divine inspiration

[samabudhi]

God is a known quantity which has been examined and found wanting in too many departments to be taken seriously by atheists etc.

I am speaking from the Atheists point of view. They see God as a known quantity. A hefty underestimation. Most atheists I've met know very little about religion and so they make assumtions so that they can come to conclusions without doing any work.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

God is very much an unknown - and unquanitifiable quantity. Atheists I encounter generally make a point of being highly critical of Christian theology. There's a big difference between criticising a single religious perspective on Divinity, than a wider perspective of what Divinity is in the first place.

And it's this excessively critical outlook which keeps them at the level of paranoid unbeliever. It is also this hypercritical, black/white, good/evil, cut and dry mentality of the western machinical cult which promotes such dry and mundane states of mind and which causes people to only ever reach out to religion as an escape from the daily grind of this incessant binary millstone of benality. In the past people lived with plants and animals which were more like us. Nowadays we live encased in concrete tombs worshipping electronic devices which regulate every function from doing the dishes to pumping blood around our veins.

Have we all gone mad?!

(Please excuse me. I've just moved from a divine, earthy country (South Africa) to 'The Art of Eastern Sprawl' (Taiwan). I thought the poetry was good so I'm leaving it.)

[kkawohl]

In U.S.A., where I now live, there are more than 1500 religious denomination and faith groups, including 900 Christian, 100 Hindu and 75 Buddhist denominations.

Perception plays a major role in religions. There are numerous interpretations of the Scriptures, hence there are various sects who use the same source, the Bible or the Qur'an, but come to different conclusions. Religious differences are acceptable by the majority as long as fanaticism does not cause physical confrontations.

The ironic fact is that the followers of these religions all claim to live by the Word of God. Many claim that God has personally talked to their messengers who have relayed these Words of God to others. Apparently the Words of God were either misinterpreted, God is contradicting himself, or we start all over again by each side claiming to live by and having heard the Word of God correctly. So which religion is the correct one? Are they all correct or all wrong?

Kurt http://www.near-death.com/forum/0157.html

[samabudhi]

Originally Posted by kkawohl

In U.S.A., where I now live, there are more than 1500 religious denomination and faith groups, including 900 Christian, 100 Hindu and 75 Buddhist denominations.

Perception plays a major role in religions. There are numerous interpretations of the Scriptures, hence there are various sects who use the same source, the Bible or the Qur'an, but come to different conclusions. Religious differences are acceptable by the majority as long as fanaticism does not cause physical confrontations.

The ironic fact is that the followers of these religions all claim to live by the Word of God. Many claim that God has personally talked to their messengers who have relayed these Words of God to others. Apparently the Words of God were either misinterpreted, God is contradicting himself, or we start all over again by each side claiming to live by and having heard the Word of God correctly. So which religion is the correct one? Are they all correct or all wrong?

Kurt http://www.near-death.com/forum/0157.html

You know, Buddhism is an atheistic religion.

[kkawohl]

Originally Posted by samabudhi

You know, Buddhism is an atheistic religion.

That what is beyond the physical demise has been revealed to the spirits of many enlightened persons. How their minds have interpreted it is often influenced by its conditioning.

Apparently Buddha's spirit was not enlightened by the spiritual; but it makes no difference what one believes as long as one lives righteously.

IMO Buddhism and all religions look forward toward a final reward; an end to rebirth or the so-called heavens. Whether one believes in one or the other is a matter of conditioning and is an unimportant matter in Spiritual Transcendentalism and toward attaining the goal. Righteous living is what counts and what will determine the end result.

Buddhism is not necessarily a religion without God although the Buddhism belief system is often considered to be without a personified or conceptualized God. There are extensive and detailed writings in Buddhism about the Unnamable, Infinite, Indescribable, Non-Dualistic Direct Experience, Noumena or whatever one wants to call it.


When I stated that all religions have the same goal it means that Buddhism and all religions look forward toward a final reward; an end to rebirth or the so-called heavens. Whether one believes in one or the other is a matter of conditioning and is an unimportant matter in Spiritual Transcendentalism and toward attaining the goal. Righteous living is what counts and what will determine the end result.

Vajrayana refers to the 3rd form of Buddhism, after Theravada & Mahayana also known as Tantric Buddhism. The main claim of Vajrayana is that it enables a person to reach nirvana in a single lifetime. Nirvana is often considered as the heavenly state that exists beyond the cycle of reincarnation, an end to karmic suffering. It is also means being “blown out” which is often misinterpreted as the final end. “Blown out” refers only to the lower human principles, not entitative annihilation.

God can be considered nirvana, spiritual existence or whatever one constitutes it to be.

