Shoe is on the other foot: Prove there is not God.

[Willamena]

If you really have true knowledge, why must you also believe it?

If it is true, it's not like there's a choice.

 

[godnotgod]

But that isn't what we're talking about, a heroin addict has no idea of what really happens to the body, only what it feels like. He can't describe the dangers of the drug in such a detail that he contributes to methods for countering the effects, or any other sort of thing.

What it feels like is what puts the addict in a better position to describe his experience. The rest of it has nothing to do with the actual experience. We are talking about the spiritual experience, but, unlike the drug experience, it enlightens rather than deludes.

And why is it not related to the issue? You said first hand experiences are automatically more reliable than objective data...

It is related to a certain extent, but not the way you have spun it. In the example you gave, the experience as recounted by the addict is more reliable than how an observer sees it, but the addict may still think that what he is seeing is real, while the observer knows that it is not. In the case of an authentic spiritual experience, there is no delusive element. That is the whole point: that the spiritual experience awakens one from his delusive state. And I am not talking about a religious experience, which may involve delusion, and even hallucination.

And then maybe find out if this "spiritual experience" is just his mind playing tricks with him.

If he finds out his mind is playing such tricks, with what kind of awareness does he now understand that fact?

Your point being? We're not debating wether or not these techniques are good for your health, we're debating wether or not they're connected to something super natural.

I never claimed any such 'supernatural' state. What I am suggesting is that, because they ARE good for your health, there is an element which not only underlies such effects, but actually causes them, and that element is spiritual in nature.

Yes, it really, really, really does, and so does every other statement in the world if it is to be called "reality".

If I see reality as it is, there is nothing which mandates that I prove it perse.

In the case of God, it cannot be proven, and the burden of proof lies with the believer. But the spiritual experience is not based upon belief; in fact, it transcends all belief. It also cannot be proven by conventional thought, but it can be confirmed via of your own direct experience. However, in order to confirm the spiritual experience, all beliefs, ideas, concepts, conjectures, theories ABOUT it must first be abandoned so that another kind of awareness then comes into play. This other kind of mind is the intuitive pathway to the experience itself. It cannot be accessed via the thinking mind which involves Logic, Reason, or Analysis.

Yep, at times. And that's why we use evidence to find out when it was wrong.

This applies only to how the phenomenal world behaves, but not to its true nature.

Nope, we still need evidence perfect vision actually does exist. Just because we can conceive it, doesn't mean it exists (it becomes open for overload statements).

Either you see reality as it exists or you do not. If you do not, you are deluded. If you do, you have perfect vision. However, perfect vision is not Something Special. It is Nothing Special. It is something everyone is capable of, but because of the conceptual mind, we do not see reality as it is, but as our thinking mind dictates it to us. Most of us are not aware that this is even going on, because we have been completely indoctrinated from infancy to see the world in a conditioned manner. In other words, we see the world through the lens of our description of it.

"Before I became enlightened, trees were just trees and mountains were just mountains.

During my practice, trees were no longer trees and mountains no longer mountains.

When I became enlightened, trees were once again trees, and mountains once again mountains"

Unknown Zen Source

 

[nrg]

What it feels like is what puts the addict in a better position to describe his experience.

But I wasn't talking about the experience, I was talking about the dangers of drugs, how the drugs work, what their effects are ... just what they are! That's what I've been asking about spiritualistic experiences: how do they work and what's the evidence for them?

In the example you gave, the experience as recounted by the addict is more reliable than how an observer sees it, but the addict may still think that what he is seeing is real, while the observer knows that it is not.

That wasn't what i was trying to make an analogy for. I was trying to make an analogy to show that objective observers can be much better at determining what really is happening, not how the experience feels, that's completely irrelevant when we're talking evidence and the like.

In the case of an authentic spiritual experience, there is no delusive element.

Really? There's documentation and scientific models describing how they work that cancels out delusive elements?

And I am not talking about a religious experience, which may involve delusion, and even hallucination.

So what are you talking about? How do they work? What exactly are they? How can we observe and document them?

If he finds out his mind is playing such tricks, with what kind of awareness does he now understand that fact?

... you lost me, clarify what you mean, please.

I never claimed any such 'supernatural' state.

