Faith...Another View

[Nick_A]

There is no worse lie than a truth misunderstood by those who hear it." WILLIAM JAMES

A while back I saw faith being pounded pretty good on another site. It was viewed at best as similar to something that is common now which is this idea of creating your own reality. One can imagine anything they want and who can argue. If one wishes to believe in foolish imagination, no logic can stand up against it. Because faith is a concept difficult to understand and being associated with Christianity, it is no wonder that as it becomes diluted and incorporated into modern thought, it gets ridiculed as it does on places both IRL and in the cyberworld. However, is real faith as naive as it appears to some? Does it contain deeper meanings not often considered? I believe so. My own readings on it, and I admit from several obscure sources, have lead me to have a great respect for faith as I’ve grown to understand it. So I thought I would start a thread on it giving a simplified version to begin with of what I’ve come to value and let others comment on mine or give their own understandings. Who knows, different ideas may become food for thought for some that frown on faith allowing the concept to become more than just an expression of gullibility.

To begin with, there seems to be a discrepancy between the NIV and KJV

First the NIV

Hebrews 11
1Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

And the KJV

Hebrews 11
1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

The NIV implies an attitude while the KJV implies definition (form).

So in terms of a Hershey bar yet to come, the NIV would define faith as the feeling of assurance that you will receive it while in the KJV, faith would vivify the substance of chocolate. Still something doesn’t seem quite right. Back to this shortly in a different context…

Are faith and belief the same? Not from what I have read. It seems to me that belief is the initial step towards faith

Matthew 17 The Healing of a Boy With a Demon.

14When they came to the crowd, a man approached Jesus and knelt before him. 15"Lord, have mercy on my son," he said. “He has seizures and is suffering greatly. He often falls into the fire or into the water. 16I brought him to your disciples, but they could not heal him.”
17"O unbelieving and perverse generation," Jesus replied, “how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy here to me.” 18Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of the boy, and he was healed from that moment.
19Then the disciples came to Jesus in private and asked, “Why couldn’t we drive it out?”
20He replied, “Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”

Now this occurs right after the Transfiguration at the beginning of Matthew 17. The disciples obviously BELIEVED in Jesus. They gave up everything to follow him. They witnessed the transfiguration. They couldn’t drive out the demon though because as Christ said: “you have so little faith”. I’ve also read that in some of the ancient translation Christ said it was because they had NO faith. Belief seems more conditioned or sense based so in very limited in its spiritual value. Nicodemus believed becuse of miracles yet Christ told him that “Except a man be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

Faith is described as a mustard seed. This to me means it has the capacity to grow and change form like a seed becomes a mustard tree. Faith appears to imply direction. Christ in the above passage says: “O unbelieving and perverse generation” What does this have to do with faith. From what I’ve read, the Greek meaning of the word translated as “perverse” means “turning in many directions”. So having no faith means to keep turning in many directions. What does it mean then to keep direction and who could do it?

QUOTE
Luke 7

There a centurion’s servant, whom his master valued highly, was sick and about to die. The centurion heard of Jesus and sent some elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come and heal his servant. 4When they came to Jesus, they pleaded earnestly with him, “This man deserves to have you do this, 5because he loves our nation and has built our synagogue.” 6So Jesus went with them.
7He was not far from the house when the centurion sent friends to say to him: “Lord, don’t trouble yourself, for I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. That is why I did not even consider myself worthy to come to you. But say the word, and my servant will be healed. 8For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”
9When Jesus heard this, he was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd following him, he said, “I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in Israel.” 10Then the men who had been sent returned to the house and found the servant well.

So what is so special about the faith of the centurion? From what I’ve read, this is a very deep passage and one of its meanings concerns the knowledge of different levels of existence. The centurion is an important man. He has many under his command. Even though powerful on his level, he realizes that he is helpless in the face of higher reality. The centurion then sees the relationship between what is below him and what is above him. His faith is not a manifestation of fear. It is instead a manifestation of a kind of conscious awareness of both his limitations and possibilities. It begins to have definition: substance. He sees the different levels in relation to his true possibilities. His FAITH is now a direct knowing of the value Christ brings. This inner knowing is far beyond surface belief. The value of faith then for me is the growth from the seed of this inner knowing of the relationship between what is above and below. This allows one to acquire direction, the courage to proceed, and not just turn in circles from opposition to oneself. This knowing is not related to the five senses. Because its value is for the higher spiritual aspect, rebirth, it requires perception beyond the senses to higher reality that by definition is not imaginary.

