|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Better to believe what's true than what's false?
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It's a good question - why does God not manifest clearly. My answer is that he does, if you divest yourself of yourself.
I suppose the reply might be that that's unfair - why should people be expected to do that?
Well, you are in the way, obviously.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's a good question - why does God not manifest clearly. My answer is that he does, if you divest yourself of yourself.
I suppose the reply might be that that's unfair - why should people be expected to do that?
Well, you are in the way, obviously.
Yeah. If only God had made us, we would not have these problems...
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's a good question - why does God not manifest clearly. My answer is that he does, if you divest yourself of yourself.
I suppose the reply might be that that's unfair - why should people be expected to do that?
Well, you are in the way, obviously.
Yeah. If only God had made us, we would not have these problems...
--Tom Clune
I don't see that. I have the ability to separate myself off from God, or from others, or from life, and to become a little god to myself. You might say that God would not create someone with that ability, but why not? As the Qu'ran says, there is no compulsion.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's a good question - why does God not manifest clearly. My answer is that he does, if you divest yourself of yourself.
I suppose the reply might be that that's unfair - why should people be expected to do that?
Well, you are in the way, obviously.
My reply isn't that it is unfair; altered states are interesting but this is the ground state for a reason. My reply is that The Christian God isn't the only thing that manifests if I divest myself of myself and open myself to everything. So do a range of other beings up to and including the Flying Spaghetti Monster if that's the direction I'm looking in at the time.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
My experience is that if you keep going, all those beings and phenomena themselves disappear, until you are left with nothing. However, if you then keep going, that nothing changes. However, I don't think there are concepts left now, hence, 'the cloud of unknowing'.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
The world we have is one that is intelligible through careful observation. This is also a world with God. Therefore a world without God can be presumed to be anything other than this,
That's a non-sequiteur. You can not say "Systems like this do this therefore systems without this do that."
Maybe you've misunderstood my argument. I am saying that: "if this world looks like this, then a different world will not look the same". I'm not trying to describe a world without God as I have no idea what such a world could look like, since I have nothing to base such a description on. I don't even think anything could exist without God. If you have a problem with such an argument please explain why. It’s not a non-sequiteur, so there must be another reason why you disagree with it.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Even chaotic systems have rules they follow once you understand them well enough - and apparent chaos takes at least second order interactions
Chaos doesn’t operate according to understandable rules. If it did it wouldn’t be chaos.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
These different assumptions lead to our different conclusions on the same evidence. You see an intelligible world that runs on observable laws and ask where the gaps are that could allow an unintelligible (or magic) god to exist.
No. I ask why unless either God does not exist or God wants to be left alone, God does not manifest clearly. It's about psychology, not physics.
He manifested clearly in the person of Jesus Christ.
Of course that wasn’t good enough for most people. Bit of a poor show. Perhaps you want God to manifest again? Maybe as someone more impressive than a lowly carpenter’s son this time. Perhaps you could describe exactly how God should manifest in such a clear way that would convince everyone and they wouldn’t call it a trick, or a hallucination, or aliens? I expect whatever you suggest still people would say it’s not clear enough. The Israelites saw God manifested pretty clearly as they were led out of Egypt by a pillar of fire and a pillar of cloud. Then by an all-singing, all-dancing mountain of fire and lightning. Yet they still complained that God wasn’t clear enough and quickly made themselves an idol instead. ‘There are none so blind as those who will not see’, after all.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's a good question - why does God not manifest clearly. My answer is that he does, if you divest yourself of yourself.
I suppose the reply might be that that's unfair - why should people be expected to do that?
Well, you are in the way, obviously.
I don't know what it means to divest yourself of yourself. It sounds like gnostic dualism to me.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Maybe you've misunderstood my argument. I am saying that: "if this world looks like this, then a different world will not look the same". I'm not trying to describe a world without God as I have no idea what such a world could look like, since I have nothing to base such a description on. I don't even think anything could exist without God. If you have a problem with such an argument please explain why. It’s not a non-sequiteur, so there must be another reason why you disagree with it.
You don't have any understanding of what such a world would be like. Therefore you describe it as chaotic. Right. One of these things is not like the other one.
quote:
Chaos doesn’t operate according to understandable rules. If it did it wouldn’t be chaos.
Chaotic systems = mathematical chaos. Which looks as if there are no rules but there actually are, albeit ones that are very sensitive to any slight change.
quote:
He manifested clearly in the person of Jesus Christ.
Or in other words he supposedly manifested as a human being roughly 2000 years ago, about whom many tall tales have been told. Everyone who saw him has been dead for over 1500 years and the only records we have of him are several books of mythology (some implausible, others outright rejected even by those who believe in his supposed supernatural nature) and some oral traditions of myths.
quote:
Perhaps you could describe exactly how God should manifest in such a clear way that would convince everyone and they wouldn’t call it a trick, or a hallucination, or aliens? I expect whatever you suggest still people would say it’s not clear enough.
So because some people have higher standards than others God should keep hiding for the past 1900 years.
quote:
The Israelites saw God manifested pretty clearly as they were led out of Egypt by a pillar of fire and a pillar of cloud.
