As far as wanting to believe it, in a way, I think it was like a drug. Very intoxicating, in a sense, to think you have reins over the Almighty, so as to do practically what you wish.
Some people will defend it to their death, to this day, in spite of obvious failure.
Yep, we had the power when we were "believing" for God to give us whatever red drapes we demanded from him. He HAD to. He had to keep HIS WORD. When it didn't work, it couldn't be God was wrong and it certainly couldn't be that vee pee was wrong! -->
People tend to always want a scapegoat....someone or something to blame....everything has to be cause and effect so someone "caused" things to go bad or go good. There is no "shtuff happens" in TWI-world....or in many other people's worlds either. We learned a black/white mindset from TWI so everything was good or it was bad. Either way someone was responsible for it.
Now I just trust God that He will take care of me and I'll tell him what I'd like to see happen, but know that He knows what's best. If it doesn't happen MY way I don't beat myself up because I know I'm still going to be taken care of. IMO, that's what we should have been taught.
Responding to Satori's questions of a couple pages back:
I guess I do accept a certain amount of what "science" says at face value, primarily because it's demonstrated great understanding of how things work as evidenced by all the technological advancements that have been made due solely to the knowledge gained through the scientific method. That, and what the scientific community propounds is subjected to intense scrutiny. It's all part of the method. And finally, I'm not married to any of the conclusions of science. If someone comes along with contrary evidence, I'm free to change my mind.
On the other hand, in the "spiritual" relm, nothing has to make too much sense, it seems. A basic appeal to one's emotions and a few feel-good (empty) promises is all that's required. And don't go around questioning basic tenets either. That's reeeally evil, you know?
Doesn't turn out the way it was advertised? Well, you didn't have enough "faith" or "it's God's perogative" or some other lame excuse. Few ever seem to be willing to ask why an omnipotent, all seeing, omnipresent being has such a hard time fulfilling the most basic of His "promises".
Your "belief" is an assumption based on past experience. Science has credibility because it has a track record we can see.
Spirituality should meet the same or even higher standard. It did once. Not for everybody, but for the biblical prophets, God was overwhelming and undeniable. Signs, power, miracles...
Convincing stuff.
God caused them to believe, just as science causes you to believe. He did it with in-your-face evidence, awesome enough to approximate a real feeling of His presence.
But was the result "faith," or just persuasion by force? Convinced by signs, His people would later need to trust Him to deliver. Was that faith, or just persuasion?
But after the grandiose OT days, something changed. The average physical scale of heavenly signs dramatically decreased, from geological to personal proportions. And from there down to nothing at all, mostly.
All persuasion has been removed. Nothing left to go on but "faith."
Thanks for attempting to answer my question. I'm afraid I didn't follow most of what you were saying. :)--> I guess my brain is fried from too many years of listening to VPs classes. LOL.
I did however relate to what you said with the following:
1. We wanted it to work.
2. Jesus was apparently saying it worked.
3. VPW, this "respectable" midwestern preacher was quoting Greek and saying it worked, and he gave us examples from his own wonderful life.
4. Our bibles were apparently saying it worked, in addition to Jesus.
5. If it didn't work, it was due to "negative believing" of some kind.
6. It seemed, thanks to the law of averages and our own efforts, to work enough of the time to satisfy us.
7. There really ought to be seven reasons, for spiritual perfection, but I'll have to get back to you.
We all loved the sound of it, and wanted it to work so much that we started believing it actually did, and there was lots of so called "proof" to back it up.
You're welcome oz. Your question is really a universal question, because it applies to anyone who tries to apply "faith" within a religious (social) context.
People are going to hold you up to a standard and judge you by an ideal that nobody can meet.
Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no such thing, in this context, as "free-will choice." Only the illusion of apparent choice. Everything in the physical world is the effect, of some prior effect, of some prior effect... So how could there be "choice?"
Believing, as Christ revealed it, is not (and could not be) the consequence of an illusion.
