Question about atheists

People say the universe is about 13 billion years old, but even if we stretch the math—and let’s be real, we love rounding numbers up just to feel better—and even if I shave that down to a mere billion years, it’s still wild. It’s absolutely insane that God decided to show up on Earth just once in a physical form, and specifically through His son who only lived for maybe 30 years or so. And right when Christians actually needed Him, too. Talk about slim odds, right? Yet here we are. It happened to us, on this planet, just as humans finally figured out how to write, invented paper, and mastered the art of archiving books. Honestly, feels like divine providence. If this had gone down 30,000 years ago, nobody would have known Jesus was even here; the only record of His existence would’ve been some random scratch on a mud-caked cave wall somewhere.

wiredfalcon2 said:People say the universe is about 13 billion years old, but even if we stretch the math—and let’s be real, we love rounding numbers up just to feel better—and even if I shave that down to a mere billion years, it’s still wild. It’s absolutely insane that God decided to show up on Earth just once in a physical form, and specifically through His son who only lived for maybe 30 years or so. And right when Christians actually needed Him, too. Talk about slim odds, right? Yet here we are. It happened to us, on this planet, just as humans finally figured out how to write, invented paper, and mastered the art of archiving books. Honestly, feels like divine providence. If this had gone down 30,000 years ago, nobody would have known Jesus was even here; the only record of His existence would’ve been some random scratch on a mud-caked cave wall somewhere.

But, I don't think He only showed up once; I mean, it seems like He shows up every 700 to 1,400 years or so, whenever "darkness takes over" and humanity desperately needs a spiritual nudge. So, from Zarathustra, Rame, Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, all the way to Meher Baba, He comes. Even before Zarathustra, when there aren't any records, I bet He was coming back then, too.

Then there's this whole other thing where one religion thinks they're the only ones who got the Messiah, God, or an Avatar, and that the "Truth" is strictly reserved for their followers while everyone else goes to hell—it doesn't matter if they lived a million years ago or today. Like, for instance, Buddhists are waiting for a "future Buddha," a Maitreya Being, but I'd argue He already arrived in the physical form of Jesus. It's really just the same Over-soul coming in all these different forms with specific goals for a particular era, and often a specific region, but always with the goal of lifting up humanity spiritually.

Actually, Meher Baba predicted the future birth of "God in human form" as a scientist in Japan in about 700 years. And it's pretty interesting, I guess, that He always seems to arrive in physical form on the Asian continent.

Gregory Jackson said:But, I don't think He only showed up once; I mean, it seems like He shows up every 700 to 1,400 years or so, whenever "darkness takes over" and humanity desperately needs a spiritual nudge. So, from Zarathustra, Rame, Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, all the way to Meher Baba, He comes. Even before Zarathustra, when there aren't any records, I bet He was coming back then, too.

Then there's this whole other thing where one religion thinks they're the only ones who got the Messiah, God, or an Avatar, and that the "Truth" is strictly reserved for their followers while everyone else goes to hell—it doesn't matter if they lived a million years ago or today. Like, for instance, Buddhists are waiting for a "future Buddha," a Maitreya Being, but I'd argue He already arrived in the physical form of Jesus. It's really just the same Over-soul coming in all these different forms with specific goals for a particular era, and often a specific region, but always with the goal of lifting up humanity spiritually.

Actually, Meher Baba predicted the future birth of "God in human form" as a scientist in Japan in about 700 years. And it's pretty interesting, I guess, that He always seems to arrive in physical form on the Asian continent.

If it’s always the same soul, why does it show up and tell people not to worship any other gods—implying all the other prophets were fakes—instead of just saying, "Hey, I'm the same guy behind all 7,000 known religions"?

Gregory Jackson said:But, I don't think He only showed up once; I mean, it seems like He shows up every 700 to 1,400 years or so, whenever "darkness takes over" and humanity desperately needs a spiritual nudge. So, from Zarathustra, Rame, Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, all the way to Meher Baba, He comes. Even before Zarathustra, when there aren't any records, I bet He was coming back then, too.

Then there's this whole other thing where one religion thinks they're the only ones who got the Messiah, God, or an Avatar, and that the "Truth" is strictly reserved for their followers while everyone else goes to hell—it doesn't matter if they lived a million years ago or today. Like, for instance, Buddhists are waiting for a "future Buddha," a Maitreya Being, but I'd argue He already arrived in the physical form of Jesus. It's really just the same Over-soul coming in all these different forms with specific goals for a particular era, and often a specific region, but always with the goal of lifting up humanity spiritually.

Actually, Meher Baba predicted the future birth of "God in human form" as a scientist in Japan in about 700 years. And it's pretty interesting, I guess, that He always seems to arrive in physical form on the Asian continent.

That said, most religions preach fundamentally different things, yet there can only be one Truth. This means only one of these religions can truly be right—unless they are all wrong.

Any form of universalism—the idea that "all religions hold a fragment of the truth, but none possess the whole"—is itself just another claim or belief. It doesn't carry any more factual weight or logical standing than any specific religion does.

So, the assertion that God "incarnates every 700-1,400 years" is simply another claim that can be debated or believed, but it isn't an absolute certainty. That statement could be true or false, just like the claims made by specific faiths such as Islam or Christianity. In the actual process of searching for the Truth, there really isn't any reason to treat universalism differently than we would any individual religion.

Matthew Mitchell29 said:That said, most religions preach fundamentally different things, yet there can only be one Truth. This means only one of these religions can truly be right—unless they are all wrong.

Any form of universalism—the idea that "all religions hold a fragment of the truth, but none possess the whole"—is itself just another claim or belief. It doesn't carry any more factual weight or logical standing than any specific religion does.

