Belief... or lack thereof

  • Thread starter Thread starter pocaracas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Childlike thinking? I know what my kids believed when they were children. Using, not surprisingly, childlike thinking. Generally anything they wanted. Their beliefs were unquestioning.

It seems that you are suggesting that critical thinking should take you where you want to go rather than where it might lead. What happens if childlike reasoning doesn’t take someone to God, but critical thinking does? Which then is the correct method?

Let me guess…it’s the one that gives the answer you want it to.
Your critical thinking is relying only on yourself, and i think you are still at the same place on this question. i suggest, try relying on something greater than you to see if that brings your thinking on. we always hear that we should have an open mind and try things to see where they lead.
 
40.png
You:
is your heart cheerful, is your heart troubled, is your heart bitter? these things will come out of your mouth.
Hmmf. My heart is none of these things. I might be cheerful, troubled or bitter, but attributing these emotions to my heart is inaccurate and superfluous. As for the things coming out of mouth, if I speak I might reveal my emotional state or I might intentionally or unintentionally conceal it. So it boils down to: ‘You might reveal your emotional state by what you say.’ Which, from my point of view, was not worth the effort to decipher.

Do you want to have a go at explaining “Your heart is drawn to your treasure”?
 
Hmmf. My heart is none of these things. I might be cheerful, troubled or bitter, but attributing these emotions to my heart is inaccurate and superfluous. As for the things coming out of mouth, if I speak I might reveal my emotional state or I might intentionally or unintentionally conceal it. So it boils down to: ‘You might reveal your emotional state by what you say.’ Which, from my point of view, was not worth the effort to decipher.

Do you want to have a go at explaining “Your heart is drawn to your treasure”?
sigh.

I find it so amusing and bemusing to see folks here who peculiarly cannot think in the abstract.

For some reason, fundamentalist thinking replaces the ability to conceptualize more complex thoughts.
 
there is a condition with a spectrum called autism which blocks the persons mind from deciphering similes or such type things.
 
…we always hear that we should have an open mind and try things to see where they lead.
It seems to have led us in different directions. And to save a minute or so not having to cut and paste PR’s comment, it wasn’t because I wanted to go in a particular direction.
 
40.png
PRmerger:
I find it so amusing and bemusing to see folks here who peculiarly cannot think in the abstract. For some reason, fundamentalist thinking replaces the ability to conceptualize more complex thoughts.
I’m glad you’ve found something to amuse you. You more often seem to take these discussions far too seriously. However, I believe that I’m quite capable of thinking abstract thoughts, even complex ones. What I have so far demonstrated is my inability to arrive at the intended understanding from what, to me, seems vague and inaccurate wording. I don’t find my failure to understand amusing, just perplexing and an obstacle to more useful debate.

When a difficulty with a type of communication is explained, but the originator persists in using it, then I think it reasonable to conclude that that person either has no desire to communicate clearly, either because it takes more effort to do so, or because they wish to be deliberately obscure, or else because they don’t know clearly what they mean them self. I’m not sure which explanation applies here.

But it seems that I’m very much in the minority in having this difficulty and I don’t want to derail the thread any further, so I suggest we drop this discussion.
 
When a difficulty with a type of communication is explained, but the originator persists in using it, then I think it reasonable to conclude that that person either has no desire to communicate clearly, either because it takes more effort to do so, or because they wish to be deliberately obscure, or else because they don’t know clearly what they mean them self. I’m not sure which explanation applies here.
Or…

Or…

we all understand that the receiver, who clearly has the ability to think in the abstract in OTHER areas, is, peculiarly, demanding a concrete, literal conversation.

One has to wonder why that is…
 
Or…

Or…

we all understand that the receiver, who clearly has the ability to think in the abstract in OTHER areas, is, peculiarly, demanding a concrete, literal conversation.

One has to wonder why that is…
I can imagine some people who followed Jesus 2000 years ago being moved greatly by his message…and there being some folks who, pierced to the core by the kerygma, yet not wanting to change their ways, said something like, “What the what? I don’t understand that guy at all. He talked about a Good Samaritan helping a traveler. What does that have to do with me? I never travel on that road he mentioned. And I 18 yrs old. Clearly, the Good Samaritan was old. So I don’t know what he was talking about!”

To which we would respond:

 
. . . I believe that I’m quite capable of thinking abstract thoughts, even complex ones. What I have so far demonstrated is my inability to arrive at the intended understanding from what, to me, seems vague and inaccurate wording. I don’t find my failure to understand amusing, just perplexing and an obstacle to more useful debate.

When a difficulty with a type of communication is explained, but the originator persists in using it, then I think it reasonable to conclude that that person either has no desire to communicate clearly, either because it takes more effort to do so, or because they wish to be deliberately obscure, or else because they don’t know clearly what they mean them self. I’m not sure which explanation applies here. . .
It is a lot easier to decipher the meanings of the words when one knows what the other person is talking about.
I’m going to put it to you that you cannot know God outside of a relationship with Him.
The least one can do to grow this relationship is to pray, do good works and contemplate holy scripture.

The problem with trying to understand the nature of reality based on what sees in this world is that everything here is upside down.
Fact is that sin has turned our side of the equation into a negative, so everything is the opposite of what we observe:
  • We see a world where the small (Bethlehem, the manger, the baby, the man on the cross) is not appreciated for the greatness it actually possesses.
  • We pursue transient pleasures, things and positions, rather than what is eternal.
  • We take rather than give, thinking that is how we can actually make it a part of us.
  • The servant is not seen as greater than the master.
  • It is hard to grasp that in doing God’s will we can move mountains.
  • We think we can figure it all out on our own, when it all becomes clear giving our minds to God.
If you don’t know what I am talking about you will assume I’m speaking of what you think the words mean.
So, it ends up sounding concrete and literal. You would be considered a material fundamentalist, spiritually speaking.

