Jump to content

Inspiration


Javelin

Recommended Posts

Hi David! Thank you for keeping up this topic by your responses!

 

I have and am persuaded that the law and grace/love are like oil and water. That just a little bit of the law is contrary to living in grace. (A little leaven leavens the whole lump) That love in it's highest-mature form is more then enough to guide and temper my behavior...because love hurts no one. There are threads of this (what I would consider fact) all thru the NT...and more so in some of the books...such as in Galatians. It is packed with this evidence. "You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was Christ...that was crucified! The only thing I want to learn from you is this: Did you recieve the Spirit by doing the works of the law or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? Having started with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh?...Well then, does God supply you with the Spirit and work miracles among you by your doing the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard?(faith)" Gal. 3:1-5

 

God has supplied us with the Spirit of God not just to supply salvation...but the Spirit is also quite enough to guide us as well...because the Spirit produces love, peace, patience, kindness, self-control and etc...which means as I grow into maturity I won't need the law to be my disciplinarian. (Gal.3:23-26...as well as other places in scripture where it speaks of the immature/weak in faith/children who are still in need of milk and still need to follow rules) Yes, children need to be lead by the hand and need guidelines...altho they need my example of how to live more. Anyway, if we live by the Spirit, then we just won't continue to gratify the desires of the flesh. The two are light and darkness...they cannot exist together at the same time. When a person has grown to the place where they are able to let go of needing to be told what to do (law/rules) and their heart has been turned towards having their whole life being led by the Spirit, then the Spirit Himself has the ability to prevent that person from hurting others and self. Gal. 5:16-21 When I take my eyes off of myself (I have to focus and have my eyes on myself in order to work hard at behaving) and put my eyes outside of myself and onto the Spirit ((which does take faith, because it doesn't make sense to the carnal mind..Gal. 5:1-6)) then the results are twofold...both the person who is being loved and the person loving are affected. The person who is walking in the Spirit begins to see (as they grow in this way of life) that they cannot sin and do the things of the Spirit at the same time because the two are opposed to each other. <The just shall live by faith.>

 

Peace to you,

Jenny

 

Dear Jenny,

 

Thank you for posting yesterday (@ 10:40). Thank you for still loving others, despite their poor behavior.

And thank you for acknowledging that regardless of your effort, you can never reach perfection. Well, welcome to the human race, where none of us are perfect either.

---

 

"Integrity is doing the right thing regardless of the consequences."; "Love is an act of the will."- DavidK

 

Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not to do away with it.

 

Do you have children? Did you teach them any modes of proper conduct? Certainly you did. And wasn't it because you loved them that you did? Didn't you punish for disobedience as well as forgive when they were repentent? Certainly you did. And wasn't it because you loved them that you did these things?

 

You're right by saying love is powerful and is the overriding principle. That's why God's commandments (Laws) are summed up by saying- we are to love Him and our neighbors. Because He first loved us, He gave us His Laws commanding us to love. Aren't there consequences for how we are obedient? Doesn't our obedience to God's Law then demonstrate our love for Him in much the same way as our children do for us, and us to our parents?

 

If 'love' looks out for the "highest welfare", shouldn't we expect bad behavior to be dealt with in order to protect it?

 

God is the source for the Law and love. He is what gives them meaning. That's what truly should inspire us.

 

With love,

Davidk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 158
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Hello David!

Thank you for your sincerity and how much of your time you take to respond. :^)

 

I believe that love does not spring from following the law. ("By being obedient to the law...That restraint builds character, empathy and love")I tried "being good" for years in my own power. I would plead with God to help me obey Him and not mess up. Yet, then I finally came to realize that my asking God to help me obey the law was missing it. I was not supposed to obey, or even try and obey a set of rules that have been set by me or my church or wherever. My freedom from besetting sins came when my motivation became much, much broader...when my motivation was to focus on the things of the Spirit instead of myself and a set of rules. >>>Right behavior springs from loving. When I am following Christ's life and following the Spirits lead(which produces the Fruits of the Spirit)...then I won't steal, lie, kill, covet, harass, hate(except evil), and so on and so forth. And when I do make mistakes or stray, then the Spirit pricks my heart <<the heart becomes much softer when living this life in the Spirit>> and leads me in a different direction...whereas the law is punitive and just kept reminding me how bad I was. Loving completely fulfills ALL the requirements of the law...it also leaves nothing out as far as how we are to treat people. SO, why do I need rules to tell me what to do?? Children and those who need something concrete that they can see....like rules and the law...this I can understand. But maturity should produce being able to have integrity without having a set of rules telling me what to do. If the love of God has reached perfection in you then you will naturally be doing what is good and right in any given situation...your life will match up with God's commandments and beyond, and you will naturally be walking as Jesus walked...because this is what the Spirit produces. (1 John 2:3-6)