If they are beyond rational and natural laws, they are absolutely super natural.

What I am suggesting is that, because they ARE good for your health, there is an element which not only underlies such effects, but actually causes them, and that element is spiritual in nature.

What evidence is there that supports that these effects are from spiritual elements? The effect doesn't prove the cause in itself, you have to describe how it works and what the evidence for it is, otherwise it's circular logic.

If I see reality as it is, there is nothing which mandates that I prove it perse.

But you have to prove that you do see reality as it is. I'm sorry, I can't take your word for it, it doesn't work that way.

In the case of God, it cannot be proven, and the burden of proof lies with the believer. But the spiritual experience is not based upon belief; in fact, it transcends all belief.

What is considered fact is always supported by empirical evidence, yet you keep avoiding that. Show me empirical evidence and maybe, just maybe, it will hold up and be considered fact.

It also cannot be proven by conventional thought, but it can be confirmed via of your own direct experience. However, in order to confirm the spiritual experience, all beliefs, ideas, concepts, conjectures, theories ABOUT it must first be abandoned so that another kind of awareness then comes into play. This other kind of mind is the intuitive pathway to the experience itself. It cannot be accessed via the thinking mind which involves Logic, Reason, or Analysis.

What your describing is accepting something through experiencing something and making a jump to conclusions about what the experience is, what causes it and how it works. Why is this the smart thing to do, instead of experiencing me telling you spirituality is not true and and accepting it as true? What does spirituality has that proves it to be reality, and more reliable than my word?

This applies only to how the phenomenal world behaves, but not to its true nature.

Again, prove it is it's true nature.

Either you see reality as it exists or you do not. If you do not, you are deluded. If you do, you have perfect vision. However, perfect vision is not Something Special. It is Nothing Special. It is something everyone is capable of, but because of the conceptual mind, we do not see reality as it is, but as our thinking mind dictates it to us. Most of us are not aware that this is even going on, because we have been completely indoctrinated from infancy to see the world in a conditioned manner. In other words, we see the world through the lens of our description of it.

How can you support everything you've said? Have you proven that perfect vision is indeed perfect and the result of a spiritual experience?

 

[godnotgod]

You want me to provide an example of knowledge of something I don't believe exists? I think that would be difficult.

Did I misunderstand your original position regarding proof of God? In response to:

Quote:
Originally Posted by godnotgod
Once again, a God that can be proved is a dead God. The Infinite cannot be encapsulated in conceptual thought.

...this is what you originally stated:

"Why would you need to "encapsulate" God to prove God?

You wouldn't need to map all of God to prove that he exists... you've only need a metaphorical glimpse of a very small part of him.

As an analogy, Columbus didn't need to explore the entire continent to confirm that the New World existed; once he spied his first bit of coastline, that objective was accomplished."

So I was asking for an example of the 'glimpse' you mention as adequate proof of God's existence.

From the knowledge that you had before you fell in. Normally, very cold water creates a sensation that feels almost like burning. It feels hot, not cold.

I think it's interesting that you picked an example where experiential perception is deceptive and it's the rational or "superficial" knowledge that would actually tell you what was going on.

I think most people would immediately interpret lake water as cold, not hot. The point is that the immediate experience confirms its coldness before one has a chance to formulate the thought that the water is cold. The same is true for accidentally touching a hot stovetop. There is only "Ouch!".

You implied that God is not part of the phenomenal world when you declared that he's not subject to rational inquiry in the way that works for things in or of the phenomenal world.

No, I did not. You are stipulating that for me. As I said, God, or better, the Absolute, cannot be detected by rational inquiry. The Absolute is not only part of the phenomenal world, it IS the phenomenal world. There are no 'two worlds'; there is only THIS world. The Infinite and the finite are One.

I think the reason you do not see it is because you are overlaying the grid pattern of reason, logic, and analysis onto the natural world, without realizing it. You want to see and understand it via Time, Space, and Causation. These are the filters through which the Absolute is seen as the Ordinary.

If you sit very, very still, and watch your own mind, you may catch a glimpse as to just how the rational mind creates the way in which you view the world. In fact, you may even begin to see that the rational mind is a self-created principle. In reality, it does not actually exist. With this framework out of the way, we are suddenly freed to see the world not as the mind dictates, but just the way it is.