What you say here sounds weird because the meaning is so obvious, and I have no idea how it could be asked:
Do you want to have a go at explaining “Your heart is drawn to your treasure”?
If you love sex, you will be drawn to sex.
If you love money, you will try to make more and more.
If you like people speaking (well or otherwise) about you, you will go for fame/honour.
These are all meaningless wastes of time and energy. They will all leave you empty.
There is only One who truly fulfills.
And, the fulfillment is eternal.

Not sure I got your point, but maybe there’s an answer in all this for you.
 
40.png
Aloysium:
Not sure I got your point, but maybe there’s an answer in all this for you.
Thank you, Aloysium, for explaining this. It turns out that it means more or less what I expected. I wasn’t sure, though, whether ‘treasure’ meant what was really valuable or only the superficial things that people often think are valuable. And I wasn’t sure if ‘heart’ meant the normal desires of life, or the deep down ‘heart-felt’ truths of what we know is right for us.

Despite PRmerger’s comments, I’m quite capable of thinking in non-literal abstract ways. It’s just that, coming from the other side of the pond from many contributors, and with different cultural and language reference points, it’s easy to misunderstand. That’s why I like to get clarifications or, better still, precise language.
 
Despite PRmerger’s comments, I’m quite capable of thinking in non-literal abstract ways.
Oh–let me make something perfectly clear: I am 100% certain that you are capable of thinking in non-literal, abstract ways…

which is why it makes your questions here “I don’t understand what you mean” so peculiar.
 
you are asking about where your heart is.
Treasures in Heaven
(Matthew 13:44-46)
19Lay not up to yourselves treasures on earth: where the rust, and moth consume, and where thieves break through and steal. 20But lay up to yourselves treasures in heaven: where neither the rust nor moth doth consume, and where thieves do not break through, nor steal. 21For where thy treasure is, there is thy heart also.
can you see where your heart is? something to think about .
 
40.png
PRmerger:
which is why it makes your questions here “I don’t understand what you mean” so peculiar.
Why peculiar? Do you maintain that it’s impossible for abstract allusions to be open to more than one interpretation?
 
Why peculiar? Do you maintain that it’s impossible for abstract allusions to be open to more than one interpretation?
Sure.

However, when one has the ability to think in the abstract, and asks something akin to, “What do you mean we are sheep? I’ve never had wool come off my skin! Could you please clarify?”…

we all go:

 
Why peculiar? Do you maintain that it’s impossible for abstract allusions to be open to more than one interpretation?
It is true that it might not be completely clear what is meant by “heart” in the specific case. But compare:
As an aside (and partly to keep the discussion going, because I’m enjoying it), the disagreement between Pocacaras and PRmerger about what is meant by ‘a clean heart’ touches on an interesting point (to me, at least).

Some theists use phrases such as “I feel it in my heart” and “I have a spiritual feeling” that some others, myself included, simply don’t understand. When we make objections, such as “My heart just pumps blood, it does no ‘feeling’.” the theists can assume that we’re being deliberately pedantic or needlessly contentious. But it’s (often) actually a genuine failure to understand what the speaker means.

It doesn’t help at all if the theist just refuses to continue the discussion. What is needed is an attempt to explain what these phrases actually mean. On the occasions when this has happened to me, it sometimes becomes clear that the speaker doesn’t really know what they mean. Personally, I hate woolly thinking and it’s very annoying when people use received phrases that they’ve given no thought to. On other occasions, it transpires that the two people in the conversation have very different frames of reference. Discovering that can be the start of better understanding.
Sorry, You. I just don’t understand what you mean by this. Simply repeating the words doesn’t make it any clearer.

It still makes as much sense to me as ‘God is Love’, or ‘I am that I am’. Which is to say, none at all.
with
Thank you, Aloysium, for explaining this. It turns out that it means more or less what I expected. I wasn’t sure, though, whether ‘treasure’ meant what was really valuable or only the superficial things that people often think are valuable. And I wasn’t sure if ‘heart’ meant the normal desires of life, or the deep down ‘heart-felt’ truths of what we know is right for us.

Despite PRmerger’s comments, I’m quite capable of thinking in non-literal abstract ways. It’s just that, coming from the other side of the pond from many contributors, and with different cultural and language reference points, it’s easy to misunderstand. That’s why I like to get clarifications or, better still, precise language.
So, in fact you did understand that “heart” in this context did not refer to the organ that pumps blood. Then, if you were not sure if “heart” means “normal desires of life”, or “the deep down ‘heart-felt’ truths of what we know is right for us”, why didn’t you ask so? What’s the point of pretending that you do not get that the word “heart” is used poetically here?

In fact, it feels as if one was having a long discussion with someone, and at one point the opponent says: “Sorry, me not speak English.”. It is not that unreasonable to expect that someone who hears this will get angry.

And even if one doesn’t get angry, if you are pretending not to understand that a word is used poetically, you will only be told that, well, the word is being used poetically. And yes, that does not really make things any clearer for you, as you already knew that. But that’s what you get when you ask a question the answer to which you are not interested in - you get an answer you are not interested in.

It is very simple: ask the questions you want to be answered, not questions that you do not want to be answered.
 
There’s a time to use poetic language and a time to use precise language.
When one is asking for a away to perceive something, the party presenting such a way should do so in a precise way.
The presented poetic style only served to muddy the waters and provide no clear mechanism to achieve the desired perception… The reason for such muddying is beyond me, but it only served to assume I was the target of a big inside joke! Hence the stupid question.

In other words: you started it! 😛

Oh, Happy new year, guys! I’m already there! 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top