Deception

[Guest billmc]

There appears to be agreement, that Man cannot, only from within himself, be the measuring stick for truth. The gift to reason truth( mentioned on another's post) must be from an external, endless source of reason and truth itself. Otherwise we'd have no sufficient reference point for us to determine the truth.

 

I agree, David. I would say that it is from both internal and external however. Allow me to use a crude metaphor to explain.

 

I play bass guitar as a hobby. One of the interesting things that happens with musical stringed instruments is called "sympathetic vibrations." What this refers to, in case you don't know, is that if I fret the A-string to play an E note, that vibration will cause the E-string next to it to "ring" with the sympathetic vibrations of the fretted-A. So though I have played only one string, I now have two strings "ringing" together in agreement. They "beat true."

 

The strings are technically not touching each other. But they are close enough together that vibrations in one cause vibrations (or relations) in the other.

 

Some people view God as being totally other, as a being that is somewhere off in outer space and who only shows up here when we pray for his presence to come or when we go to certain holy places where he supposedly dwells. In this view, God is separate from his creation. If divine truth were to be known to mankind, God would actually have to come here and intervene via a divine person or a divine book or sacred object. But even if God does this, there is always this separation between mankind and God.

 

Other people, myself included, view God as being what theologians call "omnipresent", present everywhere in the universe, so much so that there is no place where God is not. The other technical name for this is panentheism (which I'm sure you know). God is always here. Or, as you have said, truth is always present with us. But not only WITH us, but because we ourselves ultimately come from God as our Creator, God is also IN us, part of our DNA so-to-speak. In this view, not only is God EXTERNAL to us, to provide the "note of truth", but God is only INTERNAL to us so that we beat in sympathetic vibration with God. Something inside us "rings" with something that we hear, see, or experience that we think is external to us. The result, IMO, is that we KNOW the truth.

 

It is not a perfect system, of course. Strings are not perfectly constructed. We have faults and defects that can inhibit our ability to ring with the truth. But it can be cultivated.

 

What has never made sense to me is the Calvinistic notion that there is nothing inside mankind that knows truth, that mankind is "totally depraved" to the extent that mankind cannot trust anything in their hearts, especially of the so-called unredeemed or unsaved. If that assertion were actually true, the unsaved would have no internal compass by which to respond to God in the first place. And I just don't find that notion to bear itself our as truth in human history.

 

None of us are perfect strings. We do the best we can. But I don't think that any of us are so depraved that all truth is external to us either.

 

Any feedback on this?

[a higher way]

Indeed, modern Christianity tells us not to trust our hearts, and yet the scriptures talk more about the heart than the mind, mouth, eyes or tongue!

 

When I wrote "Reason," I don't mean the type of reason which is modern, regarding logic, etc.

Rather, it is the reason which we refer to when we say that someone is "reasonable" or acts "unreasonable."

Today, many dispute whether man has innate reason. I think this is a mistake. I think we are more similar than we sometimes are told.

Gerrard Winstanley called God "Reason," and for a purpose:

 

"And here I shall adde one word as an accompt wherefore I use the word Reason, instead of the word God, in my writings, as you shall meet withall: If I demand of you, who made all things? And you answer God. If I demand what is God? You answer the spirituall power; that as he made; so he governs and preserves all things; so that the sum of all is this, God is the chief Maker or Governor, and this maker and governor is God: Now I am lost in this wheel that runs round, and lies under darkness.

 

But if you demand of mee, why I say Reason did make, and doth governe and preserve all things: I answer, Reason is that living power of light that is in all things; it is the salt that savours all things; it is the fire that burns up drosse, and so restores what is corrupted; and preserves what is pure; he is the Lord our righteousnesse.

 

It lies in the bottom of love, of justice, of wisdome; for if the Spirit Reason did not uphold and moderate these, they would be madnesse; nay, they could not be called by them names; for Reason guids them in order, and leads them to their right end, which is not to preserve a part, but the whole creation.

 

But is mans reason that which you cal God? I answer, mans reasoning is a creature which flows from that Spirit to this end, to draw up man into himselfe: it is but a candle lighted by that soul, and this light shining through flesh, is darkened by the imagination of flesh; so that many times men act contrary to reason, though they thinke they act according to reason.

 

By that light of Reason that is in man, he may see a subtlenesse in many things, but not in all things; for the reason that acts in another man, may see a weaknesse of reason that acts in me: but now the Spirit Reason, which I call God, the Maker and Ruler of all things, is that spirituall power, that guids all mens reasoning in right order, and to a right end: for the Spirit Reason, doth not preserve one creature and destroy onother; as many times mens reasoning doth, being blind by the imagination of the flesh: but it hath a regard to the whole creation; and knits every creature together into a onenesse; making every creature to be an upholder of his fellow; and so every one is an assistant to preserve the whole: and neerer that mans reasoning comes to this, the more spirituall they are; the farther off they be, the more selfish and fleshy they be.