Anyone who doesn't grasp the fallacy risks falling back into the doctrine. Who wouldn't like to think they could "believe" for stuff just by getting clear and concerned, doing the 4 D's, etc? I would.
From the perspective of the physical world, spirit is cause. It is causal. It is causation.
The physical world is effect. It is usually the effect of its own virtually infinite prior effects, like an endless supply of billiard balls careening into one another. BUT it is also the effect, at times, of spirit - not another "physical" billiard ball, but of a well-aimed, cosmic (spiritual) cue stick.
Jesus was a physical guy. So what did he mean by "faith?" What did he mean by "believing?" Can they even be defined, or only perceived, apprehended, experienced? More importantly, to this thread, why did they work for him in this physical world of effect?
(If the accounts are true.)
I asked you first.
God caused them to believe, just as science causes you to believe. He did it with in-your-face evidence, awesome enough to approximate a real feeling of His presence.
Jesus was a physical guy. So what did he mean by "faith?" What did he mean by "believing?" Can they even be defined, or only perceived, apprehended, experienced? More importantly, to this thread, why did they work for him in this physical world of effect?
Positive thinking has been proven with or without the Word in the equation.
(If the accounts are true.)
-->
"So where did this idea of "free will" come from? How did it get into our software?
That's where spirit comes in. We don't know what it is because our processors can't process anything original. Spirit exists beyond the machinery of our mental and physical existence. This is why we can try, try, try to make spirit do our bidding, we just can't. The effect cannot dictate to its own cause. Can it? How could the physical world command the spirit? Ridiculous. Even our little processor/brains can get that.
Agree!
Is dogma what's required, anyway? Or is it something else that is lacking?
If believing is not so reliable, maybe it's not God, or us, but our understanding of what the bible is saying.
In other words, maybe we are following the directions perfectly, but the directions are wrong.
Excellent understanding, even for you Satori!
So if what I am experiencing is a part of my past actions then if I change my actions this very moment it will catch up with me in time...Yes?
Originally posted by houseisarockin:So if what I am experiencing is a part of my past actions then if I change my actions this very moment it will catch up with me in time...Yes?
You've answered your own question.
In a cause and effect world, every action will cause a reaction.
The difficulty people have is with the idea of "cause," or free-will choices in a world of effect, this physical world where everything has a prior cause. If our choices are part of the physical world, they too have a prior cause. They aren't "free," then, are they?
Everything is the effect of a prior cause, except where spirit intervenes.
I think spirit intervenes all the time, and there is plenty of evidence in our own lives to assure us of that.
We can't prove it to one another, only to ourselves, by observation. "Proof" may be too strong a word though. "Affirm" may be more realistic, more reasonable.
I suggest the dogma is the problem. We are so, so far off base in our understanding of the bible, that we are (I'm invoking a baseball analogy here) out in left field wondering why the pitcher isn't pitching to us. More likely, we're not even in the stadium, or even the parking lot. The Pitcher is throwing a perfect strike every time. We're just not anywhere near the ballpark, much less behind home plate.
I suggest that one basic problem with the dogma is the assumption that the Bible is a reliable source for facts or dogma.
quote:
Originally posted by satori001:
Your [George Aar's] "belief" is an assumption based on past experience. Science has credibility because it has a track record we can see.
Spirituality should meet the same or even higher standard. It did once. Not for everybody, but for the biblical prophets, God was overwhelming and undeniable. Signs, power, miracles...
Convincing stuff.
God caused them to believe, just as science causes you to believe. He did it with in-your-face evidence, awesome enough to approximate a real feeling of His presence.
That is an assumption that is based on the previous assumption about the Bible.
Positive thinking has been proven with or without the Word in the equation.
Positive thinking has been proven to do what? Engender the sorts of miraculous healings the Bible attributes to Jesus? If so, then where can I go to read documented case studies?
quote:
Originally posted by houseisarockin:
So if what I am experiencing is a part of my past actions then if I change my actions this very moment it will catch up with me in time...Yes?
