Leaving Jesus is not Leaving God!

[SkepticOfBible]

 

 

P.P.S. I'm really not too much anti-religion at this time in my life, but 'am definitely anti-fundamentalist.

 

Same here

[Open_Minded]

I'm wanting to continue this discussion with you on this question of subjectivity you have been addressing, as I have a little more freedom of time for thought to this.

Hello Antlerman - I would also like to continue this discussion - thank you.

 

Originally you were pointing out to me what seems to me to be saying that atheism and belief in a god are equally subjectively concluded. Is that accurate to what you are saying?

 

I do believe that our respective positions - atheism and belief in God - are equally subjectively concluded. I believe that had you grown up in similar circumstances as mine and had similar life adult experiences you could very easily find yourself in my position. I also believe that had I grown up the way you did and had similiar experiences as an adult I would find myself in a position similar to where you are at now. And I think it is logical to say this.

 

As I said in post #70:

 

To put it in another way, there is another discussion in the Lion's Den titled "would you be christian if you were born in the middle east?"

 

The point I'm trying to make is the inverse... after reading Post #54 in this thread... can any of you see that if you had been raised a different way you might end up in the same position I'm in because of the subjective nature of our life experiences?

 

..... How far does subjectivity affect everything we know? Can we know anything reasonably well, or are we stuck at the point of college freshman arguments of not really knowing what color is what color, etc? Also how you feel subjectivity affects what modern science brings to the table in regards to knowledge?

 

I remain open minded about all these questions - no pun intended

 

Seriously - I pursue this topic not to try and prove anything. I really do believe that since we all come at these things from different points of view we have much to learn from each other. That is why I look forward to this discussion.

 

 

Last questions: Do you believe that atheism is a belief, or a religion?

 

I think what I've come to understand about atheism in the course of this discussion would be somewhat similar to what a friend told me about being blind in one eye. I asked him what he perceived through the "blind" eye - it was removed when he was a child. For some reason I thought he "saw" black. That was my understanding 30 some years ago His response was to ask me what I saw out the tip of my finger - I said "nothing". He said, "that's what I see out of my right eye".

 

I'm not comparing atheism to blindness in the literal biblical sense of the term. But my current understanding of atheism is that there is nothing there to believe in (or see) and so there is nothing to discuss, to believe, to defend, to acknowledge, etc... Am I closer than I was at the beginning of this thread

 

I do look forward to a discussion about the subjectivity of the human experience - thank you for taking me up on it

[Antlerman]

I do believe that our respective positions - atheism and belief in God - are equally subjectively concluded. I believe that had you grown up in similar circumstances as mine and had similar life adult experiences you could very easily find yourself in my position. I also believe that had I grown up the way you did and had similiar experiences as an adult I would find myself in a position similar to where you are at now. And I think it is logical to say this.

Greetings again. I'm glad to pursue this with you as this is as much for me sorting out things for my own understanding and growth.

 

I think I need to step back from this issue being about subjectivity in each of our respective points of view, and turn things completely around and state: Neither of our positions of atheism or theism are subjective in any sense. I keep coming back to how I see atheism as non-subjective, but the real problem I was having was in saying that theism is subjectively concluded. Let me attempt to explain:

 

Making "conclusions" about the existence of God is a moot point. There are no evidences. Faith is not a rational thing. Now please understand I don't mean that as an insult, that the believer is irrational, in the colloquial sense. God is supernatural by definition. Rationality is what we use to evaluate things in the natural. So to say we rationally conclude there is a God, is inherently an oxymoron. In fact using rationality in application to God is counter productive. I recently posted this is another thread:

Now the trick to the power of these living symbols, as I think I'll start calling them, is that for them to work as such in peoples lives, they need to operate on a different plane of existence then temporal creatures, so they have to be placed where they can escape the rules of human existence being applied to them. If people turn on the same criteria for evaluating these "beings", as they do everything else in interacting with their earthly existence, they will fail to work as powerful symbols anymore. If they don't transcend our worldly experiences, then they become a different creature like us. They become like evaluating whether ETs or Bigfoot exist, and using scientific, or logic, or any other sort of rational approach to them will show them to be "questionable" beings who probably don't really exist. But if the rules don't apply to them, then people can accept them as trascendent beings, so they can continue to fulfill the role of symbols for them.

 

Fundamentalism is religions worst enemy in the sense that it tries to do just this, and make them logical and rational, verifiable, provable, rather then being transcendent and symbolic. Since they are creations of us, and are "real" as a projection of our collective selves, they have to be able to change with us. Mainstream religious "believers" (adopters would be a better word) do not care much for the extremists in their belief system because they make the power of those symbols less accessible to them, by making them less transcendent and more temporal.