 

Now this word Reason is not the alone name of this spirituall power: but every one may give him a name according to that spirituall Power that they feel and see rules in them, carrying them forth in actions to preserve their fellow creatures as well as themselves.

 

Therefore some may call him King of righteousnesse and Prince of peace: some may call him Love, and the like: but I can, and I doe call him Reason; because I see him to be that living powerfull light that is in righteousnesse, making righteousnesse to be righteousnesse; or justice to be justice; or love to be love: for without this moderater and ruler, they would be madnesse; nay, the selfwillednesse of the flesh; and not that which we call them.

 

Lastly, I am made to change the name of God to Reason; because I have been held under darknesse by that word, as I see many people are; and likewise that people may rest no longer upon words without knowledge; but hereafter may look after that spirituall power; and know what it is that rules them, and which doth rule in and over all, and which they call their God and Governour or preserver." -from "Truth Lifting Up Its Head Above Scandals, 1648

 

Blessings,

brian

[rivanna]

Brian,

 

I disagree, that modern Christianity tells us not to trust our hearts. At least I’ve never seen that written by any PC author.

 

The word heart doesn’t always mean the same thing, in scripture.

 

The example you began with was Saul before he became Paul; is that the type of self-deception you wanted to focus on? Or is it about whether we humans can ever have absolute certainty about anything?

 

“Just trust yourself, and you’ll know how to live.” --Goethe

[Guest billmc]

>>When I wrote "Reason," I don't mean the type of reason which is modern, regarding logic, etc.

 

Yes, I don’t mean strictly that, either, although I do think there is a place for such methodology.

 

>>Rather, it is the reason which we refer to when we say that someone is "reasonable" or acts "unreasonable."

 

Agreed. I would perhaps call this “wisdom.” This is, to me, the divine “logos” or “mind” or “wisdom” of God (in Greek, “sophia”). This is more than cold or raw intellect, this is an intuitive part of knowing (or knowledge) that God has in constructing our universe and ourselves so that understanding, compassion, and unity can become hallmarks of creation if we would but listen to it.

 

This is, perhaps, where I would interpret the first chapter of John’s gospel differently from most Christians. Many read it and say, “See, this proves that Jesus existed in a pre-incarnate state as the second person of the Trinity. Then he comes to earth and takes on flesh.”

 

I would say, “To me, John is saying that God’s wisdom (his logos, his, yes, reason) have been shown to us in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.” It doesn’t have to do with the Trinity, it has to do with Jesus being a “word-picture” of how all of us can “tune” to God’s reason and wisdom. Everything the Jesus says of himself, he also speaks of likewise for his followers, so it is not a claim of exclusivity. But it is not about intelligence or being smart. There is no doubt that God is those things, if we can apply human characteristics to him. But it is how his intelligence is used to, not only create a universe that is hospitable to life, but to actually embed his own reason/understanding into his creatures (in varying degrees) so that we can choose to live in harmony with life – which is compassion. To go against this is destructive – self-destructive, socially destructive, and environmentally destructive. It is unwise and, as Jesus said, carries “reaping what we sow.”

 

And this is why, going back to our topic, I suspect we become deceived about God, ourselves, and our world when we either mistake either intelligence (thinking without wisdom) or superstition (feeling without wisdom) for reason. IMO (which, BTW, ALL of my posts are), John was saying that God created the universe through reason, through wisdom that leads to life, to understanding, to compassion, to seeing the connectedness of everything (for it all comes from the same Source), and that following this reason will lead us to experience the highest kind of life, compassion, connectedness, etc. which is, I believe, eternal life. Going against this “grain” is deception and it is destructive to ourselves and our world.

 

>>Today, many dispute whether man has innate reason. I think this is a mistake.

 

I agree. But the temptation is there to nurture reason into hard intellect or into superstition. If we look at the structure of the universe, we can’t help but be impressed by the intellect. But if we look at the “reason” for it (a whole other subject), we are, hopefully, inspired by and called to join in the wisdom of it.

This is why, to me, deception is when we give over our God-given reasoning (for whatever reason, ha ha) to the authority or power of another. We stop judging for ourselves, stop trusting the “spirit” that God has put in us from the start, and forfeit the one life that God has given us (as far as I know) to the authority, power, greed, control (etc.) of others who are usually just following the same pattern or tradition. The key to finding the truth again is, IMO, to start listening to that “still small voice” inside and compare it, not to structures of authority and power (religious and otherwise), but to what is life-affirming and compassionate.

[a higher way]

Brian,

 

I disagree, that modern Christianity tells us not to trust our hearts. At least I've never seen that written by any PC author.

 

The word heart doesn't always mean the same thing, in scripture.

 

The example you began with was Saul before he became Paul; is that the type of self-deception you wanted to focus on? Or is it about whether we humans can ever have absolute certainty about anything?

 

"Just trust yourself, and you'll know how to live." --Goethe

 

Hi rivanna!

