Christian Adoption

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I thought it was clear that I accepted that my notion of God was a personal one and not the same as the general view. At the same time I have argued that those who hold the traditional view see evidence for God where you (and I) do not and hence their "reality" is different to yours.

It is clear. But the responses you have given to why others come to theist beliefs and your responses regarding existence would seem more in line with your beliefs.

 

Because it is what drives my moral and ethical thought. Your picture of a God is just much more narrow than mine.

Well the term does denote a being and an intelligent, if not more. I leaves me wondering what you think the definition of the word is. And given your beliefs that you find so difficult to put into words, I am surprised you find a name for this 'force'.

 

I am being serious, but maybe I do not understand. Given your inability to describe your understanding of this God, please don't feel exasperated. I would be interested if you try and explain in as much detail as possible.

 

You know about some force that comes from your innate nature. Another person might claim to know something else. And believing in being controlled by some exterior force that cannot be detected or believing in something akin to the Star Wars 'force', for example, is not dissimilar.

But the question remain of how they know this force exists? And faith is a worrying answer. It doesn't offer an explanation as to why someone might come to any conclusion. They just do. It means they are not uninterested in any truth.

Or in any basis for their being a shared reality. It borders on solipsism.

 

In asking how you come to this view, I am purely curious to know how your developed this understanding of a 'force' or 'God'. What makes you think you understand how and why you feel or think to the extent of knowing it.

 

If my God manifests in the world it is through my actions.

Is your God really an aspect of your consciousness then of which you have entitled 'God'?

 

You do not seem to have any notion whatever of a God of whatever sort.

I disagree entirely in having held theist views in the past, although they were never strong. I did believe in some God (the Christian God), just never rationalised it. And I doubt you can glean my understanding in response to this discussion that relates to your beliefs, which are of a very different nature indeed.

 

You are also predicating that God must fit the traditional picture of the Creator who can come down and throw thunderbolts around - my perception obviously doesn't fit with this.

No, I don't. I know that Christian, Muslims, etc think this is the case. As for many others. But not pantheists and panentheists and those with beliefs like yours.

 

As for "a person's perspection and interpretation of their world constitutes what exists.", at the level of ordinary life, yes it does. At the level of scientific explanation it may not. The definaition of "exists" depends on the level of description you are contemplating.

But really one can ask where such a thing exists at any level. Where are these things located and how does it exist for the person? This is where the nub of the issue is and where the matter of certainty is brought into question.

[Evil Goblin]

[but the responses you have given to why others come to theist beliefs and your responses regarding existence would seem more in line with your beliefs.

I can only say that I disagree. My responses as to why people adopt Theist beliefs are well acknowledged and arguments over the nature of existence have kept philosophers busy for centuries!

 

Well the term does denote a being and an intelligent, if not more. I leaves me wondering what you think the definition of the word is. And given your beliefs that you find so difficult to put into words, I am surprised you find a name for this 'force'.

The term can denote the supreme, intelligent being of traditon but not all concepts of God do so. As to my difficulty in putting my beliefs in words, I acknowledge this. I suspect that this is because I am speaking of something which cannot be spoken of (experiental knowledge). Perhaps the truth lies in the saying "If someone asks about the Tao and another answers him then neither of them knows it".

 

I am being serious, but maybe I do not understand. Given your inability to describe your understanding of this God, please don't feel exasperated. I would be interested if you try and explain in as much detail as possible.

I have thought carefully about how I might convey my understanding to you but I concluded that I probably cannot do so adequately - I think to understand you would have to follow the road of intense introspection and thought which is necessary to gain that understanding. It isn't easy and is a very disturbing process. If you want to make a start try reading the opening logion of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas ("Let him who seeks continue seeking......"). Copies of this document from the Nag Hammadi Library are not too hard to find.

 

You know about some force that comes from your innate nature. Another person might claim to know something else. And believing in being controlled by some exterior force that cannot be detected or believing in something akin to the Star Wars 'force', for example, is not dissimilar.

But the question remain of how they know this force exists? And faith is a worrying answer. It doesn't offer an explanation as to why someone might come to any conclusion. They just do. It means they are not uninterested in any truth.

Or in any basis for their being a shared reality. It borders on solipsism.