So it seems to me that there is a difference between faith IN something (assurance) and faith as a state of being (substance). The centurians faith was substantial because it had substance, inner definition. It was more than an atitude. It was the beginning of real presence.

So maybe to be without faith means to be without inner substance or definition that can survive the pulls of external life. Faith, if present, can allow one to remain “alive” in the spiritual sense, in the face of external pressures with the higher serving as a kind of “north star”. This “life” reconciles the pulls of the lower with the attractions of the higher. It allows us to internally lead the lowe while serving the higher. In this way Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

Consider this idea in the context of the following passage:

Matthew 6
27Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life[ color=#0000ff1] ?
28"And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these.

As I understand it, the lillies have a bodily organization that matches their function, their purpose in the context of organic life. For the purpose of man in the spiritual sense which is the movement towards rebirth however, we lack this inner organization, this form, this substance of definition that could allow us to reconcile our external and internal purposes. Solomon, not having the internal substantial organization in accordance with his spiritual possibilities lacked inner unity and wasn’t “complete” as was the lily.

Now it would be quite natural to ask here that if this is true, what can provide for substantial faith? This is another question. One thing at a time.

So this is a basic overview of how I value the possibilities of faith as compared to belief. If any of it is true, it surely doesn’t deserve ridicule.

Any ideas?

[Dr.Satanical]

The problem with faith as it relates to christianity is twofold, in my opinion.
Firstly, christians are trained to place logic beneath faith. if you can find a critical flaw in christian theology, (or anything they believe)it becomes easy for them to discard reason and logic themselves as being flawed, rather than admit the book itself(or whatever the object of their faith is in that circumstance) is flawed. It is impossible to discourse with someone that trivialized the tools of discourse.
Secondly, faith itself implies a knowing. Once someone believes they ‘know’ a thing, the search to answer it ceases. Thusly, faith breeds intellectual stagnation and stunts all forms of progress, both personal and material.

There are those that postulate in a history free of faith based belief, we could have landed on the moon in the 1400s

[Nick_A]

Dr. Satanical

We are speaking of two different things. I don’t define Christianity as you do. I prefer the explanation from Father Sylvan’s Journal:

…“I admit to feeling a little uneasy speaking about Christianity in this way. I like Kierkegaard’s distinction between Christendom and Christianity, the former meaning what man has made of the latter. But Christendom has wrong implications in an era where political rule throughout the Western world is so disassociated from religion. Practically speaking, of course, one doesn’t really need this distinction between Christendom and Christianity, between broken Christianity and real Christianity. We only know broken Christianity, so why worry about a word for the real thing.”

Faith and reason are only in opposition in dogmatic science and Christendom. They are complimentary in Christianity because the concern of Christianity is re-birth which is an inner quality. In the efforts towards re-birth, faith and reason are complimentary means for interacting with life itself.

The centurion must have had the power of reason to maintain such a position of authority. Yet he had an inner understanding of the necessity for the betterment of his own being to becoming and continuing to be open to the higher by establishing faith in himself. This was extraordinary psychological understanding and quite exceptional which Jesus pointed out. Faith and reason were complimentary. It is only from our chaotic inner states and the domination of our egotism that they become contradictory.

Yes faith is “knowing” but it is a quality of emotional knowing that is far above belief and a human quality that remains atrophied in the great majority from fear and imagination.

Blind faith may be adequate for Christendom but faith as a human quality and an aid to inner stability is a great benefit for the Christian aim of re-birth. When a man truly “understands”, it is largely because emotional knowing and reason consciously cooperate with each other and serve the tasks to which they are suited for.

[Dr.Satanical]

In the efforts towards re-birth, faith and reason are complimentary means for interacting with life itself.

How? Give me an example.

et he had an inner understanding of the necessity for the betterment of his own being to becoming and continuing to be open to the higher by establishing faith in himself.

Faith is belief without or in spite of evidence. One does not need ‘faith’ to believe in ones self.

Yes faith is “knowing” but it is a quality of emotional knowing

A feeling is not knowing, aside from the knowledge of how the feeling feels.

When a man truly “understands”, it is largely because emotional knowing and reason consciously cooperate with each other and serve the tasks to which they are suited for.

