I believe (part two...
-
@juanv.soler said:
the thing about that ...that elusive Yellow Brick Road...is, i think, that we must remember that we are made as whole and that the questions we ask ourselves by the rational way, is inside that whole thing we are.
so even the highest question we can ask is under the whole corporeal frame we are in, and because the desire of living always wins , as the desire of living is the motor of our life itself, that means that the mental approach to things is under it.
So, the answers must be felt. and that take us to be able to understand them without wordsĀ”Ā”Ā”Juan, what a wonderful analogy! Concise and yet inclusive as usual. (Though I didn't know if by "!Guau" you meant Woof! or Wow!, so thanks for explaining :`) This may well fit quite nicely with the way I think of it...if I may add I think it is important to question rationally, because I know when my mind is well wrapped around an idea about the way of things, a perspective of how it all falls together, my "whole" is less conflicted and more at peace.
-
all I can think about it is, that as breathing is the conductive path for living, outside and inside merges in us.
Dont know about God.
Tom, do not put weight on me)
thanks -
see what happened ?
it went to the bottom -
@tomsdesk said:
And love is...?
Poets, musicians, artists - they are all trying to describe it.
You can fill it Tom, everyone who loves a little knows God a little.
It as a true readiness to give everything you are, burn away yourself for the loved one.
Now imagine the personalized love - love which 'IS'. Imagine how the Love can love.@tomsdesk said:
Is love only internal: feeling loved and/or loving? Or is it an external thing transferable? What constitutes love that can manifest? Is God only internal, or external as well? More please!)
The love is omnipresent. I would risk that a theory that even a matter is made of love. We all are.
'Our Father' and Franciscan brotherhood with a nature is not a coincidence. We are woven of Love.
It is why if one denies it and turns into violence and hate it destroys himself. He\she denies very self.
On the other hand - someone deeply inspired by love will not only grow but will let others see the light.I like Juan's analogy - the Love & an air. The Love isn't something that one can posses. You can breath it in and let it do its job - give it away. Love is dynamic like an air.
Tom-ash
-
how beautiful Tom-ash
thank_you -
I have debated whether or not to enter this discussion. However I think there are things I need to say. I respect this community and the openness we strive to achieve. Also Alan, I hold you in high regard... I have some questions.
You say:
@alan fraser said:
God is Love. Just exactly that. It doesn't say God wants people to love, or God indulges in love Himself or God is represented by love. It says God IS Love....one and the same thing. When you love, you manifest a little bit more of God.
āItā says that Alan? What says that? Surely you are not citing the Bible. You donāt believe in the validity of the Bible according to your statements in this thread: http://www.sketchucation.com/forums/scf/viewtopic.php?f=179&t=12160&st=0&sk=t&sd=a
You think that there are some great lessons in the Bible but that it is not dictated by God. So what prompts you to make the statement āGod is Love?ā How do you know? Where are you getting your information from? What is the āItā you are referring to?@alan fraser said:
āI do actually believe in God....I even attend church more than most; and I think there are some great lessons in the Bible. But I also believe that those other guys I mentioned...and modern science in general, have it correct.ā
Surely not these guys:
- Dawkins. He is an atheist. By definition he believes there is no God, cut and dry.
- Sagan. He was an agnostic and neither believed in God nor did he discount the possibility. That there was just no proof either way.
- Hawking? I will quote him: āIt is better not to use the word "god" to describe what I believe because most people use the word to mean a being with which one can have a personal relationship.ā Does he even know? Does it matter?
%(#BF8000)[- Darwin. Ok, you already covered him but let me recap some of your statements...@alan fraser said:
āHe was bound for the clergy before he ever set foot aboard the Beagle.ā
Did that mean he was a Christian at one time? Surely he had to believe to some degree or he would not have been on that original path.
@alan fraser said:
āDarwin's son Francis wrote a book about his father in which no mention was made that his father was ever converted. Quite the contrary, he confirmed that he was an agnostic, an unbeliever until his dying day.ā
So which was he? Personally it makes no difference to me but your statements donāt seem to mesh. So we'll say he is an agnostic as his son was probably the closest to him.]
Ok, you believe these guys have it correct yet the way I see it, they donāt fundamentally agree. Correct me if I am wrong; Hawking talks about and believes in his definition of God, whatever that is. Dawkins believes there is no God and Darwin and Sagan believed it improbable, not impossible.
What is it then that they have correct?@alan fraser said:
I believe in Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking and Charles Darwin.
How can you believe in God and Dawkins at the same time?
My last question... well I am finding it hard to ask without it sounding like an attack. Sorry if it does.
You also say āI even attend church more than most.ā I am assuming it is a Christian church? If not I deeply apologize.
So why do you go? If you don't believe the Bible is God's word then what is there to gain for your attending church?
Professed atheists on this forum are rallying behind your arguments yet your statements and actions are inconsistent.
Dare I say, hypocritical?I respect you Alan, I am just not following.
