Afterburn: What if you lived in Texas and you knew that your son or daughter would be executed for their actions?
Mears: i fail to see the similarity of that comparison. Death row wouldnt change the fact that id love my child and support and help it as much as i can. Further more, death row isnt an endstation, only for the mortal life here. Eternal hell and damnation seems pretty definate to me.
Personally i see life as a learning stage towards the endgoal 'heaven'. When i die, i will move on to the next stage of learning. People that are 'evil' have a longer learning road ahead than people that are 'good', but they both can reach the end goal, if they want to. I see 'hell' as when one deliberately rejects the learning curve that is offered, here or in the next stage, but it would be a self-inflected hell, not an imposed one. I think i am supposed to make mistakes, no matter how big, as long as i try to learn from them. And maybe others still need to learn they have to learn from theirs. And maybe others again dont even need to make mistakes anymore cause they already learned what they needed to learn. To me, 'heaven' is a process towards perfection that everybody makes at their own pass. Some walk, some run, some crawl.
Personally i see life as a learning stage towards the endgoal 'heaven'. When i die, i will move on to the next stage of learning. People that are 'evil' have a longer learning road ahead than people that are 'good', but they both can reach the end goal, if they want to. I see 'hell' as when one deliberately rejects the learning curve that is offered, here or in the next stage, but it would be a self-inflected hell, not an imposed one. I think i am supposed to make mistakes, no matter how big, as long as i try to learn from them. And maybe others still need to learn they have to learn from theirs. And maybe others again dont even need to make mistakes anymore cause they already learned what they needed to learn. To me, 'heaven' is a process towards perfection that everybody makes at their own pass. Some walk, some run, some crawl.
Athanasius, if the question is, how do we have free will if God already knows 100% what we are going to do before we do it, in order to be all knowing, he also has to know it 100% of the time. By splitting knowledge into two kinds you are creating a logical refuge from the paradox by suggesting that God spends his existence in a kind of knowledge that precludes the paradox. You are saying that God as the Lover doesn't know. Well if he doesn't know than He isn't omnipotent. What does it mean to be all knowing? Can an eye see itself?
Azazyel:
Evil does exist. It exists in you, and in me as well, and in everybody else.
and Themadmonk:
you don't think "evilness" is innate? imagine a person who was brought up in an isolated island since he was borned and he never had any interaction with any human beings. Do you think he would be pure and not commit any sin if he had a chance? How about selfishness? Do you think he would be completely unselfish?
God is allowing disasters happening in this world and many people suffer because of those. But it doesn't mean that He does not love us. If God were to take away these disasters, which are evil, He would have to eliminate us too since He is a just and fair God.
Evil does exist. It exists in you, and in me as well, and in everybody else.
and Themadmonk:
you don't think "evilness" is innate? imagine a person who was brought up in an isolated island since he was borned and he never had any interaction with any human beings. Do you think he would be pure and not commit any sin if he had a chance? How about selfishness? Do you think he would be completely unselfish?
God is allowing disasters happening in this world and many people suffer because of those. But it doesn't mean that He does not love us. If God were to take away these disasters, which are evil, He would have to eliminate us too since He is a just and fair God.
Someone may have already said this, but I didn't feel like reading through all the posts. One idea of God being all knowing and still allow us to have free will is that God knows everything that happens when it happens.
Also, apparently our live here on earth is not supposed to be easy. It's merely a trial. One we must survive to make it to heaven. I think God proved that point to Job.
Also, apparently our live here on earth is not supposed to be easy. It's merely a trial. One we must survive to make it to heaven. I think God proved that point to Job.
Mustang, when I said
In addition, even if we don't believe in God, it is very wise to analyze philosophy regarding God's existence, so that we may form our beliefs based on something substantial.
what I really meant was "regarding whether or not God does exist (and if he does, in what way etc.)"
I do not accept God's existence as an absolute given, personally. But I find that philosophy lets me analyze certain logical aspects of our creation (whether it be by a creator or not). I do not mean to imply that philosophy proves that God exists, but I do know there are some fairly good arguments for that (and some fairly good arguments against it as well).
But now I'm getting off-topic.
I think the perfect island argument was against Paley's argument of Design? I don't recall at the moment. I prefer Anselm's (or maybe Aquinas'?) argument of infinite regress (every movement was caused by another so there must be an unmoved mover because you can't count backwards to infinity). Of course, that is oversimplifying his argument way too much, but I would recommend his text if you're interested.
In addition, even if we don't believe in God, it is very wise to analyze philosophy regarding God's existence, so that we may form our beliefs based on something substantial.
what I really meant was "regarding whether or not God does exist (and if he does, in what way etc.)"
I do not accept God's existence as an absolute given, personally. But I find that philosophy lets me analyze certain logical aspects of our creation (whether it be by a creator or not). I do not mean to imply that philosophy proves that God exists, but I do know there are some fairly good arguments for that (and some fairly good arguments against it as well).
But now I'm getting off-topic.
I think the perfect island argument was against Paley's argument of Design? I don't recall at the moment. I prefer Anselm's (or maybe Aquinas'?) argument of infinite regress (every movement was caused by another so there must be an unmoved mover because you can't count backwards to infinity). Of course, that is oversimplifying his argument way too much, but I would recommend his text if you're interested.