Meanwhile, the Egyptians, who kept superb records by the standards of the time have no record of any such event. And none of the other evidence stacks up. In short that entire story is almost certainly fictional.
So your evidence is that a fictional story that those nearer the time will have had more evidence was fictional didn't convince the Israelites. Right. By only giving them fiction to go on rather than actual events, and fiction that clearly fell apart easily, God was indeed not clear enough. Or possibly God was - and wanted the discerning to realise that they were being fed fiction.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Maybe you've misunderstood my argument. I am saying that: "if this world looks like this, then a different world will not look the same". I'm not trying to describe a world without God as I have no idea what such a world could look like, since I have nothing to base such a description on. I don't even think anything could exist without God. If you have a problem with such an argument please explain why. It’s not a non-sequiteur, so there must be another reason why you disagree with it.
You don't have any understanding of what such a world would be like. Therefore you describe it as chaotic. Right. One of these things is not like the other one.
Ah, I understand why you got confused now. I was saying that this world is intelligible and a different world wouldn't be intelligible, so you assumed that constituted a 'description' of a world. My comment that I couldn’t describe what such an unintelligible world would look like, and I didn’t believe it could exist didn’t clarify my argument for you then?
We’re going round in circles since you seem to be desperate to twist my words into saying something I’m trying not to. It’s not really important anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Chaos doesn’t operate according to understandable rules. If it did it wouldn’t be chaos.
Chaotic systems = mathematical chaos. Which looks as if there are no rules but there actually are, albeit ones that are very sensitive to any slight change.
And again confusion arises from a misunderstanding of language. I'm not referring to mathematical chaos, I'm referring to an absence of order.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
He manifested clearly in the person of Jesus Christ.
Or in other words he supposedly manifested as a human being roughly 2000 years ago, about whom many tall tales have been told. Everyone who saw him has been dead for over 1500 years and the only records we have of him are several books of mythology (some implausible, others outright rejected even by those who believe in his supposed supernatural nature) and some oral traditions of myths.
So you flatly deny the gospel accounts. I think that’s pretty well established. Your loss. I could argue the point but there’s other threads for that. Suffice to say we disagree on the veracity and clearness of the gospel accounts of Jesus.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Perhaps you could describe exactly how God should manifest in such a clear way that would convince everyone and they wouldn’t call it a trick, or a hallucination, or aliens? I expect whatever you suggest still people would say it’s not clear enough.
So because some people have higher standards than others God should keep hiding for the past 1900 years.
God doesn’t hide from those who look for Him.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
The Israelites saw God manifested pretty clearly as they were led out of Egypt by a pillar of fire and a pillar of cloud.
Meanwhile, the Egyptians, who kept superb records by the standards of the time have no record of any such event. And none of the other evidence stacks up. In short that entire story is almost certainly fictional.
So your evidence is that a fictional story that those nearer the time will have had more evidence was fictional didn't convince the Israelites. Right. By only giving them fiction to go on rather than actual events, and fiction that clearly fell apart easily, God was indeed not clear enough. Or possibly God was - and wanted the discerning to realise that they were being fed fiction.
Who said anything about evidence? I was using the story of the Israelites as a parable to show how a group of people to whom God manifests Himself clearly can easily reject Him anyway. If you don’t think the parable is a true reflection of human nature that’s a different matter. I think it’s a pretty accurate portrayal.
Whether it historically occurred or not is unimportant. Though I believe it hasn’t been disproven and possibly did happen broadly the way it is presented in the OT. There’s other threads for that discussion as well though.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Ah, I understand why you got confused now. I was saying that this world is intelligible and a different world wouldn't be intelligible, so you assumed that constituted a 'description' of a world. My comment that I couldn’t describe what such an unintelligible world would look like, and I didn’t believe it could exist didn’t clarify my argument for you then?
It rings completely false for me. The natural state for things not interfered with is entropy. Order. Harmony. Life lives on the edge between order and chaos - but without anything acting things fall into a boring form of order. If this is a universe with an active God then one without a God would by its nature need to be no less sterile and no less ordered than this one.
quote:
And again confusion arises from a misunderstanding of language. I'm not referring to mathematical chaos, I'm referring to an absence of order.
And I'm saying that that's precisely the opposite of what would happen if you took movers out of the universe. I can see the view that you'd end up with sterile balls of rock ever ordering the universe. But the big questions aren't about why the universe heads towards heat death, but what created disorder out of nothing and the problem of abiogenisis - what sparked life.
If God was the bringer of chaos into the universe, that would make sense. Order, not so much.
quote:
So you flatly deny the gospel accounts. I think that’s pretty well established. Your loss. I could argue the point but there’s other threads for that. Suffice to say we disagree on the veracity and clearness of the gospel accounts of Jesus.
I believe that 2000 years ago there was an inspiring and vaguely apocalyptic preacher under the name Jesus of Nazareth, some of the teachings of whom were recorded by the gospel writers. I further believe that some of what the gospel writers wrote was fairly obvious bunk such as the tying the census to Quirinius being governor of Syria - two things that did not happen at the same time. All in a fairly obvious contortion to put in the claim that Jesus of Nazareth was actually born in Bethlehem in accordance with prophecy. Never mind the Herod connection and Herod being dead before Quirinius.