Not necessarily. As a simplistic, extreme example, if your past actions included cutting off a finger now and then, changing your actions would not regenerate the missing fingers.
I'm not so sure that there is "plenty of evidence" that spirit is anything more than an imagined substitute for unknown causes.
Fair enough. I think there is, but since I'm referring to the individual's catalog of experiences, it may be interpreted as anything from "coincidence" to "luck" to the law of averages, to angels, to God, to leprechauns, to being dismissed entirely.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
66
12
12
28
Popular Days
Jun 15
52
Jun 13
51
Jun 16
24
Jun 14
17
Top Posters In This Topic
satori001 66 posts
TheSongRemainsTheSame 12 posts
CM 12 posts
Ham 28 posts
Popular Days
Jun 15 2005
52 posts
Jun 13 2005
51 posts
Jun 16 2005
24 posts
Jun 14 2005
17 posts
ex10
Ok, I'll bite.
Perhaps "faith" as defined by Jesus is entrusting ourselves to God who tries like the dickens to reveal Himself to us but we are too dense to get it.
Yes, it's my final answer.
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I'll second that one, heh heh.
As far as wanting to believe it, in a way, I think it was like a drug. Very intoxicating, in a sense, to think you have reins over the Almighty, so as to do practically what you wish.
Some people will defend it to their death, to this day, in spite of obvious failure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Yep, we had the power when we were "believing" for God to give us whatever red drapes we demanded from him. He HAD to. He had to keep HIS WORD. When it didn't work, it couldn't be God was wrong and it certainly couldn't be that vee pee was wrong!
-->
People tend to always want a scapegoat....someone or something to blame....everything has to be cause and effect so someone "caused" things to go bad or go good. There is no "shtuff happens" in TWI-world....or in many other people's worlds either. We learned a black/white mindset from TWI so everything was good or it was bad. Either way someone was responsible for it.
Now I just trust God that He will take care of me and I'll tell him what I'd like to see happen, but know that He knows what's best. If it doesn't happen MY way I don't beat myself up because I know I'm still going to be taken care of. IMO, that's what we should have been taught.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Responding to Satori's questions of a couple pages back:
I guess I do accept a certain amount of what "science" says at face value, primarily because it's demonstrated great understanding of how things work as evidenced by all the technological advancements that have been made due solely to the knowledge gained through the scientific method. That, and what the scientific community propounds is subjected to intense scrutiny. It's all part of the method. And finally, I'm not married to any of the conclusions of science. If someone comes along with contrary evidence, I'm free to change my mind.
On the other hand, in the "spiritual" relm, nothing has to make too much sense, it seems. A basic appeal to one's emotions and a few feel-good (empty) promises is all that's required. And don't go around questioning basic tenets either. That's reeeally evil, you know?
Doesn't turn out the way it was advertised? Well, you didn't have enough "faith" or "it's God's perogative" or some other lame excuse. Few ever seem to be willing to ask why an omnipotent, all seeing, omnipresent being has such a hard time fulfilling the most basic of His "promises".
I don't have that problem anymore...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Just a little thought- to me, "there is no God" is as absolute of a statement as "believing is a law".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Maybe, but who's saying that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
George, I was not trying to put words in anybody's mouth here, especially you! Just an observation.
But that would be a unique solution to "who's fault is it?" some people couldn't blame God anymore..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
Okay George.
Your "belief" is an assumption based on past experience. Science has credibility because it has a track record we can see.
Spirituality should meet the same or even higher standard. It did once. Not for everybody, but for the biblical prophets, God was overwhelming and undeniable. Signs, power, miracles...
Convincing stuff.
God caused them to believe, just as science causes you to believe. He did it with in-your-face evidence, awesome enough to approximate a real feeling of His presence.