I believe it was Soren Kierkegaard who spoke of belief in God as a "Leap of Faith". It is making an escape of reason into an "upper story experience", if memory serves me. That 'upper story" is removed from our experience of the natural and can not be evaluated or understood through natural means. So therefore, it is impossible for people of faith (I speak of non-fundamentalists) to evaluate any evidences per se, either objectively or subjectively, and make rational conclusions.

 

Back to my atheism: Likewise I cannot make either a subjectively or objectively based conclusion about anything in an upper story realm. I use rationality as my approach to the world and can make no judgment either way about something in a supernatural realm. That is the best definition I suppose of atheism I can come up with. At best my not "accepting God" would be to say that I am not pursuing any experience through a "leap of faith" into an upper story experience. I am not rationally concluding anything about the existence or non-existence of God. Rationality is not applicable in either your relgious beliefs or my lack of them, so subjectivity and objectivity are moot points.

 

P.S. I have no idea why the font changed to this font after I added this quote from myself in here?

[NotBlinded]

God is supernatural by definition.

Someone should change that definition.

[Antlerman]

God is supernatural by definition.

Someone should change that definition.

Not sure what you mean? Maybe we could say non-rational?

[Open_Minded]

Making "conclusions" about the existence of God is a moot point. There are no evidences. Faith is not a rational thing. Now please understand I don't mean that as an insult, that the believer is irrational, in the colloquial sense. God is supernatural by definition. Rationality is what we use to evaluate things in the natural. So to say we rationally conclude there is a God, is inherently an oxymoron. In fact using rationality in application to God is counter productive. ....

 

I agree with your point that there are no evidences, and so at some point one must leave objective/subjective behind. I agree completely. But we also need to take into account the objective/subjective perseptions that got us to this point. The way were brought up, adult life experiences, etc... Do you see what I mean? That is why it is valid to have a thread titled:

 

would you be christian if you were born in the middle east?

 

Or to ask the question...

 

Can you see that if you had been raised a different way you might end up in the same position I'm in because of the subjective nature of our life experiences?

 

However ... at some point one must make the leap from rational thinking to faith.. you are correct.

 

Back to my atheism: Likewise I cannot make either a subjectively or objectively based conclusion about anything in an upper story realm. I use rationality as my approach to the world and can make no judgment either way about something in a supernatural realm. That is the best definition I suppose of atheism I can come up with. At best my not "accepting God" would be to say that I am not pursuing any experience through a "leap of faith" into an upper story experience. I am not rationally concluding anything about the existence or non-existence of God. Rationality is not applicable in either your relgious beliefs or my lack of them, so subjectivity and objectivity are moot points.

 

Thank you for more explanation on this point, Antlerman.

 

I do believe at a certain point you are correct, subjectivity and objectivity do become moot points. At this point in either of your lives - as regards this issue - subjectivity and objectivity have become moot points. But we arrived where we have by a road, with many forks in it. We each chose part of the journey and were given other parts. We each perceived our particular journey through objective and subjective reasoning. And we arrived where we are currently at in large part due to these "experiences" and "perceptions". Does this make any sense at all?

 

On another note... I have come to believe that humans have a capacity for "knowing" that goes beyond rational objective and subjective processing. I guess that is why the research into consciousness is so fascinating to me

 

P.S. I'll be leaving town for the holiday weekend and so... as wonderful (and I use that word very intentionally) as this discussion is - I won't be able to jump back in until the middle of next week.

 

PPS.

 

God is supernatural by definition.

Someone should change that definition.

 

Not Blinded, I love the way you think

[NotBlinded]

God is supernatural by definition.

Someone should change that definition.

Not sure what you mean? Maybe we could say non-rational?

Oh, it's just that I think that if there is a 'god' then it would have to be perfectly natural. IMO

 

Not Blinded, I love the way you think

Back at ya! And, have a great holiday!

[Ssel]

For what its worth,

 

Supernatural refers to forces which are not understood or "seen".

 

Is there anyone on this sight that believes they understand ALL forces at all times?

 

The effort of science was to remove mystery such as to gain understanding of all things, and thus remove the concept of supernatural. And that is a worthy pursuit. but at what point does any individual truly grasp all forces in operation outside of himself?

 

Science makes understanding available once someone examines or analyzes. That is a very good thing. But science can not cause an individual to be capable of examining everything all the time. Thus to the individual, the supernatural will always exist (whether they admit it or not).

 

Definition of Highest most mighty God = The total some of all that is not you. Supernatural only because you can not know it all.

 

The god of Moses (remembering that God told Moses that He would make Moses into a god)

 

Release mystery into the world and with it you release curiousity and suspicion. Release curiosity and you release energy. Release energy (in chaotic form) and you release confusion. Release confusion and you create mystery. The alfa and the omega.

But unfortuntely you also create misery, frustration, fear and anger.

 

The effort of Jesus was merely to remove the "misery, frustration, fear and anger" part of the equation.

Love what ever it is that makes the world and you will also love your life.

[Antlerman]

For what its worth,

 

Supernatural refers to forces which are not understood or "seen".

