Do You Believe That God Has Many Different Forms, Or Do You Only Believe In One Religion?

[ding]

There is no sprit that gets reborn. There is no soul, no self, no ego.

The contradictions that exist in all things are more an artifact of the deficiency of translation and the failure to grasp some of the more esoteric meanings of the same word in different cultures. You stick to your definition of rebirth as if a definition or use of a word never changes. But in reality we see that definitions are as impermanent as everything else and that is compounded by imperfect translations of both definitions both denotive and connotative


In my studies I have heard different interpretations.

Some say it is remnants of consciousness that get reborn but the problem there is that consciousness is impermanent.

Some say that your actions, patterns of behavior and thoughts leave impressions on your constituent atoms much like a tool leaves unique marks on an object or the barrel of a gun leaves rifling marks on a bullet and it is these small but unique patterns that are carried to the next being or object that will eventually incorporate what was once your physical body.

That last one seems to me to be the least contradictive.

The whole concept you have constructed is contradictory. Which is probably why you are unable to produce an example of a spiritual pursuit that is not related to a higher power or spirit of some sort which is what you claimed in post #109.

 

[Blues Man]

Rebirth is one of the foundational doctrines of Buddhism, along with karma, Nirvana and moksha. ... Other Buddhist traditions such as Tibetan Buddhism posit an interim existence (bardo) between death and rebirth, which may last as many as 49 days. This belief drives Tibetan funerary rituals.

Rebirth in Buddhism refers to the teaching that the actions of a person lead to a new existence after death, in an endless cycle called saṃsāra.[1][2] This cycle is considered to be dukkha, unsatisfactory and painful. The cycle stops only if moksha (liberation) is achieved by insight and the extinguishing of craving.[3][4] Rebirth is one of the foundational doctrines of Buddhism, along with karma, Nirvana and moksha.[1][3][5]

The rebirth doctrine, sometimes referred to as reincarnation or transmigration, asserts that rebirth does not necessarily take place as another human being, but can also lead to an existence in one of the six realms of existence, which also include heaven realms, the animal realm, the ghost realm and hell realms.[4][6][note 1] Rebirth, as stated by various Buddhist traditions, is determined by karma, with good realms favored by kushala (good or skillful karma), while a rebirth in evil realms is a consequence of akushala (bad karma).[4] While nirvana is the ultimate goal of Buddhist teaching, much of traditional Buddhist practice has been centered on gaining merit and merit transfer, whereby one gains rebirth in the good realms and avoids rebirth in the evil realms.[4][8][9][note 2]

The rebirth doctrine has been a subject of scholarly studies within Buddhism since ancient times, particularly in reconciling the rebirth doctrine with its anti-essentialist anatman (not-self) doctrine.[4][3][10] The various Buddhist traditions throughout history have disagreed on what it is in a person that is reborn, as well as how quickly the rebirth occurs after each death.[4][9]

Some Buddhist traditions assert that vijñana (consciousness), though constantly changing, exists as a continuum or stream (santana) and is what undergoes rebirth.[4][11][12] Some traditions like Theravada assert that rebirth occurs immediately and that no "thing" (not even consciousness) moves across lives to be reborn (though there is a causal link, like when a seal is imprinted on wax). Other Buddhist traditions such as Tibetan Buddhism posit an interim existence (bardo) between death and rebirth, which may last as many as 49 days. This belief drives Tibetan funerary rituals.[4][13] A now defunct Buddhist tradition called Pudgalavada asserted there was an inexpressible personal entity (pudgala) which migrates from one life to another.[4]

And that is not the only interpretation. So your big fonts and all that other shit do not change that.

The philosophy of Buddhism has evolved over time.

Just like your religion evolved from other religions and your one god evolved from many gods.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

This is a really good question I just had because it was a topic of conversation a few days ago and hopefully I can explain it correctly. Do you believe that there's only one religion and all of the other ones are false and those gods don't exist, or do you believe that there is still one God, but many different beliefs about Him? I'll give you some examples because I'm not sure if I worded that correctly. Like Allah, Zeus, and God/Jesus.

Are they all the same God, but people have mixed views about Him? Or are they completely different gods altogether? I tend to believe it's the first one because otherwise, why would they all be considered godly spiritual beings? I hope that I explained that well enough. JGalt, JohnDB, I would really like to hear your opinions on this, and yes I know there are many different branches like Catholic and Baptist, but that's not what I'm referring to.

I adhere to a specific religion, which has some very specific notions of who and what God is, and how he relates to us. I believe that my religion is the closest to the pure truth, but that important elements of truth are found in all religions.

I see it as being very much like the classic tale of the six blind men and the elephant. As the poet John Godfrey Saxe rendered this tale…

It was six men of Indostan, to learning much inclined,
who went to see the elephant (Though all of them were blind),
that each by observation, might satisfy his mind.

The first approached the elephant, and, happening to fall,
against his broad and sturdy side, at once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the elephant, is nothing but a wall!"

The second feeling of the tusk, cried: "Ho! what have we here,
so very round and smooth and sharp? To me tis mighty clear,
this wonder of an elephant, is very like a spear!"

The third approached the animal, and, happening to take,
the squirming trunk within his hands, "I see," quoth he,
the elephant is very like a snake!"

The fourth reached out his eager hand, and felt about the knee:
"What most this wondrous beast is like, is mighty plain," quoth he;
"Tis clear enough the elephant is very like a tree."

The fifth, who chanced to touch the ear, Said; "E'en the blindest man
can tell what this resembles most; Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an elephant, is very like a fan!"

The sixth no sooner had begun, about the beast to grope,
than, seizing on the swinging tail, that fell within his scope,
"I see," quothe he, "the elephant is very like a rope!"

And so these men of Indostan, disputed loud and long,
each in his own opinion, exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right, and all were in the wrong!

So, oft in theologic wars, the disputants, I ween,
tread on in utter ignorance, of what each other mean,
and prate about the elephant, not one of them has seen!​

For what relevance it has to this discussion, I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, popularly known as the “Mormon” church. I have no doubt that our understanding of God is still fraught with some man-made misunderstandings and misconceptions, but I solidly believe that we are less blind than others.

 

[Blues Man]

The whole concept you have constructed is contradictory. Which is probably why you are unable to produce an example of a spiritual pursuit that is not related to a higher power or spirit of some sort which is what you claimed in post #109.

And you didn't read the last part of my post or perhaps you just didn't understand it.

 

[ding]

And that is not the only interpretation. So your big fonts and all that other shit do not change that.

The philosophy of Buddhism has evolved over time.

Just like your religion evolved from other religions and your one god evolved from many gods.

Let me summarize your beliefs...

When you die your atoms get reconstituted into something else which is the rebirth but the whole point of becoming enlightened is to prevent the rebirth which is your atoms being reconstituted into something else.

 

[ding]

And you didn't read the last part of my post or perhaps you just didn't understand it.

Or perhaps it makes no sense. If all rebirth is is your atoms being reconstituted into something else, what's so wrong with rebirth? Why do you wish to end the cycle?

 

[ding]

And that is not the only interpretation. So your big fonts and all that other shit do not change that.

Which means YOUR interpretation is not the only interpretation. The problem is you can't reconcile YOUR interpretation because YOUR interpretation is based upon ending the rebirth cycle which you believe is really just your atoms being reconstituted into something else in accordance with the FLoT.

And you can't back up your claim in post#109 that there are spiritual pursuits that are not related to a higher power or spirit of some sort.

The big fonts were used as emphasis so that you could read the relevant part of the quote. I like to be helpful that way.

 

[Blues Man]

Let me summarize your beliefs...

When you die your atoms get reconstituted into something else which is the rebirth but the whole point of becoming enlightened is to prevent the rebirth which is your atoms being reconstituted into something else.

there is a difference between what's in old Buddhist texts and how they are translated and more modern versions of the philosophy.

Like I said the thinking has evolved over time.

I have always said I don't follow any philosophy blindly and don't believe 100% in any one else's opinions of what the meaning of anything is.

You lump Buddhists into one pile so they all must beieve the same thing I don't.

I'm not going to get into a lengthy explanation of my interpretation of the philosophy and compare it line by line for you.

So I don't believe in that old concept of rebirth and many lives stuff and if I don't believe that then I obviously don't believe that there is any cycle of suffering that needs to be ended.

I will only ever be aware of one iteration of my life and that awareness ends when I do.

 

[Meriweather]

For what relevance it has to this discussion, I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, popularly known as the “Mormon” church. I have no doubt that our understanding of God is still fraught with some man-made misunderstandings and misconceptions, but I solidly believe that we are less blind than others.

I believe God starts with whatever part of Him we know, and introduces us to an even greater understanding.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The Christian God is a Trinity; Allah is a monotheistic God. There is no way to reconcile those differences. One is correct, the other is not. Take your choice.

Actually you have a point there, but I still don't know where Muslms [sic] got their concept of there being a God from then.

Consider the matter of Abraham, and his two sons, Ishmael and Isaac, as covered in chapters 16 through 20 of Genesis.

That is where the schism takes place between the Hebrews (and subsequently, Christians) and the Muslims.

Hebrew scripture (which became part of the Christian Bible) records that it was through Isaac that God's covenant with Abraham was to be fulfilled, by way of Isaac's son, Jacob (AKA Israel).

Ishmael was the father of a separate line, and it was the Ishmaelites who gave rise to Islam; and according to Islam, it was through that line that this covenant was fulfilled.

But both lines go back to Abraham, and both lines go back to the same God that Abraham worshipped, though their understanding of the nature of this God has varied a bit from one another.


It wasn't until Jesus came along that it was revealed that there was more than one being or identity that comprised God.

And the understanding held by most modern Christians is based on one of two competing attempts to reconcile the three revealed beings as one God, this choice between the two having been made, not based on any divine guidance or revelation, but by a brutal man-made political process which involved heavy suppression, censorship, and even murder of those holding to the other set of beliefs.

 

[BreezeWood]

There is no spiritual content to physiology.

all physiology is not the same ...

the transformation from one being to another is the physical evidence of the evolutionary manifestation of both the metaphysical physiology and its distinct spiritual content. for all beings.

for the metaphysical - evil need not apply.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Holy cow is that John Denver? Not God, the other guy.

Yes, that was John Denver.

The movie was Oh, God!, from 1977. That's George Burns as God. There were two sequels, also starring George Burns: Oh, God! Book II and Oh, God! You Devil.

There was a rumor, a few years ago, of a remake starring Ellen Degenerate as God. I cannot imagine any way for that to have worked as anything but a sick mockery of the original, and of God Himself.

———

After posting the above, it occurred to me to verify that I do have all three of these movies in my DVD collection.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The only things I have figured out in my life is that there may, indeed, be a Creator or God(dess). But they aren't paying attention to us like so many religious people think.

Has it occurred to you to consider the possibility that perhaps it is you who is not paying attention to God, rather than the other way around?

 

[ding]

there is a difference between what's in old Buddhist texts and how they are translated and more modern versions of the philosophy.

Like I said the thinking has evolved over time.

I have always said I don't follow any philosophy blindly and don't believe 100% in any one else's opinions of what the meaning of anything is.

You lump Buddhists into one pile so they all must beieve the same thing I don't.

I'm not going to get into a lengthy explanation of my interpretation of the philosophy and compare it line by line for you.

So I don't believe in that old concept of rebirth and many lives stuff and if I don't believe that then I obviously don't believe that there is any cycle of suffering that needs to be ended.

I will only ever be aware of one iteration of my life and that awareness ends when I do.

Ok, fair enough. So what does enlightenment mean to you and how can one be spiritual without a belief in spirits?

 

[Road Runner]

Yes, that was John Denver.

The movie was Oh, God!, from 1977. That's George Burns as God. There were two sequels, also starring George Burns: Oh, God! Book II and Oh, God! You Devil.

There was a rumor, a few years ago, of a remake starring Ellen Degenerate as God. I cannot imagine any way for that to have worked as anything but a sick mockery of the original, and of God Himself.

———

After posting the above, it occurred to me to verify that I do have all three of these movies in my DVD collection.

View attachment 568979

I know, I've actually heard of those movies before. At least the first two. I think I saw them a long time ago.

 

[Blues Man]

all physiology is not the same ...

View attachment 568973

the transformation from one being to another is the physical evidence of the evolutionary manifestation of both the metaphysical physiology and its distinct spiritual content. for all beings.

for the metaphysical - evil need not apply.

Nothing to do with spirit and everything to do with DNA

 

[Blues Man]

Ok, fair enough. So what does enlightenment mean to you and how can one be spiritual without a belief in spirits?

Enlightenment is the awareness of the movement of thought.

It is the observance in the moment of the origin and disappearance of thought and in that observance one finds wisdom.

And as I said before I believe it is those infinitely small tool marks our lives leave on our constituent atoms that is the connection between all things past present and future.

Those little changes are what you call spirit because they are all that remain of anyone after he is gone.

 

[ding]

Enlightenment is the awareness of the movement of thought.

It is the observance in the moment of the origin and disappearance of thought and in that observance one finds wisdom.

And as I said before I believe it is those infinitely small tool marks our lives leave on our constituent atoms that is the connection between all things past present and future.

Those little changes are what you call spirit because they are all that remain of anyone after he is gone.

Are you enlightened?

If so why do you keep dodging my other question?

how can one be spiritual without a belief in spirits?

 

[ding]

I believe it is those infinitely small tool marks our lives leave on our constituent atoms that is the connection between all things past present and future.

That's just a different way to describe spirit or soul which you deny exists. You are just playing games with words.

 

[BS Filter]

I believe in the One God. The Judeo/Christian God.