and why do you attribute them to people who have not said it"
Well, pardon me for invoking an infinite god. I thought that was a tenet of most folks' faith.
If yours is of the finite variety, well, it's one I'm not familiar with. I usually hear about the god that's so vast, that "He fills up all of eternity" and such. My bad...
And Mo, re:"And you are right I can't tell you how far back the lineage goes or when it started or how or why. So that leaves us both pretty much at the same spot. Except it is far more rational in my mind for a creator that creates to exist -- as to try and explain scientifically how nothing would become something--and that is why I believe as I do."
Well, if that works for you, who am I to say different? It's seems to me, though, that simply pushing the issue back a few generations (to God's great-great-great-grandfather and beyond) does ZERO to address the actual question, though. It only obfuscates. And like the turtle standing on a turtle on a turtle on a turtle, sooner or later you've got to ask, "Yeah, but what's supporting the whole thing?" Apparently, not much. But that's usually what I've gotten from religion...
And re: grief and comfort in time of same. Like the miners' families in W. Virginia, I find religion to be the "good news" that simply isn't. And sooner or later the truth will come out. I'd just as soon know up front what's really going on. And, like JJ said in his last post, one usually recovers in about the same amount of time, with or without the holy, invisible shoulder to cry on...
Like the miners' families in W. Virginia, I find religion to be the "good news" that simply isn't. And sooner or later the truth will come out. I'd just as soon know up front what's really going on. And, like JJ said in his last post, one usually recovers in about the same amount of time, with or without the holy, invisible shoulder to cry on...
You have a very good point here. I would submit that people who use this type of rationale (answered prayers, etc.) as their rationale for believing in a god (note the small 'g' there) are looking for a spiritual shovel with which to help them dig, rather than worshiping the creator of the universe. A very utilitarian view. And one that will likely have a very frustrating outcome when (not 'if') their prayers are not answered to their satisfaction.
I appreciate your help (unintentional, I realize)!
"I appreciate your help (unintentional, I realize)!"
Uh, you're welcome?
So you're saying that despite promises of The Bible not coming to pass in your life, prayers going unanswered, in fact (I guess) no evidence of an Almighty at all, that you have a faith that is unaffected by such minor trivial matters. A more mature, refined, dare I say, better type of faith? Good for you.
How does one come to the point where they can achieve such a remarkable feat, so as to believe in that which we have no evidence for whatsoever? I guess that's an accomplishment...
"I appreciate your help (unintentional, I realize)!"
Uh, you're welcome?
So you're saying that despite promises of The Bible not coming to pass in your life, prayers going unanswered, in fact (I guess) no evidence of an Almighty at all, that you have a faith that is unaffected by such minor trivial matters. A more mature, refined, dare I say, better type of faith? Good for you.
How does one come to the point where they can achieve such a remarkable feat, so as to believe in that which we have no evidence for whatsoever? I guess that's an accomplishment...
Promises of the Bible not coming to pass: no, not true. Promises of the Vicster's misinterpretation of the Bible not coming true: yup.
Prayers going unanswered: no, not true. Vain, ego-centric prayers that are at total odds with the will of God going unanswered: sure, ya got a good point there.
No evidence of an Almighty: George, that's an interesting one. Sure, I could list some evidence. You could witness the ascention of Christ with your own eyes and you'd be looking for the wires. In fact I daresay that you'd rip your eyes out before believing what they saw if you'd witness something for your own self. So why in heaven's name would I be so naive as to assume that you'd take the word of a fool (me) when, in all likelihood, you'd never believe your own eyewitness.
As said by the Apostle Paul: Now the natural person does not accept what pertains to the Spirit of God, for to him it is foolishness, and he cannot understand it, because it is judged spiritually.
George, I am not hardly trying to convince you of anything. I thought I'd just acknowledge your (unintentional) assistance.
You could witness the ascention of Christ with your own eyes and you'd be looking for the wires.
And why not 'look for the wires' as it were? Or 'pay attention to the man behind the curtain'?
You know and I know that there are *millions* of charlatans and scam artists out there who make all kinds of 'spurchal' claims ranging from A to Z. As well as people who make the claim out of innocent, yet unsubstantiated claims. Could it be that that is but one big reason to be the skeptics that we are? And yet how many times has that process been discounted as the 'unbelief of a sinner'?
If the 'wires' aren't there, then it'll prove itself thusly. When we don't 'find the man behind the curtain', then we can move on from there.