So, the assertion that God "incarnates every 700-1,400 years" is simply another claim that can be debated or believed, but it isn't an absolute certainty. That statement could be true or false, just like the claims made by specific faiths such as Islam or Christianity. In the actual process of searching for the Truth, there really isn't any reason to treat universalism differently than we would any individual religion.

So, what exactly counts as being fundamentally different? I mean, from where I'm sitting, most people are just preaching about things that aren't even essential, you know? Like, they get all hung up on customs, or specific rituals, or little cultural quirks that don't really change the core of anything. To me, Truth is just such a massive, sprawling concept—it’s got so many layers and facets to it, and honestly, it’s almost impossible for any single religion to wrap its arms around the whole thing. You have to remember that these traditions were shaped by people who were, well, pretty average in terms of their level of development. Like, if you look back at the era of Jesus, or even earlier when other major faiths were starting up, the average person couldn't even read, right? It's kind of hard to grasp how one group could capture everything when the tools they had were so limited. I guess it's like trying to expect one single person to be an expert in every single branch of agriculture—it's just too much, because farming itself is made up of so many different specialized fields. It's the same way with spirituality; it's just too big for one bucket. But, I suppose if you take a little bit from here and a little bit from there, and you use a bit of discernment to see how it all fits together, you can probably piece the puzzle together in a pretty reliable way. Maybe.

Matthew Mitchell29 said:That said, most religions preach fundamentally different things, yet there can only be one Truth. This means only one of these religions can truly be right—unless they are all wrong.

Any form of universalism—the idea that "all religions hold a fragment of the truth, but none possess the whole"—is itself just another claim or belief. It doesn't carry any more factual weight or logical standing than any specific religion does.

So, the assertion that God "incarnates every 700-1,400 years" is simply another claim that can be debated or believed, but it isn't an absolute certainty. That statement could be true or false, just like the claims made by specific faiths such as Islam or Christianity. In the actual process of searching for the Truth, there really isn't any reason to treat universalism differently than we would any individual religion.

I mean, I guess there isn't really such a thing as the complete Truth, and honestly, it’s probably for a bunch of different reasons, you know? Like, one big reason might be that the founders of religions—people like Buddha or Jesus—they probably couldn't even if they wanted to tell the whole story, mostly because there just wasn't anyone around who could actually wrap their head around it all. Plus, you have to think about the specific era they were living in, right? For instance, maybe Buddha intentionally avoided talking about a personal God because people back then were just way too obsessed with idols and all those different personal "gods" floating around. It was just too much for them. So, I suppose that's why an Avatar might lean toward this more impersonal "story of Divinity," or maybe they just leave things undefined entirely, because trying to explain it any other way would have just totally confused everyone at the time. Tao Quote. 🙂

Matthew Mitchell29 I guess what they’re saying is...
So, I guess you could say that this whole idea about God "incarnating itself every 700 to 1400 years" is really just another one of those claims out there—you know, something you can try to prove, or maybe just choose to believe, or even totally ignore if it doesn't sit right with you. It’s all kind of up in the air, honestly. That claim could be true, or it could be completely false, in the exact same way that specific religions like Islam or Christianity might be true or not. I mean, when you're actually out there in the thick of it, trying to wrap your head around the Truth, there isn't really any logical reason to treat universalism like it's some special category compared to any other individual religion, I guess. It's all pretty much on the same playing field, really.

So, like, when you really dig into it, we’re talking about Meher Baba, who basically serves as this massive spiritual anchor going back anywhere from 700 to 1400 years, I guess. If you actually take the time to sit down and truly study his life and everything he stood for, it becomes pretty obvious that he was this incredibly profound spiritual authority, you know? But honestly, at the end of the day, it all kind of boils down to what a person chooses to believe, since everyone just gravitates toward whatever feels closest to their own heart or whatever resonates with them most. It's funny because you can't exactly prove whether religious claims are true through some scientific experiment or anything like that; it's more about having that deep, internal experience, which I suppose is always going to be subjective anyway. But for those people who already believe, or maybe they've even had those personal inner experiences themselves, they don't really spend time overthinking or questioning it—they just dive right in and live out their faith.

I mean, you really can't go wrong if you bring up the Sika religion, right? It’s got this super straightforward vibe that teaches followers a pretty simple way to live: just keep your thoughts good, your words kind, and your actions helpful. Honestly, it’s such a practical little guide for daily life, especially when you aren't busy obsessing over heavy stuff like what happens to your soul after you pass away or wondering what brand of sandals Jesus might have been rocking 🙂

wiredfalcon2 said:If it’s always the same soul, why does it show up and tell people not to worship any other gods—implying all the other prophets were fakes—instead of just saying, "Hey, I'm the same guy behind all 7,000 known religions"?

Well, see, the idea is that it's the same soul—I guess Meher Baba is the one who really lays that out, mostly because there are finally people alive today who can actually wrap their heads around it. It wasn't like He showed up and shouted, "Don't follow anyone else but me" (which feels like a totally different vibe), but more like a simple way of saying there's only one God, rather than those hundreds of different deities people used to worship back in the day.

Neither Jesus nor Buddha nor Muhammad ever said, "I am God, so worship me instead of anyone else." The whole message has always been that there is just one God.

It’s also kind of like how they taught that nothing exists outside of God—like, the entire creation, the whole cosmos, even all of us, are basically tucked inside the "body" of God. So, really, there's just the void and God. That specific part or aspect of God where everything was created... well, that's what we call the Creator.