<< if the question is, how do we have free will if God already knows 100% what we are going to do before we do it, in order to be all knowing, he also has to know it 100% of the time. >>
It is Written...whatever a man sows, that will he reap.
Since every act of man is recorded, it is easy for God to look at the acts sowed, in order to see the future of the Man.
Because parents have authority with regard to their newborn, what they have sown will produce the like result.
Is your former life, like mine, riddled with events you should not have sown?
I have found that they can be expunged from the record, with no legal right to reproduce.
The power to do this is in...Jesus.
Jesus is the Word of God.
MustangSVT
<< I just wanted to know what made ppl to think there was god. If they were once a non-believer like me, then what turned them around. its a touchy subject, but either with god or without god both views are not perfect it seems. there must be something we are missing. (or i am, to be fair) >>
Personaly, the more I learn about science and the world, the more convinced I am that there must be a God. It starts from simple admirations of the beauty and greatness of nature, and the way the world functions. As we all know the world "maintains itself" and has been for as long as it has existed. There are too many evidences around us that things didn't just somehow become the way they are. Think of the complexity of the human body, and how it functions. It is simply amazing. Or think of everything you've learned in Chemistry. The way one Hydrogen molecule differs from one Oxygen molecule. We are just beginning to discover more of the world and how to utilize the discoveries. The complexity and order of every natural object in the world show that there must be a designer. Everything must have been designed and made. Think of the huge effort and the numerous attempts of mankind to clone a sheep. Did we create something new? No, all that was accomplished was we managed to reproduce something that has existed all along. Did we make this cloned sheep out of man-made material? No, we took resources such as cells and whatnot from an existing world. If you earnstly think about the matter, it is hard to deny that there must have been a grand designer, a creator. To believe in evolution as the cause of the existence of the world takes far more "faith".
AfterBurn
<< 1) If God is all good and all love, where does the concept of 'hell' fit in. The two statements are contradicting.
2) Related, if Jezus died at the cross for our sins, past and future and gave us salvation and the Holy Spirit so we could enter Heaven, why do we need to seek salvation (or else..)? These two are contradicting too. >>
1)Hell was never made for mankind. It was made for a once perfect angel who, because of his pride and jealousy, tried to be God himself and rebelled, taking 1/3 of the angels with him. God doesn't want any person to go to Hell. He grieves when a soul is lost to Satan. But people who reject God choose to go with Satan, and God would not intervene with that. Think of it this way, heaven is eternity with God. Hell is eternity without God. God would not force anyone to enter heaven if his/her heart desires to reject God. He could easily make the person pure in heart and clean to "qualify" for heaven, but he would not interfere with the free will of the person because he decided to give us complete free will. It is up to me, and you, and everyone's ownself whether they want to be in heaven or hell. Anyone with the ability to think and decide, and the oppurtunity to meet Christ has the free choice of where they want to be eternally.
2)We do not need to seek salvation. All we need to do is NOT REJECT his offer of salvation. All attempts of mankind to reach God and to acquire salvation are forms of religion. These attempts are doomed to failure. The Christian faith is about accepting and receiving the salvation, and to tell others of the good news of salvation. The salvation is not us reaching for God, but it is God reaching down for us.
<< There is a difference between making sure they get a slap on the wrist and eternal hell and damnation. If i had a son or daughter that had murdered someone, id make sure he or she got that slap on the wrist by getting him or her to the proper authoroties, but id still love and take care of him or her as im his or her father. A loving father will not turn his back to his son or daughter. Thats why talk of eternal hell and damnation is contradicting with the love of God, and thus a man imposed dogma >>
God is all loving, all knowing, all being, and also all just, among his other charateristics. Because he is all just, he cannot just waive the consequences and punishment of sin. God cannot contradict himself. If a child committed mass murder, the parent of the child, because of their overwhelming love for him/her, may have the desire to let him get away with the punishment, as long as he/she has learned the lesson, truly repent, and become a whole new person. But God cannot do that, because he is all just. The wages must be paid. Because of his love for us, he chose to pay the wages for us, by dying on the cross and taking all our sin upon himself. So that we may be saved. God has NOT turned his back to his son or daughter, the exact opposite is true. He loved us so much to die for us and reach out to us.
Underclocked
<< How is it a false accusation? Your God supposedly created this whole mess of existence as it is, gave us hormonol induced impulses we dare not follow, put fruit on the tree we dare not eat, and some 600 plus ridiculous commandments (as outlined I believe in Leviticus) which I doubt anyone living has EVER followed. He is the divine, all-knowing being outside of our universal laws yet he can do no better than CREATE a world and creatures within it to suffer torment and meet his own impossible tests? Is this his sense of humor in action or is he just perverse and mean? Would you treat your pet animal so cruelly, let alone a living entity resembling yourself? >>
First, all the rules and commandments given to us in the old testament was not meant to be a test. It's not like if we follow every single one of them, then we are perfect and sinless and will be in heaven. They are there to show us God's standard, the standard that no one can reach. The point is to display the fact that we are all sinful, and will never achieve perfection, and thus our need for his salvation.