Kurt

[samabudhi]

OK, but I was really just responding to the line: 'the followers of these religions all claim to live by the Word of God'.
If you're going to sublimate the meaning of the word 'word' into anything from 'inspiration' to 'teaching' to 'feeling' and the word 'God' from 'The Supreme Personality of Godhead' to 'The ultimate truth' to 'Everlasting peace' then you pretty much haven't said anything in the line. You may as well have said that 1 plus 1 is 2. Buddhists do not have a 'God' and we don't proclaim to live by his 'word'.

IMO Buddhism and all religions look forward toward a final reward; an end to rebirth or the so-called heavens. Whether one believes in one or the other is a matter of conditioning and is an unimportant matter in Spiritual Transcendentalism and toward attaining the goal. Righteous living is what counts and what will determine the end result.

I'm afraid I have to disagree. As far as I have seen in Islam, the ideal is that of living in luxury, surrounded by grapes, gold and gazelle-eyed girls. The transcendence of suffering, the ultimate aim of the Buddhist, is not even mentioned.

If I thought I was going to a place such as that, I would not think that my desire or aversion to things had anything to do with it, since they will be in full force when I am introduced to paradise. Why else would there be those amenities other than to assuage my desire for them. In paradise I will be allowed to live luxuriantly without any expectation toward others and in complete self indulgence.
In Buddhist nirvana, I would be above all worldly things and in complete bliss which transcend our most far-fetched exagerations of what true peace and joy are. There is no need for such benal items for my senses to dabble in. As Krisnamurti says, 'The means is the end.' So I wouldn't expect anything from people hankering after paradise, other than people trying to manifest that paradise. People who aim for the highest ideal on the other hand, have more chance of reaching it.

When I stated that all religions have the same goal it means that Buddhism and all religions look forward toward a final reward; an end to rebirth or the so-called heavens.

So there are methods which aim toward goals. I should hope so. What else are methods for?

God can be considered nirvana, spiritual existence or whatever one constitutes it to be.

You think? The purpose of defining something is so other people have an idea of what you're talking about. Language, and therefore words, allow us to communicate. Nothing else. If you're just going to mix up a cocktail of meanings for what God is, then you're pretty much aiming toward the plug hole as far as forum discussion goes.

So which religion is the correct one? Are they all correct or all wrong

That's for me to know and you to find out.

[louis]

Ideas as to what actual physiological process is occuring is a repeated theme in speculative science - a reductionist thinking that absolutely must denigrate the process - and the person - experiencing it.

From Louis ....

Why must reductionist thinking "denigrate" anything ?
Surely any attempt at understanding must BEGIN by
breaking things down to their essentials - "reducing"
things to pure information by removing cosmetics like
figurative language and emotional embellishment.
To describe humans as "a bunch of cells" is only a place
to START - not an implication that we are nothing MORE .

And I regret using the word "test" - maybe I should have
used a fancier word like "epistemology" ( that personal sense or set of criteria by which decide to classify things as "definitely real" , "possibly real" or "no way could that ever be real" ). We are all born with that sense, although
some get "brainwashed" out of it - in others, it may just
become atrophied through lack of use. Mine still works !

But back to "divine inspiration" - so many people over the
centuries have judged it to be "definitely real", SOMEBODY
must have some idea HOW they reached that judgement !

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by louis

But back to "divine inspiration" - so many people over the
centuries have judged it to be "definitely real", SOMEBODY
must have some idea HOW they reached that judgement !

Heh, it is simply an incredibly powerful experience.

[samabudhi]

If I draw four dots, then for all intensive purposes, there is a square. But everytime I want to investigate this square, I have to look at it's component parts. The reductionist way of thinking as you are well familiar with. When I reduce it to it's parts, all I see is dots. No square.
So the same with divine inspiration. There are patterns in our way of thinking which leads us to believe that when we experience certain thoughts, they must have originated from God.
We are social animals as I always say. We need a chief. There is a boss of the family. The idea of a 'big chief' who governs all is not so far fetched to our mind. To a vervet mole, it is a stupid idea, since they are solitary. It's all relative.

"What people mistake as the divine is simply there own reflection." As the Upanishads say, 'Instead of knowing what is to be known, we should endeavour to know the knower.' If you know what glasses you're looking through, you won't be continually perplexed when everything is a certain colour. Knowing something is a relationship. There is something to be observed and there is the observer. You cannot separate the two. To know the world, you must know yourself. But people don't, so they're continually confused that what they are seeing is an all-powerful, human-like God, and not a reflection of their own identity/ego-self.

They see the same illusion every time, and so it becomes real. We judge real as that which has come out as the truth statistically more than not.
If we see things happening enough times, we will believe it. I don't believe that you can levitate. If you do it once, I will be astounded and weaken my opinion. If I see it everyday I will believe as much as ice is cold. How can I believe otherwise?
People have seen the same thing/had the same experience over and over again. Does that mean it's real? What other choice do we have but to say yes. But that doesn't mean their explanation of it is true.
They have had divine inspiration. That much is accepted. Does that mean God exists? Does that mean we should fight for his religion? Does fighting against non-believers mean we will go to heaven? How we jump to conclusions.

