The Boundaries of Reality

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
When my brother was training to be a technical illustrator, he explained some of the difficulties in producing drawings that look "real". One of them was in being able to draw what the eye sees. He had to train his mind to conceptualize what was actually there. He explained that the mind already has a conception of most objects. For instance, a box is com Eff] pride! Pride only hurts, it never helps. Fight through that [stuff]."

Do you believe a person can subjectively know they are saved? If not, what scriptural evidence do you have for believing that? Here's the scriptural evidence for believing a person can know they are saved:

"The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ" (Rom. 8:16-17).

"God... has given us the Spirit as a guarantee. So we are always confident" (2 Cor. 5:5-6).

"Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful" (Heb. 10:22-23).

---------------------------

Now, objectively speaking, there are a few ways of discovering if a person is saved or not. The first is whether or not that person is able to endure till the very end, through all types of trials and tribulations as a Christian. The second is, does that person demonstrate a life characterized by holiness.

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they all are not of us" (1 John 2:19).

"Every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire" (Matt. 7:17-19).

----------------------------

Do you agree with Ayn Rand and Dr. S. that since these passages contradict each other, then one or more of them must be wrong? If that is our conclusion, then we would be no better off than no1marauder or rajk who pick and choose from scripture without seeking a unifying understanding between the apparently disparate parts. At bottom, all three of these indications of "savedness" spring from the same source (i.e., justification by faith). Were I to favor one over the other, as Dr. S. wanted me to do, then I would have been robbing scripture of its depth (which would have been prideful). Dr. S. accused me of being dense for preserving the apparent contradiction, but it's not my fault that the whole of scripture refutes his logic derived from only one part of scripture.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
When my brother was training to be a technical illustrator, he explained some of the difficulties in producing drawings that look "real". One of them was in being able to draw what the eye sees. He had to train his mind to conceptualize what was actually there. He explained that the mind already has a conception of most objects. For instance, a box is com ...[text shortened]... Eff] pride! Pride only hurts, it never helps. Fight through that [stuff]."

So was it wrong of me to infer that you believe the vast majority of ordinary Christians are unenlightened? You said, "the Truth WILL make you free. Unfortunately the vast majority (including Christians, perhaps especially even) never reach enlightenment." That's quite explicit. Now, is it wrong for me to infer from this that you are claiming that ordinary Christians don't know Jesus Christ? After all, you recently stated that Jesus Christ is the Truth. If they don't know the Truth, then they don't know Jesus Christ, and vice versa, right? This is in fact what you are saying; I am not seeing something that's not there.

Furthermore, since only someone with a superior perspective/vantage point would be able to recognize how wrong the majority of ordinary Christians are, is it wrong to conclude that you have attained this "enlightenment" of which you speak, which ordinary Christians haven't? Again, this is in fact what you are insinuating; I am not seeing something that's not there.

Further still, you obviously consider me one of the unenlightened majority of ordinary Christians (which I take no offense to), a conclusion I reached based on the fact that you recently accused me of being blind to the Truth; your exact words were, "You have eyes but cannot see."

Giving you the benefit of the doubt I've asked you to prove your implied claim of having some "special knowledge" of Truth which I am not privy to. So far, you have only revealed that Jesus Christ is the Truth. But, of course, the unenlightened majority of ordinary Christians believe the same thing.

Is it wrong for me to lay the burden of proof on you? I mean, you are the one boasting here of being a superior Christian. Is it unreasonable for me to take you to task for such a boast? No, it's not at all.

But, since I'm still waiting for the evidence of your superiorly enlightened state, I'm not going to initially accuse you of being blinded by pride. But I will ask that you offer something of substance pretty quick, or I will soon have to cry foul.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
So was it wrong of me to infer that you believe the vast majority of ordinary Christians are unenlightened? You said, "the Truth WILL make you free. Unfortunately the vast majority (including Christians, perhaps especially even) never reach enlightenment." That's quite explicit. Now, is it wrong for me to infer from this that you are claiming that ord ...[text shortened]... u offer something of substance pretty quick, or I will soon have to cry foul.