"No observable physical effects" implies that God is not part of the phenomenal world. Which is it?

Or maybe we're hitting a problem of terminology; I'm not sure we're using the same definitions for things like "physical" and "non-physical".

I think the problem here is not one of definition so much as the kind of sight we are referring to. You seem to be referring to ordinary eyesight when you talk about physical effects being observable. I am talking about intuitive insight. When I ask, for example, what you see when you look into the world, I want to know what its nature is, not what its 'physical effects' are. 'Physical effects' are merely the traces of its behavior.

When you insist on clinging to the word 'physical' as a valid aspect of the world, you are also automatically implying the 'non-physical', since 'physical' refers to form, and form is both relative and temporal. 'Physical' must, by default, include the 'non-physical'. Another way of putting it is: if some things are physical, then what things are not?

If "vitality" implies life, then no. There's energy, but equating energy with life without explanation and then using this to infer some sort of life force is begging the question.

And I don't know how you'd be in a position to assess the emotions of subatomic particles, but I'm inclined to reject your description of vibration as "ecstatic" as baseless supposition until you give me good reason to change my mind.

Admittedly, we are getting off into another area. You might like to take a look, however, at a book called 'The Tao of Physics'.

What about them? The light emitted from a TV or reflected by a mirror is very much measurable and observable.

Sorry, I was not referring to the TV, but to the invisible TV signals in a room, where no TV is present. Images reflected in a mirror are not retained. There are no traces left of the image once the image is removed.

We confirm the presence of TV signals by turning on the TV set. In the same way, we confirm the presence of the spiritual experience by turning on a higher type of conscious awareness; one that sees and understands the rational mind, but is not attached to it. You might say that the rational mind is contained within the sphere of the intuitive mind, but not vice-versa. In the world of Zen, the thinking mind is referred to as 'monkey mind', which refers to the fact that it is forever jumping about, while the intuitive mind is referred to as 'Big Mind'. We do not become aware of the workings of 'Big Mind' until 'monkey mind' is completely quieted down. Likewise, we do not see clearly to the bottom of the pond until the mud that is churned up by the agitated mind is settled.

It's not arbitrary; it's the conclusion I've come to after living in the world and observing it: IMO, everything I've seen better matches a physical-only model than one that incorporates the supernatural.

Well, I for one am not referring to any 'supernatural' element.

The conclusion you have reached is base upon rational inquiry, I take it?

Again, I think we're running into a disagreement in terminology. When I say "physical", I'm trying to say that I don't believe in the supernatural or the spiritual as other planes of existence. I'm perfectly aware that space exists; I include it in my definition of the physical.

I do believe your position reflects what is known as the 'fully automatic universe'.

Do you not enjoy any kind of a spiritual life?

Straw man. I didn't say I only believed in solid things.

The common usage of the word 'physical' implies solidity. As you know, however, when science gets down to the subatomic level, we do not have much solidity at all. In fact, we have things that are neither physical nor energy, called 'wavicles', I believe. All of this only points to the fact that words like 'physical' and 'spiritual' are conceptual, and arbitrary products of the faulty rational mind. So do you want to continue to put stock in the 'phsycial' as a valid description of the world?

Ah... so you agree that the "spiritual" does not exist as some sort of etherial plane? Good; we're in agreement, then. I also believe that "spiritual" is just a word that people use to describe aspects of physical reality.

...or vice versa

"Are we spirits trying to be human, or humans trying to be spiritual?"
Zen source


TBC.........

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Did I misunderstand your original position regarding proof of God? In response to:

Quote:
Originally Posted by godnotgod
Once again, a God that can be proved is a dead God. The Infinite cannot be encapsulated in conceptual thought.

...this is what you originally stated:

"Why would you need to "encapsulate" God to prove God?

You wouldn't need to map all of God to prove that he exists... you've only need a metaphorical glimpse of a very small part of him.

As an analogy, Columbus didn't need to explore the entire continent to confirm that the New World existed; once he spied his first bit of coastline, that objective was accomplished."

So I was asking for an example of the 'glimpse' you mention as adequate proof of God's existence.