 

I completely disagree. You need to support your unique definitions with credible sources. You appear to just pull these out of some understanding you come up with on your own. For instance, your etymology on the word God in another post.

 

One quick response: Dark Matter. Science can't define or explain what is is, but I would be beyond amazed to see any scientist refer to this as "supernatural". It is simply unexplained, not supernatural.

[NotBlinded]

For what its worth,

 

Supernatural refers to forces which are not understood or "seen".

 

I completely disagree. You need to support your unique definitions with credible sources. You appear to just pull these out of some understanding you come up with on your own. For instance, your etymology on the word God in another post.

 

One quick response: Dark Matter. Science can't define or explain what is is, but I would be beyond amazed to see any scientist refer to this as "supernatural". It is simply unexplained, not supernatural.

But wasn't it true that at one point in history humans called the eruptions of volcanoes supernatural? Really though, what force could there possibly be that wouldn't be natural? Electricity was an unknown force until it was discovered. Couldn't one say that if we took a computer back to ancient Egypt that it would be seen as a supernatural force?

[Ssel]

You need to support your unique definitions with credible sources. You appear to just pull these out of some understanding you come up with on your own..

Believe it or not, I completely understand what you saying here. But in this case, you can simply look the word up in a dictionary, although I haven't tried the online thing.

 

My Webster's says that Supernatural = unseen forces.

 

I have to assume that it didn't really mean just anything unseen like "why the tree fell over last night". I have to add the common connotation and assume it meant that "unseen" meant "unseen and un-understood".

 

The entire world of magic is about causing things to happen without revealing how. It promotes mystery and all that comes from that. Supernatural and magic are intertwinded. They both are involved in the unseen and not understood (by the observer).

 

The scientist doesn't use the word supernatural. I don't blame him. I don't normally use it either. But it is used in religions and in magic origiented discussions. I didn't invent the word nor the defintion.

[Ssel]

But wasn't it true that at one point in history humans called the eruptions of volcanoes supernatural? Really though, what force could there possibly be that wouldn't be natural? Electricity was an unknown force until it was discovered. Couldn't one say that if we took a computer back to ancient Egypt that it would be seen as a supernatural force?

 

Okay, maybe it’s time to get down to the real nitty-gritty of what is happening…

 

There is a “spell” operating within everyone on this forum. But please understand that when I say “spell” I am not talking about a hocus pocus type of thing, but rather a logical mental thing which causes a certain type of behavior. This spell is one that creates and inspires disagreement and argument.

 

So I would like to do 2 things. One, is to explain exactly why science and religion argue about the supernatural. The other is to attempt to “dispel” the afore mentioned spell.

 

==========================================

Put aside your disbelief in either for a moment and your dislike for me. Please read this very carefully. It is not about believing in any spooky sky Daddy type of thing, but instead about understanding the technical reasons for what is happening with people.

==========================================

 

Why scientists and religions argue over the supernatural

 

 

First, one of the more important concerns is the difference between the fundy of an ideology and the originators, and sometimes, leaders.

 

The fundy of an ideology accepts the rationale of the ideology without a great deal of analysis. This invariably leads to an acceptance of a connotation that wasn’t really meant by the originators. For example;

 

Someone says that there are “unseen forces” controlling the volcano. In this, he is absolutely correct. But if speaking to a child or merely someone who doesn’t have time to get into technical understandings, a connotation is invariably added that was never said.

 

What the fundy begins to think is “There is an entity using unseen forces and controlling the volcano.” The additional “entity using” is the connotation that got added. Technically speaking it still isn’t exactly incorrect. An entity isn’t technically required to be a personage. But again, the connotation of an entity is that of a personage of some kind.

 

Thus the fundy ends up thinking in terms of “There is a personage using unseen forces and controlling the volcano.” This is clearly NOT what the originator said. But the originator was a thinker/analyzer type of person and comparatively uncommon. The larger percentage of people don’t study technical details and thus fall prey to their own slips of misunderstandings. Should everyone be required to be a technical genius?

 

It is the connotations that are causing the troubles. In ancient history people did not have huge dictionaries to prevent such things from occurring. They had to deal with simple written letters and symbols for basic concepts.

 

As Jesus put it, “Cast your bread (understanding) unto the sea (the crowds), and it will return swollen (inflated).” He was referring to the fact that you can’t hardly say anything without people adding connotations that glorify it into something that it wasn’t. This is where the “unleavened bread” in the Torah story comes from. This is also evidenced every day on this and every web journal. It is a problem of communication and presumptuous emotionalism.

 

-----------

 

Now… the word “supernatural” connotates a personage being involved. But it only truly means that mysterious forces are involved. Science was created specifically to remove mystery. Thus the scientist is quick to reveal any mystery and thus remove it from the “supernatural” class.

 

 

Science does NOT discover the lack of the supernatural. Science creates the lack of supernatural.

