Why Is Faith A Virtue?

[skepticalme]

2 Types of Faith

 

1) GOD SAYS IT SO IT MUST BE TRUE I KNOW I AM RIGHT

 

2) I have faith that when I take this step in front on me, I'm not going to sink in the ground. I have reason to believe this, but I haven't tested it. Things happen. This dirt in front of my could be quicksand, but I have faith it is not, and I take the step and many more, so that I may walk to class.

 

Everything you do that isn't 100% deliberately decided is an act of faith.

 

Derp.

 

This is why I segregate faith and trust. #1 would be consistant with my definition of faith and #2 would be consistant with my definition of trust. Faith is blind/poorly rationed exceptance of a belief while trust is based on experience.

[Legion]

Oddbird, Kathlene, I thought you threw some good responses out there.

 

I was over here thinking about faith in terms of anticipation and models. (A "model" is essentially an understanding which includes the ability to predict and explain events. Anticipation is form of self-control based on models.)

 

We are ever learning. And this process is complex and largely mysterious. Anyway, I think our minds form many, many, models. Not only are there side-by-side models (which capture different aspects of the same thing) but there are also models of models, hierarchies of models.

 

For me it comes down to this. How certain is my understanding? Are all my models meshing together smoothly to give me relevant predictions that I can use to better control myself? I think faith and doubt are intertwined with all this.

[Guest end3]

I think "faith" is a virtue when it is a trust in guiding principles about the nature of people or what it takes to obtain the good life. Faith is about a positive outlook that propels one forward toward a life that is good, fulfilling and healthy.

 

Sometimes we hear about having faith in people. Or giving people credit. That is an expression of faith as a virtue. If you have faith in people, you believe that , generally, they seek to do the right and ethical thing.

 

I think that faith has to be informed and fueled by knowledge and evidence, but at some point faith has to develop to a degree where it sustains you through times where knowledge is not yet sufficient and evidence is lacking.

 

When does faith stop being a virtue? Faith is no longer a virtue when it fights against knowledge and evidence and refuses to change. Rather, when the body of knowledge and evidence that fueled one's faith in the past becomes the goal of faith . That's what I see as wrong in American evangelical fundamentalism and biblical literalism.

 

Ok. i'm going to stop now. I'm rambling. It's getting late and I'm tired. Maybe I'm on to something. Or maybe I'm off base. I've got faith in my fellow ex-c's to set me straight.

 

I agree with OB here. We opt for accepting circumstances larger than is in our control....the unknown, vs. controlling our lives and "predicting" the unknown. When we are put in crappy circumstances, our larger picture shrinks back to a self portrait. With that said, I am uncertain of the value added of one over the other.

[NotBlinded]

Having faith in something means that your belief is unwaivering, even in the face of conflicting evidence or the lack of evidence.

No it doesn't. That is the opposite of faith. If you can see it, then you don't need faith. Faith may hold certain beliefs, but it is flexible and open. Those that can't change their beliefs have no faith at all. Their beliefs are a substitute for faith.

 

Taking a "leap of faith" doesn't mean you are willing to step down from a potentially fatal fall to find another way around. I feel that faith is the opposite of reason.

Actually, a leap of faith is not is not the opposite of reason in the sense that the term was originally coined. It was used as an existential leap of faith, that says that despite the fact that reason cannot penetrate or explain why you should have faith, that you make an existential choice to have faith for the value that faith affords - but it was never against evidence, it was in spite of a lack of evidence. Don't confuse anti-intellectualism with the existential leap of faith.

 

People who have faith in god and the infallability of the bible will not break from that idea no matter what evidence they are shown.

Why not? I did. Didn't you?

 

Conflicting evidence is just a test of thier faith to them. They take pride in ignoring that evidence.

In how they justify it. Again, they call it faith when in fact it is not. I'm going to quote myself from earlier today elsewhere as it explains this better:

 

To have faith is to trust yourself to the water. When you swim you don't grab hold of the water, because if you do you will sink and drown. Instead you relax, and float.