Ah. I didn't realize you were talking about hypotheticals just now.

Well, for starters, how about an Old Testament-style miracle? I'm sure there are other things that would work, but that would probably fit the bill.

I think most people would immediately interpret lake water as cold, not hot. The point is that the immediate experience confirms its coldness before one has a chance to formulate the thought that the water is cold. The same is true for accidentally touching a hot stovetop. There is only "Ouch!".

Yes: "ouch!" not "hot!" Not until your conscious brain has time to process what's happened, anyhow.

Same for when you fall into a very cold lake: the immediate experience isn't "coldness"; it's pain - burning pain, followed by numbness if you stay in the water long enough. Appreciating the experience as "cold" only comes from the conscious, rational mind, not from the experience itself.

No, I did not. You are stipulating that for me. As I said, God, or better, the Absolute, cannot be detected by rational inquiry.

Oh... so you were engaging in special pleading.

The Absolute is not only part of the phenomenal world, it IS the phenomenal world. There are no 'two worlds'; there is only THIS world. The Infinite and the finite are One.

I think the reason you do not see it is because you are overlaying the grid pattern of reason, logic, and analysis onto the natural world, without realizing it. You want to see and understand it via Time, Space, and Causation. These are the filters through which the Absolute is seen as the Ordinary.

Yes, reason, logic and analysis are filters: they're used to filter what's real from what's false or imaginary. You keep on portraying this as a bad thing, but I'm not buying it.

I think the problem here is not one of definition so much as the kind of sight we are referring to. You seem to be referring to ordinary eyesight when you talk about physical effects being observable. I am talking about intuitive insight. When I ask, for example, what you see when you look into the world, I want to know what its nature is, not what its 'physical effects' are. 'Physical effects' are merely the traces of its behavior.

What reason do you have to consider intuition to be a valid source of knowledge?

When you insist on clinging to the word 'physical' as a valid aspect of the world, you are also automatically implying the 'non-physical', since 'physical' refers to form, and form is both relative and temporal. 'Physical' must, by default, include the 'non-physical'. Another way of putting it is: if some things are physical, then what things are not?

Non-existent things.

Sorry, I was not referring to the TV, but to the invisible TV signals in a room, where no TV is present. Images reflected in a mirror are not retained. There are no traces left of the image once the image is removed.

We confirm the presence of TV signals by turning on the TV set. In the same way, we confirm the presence of the spiritual experience by turning on a higher type of conscious awareness; one that sees and understands the rational mind, but is not attached to it. You might say that the rational mind is contained within the sphere of the intuitive mind, but not vice-versa. In the world of Zen, the thinking mind is referred to as 'monkey mind', which refers to the fact that it is forever jumping about, while the intuitive mind is referred to as 'Big Mind'. We do not become aware of the workings of 'Big Mind' until 'monkey mind' is completely quieted down. Likewise, we do not see clearly to the bottom of the pond until the mud that is churned up by the agitated mind is settled.

To use your analogy, you can also confirm the presence of TV signals with an RF meter. You can't use it to see the picture, but when someone who claims to see a broadcast that you can't see, this will let you know whether a signal is present for him to see, or whether he's just lying or deluded.

Well, I for one am not referring to any 'supernatural' element.

The conclusion you have reached is base upon rational inquiry, I take it?

Generally, though it also "feels" correct and therefore by your argument it is correct, isn't it?

I do believe your position reflects what is known as the 'fully automatic universe'.

Do you not enjoy any kind of a spiritual life?

Define "spiritual".

I enjoy some things that some people deem "spiritual", but I believe them to have a physical basis.

The common usage of the word 'physical' implies solidity. As you know, however, when science gets down to the subatomic level, we do not have much solidity at all.

I disagree with that, but in any case, you know from my last post that this isn't the sense I intended. I've taken more than enough science classes to know that "solidity" is a matter of electron fields repelling each other, and that subatomic particles take up very little of an atom's volume.

...or vice versa

"Are we spirits trying to be human, or humans trying to be spiritual?"
Zen source

As long as you agree that there's only reality, what we call it is just a matter of terminology.

