That's not evidence, that's a very poor understanding of how critical thinking works.

 

[StormReturns]

I am amazed that so many believers that have had "spiritual" experiences won't share their experiences with others. It ought not surprise me however, as I too have had "spiritual" experiences that I just will not share with anyone. I gather that the telling of such experiences puts one at risk of throwing one's pearls to the swine.

My experience of God has actually brought me to a point where I no longer require faith to believe in God. I am absolutely certain of his existence and presence in my life.

So I guess that leaves me with a question for those who have had God experiences. What do you think it was that you did which enabled you to experience what you experienced? What did you do to invoke God's attention?

I think that's a rather arrogant perspective, even within the theistic framework. I don't even attempt that, I give God my attention.

 

[Sonofason]

This is where you and I change pages I think. I don't believe that anyone could have a perfect image of "god". And that even though I don't believe any of the Author's of the bible were lying it still stands to reason that their revelations were reflective of their own selves rather than universal truth.

Actually, I sort of disagree that you disagree with me. And I'll try to explain why. And of course, I hope you will correct me if I'm wrong.

1. It is my estimation that it is a universal truth that I sent this response to you at approximately 7:03 pm EST on November 28, 2014.
2. A universal truth is not something so special. First I suppose I have to grab a definition for universal.
universal - existing or available for everyone.
Universal - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

While you might not like this particular definition, I hope you will admit it is indeed a real definition for the word universal. I'm sure we probably agree as to the definition of truth, so I won't bother defining the word truth. Now, let's place this adjective, this modifier in front of the word truth. And now we have universal truth. So what is that?
A universal truth can be considered to be a truth that is available for everyone. Surely not everyone knows every truth. Many people like to say that evolution is true. Let's for a moment say that it is true. If something is true, I find it difficult to not also consider it a truth. Why would something that is true ever not be considered a truth? But I wonder if it is a universal truth. Is the evolution of species a truth that is available for everyone? Well, I suppose my question is, why wouldn't it be. If you can't read about it, there are those who can tell you about it. If there is no one who can tell you about it, you could investigate the truth for yourself. If it is true, that fact should be available to you should you engage in a thorough investigation. It's just like the truth about the time I sent this particular response. It is now surely available for everyone, and as you can see for yourself, it's true. But even if you do not verify this truth, it was available for you to know, and there are many people who might check the time stamp on this response to verify that it is indeed true.

The point is. Just because you don't know or accept something as true does not mean that it is not true, and if that truth is available for you to know, whether or not you investigate this truth for yourself for verification, if it is a truth, it is also a universal truth.