Originally posted by checkbaiterCome’on, CB. You’ve known me awhile on here—do you really think that’s what I’ve been up to all this time?
I doubt it. I commend you on your persistant endeavor here, but I think you know that most people argue because they don't "want" God nor the bible to be true. They will nitpick at every trivial thing they can conjure up. This way they won't have to look at their sin. People have a difficult time coming to grips with that word. They refuse to accept Jesu ...[text shortened]... hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.
(NKJ)
I look in the texts to see what might be there behind what others claim is the plain meaning. I think I’ve made myself clear that the Bible is not my measure of truth. It is for you and epiphinehas—so be it. Accusations of deceit and self-deceit are no more than that; it is like saying that everyone who disagrees with me is by definition a liar.
You and epiphinehas may be right about what the Bible says. I simply do not take your word that you are right—nor use the Bible to prove the Bible, which is a silly and illogical exercise.
But our divide is far deeper than that. You think that God is a supernatural being, rather than the ultimate One from which we arise, of which we are, in which we exist, and to which we return. (You can make that “which” a “whom” if you like; many non-dualists do, and would have no problem with Paul’s statement in Acts17:28—“for in Him we live, and move, and are; as also certain of your poets have said: For of Him also we are offspring.” (YLT) I thought I had made myself clear many times on here that when I (like other non-dualists in various religious traditions all over the world) say “God,” that is what we are referring to: the ultimate One without a second.
I read the Biblical texts through the axiomatic lens of non-dualism. Whether or not you read the texts through the lens of dualism, or read dualism from the text, I do not know (in your case, I suspect that it is just that I don’t remember)—you can logically do either one, just not both (without committing the error of circularity).
No, I do not think that acceptance of Jesus as the son of that supernatural being is the means or requirement for salvation, whether that is what the Bible says or not. You can proclaim my condemnation once again, if you wish. You can “drop all the hammers” (epiphinehas’s phrase) you want with regard to your view that anything other than a literalistic reading of the Bible as “the word of God” is a distortion. That has no affect on me whatsoever, since we are not even talking in the same ballpark.
If you wish to simply dismiss me as being either dishonest or frivolous, or both, that is your affair. I have not been so presumptuous with regard to Epiphinehas, nor ever with you.
No, Epiphinehas, you have not won all the arguments; you simply insist on making presumptuous judgments from a position of pseudo-certainty that carries no argumentative weight whatsoever. I don’t know who taught you to do that, or where you learned it, but it does not serve you well.
The impasse seems clear.
Originally posted by vistesdNo Vistesd I was not referring to you. I said "most" people in general terms. I admire your honesty and I believe you are seeking truth. I pray that you find it or it finds you. I have high regards for your input and have learned some things from you. That being said, most of the people I work with are as I stated. They love their sin, their ways, if you will. Some are into porn, daily excessive consumption of alcholol, drugs, and much more. Some trust in money, their looks, or just themselves....in the end it takes something outside of man to point the way. As for me, I have been fully persuaded to what I believe as true. That I hope you already know. I have been away for awhile and have recently been browsing the forum. I don't spend as much time here as I used to, and will visit now and then. Take care my friend...
Come’on, CB. You’ve known me awhile on here—do you really think that’s what I’ve been up to all this time?
I look in the texts to see what might be there behind what others claim is the plain meaning. I think I’ve made myself clear that the Bible is not my measure of truth. It is for you and epiphinehas—so be it. Accusations of deceit and self-deceit ...[text shortened]... to do that, or where you learned it, but it does not serve you well.
The impasse seems clear.
Originally posted by checkbaiterCB, I apologize for mis-reading you—I ended up responding to more than just your post, and probably should’ve broken it up right after my first sentence. I should’ve had more faith in you...
No Vistesd I was not referring to you. I said "most" people in general terms. I admire your honesty and I believe you are seeking truth. I pray that you find it or it finds you. I have high regards for your input and have learned some things from you. That being said, most of the people I work with are as I stated. They love their sin, their ways, if you ...[text shortened]... n't spend as much time here as I used to, and will visit now and then. Take care my friend...
You and I have always been able to disagree with mutual respect and regard (Gee, I think we’ve agreed a time or two).
