|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Religious Experience
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
I have long held that those of us in the "" have long dismissed common spiritual experiences because if we cannot measure it (see it, taste it, touch it) it did not happen.
However, I have had many people who have worked in pre scientific cultures tell me there are many other phenomena that just cannot be explained rationally.
The challenge for us to to be open to other experiences that are more than 3 dimensional.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm both puzzled and intrigued by the statement that "some atheists are working on ways to acknowledge a spiritual dimension of life". How is even the possibility of there being a spiritual dimension compatible with being a convinced atheist? To me, it would seem a fairly fundamental tenet of convinced atheism that there is no such thing as a spiritual dimension.
Eeek! That is only if you believe that a ‘spiritual dimension’ must include a belief in God or god/s. Every single human being is born with a unique set of genes which results in a unique set of characteristics , however similar are people who could be more or less grouped together. Every one of them responds to and has an appreciation of some aspect of the Arts. They respond to rhythm, to bird song, the human voice singing, aspects of Nature, to sunshine or gloom, to calm or angry words – in other words everyone has an aesthetic sense, an aesthetic dimension, to their lives. If that does not come under the heading of having a spiritual aspect or dimension to life, then , well, I won’t eat my hat, it’s a bit too woolly, but I shall be astounded! There has, in my opinion, been far too much of a tendency for religious believers to assume that the word spiritual applies only to them. quote:
Susan Doris, you may be the only person who regularly posts on the threads who has the factual knowledge of atheism …
It is a bit tricky to have a factual knowledge of atheism since it is a lack of something, i.e. a lack of belief in any God/god/s. The atheists I know and whose posts I read on a couple of forums are all clear that one actual fact about any God/god would change the world, since then there would be no need for faith alone. I wwish I had read more about the Greek philosophers who were atheists. quote:
…to be able [to answer] that question. Can you help? Is that position an incompatible one, or is there some more nuanced explanation?
I don’t think there needs to be a nuanced explanation … I'll have to have a think about that. I wonder if there is anywhere a ‘History of the World from the point of view of Atheists’?! I would love to read such a book. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
from googling: spiritual dimension: its importance to patients' health, well-being and quality of life and its implications for nursing practice. ... The spiritual dimension is described and is interpreted as the need for: meaning, purpose and fulfillment in life; hope/will to live; belief and faith.
I accept that faith is ‘needed’ in life, but there are far and away enough real,verifiable things to have faith in without the need to have faith in one more which does not have the verification.
--------------------
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
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I have long held that those of us in the "" have long dismissed common spiritual experiences because if we cannot measure it (see it, taste it, touch it) it did not happen.
However, I have had many people who have worked in pre scientific cultures tell me there are many other phenomena that just cannot be explained rationally.
The challenge for us to to be open to other experiences that are more than 3 dimensional.
'other phenomena that just cannot be explained rationally.' The vital word missing there is, I suggest, the word 'yet'.
[ 24. October 2016, 18:06: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I assume you mean you don't understand what I mean when I refer to the Holy Communion as a religious experience. It's quite obvious it's an experience, according to any conceivable definition of "experience."
According to the teaching of my church, it's an encounter with the actual body and blood of Christ. Which would seem to qualify it as a religious experience, if true. YMMV.
Hi Mousethief - thanks for your answer. Have been out - only just seen this. One question - whilst this may be what your church teaches presumable something inside affirms that there is substance to this claim. Or perhaps not even that happens or is important for you.
[ 24. October 2016, 18:15: Message edited by: Luigi ]
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
But Susan Doris, what does 'spiritual dimension' mean when there is only what can be touched, seen etc and be made amenable to scientific examination and experiment? And what does 'spiritual' itself mean, if there is nothing 'out there'?
Yes, I accept that 'aesthetic' is a bit woolly and difficult to get a grip on, but is that what 'spiritual' means? Is being aware of 'aesthetics' being spiritual? Are they anything much to do with each other?
If - which I recognise you may not agree - there are body, mind, soul and spirit, my suspicion is that aesthetics, music etc are more to do with soul than spirit. But either way, if one is a committed atheist, how does one deal with these difficult and inexplicable matters? Can one do anything more than say that there are things we haven't manage to discipline into science's grasp yet.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I have long held that those of us in the "" have long dismissed common spiritual experiences because if we cannot measure it (see it, taste it, touch it) it did not happen.
However, I have had many people who have worked in pre scientific cultures tell me there are many other phenomena that just cannot be explained rationally.
The challenge for us to to be open to other experiences that are more than 3 dimensional.
I grew up on such tales, truly terrifying stuff at the time and that cast a lengthening shadow. A primary school teacher telling us about the death shout. My maternal grandmother could make my blood run cold while I studied biological sciences. When an Aussie friend told me "Don't point the bone.". Which works of course. And you can be as unspookable as Dawkins with his unusually unpolarised frontal lobes but I defy you to read M. R. James in an empty house. John Simpson the great journalist relates an utterly spine tingling echo of A Warning To The Curious. Then there's Kate Adie's eye witness account of a blood shouter in her ancestral Sweden.
