Synchronicities

I don't understand what you are asking? Their lives could be otherwise, if they chose. Do you mean material benefits, of money and so on? Or the simplicity and peace they choose? What is your question? Why are you asking me?

 

If they live their lives in delusion (assuming that's a bad thing?) how should they live otherwise outside this delusion?

By the way, if you can quote or ping me I'd get your message faster.

 

Nope. I don't get you. What's your question?

 

They live lives of sacrifice and prayer. Their prayer works. It is answered. Otherwise they could just split and become accountants. Dawkins says their God is a delusion. Who's right? Should they believe differently because a scientist tells them they're delusional?

 

Me thinks Richard Dawkins is unworried as well.

Funny thing about interfaith discussion is it works both ways eh?

 

He seems mighty concerned to stamp out this God delusion? Wouldn't you say?

 

Otherwise they would become accountants?

Their prayers are answered? If that is the case why arent they praying for the end of hunger, or poverty, or war, or covid?

What evidence have you that their prayers work?

 

So if there was a God there'd be a perfect world? They do pray all the time for end of war, etc. Above all they dedicate their lives to soul, not to material conditions.

 

It is his occupation..

Everyone has a role right?

I feel everyone who makes me look at, challenges my belief is doing me a favor eh? Forcing me to either support my conclusions or question them...or admit they are based on faith and belief and that they comfort me, and I don't care that logic and STEM considerations cannot validate them.

You may say brussel sprouts taste like crap....cool...evidently I may like crap.

 

Nope...just asking what makes you say their prayers work ...if they are praying all.the time for the end of war?

 

Because God answers sensible prayers. They know the material world is a crucible of the soul. They know material happiness may not be God's will for every soul. They step back from material concerns. They shelter anyone who comes to them. They follow Jesus in working to heal and nurture the poor and helpless. Theirs are not worldly lives to be judged by material standards

 

Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ...

 

He who offers to me with devotion only a leaf or a flower, or a fruit or even a little water, this I accept from that yearning soul, because with the pure heart it was offered with love
(Bhagavad Gita 9:26)

 

I can grok that. There's certainly something weird going on that doesn't quite jive with our current physicalist models.

 

You mentioned (if I remember) that synchronicities are part of life and those who attribute it to a divine source (like monks) are diluted. I tried using the arrow to go back in the posts, but it doesn't work. The way you answered made it seem that monks should see life without divinity (outside of the delusion); the real world. I was asking what would that entail?

Many who are atheists (at least on online forms I've came cross) believe that religious are not believing in reality but beliefs from their mind and imagination. However, unless their belief (or fact) harms others, why/how would or should they believe otherwise-the question was along those lines.

 

I think RJM was ironically referring to the book, "The God Delusion" by Dawkins.

He's frequently expressed great respect for the monks, on this forum.

 

Oh, I see what you mean
That was a proper crossed-wire!
I do apologise

@Cino sums me up here:

I agree totally
The absence of empirical proof of Spirit is not proof of the absence of Spirit?

Some of these angry militant atheist types like to insist that it DOES harm others, to the point of calling it child abuse, etc ...

 

There seems to be a particular problem in the USA with televangelist type Christianity trying to force their fundamentalist religious beliefs upon larger society, forming alliances with the 'patriot' conservative faction.

In a way I think the hard left is itself the cause of a lot of the right wing reaction, by wanting to bring LBGTQ+ education to elementary school classrooms etc, and the no platforming against anyone who likes to disagree. 'Liberal' they are not, imo. In a way I think both sides deserve each other, but it is dangerous too, because many conflicts are caused by the extremists on both sides, and people who try to express reasonable (dissenting) views are accused of being conspiracists, or terrorists, or whatever. It's happening with the covid vaxx debate.

Why do we like to talk about our beliefs?

Some faith websites are host to so many militant atheist types that they become uncomfortable for people looking for a place to discuss what they believe (or do not believe) in a relatively safe environment. We're trying to do that here. This is just the right place to talk about it @Unveiled artist It's great that you find a place here too. IMO

Just my usual blabbing on, lol

 

Haha. That's okay. I tend to write long posts and surprised I haven't written a book (and you guys kept up). I wonder what interesting things I can come up with.

 

In the framework, of seeing the symmetry of scenarios, the follow-up is to become a seer of physics as ideas.
The ordinary, in which tragedy leads one to focus on the ordinary, is possibly a system designed to make sure that physics from seeing symmetry can't be true