Very true and Christianity discussed from this perspective is entirely different then from a secular one. Is it that horrible to consider it intellectually from tht pointof view allowing us to temporarily put our normal conceptions of "intellect"into a greater perspective?
I don’t understand this. If I tasted lobster and reacted in a certain way, is it any sort of expression of superiority to be curious how other people reacted to lobster if they had tasted it?
Many posts are secular so I respond with an esoteric or “inward” response to create the contrast that invites the reaction to it . Its no put-down to be trying to better understand the negative reaction it normally gets.
If a person were to all of a sudden hear a concert pianist and be struck by the music, would that mean that now he is a concert pianist? No. It just means that he has taken the first step. He has heard the music and found it attractive.
It is the same with awakening. Having had a taste doesn’t mean one is, it only reveals a direction.
If I admit to being asleep and a spiritual idiot, I could perhaps discuss some of the sayings in the gospel of Thomas differently with another spiritual idiot then when speaking with a secular “expert”. Each can have their benefits. I believe that the more you begin to understand in these matters, , the more you realize there is to understand and your idiocy in the face of it. It has been my personal experience.
If it truly has come to the point that people in general have lost the humility to get a sense of their own sleep even though all the great traditions speak of the importance of recognizing this human condition, then there is nothing else to do other then to but be satisfied with whatever opportunities exist and toast the devil himself remarking that he’s really done a hell of a job involving himself in the “details” with such skill.
First, there's the matter of being inside and outside of the faith itself. There's a difference between a person who is currently a believing Christian using reason to strip away or reduce Christ's message, and a non-believer trying to understand that message through reason. When we ask basic questions like "Is there a God?" we, to some extent, take on the position of the unbeliever. I get the impression that the people Paul was writing to were developing their own dogmas as much as they were trying to understand anything.
I think Love can only go so far in this respect: if the point is that disputes on minor theological matters should not go so far as to devide the church, then that point is well taken, and it's too bad things have gone the way they have. However, the disputes will nonetheless exist (this may even be just an inevitable consequence of fallen man), and in an organization that has leaders in charge of teaching, they have to be addressed sometimes. Certainly, in an ideal state, things would be just as Paul wanted them to be.
I would argue, then, that we are trapped in this position by history and society. Even to arrive at a position where one accepts Paul’s message to be what you say it is, a person living now (or even 500 years before now) would have to sort through a lot of conflicting information and messages- unless they are the sort to accept the teachings of an authority, and that authority happens to be the right one. How else are we to do that, if not through reason?
[Regarding the Gospel of Thomas]
They are interesting from a historical perspective, but if they claim to be the writings of Jesus, and they aren't, then they can't have any theological value for me- they are based on a deception and a blasphemy right from the start in that case. Do you think they reflect a very widespread set of opinions from the time?
Well, it has a different feel and different overall message than the Gospels, so immediately I have to accept the credibility of one over the others. That said, I don't see a good reason to believe it was written during Jesus' lifetime, or within the lifetimes of anyone who met Him. If that's the case, then it claiming to be a series of quotes of Jesus Himself is decietful in all likelihood.
Now, it [i]could be [/i] that I'm completely wrong about all that. But my choices are either to believe on 4 valid Gospels when there are 5, or to believe on 5 Gospels, one of which is a pack of lies. The previous just seems to be a safer bet. I don't [i]need[/i] the GoT for anything- it seems to mostly appeal to religious liberals who are discontent with the Church, and who are striving for something to justify their own ideas. That's totally not me.
If you walk through the desert and come across a set of human footprints in the sand, you know a person must have been there.
But what if you came across the same patch of sand and can’t see a set of footprints?
Does that mean no-one was there, does that mean the sand blew over the footprints, does that mean you are incapable of percieving/measuring the entity of the footprints?
You cannot say that a person was there because you have no proof, you cannot say a person wasn’t there because you have no proof.
Ultimately there is only one correct answer to the question of this thread.
Did Jesus exist, was he the son of god? is there a god? what is god?
nobody knows.