So far what I see (conclusively) is that belief in God (or gods) is still in the realm of what people decide to believe for various reasons. As is the rejection of same entities. ..... And it goes no farther than that.
Mark, I'm not sure that's fair to George. List some evidence, unequivocal evidence, and I suspect George would pay attention. I don't see why this is so difficult for God to do. You quoted Paul but Paul saw Jesus, didn't he? The apostles saw the risen Jesus, didn't they? Moses saw a burning bush, didn't he? Live, unequivocal evidence is not unprecedented, biblically speaking.
Mark, I'm not sure that's fair to George. List some evidence, unequivocal evidence, and I suspect George would pay attention. I don't see why this is so difficult for God to do. You quoted Paul but Paul saw Jesus, didn't he? The apostles saw the risen Jesus, didn't they? Moses saw a burning bush, didn't he? Live, unequivocal evidence is not unprecedented, biblically speaking.
-JJ
It isn't, but live, Biblical evidence can simply be refuted. If I provided personal evidence, it's only my word and can be readily discounted. I could speak to verifiable cases, like the 67 verified miraculous cures at Lourdes, or the apparently inexplicable images on the Shroud of Turin or Juan Diego's Tilda at Guadalupe, and so on...but those will either be disregarded or rationalized away. In the case of the 67 verified cures at Lourdes, all a person who wishes to disbelieve would need to do is simply call them, at best, a fraud or at least, a psychological phenomenon. In the case of the shroud or the tilda, they can simply call them forgeries...find a single source on the 'net that backs them up, and their minds are closed...no matter how much evidence is out there. So why bother?
If a person wants to be a skeptic, they're going to be one. It's not my place to change his/her mind. It is my place to pray for him or her, but if a person lacks the capacity to believe in God (ref the 1 Cor 2 quote i provided earlier), I can't fix that and no amount of evidence, logic, or persuasion can do so. It takes a miraculous intervention to happen. I'm not in charge of the miraculous intervention department. I'm also not in the position to second-guess the one who is.
Maybe it's unfair to George and I certainly wouldn't want to offend him. But I also wouldn't want to waste either his time or mine in pursuing something that either a) if it would bear fruit, the pursuit wouldn't be necessary in the first place, or B) cannot bear fruit in the first place. (I have a lot of experience dealing with skeptics/ atheists/ agnostics and maybe this has colored my judgement in the matter)
i think it goes well with the topic of negative theology
im gonna stick my neck out a bit here and share my own little 3rd millenium version of an old hindu exercise called neti neti
not the whole story, of course
but definately a vital piece of any such notion of any infinite presence
it will read like instructions
but keep in mind that its really just an exercise
try not to take it too seriously
though honesty helps
ok…take a sec
notice your self...
notice your space...
become present
if you can
whatever...
then ask yourself things like:
who am i?
where am i?
when am i?
i start by noticing the world i am in
or the room i am in in
or even the computer screen
noticing how i am obviously not these things
because i am the one witnessing them
ok…so who am i?
then i notice my body, my skin, my muscles, my skeleton
but also notice how i am obviously not just these things
because i am also the one who is experiencing these things
ok, and so…who am i?
if i am my body, then who is witnessing my body?
if i am my breathe, then who is witnessing my breath?
if i am what i think, then who is witnessing my thoughts?
if i am what i feel, then who is witnessing my feelings?
if i am what i dream, then who is witnessing my dreams?
whatever object you think you or feel that you are, simply ask your self again: “who is witnessing this, and who is witnessing this very question?”
some might even notice a tension directly behind your eyes or somewhere else in the body…all of which is just another thing you are not, of course…but something you are witnessing
and so again…who and where is this witness?
when is it?
how is it?
