Influenced by Us

[mentored1]

The questions are thus: how much of spiritual 'revelation' comes from or is influenced by man's notion of reality?

Is God as he is pictured in many mainstream faiths a being, an entity, as we are - is our conception of infinity / eternity limited to the forms of finite / temporal man?

If so how can this be redefined / conceptualized? We must work with our limited materials and forms: have we then imposed these forms of our mortal world upon the immortal? Does this not then "corrupt" that image?

[Bernie]

Hello mentored1,

You ask a question that I've pondered for some years: "...We must work with our limited materials and forms: have we then imposed these forms of our mortal world upon the immortal? Does this not then "corrupt" that image?"

The problem here as I understand it is that unlike material reality, which we have sense data of, we intuit God entirely in concept. God is a maddening concept for this very reason: because He doesn't present Himself in sense data but in spiritual intuition, we have a very hard time of it defining Him. All things spiritual present this problem. When someone says "tree" our mind refers instantly to a variety of sense knowledge...leaves, bark, sap, shade, root system, etc. When one speaks the signifier "God, demon, angel, spirit, etc.", information of a different sort, data that has no intrinsic connection to matter, presents itself to the intellect for consideration. Depending upon the relationship of one's spirit to truth, that data is either (more accurately, it is, at different times, both) information that produces animosity or a hunger, which has a more distant reference to unanimity.

This being said, the way people of faith picture God is relatively unimportant. We are matter-relational beings, so it's natural for us to assign those signifiers we recognize most readily to the concept which defies definition. God, for some, is an old fellow with a beard and long white hair. For others, He is something else. For me, He's just Information to which all other information has its being and reference. He's Entity, Reality or Truth, with no human features.

Yes, I think we corrupt His image, but this is natural. We are ourselves corrupt, a mishmash and admixture of true and false information and meaning, trying vainly to articulate the unknowable. Of course, corrupting the image is not the same as corrupting the thing itself.

[Harfelugan]

[QUOTE=mentored1]The questions are thus: how much of spiritual 'revelation' comes from or is influenced by man's notion of reality?

Just a personal opinion with nothing to back it up but any spiritual revelation that comes from or is influenced by mans notion of reality is supect and not to be trusted. This I believe is why many Christians maintain that Scripture is Divinely inspired and not just something men wrote of there own accord. That reverses the question and puts the responsibility on us to leave our little reality and seek God to give us real spiritual revelation which is not suspect . However recieving this spiritual revelation is not salvation, it is just knowledge. Which is how a Bhuddist , Christian , Spiritist , ect. claim insight to God.And a Christian can say there are many roads to spiritual enlightenment but only one road to salvation through Christ. Now my head hurts, thanks alot.

[mentored1]

Very thoughtful and thought-provoking reply - thank you...


The problem here as I understand it is that unlike material reality, which we have sense data of, we intuit God entirely in concept. God is a maddening concept for this very reason: because He doesn't present Himself in sense data but in spiritual intuition, we have a very hard time of it defining Him. All things spiritual present this problem.

While I agree in a sense I probe further... Can 'spiritual' items such as God (or anything not experienced by material reality) be truly termed to exist? My understanding of a concept is a reflection of ideas in the human mind: as we gather sensory data we can reflect on it in relation to each other and form connections... Is not God such an abstraction? What is spiritual intuition - is it something different than material experience and abstract concept?

When someone says "tree" our mind refers instantly to a variety of sense knowledge...leaves, bark, sap, shade, root system, etc. When one speaks the signifier "God, demon, angel, spirit, etc.", information of a different sort, data that has no intrinsic connection to matter, presents itself to the intellect for consideration.

I may have to wait on your response to my previous inquiry before tackling this one... i.e. if abstract concepts are reflections of sensory data then does it not have some connection - some basis in matter?

Depending upon the relationship of one's spirit to truth, that data is either (more accurately, it is, at different times, both) information that produces animosity or a hunger, which has a more distant reference to unanimity.

I am pressed to ask if 'spirit' and 'truth' are not also just abstract concepts in the mind? Do they exist apart from the mind? If so how can we tell what is 'truth'?

For me, He's just Information to which all other information has its being and reference. He's Entity, Reality or Truth, with no human features.

The Logos?

Yes, I think we corrupt His image, but this is natural. We are ourselves corrupt, a mishmash and admixture of true and false information and meaning, trying vainly to articulate the unknowable. Of course, corrupting the image is not the same as corrupting the thing itself.

Well said...

Are we corrupt though? Is corruption yet another artifact of human abstraction? I agree that we try vainly to express the unknowable... but I wonder if that, in effect, negates all of the expressions of the unknowable... If God is not perfect then neither are we corrupt because our expression of perfection is vain and invalid and therefore the measure of corruption (which I presume must be against God's perfection) is false...

If the image is all that we can express or reference then does it not have the same effect - at least in the realm of the mind? What exists beyond imagining?

Take care

[mentored1]

Just a personal opinion with nothing to back it up but any spiritual revelation that comes from or is influenced by mans notion of reality is supect and not to be trusted.

I venture to ask why that is so...

This I believe is why many Christians maintain that Scripture is Divinely inspired and not just something men wrote of there own accord. That reverses the question and puts the responsibility on us to leave our little reality and seek God to give us real spiritual revelation which is not suspect .

How would you know it is not suspect? If man cannot be trusted - and I presume that to include yourself - how can the revelation received through man not also be suspect?

(I should note that I do understand the doctrine of the infallibility of God's Word... I am, at the moment, perplexed and thus my questions are expressions of that doubt...)

However recieving this spiritual revelation is not salvation, it is just knowledge. Which is how a Bhuddist , Christian , Spiritist , ect. claim insight to God.And a Christian can say there are many roads to spiritual enlightenment but only one road to salvation through Christ. Now my head hurts, thanks alot.

Forgive me if I'm mistaken but does that paint the picture that all the roads but the one that leads to cavalry are vain? That one can walk down another road and gain enlightenment but ultimately be damned?

You're welcome for the headache - my pleasure :tongue:

Thanks for the reply... I appreciate the thought food.

[Harfelugan]

the spiritual I venture to ask why that is so...
[Because any notion of reality that man has muddies the spiritual revelation that God intended. Similarily if I tried to convey your thoughs to another I would not convey your true intent. Therefore when someone muddies through their notion of reality or presuppositions what God intended its truth is suspect. Our only source as to the reality of God and His intended impartation of it to us is the Bible and the belief that it is infallable.]


How would you know it is not suspect? If man cannot be trusted - and I presume that to include yourself - how can the revelation received through man not also be suspect?