I know that this "force" (an inadequate word really) exists for me because it comes from inside me (undoubtedly from "this worldly" factors)- it may not exist for someone else or others may have quite a different view of it, and they must speak for themselves. And what is truth? I agree with your comment on solipsism, but then arguably all we can ever know is what we experience.

 

In asking how you come to this view, I am purely curious to know how your developed this understanding of a 'force' or 'God'. What makes you think you understand how and why you feel or think to the extent of knowing it.

An experience arising from introspection and thought - I do not know exactly why I know the truth (for me) of what I experienced but it has (and again it is not an ideal way of putting it but it conveys the message)the status of Revealed Truth (an experiental matter).

 

Is your God really an aspect of your consciousness then of which you have entitled 'God'?

It is an aspect of my mind (both conscious and subconscious) which I term God.

 

I disagree entirely in having held theist views in the past, although they were never strong. I did believe in some God (the Christian God), just never rationalised it.

Perhaps you should have used your rejection of the conventional view as a base for further investigation rather than merely rejecting it?

 

But really one can ask where such a thing exists at any level. Where are these things located and how does it exist for the person? This is where the nub of the issue is and where the matter of certainty is brought into question.

Existence of particular objects does exist only in our minds - for example, we believe atoms exist because by adopting that belief results in great success in describing the events of the Universe but no-one knows what an atom "really" is and the question of what it "really" looks like is probably meaningless.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I can only say that I disagree. My responses as to why people adopt Theist beliefs are well acknowledged and arguments over the nature of existence have kept philosophers busy for centuries!

By whom? I can make a pretty good guess that the filling of minds with theist ideas from a young age accounts for much belief.

I would make a guess that those who adopt the rather naff spiritual course of belief with all the New Age stuff (crystals, talk of 'energies', etc.) are probably more a product of a need, but again, no doubt their motivation stems from their earlier indoctrination.

 

The term can denote the supreme, intelligent being of traditon but not all concepts of God do so.

Well yes, I do agree. It does, however, from the perspective of those who try to understand your beliefs, make things more confusing.

 

As to my difficulty in putting my beliefs in words, I acknowledge this. I suspect that this is because I am speaking of something which cannot be spoken of (experiental knowledge). Perhaps the truth lies in the saying "If someone asks about the Tao and another answers him then neither of them knows it".

And if neither of them know it, they don't know what it is themselves.

 

I know that this "force" (an inadequate word really) exists for me because it comes from inside me (undoubtedly from "this worldly" factors)- it may not exist for someone else or others may have quite a different view of it, and they must speak for themselves. And what is truth? I agree with your comment on solipsism, but then arguably all we can ever know is what we experience.

Essentially you believe that you 'operate' (think and behave) in the manner you do because of some force that is within you. Am I right?

And you place a label of 'God' on that force.

 

I might ask where your certainty lies in knowing that this force exists for you. How do you form an understanding without being able to define what it is you feel? At most, I'd have thought all you could say is that there is something you feel.

 

An experience arising from introspection and thought - I do not know exactly why I know the truth (for me) of what I experienced but it has (and again it is not an ideal way of putting it but it conveys the message)the status of Revealed Truth (an experiental matter).

Linking in to the previous bit, this Revealed Truth is an understanding. But how can you even reach the point of a claiming a truth for yourself when you cannot put it into words?

Is it something you purely sense but cannot form a concept of?

 

It is an aspect of my mind (both conscious and subconscious) which I term God.

Ok.

 

Perhaps you should have used your rejection of the conventional view as a base for further investigation rather than merely rejecting it?

There was nothing to warrant doing so. There is no evidence for other God's that has been presented - those that conform to the typical definition of a (superior) intelligent being existing in our shared reality.

 

In rejecting or reserving belief in those Gods which are claimed to manifest in reality, I would not necessarily seek the introspective path of discovering or possibly reifying a personal God, as this is a very different thing. But if it is about a reification, I have no need of a God. Although I do find your take on such things very interesting and more honest than most theistic views.

 

If we can move past this. I am more interested in why you need a God, if that is something you don't mind sharing.

 

 

Existence of particular objects does exist only in our minds - for example, we believe atoms exist because by adopting that belief results in great success in describing the events of the Universe but no-one knows what an atom "really" is and the question of what it "really" looks like is probably meaningless.