Secondly, I personally think that God had placed those trees in the garden of Eden because of his desire to give Adam and Eve complete free will. Unlike you and me, God is true to his words, and makes no exceptions. When he decides to give mankind free will, he gives them complete free will, even the option of rebelling from and rejecting God. It would not be true free will if you limit their options, would it? Even though the fruits of some trees were not to be eaten, God had to place them there. Because the lack of any selection, even ones that are bad for you, is not true free will. How complete is the free will if a mother tells her son he could choose whatever he wants to eat for lunch, anything in the world, but eliminate all the junk food from the selection? Even though it will force the son to eat something healthy, it is not true free will.
Thirdly, I hope to illustrate God's role in the world with the following (far from perfect) analogy.
Lets say you are all loving, all just, all knowing, etc. and lets say you build an ant farm and creat an ant world for your ants to live in. You decide to give them complete free will, and because you have the qualities that you have, you will stay true to your words and never interfere with the free will of your ants. You've engineered the world so that it is perfect for the ants, and all you want for them to do is to acknowledge your love, and respond by living happily. Moreover, the ant farm reflects your complete justice, it has consequences. The ants' actions have results that may be bad for the whole ant farm, the whole ant race, etc. Soon after your creation, your pet mouse came along and lured the ants to rebell against you, and to reject your love. All ants decending from these beginning ants inherit this rebellious nature. Generation after generation, the ants do more to harm each other, to harm themselves, and to make the ant farm a very bad place for themselves. Your heart aches to see what's happening in the ant farm, but because of your God-like qualities, you cannot go back on your words. You cannot simply remove the consequences and punishments because you are all just, and you cannot just re-construct the ant farm because you have given them complete free will. Moreover, you cannot just desert them because of your perfect love for them.
The story is not finished, I cannot think of a methaphor for the salvation. But with what's there so far, would it be fair to hold you responsible for the havoc in the ant farm?
My efforts may be futile to these made-up minds, but if it can prompt you to examine things objectively, and maybe bring any of you closer to God, it would all be worthwhile.
<< I just wanted to know what made ppl to think there was god. If they were once a non-believer like me, then what turned them around. its a touchy subject, but either with god or without god both views are not perfect it seems. there must be something we are missing. (or i am, to be fair) >>
Personaly, the more I learn about science and the world, the more convinced I am that there must be a God. It starts from simple admirations of the beauty and greatness of nature, and the way the world functions. As we all know the world "maintains itself" and has been for as long as it has existed. There are too many evidences around us that things didn't just somehow become the way they are. Think of the complexity of the human body, and how it functions. It is simply amazing. Or think of everything you've learned in Chemistry. The way one Hydrogen molecule differs from one Oxygen molecule. We are just beginning to discover more of the world and how to utilize the discoveries. The complexity and order of every natural object in the world show that there must be a designer. Everything must have been designed and made. Think of the huge effort and the numerous attempts of mankind to clone a sheep. Did we create something new? No, all that was accomplished was we managed to reproduce something that has existed all along. Did we make this cloned sheep out of man-made material? No, we took resources such as cells and whatnot from an existing world. If you earnstly think about the matter, it is hard to deny that there must have been a grand designer, a creator. To believe in evolution as the cause of the existence of the world takes far more "faith".
AfterBurn
<< 1) If God is all good and all love, where does the concept of 'hell' fit in. The two statements are contradicting.
2) Related, if Jezus died at the cross for our sins, past and future and gave us salvation and the Holy Spirit so we could enter Heaven, why do we need to seek salvation (or else..)? These two are contradicting too. >>
1)Hell was never made for mankind. It was made for a once perfect angel who, because of his pride and jealousy, tried to be God himself and rebelled, taking 1/3 of the angels with him. God doesn't want any person to go to Hell. He grieves when a soul is lost to Satan. But people who reject God choose to go with Satan, and God would not intervene with that. Think of it this way, heaven is eternity with God. Hell is eternity without God. God would not force anyone to enter heaven if his/her heart desires to reject God. He could easily make the person pure in heart and clean to "qualify" for heaven, but he would not interfere with the free will of the person because he decided to give us complete free will. It is up to me, and you, and everyone's ownself whether they want to be in heaven or hell. Anyone with the ability to think and decide, and the oppurtunity to meet Christ has the free choice of where they want to be eternally.
2)We do not need to seek salvation. All we need to do is NOT REJECT his offer of salvation. All attempts of mankind to reach God and to acquire salvation are forms of religion. These attempts are doomed to failure. The Christian faith is about accepting and receiving the salvation, and to tell others of the good news of salvation. The salvation is not us reaching for God, but it is God reaching down for us.