Well, the verse is from Jer. 17:9 "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"

Fundamentalists will use this to tell people that they should not trust their heart.

Yet the heart is mentioned more than 800 times in the KJV; the mind, eyes, mouth and tongue are mentioned much less..

 

So I do believe that the heart is God's throne (not simply because it's mentioned more, but because it is the only way that I know of to connect with God!). And so there must be deception WITHIN the church as well, since the very place God dwells is the one the church is telling people to avoid!!

 

Or am I missing something?

 

Blessings,

brian

[Guest billmc]

IMO, I think it is important that we realize that even if we think we are trusting something external to ourselves (the Bible, the Church, our denomination, our traditions, our holy people), we are still, in truth, listening to our heart that we have our trust in the right or meaningful object/person.

 

No matter how objective we think truth may be, we always know it or experience it subjectively. This should remind us to be humble about what we claim to know for certain and to be wise in whatever "external" stimulus we seek to align our internal "truth-meter" to.

 

For me, this takes almost constant recalibration.

[davidk]

... the Bible points beyond itself to the Eternal Word, Christ, a Person, not a book.

I agree with about 75% of that.

To consider any book, the book must have established some credibility in itself, first.

This is typically done today, with such as the authors name (a brief biography, awards, reputation, other books, etc.), and a publishers page (including their history, name, date, place of publish, other publications and history, reputation, etc.), that the book uses to establish itself and it's reliability, to the reader.

Then, after establishing itself, the book will go on with its content, often not shirking further claims of what it is. Readers, confident in what the book says, may often refer to, copy, or memorize what it said.

 

Now did the book actually write itself, publish itself, establish reliability in itself, say anything itself, or point to anything itself?

I don't think anybody really thinks so.

 

I would also say that for me "truth" is not concrete in the sense you seem to imply. It is more for me an eternal creativity, which we can by grace participate in the more our "self" surrenders control.

I apologize if I seemed to have only implied. I will state it rather firmly then- being in accord with facts and reality, Truth is concrete. It is something we can be certain exists.

--

DavidK

[tariki]

David,

 

I have no hope whatsover that anything can be resolved, yet I feel duty bound set out the way I see things, concrete or not.....

 

Really, I do not understand the point you are seeking to make with your words about a book that writes itself; apparently your view is that it would have to have done so for my own view on it pointing beyond itself to be true(100%). I have recently seen a few ideas muted by a Conservative Christian on how to approach "Bible Difficulties" (Norman Geisler) One point he insists upon is that the Bible is human book with human characteristics. So it is. One need only throw in "free will" and we have the Good Book, full of intuitions drawn from our humanity, the intuitions pointing beyond the words themselves. Nevermind.

 

Concrete facts. According to Theravada Buddhism, this is a conversation between the Buddha and a follower, Kassapa. His historical words.

 

"How is it, Master Gotama, is suffering of one's own making?"

 

"Do not put it like that, Kassapa."

 

"Then is suffering of another's making?"

 

"Do not put it like that Kassapa."

 

"Then is suffering both of one's own and another's making?"

 

"Do not put it like that Kassapa."

 

"Then is suffering neither of one's own making nor another's making?"

 

"Do not put it like that Kassapa"

 

"Then there is no suffering?"

 

"It is not a fact that there is no suffering; there is suffering, Kassapa."

 

"Then does Master Gotama neither know nor see suffering?"

 

"It is not a fact that I neither know nor see suffering; I both know and see suffering Kassapa."

 

So we have a "fact"......SUFFERING.

 

And a finger that begins to point towards a resolution of suffering, which cannot be put into words as such.

[davidk]

Really, I do not understand the point you are seeking to make with your words about a book that writes itself; apparently your view is that it would have to have done so for my own view on it pointing beyond itself to be true(100%).

I feel I must apologize, again. Typically, when "not a book" has been mentioned, it has been in the context of the Bible being idolized. The Bible does affirm the infinite and personal God as the appropriate 'object' of our affection and not to itself as that object. However, the Bible also affirms that it is reliable in regard to this truth.

 

Concrete facts. According to Theravada Buddhism, this is a conversation between the Buddha and a follower, Kassapa. His historical words.

His words appear to be consistant with what I've said before: Truth is there. Whether Man understands it or not, it still is. Because objective truth is there- we can know it, though not exhaustively.

 

However, to build a religion where there is only suffering seems deceptive. Particularly, when peace is only in the ultimate (self)annihilation of the personal.

[tariki]

 

However, to build a religion where there is only suffering seems deceptive. Particularly, when peace is only in the ultimate (self)annihilation of the personal.

 

david,

 

You once wrote that you had long left behind the half truths of the eastern religions.

 

I would just say that did I understand them as you appear to do, I too would have long left them behind.

 

All the best

Derek

[tariki]

 

However, to build a religion where there is only suffering seems deceptive.