 

 

When the scientist discovers how something happens, he concludes “I see how this works, and I see no supernatural magic.” He will always be correct, because by revealing the unseen, it is no longer unseen. He can do this forever (perhaps) and will never, ever see the unseen forces that were being called magic because they are no longer magic to him.

 

I understand how the Red Sea was parted and the Staff of Moses was used, thus it is not supernatural to me. But to those who never analyzed it to the point of understanding, it is still an unseen mystical force or merely a fictional tale.

 

Religions are not merely trying to point out what they believe to be truths. They are also trying to maintain societies. These societies are filled with people who do not have the time or talent to study the technical details of things, thus they simply follow what they misunderstand as well as they care to. The religions then emphasis keeping faith so as to keep the effort going despite the confusion. In this, they are not wrong. Even science has a great many faithful followers rather than the few who truly understand the principles. Without faith in the leaders of an organization, the organization will fall. This is NOT a reflection on the truths, but of the wisdom of the leaders.

 

Religions accept the reality that people are most often driven by misunderstandings. The scientist refuses the misunderstandings and attempts to claim that the religion is merely power hungry. No doubt many have been at one point or another. But this is more a product of suspicion than of fact. Even science is power hungry for influence. Every organization must defend itself. Science social engineers use misunderstandings intentionally to create many things in society (we can discuss this on another thread).

 

The arguing is between the scientists and the priests, not really between the ideologies.

 

 

The “spell” –

 

When people use words which have connotations involved, they consciously think of the words, but subconsciously have added a connotative understandings. The other person uses the same words but with different connotations or they argue of the existence of the connotated things rather than what the words actually meant.

 

The connotation goes unseen (and thus is the “magic force”). They don’t realize that they are doing this, thus they don’t point it out. Thus the conflicts and arguing go on and on.

 

When people are arguing over things that they are passionate about, then the arguing becomes passionate, hateful, and at times violent. All merely from letting connotations govern their thinking.

 

To break the mental spell, simply refuse to argue when someone is using connotations and point it out.

 

STOP USING CONNOTATIVE meanings!! And the conflicts will cease.

 

Also realize that you need not study metaphorical understandings nor research artifacts to defeat every fundy that comes here. Simply disallow him to use connotations and his mind will go blank and he will be lost. (Kevin never presented even one opening statement once I politely asked for his logical construct and insisted on definitions)

 

Can someone define what a three-headed elephant is if one doesn't exist?

 

The argument that something can not be defined if it doesn’t exist is childishly absurd. If someone is arguing that something doesn’t exist, then they, at very least, have a connotative definition. If they don’t admit it or voice it, then the argument will not be resolved.

 

Keep insisting on agreed upon definitions of all potentially ambiguous words and the energy spent on conflict and emotionalism will turn into the energy that builds actual learning and growth. It is virtually guaranteed that one of the 2 debaters will learn as long as connotations are removed.

[Antlerman]

But wasn't it true that at one point in history humans called the eruptions of volcanoes supernatural? Really though, what force could there possibly be that wouldn't be natural? Electricity was an unknown force until it was discovered. Couldn't one say that if we took a computer back to ancient Egypt that it would be seen as a supernatural force?

 

Okay, maybe it’s time to get down to the real nitty-gritty of what is happening…

Before I read any further, which I intend to do: You are off topic again!

 

Please, please, please, once again I am trying to discuss with Open Minded regarding something equally important to me as the thread on Mythological was that consequently got derailed by somehow bringing in your pet arguments about the 2LoT in a thread about Jesus and Santa Clause!!.

 

Please, move this to a seperate thread and we can discuss this there. If not, I shall not respond to anything you have to say that derails topics like this.

 

BTW, this bad magic spell does not seem to be happening with Open Minded or Amanda, or several others. Just a thought to consider till this gets moved to an appropriate thread.

 

Thank you in advance.

[Ssel]

BTW, this bad magic spell does not seem to be happening with Open Minded or Amanda, or several others. Just a thought to consider till this gets moved to an appropriate thread.

 

Thank you in advance.

Ha ha

 

I can show otherwise, but I DO support your concern for staying on topic and appologize.

 

[Antlerman]

I agree with your point that there are no evidences, and so at some point one must leave objective/subjective behind. I agree completely. But we also need to take into account the objective/subjective perseptions that got us to this point. The way were brought up, adult life experiences, etc... Do you see what I mean? That is why it is valid to have a thread titled:

 

would you be christian if you were born in the middle east?

 

Or to ask the question...

 

Can you see that if you had been raised a different way you might end up in the same position I'm in because of the subjective nature of our life experiences?

 

However ... at some point one must make the leap from rational thinking to faith.. you are correct.

A lot of things to discuss with you. But to keep them all clear, that's the trick! I suppose I will start by acknowledging that you are in fact correct in the way you state it later, that my life experiences do influence my perceptions subjectively; and that my adopting a position of atheism is a result of those experiences perceived subjectively by myself.