Alan Watts

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's nicely put. Trying to say, 'See, science confirms the Bible!', is trying to grab hold of the water. Knowledge and understanding changes, and if you try to place faith in an understanding, then as that understanding changes you loose hold of the basis of that faith.

 

The best way I've heard it talked about is the difference between Belief, Faith, and Experience. Belief is what most people have in religions, that they put their trust and hope in things they believe; in objects in other words. But they have a hard time allowing for any challenges to those beliefs because it is what they secure themselves to. Someone who as Faith on the other hand, is 'believing' not in a belief or an understanding, but in a sort of intuition of something not yet seen. Belief puts trusts what is seen, faith in what is unseen. So when a challenge to a belief they may have comes along, they are much more easily able to adapt and roll with it because they 'lay back' in the changing stream, trusting something inside towards what is not yet realized in themselves. It is a faith not in objects of belief, but in some unseen beyond objects of belief.

 

Faith then is replaced by direct experience. Experience is the actual realization of what faith intuited. And that realization is necessitated on not being married to your ideas at a 'belief' level. Realization requires the inclusion and ability to process multiple perspectives, not a single one. It is not, "I thought this was true, now I know this is true instead", replacing one object of belief for another. It remains fluid and adaptive to all things, as it knows what is beyond defining, beyond any objects. So when I hear most religious people speak of faith and belief I hear conflations of terms, and no real appreciation for the differences and the roles. Anytime someone says, "See, science confirms the Bible!", I hear a leaning towards beliefs, a lack of faith, and certainly limited or no experience.

I am so glad you reposted that Antlerman. I missed it. Wonderfully described...

[NotBlinded]

It seems to me that different people are using the same word to mean different things. One it talking about a type of faith that is not found in Christianity. Others are talking about the Christian faith. I'm not saying anything is right or wrong. Just saying that language gets confusing due to a lack of words in this area.

But that is found in the Christian religion too.

I think it's time that words such as faith and God are used again in the way they should be. Just because they have been "dumbed down" for the true belivers doesn't mean they have lost all meaning...yet. But, if they continue to be used in this way, then they will become meaningless to everyone and we will be arguing against the very people that took the words and redefined them. We are basically saying that their definitions are right, but we disagree. Why give them that honor? I won't.

[JayL]

Faith is considered to be a virtue, but even fundies laugh at people who fall for "Nigerian letter" type scams. So what is the difference between blind faith in God and credulity? Since faith is necessary for salvation according to the Christian doctrine, shouldn't Christians value gullibility as a character trait? After all, credulity makes believing much easier. Or is faith only a virtue if it doesn't come naturally and you work hard at it?

 

 

Faith is usually not a virtue. Esp. if it is a 'blind faith', it could be downright dangerous!

 

Faith in God should not be a blind faith. This idea of 'existential leap of faith' is not Biblical.

 

So why is there so much talk about faith in the Bible??

 

Well, because what the Bible focuses on - existence of your soul, existence of unseen God, your eternal destiny, metaphysical meaning of our existence, Heaven and hell etc. - could be all beyond our human comprehension. The Bible is claiming that these are revelations from this 'unseen God' which cannot be figured out using our intellect alone. The only way to tap into that reality is thru faith - agreeing with these revelations. Now there are miracles and real life experiences that bolster these faith concepts but they are far from scientifically proven.

 

So in short, I agree with you. Faith is usually not a virtue And it can be misused. But when it comes to God's revelations in the Bible, it may be a necessity - because we simply do not know everything.

[JayL]

This is what I don't understand. Christians say the Bible is truth, its God's word, etc...have faith. Well how do we determine if anything is true in life? We look at the evidence and declare it is true based on those answers. So this is what I don't understand. We are being asked to accept something by faith as true, not based on evidence at all except the bible is true ( so says the christians).