 

[AK4]

Thank you. But it wasn't quite what I was expecting. I suppose I was expecting some form of revelation, but instead what you describe appears to be reflection followed by rationalization. There is a psychological explanation for the way we absorb knowledge, and creatively solve problems, which has exact similarities with what you describe. After thinking intensely about some matter there is gestation period during which we are no longer concentrating on the problem, and some time after this ideas pop into our heads as per the Ah Ha! moment and help to resolve the issues. I have certainly experienced this phenomenon myself.

I would love to go into great detail and explain the differences, but i guess its just not what God wants me to do because when trying to explain something like this in a way that maybe someone else could relate it kind of diminishes what one experiences. If i could explain it exactly the way it happened and not in a way that someone else could relate to in some form or fashion then its just the same as those who claim to speak in tongues and no one else can understand what they are saying and the scriptures say that that is worthless. Also Jesus says to the pharisees what good is it to speak to them about spiritual things if they dont even understand the physical [what the physical is supposed to represent].

I am well aware of the science and studies behind all this and i do and have taken in consideration all that you stated above. Ive thought about those before and after these experiences happen because i know how one can easily be decieved. Only In essence you can say it was somewhat like that but only in essence. There is ALOT more to it than that.

As for some form of revelation hmmm....I cant really give you one but heres one and its probably not what you expect again. One night while watching one of those science channel shows about the universe i fell into one of those experiences again. I dont fully remember what it was about but some how it confirmed something in the scriptures about Jesus. I dont fully remember but it [the science behind the universe and the big bang] meshed perfectly with scripture about God and Jesus, even though the show mentioned and had nothing to do with them at all. All i remember is going into this "experience" and "finding" an answer.

All in all the best way to describe it i guess is like your mind at one time was filled with all kinds of things, teachings [religious or not], doctrines, worldly stuff and going through such experiences help you dump out all the falsehoods of the world and start relearning the real truth or as the scriptures say "a renewing of the mind" because the scriptures also says that we are now living in a "strong delusion".

 

[AK4]

And I have to repeat what I said before, if Bible scripture was 'true' then the fact that it was true would be universally acknowledged. But it isn't. It is only 'true' for believers, who are inclined or disposed to believe such.

Also let me add, in Revelation it says something like the mystery of God is now revealed [paraphrased].

Re 10:7 - But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin (5725) to sound * (5721), the mystery of God should be finished (5686), as he hath declared (5656) to his servants the prophets.
Hence God purposely made His existence a mystery to most of humanity, hence "there are many called, few are chosen", hence it is not universally acknowledged right now. This is no different about who or what Mystery Babylon is.

The word mystery confirms that not all will know or accept God right now. Not all mysteries are known by everyone.

 

[godnotgod]

Ah. I didn't realize you were talking about hypotheticals just now.

Well, for starters, how about an Old Testament-style miracle? I'm sure there are other things that would work, but that would probably fit the bill.

You can return to the evidence of the coastline again and again to verify its existence; an Old Testament miracle cannot be so verified.

Yes: "ouch!" not "hot!" Not until your conscious brain has time to process what's happened, anyhow.

"Ouch" because it is hot. The immediate reaction of recoiling from the hot stove is built-in; automatic. There is immediate knowing, without thought, that the stove is hot. It is only afterwards that the conscious brain process the information into a format that includes an experiencer of the experience: "Oh, I burned my finger!"

Yes, reason, logic and analysis are filters: they're used to filter what's real from what's false or imaginary. You keep on portraying this as a bad thing, but I'm not buying it.

Reason, logic, and analysis, by virtue of their approach, dissect reality. While they provide details about behavior and characteristics, they cannot tell us about the nature of reality itself. For many years, they have told us certain things about the atomic level of reality that are now shown to be false. At the present time, science cannot tell us with certainty what, exactly, it is looking at. In focusing in microscopically on certain details, it misses something very important, and that something is what makes reality take on the appearance that it does. In effect, by using these tools, science ends up telling us that reality is more of a total mystery than ever before.

What reason do you have to consider intuition to be a valid source of knowledge?