Point is, whatever your yes/no answer is, it is just your personal belief.
Nick_A- I came back to this thread intending to pick up where we left off, but as you’ve effectively avowed rational discourse as a way of discovering the truth of a matter, I don’t really see much point carrying on. Good day to you.
Peesaw’s original post posed the question, “Is there a God?†For the most part the replies have centered on organized religious concepts of God – be it Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. It is well documented that in many cases the leaders of organized religions have interpreted the writings of their spiritual founders so as to assure themselves of places of power and influence. One must keep in mind that both Moses and Muhammad were political leaders as well as spiritual leaders and that the Christian Bible was assembled during the reign of Roman Emperor Constantine around 320 C.E. This does not mean that there was (and is) no truth or insight in the religious texts these politicians used to further their ambitions. Like their modern day counterparts, these politicians would use anything available to their own advantage whenever and wherever they could and religion is a powerful mantel to cloak yourself in.
So it is my contention that one must separate the truly spiritual writings from those that are political if one is to use any scriptures as an aid to address the questions of God’s existence. This is not easy to do, but one can extract from the scriptures of the various organized religions the essence of their understanding of God and see how those hold up.
The most powerful and influential scriptural (and by that I simply mean put down in writing) concept of God is the ancient Jewish concept of God. There are more followers of the God of Abraham than any other God concept. The God of Moses is the god of Abraham, the God of Jesus is the God of Abraham and the God of Muhammad is the God of Abraham. The God of Abraham sits at the highest point of worship of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. That seems to me to be a starting point in answering the question, “Is there a God?â€
Why use these religious concepts as a starting point? Only because this God of Abraham has been the subject of so many writings by so many brilliant men. To discard their efforts in this area it seems to me would be the height of arrogance. In any case, you have to start somewhere and given the direction of this thread, it appears to be an apropos starting point since Peesaw concluded his originating post with a quote in Hebrew from Exodus: AYEH ASHER AYEH.
In the scripture it actally appears as AYEH AYEH. The word AYEH appears 34 times in the Books of Moses and is translated as present tense on some occasions, past tense on other occasions and future tense on still other occasions. It also is translated as “become†(Deu 27:9) as well as “caused†(Num 31:16). Given the poetic nature of the Books of Moses, then name given to God in Exodus (3:14) might best be translated as “I AM WAS AND WILL BE WHAT IS WAS AND SHALL BEâ€. Though I am not a Jew, it seems to me that that is a most brilliant conceptualization of God. It becomes an even more intriguing starting point concept if you see that the concept may actually predate Moses in the writings of early Taoists (the concept of the ONE or the ALL) and continue through modern thought in such writers as Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (who at one point basically says that since God is all, there is no place to kneel down and pray to “himâ€.)
The question “Is there a God?†is really more a question of “Is there a concept of God that withstands scientific and logical scrutiny?†This concept may do that. To expound on Vortical’s post of June 4, God is all that exists and the generative force behind all creation.
WellI admit that I have avowed rational discourse by asserting its value within the context in which it can operate effectively. The problem begins when emphasis on the literal mind denies the person awareness of the value of considering these questions with the whole of themselves with the literal mind performing its rightful function within this greater context. Why you should feel offended is beyond me.
Asking incisive questions expands the mind, asking irrelevant ones dulls it.
Who said what and who did what and who wrote what in the Bible or any other source in the quest for understanding is irrelevant. Was there really a Lao-tse? A Jesus? Does it matter? Isn’t it more important what is said than who said it? Does it matter who discovered how to harness fire? Or who invented the wheel? What matters is we have new information or knowledge or invention upon which to build. We now have heat and transportation. To focus on the messenger is to ignore the message.
Waterlover, I agree that the important thing is the message. The better the message is understood, the better the nature of the messenger is understood. Unfortunately many people don’t think that way. This is why we have politics. If the messenger of our selected party says it, then we agree. If the messenger of the opposing party says it, we disagree. The idea isn’t to understand but to influence a subjective right and wrong through talking points. Itis how we are.
