The Problem of evoL

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Honest and sincere question please Walter.  Did you ever have essentially a transcendent experience, and if so, what was the general theme.

 

Thx.

 

Yes, I did Edgarcito.  Twice, in fact.

 

The first was when our minister (pastor, in the US) called for volunteers at the end of his Sunday sermon.  Before he even described what this was about I knew in my heart that god was calling me to do this.  Once he'd finished I realized that I had the necessary skills to be of help and I had the time to do it.  It all fitted together so well that I just knew that this was part of god's plan in my life.  So I stuck up my hand and volunteered.

 

The second time was at a bible study and I had just gained an new insight into the meaning of a passage of scripture.  The words just seemed to make sense then, whereas they hadn't before.  Afterward, walking home with a friend who was also at the meeting, I told him about my epiphany.  

 

"So, how did you feel when the Word came alive for you?" he said.  "Did your heart feel on fire for the Lord?"

 

I replied that it did.

 

"Ah well then, you're walking in Wesley's footsteps and have just received the same blessing from god that he did."

 

I didn't understand, so my friend explained.  This link explains it better than I can.

 

https://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1701-1800/john-wesleys-heart-strangely-warmed-11630227.html

 

That evening he reluctantly attended a meeting in Aldersgate. Someone read from Luther's Preface to the Epistle to Romans. About 8:45 p.m. "while he was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone for salvation; and an assurance was given me that He had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death."

 

And those are the two clearest and most meaningful transcendent experiences of my Christian life, Edgarcito.  There were many other times when I felt moved by the songs, the prayers and the testimonies I heard.  Also other, lesser moments of reading the bible where I felt that something greater than myself was at work in ways that I couldn't understand.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

11 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Here's how it works, Josh.

For the non-EO's, scripture is the highest authority and these apologists can 'know' because of 1 John 2 : 20

 

But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth.

 

So, they can bypass any limitation you can impose on them concerning knowledge, Josh.

 

Not when it comes to the transcendent. The bible itself will fail at this point. One can only know the truth that ultimate truth is beyond knowledge. If the bible claims otherwise, then it's the bible which has failed. That's how it works in these philosophical circles. They have to stay true to philosophy itself. They can only get with the above in theologically biased circles and environments. Against atheists, scientists and philosophers, which they're aspiring to engage with, these tactics fall flat. 

 

11 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

For the EO's, their church is the highest authority and the Holy Spirit works through them and not scripture, again bypassing any limitation you can impose upon them concerning how they 'know' and how they are certain.

 

Now, you and I can easily see that both of these are just circular arguments.  So, if these EO's have ever used logical fallacies in their debates with you, you can return the favour.  

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

In philosophy they have to stand corrected here in front of everyone who already knows better than to claim certainty while pointing to a transcendent, by definition, beyond certain reality. This is the head game they're playing. It's no different than the example of omnipresence. It's only all present when it suites their purpose, but when it contradicts them somewhere else, they just try and revise it to mean 'not-all-present.' Absent from whatever they don't prefer to acknowledge. And that can be demonstrated to others a logical fallacy, and self-contradiction. 

 

They're doing the same thing with the concept of transcendent. 

 

They want to use it like they use omnipresence. And ignore its implications when the implications run counter to their beliefs.

 

One thing they're going to be facing is the issue of universe at large having the appearance of a human brain neural network. The big interpretation so far comes from combining Donald Hoffman's work on evolution by natural selection creating "species-specific" user interfaces for perceiving objective reality "out there." That which perceives, is perceiving a reflection of itself when looking out at deep space, as this goes. 

 

 

 

 

But a reptile, for instance, has evolved a completely different species-specific user interface of perception. And what's out there in the objective world wouldn't look the same as perceiving through the lens of an evolved species of mammal, like us.

 

The idea is that all species of life are looking out at something akin to a "screen of potential," as work in the quantum direction tends to indicate. The potential is perceived and somehow this mirror effect of projecting our own interior out there happens. The old Hermetic axiom of "as above, so below, as within, so without" is what happens. 

 

So, what about "out there," what about the transcendent reality behind our perceptions? 

 

In this sense it's subjective between species and only objective within a given species. And even that isn't really objective. The only objective aspect of reality is the "screen of potential" which is never perceived as the "thing in itself."