So if that's what you mean, no I don't believe the writers of the gospel were telling the whole truth or nothing but the truth. I believe this is pretty clear from reading the gospel. And if this means I deny the gospel, preferring truth and evidence, then yes I do.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
The Israelites saw God manifested pretty clearly as they were led out of Egypt by a pillar of fire and a pillar of cloud.
...
Who said anything about evidence? I was using the story of the Israelites as a parable to show how a group of people to whom God manifests Himself clearly can easily reject Him anyway.
So now you are saying that the ancient Israelites did not see the column of fire you explicitly claimed they did see the first time round.
Parables aren't evidence except of what people are trying to say. All you can say if you've now redefined a truth claim as a parable was that in some fictional circumstance if the ancient Israelites had seen a column of fire then they would still have behaved as if it hadn't happened.
But your first claim was in no way phrased as a parable. It was phrased as a claim of fact. You outright claimed that "The Israelites saw God manifested pretty clearly as they were led out of Egypt by a pillar of fire and a pillar of cloud." And this is one place where we are having problems. When I pin you down on what you actually said you are claiming that what you meant is something completely different.
quote:
If you don’t think the parable is a true reflection of human nature that’s a different matter. I think it’s a pretty accurate portrayal.
I think it's a pretty accurate portrayal of how some people think humans behave. And the sum total of what it says if it is a parable is that the message it is trying to get across is that people would behave that way if God had ever bothered to manifest rather than not doing so. It's making excuses.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
God wouldn't be God if God could be easily defined in words.
Hmmm,interesting thought. What would it (God) be? If one believes that God, and perhaps this should be limited to the Christian God, made everything and that must presumably include words, why make it so that none of those words can describe itself?
quote:
You never feel obliged to justify your logical positivism.
I would try and do so if I could, but I'm afraid I know my limitations when it comes to the use of the language of Philosophy.
'Obliged' was probably the wrong word in the first place; maybe 'it is incumbent upon' would have been a betterchoice.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
That's because God is seen as transcendent, which by definition, cannot be described. Well, people have stabs at it.
But it's not just true of God - I don't see how experience itself can be described really, except again in an approximate way. But you can never really capture das Ding an sich.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Suffice to say we disagree on the veracity and clearness of the gospel accounts of Jesus.
If something requires the observer to truly believe in it before it becomes clear, it's not really clear at all.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
Hawk, you said:
"God doesn't hide from those who look for him."
This short sentence is huge in meaning and if I could accept it as true, the world would suddenly become a completely different place.
But surely you as well as I know many people who have looked, and looked, and looked in all sincerity, but not found?
God remained hidden to them.
I'm especially interested in nineteenth-century loss of faith right now (as well as conversions from eg Anglicanism to Catholicism). Many of those who suffered doubts went through absolute agonies and positively yearned for God, for the certainty that there was a God, begged God to give them a sign that they could still believe. In losing faith they also lost, in many cases, respect of their peers, possibility of advancement in their chosen career, etc etc. So every incentive to keep on believing. But they couldn't, and God stayed hidden. For all their studying of the Gospels etc, they could not be sure. And of course this happens still today, though with fewer societal problems for the non-believer. People--especially perhaps those brought up in Christianity--yearn to hold on to their childhood faith but they can't. God eludes them.
Was it Pascal who has God saying to the searcher, you wouldn't search for me if you hadn't already found me?
This used to comfort me a lot but now I find myself thinking, well if the searcher is still searching, he doesn't feel he has found God at all! So God is still hiding...
Is it (would you say) that those who look for him very hard and very sincerely and do not find him are blinkered by their own preconceptions? But couldn't God remove those blinkers if he/she/it didn't want to remain hidden?
Of course there still has to be free will...but isn't the Holy Spirit there to guide us into seeking, and finding? Why does it so often not happen?
We aren't listening properly, perhaps?
Especially interesting today are those people brought up in unbelieving households who do go on to find God...
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by SusanDoris:
Hmmm,interesting thought. What would it (God) be? If one believes that God, and perhaps this should be limited to the Christian God, made everything and that must presumably include words, why make it so that none of those words can describe itself?
God didn't create language any more than God created your kitchen table. The Christian doctrine of creation doesn't claim otherwise. God is God. Finite humanity cannot understand an infinite God unless God reveals Godself to humanity. According to Christianity, God revealed Godself through the Incarnation. You may say well if God exists and does such and such then I would believe. I doubt many more would. If they did, I question what good it would do.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
Perhaps it's preconceived ideas of who God is, and a desire to dictate how God will communicate, which might stand in the way of becoming conscious of God. There is no one guaranteed 'technique' that we can learn, nor should there be as God will not be manipulated.
Jesus is the greatest of gifts as God has given us himself in human form, but I wonder how many can see God in the crucified Christ?
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Cara
Your post reminded me of various ideas about searching in Eastern religions, particularly the idea that it is precisely that which is a block.
