Cop-out

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I know faith implies lack of reason, however I believe you need a balanced approach between all important concepts/archetypes to move forward with your understanding.
Science and relligon. Faith and reason. Man and woman. Etc.

The faith I talk about is the type of faith you get from deductive reasoning about your experiences coupled with the world around you, the type of faith one needs to move beyond duality.

to karoly aczel

yes, the deductive reasoing and exsperiance your talking about, is the true and healthy method of placing faith into anything.

lots of people put faith in something just blindly no questions asked, this is dangerous, and breeds fanatics and troublemakers.

cheers vishvahetu

Originally posted by vishvahetu
to 667joe

faith can be based on reason, for example,

whenyou get on a plane, you have faith that it wont crash with you on it.

so when its time to buy the ticket, you reason with your self, that at any one time,there are probably 5000 planes in the air at any one time , so you reason that you have a good chance NOT to be the next statistic, so y ...[text shortened]... get on the plane,

its called rational faith, and we use it all the time.

cheers vishvahetu

Yes, but there is evidence of millions of previous airplane flights so you have something that has been proven. Accepting religion with no proof is not the same thing.

If you cannot explicitly justify your beliefs then how can you check if they are consistent?

In that sense, faith is often a cop-out. The carpet under which some sweep cognitive dissonance.

Originally posted by 667joe
Yes, but there is evidence of millions of previous airplane flights so you have something that has been proven. Accepting religion with no proof is not the same thing.

to 667joe

iam not the one pushing for religion, i am for spirituality which is not the same, i am against religion because it is put together by fallible man.

on the other hand i believe in god, but not the wish-washy god of the bible.

ones relationship withgod is personal, and it takes place within, and within there are no rules or ritual or conditions, just you and the god of your understanding, its a private affair.

cheers vishvahetu

Originally posted by vishvahetu
to 667joe

iam not the one pushing for religion, i am for spirituality which is not the same, i am against religion because it is put together by fallible man.

on the other hand i believe in god, but not the wish-washy god of the bible.

ones relationship withgod is personal, and it takes place within, and within there are no rules or ritual or conditions, just you and the god of your understanding, its a private affair.

cheers vishvahetu

So what is the non-wishy-washy god you believe in?

ones relationship withgod is personal, and it takes place within, and within there are no rules or ritual or conditions, just you and the god of your understanding, its a private affair.

Ah, that non-wishy-washy one. 😵

Originally posted by Palynka
So what is the non-wishy-washy god you believe in?

[b]ones relationship withgod is personal, and it takes place within, and within there are no rules or ritual or conditions, just you and the god of your understanding, its a private affair.

Ah, that non-wishy-washy one. 😵[/b]

to Palynka

hey if you have a specific question, ask it

Originally posted by vishvahetu
to Palynka

hey if you have a specific question, ask it

what is the non-wishy-washy god you believe in?

Originally posted by Palynka
what is the non-wishy-washy god you believe in?

to Palynka

the best way to exsplain the god that i appreciate, is to describe what a wishy washy god is first.

A W.W. god judges your behavour, and keeps score.
A W.W. god has a place called hell, for all the naughty people.
A W.W. god enjoys watching all the naughty people burn in hell.
A W.W. god has one begotten son, who he sends to earth to suffer and die in pain
A W.W. god gives us only one life to get everything right in, or else watch out.
A W.W. god sits on a throne for eternity.
A W.W. god gets all hot and bothered and angry, if his chosen people dont obey.
A W.W. god saves a few christians in the lions den, but forgets to save the rest.
A W.W, god demands to be worshiped with preys and inscense.
A W.W. god has a book of riddles, called the holy bible
A W.W. god performed his geatest of all feat of magic, ( he became a burning bush)
A W.W. god came 2000 yrs ago, and now that we really need him, he,s on holidays still.
A W.W. god lost his temper, and sent a plauge of locust to attack the egyptians

Look my freind, i could go on for ever, but that should give you a desciption of the christians wishy washy god.

now the god i appreciate is none of that, and does not get involved with the day to day activities of the humans.

the christians tell you to prey to god and he will get you a parking spot at work in the morning, ( thats wishy washy)

The real god has all ready provided all our needs, without even asking, because he has given every person, intelligance, creative power, opportunity, rescourses, courage, persaverance, food supply, sunshine, rain, fertile land, oceans full of fish, and the ground has every element to produce steel, plastic, glass, cement, ashphalt and so on.

God has given us the reproduction potency, and the 5 senses and the body with steangth and desire, for our pleasure

God has given a great tapastry for all people to exsperiance life to the fullest, and because he has given us total freedom with love, god does not interfer with our lives, and has even resided in our heart, as our personal guidance helper.

