3bob

ok Mr. Isimsiz Biri. Reject all you want but you are the one proclaiming that one of our members (and I assume all other members have not yet realized they are Musilms but would do so "immediately" under the conditions you've laid out. That is an obvious aspect of being a fanatic so I suggest you paly back your own words and listen if you can? Islam may have a few non-fanatics and even saints but imo they are hard to come by since most of the orthodox aspects of the religion are engaged in a type of ugly, violent and horrific spiritual genocide of millions of people. (more so against women!)

Ok Mr. Biri, I feel this is a Taoist forum at heart that allows all sorts of goings on out of tolerance for same, something which you who sounds like a fanatical variation of Islam does not seem to understand.... Btw, any true saint of any religion has gone beyond religion and does not need to or want to force their chosen path, vision or doctrine upon anyone else, since doing so would be a "sin". Also neither you, me nor anyone else is definitely aware of what someone else will be, not be, or think... Thus I suggest the dropping your fanaticism or at least keep it to yourself and your like minded associates. Om

Isimsiz, I'm glad for you in feeling your inspiration but remember this is originally a Taoist forum thus I think proclaiming people will "immediately become Muslim" is not kosher in said context like it would or might be at a Muslim site. Granted I started this string to stir the pot somewhat but not in the sense to insist or infer that one raft is better than another raft.... Anyway, from my experience I would venture sharing that upon realization one immediately becomes what they already are, which is not limited to any-thing of this world or of the astral realms as you have mentioned - or of any other woven realm. Om

no need to prove or disprove since such is not really possible with the mind... for such can only be alluded to not nailed down.

I'd say seemingly tricky although the most singular, simple and quintessential fact.

that's about all you seem to do alwayson, laugh your fanatical head off.

I'd say "God" is not evolving or changing, only the creation of things are doing so... for if God could or did evolve then same could also de-volve.

Old Testament "eye for an eye" which keeps the wheel of suffering turning...

if really "still" then that is already there, no travel needed... such is not of mental power it is Spirit power.

countless numbers of souls and suns but only one Spirit

Om

Lord Brahma is obvious... though He to is created. The rest is not so obvious.... Off the main topic: Why did it take a God to remind the historic Buddha to continue on as a teacher after his enlightenment, such makes no sense if you are a Buddha knows and sees everything type.

Sounds like you are on the right track... except I'd go further with your analogy that if one had true and full knowledge of the "Holy Spirit" (which would also take the crossing over of said bridge) then they would also indelibly know that no sin can stand up to same including any attempted smashing of same. (for Spirit is unto Spirit regardless of what any form of creature does)

Chegg, I'd say the internet source you came across is oxymoronic...

Simple deduction would lead one to see going by your last post that if God made himself present in hell then hell would be burned up as you imply resulting in it being no more instead of it being eternal... thus the line of reasoning you give does not fly unless its a minor and forgivable hell, but the Bible never mentions such a hell does it. A Bible or a religion corrupted by worldly forces of greed, oppression (etc..) as Jesus warned of can not be fully trusted, that is my observation, surely such is self-evident to anyone who has heard or seen reports on shady preachers asking for money to fund their multi-million dollar life styles or brain washing people into committing suicide... (like Jim Jones) edit: although I can see your point about a persons state being important such as one biting off way more than they chew (around high power purity) which will backfire on any who try such. Yet even in that case there is some built in protection for foolish acts, call it spiritual inductive reactance if you will which should cause the unprepared or a transgressor to back off quickly since high power purity does not.

Logic alone is not the only measure but that doesn't mean I'd throw the baby out with the bath water... Anyway to me your logic does not compute, for instance if the way you understand God is as being the state or condition of "heaven" then hell would not be such if God is there (in said state)... etc.. If I remember correctly "outer darkness" is mentioned in the Bible in the book of Matthew several times, thus I find your summation about same as missing key Bible references. (?) Further, what is a "Christian myth" or fact is 100% open to debate in this world. Btw, those are Old Testament quotes you used are from a collection of multiple books which are over-flowing with self-contradiction and spiritual dichotomy (to name just two conditions) that can not be reconciled by my take, if you see and feel reconciliation with same then have at it but remember that is just your take... The NT is less so but still deeply problematic imo unless one tosses out most of its carry-over from the OT and sticks mainly with what Jesus is quoted as saying about spiritual principles. (but of course the NT. has also been heavily manipulated by worldly forces that wear sheeps clothing)

