Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

"So what prevents a non-believer being able to accept the subtle...

First 20 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
Wibbo

1,191 Posts.

22/11/17

13:33

Post #: 29020412
Share

Originally posted by darkroom ↑

What we got hear is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it.

Evidence of God is subtle, especially for the soul steeped in a need for empirical proofs, especially when the tangible and the intangible meet, especially when pure abstraction and the phenomenal meet and will never produce absolute empirical evidence.

How does one experience and accept the reality of love from a partner? Such is the evidence for God. How then might it be possible for a being needing only empirical evidence to accept experiential evidence?

We started this topic, Deluded? suits me with pure white, Christian sugar inanity. Homilies sweet on the tongue, addictive, but not a vitamin or a mineral in sight. Won't change a thing. Won't help a soul. The world will continue on its death spiral, but he is saved and happy. Over the longer term his belief is just as lethal as diabetes.

Now regarding empirical evidence, it is not as easy to make excuses for somebody rejecting hard, of this world, evidence, because we are part of it. It is what we have dominion over and access to. It's neither subtle nor difficult to understand when broken down for the lay-person.

So what prevents a non-believer being able to accept the subtle evidence for God and the true-believer rejecting hard, clinical, unambiguous evidence?

As for Christ. Manifestations of God have a twofold station; one is of pure abstraction and unity with the other Manifestations, Muhammad and the like and with God.

The second is the station of distinction, distinct in that they must speak to the time and the place and the standard of the people they are addressing. So the Messengers are bridges between transcendent God and humanity and the physical world on the other hand.

As we have no understanding of transcendence there will always remain an unknowable quality within the station of Christ.

Was He God? No. Did He represent and speak with the authority of God? Yes.

Do we have the God given right to explore and understand nature, the role of evolution and physical realities as an essential and integral part of all religious landscapes, truth being one and not two? Yes. Because Jesus Himself represented both aspects of reality as one, phenomenal and transcendent.

Creation, every aspect of this entire universe must testify to the truth of religion and religion must adhere to the truth of this phenomenal reality as well. Science and religion must therefore be in essential harmony.

Scientists are the Skeksis and theists are the urRu/Mystics. The future of humanity is dependant on us merging these essential pillars of humanity back together.

Expand

"So what prevents a non-believer being able to accept the subtle evidence for God"
Perhaps because the hypocritical and exploitive nature of contemporary Christianity is obvious to most, people conclude that religion and God are one and the same, then throw out the Baby with the bath water.
1 Upvote

Reply

There are more pages in this discussion • 176 more messages in this thread...

First 20 Last