27 Jul 20
Galveston said, in another thread, something to the effect of: I am 100% certain of my beliefs; there are no mysteries or confusions.
What an impoverished approach to Spirituality!
Basically, you're done learning and growing. There are no new insights to glean. No further enlightenment to be had. It's actually quite sad, from my point of view.
A "dead" language is called so because it no longer changes. I think an unchanging spirituality is dead also.
Personally, I want to study things that challenge me. I want to wrestle with my beliefs...struggle with the parts that don't quite make sense.
I also don't want to give myself over to ANY single teacher, philosophy, book, religion, etc. I want the freedom to take on board what I think I can use, and leave the rest.
For example, I still find bits of the Bible insightful, though I am not a Christian. And I can practice meditation and letting go of anger, from Buddhism, even if I find some of the philosophy (ego dissolution, abolishment of desire, etc.) a bit extreme.
(I don't wish to single galvo out, for there are several others who are just as certain that they know "The Truth" as he is.)
@bigdoggproblem said"Basically, you're done learning and growing." I don't believe I said that and I certainly don't believe that.
Galveston said, in another thread, something to the effect of: I am 100% certain of my beliefs; there are no mysteries or confusions.
What an impoverished approach to Spirituality!
Basically, you're done learning and growing. There are no new insights to glean. No further enlightenment to be had. It's actually quite sad, from my point of view.
A "dead" languag ...[text shortened]... alvo out, for there are several others who are just as certain that they know "The Truth" as he is.)
I was speaking on doctrinal issues to make that clear. For instance there is major issues with the trinity that most who accept that teaching are confused to different degrees on exactly what it is. When you really pin down those who believe it, no one can explain it, even their priest have no idea.
But to JW's there is no mystery as many religions call it because it simply is not a bible teaching and it clearly has a pagan origin.
So yes there is nothing else really to learn about that as we are very clear with that teaching and what it is.
We have no real mysteries to clear up because we have put our complete trust in Jehovah and his son Jesus to clear those mysteries up for us.
But oh yes there is still much to learn. The Bible says that in the future after Armageddon that "new scrolls will be opened" and that humans knowledge about Jehovah and the newer better life would be enhanced as to Jehovah and to who knows what else.
Rev 5:9....And they sing a new song, saying: “You are worthy to take the scroll and open its seals, for you were slaughtered and with your blood you bought people for God out of every tribe and tongue* and people and nation,
No we do not sit around and do nothing. If you would visit our web site you could see the amount of things we can study and learn from on many subjects.
27 Jul 20
@bigdoggproblem saidi appreciate doggthink,
Personally, I want to study things that challenge me. I want to wrestle with my beliefs...struggle with the parts that don't quite make sense.
because of the clarity of doggspeech
28 Jul 20
@bigdoggproblem saidI think the real emphasis is actually that he is going to be entirely faithful to God, like Abraham, and like other important Biblical figures.
Galveston said, in another thread, something to the effect of: I am 100% certain of my beliefs; there are no mysteries or confusions.
What an impoverished approach to Spirituality!
Basically, you're done learning and growing. There are no new insights to glean. No further enlightenment to be had. It's actually quite sad, from my point of view.
I do not think he would say that he is some paragon of enlightenment with nothing left to learn.
You may be attacking a straw man.
28 Jul 20
@bigdoggproblem saidI think it is actually the case that it is called as such because nobody speaks it anymore in daily life. It has less to do with some concept of change.
A "dead" language is called so because it no longer changes. I think an unchanging spirituality is dead also.
Conceiving language based around whether or not they change is not the best metric.
28 Jul 20
@bigdoggproblem saidParadox of the OP is that there is nothing in it I want to wrestle with, I feel I can completely agree.
Galveston said, in another thread, something to the effect of: I am 100% certain of my beliefs; there are no mysteries or confusions.
What an impoverished approach to Spirituality!
Basically, you're done learning and growing. There are no new insights to glean. No further enlightenment to be had. It's actually quite sad, from my point of view.
A "dead" languag ...[text shortened]... alvo out, for there are several others who are just as certain that they know "The Truth" as he is.)
So if you apply the Zen idea that you never arrive at truth and whenever you have a thesis look for the antithesis then try and make your next thesis the middle ground where do you go next in that infinite journey?
I suppose you would have to say that if you feel that the best way forwards is not to be wedded to any doctrine how do you prevent that from sounding like a doctrine that increases division and conflict with the people invested in their single doctrine? How do you avoid that stance pushing things towards division and entrenched positions?
28 Jul 20
@bigdoggproblem saidI can see how you might consider the statement by Galveston is impoverished relative to spirituality.
Galveston said, in another thread, something to the effect of: I am 100% certain of my beliefs; there are no mysteries or confusions.
What an impoverished approach to Spirituality!
Basically, you're done learning and growing. There are no new insights to glean. No further enlightenment to be had. It's actually quite sad, from my point of view.
A "dead" languag ...[text shortened]... alvo out, for there are several others who are just as certain that they know "The Truth" as he is.)
If I were to say something similar I think it might sound more like, I am 100% certain that what the Bible teaches is true, but there is still much I don't fully understand.
I think that unfortunately Galveston hasn't yet arrived at that point where he has begun to think for himself, and is still at that stage where he regurgitates the rhetoric he's been fed.
And he's afraid of the devil, that anyone with an opposing view is automatically under his influence. It's a powerful tool for indoctrination.
28 Jul 20
@galveston75 saidThe wording you used seemed very "absolute", not allowing much help in the way of context.
"Basically, you're done learning and growing." I don't believe I said that and I certainly don't believe that.
I was speaking on doctrinal issues to make that clear. For instance there is major issues with the trinity that most who accept that teaching are confused to different degrees on exactly what it is. When you really pin down those who believe it, no one can expl ...[text shortened]... visit our web site you could see the amount of things we can study and learn from on many subjects.
Is it possible that, in your desire to sound sure of yourself, that you may have overstated your level of certainty?
28 Jul 20
@philokalia saidIt would certainly restore some of my faith in humanity if everyone could admit that there are aspects of their own spiritual beliefs that they do not quite understand.
I think the real emphasis is actually that he is going to be entirely faithful to God, like Abraham, and like other important Biblical figures.
I do not think he would say that he is some paragon of enlightenment with nothing left to learn.
You may be attacking a straw man.
My experience, however, is that there are some people who claim to be this certain about their own beliefs. (Whether or not Galvo is in fact one of them.)
If nothing else, let my post serve as a caution against trying to sound too sure of one's beliefs. If I can push it, let my post cast serious doubt one the idea that sounding (and being) so certain is even a good thing.