(I should note that I do understand the doctrine of the infallibility of God's Word... I am, at the moment, perplexed and thus my questions are expressions of that doubt...)
[The idea that God couldn't inspire a man to write say the book of Romans without the man imparting his notion of reality into it is in itself restricting God to our notion of reality. But the building of doctrines or the preaching of men on the book of Romans is suspect because we impart into it our notions of reality. NOTE:BECAUSE SOMETHING IS SUSPECT DOESNT MEAN IT IS WRONG:]


Forgive me if I'm mistaken but does that paint the picture that all the roads but the one that leads to cavalry are vain? That one can walk down another road and gain enlightenment but ultimately be damned?
[Regretfully so. Christianity is a very exclusive faith that makes it repulsive to many. God clearly states that it is not enough to know He exists, feel His presence,pray to Him, or to live in any enlightened state . Thats where all the redemption stuff comes in.]
You're welcome for the headache - my pleasure :tongue:

Thanks for the reply... I appreciate the thought food.

[mentored1]

I appreciate the reply... I'll be thinking it over a few times...

Because any notion of reality that man has muddies the spiritual revelation that God intended. Similarily if I tried to convey your thoughs to another I would not convey your true intent. Therefore when someone muddies through their notion of reality or presuppositions what God intended its truth is suspect. Our only source as to the reality of God and His intended impartation of it to us is the Bible and the belief that it is infallable

While I agree and I would extend that truth is always suspect... as a concept in and of itself... But I inquire as the notion of the only source of the reality of God being in the Bible... The Bible conveys something of the infinite, boundless, and eternal God in the form of a symbolic, finite, and bound collection of words... which is translated into other symbols... Where does the limit of human expression - the expression of the finite - be considered when thinking of the infallibility of Scripture?


The idea that God couldn't inspire a man to write say the book of Romans without the man imparting his notion of reality into it is in itself restricting God to our notion of reality. But the building of doctrines or the preaching of men on the book of Romans is suspect because we impart into it our notions of reality. NOTE:BECAUSE SOMETHING IS SUSPECT DOESNT MEAN IT IS WRONG:]

That is perhaps what I get at... how do we have a choice in NOT imparting our notion of reality in the expression of God? We are limited by and bound by our temporal reality - so our modes of expression and understanding are as well. How can something infinite be translated to finite without loss of information?


Regretfully so. Christianity is a very exclusive faith that makes it repulsive to many. God clearly states that it is not enough to know He exists, feel His presence,pray to Him, or to live in any enlightened state . Thats where all the redemption stuff comes in

Indeed I know it is a tight road... One of the reasons for my wrestling with it... So despite living well, enlightenment, praying, feeling his presence, acknolwedging his existence - despite everything short of being saved by Christ's blood - man is utterly lost in his sin? Even if those items are noble and can improve a soul they are - in the end - still going to lead to damnation? I don't ask rhetorically... I ask to gather information and insight from you...

Thanks again for the reply... Know that the questions are sincere...
Take care

[Harfelugan]

I appreciate the reply... I'll be thinking it over a few times...



[While I agree and I would extend that truth is always suspect... as a concept in and of itself... But I inquire as the notion of the only source of the reality of God being in the Bible... The Bible conveys something of the infinite, boundless, and eternal God in the form of a symbolic, finite, and bound collection of words... which is translated into other symbols... Where does the limit of human expression - the expression of the finite - be considered when thinking of the infallibility of Scripture?]

Perhaps clarification will help . I believe that the Bible of Jewish/Christian origin is is the only authoritive and original source of spiritual revelation , and our only source of insight into over coming our notions of reality so that we might see God as He trying to reveal Himself to us. I'm reading a book on Preterism by R.C. Sproll entitled The Last Days As Jesus Taught Them . Between pages 160 and 166 he goes over an issue that is relevant to this thread on the point of human expression. Or using the infallible Word of God to develope doctrines, which is where we incorporate or notions of reality into scripture. Sproll noted that both full and partial preterist made arguments that there doctrines kept the original intent of God's Word intact. Whether they did or didn't is beside the point and will forever be debated. The point is that the scriptures are the foundation of all doctrine. Proof that we get God's intent wrong is seen in the diversification of doctrines and multiple denominations. But this doesn't make God wrong it shows the we miss it when we put our notion of reality on God's Word .
Romans 1:16-23 gives light as to the only other way of seeing the reality of God manifest is in creation, stating that all mankind is without excuse .I would like your insight into this.Because I think it shines a negitive light on human expression.
[That is perhaps what I get at... how do we have a choice in NOT imparting our notion of reality in the expression of God? We are limited by and bound by our temporal reality - so our modes of expression and understanding are as well. How can something infinite be translated to finite without loss of information?]

It cannot. I can only go so far in my human expression of the finite without going off course to some degree. If it could there be no dissagreement of doctrine and probably only one Denomination. Fortunately for us the Holy Spirit is imparted to us at salvation to help us in these areas . Not to correct the dissagreement of doctrines or bring all denominations into one building .I think you know this part though.Only God's is able to call us, convict us, enlighten us, and break through our notions of reality, and bring us to saving faith. And somehow He uses our human expressions to bring it about.

[Indeed I know it is a tight road... One of the reasons for my wrestling with it... So despite living well, enlightenment, praying, feeling his presence, acknolwedging his existence - despite everything short of being saved by Christ's blood - man is utterly lost in his sin? Even if those items are noble and can improve a soul they are - in the end - still going to lead to damnation? I don't ask rhetorically... I ask to gather information and insight from you...]
As noted in Romans God proclams that man is without excuse in the knowledge that there is A God. The purpose of the revelation of God through scripture doesnt appear to be in proving that there is a God but in revealing the nature of God , the lost state of mankind ,and God's plan of redemption.
Until a man takes care of his seperation by sin from God by the guidelines of His redemptive plan by acknowledging that he is a sinner and seeking God's forgiveness for those sins is damned. "NOTE:Adam didnt know Chist , neither did Moses , Abraham, David , but they experienced forgiveness of sin. Could not any person who had no personal knowledge of Christ experience the same". Thanks again for the reply... Know that the questions are sincere...
Take care
Nowing the nature of debate I'm suprised the big kids havent dropped in to beat us up yet.

[mentored1]

The point is that the scriptures are the foundation of all doctrine. Proof that we get God's intent wrong is seen in the diversification of doctrines and multiple denominations. But this doesn't make God wrong it shows the we miss it when we put our notion of reality on God's Word .
.

I agree on your point here and it is well stated. That having been said where do you begin to discern truth from error if even the notion of truth by human expression is suspect? Is there any way to wade through all that madness?



Romans 1:16-23 gives light as to the only other way of seeing the reality of God manifest is in creation, stating that all mankind is without excuse .I would like your insight into this.Because I think it shines a negitive light on human expression.


Indeed I am familiar with Scriptures - this one in particular. I realize that the battle with Evolution and Creation is tied in to this point... And even if I accepted the evolutionary evidence (which I, in most cases, do) there is still one question that remains mysterious: even if life evolved and survived why did it begin so and why does it desire to do so? You can ask a man about many things but when you ask why he wills to live or exist at all there is a perplexity that comes forth... That enigma is why I remain in doubt rather than denial... In all respects I entertain the notion that only way to find "objective" truth (if it can be dubbed that) is to find it in the natural universe.