When I make my decisions in life I base it on evidence, not by faith now. Will I be able to pay my bills? Yes, by working hard and getting a job. It doesn't take faith to make those decisions. Will I believe weather man? well yes, if it is based on scientific data, I assume he/she is right. Do I have a soul and will go to hell if I don't repent? How do I know that, where is the evidence?

 

whats that faith verse that everyone spouts out from the Bible? Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see!! Hebrews 11:1

So its a random game of stab in the dark, of what you will or wont travel through in life. Someone said it here before. If circumstances are good, God is blessing you, if they aren't you are being tested. Who decides that?

This is what I don't understand. Christians say the Bible is truth, its God's word, etc...have faith. Well how do we determine if anything is true in life? We look at the evidence and declare it is true based on those answers. So this is what I don't understand. We are being asked to accept something by faith as true, not based on evidence at all except the bible is true ( so says the christians).

When I make my decisions in life I base it on evidence, not by faith now. Will I be able to pay my bills? Yes, by working hard and getting a job. It doesn't take faith to make those decisions. Will I believe weather man? well yes, if it is based on scientific data, I assume he/she is right. Do I have a soul and will go to hell if I don't repent? How do I know that, where is the evidence?

 

whats that faith verse that everyone spouts out from the Bible? Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see!! Hebrews 11:1

So its a random game of stab in the dark, of what you will or wont travel through in life. Someone said it here before. If circumstances are good, God is blessing you, if they aren't you are being tested. Who decides that?

 

 

 

I am sure you were told by someone, "Have faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God. And you will get saved and you will go to Heaven, etc." And one would say, 'What are you talking about? '

 

Well, the whole story goes back to Jesus Christ - his death and resurrection. Has he resurrected?? Now if you carefully examine the Gospel story with an open mind, you may actually conclude that it is a strong possibility! You do not need faith to reach that conclusion. Even some hard nosed criminal investigators, law professors, as well as other former rational minded skeptics have reached this incredible conclusion. All you need is a very thorough study of the 4 Gospel narratives and the Book of Acts.

 

Now if you believe that Jesus Christ has resurrected and that Jesus Christ is not a normal human being, you actually have the essence of Christian faith. But you may have gotten there by a purely rational process of considering all alternative scenarios and weighing the evidence.

[Legion]

You do not look directly at the world. You do not look directly at yourself. Your mind cannot cope with its horror. So you have fabricated from the singularity of your imagination a representation which is more to your preferences. And then you say you have no faith to cement the illusion.

 

But I am evil. I look at the horror of reality. I look at the unfolding spindle of necessity and choice stretched across the dark chasm. I accept the inevitability of oblivion and I hasten it's arrival.

 

All of you. Go now and do evil.

[Antlerman]

You do not look directly at the world. You do not look directly at yourself. Your mind cannot cope with its horror. So you have fabricated from the singularity of your imagination a representation which is more to your preferences. And then you say you have no faith to cement the illusion.

This is really great stuff here! Well put.

 

I'll add that that horror you mention isn't so much its innate nature, as it is the horror of all our illusions being shattered. It is facing the death of everything we think we know and its tenuous hold to its fictional reality. The confrontation with that Void actually results in profound existential release and freedom. It is only horror passing through that veil. The other side of that is, for a lack of better word salvation.

 

The Christian notion of salvation gets deeply lost in the metaphor as some external notion of 'membership' - hell's group membership, or heaven's group membership. It lacks the interior reality that is in fact a directly realized salvation, a salvation from illusion and a release into Truth. Heaven is no more at that point. Heaven is now nowhere and everywhere. It is in fact realized after death, but not a physical death, but the death of all illusion.

[bdp]

 

Now if you believe that Jesus Christ has resurrected and that Jesus Christ is not a normal human being, you actually have the essence of Christian faith. But you may have gotten there by a purely rational process of considering all alternative scenarios and weighing the evidence.

 

ANY alternative scenario is more logical - dead people stay dead. And there is NO evidence to weigh. If you have 'gotten there' then your process wasn't rational.

[agnosticator]

Faith is usually not a virtue. Esp. if it is a 'blind faith', it could be downright dangerous!