 

Love is like water...it can flow into any and every crevice...nourishing, influencing, leading, healing, giving individual/specific attention....whereas the law and rules do not have this ability. The very nature of rules and law is punitive...it only cares whether you obey it. This is why the police only stop you when you have broken the law...and when they do stop you they don't care whether you have had a horrible morning and that is why you forgot to stop and get your tail-light fixed. Jesus often went outside of the law to show love, because the law is very limited in what it can do. Our society as a whole needs it because it needs to be told when and where to do or not to do things. But as people who have the Spirit...who have the God Who IS love...then why would we also need something like that? The Spirit has the ability to lead us into all righteousness. The Spirit does not need ANY help(rules) in doing this at all if we, by faith, decide to understand and then turn our focus outside of ourselves. God's love reaches every single area of life...He wants us to look to Him and the Spirit for guidance and how to live life, and not a set of rules. I don't need a rule to tell me not to hit someone if I am in the process of loving them.

 

The law is (biblically/NT) for those who still have need of rules to guide them.

 

 

Hello Mike,

'Tis true that by my own authority I submit myself to the greater authority. What I fail to see is how, by submission to the greater authority, I somehow become the greater authority.

Man has been given authorities by God, but they're always to be understood as beholden to His final authority.

 

That's a fine quote from your church.

I think care should be taken in presenting the Bible as having any personal attributes ("the Bible's ability to lead"), it is dangerously close to idolization of the text. Rather, I suggest, we adhere to the truth, the particular substance of the ideas, expressions, and whatever facts are presented to us in the Bible from which to recieve our inspiration.

---

 

Hello Jenny,

I believe, so far, that our perspectives are not all that different. I simply wasn't certain of something that your follow-up did explain a little further. I have no doubt, and can certainly agree with you fully, that God's love is preeminent throughout.

However, to take mine a little further, I do believe God's giving us His Law demonstrates His unequivical love for us. I would argue that the Law does not, itself, restrain us. The laws purpose is to expose our personal misdeeds encouraging repentence. (the law is not there to protect me from others, but to protect others from me!) By being obedient to the law, possible only by acknowledging our dependance upon God's assistance (another purpose of the Law), we can restrain ourselves. That restraint builds character, empathy, and love. Jesus fulfilling the law clearly responds to its importance to man.

---

 

Adi,

Thanks. Of course, I didn't want to carry on with only an assumption of the object of your faith.

Would you continue with what you meant then by having said, "(you) see the Bible as inspired by faith (in Jesus Christ),... as distinct from inspired by God."

 

Don't lose the word "magic". I understand the lilting spiritual joy by experience when my heart is pierced by profound truths. I know that is what you meant when you coined your phrase. I know that is what you meant by "magical". It is a good word when understood in its proper context.

 

Let's also not lose the word "literal". I think to better grasp the intent of the word as it is used in the fundamental lexicon, replace the word "magic" with "literal".

 

In the parable of the Good Samaritan, the fundamental understanding is that Jesus literally spoke a literal parable. In which case, the man is not necessarily to have been a literal man. This seems identical to your understanding.

 

The Bible literally says, "... there is no God." ( Psalm 14:1), but it does not affirm this. It does not teach "there is no God". There's no claim the Bible is inerrant in things it does not affirm, regardless how literal the reading.

 

If the words are dealt with fairly, "without error" can be seen as a proper statment. A fundamental Christian principle is: the Bible is without error not only when it speaks of values, the meaning system and religious things, but it is also without error when it speaks of history and the cosmos, whether it is stated by raw fact or metaphor.

---

 

Minsocal,

Because: we, being finite, are not a sufficient reference point.

 

G'day y'all,

 

Davidk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jenny, may I make a suggestion? Would you, please, consider deleting some, if not all, of the posts to which you're responding. By including them- it is taking up an extrodinary amount of space and making it somewhat ponderous to read your reponses. Thank you.

--

I understand what you are saying, and I believe I see where we may be missing each others point.

When you speak of the law, you are considering what your local church, or wherever, sets up. I'm not. When I am speaking of the Law, I'm referencing only God given Law, as enunciated in Scripture. Please don't see the capitalization of "Law" as a typo.