It cannot. I can only go so far in my human expression of the finite without going off course to some degree. If it could there be no dissagreement of doctrine and probably only one Denomination. Fortunately for us the Holy Spirit is imparted to us at salvation to help us in these areas . Not to correct the dissagreement of doctrines or bring all denominations into one building .I think you know this part though.Only God's is able to call us, convict us, enlighten us, and break through our notions of reality, and bring us to saving faith. And somehow He uses our human expressions to bring it about.

Well spoken.... and here we come to a point where I wrestle... I understand the notion of conviction and of the Holy Spirit but I am not sure if that is the experience... How can one tell it is the Holy Spirit and not an unconscious aspect of the mind? Aside from believing it to be so there is no way to know if it is the Holy Spirit or a buried psychological notion.... I am not saying it is either way - I am saying I don't know how to tell beyond just having faith.

And it is the magic word 'somehow' that I so often spoke that further confuses me... God works through finite man, corrupt man, and yet is able to use the corrupt to bring about the incorrupt... A reversal of man's notions: the servant as king, etc... How does the infinite use the finite to reveal the infinite if the very nature of the vessel prevents the infinite from being revealed? I accept that it may come in pieces or glimpses of the whole: but we're still missing so much that how can we possibly conceive of knowing the 'truth' at all? Perhaps part or some or a piece of truth... but the whole shi-bang?

Look forward to future replies - take care!

[Harfelugan]

I agree on your point here and it is well stated. That having been said where do you begin to discern truth from error if even the notion of truth by human expression is suspect? Is there any way to wade through all that madness?

[This may help and then again it may not . When truth is suspect you must take it back to it's most basic source , which is in my opinion the Bible. Then you rehash the suspected truth against that basic form . The N.T. Bible we have today says the same thing that it said back into the A.D. 50 to A.D. 300 period depending on who's arguing about it. From there you may make a claim that the truth is supported or not. That all the most educated theologins have and that is probably how God intended it to be . I will elaborate further down.]

Indeed I am familiar with Scriptures - this one in particular. I realize that the battle with Evolution and Creation is tied in to this point... And even if I accepted the evolutionary evidence (which I, in most cases, do) there is still one question that remains mysterious: even if life evolved and survived why did it begin so and why does it desire to do so? You can ask a man about many things but when you ask why he wills to live or exist at all there is a perplexity that comes forth... That enigma is why I remain in doubt rather than denial... In all respects I entertain the notion that only way to find "objective" truth (if it can be dubbed that) is to find it in the natural universe. [I doubt if anyone will ever be able to link any evidence of a Creator to be a proof that the god of any faith is that creator. Just enough evidence to convince them that it was created. But that faith alone should be enough to convince us that the creator would and could find a way to reveal himself to us. ]



Well spoken.... and here we come to a point where I wrestle... I understand the notion of conviction and of the Holy Spirit but I am not sure if that is the experience... How can one tell it is the Holy Spirit and not an unconscious aspect of the mind? Aside from believing it to be so there is no way to know if it is the Holy Spirit or a buried psychological notion.... I am not saying it is either way - I am saying I don't know how to tell beyond just having faith.
[ Please read John 10:1-21 Anyone on the outside cannot tell whether you are hearing from God or your subconciousness so to them this is all a delusional fantasy. Yet Christ tells us we will recognize His voice and not be decieved by another. I have never heard the voice of God in my head or externally. But God has impressed in my heart that the Bible is His truth revealed to man , fininite through infinite . And that is as good as humanity is going to get . For reasons I will try to explain below.]
And it is the magic word 'somehow' that I so often spoke that further confuses me... God works through finite man, corrupt man, and yet is able to use the corrupt to bring about the incorrupt... A reversal of man's notions: the servant as king, etc... How does the infinite use the finite to reveal the infinite if the very nature of the vessel prevents the infinite from being revealed? I accept that it may come in pieces or glimpses of the whole: but we're still missing so much that how can we possibly conceive of knowing the 'truth' at all? Perhaps part or some or a piece of truth... but the whole shi-bang?

Look forward to future replies - take care!
[This will fall under the classification of unorthodox theology but here goes...... The ground is level at the cross of Christ. God had the dificult task of revealing Himself to mankind from the moment He created Adam. With two people it was easy , Gen. says He walked and talked with them in some personal and possibly human form. We have no idea if Adam's decendants recieved a written or spoken form of Gods word from then on but we do know that the righteous among them called on His name and sacraficed to Him showing they had some form of revelation ongoing with God . After the flood we have a more accurate account of God's revelation to man . It was not any written word as we have today but was effective for the salvation of believers through faith just the same. Abraham was called out of idolitry as God revealed himself to him. From reading the geneologies of Noah's decendants , unless I'm mistaken Noah's son Shem was still 20 years from dieing ts that time. Apparantly God was very active with early man at that time . Melchizedek the king of Salem was priest of God most high , Abraham presented a tithe to Him.We know the history of the Old Testament from there , then the New testament from there. My point of the ground being level at the cross is this. God had to reveal Himself in a way that that would be relevent to all people of all times past and present that would bring them to a saving faith in Him by an act of their free will. And get this , the funny part , it had to be fair so that people with downs syndrome , the people with childlike intellect, the poor , the powerless, stand equal to the greatest intellects in being able to recieve it . God has made it a matter of faith to leave us our free will to choose and left the analeticacal minds helpless to prove anything to help them make their decisions for them . ----------------------If nothing else it's something to think about...]

[shunyadragon]

Hello mentored1,

You ask a question that I've pondered for some years: "...We must work with our limited materials and forms: have we then imposed these forms of our mortal world upon the immortal? Does this not then "corrupt" that image?"

The problem here as I understand it is that unlike material reality, which we have sense data of, we intuit God entirely in concept. God is a maddening concept for this very reason: because He doesn't present Himself in sense data but in spiritual intuition, we have a very hard time of it defining Him. All things spiritual present this problem. When someone says "tree" our mind refers instantly to a variety of sense knowledge...leaves, bark, sap, shade, root system, etc. When one speaks the signifier "God, demon, angel, spirit, etc.", information of a different sort, data that has no intrinsic connection to matter, presents itself to the intellect for consideration. Depending upon the relationship of one's spirit to truth, that data is either (more accurately, it is, at different times, both) information that produces animosity or a hunger, which has a more distant reference to unanimity.

This being said, the way people of faith picture God is relatively unimportant. We are matter-relational beings, so it's natural for us to assign those signifiers we recognize most readily to the concept which defies definition. God, for some, is an old fellow with a beard and long white hair. For others, He is something else. For me, He's just Information to which all other information has its being and reference. He's Entity, Reality or Truth, with no human features.

Yes, I think we corrupt His image, but this is natural. We are ourselves corrupt, a mishmash and admixture of true and false information and meaning, trying vainly to articulate the unknowable. Of course, corrupting the image is not the same as corrupting the thing itself.