yada yada…
…
anyway, that was my own little adaptation of “neti neti”
…which means “not this, not that”
a generic line of inquiry meant to help things become clearer, if nothing else
by using the mind to escape the mind
helps more directly show us how we do have an everpresent aspect of self that is neither mind nor body
that stays with us throughout our waking and sleeping states
i am hoping someone will try it out
and tell us what you found
"come back and let me know when you think you are done"
...is what i imagine some goofy old white haired master might say now
if this were a hollywood movie or something
btw – i am not a member of the hindu religion
though i am still interested in notions of one true God
i think i should mention that there are antidotes to the common problems caused by getting lost in neti neti
and any such negative theology...(and there are common problems, it seems)
which are basically anything you can find that brings you back more fully into your body and soul and the world...any way to fill the space revealed by negative theology
i believe the forgiveness and boundless heart threads are some recent examples of how we are always also reaching for the "antidote" to any such feeling or realization of emptiness
basically finding ways of opening of the heart to go with the opening of the mind
ways of opening the feeler to go with the opening of the thinker
i have found that tonglen, the agnostic vajrayana buddhist exercise, works well for this...and as about as direct and simple as neti neti (only moving from another direction)
and why therapia (like shadow play) seems to play an valuable role in any practice of negative theology
because the shadows cast by the contours of our interior self typically get more engaged and dramatic
as we find ways to cause "inward illumination"...we usually need skillful guides to help navigate here and there where we cant see
...much like helping one to untangle the knots in their hair....its more effective to playfully tease out a knot...if you want to keep the hair
also, one can get so stuck in extreme negation, that they are simply unable to find a reason or bring themselves to participate in the dirt and suffering of life...its been called things like "the stink of zen," which is funny, because they tend to despise filth
like the kid in the story said...
BECOME wise as serpents AND as harmless as doves
and i just cant stop finding reasons to still believe it
That's how I feel about God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.
Others here feel far differently
perhaps Voltaire was closer to the truth than we realize--namely a thing exists only of you believe it exists. Whether I and a hundred thousand others see the table in the corner has no meaning to the person who sees a potted plant.
I know God exists--but that is an exercise of faith-- if you lack the faith to begin with you can't exercise it Faith is indeed the word believing--and even though I don't buy the "negative believing yields negative results" $&^$% it does not change the fact that one who does not believe in a deity is likely not to recognize said deity if it walks in front of them.
Have you seen signs, CM? What would they be like? Immediate and irrefutable? I'm just curious. I remember too well the all-9-all-the-time shtick. What would the signs be?
RE:"If a person wants to be a skeptic, they're going to be one. It's not my place to change his/her mind. It is my place to pray for him or her, but if a person lacks the capacity to believe in God (ref the 1 Cor 2 quote i provided earlier), I can't fix that and no amount of evidence, logic, or persuasion can do so. It takes a miraculous intervention to happen. I'm not in charge of the miraculous intervention department. I'm also not in the position to second-guess the one who is."
And what evidence to you have to make THAT sweeping statement? It seems to me that evidence just isn't too high up on your list of things to look for. Offhand condemnations and absolutes work just fine, I guess?
And just how do you know what I would or wouldn't believe, and what would convince me? And how do you know what it requires for anyone to believe in God? And if you're not in a position to "second guess" (read "try to make sense out of"), then how can you know anything? If you blindly accept the "right" religious tenets and reject the "wrong" ones, what do you use as a guide to determine which is which?
THE BIBLE you say? Which one? Which interpretation? Which commentary has the REAL word of God? How about The Book of Mormon? Mo seems to care for that one. Is she wrong? As a R.C. I guess you accept the apochrypha writings as well? How about the Protestants then? Are they all screwed up because they don't?
And why is it that still, here in the 21st century with all the communication methods and all, that Christianity is still, percentage-wise, a religion of the western world? Maybe God just doesn't care for Kim Chee?
And really, if the healing waters of Lourdes, or the shroud of Turin, or Mary's face in a tortilla are what pass for evidence, Yikes!, I don't know what to say...
RE:"If a person wants to be a skeptic, they're going to be one. It's not my place to change his/her mind. It is my place to pray for him or her, but if a person lacks the capacity to believe in God (ref the 1 Cor 2 quote i provided earlier), I can't fix that and no amount of evidence, logic, or persuasion can do so. It takes a miraculous intervention to happen. I'm not in charge of the miraculous intervention department. I'm also not in the position to second-guess the one who is."
And what evidence to you have to make THAT sweeping statement? It seems to me that evidence just isn't too high up on your list of things to look for. Offhand condemnations and absolutes work just fine, I guess?
And just how do you know what I would or wouldn't believe, and what would convince me? And how do you know what it requires for anyone to believe in God? And if you're not in a position to "second guess" (read "try to make sense out of"), then how can you know anything? If you blindly accept the "right" religious tenets and reject the "wrong" ones, what do you use as a guide to determine which is which?
THE BIBLE you say? Which one? Which interpretation? Which commentary has the REAL word of God? How about The Book of Mormon? Mo seems to care for that one. Is she wrong? As a R.C. I guess you accept the apochrypha writings as well? How about the Protestants then? Are they all screwed up because they don't?
And why is it that still, here in the 21st century with all the communication methods and all, that Christianity is still, percentage-wise, a religion of the western world? Maybe God just doesn't care for Kim Chee?
