Search results

Kefir (a drinkable yogurt).

Well, g!d may, indeed be the summary of all things (not limiting this to "material things"). Yep, that is what I was trying to say. g!d must be greater than what we see (JMHO), I do not agree. H! must exist as something “beyond”. Remember, The Sainted Thomas was applying deductive...

Well why the Aryans in particular? I would love to be ther when the Indo-Aryans separate from the Irano-Aryans. Why? to see what the difference between the Sanatana Dharma and the Zoroastraism began. This is a crucial "pivot point" of history we know little about!

Well, g!d may, indeed be the summary of all things (not limiting this to "material things"). I think I am half-way between wil and Thomas. I do not think that TOEs can ever explain g!d away. Why? They cannot explain the non-material, but mental or spiritual side of our qualia (that which we...

Yes, I think that is a very Judaic interpretation, Thomas. Most of us are probably envisioning Four-Square confessions. We all know (or should know) where we miss the mark or stray from the path. And we should not focus on wallowing in guilt.

if one does not berlieve that g!d is much more than a tendicy of the world to process and one beleives Chr!st Jesus is an inner voice (look up quakerism, anabaptists, and other mystical chiristian groups).

I am g!d... responses?

Well, since most Christians believe in a "Father-in-the-sky" and "Christ-Jesus-as-a-person", of course. This does not mean that all trinitarians do so. Again, depands on what you mean by "Father" and "Son". Do they have to be seen this way? History says nay.

The principles that should (IMHO) be applied are "does it fit in with what we beleive the world to be", "can the assumption be falsified", "does it admit to inductive or abductive proof", and "does it move humanity forward"? A "no" to any of these makes the claim pseudoscientific and illogical...

ah, composer, I like it!

'Tis all bollocks and inkblot, irrational theology!

I dunno... maybe living a good life for the sake of a good life (see Epicetus or the core of Plotinus or the ethical core of ahimsa or the Pali Sutras or Chuang-tzi or George or Matthew Fox) is enough. Does it matter if there is an afterlife (including re-incarnation)? Not really. To be...

We are all sinners because all have done something "not on the path". That is all. What g!d needs and wants is for us all to reach out in love, kindness, and justice. If there is one who has consistently done this (other than monks, tirtankas, and buddhas) I do not know of their existence...

Never, no.

No supreme being (like Allah or YHWH or God), is there a supreme force or tendency that pushes us forward or back (Eternal Buddha or Kalachacra).

Gorgeous country. Are Jains and Buddhists considered almost part of the Sanatana Dharma? They just seem so related to the non-theistic braches I know of.

I, too, like A (step aside).

G!d is a supreme entity worthy of love, faith, and veneration. Sh! does not have to be a being with a body; nor does H! necessarily have to have created everything or be some "highest good". This is admittedly a conundrum, for most (but not all) theists.

First causes and origins are, as the Buddha said, a waste of time. I was merely stating that what one means by "God" does not have to be either (like the Eternal Dao or a panthiestic "elan vital" or a panentheistic "beyond" or a real serious "via negativa")

Sooooooooooooooooooo Good!