Like all claims, no matter how utterly sincere, I wasn't there.
Apart from where I was ... that I'm not claiming.
And my spine is tingling as I write. And I don't believe a word of it. Apart from the bone pointing ... and a healthy Japanese POW dying of shame in days which presages the fictional demise of the Reverend Colley in Golding's first volume of To the Ends of the Earth; Rights of Passage.
Our minds are phenomenal.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GeorgeNZ
Apprentice
# 18672
|
Posted
Are people here saying that once God the Son ascended humanity will not or should not expect to have a direct interaction with God. One where we don't just feel, but know we have been touched by other, the One who is Love?
Is it not something to be desired, even if not expected? Why would it be wrong to desire such a thing. The Spirit who dwells within me, communicating with my spirit in a tangible and real way. I tend to think the only barriers to such a thing happening would be ones erected by myself.
Posts: 40 | From: A land so far away | Registered: Sep 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
However, I can't get away from the idea that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is the defining feature of the New Covenant, and that the whole essence of this New Covenant revolves around a relationship with God rather than mechanistic obedience to a rule.
That relationship* may well not revolve around the sort of thing we mostly seem to mean by "religious experience", but I think it does involve a subjective sense of "knowing" that goes beyond logic and reasoning alone.
I hope this subjective "knowing" and "mechanistic obedience" aren't the only two choices on offer. I don't profess either but still consider myself a Christian. Perhaps I'm wrong about that.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
What is important for a Christian, in my view, is that belief in the Holy Spirit should make sense and, ultimately, have its root in some experiential knowledge on the part of the believer.
Okay, well, it seems I'm wrong.
According to whom? I quite clearly emphasised that this was my take and (in the part you opted not to quote) that others' mileage may vary.
If you want to argue for a different position, though, it would be polite to give your reasons.
Where in the above am I arguing for a different position? The only statement of putative fact I make is that I consider myself a Christian. I suppose given your take on what makes a Christian, that is something I would have to defend, since I don't meet your criteria. My other statements are a hope ("I hope that's not all there is on offer") and a recognition that I don't clear your hurdle ("It seems I'm wrong.")
quote:
For my part, my objective reasons for seeing things this way revolve around the terms in which God promises the New Covenant in Jeremiah, i.e. in terms of the coming of the Spirit into our hearts, an idea I also find paralleled in the Gospels and the epistles. What's your take?
So you feel if the Spirit comes into our hearts, it must do so in a splashy way that we recognize as some kind of epiphanic moment? Otherwise He's not there at all? Is that what you're saying?
Your "take" seems to be putting a lot of stress on a single prophetic statement, as interpreted in your special way. My question is just, why should I doubt my salvation based upon your take? What's so special about your take?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Hi Mousethief - thanks for your answer. Have been out - only just seen this. One question - whilst this may be what your church teaches presumable something inside affirms that there is substance to this claim. Or perhaps not even that happens or is important for you.
No prob. I have an emotional reaction to the Eucharist and most especially to confession (this is nearly universal among my Ortho acquaintances), but I'm not sure I'd describe either of these as "religious experiences" in the sense defined above by somebody. When I was an evangelical I sometimes thought of my emotional responses as religious experiences. I think that was a dangerous mistake.
I do not doubt that there are people who have numinous experiences or encounters with God. In Orthodoxy they tend to be people who have spent a lot of time (like, years and years) in prayer and meditation and sacrament. Monks and nuns, mainly, because who else has the time for that? But doubtless such moments are also given to plain old everyday Christians as some have recounted here. I do not know why I am not one of them. Maybe God keeps trying to ping me and I'm not recognizing it.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GeorgeNZ:
Are people here saying that once God the Son ascended humanity will not or should not expect to have a direct interaction with God. One where we don't just feel, but know we have been touched by other, the One who is Love?
Is it not something to be desired, even if not expected? Why would it be wrong to desire such a thing. The Spirit who dwells within me, communicating with my spirit in a tangible and real way. I tend to think the only barriers to such a thing happening would be ones erected by myself.
If this is in part addressed to me, here is my answer. I do not thing this kind of thing no longer happens. I do not think it's a bad thing (although it can easily be misinterpreted and misused). I have only said here that it doesn't happen to me, as near as I can tell.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GeorgeNZ
Apprentice
# 18672
|
Posted
Hi MT, I wasn't thinking of anyone in particular or part just casting a wide net. It seems to me the terminology of 'Religious Experience' does not help, as it makes something that I believe should be intimate sound like a Benny Hinn crusade.
I understand there is a long history within Orthodoxy of such contact and many warnings about splashing it about. I am drawn to the idea of a heart to heart communion and would hate to give up the desire/thought that this is not for today.
Posts: 40 | From: A land so far away | Registered: Sep 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So you feel if the Spirit comes into our hearts, it must do so in a splashy way that we recognize as some kind of epiphanic moment?