Of course, one can't just transfer such ideas from one religion to another, but it's still worthwhile to ponder this. I suppose one idea in Buddhism is that the seeker might become very top-heavy with their own importance, and sort of, egocentricity, which is actually inimical to finding.
There is an interesting idea in Zen called the fall - not the same as the Christian one - which means that one abruptly ceases to seek, and then one finds. The ceasing is not really voluntary, it can happen just through tiredness.
But it's also the interesting idea that self is one of the primary obstacles to God, hence self-abandonment can be a path. But how does one abandon self? There is no how!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
quetzalcoatl
this is interesting, that the ego is in the way, and it's when one gives up that one can then find. This giving up and then finding makes sense to me, I've encountered it in the creative life--when you give up on a project and decide you actually can't see any way to do it--a sort of humble acceptance of not having the skill--then sometimes a new idea comes.
Similar perhaps to the idea "let go and let God" ?
I think the concept of the self as an obstacle to finding God is encountered in many Christian mystics too...other Shipmates I'm sure would know exactly which ones.
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
A famous book is 'Abandonment to Divine Providence', by de Caussade, which is also translated, interestingly, as 'The Sacrament of the Present Moment'.
Both these themes are met with right across the mystical literature, inside and outside Christianity. I have sometimes thought that the present moment is a furnace, which burns up all the dross, yet at the same time, to stay there, is difficult, as the mind wanders. Yet sometimes, people just seem to fall into it with no effort, or sometimes just giving up and letting go. As Meister Eckhart says, 'to be empty of things is to be full of God'.
Yet sometimes I think being full of things is also being full of God!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Calleva Atrebatum
Shipmate
# 14058
|
Posted
I've been following the thread with interest, and feel just as insecure and distressed by the lack of ability for humans to find Supreme Truth now as I did at the start.
I hope - I really do hope - that Tillich et. al. are wrong, and that truth is not *only* subjectivity.
I am saddened, also, for how many people (not here in this forum, though) appear to think that Truth or its pursuit don't matter: it's one thing saying 'we can never know Absolute Truth' but a far more distressing thing, to my mind, to think 'meh, it doesn't matter.'
I remembered these words from Mill:
"Few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals, for a promise of the fullest allowance of a beast's pleasures; no intelligent human being would consent to be a fool, no instructed person would be an ignoramus, no person of feeling and conscience would be selfish and base, even though they should be persuaded that the fool, the dunce, or the rascal is better satisfied with his lot than they are with theirs…"
Surely all, or almost all, humans wouldn't exchange a human mind for the physical pleasure of being an animal? Would they?! Would people really want animal pleasure more than Truth? Would people really rather be ignorant of Truth but happy? Seriously? Maybe it's so.
--------------------
Offence is taken, it is not given.
Posts: 159 | From: Kent | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Isn't the distinction between animal pleasure and Truth a false one? I mean, it's too black and white. A lot of people get on with life, and try to find a workable solution to various issues, such as relationships, family, work, and so on.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Calleva Atrebatum
Shipmate
# 14058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Isn't the distinction between animal pleasure and Truth a false one? I mean, it's too black and white. A lot of people get on with life, and try to find a workable solution to various issues, such as relationships, family, work, and so on.
*sigh*, you might be right, quetzalcoatl: but that, to me, is hollow and terrifying and nauseating. I don't want "shades of grey and complexity that kind-of works for family, work etc." I want a theory (a True theory) of All That Is. Sadly, it seems increasingly elusive. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
Offence is taken, it is not given.
Posts: 159 | From: Kent | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
Hawk, you said:
"God doesn't hide from those who look for him."
This short sentence is huge in meaning and if I could accept it as true, the world would suddenly become a completely different place.
But surely you as well as I know many people who have looked, and looked, and looked in all sincerity, but not found?
God remained hidden to them.
An interesting post Cara. I'm not aware personally of anyone who sought and did not find so I can't comment in detail.
We can only speculate about other people's faith journeys (always dangerous to do - even with the benefit of detailed personal accounts we cannot be sure they are accurate, or written consciously or unconsciously to paint themselves in a more positive/definite light).
But in general in response to your comments, I think part of the issue is the definition of 'seeking'. It is true that we cannot know God 'fully' in this life, neither are most people given absolute certainty of God. If that absolute certainty, or complete knowledge and understanding of the divine is someone's goal for this world, then it is a foolish quest and the lack of complete success will indeed lead to despair and the falling away of faith. What we should do is constantly seek to know God better than we do now. To find God is a journey that is never complete before Heaven.
For those you mention who beg God to give them a sign so they can believe, I am struck by the wording of such a request. It is almost as though they want God to force them to believe something. If they want to believe then believe, without sign or surety. To trust God is a choice, an act of will, not something that God can or will force on us.
I do believe that those who genuinely seek God through His son Jesus, are not ignored by God. He responds to them, even if they are wrestling with doubts and fears. Sometimes especially at those moments.
I wish I could offer more words of certainty or comfort myself for such people who still feel God is entirely hidden despite their earnest seeking. But not knowing the struggles of others I cannot comment. All I have is faith in my Saviour (and that is weak and small).