I agree that the question is probably meaningless. (Have you read up on Wittgenstein?) But I would argue that we can only claim to 'know' what exists in the reality we share by using science.

[Evil Goblin]

By whom?

By whom - numerous scholars - try digging into Theology.

 

Well yes, I do agree. It does, however, from the perspective of those who try to understand your beliefs, make things more confusing.

Anyone who is confused is not reading and understanding what I said. You have been trying to fit me into the conventional picture whereas I have not only been stating my own beliefs but also indicating the beliefs of traditional Theists - I thought the distinction between the two was evident but if I have not been clear enough I am sorry.

 

And if neither of them know it, they don't know what it is themselves.

You do not understand the meaning of this - it is saying that the one who knows will not answer because he knows that he cannot convey the knowledge in language. The knowledge must be sought and realised by everyone by themselves.

 

Essentially you believe that you 'operate' (think and behave) in the manner you do because of some force that is within you. Am I right?

And you place a label of 'God' on that force.

Yes, providing I take the time and trouble to "listen" to that "force".

 

Linking in to the previous bit, this Revealed Truth is an understanding. But how can you even reach the point of a claiming a truth for yourself when you cannot put it into words?

Is it something you purely sense but cannot form a concept of?

Yes, although it's a bit more than a sense of it.

 

There was nothing to warrant doing so. There is no evidence for other God's that has been presented - those that conform to the typical definition of a (superior) intelligent being existing in our shared reality.

In rejecting or reserving belief in those Gods which are claimed to manifest in reality, I would not necessarily seek the introspective path of discovering or possibly reifying a personal God, as this is a very different thing. But if it is about a reification, I have no need of a God. Although I do find your take on such things very interesting and more honest than most theistic views.

If we can move past this. I am more interested in why you need a God, if that is something you don't mind sharing.

Why do I need this God? Because it provides a basis on which I can determine just what action I should take in any particular circumstances. e.g. it might be that I am faced with a choice between lying and not lying - what should I do in the particular circumstances? i.e. what is the right thing to do. A God can provisde a guide through the tribulations of life. Maybe you can get on without one but I would suggest that basing your decisions on, for example, science is really just making a God of science. What basis do you have for determining your decisions on moral and ethical matters? It could be that undertaking the spiritual journey could just be of benefit (and not a little interest) to you.

 

I agree that the question is probably meaningless. (Have you read up on Wittgenstein?) But I would argue that we can only claim to 'know' what exists in the reality we share by using science.

There you are - Science as a God, the final arbiter of your thought and behaviour? And perhaps there is no one reality we all share - we create a reality in our minds so perhaps we all have (even if only slightly different) realities. As we really don't really know the "truth" of anything outside our minds, only what we perceive, you are not really saying anything much different in principle from myself. I hope that this doesn't annoy Chinahand too much!

[La_Dolce_Vita]

By whom - numerous scholars - try digging into Theology.

Well I firmly that religion in the world today is largely not about need. Certainly theists beliefs offer something desirable to those who are willing to accept the claims as true. But how people get to the stage of believing is what I talking about. And most people have not come to believe out of a satisfy their desires.

 

Anyone who is confused is not reading and understanding what I said. You have been trying to fit me into the conventional picture whereas I have not only been stating my own beliefs but also indicating the beliefs of traditional Theists - I thought the distinction between the two was evident but if I have not been clear enough I am sorry.

I am not trying to fit you in. I recognise that the term God is almost exclusively used by believers to refer to an entity that exists within AND without as an conscious entity.

 

You do not understand the meaning of this - it is saying that the one who knows will not answer because he knows that he cannot convey the knowledge in language. The knowledge must be sought and realised by everyone by themselves.

But if one person cannot convey what this knowledge is there is no reason for the other person to think they have acquired the same knowledge. The beliefs could be very different.

 

Yes, providing I take the time and trouble to "listen" to that "force".

I presume you see it as an aspect of or your conscience? I'm curious, where do you think you derive your morality? Is it simply the case that your ability to act on your moral understanding is a result of listening to this 'God' or does it also determine your moral understanding?

 

Yes, although it's a bit more than a sense of it.

But I would be wrong in thinking you believe that this God is just a facet of your thinking? Are you not simply saying that you have entitled the ability you have to carry out moral thinking as a God?

