20 Jun 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterKnow your are deliberately setting up a strawman. Or do you honestly still not understand the concept of a dimension?
God exists independently of the universe and time is an expression of a Universe in which things happen. I don't actually believe time exists in a substantial way. Time seems to be given some mystical status by some as if it is a force , or ether or something but no-one seems to know what it is made of.
Basically I am a reductionist and phenomenologist on time. Can you tell me what time actually is?
Are you just as sceptical about spacial dimensions? Are you really not in the same place as me? What is distance made of?
If you think your ideas are even slightly valid, why do you resort to strawmen? I always think that such arguments are a clear indication that someone does not believe what they are claiming.
20 Jun 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat's the alternative? Should I say I'm not sure of anything? I was unsure once, but then I responded to God's call. I heard the gospel, believed it, then trusted in what God did by sending His son to die on my behalf. At the moment I trusted Christ the Holy Spirit baptised me into Christ filling me with His Spirit. I was made alive spiritually.
Yet you state with confidence that you know the truth.
Now I can say confidently I know the truth. Christ is the truth. This doesn't mean I'm all enlightened. No one is. But I know that when I die physically, my soul and spirit will live forever. I'm absolutely sure.
You can be absolutely sure too! Don't you want to live forever? I can't imagine you wouldn't!
This whole debate is too bizarre. All one needs to do is look at the mess we're in to see we need God to save us. Reality is hard to define, but with the spirit of God and His word we can sift through the confusion. It ain't easy either.
20 Jun 08
2 edits
Originally posted by josephwHonesty is all I ask for. I do not think you are being dishonest. My only concern in this instance is that you are sure, my Catholic friend is sure and my Muslim friend is sure, my Hindu friend is sure, and not one of you can give me any better reason to believe that you are right than simply being sure. And it is painfully obvious that at a minimum all except one of you is wrong. That kind of makes "being sure" a rather weak argument.
What's the alternative? Should I say I'm not sure of anything?
But I know that when I die physically, my soul and spirit will live forever. I'm absolutely sure.
Yet if I asked you what your soul or spirit were, you would either disappear from the thread or start sidestepping the questions. Makes me wonder how sure you are about that bit.
You can be absolutely sure too! Don't you want to live forever? I can't imagine you wouldn't!
Oh yes I would. But you are not talking about living forever are you? You are talking about something so radically different that you have to dress it up in analogies etc such as 'living' just to sell the concept. What is more, wanting something does not make it true. I want a billion dollars, I can pretend I have it or will have it, but I just cant bring myself to believe it.
his whole debate is too bizarre. All one needs to do is look at the mess we're in to see we need God to save us.
No, "All you need" not "all one needs". It is not obvious to me, nor infact to a large number of people. For a start you would have to believe in God to come to that conclusion, and even those who do, do not all reach that conclusion.
What worst of all, is that God has no intention whatsoever of saving us. In fact, most theists tell me that God is the one who arranged this whole mess, supposedly to enable free will or make us stronger or whatever the excuse of the day happens to be.
I admit a few people will blame it all on Adam and Eve - and I find it interesting how often Adam gets the blame more than Eve.
20 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI know that just because I'm sure is not proof of anything or evidence for the existence of God or eternal life or anything else.
Honesty is all I ask for. I do not think you are being dishonest. My only concern in this instance is that you are sure, my Catholic friend is sure and my Muslim friend is sure, my Hindu friend is sure, and not one of you can give me any better reason to believe that you are right than simply being sure. And it is painfully obvious that at a minimum all e am and Eve - and I find it interesting how often Adam gets the blame more than Eve.
Ultimately you will have to discover that for yourself. And if and when you do, try proving it! I'm not that shallow.
But there is something. It's right there. Right where you can't see it with your eyes, or hear it with your ears. That is what I'm trying to show you. Not with proof or evidence, but with the spirit. Do you think it's an easy thing to do without sounding like an idiot?
"Yet if I asked you what your soul or spirit were, you would either disappear from the thread or start sidestepping the questions."
I think I read this by you somewhere else. I said it then, and I'll say it here again. I'd love to go there. Hopefully you will see it this time.
Ask away!
20 Jun 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThat's right. There may be an element of truth in any system, but ultimately one needs to know the whole truth. Anything less is a perversion of the truth.
But that, precisely, may not be the case. Or, they may all partially -- essentially -- be right -- from a certain perspective.
You know, I realise that when I make statements, like the one above, I more than likely need to improve on it. So give me a little wobble room. Or maybe alot of wobble room. 🙂
20 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadDistance is not made of anything . It is a useful concept to describe existence itself. Can you tell me what distance is made of?