<< There is a difference between making sure they get a slap on the wrist and eternal hell and damnation. If i had a son or daughter that had murdered someone, id make sure he or she got that slap on the wrist by getting him or her to the proper authoroties, but id still love and take care of him or her as im his or her father. A loving father will not turn his back to his son or daughter. Thats why talk of eternal hell and damnation is contradicting with the love of God, and thus a man imposed dogma >>
God is all loving, all knowing, all being, and also all just, among his other charateristics. Because he is all just, he cannot just waive the consequences and punishment of sin. God cannot contradict himself. If a child committed mass murder, the parent of the child, because of their overwhelming love for him/her, may have the desire to let him get away with the punishment, as long as he/she has learned the lesson, truly repent, and become a whole new person. But God cannot do that, because he is all just. The wages must be paid. Because of his love for us, he chose to pay the wages for us, by dying on the cross and taking all our sin upon himself. So that we may be saved. God has NOT turned his back to his son or daughter, the exact opposite is true. He loved us so much to die for us and reach out to us.
Underclocked
<< How is it a false accusation? Your God supposedly created this whole mess of existence as it is, gave us hormonol induced impulses we dare not follow, put fruit on the tree we dare not eat, and some 600 plus ridiculous commandments (as outlined I believe in Leviticus) which I doubt anyone living has EVER followed. He is the divine, all-knowing being outside of our universal laws yet he can do no better than CREATE a world and creatures within it to suffer torment and meet his own impossible tests? Is this his sense of humor in action or is he just perverse and mean? Would you treat your pet animal so cruelly, let alone a living entity resembling yourself? >>
First, all the rules and commandments given to us in the old testament was not meant to be a test. It's not like if we follow every single one of them, then we are perfect and sinless and will be in heaven. They are there to show us God's standard, the standard that no one can reach. The point is to display the fact that we are all sinful, and will never achieve perfection, and thus our need for his salvation.
Secondly, I personally think that God had placed those trees in the garden of Eden because of his desire to give Adam and Eve complete free will. Unlike you and me, God is true to his words, and makes no exceptions. When he decides to give mankind free will, he gives them complete free will, even the option of rebelling from and rejecting God. It would not be true free will if you limit their options, would it? Even though the fruits of some trees were not to be eaten, God had to place them there. Because the lack of any selection, even ones that are bad for you, is not true free will. How complete is the free will if a mother tells her son he could choose whatever he wants to eat for lunch, anything in the world, but eliminate all the junk food from the selection? Even though it will force the son to eat something healthy, it is not true free will.
Thirdly, I hope to illustrate God's role in the world with the following (far from perfect) analogy.
Lets say you are all loving, all just, all knowing, etc. and lets say you build an ant farm and creat an ant world for your ants to live in. You decide to give them complete free will, and because you have the qualities that you have, you will stay true to your words and never interfere with the free will of your ants. You've engineered the world so that it is perfect for the ants, and all you want for them to do is to acknowledge your love, and respond by living happily. Moreover, the ant farm reflects your complete justice, it has consequences. The ants' actions have results that may be bad for the whole ant farm, the whole ant race, etc. Soon after your creation, your pet mouse came along and lured the ants to rebell against you, and to reject your love. All ants decending from these beginning ants inherit this rebellious nature. Generation after generation, the ants do more to harm each other, to harm themselves, and to make the ant farm a very bad place for themselves. Your heart aches to see what's happening in the ant farm, but because of your God-like qualities, you cannot go back on your words. You cannot simply remove the consequences and punishments because you are all just, and you cannot just re-construct the ant farm because you have given them complete free will. Moreover, you cannot just desert them because of your perfect love for them.
The story is not finished, I cannot think of a methaphor for the salvation. But with what's there so far, would it be fair to hold you responsible for the havoc in the ant farm?
My efforts may be futile to these made-up minds, but if it can prompt you to examine things objectively, and maybe bring any of you closer to God, it would all be worthwhile.
Tom3: Very well put and i fully agree. It is not God i question, it is religion i question. Its not the Word of God i question, but the people that try to write it down. In my opinion, over time our attempts to understand and explain have led most of us away from the message and the truth to the glorification of the explanations we humans ourselves made up in order to get to understanding.
To use a quote, Urantia Book, part IV, paper 194:
The gospel of the kingdom is: the fact of the fatherhood of God, coupled with the resultant truth of the sonship-brotherhood of men. Christianity, as it developed from that day, is: the fact of God as the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, in association with the experience of believer-fellowship with the risen and glorified Christ.
There is a fundamental difference between the two.
The first is the message, the second is what mankind made of it, and turned into religion.
To use a quote, Urantia Book, part IV, paper 194:
The gospel of the kingdom is: the fact of the fatherhood of God, coupled with the resultant truth of the sonship-brotherhood of men. Christianity, as it developed from that day, is: the fact of God as the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, in association with the experience of believer-fellowship with the risen and glorified Christ.
There is a fundamental difference between the two.
The first is the message, the second is what mankind made of it, and turned into religion.
MEARS - Sorry this took so long, i was gone for the weekend.
You asked if everything in the world was going over and over for God. The answer to that is no. Everything is happening at the same moment for God. Because he exists outside of time, he sees time in the same way we see length wirth or height. When we are looking at an object, the human brain comprehends the object in all its dimensions at the same time, the brain does not have to look at one foot at a time or break it up in anywya. In the same fashion, God looks at time as a whole, not as individual parts. He can see the whole scope of time at once, not one part at a time.
