Ontological Arguments (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 23:53 (5169 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

I am not really sure that it is an interface to god that is needed, though, at least in the Christian belief system that is exactly the role that Christ was supposed to play. (Sorry if I digress to theology for a moment, but it is for good reason)Earlier in the bible though, Adam, Abraham, Moses and others had a direct interface with him. Through the scriptures, there is a definite trend of withdrawal over time, kind of a disconnect with that direct line. At first, any angel could serve the purpose, then, only Christ through faith. I am curious as to how that would gradual disconnect stacks up in other religious texts though. &#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> This thought had also occurred to me a long time ago, and to be honest, has been the one thing that has kept me from ever completely giving up on the existence of a God. I think at the end of the day it comes down to belief and understanding.&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> To take the last first, understanding that energy and matter are interchangeable and ultimately indestructible. Mankind has learned to change the state of matter and energy by using outside forces. I think we are meant to learn to alter the state of energy and matter using our minds. (Holds his breath and waits for the straight jacket...)&#13;&#10;> -*looks around*-<whispers> &quot;They mostly come out at night. Mostly...&quot;-> Our brains already manipulate energy to create our personal realities, how much of a stretch is it to think that same ability can not extend to our communal reality? I know things such as this are covered in Buddhism, though I do not know to what extent. But even in Christianity, the message is there. &quot;If you have faith the size of a mustard seed you can move mountains.&quot; And Peter was able to walk on water until he lost faith. None of this would be possible with out energy i.e. God&apos;s help.&#13;&#10;> -Maybe in Tibetan Buddhism, but in the Zen I practiced for some years, the &quot;communal reality&quot; they reference is simply these facts:-1. There is only the here and now&#13;&#10;2. If there is only &quot;here and now&quot; then there is only one reality.&#13;&#10;3. The self is a psychological illusion that prevents us from living in the here and now. Therefore, the self prevents us from living in the only reality.-Though this is a little inaccurate to express in language, but it wouldn&apos;t be far off to say that Buddhism at heart asserts that since we all share the same reality and that the self is an illusion (going back to your previous comment of &quot;brain as filter&quot;) that there is no *actual* difference between you and I. -I say its inaccurate in words because the goal of meditation is to put you in contact with &quot;the here in now,&quot; or as David joked previously, &quot;I am conscious, but we are consciousness.&quot; -> &#13;&#10;> Just one of those late night ideas that has been growing over the last several years.-It Jives. Though I also have a theory that people who had a very religious upbringing are more likely to not abandon their religion. Yeah, people might abandon it for awhile, but whole-life apostates are rare.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"