Gregory Jackson said:So, what exactly counts as being fundamentally different? I mean, from where I'm sitting, most people are just preaching about things that aren't even essential, you know? Like, they get all hung up on customs, or specific rituals, or little cultural quirks that don't really change the core of anything. To me, Truth is just such a massive, sprawling concept—it’s got so many layers and facets to it, and honestly, it’s almost impossible for any single religion to wrap its arms around the whole thing. You have to remember that these traditions were shaped by people who were, well, pretty average in terms of their level of development. Like, if you look back at the era of Jesus, or even earlier when other major faiths were starting up, the average person couldn't even read, right? It's kind of hard to grasp how one group could capture everything when the tools they had were so limited. I guess it's like trying to expect one single person to be an expert in every single branch of agriculture—it's just too much, because farming itself is made up of so many different specialized fields. It's the same way with spirituality; it's just too big for one bucket. But, I suppose if you take a little bit from here and a little bit from there, and you use a bit of discernment to see how it all fits together, you can probably piece the puzzle together in a pretty reliable way. Maybe.

I mean, I guess there isn't really such a thing as the complete Truth, and honestly, it’s probably for a bunch of different reasons, you know? Like, one big reason might be that the founders of religions—people like Buddha or Jesus—they probably couldn't even if they wanted to tell the whole story, mostly because there just wasn't anyone around who could actually wrap their head around it all. Plus, you have to think about the specific era they were living in, right? For instance, maybe Buddha intentionally avoided talking about a personal God because people back then were just way too obsessed with idols and all those different personal "gods" floating around. It was just too much for them. So, I suppose that's why an Avatar might lean toward this more impersonal "story of Divinity," or maybe they just leave things undefined entirely, because trying to explain it any other way would have just totally confused everyone at the time. Tao Quote. 🙂

Matthew Mitchell29 I guess what they’re saying is...
So, I guess you could say that this whole idea about God "incarnating itself every 700 to 1400 years" is really just another one of those claims out there—you know, something you can try to prove, or maybe just choose to believe, or even totally ignore if it doesn't sit right with you. It’s all kind of up in the air, honestly. That claim could be true, or it could be completely false, in the exact same way that specific religions like Islam or Christianity might be true or not. I mean, when you're actually out there in the thick of it, trying to wrap your head around the Truth, there isn't really any logical reason to treat universalism like it's some special category compared to any other individual religion, I guess. It's all pretty much on the same playing field, really.

So, like, when you really dig into it, we’re talking about Meher Baba, who basically serves as this massive spiritual anchor going back anywhere from 700 to 1400 years, I guess. If you actually take the time to sit down and truly study his life and everything he stood for, it becomes pretty obvious that he was this incredibly profound spiritual authority, you know? But honestly, at the end of the day, it all kind of boils down to what a person chooses to believe, since everyone just gravitates toward whatever feels closest to their own heart or whatever resonates with them most. It's funny because you can't exactly prove whether religious claims are true through some scientific experiment or anything like that; it's more about having that deep, internal experience, which I suppose is always going to be subjective anyway. But for those people who already believe, or maybe they've even had those personal inner experiences themselves, they don't really spend time overthinking or questioning it—they just dive right in and live out their faith.

I mean, you really can't go wrong if you bring up the Sika religion, right? It’s got this super straightforward vibe that teaches followers a pretty simple way to live: just keep your thoughts good, your words kind, and your actions helpful. Honestly, it’s such a practical little guide for daily life, especially when you aren't busy obsessing over heavy stuff like what happens to your soul after you pass away or wondering what brand of sandals Jesus might have been rocking 🙂

Think of it this way—you have religions that believe in a transcendent God who exists apart from creation yet actively works within it. Then you have faiths that preach the absolute oneness of the Creator and the creation itself, like those rooted in pantheism or monism. On the other end of the spectrum, there are traditions that completely reject the concept of a Creator altogether, such as Buddhism.

Those are profoundly different perspectives. And they can't all be true at once because their core claims contradict one another.

Gregory Jackson said:So, what exactly counts as being fundamentally different? I mean, from where I'm sitting, most people are just preaching about things that aren't even essential, you know? Like, they get all hung up on customs, or specific rituals, or little cultural quirks that don't really change the core of anything. To me, Truth is just such a massive, sprawling concept—it’s got so many layers and facets to it, and honestly, it’s almost impossible for any single religion to wrap its arms around the whole thing. You have to remember that these traditions were shaped by people who were, well, pretty average in terms of their level of development. Like, if you look back at the era of Jesus, or even earlier when other major faiths were starting up, the average person couldn't even read, right? It's kind of hard to grasp how one group could capture everything when the tools they had were so limited. I guess it's like trying to expect one single person to be an expert in every single branch of agriculture—it's just too much, because farming itself is made up of so many different specialized fields. It's the same way with spirituality; it's just too big for one bucket. But, I suppose if you take a little bit from here and a little bit from there, and you use a bit of discernment to see how it all fits together, you can probably piece the puzzle together in a pretty reliable way. Maybe.

I mean, I guess there isn't really such a thing as the complete Truth, and honestly, it’s probably for a bunch of different reasons, you know? Like, one big reason might be that the founders of religions—people like Buddha or Jesus—they probably couldn't even if they wanted to tell the whole story, mostly because there just wasn't anyone around who could actually wrap their head around it all. Plus, you have to think about the specific era they were living in, right? For instance, maybe Buddha intentionally avoided talking about a personal God because people back then were just way too obsessed with idols and all those different personal "gods" floating around. It was just too much for them. So, I suppose that's why an Avatar might lean toward this more impersonal "story of Divinity," or maybe they just leave things undefined entirely, because trying to explain it any other way would have just totally confused everyone at the time. Tao Quote. 🙂

Matthew Mitchell29 I guess what they’re saying is...
So, I guess you could say that this whole idea about God "incarnating itself every 700 to 1400 years" is really just another one of those claims out there—you know, something you can try to prove, or maybe just choose to believe, or even totally ignore if it doesn't sit right with you. It’s all kind of up in the air, honestly. That claim could be true, or it could be completely false, in the exact same way that specific religions like Islam or Christianity might be true or not. I mean, when you're actually out there in the thick of it, trying to wrap your head around the Truth, there isn't really any logical reason to treat universalism like it's some special category compared to any other individual religion, I guess. It's all pretty much on the same playing field, really.

