Agnostic Theism

[JDaniel]

No, in fact we can’t. We assume it based on our perceptions. I am certain that you are not so naive as to be ignorant of one sided loves, mispercieved loves, and other phenomenon in the emotional realm that are the material of drama. There is only one thing, in fact, that a human can know. all the rest is assumption based on accepted premises and relative values. How could it be otherwise? There are far subtler versions of the blind men and the elephant than the teaching tale.

Unfortunately, this bit of information is left in the realm of ignorance until such time as one experiences what it is to be awake with no awareness of anything other than their identity. When it is known as a fact of existence that all thinking as we experience it is a veneer over that state, we are neither mature nor full aware of a fundamental fact about the human mind and it’s unfortunate sense of identity dependent on circumstances. Herein lies the root need of the kind of poverty that is misunderstood in vows, etc.

And only the esoteric departments or factions of the main line religions even begin to take this line of practice seriously. Wasn’t it Avila’s remarkable works that almost succumbed to the tender ministrations of the Inquisition? For my part, I don’t believe that Saints who had actual realizations in this area dared to, or perhaps in kindness refrained form, direct exposition of their discoveries, though there appear to be a few exceptions.

Whadyamean:

It seems that you presuppose only “love,” i.e., that love between two people unrelated by blood. The two examples I gave have to do only with “blood.” As a father, I know me and I know that my children can know that I love them. ("One-sided love, in this arena, is more than likely, a mental disorder.)

So, my kids know that I love them and I know that I love them. Where is the assumption in this scenario? (BTW, I know that they love me.) It can’t have anything to do with that which one does for the other. Because, as you noted, even a one-sided “love” can be very, very deceitful.

Yet, my kids are not inside my head. Therefore, they can never have the absoluteness of my love. However, they trust. Isn’t that what we do? Do we not trust that all of this is real?

God bless,
jd

 

[fhansen]

And this is why religion sometimes is an agent in defeating actual practice. It insists on a particular form that the gold has to be in. It doesn’t draw attention to the fact that each one is always already gold: each one is always already made in the image and likeness of God. Where is the original sin in that? It is in that one forgets who and what they really are. And while good works and service are very necessary, the point of those is again to direct attention towards what is not personal ego and to ultimately discover what that means in reality, what it means in terms of the reason for the Great Commandment.

I don’t know. It almost seems that you mean to say that humans evolved into beings whose fundamental nature is love but then they forgot about it. Christianity explains this as a condition that once existed-humans existing in a state of love (sanctifying grace, original justice, etc)- and then lost, forfeiting it in order to look for something beyond “mere” love, in my understanding. IOW, they believed pride/rejection of God/self-determination in the moral realm would yield then something better, and it’s our job now to realize the fallacy in that wayward attitude, so we can return to Love as our God in a sense. It’s true that this is posed as justice against injustice, with this situation being our responsibility, in part, to correct. I’m just throwing out some thoughts to get a better handle on the differences and similarities.

 

[ASimon]

Uh… Again with the belief = knowledge thing??? Really?

Not sure what you’re on about here - but to clarify my point: We can believe something in the absence of proof (and even evidence), but logically, without proof, we cannot ‘know’ it. That’s all I was saying.

 

[ASimon]

Then presumably you believe we are biological robots!

Well, we are biological, and emerging neuroscience seems to suggest that our free will is an illusion. But that’s not quite the same as saying we’re controlled by some external independent source or mover. As robots, we’re more of the “Rosie from The Jetson” variety.

 

[tonyrey]

Then presumably you believe we are biological robots!

If we are biological and our free will is an illusion we have no control over our thoughts and cannot be rational beings.

 

[ASimon]

If we are biological and our free will is an illusion we have no control over our thoughts and cannot be rational beings.

Well, if we were all robots, and explicitly directed at the whim of some sort of puppetmaster, we could certainly be directed to appear as though we were behaving rationally. So if we’re capable of behavior that can be viewed as rational no matter which end of the free-will spectrum we reside on, it seems to follow that we’re capable of it when we reside somewhere in the middle.

In the end, rationality could be like free will. We may think we’re capable of it, but even if we’re not, it doesn’t appear to make much difference.