Very good answer! This is essentially very close to the Baha'i perspective of the human image of God. The other part is that human history is a constantly changing and evolving physical and spiritual nature. Revelation is the major vehicle for this change, but not the only source. All existence was created to evolve in this manner.

The human spiritual journey may appear to be a corrupt, mishmash and admixture of false information and meaning, trying vainly to articulate the unknowable, but I believe that the evidence shows that there is no doubt that it is advancing and maturing. People clinging to ancient worldviews may or may not realize that the spiritual evolution of existence is going on without them and leaving them in the dark.

[zorathruster]

The questions are thus: how much of spiritual 'revelation' comes from or is influenced by man's notion of reality?

Is God as he is pictured in many mainstream faiths a being, an entity, as we are - is our conception of infinity / eternity limited to the forms of finite / temporal man?

If so how can this be redefined / conceptualized? We must work with our limited materials and forms: have we then imposed these forms of our mortal world upon the immortal? Does this not then "corrupt" that image?

I am not sure how much you understand about "complexity theory", but if you look at the origins of life and of human consciousness you will see it is a constant general increase in overall complexity. Both forms exhibit an evolution to more complexity and although we may think we are the most complex, we are just one more step on the ladder up. Our abilities are reaching a certain ceiling. Right now there are many places where mere human ability must be augmented by computers, machines and tools.

A redefinition that you ask about might be those ideas forwarded by Daniel Dennett and Susan Blackmore. Check out their works.

[mentored1]

I am not sure how much you understand about "complexity theory", but if you look at the origins of life and of human consciousness you will see it is a constant general increase in overall complexity. Both forms exhibit an evolution to more complexity and although we may think we are the most complex, we are just one more step on the ladder up. Our abilities are reaching a certain ceiling. Right now there are many places where mere human ability must be augmented by computers, machines and tools.

A redefinition that you ask about might be those ideas forwarded by Daniel Dennett and Susan Blackmore. Check out their works.

I found Dennett and Blackmore's works very intriguing... And the vision of a technologically-enhanced humankind is morbidly fascinating... I certainly agree that complexity increases...

Having that in mind - and back to my original concept - have we thus been continually evolving our conception of God (making that concept more complex) as our complexity increases?

The answer may be obvious but bear with me: seeing as we continually fashion and then meet conceptions of God do we not continually become and exceed God?

[zorathruster]

I found Dennett and Blackmore's works very intriguing... And the vision of a technologically-enhanced humankind is morbidly fascinating... I certainly agree that complexity increases...

Having that in mind - and back to my original concept - have we thus been continually evolving our conception of God (making that concept more complex) as our complexity increases?

The answer may be obvious but bear with me: seeing as we continually fashion and then meet conceptions of God do we not continually become and exceed God?

I am reminded of an idea that I cannot properly attribute: The philosophers of old were not ignorant, they were infact the great thinkers of their day. They just wanted to explain a concept that was so far above what was going on in their time and they wanted to give it force of great authority. So they made their mark as high as they thought man could rise. They said, "Here is what it is to be good, compassionate and just." To give it authority they said, it is the word not of mere men but of God. But as society advanced. Soon their rules and ideas were the rants of heathans and barbaric. But they could not then say, oh that was of heathens, here are new and better rules and ideas to make an even better society, they got stuck with what they had said - their God had said.

So into the future, lets place a mark as high as we can and say what it is to be a good human today, but lets not say that this is the highest that man can achieve, for how many generations later will men look on that level and say, "How crude and barbarous?" No lets make our mark and next to it write, "Learn and grow".

[shunyadragon]

I found Dennett and Blackmore's works very intriguing... And the vision of a technologically-enhanced humankind is morbidly fascinating... I certainly agree that complexity increases...

Having that in mind - and back to my original concept - have we thus been continually evolving our conception of God (making that concept more complex) as our complexity increases?

The answer may be obvious but bear with me: seeing as we continually fashion and then meet conceptions of God do we not continually become and exceed God?

I believe that the concept of God(s) becomes simpler as humanity spiritually evolves. The multiplicity of ancient Gods and dieties has been progressively replaced by monotheism. Monotheism has progressed to a less anthropomorphic God to an unknowable God that acts through natural processes of a creation that reflects God.

The process of evolving to become and exceed God would be the atheist worldview of the evlution of human consciousness and conceptions of the ultimate nature of existence evolve. The ultimate conclusion is that the three dimensional reality in time is all there is, and there is no fifth Divine reality of creation and revelation.

[mentored1]

If the view that man is God (or becoming God) is atheistic it seems a bit of a paradox... Perhaps we become God at some point and time becomes irrelevant to us; thus we can create ourselves retroactively...

Strange idea, I know... I have a fiction: even then if man views himself as the divine being that we've always reached out for then it is not atheistic at all... God is closer than any of us realized (in this fictional idea) because God is us or we are God...

Regardless it seems that the notion of the divine, the means to reach it, or what 'divine' even means changes with mankind... Is evolution evolving God as well as man then?

[shunyadragon]

If the view that man is God (or becoming God) is atheistic it seems a bit of a paradox... Perhaps we become God at some point and time becomes irrelevant to us; thus we can create ourselves retroactively...

Strange idea, I know... I have a fiction: even then if man views himself as the divine being that we've always reached out for then it is not atheistic at all... God is closer than any of us realized (in this fictional idea) because God is us or we are God...

Regardless it seems that the notion of the divine, the means to reach it, or what 'divine' even means changes with mankind... Is evolution evolving God as well as man then?

This view is not really strange, but the belief that human is God or becoming God would be incompatable with a theist, deist or other belief system that believes in a Divine higher power. This may fit in a pantheist worldview, but it better reflects an atheist worldview.

God being closer to us than any realize is a very much accepted view f the Divine in the Baha'i Faith, but it would not equate 'God is us', and God would be essentially unknowable and undefinable from the human worldview.

God is not a chess player with the white pieces.
God is the sea and we are the fishes.

In the Theistic belief humans do not reach or attain the Divine. In the Baha'i worldview God may very well be unfolding and evolving as Creation and existence, including humanity and our world, is unfolding and evolving, because the nature of the creation reflects the Creator.

[Harfelugan]

If the view that man is God (or becoming God) is atheistic it seems a bit of a paradox... Perhaps we become God at some point and time becomes irrelevant to us; thus we can create ourselves retroactively...

Strange idea, I know... I have a fiction: even then if man views himself as the divine being that we've always reached out for then it is not atheistic at all... God is closer than any of us realized (in this fictional idea) because God is us or we are God...

Regardless it seems that the notion of the divine, the means to reach it, or what 'divine' even means changes with mankind... Is evolution evolving God as well as man then?
Check out the Morman faith . Did they evolve faster than the rest of us or just borrow someone elses ideas ? Spiritual evolution occuring in the race of physically evolving humans . If we were to be knocked back into the stone-age in some sort of disaster would our spiritual evolution remain intact and come to the stone-age with us or dissolve as meare concepts and philosophies of man tring to create themselves as gods in their own image ? If our notions of reality have been used to influence our concepts of God where do we stop ? It must be someplace before we become God because that rates right up there with a caveman woshipping a rock to me .

