Apr 28, 2012 -- 5:14PM, Iwantamotto wrote:

So to me the real question seems to be, not who said what in scripture, what's authentic and what's not, but how does one cross the gap, make the leap of faith from not-having a saving knowledge of Christ to having a saving knowledge of Christ?

Are you arguing that salvation can stem from misinformation or outright lying?  If Christianity worships "The Truth, the Way, and the Life" ... don't you find it at least a wee bit important to verify our dogmatic statements before committing our very souls to them?

And I get that many statements will never be verified, being lost in the mists of ancient times, but we can at least TRY and not pooh-pooh attempts to get at the meat of the matter.

I have enormous problems with today's church. I think if you dig out all the words of Jesus and conjoin that with church doctrine, you can get pretty close to God's intention. What I fear is a formula being taught, people believing the formula gives salvation, and something gets lost. And the church sort of nulifies the importance of what Jesus taught. For me, that's a problem. 

So the real question seems to be, how does one come to faith?

I've come to the conclusion that "faith" means different things depending on the discussion.  Sometimes it refers to trust and sometimes it refers to some sort of enlightenment concept, where you feel the connectedness with the divine or whatever, as though the boundaries are blurred.  Then again, some people apparently define it as "blindly follow what my preacher told me to say".  *shrugs*

I don't know how to define faith. It's some sort of gut knowing. It's knowing without objective evidence you can show someone else. It's Abram leaving Ur not knowing what the next day will bring. It's Abraham willing to sacrifice Isaac. It's seeing that there is a chain of links, A, B, C, D, E, F...when C, D, and E are invisible. You know there is a linked sequence even though there isn't any visible evidence of C, D, and E.

When you come to faith it's like something just clicks, you know you know without knowing how you know. There is some sort of shared intimacy. ........In Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Jr. had to step out into thin air with a deathly gulf below. There was no reason that he should take the step, except that his father would die if he didn't. He trusted his father, took the step, and found out there was actually a hidden bridge under his feet. That's the best definition of faith I can come up with. Was the step reckless abandon? No. Was Indy 100% sure he wouldn't fall? No.   

stardustpilgrim:  I gave the view of your side of the fence a fair hearing, who else does that here?

I do.  I listen to their concerns without simply shrugging it off as "those unbelievers, what the hell is wrong with them?".

Yea, sorry, you're right. But you're sort of a loose cannon. You'd better be glad, sometimes, that God has a sense of humor................

OK, Nebuchadnezzar has another dream, they find Daniel. Daniel hears the dream, says, well...there's good new and there's bad news. God told me what the dream means, but you're not going to be happy with the interpretation. Neb, you're going to go mad, and you're going to eat grass like an ox until you "recognize that the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind" and gives power to whom He pleases.

God's a real jerk, isn't He?  Neb's said that kind of thing, what, like 3 times already?  And God STILL wants him to moo like a cow?

Well...my point (which I added a short while later, and you might have replied before I got it in) was at first Nebuchadnezzar's first recognization of God was merely assent, lip service, and the second. This is relatively meaningless. So God put him in a very tiny little box, wandering the fields and eating grass like an ox. After that Neb says, OK God, I'm done, I believe, You're the man.......

Believing that God exists might be a beginning step, but it's not good enough.......

sdp

 

The purpose of words is to convey ideas. When the ideas are grasped, the words are forgotten.
Where can I find a man who has forgotten words? He is the one I would like to talk to.
The Way of Chuang Tzu by Thomas Merton

A map is not the territory.                                                                 Alfred Korzybski

When supposedly skeptical atheists and scientists pick on monotheistic religion in books, speeches and debates, they are simply beating up a court jester in a clown crown. They think that by clobbering the clown of religion, they have overthrown the kingdom of transphysical reality, but such arguments cannot sway anyone established in the integrated, co-creative state, which is the serious reality underlying the circus of religion.           
                                            Jed McKenna's Theory of Everything: The Enlightened Perspective, 57%

stardust

Have you ever explored Alfred North Whitehead's idea of God?

No.  What did he say about God that was interesting?

And what did he base his statements on?

Apr 29, 2012 -- 9:26AM, stardustpilgrim wrote:

Apr 29, 2012 -- 8:50AM, Adelphe wrote:

Apr 29, 2012 -- 1:03AM, stardustpilgrim wrote:

Apr 28, 2012 -- 8:22PM, Kwinters wrote:

Apr 28, 2012 -- 11:08AM, Blü wrote:

Adelphe

Zero repentance, thus...

Repentence of what, exactly?  Not that silly Sin of Adam stuff, surely?

How has the myth of Adam's sin been reconciled with evolutionary theory? When does modern theology view sin as having 'entered the world' I wonder.  With the opposible thumb?  Or the precision grip?

Genesis one and two. Why do we have two creation stories? Genesis one is the story of evolution. When God got the human body just as he wanted it, we then have Genesis two, God picked out the best two of the bunch, and breathed his own Spirit into "Adam and Eve" and they became the first two living souls. The story goes on from there. (This was about 50,000 years ago. Anthopological science doesn't really have an explanation for the dramatic increase in intelligence of man at about that time (See Spencer Wells, book and PBS TV program, Journey of Man). This explains that.

