God is All That Is; there is nothing that is not God

[Nakosis]

God is not responsible for what I bring into the afterlife because God does not pack my bags.
I pack my bags so i am responsible for what is in them.

I'm fine with being responsible for whatever I bring. I've no problem being judged for the life I've lived.

I do not believe that God wants us to be afraid, just prepared.

I don't know how to prepare for something I've never experienced. I'll assume a decent God would create a life that would prepare us. So if I 'm am not prepared, that's more on God than me.

 

[Trailblazer]

Perhaps it will just be another adventure for those of us not expecting anything, and we will get what we get regardless of what we do on Earth - especially if we wouldn't have behaved differently if actually believing in a God anyway.

It might not matter much if you had believed in God as long as you lived a moral life, doing onto others as you would be done by, since the primary purpose of believing in God is to behave in that fashion.

"This cycle is the cycle of favor and not of justice. Therefore, those whose deeds are clean and pure, even though they are not believers, will not be deprived of the divine mercy; but perfection is in faith and deeds. Undoubtedly, a person, who is not a believer, but whose deeds and morals are good, is far better than one who claims his belief in words but, who, in actions, is a follower of satan. The Blessed Beauty says, 'My humiliation is not in my imprisonment, which, by my life, is an exaltation to me; nay rather, it is in the deeds of my friends, who attribute themselves to us and commit that which causes my heart and pen to weep!'"

(Attributed to 'Abdu'l-Bahá, Star of the West, vol. 9, issue 3, p. 29)

 

[QuestioningMind]

Why do you say so? When you know neither the objective universe nor even the definition or meaning of the word God, how do you assert what you assert?

BTW, God is not supposed to be a replacement for the universe. That is your take on the word God. And your take is not necessarily correct.
...

I'm going by YOUR definition, which is All That Is... that's the universe. And by simply changing what we call the universe to god does NOT provide us with one iota more information about the objective reality of the universe.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm fine with being responsible for whatever I bring. I've no problem being judged for the life I've lived.

That is a good attitude to have, an attitude of personal responsibility.

I don't know how to prepare for something I've never experienced. I'll assume a decent God would create a life that would prepare us. So if I 'm am not prepared, that's more on God than me.

God did create a world in which we can prepare ourselves for the next life, and that is the purpose of this physical reality, but God is not going to make our choices for us, and it is our moral will choices that prepare us.

70: FREE WILL

 

[Nakosis]

That is a good attitude to have, an attitude of personal responsibility.

God did create a world in which we can prepare ourselves for the next life, and that is the purpose of this physical reality, but God is not going to make our choices for us, and it is our moral will choices that prepare us.

70: FREE WILL

I've no problem being accountable for the good or evil that I do. If everything else is in the hands of God, I don't really see a problem.

 

[Trailblazer]

I've no problem being accountable for the good or evil that I do. If everything else is in the hands of God, I don't really see a problem.

I don't see a problem either.

 

[Mock Turtle]

It might not matter much if you had believed in God as long as you lived a moral life, doing onto others as you would be done by, since the primary purpose of believing in God is to behave in that fashion.

"This cycle is the cycle of favor and not of justice. Therefore, those whose deeds are clean and pure, even though they are not believers, will not be deprived of the divine mercy; but perfection is in faith and deeds. Undoubtedly, a person, who is not a believer, but whose deeds and morals are good, is far better than one who claims his belief in words but, who, in actions, is a follower of satan. The Blessed Beauty says, 'My humiliation is not in my imprisonment, which, by my life, is an exaltation to me; nay rather, it is in the deeds of my friends, who attribute themselves to us and commit that which causes my heart and pen to weep!'"

(Attributed to 'Abdu'l-Bahá, Star of the West, vol. 9, issue 3, p. 29)

I suspect that many of those who are not behaving in an appropriate manner, often for short or long periods in their life, are likely damaged in some way so perhaps not fully responsible for such behaviour. That will be my excuse. And it makes more sense than believing some are evil or whatever.

 

[Trailblazer]

I suspect that many of those who are not behaving in an appropriate manner, often for short or long periods in their life, are likely damaged in some way so perhaps not fully responsible for such behaviour. That will be my excuse. And it makes more sense than believing some are evil or whatever.

Some people who were damaged in childhood might not be fully responsible for their behavior, but that cannot be used as an excuse not to be held accountable for evil deeds some people commit; if it was a legitimate excuse it would hold up in a court of law. It is also notable that many people who had a difficult childhood recover from it and live moral lives, so that implies an element of choice.

But I do not believe we will be held accountable for not behaving in an appropriate manner for short or long periods of time, owing to depression or anxiety, because these are not under our control. That will be my excuse for not doing things I know I should have done or could have done, if the circumstances had been different. I believe we will be forgiven by God for choices we made in our lives that were less than optimum if those choices were outside of our control..