Obedience to the Law is not possible by our own effort alone, and it is a vivid demonstration of God's love in His giving man the rules on how to survive; part of the Old Testaments message. With that in mind, you have made a sensible argument.

--

Mike,

At least one good thing has come from Jenny's inclusion of my last post to you. And that is: I want to apologize to you for writing in what clearly could have been seen as needlessly adversarial by taking you out of context, while criticising others for the same thing. Though a good example, it's probably not the best way to make a point.

--

minsocal,

Sorry, I coudn't find that question. I did find:

"What difference would there be in inspiration generated from within versus that recieved from some outside source?"

Man can inspire.

I believe what gives this inspiration meaning, is how it can be measured against the ultimate inspiration from a personal-infinite God. This was to be evident in contemplating on our finite nature's inability to provide a final (ultimate) meaning. It could only have been provided by an infinite source.

 

Davidk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I coudn't find that question. I did find:

"What difference would there be in inspiration generated from within versus that recieved from some outside source?"

Man can inspire.

 

I believe what gives this inspiration meaning, is how it can be measured against the ultimate inspiration from a personal-infinite God. This was to be evident in contemplating on our finite nature's inability to provide a final (ultimate) meaning. It could only have been provided by an infinite source.

 

davidk,

 

I am simply raising the point that your "infinite source" could be within us as well as somewhere "out there".

 

minsocal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

minsocal,

I believe I understand you about this.

 

If you've the patience, I'd like to look in on this.

 

I believe there are two distinct divisions in the universe. One division is with God being infinite on the one side, while all else being finite is on the other side.

 

The second division is in regard to personality, with God and man on one side; all else is on the other.

 

This second division of the personal from the impersonal explains that a personal relationship can and does exist between man and God that the rest of creation does not, nor cannot, have. This relationship between God and man involves communication, personal communication.

 

So God is external; that is, He is not us. Though we are seperated from Him by our finiteness, we can have a personal relationship with Him and thusly have internal, that is within, knowledge of His truths by way of His having communicated them to us within a personal relationship.

 

It is the impersonal which is "out there"- incommunicado. That final alienation is what we dread finding. There would no inspiration in that.

 

Davidk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi David, I think we are still missing each other...or we simply just don't agree. When I speak of the law...I am speaking about the original law and all law that has come after it. I am not talking about guidelines as far as, for instance if I visited another country where culture and what is and isn't lawful is different...then I would want to know the specifics so I do not offend them and know what specific lines not to cross that I am not familiar with. However, I believe that if my motivation is love, in everything I do...if I have "put on Christ"...then I do not need any rules telling me how to treat those around me. I also teach my children basically the same...to do what I ask, instead of setting up a set of rules for them to refer to. I want them to learn to follow integrity, not a set of rules. To follow a trustworthy person, not a set of rules. In Christianity, we now have Christ, we can follow Him and emulate Him instead of referring to a set of rules. I have worked with children for 30 yrs and children will follow rules (it is human nature) no matter who set them. However, this sets them up for abuse...as, if the person says, "You have to follow what I say, cause it's the rule."..they will probably do what you say. I am not saying that rules are invalid in this world...because they do have their place....but I am saying that they are similar to inadament objects. They are hard and cold and it really doesn't matter who endorsed or placed them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi David,

 

I believe there are two distinct divisions in the universe. One division is with God being infinite on the one side, while all else being finite is on the other side.

 

The second division is in regard to personality, with God and man on one side; all else is on the other.

 

I appreciate the clarity you have achieved here. For me I find the dichotomies or categories of infinite/finite and personal/impersonal problematic. God and the becoming that is creation are "other" to each other and are in relationship. While elements, events and objects in creation are finite, as am I, I don't think infinite or finite can be used to describe creation-becoming. Creation-becoming will exist as long as God is dynamic. So I wonder if the infinite/finite distinction is useful. I don't see how one can talk about the personal/impersonal dichotomy without being subjective.

 

 

Dutch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

minsocal,

I believe I understand you about this.

 

If you've the patience, I'd like to look in on this.

 

I believe there are two distinct divisions in the universe. One division is with God being infinite on the one side, while all else being finite is on the other side.

 

The second division is in regard to personality, with God and man on one side; all else is on the other.

 

This second division of the personal from the impersonal explains that a personal relationship can and does exist between man and God that the rest of creation does not, nor cannot, have. This relationship between God and man involves communication, personal communication.