I assume what you mean by ‘understands’ in this instance is ‘understands that jesus is god’ And what separates ‘emotional knowing’ as you put it, from blind faith? Both are dependant only on a feeling.

[Nick_A]

Dr. S

How? Give me an example.

Reason is our analysis of the external world. We reason in order to make judgements. There is nothing about the teachings of Christianity that states that we shouldn’t be able to appreciate mathematics.

Christianity asserts that man is more than a creature that walks the earth as an automaton making judgements and performing biological functions. He has conscious spiritual possibilities that can result in the change of his being. This is re-birth. It is the conscious equivalent of the natural process of an acorn becoming an oak.

Normally our inner life is chaotic with no stability or self awareness. We get up in the morning and through out the day we experience many reactive emotions in opposition to each other. One minute we are one way and another way at the next moment There is no glue that can can experience these changes of emotion. So the result is that “we” do not really exist but instead all that exists are changes in emotional states. It is through faith as an anchor that we can in a sense walk on the water of violent emotion and remain afloat and spiritually/consciously alive.

So while reason allows for judgement in for our interaction with external life, faith aids in the establishment of a quality of unity for our inner life by providing a fixed point from which our chaotic inner life can be reconciled.

Faith is belief without or in spite of evidence. One does not need ‘faith’ to believe in ones self.

We define faith differently. Believing in something can be based purely on imagination. Faith is an inner quality that awakens as a result of a genuine spiritual experience and develops into real human awareness of their relationship to what exists both above and below them. That is why Hermes wrote: “As above, so below”. It is all related.

Gal 2: 16 KJV

16Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Belief IN Christ is one thing. Faith OF Christ is another. Christ had inner unity and the presence OF faith. We don’t. That’s why he was the teacher.

A feeling is not knowing, aside from the knowledge of how the feeling feels.

When you experience a “feeling” then you will know. Normally we only experience emotion. The quality of feeling associated with this sacred impulse is not like our normal emotional experience.

I assume what you mean by ‘understands’ in this instance is ‘understands that jesus is god’ And what separates ‘emotional knowing’ as you put it, from blind faith? Both are dependant only on a feeling.

Why assume and label? What does it mean to be open in order to understand? If you label and assume, you’ve prejudged and there is no longer an opening. If you can impartially and without preconception sense, feel, and reason the same thing, then you will understand it. We rarely do this so we rarely fully understand anything regardless of how much we “know”. Such knowledge only leads to a partial understanding that appears "normal’, but from a more objective perspective, the very fact that it results in activities like war for example, proves how little we “understand” normalcy in regards the potential of human “being”: re-birth.

[Dr.Satanical]

We define faith differently. Believing in something can be based purely on imagination. Faith is an inner quality that awakens as a result of a genuine spiritual experience and develops into real human awareness of their relationship to what exists both above and below them.

I fail to see how this is any different. You separate your ‘faith’ from mainstream ‘faith’ on the criteria that yours stems from a ‘genuine’ spiritual experience while ‘the other guys’ comes purely from imagination?

Everyone that has ‘faith’ is ‘sure’ it’s genuine, so you see, there is no distinction at all.
Spirituality isn’t empericaly measurable(because it is an abstract concept)
What you are saying is no different than any other faith based believer.

[Nick_A]

Dr. S

I don’t see how you could perceive the difference from the Satanist’s perspective. Since the celebration of the ego includes the imaginary opinion of oneself there is no distinction between the wheat and tares within which is essential for Christianity.

Self knowledge reveals our nothingness to us. It reveals our chaotic and contradictory inner life that St. Paul described as the “wretched man” in Romans 7. It is very uncomfortable to consciously endure so we rationalize it and justify it through corrupting our ego or contact with external life so as not to experience it. It is not the ego that is the problem but the connections between its parts. Where they would normally be connected consciously, over time the connections have become based on aspects of fear and imagination so the important function of the ego has become corrupt and no longer functions normally and accurately.

Instead of being consciously awake we have become asleep in our dreams completely unaware of what is lost as a result. This is why both Christ and Buddha for example taught the necessity of “awakening”

Real faith is as a result of a quality of objective awareness. Such awareness must include the experience of what is higher and lower in relation to ones own being. Of course it is imossible to distinguish the real from the unreal until it is experienced. This is why for example in Christianity the experience of "gnosis or in Zen, the experience of “satori” is so important. It provides the experience of the distinction between the results of the temporarily awakened state and the normally sleeping state of being.