I said here that quote:
That relationship* may well not revolve around the sort of thing we mostly seem to mean by "religious experience", but I think it does involve a subjective sense of "knowing" that goes beyond logic and reasoning alone.
Which I think answers that well enough.
quote:
Your "take" seems to be putting a lot of stress on a single prophetic statement, as interpreted in your special way.
The idea of the New Covenant being characterised by the presence of the Spirit is hardly "my special way" or based on a single prophetic declaration: it runs right through the New Testament. If you have a different characterisation, I'm genuinely curious to hear it. quote:
My question is just, why should I doubt my salvation based upon your take? What's so special about your take?
It's very hard not to think you're simply spoiling for a fight here.
I said my take was my take, and didn't seek to impose it on anybody. I explicitly stated that "others' mileage may vary", and you have ignored this qualification entirely.
I'm not setting up a standard I think you ought to fulfil; you, meanwhile, seem intent on trashing my view without providing any explanation of yours.
If you think my assertion that being a Christian includes some sort of experiential aspect [NB: not necessarily your idea of some spectacular epiphany, as I have made plain myself from the outset] is wrong, then why not put forward your own view instead of getting all defensive?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
But Susan Doris, what does 'spiritual dimension' mean when there is only what can be touched, seen etc and be made amenable to scientific examination and experiment? And what does 'spiritual' itself mean, if there is nothing 'out there'?
Thank you for interesting questions. The word ‘spirit’ comes from a Latin word meaning ‘breath’, and the etymology seems to trace it back further to a proto-indo-european word. Wikipedia seems to have a neat basic explanation but language itself and the variety of different languages spoken will be a very, very long-term study. However, one link I clicked on – and did not spend time on! – has this: quote:
The following paper examines the true origin of speech and language, and the anatomical and physiological requirements. The evidence conclusively implies that humans were created with the unique ability to employ speech for communication.
since the word ‘created’ nullified the rest as far as I’m concerned. It seems logical to me that as soon as humans started to communicate using the mutated/evolved ability to speak, sounds were allocated to things, so that would be naming them, wouldn’t it. Rapidly expanding use of words and discussion of feelings would quickly result in names being given to different aspects of themselves. Doing this did not mean that the aspects* named ‘soul’ or ‘spirit’ were somehow separable from the totally integrated, totally physical, functioning body. It’s imagination that must have enabled those long-ago humans to think of soul and spirit as separate items. quote:
Yes, I accept that 'aesthetic' is a bit woolly** and difficult to get a grip on, but is that what 'spiritual' means? Is being aware of 'aesthetics' being spiritual? Are they anything much to do with each other?
I suppose it would be incorrect to say that all aesthetic appreciation is spiritual, or that all feelings labelled spiritual are aesthetically pleasing or not, but there is a great deal of overlapI think.
I love to listen to Poulenc’s Stabat Mater and Gloria, where some of the music is, for me, very spiritually uplifting. I would certainly argue strongly with anyone who feels that the word spiritual can only apply to those who believe in the idea of God/god/s. quote:
If - which I recognise you may not agree - there are body, mind, soul and spirit, my suspicion is that aesthetics, music etc are more to do with soul than spirit.
Mind, body, soul and spirit are lables which enable us to consider and discuss human aspects, but all are totally integrated and totally reliant upon us physical humans. We, said physical humans, are lucky enough to be part of an unbroken line of evolution without becoming extinct along the way!
quote:
But either way, if one is a committed atheist, how does one deal with these difficult and inexplicable matters? Can one do anything more than say that there are things we haven't manage to discipline into science's grasp yet.
I am completely comfortable, as are many atheists I know, in the knowledge that there are things not explained yet, that there are some which will probably never be definitely proved, but whatever they are, none of them needs a God or any other conjecture to be put in place as a solution. I quibble with the word ‘committed’. I am an atheist because there is nothing in the universe that is not entirely natural and although to be absolutely precise, an atheist must allow for the possibility that one day a fact might emerge about a God or something supernatural, at which point the world changes, but in my remaining years I think it is most unlikely that that will happen. When I finally erased the small spot in my brain which persisted in thinking there ‘must be a power/force somewhere’, I felt as if I had been a sort of jigsaw with all the pieces delineated and one minute piece missing. On realising that of course there isn’t a God, that tiny piece fell into place and all the pieces smoothed into one.
*I see no reason why the word ‘aspects’ should not be interchangeable with the word ‘dimension’.
**No, it was my hat that is too woolly to eat, as in ‘I’ll eat my hat’ !!
--------------------
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
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
I am wondering how to tackle this when I have come to a conclusion I may post in a very different way.
Firstly the sociologist tends to associate religious experience with an experience of transcendence.That is the sense of being at one with something larger and yes that can be a football account.
Secondly, I am increasingly aware of the power of the story we tell ourselves about who we are. Religious narratives and ceremonies are powerful tools to sustain, change and permit rethink our own narratives. This process of engagement is capable of making a religious experience.