 

So God is external; that is, He is not us. Though we are seperated from Him by our finiteness, we can have a personal relationship with Him and thusly have internal, that is within, knowledge of His truths by way of His having communicated them to us within a personal relationship.

 

It is the impersonal which is "out there"- incommunicado. That final alienation is what we dread finding. There would no inspiration in that.

 

Davidk

 

davidk,

 

 

Thank you for confirming that you still adhere to this model. As you know, we have never agreed on these points. Not much has changed. I do not believe that the Bible is the exclusive "word" of God. My own thinking these days is much closer to Tibetan Buddhism with the substitution of God for karmic causation (roughly speaking). While external sources provide the raw material, my own emotions and intuitions provide the conditions of satisfaction concerning what is inspiring and what is not.

 

minsocal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Jenny,

 

Love's rules are personal, rather than impersonal (inanimate), because a personal God gave us those rules.

 

Love is patient; Love is kind; Love does not brag; Love is not arrogant; The love of money is the root for all sorts of evil; just to name a few of the rules of love.

 

There's not any compelling reason to consider trusting Jesus unless you first know something of what He says is right and wrong, good and evil; and that involves rules. Likewise, there doesn't seem to be any compelling reason to follow Him; unless you know He has the authority He claimed, to say what is ultimately right or wrong.

 

God created the universe with form and order. There could be no form and order if there were not rules. By His rules the universe exists, and by conforming to those laws/rules we are able to live in it.

Now, that is not to say that Man doesn't continuously try to reshape God's rules; abusing them, everything, and everyone in the process. I believe those rules are the ones we can agree we must object to following.

---

 

Dutch,

 

I believe what would cause such a problem may stem from not understanding that God is not nature.

I may not have been so clear. For if I had, you would have understood my saying that God has a relationship with both man and nature, but only with man is it a personal relationship.

The infinite/finite distinction is useful in that it is what ultimately differentiates God from everything else, they are, after all- mutually exclusive.

---

 

Minsocal,

 

It's been my experience that Karma is concerned with the effects of action plus attitude. I'm not convinced that substituting God for Karma really illustrates a very good understanding of either one.

 

I agree that it is a source external to man that provides the "raw" inspiration, that original source is what gives it it's meaning. What source do you consider as the first cause?

 

I don't recall ever having discussed the Bible as- the exclusive "word" of God.

 

 

Peace,

Davidk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, I think it might be best to say that we basically disagree.

 

I believe that the only reason God gave us something concrete...like rules...is to, for one, give folks who truly need to be led by the hand; the hand that they need. As in children who need things spelled out for them and those who are living a day-to-day survival, carnal-minded type of life. There needed to be some concrete, spelled out guidelines for some people. However, there is a higher form of living...or why are we here, on this site??? What would I want to be here to be inspired to do??? To make more money or collect more things or be better then other people?? What would be the reason for me to be more spiritually minded? My goal is to be continually more mature and spiritual in my thinking and being...and in so doing I need less and less for anyone to tell me how to do this or that...or what is right or wrong in the many situations in life. My intent is to grow and mature spiritually, which means to grow past needing someone (outer-guide) telling me; "Don't touch this and don't touch that". To grow to a point where love (which is the very highest form of being and doing)is my inner-guide...which can go and fit into places in life most rules never can (like water vs. concrete)...and has the ingredients (patience, kindness and not selfish or boastful & etc...) which rules do not have.

 

Love tempers my behaviors and does much-much more then rules could ever do! When I am truly loving..which is much-MUCH more then a good feeling...I cannot steal or murder, because they clash with one another as do light and darkness and don't mix like oil and water...SO when I am loving I am naturally following the 10 commandments [the does and don'ts] and much more for others and society then following rules could ever do. Rules see the wrong done only. Love sees the behaviors, but MUCH more so, it sees the person behind the behaviors.

 

 

Well, David...Peace of God to You! :^) I think I am finished with this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Minsocal,

 

It's been my experience that Karma is concerned with the effects of action plus attitude. I'm not convinced that substituting God for Karma really illustrates a very good understanding of either one.

 

I agree that it is a source external to man that provides the "raw" inspiration, that original source is what gives it it's meaning. What source do you consider as the first cause?

 

I don't recall ever having discussed the Bible as- the exclusive "word" of God.

 

davidk,

 

Karmic causation and karma are related but not the same. Karmic causation is the primary natural causal principle by which everything comes into being. More importantly, karmic causation would be the (causal) principle behind the evolution of consciousness which, in turn, is a prerequisite for those mental processes we are concerned with here, but not the only prerequisite. If by this time you sense some connection here to Whitehead, this is not an accident.