So, like, when you really dig into it, we’re talking about Meher Baba, who basically serves as this massive spiritual anchor going back anywhere from 700 to 1400 years, I guess. If you actually take the time to sit down and truly study his life and everything he stood for, it becomes pretty obvious that he was this incredibly profound spiritual authority, you know? But honestly, at the end of the day, it all kind of boils down to what a person chooses to believe, since everyone just gravitates toward whatever feels closest to their own heart or whatever resonates with them most. It's funny because you can't exactly prove whether religious claims are true through some scientific experiment or anything like that; it's more about having that deep, internal experience, which I suppose is always going to be subjective anyway. But for those people who already believe, or maybe they've even had those personal inner experiences themselves, they don't really spend time overthinking or questioning it—they just dive right in and live out their faith.

I mean, you really can't go wrong if you bring up the Sika religion, right? It’s got this super straightforward vibe that teaches followers a pretty simple way to live: just keep your thoughts good, your words kind, and your actions helpful. Honestly, it’s such a practical little guide for daily life, especially when you aren't busy obsessing over heavy stuff like what happens to your soul after you pass away or wondering what brand of sandals Jesus might have been rocking 🙂

That analogy doesn't quite hold up for the reasons I mentioned earlier, which is that we are dealing with claims that are fundamentally opposed to one another.
To put it in perspective, two farmers might differ on which type of fertilizer they prefer, but if one insists on watering his potatoes with water, another with milk, and a third with hydrochloric acid, all three certainly cannot be right. We have to determine which one actually has the correct method—the one using water—but we can't claim that everyone holds a little piece of the truth. The Truth (represented by agriculture in this analogy) clearly excludes the idea of using milk or acid.

Gregory Jackson said:So, what exactly counts as being fundamentally different? I mean, from where I'm sitting, most people are just preaching about things that aren't even essential, you know? Like, they get all hung up on customs, or specific rituals, or little cultural quirks that don't really change the core of anything. To me, Truth is just such a massive, sprawling concept—it’s got so many layers and facets to it, and honestly, it’s almost impossible for any single religion to wrap its arms around the whole thing. You have to remember that these traditions were shaped by people who were, well, pretty average in terms of their level of development. Like, if you look back at the era of Jesus, or even earlier when other major faiths were starting up, the average person couldn't even read, right? It's kind of hard to grasp how one group could capture everything when the tools they had were so limited. I guess it's like trying to expect one single person to be an expert in every single branch of agriculture—it's just too much, because farming itself is made up of so many different specialized fields. It's the same way with spirituality; it's just too big for one bucket. But, I suppose if you take a little bit from here and a little bit from there, and you use a bit of discernment to see how it all fits together, you can probably piece the puzzle together in a pretty reliable way. Maybe.

I mean, I guess there isn't really such a thing as the complete Truth, and honestly, it’s probably for a bunch of different reasons, you know? Like, one big reason might be that the founders of religions—people like Buddha or Jesus—they probably couldn't even if they wanted to tell the whole story, mostly because there just wasn't anyone around who could actually wrap their head around it all. Plus, you have to think about the specific era they were living in, right? For instance, maybe Buddha intentionally avoided talking about a personal God because people back then were just way too obsessed with idols and all those different personal "gods" floating around. It was just too much for them. So, I suppose that's why an Avatar might lean toward this more impersonal "story of Divinity," or maybe they just leave things undefined entirely, because trying to explain it any other way would have just totally confused everyone at the time. Tao Quote. 🙂

Matthew Mitchell29 I guess what they’re saying is...
So, I guess you could say that this whole idea about God "incarnating itself every 700 to 1400 years" is really just another one of those claims out there—you know, something you can try to prove, or maybe just choose to believe, or even totally ignore if it doesn't sit right with you. It’s all kind of up in the air, honestly. That claim could be true, or it could be completely false, in the exact same way that specific religions like Islam or Christianity might be true or not. I mean, when you're actually out there in the thick of it, trying to wrap your head around the Truth, there isn't really any logical reason to treat universalism like it's some special category compared to any other individual religion, I guess. It's all pretty much on the same playing field, really.

So, like, when you really dig into it, we’re talking about Meher Baba, who basically serves as this massive spiritual anchor going back anywhere from 700 to 1400 years, I guess. If you actually take the time to sit down and truly study his life and everything he stood for, it becomes pretty obvious that he was this incredibly profound spiritual authority, you know? But honestly, at the end of the day, it all kind of boils down to what a person chooses to believe, since everyone just gravitates toward whatever feels closest to their own heart or whatever resonates with them most. It's funny because you can't exactly prove whether religious claims are true through some scientific experiment or anything like that; it's more about having that deep, internal experience, which I suppose is always going to be subjective anyway. But for those people who already believe, or maybe they've even had those personal inner experiences themselves, they don't really spend time overthinking or questioning it—they just dive right in and live out their faith.

I mean, you really can't go wrong if you bring up the Sika religion, right? It’s got this super straightforward vibe that teaches followers a pretty simple way to live: just keep your thoughts good, your words kind, and your actions helpful. Honestly, it’s such a practical little guide for daily life, especially when you aren't busy obsessing over heavy stuff like what happens to your soul after you pass away or wondering what brand of sandals Jesus might have been rocking 🙂

As far as I know, Buddha didn't speak of any god, nor do Buddhists hold a concept of God as a creator.
At the end of the day, God either exists or He doesn't. He is either personal or impersonal. He is either immanent or transcendent.
The Truth is singular, and universalism doesn't really help us arrive at it in this instance.

