Blinded by Belief - A Great Paradox

[streetbob2006]

Experiences are fallible and if false (which obviously they can be) will also blind someone to real truth. Just as you say a belief in a book blinds, so does experience. One can disregard objective truth because it is in opposition to a subjective experience.

 

[JosephM]

Experiences are fallible and if false (which obviously they can be) will also blind someone to real truth. Just as you say a belief in a book blinds, so does experience. One can disregard objective truth because it is in opposition to a subjective experience.

Streetbob,
As long as you are in this body all you can experience is subjective truth. You look for the impossible with your senses that can only be subjective. Perhaps you need to define the words objective truth for me.

Love in Christ,
JM

 

[streetbob2006]

Streetbob,

Okay. If you choose to believe that a book can reveal objective truth about God I will not oppose you. Personally I find God more a subjective experience and there to be no such thing as objective truth but that is my experience and you are entitled to your beliefs.

I'm sorry but I do not understand it when you say "Its not about the pages or words, it is about the truth in those words." Perhaps then you are advocating one look for truth in words rather than in an eternal living spirit. Because I was under the impression that words could ONLY point to something because they are dead letters on paper.

You say "I am not a Christian for happiness,finding myself, purpose, or anything else that fills me up." Then you say "I know I have done wrong and know that a Good GOd cannot let my crimes go unpunished," It seems to me you fear God's punishment and feel that would not make you very happy and so out of fear of punishment you seek forgiveness and the glory of God so you can be happy. That seems like purpose to me. Perhaps I am mistaking your words but that is what it seems like you are saying to me. Nevertheless, I do not seek to change you from what you believe. I merely present a different picture for consideration. Your beliefs are a choice you make and I wish you the best life has to offer.

Love in Christ,
JM

Hey Joesph, I seek the glory of God not because I am afraid, but rather because I see the Love of CHrist on the cross and the reponse is glory to God. I can somewhat comprehend the Holiness and justice of God (just as all of us scream for justice when someone murders someone) but when God himself takes the punishment for my sin? Whoa!

 

[JosephM]

Hey Joesph, I seek the glory of God not because I am afraid, but rather because I see the Love of CHrist on the cross and the reponse is glory to God. I can somewhat comprehend the Holiness and justice of God (just as all of us scream for justice when someone murders someone) but when God himself takes the punishment for my sin? Whoa!

Okay. Thanks for clarifying that. It didn't sound like you were saying that before.

Love in Christ,
JM

PS waiting on your definition of objective truth.

 

[Quahom1]

Where does it say that?

And what about the women?

BTW, I think in the old days (ie. ancient times) you would have been a middle-aged man by the time you were 30. People died early.

I think I made a mistake. It appears to be 20 years old.


"We are always to be committed to honoring our parents, but there comes a time when we are personally accountable before God. The Bible seems to indicate that a person was considered fully independent around the age of 20. For example, God required men 20 years old and upward to fight in the Israelite army (Numbers 1), and He expected them to pay the temple tax at the age of 20 (Exodus 38:21-26).
When Israel was ready to enter the promised land, God considered each person above 20 years accountable for his own decision to cross the Jordan or remain behind. Were this not the case, those over 20 that responded to their parents' wishes to stay would have been spared God's judgment. They were not. God held them accountable, and all those of majority age (20 years) died and did not see the land of Canaan (Numbers 32:11).
The New Testament also addresses the issue of the age of adulthood or the time of breaking with parental authority, though a specific age is not given. As in Genesis 2:24, Jesus (Matthew 19:5, Mark 10:7) clearly states that a married couple should depart from their family homes (which were the places of government and parental authority) and begin their own home. Jewish men usually married by their 19th year and were held responsible before the Lord."

 

[streetbob2006]

Okay. Thanks for clarifying that. It didn't sound like you were saying that before.

Love in Christ,
JM

PS waiting on your definition of objective truth.

Hey Joesph, my point was that one can take the opposite opinion of you and say that one might be blinded be real actually truth in the bible (if it is the word of God which it possibly could be) because of fallible subjective experiences they might see as contradictory even though the could be false.

