Bestowed mind

kenshin

kenshin

Active Member
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
far away from there :)
peace be upon you
as we know many are against using logical methods for religions and religious matters. the question is why God has bestowed it on us?
I believe that if we use this gift correctly it will lead us to its creator. the problem is whether we use it correctly or not.
many just claim that they use their thinking ability but they have decided something from the very beginning and won't change their idea.
Also I'm aware of the sceptics and idealists and many others who don't accept the power of discovering mind. but what seems to me is that they don't follow what their mind tells them but what they like.
and we have some sayings like "The light of mind is covered with temptations"
or "The free hawk of mind is caged by the chain of desires"
 
The logical-intellectual mind is a gift with which to parse and to survive in the world of reality. If one holds that numinous experiences (like Hui Neng's understanding of Hongren's challenge) are part of reality (I, for one, do), then obviously using the logical-intellectual mind to parse or reflect (think deeply) is natural. But its gift (result) is not the numinous experience, it is an intellectualization of it.

I would differ with you on only one point. Skeptics (like me or Hume or Whitehead) believe in the discovering mind, I am skeptical of the mind that does not eveolve, change, is stuck in dogma. My discovering mind leads me to question things like "is there a self?", "is there a underlying cause of quantum behavior?", "is the Big Bang, as a single physical event, all there is?", "why does PKD or Kazantzakis or Borgas effect me so?", "is physicality real?", "are my numinous experiences real or the product of my PTSD?".
 
thanks mark
the basis of discovering is to believe in your self. I mean to believe that you exist.
without this statement we can't rely on anything else. that's the first statement in philosophy or I say theosophy.
in epistemology we would reject this sentence "we can't reach any reality and truth" because it's self-destructive.
anyway, the important point of my post, at least for me, that religion is nothing but a source of reality.
I believe that religion and our minds both provide each other. therefore if we find a religion against certain rules of mind then this religion would not be pure. :)
 
The Apostle Paul has an interesting take on this.

1 Corinthians 2 NIV - And so it was with me, brothers and - Bible Gateway
1 Corinthians 2
New International Version (NIV)
1 Corinthians 2

1 And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God.[a] 2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling. 4 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, 5 so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.

God’s Wisdom Revealed by the Spirit

6 We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 However, as it is written:
“What no eye has seen,
what no ear has heard,
and what no human mind has conceived”—
the things God has prepared for those who love him—

10 these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit.

The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.[c] 14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. 15 The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, 16 for,

“Who has known the mind of the Lord
so as to instruct him?”[d]
Click to expand...


I agree spiritual things do not necessarily make sense to the rational mind.
 
thanks nice
There is a crucial point in this discussion :
Religion and its certain statements should not be against certain facts. it means:
1 - if we are not sure about a fact, a religious statement may be against it. for what we are not sure is not necessary a true fact.
2 - Religious statements should not be against the certain facts. sometimes there is no confrontation but just different ways of saying the same thing.
3 - we should be sure that a statement is from God. if we don't know whether something is from God or not, we shouldn't refer it to God.

certain fact = those facts that we refer them to the basic rules of existence and knowledge.

a point :
general rules that we get to know by experiment in science is not certain.
 
ah...thanks mark ! but what do you mean ?
general rules which we gain through experiments are inductive reasoning. we collect some specific data and then try to bring a general rule out of them.

the problem is that we don't know for sure whether we have found a true and fixed relation between the elements of our experiments or not. and whether we know all effective elements or not.
As humans, we never can be sure about these two questions because we just know what we have seen not what we don't so we can't give out a rule about what we don't know.

mission accomplished... ;)
 
kenshin said:
ah...thanks mark ! but what do you mean ?
general rules which we gain through experiments are inductive reasoning. we collect some specific data and then try to bring a general rule out of them.
Click to expand...

sounds like bad science to me

the problem is that we don't know for sure whether we have found a true and fixed relation between the elements of our experiments or not. and whether we know all effective elements or not.
As humans, we never can be sure about these two questions because we just know what we have seen not what we don't so we can't give out a rule about what we don't know.

mission accomplished... ;)
Click to expand...

only two things are sure, you are alive now and you are going to die, that much we know, i think :rolleyes:
 
thanks nice
it's not certain for you but me. I know that I'm alive and I think and I doubt and all my actions are clear and certain for me for I see them by my soul.
Existence of the Ultimate truth is also for sure and I call it God. again existence of another world which we call "after life or after death" is also for sure and we have proofs and demonstration for that.
there are many certain facts which I can't number or mention them here.:)
 
kenshin said:
thanks nice
it's not certain for you but me.
Click to expand...

yes

I know that I'm alive and I think and I doubt and all my actions are clear and certain for me for I see them by my soul.
Click to expand...

what is soul ?