Quite simple really.

sdp

Yes, I agree.  For those who absolutely (desperately...) need evolution to coincide with Christianity, this--for all intents and purposes--works.

It can come off the table for the "unbeliever" as one of their big..."objections."

(But watch...)

Here's the way I look at it. If God wants us to approach Him through faith, He didn't want to leave objective evidence of His existence. So He created the universe in the manner physics, chemistry and biology shows, with all manner of hidden tweaking behind the scenes to get everything as He wanted it. He even created a quantum universe leaving Himself a back door for any manner of tweaking at any point, leaving no evidence of His existence, leaving no footprints.

You don't need faith for what you have physical evidence for. Objective evidence forces the hand to make belief in God mandatory. God wants us to freely love Him, no coercion of any kind.

sdp

Pascal:  "There is enough light for those who desire only to see and enough darkness for those of a contrary disposition."

Or Swinburne on Divine Hiddenness or Deus Absconditus:  "The existence of God would be for [human beings] an item of evident common knowledge. Knowing that there was a God, men would know that their most secret thoughts and actions were known to God; and knowing that he was just, they would expect for their bad actions and thoughts whatever punishment was just...In such a world men would have little temptation to do wrong—it would be the mark of both prudence and reason to do what was virtuous. Yet a man only has a genuine choice of destiny if he has reasons for pursuing either good or evil courses of action."

Apr 30, 2012 -- 11:46AM, Adelphe wrote:

Apr 29, 2012 -- 9:26AM, stardustpilgrim wrote:

Apr 29, 2012 -- 8:50AM, Adelphe wrote:

Apr 29, 2012 -- 1:03AM, stardustpilgrim wrote:

Apr 28, 2012 -- 8:22PM, Kwinters wrote:

Apr 28, 2012 -- 11:08AM, Blü wrote:

Adelphe

Zero repentance, thus...

Repentence of what, exactly?  Not that silly Sin of Adam stuff, surely?

How has the myth of Adam's sin been reconciled with evolutionary theory? When does modern theology view sin as having 'entered the world' I wonder.  With the opposible thumb?  Or the precision grip?

Genesis one and two. Why do we have two creation stories? Genesis one is the story of evolution. When God got the human body just as he wanted it, we then have Genesis two, God picked out the best two of the bunch, and breathed his own Spirit into "Adam and Eve" and they became the first two living souls. The story goes on from there. (This was about 50,000 years ago. Anthopological science doesn't really have an explanation for the dramatic increase in intelligence of man at about that time (See Spencer Wells, book and PBS TV program, Journey of Man). This explains that.

Quite simple really.

sdp

Yes, I agree.  For those who absolutely (desperately...) need evolution to coincide with Christianity, this--for all intents and purposes--works.

It can come off the table for the "unbeliever" as one of their big..."objections."

(But watch...)

Here's the way I look at it. If God wants us to approach Him through faith, He didn't want to leave objective evidence of His existence. So He created the universe in the manner physics, chemistry and biology shows, with all manner of hidden tweaking behind the scenes to get everything as He wanted it. He even created a quantum universe leaving Himself a back door for any manner of tweaking at any point, leaving no evidence of His existence, leaving no footprints.

You don't need faith for what you have physical evidence for. Objective evidence forces the hand to make belief in God mandatory. God wants us to freely love Him, no coercion of any kind.

sdp

Pascal:  "There is enough light for those who desire only to see and enough darkness for those of a contrary disposition."

Or Swinburne on Divine Hiddenness or Deus Absconditus:  "The existence of God would be for [human beings] an item of evident common knowledge. Knowing that there was a God, men would know that their most secret thoughts and actions were known to God; and knowing that he was just, they would expect for their bad actions and thoughts whatever punishment was just...In such a world men would have little temptation to do wrong—it would be the mark of both prudence and reason to do what was virtuous. Yet a man only has a genuine choice of destiny if he has reasons for pursuing either good or evil courses of action."

I agree. However, for some I think their own personal psychology distorts the evident. And this psychology gets formed mostly at a very early age, say previous to the age of six. So, for some, when they are very young and innocent, their unconscious gets loaded up with resistance, they get boxed in by their own neural structure which doesn't let them see God.

Unfair.

What hope do you hold out for these?

sdp

Apr 30, 2012 -- 9:36PM, Adelphe wrote:

Apr 30, 2012 -- 9:26PM, stardustpilgrim wrote:

I agree. However, for some I think their own personal psychology distorts the evident. And this psychology gets formed mostly at a very early age, say previous to the age of six. So, for some, when they are very young and innocent, their unconscious gets loaded up with resistance, they get boxed in by their own neural structure which doesn't let them see God.

Unfair.

What hope do you hold out for these?

sdp

God...

“Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How then does he now see?” His parents answered, “We know that this is our son and that he was born blind. But how he now sees we do not know, nor do we know who opened his eyes. Ask him; he is of age. He will speak for himself.” (His parents said these things because they feared the Jews, for the Jews had already agreed that if anyone should confess Jesus to be Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue.) Therefore his parents said, “He is of age; ask him.”

So for the second time they called the man who had been blind and said to him, “Give glory to God. We know that this man is a sinner.” He answered, “Whether he is a sinner I do not know. One thing I do know, that though I was blind, now I see.”

So are you saying that God gives everybody at least one miracle in their life to show them that He exists?

sdp