Thirdly, there are those that escape the domain of rational. The scientific mindset is blind to them in my experience. I speak as someone who was raised to believe these do not exist (yes by Christian parents) but have experienced enough to simply not be able to sustain this view. These are difficult. I am rather agnostic as to their cause but I know that people incorporate these into the religious narratives.
Fourthly, I am not sure that there is a clear divide between the religious experience and the way we relate to other people. This goes back to questions of identity and ethics but is wider.
When combined they make a powerful domain of experience.
I should add that the broad domain of eclectic religious experience, magical thinking and superstition shows no sign of decreasing in line with affiliation to formal religious institution.
Jengie
[ 25. October 2016, 09:22: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
I forgot the numinous, see what I mean by work in progress.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
..."All statements about God are reducible WITHOUT REMAINDER (my caps) to statements about man".
Again it's a useful rule, like yours, but taken too far. Because of course the same is true of all experiences, like relationships, appreciating the beauty of nature etc. These are, of course, mediated by hormones, but also have external referents.
Can you think of anything which could come under the heading of religious experiences that is not reducible to 'statements about Man', or which have been 'taken too far'?
All statements about ANYTHING are reducible without remainder to statements about human beings. This includes physics, math, love, ocean pollution, the mess my dog made this morning...
This is true because all our knowledge is mediated through the senses (all eight or nine of them, however you count them). All of our experiences involve the senses in some way, even if it is only via memory and analogy (for example, our experiences in dreams).
And therefore if we choose, we can dismiss anything, anything at all, as merely a statement about ourselves and our own perceptions.
The fact that we can do that suggests that either we should just give up on having any meaningful discussion whatsoever about whatsoanything, or we should rule the "it's just you, silly" argument out of court.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
[/QB][/QUOTE]
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Firstly the sociologist tends to associate religious experience with an experience of transcendence.That is the sense of being at one with something larger and yes that can be a football account.
Transcendence is one of those words whose definition is somewhat elusive I find. As you say, it is a sense, a feeling, therefore it is the brain which is doing the sensing. If I have feelings which I could describe as transcendent, I know they are entirely from my brain and need no imagined non-natural source. From my point of view, this does not lessen the feeling - I hope it makes me appreciate and give all the credit to my being a member of the evolved human species. Whether the sensation is enhanced by thinking it includes some non-human spirit, or by being fuly aware of its stimulus, and origin in the human brain is subjective, isn’t it, and the experience is just as likely to be equal in value. quote:
Thirdly, there are those thatescape the domain of rational.
Could you give an example?
I can’t think of one at the moment. quote:
The scientific mindset is blind to them in my experience.
I think that is rather too vague a claim – you couldn’t say that of, for instance, Richard Feynmann, could you.
I apologise for using the word vague, as I see you too are having a good think!
[ 25. October 2016, 13:52: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
--------------------
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
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Oh dear, apologies for messing up the quote and qb tags.
--------------------
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
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The fact that we can do that suggests that either we should just give up on having any meaningful discussion whatsoever about whatsoanything, or we should rule the "it's just you, silly" argument out of court.
I don't see why it should be so 'either/or'. I prefer 'I simply don't know'.
I can still enjoy the feelings and be thankful for them.
I find it impossible to be like Susan Doris and declare 'there is no God' it's all me'. But I think God is so elusive s/he may as we'll be out of the picture.
[ 25. October 2016, 14:15: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I find it impossible to be like Susan Doris and declare 'there is no God' it's all me'. But I think God is so elusive s/he may as well be out of the picture.
To say, 'It's all me,' would be too self-centred and selfish, but that's not me!!! It is all of us humans. I do have an in-built, comfortable self-confidence though
--------------------
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
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I find it impossible to be like Susan Doris and declare 'there is no God' it's all me'. But I think God is so elusive s/he may as well be out of the picture.
To say, 'It's all me,' would be too self-centred and selfish, but that's not me!!! It is all of us humans. I do have an in-built, comfortable self-confidence though
Sorry, I put that badly and should have said 'it's all natural/human'
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The fact that we can do that suggests that either we should just give up on having any meaningful discussion whatsoever about whatsoanything, or we should rule the "it's just you, silly" argument out of court.
I don't see why it should be so 'either/or'. I prefer 'I simply don't know'.
I can still enjoy the feelings and be thankful for them.
I find it impossible to be like Susan Doris and declare 'there is no God' it's all me'. But I think God is so elusive s/he may as we'll be out of the picture.
Well, that works if you're not trying to figure out the whats and wherefores of these feelings. I took the OPer to be interested in more than just "this is cool."
And "there is no God it's all me" or "all human" is as much a faith position as the opposite.
LC/Slightly cranky right now as it's been a desert in terms of "religious experience" here for several months. Normal, I know, but grrrrr.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
When you think about it everything is natural - even plastic and iPads nothing can be conjured out of thin air.
Which reminds me of 'Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.'