Divine inspiration may be true, I can't say, I have no experience. But I would be careful not to conclude that just because it exists, God, in the typical sense of the word, exists.

[louis]

The problem for atheists etc is the fear of the unknown, not God. God is a known quantity which has been examined and found wanting in too many departments to be taken seriously by atheists etc. The unknown is what brings a chill down one's spine.

From Louis...
I, personaly, have no fear of the "unknown" - nor does
any creative preson - it's just a blank area upon which
to try out our new ideas.



You'll notice that anyone who deals with the absolute, with the...is it right brain?... too much, like accountants and computer geeks have a noticable maladaption to the world, like they're living in 2 dimensions when the rest of us are in 3.
I'm babbling, next topic...

From Louis...
You're not babbling - you're right on the mark !
Many "geeks" have a condition called "Asperger's Syndrome" - a limited form of Autism. I know that
because I have some of it myself. You're right -
we do live in our own heads - separate from the
"group" thinking that prevails in most of society
( and especially in churches ).

[samabudhi]

Originally Posted by louis

I, personaly, have no fear of the "unknown" - nor does
any creative preson - it's just a blank area upon which
to try out our new ideas.

I felt the same way until I met the unknown. No-one likes to hear about drug experiences except people who've had them so I won't talk about them.
A fear of the unknown is something inherent in man. If you don't have it, you've either been so heavily desensitised that you no longer care about whether you exist or not, or you've have the front part of your brain removed.
The other two options are that you're hiding from it, or you've overcome it some way. The second being a most plausible explanation.

[louis]

Religious belief usually requires some form of heirarchical acceptance of "revelation revealed" by someone "divinely inspired" - or similar. That acceptance comes from various cues, but the result is usually reduced to the simple concept of "faith".

From Louis...
For me, the concept of "faith" is anything but simple ...
The dictionary describes it as a "mental attitude".
From my "outsider" viewpoint, it resembles other mental
attitudes such as "wishful thinking", "fanaticism",
"fixation", and straight on through "psychotic obsession".
Since these attitudes are different only in DEGREE,
it would seem prudent to avoid ALL of them.



A more personal spiritual outlook may come from personal experience of different processes of Divine Inspiration. I'll tell you straight I've had quite a few mind-bending ones.

From Louis...
If by "personal", you mean "subjective", then I agree.
In a sense, ALL "experience" is personal.
But if I ever had such an experience , I would seek a way to VERIFY just WHAT I had experienced - a product of my OWN mind or a perception of somethingBEYOND my own mind...
If from beyond, then it should contain information that
I or NO OTHER human could have "figured out" by
reason or any "earthly" means.
If I then discover that some other human had ALREADY
"figured that out", then obviously my experince was
not from beyond - just something I could have figured
out for myself if I had tried harder.

[I, Brian]

I like the squares anaology - tis good.

[inhumility]

Originally Posted by louis

Can somebody explain just what people mean when they
speak of "divine inspiration" ?
The phrase would suggest an individual expressing ideas
that he CLAIMS are not a product of his own mind but
were implanted there by "something else".
It seems to apply mostly to people who lived thousands
of years ago - when people make such claims TODAY, many other people assume they are mentaly disturbed.
Why not make a similar assumption about the people
who wrote in the Judeo-Christian Bible...?
Do believers know and use some sort of TEST ?
that would VERIFY such a claim- demonstrate that it contains accurate information that could not possibly
have been "figured out" by any part of a human mind ?
We all "know" a lot more than we think we know - much
of our knowledge is buried in our subconscious - especially
the stuff we prefer NOT to know.
Louis...

Inspiration of a person who usually has direct communication with God, is understandable, I mean those persons who receive revelation from God or receive Word of God directly or through angels i.e. innocent persons like Prophets/Messengers of God who have been chosen by God, as man is very crafty and tricky, and only God knows about inns and outs of a person and only He knows as to what person, out of love fears Him most, and is righteous and the Guided one. Such a person has a very clean self and his subconscious is nothing but pure. Only about such persons one can visualize that when they are contemplating or are doing a thing and at that point in time they are not receiving Revelation from God but even then they are doing that thing under an inspiration or a cover from God. Because they have been chosen by God, they are under a guarantee from God, that they would not do any sinful deeds intentionally though being human being they can make mistakes sometimes, because they are not God.
I have observed that many a unscrupulous and sinful persons, who were assigned the duty of preserving the scriptures, they failed to perform that duty and then wrote the scriptures from their short memory carelessly on their own, sometimes these people are regarded saintly and what they had written is called written under inspiration. This could be easily recognizable if one makes a reasonable effort but those who follow religion blindly and are proud of that, do not do that, this is a failure on their part, needs to be corrected.
E.g. Let us observe the incident of “The Golden Calf” as narrated in Bible:-
Exodus 32