Tom, I appreciate your quest. You ask sincerely, āWhat do you believe?ā
Well, I believe the Bible is the word of God. You guys keep saying the Bible is nonsense. Well the writings and āsaviors of scienceā you guys keep quoting donāt even seem to agree with each other. I get my morals and direction from the Bible that was inspired by God, written down by man and translated into different languages for the betterment of mankind, yes by man. But I also trust the wisdom of those who translated the Bible, voted on which books were to be in the Cannon and who undoubtedly prayed to God at length about which directions and actions to take; seeking Godās guidance rather than manās.
Someone here made the argument that God does not speak to his people like in Old Testament times. True, he speaks to us now in a different way. When Jesus came he āsealed the dealā. Then God changed his communication methods. Now it is through his word (Bible), through the Holy Spirit and through prayer, people and circumstances.
I am a Father, a Son and Husband; three āpersonalitiesā of the same person. I believe in a one true living God who is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Call it what you will, I call it the Trinity.
Tom, you say:
@tomsdesk said:
āI've talked to a lot of different makes and models of Christians over the years trying to resolve my true beliefs with my childhood tutelage: never met two who believed the same across the board (more often not much beyond my point).ā
I agree with you there but the one thing that all Christians believe is that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died for our sins and through Him we have salvation. All other doctrines, politics and what not that we might disagree on does not define our salvation. God wonāt deny heaven to one if he believes the earth to be 6000 years old and not to another if he believes it to be 4.5 Billion years old. It is not a salvation issue. If you use this argument to discount Christianity you might as well say that SketchUp is not a 3D modeling program because not everyone who uses it does so exactly the same way.
"You don't use the Outliner?" "No, I use Layers exclusively". "WHAT ARE WE DOING?" "Maybe we should try Revit now!"
I considered not quoting any scripture seeing as it is falling on deaf ears here but I just donāt think I could do my argument or my faith any justice if I do not.
Psalms 118:8 says; "It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man."
God has never let me down and he never will.
I believe I will trust in God, not man.I also believe in respecting other people and their beliefs. And as flawed as I am I also try to live my life as an example of my faith while trying to bring the love of God to whomever seeks it.
With Respect,
Eric%(#800000)[On a lighter note:
What does a Dyslexic, Agnostic Insomniac do? Sits up all night wondering if there really is a DOG.] -
Eric,
I'm not at all offended (and I apologize in advance if I misunderstand you) but because that other thread is so long I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea about what I've been saying. My post you quoted was in defense of this post, which had been questioned as false:@tomsdesk said:
Guess I shouldn't apologize for mincing words (since it is a pretty big theme here today :`) so I won't: Isn't there a big difference in meaning between "Christianity" and "Christian Church Doctrine"?
It is my understanding that the former is the belief that Jesus was the Christ son of God who is the only path to redemption and salvation. The later is a set of sect beliefs agreed to by a group of Christians...often thought of by said same as the only way to be a true Christian.
I certainly haven't been arguing against Christianity...whatever floats your boat about Jesus is fine with me. All I can say at this moment is: I believe he was a wise teacher and certainly a great prophet of the Bible because of his message of living a loving life.
-
It was written above, a few times, that "God is love"
Behold a partial 'formula' of "love"
:"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth."
[1 Corinthians 13:4-6 (NIV)]In the same time, God is JUST...
Cornel
-
The answer's quite simple, Eric. One quote of mine you didn't use was "It can't be said loud enough of often enough; Intelligent Design or Creationism is NOT science. Confusing Faith with Science is symptomatic of people who aren't clear about the distinction between the two and who, therefore, are in no position to teach either."
I do believe that Dawkins et al have it correct scientifically. I do believe the Earth is 4.5 billion years old or thereabouts. I also believe that much of the Old Testament is folklore and much of the New Testament is severely edited. There is more missing from the NT than is included...like the Gospel of St Thomas...every bit as valid as the other four. What mere human can decide what is the word of God and what isn't?...and if they maybe got that wrong, what else did they get wrong?
This is nothing new; people were saying as much in Elizabethan times...even early Christian times...and questioning the authority of the established Church.
However, all that does not preclude me having any faith at all. I may believe Dawkins' and Darwin's science, that doesn't mean I adhere to their faith. The two things are entirely separate.I go to church because I get something from it. That doesn't mean I have to swallow it hook, line and sinker. Certainly on this side of the pond that is going to put me firmly in the majority. I don't have any more problem with that than all the catholics I know that don't believe in transubstantiation...which is all of them.
-
I had read that quote Alan. The reason for my confusion was your statement:
@alan fraser said:
āI do actually believe in God....I even attend church more than most; and I think there are some great lessons in the Bible. But I also believe that those other guys I mentioned...and modern science in general, have it correct.ā
It appeared to me that you were not distinguishing between the two, my mistake. Thanks for making your point clear.
@tomsdesk said:
Eric,
I'm not at all offended (and I apologize in advance if I misunderstand you)...No need to apologize Tom, I was just using your statement to make a point.
-
Eric, guess I didn't misunderstand...so I repeat the clearing of air: my words had nothing to do with your point.
-
@alan fraser said:
...like the Gospel of St Thomas....