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Calleva Atrebatum:
Would people really rather be ignorant of Truth but happy?
Yes. And why not?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Calleva Atrebatum
Shipmate
# 14058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Calleva Atrebatum:
Would people really rather be ignorant of Truth but happy?
Yes. And why not?
Well, potentially:
1) It's inherent in the concepts of 'true' and 'false' a priori that the true things ought be believed and false things rejected, and how happy this does or doesn't make one is totally irrelevant.
2) False beliefs held with no falsifiability are, at best, a happiness resting on nothing which is unlikely to last any serious testing (e.g. by the appearance of good quality empirical testing) and at worst going to cause harm to self and others (e.g. if I'm made happy by visiting a psychic, or get comfort from a belief that Aids can be treated by eating sweet potato.)
3) Ignorance is a state which, if it could be seen from a state of non-ignorance, no one would ever desire - however blissful the physical pleasures of being ignorant. No one would desire to be a happy pig, if one was a human (even an unhappy human) and the only reason the pig seems to be happier as a pig is because it's never been the human.
4) I'm not sure you could ever be aware of All That Is and be truly unhappy - you'd derive real, palpable intellectual and psychological fulfilment (i.e. happiness, i.e. utility) from the simple fact of knowing Truth As It Is, than you could ever derive from ignorance and all the pleasure seeking it entails.
--------------------
Offence is taken, it is not given.
Posts: 159 | From: Kent | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
christianbuddhist
Apprentice
# 17579
|
Posted
I think to compare religion to (for instance) visiting a psychic is to confuse different language-games. Truth in the first does not equate to truth in the second. It's like asking whether War and Peace is more truthful than the manual for a jug kettle.
Posts: 15 | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Calleva Atrebatum
Shipmate
# 14058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by christianbuddhist:
I think to compare religion to (for instance) visiting a psychic is to confuse different language-games. Truth in the first does not equate to truth in the second. It's like asking whether War and Peace is more truthful than the manual for a jug kettle.
I buy the Language Games notion - and your example - but what I don't buy is that religion and psychic-visiting are different language games: they're both the same, just with different labels and different numbers of adherents. They're both part of the 'metaphysical claims' language game.
--------------------
Offence is taken, it is not given.
Posts: 159 | From: Kent | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think the search for absolute truth has been undermined in the postmodern age. I suppose this applies more to religion than some other systems of thought, although maybe politics still has its utopian strands.
One of the problems with belief in the absolute is that it can lead to totalitarianism, as with communism. I now know the truth, and if you don't agree, than I'm afraid that you will be invited to a re-education camp.
In a curious way, postmodernism has helped religion, since while it has criticized it fiercely as a 'grand narrative' or a form of absolutism, it has also validated it as one amongst many narratives and forms of praxis.
Of course, there is also the point about 'praxis not doxis', which I find very interesting, but perhaps o/t.
But I see postmodernism as permitting me to not know, which I find a relief.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Calleva Atrebatum:
1) It's inherent in the concepts of 'true' and 'false' a priori that the true things ought be believed and false things rejected, and how happy this does or doesn't make one is totally irrelevant.
Any philosophy that says happiness is irrelevant is a pretty poor one in my book.
quote:
2) False beliefs held with no falsifiability are, at best, a happiness resting on nothing which is unlikely to last any serious testing (e.g. by the appearance of good quality empirical testing) and at worst going to cause harm to self and others (e.g. if I'm made happy by visiting a psychic, or get comfort from a belief that Aids can be treated by eating sweet potato.)
Better a happiness resting on nothing than no happiness at all.
quote:
3) Ignorance is a state which, if it could be seen from a state of non-ignorance, no one would ever desire - however blissful the physical pleasures of being ignorant. No one would desire to be a happy pig, if one was a human (even an unhappy human) and the only reason the pig seems to be happier as a pig is because it's never been the human.
I envy many animals their uncomplicated, happy lives. Sometimes I think it would be wonderful if the biggest thing I had to worry about on a daily basis was which part of the pigsty to crap in.
quote:
4) I'm not sure you could ever be aware of All That Is and be truly unhappy - you'd derive real, palpable intellectual and psychological fulfilment (i.e. happiness, i.e. utility) from the simple fact of knowing Truth As It Is, than you could ever derive from ignorance and all the pleasure seeking it entails.
That does rather depend on what form All That Is actually takes. If you knew with absolute certainty that there was no God, no justice, no purpose and no meaning to life would that make you happy? Wouldn't you rather be able to persist in your belief that life has meaning and purpose, and that God is in His Heaven and All Will Be Well, even if that belief was false?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
I think the search for absolute truth has been undermined in the postmodern age. I suppose this applies more to religion than some other systems of thought, although maybe politics still has its utopian strands.
Well, if that is the case, then postmodernism is self-refuting. We can be assured that there is such a thing as objective truth, which cannot be wholly confined to the human or any creaturely mind, because total scepticism is self-refuting (unless we agree that we can never say anything at all to each other). Whenever scepticism is affirmed, there is always a check: we have objectively to affirm the validity of doubt in order to indulge in it. Therefore there is at least one certainty: the certainty that we doubt.