 

Faith in God should not be a blind faith. This idea of 'existential leap of faith' is not Biblical.

 

The Bible is claiming that these are revelations from this 'unseen God' which cannot be figured out using our intellect alone. The only way to tap into that reality is thru faith - agreeing with these revelations.

 

But when it comes to God's revelations in the Bible, it may be a necessity - because we simply do not know everything.

 

Faith in the biblegod isn't blind? Yet we are to blindly agree with the bible's claims. Tomato, tomato. Potato potato...

[Guest end3]

The Christian notion of salvation gets deeply lost in the metaphor as some external notion of 'membership' - hell's group membership, or heaven's group membership. It lacks the interior reality that is in fact a directly realized salvation, a salvation from illusion and a release into Truth. Heaven is no more at that point. Heaven is now nowhere and everywhere. It is in fact realized after death, but not a physical death, but the death of all illusion.

 

So you expect all the descriptions of Christ's healings etc. to be lost in translation. You don't reckon you have made your own illusion here?

[bdp]

If I don't see parallel healings happening now then I have no reason to believe any such things ever took place at any time. That is a rational position to take.

[Legion]

Okay, I am going to set evil to the side for a moment. But just for a moment.

 

I have faith. I have faith in all kinds of things. I believe people can change for the better. I believe in the human family. I have an absurd faith in progress. I believe hard work can pay off. I believe self-discipline is it's own reward. I believe we can get there together. And this faith in me gives rise to behavior which makes all of these things more likely and this in turns strenghtens my faith.

 

Ugh, what a bunch of pollyanna do-good, bullshit.

 

Now back to my regularly scheduled evil.

[Antlerman]

The Christian notion of salvation gets deeply lost in the metaphor as some external notion of 'membership' - hell's group membership, or heaven's group membership. It lacks the interior reality that is in fact a directly realized salvation, a salvation from illusion and a release into Truth. Heaven is no more at that point. Heaven is now nowhere and everywhere. It is in fact realized after death, but not a physical death, but the death of all illusion.

 

So you expect all the descriptions of Christ's healings etc. to be lost in translation. You don't reckon you have made your own illusion here?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. First I don't know that what I was saying has anything to do with translation problems. Apprehension problems is much more to the matter. The whole Christian notion of salvation and God is so externalized that as such it misses the entire internal meaning in those external symbols as the thing itself, the reality itself. The symbol is a symbol, not the reality itself. The experience is the reality. The illusion is thinking the symbols are the thing itself, be that a symbol of your 'self', or a symbol of God.

 

As for 'healing' I have no issue with that. We are healed when we are made whole. You can call that Christ or the work of Christ if you wish, it doesn't matter. It still is an internal process within you through whatever internal means. That means may be through faith in something outside you, but the internal work happens within you. It could be the healing of Krishna as well. It could be the healing through faith in starlight. It doesn't matter. What matters is how you respond in yourself, and the effect it has on you. That, that internal motion, that is the true 'miracle', and you can attribute it to whatever god you wish. But make no mistake, you are involved in the whole affair, from your belief, your faith, your action, your healing.

[Guest end3]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. First I don't know that what I was saying has anything to do with translation problems. Apprehension problems is much more to the matter. The whole Christian notion of salvation and God is so externalized that as such it misses the entire internal meaning in those external symbols as the thing itself, the reality itself. The symbol is a symbol, not the reality itself. The experience is the reality. The illusion is thinking the symbols are the thing itself, be that a symbol of your 'self', or a symbol of God.

 

I hear what you are saying but I think the consensus believes Jesus is God.....more than just a representation of our own ability to apprehend God.

As for 'healing' I have no issue with that. We are healed when we are made whole. You can call that Christ or the work of Christ if you wish, it doesn't matter. It still is an internal process within you through whatever internal means. That means may be through faith in something outside you, but the internal work happens within you. It could be the healing of Krishna as well. It could be the healing through faith in starlight. It doesn't matter. What matters is how you respond in yourself, and the effect it has on you. That, that internal motion, that is the true 'miracle', and you can attribute it to whatever god you wish. But make no mistake, you are involved in the whole affair, from your belief, your faith, your action, your healing.