Our feelings depend entirely on our bodies. Terry Pratchett has a clever take on waking up dead with no glands/hormones/nervous system/etc to get in the way of rational thought ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I believe in God but not in the supernatural - is that possible? Yes, because God is in and through all things, not a separate being. Without God there would be nothing. S/he holds the whole caboodle together. Imo.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif) LC
Boogie, again both/and applies. God is both immanent and transcendent. Anything less limits God to our human capacity to imagine.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Boogie, again both/and applies. God is both immanent and transcendent. Anything less limits God to our human capacity to imagine.
doesn't the fact that you can say that God is 'imminent' and 'transcendent' show that you are using your imagination to say so? God is limited to our imagination.
Hmmm, that' is not well put, I'm afraid.
[ 25. October 2016, 16:29: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Examples of things that do not fit neatly in the rational:
- spontaneous healings - no not miracles but people who get well when medical knowledge says they should not. It's more common than people think and one of the reasons why I want to know more before I claim a miracle.
- various reports in ethnographic diaries which are distinctly odd and excluded from official reports because of this e.g. lights happening, spirits becoming visible etc. There really seems to be a state where if you seek to be as close as possible to societies which do not rely on our model of rationality you start to experience things that do not fit our rationality.
For a personal one the silent conversation. I spent a lot of time with a friend. One day we went for a walk. As you do we started a conversation and then because we were good friends we walked in silence. Spontaneously we started talking again. Although we had not shared a word for at least fifteen minutes it is quite clear that our brains had run on such similar lines that we picked up the conversation as if we had been talking the whole time.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GeorgeNZ:
Are people here saying that once God the Son ascended humanity will not or should not expect to have a direct interaction with God. One where we don't just feel, but know we have been touched by other, the One who is Love?
Both. Will not and should not. Not while we're still dependent on oxygen. We can know it and feel it all we like. But they aren't facts. We should certainly be grateful for that provision in our human repertoire. But it isn't God twiddling our dials. It's the realisation of Him. It's nothing that SCIS rapist murderers don't experience.
quote:
Is it not something to be desired, even if not expected?
As above.
quote:
Why would it be wrong to desire such a thing.
Nope. It's right and proper. It just won't happen and if it does it's us.
quote:
The Spirit who dwells within me, communicating with my spirit in a tangible and real way.
I don't see that as Biblically normative apart from dreams, visions, hearings which are no longer normative. Being enabled, encouraged, comforted, advocated, taught, guided, having Jesus revealed (YES!), convicted, regenerated in heart, sustained is normative, orthodox now as then.
quote:
I tend to think the only barriers to such a thing happening would be ones erected by myself.
It's not you.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Boogie, again both/and applies. God is both immanent and transcendent. Anything less limits God to our human capacity to imagine.
doesn't the fact that you can say that God is 'imminent' and 'transcendent' show that you are using your imagination to say so? God is limited to our imagination.
Hmmm, that' is not well put, I'm afraid.
No, as it is beyond our imagination that God may be both immanent and transcendent at the same time, which is why so few people may accept as much as the possibility that it is the truth. And yet it is, by observation. It also fits with the one God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And the Trinity is truly mind- blowing, if we try to use our imaginations.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Reality, existence is mind blowing, absurd, unbelievable, whether God (ontologically) is or not. Either stuff is eternally, meaninglessly self caused or pre-eternal, trans-infinite God is. That breaks Occam's Razor big time at least once, but the Spirit keeps revealing Jesus to me.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
No, as it is beyond our imagination that God may be both immanent and transcendent at the same time, which is why so few people may accept as much as the possibility that it is the truth. And yet it is, by observation. It also fits with the one God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And the Trinity is truly mind- blowing, if we try to use our imaginations.
One of the unique things about being human is having an imagination - yet we can't use it to think about God? odd.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
No, as it is beyond our imagination that God may be both immanent and transcendent at the same time, which is why so few people may accept as much as the possibility that it is the truth. And yet it is, by observation. It also fits with the one God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And the Trinity is truly mind- blowing, if we try to use our imaginations.
One of the unique things about being human is having an imagination - yet we can't use it to think about God? odd.
We will think and use our imaginations, Boogie, but God will always be greater than we can ever imagine.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
GeorgeNZ
Apprentice
# 18672
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Reality, existence is mind blowing, absurd, unbelievable, whether God (ontologically) is or not. Either stuff is eternally, meaninglessly self caused or pre-eternal, trans-infinite God is. That breaks Occam's Razor big time at least once, but the Spirit keeps revealing Jesus to me.
Martin how does God the Spirit reveal God the Son to you if you can't experience God. If you know it is God then isn't that a direct experience of God in your life, an experience that would be different to my experience.
Jesus, God incarnate, ate drank walked debated with people . . . . . and then just buggers off and leaves us in a vacuum. I just don't get that.
Posts: 40 | From: A land so far away | Registered: Sep 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GeorgeNZ:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Reality, existence is mind blowing, absurd, unbelievable, whether God (ontologically) is or not. Either stuff is eternally, meaninglessly self caused or pre-eternal, trans-infinite God is. That breaks Occam's Razor big time at least once, but the Spirit keeps revealing Jesus to me.