You asked if everything in the world was going over and over for God. The answer to that is no. Everything is happening at the same moment for God. Because he exists outside of time, he sees time in the same way we see length wirth or height. When we are looking at an object, the human brain comprehends the object in all its dimensions at the same time, the brain does not have to look at one foot at a time or break it up in anywya. In the same fashion, God looks at time as a whole, not as individual parts. He can see the whole scope of time at once, not one part at a time.
Moonbeam:
I think for us, the "poles" are split. I think God inhabits both poles as One. But I don't think it is inappropriate to draw a distinction between the two poles.
I struggle to communicate what I am trying to say. In the example of Abraham, I suggested that God was "waiting for Abraham" in an eternal present.
Consider our experiences as linear and chronological. We approach them sequentially and cannot experience tomorrow until we have finished today. But God inhabits the entire sphere of existence of which our linear time is but one aspect. It is one line in a sphere of innumerable lines, and God inhabits the entire sphere. So perhaps "waiting for Abraham" isn't the right way to say it. God is already at the point to which Abraham must progress in linear fashion. But the point is still unique; in all the lines that inhabit the ground of being of which the Father is the source, that point one at which God experiences Abraham's faith is unique.
At that intersection of Abraham's linear-lived faith and God's omni-temporal existence, intimacy occurs. For Abraham, it is a moment that passes. For God it is one part of the seamless eternal NOW of His existence. But the thing God is concerned about is the nature of the experience itself.
I probably only further clouded the issue.
I think for us, the "poles" are split. I think God inhabits both poles as One. But I don't think it is inappropriate to draw a distinction between the two poles.
I struggle to communicate what I am trying to say. In the example of Abraham, I suggested that God was "waiting for Abraham" in an eternal present.
Consider our experiences as linear and chronological. We approach them sequentially and cannot experience tomorrow until we have finished today. But God inhabits the entire sphere of existence of which our linear time is but one aspect. It is one line in a sphere of innumerable lines, and God inhabits the entire sphere. So perhaps "waiting for Abraham" isn't the right way to say it. God is already at the point to which Abraham must progress in linear fashion. But the point is still unique; in all the lines that inhabit the ground of being of which the Father is the source, that point one at which God experiences Abraham's faith is unique.
At that intersection of Abraham's linear-lived faith and God's omni-temporal existence, intimacy occurs. For Abraham, it is a moment that passes. For God it is one part of the seamless eternal NOW of His existence. But the thing God is concerned about is the nature of the experience itself.
I probably only further clouded the issue.
Athanasius, Cloudy or not cloudy it's ok. I guess I feel that I don't need to be sure I rightly grasp what you are trying to express. I don't need the complexity because I don't have the issue. I don't believe in omniscience, so there's no paradox here for me. I see time in two ways. There is time as we are used to it, an awareness of it, memory of yesterday etc. But, as you know, I believe that human consciousness is capable of a higher functioning, an awakening in the moment to full presence, full presence in the moment. There time stops, there is nothing but the eternal presence, bottomless joy and infinite love. No time, no thought, no ego-self, only being.
I did not mean to imply that my criticism of yout position meant I thought it was wrong, only that you escaped the paradox by removing one of the aspects that cause the paradox in the first place. I don't say you are wrong, only that the paradox is still a paradox if God absolutly knows what I will do before I do it. This is just one of those places where some people look at this and say, what kink of god makes me knowing everything I'm gonna do. "No thanks to that, believe it if you wish, but I'm outta here" has got to be the reaction of many.
I guess partly what I'm saying, as I've mentioned before, is that whereas you believe in God, I believe there is a human experience that makes saying there is a God one valid way of describing it. The problem I always have is that Christians seem to think their God is THE GOD and THE WAY, that he is omniscient, that the Bible is THE word of God, and so on and so forth so that any thinking person that looks around at what the rest of the world thinks has got to say 'hay wait a minute, this can't be right" and so they throw the whold thing down the drain. Naturally it isn't just many Christians who are like this; other religions and atheists too. But when the requirements to believe become too absurd the thinking fish get away.
I think it's high time for there to be a door to religious experience that the scientific method can be applied to so the greatest doubter on earth can knock himself or herself out on till the cows come home and it will still look like truth.
Naturally no intellectual edifice will do. I'm talking more about psychological proceedures involving self exposure and self knowledge that may provide a consensus of positive results for accurate practitioners, etc.
Whether or not there is a Supreme Being in the way you think is a colossal assumption that seems to leave lots of people behind. It seems more managable to me to postulate that we may be psychologically damaged in a way that keeps us from effectively operating at genetic capacity and that an experiencially derived roadmap of experiencially tested proceedures will lead inexorably to internally certifiable improvement.
I did not mean to imply that my criticism of yout position meant I thought it was wrong, only that you escaped the paradox by removing one of the aspects that cause the paradox in the first place. I don't say you are wrong, only that the paradox is still a paradox if God absolutly knows what I will do before I do it. This is just one of those places where some people look at this and say, what kink of god makes me knowing everything I'm gonna do. "No thanks to that, believe it if you wish, but I'm outta here" has got to be the reaction of many.