 

This is what these EO apologists are up against in idealist circles. The screen has to be primary awareness as the basis of reality. If they call that god, then god is everything, immanent and transcendent. The Nicean creed that they adhere to claims that god is both immanent and transcendent. But that does away with the concept of Genesis as literal, sin as literal, hell as literal, or anything as literal. No literal jesus. None of it is literal. 

 

Reality is just mentation and a whole lot of 'one primary awareness perceiving itself through various lenses.' And that mentation reality, IS the transcendent-immanent reality. It comes down to god is everything, and god is perceiving itself through the perceptions of anything. Does god sin? Where do these guys think they're going to go with this? Does god consign god to the flames of hell for not believing in the EO church? 

 

Who's fucking authority does the EO church have? Is it gods authority? That's the same authority that anyone, anywhere, anytime, from any background, also shares. There's zero exclusivity to that concept of god as mentation and the nature of reality itself. 

 

There's nothing to convert to or from in that mentation reality. Everything is god, there is no dual aspect on this level. And these are implications that dissolve the EO church along with every other dualistic form of thinking. 

 

All of this goes into the counter apologetics of christians trying to usurp, integrate, or conflate their religious beliefs with modern analytical idealism. Everything I've mentioned are hot topics right now in those circles. And it seems clear that in order to take the higher ground, they have to dump any christian denomination that takes an exclusivity angle for itself within the scheme of a non-dual reality. 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

4 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Not when it comes to the transcendent. The bible itself will fail at this point. One can only know the truth that ultimate truth is beyond knowledge. If the bible claims otherwise, then it's the bible which has failed. That's how it works in these philosophical circles. They have to stay true to philosophy itself. They can only get with the above in theologically biased circles and environments. Against atheists, scientists and philosophers, which they're aspiring to engage with, these tactics fall flat. 

 

 

That might be so if you're talking philosophy, but it cuts no ice if you're talking faith.

 

So long as the EO goes by faith, either through scripture or through the body of the church, then ALL things are possible with god and no human limitation (i.e., philosophy) can limit him.

 

Philosophy depends upon understanding, but faith does not.  If there are certain things that philosophy has to stay true to then there is nothing that faith has to stay true to.

 

If the EO is talking philosophy with you, then your rules would seem to apply.  But if he's talking faith (as in Hebrews 11), then no rules apply.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

3 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

If the EO is talking philosophy with you, then your rules would seem to apply.  But if he's talking faith (as in Hebrews 11), then no rules apply.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

They're trying to conflate the two, which is the root of the problem. Trying to justify faith through philosophical discourse. And with scientific referencing. 

 

 

[midniterider]

3 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

They're trying to conflate the two, which is the root of the problem. Trying to justify faith through philosophical discourse. And with scientific referencing. 

 

 

 

Tell em they're in the wrong group. BK doesn't have shit to do with Jebus.

[walterpthefirst]

3 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

They're trying to conflate the two, which is the root of the problem. Trying to justify faith through philosophical discourse. And with scientific referencing. 

 

 

 

If the EO has already cited Hebrews 11 Josh, then why not ask him if the people listed there required philosophical discourse and evidence to act in faith?

 

If he says Yes, then ask him to cite where in the bible it says this.

 

If he says No, then ask him why do EO's require these things to act in faith, when the people in chapter 11 didn't?

 

On this last one, don't forget that those people acted in faith without evidence! 

 

So that rules out scientific referencing, which always requires evidence.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[TABA]

On 8/19/2022 at 4:44 PM, Joshpantera said:

You get into these philosophy groups and they're a little more on top of their game. But they're still trying to cling to Christianity, which, will always put them at a disadvantage over those who don't cling to Christianity

This is absolutely key!  No doubt most believers are satisfied to keep their minds within the strict boundaries set by christian dogma, regardless of whether it’s a conservative or liberal version.  But it securely traps those who have the ability or desire to grow, to explore new ideas.  I have benefited hugely by moving from the former group to the latter, even if I never explore the levels that you have.  

[Edgarcito]

16 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Yes, I did Edgarcito.  Twice, in fact.