 

david, just to add a little bit more, and to "defend" Buddhism, the word suffering is only a translation of the Pali word "dukkha" , a word that goes far beyond the simplest connotations translated so often in western books on Buddhism as "suffering".

 

Dukkha refers to the unsatisfactory nature and general insecurity of all conditioned phenomena. And, again, the First Truth (of suffering) does NOT deny the existence of pleasurable experience.

 

In a very simplistic (and obviously in need of genuine interfaith dialogue) attempt to translate the Buddha's words that I quoted previously, he could have said...."I teach this and this alone, original sin and the overcoming of original sin."

[davidk]

I agree, David.

I would say that it is from both internal and external however. Allow me to use a crude metaphor to explain.

I play bass guitar as a hobby. One of the interesting things that happens with musical stringed instruments is called "sympathetic vibrations." What this refers to, in case you don't know, is that if I fret the A-string to play an E note, that vibration will cause the E-string next to it to "ring" with the sympathetic vibrations of the fretted-A. So though I have played only one string, I now have two strings "ringing" together in agreement. They "beat true."

The strings are technically not touching each other. But they are close enough together that vibrations in one cause vibrations (or relations) in the other.

Some people view God as being totally other, as a being that is somewhere off in outer space and who only shows up here when we pray for his presence to come or when we go to certain holy places where he supposedly dwells. In this view, God is separate from his creation. If divine truth were to be known to mankind, God would actually have to come here and intervene via a divine person or a divine book or sacred object. But even if God does this, there is always this separation between mankind and God.

Other people, myself included, view God as being what theologians call "omnipresent", present everywhere in the universe, so much so that there is no place where God is not. The other technical name for this is panentheism (which I'm sure you know). God is always here. Or, as you have said, truth is always present with us. But not only WITH us, but because we ourselves ultimately come from God as our Creator, God is also IN us, part of our DNA so-to-speak. In this view, not only is God EXTERNAL to us, to provide the "note of truth", but God is only INTERNAL to us so that we beat in sympathetic vibration with God. Something inside us "rings" with something that we hear, see, or experience that we think is external to us. The result, IMO, is that we KNOW the truth.

It is not a perfect system, of course. Strings are not perfectly constructed. We have faults and defects that can inhibit our ability to ring with the truth. But it can be cultivated.

What has never made sense to me is the Calvinistic notion that there is nothing inside mankind that knows truth, that mankind is "totally depraved" to the extent that mankind cannot trust anything in their hearts, especially of the so-called unredeemed or unsaved. If that assertion were actually true, the unsaved would have no internal compass by which to respond to God in the first place. And I just don't find that notion to bear itself our as truth in human history.

None of us are perfect strings. We do the best we can. But I don't think that any of us are so depraved that all truth is external to us either.

 

Any feedback on this?

Sympathetic vibrations: I really like your 'crude' metaphor. Fortunately, I have a talented son well versed in stringed instruments, and a father who could play whatever instrument he wanted. Unfortunately, that talent seems to have skipped a generation.

 

"Sympathetic" is also a great word here. I think, we have a real reason to 'vibrate in sympathy' with others.

 

I suppose my other thoughts about the metaphor relate to such things as: who first plucked the string?

There's a need for the first cause to be external to the strings. We need something other than an impersonal first (naturalistic) cause, if we expect to have any hope of the ringing, and any subsequent sympathetic ring, to have any meaning. Music, as opposed to noise.

I believe there needs to be an external- and personal- who, who first plays the string. Who really has to be an external and personal first cause. One who can meaningfully influence directly what He has created, much as any luthier would be. No luthier is actually a stringed instrument.

--

 

There are only 3 possible answers for what is. And pantheism is the embodiment of one of them.

 

Not wishing to be contradictary, but, technically speaking, pantheism is a doctrine that the universe is God; and conversely, that there is no god apart from the substance, forces, and laws manifested in the universe.

 

Pantheism characterizes the Buddhist and Hindu doctrines, and much of Western liberal theology. In the 17th century, Benedict de Spinoza formulated the most thoroughly pantheistic philosophical system, arguing that God and Nature are merely two names for one reality.

 

The term, Pantheism, is, however, not a real solution to the problem of existence, it is only a semantic illusion. The root word 'theism', a connotation word for the personal, is used, when the impersonal is meant. Hinduism and Buddhism are not really theism's, for they, like all things pantheistic, must explain everything in terms of the impersonal (mass, energy, and motion) plus time plus chance. There are no other factors to consider. Like all things beginning with the impersonal, how can pantheism find any meaning or significance for the particulars that now exist, including man and his personality. No one has given us an answer to that.

 

Given all the evidence of existence, it seems pantheism is a deception.

-

 

I've never claimed to be a Calvinist. But, I believe Calvinism explains that man can do no good thing by his own authority. That, without being personally influenced by God, man is totally depraved. (I think Jesus may have mentioned something like this.)

I think Calvin also believed in free will. Man has the freedom, and the capacity, to choose either right or wrong, the path under God's authority or the one of his own making.