Intuition is not a source of knowledge; it is a pathway to knowing. Knowledge is the accumulation and conceptualization of facts; knowing, or gnosis, is the shedding of factual knowledge to arrive at a state of mind that was always present, but which you were not aware of because your rational mind assumed priority. You are already aware before there is any rational thought. This is known as metaphysic:

Metaphysic: The indefinable basis of knowledge. Metaphysical knowledge, or "realization" is an intense clarity of attention to that infefinable and immediate "point" of knowledge which is always "now", and from which all other knowledge is elaborated by reflective thought. A consciousness of "life" in which the mind is not trying to grasp or define what it knows.

from: Myth and Ritual in Christianity, by Alan Watts

Zen would tell us to "just look". Nothing more.

Non-existent things.

So "physical" things are defined in terms of what is non-existent.

To use your analogy, you can also confirm the presence of TV signals with an RF meter. You can't use it to see the picture, but when someone who claims to see a broadcast that you can't see, this will let you know whether a signal is present for him to see, or whether he's just lying or deluded.

Is not insight a kind of RF meter? Why do you trust an RF meter more than you would insight, assuming one's vision is in good working order? Think about Plato's Allegory of the Cave, in which those who had seen the Sun were trying to describe it to those who never had.

The point is, that just because we cannot see something in physical terms does not mean that it does not exist. You limit your view to what you call "physical" thereby automatically ruling out any other view as valid. It is like saying that everything is either black or white, where one has no awareness of the world of color.

Generally, though it also "feels" correct and therefore by your argument it is correct, isn't it?

No. The spiritual experience transcends emotion, the mind, time, space, and the ego, which involves a feeler and an experiencer. There is only the experience itself, such as in "Ouch!".

Define "spiritual".

That state of being that is an awakened state of consciousness, in which we see and experience reality as it actually is, in contrast to that of the rational mind, in which one translates reality via of how one thinks it to be.

It is interesting that one dictionary entry defines it's etymology as:

Middle English, from Anglo-French & Late Latin; Anglo-French espirital, spiritual, from Late Latin spiritualis, from Latin, of breathing, of wind, from spiritus...

The breath is central to all religious traditions, both orthodox and mystical. The ancient Greeks referred to the breath as pneuma, or spirit. Science has eviscerated its original meaning to imply only air, or mechanical breathing, as reflected in such words as pneumatic, and pneumonia.

In short, the breath itself is spiritual awareness.

I enjoy some things that some people deem "spiritual", but I believe them to have a physical basis.

Like breathing, for example?

I disagree with that, but in any case, you know from my last post that this isn't the sense I intended. I've taken more than enough science classes to know that "solidity" is a matter of electron fields repelling each other, and that subatomic particles take up very little of an atom's volume.

You could have found that out via the intuitive mind, which would have revealed the true nature of "physical" reality as being empty.

As long as you agree that there's only reality, what we call it is just a matter of terminology.

What happens when we do not define reality in dualistic terms of either "physical" or "spiritual"? In fact, even the word "reality" is a definition, and people have differing views of it, which are not a true view of it as it actually is. So the question is: is it possible for two or more people to have a universal view of reality that is identical from one person to the next?

 

[godnotgod]

All in all the best way to describe it i guess is like your mind at one time was filled with all kinds of things, teachings [religious or not], doctrines, worldly stuff and going through such experiences help you dump out all the falsehoods of the world and start relearning the real truth or as the scriptures say "a renewing of the mind" because the scriptures also says that we are now living in a "strong delusion".

Before the teachings; before the doctrines; before the worldly stuff, the falsehoods, and yes, even before the 'renewing of the mind', which is just going round in circles:

What was the state of your Original Mind?

 

[AK4]

Before the teachings; before the doctrines; before the worldly stuff, the falsehoods, and yes, even before the 'renewing of the mind', which is just going round in circles:

What was the state of your Original Mind?

Looking back now, i can see i was in a state of confusion and contradictions that i allowed myself to believe. I allowed man to teach me what they thought or reasoned to be true, when in fact they were teaching me the opposite of what God truly is. I think its best described that i was doing exactly what the definition of doulblethink is, which is what most of the world still does, not just religions

Doublethink - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The bible has a word for this kind of mind---its called the carnal mind

 

[godnotgod]

Looking back now, i can see i was in a state of confusion and contradictions that i allowed myself to believe. I allowed man to teach me what they thought or reasoned to be true, when in fact they were teaching me the opposite of what God truly is. I think its best described that i was doing exactly what the definition of doulblethink is, which is what most of the world still does, not just religions

Doublethink - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The bible has a word for this kind of mind---its called the carnal mind

God has the most carnal of all minds. After all, you must remember that He valued carnality to such a degree that he decided to transform Himself into the stuff. No, He did not just put on carnality like a piece of clothing; He actually became carnal:

"In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt amongst us."