I guess partly what I'm saying, as I've mentioned before, is that whereas you believe in God, I believe there is a human experience that makes saying there is a God one valid way of describing it. The problem I always have is that Christians seem to think their God is THE GOD and THE WAY, that he is omniscient, that the Bible is THE word of God, and so on and so forth so that any thinking person that looks around at what the rest of the world thinks has got to say 'hay wait a minute, this can't be right" and so they throw the whold thing down the drain. Naturally it isn't just many Christians who are like this; other religions and atheists too. But when the requirements to believe become too absurd the thinking fish get away.
I think it's high time for there to be a door to religious experience that the scientific method can be applied to so the greatest doubter on earth can knock himself or herself out on till the cows come home and it will still look like truth.
Naturally no intellectual edifice will do. I'm talking more about psychological proceedures involving self exposure and self knowledge that may provide a consensus of positive results for accurate practitioners, etc.
Whether or not there is a Supreme Being in the way you think is a colossal assumption that seems to leave lots of people behind. It seems more managable to me to postulate that we may be psychologically damaged in a way that keeps us from effectively operating at genetic capacity and that an experiencially derived roadmap of experiencially tested proceedures will lead inexorably to internally certifiable improvement.
Moonbeam:
I am not, per se, trying to escape the paradox. I just believe the paradox is manifested because of us, not because of some true contradiction in Ultimate Reality. Any musings on the subject, even ones contained in the Bible, are at best "seeing through a glass darkly." (1 Corinthians 13:8-13). It is precisely because we are bound by paradoxical attempts at knowledge that Love always will be the superior way. That was the main point Paul was tring to make in 1 Corinthians 13. Earlier in the chapter, he said that, even if he understood all mysteries and had all knowledge, if he lacked love, it would all be nothing. (1 Corinthians 13:2).
Now if I can respond to a few points you made:
<< But, as you know, I believe that human consciousness is capable of a higher functioning, an awakening in the moment to full presence, full presence in the moment. There time stops, there is nothing but the eternal presence, bottomless joy and infinite love. No time, no thought, no ego-self, only being. >>
I would agree. Some mystics have called that "The Beatific Vision." But it is my opinion that we get nothing but the most distorted glimpses of that. Once again, the most enlightened of all people see "but through a glass darkly." For those who seek it with the same intensity in which many seek mere physical treasures, there is a promise that it will be attained. But what you call the "ego-self" I think might roughly correspond to what the Bible, in the Greek, calls the "sarx." English translations call it "the flesh" or the sinful nature." If some few live this life determined to minimize the ego-self, then I am confident that those few are doing it because God is at work in them, whether they recognize it yet or not.
<< I don't say you are wrong, only that the paradox is still a paradox if God absolutly knows what I will do before I do it. This is just one of those places where some people look at this and say, what kink of god makes me knowing everything I'm gonna do. "No thanks to that, believe it if you wish, but I'm outta here" has got to be the reaction of many. >>
First, it is perfectly ok to say I am wrong. I've been wrong so many times before that it is simply par for the course Second, you are right, that is exactly the response that many people have to Divine Omniscience. But, at least in brief moments, I see the whole problem from the reverse angle. We start from our own perspective because that is where we must start. But I now think that the real issue is profoundly different. I think God's Love is even more miraculous when we consider our perspectives on love. In other words, if I knew that a large number of the relationships that I lovingly inititiated were never going to be reciprocated but instead would end in me being rejected, hated, spit upon, beaten, and crucified, I probably wouldn't initiate them in the first place. In other words, I would use my knowledge to protect myself. But God uses His knowledge to make Himself vulnerable. Don't the best of human counselors do the same thing? Isn't love by nature relational? If I love, I will ultimately seek others to love. If I love enough, I will pursue relationships just because it is the loving thing to do. Even if I know where it will end. Love creates. Hatred destroys. Love creates because it is the nature of love to create. Love creates because the society of divine love that has existed for all eternity is passionately committed to sharing what really is the core of existence, even if God KNOWS that this core is rejected by many. "Better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all."
<< Whether or not there is a Supreme Being in the way you think is a colossal assumption that seems to leave lots of people behind. >>
Unfortunately, I do believe many people will be left behind. I don't want to believe that, but I am presently persuaded that this is so. However, I am also convinced that there will be many surprises. I don't think that those who "make it" will correspond to any particular religious denomination established by mankind.
<< ] It seems more managable to me to postulate that we may be psychologically damaged in a way that keeps us from effectively operating at genetic capacity and that an experiencially derived roadmap of experiencially tested proceedures will lead inexorably to internally certifiable improvement. >>
Well, I agree. But as soon as that questions is raised, one is almost compelled to ask, "Why are we so damaged?" One has to discern where one went astray before one can be assured of not going astray in the same way over and over again. Biblically, the story of Eden seems to indicate to me that we initially go astray because we choose knowledge over faithfulness to ultimate reality. We pursue knowledge of good and evil for ourselves rather than trusting in the benevolent advice of Ultimate Reality. This suggests to me that, if I ever hope to "return to Eden," then I have to admit that Ultimate Reality is objective and not simply an inward journey of self-knowledge. However big a part that inward journey is, ultimately I am persuaded that "good" is what it is and "evil" is a perversion or a "wandering away" from the Good. If it is objective, than some are conforming more completely to it than others. Some will never be conformed to it at all.