 

My hesitancy to go this route initially is a knee-jerk reaction to many prior apologists' attempt to rope someone into a position to say essentially that having faith in god is no different than someone having "faith" there is no god. That is not a valid statement if one is weighing evidences rationally. Hearing you acknowledge that faith in god is not based on rationality would make any such argument invalid. I apologize for suspecting that might be the case here. Your answers are - inspiring and the basis for fruitful discussions.

 

To the question above about children of Muslim parents, and also to relate this to my own atheism: This question is one raised by very early atheists. I can't recall the person at this moment but I believe it was first seen in this persons writing in the 16th century? Regardless, it was to illustrate that ideas about God are learned through culture and not some universal revelation. Most individuals will conform to the cultures of which they were born, never venturing far from the tree. But as you say, experiences, (in addition to the right sorts of personalities), may influence them toward alternative choices, such as becoming a Christian when not born into that culture.

 

Atheism however is not a belief system. There is nothing to teach. I suppose the most you could expect to see would be an atheist parent teaching their child to be skeptical, rational, and discerning. But none of these necessitate a conclusion for non-belief. Those are very positive things to teach a child, and if the end result is that they reject religious evangelists, it would be because they were raised to be skeptical. The same result would be apparent in them rejecting a sales person with "get rich quick" schemes, loose weight quick schemes, etc. There is no doctrine, no beliefs, no rituals, in other words no system or culture to atheism that gets imparted as such to offspring.

 

The closest I could say that would come toward influencing a non-belief (atheism) would be the fact that a parent doesn't actively practice belief in god ---- but --- that describes the majority of parents who claim to have religious beliefs! The influence that really occurs towards religion with both them and children of atheist parents is their surrounding culture. The culture teaches plenty about that subject.

 

Now this comes to me. Why am I an atheist? I was raised in a typical middle class American family, go to church on Christmas, say "come lord Jesus" at dinner time for a brief period back in the 60's. Not atheist, but Christian in cultural practice like so many are. In my late teens years trying to find answers to life I turned to the idea of God, and of course, I choose the God of the culture which I belonged to. I proceeded to gobble in up like a starving child, heading off into Bible college following the "truth", etc. Problem is I think. My thinking gave the devil a foot hold! (I laugh because this is a tactic they used to try to keep you from questioning "God" viz., their teachings).

 

To cut the rest of the story a little short for the sake of this posting, I eventually found that taking a position of no-god made my ability to be free from religion the very salvation I needed! I know that may seem somewhat nebulous, but I wish to end at this point and pick this up with you later.

[Open_Minded]

A lot of things to discuss with you. But to keep them all clear, that's the trick!

 

Yes, yes, yes We will just have to take things one at a time

 

 

I suppose I will start by acknowledging that you are in fact correct in the way you state it later, that my life experiences do influence my perceptions subjectively; and that my adopting a position of atheism is a result of those experiences perceived subjectively by myself.

 

My hesitancy to go this route initially is a knee-jerk reaction to many prior apologists' attempt to rope someone into a position to say essentially that having faith in god is no different than someone having "faith" there is no god. That is not a valid statement if one is weighing evidences rationally. Hearing you acknowledge that faith in god is not based on rationality would make any such argument invalid. I apologize for suspecting that might be the case here. Your answers are - inspiring and the basis for fruitful discussions.

 

Thank you, but as long as we are discussing "knee-jerk" reactions. I must confess a one of my own

 

The wording "leap of faith" bothers me. It bothers me because within the current cultural context of "faith" people assume all Chirstians abandon all rational thinking in relationship to their faith. So the phrase "leap of faith" is a challenging phrase for me to embrace. But, I do agree with you - in regard to ones understanding of ultimate truth at some point one has to let go of what one can prove and objective/subjective applications become moot.

 

This is difficult to explain and I'm open to more questioning. But in your response to me you said the following:

 

Atheism however is not a belief system. There is nothing to teach. I suppose the most you could expect to see would be an atheist parent teaching their child to be skeptical, rational, and discerning. But none of these necessitate a conclusion for non-belief. Those are very positive things to teach a child, and if the end result is that they reject religious evangelists, it would be because they were raised to be skeptical.

 

This is the way I was raised. From a very early age both our parents raised all of us children to be skeptical, rational and discerning in all of life. But particularly in regards to religion, by the time I was 13-14 years old I was already aware of Biblical mythology, historical context, etc... These were common topics around the dinner table. As I entered the teen years my parents were leaving the Catholic church and these issues were common topics of discussion because of their own spiritual journey.