I do not believe we will be held responsible for what was outside our control, but only God really knows whether we could have made another choice and that is why only God can judge anyone.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Some people who were damaged in childhood might not be fully responsible for their behavior, but that cannot be used as an excuse not to be held accountable for evil deeds some people commit; if it was a legitimate excuse it would hold up in a court of law. It is also notable that many people who had a difficult childhood recover from it and live moral lives, so that implies an element of choice.

But I do not believe we will be held accountable for not behaving in an appropriate manner for short or long periods of time, owing to depression or anxiety, because these are not under our control. That will be my excuse for not doing things I know I should have done or could have done, if the circumstances had been different. I believe we will be forgiven by God for choices we made in our lives that were less than optimum if those choices were outside of our control..

I do not believe we will be held responsible for what was outside our control, but only God really knows whether we could have made another choice and that is why only God can judge anyone.

I don't think our human laws are valid in any context with regards some divinity. Who knows how much volition we all have here on Earth in the true sense - taking into account what we are born with, our environment, various relationships, etc. - and hence how much responsibility can be imposed on or expected of us. As I've mentioned before, I tend to believe in free will but I'm not sure how much of it we truly get.

 

[Trailblazer]

Who knows how much volition we all have here on Earth in the true sense - taking into account what we are born with, our environment, various relationships, etc. - and hence how much responsibility can be imposed on or expected of us.

Only God knows, and that is why only God can judge.

 

[Chris Terai]

I'm going by YOUR definition, which is All That Is... that's the universe. And by simply changing what we call the universe to god does NOT provide us with one iota more information about the objective reality of the universe.

It introduces into each class, the wisdom of what was previously considered a separate class and therefore not considered. It bridges science and spirituality, correcting a fissure in society wherein we misunderstand our relationship with God and battle each other over semantics. We like reality to be fragmented because we can wrap our minds around select aspects, but this is not how reality is. Reality is unified. Your form is not a separate entity as you may believe it to be. It is earth and sun, water, spirit, life. All that sustains you is you as well, as is all that sustains all of that, to infinity until you get to All That Is.

My thought is that the term God contains a lot of baggage for a lot of people. That baggage won't reconcile because it's nothing but a mental fabrication. When I say God is All That Is and there is nothing that is not God, that is a definition. Try for a moment to look at the world through that view. It's interesting how mysteries of faith unlock when the unity of God as All That Is is accepted.

Those who want proof would do well to explore which spiritual claims make sense when the two terms are unified. What becomes more whole? How is life healed? Do mysteries of faith become apparent? I have found healing in this definition. The Anointed did well to explain how science and spirituality merge when we understand that God and All That Is are one and the same. Unification on this front heals; fragmentation leaves us debating surface content instead of moving into depth. Fragmented, we see details but not the whole picture. It's like looking at one pine needle within a great forest. We can know and appreciate that tiny needle, or we can gaze around and appreciate the forest.

 

[QuestioningMind]

It introduces into each class, the wisdom of what was previously considered a separate class and therefore not considered. It bridges science and spirituality, correcting a fissure in society wherein we misunderstand our relationship with God and battle each other over semantics. We like reality to be fragmented because we can wrap our minds around select aspects, but this is not how reality is. Reality is unified. Your form is not a separate entity as you may believe it to be. It is earth and sun, water, spirit, life. All that sustains you is you as well, as is all that sustains all of that, to infinity until you get to All That Is.

My thought is that the term God contains a lot of baggage for a lot of people. That baggage won't reconcile because it's nothing but a mental fabrication. When I say God is All That Is and there is nothing that is not God, that is a definition. Try for a moment to look at the world through that view. It's interesting how mysteries of faith unlock when the unity of God as All That Is is accepted.

Those who want proof would do well to explore which spiritual claims make sense when the two terms are unified. What becomes more whole? How is life healed? Do mysteries of faith become apparent? I have found healing in this definition. The Anointed did well to explain how science and spirituality merge when we understand that God and All That Is are one and the same. Unification on this front heals; fragmentation leaves us debating surface content instead of moving into depth. Fragmented, we see details but not the whole picture. It's like looking at one pine needle within a great forest. We can know and appreciate that tiny needle, or we can gaze around and appreciate the forest.

It bridges science and spirituality,

What do you mean by spirituality? What verifiable evidence do you have that anything 'spiritual' actually exists? What is the purpose of attempting to 'bridge' a methodology based on using verifiable evidence to determine how reality works with the concept of 'spirituality', for which there is absolutely no verifiable evidence? It sounds to me as if you just want to replace the scientific method's requirement for verifiable evidence with your completely unfounded claims about spirituality.

 

[`mud]

It's all about the land of their dreams !