 

Why do I need this God? Because it provides a basis on which I can determine just what action I should take in any particular circumstances. e.g. it might be that I am faced with a choice between lying and not lying - what should I do in the particular circumstances? i.e. what is the right thing to do. A God can provisde a guide through the tribulations of life.

Maybe you can get on without one but I would suggest that basing your decisions on, for example, science is really just making a God of science. What basis do you have for determining your decisions on moral and ethical matters? It could be that undertaking the spiritual journey could just be of benefit (and not a little interest) to you.

But I don't base my morality and my moral decisions on science. I have the morality that is possibly a product of genetics or learned very early on as part of the recognition of my humanity and relations with others where murder, theft, violence are bad. And where these have been refined and new morals learned from my social relations.

I don't understand at all where the creation of a God could be in any way useful.

 

There you are - Science as a God, the final arbiter of your thought and behaviour?

As mentioned with morality, I don't use science as the arbiter of everything. It is the most effective way found to understand the shared world in terms of what manifests in that world. But it does not structure my morality, for example.

 

 

And perhaps there is no one reality we all share - we create a reality in our minds so perhaps we all have (even if only slightly different) realities. As we really don't really know the "truth" of anything outside our minds, only what we perceive, you are not really saying anything much different in principle from myself. I hope that this doesn't annoy Chinahand too much!

There is a reality that we do share when we recognise with each other how we interact with objects and understand our world. And a reality that is shared to a very great extent. Our truths can be found in that shared reality.

Does the theist really claim that do not share the same reality? It has to be accepted in toto or all of that shared reality brought into uncertainty - which thus leads to unhelpful solipsisted outlooks.

[midnight]

As as been repeatedly repeated, just because somthing has not been PROVED it does not nessacerilly mean its not the truth! And vice versa!

But unless something is proved or if good evidence exists, there is no good reason to think it is true.

 

Do you believe in unicorns?

 

What about when people who have had “near death experiences” and “ out of body experiences”...

 

How can it be possible? Unless of course the impact of the surgery triggered a strong psychic connection, or sum other veriation of the theme!, to exchange information and meaning ect, maybe more powerfull than we wud normally have !

Erm...maybe because they are near death their mental faculties aren't quite the same nor up to the job of perceiving things as they would normally do.

 

This doesn’t actually prove the existence of god, but to my mind its very convincing evidence, “proof” if you like, that when we die, its not the end, its mearly the beginning!

Then you have very low standards of evidence. As I said, their brains are very likely not functioning as well as when they were healthy. This has to be taken into account before running off with the assumption that their visions mean an afterlife.

 

And you're right. Even if it did prove there was an afterlife, it wouldn't indicate what it was and nor that there is a God.

 

And what about when we “see” and “hear” and “smell” and “feel” and “touch” and “sence” ect our loved ones again, here on earth, but who have passed over?

Hallucination? Have you accounted to this? Is the loved one really being seen or heard for certain? As for smell, hear, and sense, these are not going to be reliable ways of determining if a dead person is coming back to say hello.

 

Sorry cant multi quote each point, please bear with me!

 

Yes of course I believe in unicorns, dosent eveyone???

Its said that only one with a true and pure heart can ever "tame" a unicorn!

Ive been touched by a unicorn!

 

To question is to seek - to seek is to find!

 

 

edited to add, will re-read the whole topic, think ive missed a few things!

[midnight]

Re – read everything now.

Yep twas as I thought ! I had missed a good few things!

 

I haven’t got time unfortunately to go into detail on the entire topic I have to do somthing else shortly!, Im not able to go into my own reasons at the moment for the existence of god, wud maybe bore u all to death anyways lol so for now I will just make a quick tiny little post and add a few remarks back !

 

No I don’t need facts to prove to me that somthing exists, I have my own individual identity and ideas, and in my mind somthing either exists or it doesn’t - thats it! but this mind set is allways subject to change upon reflection!

And I don’t feel the need to prove my beliefs to anyone either, unless of course im asked!

 

But I wouldn’t quite say that I have “very low standards” for accepting evidence for a given phenomena, concept or idea! in fact to the contrary!

I accept the standardised scientific trails that are commonly used.