The statement "truth is impossible" is itself a statement of truth (at least in the mind of the person making it). Therefore it is self-refuting. Or the statement "truth is possible, but we can never know what it is" is also self-refuting, because if this statement is affirmed to be true, then we acknowledge that we can know at least one truth, which is the propositional content of that statement. And, of course, we then contradict ourselves, thus revealing that the statement is nonsense, and that truth is not only possible but actual.
You say that the undermining of absolute truth applies more to religion than some other systems of thought. Actually the real casualty is the philosophy of naturalism.
If all human ideation and ratiocination is merely an emergent property of entirely natural processes, then we can have no confidence that it actually reflects objective reality. After all, if we are nothing more than the products of a process of survival, then it follows that all our mental processes have evolved in order to fulfil an entirely utilitarian purpose. Therefore 'truth' becomes entirely pragmatic. We know that lies are useful - otherwise why would anyone believe them or tell them? Therefore utility is not a reliable judge of what is true. Here is a very good explanation.
This is why I find it quite mystifying when those who subscribe to the philosophy of naturalism (most atheists), talk as if they are the true guardians of reason and theists are running away from "the truth" - or, as Dawkins suggests: we should believe what is true irrespective of the bleak and grim implications. He assumes, of course, that his position is objectively true. But I question whether his position can actually sustain even the concept of truth, never mind whether the various details are true.
Truth only makes sense within a supernatural worldview, because reason itself cannot originate within nature. It is therefore 'above' (super) nature, and nature obeys it.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
Hawk, you said:
"God doesn't hide from those who look for him."
This short sentence is huge in meaning and if I could accept it as true, the world would suddenly become a completely different place.
But surely you as well as I know many people who have looked, and looked, and looked in all sincerity, but not found?
God remained hidden to them.
An interesting post Cara. I'm not aware personally of anyone who sought and did not find so I can't comment in detail.
We can only speculate about other people's faith journeys (always dangerous to do - even with the benefit of detailed personal accounts we cannot be sure they are accurate, or written consciously or unconsciously to paint themselves in a more positive/definite light).
But in general in response to your comments, I think part of the issue is the definition of 'seeking'. It is true that we cannot know God 'fully' in this life, neither are most people given absolute certainty of God. If that absolute certainty, or complete knowledge and understanding of the divine is someone's goal for this world, then it is a foolish quest and the lack of complete success will indeed lead to despair and the falling away of faith. What we should do is constantly seek to know God better than we do now. To find God is a journey that is never complete before Heaven.
For those you mention who beg God to give them a sign so they can believe, I am struck by the wording of such a request. It is almost as though they want God to force them to believe something. If they want to believe then believe, without sign or surety. To trust God is a choice, an act of will, not something that God can or will force on us.
I do believe that those who genuinely seek God through His son Jesus, are not ignored by God. He responds to them, even if they are wrestling with doubts and fears. Sometimes especially at those moments.
I wish I could offer more words of certainty or comfort myself for such people who still feel God is entirely hidden despite their earnest seeking. But not knowing the struggles of others I cannot comment. All I have is faith in my Saviour (and that is weak and small).
Interesting, Hawk. You are right of course that we shouldn't speculate on others' faith journeys. But many have said openly they wanted to believe in God, and tried to, and couldn't....
I agree we could never expect to have full knowledge of God in this life...but does God need to remain quite so hidden?!
It's all too human to wish for a sign-- I don't think it's wanting God to force one to believe. It's just wanting something definite to hold on to!
Of course one answer is that Jesus himself was a sign, and his life, and his rising again....and I am sure..I suspect....I think.... there are many other signs we are just blind to.
One wishes for clearer vision!
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Clara
The Jewish idea of tzimtzum is interesting in this regard - the idea that God withdraws, so that created stuff can exist. I think that Simone Weil, among Christian mystics, also expounded on this idea, and talked about the absence of God being a presence for her.
But in tzimtzum, the first act of God is to go into exile, which is rather disturbing maybe.
There is a nice symmetry though - that for God to return, I have to abandon myself.
So there is a mutual negation. Crumbs!
[ 17. October 2013, 16:11: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
He who has not God in himself, cannot feel his absence.
Simone Weil.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
christianbuddhist
Apprentice
# 17579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Calleva Atrebatum:
quote:
Originally posted by christianbuddhist:
I think to compare religion to (for instance) visiting a psychic is to confuse different language-games. Truth in the first does not equate to truth in the second. It's like asking whether War and Peace is more truthful than the manual for a jug kettle.
I buy the Language Games notion - and your example - but what I don't buy is that religion and psychic-visiting are different language games: they're both the same, just with different labels and different numbers of adherents. They're both part of the 'metaphysical claims' language game.
That might be correct in some cases, but is it necessarily true of all who participate in religious activity that they feel they are signing up to a set of metaphysical principles? Nowhere in the Creeds does it say "I believe in a metaphysical sense that..."
Posts: 15 | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
And some people take 'believe' in such a context as 'trust', as in the Greek (pisteuo).
