Dondi
Well-Known Member
So eternal life is knowing God by degrees? Seems like you are saying that everyone will have some sort of association with God. But how is a holy God approachable? Or is God holy? Is God just relative?
Reasonable faith
- Thread starter Dondi
- Start date
So eternal life is knowing God by degrees? Seems like you are saying that everyone will have some sort of association with God. But how is a holy God approachable? Or is God holy? Is God just relative?
JosephM
Well-Known Member
Hi Dondi,
It seems to me from the flesh standpoint of view we know God by degrees. We grow in understanding.
Perhaps, I am saying that everyone has an association with God. This view is founded on the principle that nothing exists without God. He is in and through all things whether one is conscious of it or not.
It seems to me that God is available to everyone at all times. In a sense, God is at all times approachable because he is always present. One may have built up barriers that we refer to as "sin" that would prevent such a conscious approach but that can be easily rectified by repentance and forgiveness. These are self created barriers where in reality none exists. In reality, there is 'no where' one needs to go to approach God.
Define Holy for me.
It seems to me that God is NOT relative, except in one's mind.
Love and Peace,
JM
Dondi
Well-Known Member
You see, that's the rub, then. If there is a need for repentance and forgiveness, then it is a real barrier from experiencing God in the light of His Holiness. God's Holiness is a characteristic of God that attempts to explain His Pure Nature. Of course, the Ten Commandments really describe what God is not (i.e. the characteristics of expressing Love in the form of not insulting God nor exhibit malicious behavior toward thy neighbor). It is the Holy Spirit's job to inform us when we go awry (hence the name Holy Spirit), in which case we are responsible to react accordingly. When we do not, it will inhibit our ability to know God's will and frankly cause spiritual blindness as we exert our own selfish will.
(imo) With the Holy Spirit as guide, you can know it's G-d's voice speaking. That is the point, isn't it? Doesn't G-d want us to hear His voice? When you hear G-d's voice repeatedly, it gets to the point where you recognize it.
"Be still and know that I am G-d". "And thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left."
Can you prove it?
If they can be known, why can't we assert them?
If it's an absolute, why does the community have to agree?
How can they change if they're absolutes?
I thought that was your argument - that Christianity (or faith) had to be reasonable.
Perhaps I haven't understood what you're saying. I'm not trying to be obtuse and I'm really not trying to be arguementative.
I'm trying to understand why a person can't just listen to G-d and do as G-d wishes. Is your point that G-d isn't able to or doesn't make Himself known to "regular people"?
Thanks for your thoughts...
Best regards,
Mark
JosephM
Well-Known Member
Hello Dondi,
It seems to me, in my view, your first paragraph (I divided it above) accessment is accurate as stated. Furthermore I might say (as you might know) that the barrier is not put there by God but rather by the choice of the individual. In essence what I am implying is that God neither requires forgiveness or repentance. Rather it is us that are in need of these things to have our self created barriers removed so the veil of separation will be exposed for what it is.
On the second part, it is my view that God cannot be insulted. God is complete and in need of nothing. In my view, He that is all powerful, all present and all knowing has none of the lower (antropomorphic) attributes we attribute to men such as being insulted or offended, hate, revenge, jealousy, anger, etc... (I am aware The Bible does not agree with my view) In my view, we are free to choose spiritual blindness or exert our own selfish will. It has ramifications/consequences but God does not "require" us to act in a particular way else choice would not be choice. It would seem to me that all things at this moment in time are 'perfect' as they are.
Just some thoughts to consider,
Love and Peace,
JM
Last edited:
Maybe. But can you prove that to me? And if not, why should I accept what you say and abandon what I believe? Andrew (I'm sure he won't mind me saying this) is in direct communication with the Unseen Worlds. Is his faith unreasonable?
We can – but we cannot prove them.
It's rather like 'objectivity'. Can you or I be objective? Yes, we think we can, and even when we think we are, we cannot be certain, because we cannot stand outside of ourselves. There might be factors of which we are unaware, there might be issues shadowing our perceptions of which we are unconscious.
Science declares something as absolute, then new knowledge comes along, and it's no longer absolute ... now Quantum Theory says there are no absolutes ... in the future a new theory will explain Quantum Theory, then there will be an absolute again.
What many miss is that because a single discipline says 'there are no absolutes' of itself, it cannot apply that rigour to disciplines other than itself, which is what science does. It assumes it is the mean of all knowledge. Thus science tries to say what religion is or isn't, what it can or can't be ... it simply doesn't have the knowledge of the authority to say that, but because it's pre-eminent in its field, we all accept what it says.
Yes. But 'because I said so' is not an argument. If you believe in God, because I said so is sufficient. It is for me. I believe in Baptism and the Eucharist, but I have no evidence, no test, no proof ... just faith.