I read your posts and can only conclude that you really have no idea of what I'm saying.

I'd really like to respond to this, but words fail me. I'm dumbfounded.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]If God's kangaroo court sounds "fair" to you, you would have loved Berlin City Court in 1938.
The pejorative term "kangaroo court" in reference to the judgment seat of Christ is about as blasphemous as one can get. God will deal with you regarding the same. If it is beyond your ability now to understand that the one true and fair judge is God, nothing said here will likely disabuse you of such a mindless position.[/b]

Gee, I think I can be more blasphemous than that! Did I ever tell you the one about Jesus, The Father and the Holy Spirit in a gay bar?

Siccing your imaginary Big Daddy on me doesn't exactly cause my knees to knock together; you might as well say Sauron will throw me into the fires of Mount Doom some day. The type of monstrous Super Duper God you believe in almost certainly doesn't exist. And if he did and acted in the way he does in the Bible, his will would be so warped and capricious that it would be impossible to predict what he might do at any given time - he would certainly have a sense of the absurd and perhaps a sense of humor.

If you're going to discourse in the English language, then you'll have to use the words of it in some type of standard manner. A procedure which examines a certain type of evidence and thus utterly disregards that evidence in reaching a judgment, cannot be considered "fair" in any manner known to Merriam-Webster. And saying only God can judge what is fair is just like saying God is norther than the North Pole (apologies to Telerion); yet another meaningless example of the Fallacy of Equivocation.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I read your posts and can only conclude that you really have no idea of what I'm saying.

I'd really like to respond to this, but words fail me. I'm dumbfounded.

Could it be that you are not more enlightened than the average Christian?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
With respect to work, yes, you are reading it right.

Well, it wouldn't be the first time that I mis-read you. I still find it surreal.

BTW, I did not think there were "extents" of punishment for the unbelievers...

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Could it be that you are not more enlightened than the average Christian?

Are there degrees of enlightenment?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Are there degrees of enlightenment?

Nope. People are either blind to the fact that Christ is Lord, or not. The only difference between various Christians is where they stand in terms of sanctification relative to Christ.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Are there degrees of enlightenment?

Yes. But I am speaking from a Buddhist perspective; Epi from a Christian view.

This seems not a bad explanation—

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satori

—except that some would dispute the notion that satori necessarily means a permanent state (especially if that implies one that does not require any further nurturing and vigilance). Some Zen masters have spoken of having more than one satori (the great Rinzai master Hakuin roshi had several, of varying degrees), and in this sense the word “epiphany” might be applicable.

I dislike the word “enlightenment,” since people seem to assume that it represents some position of knowing all truth, or having achieved some sort of existential perfection in life.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
There is a Kung Fu Grandmaster in town here by the name of, Keychun Song, who is a devout Christian. My Father-in-law used to train under him and recommended him for chiropractic work and acupuncture. Grandmaster Song performs and teaches Tai Chi without the least disturbance to His faith in Jesus Christ. Christ did create the body, after all. 🙂

far from being deluded, in my opinion, I consider you instead to be merely lacking in faith.

I don't think you're deluded, vistesd. I've always found you eminently reasonable and rational. I cannot blame you for lacking the knowledge that comes by faith in Jesus Christ, if you have no faith in Jesus Christ, can I? You are far from being deluded, in my opinion, I consider you instead to be merely lacking in faith.

Been thinking about this, and it just came to mind in a discussion with whodey in the “Enlightenment” thread (partly in the context of why I dislike that term).

I sometimes distinguish between the terms “illusion” and “delusion”—other times, like most, I use them interchangeably.

Similarly, you and I are using the word “faith” in entirely different ways. For me faith is an existential attitude; as such, it has no epistemic value. You tend to use the word in the context of faith in something: i.e., Christ. You also assert that such faith does have epistemic value.*

With regard to “belief” (which I don’t think you equate with faith, as I recall anyway), belief stands in need of epistemic justification; it does not accord it.