But was the result "faith," or just persuasion by force? Convinced by signs, His people would later need to trust Him to deliver. Was that faith, or just persuasion?
But after the grandiose OT days, something changed. The average physical scale of heavenly signs dramatically decreased, from geological to personal proportions. And from there down to nothing at all, mostly.
All persuasion has been removed. Nothing left to go on but "faith."
Whatever that is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ozbirdau
Satori,
Thanks for attempting to answer my question. I'm afraid I didn't follow most of what you were saying.
:)--> I guess my brain is fried from too many years of listening to VPs classes. LOL.
I did however relate to what you said with the following:
1. We wanted it to work.
2. Jesus was apparently saying it worked.
3. VPW, this "respectable" midwestern preacher was quoting Greek and saying it worked, and he gave us examples from his own wonderful life.
4. Our bibles were apparently saying it worked, in addition to Jesus.
5. If it didn't work, it was due to "negative believing" of some kind.
6. It seemed, thanks to the law of averages and our own efforts, to work enough of the time to satisfy us.
7. There really ought to be seven reasons, for spiritual perfection, but I'll have to get back to you.
We all loved the sound of it, and wanted it to work so much that we started believing it actually did, and there was lots of so called "proof" to back it up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
You're welcome oz. Your question is really a universal question, because it applies to anyone who tries to apply "faith" within a religious (social) context.
People are going to hold you up to a standard and judge you by an ideal that nobody can meet.
Why don't we meet that standard?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no such thing, in this context, as "free-will choice." Only the illusion of apparent choice. Everything in the physical world is the effect, of some prior effect, of some prior effect... So how could there be "choice?"
Believing, as Christ revealed it, is not (and could not be) the consequence of an illusion.
Anyone who doesn't grasp the fallacy risks falling back into the doctrine. Who wouldn't like to think they could "believe" for stuff just by getting clear and concerned, doing the 4 D's, etc? I would.
From the perspective of the physical world, spirit is cause. It is causal. It is causation.
The physical world is effect. It is usually the effect of its own virtually infinite prior effects, like an endless supply of billiard balls careening into one another. BUT it is also the effect, at times, of spirit - not another "physical" billiard ball, but of a well-aimed, cosmic (spiritual) cue stick.
Jesus was a physical guy. So what did he mean by "faith?" What did he mean by "believing?" Can they even be defined, or only perceived, apprehended, experienced? More importantly, to this thread, why did they work for him in this physical world of effect?
(If the accounts are true.)
I asked you first.
God caused them to believe, just as science causes you to believe. He did it with in-your-face evidence, awesome enough to approximate a real feeling of His presence.
There is a way out.
Anybody care to guess?
I love taking stuff out of context
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Catcup
I know.
(The preceeding comment is out of context)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
Yeah,
But I only took those words out of context because they really really really have a something for me to consider since I can't go meta this gig~~~
I just had to say sumthing
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
I would dig a one on one the very begin of this thread, if thast would not be too long a response to engage~~~
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
And ya know Catcup ~~~ I dig your eyes~~~ they seem to say you know some thing~~~
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
Song, by putting some of my remarks out of order, you may add unnecessary confusion.
You're welcome to go "meta," just stay brief, and focused.
Thanks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
houseisarockin
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
In a cause and effect world, every action will cause a reaction.
The difficulty people have is with the idea of "cause," or free-will choices in a world of effect, this physical world where everything has a prior cause. If our choices are part of the physical world, they too have a prior cause. They aren't "free," then, are they?
Everything is the effect of a prior cause, except where spirit intervenes.
I think spirit intervenes all the time, and there is plenty of evidence in our own lives to assure us of that.
We can't prove it to one another, only to ourselves, by observation. "Proof" may be too strong a word though. "Affirm" may be more realistic, more reasonable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
That's why I wouldn't call it "proof."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
"Everything is the effect of a prior cause, except where spirit intervenes."
Could explain how a buffon could get elected as President.. sorry, heh heh.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.