 

[tonyrey]

If we are biological and our free will is an illusion we have no control over our thoughts and cannot be rational beings.

That is sheer fantasy!

So if we’re capable of behavior that can be viewed as rational no matter which end of the free-will spectrum we reside on, it seems to follow that we’re capable of it when we reside somewhere in the middle.

There is no spectrum. We either have free will or we don’t.

In the end, rationality could be like free will. We may think we’re capable of it, but even if we’re not, it doesn’t appear to make much difference.

If we weren’t rational we wouldn’t know we weren’t rational! Animals have no concept of rationality and they don’t act as if they are…

 

[dandingo]

What I don’t fully comprehend about Theism is this: why would ‘a god’ love us enough to create us and give us everything we need in order to survive but not reveal himself to us? Maybe the Theist can comprehend this but I just can’t.

 

[Whadyamean]

What I don’t fully comprehend about Theism is this: why would ‘a god’ love us enough to create us and give us everything we need in order to survive but not reveal himself to us? Maybe the Theist can comprehend this but I just can’t.

How could you? You have been asked to believe that the God is a person with personal attributes. What in the realm of critical thinking makes you believe that is so?

 

[StrawberryJam]

What I don’t fully comprehend about Theism is this: why would ‘a god’ love us enough to create us and give us everything we need in order to survive but not reveal himself to us? Maybe the Theist can comprehend this but I just can’t.

What I don’t fully comprehend about your statement is that you don’t understand the sophisticated theology that goes into all this to make all the words you wrote null. In theology your views are simply of the one who just does not “get it”

It’s very deep. Like a grave, very deep.

 

[dandingo]

What I don’t fully comprehend about your statement is that you don’t understand the sophisticated theology that goes into all this to make all the words you wrote null. In theology your views are simply of the one who just does not “get it”

It’s very deep. Like a grave, very deep.

I understand Christianity because of all the evidence that points to common sense, such as God calling Himself, “I am”, meaning that he was, is and always will be. An infinite being existing outside of a finite existence. I believe in God partly because He has revealed Himself to us. My point is that I can’t comprehend believing in an all-powerful, all-knowing being that was so loving that it would create us but wouldn’t reveal him or herself to us. I also don’t understand why that got you so upset. That wasn’t my intention.

 

[fhansen]

Ken Wilber did a far better job because he was free of the limitations of feeling that he would fry in hell if he stopped arguing with reality.

One thing I think can identify with is this idea of “arguing with reality”. I can think of ways I’ve done this and continue to. But I’d be interested in hearing some examples on this.

 

[Whadyamean]

One thing I can identify with is this idea of “arguing with reality”. I can think of ways I’ve done this and continue to. But I’d be interested in hearing of some examples from you.

The current champ at rooting out how we do this is a woman by the name of Byron Katie. She has a four question protocol which anyone can apply to any belief they have and reveal for themselves how they are dealing with reality or with their wish about how reality ought to be.

For my part, I know that I had numerous triggers that set me off emotionally into sequences of criticism and reaction. Common triggers were anything from rock music through other peoples habits to such things as patrol cars.

I’ve gone through various ways of dealing with, say, extreme dislike and judgement of an individual to internal conditions such as fear of heights. All of these are easily addressable and in short order, in minutes, actually, can be reduced to non reaction making information dealt with from competency as distinct from threats to sense of self.

What is most fundamentally important and operative in all of this is the clear and growing understanding that nothing in one’s mind is other than impressions ordered and filed according to value systems which are equally acquired. And though perhaps valid within themselves, they are not necessarily true, no matter what arguments one habitual mind might present. It takes a bit of courage to face that.

But guess what? What is real about one’s actual nature is unassailable and stable. That can be discovered and experienced. It is why the Ancients through the moderns who are competent with the practicalities of transformation all advise assiduous self inquiry despite the sure knowledge that such work will in a sense destroy one’s perception not only of the world as it seems, but of who and what one is in reality. The reward is easily worth the sometimes difficult and demanding work. In Catholicism it is called “examination of conscience,” but its actual practical application has been obscured and made difficult to enact, to say the least.