 

I don't disagree that it is partially internal, but I don't think the Scripture supports this understanding. I will see if I can find some that support what I am saying. The miracles of healing would be examples I would think.

[Antlerman]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. First I don't know that what I was saying has anything to do with translation problems. Apprehension problems is much more to the matter. The whole Christian notion of salvation and God is so externalized that as such it misses the entire internal meaning in those external symbols as the thing itself, the reality itself. The symbol is a symbol, not the reality itself. The experience is the reality. The illusion is thinking the symbols are the thing itself, be that a symbol of your 'self', or a symbol of God.

 

I hear what you are saying but I think the consensus believes Jesus is God.....more than just a representation of our own ability to apprehend God.

If they don't apprehend God than how can they make a statement that Jesus is that God they can't apprehend? It would be nonsensical. They would have to apprehend God to say Jesus is that.

 

Also that the 'consensus' believes this, makes it all the less reason to believe it. Consensus consciousness is by definition hugely unaware. Consensus consciousness is based on limited perceptions.

 

As for 'healing' I have no issue with that. We are healed when we are made whole. You can call that Christ or the work of Christ if you wish, it doesn't matter. It still is an internal process within you through whatever internal means. That means may be through faith in something outside you, but the internal work happens within you. It could be the healing of Krishna as well. It could be the healing through faith in starlight. It doesn't matter. What matters is how you respond in yourself, and the effect it has on you. That, that internal motion, that is the true 'miracle', and you can attribute it to whatever god you wish. But make no mistake, you are involved in the whole affair, from your belief, your faith, your action, your healing.

 

I don't disagree that it is partially internal, but I don't think the Scripture supports this understanding. I will see if I can find some that support what I am saying. The miracles of healing would be examples I would think.

I smile at how you capitalized scripture as though it were God. Is that a betrayal of your beliefs?

 

As far as the internal/eternal relationship I should briefly clarify. When you are talking about apprehending the depths of the Divine, it is both and neither external and internal. In a dualistic sense we perceive 'God' outside us in that 'God' inside us is hidden by our own unawareness. As we awaken to what is in us, it is the same 'God' that we perceived as outside us. It is a seamless cloth through all things that was always there despite our own unawareness.

 

You cannot apprehend 'God' by continually looking outside you. It is like constantly chasing a carrot out in front of you, missing seeing that the desire in you for that carrot is that very thing you need to look to. All you find are symbols of what is already always fully within you; ever externalizing it, never apprehending it. But those symbols can aide in helping awaken you to what is always already fully you, when you also look within and see how those symbols arise from that very Heart within you. Symbols are mind objects. The Heart, is apprehension.

 

To say "merely" symbols is to miss the point. Symbols are our expressions of God for the conscious mind to try to relate it to, lacking a direct apprehension and knowledge. And to locate and limit God as 'out there', outside us, is to miss the point equally.

[Guest end3]

All I am saying is if we are talking about manifestations of God......that the manifestation of Christ is more than the manifestation of man.....and that the Bible and the consensus opinion support this. Not that Christ is ONLY a symbol of how our manifestation could union with God and that we are equal to Christ of the Bible. And that is why I asked were you creating your own illusion as Legion had mentioned.

 

This kinda begs the questions of what qualities are God with respect to our manifestation.

 

Your seamless cloth statement reminds me of Christ's seamless tunic.....an external covering. I can gather how you describe a single unity with creation, yet our manifestation puts us in a particular place within the varied manifestations.....and also with unique consciousness of controlling or accepting something larger. I gather that you go more for a general equality within the universe rather than a position within?

[Antlerman]

All I am saying is if we are talking about manifestations of God......that the manifestation of Christ is more than the manifestation of man.....