If man had been created unable to make choice, there would be no point to man's existence. Therefore, we wouldn't. Calvinism insists there is a reason and purpose for man, because man does, in fact, exist.

[tariki]

With reference to "semantic illusions", for me such relates to the heart of the madhyamika, the central philosophy of Buddhism. It relates to the consciousness of the total and interminable conflict in reason and the consequent attempt to rise to a higher standpoint. The implication being that life can be lived, but not thought, that truth can be experienced but not captured by any particular logic or reasoning as such.

 

That, in fact, it is always a matter of "both/and, and not either/or.

 

David, in my understanding your attribution of pantheism to Buddhism is the result of your either/or approach to all things. Again, in my understanding, once "God" is understood by thought and logic as being "outside" the known cosmos, "He" becomes an object. But when God becomes object, he sooner or later "dies" because God as object is ultimately unthinkable...... .yet if thought persists "he" becomes an idol.

 

Let me say also, that I do not in any way imply that Christainity - as such - treats the Divine as an idol.

[Neon Genesis]

To answer the original post's question, I don't think we can ever be 100% certain about the truth of the existence of God. There's one thing I've found is certain though in my life is that whenever you think you've found all the answers, you always seem to be learning something new that challenges the way you look at the world. When I was a fundamentalist Christian, I was convinced I had all the answers and there was nothing to learn but then I learned I didn't know everything and my perspective of the world changed. After I left fundamentalist Christianity, I converted to anti-theism and there was a time I thought I knew everything about reality again and I was convinced all the religious people were delusional and wrong. Eventually my misconceptions about religious people were challenged as well and I changed my views again. It just seems to be a recurring pattern that the way I see life is always changed whenever I start to fall into the temptation that I think I know everything. So I don't think we can know for certain the truth about God's existence or non-existence, but the real deception is deceiving yourself into thinking you know everything. Because often times it's when you think you know everything that life knocks you down a few notches and teaches you something else you didn't know and we should always be open to changing our world view as what we learn challenges our cherished beliefs and values.

[Guest billmc]

That's good input, NG. Life does seem to be a journey.

 

Reflecting on your own journey and changes, would you see it, metaphorically, as jumping between equal lilly pads or as climbing stairs that lead to something?

 

In other words, do you think that the process of continous learning is just an accumulation of knowledge and experience that leaves you essentially in the same place, or do you feel as though you are progressing in your understanding/experience of life and the TOE?

[minsocal]

There are four traditional views of reality:

 

1. Metaphysical realism and epistemological realism

 

2. Metaphysical realism and epistemolgical idealism

 

3. Metaphysical idealism and epistemological realism

 

4. Metaphysical idealism and epistemological idealism

 

Now, if it were only that simple. As far as the human mind is concerned we have, once again, four basic functions at our disposal:

 

1. Sensory input (Empiricicam)

 

2. Thinking or reasoning (Rationalism)

 

3. Feeling (Emotivism)

 

4. Intuition (Intuitionism)

 

Oh dear, not done yet. What about will? Is free will a deception?

 

And what about truth theory? Well:

 

1. If you are an empricist, you probably prefer correspondence theory.

 

2. If you are a rationlist you probably prefer coherence theory.

 

But then, does truth differ from judgment? Can you separate fact and value?

 

Now, what do we know about the human mind? Well, for one thing, the neocortex is an inference/ probability engine and not such a good deductive engine.

 

This just touches the surface, not even the whole menu. Take your pick and enjoy the meal. Meanwhile, I have to search for my lost shaker of salt.

[Guest billmc]

I suppose my other thoughts about the metaphor relate to such things as: who first plucked the string?

 

I would say that God did, David. And that God continues to do so. This is where I probably differ from many Christians who think God plucked the ultimate string in Jesus 2000 years ago and God is done plucking.

 

There's a need for the first cause to be external to the strings. We need something other than an impersonal first (naturalistic) cause, if we expect to have any hope of the ringing, and any subsequent sympathetic ring, to have any meaning. Music, as opposed to noise.

 

True, in my opinion. The atheist or secularist would say that it is not music that we hear, that it is only random noise that we interpret as music. But I believe that God is the first or ultimate musician from which all the rest of the music continues to flow.

 

I believe there needs to be an external- and personal- who, who first plays the string. Who really has to be an external and personal first cause. One who can meaningfully influence directly what He has created, much as any luthier would be. No luthier is actually a stringed instrument.

 

I agree. And this is where I think organized religions go wrong, in insisting that their particular stringed instrument through which they play God's music is the ONLY stringed instrument or that God personally designed their instrument for them. It is like the old "tree falling in the forest" question -- God's music is only vibrations in the air UNTIL our ears pick them up and interpret the vibrations as music. Truth may objectively hang in the air, but it does no good until we have "ears to hear", subjective though they may be, to put the truth into action.