Lots of deep stuff to consider there... Lets take just one of them for now: "...But since there is nothing self-existent but God himself..." By Goat guy What are some of the implications of your sentence and the points or questions that could be reasonably derived from same? For instance: 1. can hell and its occupants exist without God being part of same (?) for it would seem that such a dichotomy is impossible even for God since you speak of him as heaven, a heaven by most accounts that can not exist and be in the same state as an existing hell, a hell which again can not exist or be separate from the one and only self-existing God. The way I see things: Everything and or anything created is in and of time, created things can be renewed for a very, very, very long time (in effect what is called immortality via or in different scales of time) yet even time/space itself as a created thing comes to an end when it is drawn up so to speak... although through the great cosmic cycle(s) it along with everything else will be created again and again.

the chicken came second and the egg came third, and that which can not be named is first

I'd say that a particular version of heaven and hell were not eternal, separate or self existing before creation thus they won't be so afterwards because of the great and eternally recurring cosmic cycles of creation, existence and destruction. (like seasons)

"...but those who hold a creed or statement of faith in higher esteem than the scriptures do a disservice to the very Kingdom of Heaven which they claim to seek and spread..." by Goatguy Not sure what you mean above Goatguy? Do you mean something like a quasi-Christian group claiming that their off-shoot of Christian doctrine when held in higher esteem than the Bible text hurts orthodox/ Bible based Christianity? I understand why other major religions such as Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jain, Shinto, Taoism, various forms of Paganism, Druids, Shamanism, American Indians, other native or traditional peoples and "new agers" hold their beliefs in higher esteem than Bible text and as far as I'm concerned that is their right. I'm only against parts of these various religions when such is used as an excuse to commit various forms of power mongering, violence and mind control that amounts to suppression, oppression, etc.. against man and woman kind. (Which btw Christianity, as one of the many mentioned, has a very long and dark historic list of doing so --- although I don't see the soul of Jesus as being guilty of any of that crap) Om

In Chapter 5 of the T.T.C. we have the "straw dog" saying... I've heard that saying bandied about by various people in a context sounding like a description of those who are lesser than and 'oh well its just tough shit for the straw dogs'? Anyway if we then take the saying of "as above so below" which alludes to the meaning of the laws and nature in the macrocosm as also being in the microcosm and cross reference/compare it with chapter 5 of the T.T.C. then I think one could also reasonably arrive at an interpretation that "the One", "the Two" and "the Three" are also straw dogs because by their description they can be named. (then again this foray does not really compute since one never hears of the Jade emperor or of the Three of divine beings or deeply important Three in being-ness called "straw dogs" in Taoism) What do you think?

Cat, (or anyone else) I'm not assuming anything about certain text in parts of Christian doctrine, (for such is spelled out without any room for argument or speculation) I also get what you mean but such applies to so called gray areas that are not or can not really be nailed down. Further, ime all the religions of mankind and various other types beings do not end up at the same place or state as some people think, for instance a more or less orthodox Bible based Christianity (including most modern day versions) end in the dualism of a heaven or hell reality... so if one wants to be a non-dualistic, thus non-Bible believing "Christian" and use doctrine opposite of and or outside said Bible then such should be stated as so by them. As for the absolute I agree with you in the sense that one has to leave an opening for that which is beyond what the human mind can understand which would also mean that a great deal of the key and foundational parts of a dualistic Bible would have to be edited out, and then it would no longer be the Bible but something else. Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to take away anybody's eternal heaven or hell Bible beliefs but I do reject equating Bible doctrine as having an endpoint of non-dualistic unity, (which for instance is something that is more or less openly alluded to in the texts of the Upanishads)

ok cat, it does cover it but it does not reconcile it to a God of love. (more along the lines of what I meant)

There's a lot of truth in what you say above Chegg, but it does not cover black and white doctrine like eternal heaven and hell as the endgame for various souls.

Goat guy, Even if one stays mainly within the NT there are still many self-contradictions there although there are also some good teachings; but alas and imo there never will be a reconciliation... Jesus is a great golden soul but the Christian doctrines and texts are seriously compromised or manipulated up to point of causing madness. (Thomas or no Thomas)