 

As to your second point, it is not (only) the external source that gives inspiration "meaning". Here, I use the term "meaning" in a broad sense where "meaning" includes "value". Practical reasoning, in the Kantian sense, involves more than the rules of logic. It is an iterative process combining bottom-up and top-down processing, with the final product being a judgment which is either correct or incorrect. Value enters the picture by introducing the polarity and scalar intensity of emotion. Primary emotions are innate and provide the degree of intrinsic intentionality and scalar intensity needed to distinguish that which inspires from a sea of otherwise mundane facts. In other words, intrinsic intentionality and primary value are "built into" us. This, in a sense, is "the God within".

 

In Buddhism, there is no first cause. I am content to leave that to those who wish to delve deeper into metaphysical speculation.

 

I will conclude with the comment that Buddhist cosomology, at least Tibetan Buddism, is not static. It is open to change in light of new revelations be they through science or any other reliable means (Dalai Lama, 2005). This in itself I find inspiring. Authoritative sources are not taken to be inerrant.

 

minsocal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, I think it might be best to say that we basically disagree...However, I have added a few things to my recent reply...

 

I believe that the only reason God gave us something concrete...like rules...is to, for one, give folks who truly need to be led by the hand; the hand that they need. As in children who need things spelled out for them and those who are living a day-to-day survival, egocentric-minded type of life...which is where we all started out. There needed to be some concrete, spelled out guidelines for some people. However, there is a higher form of living...or why are we here, on this site..or even in this world??? What would I want to be here to be inspired to do??? To make more money or collect more things or be better then other people because I am gaining more knowledge?? What would be the reason for me to be more spiritually minded? My goal is to be continually more mature/effective and spiritual in my thinking and being...and in so doing I need less and less for anyone to tell me how to do this or that...or what is right or wrong in the many situations in life. My intent is to grow and mature spiritually, which means to grow past needing someone (outer-guide) telling me; "Don't touch this and don't touch that". To grow to a point where love ((which is the very highest form of being and doing and is very multi-dimensional in it's framework)) is my inner-guide. Love can go and fit into places in life most rules never can, and can be utilized no matter where I go or no matter what the rules are. (like water vs. concrete) And has the ingredients (patience, kindness and not selfish or boastful & etc...) which rules do not have.

 

I've seen many-many people live their religion and their lives with rules as the focus and guide and have not grown beyond that. They are law-abiding citizens and because obeying the rules of the land and the 10 commandments can satisfy many people..with maybe a good deed thrown in here and there...this is as far as they go. Any growth they seek is centered around their own life and being, to make their life bigger and brighter.

 

However, love, as a way of life and not just incidently, notices the bigger world...like the person behind you in line at the grocery store who only has a few things, or the sad person sitting along side the curb or any of the many opportunities there are that you would NOT be breaking the law if you didn't do anything about!! How about your waitress when she is apparently exhausted, so you are a little bit more patient in getting your food and naturally treat her with kindness, when everyone else is getting impatient because there is no law against that!

 

To me Christ was the perfect example of this. The Pharasees were only concerned with whether people obeyed the law...whereas Jesus cared about people despite their behaviors. He also went against the laws of the day in favor of showing love to both human and beast alike. Love tempers my behaviors and does much-much more then rules could ever do! When I am truly loving..which is much-MUCH more then a good feeling...I cannot steal or murder, because they clash with one another as do light and darkness and don't mix like oil and water...SO when I am loving I am naturally following the 10 commandments [the does and don'ts] and much more for others and society then following rules could ever do. Rules see the wrong done only. Love sees the behaviors but for a much different reason, as it sees the person behind the behaviors and what can be done to help.

 

 

Well, David...the Peace of God and much love to You! :^) I think I am finished with this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

God created the universe with form and order. There could be no form and order if there were not rules. By His rules the universe exists, and by conforming to those laws/rules we are able to live in it.

Now, that is not to say that Man doesn't continuously try to reshape God's rules; abusing them, everything, and everyone in the process. I believe those rules are the ones we can agree we must object to following.

 

How do you know that the rules in the bible weren't inspired by Satan to deceive Christians into believing in the wrong holy book?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you know that the rules in the bible weren't inspired by Satan to deceive Christians into believing in the wrong holy book?