None of this is important for the celebration of the ego since it is unconcerned with anything higher than itself but prides itself on its created “isness”.

But the establishment of the corrupt ego as the center of importance allows it to feed and grow off of the life force within that would normally feed the development of man’s soul or re-birth. In this way man is reduced to at best continually serving the earth and losing the possibility of freedom from this condition described as “dust to dust” or as the Buddhists would say: “samsara”.

I’ve always liked this old Armenian tale that demonstrates man’s position and the results of his “imagination”.

"There is an Eastern tale that speaks about a very rich magician who had a great many sheep. But at the same time this magician was very mean. He did not want to hire shepherds, nor did he want to erect a fence about the pasture where the sheep were grazing. The sheep consequently often wandered into the forest, fell into ravines and so on, and above all, they ran away, for they knew that the magician wanted their flesh and their skins, and this they did not like.

"At last the magician found a remedy. He hypnotized his sheep and suggested to them, first of all, that they were immortal and that no harm was being done to them when they were skinned; that on the contrary, it
would be very good for them and even pleasant; secondly he suggested that the magician was a good master who loved his flock so much that he was ready to do anything in the world for them; and in the third place,
he suggested that if anything at all were going to happen to them, it was not going to happen just then, at any rate not that day, and therefore they had no need to think about it. Further, the magician suggested to his
sheep that they were not sheep at all; to some of them he suggested that they were lions, to some that they were eagles, to some that they were men, to others that they were magicians.

“After this all his cares and worries about the sheep came to an end. They never ran away again, but quietly awaited the time when the magician would require their flesh and skins.”

[tentative]

Nick_A,

A very comprehensive and well thought out presentation. The faith bashing you find is common to all religions for two reasons: First, realization of faith is subtle. It does not lend itself to A>B>C. This by itself take’s it beyond what most people are willing to invest. Second, having faith require’s a ‘letting go’. Many who feel threatened by this, replace faith with dogmatic belief. In the confusion the two words become entertwined and also become fodder for ‘bashing’.

The Tao, in its’ rather terse delivery says that the wise person strive’s to return to their ‘inner nature’ (faith?), but to do that, they must let go their ‘knowing’ (belief?) The path or Way to the subtle essence of the universe (god?) is a paring away of knowing until there is no contradictory thought (releasing the going of different directions?).

Whether Christian faith, Taoist Way, sartori or any of the other many metaphors for intuitive understanding, it is a path not many follow.

The dilemma is that it is all too simple. We simply have to breath in and out. Most struggle to hold their breath. Curious isn’t it?

JT

[Uccisore]

Nick, I think you’re generalizing Christianity for the sake of making it compatible with reason. Yes, Christianity does claim that people are more than biological systems, and that there is such a thing as spiritual rebirth- but it also claims a great deal more than that! It claims that a couple people came back from the dead, that there are such things as Beings without bodies, and that people with faith in God can perform miracles. It claims that a Man, who was also God, used a small basket of food to feed 5000 people, and had more food left over than He started with. If you really want to address the issue of ‘faith vs. reason’, at least as most skeptics see it, you have to address those things.

[Nick_A]

Uccisore

If by generalizing Christianity you mean defining its essential purpose as re-birth, I would agree.

As far as certain ideas such as coming back from the dead or as was said “let the dead bury their dead”, the concepts behind such seemingly absurd statements are made precisely to appear absurd.

Our reason is primarily restricted to its lowest form which is, as I understand it, associative thought and binary much like that of a computer. This is relatively useless in regards to the experience of inner psychology necessary to experience living Christianity.

This mode of reason tends to immediately classify at its level and its dominance does not allow for higher mind to be touched by esoteric spiritual concepts in order to initiate the process of esoteric thought.

The psychology used to get around this is to express ideas in parables and symbols with words having both a literal and psychological meaning. The literal mind becomes baffled and in the process of confusion loses its dominance and the essence of the ideas are received by the higher mind which temporarily awakens it.

At its height a person becomes open to the process of a higher quality of deductive reason within themselves. When deductive and inductive reason both become active we begin to understand the essence behind scripture. the trouble is that we rarely if ever have the experience that allows us to become open to deductive reason that puts scripture into perspective. Faith as a human attribute and not in something is one opening to this type of deductive reason.

