Do You Believe In A God? Why or Why Not?

[The_Myth]

Splain.

[yorkshireiron]

Splortugal?

[The_Myth]

Smorroco.

Explain what winds you up and I might be able to splain myself.

[yorkshireiron]

I will tomorrow, not being rude but heading out for the evening.

[The_Myth]

Have a great night.

[squating_bear]

Yes to all of them? Woah. I like that.

Can you tell me details about these please?

@squating_bear

Can you walk the right road the wrong direction?

Are there any shortcuts?

Thanks for your reply

Do you consider the below as a permanent or temporary condition?

@The_Myth

I have no ego.

[The_Myth]

Your path is your path, and all paths lead to the same god.
So yes, you can walk in the wrong direction, but it is the right direction for you - it’s your path.

There are shortcuts - but the shortcuts are also your path.

Ideally, loss of ego is permanent. What you think of me is none of my business. All that matters is what I think of myself, my relationship with the divine, which is within me, not without.

I’m not there, I admit, but that is Christ consciousness. The way to the father is through the son - Christ consciousness, Buddha consciousness.

When you achieve that, you live in heaven every day. Heaven is within.

[squating_bear]

@The_Myth

Ideally, loss of ego is permanent. What you think of me is none of my business. All that matters is what I think of myself, my relationship with the divine, which is within me, not without.

What people think of me is a part of my business, but not my bottom dollar so to speak. Otherwise there would be no point in speaking.

I think true egolessness would be incapable of recognizing itself as such

@The_Myth

I’m not there, I admit, but that is Christ consciousness. The way to the father is through the son - Christ consciousness, Buddha consciousness.

When you achieve that, you live in heaven every day. Heaven is within.

I also think true egolessness has no preference for heaven

Curious to your thoughts, no disrespect intended

Thanks. Peace

[mnben87]

It was my thought, not my interpretation of what you meant by one name.

[The_Myth]

@squating_bear

What people think of me is a part of my business, but not my bottom dollar so to speak. Otherwise there would be no point in speaking.

Well, while we would all like to live in utopia, we do have to contribute to this society, so making a living is a noble pursuit. I was in sales, wore the thousand dollar suit and drove the company car with an expense account. Part of enlightenment, as I understand it, is raising others up. So if I have a gift that allows me to make money, I should. But, I should keep my eye on the prize, which is raising everybody up - seva, or charitable works.

@squating_bear

I think true egolessness would be incapable of recognizing itself as such

Yes, this is a challenge. It’s not the ego that is the problem, it is the attachment to the ego. Or really, the attachment to the attachment.

@squating_bear

I also think true egolessness has no preference for heaven

I think if you have no ego, you are being rather than doing, and that is heaven.

I know this is weird shit, and it’s really just my concept from too much reading. Knowledge is just knowledge.

Knowledge plus experience is wisdom.

[squating_bear]

Thanks man

[angomango]

The definition online is your opinion on what survival of the fittest means. There are different interpretations on survival of the fittest.

The definition you extracted from the internet is one of them; therefore, it is not the final and 100% true fact. You are perceiving it to be the only true thing, since you’re rejecting my literal definition of evolution, which in turn has dictated which species survived and which died - much better perspective on “survival of the fittest”.

@pfury

A fit species is one that can exert control over its environment moreso than other species can exert control over it.

Hahahahah, yes so ants are most definitely a fit species.

[pfury]

@angomango

You are perceiving it to be the only true thing, since you’re rejecting my literal definition of evolution

Can’t you point me to where I’ve done that?

@angomango

Hahahahah, yes so ants are most definitely a fit species.

Sure. Relative to other insects. You sure got me.

Anyways, I’m done derailing the religious thread. Seems like the only engaging you do is getting overly defensive about asking why you think a certain way. Have a good one.

[zecarlo]

If all roads lead to the same God, then all roads lead to Uranus?

[squating_bear]

@cyclonengineer

This theory does raise difficult questions. What about the gentiles before the new covenant? Are they just screwed to eternity in hell? It really doesn’t seem fair, not saying it has to be fair, but that is just outrageous.

I agree these are difficult questions and I don’t have a clue how to answer them. I think it was never intended to necessarily be fair. It does seem a bit crazy that for awhile anyone not of Israel was condemned until Jesus’ coming.

Meant to give you this sooner but forgot

Harrowing of Hell

[H_factor]

Per usual no one even remotely agrees even among those who believe.

A number of Christians reject the doctrine of the “harrowing of hell”, claiming that “there is scant scriptural evidence for [it], and that Jesus’s own words contradict it”.[22] John Piper, for example, says “there is no textual [i.e. Biblical] basis for believing that Christ descended into hell”, and, therefore, Piper does not recite the “he descended into hell” phrase when saying the Apostles’ Creed.[23]Wayne Grudem also skips the phrase when reciting the Creed; he says that the “single argument in … favor [of the “harrowing of hell” clause in the Creed] seems to be that it has been around so long. … But an old mistake is still a mistake”.[22] In his book Raised with Christ , Pentecostal Adrian Warnock agrees with Grudem, commenting, “Despite some translations of an ancient creed [i.e. the Apostles’ Creed], which suggest that Jesus … ‘descended into hell’, there is no biblical evidence to suggest that he actually did so.”[24]

Augustine (354–430) argued that 1 Peter 3:19–20, the chief passage used to support the doctrine of the “harrowing of hell”, is “more allegory than history”.[22]

[zecarlo]

The idea that some caveman who lived well over ten thousand years ago, is in hell, sounds really silly. Even by religious silliness standards.

[polo77j]

Your hard hitting and nuanced analysis is illuminating as always … so detailed

[zecarlo]

I have to consider my audience.

[mnben87]

So the idea is that those that existed before Jesus are brought up and judged at the time of Jesus’ death?