But the Sacraments can be the objects of philosophy, which they are.
I can explain baptism to someone, but I can't prove the Holy Spirit enters the soul ... I can explain Transubstantiation ... but there is no test that will demonstrate it.
Nevertheless, the fact that I say "Jesus Christ is present in the Eucharistic species" isn't a proof.
Nor am I.
Absolutely not. I have no doubt about God, I have doubt about people. Too many people have told me they have a direct line to God, for me to accept that these days ... I'm not saying your faith is unreasonable to you, I am saying it might appear unreasonable to everyone else.
Your understanding of God ... did you come to that all by yourself, or through the community?
If no-one had ever seen or heard of the Bible, and you found it, what would you make of it?
Thomas
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Kindest Regards, all!
I've been holding off on this subject, mostly because I don't know how well this will be received. I understand what Thomas is saying...although I come from a different angle.
The whole concept of logic and subjectivity/objectivity is a specific discipline, of which a lot of people think they are being logical and objective when in truth they really are not familiar with what exactly that means.
I have known a lot of people in my life that find ways to justify all manner of actions and beliefs, which within their own minds is considered logical and objective reality, even to the exclusion of other points of view. Nevermind that their justifications are completely irrational...those views work for them, and they have no interest in hearing any view that confuses or competes.
There is an element to religion, Christianity being no exception, that is superstitious. It is one thing to say "the Bible is a powerful book!" Which, in some manner of speaking, is objectively true. But a subjective interpretation of that statement would lead to someone carrying a Bible "superstitiously" for protection by virtue of the power of the book, as a talisman. How often we hear of the soldier who had a bullet stopped by a pocket sized new testament tucked in a shirt pocket? How many take that, superstitiously, and carry a pocket edition new testament in their breast pocket "just in case?" The superstitious element is endemic in our society...think of the Dradcula saga. How is a vampire to be warded off? Why, with a Bible and the sign of the cross, naturally. Everbody "knows" that. (Of course, I've never met a vampire or had cause to try these remedies.)
Superstition is not the same as empirical objectivity. Because "everybody knows" does not mean something is logical. And this is where science and religion tend to butt heads...it is alright to be illogical and superstitious...wwe just can't call it logic and rational.
I'd love to flesh this out more, but I need to go.
I've been holding off on this subject, mostly because I don't know how well this will be received. I understand what Thomas is saying...although I come from a different angle.
The whole concept of logic and subjectivity/objectivity is a specific discipline, of which a lot of people think they are being logical and objective when in truth they really are not familiar with what exactly that means.
I have known a lot of people in my life that find ways to justify all manner of actions and beliefs, which within their own minds is considered logical and objective reality, even to the exclusion of other points of view. Nevermind that their justifications are completely irrational...those views work for them, and they have no interest in hearing any view that confuses or competes.
There is an element to religion, Christianity being no exception, that is superstitious. It is one thing to say "the Bible is a powerful book!" Which, in some manner of speaking, is objectively true. But a subjective interpretation of that statement would lead to someone carrying a Bible "superstitiously" for protection by virtue of the power of the book, as a talisman. How often we hear of the soldier who had a bullet stopped by a pocket sized new testament tucked in a shirt pocket? How many take that, superstitiously, and carry a pocket edition new testament in their breast pocket "just in case?" The superstitious element is endemic in our society...think of the Dradcula saga. How is a vampire to be warded off? Why, with a Bible and the sign of the cross, naturally. Everbody "knows" that. (Of course, I've never met a vampire or had cause to try these remedies.)
Superstition is not the same as empirical objectivity. Because "everybody knows" does not mean something is logical. And this is where science and religion tend to butt heads...it is alright to be illogical and superstitious...wwe just can't call it logic and rational.
I'd love to flesh this out more, but I need to go.
No. It's just a personal comfort that works for me. You do hear Him, though, don't you?
You shouldn't - unless the time comes that it becomes truth, of course.
Maybe...subjective, huh?
I'll agree that that's true.
I guess that's the point I was trying to make - To do whatever G-d says is reasonable. It may not appear reasonable, however.
Here's where you're making me think...
Got my start from my parents, then from the pastor and other adults, then from my own examination of life, nature and just talking to G-d.
I suppose I have benefitted from "tradition" in that respect. Then from that base, I've studied with the Holy Spirit to make sure the things that "men" told me were true.
I would think G-d could make His will known from it, but who knows what form that would take in such circumstances.
This is one reason why I try to keep an open mind of others' opinions. G-d may actually be speaking through them and I don't want to ignore Him because I'm not hearing a familiar message.
Thanks for taking the time to hash through this with me.