Certainly, in an ideal state, things would be just as Paul wanted them to be.
Paul himself did not live in an ideal state, but in fact under the oppression of the universalizing Roman government, the impending revolt and destruction of Jerusalem, a time of political, ethnic and religious chaos. If his project had substance then, even more so now. It’s not about making things the way you want them to be, it’s about living a way that at its core is one of faith, love and hope, not distinction, correction and justification.
Nice to meet another fan of that truly mysterious liquid. Have you ever wondered what Genesis 1: 6 means?
Anyhow, you asked:
It means basically the same as what you said on another thread:
The problem is not ignorance; the problem is the illusion of knowledge. Factsare facts but how do they form perspective? A person’s perspective then selects its appropriate facts disregarding others.
This illusion of knowledge comes from IMO the inability for impartiality. Of all the characteristics of sleeping humanity, probably the most dangerous is suggestibility which builds on this illusion of knowledge keeping people content with it and oblivious of the natural need for inner growth. Each political party has beliefs that are found more acceptable from the illusion of knowledge…
When I say it is how we are, it has nothing to do with ex-cathedra. Expertise is meaningless for self knowledge since many who speak of it do so from the illusion of knowledge and the need to impress . A person must verify it in themselves for it to have any real meaning and then see how it manifests in society around them. By ex-cathedra I believe you mean people in authority or as I say “experts”. I try and relate from what I’ve personally experienced within myself and observing what happens around me. So I try to find those that speak from common sense rather than ex-cathedra.
Words are so important to me personally. I have come to see how difficult it is for me to understand what someone else is saying because I need to know what meaning the words they use have to them, the connotations, the subliminal associations.
Your phrase “inability for impartiality†is a confusing double negative for me. When I break the words down I get “Not able to not be partialâ€. “Not able to not be biased†helps me understand a bit more clearly (I think). Is it simply a double negative way of saying all humans are biased? Everything is subjective? It is the sweeping generality that gives me pause. There may well be experiences that are universal human experiences. There may well be times in each life when each human sees clearly and without bias, sees objectively, not subjectively. We have so much information and insight from so many sources perhaps we can attempt to see where we all agree rather than where our inability for impartiality separates us. It may be a subject worth exploring.
I meant that it is human nature to be partial. It justifies ourselves. It is natural to be more aware of what bolsters our opinion than what puts us in doubt. It is a real self knowledge to see this at work in ourselves. So IMO we are unable to be impartial. It takes real intentional effort to achieve impartiality.
I have started a thread under philosophy “Profie of the creater”.
The basic question is what is god or GOD.
If god created the universe before you started to beleive in it that would be something.
If god existed before you beleived it how did you find out it exists.
If god is all soul, how can it control matter. If god is matter, then the matter is god.
If you don’t care what is god, you can beleive whatever you want just don’t ask me to beleive it too.
I admire the way you put things together, but I am still confused. Isn’t it contradictory to say on the one hand a human being is “unable†to achieve something (“unable to be impartial†in this case) and then in the next sentence say “It takes real intentional effort†to achieve that same thing. Isn’t someone either able to achieve something or unable if it is their nature? It is my physical human nature that I am unable to walk through a brick wall… no matter how much intentional effort I expend. I agree that you must make an effort to be impartial, but I am not sure that one is unable (because of their nature) to achieve impartiality. If that were the case why even bother to try? After all, I don’t try to walk through bricks walls… on second thought; I have knocked myself out trying to run through some!
I see you have an obvious attraction for waterand spiritulity. You may appreciate the following excerpt which is a favorite of mine:
Not really. Is a person born being able to play the piano? No. Now suppose a child is introduced to classical piano and falls in love with it. He attacks the piano and has a sincere desire to play it but he cannot. He is unable to play the piano. But through intentional efforts in the right form of practice, after years he becomes able to play what he wants to express.
Impartiality is like this. We are born subject to partiality. It requires us becoming conscious of it in ourselves and sincere efforts of inner growth in order to reach impartiality. It takes sincere and right practice.