With those word-issues out of the way, illusion simply involves seeing things either (1) other than they actually are, or (2) confusing the partial with the whole or vice versa. (1) can involve mental projection, and confusing what is projected with what is actually external to the mind. Or—for an example I take from my own experience—a reasonable person who is operating under something like a hypnotic or post-hypnotic suggestion may be quite deluded with regard to whatever is covered by that suggestion (or complex of suggestions), but not in any other area of their thinking or behavior. [I think that a great deal of parental and cultural conditioning that we receive in childhood—including pre-verbal—can be likened to post-hypnotic suggestion, suggestions which we ourselves may learn to reinforce. Any powerful emotional experience can have a similar effect, which is why the Zen masters are so concerned with makyo.]

I repeat, I draw that example from my own experience.

Now, if I see things other than they really are because I lack the epistemic base of faith (as you understand it), then I am, of course, operating under illusion/delusion. How rational or reasonable I am has nothing to do with it.

Similarly, whether or not one believes there is a God has nothing to do, one way or the other, with whether or not one has realized his/her “original nature” (Buddha-nature), or the degree of that realization. Nor do statements of belief about that. If asked about it, when someone responds by saying something like, “Well, I think it’s...” or, “I believe it’s X because...”—that’s probably a pretty good indication that that’s all they’re doing: thinking and believing. “It” cannot really be thought or believed about, because, as bbarr once pointed out, “it” is not a concept. (I suspect that we really don’t think about things at all, but about our conceptualizations, ideas and mental representations of things: I really don’t think about that tree; I think about my thoughts and perceptions pertaining to that tree, which I really experience as a picture formed by my visual cortex.)

When one attempts to “find” or define what I call the Buddha-nature (which is just a name), the problem is that what they’re looking for is what they’re looking with; what they’re thinking or believing about is what’s behind the thinking or believing. And that is at least partly why “it’s” ineffable. (And if I fall into the trap of believing that my thoughts and ideas about “it” are “it”, then I’m deluding myself again.)



_______________________________________

* You might say that the kind of faith you’re talking about led me to test such people as the Zen roshis. But the nature of that testing leads away from that kind of faith/belief because it leads into the domain of munen: no-thought, in which there are no thoughts or ideas to “believe in”; there is just being-aware. Now, there may be all sorts of ideas and beliefs that Buddhists might “have faith in”, but they have absolutely nothing to do with what I’m talking about. If I choose to “believe in” the Tao, rather than God, that is simply because it makes more sense to me, both in terms of reason and experience. Similarly, there are Zen Christians.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]I don't think you're deluded, vistesd. I've always found you eminently reasonable and rational. I cannot blame you for lacking the knowledge that comes by faith in Jesus Christ, if you have no faith in Jesus Christ, can I? You are far from being deluded, in my opinion, I consider you instead to be merely lacking in faith.

Been thinking about this, ...[text shortened]... re sense to me, both in terms of reason and experience. Similarly, there are Zen Christians.[/b]