Now this sounds weird so I’ll post an excerpt that may make it more clear:

In our attempt to reconcile the inner and outer world, however, we do come up against a very real difficulty, which must be faced. This difficulty is connected with the problem of reconciling different ‘methods of knowing’.

Man has two ways of studying the universe. The first is by induction: he examines phenomena, classifies them, and attempts to infer laws and principles from them. This is the method generally used by science. The second is by deduction: having perceived or had revealed or discovered certain general laws and principles, he attempts to deduce the application of these laws in various studies and in life. This is the method generally used by religions… The first method begins with ‘facts’ and attempts to reach ‘laws’. The second method begins with ‘laws’ and attempts to reach ‘facts’.

These two methods belong to the working of different human functions. The first is the method of the ordinary logical mind, which is permanently available to us. the second derives from a potential function in man, which is ordinarily inactive for lack of nervous energy of sufficient intensity, and which we may call higher mental function This function on rare occasions of its operation, reveals to man laws in action, he sees the whole phenomenal world as the product of laws.

All true formulations of universal laws derive recently or remotely from the working of this higher function, somewhere and in some man. At the same time, for the application and understanding of the laws revealed in the long stretches of time and culture when such revelation is not available, man has to rely on the ordinary logical mind."

As insulting as it appears, we need a higher quality of eyes to see and ears to hear when it comes to the functioning of higher mind and to make matters worse, we need help in order to become really open. We cannot come to this level of deductive reason from efforts of inductive reason no matter how much we value it.

The authentic part of scripture is always as a result of the efforts of those who have “understood” in the real meaning of the word, to touch the part of our mental function that can make the right use of it.

The reason of science or inductive reason serves its purpose in our contact with the external world. The religious experience that opens the function of deductive reason serves its purpose for the balance and evolution of our inner world. Inductive and deductive reason together is the reason of a developed human being. Faith is one resource that keeps the connection alive and help produce within us the holy faculty of “presence”.

[Uccisore]

I’m sorry, Nick, I’m a fan of speaking plainly. Are you saying that the miracles described in the New Testament didn’t actually happen, and are metaphors instead? If that’s what you’re claiming, fine. But then you aren’t talking about the same “Christianity” that people criticize when they accuse it of being irrational.

The psychology used to get around this is to express ideas in parables and symbols with words having both a literal and psychological meaning.

I don't see how this is relevant: I'm not concerned with your reasons why you think the stuff in the New Testament didn't really happen, or your mystical justifications on how we can keep calling ourselves "Christians" once we accept that.  Honestly, I get easily lost in mystical jibber-jabber, and have always suspected that most mystics enjoy delibrately sounding obscure.         
 However, no matter what you or I feel on the matter, the fact is that the [i]Christian[/i] claim is for a literal ressurection of Christ- and that is seen by many people as irrational.  Whatever it is that [i]you[/i] believe, and insist on calling "Christianity" is neither here nor there.  If Jesus didn't really rise from the dead, or it's irrational to beileve that He did, then Christianity is irrational, and disagreeing with statements to that fact just causes confusion. 
  Just out of curiousity, what is it about your views that make them "Christian" as opposed to Buddist or Hindu or what have you?

[Nick_A]

Uccisore

Believe me I’m a fan of speaking plainly also but I’ve learned through both personal experience and common sense that certain things cannot be spoken of plainly since their truths are beyond what is communicated in ordinary language.

As I said in a previous post, my concern is with Christianity and not Christendom which is not the same thing you are used to arguing with.

Of course miracles happened but to understand it you would have to be familiar with cosmology and the nature of relativity and scale as it exists in universal structure. A miracle is only the normal functioning of a higher cosmos manifesting either accidentally or through conscious intention into a lower cosmos. Naturally it appears miraculous.

Yes, I believe the Resurrection happened but again to understand it through reason requires cosmological understanding and only a relative few are astute enough to bother with it anymore. Man on earth exists on one cosmological level: earth. Evolved man exists on a higher cosmological level. This gets complicated so people refer to it as the relationship between earth and heaven.

The mistake you are making is to demand that higher understanding come down to your level which it cannot do. Somehow it seems unjust that you would have to learn how to be open enough to understand. Most think like you which is why there is so little understanding.

There is no joy in being obscure. What is known is the danger of egotistical classification. That is why Christ had to speak in parables. It is actually dangerous to have certain concepts become intercepted by the ego. It can do much more harm than good.