Existence of the Ultimate truth is also for sure and I call it God.
Click to expand...

why is it ?

again existence of another world which we call "after life or after death" is also for sure and we have proofs and demonstration for that.
there are many certain facts which I can't number or mention them here.:)
Click to expand...

cant mention why ever not ?

also if you are talking other worlds why limit them to an afterlife ?
 
thanks nice ;)
Soul = a mode of existence which manage the body and all actions of body is referred to. it's essence is immaterial(no physical matter ) but it uses matter to do its action
you are "your soul" and I am "my soul". in fact humans are their souls but we usually include body in our existence and assume that we are just body or a collection of body and soul. our bodies are not within our existence for if they were we would know the details of our body and we don't.

about "the ultimate truth" I will bring another post later :)

about "the other world"
what we call in religions "other world" is nothing but the ultra level of this world. (my opinion )
and I will bring another post for it, God willing.
 
kenshin said:
thanks nice ;)
Soul = a mode of existence which manage the body and all actions of body is referred to. it's essence is immaterial(no physical matter ) but it uses matter to do its action
you are "your soul" and I am "my soul". in fact humans are their souls but we usually include body in our existence and assume that we are just body or a collection of body and soul. our bodies are not within our existence for if they were we would know the details of our body and we don't.

about "the ultimate truth" I will bring another post later :)

about "the other world"
what we call in religions "other world" is nothing but the ultra level of this world. (my opinion )
and I will bring another post for it, God willing.
Click to expand...

now why do i get the feeling you are looking for converts ?

are you here for dialogue or are you here to preach about allah ?
 
The last point I was referring to was "general rules that we get to know by experiment in science is not certain".

Most people (erroneously) believe that science is about certainty or truth. Far from it. We (scientists) know that a theory or law is merely temporary. The key to a hypothesis is that it must be falsifiable, not (as most think) provable. This is the main point of the "Scientific Methodology" argument from the Whewell-Mill debate until now (it is not settled philosophically, but pretty much settled as far as science goes).

For instance, Einstein, Whitehead, and Milgrom have slightly different versions of relativity (as do many more). Any of them are "provable" (mathematically predict correctly), but they are incongruent (the basis for the predictions are not the same). Ditto for Copenhagen versus Many-Worlds versus Bohmian interpretations of quantum mechanics. They all give the same answers, but they do not use the same metaphysics (description of reality).
 
I like your style, kenshin. If you are Muslim, you are more Sufic and less Wahabi-- "followers of muhammad(pbuh) or follower of the truth and the obedient observer of it" takes you out of the mainstream.
 
thanks nice
now why do i get the feeling you are looking for converts ?

are you here for dialogue or are you here to preach about allah ?
Click to expand...
Preaching about God is to speak of the truth and realities. God is the reality itself so if I talk about truth and the real world, I preach God. in this sense, yes I'm preaching God for sure. to think about yourself and the world and the relation between you and world and then all of us to God etc are preaching God.

About converting, I'm not after it. It's your choice, your decision, your your your... ;) on the other side, it's God's decision, God's choice and his his his...
there is no room for me. I won't be in your grave and you won't be in mine. I will have my own judgment day and you will have yours.
 
thanks mark :)
I like your style, kenshin
Click to expand...
thanks again mark but it's not my style. I think you should be familiar with the school of "the transient theosophy". it's their style.
you are more Sufic and less Wahabi
Click to expand...

indeed there are another group between these two which are both Sufi and Philosopher which we call them Theosophers.

about Wahabis, there is a world of differences between my beliefs and theirs. they don't consider my school of thought as an Islamic one.

and please don't comment like this or else -nice- would be mad at me :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top