Martin how does God the Spirit reveal God the Son to you if you can't experience God. If you know it is God then isn't that a direct experience of God in your life, an experience that would be different to my experience.
George, I experience the effect. One of the orthodox characteristics of the Spirit is that It reveals Jesus,
John 16:14 He will glorify me, because he will receive from me what is mine and will tell it to you.
2 Cor 1:21 But it is God who establishes us together with you in Christ and who anointed us, 22 who also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a down payment.
I can't not accept Christ. In fact I accept Him first and all else follows.
I'm sure there's a perfectly good, even better, purely material psychological narrative, I'd love to hear it, it can't cast a shadow of doubt.
I've been given this faith - or made it up - and it suits me.
quote:
Jesus, God incarnate, ate drank walked debated with people . . . . . and then just buggers off and leaves us in a vacuum. I just don't get that.
It was enough. He did enough. Over to us. In the Spirit. With Its provisions. The orthodox, normative ones I keep listing, which again I could be making up. I don't care. I've taken Pascal's wager. It suits me. So I now have to be incarnational. Which DOESN'T! God and His sense of humour eh? You're not alone. You have ME! Lucky you eh?
[ 25. October 2016, 23:09: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GeorgeNZ
Apprentice
# 18672
|
Posted
Well Martin I might not always get what your on about but yes I am lucky to have you. I can deal with having 'no idea' when I know I am not alone.
Answers disturb me more often than not; I am happier with questions which often leaves me out of step with people who think they have it together.
Posts: 40 | From: A land so far away | Registered: Sep 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The idea of the New Covenant being characterised by the presence of the Spirit is hardly "my special way" or based on a single prophetic declaration: it runs right through the New Testament.
Either you are moving the goalposts or you really don't realize this is different from what you said earlier about requiring some kind of subjective feeling. The thing about "I will pour out my spirit on all people etc." from Jeremiah says nothing about subjective feelings -- that's something you dragged in. Which is why I was referring it to your special interpretation. Because it is.
quote:
If you have a different characterisation, I'm genuinely curious to hear it.
It's not hard to figure out what I believe about this from what I've been saying -- someone can be filled with the HS without this special warm feeling you are alluding to (however you want to describe it; I got "warm" from Wesley).
My proof text, as you appear to be wanting one, is: Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe. I am taking "seen" to be "experienced" because of course Thomas did a lot more than see. Indeed his demand was not to see, but to feel.
quote:
It's very hard not to think you're simply spoiling for a fight here.
I suppose some may see it that way. This says more about them than about me.
quote:
I said my take was my take, and didn't seek to impose it on anybody.
This is bullshit. If your "take" is right, it applies to everybody. You are saying we all have X relationship, and X relationship contains Y experience. You didn't say "my experience of X contains Y experience." You said it was a necessary part of X, simpliciter. To then come back and say "I only meant it about me" seems disingenuous at best.
Here's a sweet little contradiction from your own post:
quote:
I'm not setting up a standard I think you ought to fulfil
quote:
[M]y assertion [is] that being a Christian includes some sort of experiential aspect....
You don't say "for me, being a Christian includes some sort of experiential aspect." You are saying this is part of being a Christian. Thus setting up a standard you expect all Christians to fulfill.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You are saying this is part of being a Christian. Thus setting up a standard you expect all Christians to fulfill.
Your quoting is selective to the point of distorting my original meaning beyond recognition.
I made it clear I was giving my view only, that others' views might differ, and that notions of what might constitute experience differ widely. I certainly never used the word "warm". Your argument on that score is with Wesley, not with me.
I'll own to arguing that the New Covenant is characterised by the indwelling Spirit (of course there are other ways of characterising it, but this one certainly doesn't rest on a single proof text and is a view I would happily defend), but not to any of your caricatures of what that must necessarily entail.
I don't "expect" all Christians to fulfil my "standard". I don't stand at the door of my church and interrogate people on their special feelings, indeed, I get nervous when they start splurging about them.
Besides, Jesus did not say "blessed are those who have not experienced, but believe". The episode with Thomas is not about drawing a distinction between belief and experience but about the difference between tangible and intangible grounds for belief.
In my experience and understanding (which, lest there be any doubt about this, is not ex cathedra or definitive), all I'm saying is that belief such as Jesus describes when talking to Thomas is, to my mind, more than intellectual assent to a series of propositions. It can't be reduced solely to logic or reason. There's something else going on, something subjective. And by definition, being subjective, it's going to be somewhat different for everyone; but it seems to me it's going to be there.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
GeorgeNZ
Apprentice
# 18672
|
Posted
It's not possible for God to be absent. So if God is ever present it makes no sense for me not to experience that.
I don't care about eternity, I want to believe and be with a God of the now! No parent hides their face from their child. If it's a case of 'wait and see' then I give up!