 

Not wishing to be contradictary, but, technically speaking, pantheism is a doctrine that the universe is God; and conversely, that there is no god apart from the substance, forces, and laws manifested in the universe.

 

Please note, David, that I said "panENtheism" (although actually for me it would be "panendeism"). Pantheism and panentheism are NOT the same thing. As you have correctly stated, pantheism says that everything is part of God to where God is the sum total of all things. Remove all things from the universe (if that were possible) and God disappears. PANENTHEISM, on the other hand, says that all things are a part of God but that God is still MORE than the sum total of all things. Remove the universe and God remains. That is panentheism.

 

In panentheism and in panendeism, God created (and continues to create) the universe within himself. Unlike theism where God creates the universe EXTERNAL to himself, in panentheism, the universe exists INSIDE God, so-to-speak. God is "pregnant" with the universe inside God as the Creator. So the apostle Paul agrees with the Greek philosophers, concerning God, that "IN him we live and move and have our being." (Side note: To be fair, Paul also believed that God was "up there" - conventional Jewish theology)

 

Another way to put this is to use the fish and water analogy. God is the water in which the fish lives and moves and has it's being. The fish is in the water. The water is in the fish. Remove the fish and the water remains.

 

The term, Pantheism, is, however, not a real solution to the problem of existence, it is only a semantic illusion. The root word 'theism', a connotation word for the personal, is used, when the impersonal is meant.

 

I agree. In the theistic view, of which pantheism is still a part, God is personal and "intervenes" from outside of this universe to inside it in order to do his will. In theism, the water is EXTERNAL to the fish. Therefore, if the fish had the wherewithal to want to try to discover what water is all about, the fish would examine ONLY the water around him, feeling that the water is separate from him and not in him. He would, perhaps, need "mediators" from other fish who claimed to be, at some point, filled with the water. But he would consider these to be "special cases" and probably far above his hopes of knowledge and experience.

 

For the panentheist fish, though, he would search both inside and outside himself, knowing that he is made up of 95% water just as he lives and moves and has his being in the water.

 

I've never claimed to be a Calvinist. But, I believe Calvinism explains that man can do no good thing by his own authority.

 

I never said you were, David. I only mentioned that the doctrine of total depravity makes no sense.

 

In concluding my response, I admit that none of us "beat true." I wouldn't call it total depravity or total ruin. Some of us do, IMO, "beat truer" than others to God's music or plucking. On the other hand, we needn't wait for a complete understanding of truth before we live out what truth we DO know. I have to tune my bass guitar every so often. And the truth is that it doesn't have to be perfect. But it should be "close enough" that it harmonizes with itself and with other instruments. To me, this is the point of natural spirituality -- to harmonize ourselves with God's music and then to be able to live in harmony with others, as much as is possible. Self-deception comes when we think that we (or someone we worship) is God's perfect tuning fork and that everyone else is hopelessly out of tune.

[davidk]

With reference to "semantic illusions", ...... .yet if thought persists "he" becomes an idol.

I really wish I could agree with you more. I really do. And I don't want you to think I have any animus toward you or your philosophy, Heaven forbid.

 

It's just that I keep finding what I see as so many inconsistencies in your argument.

 

May I just give you an example of what I mean?

If your 'both/and' philosphy were true, then the 'either/or' philosophy would be acceptable to you. If you don't think it is, then you are actually an 'either/or' kinda guy.

While you may find that objectionable, I don't. In considering Truth, I believe something is either true/ or it's not.

When you write, you also write as if what you believe is true, also acknowledging that there exists what conflicts with your belief. This is also an either/or.

 

The 'both/and' philosophy doesn't explain, nor allow for, the existence of any conflict. Nor can it explain, nor allow for any need for any aspirations to exist. But, these things do exist. The 'both/and' philosophy, simply can't answer for them.

-

 

When I say semantic illusion, I mean semantic trick.

I'm wondering, does you're mention of the madhyamika imply it was, or wasn't, semantic illusion?

 

I said pantheism is the semantic illusion, and that the character of Buddism is pantheistic.

 

The madhyamika says nothing exists as an inherent unit- itself, that is: no thing can be defined except by the whole. Particulars seem to exist but they do not truly exist. This is pantheism in a nutshell. Pantheism is sometimes analogized (is that a word?) by pantheists, as the magician. That in itself should be telling.

 

Now, I must say this in defense of pantheism: it does argue for the need for unity. However, the defense is limited because that unity is argued at the expense of the need for diversity.

-

 

I suppose when I mention God as the 'object', it seems to some like an opening to criticize choosing God as the object of affection. However, when the personal and infinite God is the object, then we have chosen the correct focus for our affection.

This God is infinite, nothing He created is. He is personal, nothing besides man is.

 

Our commonality with God is in being in His image; that is- being personal.

Our commonality with nature is in being created, that is- being finite.

This simply and clearly answers for the needed diversity, as well as for the needed unity, for all that exists.