Carnality is so important to the Christian, that he believes firmly in its resurrection, not only by God, but by man as well. After all, any Christian who has earned Heaven would find himself at a great loss without his flesh. How else could he enjoy the supreme pleasures of Heavenly Sex? And think of all that delicious ice cream that could not titillate his taste buds because he would'nt have any.

Carnality was central to the Crucifixion. Without the stuff, Jesus would not have suffered for man's transgressions. There would have been no sacrifice.

It is also central to the Resurrection, for it was his carnal body that ascended into Heaven.

In the Rapture, Jesus will take up chosen people, carnal body and all.

Without the carnal mind, we would have no SIN, and Sin, as we all know, is necessary to have been committed in order for Forgiveness to take place, forgiveness due to Contrition and Repentance and, of course, Salvation and the final earning and entry into Heaven.

Carnality itself is not the problem: it is how we egotistically separate it from spirituality, and then pit them one against the other in internal and eternal warfare that causes mankind so much grief.

Shall I go on?

 

[godnotgod]

Looking back now, i can see i was in a state of confusion and contradictions that i allowed myself to believe. I allowed man to teach me what they thought or reasoned to be true, when in fact they were teaching me the opposite of what God truly is.

Is not your separating man from God creating even greater delusion?

 

[kadzbiz]

Well prove it.

Why do people bother with this? Religion is about FAITH. It's what faith does for YOU. Why worry about what anyone else thinks? I believing in God makes you a better person, then your belief has purpose and meaning. If you have the same benefit from believing in anything else that's imaginary (IMO) and it doesn't negatively impact on anyone else, then that's good too.

 

[AK4]

God has the most carnal of all minds.

WOW!!!

After all, you must remember that He valued carnality to such a degree that he decided to transform Himself into the stuff.

Again wow!!

No, He did not just put on carnality like a piece of clothing; He actually became carnal:

Triple whammy

"In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt amongst us."

Carnality is so important to the Christian, that he believes firmly in its resurrection, not only by God, but by man as well. After all, any Christian who has earned Heaven would find himself at a great loss without his flesh. How else could he enjoy the supreme pleasures of Heavenly Sex? And think of all that delicious ice cream that could not titillate his taste buds because he would'nt have any.

You are right only to what those who still are still duped in the the traditional/orthodoxy christian teachings.

Carnality was central to the Crucifixion. Without the stuff, Jesus would not have suffered for man's transgressions. There would have been no sacrifice.

Jesus was not carnal, niether did He have a carnal mind. That is so blasphemous, just as their teaching that Jesus was made sin and not a sin offering.

It is also central to the Resurrection, for it was his carnal body that ascended into Heaven.

Have you not read scripture "flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom"? Sorry buddy you are wrong here.

In the Rapture, Jesus will take up chosen people, carnal body and all.

Again i refer you above

Without the carnal mind, we would have no SIN, and Sin, as we all know, is necessary to have been committed in order for Forgiveness to take place, forgiveness due to Contrition and Repentance and, of course, Salvation and the final earning and entry into Heaven.

The false teachings of heaven strikes again

Carnality itself is not the problem: it is how we egotistically separate it from spirituality, and then pit them one against the other in internal and eternal warfare that causes mankind so much grief.

We call it carnality in humans and instinct in animals and insects

Shall I go on?

Please do

 

[AK4]

Is not your separating man from God creating even greater delusion?

No the delusion is man or anything can be seperated from God.

 

[godnotgod]

No the delusion is man or anything can be seperated from God.

Excuse me? Are you saying that it is a delusion that man can become separated from God, or that man is deluded because he is separated from God?

If you mean to say the latter, can you explain how man can become separated from God?