Gregory Jackson said:So, what exactly counts as being fundamentally different? I mean, from where I'm sitting, most people are just preaching about things that aren't even essential, you know? Like, they get all hung up on customs, or specific rituals, or little cultural quirks that don't really change the core of anything. To me, Truth is just such a massive, sprawling concept—it’s got so many layers and facets to it, and honestly, it’s almost impossible for any single religion to wrap its arms around the whole thing. You have to remember that these traditions were shaped by people who were, well, pretty average in terms of their level of development. Like, if you look back at the era of Jesus, or even earlier when other major faiths were starting up, the average person couldn't even read, right? It's kind of hard to grasp how one group could capture everything when the tools they had were so limited. I guess it's like trying to expect one single person to be an expert in every single branch of agriculture—it's just too much, because farming itself is made up of so many different specialized fields. It's the same way with spirituality; it's just too big for one bucket. But, I suppose if you take a little bit from here and a little bit from there, and you use a bit of discernment to see how it all fits together, you can probably piece the puzzle together in a pretty reliable way. Maybe.

I mean, I guess there isn't really such a thing as the complete Truth, and honestly, it’s probably for a bunch of different reasons, you know? Like, one big reason might be that the founders of religions—people like Buddha or Jesus—they probably couldn't even if they wanted to tell the whole story, mostly because there just wasn't anyone around who could actually wrap their head around it all. Plus, you have to think about the specific era they were living in, right? For instance, maybe Buddha intentionally avoided talking about a personal God because people back then were just way too obsessed with idols and all those different personal "gods" floating around. It was just too much for them. So, I suppose that's why an Avatar might lean toward this more impersonal "story of Divinity," or maybe they just leave things undefined entirely, because trying to explain it any other way would have just totally confused everyone at the time. Tao Quote. 🙂

Matthew Mitchell29 I guess what they’re saying is...
So, I guess you could say that this whole idea about God "incarnating itself every 700 to 1400 years" is really just another one of those claims out there—you know, something you can try to prove, or maybe just choose to believe, or even totally ignore if it doesn't sit right with you. It’s all kind of up in the air, honestly. That claim could be true, or it could be completely false, in the exact same way that specific religions like Islam or Christianity might be true or not. I mean, when you're actually out there in the thick of it, trying to wrap your head around the Truth, there isn't really any logical reason to treat universalism like it's some special category compared to any other individual religion, I guess. It's all pretty much on the same playing field, really.

So, like, when you really dig into it, we’re talking about Meher Baba, who basically serves as this massive spiritual anchor going back anywhere from 700 to 1400 years, I guess. If you actually take the time to sit down and truly study his life and everything he stood for, it becomes pretty obvious that he was this incredibly profound spiritual authority, you know? But honestly, at the end of the day, it all kind of boils down to what a person chooses to believe, since everyone just gravitates toward whatever feels closest to their own heart or whatever resonates with them most. It's funny because you can't exactly prove whether religious claims are true through some scientific experiment or anything like that; it's more about having that deep, internal experience, which I suppose is always going to be subjective anyway. But for those people who already believe, or maybe they've even had those personal inner experiences themselves, they don't really spend time overthinking or questioning it—they just dive right in and live out their faith.

I mean, you really can't go wrong if you bring up the Sika religion, right? It’s got this super straightforward vibe that teaches followers a pretty simple way to live: just keep your thoughts good, your words kind, and your actions helpful. Honestly, it’s such a practical little guide for daily life, especially when you aren't busy obsessing over heavy stuff like what happens to your soul after you pass away or wondering what brand of sandals Jesus might have been rocking 🙂

So, what you're saying is God made a bunch of people so dim-witted they can't even wrap their heads around whether eating pork is okay or not... and he supposedly made them in his own image? Geez, we really lucked out with a bad God.

Gregory Jackson said:Well, see, the idea is that it's the same soul—I guess Meher Baba is the one who really lays that out, mostly because there are finally people alive today who can actually wrap their heads around it. It wasn't like He showed up and shouted, "Don't follow anyone else but me" (which feels like a totally different vibe), but more like a simple way of saying there's only one God, rather than those hundreds of different deities people used to worship back in the day.

Neither Jesus nor Buddha nor Muhammad ever said, "I am God, so worship me instead of anyone else." The whole message has always been that there is just one God.

It’s also kind of like how they taught that nothing exists outside of God—like, the entire creation, the whole cosmos, even all of us, are basically tucked inside the "body" of God. So, really, there's just the void and God. That specific part or aspect of God where everything was created... well, that's what we call the Creator.

Hmm... I’m curious where you picked up those interpretations regarding Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism.

1. Jesus spoke of a personal God as Father, making a very distinct separation between the Creator and Creation. He also made it quite clear who God is when he said, "I am the Way, the Truth and Life," and "Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father."
2. Muhammad, on the other hand, taught that he was a messenger of God, emphasizing that God is one and transcendent, and that salvation comes through righteous deeds and following Islamic revelation. He explicitly rejected the concept of an embodied God.
3. As for Buddha, he didn't really speak about any god at all, focusing instead on the world being an illusion and finding a way out of suffering by letting go of desire and such.

I have to admit, I'm struggling to see how those specific statements lead to the pantheistic or monistic conclusion you're drawing.

Matthew Mitchell29 said:Think of it this way—you have religions that believe in a transcendent God who exists apart from creation yet actively works within it. Then you have faiths that preach the absolute oneness of the Creator and the creation itself, like those rooted in pantheism or monism. On the other end of the spectrum, there are traditions that completely reject the concept of a Creator altogether, such as Buddhism.

Those are profoundly different perspectives. And they can't all be true at once because their core claims contradict one another.