If the Christ is a manifestation of God, and Jesus as a man was the Christ, then so too are we able to realize that as human. We too are more than merely human, merely flesh and blood.

 

and that the Bible and the consensus opinion support this.

That tells me to suspect that and look further! Did you read what I said about consensus opinion? That's the lowest common denominator. Don't you know? Bleating sheep following each other around.

 

The Bible was crafted by committees. Surprising some good still shines through, even though they don't apprehend it themselves. My very original point you still are missing.

 

Not that Christ is ONLY a symbol of how our manifestation could union with God and that we are equal to Christ of the Bible.

You're wording in the sentence is confusing.

 

What I am sensing is still back to what I said and will continue to say, you externalize this. You make God "out there". God performing actions as a separate person from everything that exists. That is not God. That is an understanding that we manufacture symbolically. That which you 'believe' is a symbolic understanding. "Out there" is a symbol of what you perceive as outside yourself. There is no "merely", or "ONLY" a symbol. The symbol is your bridge from your interior experience to your understanding of what is outside you, objective - something you look at and analyze. A shell, a face, a form.

 

God is formless. No understanding, no symbolic expression of "Christ" or even "God" is God.

 

And that is why I asked were you creating your own illusion as Legion had mentioned.

Legion wasn't suggesting that I personally was creating an illusion. The illusion he was referring to is exactly what I am referring to as well. That we mistake the symbolic representation of things as the thing itself. Same thing with who you symbolically identfiy as "me", or "I". That "I" or "me" is an illusion. That is not "you", and nor is God what you symbolically represent. However, these symbols are hardly a "merely" or "ONLY"!!! They are bridges from the interior experience to the conscious mind in hopes of translating the world to the conscious mind. God is beyond the conscious mind; beyond reason, beyond understanding, beyond being named or called Christ, or God.

 

This kinda begs the questions of what qualities are God with respect to our manifestation.

We are the manifestation of God.

[Guest end3]

This came to mind: You speak to a unified manifestation that is inherently capable of communing with God and internally realiizing this but go no further in explaining the mechanics of that ability. I would ask that you clarify what it means,,,,in your own simple words,(that I might understand) what God is in your particular sense. For me, there is knowing, unity, peacefulness I guess, and grace/empathy feelings for those in need. You describe the subscription to being apart of the larger rather than the smaller.

[Guest end3]

If the Christ is a manifestation of God, and Jesus as a man was the Christ, then so too are we able to realize that as human. We too are more than merely human, merely flesh and blood.

That's not the doctrinal position and I am certain you know this.

That tells me to suspect that and look further! Did you read what I said about consensus opinion? That's the lowest common denominator. Don't you know? Bleating sheep following each other around.

 

The Bible was crafted by committees. Surprising some good still shines through, even though they don't apprehend it themselves. My very original point you still are missing.

 

Don't condemm, just discuss. I fully believe that we are capable of communing with God independently of "accepting Christ" first.

 

What I am sensing is still back to what I said and will continue to say, you externalize this. You make God "out there". God performing actions as a separate person from everything that exists. That is not God. That is an understanding that we manufacture symbolically. That which you 'believe' is a symbolic understanding. "Out there" is a symbol of what you perceive as outside yourself. There is no "merely", or "ONLY" a symbol. The symbol is your bridge from your interior experience to your understanding of what is outside you, objective - something you look at and analyze. A shell, a face, a form.

What is "out there" are the things that I accept and realize in myself as feeling correct through the Spirit. I don't perceive them as having originated from my inner self, but perceive them as external to message me so that I know and understand. I THEN internalize them and choose to keep them internal as qualities to live by.

 

 

We are the manifestation of God.

That's certainly different than saying "I am God" in the sense that I am referring to.

[Antlerman]

This came to mind: You speak to a unified manifestation that is inherently capable of communing with God and internally realiizing this but go no further in explaining the mechanics of that ability.