 

[JosephM]

Hey Joesph, my point was that one can take the opposite opinion of you and say that one might be blinded be real actually truth in the bible (if it is the word of God which it possibly could be) because of fallible subjective experiences they might see as contradictory even though the could be false.

OK Dj, Good discussing with you. Only God can show us truth anyway so no big deal if we don't see things the same.

Love in Christ,
JM

 

[streetbob2006]

and same to you. I am sure we will meet on again on another topic. DJ

 

[cyberpi]

Which book, belief, and paradox is this thread referring to? "Origin of Species"? "The Ego and the Id"? "The interpretation of dreams"? "The psychology of the unconscious"?

A book is clearly visible and a person is only blind to it if something prevents them from looking at it.

But it is true when I read a book that a lot of understanding it does not come from the book. So if a person faults a person's blindness due to a belief in any set of words or knowledge that came from another soul or from God (swt), then I question what really is the cause of anyone's alledged blindness.

JosephM, do you think a person is blinded by believing in an unseen God (swt)? Is a person blinded by believing words from an unseen soul? Is a person blinded by believing that they themselves are an unseen and non-physical soul?

 

[JosephM]

Which book, belief, and paradox is this thread referring to? "Origin of Species"? "The Ego and the Id"? "The interpretation of dreams"? "The psychology of the unconscious"?

Most specifically the Bible but it can be applicable to others.

A book is clearly visible and a person is only blind to it if something prevents them from looking at it.

Yes, that is so if you are speaking literally concerning seeing with the eyes.

But it is true when I read a book that a lot of understanding it does not come from the book. So if a person faults a person's blindness due to a belief in any set of words or knowledge that came from another soul or from God (swt), then I question what really is the cause of anyone's alledged blindness.

JosephM, do you think a person is blinded by believing in an unseen God (swt)? Is a person blinded by believing words from an unseen soul? Is a person blinded by believing that they themselves are an unseen and non-physical soul?

I think once a person locks himself by belief into any book by believing it is 100% without error without checking out ALL that is in the book himself for accuracy, then that one has in his mind locked out the possibility of anything to the contrary. That is what I am saying by blinded by belief.

The same can be said of any fixed belief that one holds on to and refuses to consider other options without having at least a personal subjective experience or evidence to substantiate that belief. And even then, it is wise to remain open rather than fixed in understanding that one may gain a clearer understanding should the data present itself.

Love in Christ,
JM

 

[cyberpi]

I find that it is not the validity of any words that are being guessed here. The question presented here is whether paranoia or commitment are prudent... particularly with something unseen. It is hard for the majority of people to believe and be committed to an unseen God (swt) or another soul. This thread asks why people see something and don't keep an open mind to see the things yet unseen... but the 'belief' is in something unseen to begin with.

Consider any relationship: Is it prudent to not consider the motives of another individual? Is it prudent to receive a rose and not question the person's intent? Is it prudent to not rationally calculate whether someone really Loves you? Is it prudent to get committed when you don't truly know a person? Is it prudent to not consider other options? Is it prudent to stop looking at the menu when you are still hungry?

I'm not saying anything is prudent or not, but consider that it is impossible to prove someone's motives, intent, love, etc... no matter how much evidence there is. I can't even prove the sun is going to rise tomorrow no matter how powerful the evidence is. It certainly might not. Should I be out looking for evidence of whether it will or not? Should I be making no commitments for fear that it won't?

Another example: Strong, powerful, visual evidence exists that I am going to die. Someone comes along and says... nope, not if you follow me. Am I blind to the evidence if I believe him? I still know what I see, and yet I believe in what I don't see. Does that make me blind?

When it comes to any book, including the Bible or Qur'an... I find that a book has no soul. It itself is a corpse left behind by someone else. I would rather read and see what someone left behind than to be blind and NOT read it.

 

[JosephM]

I find that it is not the validity of any words that are being guessed here. The question presented here is whether paranoia or commitment are prudent... particularly with something unseen. It is hard for the majority of people to believe and be committed to an unseen God (swt) or another soul. This thread asks why people see something and don't keep an open mind to see the things yet unseen... but the 'belief' is in something unseen to begin with.