That analogy doesn't quite hold up for the reasons I mentioned earlier, which is that we are dealing with claims that are fundamentally opposed to one another.
To put it in perspective, two farmers might differ on which type of fertilizer they prefer, but if one insists on watering his potatoes with water, another with milk, and a third with hydrochloric acid, all three certainly cannot be right. We have to determine which one actually has the correct method—the one using water—but we can't claim that everyone holds a little piece of the truth. The Truth (represented by agriculture in this analogy) clearly excludes the idea of using milk or acid.

As far as I know, Buddha didn't speak of any god, nor do Buddhists hold a concept of God as a creator.
At the end of the day, God either exists or He doesn't. He is either personal or impersonal. He is either immanent or transcendent.
The Truth is singular, and universalism doesn't really help us arrive at it in this instance.

So, from what I've gathered over the years—and I could be totally wrong here, I guess—Buddha didn't really go on about any kind of God, you know? Like, Buddhists don't really carry around this heavy concept of God acting as the creator of everything. So, if you think about it, maybe Buddhism isn't actually rejecting the Creator at all, which is kind of a wild thought, right?

I mean, if you’re looking at those kinds of distinctions, then yeah, sure, I totally get where you're coming from. But honestly? Those aren't even the real, core differences that actually matter for someone's spiritual growth. It’s kind of funny when you think about it—one founder says something one way, then later people totally misinterpret them, or maybe they didn't even say it that way to begin with, and then the followers just end up filling in all those little gaps themselves, I guess. When I talk about what's truly essential, I’m talking about things like believing in one God, emphasizing love, and seeing how all souls are interconnected, plus having a solid code of conduct for your everyday life—that's the stuff that actually pushes a person forward. It isn't really vital for someone to obsess over exactly what God looks like or how He functions. And honestly, the most important thing is this: these are questions you just can't reach through your own logic or by hitting the books, because they're basically beyond human reach, sitting right there behind a barrier we can't cross on our own. A person can only really hope to receive reliable insights through some kind of revelation from a higher intelligence—you know, like through an avatar or some other great spiritual figure humanity has been blessed with—or maybe, if they work hard enough, they might just elevate their own spirit high enough to catch a glimpse of the truth themselves.

Matthew Mitchell29 said:Think of it this way—you have religions that believe in a transcendent God who exists apart from creation yet actively works within it. Then you have faiths that preach the absolute oneness of the Creator and the creation itself, like those rooted in pantheism or monism. On the other end of the spectrum, there are traditions that completely reject the concept of a Creator altogether, such as Buddhism.

Those are profoundly different perspectives. And they can't all be true at once because their core claims contradict one another.

That analogy doesn't quite hold up for the reasons I mentioned earlier, which is that we are dealing with claims that are fundamentally opposed to one another.
To put it in perspective, two farmers might differ on which type of fertilizer they prefer, but if one insists on watering his potatoes with water, another with milk, and a third with hydrochloric acid, all three certainly cannot be right. We have to determine which one actually has the correct method—the one using water—but we can't claim that everyone holds a little piece of the truth. The Truth (represented by agriculture in this analogy) clearly excludes the idea of using milk or acid.

As far as I know, Buddha didn't speak of any god, nor do Buddhists hold a concept of God as a creator.
At the end of the day, God either exists or He doesn't. He is either personal or impersonal. He is either immanent or transcendent.
The Truth is singular, and universalism doesn't really help us arrive at it in this instance.

I was just sitting here thinking about how we only ever get these tiny, little scraps of information when it comes to the Truth, you know? It’s like we're looking through a pinhole at something that actually spans these massive, infinite territories, and I guess what I mean is that the sheer scale of it all is just way bigger than anything we could ever fully grasp. 🙂 I mean, honestly, I don't think there's any single religion out there that can just wrap everything up into one perfect little package, you know? It’s kind of impossible, I guess. That's why I feel like we really ought to be focusing on the stuff that actually matters—the core essentials that help a person truly grow and evolve on their own terms. Like, if a certain faith doesn't touch on specific aspects of life, or if it seems to clash with what another tradition teaches, that doesn't suddenly make it useless or mean you should just toss all its wisdom into the trash. Not at all, really. Every bit of it has value, maybe more than we realize at first glance.

I guess you could say that every single religion serves its own little purpose when it comes to someone's individual spiritual journey, right? It’s kind of like how Meher Baba used to say—that God doesn't actually belong to any one specific religion, but rather all religions belong to God. He really seemed to understand why things are set up the way they are with all the different faiths we see today, and honestly, I truly believe it’s supposed to be this way.

Matthew Mitchell29 said:Think of it this way—you have religions that believe in a transcendent God who exists apart from creation yet actively works within it. Then you have faiths that preach the absolute oneness of the Creator and the creation itself, like those rooted in pantheism or monism. On the other end of the spectrum, there are traditions that completely reject the concept of a Creator altogether, such as Buddhism.

Those are profoundly different perspectives. And they can't all be true at once because their core claims contradict one another.

That analogy doesn't quite hold up for the reasons I mentioned earlier, which is that we are dealing with claims that are fundamentally opposed to one another.
To put it in perspective, two farmers might differ on which type of fertilizer they prefer, but if one insists on watering his potatoes with water, another with milk, and a third with hydrochloric acid, all three certainly cannot be right. We have to determine which one actually has the correct method—the one using water—but we can't claim that everyone holds a little piece of the truth. The Truth (represented by agriculture in this analogy) clearly excludes the idea of using milk or acid.

As far as I know, Buddha didn't speak of any god, nor do Buddhists hold a concept of God as a creator.
At the end of the day, God either exists or He doesn't. He is either personal or impersonal. He is either immanent or transcendent.
The Truth is singular, and universalism doesn't really help us arrive at it in this instance.

Like I was mentioning before, I personally feel like we can't even reach that Truth on our own. We can't do it by ourselves. I guess you need some help from above, which is something you probably have to earn.