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Calleva Atrebatum:
but what I don't buy is that religion and psychic-visiting are different language games: they're both the same, just with different labels and different numbers of adherents. They're both part of the 'metaphysical claims' language game.
This is part of what I'm on about. Both require a specific act of pure faith. A belief of what cannot be demonstrated beyond an acceptance of an explanation for which there is no demonstrable proof.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think the search for absolute truth has been undermined in the postmodern age.
But what is absolute truth? Christians would say God, but how does one prove this?
The moment one thinks they understand everything is the moment when true knowledge begins to escape them.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
He who has not God in himself, cannot feel his absence.
Simone Weil.
? Does this not fly in the face of most Christian thought? That God is everywhere. IF this is metaphorical, as in the person rejects God, not god rejects the person, is this not a failure in God not the person?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
lilBuddha wrote:
? Does this not fly in the face of most Christian thought? That God is everywhere. IF this is metaphorical, as in the person rejects God, not god rejects the person, is this not a failure in God not the person?
Well, yes, the quote about God's absence was meant as a comment on the previous post, about the Jewish idea of God's withdrawal (tzimtzum).
I think omnipresence has been a tricky idea in Christianity, since if God is everywhere, why do people not experience this? Hence the topic of divine hiddenness.
But Simone Weil took the absence of God as one of her major themes, but I don't know if she was influenced by Judaism. But she developed it in an idiosyncratic and paradoxical way - that the absence of God is the key manner of his self-presentation, as seen in the cry of Jesus on the cross, a cry of dereliction.
I suppose atheists might argue that she is merely rationalizing the actual absence of God, but her thinking and writing are very subtle, and also, difficult. For example, she writes that evil shows the mercy of God! I think she means that it's evil that compels us to seek God. This is certainly an interesting theodicy, rather similar to Buddhist ideas. But it also connects with common ideas about the brokenness and failure of Jesus.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tea
Shipmate
# 16619
|
Posted
EtymologicalEvangelical:
I think I'm right in saying that you believe:
1) Naturalism entails eliminative physicalism/materialism.
2) Eliminative materialists claim their beliefs are true.
3) Eliminative materialism does not allow for the existence of beliefs or the use of the predicate "...is true."
4) Eliminative materialism is therefore false because it is pragmatically self-refuting.
5) Naturalism is therefore false.
I wonder if this argument's second premise misrepresents the eliminative materialist.
In this connection, you might like to read ueber-eliminativist Alex Rosenberg's response to this kind of argument here. The whole exchange is worth reading; look, in particular, at Rosenberg's December 8, 2009 at 1:52 pm comment on the self-refutation argument.
Although I have some sympathy for the points he makes in rebuttal to the self-refutation argument, I think Rosenberg's overall stance is mistaken. I don't think the physicalist need be committed to the belief that all scientific knowledge can be reduced to physics; in other words, I don't accept the first premise of the argument I sketched out and attributed to you - I hope correctly! - above.
Posts: 66 | From: USA | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
I have several books by Simone Weil....I guess I should read them properly instead of just dipping in as heretofore. Got the impression she--and her thought--was fascinating, but difficult and austere.
Yes, if God is everywhere, why do people not experience this?
I suppose over the history of humankind there has always been an awareness of the divine everywhere, as manifested in all the beliefs about god or gods all around us held by all peoples...
in fact for me, this powerful human sense of the divine is one of the things that lead me to feel there must be Something. SusanDoris and other atheists explain this, I believe, as being the attempts of "primitive' people to explain natural phenomena they didn't understand. And that what seems to be an instinct to prayer and worship is just a way of placating the gods and buying their favour.....I don't know.
Seems to me there is the famous God-shaped hole in human beings, a yearning for something More and Beyond that can't be explained away in purely evolutionary terms--the impulse to religion may have benefitted the human species evolutionarily, but is that really enough to have made it such a drive and desire all through human history? Could it be rather that people have been responding to somethng? To Something?
But Calleva, how in this life we could ever be sure that we know The Truth of All that is, I can't imagine.
It's so hard to know the truth about anything let alone about things in the supernatural realm!
So there are different solutions--like quetzalcoatl, find it a relief to accept that--postmoderns as we are--we can't ever know. And needn't strive for certainty.
Or like others, join a church that "Knows"--Roman Catholic, or Orthodox-and just rest in the knowledge that the church knows, and we can just accept that as the best possible and truest level of knowledge we can get, for now.
[ 18. October 2013, 07:37: Message edited by: Cara ]
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
You can also do both - that is, join a church, while at the same time, expressing one's skepticism about knowledge. You will probably find that half the vicars and priests agree with you!
Weil certainly took the absence of God very seriously, and in a way, took atheism seriously. Somewhere, she describes it as a purification of religion.
Her idea of double negation is expressed beautifully by her friend Gustave Thibon:
"God consented through love to cease to be everything, so that we might be something; we must consent through love to cease to be anything, so that God may become everything again".
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I forgot to say that this can be related to the notion of the ego - thus, where ego is, God cannot be. God withdraws, and ego is; but if ego is abandoned, through some means or other, God may return.