Good point Neon! Thats why I prefer Christianity, as Christ..who is a person...is followed instead of rules. To me the bible is like a letter (or letters) given to your children...letters that give inspiration and explanation. But are, I believe secondary to Jesus Himself...as I believe and have experienced that Jesus is still here and active in Spirit...so why would I HAVE to refer to a set of rules on knowing how to live?

 

They are good and a concrete reference tool when I need it...but as I mature in spiritual stature I go to it not as a set of rules but as a way of learning about our spiritual history and how God dealt with people thru history and sometimes for revelation concerning my own life. Kinda like if your dad sent you a very important letter with lots of good stuff in it. You'll pull it out at times and see things in it you didn't see the last time you read it...but the letter is not and never can be a replacement for him. Jesus once even asked someone why they were going to the written word for their eternal life instead of going to Him. Altho Christianity is practiced as a set of rules too...actually many times, unfortunately...I believe it is not that way at all. The bible even says something interesting about itself; that it has the ability to kill, and it is the Spirit that gives life. When the word is used literally it can be a weapon that hurts people who are weaker...or esteem & rely on rules for their life.

 

I think that following rules is the closest and most familiar form of living life for human beings...they're easier cause they spell things out and you don't have to think for yourself...they ease the conscience if you follow them well...they are concrete and therefore more tangible...if you follow them you are less likely to get into trouble and because a large portion of folks see God as a 'right and wrong' sort of God, then following the rules means you can please Him to boot! So, why not just go along and follow the rules!? ;^)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

 

I think you were clear and I think I understand.

 

One of the ways you describe the otherness of the relationship between Creator and Creation is in terms of infinite and finite. Then you say that humans are different than the rest of Creation because they are personal :D and that "personal" attribute allows them to be in a special/higher relationship with God than the rest of creation.

 

I believe . . . that God is not nature. . . . they are, after all- mutually exclusive.

 

True. God and creation-becoming are not each other, but "other" to each, and so they are in relationship. But infinite and finite are not useful attributes, it seems to me. If you want to emphasize God's transcendent nature then perhaps infinite vs finite is OK, but creation is becoming as long as God is dynamic. Each is infinite. In relationship to infinity and beyond. I think infinite/finite, and personal/impersonal are useful in story telling but not in propositions - or maybe I'm not fond of propositions.

 

"I am especially fond of you, " Abba says frequently to Mack and about others Mack himself is not especially fond of. In "The Shack" the portrayal of the Trinity as family is a story full of warmth and wonder and relationship. A very personal relationship. And subjective.

 

Since humans are a finite element/event in creation-becoming, they are in relationship with God - and we find the relationship transforming and some choose to describe the relationship in personal terms.

 

I think when we use terms like infinite, finite, and personal to talk about God we must acknowledge that we are describing our experiences and telling our faith stories, not stating propositions about God.

 

I am especially fond of you :D

Dutch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Dutch,

 

The relationship between God and the universe is that of the creator and the created; exemplified by- the potter and the pottery.

If that relationship between God and man is not personal between finite man and the infinite God, then we have no way to answer for any inspired religious experiences being anything but illusion.

 

The semantics in even the most obscure use of language, insists on a belief of a creator preceding all else. i.e.; creation-becoming. The universe is limited in the past, it had a beginning. Whether it appears it may have no end, to say the universe is infinite is only applicable in the direction of the future.

 

If by "dynamic", you mean the generative force for the physical, moral, and intellectual driving of all else, I suppose I can agree; by the sheer weight of the evidence in what exists.

--

 

A propostion is a declarative statement/sentence that expresses or symbolizes something that can be believed, doubted, or denied. Your posts are propositional. A parable is propositional. If any statement is made of faith experiences, you are speaking propositionally. If you make any argument or narration proposing any consideration that makes any hint of being true or false, it is the act of speaking propositionally.

 

It seems your fondness is not just reserved for me, but rather extends to propositions as well.

 

In the realm of "Fond",

 

Davidk

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

 

A proposition is a declarative statement/sentence that expresses or symbolizes something that can be believed, doubted, or denied.

Guilty as charged.

 

If that relationship between God and man is not personal between finite man and the infinite God, then we have no way to answer for any inspired religious experiences being anything but illusion.

Not having an answer does not equal "illusion". I think the answer for these experiences is what follows after. Is the blindfold removed? Do we soar like on the wings of eagles? Do we experience peace and seek peace for others? Through my lens those are the kinds of answers I would look for. Can we have an illusion and be motivated to do life giving work? I think the answer is yes. We can also waste the grace of such moments. I find no certainty around any of my inspired religious experiences. They happened. I made them part of my story. Would someone else call them illusions? Possibly.