Living on earth in this dream state we are considered dead and our spiritual lives are consumed by the laws of nature. Jesus went through the process of conscious evolution rising from the dead and freedom from the earth body at the time of physical death and in doing so cleared the path for others to follow with the help of the Holy Spirit to assure the wholeness of perspective and not lose their way becoming attached and captivated by parts, losing the “forest” for the “trees”.

A friend told me a while back that several people were in the presence of the Dalai Lama and asked one of his assistants his opinion of esoteric Christianity. The reply was that esoteric Christianity and esoteric Buddhism are basically the same.

I’ve seen that the same secularization that has happened to Christianity has happened to Buddhism. The biggest mistake of this modern Buddhism is the idea that one does not need help from above and the Eightfold Path is sufficient in itself. It no longer appreciates the value of a person coming to the state of appreciating their nothingness. Big mistake!

[Nick_A]

Uccisore

I’ve been trying to think how to make this more comprehensible. The idea of cosmology or levels of existence that determine universal structure has become so natural I tend to forget that people are largely unaware of it though some truly great minds like a man I’ve read who is a highly regarded expert in particle physics explains a great deal of the quantum world through such understandings.

Maybe some sort of a thread on it someplace could be uselful, I don’t know.

Anyhow one question comes to mind for you. Both Christ and Buddha stressed the value of awakening. If this is true, in some way we must be asleep. If this is true the obvious question regarding higher knowledge is: What knowledge can a sleeping man have? Wouldn’t it be sensible to consider what awakening means before trying to understand in sleep. Then maybe some ideas wouldn’t appear so absurd.

[Uccisore]

As I said in a previous post, my concern is with Christianity and not Christendom which is not the same thing you are used to arguing with.

 As a Christian myself, I'm more used to arguing with skeptics, but I get your point anyways. :slight_smile:  As to understanding miracles through rationality, all the important miracles of Christianity are in the distant past, and I'm not sure that traditional premise/premise/conclusion rational argument is the main tool we use when investigating history anyway, is it? 

I think we can apply ‘traditianal rationality’ to making a case for the possibility of the miraculous, but the defense of the occurance of any particular miracle in time must be done some other way.

Somehow it seems unjust that you would have to learn how to be open enough to understand. Most think like you which is why there is so little understanding.

This is an issue about which I've always disagreed with some theologians- the idea that examining religious issues is somehow higher or qualitatively different than examining other issues. As far as I can tell, God, Heaven, miracles, etc. can all be understood using the same basic methods that car engines, the rotation of the Moon around the Earth, or the Battle of the Bulge can be understood. That understanding may never be [i]complete[/i], because of the remoteness or magnitude of the subject matter, but whatever understanding we can get will be gotten in the usual ways. 
 You say that typical rationality is crude or basic, and that understanding religious matters requires something higher. I say that all critical thinking is something 'higher' (dogs and trees can't do it, after all), and sacred in a weird way.  I suspect, though, that we're both using different terminology for the same thing- in case you can't tell, I'm an aggressively non-mystical Christian.

[Nick_A]

Uccisore

I think we can apply ‘traditianal rationality’ to making a case for the possibility of the miraculous, but the defense of the occurance of any particular miracle in time must be done some other way.

Suppose a person hears a voice in their head that says not to board the plane. They don’t and learn later that it crashed. One could say it was coincidence another could say it was a miracle. How do you verify it one way or another?

Now this raises the question of the relationship between Christianity and what has been termed" “magic.” Christendom frowns on such things viewing any involvement as demonic since even demons could perform miracles. Yet the case could be made that they are completely compatable. Of course such a statement would make both sides angry. The supporters of the magical arts would find it insulting to have it associated with Christianity and Christendom would view dabbling in the “laws of resonance” as interfering with and denying the Holy Spirit. Yet in order to better understand the nature of miracles, one must know of the laws of resonance and in which ways they are beneficial. But all the arguing would prevent any common knowledge of such things. Defending the occurrence is not so easy as it may seem.

This is an issue about which I’ve always disagreed with some theologians- the idea that examining religious issues is somehow higher or qualitatively different than examining other issues

.

John speaks of the necessity to “test the spirits” in regards our tendency for self deception. 1 John 4:

1Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

Can the literal binary mind do this? No! In order to do this one must begin to “know Thyself” in order to be able to discern the origin of a spirit or negative emotion. In order to “know thyself”, their must be a knower and a self. None of this is in the domain of the literal mind. It is an application of higher mind in the context of living Christianity.