Also, if I remembered to post all the caveats (like non-dualism) before I ventured into a new discussion, there might be less confusion.
I too took a “retreat” from here—from the internet entirely, in fact—for about three months or so, and have not been back that long. When I find that I am getting too caught up in it, I will back away again.
I hope all is well with you and yours.
Originally posted by epiphinehasepiphinehas: I'm not 100% sure exactly what vistesd actually believes in, but it's nothing I'm interested in.
Learning? I respect vistesd, but he and I have a fundamental disagreement in soteriology. Simply speaking, I believe in Jesus Christ and he does not. I'm not 100% sure exactly what vistesd actually believes in, but it's nothing I'm interested in. That he chooses to dabble in Christian texts is our only point of reference. The line of demarcat ...[text shortened]... I have working for me, then so be it. Ice cream is better with chocolate syrup. 😉
What a jerk you are! Why should anybody want to discuss anything with a self-righteous, self-important, deluded idiot like you? If you have no interest in others ideas and beliefs, I suggest you abandon the idea of "contributing" to a forum the purpose of which is to exchange ideas and information and yes, to debate those ideas.
Originally posted by vistesdYou call your non-dualism 'axiomatic', therefore I'm assuming you are intuitively familiar with the nature of God, 'The ultimate One from which we arise, of which we are, in which we exist, and to which we return', since an axiom is self-evident. So let me ask you a few questions. If such non-dualism is not pantheism, then mustn't your God necessarily subsist outside of nature? What distinguishes God from nature itself? After all, don't we arise from nature, exist in nature, and return to nature, too?
But our divide is far deeper than that. You think that God is a supernatural being, rather than the ultimate One from which we arise, of which we are, in which we exist, and to which we return. (You can make that “which” a “whom” if you like; many non-dualists do, and would have no problem with Paul’s statement in Acts17:28—“for in Him we live, and move, ...[text shortened]... to do that, or where you learned it, but it does not serve you well.
The impasse seems clear.
However, I'm going to venture a guess and say that your beliefs are not pantheistic. How, then, do you determine the nature of God other than intuitively? You say that you take nobody's word for it about God, so does that mean you rely exclusively on your own intuition to determine exactly what God is? You are a reasonable man: how reasonable is it to rely upon yourself to determine exactly what God is?
What if it were not possible for you to know enough intuitively in order to make an educated decision about where you stand with God, or where God stands with you, or if it even matters? God might very well be dualistic, as you say, and your conclusions may very well be founded upon a mistaken axiom. Or perhaps dualist/non-dualist paradigms are intellectual models merely, and not representative at all -- like an infinite regress which seems to rule out the impossibility of an uncreated God intellectually, yet we also reduce the distance by halves between your thumb and forefinger infinitely, thereby 'proving' there must be an infinite distance between the two. Is it reality? Likewise, does the logical absurdity of an uncreated God determine God's existence? Our intellectual constructs of God hardly suffice for discovering exactly what God is.
What if God were, by nature, supernatural? Instead of just an abstract God of the mind, what if God were a person -- how would you ever discover that intellectually? What if God were three persons in one -- how could you ever discover that intuitively? What if God weren't a person, how would you ever know it for sure? If this 'ultimate One' in which we have our being, which you intuit with nearly absolute uncertainty, were to harbor a hidden supernatural aspect which produced an Incarnate self on earth, how would you know it? Would it not be something you read about in the papers, rather than something you intellectually and intuitively grasp in meditative ecstasy?
But you read the biblical texts through the 'axiomatic lens of non-dualism', interpreting its statements, commands, laws, and so forth, through your own understanding of God, thereby excluding any possibility of learning anything from its pages. I've been accused of being arrogant in these forums for defending the bible's integrity, but I can think of nothing more arrogant than interpreting the bible through a preconceived axiomatic lens. Talk about pseudo-certainty...
Are we in the same ballpark yet?
Originally posted by kirksey957With Jesus Christ there is no fence-sitting: "He who is not with Me [siding and believing with Me] is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me [engage in My interest], scatters" (Luke 11:23 AMP). Jesus Christ is a problem for everyone except those who believe in Him.