But for phenomena and beliefs ect that may seem alien to modern day physics, and which may appear as un- provable either way, well In these instances, I don’t need “scientific” “Proof”.

I know myself if somthing is the truth or false!, ones intuition, ones own inner feelings, is ALLWAYS right!

 

I trust in trust!!!!!!

 

And there is very strong evidence out there anyways, the evidence just appears in slightly different ways, well as long as you are open minded enough to accept it!.

 

Dreams and dreaming ?

Think ive provided evidence for an after life but to add also.....

Precognition dreaming? Well a cynic is free to put this phenomena down to “chance” and “luck” or as “inevitable” that someone wud predict a future event, as there are millions of different dreams being dreamt at any one time and someone somewere is BOUND to be dreaming one which “comes true”

And a scientist will insist predicting an occurrence or effect cannot occur before its cause as this violates the laws of modern day physics.

Well yes maybe, but from the above probability of the likelihood of predictions occouring, is unlikely when the same person, repeatedly and persistently forecasts accurate visions about the future!!!!

Chance in this case become redundant!

These people are receiving insight and information from places and sources which may not be clearly understood nor explained by modern day physics.

 

In fact modern day physics is quite ignorant in its understanding of life!

 

Hallucinations? accounting for, or more accurately maybe, as a coping mechanism for helping people cope with the pain and sadness of the bereavement of a loved one or there own death by falsely creating soothing manifestations within the mind ect ?

Yes hallucinations have been taken into account, and quite strongly, the subconscious and unconscious does indeed play tricks on ones mind to compensate for such events! Specially if you need it!

But there are frequent instances were the manifestations are very REAL ! people do come back to say hello! Of course they do!

 

And just to add to a statement that caught my eye, the heart pumps blood and is nothing more ? yes of course it is a fantastic pump, but its a lot more than that!

Its one of the major chakra centres, and the heart is the centre for the emotion of love!

If the heart is emotionally broken, due for example, being separated from loved ones ect, this emotional pain and hurt can manifest itself in physical symptoms and result in heart problems!

The mind and body are one, they are not separate! (well not of course untill the soul leaves the physical body at some stage!)

 

Thankfully there are many ways of healing a broken heart !

 

I suppose the topic has gone slightly of topic to what it originally was john wright (some good posts and points by the way! ) but the topic has mearly expanded and evolved slightly! Its still a general discution about Christianity but its now become more open ect

 

 

Goodnite !

 

( need to locate a good avatar picture now to accompany my brilliant name of midnight ! in fact ive got one! Just need to take my personal info from of the picture ! )

[La_Dolce_Vita]

You're just really crazy, aren't you?

[midnight]

You're just really crazy, aren't you?

 

Its not really for me to coment on that, but im only as “crazy” as a crazy world dictates!

 

But u seem to be asking quite a lot of questions, which is a good thing, its how we learn!

 

Think I will start asking questions for a change rather than giving answers!

 

If a child becomes trapped under a heavy car or vehicle, how can a 8 stone mum lift a 2 ton car, as it were as light as a feather, to free the child? which very often happens ?

Due to modern day physics/biology, the much weaker mum CANNOT physically lift the heavy car, its impossible, her strength does NOT physically allow her to do so ?

So how does she do it?

 

Of course great feats of strength, the weak overcoming the strong, which “defy” physics, do occur in nature, such as those of us trained in the martial arts, who can break concrete with there bare hands which would smash a normal untrained persons hand and bones to pieces, but the martial artist has trained in such matters, there bones have become FAR more dense and there mitochondria within there cells more concentrated, the martial artist can channel all there energy into the precise moment of contact with the concrete.

 

But the mum has not trained in such matters? Were does her strength come from?

 

Could it possibly be because she receives some divine intervention and assistance from an all loving and caring god or his mesengers, the angels, ?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

If a child becomes trapped under a heavy car or vehicle, how can a 8 stone mum lift a 2 ton car to free the child? which very often happens ?

But how often?

[midnight]

If a child becomes trapped under a heavy car or vehicle, how can a 8 stone mum lift a 2 ton car to free the child? which very often happens ?

But how often?

 

The frequency of the phenomena is irrelevent!!!

 

It HAPPENS and happens quite oftern as a matter of fact, Its been documented over and over again!!