Posts: 40 | From: A land so far away | Registered: Sep 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GeorgeNZ:
It's not possible for God to be absent. So if God is ever present it makes no sense for me not to experience that.
I don't care about eternity, I want to believe and be with a God of the now! No parent hides their face from their child. If it's a case of 'wait and see' then I give up!
Good point, but if God is all that is good, then maybe we simply don't notice him/her? So celebrating the good, the positive, the caring, the kind in this world is maybe as good as worship for those who don't sense the presence of God or believe in him/her/it?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What Boogie said and ...
quote:
Originally posted by GeorgeNZ:
It's not possible for God to be absent. So if God is ever present it makes no sense for me not to experience that.
I don't see the connection. I don't see the sense of anyone being able to experience the presence of the immanent ground of being apart from that which He grounds.
quote:
I don't care about eternity,
Me neither! Infinity too!
quote:
I want to believe and be with a God of the now!
You are.
quote:
No parent hides their face from their child. If it's a case of 'wait and see' then I give up!
His face, the Father's face, is all around and behind and above and below, in the mirror darkly and in this conversation. Darkly
Invoke Him. Make Him up. From the materials available. The materials He provides and sustains thanks to His Son by the Spirit.
That means walk with Him, TALK to Him. As Father. As Dad. As Daddy. As Brother. Bro. Friend. Mate. Consigliere. Sarge. Sar'nt (there's a difference). Advocate. Comforter.
These are His light materials. From His word.
I invoke Him all the time and not enough. At my most broken, intruded upon, ruminant, I eventually remember to invite Him in.
I have sat Him down in all His persons in my room, set chairs out for Them and talked EVERYTHING through. Every broken, afflicted, shameful thing.
I've sat Him on my bed behind me from my desk chair in my bedsit room at 55, Gelert the Hound of Heaven's head on my lap, eyes looking up.
He has looped in figures of eight around my legs as I walk as the Father and the Son flank me.
I walk with Him in the park, on the street. When I can't think of how to start I find reasons to be grateful. It's easy when you're walking. There's always the sky.
A year or so ago I related here how I was walking in the park and expressed that if died there and then I would like to carry on walking in His 'real' presence, face to face. That was revelatory. That the resurrection for all of us will be waking up to a walk with Him in paradise. I hope I don't notice the transition immediately.
By chance I got to near the spot yesterday, after two years at least probably, which I have since many times. I don't know what I was thinking about, the beauty of an American red oak in flame probably, and I was moved as good as John Wesley by the memory.
I'm grateful for that.
But that's me. Do what you gotta do mate. Feel what you gotta feel. Experience what you will. God bless you in that. Now. Don't wait and see, Hell will freeze over. Get on with it.
Invoke Him.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Susan Doris, I still can’t quite understand your position. You say quote:
Originally posted by Susan Doris
I love to listen to Poulenc’s Stabat Mater and Gloria, where some of the music is, for me, very spiritually uplifting.
but I can’t see how on your terms that statement can have a meaning. What do ‘spirit’, ‘spiritual’ and ‘spirituality’ mean, if there is nothing in the universe except that which is amenable to observation, experiment and science?
Seeking to get round this by examining the derivation of the word, doesn’t really get us any further. Yes, the Latin, Greek and Hebrew words for spirit are all breath related. Interestingly, that is despite their not being etymologically connected. However,
'I love to listen to Poulenc’s Stabat Mater and Gloria, where some of the music is, for me, very breathily uplifting',
wouldn’t mean anything. Besides, what determines what word in English means isn’t its derivation but how it is used now.
quote:
You say to Jengie John
Transcendence is one of those words whose definition is somewhat elusive I find.
On your terms, aren’t ‘spirit’ and ‘spiritual’ equally elusive? If you say that some of Poulenc is very spiritually uplifting, what would be conceptually different, on your terms, between that statement and saying that you found some of Poulenc transcendent?
It seems to me that your statement quote:
I am an atheist because there is nothing in the universe that is not entirely natural.
is just as much a statement of committed faith - though faith in an absence - as the faith I have as a Christian. I accept, and am grateful for, your caveat, quote:
an atheist must allow for the possibility that one day a fact might emerge about a God or something supernatural, at which point the world changes.
and your ability to be comfortable with there being things that are not explained yet. I’m more uneasy about the possible implication that it will follow from that, that any ‘unexplained bits’ will just be odd pieces sticking out round the edges that will be expected to fit in with a standard materialist understanding of the cosmos. You may also be making assumptions as to how Christians do actually understand the cosmos, and whether they draw the same distinction in the same place between the scientifically amenable parts of it and its more mysterious realms.
To us, there is much that is difficult, imprecise and unamenable about the parts we cannot see and don’t fit our preconceptions, but our world view can cope with that. It still seems to me that for (and I repeat the term deliberately) a committed atheist, allowing the words ‘spirit’, ‘spiritual’ and ‘spirituality’ to have a meaning, however imprecise, apart from variations of,
'a form of self-deception from which other people, more benighted than we 'bright' ones, suffer',
causes immense existential difficulties.