And really, if the healing waters of Lourdes, or the shroud of Turin, or Mary's face in a tortilla are what pass for evidence, Yikes!, I don't know what to say...
Thank you for illustrating my point so well, George!
If God doesn't want you, you're screwed and there's nothing you can do about it?
Maybe that's the key, George. There could be something to that predestination stuff. I often wondered if that was the reason I never saw any of that manifested power as described and promised in the bible.
Well, gee, I'm glad I could illustrate it for you.
So, what the unwashed heathen can learn from this is?
Don't question just accept?
If God doesn't want you, you're screwed and there's nothing you can do about it?
Don't use your brain, 'cause God doesn't like it ?
No George, not hardly.
Look at it:
I said,
No evidence of an Almighty: George, that's an interesting one. Sure, I could list some evidence. You could witness the ascention of Christ with your own eyes and you'd be looking for the wires. In fact I daresay that you'd rip your eyes out before believing what they saw if you'd witness something for your own self. So why in heaven's name would I be so naive as to assume that you'd take the word of a fool (me) when, in all likelihood, you'd never believe your own eyewitness.
JJ responded to me and said that in that statement, I wasn't being fair to you.
I said to JJ,
It isn't, but live, Biblical evidence can simply be refuted. If I provided personal evidence, it's only my word and can be readily discounted. I could speak to verifiable cases,...,but those will either be disregarded or rationalized away...their minds are closed...no matter how much evidence is out there. So why bother?...Maybe it's unfair to George and I certainly wouldn't want to offend him. But I also wouldn't want to waste either his time or mine in pursuing something that either a) if it would bear fruit, the pursuit wouldn't be necessary in the first place, or cannot bear fruit in the first place.
And then you came back with your rant, which simply verified everything that I've said up to that point.
To quote Shakespere, The lady (gentleman in this case) doth protest too much, methinks.
So let me put the ball in your court here, George:
What is the quality and quantity of evidence that you would accept in order to acknowledge that there might be a possibility of the existence of a supernatural entity that is spiritual (i.e., not consisting of matter) and non-corporeal (i.e., does not occupy a finite space) in nature? Keep in mind that this evidence would, by nature, have to be effects consequent to the existence of this entity, since, by the characteristics I have provided above (spiritual, non-corporeal), its existence itself would not be measurable.
What types of citations are acceptable to you?
Are peer-reviewed publications acceptable?
Is direct testimony acceptable?
Are statistical studies acceptable?
Does the source of the citation, itself, have to meet a standard of pureness to be usable (i.e., if I have a citation from a thoroughly documented source, but that source has religious connections (e.g., a catholic university or the vatican, etc.), will you immediately disregard that source?)
[*]If I have a reference that is off-line only, will you take the time to look at it (i.e., go to the library and do an interlibrary loan to get the book or journal)? Or must all my sources be available to you on the Internet?
[*]If we agree to terms here and I am able to provide documentation that meets the criteria agreed to, are you going to give it an honest, objective look?
George, you said:
And just how do you know what I would or wouldn't believe, and what would convince me? And how do you know what it requires for anyone to believe in God? And if you're not in a position to "second guess" (read "try to make sense out of"), then how can you know anything? If you blindly accept the "right" religious tenets and reject the "wrong" ones, what do you use as a guide to determine which is which?
OK, fine. You tell me what you would believe and not believe. Seems to me like there's no amount of evidence that will work for you, but if there is, tell me and I'll consider whether I can hit the target or not.
I told you before, I don't really care whether you believe or not. Your business. If you want to have a calm, orderly discussion of what I believe and why I believe it to be valid, then I'll be happy to engage you, or anybody else, in that discussion. And I'm sure that would apply to just about anybody else around here who has moved beyond their TWI days and found what works for them. And if the result of that conversation is,
George, I don't care that you're a non-theist. If you insist upon physical proof that is quantifiable, measurable, and repeatable--you want to be able to measure, analyze, and break down into component elements--that's your business. If you want to be some variety of theist, that's your business too. If you are questioning which one you'd like to be, maybe I can offer something. But don't expect for me to have much patience with utter, unsatisfiable skepticism after some of the mocking and derisiveness you've provided to those who have the misfortune of believing in something bigger than themselves, regardless of what that something might be...
So let me put the ball in your court here, George:
What is the quality and quantity of evidence that you would accept in order to acknowledge that there might be a possibility of the existence of a supernatural entity that is spiritual (i.e., not consisting of matter) and non-corporeal (i.e., does not occupy a finite space) in nature?