 

The first was when our minister (pastor, in the US) called for volunteers at the end of his Sunday sermon.  Before he even described what this was about I knew in my heart that god was calling me to do this.  Once he'd finished I realized that I had the necessary skills to be of help and I had the time to do it.  It all fitted together so well that I just knew that this was part of god's plan in my life.  So I stuck up my hand and volunteered.

 

The second time was at a bible study and I had just gained an new insight into the meaning of a passage of scripture.  The words just seemed to make sense then, whereas they hadn't before.  Afterward, walking home with a friend who was also at the meeting, I told him about my epiphany.  

 

"So, how did you feel when the Word came alive for you?" he said.  "Did your heart feel on fire for the Lord?"

 

I replied that it did.

 

"Ah well then, you're walking in Wesley's footsteps and have just received the same blessing from god that he did."

 

I didn't understand, so my friend explained.  This link explains it better than I can.

 

https://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1701-1800/john-wesleys-heart-strangely-warmed-11630227.html

 

That evening he reluctantly attended a meeting in Aldersgate. Someone read from Luther's Preface to the Epistle to Romans. About 8:45 p.m. "while he was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone for salvation; and an assurance was given me that He had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death."

 

And those are the two clearest and most meaningful transcendent experiences of my Christian life, Edgarcito.  There were many other times when I felt moved by the songs, the prayers and the testimonies I heard.  Also other, lesser moments of reading the bible where I felt that something greater than myself was at work in ways that I couldn't understand.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the time and effort to respond.  Not sure I have ever experienced a transcendence that hasn't involved belonging or love.....which I like to consider as evidence. Thx again.

[walterpthefirst]

Not a problem, Ed.  

 

I've experienced feelings of belonging and love too. 

 

But nowadays I dismiss them because of two reasons.  The first is that people of other religions can and do experience them as well.  It would be an act of total hubris on my part to claim that what they feel isn't true love and true belonging.  How could I possibly know this?  The feelings of others are peculiar to them and all I can see is how they behave.  So, as far as I'm concerned feelings alone do not constitute bona fide evidence of transcendental experience.  

 

The other reason has to do with how my two experiences panned out.  Would you like me to explain?

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

8 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

Tell em they're in the wrong group. BK doesn't have shit to do with Jebus.

 

Or Synchrus for that matter....

[Joshpantera]

7 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

If he says No, then ask him why do EO's require these things to act in faith, when the people in chapter 11 didn't?

 

On this last one, don't forget that those people acted in faith without evidence! 

 

So that rules out scientific referencing, which always requires evidence.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

The biggest question of all here to question faith in what? 

 

You can't say. You literally can't say that it's faith in god, because can only be a metaphor that points to beyond (transcendent) of the very term or concept of god. This is where they lack sophistication against the Vedic tradition. Faith in evidence, faith without evidence, these are all red herring directions against the question of what exactly are they proposing to have faith in? 

 

If they say god, then they've already lost - they've tried to name the unnamed and conceive of the inconceivable. Ane they have no choice, because if they don't do that then the entire religion collapses. 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

7 hours ago, TABA said:

This is absolutely key!  No doubt most believers are satisfied to keep their minds within the strict boundaries set by christian dogma, regardless of whether it’s a conservative or liberal version.  But it securely traps those who have the ability or desire to grow, to explore new ideas.  I have benefited hugely by moving from the former group to the latter, even if I never explore the levels that you have.  

 

Yes, that's just it. They set up these narrow boundaries and then expect even the atheists and counter apologists to observe the same boundaries. I once told a guy that I'm not limited by his personal limitations. 

[Edgarcito]

44 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

The biggest question of all here to question faith in what? 

 

You can't say. You literally can't say that it's faith in god, because can only be a metaphor that points to beyond (transcendent) of the very term or concept of god. This is where they lack sophistication against the Vedic tradition. Faith in evidence, faith without evidence, these are all red herring directions against the question of what exactly are they proposing to have faith in? 

 

If they say god, then they've already lost - they've tried to name the unnamed and conceive of the inconceivable. Ane they have no choice, because if they don't do that then the entire religion collapses. 

 

 

It's interesting that Christianity proposes Jesus, belonging to both groups you mention, faith in evidence and faith without evidence in that it's reported that He belonged fully in humanity and fully in the infinite(God).