 

For many, many years I would have considered myself a Deist, in large part because I questioned the validity of the Bible. Much as all of you do here. But, I have discovered a difference. Never in my life have I been faced with the stark choices that so many on this forum have been faced with. Never has the Bible been presented to me as a take it or leave it proposition. When I read of how the Bible is presented in a fundamentalist context, that in order to be "saved" you have to accept it all, without question, then of course when the questioning begins - everything will fall. But, this has never been part of my own path - and so I've not had to deal with all the implications of "non-belief". So, I was able to question the validity of the Bible in a more-or-less literary way without all the loaded emotional implications that I've read about on this forum.

 

Anyway, Antlerman, my movement from Deist to Christian was not anything I anticipated. And looking back on it I can't say it was a "leap" in the sense that I abandoned all rational thinking or skeptism. It was a "leap" in the sense that I had been studying the mystic paths in all the major religions, I'd been meditating for decades and had experiences which "fit" best within the Christian contemplative tradition. And so I came to a point in my life where I could embrace something I had not been able to embrace before.

 

This is why I agreed with Notblinded when s/he wrote... "Someone should change that definition" after you referred to God as "supernatural".

 

You see, to me, "God" should be a natural experience. As Notblinded said, "Oh, it's just that I think that if there is a 'god' then it would have to be perfectly natural."

 

I would agree completely with this statement. "God" to me is perfectly natural, experienced in all cultures throughout all of history, within all, through all and beyond all. If "God" is within all, through all and beyond all than - to me - "God" is perfectly natural.

 

For me, when I wrote earlier in this thread, that "wonder is the natural state of a child". This is a reference to a perfectly natural sacred experience. It is a sacred thing to wonder - in my mind it is an experience of "God" to wonder. So... in this context ... "leap of faith" takes on an entirely different meaning than may be assumed in our culture of literalism.

 

Does this make any sense at all? If you've more questions feel free to ask them.

 

You are right... there are many things to discuss. But being honest about our "red flags" sets a good foundation for further discussion - don't you think . So I am open to answering any questions you have about the above.

[MQTA]

"Leaving Jesus was not leaving God"

 

Again we come down to reality that a man is asking us to believe in his truth. 100 men in a line all have their flavors of truth, each making them feel better. This "spirituality" is at its core, selfishness. Selfishness cannot be of God. Selfishness is the very core of most of the brutal evil and pain that takes place in our world. Selfishness, or the will to be "little gods" is the story of the first chapters of Genesis. Trust God, or seek your own path. It was the first lie...the big lie. And will forever be the big lie. Life was not meant to be lived and processed apart from God.

 

Satan was the father of lies, and a murderer. Jesus is the Way, Truth and Life.

 

Satan = lies, death, the false way

Jesus = truth, life, the way

 

This is THE story of the Bible.

 

1 John 3:8?

Genesis 2 and 3?

 

Take Jesus out of the equation and you lose the truth, life and way, and you are left wife a lie, death, and a fallse way. Take Jesus away and you are a son of the father of lies, the devil.

 

Take Adam away and you've got nothing. I never realized how dependent Jesus was on Adam and the Fall and a talking serpent that didn't lie.

[NotBlinded]

For me, when I wrote earlier in this thread, that "wonder is the natural state of a child". This is a reference to a perfectly natural sacred experience. It is a sacred thing to wonder - in my mind it is an experience of "God" to wonder. So... in this context ... "leap of faith" takes on an entirely different meaning than may be assumed in our culture of literalism.

I heard something today that makes sense. It was in reference to knowing the absolute truth. It was said that the very nature of thoughts are limiting. We disregard this in place of something else. So, how is it possible to know the absolute truth by thinking when the absolute truth is contained in the whole? I wonder...

 

Oh, I'm a she.

[Antlerman]

Oh, I'm a she.

Oh, I was wondering. It was really hard to tell from your avitar - it's so fuzzy!

[NotBlinded]

Oh, I'm a she.

Oh, I was wondering. It was really hard to tell from your avitar - it's so fuzzy!

 

I have a pic in my profile, but it was a....erm...few years ago!

[Antlerman]

Thank you, but as long as we are discussing "knee-jerk" reactions. I must confess a one of my own

 

The wording "leap of faith" bothers me. It bothers me because within the current cultural context of "faith" people assume all Chirstians abandon all rational thinking in relationship to their faith. So the phrase "leap of faith" is a challenging phrase for me to embrace. But, I do agree with you - in regard to ones understanding of ultimate truth at some point one has to let go of what one can prove and objective/subjective applications become moot.

I can understand that. Originally it was a term coined by a Christian (Soren Kierkegaard) to describe the irrational nature of faith. It was not meant to describe bad reasoning, just simply a category like "mythology", as I understand this. Like NotBlinded just said above, that "the very nature of thoughts are limiting", is saying much the same thing.

 

I was planning to maybe start a topic called, "Epistemological Mysticism" at some point in the interest of exploring how we arrive at knowledge, looking at our culture and other cultures, questioning how we validate or invalidate means and methods. But I'm still chewing on my own thoughts about it and it may be awhile before I actually take it on, if at all. Basically the question is that of rationality and faith, the validity of each system, and its possible coexistence, or necessary exclusiveness. I think I may be on a fool’s quest as I think no sane individual has been able to do this! I suspect this sounds incoherent, but as I said, I'm trying to work some of this out.