I think George has done much more in the past than merely acknowledge the possibility of God, as have probably all the skeptics here. I know I professed belief in and honestly sought a relationship with God for many, many years, before, during, and after my TWI experience.
I think George has done much more in the past than merely acknowledge the possibility of God, as have probably all the skeptics here. I know I professed belief in and honestly sought a relationship with God for many, many years, before, during, and after my TWI experience.
LG, without a doubt everybody who is a participant in this board has at least attempted to have a relationship with God.
But, LG, I also said,
George, I don't care that you're a non-theist.
And that, too, is simply a fact. I really would far prefer to live and let live. But look how the thread opened up again. Rather than simply stating his skepticism, within his opening post he said:
Unless we concoct some bizarro world where love equals neglect or power equals impotence, which is what I saw entirely too much of with the Bible-thumper crowd.
etc.
Then, in a subsequent post, he is offended by a respnse where I affirm his disbelief by saying,
If a person wants to be a skeptic, they're going to be one. It's not my place to change his/her mind. It is my place to pray for him or her, but if a person lacks the capacity to believe in God (ref the 1 Cor 2 quote i provided earlier), I can't fix that and no amount of evidence, logic, or persuasion can do so. It takes a miraculous intervention to happen. I'm not in charge of the miraculous intervention department. I'm also not in the position to second-guess the one who is.
when he says,
And just how do you know what I would or wouldn't believe, and what would convince me? And how do you know what it requires for anyone to believe in God?
So I decided to take him up on his offer and tell me what it would take. Since George implied, by his last post, that I didn't know what it would take to convince him, I simply asked him to tell me. So what's the problem?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
32
40
51
31
Popular Days
Dec 31
38
Jan 5
23
Jan 21
18
Jan 4
18
Top Posters In This Topic
GarthP2000 32 posts
CM 40 posts
templelady 51 posts
markomalley 31 posts
Popular Days
Dec 31 2005
38 posts
Jan 5 2006
23 posts
Jan 21 2006
18 posts
Jan 4 2006
18 posts
George Aar
CM,
re:"where do you get these ideas?
and why do you attribute them to people who have not said it"
Well, pardon me for invoking an infinite god. I thought that was a tenet of most folks' faith.
If yours is of the finite variety, well, it's one I'm not familiar with. I usually hear about the god that's so vast, that "He fills up all of eternity" and such. My bad...
And Mo, re:"And you are right I can't tell you how far back the lineage goes or when it started or how or why. So that leaves us both pretty much at the same spot. Except it is far more rational in my mind for a creator that creates to exist -- as to try and explain scientifically how nothing would become something--and that is why I believe as I do."
Well, if that works for you, who am I to say different? It's seems to me, though, that simply pushing the issue back a few generations (to God's great-great-great-grandfather and beyond) does ZERO to address the actual question, though. It only obfuscates. And like the turtle standing on a turtle on a turtle on a turtle, sooner or later you've got to ask, "Yeah, but what's supporting the whole thing?" Apparently, not much. But that's usually what I've gotten from religion...
And re: grief and comfort in time of same. Like the miners' families in W. Virginia, I find religion to be the "good news" that simply isn't. And sooner or later the truth will come out. I'd just as soon know up front what's really going on. And, like JJ said in his last post, one usually recovers in about the same amount of time, with or without the holy, invisible shoulder to cry on...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
George,
You said,
You have a very good point here. I would submit that people who use this type of rationale (answered prayers, etc.) as their rationale for believing in a god (note the small 'g' there) are looking for a spiritual shovel with which to help them dig, rather than worshiping the creator of the universe. A very utilitarian view. And one that will likely have a very frustrating outcome when (not 'if') their prayers are not answered to their satisfaction.
I appreciate your help (unintentional, I realize)!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Mark,
"I appreciate your help (unintentional, I realize)!"
Uh, you're welcome?
So you're saying that despite promises of The Bible not coming to pass in your life, prayers going unanswered, in fact (I guess) no evidence of an Almighty at all, that you have a faith that is unaffected by such minor trivial matters. A more mature, refined, dare I say, better type of faith? Good for you.
How does one come to the point where they can achieve such a remarkable feat, so as to believe in that which we have no evidence for whatsoever? I guess that's an accomplishment...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
now that i have been saying using other words
but from what point is this god infinite?
and where is this god that you want to talk about so much
but claim to not believe in
and i am talking to you without any animosity
so i'd appreciate it if you don't come back like an attack
Edited by CMLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Promises of the Bible not coming to pass: no, not true. Promises of the Vicster's misinterpretation of the Bible not coming true: yup.