Know your are deliberately setting up a strawman. Or do you honestly still not understand the concept of a dimension?
Are you just as sceptical about spacial dimensions? Are you really not in the same place as me? What is distance made of?
If you think your ideas are even slightly valid, why do you resort to strawmen? I always think that such arguments are a clear indication that someone does not believe what they are claiming.
I'm completely serious.
20 Jun 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageDo you think faith means "hope so"? I don't go for the "faith is blind" reasoning.
'The existence of God'. How can the unmanifest exist? One aspect of the paradox of faith.
The Bible says that faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
I have faith in something manifest. I would have to be delusional if it were not true.
The real paradox is that one of us is wrong.
20 Jun 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadMy only concern in this instance is that you are sure, my Catholic friend is sure and my Muslim friend is sure, my Hindu friend is sure, and not one of you can give me any better reason to believe that you are right than simply being sure.---whitey----------
Honesty is all I ask for. I do not think you are being dishonest. My only concern in this instance is that you are sure, my Catholic friend is sure and my Muslim friend is sure, my Hindu friend is sure, and not one of you can give me any better reason to believe that you are right than simply being sure. And it is painfully obvious that at a minimum all e ...[text shortened]... am and Eve - and I find it interesting how often Adam gets the blame more than Eve.
But the whole point is that it's not an intellectual thing but a living thing. Don't look for an "intellectual" reason to believe and also don't look for certainty because certainty can be in both pacifist and terrorist (which is what I think you are saying here). Look for love and humility. What Jesus has to offer is a certain assurance based on love and his Spirit. It's more of a quiet gentle understated certainty , the kind you instinctively trust.
20 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwNo, merely that (to wear a theist's hat for a moment) it's unworthy to attempt to constrain God to human language. To say that God exists is to begin to imagine an existent God which by definition is idolatry. You address yourself to God in faith, which -- but I've already referred you to Kierkegaard.
Do you think faith means "hope so"? I don't go for the "faith is blind" reasoning.
'I have faith in something manifest'. You can put the divine in a bottle?
20 Jun 08
Originally posted by josephwIf you can separate mythological truth from empirical truth, you instantly acquire a great deal of wobble room.
That's right. There may be an element of truth in any system, but ultimately one needs to know the whole truth. Anything less is a perversion of the truth.
You know, I realise that when I make statements, like the one above, I more than likely need to improve on it. So give me a little wobble room. Or maybe alot of wobble room. 🙂
21 Jun 08
2 edits
The complete conviction that one is right comes less from the ultimate truth of ones religion and more from the ego of the individual - the very thing that separates the individual from his fellow man, from 'God' and from ultimate reality itself. These people are the very last ones suitable to be assured of anything in my view.
What Christian fundamentalists fail to recognise is people in other traditions have an equal share in experiencing the benefits that faith or spiritual practice can bring.
religious jews, muslims, hindus and buddhists can all show a commonality of experience so why some people think they have a monopoly is at best simple ignorence and at worst an arrogance that can quickly be turned to evil.
The thing about Christianity is that it has no real esoteric tradition outside of monasteries and even that is not as clearly defined and developed as esoteric traditions accessible elswhere. Islam has Sufism, Judaism has the Kabbalah and Buddhism has the Vajrayana - adepts from these and other traditions recognise each othe, respect each other and know where each is coming from - they do not evangelise and they do not go to war - they teach peace and live peace.
Christian fundamentalists (born agains et al) also recgognise their opposites who are also at the very bottom of their respective traditions such as muslim fundamentalists and they hate them as they are hated in return - these are the very last people who should be evangelising for they are plain ignorant, arrogant and deluded. They can 't even begin to grasp how deluded they are so talking to them is a waste of time in my opinion.
21 Jun 08
3 edits
Originally posted by clearlightOf what importance is "esoteric tradition"? What is important is truth. It seems to me that those who "recognise each other, respect each other and know where each is coming from" recognize, respect and know the truth in others.
The complete conviction that one is right comes less from the ultimate truth of ones religion and more from the ego of the individual - the very thing that separates the individual from his fellow man, from 'God' and from ultimate reality itself. These people are the very last ones suitable to be assured of anything in my view.
What Christian fundament even begin to grasp how deluded they are so talking to them is a waste of time in my opinion.
I believe Jesus recognized this also.
John 8:32
So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
Unfortunately "Christianity", as a whole, does not have the teachings of Jesus at it's core.
It's ironic that "fundamentalists" have abandoned their prophets.
I fully agree with your points about "ego", "Christian fundamentalists", "monopoly" and "fundamentalists" in general.