Granted, this life is much more peaceful if we are only to be concerned with internal indicators. If the only thing I have to answer to is my own "experiencially derived roadmap of experiencially tested proceedures" that "will lead inexorably to internally certifiable improvement," if it is all simply internal, than well and good. To each his own. But I don't agree with that assessment. A big part of me would like to agree, but I don't. Certainly the physical dimensions that we can observe aren't that way. On the material level, reality is what it is. Why should we assume that non-material reality is different?
Anyway, as always I find your posts challenging, compassionate, and well thought out. I think that you as a person are the same way. Or is this just your "usual ironic sarcasm and in no way reflects your true opinion."
I am not, per se, trying to escape the paradox. I just believe the paradox is manifested because of us, not because of some true contradiction in Ultimate Reality. Any musings on the subject, even ones contained in the Bible, are at best "seeing through a glass darkly." (1 Corinthians 13:8-13). It is precisely because we are bound by paradoxical attempts at knowledge that Love always will be the superior way. That was the main point Paul was tring to make in 1 Corinthians 13. Earlier in the chapter, he said that, even if he understood all mysteries and had all knowledge, if he lacked love, it would all be nothing. (1 Corinthians 13:2).
Now if I can respond to a few points you made:
<< But, as you know, I believe that human consciousness is capable of a higher functioning, an awakening in the moment to full presence, full presence in the moment. There time stops, there is nothing but the eternal presence, bottomless joy and infinite love. No time, no thought, no ego-self, only being. >>
I would agree. Some mystics have called that "The Beatific Vision." But it is my opinion that we get nothing but the most distorted glimpses of that. Once again, the most enlightened of all people see "but through a glass darkly." For those who seek it with the same intensity in which many seek mere physical treasures, there is a promise that it will be attained. But what you call the "ego-self" I think might roughly correspond to what the Bible, in the Greek, calls the "sarx." English translations call it "the flesh" or the sinful nature." If some few live this life determined to minimize the ego-self, then I am confident that those few are doing it because God is at work in them, whether they recognize it yet or not.
<< I don't say you are wrong, only that the paradox is still a paradox if God absolutly knows what I will do before I do it. This is just one of those places where some people look at this and say, what kink of god makes me knowing everything I'm gonna do. "No thanks to that, believe it if you wish, but I'm outta here" has got to be the reaction of many. >>
First, it is perfectly ok to say I am wrong. I've been wrong so many times before that it is simply par for the course
Second, you are right, that is exactly the response that many people have to Divine Omniscience. But, at least in brief moments, I see the whole problem from the reverse angle. We start from our own perspective because that is where we must start. But I now think that the real issue is profoundly different. I think God's Love is even more miraculous when we consider our perspectives on love. In other words, if I knew that a large number of the relationships that I lovingly inititiated were never going to be reciprocated but instead would end in me being rejected, hated, spit upon, beaten, and crucified, I probably wouldn't initiate them in the first place. In other words, I would use my knowledge to protect myself. But God uses His knowledge to make Himself vulnerable. Don't the best of human counselors do the same thing? Isn't love by nature relational? If I love, I will ultimately seek others to love. If I love enough, I will pursue relationships just because it is the loving thing to do. Even if I know where it will end. Love creates. Hatred destroys. Love creates because it is the nature of love to create. Love creates because the society of divine love that has existed for all eternity is passionately committed to sharing what really is the core of existence, even if God KNOWS that this core is rejected by many. "Better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all."<< Whether or not there is a Supreme Being in the way you think is a colossal assumption that seems to leave lots of people behind. >>
Unfortunately, I do believe many people will be left behind. I don't want to believe that, but I am presently persuaded that this is so. However, I am also convinced that there will be many surprises. I don't think that those who "make it" will correspond to any particular religious denomination established by mankind.
<< ] It seems more managable to me to postulate that we may be psychologically damaged in a way that keeps us from effectively operating at genetic capacity and that an experiencially derived roadmap of experiencially tested proceedures will lead inexorably to internally certifiable improvement. >>
Well, I agree. But as soon as that questions is raised, one is almost compelled to ask, "Why are we so damaged?" One has to discern where one went astray before one can be assured of not going astray in the same way over and over again. Biblically, the story of Eden seems to indicate to me that we initially go astray because we choose knowledge over faithfulness to ultimate reality. We pursue knowledge of good and evil for ourselves rather than trusting in the benevolent advice of Ultimate Reality. This suggests to me that, if I ever hope to "return to Eden," then I have to admit that Ultimate Reality is objective and not simply an inward journey of self-knowledge. However big a part that inward journey is, ultimately I am persuaded that "good" is what it is and "evil" is a perversion or a "wandering away" from the Good. If it is objective, than some are conforming more completely to it than others. Some will never be conformed to it at all.
Granted, this life is much more peaceful if we are only to be concerned with internal indicators. If the only thing I have to answer to is my own "experiencially derived roadmap of experiencially tested proceedures" that "will lead inexorably to internally certifiable improvement," if it is all simply internal, than well and good. To each his own. But I don't agree with that assessment. A big part of me would like to agree, but I don't. Certainly the physical dimensions that we can observe aren't that way. On the material level, reality is what it is. Why should we assume that non-material reality is different?