When you say "somebody in here needs to summon the guts to solve the problem of Christ once and for all" what exactly do you mean?
Originally posted by no1marauderI find it amusing that you of all people are calling me a jerk. I've read your other posts. 🙂
epiphinehas: I'm not 100% sure exactly what vistesd actually believes in, but it's nothing I'm interested in.
What a jerk you are! Why should anybody want to discuss anything with a self-righteous, self-important, deluded idiot like you? If you have no interest in others ideas and beliefs, I suggest you abandon the idea of "contributing" to a ...[text shortened]... m the purpose of which is to exchange ideas and information and yes, to debate those ideas.
So now I'm a self-righteous, self-important and a deluded idiot, too? I'm curious, what ever happened to 'judge not'? Or was your adoption of Christ's teachings merely a marriage of convenience; a kind of smoke-screen to avoid having me 'judge' your biblical misunderstandings. Would you rather I be the meek and mild Christian you're used to taunting? Not a chance, pal.
In all seriousness, I don't care how you judge me. I'll go ahead and bless you anyway. God bless you, no1marauder, you are one of a kind. May the Lord's light and love fill your heart... In Jesus's Name, Amen.
Originally posted by epiphinehasDon't be such a phony.
I find it amusing that you of all people are calling me a jerk. I've read your other posts. 🙂
So now I'm a self-righteous, self-important and a deluded idiot, too? I'm curious, what ever happened to 'judge not'? Or was your adoption of Christ's teachings merely a marriage of convenience; a kind of smoke-screen to avoid having me 'judge' your bibl ...[text shortened]... f a kind. May the Lord's light and love fill your heart... In Jesus's Name, Amen.
The only Biblical misunderstandings you've shown are your own. I see you're unwilling to wrap your head around Matthew 25:31-46; most fundies won't. Go read some Paul instead.
Originally posted by no1marauderDo you think Christ is really saying that all you have to be is a good person to get into heaven?
The only Biblical misunderstandings you've shown are your own. I see you're unwilling to wrap your head around Matthew 25:31-46; most fundies won't. Go read some Paul instead.
Originally posted by epiphinehasIf such non-dualism is not pantheism, then mustn't your God necessarily subsist outside of nature? What distinguishes God from nature itself? After all, don't we arise from nature, exist in nature, and return to nature, too?
You call your non-dualism 'axiomatic', therefore I'm assuming you are intuitively familiar with the nature of God, 'The ultimate One from which we arise, of which we are, in which we exist, and to which we return', since an axiom is self-evident. So let me ask you a few questions. If such non-dualism is not pantheism, then mustn't your God necessarily ...[text shortened]... tic lens. Talk about pseudo-certainty...
Are we in the same ballpark yet?
I prefer the term monism to pantheism, simply because I think that the former term—at least for me—stresses the ultimate reality of the whole from which all arises. Some people seem to treat the terms synonymously, but some pantheists seem to take a kind of additive approach—as if you could add up all the currents and that is simply what the ocean is, rather than the ocean being the “ground” from which and in which and of which the currents are formed. Non-dualism implies non-separability. The current is not separable from the ocean. But it is not the ocean. One arises from the other.
If by “outside” you mean separate from, then that becomes dualism.
God might very well be dualistic, as you say, and your conclusions may very well be founded upon a mistaken axiom.
That is quite true. I’m not sure how you’re using the word “intuitive” here; I speak in terms of a non-discursive or pre-conceptualized experience of consciousness in/of reality. I also think that the non-dualistic model seem more reasonable. But I can’t go so far as to say that either my experience or my reason represent “proof,” so I prefer to treat it as axiomatic.
Dualism is the alternative axiom, which I am sure seems more reasonable to you. Ultimately, I think it too ought to be treated axiomatically—or, perhaps less strictly, a foundational principle.
Likewise, does the logical absurdity of an uncreated God determine God's existence?
Well, it depends on how coherent our logical capacities are with respect to God. Can one believe reasonably in a logically absurd God?
Our intellectual constructs of God hardly suffice for discovering exactly what God is.
Agreed. Or saying what God is, or thinking what God is. And I don’t think our intellectual “grammar” is any less limited in that regard for a monist than a monotheist.