 

I agree that someone could take the term Leap of Faith negatively. But I need to ask you how do you see your acceptance of faith? Is it part rationality, part pure choice of faith alone? Purely rational; purely faith alone? Where does rationality come into play, and do you ever find rationality colliding with faith, or do you compartmentalize them somehow?

 

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." I've never quite gotten the offering of proof on the one hand for acceptance of a teaching, then on the other we're saved by faith. I'm hoping to hear how this works for you in your life.

 

Atheism however is not a belief system. There is nothing to teach. I suppose the most you could expect to see would be an atheist parent teaching their child to be skeptical, rational, and discerning. But none of these necessitate a conclusion for non-belief. Those are very positive things to teach a child, and if the end result is that they reject religious evangelists, it would be because they were raised to be skeptical.

 

This is the way I was raised. From a very early age both our parents raised all of us children to be skeptical, rational and discerning in all of life. But particularly in regards to religion, by the time I was 13-14 years old I was already aware of Biblical mythology, historical context, etc... These were common topics around the dinner table. As I entered the teen years my parents were leaving the Catholic church and these issues were common topics of discussion because of their own spiritual journey.

I hope you understand that what I was saying isn't meant in contrast to parents who raise their children with religious beliefs. Teaching critical thinking to a child does not equal a rejection of religious beliefs, but it would probably make them less likely to accept a dog and pony show that comes from the camps of the Televangelists! I think your upbringing would confirm this! You were very fortunate, and where you are at I think is proof of the benefit of raising a child to use their own minds. That you believe in God does not make you a blind believer. You are not a quoter of rhetoric by any means, and you have much to offer from your thoughts.

 

For many, many years I would have considered myself a Deist, in large part because I questioned the validity of the Bible. Much as all of you do here. But, I have discovered a difference. Never in my life have I been faced with the stark choices that so many on this forum have been faced with. Never has the Bible been presented to me as a take it or leave it proposition. When I read of how the Bible is presented in a fundamentalist context, that in order to be "saved" you have to accept it all, without question, then of course when the questioning begins - everything will fall. But, this has never been part of my own path - and so I've not had to deal with all the implications of "non-belief". So, I was able to question the validity of the Bible in a more-or-less literary way without all the loaded emotional implications that I've read about on this forum.

Again, lucky you!! This is core to what I have been struggling to overcome. I consider myself a spiritual person. I was this way before I encountered Christian dogma. Christian dogma actually made my experience of "God" restricted, and distorted. I felt anything but freedom. Intellectually I consumed the "knowledge" and the " intricacies" of the bible (which after the fact are really more about the individual’s ability to make a puzzle picture through fits of logic and poor scholarship). I tried moderate religions but could never get past feeling that I was committing intellectual suicide. When I try to experience life through expressions of divine symbolisms, I felt hypocritical. Wanting to be able to believe, yet forced to acknowledge I could not in good faith do so.

Anyway, Antlerman, my movement from Deist to Christian was not anything I anticipated. And looking back on it I can't say it was a "leap" in the sense that I abandoned all rational thinking or skeptism. It was a "leap" in the sense that I had been studying the mystic paths in all the major religions, I'd been meditating for decades and had experiences which "fit" best within the Christian contemplative tradition. And so I came to a point in my life where I could embrace something I had not been able to embrace before.

Thanks. I think this helps me understand a little better. Again for where I come from, what I feel in doing this is hypocrisy. I do not judge you as that, but can see that you don't have those same obstacles in you history. Back full circle to subjective experience.

[Antlerman]

Oh, I'm a she.

Oh, I was wondering. It was really hard to tell from your avitar - it's so fuzzy!

 

I have a pic in my profile, but it was a....erm...few years ago!

Ahh yes, there you are. Much less fuzzy! You look very healthy. My avatar looks just like me! Kidding... the avatar is actually an artist's rendition of what the "Flores Hobbit" looked like based on skeletal remains - the 3.3 foot tall new human species they recently found on the island of Flores in Indonesia. I'll bet he never imagined his face showing up here on the Internet as someone's avatar when he was foraging for roots and hunting wild boar 15,000 years ago!!!

[NotBlinded]

Ahh yes, there you are. Much less fuzzy! You look very healthy. My avatar looks just like me! Kidding... the avatar is actually an artist's rendition of what the "Flores Hobbit" looked like based on skeletal remains - the 3.3 foot tall new human species they recently found on the island of Flores in Indonesia. I'll bet he never imagined his face showing up here on the Internet as someone's avatar when he was foraging for roots and hunting wild boar 15,000 years ago!!!

Cool! I hadn't heard about the Hobbit...off to google.

[Open_Minded]

Like NotBlinded just said above, that "the very nature of thoughts are limiting", is saying much the same thing.