Inherently capable of communing is a factor of stages of evolved awareness. A rock is pretty much unaware, so it's doubtful a rock can claim a conscious unity with the Divine. It does not mean however that rock in its lack of conscious mind is not itself an expression of God. It is simply the forms of the material world. But sentient beings have varying levels of consciousness which move them into greater awareness, greater perceptions more capable of that realization. The mechanics of that? You mean the means and methods? Quite simple really. Look within. Mediate. Clear the illusions and see the clearing. You'll find it there, beyond your 'self'.

 

I would ask that you clarify what it means,,,,in your own simple words,(that I might understand) what God is in your particular sense.

God is the Face of the Infinite the subconscious mind offers to the waking mind to attempt to integrate its intuitive awareness from the deep slumbering places within us that is connected to all that is in the universe and our minds. To be consciously aware of this takes more than a simple objective analysis, or a doctrinal belief in some codified 'consensus' about God. Those are all external. It is the internal in is beingness in the world, its existential being, its presence in that infinite Ocean sense of being that reaches to not only be embraced, but translated through the conscious mind into a fully realized experiential reality.

 

Ponder that for awhile.

 

For me, there is knowing, unity, peacefulness I guess, and grace/empathy feelings for those in need.

That is part of that. Look into the well through which that arises.

 

You describe the subscription to being apart of the larger rather than the smaller.

No. To be the All, small and great.

[Guest end3]

God is the Face of the Infinite the subconscious mind offers to the waking mind to attempt to integrate its intuitive awareness from the deep slumbering places within us that is connected to all that is in the universe and our minds. To be consciously aware of this takes more than a simple objective analysis, or a doctrinal belief in some codified 'consensus' about God. Those are all external. It is the internal in is beingness in the world, its existential being, its presence in that infinite Ocean sense of being that reaches to not only be embraced, but translated through the conscious mind into a fully realized experiential reality.

 

Why would there be a back door to God except that we are a form of God? And why place us in the physical setting if it weren't suppose to come from the physical awareness?

 

No. To be the All, small and great.

 

Reality suggests that we are separated by physical difference.....the Spirit suggests we should be One.

[Guest end3]

I'm going back an reread....this crap frazzles my mind.....and it is frazzled enough without added burden.

[Antlerman]

God is the Face of the Infinite the subconscious mind offers to the waking mind to attempt to integrate its intuitive awareness from the deep slumbering places within us that is connected to all that is in the universe and our minds. To be consciously aware of this takes more than a simple objective analysis, or a doctrinal belief in some codified 'consensus' about God. Those are all external. It is the internal in is beingness in the world, its existential being, its presence in that infinite Ocean sense of being that reaches to not only be embraced, but translated through the conscious mind into a fully realized experiential reality.

 

Why would there be a back door to God except that we are a form of God?

I see it as the front door. And yes, we are a form of God, and God. See it as a seed that grows a green shoot towards the sun and roots into the earth in its reaching movement. As it matures it opens its blossom to the sun and unfolds to the world, giving its seeds to the earth. That's the front door. It's the roots into the ground, and the opening of the blossom into the daylight. Both that make the whole plant, the entire manifestation.

 

And why place us in the physical setting if it weren't suppose to come from the physical awareness?

The physical is where we ground the spiritual. We don't leave this world, we become spirit in this world. God in flesh, so to speak. The opening of the body and mind to the spirit; the infusion of higher light into lower body. The fully Realized Human. The Temple of God, to use a language you might understand. The eyes and physical being of the Divine.

 

Mediate on that.

 

No. To be the All, small and great.

 

Reality suggests that we are separated by physical difference.....the Spirit suggests we should be One.

We are all strings. We are all atoms. We are different forms, different shapes, but all one Universe. The Spirit within pulls the mind to realize its Prior Nature as Spirit. It is unveiling the flesh into Spirit. Breaking down the illusions.

 

 

I'm going back an reread....this crap frazzles my mind.....and it is frazzled enough without added burden.

It's not understood through rationality. Don't just simply try to reason it. You have to experience the Ocean to know the Ocean and attempt to 'explain' what is beyond words into words. Meditate on it.