The CorĆ”n says that JĆŖsus did not die neither on the cross or anywhere else. It says that He was raisen alive and that He will come back on the judgement day.
It says another person was the one who was crucified. It does not say who.
Talking about the dif_ferent Gospels, I have just found, a couple of months ago, the Gospel of BarnabĆ”s/BernabĆ©, that I had no idea it existed. It is the Gospel that matchs best with the CorĆ”n book for it tells as well, that JĆŖsus did not die but that He was raised alive and determines that it was Judas Iscariot the one who died on the cross.So, as you see, there are Gospels of JĆŖsus for everyone
-
Yes, J.V.S.,
there are Gospels and 'gospels', "for everyone".For example, there is a Gospel for me...! Re. my Jesus:
"Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)Cornel
-
yes Cornel,
i agree that one must have the one that suits him best, in honesty.
that should do. -
Eric (et al, since I may well have killed this thread while it was doing so well), this post:
@tomsdesk said:
Eric, guess I didn't misunderstand...so I repeat the clearing of air: my words had nothing to do with your point.
should have read more like this:
Eric, all I want to make clear is I am in no way
@unknownuser said:...saying the Bible is nonsense...(or using)...this argument to discount Christianity...
I (adamantly! :`) have no interest in playing out the parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant again, and again...and again. (And before anyone tries to paint me with Raja paint: don't...I am admittedly fully, and often painfully, aware of my own blindness.) My purpose is to understand what others have seen and gain insight to better understand what I see...then I wish to continue my exploration for more of the same. -
@unknownuser said:
The love is omnipresent. I would risk that a theory that even a matter is made of love. We all are.
'Our Father' and Franciscan brotherhood with a nature is not a coincidence. We are woven of Love.
It is why if one denies it and turns into violence and hate it destroys himself. He\she denies very self.
On the other hand - someone deeply inspired by love will not only grow but will let others see the light.I like Juan's analogy - the Love & an air. The Love isn't something that one can posses. You can breath it in and let it do its job - give it away. Love is dynamic like an air.
Tom-ash
Excellent! Still processing all you (and Juan) have put here so eloquently.
(Alan, you are fortunate...I have several times tried to find the brotherhood of a congregation, but never found one open-minded enough to allow me to comfortably voice or discuss my belief questions in any framework other than the dogma of the particular sect.)
-
Hmmmm...Juan: maybe I'm strabic as well, and so just can't see what I've seen :`) As for:
@juanv.soler said:...the day you see the Light will be fantastic
one can hope. Or maybe my eyes will just be immediately burned blind again...? Either way, one can hope.Nonetheless, for now I feel blind...therefore I am blind for now. (What do you think of the parable? It is one of my favorites. I think the Raja quite myopic as well: presuming to know the beast before him well enough to laugh at those who are searching for truth of it so up close and personal.)
-
Tom ,
"...I am admittedly fully, and often painfully, aware of my own blindness"
so how can you be so sure about your blindness ?
are you sure ?
if so , you are fortunate, for from that awareness you have of your own blindness, the day you see the Light will be fantastic
I have not consciusness of my blindness at all,
maybe it is because I always tended to have my eyes wide-opened and I am strabic, maybe.
_hum -
Well speaking of what we believe and our faith;
Barack Obama is running for our President and
I'm not sure if he even knows what he believes...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qotHTtr30INow yes, I did see the whole interview and get
that comment in context but that is one big
slip if you ask me.
Oops
-
I did not know the parable. I quote it here :
"Once upon a time there was a certain Raja who called to his servant and said, 'Come, good fellow, go and gather together in one place all the men of Savatthi who were born blind... and show them an elephant.' 'Very good, sire,' replied the servant, and he did as he was told. He said to the blind men assembled there, 'Here is an elephant,' and to one man he presented the head of the elephant, to another its ears, to another a tusk, to another the trunk, the foot, back, tail, and tuft of the tail, saying to each one that that was the elephant.
"When the blind men had felt the elephant, the raja went to each of them and said to each, 'Well, blind man, have you seen the elephant? Tell me, what sort of thing is an elephant?'
"Thereupon the men who were presented with the head answered, 'Sire, an elephant is like a pot.' And the men who had observed the ear replied, 'An elephant is like a winnowing basket.' Those who had been presented with a tusk said it was a ploughshare. Those who knew only the trunk said it was a plough; others said the body was a grainery; the foot, a pillar; the back, a mortar; the tail, a pestle, the tuft of the tail, a brush.
"Then they began to quarrel, shouting, 'Yes it is!' 'No, it is not!' 'An elephant is not that!' 'Yes, it's like that!' and so on, till they came to blows over the matter.
"Brethren, the raja was delighted with the scene.
Such folk see only one side of a thing.
I dont think the Raja was quite myopic as well.
I would say that the Raja was just only taking advantage of his not-blind vision.
Not fair.
and what happened to those blind people who were searching for truth of it so up close and personal is, that they did not follow their instinct completely, for, otherwise they should have realised they were touching just one part of the beastĀ”_hum
Advertisement