[shunyadragon]

Check out the Morman faith . Did they evolve faster than the rest of us or just borrow someone elses ideas ? Spiritual evolution occuring in the race of physically evolving humans . If we were to be knocked back into the stone-age in some sort of disaster would our spiritual evolution remain intact and come to the stone-age with us or dissolve as meare concepts and philosophies of man tring to create themselves as gods in their own image ? If our notions of reality have been used to influence our concepts of God where do we stop ? It must be someplace before we become God because that rates right up there with a caveman woshipping a rock to me .

Good point! I did not think of the LDS belief in response to the concept of humans being or becoming Gods. The Mormons definitely do believe in the anthropomorphic nature of Gods, and humans, that is the males are capable of becoming or evolving into Gods.

[mentored1]

Check out the Morman faith . Did they evolve faster than the rest of us or just borrow someone elses ideas ? Spiritual evolution occuring in the race of physically evolving humans . If we were to be knocked back into the stone-age in some sort of disaster would our spiritual evolution remain intact and come to the stone-age with us or dissolve as meare concepts and philosophies of man tring to create themselves as gods in their own image ? If our notions of reality have been used to influence our concepts of God where do we stop ? It must be someplace before we become God because that rates right up there with a caveman woshipping a rock to me .

Indeed... Well spoken...

Discussing this leaves me often at a loss because our language is difficult to wrestle to the ground... I cannot in fact say that I think man is God or anything like that... but in a sense I have to because language dictates that is what comes out: that the notion or concept or abstraction of God as the human understands it is the only existence of God that can be experienced (or demonstrated for that matter)...

Language is a means to demonstrate it, granted, as are actions that further that idea or concept... but if the God's existence is in human mind (for where else can it be experienced?) then it must indeed be influenced by the seeminly innumerable complexities that whirl through the human mind every second... Do we have a choice whether the rest of our mind influences our notion of God?

Pardon my rambling... keep it coming

[shunyadragon]

Indeed... Well spoken...

Discussing this leaves me often at a loss because our language is difficult to wrestle to the ground... I cannot in fact say that I think man is God or anything like that... but in a sense I have to because language dictates that is what comes out: that the notion or concept or abstraction of God as the human understands it is the only existence of God that can be experienced (or demonstrated for that matter)...

Language is a means to demonstrate it, granted, as are actions that further that idea or concept... but if the God's existence is in human mind (for where else can it be experienced?) then it must indeed be influenced by the seeminly innumerable complexities that whirl through the human mind every second... Do we have a choice whether the rest of our mind influences our notion of God?

Pardon my rambling... keep it coming

Yes, we have a choice. Our mind is ours, but that does not determine the nature of the Divine or the lack of this spiritual dimension. It is still our expanding awareness of existence that will ultimately determine the nature and potential of our mind. In this journey God(s) neither exist nor not exist. Awareness is simply the awareness of existence 'as it is'.

The innumerable complexities that whirl around us and haunt us are ours and not reality.

[mentored1]

Yes, we have a choice. Our mind is ours, but that does not determine the nature of the Divine or the lack of this spiritual dimension. It is still our expanding awareness of existence that will ultimately determine the nature and potential of our mind. In this journey God(s) neither exist nor not exist. Awareness is simply the awareness of existence 'as it is'.

The innumerable complexities that whirl around us and haunt us are ours and not reality.

Well spoken...

That does, however, seem circular to me. What is real can only be known through our awareness: and I mean 'our' to be each individual's... What is real to you because of your scope of awareness is not identical to what is real for another... So 'as it is' can only be the awareness of any one person's mind and thus are real to them - how can you convince someone that what they experience as real is in fact not real because you experience it differently?

Take care, thanks for the discussion!

[shunyadragon]

Well spoken...

That does, however, seem circular to me. What is real can only be known through our awareness: and I mean 'our' to be each individual's... What is real to you because of your scope of awareness is not identical to what is real for another... So 'as it is' can only be the awareness of any one person's mind and thus are real to them - how can you convince someone that what they experience as real is in fact not real because you experience it differently?

Take care, thanks for the discussion!

This would not be circular. The nature of existence 'as it is' is of course out of reach of our attainment. Realizing that is important, because there is sort of a half-life limitation to the attainment of any knowledge. Humans are always capable of a greater awareness of reality, and there is no percievable limitation to this awareness except for the absolute sense. Putting any arbitray limit is as much a problem as claiming to know in the absolute sense.

[Harfelugan]

Well spoken...

That does, however, seem circular to me. What is real can only be known through our awareness: and I mean 'our' to be each individual's... What is real to you because of your scope of awareness is not identical to what is real for another... So 'as it is' can only be the awareness of any one person's mind and thus are real to them - how can you convince someone that what they experience as real is in fact not real because you experience it differently?

Take care, thanks for the discussion!
This sounds good to me because I like the reality that I've developed in my own mind . The difficulty with my personal reality is that every day I have to get up and go to work in a strange world that doesn't accept my reality . I'm forced to do this to pay the bills . Point said , could this senario be identical to our spiritual struggle of awareness where we can only experience the divine through our own awareness , thus creating our own spirituality reality . Yet having to face the fact that if God is out there our notion of His reality doesn't affect who or what He is at all because in fact we exist in His reality and not he in ours .

[mentored1]

This sounds good to me because I like the reality that I've developed in my own mind . The difficulty with my personal reality is that every day I have to get up and go to work in a strange world that doesn't accept my reality . I'm forced to do this to pay the bills . Point said , could this senario be identical to our spiritual struggle of awareness where we can only experience the divine through our own awareness , thus creating our own spirituality reality . Yet having to face the fact that if God is out there our notion of His reality doesn't affect who or what He is at all because in fact we exist in His reality and not he in ours .

Indeed that is a valid way of looking at the problem. The notion of accepting and be absorbed into God's awareness rather than our own. Whether one believes God is reality and accepts it does indeed have a profound effect.

Though I don't know if that is the case or if it is really your own adopting principles of God into your awareness (or if there is even a difference)...

And of course the reality that each one of us experiences and believes to be 'true' to some extent affects everyone else around us. A very complicated chain of overlapping 'realities'...

I digress... Nonetheless your view is a very pertinent one in relation to how accepting God's version of reality and adopting as much as possible in your own awareness transforms things though they remain the same..

Take care

[shunyadragon]

Indeed that is a valid way of looking at the problem. The notion of accepting and be absorbed into God's awareness rather than our own. Whether one believes God is reality and accepts it does indeed have a profound effect.

Though I don't know if that is the case or if it is really your own adopting principles of God into your awareness (or if there is even a difference)...

And of course the reality that each one of us experiences and believes to be 'true' to some extent affects everyone else around us. A very complicated chain of overlapping 'realities'...