--

 

I was convinced I had all the answers... I don't think we can know for certain the truth about God's existence.

I see why you feel disillusioned with Christianity, if you think it teaches that we can know all truths.

I can only caution you to not be just as disillusioned in thinking that truth can't be known at all.

--

 

'This just touches the surface, not even the whole menu. Take your pick and enjoy the meal. Meanwhile, I have to search for my lost shaker of salt.

My first reaction was that you sounded like a combination of Jimmy Buffet and Hannibal Lector.

I think some care should be taken when using terms such as 'Rationalism'. These 'isms' say the source of knowledge is man. I think a more accurate word would be 'Rationality', which means what I think was intended when saying 'thinking or reasoning'- reality is rational. So, what exists, can be rationally understood.

---

DavidK

[tariki]

david,

 

Sorry, it is you who play with words - from my perspective. The madhyamika insists that logic/words are all semantic illusions, in as much as the mind - relying upon them and "believing in them - creates its idols. Buddhist non-duality is NOT the opposite of duality, it embraces duality. From my perspective you constantly fail to see this. You consistently attempt to filter all through your own catagories and seem unable to grasp what is being said.

 

We must, of neccesity, deal in words, but taking them as final, in and of themselves, leads to illusion - to idols.

 

From my perspective, it is YOU who slip into inconsistency in not recognising that one must do so.....to some extent.

 

Sorry, we are not on the same wavelenght, as I have said before.

 

All the best

tariki (Derek)

[Neon Genesis]

I really wish I could agree with you more. I really do. And I don't want you to think I have any animus toward you or your

If your 'both/and' philosphy were true, then the 'either/or' philosophy would be acceptable to you. If you don't think it is, then you are actually an 'either/or' kinda guy.

While you may find that objectionable, I don't. In considering Truth, I believe something is either true/ or it's not.

When you write, you also write as if what you believe is true, also acknowledging that there exists what conflicts with your belief. This is also an either/or.

 

 

DavidK

If everything is always either/or, then please answer this question as an either/or answer. What is the perfect island?

[tariki]

A further attempt at clarification - yet, alas, will probably just cloud the waters further..... But it is very much on topic, the topic being "deception".

 

For me all words are deceptive, in as much as they only point and are not the thing itself. One way of seeing this is to recognise that , as far as reality is concerned, all words designated nouns should be understood more as verbs. The word "oak" points to a very concrete tree, yet we have the reality of the acorn, the fall into the ground, the roots growing, the sapling appearing, the growth of the tree, the coming and going of the seasons, the spread of the branches, the reaching the end of the lifespan, the withering...eventually the charcoal, perhaps the diamond! In a very real sense, the word "oak" congeals reality.

 

Closer to "sin", a "prostitute". When the act of selling the body takes place, there is the reality of "prostituting". Yet the next time the lady refuses an offer, turning her back upon the trade, she becomes chaste. I realise this is simplistic in a way.......there is the inertia of memory, the inertia of many things; yet surely such inertia is the world of "judgement", not the world of Grace? We need to look at ourselves, and perhaps at the words that deceive and create a world of objects that bang against each other, rather than a world of inter-being and movement.

 

So for the "self", that concrete thing behind our eyes, looking out. More a verb than a noun.

 

so.....

 

All sins committed

in the three worlds

will fade and disappear

together with myself (Ikkyu)

 

(Three worlds = the world of desire, the world of form, the world of formlessness)

 

or.....

 

The Tao can be shared,

it cannot be divided.

 

As far as.... choosing God as the object of affection, I more choose my partner and daughter, then all others I share this world with as the object of my affection. And understand such affection that I have, and share, as the divine in me/as me.

 

And I must be blunt. The "object" that parades through the skies of the Old Testament world, ordering the slaughter of those who annoy "him" - or "his" choosen ones -, could never be an object of affection for me. Such an object seems one built in the image of the ignoble, agressive dimension of mortal man.

 

Finally, another quote from Merton, which has taken my fancy......

 

At the centre of our being is a point of nothingness which is untouched by sin and by illusion, a point of pure truth, a point or spark which belongs entirely to God, which is never at our disposal, from which God disposes our lives, which is inaccessible to the fantasies of our own mind or the brutalities of our own will. This little point of nothingness and of absolute poverty is the pure glory of God in us. It is so to speak His name written in us, as our poverty, as our indigence, as our dependence, as our sonship. It is like a pure diamond, blazing with the invisible light of heaven. It is in everybody, and if we could see it we would see these billions of points of light coming together in the face and blaze of a sun that would make all the darkness and cruelty of life vanish completely. I have no program for this seeing. It is only given. But the gate of heaven is everywhere.

[davidk]

In respect to Brian's post of Sep 14- I actually think he may be missing something.

The Bible, including Jeremiah, and the fundies, too, for that matter, is simply saying God is who you should place your trust, rather than man.

This brings us to "rationalism" (humanism), which is: man’s reason is in itself the source of all knowledge, rather than God.