 

Just speculating again, but if evidence was a finite set, there would be no faith.  The void/field you and I debated, if it were totally defined and the universe finite, and we had all the mechanisms, again, there would be no faith, just calculating inputs and outcomes. Josh was born, subjected to this/that and landed over there when his "life" couldn't be sustained.

 

I don't see us getting there.

 

To add, the Bible story, the hinge, apex point, is that Jesus shared our predicament but was NOT finite....and is even described as the Door and Way between the two.  

 

Do we know, will we know in our subjectivity.  No.  But it sure is worth mentioning that there is a story that proposes if nothing more, a relatable example, direction towards the unknown between the two/(grand unified theory), and some stories of the other side.

 

Sounds like an answer to your "faith in what" to me.....but I'm just a Texas species of redneck....separate from the lessor southern moderator species....

 

[walterpthefirst]

56 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

The biggest question of all here to question faith in what? 

 

You can't say. You literally can't say that it's faith in god, because can only be a metaphor that points to beyond (transcendent) of the very term or concept of god. This is where they lack sophistication against the Vedic tradition. Faith in evidence, faith without evidence, these are all red herring directions against the question of what exactly are they proposing to have faith in? 

 

If they say god, then they've already lost - they've tried to name the unnamed and conceive of the inconceivable. Ane they have no choice, because if they don't do that then the entire religion collapses. 

 

 

 

At this point what they have faith in is a side issue, Josh.

 

Right now this isn't about what the EO's or the people listed in Hebrews 11 have faith in or had faith in.

 

It's about comparing how the faithful behave now to how the faithful behaved then.

 

By using philosophy, science and evidence the EO's are clearly acting in faith in a different way to Abraham, right?

 

As Hebrews 11 clearly states, Abraham had none of these things and used none of these things.

 

If you can get the EO's to admit this difference, then they have to justify why they are different to Abraham.

 

And they can't, can they?

 

 

Pin them down on this first.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[duderonomy]

On 8/21/2022 at 8:03 PM, walterpthefirst said:

Pin them down on this first.

 

This (along with the rest of your post) clearly shows that you are un-biased seeker of truth on your own, and you have no agenda, and you are only seeking the truth.

 

[midniterider]

12 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

This (along with the rest of your post) clearly shows that you are un-biased seeker of truth on your own, and you have no agenda, and you are only seeking the truth.

 

 

I noticed this website seems to have a definite slant against Christianity. 

[walterpthefirst]

12 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

This (along with the rest of your post) clearly shows that you are un-biased seeker of truth on your own, and you have no agenda, and you are only seeking the truth.

 

 

Yes, that's correct.

 

If someone (not just Christians) presents something as true and I can show that they don't hold to the truth that they espouse, then I must therefore be an un-biased seeker of truth.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[midniterider]

What happens when a truth seeker finds the truth?

[walterpthefirst]

34 minutes ago, midniterider said:

What happens when a truth seeker finds the truth?

 

I'll let you know when I find it.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

What if seeking the truth is, itself, the truth?  Should we stop seeking because we've found it? 

[midniterider]

3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

What if seeking the truth is, itself, the truth?  Should we stop seeking because we've found it? 

 

What if looking for a burger is itself a  burger?

[duderonomy]

1 hour ago, midniterider said:

 

What if looking for a burger is itself a  burger?

 

 

Because  'would you like fries with that' ?

[duderonomy]

4 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

What if seeking the truth is, itself, the truth?  Should we stop seeking because we've found it? 

 

Let us all know when you find it and we'll figure it out from there.

[duderonomy]

On 9/8/2022 at 5:14 PM, midniterider said:

What happens when a truth seeker finds the truth?

 

 

Now that I've pondered over this, I guess I'd say they throw it their shopping cart and head to the checkout lanes if the price is agreeable to them.

 

I mean, that's what I'd do.

[duderonomy]

On 9/8/2022 at 11:10 AM, walterpthefirst said:

 

Yes, that's correct.

 

If someone (not just Christians) presents something as true and I can show that they don't hold to the truth that they espouse, then I must therefore be an un-biased seeker of truth.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

Now that I think of it Walter, what is truth?