It feels like today is just such an awkward time for religion and spirituality, in every sense of the word. There are so many opportunities to grow, sure, but there are also so many traps everywhere. Like, if Jesus showed up tomorrow and claimed to be the Son of God, people would probably just laugh in his face. They wouldn't crucify him, I guess, but he'd basically deal with the same kind of mockery he faced back then. So, even a Messiah would have a really tough time navigating the world these days.

Matthew Mitchell29 said:Hmm... I’m curious where you picked up those interpretations regarding Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism.

1. Jesus spoke of a personal God as Father, making a very distinct separation between the Creator and Creation. He also made it quite clear who God is when he said, "I am the Way, the Truth and Life," and "Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father."
2. Muhammad, on the other hand, taught that he was a messenger of God, emphasizing that God is one and transcendent, and that salvation comes through righteous deeds and following Islamic revelation. He explicitly rejected the concept of an embodied God.
3. As for Buddha, he didn't really speak about any god at all, focusing instead on the world being an illusion and finding a way out of suffering by letting go of desire and such.

I have to admit, I'm struggling to see how those specific statements lead to the pantheistic or monistic conclusion you're drawing.

Yeah, you're totally right. That's exactly what they taught. Those aren't my own quotes, you caught me there. I guess I just drifted off a bit because I've been juggling so many different things lately. 🙂

Still, I'm not going to take back everything I wrote 🙂 but I really don't feel like getting into a massive debate about it, because that would basically mean I'd have to spend my entire day explaining myself.

The Truth isn't actually that complicated, I mean, the core essence isn't that hard to grasp, it's just really tough to actually accept it because we're all so caught up in the weeds of our own specific beliefs and stuff.

Gregory Jackson said:Yeah, you're totally right. That's exactly what they taught. Those aren't my own quotes, you caught me there. I guess I just drifted off a bit because I've been juggling so many different things lately. 🙂

Still, I'm not going to take back everything I wrote 🙂 but I really don't feel like getting into a massive debate about it, because that would basically mean I'd have to spend my entire day explaining myself.

The Truth isn't actually that complicated, I mean, the core essence isn't that hard to grasp, it's just really tough to actually accept it because we're all so caught up in the weeds of our own specific beliefs and stuff.

And let's be real, all those nitpicky rules—like whether a woman is allowed to shave her head, what kind of headscarf she needs to wear, how many times a day you gotta pray, or which specific foods are "pure" vs "impure"—all that nonsense? That was cooked up by the founders of those religions. The core message is always the same, everyone is preaching the same thing, but they just throw in all those tiny, pointless details so followers stay busy obsessing over stuff that doesn't matter. Brilliant move, really. Makes perfect sense if you're looking to control people.

The whole idea behind Perennial Philosophy is that at the core of every major religion and tradition, there’s this shared mystical experience of the "ultimate reality." All the arguments, the different myths, all that stuff—it’s just surface-level noise.

So, what does Professor Jorge Ferrer actually have to say about these different ways we chase the Truth?

He basically argues that Perennial Philosophy often gets stuck in these outdated mental models—you know, those old-school 'mental representations.' It treats Divine reality like something sitting way out there somewhere, and our minds just snap a picture of it, like we're using a camera.

Instead, he’s pushing for more of a participatory form of knowing. Basically, our own consciousness and imagination are actually helping shape the reality we're experiencing.

It’s like... ‘one ocean, many bays.’..

What’s wrong with the Perennial Philosophy?

wiredfalcon2 said:And let's be real, all those nitpicky rules—like whether a woman is allowed to shave her head, what kind of headscarf she needs to wear, how many times a day you gotta pray, or which specific foods are "pure" vs "impure"—all that nonsense? That was cooked up by the founders of those religions. The core message is always the same, everyone is preaching the same thing, but they just throw in all those tiny, pointless details so followers stay busy obsessing over stuff that doesn't matter. Brilliant move, really. Makes perfect sense if you're looking to control people.

I mean, you could probably just ignore all that noise and just stick to the actual heart of it. Just love your neighbor and all that good stuff, and the rest won't be able to touch you, I guess. 🙂

But, man, it’s definitely way easier for churches and people in general to just chatter on about all those minor details than it is to actually live out the real essence of it.

Gregory Jackson said:I mean, you could probably just ignore all that noise and just stick to the actual heart of it. Just love your neighbor and all that good stuff, and the rest won't be able to touch you, I guess. 🙂

But, man, it’s definitely way easier for churches and people in general to just chatter on about all those minor details than it is to actually live out the real essence of it.

Love your neighbor and don't believe in God. That's my mantra.

Gregory Jackson said:I mean, you could probably just ignore all that noise and just stick to the actual heart of it. Just love your neighbor and all that good stuff, and the rest won't be able to touch you, I guess. 🙂

But, man, it’s definitely way easier for churches and people in general to just chatter on about all those minor details than it is to actually live out the real essence of it.

The whole idea of splitting the sacred from the secular is really just a byproduct of how the West evolved over the last few centuries.

That distinction brought some good stuff along with the bad, so it isn't just "talking"—it's just that people experience the world differently now. That's all there is to it.

Lisa Jackson7 said:The whole idea of splitting the sacred from the secular is really just a byproduct of how the West evolved over the last few centuries.

That distinction brought some good stuff along with the bad, so it isn't just "talking"—it's just that people experience the world differently now. That's all there is to it.

So, I was thinking about that whole "chatter" thing—you know, all that endless theorizing about secondary details that wiredfalcon2 was bringing up earlier? It feels like we get so caught up in debating the tiny, unimportant bits of everything, which I guess is just what humans do, but it really distracts from actually living out our core faith, which should probably be the main event, right? Maybe we spend way too much energy on the noise instead of just focusing on the actual practice of what we believe.