But of course ego is a monstrous god in itself, which resents any attempt to shrink it. It will fight and fight to keep its territory. I alone am.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
As always, I do like reading your posts, and have spent quite a bit of time today thinking of, writing - and deleting! - various responses. Thank you.
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
Yes, if God is everywhere, why do people not experience this?
That word 'if' is the tricky one here, isn't it? For me, it's straightforward -not only isn't he anywhere, but just isn't in the first place.
quote:
I suppose over the history of humankind there has always been an awareness of the divine everywhere, as manifested in all the beliefs about god or gods all around us held by all peoples...
Humans evolved to be aware, but the idea of gods was a human idea. The vocablary just grew!
quote:
SusanDoris and other atheists explain this, I believe, as being the attempts of "primitive' people to explain natural phenomena they didn't understand. And that what seems to be an instinct to prayer and worship is just a way of placating the gods and buying their favour.....I don't know.
Whatever the exact origins of god-beliefs, humans continued to do what they evolved to do: to ask questions and find out answers, a successful, survival strategy which drove them to learn and record information. They added this as best they could to the store of knowledge acquired so far and have now reduced the need for a god to have been behind any of it to a minimum (or zero from an atheist's point of view). so that God has now to be described as being 'beyond space and time', 'beyond human understanding, in another dimension' etc. People had to think of a god before they could think of god-shaped space
, quote:
Calleva, how in this life we could ever be sure that we know The Truth of All that is, I can't imagine.
Agree; that will never happen! But because we have evolved to keep looking for things that are true - and can be proved to be true - this will help us to stay ahead of extinction!
Also, we don't know remains a very good answer, and much better than a humanly imagined wrongness. I think too that knowing things are untrue, false, myth, superstition, etc advances our understanding and appreciation of the creative capacities *of humans.
*And I'm going to add 'spiritual aspects' to that. I think the word 'spiritual' is far too often strongly linked with religious belief.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Calleva Atrebatum
Shipmate
# 14058
|
Posted
Below my thoughts, Marvin:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Any philosophy that says happiness is irrelevant is a pretty poor one in my book.
I didn't say happiness was irrelevant, just that it isn't the most important thing. What price happiness? I would say that the price of persisting in a delusion is too high a price - and in that case, better not happy and right than happy but wrong. Actually, what I'm really saying is that there *is* a type of happiness in believing what's right, a more lasting, pure and fecund happiness than the kind in believing a lie.
quote:
I envy many animals their uncomplicated, happy lives. Sometimes I think it would be wonderful if the biggest thing I had to worry about on a daily basis was which part of the pigsty to crap in.
I'm not convinced you really believe this: knowing what you know now, as a human, you'd give up: the chance to fall in love, read a novel, watch a film, travel, go on this forum etc. etc. and all the other many things you might derive complex utility from (even though, as a human, you also have to suffer pains) in exchange for being a pig, even if you were the happiest a pig could possibly be?
quote:
That does rather depend on what form All That Is actually takes. If you knew with absolute certainty that there was no God, no justice, no purpose and no meaning to life would that make you happy?
Yes - to a degree at least. I'd be happier knowing that was the case, than I'd be in believing a lie.
--------------------
Offence is taken, it is not given.
Posts: 159 | From: Kent | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
Yes, if God is everywhere, why do people not experience this?
Well I've one answer to this paradox. Faulty premise.
quote:
I suppose over the history of humankind there has always been an awareness of the divine everywhere, as manifested in all the beliefs about god or gods all around us held by all peoples...
And this really isn't my understanding given that the early Christians were called Atheists because they rejected the multitude of Gods that everyone else had. If the idea of Gods is common almost everywhere, the idea of a monotheistic God, singular, is incredibly rare. It was basically the Zororastrians, the Jews, offshoots of the Jews and, now I come to think of it, Akhenaten (who went over like a lead balloon). And one of the fundamental features of monotheism involves an outright rejection of Gods - atheists reject only one god more than monotheists do. (Of course that's an important God, but monotheists reject all the rest of them).
quote:
It's so hard to know the truth about anything let alone about things in the supernatural realm!
That's because every time we know anything about anything it suddenly and mysteriously becomes ... not supernatural. The difference between "The Supernatural Realm" and "The God of the Gaps" is pretty tiny.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
It's so hard to know the truth about anything let alone about things in the supernatural realm!
So there are different solutions--like quetzalcoatl, find it a relief to accept that--postmoderns as we are--we can't ever know. And needn't strive for certainty.
Or like others, join a church that "Knows"--Roman Catholic, or Orthodox-and just rest in the knowledge that the church knows, and we can just accept that as the best possible and truest level of knowledge we can get, for now.
Not so much solutions, perhaps, but strategies for walking the line of unknowing, each with its plus and minus aspects.
We need not strive for certainty, but we do have a thirst to know for sure, which motivates us to continue to search rather than rest on our laurels, and to challenge church 'certainties' so that they continue to blossom and bear fruit.
As God is everywhere, there is no single place or situation where God will be found. This is another manifestation of God which demonstrates the futility of our attempts to confine him, manipulate him, or reduce him to our imaginations.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