I digress... Nonetheless your view is a very pertinent one in relation to how accepting God's version of reality and adopting as much as possible in your own awareness transforms things though they remain the same..

Take care

Overlapping realities are what relationships are. A healthy awareness of reality cultivates healthy relationships. I do not believe there is a 'God's version of reality'. If God exists, God essentially reflects reality 'as it is'. If God does not exist, this does not change reality as we potentially could be aware of it.

I actually do not adapt God's principles into my awareness. I decided to believe that what I am aware of is God's reality. How you chose to 'make up your mind' will determine what this reality is. Since my awareness resulted in a reality that is far vaster in time, space and the nature of the physical existence than any single ancient or modern belief that in some way considers its worldview exclusive over others, I chose the Baha'i Faith.

[Harfelugan]

I actually do not adapt God's principles into my awareness. I decided to believe that what I am aware of is God's reality. How you chose to 'make up your mind' will determine what this reality is. Since my awareness resulted in a reality that is far vaster in time, space and the nature of the physical existence than any single ancient or modern belief that in some way considers its worldview exclusive over others, I chose the Baha'i Faith.
Thats basically the same thing my teenage children said everytime I try to encourage them to be financially responsible , try to get good grades in school , resect other peoples property and any other good intentioned advice . Except for chosing the Baha'i faith part , they never said that . I did appreciate the overlapping reality part though . I dont like yielding up my chosen realities either .

[mentored1]

Thanks for the reply shuny, good stuff...

I do not believe there is a 'God's version of reality'. If God exists, God essentially reflects reality 'as it is'.

Then God is reality - if that is the wrong interpretation please correct me. If God exists - as an infinite, omni-such being - then how does God reflect reality 'as it is'? Wouldn't reality be subject to such a being rather than that being subject to reality? I speak as if assuming a being such as God exists in which the power attributed to God must also reside in him (again not confirming nor denying here, just pondering)...

If God does not exist, this does not change reality as we potentially could be aware of it.

Hmmm... If we knew that God does not exist (or rather Believed that God did not exist) and were essentially atheistic, humanist, etc... would that not change our view of reality dramatically? There are certain things that a non-believer might and might not be aware of (i.e. their potential awareness would be altered)...

I actually do not adapt God's principles into my awareness. I decided to believe that what I am aware of is God's reality. How you chose to 'make up your mind' will determine what this reality is.

That sounds paradoxical - but perhaps it is my feeble faculties here... You do not adapt to God's reality yet you are aware of God's reality... And that reality is determined by how you make up your mind... So you are essentially God as far as reality goes?


I trust I wasn't too sarcastic - I'm truly just sifting through this looking for more questions!

Take care

[Harfelugan]

Then God is reality - if that is the wrong interpretation please correct me. If God exists - as an infinite, omni-such being - then how does God reflect reality 'as it is'? Wouldn't reality be subject to such a being rather than that being subject to reality? I speak as if assuming a being such as God exists in which the power attributed to God must also reside in him (again not confirming nor denying here, just pondering)...

God reflects his reality through His creation. People of faith, even diversified faiths, whether they be Christian or Pagan or even Agnostic. The scriptures, those declared inerrant to those totally off the wall, are attempts for the creation and the creator to harmonize reality. The difficulty is in blending the seen reality with the unseen reality. Then discerning that which is truth from that which is manmade. Closer you get to accepting that there is a God and that He is reality the easier it is to discern truth.

Hmmm... If we knew that God does not exist (or rather Believed that God did not exist) and were essentially atheistic, humanist, etc... would that not change our view of reality dramatically? There are certain things that a non-believer might and might not be aware of (i.e. their potential awareness would be altered)...

Without the knowledge that God is reality we become just meare ants building our little hills in the sidewalk cracks oblivious to the reality going on around us thinking that we are our own reality. Which in the end will prove a greater farce than the flat earth reality of the dark ages.

That sounds paradoxical - but perhaps it is my feeble faculties here... You do not adapt to God's reality yet you are aware of God's reality... And that reality is determined by how you make up your mind... So you are essentially God as far as reality goes?


I trust I wasn't too sarcastic - I'm truly just sifting through this looking for more questions!

Take careIf in the future his followers ask me if I was a firsthand witness to when he declared himself to be god I will deny that he claimed to be god in any of his writings. Thank you both for your patience of me throughout this thread. ROGER

[shunyadragon]

God reflects his reality through His creation. People of faith, even diversified faiths, whether they be Christian or Pagan or even Agnostic. The scriptures, those declared inerrant to those totally off the wall, are attempts for the creation and the creator to harmonize reality. The difficulty is in blending the seen reality with the unseen reality. Then discerning that which is truth from that which is manmade. Closer you get to accepting that there is a God and that He is reality the easier it is to discern truth.

Could scripture be both God's revelation and human efforts to record, interpret and understand, including 'off the wall stuff'.



Without the knowledge that God is reality we become just meare ants building our little hills in the sidewalk cracks oblivious to the reality going on around us thinking that we are our own reality. Which in the end will prove a greater farce than the flat earth reality of the dark ages.

You say 'Without the knowledge of God', maybe the claims of the knowledge of God may well be our own 'thinking we in reality KNOW reality'. This could be just as great a farse as any from an objective point of view.

If in the future his followers ask me if I was a firsthand witness to when he declared himself to be god I will deny that he claimed to be god in any of his writings. Thank you both for your patience of me throughout this thread. ROGER

Who are 'his followers'? First hand witness would be a dubious claim.

[Harfelugan]

Could scripture be both God's revelation and human efforts to record, interpret and understand, including 'off the wall stuff'. Off the wall stuff would be both. That which evolves within itself would be both. That which is claimed to be innerrant even, if only in it's context and is fixed, cannot be proven to be one or the other without a doubt remains as a more reliable source of finding the reality of God in its truth with the least amount of muddy water possible





Shunny===You say ('Without the knowledge of God'), maybe the claims of the knowledge of God may well be our own 'thinking we in reality KNOW reality'. This could be just as great a farse as any from an objective point of view.
I said," without the knowledge of God as reality," which makes a difference because it doesn't imply what that knowledge is, and keeps me from having to make any stand for my knowledge or against yours. You do have a good point though as an objective point of view will generally imply farce to any argument.


Shunny===Who are 'his followers'? First hand witness would be a dubious claim.That was a lowbrow attempt at humor from mentored 1's summation that you had basically declared yourself to be god by your previous post. Relating it to the time when the followers of a religion seek to claim that the object of their faith made claims to diety. As they do to Christ, seeking to prove it by original witnesses. It was cheap but not meant to be a real assertion. Sorry if it was overly offensive.

[mentored1]

God reflects his reality through His creation. People of faith, even diversified faiths, whether they be Christian or Pagan or even Agnostic. The scriptures, those declared inerrant to those totally off the wall, are attempts for the creation and the creator to harmonize reality.