I'm sorry cyberpi. I do not understand your point here or you do not understand mine or both. The people are seeing nothing but words concerning the unseen. All I am proposing is that they neither accept or reject the words 100% so not to shut themselves off to truth which can be subjectively experienced.

Consider any relationship: Is it prudent to not consider the motives of another individual? Is it prudent to receive a rose and not question the person's intent? Is it prudent to not rationally calculate whether someone really Loves you? Is it prudent to get committed when you don't truly know a person? Is it prudent to not consider other options? Is it prudent to stop looking at the menu when you are still hungry?

I'm not saying anything is prudent or not, but consider that it is impossible to prove someone's motives, intent, love, etc... no matter how much evidence there is. I can't even prove the sun is going to rise tomorrow no matter how powerful the evidence is. It certainly might not. Should I be out looking for evidence of whether it will or not? Should I be making no commitments for fear that it won't?

Of course I am not saying don't make any commitments. My premise is just don't be blind to other possibilities by the choice of mind that fixes your belief in stone based on words or a book.

Another example: Strong, powerful, visual evidence exists that I am going to die. Someone comes along and says... nope, not if you follow me. Am I blind to the evidence if I believe him? I still know what I see, and yet I believe in what I don't see. Does that make me blind?

Again, you need not choose to unconditionally believe anything unless of course you want to. Perhaps you miss the point of the first post and would care to re-read it because I perceive your understanding of my words are different than what I perceive they say.

Love in Christ,
JM

 

[Quahom1]

I find that it is not the validity of any words that are being guessed here. The question presented here is whether paranoia or commitment are prudent... particularly with something unseen. It is hard for the majority of people to believe and be committed to an unseen God (swt) or another soul. This thread asks why people see something and don't keep an open mind to see the things yet unseen... but the 'belief' is in something unseen to begin with.

Consider any relationship: Is it prudent to not consider the motives of another individual? Is it prudent to receive a rose and not question the person's intent? Is it prudent to not rationally calculate whether someone really Loves you? Is it prudent to get committed when you don't truly know a person? Is it prudent to not consider other options? Is it prudent to stop looking at the menu when you are still hungry?

I'm not saying anything is prudent or not, but consider that it is impossible to prove someone's motives, intent, love, etc... no matter how much evidence there is. I can't even prove the sun is going to rise tomorrow no matter how powerful the evidence is. It certainly might not. Should I be out looking for evidence of whether it will or not? Should I be making no commitments for fear that it won't?

Another example: Strong, powerful, visual evidence exists that I am going to die. Someone comes along and says... nope, not if you follow me. Am I blind to the evidence if I believe him? I still know what I see, and yet I believe in what I don't see. Does that make me blind?

When it comes to any book, including the Bible or Qur'an... I find that a book has no soul. It itself is a corpse left behind by someone else. I would rather read and see what someone left behind than to be blind and NOT read it.

then I suspect the constitution is a corpse...that is, a joke, if we watch the argument that is happening in the world today. But it isn't. Neither is the Bible (I could not answer for the Qu'ran).

v/r

Joshua

 

[cyberpi]

then I suspect the constitution is a corpse...that is, a joke, if we watch the argument that is happening in the world today. But it isn't. Neither is the Bible (I could not answer for the Qu'ran).

v/r

Joshua

The constitution and the Qur'an are good examples of corpses... anything printed on a dead tree is a corpse. Every bit saved on a computer is a corpse. Thermodynamics 101. It is energy in a pattern that is decaying. The energy itself is NOT alive. People are alive. God is alive. The flesh is a decaying corpse from day one.

I suggest that any constitution written by corpses should be re-evaluated, re-written, and re-rattified by the people who are living.

 

[cyberpi]

I'm sorry cyberpi. I do not understand your point here or you do not understand mine or both. The people are seeing nothing but words concerning the unseen. All I am proposing is that they neither accept or reject the words 100% so not to shut themselves off to truth which can be subjectively experienced.

Of course I am not saying don't make any commitments. My premise is just don't be blind to other possibilities by the choice of mind that fixes your belief in stone based on words or a book.

