Absolutely true! However, those two are not at all incompatible, and go hand in hand. In fact, while lifting one, it as well includes, glorifies, and transfigures the world!On the other hand,
as one granny said:
The search for Reality is the most wonderful, amazing undertaking ever. It will lift one beyond the restrictions of this life.
Ranklyfrank
That means that since you canât say what it is Iâm saying, you are not qualified to pass judgment, right? Thatâs fine, but it doesnât necessarily make me wrong. After all, Iâm the one who offered the explanation that was sought.
Exactly what explanation was that. I sought to know where you are coming from and the best you can do is say that you belong to no denomination? How is that an explanation so much as an ill-conceived dodge?
Let me put it to you another way: so far as god is concerned, which of the following comes closest to your way of thinking:
Atheist? Agnostic? Deist? Theist? Pagan? Other?
Get ready for another dodge
One of my primary beliefs is that our human nature unites the material and spiritual worlds. Thus, when we sincerely seek Reality we are in the process of glorifying and transfiguring the world at the same time that we are glorifying God. However, we donât transfigure God Himself. What we do is to transfigure our relationship with God. I prefer St. Francisâs approach to creation.
And so it continues!
Ranklyfrank
I had an acquaintance, a genius, who tasked himself with understanding a short book. It took him 26 times reading it before he even became clear on how he was misunderstanding it. He deemed his work worth the effort. Perhaps you might exert yourself a bit as well. Once again, do re-read my posts 414, 425, 432, and especially 455. I have therein given you a clear way to the answer you think you seek.
Actually, I prefer a Ford or a Chevy.Get ready for another dodge
Iâm proposing that thinking is only a scaffolding in the matter of relationship with God. You are in a position where the map is mistaken for the territory. Look elsewhere. You are attempting to engage me in an area where God might be pointed to, but isnât. So the more of a conundrum I seem to be to you, the closer you are to a state that can actually be useful to you in perceiving something far more basic about yourself or God than thinking, Catholic, scientific, or any other kind could ever tell you.
As I have done the honorable thing, and continue to do so, I have to wonder what it is that you are doing. My alleged anonymity is your key to an actual answer. Toss it if you like. If you signed yourself as a believer, that would mean nothing to me. Only the development of our conversation would tell me anything useful about what thought patterns were endemic to your belief that needed to be overcome in order to see. So in my attempts to show you (far better than telling) where Iâm coming from, you might have a chance to see where you are actually positioned. When you are so enmeshed in your habituated processes it is very difficult to tell, as I very well know from my own experience there.
So again, I have offered a way for you to have your question answered, and because you donât wish to do the do you accuse me of not answering. Is that not an example of maintaining anonymity, even to yourself?
Pardon me, but you donât seem to be addressing what I actually said. I said Pascal can start from something he actually KNOWS, which is the conditions and result of the BET. I never claimed that Pascal can know God, or that he chose to believe in God. He canât know God. (However, we do know that Pascal believed in God.)
Rational path? As a means? What about the other paths one can take to find God? Humans do not come from cookie cutters.
As someone living outside the planet CAF. The process of âknowingâ can also be experiential and I am not referring to scientific experiments. Also as a foreigner, I distain the default position of either-or such as â The question then, is never âDo I believe?â The question is always âWhat do I believe?â
Actually, Betterave, donât feel so special! Heâs been doing the exact same thing to me and many others herein. I will guarantee him one thing: he will not win converts (to his way of thinking) using that mechanism. I think he follows Eckhart Tolle, who is an interesting guy that has an interesting ânew-ageyâ methodology. But, it is better than most of the other new-agey methodologies that Iâve seen. If you havenât already, take a look at some of Tolleâs âlecturesâ on facebook. They are worth discussing in light of Fides et Ratio.
Whether you disdain it or not, thatâs the case. The argument BTW, was not formulated by an American. Polyani, whoâs work on knowing is considered a classic. From Wikipedia:
Knowing something external to ourselves is not objective; it is subjective, and always contains an element of belief, and always is impacted by what we already know/believe. This is not a matter of choice, its a matter of logical force. You can follow Descartes âI cannot doubt that I am doubting, therefore I think, therefore I am.â But how do you bring in external knowledge without some modicum of belief? And once you start down that path, a frame of reference is always determined, thus impacting any observation, be it scientific or ârun-of-the-mill experiential.â
Just as a side note question - Do you need to know the architect to enjoy the building?
It makes a difference if you consider that âsomething externalâ as being objectively real. Furthermore,one may reason both objectively and subjectively.
I do not know you well enough to include you in my humble observation that the majority of CAF posters discuss objective and subjective without ever looking in the dictionary for the various basic meanings. Note to self: someday look up the history of relativism as a philosophy as it seems to influence 21st century thinking.
No. One does not need to know the architect to enjoy the builing.Just as a side note question - Do you need to know the architect to enjoy the building?
Itâs kind of the flip side of PW - youâre kind of wasting time warring about the architect rather than enjoying the building. The building is the gift - enjoy : )
So you are thinking F&R would take a toll on Tolle?
PM me what you would recommend.So you are thinking F&R would take a toll on Tolle?
Hmmmm⌠Tolle is not someone I had in mind to recommend. He has some useful things to say. I donât care for his âstyleâ other than in writing. How about Fides et Ratio in light of Tolle, though? Theyâre not exactly on the same playing field, Tolleâs being more inclusive. Not my cup of tea, but for someone, perhaps. You might also consider that the epithet ânew ageâ is often applied with a bit too much facility and usually no depth. Nice try.