Classifying car engines or the nature of the moon’s rotation around the earth can be done by the computer mind. Living Christianity requires consciousness which is a completely different quality of mind. Lacking consciousness, Christianity soon devolves into the level of the literal mind creating Christendom.

Critical thought is good for analysis but the conscious mind is necessary for Christian “understanding” which reconciles the duality of our nature including its expression of critical thought into perspective.

I’m an aggressively non-mystical Christian.

Does this mean you do not value gnosis? If you do, you may not be as non-mystical as you believe but just wary of fantasy. They are not the same.

I hope you are not simultaneously having a discussion with a non-believer. Having to be inbetween may produce some gray hairs.

[Americano]

Faith is more then a simple perception.

It is something to live up to. It is a self-motivating commitment and is inspiring to anybody who would consider it.

A self made initiative.

Those who argue that the faithful beleivers in anyway are wrong predicated on the fact that they may ignore some logical interpretation of things must hold themselves just as accountable.

Doubting something doesnt even logically counteract somebody elses belief by itself.

Many beleivers are willing to consider anybodies point of view as long as they are willing to consider theirs.

[Dr.Satanical]

Many beleivers are willing to consider anybodies point of view as long as they are willing to consider theirs.

And what dark, remote corner of the earth (that is obviously free of internet connectivity) do these people live?

[elle]

Faith and reason are only in opposition in dogmatic science and Christendom. They are complimentary in Christianity because the concern of Christianity is re-birth which is an inner quality.

I fail to see how faith and reason are complimentary in Christianity not only in my previous encounters with other Christians but also with the core notion of God. The traditional belief (be it your version of Christendom or Christianity) and the concept of God claim that he is an omniscient, omnipotent and all benevolent creator, but then surely one would think that evil would not arise because he is perfect in every sense. Surely he couldn’t possibly want us to suffer, for he is all good, and since he is all powerful, then he would do anything to prevent us from any harm, and being the creator he knows everything and can alter anything, foretell the future (which raises another questionable issue, which i won’t get into at the moment) so one cannot say that because he created us, and ‘gave us free will’ that we are unpredictable as an excuse for evil. However all this is not the case, there is evil in the world, and so in order to compensate for the existence of evil then God in return must either not be all powerful, or not entirely all knowing, and or not wholly good, one of the three must be altered in order to allow for any evil in the world. Thus the traditional reasoning is flawed, for God is not perfect as the traditional belief claims.

1Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

Can the literal binary mind do this? No! In order to do this one must begin to “know Thyself” in order to be able to discern the origin of a spirit or negative emotion. In order to “know thyself”, their must be a knower and a self. None of this is in the domain of the literal mind. It is an application of higher mind in the context of living Christianity.

You speak of this ‘higher mind’ that seems to be only accessible to people who derive a great deal of their thoughts through deduction. This sounds rather unreasonable, unless by ‘higher mind’ you’re implying a ‘higher imagination’. Also I think it would be hard to convince any skeptic of your views if you post quotations from the Bible. Reason being, you are assuming that the Bible actually speaks the truth (be it literally or metaphorically) and that all the writings in the Bible actually happened. The notion of religion, God and the Bible, and why it came about the time that it did are questionable. For example what St. Aquinas along with numerous other pro-religious theorists preached and wrote may have seemed convincing, especially to the uneducated, which strongly believed and stood by their faith, in many cases mostly because they were told to do so by the church and would be punished if they did otherwise. As in this one quote in a phil book I read not too long ago says:

“According to Aquinas, the foolish might be led into error by arguments which are only apparently persuasive, and one important solution to this problem is not to suppress reason but to encourage trained, critical, rational reflection on such arguments. (Of course, this solution, Aquinas realized, was not appropriate for the poor and uneducated; the peasants should instead be urged to rely upon their faith.)”

Now the question is why would it not be appropriate for the poor to engage in critical, rational reflection? And what are really these ‘truths’ that the church has been feeding to the majority of the population which happened to be poor and uneducated? Are these ‘truths’ really true? Or are they merely ideas that the church have implanted in everyone’s minds for centureis, which many now can’t distinguish as being fact or fiction? Perhaps telling only what they wanted everyone else to know, so to not raise questions regarding the power of the church. Could it be so that the wealthy can protect themeslves from the majority, to keep society in some kind of moral equilibrium? As Napoleon once said “Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich”.