Just good stuff,
Mark
Dondi
Well-Known Member
Prober said:
Interesting. Seems in many cases this is a pattern. 1) One starts out being affiliated at an early with a particular denomination of religion due the parents beliefs 2) Then is taught through Sunday School/Church the rudiments of doctrine 3) Then an examination one's life to determine whether what one has learned has significance or validity 4) Followed by a veering away from roots in an effort to seek the truth on one's own, perhaps venturing into another denomination or religion 5a) Finally a return to one's tradition with a refreshed outlook on the base that had been the foundation of faith. 5b) Or an abandonment of the original foundation in the conviction of something else.
Dondi
Well-Known Member
I had a thought on reasonable faith while responding to the thread on Scientology found here:
BBC Panorama on Scientology
Now see, this to most of us would think this is an unreasonable faith. But for those who subscribe to Scientology do not think so. When celebrities like Tom Cruise and John Travolta buy into this, we view them as crackpots by association. Are they that out of touch with reality? How do you think a person gets to a point in believing in something like this? Why is it so believable for them?
BTW, did I mention that I wouldn't mind moving this thread to the Belief and Spirituality forum? Mods?...hello?
BBC Panorama on Scientology
Vajradhara said:
Now see, this to most of us would think this is an unreasonable faith. But for those who subscribe to Scientology do not think so. When celebrities like Tom Cruise and John Travolta buy into this, we view them as crackpots by association. Are they that out of touch with reality? How do you think a person gets to a point in believing in something like this? Why is it so believable for them?
BTW, did I mention that I wouldn't mind moving this thread to the Belief and Spirituality forum? Mods?...hello?
C
cyberpi
Guest
I suggest that it is absolutely TRUE that you will NOT be having breakfast on the planet Neptune tomorrow. Mars is out too. Maybe Earth. History is absolute... the real history. and Einstein's theories of relativity are actually all about a couple of absolutes. Speed of Light being one of them.
With that level of thinking, you can not prove that a person's voice is really the one that you hear. It could be God's voice. It could just be the flesh. It could be the parents talking. It could be the oppressive government talking. It could just be the education talking. It could be drugs talking. Or, it could actually be the person. Hard to tell sometimes.
I drive on the right side, but write with the left side. Whats your excuse? Might depend if you are in a red or blue state: Which Side Of The Road To Drive On? Left Or Right, Country By Country Around The World
A standard for apathy?
Yeah, I agree.
I chose 5a because of lack of conclusive evidence to the contrary.
This has been an enjoyable discussion, huh?
This I think links with
http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/should-hereditary-determine-religion-2887.html
he says, bravely ignoring the fact that the thread hasn't been moved. No-one chooses their hereditary/parentage/place of birth. So if people are spiritually inclined they will either "go with the flow" of their accident of birth or go through the sort of process that you have outlined above Dondi.
s.
pattimax
Somewhat returning
Do you care if that is an oxymoron?
JosephM
Well-Known Member
Interesting article but to be fair not everyone in scientology is exposed to that teaching. You have to be a certain level. Also that belief may seem just as reasonable as that of Christians reported to believe in ..... just to mention a very few of the hundreds...
God talked through a donkey.
The sun stood still for about a whole day. Joshua 10:13.
The rapture of the church.
A whale swallowed Jonah and spit him up after 3 days alive.
Jesus raised the dead and turned water into wine.
The dead came out of their graves and showed themselves to many people. Matthew 27:52-53
Look objectively.... Do these sound any more reasonable than the scientology claim... I think not.
Peace,
JM
Last edited:
pattimax
Somewhat returning
After I think about it , I guess there could be a standard for indifference.
How would you define that?
How would you define that?
N
niranjan
Guest
Well, I actually read in the newspapers that israeli archaeologists were unable to find no proof at all with respect to solomon and other dudes.
So you believe in the "chosen people " stuff as well. Cute.
And what do you think about the Indian and the chinese nations ! Aren't they ancient people as well, ( in fact more ancient than the jews) and haven't they been living in their nations without any exile.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
As you wish!
C
cyberpi
Guest
Dondi, it seems like you are pretty heavily calling Faith a belief or a religion. I'm sure you've probably heard me say this before, but in my life, the Gospels, and the OT, I find that it is definitely not that. It is far more because people are more than something written. Faith is a relationship between people that can willfully respond and cause change. Being one of the persons in that relationship you know when someone is Faithful to you or not because some of the words or beliefs originated from you. You know whether someone has Faith in you, and you can see when they are Faithful. So it is not a 'what' that you want to place Faith in, but in 'whom'. Faith is just a word, but two people can define what Faith between them is. You can first realize Faith between people, and then with God. I find that it is like any other relationship that you'd have with your spouse, parents, children, or neighbor. Prayer is for real communication. Someone is listening and even responding.