For an atheist, once one allows these three words to have any possible meanings at all, one has to allow space for the possibility that reality might include other 'dimensions', 'aspects' or whatever one prefers to call them.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Transcendence - the experience of connecting with something larger than yourself as an individual. As such it is experienced by football supporters and pop concert goers. It is also an important part of identity creation. To claim to be British is to claim to belong to something bigger than you for instance.
Religious use of it tends to be when that which is larger than you is associated with the divine. As a description of what this may feel like there is a wonderful description of what an esctasy experience can be like in Chapter 7: A Piper at Dawn in the Wind in the Willows. However, must to the time the experience is mundane and often caught up with the sense of belonging to a religious community.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Enoch and Jengie Jon
Thank you for interesting posts - much to think about; this I will do and return anon!
--------------------
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
I'm not sure about Susan's position, but the term 'committed atheist' is something of a trap in this discussion. Most atheists that I know simply lack a belief in God, so to speak of them being committed to such a lack is odd.
There are indeed atheists who do assert that there is no God, but I find that this is rare (gnostic atheists).
There are also atheists who are not materialists, or physicalists. Indeed, many Buddhists are atheists, and they say different things about reality, including, 'What is that?' (Maybe also animists are atheists).
So I don't find anything odd in atheists having, or valuing, spiritual experience, no more that it's odd that they experience and value love, or that they can describe propositions, without referring to brain events.
Straw man, in other words.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Besides, Jesus did not say "blessed are those who have not experienced, but believe". The episode with Thomas is not about drawing a distinction between belief and experience but about the difference between tangible and intangible grounds for belief.
What on earth in what he said gives you that idea?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Transcendence - the experience of connecting with something larger than yourself as an individual. As such it is experienced by football supporters and pop concert goers. It is also an important part of identity creation. To claim to be British is to claim to belong to something bigger than you for instance.
Religious use of it tends to be when that which is larger than you is associated with the divine. As a description of what this may feel like there is a wonderful description of what an esctasy experience can be like in Chapter 7: A Piper at Dawn in the Wind in the Willows. However, must to the time the experience is mundane and often caught up with the sense of belonging to a religious community.
Jengie
It's a fascinating concept, and isn't only used in a religious sense, or theistic sense. Its use in Eastern religions often refers to going beyond the ego, or separate I.
This can be linked with the numinous, or the divine, or with the One, and so on - or not, of course. As they say in Zen, be careful to do the washing up after you, even if you've had an enlighenment experience.
It might provide a meeting place between religious and non-religious, theists and non-theists.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Besides, Jesus did not say "blessed are those who have not experienced, but believe". The episode with Thomas is not about drawing a distinction between belief and experience but about the difference between tangible and intangible grounds for belief.
What on earth in what he said gives you that idea?
Jesus says "because you have seen me, you have believed", and says that those who have not seen yet believe are blessed. He says nothing at all about experience however we define that, or about the grounds on which those who have not seen might believe.
Thomas was looking for (and got) tangible grounds for belief ("unless I see... unless I place my hand..."). The fact that one can believe without seeing offers evidence, to my mind, that there are intangible grounds for belief.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And "there is no God it's all me" or "all human" is as much a faith position as the opposite.
I know what you mean of course, but there is no equating the two. There are billions of years of evidence for life and for the existence of we evolved humans, but only conjecture for God. The latter requires 100% faith, the former as near to 0% faith as makes no difference, I think
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And "there is no God it's all me" or "all human" is as much a faith position as the opposite.
I know what you mean of course, but there is no equating the two. There are billions of years of evidence for life and for the existence of we evolved humans, but only conjecture for God. The latter requires 100% faith, the former as near to 0% faith as makes no difference, I think
We are in complete agreement SusanDoris. No faith is necessary to realise that existence needs no further explanation, no faith whatsoever. It explains itself in that it is. If you want to flesh it out it doesn't get any better than Alan Guth's cosmology.
If eternal, infinite stuff can only exist because God wills it pre-eternally, trans-infinitely that just pushes what is, back one self-existent entity, but something has to self-exist.
The only justification for believing it's God is Jesus.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Besides, Jesus did not say "blessed are those who have not experienced, but believe". The episode with Thomas is not about drawing a distinction between belief and experience but about the difference between tangible and intangible grounds for belief.
What on earth in what he said gives you that idea?
Jesus says "because you have seen me, you have believed", and says that those who have not seen yet believe are blessed. He says nothing at all about experience however we define that, or about the grounds on which those who have not seen might believe.
Thomas was looking for (and got) tangible grounds for belief ("unless I see... unless I place my hand..."). The fact that one can believe without seeing offers evidence, to my mind, that there are intangible grounds for belief.
Don't let me get between you guys at all, you're going great, but what intangible grounds are there outside the text?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Boogie
*tangent* .You mention a Terry Pratchett quote - do you have a link, please? *end tangent*
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