 

Part of the distinction I guess I'm making is that I can't say objectively that God has certain attributes, and therefore I can not say that this is real and that is not, that this is an illusion and that is not, that this is an inspiration and that is not. Others in this thread have written about how each time we read scripture there is the possibility for a new insight, a different take. Our relationship with the scripture that inspires us is not one of walking down a road laid before us but one of making the road by walking. In life, I think that the road is not there until we step not knowing what to expect anymore than God knows what to expect until we complete each other in that moment. How do I know I met God? By what comes after and how I tell my story.

 

by the sheer weight of the evidence in what exists.

 

I think that the evidence that exists is subjective.

 

If by "dynamic", you mean the generative force for the physical, moral, and intellectual driving of all else,

 

by dynamic I would mean not static, not creator and created, not nouns. I use "Becoming" to suggest that God is a verb and creation is a verb. God-becoming and creation-becoming (and me-becoming) in a relationship. Some would say that "loving" is the verb to describe God. I would not use "driving" because I don't think God is in that kind of control.

 

Dutch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoa Dutch!

May I address these directly?

 

"Not having an answer does not equal "illusion". I think the answer for these experiences is what follows after. Is the blindfold removed? Do we soar like on the wings of eagles? Do we experience peace and seek peace for others? Through my lens those are the kinds of answers I would look for. Can we have an illusion and be motivated to do life giving work? I think the answer is yes."- glintofpewter, 02 March 2010, 08:21 PM

 

Up to here, I'm in sync with you, with one little caveat.

An illusion can be of flying around like Superman. Now, I can be motivated to run around jumping into the air, trying to fly away. But, because my motivation was an illusion, in reality I can expect nothing less as an outcome.

--

"We can also waste the grace of such moments. I find no certainty around any of my inspired religious experiences. They happened. I made them part of my story. Would someone else call them illusions? Possibly."-glintofpewter, 02 March 2010, 08:21 PM

 

God will certainly be there to offer His grace to us repenting of our folly in following illusions.

 

You're certain ("They happened.") that in your experiences, it is only illusions of certainty that inspire you?

--

"I think that the evidence that exists is subjective." glintofpewter, 02 March 2010, 08:21 PM

 

I totally disagree. We have subjective views of what objectively exists. The unbiased evidence is there. Without objective evidence, hope is only an illusion.

--

"by dynamic I would mean not static, not creator and created, not nouns. I use "Becoming" to suggest that God is a verb and creation is a verb. God-becoming and creation-becoming (and me-becoming) in a relationship. Some would say that "loving" is the verb to describe God. I would not use "driving" because I don't think God is in that kind of control."-glintofpewter, 02 March 2010, 08:21 PM

 

Your suggesting God is a verb? Dynamic is an adjective. Adjectives modify nouns, not verbs.

Well, if you don't believe the existent God is the driving force for the universe, it is no wonder you see Him as a verb! If not God, who or what then? Uncertainty? Illusions?

 

Follow not the uncertain, the illusions of certainty. For by following, you will become uncertain in life and of your destiny. Only despair can live with such uncertainties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

An illusion can be of flying around like Superman. Now, I can be motivated to run around jumping into the air, trying to fly away. But, because my motivation was an illusion, in reality I can expect nothing less as an outcome.

The Superman story shows that what comes after the experience is the important event - not whether or not the "attribute" of illusion can be applied to the original experience.

 

For example: Someone I know had a near death experience and felt that they freely chose, in covenant with God, to return to this life. Is it useful to read all the literature, both scientific and anecdotal, to determine whether this was drug or hypoxia induced or not? I don't think so. What matters is how they live after that experience. How they live into the story of that experience will create the "nature" of that past experience. The future creates the significance of the past.

 

Well, if you don't believe the existent God is the driving force for the universe, it is no wonder you see Him as a verb! If not God, who or what then?

That question, I think, does not demand an answer. I am not sure there is a "driving" force except perhaps a God yearning for self-knowledge and knowing that such knowledge can only come through relationship with "other". --and I don't have any real certainty about that. If I reason about my experiences that's what I say about God. But it has nothing to do with God because I can say nothing objective about God. I can only share my stories and personal testament out of which I try to live sometimes.

 

The unbiased evidence is there. Without objective evidence, hope is only an illusion.

Only despair can live with such uncertainties.