There is no joy in being obscure.

I would beg to differ. If you look around yourself the politicians, businesses (e.g. ‘everything on sale’ then you read the fine print to find out it’s not really so), the government (even the sacred U.S. Constitution have this clear document and then at the end decide to add in an obscure statement such as “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution.” What is necessary exactly? I’m sure that even you at some point have purposely said something obscure because you didn’t want to go into the details for whatever reason.

I did note that you spoke of some psychological meanings within religion. That is the one thing I would have to agree on. But I would take it one step further and say that if there was a purpose to religion/faith, it would be to achieve some kind of stable psychological equilibrium and/or power.

[Nick_A]

Hello Elle

If it’s any consolation, I wouldn’t have the regard for Christianity I do if I believed as you do.

As far as God’s omnipotence, omniscience, or benevolence is concerned these questions are not of immediate consequence for us simply because God’s will is not done on earth. “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” It is only a potential and what the Christian strives for in their inner life. So I could say for example that though God is not omnipotent since creation is a necessity, God’s will is. Getting into that would be a whole different discussion.

Even those around Jesus assumed that somehow God was around and would destroy the bad guys. Yet Jesus makes it clear it is just not the case. Consider Luke 13:

1Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them - do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”

Regardless of whether or not they thought themselves good guys or bad guys, incidents like falling towers could still kill them.

Jesus speaks of re-birth and the first step is “metanoia” which is wrongly translated here as repent. Metanoia mean a change of psychological direction. Normal life finds meaning in external things. Metanoia is the change of direction when a person seeks meaning in the realities of their inner world previously unaware of.

Why do you think in a Christian perspective that man has free will? If you read how St. Paul describes himself as the “wretched man” in Romans 7 It is clear that there is no free will. The reason is the lack of inner unity that comprises our being. Instead of inner unity, our plurality described by St. Paul manifests itself as many small wills often in opposition with each other. Where is the free will in this condition? It is something that must be verified by themselves. The Christian goal of re-birth leads to inner unity where free will as a complete human being becomes possible…

The danger here is if a person striving for free will strengthens a part of themselves to such a degree that it completely dominates the whole of ones being. This is basically demonic and lets not go there. The potential for conscious wholeness is sacrificed for the supremacy of an artificially created egotistical part. IMO not the best situation to be in though you can make a lot of money. This idea is the essence of the temptation of Christ.

What is evil in the world? Is nature evil since it contains great suffering? If Bambi is wounded and suffering and eaten by wild dogs, is this evil? I would say no. These are just results of the interaction of mechanical laws that sustain organic life on earth providing the cosmic purpose it serves. In Buddhism it is called samsara and in Christianity, “dust”.

Can evil exist without consciousness? Are pure happenings either good or evil or are these just labels we subjectively use in relation to how they effect us? Objective evil only becomes relevant when a person has found the inner psychological direction of human good and the possibility of choice in this regard: conscious evolution. If the good is in the inner direction of consciousness that leads to a growth and change of human “being”, the evil is our habitual life which strives to prevent it and retain the status quo. within yourself.

What you are describing as imagination is just the excess of the desire for higher mind over the ability to have access to it. The void that exists between desire and ability is filled with imagination. Common sense then suggests the necessity for those interested to become open to an ability. The understanding of higher mind cannot be understood by the lower associative mind. If the skeptic insist on trying to do so it cannot lead anywhere. It is up to the person with the desire to understand to open themselves to the attributes necessary for understanding.

Are these ‘truths’ really true?

This is what a person must verify through self knowledge. One must begin to know how to separate the wheat from the tares, the real from the unreal within themselves.

I’m sure that even you at some point have purposely said something obscure because you didn’t want to go into the details for whatever reason.

Of course! As a young man, how else was I supposed to get a woman’s pants off.

The joy isn’t in being obscure but the results from being obscure and in the great majority of cases this joy is related to the success of egotism through deceiving others.

However, in Jesus’ case, he had to be obscure so that the truths he was conveying to help man awaken wouldn’t become intercepted by the dominance of literal mind which is what keeps man oblivious of his possibilities. This is why all the great teachings use parables and symbols.

So you though it was easy eh? Man is a real enigma.

[Impenitent]

@Nick_A

Of course! As a young man, how else was I supposed to get a woman’s pants off.

one leg at a time…

-Imp