 

[godnotgod]

Jesus was not carnal, niether did He have a carnal mind. That is so blasphemous, just as their teaching that Jesus was made sin and not a sin offering.

Carnality is not evil in and of itself. When it becomes hedonistic, however, is when the spirit becomes corrupted, and the mind is ruled by the passions. In other words, mind and body are out of balance with one another.

What kind of mind do you call it that instructed Judas to allow the woman to wash his feet in precious oils, against his protest that the money so derived could be used to feed the poor?

We are all carnal, as human beings. It cannot be avoided. On the contrary, to be alive in the flesh is one of the gifts of the Incarnation, given apriori to all mankind, and not just to the historic Jesus. Where we have gone wrong is to think that carnality is morally wrong. Being carnal is the whole point of our earthly existence. We became flesh in order to enjoy the gifts of the Incarnation. We enjoy good food, drink, sex, and other pleasures, both by the body and the spirit. We have art, music, and dance to give pleasure to the eye, ear, and body. When kept in the proper perspecive, all is good. Developing the right approach to these gifts is called the art of living, and Jesus, as you may recall, encouraged us to "choose life". In choosing life, we choose the things in life that bring us pleasure, but knowing that such pleasures are only temporal. It is when the mind tries to overly prolong such pleasures that we miss the entire point of their fleeting quality, which is what makes them pleasurable! In other words, if we do not know how to die, we cannot know how to live.

Have you not read scripture "flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom"? Sorry buddy you are wrong here.

Yes, I am aware of the doctrine, but that goes against the doctrine of the resurrection of the body of all men on Judgment Day. Some will ascend into heaven and some descend into Hell. It appears you do not subscribe to this doctrine, but most Christians do.

We call it carnality in humans and instinct in animals and insects

Carnality in humans is complicated by conscience and morality. Animals have no problem with lust as humans do.

When your higher consciousness is in balance with your body there is no problem, no internal warfare. Morality pits the spirit against the flesh in an illusory war of Good against Evil. The problem is that the human mind conceives of flesh and spirit as two distinct irreconcilable entities, but only because the body is allowed to get out of synch with the spirit. Much of this thinking comes from Gnosticism. In reality, there is no difference between the body and the spirit, the body being a temporal form manifested by the spirit.

"And the Word became Flesh...."

"Are we spirits trying to be human,
or humans trying to be spiritual"?

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Many of us don't believe because there's no evidence to support the existence of God. We're not searching for evidence that he doesn't exist; the lack of evidence that he does is enough to support disbelief. I don't believe in God for the same reason you don't believe in the Boogeyman. Nobody has ever come to any of you and given you concrete evidence against the Boogeyman's existence, but the concept is so ridiculous that common sense won't allow you to believe it. Plain and simple, for something as ridiculous as proving the existence of an invisible man in the sky, the burden of proof is definitely on those that would have me believe there is such thing, I shouldn't have to prove that it doesn't exist.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Carnality in humans is complicated by conscience and morality. Animals have no problem with lust as humans do.

Morality and conscience are learned responses that we are conditioned to as children, not instincts already woven into our genes. If a child were raised without being taught about morality or his/her conscience, they wouldn't have either, and would act just as animals do. People ARE animals. How is human lust any more or less wrong than animal lust? They are one and the same

 

[godnotgod]

WOW!!!

Again wow!!

Triple whammy

Why so surprised? Did not God become flesh? Did he not target the flesh when he killed tens of thousands in the Deluge? Was it not the flesh that he had in mind when he punished Job with boils and other afflictions? Did he not demand a carnal sacrifice of flesh and blood in order to appease his anger over Original Sin? Was it not carnality that kept the Angel of Death from killing the firstborn of the Jews during Passover, when they smeared lamb's blood over their doorposts? The Apostles at the Last Supper and all Catholics at the Mass symbolically and carnally eat and drink the flesh and blood of Jesus. The carnality of the Christian God permeates Christian history and doctrine.

Jesus was not carnal, niether did He have a carnal mind.

No? He did not have a body? He did not eat, drink, and excrete, all according to carnal and natural desires and impulses? I think what you may be trying to say is that he was not ruled by these impulses. In other words, he had them, but his higher self did not allow him to let them lead his behavior.