Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There doesn't seem to be any desire to engage in self-meditation or exploration. The total focus seems dependent on the next person to the point of anger and hostility.
We are the ones exploring the evidence. It was the religious who burnt people at the stake.
I did not see where the poster you are quoting said that. Can you quote her properly, as required by the forum rules and by any measure of engaging with honesty, rather than your inference which is wrong?
I did not see where the poster you are quoting said that.
It is the logical conclusion based on their response to my post. From my post, how does other religious people experiencing their different gods lead them on a path to that posters different god?
Perhaps if you read what others are responding to so that you can understand the conversation instead of just responding to the last part of the conversation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
Can you quote her properly, as required by the forum rules ...
I did, and you quoted me quoting that poster.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
... and by any measure of engaging with honesty, ...
You not being able to follow a conversation logically does not make me dishonest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
... rather than your inference which is wrong?
No, my logical inference was correct. Perhaps you meant implication.
So here is the logic (inference), just for you.
My argument is that if some people experience god X, and that is evidence for them that god X exists, then those who experience god Y have that as evidence for god Y. And if god X is said to be the one and only god, then then those experiencing god Y must mean god X can not exist if they are both actually experiencing gods.
Farm fatale (a cool name) disagreed with that, suggesting that those experiences of what must logically be different gods leads somehow to their god.
Hence my question based on my initial premise and farm fatale's response.
There are many paths to the same God. An universal God. There are many manifestations of God, as light, peace, love etc. Each person might have a different idea of God and can reach the goal (of finding God) in a very personal, unique way.
This is just my understanding. You don't have to believe me, if you ("you" in general) don't care about any of this, it's OK.
I did not see where the poster you are quoting said that. Can you quote her properly, as required by the forum rules and by any measure of engaging with honesty, rather than your inference which is wrong?
Harry asked two short and simple questiions of farm fatale. If Harry inferred from that post is not questioning to obtain clarification the best action to take? Maybe his inference is totally wrong would not a clarification to coreect him be in the best interest of useful dialogue? And if Harrys inference turned out to be correct based on rhat clarification would you not find then that yours was not?
We all make errors in our postings and in our understanding of other posters. Perhaps you can teach us on how to be able to always be clear in our postings and to always coreectly understand all postd from others? Or wven better, maybe you could ask for clarification from other posters rather than inferring incorrevtly and attacking them.
Anyway I would find answers to Harrys two questions most helpful in understanding the meaning of farm fatale post. I would rather have the comment explained than to assume it meant X if it was supposed to mean Z.
There are many paths to the same God. An universal God. There are many manifestations of God, as light, peace, love etc. Each person might have a different idea of God and can reach the goal (of finding God) in a very personal, unique way.
This is just my understanding. You don't have to believe me, if you ("you" in general) don't care about any of this, it's OK.
Take care.
That is exactly how I understood from your post. People have various vested reasons to twist their own erroneous ideas into it to make a non existent argument. Nothing can be done about it.
Krishna says in the Bhagavat Gita “All who seek me are dear to me. All paths lead to me.” The me is Divinity, one single Oneness.
Harry asked two short and simple questiions of farm fatale. If Harry inferred from that post is not questioning to obtain clarification the best action to take? Maybe his inference is totally wrong would not a clarification to coreect him be in the best interest of useful dialogue? And if Harrys inference turned out to be correct based on rhat clarification would you not find then that yours was not?
We all make errors in our postings and in our understanding of other posters. Perhaps you can teach us on how to be able to always be clear in our postings and to always coreectly understand all postd from others? Or wven better, maybe you could ask for clarification from other posters rather than inferring incorrevtly and attacking them.
Anyway I would find answers to Harrys two questions most helpful in understanding the meaning of farm fatale post. I would rather have the comment explained than to assume it meant X if it was supposed to mean Z.
She has explained it. Do you understand it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