Anyway, as always I find your posts challenging, compassionate, and well thought out. I think that you as a person are the same way. Or is this just your "usual ironic sarcasm and in no way reflects your true opinion."
Athanasius,
"I am not, per se, trying to escape the paradox. I just believe the paradox is manifested because of us, ....."
That was what I was saying too, as I guess you know. It arises because we posit am omnicient being and free will which then call for what feel like gymnastics to my poor brain to escape from. My point too was that compared to Love, nothing is important.
" Some mystics have called that "The Beatific Vision." But it is my opinion that we get nothing but the most distorted glimpses of that. Once again, the most enlightened of all people see "but through a glass darkly.""
With this I disagree. It is the teaching of at least several mystical traditions, Sufism and Zen come to mind, that what most people call enlightenment, or the Beatific Vision is just a first step in the development of higher consciousness. I believe this in part, because I believe that Jesus was 'just' a man. The Sufis say that the 'fully' enlightened man ceases to exist in the ordinary way. Maybe the glass does not exist.
"But what you call the "ego-self" I think might roughly correspond to what the Bible, in the Greek, calls the "sarx." English translations call it "the flesh" or the sinful nature."
We have talked about how I see the problem of good and evil, the knowledge of language, it's ability to substitute a word for the direct apperception of reality (the finger pointing at the moon is not the moon) the ability to connect emotion to words through physical punishment and put downs, and the ability to internalize linguistic inference. I was told I am bad, I am bad. This, coupled with our psysiology, the absolute imparitive that we not experience our pain constantly and function survivably, our capacity to repress and remain unconscious of pain, the absolute intention that we deny any truth to the notion that we are bad, damn it, creates, I think, the explanation for evil. We were told we are evil. We feel evil. We creat the false self we present to the world as the 'good guy' and strike down anything that pushes us to consiousness of how we feel.
It is this self that dies to be reborn, or relinquishes hold long enough to glimpse an other reality, our original, innocent selves. That in us which is God.
"Isn't it better to have loved and lost..."
If there is love there can be no loss for the love of which you speak is not possible with a self to loose.
"This suggests to me that, if I ever hope to "return to Eden," then I have to admit that Ultimate Reality is objective and not simply an inward journey of self-knowledge....
I agree...I think. If you refer to whether there is absolute truth, I think there is. There is what we really are which is absolute, and what we think we are that is illusion and relative. For me every fully enlightened person is God writ small, facits of the same diamond, beams of the same light, the genetic endowed gift that comes of being a big brained ape.
That we evolved the way we did may be the result of that fact that we reflect where we evolved. This universe! If so and we can mirror God, it may be that he is the Universe.
"I am not, per se, trying to escape the paradox. I just believe the paradox is manifested because of us, ....."
That was what I was saying too, as I guess you know. It arises because we posit am omnicient being and free will which then call for what feel like gymnastics to my poor brain to escape from. My point too was that compared to Love, nothing is important.
" Some mystics have called that "The Beatific Vision." But it is my opinion that we get nothing but the most distorted glimpses of that. Once again, the most enlightened of all people see "but through a glass darkly.""
With this I disagree. It is the teaching of at least several mystical traditions, Sufism and Zen come to mind, that what most people call enlightenment, or the Beatific Vision is just a first step in the development of higher consciousness. I believe this in part, because I believe that Jesus was 'just' a man. The Sufis say that the 'fully' enlightened man ceases to exist in the ordinary way. Maybe the glass does not exist.
"But what you call the "ego-self" I think might roughly correspond to what the Bible, in the Greek, calls the "sarx." English translations call it "the flesh" or the sinful nature."
We have talked about how I see the problem of good and evil, the knowledge of language, it's ability to substitute a word for the direct apperception of reality (the finger pointing at the moon is not the moon) the ability to connect emotion to words through physical punishment and put downs, and the ability to internalize linguistic inference. I was told I am bad, I am bad. This, coupled with our psysiology, the absolute imparitive that we not experience our pain constantly and function survivably, our capacity to repress and remain unconscious of pain, the absolute intention that we deny any truth to the notion that we are bad, damn it, creates, I think, the explanation for evil. We were told we are evil. We feel evil. We creat the false self we present to the world as the 'good guy' and strike down anything that pushes us to consiousness of how we feel.
It is this self that dies to be reborn, or relinquishes hold long enough to glimpse an other reality, our original, innocent selves. That in us which is God.
"Isn't it better to have loved and lost..."
If there is love there can be no loss for the love of which you speak is not possible with a self to loose.
"This suggests to me that, if I ever hope to "return to Eden," then I have to admit that Ultimate Reality is objective and not simply an inward journey of self-knowledge....
I agree...I think. If you refer to whether there is absolute truth, I think there is. There is what we really are which is absolute, and what we think we are that is illusion and relative. For me every fully enlightened person is God writ small, facits of the same diamond, beams of the same light, the genetic endowed gift that comes of being a big brained ape.
That we evolved the way we did may be the result of that fact that we reflect where we evolved. This universe! If so and we can mirror God, it may be that he is the Universe.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter