Quote:
Originally Posted by
really
Just in case we lost track, you are saying that there is linguistic similarity in the manner that Christianity is a sun-worshiping religion, therefore it is one. I am saying this is untrue and that the linguistic similarity, in terms of religious relationships, is rather due to the spiritual foundation which all the significant religions arise.
Really, you are giving far too much room for truth and validity. Even if all things stem from a "truth" does not mean that they are true themselves. A theory can have some parts of truthful things in it, but that does mean that the rest of it is.
Quote:
At the very core, beyond the rituals, ceremonies and dates, is the spiritual essence. The most important part of the religion is its foundation; the prophets, the Self-Realized, Lord Krishna, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Buddha, etc. The spiritual connections are all based upon the illumination of the Divine Reality, called Brahman, Enlightenment, Self Realization, The Supreme, Nirvana, Heaven, Salvation (Salvation is not full Realization, however) etc. Those who seek this, by whatever name or teacher, sometimes "via the mind" are called mystics. Sri Ramana Maharshi is a famous mystic, who taught about the "Self" and "Self-inquiry", though he was a Hindu devotee.
You speak like a Baha'i - the desperate people who actually think all religions are true in some sense to try and salvage humanity and yet fail to see how offering truth to all beliefs is actually completely non sequitur.
Quote:
I hope you can see the connections below, just from the list of quotes; there is a brilliant consistency. I think the context in which they're stated is already self-evident as for those seeking the Ultimate Reality or Salvation, as teachings and preachings. However, if you still doubt what I am saying, there is no harm exposing yourself to more material. It is then inevitable to see more connections. Here is but a few:
Have you considered that they are all similar because they all come from humans?! What do you think horses would write, if they could? How do you think the psychology of religion describes these quintessential behaviour of humans that try to understand their environment?
Quote:
They are not my assertions, but my observations and my faith, affirmed through what I have read. And while you do not back yourself up either, it is helpful to realize that the Truth stands on its own, regardless and unaffected. You are in trouble if you want it to be proven. The Absolute, the Universal Truth cannot be proven, and it is an ignorance to demand proof of it. Nothing bad or wrong with that, I'm just trying to be clear.
Yet again you denigrate another thread into this cesspool of what you call "unprovable truth". You like to think of it as an invincible predicate while you also say it cannot be demonstrated, yet you can still manage to pontificate it and describe it. Really what you are is an agnostic in sheeps clothing of a spiritualist (or Baha'i, I suspect now).
Quote:
I'm sorry if I come across as condescending. I think you're misinterpreting religious dialogue, taking it too literally. You're missing that the Truth is always there, and always will be. It is unmistakable as it is, but it may be mistakable as a mere concept.
No, you misunderstand by giving people way too much benefit of the doubt. Yet again, even if all things stem from a truth, this does not mean that all those subsidiaries of "truth" are, in fact, "true". A simple look at the problem of the "perfect God" creating "imperfect beings" shows this struggle.
Quote:
I agree with your emphasizing on knowledge. I think this could be the answer to your own problem, not being able to conceptualize that which rests upon a radical paradigm of knowledge: Being.
Here's where you arrogance of spiritual enlightenment shines - obviously you are the only one that understand the "truth" and no one else does, right? You seriously need to quit trolling about shit that you know you even don't understand nor can demonstrate or speak about.
Until you can provide falsifiability in your theory - it holds absolutely no grounds at all - especially no grounds for "truth". But it can't be falsified, right? :rolleyes:
Quote:
You can't use the hypothetical as an argument. I am merely discussing the theoretical, and the confirmed spirutal Realities that are indeed complementary and affirmative to each other. I don't need to be enlightened to see the relationships, nor am I claiming to be.
Right - you just march around the boards pontificating your "truth" as though you know nothing about it but everyone else is "lost" or "mis-understands" - but you do not claim to be enlightened..? Or is this part of your circular logic where you claim that your knowledge of enlightenment is that you know nothing..? Right. Forgot that part. You're infallible apparently - and so are your arguments. /sarcasm.
Quote:
All is interconnected and One, One without separate parts, without division and thusly without limit. The Source of existence is not only beyond one galaxy, it is beyond millions of them; it is beyond all universes and all time. It is the universal Source, far from any distinctions and divisions.
You have no grounds for this, no support, no evidence, no reason, nothing. Been over this before and here you are again infecting another person with your nonsense. Stop it. It's digressive - and you know it as you have already said before that the person has to be at "the same level of understanding" to understand "the true truth".
Though I am sure you have many rationalizations of why I do not understand your stance that rectifies your personal philosophies grounds - just the same as a solipsist or a child with an imaginary friend. You know this, but you don't like the comparison, but too bad because you know that you cannot offer anyone anyone incentive to your beliefs or reason to listen to them, SO STOP IT.
Seriously.
You are far more ignorant and blind than you claim to be - that which claims to "know nothing" and "not be enlightened" while arguing unfalsifiable, isolated, subjective, tautological, non sequitur, garble.
~