Are you then totally off the wall? :wink:

The difficulty is in blending the seen reality with the unseen reality. Then discerning that which is truth from that which is manmade. Closer you get to accepting that there is a God and that He is reality the easier it is to discern truth.

In regards to the "unseen reality" - if this unseen reality contains the truth (i.e. the spiritual truth from God) then how can it ever be perceived? The physical senses cannot determine it thus only the mind can... It must be conveyed and learned in some fashion... If that's the case then this unseen truth is an artifact of the mind conveyed by language: where do you begin to perceive it as truth unless you BELIEVE it is? If it is unseen (or unperceived) then it is unproveable: how can I begin to discern or accept something of that nature (apart from simply believing it is so)?


Without the knowledge that God is reality we become just meare ants building our little hills in the sidewalk cracks oblivious to the reality going on around us thinking that we are our own reality. Which in the end will prove a greater farce than the flat earth reality of the dark ages.

Indeed building for the sake of building with the illusion of immortality in this physical world is absurd: the Egyptians buried with their gold, for example. But as far as we are here, with our possessions and physical experiences, how do you reach out beyond that and embrace something that cannot be directly experienced? I understand that there are "feelings" involved - but is there anything substantial besides belief / feeling / faith?

If in the future his followers ask me if I was a firsthand witness to when he declared himself to be god I will deny that he claimed to be god in any of his writings. Thank you both for your patience of me throughout this thread. ROGER

Now that has intrigued me... When I was a faithful Christian I studied the "Deity of Christ" question diligently and it seemed that there was enough to say Christ did equate himself with God... Though now I have no idea in general... You claim that he did not: may I ask why?

And you do not need to thank me for anything - It's been beneficial for all of us to talk about these things...

Take care!

[Harfelugan]

Are you then totally off the wall? :wink:
What is sanity to one is insanity to another. I try to stay as close to orthadox as possible but I blow it as I speak.


In regards to the "unseen reality" - if this unseen reality contains the truth (i.e. the spiritual truth from God) then how can it ever be perceived? The physical senses cannot determine it thus only the mind can... It must be conveyed and learned in some fashion... If that's the case then this unseen truth is an artifact of the mind conveyed by language: where do you begin to perceive it as truth unless you BELIEVE it is? If it is unseen (or unperceived) then it is unproveable: how can I begin to discern or accept something of that nature (apart from simply believing it is so)?
Indeed building for the sake of building with the illusion of immortality in this physical world is absurd: the Egyptians buried with their gold, for example. But as far as we are here, with our possessions and physical experiences, how do you reach out beyond that and embrace something that cannot be directly experienced? I understand that there are "feelings" involved - but is there anything substantial besides belief / feeling / faith?God offers evidence in the, "New Creation", regenerated spiritul man. But this will not constitute as evidence to those dead spiritually. I was doubtful of this evidence until I saw that it was effectual in my own life after salvation as my very inner nature, desire, and personal will had been altered. Skeptics and Athiests would say that I became brainwashed or delusional. To which I can only reply that you can't describe the color green to a man blind from birth. I wouldn't recomend that a person try to prove this by making a statement of faith and demanding that God allow him to experience this without being 100% sincere though. As God leads us to salvation through faith and not the other way around. Spirituality exists in the mind but can be evidenced in outward expressions of a person. In this I percieve my truth and can say I believe by evidence. God in His fairness will not allow another to percieve my truth and demands that they obtain it in the same manner that I did. Faith alone by His grace as He led me to it. The only personal proof given is after the fact, then no one else will believe you except some other poor deluded fool. Such is the Christians fate.



Now that has intrigued me... When I was a faithful Christian I studied the "Deity of Christ" question diligently and it seemed that there was enough to say Christ did equate himself with God... Though now I have no idea in general... You claim that he did not: may I ask why? Take care!"If you have seen Me you have seen the Father", and,"I Am" are good enough for me. That section of my post was a bad attemt at humor at shunyadragons expense and I'm sorry I did it.

[shunyadragon]

Off the wall stuff would be both. That which evolves within itself would be both. That which is claimed to be innerrant even, if only in it's context and is fixed, cannot be proven to be one or the other without a doubt remains as a more reliable source of finding the reality of God in its truth with the least amount of muddy water possible.

Interesting, 'that which claims to be inerrant', I believe that it is the human view, (Influenced by Us) that imposses inerrancy as to what is the interpretation. Traditional beliefs are often set in stone in this manner over time as well as the conflicts in inerrancy that create schisms, as a way religons establish doctrine. From an objective viewpoint it is difficult to establish inerrancy and see through the muddy waters, since the degree of inerrancy varies greatly along with beliefs.


I said," without the knowledge of God as reality," which makes a difference because it doesn't imply what that knowledge is, and keeps me from having to make any stand for my knowledge or against yours. You do have a good point though as an objective point of view will generally imply farce to any argument.

We cannot easilly avoid the question of what 'knowledge' is in our relationship with what others believe, because in reality we do determine this. We do believe what that knowledge is regardless. The alternative is a kind of schizo madness of indecision.

The follow is a kind of summary of my journey in the sea of reality that may answer some questions, but likely brings up more.

I fully realize the problems like, 'If you rely on objective real world knowledge, where do you stop before you say all religious worldview of theism are a farse?' The atheist basically does not stop, but puts the entire burden of belief on what can be objectively determined. Because of the problems that exist from assuming individual worldviews, whether atheist, or one of the many God believing worldviews, I found that the need of a 'tool box' apart from my worldview with the fewest presuppositions that takes the detached skeptical position that is needed to avoid what I see in the world as becoming ensnared in the 'insanity of the demons of fear, ego, chaos and divisive belief'. This 'tool box' does not represent my belief as such. In this 'tool box' are scientific methods, historical methods, skeptical logic and reason, philosphy tools, and as many different sources of knowledge as I can gather. After many years journey I found there were two conclusions that my belief system must face. The first was that my 'tool box' could present a relatively good reliable worldview of 'knowledge' of existence 'as it is', but from that point the road forked, God or no God. The other conclusion was problematic and still haunts my journey. It is that all the individual worldviews were falsified beyond any reasonable doubt. The were not totally false in their beliefs, but as a worldview they became unteniable.

It turned out to be not that hard. It was the vasteness of time, space, existence, the diversity of the human witness in a world and time frame far beyond any single worldview. The problem is I felt like the dog chasing the school bus. Once I caught it, what do I do with it?

How do we clear the muddy waters? You cannot do it thrashing around in the water. You have to be 'outside' and wait patient for the water to clear. That is my 'tool box'.