With the scientology, I personally once found that biofeedback with the galvanic skin resistance is worthwhile with meditation. It is embraced in clinical medicine and can be used for relaxation and meditation. That is more of a personal discipline though, kind of like bike riding or a personal skill. I've never looked into scientology but I have read a bit about it and it involves biofeedback with another person who is the monitoring probe, asking questions and looking at responses. Looks like psychology to me... or a lie detector test?! There is faith in a person or a group, who may or may not be faithful with that information. There is confession there which is outstanding, but then people with evil goals can use that against them. Any confessions with their 'reading' is very similar to catholic confession in a box. Not exactly the baptism out in the open in front of other people and that is why the scientologist was able to use that information against them. If this scientology group is spying on people, paranoid over what someone says about them, and using divulged information without a 'faithful patient confidentiality'... then they are definitely not being faithful or having faith in people. Bad news. Similary Jesus was betrayed by Judas in a similar fashion, right? Except that he knew it and was above it.
That BBC guy could have put the scientologist in his place if he knew how. He should have tried to put his arm around the guy or shake hands, offer him some affection and a token of his appreciation and kindness for his interest in him, and whether he accepted that or not then he should have asked him why he was being such a paranoid hypocrite. From there it depends on the scientologist's reaction. The scientologist was putting on a show... when he approached the BBC guy and pronounced that a person could dig and dig and find nothing against him in his background, that was a strong clue of the underlying turmoil the guy is in. Insecurity. He was trying to protray the media as the brute. The response should have been immediately, "Why dig... you are vomiting your insecurity all over the place." The programmed sensitivity displayed to the smallest negative word reveals a lack of faith, so holding up a mirror would cause him to buckle and second guess himself. Sadly, the BBC guy did not know how to disarm the younger brute. I have not thought of the scientology as being in the same theme park as the Raelians or other groups, but I can see how it easily could be.
Reasonable Faith to me is really like asking what is reasonable in a relationship when for example a spouse has cheated or is otherwise being unfaithful. Or an employee steals. Or someone who owes money does not pay. What are reasonable burdens to accept and issues to respond to and reduce faith in the person? For example in the USA people are being registered as sex offenders and that information is being publicly displayed. Armed with that knowledge, what is considered to be "Reasonable Faith" in thy neighbor?
With the scientology, I personally once found that biofeedback with the galvanic skin resistance is worthwhile with meditation. It is embraced in clinical medicine and can be used for relaxation and meditation. That is more of a personal discipline though, kind of like bike riding or a personal skill. I've never looked into scientology but I have read a bit about it and it involves biofeedback with another person who is the monitoring probe, asking questions and looking at responses. Looks like psychology to me... or a lie detector test?! There is faith in a person or a group, who may or may not be faithful with that information. There is confession there which is outstanding, but then people with evil goals can use that against them. Any confessions with their 'reading' is very similar to catholic confession in a box. Not exactly the baptism out in the open in front of other people and that is why the scientologist was able to use that information against them. If this scientology group is spying on people, paranoid over what someone says about them, and using divulged information without a 'faithful patient confidentiality'... then they are definitely not being faithful or having faith in people. Bad news. Similary Jesus was betrayed by Judas in a similar fashion, right? Except that he knew it and was above it.
That BBC guy could have put the scientologist in his place if he knew how. He should have tried to put his arm around the guy or shake hands, offer him some affection and a token of his appreciation and kindness for his interest in him, and whether he accepted that or not then he should have asked him why he was being such a paranoid hypocrite. From there it depends on the scientologist's reaction. The scientologist was putting on a show... when he approached the BBC guy and pronounced that a person could dig and dig and find nothing against him in his background, that was a strong clue of the underlying turmoil the guy is in. Insecurity. He was trying to protray the media as the brute. The response should have been immediately, "Why dig... you are vomiting your insecurity all over the place." The programmed sensitivity displayed to the smallest negative word reveals a lack of faith, so holding up a mirror would cause him to buckle and second guess himself. Sadly, the BBC guy did not know how to disarm the younger brute. I have not thought of the scientology as being in the same theme park as the Raelians or other groups, but I can see how it easily could be.
Reasonable Faith to me is really like asking what is reasonable in a relationship when for example a spouse has cheated or is otherwise being unfaithful. Or an employee steals. Or someone who owes money does not pay. What are reasonable burdens to accept and issues to respond to and reduce faith in the person? For example in the USA people are being registered as sex offenders and that information is being publicly displayed. Armed with that knowledge, what is considered to be "Reasonable Faith" in thy neighbor?