Prayers going unanswered: no, not true. Vain, ego-centric prayers that are at total odds with the will of God going unanswered: sure, ya got a good point there.
No evidence of an Almighty: George, that's an interesting one. Sure, I could list some evidence. You could witness the ascention of Christ with your own eyes and you'd be looking for the wires. In fact I daresay that you'd rip your eyes out before believing what they saw if you'd witness something for your own self. So why in heaven's name would I be so naive as to assume that you'd take the word of a fool (me) when, in all likelihood, you'd never believe your own eyewitness.
As said by the Apostle Paul: Now the natural person does not accept what pertains to the Spirit of God, for to him it is foolishness, and he cannot understand it, because it is judged spiritually.
George, I am not hardly trying to convince you of anything. I thought I'd just acknowledge your (unintentional) assistance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
And why not 'look for the wires' as it were? Or 'pay attention to the man behind the curtain'?
You know and I know that there are *millions* of charlatans and scam artists out there who make all kinds of 'spurchal' claims ranging from A to Z. As well as people who make the claim out of innocent, yet unsubstantiated claims. Could it be that that is but one big reason to be the skeptics that we are? And yet how many times has that process been discounted as the 'unbelief of a sinner'?
If the 'wires' aren't there, then it'll prove itself thusly. When we don't 'find the man behind the curtain', then we can move on from there.
So far what I see (conclusively) is that belief in God (or gods) is still in the realm of what people decide to believe for various reasons. As is the rejection of same entities. ..... And it goes no farther than that.
Cheers!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
Mark, I'm not sure that's fair to George. List some evidence, unequivocal evidence, and I suspect George would pay attention. I don't see why this is so difficult for God to do. You quoted Paul but Paul saw Jesus, didn't he? The apostles saw the risen Jesus, didn't they? Moses saw a burning bush, didn't he? Live, unequivocal evidence is not unprecedented, biblically speaking.
-JJ
Edited by JumpinJiveLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
so there is something for us to see
does anyone have the intense desire to see it
it ain't easy cuz that's what it takes
not the lazy "if he comes he comes" approach
and it takes more then you think
to loose yourself and find
but you keep hangin on
hold to the simple look for it within
too scarey foe most
that's why few enter
they have seated themselves in the throne as thessolonians says
dare to discover the son of perdition
therein lies the vail
and when the Lord removes it
fasten your seatbelts
cuz you ain't ready for this
just like a birth, the parents aren't ready
but go thru with it anyway
come hell or high water as they say
who has this kind of courage
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
It isn't, but live, Biblical evidence can simply be refuted. If I provided personal evidence, it's only my word and can be readily discounted. I could speak to verifiable cases, like the 67 verified miraculous cures at Lourdes, or the apparently inexplicable images on the Shroud of Turin or Juan Diego's Tilda at Guadalupe, and so on...but those will either be disregarded or rationalized away. In the case of the 67 verified cures at Lourdes, all a person who wishes to disbelieve would need to do is simply call them, at best, a fraud or at least, a psychological phenomenon. In the case of the shroud or the tilda, they can simply call them forgeries...find a single source on the 'net that backs them up, and their minds are closed...no matter how much evidence is out there. So why bother?
If a person wants to be a skeptic, they're going to be one. It's not my place to change his/her mind. It is my place to pray for him or her, but if a person lacks the capacity to believe in God (ref the 1 Cor 2 quote i provided earlier), I can't fix that and no amount of evidence, logic, or persuasion can do so. It takes a miraculous intervention to happen. I'm not in charge of the miraculous intervention department. I'm also not in the position to second-guess the one who is.