[Harfelugan]

Interesting, 'that which claims to be inerrant', I believe that it is the human view, (Influenced by Us) that imposses inerrancy as to what is the interpretation. Traditional beliefs are often set in stone in this manner over time as well as the conflicts in inerrancy that create schisms, as a way religons establish doctrine. From an objective viewpoint it is difficult to establish inerrancy and see through the muddy waters, since the degree of inerrancy varies greatly along with beliefs.
Interpretations of the Bible couldn't be considered to be inerrant, neither could traditional beliefs based off of inerrant scripture from the Bible. An established doctrine that creates a schism brings with it a doubt as to whether it has been interpreted correctly. As a Christian I am not obligated to follow doctrine established by man. Which leaves my faith in a fluid state to indoctinate myself directly into scripture as directly stated in the Bible. My personal claims of the inerrancy of the Bible are irrelevent. The Bible makes it's own claims in specific verses as to it's inerrancy. This is my foundational stand on making the claims forfor it's inerracy.



=shunyadragon=We cannot easilly avoid the question of what 'knowledge' is in our relationship with what others believe, because in reality we do determine this. We do believe what that knowledge is regardless. The alternative is a kind of schizo madness of indecision. You are very correct in this. However I am at a loss as how to apply a comparison of one persons knowledge as to another persons. Can you elaborate.
The follow is a kind of summary of my journey in the sea of reality that may answer some questions, but likely brings up more.

I fully realize the problems like, 'If you rely on objective real world knowledge, where do you stop before you say all religious worldview of theism are a farse?' The atheist basically does not stop, but puts the entire burden of belief on what can be objectively determined. Because of the problems that exist from assuming individual worldviews, whether atheist, or one of the many God believing worldviews, I found that the need of a 'tool box' apart from my worldview with the fewest presuppositions that takes the detached skeptical position that is needed to avoid what I see in the world as becoming ensnared in the 'insanity of the demons of fear, ego, chaos and divisive belief'. This 'tool box' does not represent my belief as such. In this 'tool box' are scientific methods, historical methods, skeptical logic and reason, philosphy tools, and as many different sources of knowledge as I can gather. After many years journey I found there were two conclusions that my belief system must face. The first was that my 'tool box' could present a relatively good reliable worldview of 'knowledge' of existence 'as it is', but from that point the road forked, God or no God. The other conclusion was problematic and still haunts my journey. It is that all the individual worldviews were falsified beyond any reasonable doubt. The were not totally false in their beliefs, but as a worldview they became unteniable.

It turned out to be not that hard. It was the vasteness of time, space, existence, the diversity of the human witness in a world and time frame far beyond any single worldview. The problem is I felt like the dog chasing the school bus. Once I caught it, what do I do with it?

How do we clear the muddy waters? You cannot do it thrashing around in the water. You have to be 'outside' and wait patient for the water to clear. That is my 'tool box'.Out of time ,will respond later .

[Harfelugan]

Your toolboxThe follow is a kind of summary of my journey in the sea of reality that may answer some questions, but likely brings up more.

I fully realize the problems like, 'If you rely on objective real world knowledge, where do you stop before you say all religious worldview of theism are a farse?' The atheist basically does not stop, but puts the entire burden of belief on what can be objectively determined. Because of the problems that exist from assuming individual worldviews, whether atheist, or one of the many God believing worldviews, I found that the need of a 'tool box' apart from my worldview with the fewest presuppositions that takes the detached skeptical position that is needed to avoid what I see in the world as becoming ensnared in the 'insanity of the demons of fear, ego, chaos and divisive belief'. This 'tool box' does not represent my belief as such. In this 'tool box' are scientific methods, historical methods, skeptical logic and reason, philosphy tools, and as many different sources of knowledge as I can gather. After many years journey I found there were two conclusions that my belief system must face. The first was that my 'tool box' could present a relatively good reliable worldview of 'knowledge' of existence 'as it is', but from that point the road forked, God or no God. The other conclusion was problematic and still haunts my journey. It is that all the individual worldviews were falsified beyond any reasonable doubt. The were not totally false in their beliefs, but as a worldview they became unteniable.

It turned out to be not that hard. It was the vasteness of time, space, existence, the diversity of the human witness in a world and time frame far beyond any single worldview. The problem is I felt like the dog chasing the school bus. Once I caught it, what do I do with it?

How do we clear the muddy waters? You cannot do it thrashing around in the water. You have to be 'outside' and wait patient for the water to clear. That is my 'tool box'.Your toolbox would seem to be the most humanly reliable method. A natural method that can make reason out of all things that occur in this world. Have you found any clear water? Has the toolbox provided you with more questions than answers? Did this cause you to settle for a smaller version of God than you believed to exist because you couldn't find evidence for faith to go beyond that point?I wasn't satisfied that the road of reason couldn't go beyond the natural world to explain God, I never expect that human reason will ever be able to. When it comes to natural things I use a similar toolbox, When it comes to knowledge of God I have to put that toolbox up. From that point the water looked to me to be just fine. If I had waited for an affermation of my human reason I would still be standing at the waters edge looking and waiting. I think you are going to be waiting a long time.

[shunyadragon]

Interpretations of the Bible couldn't be considered to be inerrant, neither could traditional beliefs based off of inerrant scripture from the Bible. An established doctrine that creates a schism brings with it a doubt as to whether it has been interpreted correctly. As a Christian I am not obligated to follow doctrine established by man. Which leaves my faith in a fluid state to indoctinate myself directly into scripture as directly stated in the Bible. My personal claims of the inerrancy of the Bible are irrelevent. The Bible makes it's own claims in specific verses as to it's inerrancy. This is my foundational stand on making the claims for it's inerracy.

I believe that the quotes referred to refer to the inerrancy of God's word and do not refer to the Bible itself 'as it is'. Biblically the 'authority of inerrancy rested with the understanding and interpretation of the priesthood, and in the NT the apostles, and not inerrancy of the letter of the word itself. This is why the Roman Church and later the Orthodox claimed the succesion of the apostles as the authorities of doctrine and inerrancy in the interpretation of the scriptures. It would also be difficult to extend any 'in text' Biblical claims of inerrancy to the historical narrative, and whole text as it was compiled later.


You are very correct in this. However I am at a loss as how to apply a comparison of one persons knowledge as to another persons. Can you elaborate.

As I said before, everyone does this whether they are willing to admit it or not. We put other peoples 'knowledge' in a hiearchy of authority with our own. Much of this develops as we mature within the hierarchy or our culture, family, teachers and peers. All people have their own 'tool box' too.

I openly admit this universal character of people from different worldviews and recognise it as a barrier to understanding the nature of existence. What I have done is to develop the 'tool box' outside the paradym of my own belief system and let it take the advocacy position of all worldviews and 'knowledge available from a less biased view with fewer presuppositions than my own worldview. Example, my worldview believes in God, but my 'tool box' takes a more skeptical worldview and does not assume God exists.

One very important aspect of this 'tool box' is not to determine the truth or falsehood of particular knowledge, but to realistically assess the basis for any given belief, claimed truth or knowledge.

This 'tool box' is called the 'independent investigator of truth.' I am not an idealist in the sense that I do not believe that this 'tool box' represents truth, because it is still faliable and represents only a relative view like others of a greater reality than my own. The best I can do is to cite support for these 'methods' through examples.

More details on this and your next post later.