 

[Chris Terai]

It bridges science and spirituality,

What do you mean by spirituality? What verifiable evidence do you have that anything 'spiritual' actually exists? What is the purpose of attempting to 'bridge' a methodology based on using verifiable evidence to determine how reality works with the concept of 'spirituality', for which there is absolutely no verifiable evidence? It sounds to me as if you just want to replace the scientific method's requirement for verifiable evidence with your completely unfounded claims about spirituality.

Given the definition that God is All That Is, and there is nothing that is not God, all of science is the proof. Science is the study of All That Is. Spirituality is likewise the study of All That Is. How can you examine how a premise shapes our understanding of reality if you can't consider the premise in the first place?

How hard must it be to combine two metaphors? The challenge should be in decoding what the unity means, not considering it in the first place. Until you can move into relation with the premise, you can't see what lays behind it.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Given the definition that God is All That Is, and there is nothing that is not God, all of science is the proof. Science is the study of All That Is. Spirituality is likewise the study of All That Is. How can you examine how a premise shapes our understanding of reality if you can't consider the premise in the first place?

How hard must it be to combine two metaphors? The challenge should be in decoding what the unity means, not considering it in the first place. Until you can move into relation with the premise, you can't see what lays behind it.

I'd be fine with combining the two studies IF you can define what 'spirituality' is and provide some verifiable evidence that this spirituality actually exists. Thus far science - the study of All That Is - has yet to come up with ANY verifiable evidence that any kind of 'spirit' or 'spirituality' exists beyond people's imaginations. Until you can demonstrate that this notion of spirituality exists, it would be ridiculous to try and combine it with the best method humans have found for determining how All That Is actually works.

 

[Chris Terai]

Spirituality is simply an introspective approach to discovering the truths of All That Is. This is the core of religion.

As to spirit, the emotion that resides at the core of your logic is it. Spirit is all that is emotional, and despite being non-verifiable, it exists and your experience verifies it.

Spirit is point and purpose, love, kindness, ethics, passion, compassion, empathy, consideration, respect, dignity, virtue, and everything else that can be witnessed but not objectively measured. Spirit is also the essence of us that is beyond the physical. It is how we are, what we stand for, and our alignment as beings. Absent spirit, we are dead within, because emotion is the value in all we know. Can it be objectively measured? No. Can it be verified to exist, absolutely. Can it be subjectively measured? Certainly; science and medicine rely on this verifiable truth.

 

[The Anointed]

Why do you say so? When you know neither the objective universe nor even the definition or meaning of the word God, how do you assert what you assert?

BTW, God is not supposed to be a replacement for the universe. That is your take on the word God. And your take is not necessarily correct.
...

Romans 1: 18-23; God's anger is revealed from heaven against all the sin and evil of the people whose evil ways prevent the truth from being known. God punishes them, because what can be known about God is plain to them, for God himself made it plain. Ever since God created the world, his invisible qualities, both his eternal power and his divine nature, have been clearly seen; they are perceived in the things that God has made. So those people have no excuse at all! They know God, but they do not give him the honour that belongs to him, nor do they thank him. Instead, their thoughts have become complete nonsense, and their empty minds are filled with darkness. They say they are wise, but they are fools; instead of worshipping the immortal God, they worship images made to look like mortal human beings, etc,

The GREAT THOUGHT, which is the invisible Logos God, in which a supreme personality of Godhead develops, manifests itself as the visible universe. Nothing was created, except that it was created though, by and for the Logos, which is the collective consciousness of all that the Logos has become.

 

[atanu]

Romans 1: 18-23; God's anger is revealed from heaven against all the sin and evil of the people whose evil ways prevent the truth from being known. God punishes them, because what can be known about God is plain to them, for God himself made it plain. Ever since God created the world, his invisible qualities, both his eternal power and his divine nature, have been clearly seen; they are perceived in the things that God has made. So those people have no excuse at all! They know God, but they do not give him the honour that belongs to him, nor do they thank him. Instead, their thoughts have become complete nonsense, and their empty minds are filled with darkness. They say they are wise, but they are fools; instead of worshipping the immortal God, they worship images made to look like mortal human beings, etc,

The GREAT THOUGHT, which is the invisible Logos God, in which a supreme personality of Godhead develops, manifests itself as the visible universe. Nothing was created, except that it was created though, by and for the Logos, which is the collective consciousness of all that the Logos has become.

Yeah.

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

 

[atanu]

I'm going by YOUR definition, which is All That Is... that's the universe. And by simply changing what we call the universe to god does NOT provide us with one iota more information about the objective reality of the universe.

But you do not recognise the All that is. You recognise an universe made up of conglomerates and composite objects.

 

[QuestioningMind]

But you do not recognise the All that is. You recognise an universe made up of conglomerates and composite objects.

Then you need to change your definition. The universe is by definition all that is. If you want to add something aside from the universe to your definition then you need to define what that extra something is. So what, aside from the universe, is this god being you claim exists?