 

Heee heeee, ive got ya thinking now, a "logical" explination is not forthwith hey? , Im so brilliant in such matters, I should congratulate myself lol

 

* midnight takes a bow! *

 

Im off now I need to chat to a few friends on MSN for a little while and then sort out a few affairs, laters peeps!

Will be back soon!

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I think it matters. How do I know that these people were really mothers and not long-haired, tranvestite Fathers? That would be more understandable.

[ScotsAlan]

I think it matters. How do I know that these people were really mothers and not long-haired, tranvestite Fathers? That would be more understandable.

 

?

 

Erm...... strange comment...

 

That will keep me awake tonight thinking about it !!

[Evil Goblin]

But how people get to the stage of believing is what I talking about. And most people have not come to believe out of a satisfy their desires.

I suspect that belief in a God arises out of what seems to be an innate need to have an understanding of the world in which we live. Invention of a God or Gods provides such a comforting understanding and avoids people having to cope with the fact that the Universe (and life) is probably totally meaningless. One human characteristic appears to be that we are purposeful animals - without a purpose we live aimless lives. If there is a God then it is easy to assume that your life must have some meaning and purpose, even if you can't figure out what it is. It is difficult to face up to the fact that if your life is to have a meaning or purpose then you must create that meaning or purpose for yourself - an awesome responsibility. This is a difficulty which scientific understanding does not help us with - there will always be a role for the "God of the Gaps".

 

But if one person cannot convey what this knowledge is there is no reason for the other person to think they have acquired the same knowledge. The beliefs could be very different.

True - but then I am a solipsist!

 

I presume you see it as an aspect of or your conscience? I'm curious, where do you think you derive your morality? Is it simply the case that your ability to act on your moral understanding is a result of listening to this 'God' or does it also determine your moral understanding?

Yes - it is the basis of my morality and (ideally) my actions. Ultimately, I think this God arises out of (largely sub-conscious) natural processes within my brain and is therefore a function of both my hard-wiring and learning.

 

But I would be wrong in thinking you believe that this God is just a facet of your thinking? Are you not simply saying that you have entitled the ability you have to carry out moral thinking as a God?

You are right.

 

But I don't base my morality and my moral decisions on science. I have the morality that is possibly a product of genetics or learned very early on as part of the recognition of my humanity and relations with others where murder, theft, violence are bad. And where these have been refined and new morals learned from my social relations.

I don't understand at all where the creation of a God could be in any way useful.

I suspect that you have the same understanding of things as I do but you choose not to conceive of what speaks to you from within as God. Perhaps we have really been arguing on the basis of a semantic confusion?

 

As mentioned with morality, I don't use science as the arbiter of everything. It is the most effective way found to understand the shared world in terms of what manifests in that world. But it does not structure my morality, for example.

In understanding the behaviour of the physical world science is indeed a very powerful tool. But acience is not a lot of help to most people wrestling with the problems which arise in their lives on how to relate to others, what values to place on things,etc.

 

There is a reality that we do share when we recognise with each other how we interact with objects and understand our world. And a reality that is shared to a very great extent. Our truths can be found in that shared reality.

Due, no doubt, to the similarity of our hard wiring and much of our learning experiences, we do tend to agree on, for example, the reality of specific objects or qualities such as colours or smells. This is a different thing from stating that what is commonly perceived is actual fact or a "truth". e.g. colours and smells do not really exist in the physical world, only inside our heads. But differences arise when we come to ascribe meanings and purposes to those objects.

 

Does the theist really claim that do not share the same reality? It has to be accepted in toto or all of that shared reality brought into uncertainty - which thus leads to unhelpful solipsisted outlooks.

A theist will agree that science explains the physical world's behaviour but cannot accept that it is without purpose. Their reality is their own creation taking into account both science and the need for an ultimate explanation and purpose for things. A solipsist outlook may be something you regard as unhelpful and leading to confusion but I would aver that nevertheless it is actually a sensible understanding of how we individually perceive our world.

[Evil Goblin]

I think it matters. How do I know that these people were really mothers and not long-haired, tranvestite Fathers? That would be more understandable.

I believe there are a number of such apparently miraculous feats of strength and endurance documented. I would think they are really just a reflection of the fact that people have much more capability than they commonly suppose - just needs the right motivation to reveal their true capabilities.