Maybe it's unfair to George and I certainly wouldn't want to offend him. But I also wouldn't want to waste either his time or mine in pursuing something that either a) if it would bear fruit, the pursuit wouldn't be necessary in the first place, or B) cannot bear fruit in the first place. (I have a lot of experience dealing with skeptics/ atheists/ agnostics and maybe this has colored my judgement in the matter)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
heerz a cup of tea you guys might like
i think it goes well with the topic of negative theology
im gonna stick my neck out a bit here and share my own little 3rd millenium version of an old hindu exercise called neti neti
not the whole story, of course
but definately a vital piece of any such notion of any infinite presence
it will read like instructions
but keep in mind that its really just an exercise
try not to take it too seriously
though honesty helps
ok…take a sec
notice your self...
notice your space...
become present
if you can
whatever...
then ask yourself things like:
who am i?
where am i?
when am i?
i start by noticing the world i am in
or the room i am in in
or even the computer screen
noticing how i am obviously not these things
because i am the one witnessing them
ok…so who am i?
then i notice my body, my skin, my muscles, my skeleton
but also notice how i am obviously not just these things
because i am also the one who is experiencing these things
ok, and so…who am i?
if i am my body, then who is witnessing my body?
if i am my breathe, then who is witnessing my breath?
if i am what i think, then who is witnessing my thoughts?
if i am what i feel, then who is witnessing my feelings?
if i am what i dream, then who is witnessing my dreams?
whatever object you think you or feel that you are, simply ask your self again: “who is witnessing this, and who is witnessing this very question?”
some might even notice a tension directly behind your eyes or somewhere else in the body…all of which is just another thing you are not, of course…but something you are witnessing
and so again…who and where is this witness?
when is it?
how is it?
yada yada…
…
anyway, that was my own little adaptation of “neti neti”
…which means “not this, not that”
a generic line of inquiry meant to help things become clearer, if nothing else
by using the mind to escape the mind
helps more directly show us how we do have an everpresent aspect of self that is neither mind nor body
that stays with us throughout our waking and sleeping states
i am hoping someone will try it out
and tell us what you found
"come back and let me know when you think you are done"
...is what i imagine some goofy old white haired master might say now
if this were a hollywood movie or something
btw – i am not a member of the hindu religion
though i am still interested in notions of one true God
peace…
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
karmicdebt
Todd,
Excellent link.
Thanks.......
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
hi karmic
i think i should mention that there are antidotes to the common problems caused by getting lost in neti neti
and any such negative theology...(and there are common problems, it seems)
which are basically anything you can find that brings you back more fully into your body and soul and the world...any way to fill the space revealed by negative theology
i believe the forgiveness and boundless heart threads are some recent examples of how we are always also reaching for the "antidote" to any such feeling or realization of emptiness
basically finding ways of opening of the heart to go with the opening of the mind
ways of opening the feeler to go with the opening of the thinker
i have found that tonglen, the agnostic vajrayana buddhist exercise, works well for this...and as about as direct and simple as neti neti (only moving from another direction)
and why therapia (like shadow play) seems to play an valuable role in any practice of negative theology
because the shadows cast by the contours of our interior self typically get more engaged and dramatic
as we find ways to cause "inward illumination"...we usually need skillful guides to help navigate here and there where we cant see
...much like helping one to untangle the knots in their hair....its more effective to playfully tease out a knot...if you want to keep the hair
also, one can get so stuck in extreme negation, that they are simply unable to find a reason or bring themselves to participate in the dirt and suffering of life...its been called things like "the stink of zen," which is funny, because they tend to despise filth
like the kid in the story said...
BECOME wise as serpents AND as harmless as doves
and i just cant stop finding reasons to still believe it
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
it is about love
noone need teach you
the lord himself/herself will
for as a thief in the night it already happened
yet fought against...too easy a little...
yet intense...heart breaking and mending
death of many things as
they burn from the day you were born till now
replaced by the love that is already there waiting to surface
and has off and on...hot and cold
that will continue
but there is no mistaking a spiritual experience
interpreting it is something to be careful of
stay in love...rooted and grounded
heart is what is god
it is in the air
breathing above water
in the life
boundless
so assume for a moment that there is god
that's a harmless thought
or is it.....
Edited by CMLink to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
You know that you know that you know.
That's how I feel about God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.
Others here feel far differently
perhaps Voltaire was closer to the truth than we realize--namely a thing exists only of you believe it exists. Whether I and a hundred thousand others see the table in the corner has no meaning to the person who sees a potted plant.
I know God exists--but that is an exercise of faith-- if you lack the faith to begin with you can't exercise it Faith is indeed the word believing--and even though I don't buy the "negative believing yields negative results" $&^$% it does not change the fact that one who does not believe in a deity is likely not to recognize said deity if it walks in front of them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
and signs shall follow those that believe
who are the ones that see these signs?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
Have you seen signs, CM? What would they be like? Immediate and irrefutable? I'm just curious. I remember too well the all-9-all-the-time shtick. What would the signs be?
-JJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
been right under your nose and you don't see it
don't know how much more of this i can take
seeing they may see, and not perceive
and hearing they may hear, and not understand
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Mark,
RE:"If a person wants to be a skeptic, they're going to be one. It's not my place to change his/her mind. It is my place to pray for him or her, but if a person lacks the capacity to believe in God (ref the 1 Cor 2 quote i provided earlier), I can't fix that and no amount of evidence, logic, or persuasion can do so. It takes a miraculous intervention to happen. I'm not in charge of the miraculous intervention department. I'm also not in the position to second-guess the one who is."
And what evidence to you have to make THAT sweeping statement? It seems to me that evidence just isn't too high up on your list of things to look for. Offhand condemnations and absolutes work just fine, I guess?
And just how do you know what I would or wouldn't believe, and what would convince me? And how do you know what it requires for anyone to believe in God? And if you're not in a position to "second guess" (read "try to make sense out of"), then how can you know anything? If you blindly accept the "right" religious tenets and reject the "wrong" ones, what do you use as a guide to determine which is which?
THE BIBLE you say? Which one? Which interpretation? Which commentary has the REAL word of God? How about The Book of Mormon? Mo seems to care for that one. Is she wrong? As a R.C. I guess you accept the apochrypha writings as well? How about the Protestants then? Are they all screwed up because they don't?
And why is it that still, here in the 21st century with all the communication methods and all, that Christianity is still, percentage-wise, a religion of the western world? Maybe God just doesn't care for Kim Chee?
And really, if the healing waters of Lourdes, or the shroud of Turin, or Mary's face in a tortilla are what pass for evidence, Yikes!, I don't know what to say...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Thank you for illustrating my point so well, George!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Well, gee, I'm glad I could illustrate it for you.
So, what the unwashed heathen can learn from this is?
Don't question just accept?
If God doesn't want you, you're screwed and there's nothing you can do about it?
Don't use your brain, 'cause God doesn't like it ?
Edited by George AarLink to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
Maybe that's the key, George. There could be something to that predestination stuff. I often wondered if that was the reason I never saw any of that manifested power as described and promised in the bible.
-JJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
No George, not hardly.
Look at it:
I said,
JJ responded to me and said that in that statement, I wasn't being fair to you.
I said to JJ,
And then you came back with your rant, which simply verified everything that I've said up to that point.
To quote Shakespere, The lady (gentleman in this case) doth protest too much, methinks.
So let me put the ball in your court here, George:
[*]If I have a reference that is off-line only, will you take the time to look at it (i.e., go to the library and do an interlibrary loan to get the book or journal)? Or must all my sources be available to you on the Internet?
[*]If we agree to terms here and I am able to provide documentation that meets the criteria agreed to, are you going to give it an honest, objective look?
George, you said:
OK, fine. You tell me what you would believe and not believe. Seems to me like there's no amount of evidence that will work for you, but if there is, tell me and I'll consider whether I can hit the target or not.
I told you before, I don't really care whether you believe or not. Your business. If you want to have a calm, orderly discussion of what I believe and why I believe it to be valid, then I'll be happy to engage you, or anybody else, in that discussion. And I'm sure that would apply to just about anybody else around here who has moved beyond their TWI days and found what works for them. And if the result of that conversation is,
George, I don't care that you're a non-theist. If you insist upon physical proof that is quantifiable, measurable, and repeatable--you want to be able to measure, analyze, and break down into component elements--that's your business. If you want to be some variety of theist, that's your business too. If you are questioning which one you'd like to be, maybe I can offer something. But don't expect for me to have much patience with utter, unsatisfiable skepticism after some of the mocking and derisiveness you've provided to those who have the misfortune of believing in something bigger than themselves, regardless of what that something might be...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
I think George has done much more in the past than merely acknowledge the possibility of God, as have probably all the skeptics here. I know I professed belief in and honestly sought a relationship with God for many, many years, before, during, and after my TWI experience.
Edited by LGLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
LG, without a doubt everybody who is a participant in this board has at least attempted to have a relationship with God.
But, LG, I also said,
And that, too, is simply a fact. I really would far prefer to live and let live. But look how the thread opened up again. Rather than simply stating his skepticism, within his opening post he said:
etc.
Then, in a subsequent post, he is offended by a respnse where I affirm his disbelief by saying,
when he says,
So I decided to take him up on his offer and tell me what it would take. Since George implied, by his last post, that I didn't know what it would take to convince him, I simply asked him to tell me. So what's the problem?
On edit: corrected a grammatical error.
Edited by markomalleyLink 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.