I see no objective evidence for God. What I do hear is us telling about our experiences with the Divine, most valuable but not objective.

 

And I think many live with such uncertainties in great hope and expectancy.

 

Take care

Dutch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Follow not the uncertain, the illusions of certainty. For by following, you will become uncertain in life and of your destiny. Only despair can live with such uncertainties.[/size] [/font]

But don't they say the only certain thing in life is uncertainty?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Dutch,

 

I find this really interesting, so allow me to build some thoughts stimulated by the thoughts you have presented here.

 

First, I see the whole issue the way Ray Smullyan put it in The Tao is Silent. After noting the desperate conflict between theism and atheism, he writes:

 

'meanwhile, the Taoist sage sits quietly...enjoying the Tao to his hearts [sic] content, without ever worrying whether or not the Tao exists. The Sage has no need to affirm the Tao; he is far too busy enjoying it!'

 

If only we could come to that point about God, where God ceases to be a mere proposition and becomes a reality in the very directness of life.

 

I think in and of themselves, without our interpreting them and ascribing to them any objective signification, our experiences are nothing less than epiphanies of God, whereas how we interpret them - whether sacred or profane, becomes what those experiences mean for us.

 

This may appear arbitrary, but only from the outside. Existentially it is not arbitrary, and the signification of our experiences go to the very root our sense of identity. After all, it is not just any experience which opens oneself to the reality of the divine, and to a deeper awareness, appreciation and, as above, 'enjoyment' of God.

 

Our sacred experiences inform us as to the meaning of the whole of life - that is, the Source of meaning. They are abrupt disclosures and encounters with that which is beyond definition and neither inside the world nor beyond it, and both.

 

Therefore, our experiences, like the Sacraments, are doorways to the Sacred, but the Sacred is not objectified, exhausted, and defined with certainty by these experiences. As you said, perhaps to the experiences themselves, no 'attribute' like 'illusory' may be applied, and no absolute interpretation can be pinned down. Such would be contrary to the very nature of 'revelation'.

 

There is no real need to bother oneself about whether God exists or not, and whether this or that experience was a genuine experience of him as opposed to something else (as if God were an object with a definite location and identifiable properties). Perhaps we should just be far too busy enjoying God, experiencing God, without any worrying about affirming whether or not God exists.

 

Just my obtuse thoughts about which I'll probably have changed my mind by tomorrow.

 

Peace to you,

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

n.

1.

a.Stimulation of the mind or emotions to a high level of feeling or activity.

b.The condition of being so stimulated.

2.An agency, such as a person or work of art, that moves the intellect or emotions or prompts action or invention.

3.Something, such as a sudden creative act or idea, that is inspired.

4.The quality of inspiring or exalting: a painting full of inspiration.

5.Divine guidance or influence exerted directly on the mind and soul of humankind.

6.The act of drawing in, especially the inhalation of air into the lungs.

 

Definitions of "inspiration" take a variety of forms, but generally follow this pattern. Definition 6 does not fit our scheme except by metaphor in the OP. Note the words in bold. They appear to point to something dynamic, creative, novel, changing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dutch,

 

By including "in covenant with God" in the near death experience, you've given God the credit for it and the life after, their significance.

 

Truth is foundational, it pre-exists the lie. Truth gives significance to a lie. A lie does not give significance to the truth. Truth happened in the past, and it is what gives significance to what happens in the present and what may happen in the future.

Only what exists can give meaning for something that is not yet, or may not be. Cause and effect.

 

Greater minds than ours have examined the evidence and know for certain that something drives the universe. Whether you believe it is God, evolution, or whatever, something undoubtedly makes it all work. That is for certain. Otherwise, there is nothing to overwhelm non-existence.

 

If the evidence did not objectively exist we'd have nothing to observe. How we understand it is from our subjective perceptions, and that is determined by our presuppositions. But the objective truth emerges.

 

My grandson has to remove the battery from his truck. He's not certain which wrench will fit. With some uncertainty, he had subjectively hoped and presupposed that a 7mm will. But when faced with the true nut, he had to conform his presuppositions to fit the objective evidence that the nut was a 9mm. Now he is subjectively certain that a 9mm will fit. It did. It objectively and subjectively does. He now has hope that when he has to tend to the battery in the future that he may safely subjectively presuppose the 9mm wrench will work every time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That a child learns by trial and error is hardly a big discovery, it simply describes one kind of learning. More important to this discussion is the emotional reaction of the child when a task is mastered ... it is known as the mastery smile and is common in all humans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service