Ok that just a litte exsplanation, and its not the proper arena, for discussing things in great lengths, so if there is a specific question then ask.

cheers vishvahetu

Originally posted by finnegan
Possibly so but in that event, what weight can we place on them?

depends. will you need those assertions to prove another assertion? will those intial assertion change your life for the better? will not believing in them possibly cause you harm in the future and will believing in them cause you harm in the present? will living in light of those assertion somehow enrich your life?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Yeah. Things are/have been crazy on the outside.
I'm talking inner convictions. The inner light of this world , which has been kept alive by the enlightened masters, who wisely avoided such conflict.

I can't pin down where you are coming from - maybe not meant to. You posted earlier as follows:

"The faith I talk about is the type of faith you get from deductive reasoning about your experiences coupled with the world around you, the type of faith one needs to move beyond duality."

I have a problem seeing how to conduct any form of reasoning whatever while the meaning of central words (for example "faith" ) is allowed to be fluid, depending on your mood.

Inner conviction is capable of being deceptive as you know I am sure. I have an aversion to being deceived (insofar as it is possible for me to avoid this, I will seek to avoid it).

It is possible to read a great deal into the teachings of The Buddha, for a great example of an enlightened master I am sure, and to find that the language is meaningful and coherent. By all means it describes inner experiences, but it does describe them using words consistently. I do not think that the Buddha advocated blind faith nor relied on his personal authority in any way. He typically said words to the effect - try doing this and see how it works for you. If it does not work try something else.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
depends. will you need those assertions to prove another assertion? will those intial assertion change your life for the better? will not believing in them possibly cause you harm in the future and will believing in them cause you harm in the present? will living in light of those assertion somehow enrich your life?

I have just read a great novel (Wolf Among Wolves) by Hans Fallada and it has enriched my life. I can listen to Schuman and be enriched. I recommend them to you but I do not impose my aesthetic judgement on you.

Where I have trouble is being persuaded to accept a complex belief system that is not coherent and being told that lack of coherence is not a problem for people with "faith." Arguably many people just get on with their faith as a private matter and that has no significance whatever. But in reality the imposition of belief is a common factor across the globe and it is a social problem that merits debate.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
to Palynka

the best way to exsplain the god that i appreciate, is to describe what a wishy washy god is first.

A W.W. god judges your behavour, and keeps score.
A W.W. god has a place called hell, for all the naughty people.
A W.W. god enjoys watching all the naughty people burn in hell.
A W.W. god has one begotten son, who he sends to earth to s ...[text shortened]... ssing things in great lengths, so if there is a specific question then ask.

cheers vishvahetu

Your account of God is empty of meaning. To take each aspect of our universe and pronounce "God gave us that" or God made that" supplies precisely no new information that we require for any purpose whatever. If you substitute for the word "God" the word "Nature" or "Universe" then nothing has altered.

The concept of God can matter in at least two ways - if it supplies an explanation for things we do not understand otherwise or - if it impels us to act in one way rather than another.

Originally posted by finnegan
I can't pin down where you are coming from - maybe not meant to. You posted earlier as follows:

[b] "The faith I talk about is the type of faith you get from deductive reasoning about your experiences coupled with the world around you, the type of faith one needs to move beyond duality."

I have a problem seeing how to conduct any form of reasoni ect - try doing this and see how it works for you. If it does not work try something else.[/b]

Granted I give fluid meanings to words, and hence get into strife, But imo, breaking up our belief systems is one of my main points here. So no concrete answers from me. Just "food for thought", hopefully-at least thats the spirit I wanted it to be taken in.
Inner conviction based on personal experience. Hows that? Is that still confusing?

Question: do you think you can get into the spirit of what I'm trying to say? I'm not saying agree with me, just to see if you can relate to my words on some level.

If one cannot get into the spirit of anothers arguement, the origonal proposal will get shot down.
Of course to get into the spirit first you have to establish some common ground/word meanings.

Finally my main goal is NOT to replace old dogma with new dogma. I want to "free up" everyones thinking, so their minds can be ready to take on new outlandish ideas and give those ideas the merit they deserve,(if any). I donot want to replace an old paradigm with a new one. You can do that all by yourself. (Did I answer your queries?)

Originally posted by finnegan
Your account of God is empty of meaning. To take each aspect of our universe and pronounce "God gave us that" or God made that" supplies precisely no new information that we require for any purpose whatever. If you substitute for the word "God" the word "Nature" or "Universe" then nothing has altered.

The concept of God can matter in at least two ways ...[text shortened]... do not understand otherwise or - if it impels us to act in one way rather than another.

to finnegan

meaning is something you create yourself, one can have meanig or not, its up to the person.

Yes, nature or the universe is fine with me, but i said that god is the creative principle of everything, in answer to the atheists

cheers vishvahetu

Originally posted by finnegan
Your account of God is empty of meaning. To take each aspect of our universe and pronounce "God gave us that" or God made that" supplies precisely no new information that we require for any purpose whatever. If you substitute for the word "God" the word "Nature" or "Universe" then nothing has altered.

The concept of God can matter in at least two ways ...[text shortened]... do not understand otherwise or - if it impels us to act in one way rather than another.

Well said. Sounds like an even more wishy-washy definition of God.

Spinoza might disagree, though. 😀