Again, you need not choose to unconditionally believe anything unless of course you want to. Perhaps you miss the point of the first post and would care to re-read it because I perceive your understanding of my words are different than what I perceive they say.

Love in Christ,
JM

I re-read your original post and I saw the word 'faith' and 'belief' in relation to blindness. That is what I responded to. I do not know what a subjective truth or experience is, and I do not recognize what you said the bible says in your original post. I further did not see you referring to the 100% extremism or debating the authorship of the bible... but I agree with you here on that aspect. In my eyes the bible is clearly written by multiple authors, one of which is God. The same goes for my life... for which I know I only author a portion of it. I have been calling it Faith the portion of actions that I author in accordance with another's will... a definition I read it in the gospels.

I see and agree with you that there are some (like me) who sometimes see only words... and only the words they choose to look at... and with the definitions of words they have learned, chosen or deduced. It is my strong belief though that the bulk of understanding anything really comes from somewhere else. Not the book. Call it God, the Holy Spirit, a hidden repository of liquid knowledge, or an evolving guess. For what little I do know... it was not all in the genes, not all in a book, and I sincerely hope it was not in the drink I had with dinner.

 

[JosephM]

I re-read your original post and I saw the word 'faith' and 'belief' in relation to blindness. That is what I responded to. I do not know what a subjective truth or experience is, and I do not recognize what you said the bible says in your original post. I further did not see you referring to the 100% extremism or debating the authorship of the bible... but I agree with you here on that aspect. In my eyes the bible is clearly written by multiple authors, one of which is God. The same goes for my life... for which I know I only author a portion of it. I have been calling it Faith the portion of actions that I author in accordance with another's will... a definition I read it in the gospels.

I see and agree with you that there are some (like me) who sometimes see only words... and only the words they choose to look at... and with the definitions of words they have learned, chosen or deduced. It is my strong belief though that the bulk of understanding anything really comes from somewhere else. Not the book. Call it God, the Holy Spirit, a hidden repository of liquid knowledge, or an evolving guess. For what little I do know... it was not all in the genes, not all in a book, and I sincerely hope it was not in the drink I had with dinner.

From reading your post here I believe we are now closer to being on the same wavelength.

In my post I wrote "Not having all the answers, in his impatience he searches the data of his mind and recall teachings about a book (the Bible) of answers to his questions whose author he was taught is God. And if that knowledge was missing he shares his experience with others having had the same experience and is passed on to this same conclusion. His focus now is placed on a book. In it he seeks to find more of his experience and inevitably makes a decision of mind to accept this conclusion as a fact and through it he continues his search.

Though many things in this book neither go well with his mind nor reason he makes a decision to believe the book by a concept he is told is faith. He then uses his intellect to make it fit within that concept and puts the reason and mind as inferior to the book itself. After all, he has made a conscious decision to believe the author is God. In essence he gives up his right to doubt, question or otherwise disagree with the book whose words reinforces his decision as being correct. He believes he is in the process of learning yet his learning is always made subject to the premises of the book he has made a decision to believe in. His thinking process must always be made limited to the revelations of the book which he no longer separates from God."

I do agree with you that the bulk of understanding does indeed come from somewhere else other than the book. What I was saying above is that when one makes a decision of mind to accept a complete book as "the Word of God" then by that decision he must reject all contrary data. That is the nature of the mind and what I mean by blinded by belief. Which belief? The one that says this is God's word and it is absolutly true and anything contrary must be wrong. Keeping ones options open with a belief system that says "this is only my present understanding" is in my view the wiser choice to one on a spiritual journey.

Thanks for your input and patience cyberpi,

Love in Christ,
JM

PS The subjective experience that I was referring to is a personal experience where 'knowing' is dropped into ones consciousness without effort and reveals truth that is exclusive of doubt as if it were already known and you are waking up to the realization of it. That is the best I can do with words at this time.

 

[Quahom1]

The constitution and the Qur'an are good examples of corpses... anything printed on a dead tree is a corpse. Every bit saved on a computer is a corpse. Thermodynamics 101. It is energy in a pattern that is decaying. The energy itself is NOT alive. People are alive. God is alive. The flesh is a decaying corpse from day one.