The epistemic value of faith, which I would accord faith anyway, is hard to explain. A non-believer may contend with scripture and seek to understand it, but no matter how deeply it is studied, without faith the depth of its contents will in no wise reveal itself. Why? Part of it is due, I think, to the lack of discipleship. A faithful person reading a given verse approaches that verse an entirely different way than a person lacking faith; that is, the spirit of discipleship is not present. The question is, how am I reading it? A Richard Dawkins reading of scripture is decidedly cynical, analytical, anthropological, unbelieving and flippant. The Bible becomes a mere object of study, given no opportunity to define the world by its own terms, and is quickly relegated to the dustbin of history. Obviously nothing of worth is gained by such a reading. Perhaps there are students of the bible less cynical and dismissive of scripture (such as yourself) which may glean a certain amount of historical perspective and respect for the prose, integrity, style and depth of the various stories, histories, parables, etc., yet, all the same, never reaching the deeper level of discipleship enjoyed by believers. Reading the Bible as a believer, a disciple, means your entire perspective radically shifts to a more immediate, intimate engagement with the words themselves. It's not an idolatry of mere letters, as some would think, it is really a deeper relationship with the word borne out of faith that these words do (astonishingly, amazingly) indeed come from the Lord of all creation, God Himself, representing the ultimate expression of His plan and purpose, on both a personal and collective level. The disciple's reading of scripture is eminently personal since every promise in the word of God is a personal promise from God Himself, the creator, to you (or me), the creature. In art, one dares to lose oneself in various representations or universal archetypes of the objective self, whereby we gain a sense of overcoming limitations, etc. However, in the background one is always aware that there is nothing omniscient in art; we are always aware that "mere" human beings are the creators and we are consciously playing along in order to embrace the effect. This is not so with scripture. Scripture is not art. This is where a mysterious divide separates those of faith from those without faith in the word of God. The "Spirit" of which the Bible speaks, the "Kingdom" which is at hand, the "first heaven" in which we "live, move and have our being" -- this is what makes the word of God a living thing. The word of God, read sincerely, from a disciple's perspective, brings a person into contact with the very reality of which it speaks, i.e., God Himself -- "the Living Water," "the Holy Ghost," etc. In this relationship, one gains direct contact with a supernatural peace and a profound sense of infinite joy and strength which seems to well up from nowhere. For the first time one knows what the bible means when it talks about worship, because it becomes an overwhelming desire; a great pleasure. One becomes, for the first time, aware of intuitive associations, formerly impossible to grasp, in the word of God itself, e.g. what David experienced when he wrote his psalms of praise, amazement that a king could be so publicly drunk with the Spirit of God, why certain characters said what they said or did what they did, a keen recognition of and sympathy for error, and a heartfelt appreciation and true gratitude for the goodness of God, etc. This is the knowledge which disciples of the word of God enjoy; fundamentally impossible for non-believers to enjoy. Of course, this is only the beginning. When a person recognizes the Truth of scripture, and seeks a relationship with God through Jesus Christ, a resurrection takes place in that individual's spirit. Not metaphorically, but really. The Holy Spirit is released in that person's life and flows outward to others, bearing fruit and revealing God's kingdom, granting gifts, and glorifying God in everything. This Bible is no mere book! And the cool thing about it is, it's available to everyone. All you need is faith.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
The epistemic value of faith, which I would accord faith anyway, is hard to explain. A non-believer may contend with scripture and seek to understand it, but no matter how deeply it is studied, without faith the depth of its contents will in no wise reveal itself. Why? Part of it is due, I think, to the lack of discipleship. A faithful person reading ...[text shortened]... cool thing about it is, it's available to everyone. All you need is faith.

Epiphinehas, some Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists experience just about everything you said here. Christians dont have a monopoly on the way their religion makes them feel.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Epiphinehas, some Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists experience just about everything you said here. Christians dont have a monopoly on the way their religion makes them feel.

I forgot that you believe that "good" Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists go to heaven, even though they deny that Christ is the Son of God. But the only resurrection of the spirit possible is through Jesus Christ, regardless of how their religion makes them feel.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I forgot that you believe that "good" Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists go to heaven, even though they deny that Christ is the Son of God. But the only resurrection of the spirit possible is through Jesus Christ, regardless of how their religion makes them feel.

Im not sure I said that I believe that. I think I said that I suspect that Christ will not condemn Good Samaritans because of their religion. Some people live a Christ-like life without knowing of Christ, and they are likely to be rewarded for that.

Christians dont own God. I not even sure they own Christ. There was 16 year period in the life of CHrist which is not recorded in the Bible. I wish I could find out what He did in that time. But there are many mysteries that we cannot solve.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Im not sure I said that I believe that. I think I said that I suspect that Christ will not condemn Good Samaritans because of their religion. Some people live a Christ-like life without knowing of Christ, and they are likely to be rewarded for that.

Christians dont own God. I not even sure they own Christ. There was 16 year period in the life of CHrist w ...[text shortened]... sh I could find out what He did in that time. But there are many mysteries that we cannot solve.

Would you be confident telling others they don't need Christ to be saved?