Gregory Jackson said:So, I was thinking about that whole "chatter" thing—you know, all that endless theorizing about secondary details that wiredfalcon2 was bringing up earlier? It feels like we get so caught up in debating the tiny, unimportant bits of everything, which I guess is just what humans do, but it really distracts from actually living out our core faith, which should probably be the main event, right? Maybe we spend way too much energy on the noise instead of just focusing on the actual practice of what we believe.

I don't rank questions... for some orthodox followers (and honestly, even if they aren't), those things are still top-tier priorities... but what does anyone else care? Like, how does any of that actually change anyone else's life?

Lisa Jackson7 said:I don't rank questions... for some orthodox followers (and honestly, even if they aren't), those things are still top-tier priorities... but what does anyone else care? Like, how does any of that actually change anyone else's life?

I'm not totally sure what you mean there, because I was just chatting with Delvecci about his own dilemmas recently. Personally, I do rank questions into being more or less important, mostly just because, you know, we only have so much time in this life. There are endless paths out there, and some are definitely faster than others. According to Meher Baba, if a follower puts way too much emphasis on religious rituals instead of focusing on the actual essence, they're basically stuck on a slow commuter train that stops at every single little station along the way.

As for atheists, if that’s what you were asking—it doesn't really affect them, I guess? Since they aren't on the train and aren't traveling toward that specific destination. They spend their time on other stuff—though, I suppose it wouldn't be quite right to say they're wasting time, because they can be absolutely wonderful people who live by a strong moral code or their own version of faith. They might actually progress spiritually, without even realizing it, sometimes even faster than those formal followers who just go through the motions of rituals without any real substance. And maybe, in some future life, a former atheist will eventually hop onto one of those trains.

Gregory Jackson said:I'm not totally sure what you mean there, because I was just chatting with Delvecci about his own dilemmas recently. Personally, I do rank questions into being more or less important, mostly just because, you know, we only have so much time in this life. There are endless paths out there, and some are definitely faster than others. According to Meher Baba, if a follower puts way too much emphasis on religious rituals instead of focusing on the actual essence, they're basically stuck on a slow commuter train that stops at every single little station along the way.

As for atheists, if that’s what you were asking—it doesn't really affect them, I guess? Since they aren't on the train and aren't traveling toward that specific destination. They spend their time on other stuff—though, I suppose it wouldn't be quite right to say they're wasting time, because they can be absolutely wonderful people who live by a strong moral code or their own version of faith. They might actually progress spiritually, without even realizing it, sometimes even faster than those formal followers who just go through the motions of rituals without any real substance. And maybe, in some future life, a former atheist will eventually hop onto one of those trains.

I didn't see any kind of dilemma from DeVinci—not based on anything he’s posted in this thread.

Never heard of Meher Baba before, but I get where he's coming from regarding all those rituals—though honestly, I think you just need to find a balance... especially in this sense.

Religion without Spirituality | Spirituality without Religion Quote : if The essence of spirituality is The search to know Our true selves , then know that its a Life Long process , and perhaps IT requires many births and rebirths ( only god completely knows The true mystery of Our Soul and its evolutionary process of merging with Truth -> Religion without Spirituality | Spirituality without Religion Quote

If the essence of spirituality is the search to know Our true selves, then know that its a Life Long process, and perhaps IT requires many births and rebirths (only God completely knows The true mystery of Our Soul and its evolutionary process of merging with Truth -> Religion without Spirituality | Spirituality without Religion Quote Cut the act—you don't need to play-act some super deep, "enlightened" persona just because you're chasing personal nirvana. That’s just straight-up narcissism. You can't force meditation any more than you can force yourself to reach actual spirituality—it just doesn't work like that. Honestly, all you really need is just to stay awake to life—and more importantly, to actually be aware of who you are.

So, what’s the move after this? Simple—it's time to serve.

And there it is—the absolute grip religion has on people. Organized religion in all forms and tradition does a very good job aspiring The faithful into that. It sets the stage—gives us the structure and the groundwork we need to actually exist in this world and get to work. It's about being able to serve others. That’s how you actually serve the Creator—by showing up for the people around you.

People call themselves "spiritual" while totally ignoring the person cleaning their house for pennies—just paying next to nothing for actual hard work—only to drop thousands on some fancy trip to visit a random tomb halfway across the world. Or they'll skip helping hungry kids or the homeless right on their own street just to book another flight to join some "spiritual group." Honestly, that's sol nonsense in The Eye of Beloved, who cries at the suffering of humanity and laughs at the joyful heart of humanity.

don't you think gladden The Heart of that extremely poor of The humanity was much more important Than going on sol called spiritual travel ( another escape route for selfish luxury

Honestly, this is one of the best takes I’ve read on this subject. Religion without spirituality is just performing dry, empty rituals—do this, do that, blah blah blah—but then again, spirituality on its own can easily turn into nothing more than an excuse for narcissism.

If you're asking if this affects atheists—it doesn't. They aren't even on the train, so they aren't exactly traveling toward the destination. I mean, it’s not quite right to say they’re "wasting time" because honestly, some of them can be incredible people who actually live by the morals their religions preach. They might end up progressing spiritually—sometimes even faster than those followers who just go through the motions of rituals without any actual substance. In some future life, an ex-atheist will eventually jump on one of the trains.

Look, it’s not about whether someone lacks a purpose—whether they're an atheist, a believer, some guy from Alaska, or just works at State Farm, etc.
That's not how I see it.

You don't have to be religious to jump in and help out a charity or a non-profit; an atheist can be perfectly moral and still grow spiritually... honestly, comparing people on that level is just pointless.

But we aren't just talking about one person's spiritual journey—we're talking about the community. Eventually, the morality of a secular society is going to run dry—kind of like a crew on a spaceship who decides to just live off their emergency reserves, thinking they won't ever need a new source... because they're too arrogant to think they'll actually need it.