I suggest that any constitution written by corpses should be re-evaluated, re-written, and re-rattified by the people who are living.

lol. Then by your own volition, everything you've said is dead. But some how, I doubt that is what you wish of your own thoughts to be considered...

 

[Saltmeister]

lol. Then by your own volition, everything you've said is dead. But some how, I doubt that is what you wish of your own thoughts to be considered...

Words are meaningless without people. They serve no purpose without people for the simple reason that words were ordained by Man to serve Man. Man, in turn, was ordained by God to serve God.

The point is, words are lifeless entities that have no purpose without Man. Man has no purpose without God. Man has "life" without God, but he is not "truly alive" unless he has God.

Where there are words without Man and God those words can mean anything because Man and God are not there to put them in context. Where there are men (and women) without God their lives can mean anything because God is not there to put their lives into context.

The Bible is, in a sense, a dead book. Its only purpose is to lead us to God. If we don't discover God in the process of reading the Bible, then the words are dead to us. The Bible was written by people who are long dead. They are not here to tell us what their words meant.

The Bible is like a Mystical Door that only opens when you answer the riddles correctly. If you're not searching deeper and seeking to get to know God better through the Bible, the Mystical Door doesn't open. So the Mystical Door is open to some people at times when they are seeking God, but closed to those who aren't really open to God but are more interested in the words than their ultimate meaning.

But God gave us a mind to think. What we need is some imagination, and then to believe in whatever insights we've gained from our imagination. This means that some thinking "outside the Bible" is necessary, using whatever experiences we've gained in life. There is nothing special about the Bible, the water of baptism, the Sabbath, the Tabernacle the Israelites built, their Temple in Jerusalem, etc. except what it means to God and Man.

The goal is to discover God for ourselves, not babble and fight over the words and interpretations of words. Finding God is more important than finding the "absolutes" in the words. That's because the "true meaning" comes from an experience of God (or an experience of the author -- seeing things through the author's eyes), not the technical semantics of words. Perceptions and experiences are more important than absolutes because they're immediately accessible. At least they have meaning.

Believing doesn't mean you're blind. I have beliefs, yet my mind is open.

I am driven and inspired to believe in my chosen beliefs. As life goes on, the beliefs taken on a different meaning. I've changed as a person, and likewise my relationship with God will change too. The passions that drive those beliefs also change. You could say that the identity of those beliefs don't change (the abstraction). It's just your approach to those beliefs that changes (context and application).

That fact that I allow my beliefs to evolve, even if their abstract meaning doesn't change, is reason enough to say I am not blind.

 

[cyberpi]

lol. Then by your own volition, everything you've said is dead. But some how, I doubt that is what you wish of your own thoughts to be considered...

What I have said is dead. It is spent energy. There is no life in them except in whatever life someone living provides them. The words don't reproduce themselves or repent for misleading you. The words are not a virus that propagate without your choosing. Someone who is alive has the choice to pick up the words, make copies, and do something with them, but the words themselves are a corpse just as the neurons in my brain are a corpse. People are living. When I eat food it is killed, cooked, and even then I choose. When I hear words with the ears or see them with the eyes it is the same. The words are a few spent bits on a hard-drive, and maybe a few spent neurons in your brain since you chose to read them... when they go they are gone. Never gone from this world... but committed to spirit where the eyes can no longer see them.

At best I think you could say a word is like a seed. Reminds me of a parable. A seed only lives if you give it water, energy, and nutrients.

My thoughts, guided or misguided.

 

[Ciel]

PS The subjective experience that I was referring to is a personal experience where 'knowing' is dropped into ones consciousness without effort and reveals truth that is exclusive of doubt as if it were already known and you are waking up to the realization of it. That is the best I can do with words at this time.

Joseph, Yes, beyond words.

I am reading such extraordinary things here from every one's contribution
We do indeed live in extraordinary times. It always interests me, the reason behind the words, the inner knowing composing the outer, the reason why certain subject matter is brought forward, why so much talk of lifelessness from some for example, yet not in a negative sense. I find myself aware of life in a phase of transition as never before. I am seeing life reborn with new eyes. And wonder how much life it's self knows

- c -