What if God were, by nature, supernatural? Instead of just an abstract God of the mind, what if God were a person -- how would you ever discover that intellectually? What if God were three persons in one -- how could you ever discover that intuitively? What if God weren't a person, how would you ever know it for sure? If this 'ultimate One' in which we have our being, which you intuit with nearly absolute uncertainty, were to harbor a hidden supernatural aspect which produced an Incarnate self on earth, how would you know it? Would it not be something you read about in the papers, rather than something you intellectually and intuitively grasp in meditative ecstasy?
First, monism does not necessarily exclude a supernatural category, or supernatural aspect of the whole.
Second, I don’t know what you mean by “meditative ecstasy.”
Third, if you are saying that dualistic theism requires some sort of divine revelation because of the complete separability of creature and creator, such that our natural cognitive capacities are non-congruent and cannot “bridge the gap”—then yes, I would agree that such a revelation is necessary to know anything about the mystery.
BTW, I do not assert that we are the only species whose singular conscious is not “transcended” by perhaps many aspects of reality, natural or supernatural.
But you read the biblical texts through the 'axiomatic lens of non-dualism', interpreting its statements, commands, laws, and so forth, through your own understanding of God, thereby excluding any possibility of learning anything from its pages.
I may be somewhat guilty as charged here. I did however read the Bible as a dualistic Christian long before becoming a non-dualist, and for a long time. That is the way I learned to read it. I was a sola scripturist for most of my life. So my re-reading of the texts at this point, from a different perspective, is just that. As I noted to CB, I will take responsibility for the confusion coming from my not being clear about that.
...but I can think of nothing more arrogant than interpreting the bible through a preconceived axiomatic lens. Talk about pseudo-certainty...
I don’t know what you mean by certainty. I have never claimed certainty—which you took to mean lack of any capacity for faith or confidence. I do not know how anyone reads the Bible without some a priori lens—even if they are not aware of it. That is not to say that they might not change their mind. “Hey, they told me this was all fiction; now I’m not so sure. What if I shift my lens and read it as divine revelation...?” That kind of thing.
You can either start with a concept of God, and read the texts through that; or you can start with some idea of what the texts represent (e.g., the inerrant word of God) and come to your understanding of God that way.
Originally posted by epiphinehasHe's "really saying" what he says: that you'll be judged based on how you treat other people. Saying "I'm Born Again and/or I like Jesus!" won't cut it.
Do you think Christ is really saying that all you have to be is a good person to get into heaven?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren, even these least, ye did it unto me.
Originally posted by no1marauderI've never asserted that merely saying, "I'm born again", makes it so. That definitely won't cut it. It is a real event that occurs after a person repents, believes in and comes under the headship of Jesus Christ. Jesus says in the beginning of John 3: "I tell you the truth, unless you are born again, you cannot see the Kingdom of God" (3:3). And furthermore: "And you will perish, too, unless you repent of your sins and turn to God" (Luke 13:3).
He's "really saying" what he says: that you'll be judged based on how you treat other people. Saying "I'm Born Again and/or I like Jesus!" won't cut it.
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren, even these least, ye did it unto me.
So how do you reconcile what Jesus says in Matthew 25:31-46 with what Jesus says in John 3:14-21?
"And as Moses lifted up the bronze snake on a pole in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in him will have eternal life. For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through him. There is no judgment against anyone who believes in him. But anyone who does not believe in him has already been judged for not believing in God’s one and only Son. And the judgment is based on this fact: God’s light came into the world, but people loved the darkness more than the light, for their actions were evil. All who do evil hate the light and refuse to go near it for fear their sins will be exposed. But those who do what is right come to the light so others can see that they are doing what God wants."
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdBy understanding of God, do you mean intellectual understanding? Because, if one were to come to understand God through the bible, as the inerrant word of God, then he or she would come to an understanding of Him through the impartation of the Holy Spirit upon being born again, which is direct knowledge rather than that gained through logic or reason. That would be the case for whosoever approaches the bible as the inerrant word of God. You must believe to receive, as they say. Thoughts?
You can either start with a concept of God, and read the texts through that; or you can start with some idea of what the texts represent (e.g., the inerrant word of God) and come to your understanding of God that way.