----

 

re:pantheism

If true, there is no such thing as idolatry.

-----

 

re: Tariki

There is no reason to regret that anyone plays with words. For and by the logic of the Buddhist madhyamika, all words are deception, and illusion, where no words can be grasped, anyway. So by that, inconsistencies would be when words made sense. So- Thank you.

-----

 

re: NG

Well, let me see. The island is either perfect- or it's not.

-----

 

re: Billmc,

I believe the ultimate string has been played, that it rings eternally, and in never diminishing beauty.

 

Ah, God's music.

-

 

Ah, panentheism, where God includes nature as a part, though not the whole of His being. All of nature is God, but not all of God is nature.

It's pantheism, though not the whole of pantheism.

 

It’s an interesting use of the word ‘pregnant’. I believe it essentially means- being capable of producing, or being about to produce, what was conceived. I don’t think there is any connotation to pregnant, that implies the producer and the produced are in any way the same being.

 

Without having an infinite reference point, no finite point has any meaning. Finite man is not a sufficient reference point in himself for meaningful answers; (i.e.; existence, morals, freedom, diversity).

 

I didn’t mean to suggest anyone called me a Calvinist, but that I would take a stab at explaining a Calvinist position, as I understood it to mean, despite my not being a Calvinist.

 

On the other hand, we needn't wait for a complete understanding of truth before we live out what truth we DO know.

I'll drink to that

-

DavidK

[tariki]

No David, words point beyond themselves. You can grasp them for just as long as you like! Taken as the/a thing itself, they create illusion.

 

But anyway, by applying your catagories and logic, you manage to get back to either/or. Congratulations, you win again....

 

The Tao that can be told

is not the eternal Tao....

...the unnameable is the eternally real

[Guest billmc]

This brings us to "rationalism" (humanism), which is: man’s reason is in itself the source of all knowledge, rather than God.

 

That's not the way I would put it, David. I would say that rationalism, in its best sense, is using our God-given brains and reasoning powers to understand God, God's universe, and ourselves in a meaningful and, hopefully, transformative way. In other words, the point of rationalism is not, as you say, that REASON is the source of all knowledge, but that reason is a tool whereby we can understand God, who is the source of all knowledge and reality. Rationalism, again in its best sense, says that God, being rational and reasoning himself, is knowable (at least partially) through understanding the nature and moral laws present in the universe and in ourselves. In short, God makes sense.

 

In contrast, traditional revealed religion relies on faith or belief that often claims that rationality and reasoning have no place in seeking or knowing God. In short, God is a mystery, doesn't make sense, and because God is beyond our ken, all that is left to us where God is concerned is belief. We believe because we cannot know. And because, in revealed religion, the hidden or mysterious God has not revealed himself to anyone but a chosen one or few, we are left to accept or reject their words as truth. But, again, because these few have been deified, revealed religion forbids us from examining their teachings or lifestyles according to our God-given reasoning processes.

 

There is, IMO, a third way which is the way of the mystics. Again IMO, mystics eschew rationalism and reasoning, elevating personal experience as their way of knowing God. They simply know. Personally, I don't mind this as long as their knowing doesn't violate God's laws of nature or morality. But mystics are prone to attract followers and these often turn the mystic into a divine figure and his teachings into another revealed religion.

 

I believe the ultimate string has been played, that it rings eternally, and in never diminishing beauty.

 

I don't believe God has stopped playing. Once a musician, always a musician.

 

I don’t think there is any connotation to pregnant, that implies the producer and the produced are in any way the same being.

 

David, you are quite smart enough to recognize metaphors. All I was saying is that I believe the universe is IN God instead of somewhere OUTSIDE God. IMO, because God is reality, there is nowhere that is OUTSIDE of God. Theism, on the other hand, limits and confines God to location. 'Nuff said.

 

Finite man is not a sufficient reference point in himself for meaningful answers; (i.e.; existence, morals, freedom, diversity).

 

I agree. Despite my penchant for rationalism, I do believe in God and that God is the reference point for everything else. But, going back to the OP, I think deception is most likely to happen when we think that God, as our reference point, can only be believed in or known through the experiences of others. It is this kind of "religion" that leads to things like Jonestown and the Heaven's Gate cult. People gave up their God-given rationality and reasoning processes and trusted that God spoke only through a "chosen" vessel.

[Neon Genesis]

The Bible, including Jeremiah, and the fundies, too, for that matter, is simply saying God is who you should place your trust, rather than man. This brings us to "rationalism" (humanism), which is: man’s reason is in itself the source of all knowledge, rather than God.[/quote}

 

So Isaiah 1:18 doesn't come from God?

“ Come now, and let us reason together,”

Also, humanism originated in the Italian renaissance as a Christian movement.

 

re: NG

Well, let me see. The island is either perfect- or it's not.

You're not answering the question. I wasn't asking if the island was perfect or not. I'm asking you to define what a perfect island is.