1 When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said, "Come, make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don't know what has happened to him."
2 Aaron answered them, "Take off the gold earrings that your wives, your sons and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to me." 3 So all the people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron. 4 He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool. Then they said, "These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt."
5 When Aaron saw this, he built an altar in front of the calf and announced, "Tomorrow there will be a festival to the LORD." 6 So the next day the people rose early and sacrificed burnt offerings and presented fellowship offerings. Afterward they sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry.
7 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go down, because your people, whom you brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt. 8 They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, 'These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.'
9 "I have seen these people," the LORD said to Moses, "and they are a stiff-necked people. 10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation."
19 When Moses approached the camp and saw the calf and the dancing, his anger burned and he threw the tablets out of his hands, breaking them to pieces at the foot of the mountain. 20 And he took the calf they had made and burned it in the fire; then he ground it to powder, scattered it on the water and made the Israelites drink it.
21 He said to Aaron, "What did these people do to you, that you led them into such great sin?"
22 "Do not be angry, my lord," Aaron answered. "You know how prone these people are to evil. 23 They said to me, 'Make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don't know what has happened to him.' 24 So I told them, 'Whoever has any gold jewelry, take it off.' Then they gave me the gold, and I threw it into the fire, and out came this calf!"
25 Moses saw that the people were running wild and that Aaron had let them get out of control and so become a laughingstock to their enemies. 26 So he stood at the entrance to the camp and said, "Whoever is for the LORD, come to me." And all the Levites rallied to him.
27 Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' " 28 The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. 29 Then Moses said, "You have been set apart to the LORD today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day."
35 And the LORD struck the people with a plague because of what they did with the calf Aaron had made.
Exodus 40:13-16
13 Then dress Aaron in the sacred garments, anoint him and consecrate him so he may serve me as priest. 14 Bring his sons and dress them in tunics. 15 Anoint them just as you anointed their father, so they may serve me as priests. Their anointing will be to a priesthood that will continue for all generations to come." 16 Moses did everything just as the LORD commanded him.

Anybody who reads this incident would agree that the person i.e. the Bible Writer of this incident was, in my opinion, definitely not inspired by God or the angels. The Revelations of a Prophet are something else, those are Word of God, and Word of God does not have any contradictions, ambiguities, favoritism, injustices and cruelties. For instance the inner evidence of Torah refutes that Aaron, a prophet and brother of Moses could have made (even on the request of the then Israelis) the “Golden Calf” for worship, and if we supposedly believe that he would have done that, then God’s anger would have burnt on Aaron the most and he would have deserved first man to be killed, and at least he and his sons would not have been entrusted with doing any work of the temple. Instead he and his sons were anointed and made in-charge of all religious ceremonies for future. This shows that Aaron was not involved in making the calf or its worship, Aaron must have abstained from making the calf or worshipping it that was why he and his sons were rewarded by God. Instead of blaming Aaron a prophet and blaming God, we should infer that the Bible writer has made a blunder or at least we should conclude that the Bible Writer was never inspired by angels or God when he wrote account of this incident. This is my humble opinion, others may have their own, no compulsion.

Thanks

[Virtual_Cliff]

Originally Posted by louis

From Louis...

I can't find my way back to your question regarding
"divine will v.s. free will", but it is a subject I'd like to address.
When I consider the possibility of God, the FIRST thing
I want to know is: where does God stop and where do I
begin ? If God was here first, then it's obvious His will
and whims take precednce over all others.
Of course, my ego bristles at such a thought and I
want to draw a line and say: God should stay on his side of it and leave me in charge on my side !
Not very practical, I admit - especialy if my very existence
depends on staying on God's "good side".
But, as an human individual, I do instinctively desire
INDEPENDENCE from God. ( and I suspect such a desire
is the real root of Atheism - a natural resentment of any
authority beyond one's own will ).
" If there is no God, then I am God " .

One of the truths in the book of Genesis is that a division was made between us and God when we chose to become like God. Since then there is this yearning on both sides for a resolution. Christians believe that Christ was the means of this reconciliation. We are in part divine and in part separated from the divine.

The thing about science is that it seems more important than it really is. If we were suddenly transported to live off the land in a technology-free environment, those of us who were adaptable and strong would survive and live full and contented lives under the stars. Why bother about the structure of the atom when we don't even know the name of our next-door neighbour? Science tells us nothing about those things that make our lives worth living. So it is fine as far as it goes, but as a guide to live your life by, useless.