 

Yes, I agree. This dynamic confounds much of life wouldn't you say For instance, earlier in the thread - post 98 to be exact - I mentioned this very issue.

 

one of the things getting in the way of scientists/physists/mathmaticians these days is the limitations of the human brain to conceptualize all that is being studied. You may want to check out the following:

http://www.friesian.com/penrose.htm

- excerpts from The Emperor's New Mind by Roger Penrose.

 

Some interesting statements in this vein occur in a book called The Matter Myth, by Paul Davies (a physicist in Australia) and John Gribbin (a writer who was trained in astrophysics at Cambridge). For instance, Davies and Gribbin say on pages 110-111:

 

I believe that the reality exposed by modern physics is fundamentally alien to the human mind, and defies all power of direct visualization...

 

The realization that not everything that is so in the world can be grasped by the human imagination is tremendously liberating...

 

Eddington's implicit boast of being the only person other than Einstein able to understand the general theory of relativity did not mean, I believe, that he and Einstein alone could visualize the revolutionary new concepts such as curved spacetime. But he may well have been among the first physicists to appreciate that in this subject true understanding comes only by relinquishing the need to visualize.

 

If the reality grasped by modern physics is "fundamentally alien to the human mind," then it is not clear how "true understanding" could ever be possible! However, Davies and Gribbin seem to be doing the very thing that Kant had allowed for: that

something could be abstractly understood through reason (Euclidean postulates can be denied without creating a contradiction) without our being able to supply an object from our imagination that would correspond to it

.

 

 

I was planning to maybe start a topic called, "Epistemological Mysticism" at some point in the interest of exploring how we arrive at knowledge, looking at our culture and other cultures, questioning how we validate or invalidate means and methods. But I'm still chewing on my own thoughts about it and it may be awhile before I actually take it on, if at all. Basically the question is that of rationality and faith, the validity of each system, and its possible coexistence, or necessary exclusiveness. I think I may be on a fool’s quest as I think no sane individual has been able to do this! I suspect this sounds incoherent, but as I said, I'm trying to work some of this out.

 

No - not at all. I've long been convinced that humans have other ways of "knowing" than we often give ourselves credit for. The problem is we don't normally trust these more subtle means of "knowing". Nor do we nurture the abiltiy to perceive on the more subtle levels.

 

 

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." I've never quite gotten the offering of proof on the one hand for acceptance of a teaching, then on the other we're saved by faith. I'm hoping to hear how this works for you in your life.

 

Well, keeping in mind, that I believe the sacred experience is quite natural and that I don't interpret being "saved" in a literal sense. I would explain my faith as follows:

 

As I mentioned before - I do believe that we humans have other, more subtle ways of "knowing". Faith to me, operates on this level. For instance - I'm sure you've had times in your life where things on the surface looked rather bleak, but something inside of you felt calm about it all. And you just knew that, despite all outward evidence to the contrary, all would work out in the end. People often explain this type of a situation as having a "gut feeling" about something. We accept this type of "knowing" as quite natural. And this inner knowing is "the substance of things hped for, the evidence of things not seen." wouldn't you say

...But, this has never been part of my own path - and so I've not had to deal with all the implications of "non-belief". So, I was able to question the validity of the Bible in a more-or-less literary way without all the loaded emotional implications that I've read about on this forum.

 

This is core to what I have been struggling to overcome. I consider myself a spiritual person. I was this way before I encountered Christian dogma. Christian dogma actually made my experience of "God" restricted, and distorted. I felt anything but freedom. Intellectually I consumed the "knowledge" and the " intricacies" of the bible (which after the fact are really more about the individual’s ability to make a puzzle picture through fits of logic and poor scholarship). I tried moderate religions but could never get past feeling that I was committing intellectual suicide. When I try to experience life through expressions of divine symbolisms, I felt hypocritical. Wanting to be able to believe, yet forced to acknowledge I could not in good faith do so.

 

Yes, I can see how strict dogma, strict and literal interpretation of the Bible - or any sacred literature would be mind-boggling restrictive. Given the way I process life myself, if I'd been put in such a restrictive situation I'd have fought to free myself from the shackles and then run as far away as possible from the situation.

 

Thanks. I think this helps me understand a little better. Again for where I come from, what I feel in doing this is hypocrisy. I do not judge you as that, but can see that you don't have those same obstacles in you history. Back full circle to subjective experience.

 

Yes indeed - back full circle - but with another dimension added. The dimension of how humans "know" things. And "exploring how we arrive at knowledge" as well as the more subtle ways of "knowing" is a discussion that could get very complex, as you mentioned yourself.

[NotBlinded]

Like NotBlinded just said above, that "the very nature of thoughts are limiting", is saying much the same thing.

 

Yes, I agree. This dynamic confounds much of life wouldn't you say

Yes, I would. But by recognition alone, it liberates it.