If God existed, do our efforts to know God matter?

[SnakeLord]

erm I did.

Incorrect. The statement was: "You have a...". Can you see why that is an argument against the individual?

You don't understand anything... See? It's not an argument against the argument, it's a personal attack. Kindly refrain from doing so in future.

I don't have a problem with the statement "I experience relief from many forms of distress" ... especially when I compare my experience to people who don't act on such knowledge

Apologies, again I am compelled to ask what you refer to when you say "knowledge". In context of the discussion, that is seemingly knowledge of a god. If so, you are stating that you have less distress than non-theists. Can you justify this claim with anything substantial?

Knowledge of god

I see. So we have established that "knowledge of god" doesn't actually require "relief from all kinds of material distress", but apparently just some. You stated that "relief from all kinds of material distress" was an "inidcation" that one knew god. I would ask, given that it's now some and not all, if you could kindly name me one that no longer applies to you. I am asking, should there be some confusion, for you to name me just one form of "material distress" that you are free from.

If one claims to know god but doesn't experience relief from distress, their knowledge is not perfect.

I see. So your knowledge isn't perfect, (that's given since you've admitted that you don't have relief from all forms of material distress). I would at this stage, as asked earlier, request that you give me one example that you fulfill.

Regards,

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

“
erm I did.
”
Incorrect. The statement was: "You have a...". Can you see why that is an argument against the individual?

You don't understand anything... See? It's not an argument against the argument, it's a personal attack. Kindly refrain from doing so in future.

Compare to a " You are a .....".
Anyway, you recanted the argument in the next paragraph( by agreeing that it is not all or nothing). Since you no longer "have" the argument, you're not affected by the ramifications of caricaturing.
Satisfied?

“
I don't have a problem with the statement "I experience relief from many forms of distress" ... especially when I compare my experience to people who don't act on such knowledge
”
Apologies, again I am compelled to ask what you refer to when you say "knowledge". In context of the discussion, that is seemingly knowledge of a god. If so, you are stating that you have less distress than non-theists. Can you justify this claim with anything substantial?

Knowledge of god is sometimes split up into three categories

1. knowledge of our relationship with the Supreme
2. the process for realizing that knowledge
3. the ultimate goal of life

If you apply these three issues you have a means for grading the value of a theistic claim/practice.

As mentioned, the issue of distress is tied to issues of actions of ignorance. If one has the correct approach to the first issue of knowledge of god (namely the basis for the relationship), one has a means for action without ignorance.

Of course there are other models of action, but all of them involve having distress as an accommodated factor (or more precisely, as a factor that defines the pursuit of happiness - for instance, the happiness of a holiday is defined by the distress of having to work in something that one finds tiresome, etc etc)

“
Knowledge of god
”
I see. So we have established that "knowledge of god" doesn't actually require "relief from all kinds of material distress", but apparently just some.

Unless you are returning to your caricatured analysis of knowledge, the point is actually that the degree of relief is contingent on the degree that the knowledge is applied

You stated that "relief from all kinds of material distress" was an "inidcation" that one knew god. I would ask, given that it's now some and not all, if you could kindly name me one that no longer applies to you. I am asking, should there be some confusion, for you to name me just one form of "material distress" that you are free from.

as an easy introduction, we've already been over the inescapable distress of ascribing eternal values to temporary objects (such as attachment to one's children) and how the materialist is not at all equipped with a solution.

“
If one claims to know god but doesn't experience relief from distress, their knowledge is not perfect.
”
I see. So your knowledge isn't perfect, (that's given since you've admitted that you don't have relief from all forms of material distress).

Not quite

If one has knowledge of god but has no relief from distress, that knowledge is not perfect.
(especially if it is characterized by an abandonment of theism)

I would at this stage, as asked earlier, request that you give me one example that you fulfill.

Regards,

In short, any knowledge based claim may place the stress of consistency on a practitioner, but for it to pass the point of being "actionable", it simply requires a certain ratio.

For instance a "pass" is often recorded at 50% +.

 

[SnakeLord]

Compare to a " You are a .....".

Apologies, this too is an indication of an argument against the individual. Kindly don't do it in future.

Knowledge of god is sometimes split up into three categories

Ok, this is very interesting but unfortunately doesn't in any way satisfy the question. Here it is again:

In context of the discussion, that is seemingly knowledge of a god. If so, you are stating that you have less distress than non-theists. Can you justify this claim with anything substantial?

as an easy introduction, we've already been over the inescapable distress of ascribing eternal values to temporary objects (such as attachment to one's children) and how the materialist is not at all equipped with a solution.

Forgive me but I do not see how this answers the question. When it comes to knowledge of god/s you stated that there the six indications of showing that one knows god/s. The first indication that you mentioned had to do with being free from all kinds of material distress". I am asking you to name me just one that you are free from. The reason I ask should be apparent. So please, without talking about ones children or anything else that isn't really relevant to the question, kindly give me just one example of "material distress" that you are free from.

Not quite

If one has knowledge of god but has no relief from distress, that knowledge is not perfect.

You'll have to excuse me but this is bizarre. I mentioned that your knowledge of god/s isn't perfect because, as you admitted, you're not free from all forms of material distress. Your response was "not quite" but then went on to say: "If one has knowledge of god but has no relief from distress, that knowledge is not perfect.", which is surely the exact same thing as saying your knowledge of god/s isn't perfect because you're not free from all forms of material distress? - which is exactly what I stated.

In short, any knowledge based claim may place the stress of consistency on a practitioner, but for it to pass the point of being "actionable", it simply requires a certain ratio

That's interesting and I thank you for it. Could you possibly tell me what it has to do with my request? Here is that request once again: "I would at this stage, as asked earlier, request that you give me [just] one example that you fulfill"

Many thanks.

For instance a "pass" is often recorded at 50% +.

50% heh. You'll have to forgive me, my maths isn't great - but from what I was taught, 50% works out roughly to be about half. I could be wrong but I'll use that anyway. Thing is, I didn't ask that you show me how you are free from half of all material distress, I asked you to present me just one example.

Many thanks.

P.S "Recorded" by who?

 

[swarm]

If God existed, do our efforts to know God matter, do they count for anything?

From the Sovran Maxims by Epicurus:

1. A blessed and indestructible being has no trouble himself and brings no trouble upon any other being; so he is free from anger and partiality, for all such things imply weakness.

2. Death is nothing to us; for that which has been dissolved into its elements experiences no sensations, and that which has no sensation is nothing to us.

Also...

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus

Finally...

“The gods are not to be feared; death cannot be felt; the good can be won; all that we dread can be conquered.” - Epicurus

 

[wynn]

True, but i think you got to understand the gravity of what Word know.

To know is not to have a fair idea, or a pretty good theory about God, to Know God is to Know God and Only God knows God.

...

We can know Gods will on a matter or matters if God's will is for us to know them. All we can ever know about God's will is what God is willing for us to know.

But according to you then, we cannot know, for example, whether God is beautiful or not, whether He is kind or not, whether He prefers vegetarian food over meat, ... whether He is omniscient or not, not even whether He created the Universe or not ...?

 

[Adstar]

But according to you then, we cannot know, for example, whether God is beautiful or not, whether He is kind or not, whether He prefers vegetarian food over meat, ... whether He is omniscient or not, not even whether He created the Universe or not ...?

No. Not according to me.

Many of the points you have raised have been revealed by God who has allowed us to know about these things. But just because God has revealed these things it still does not change the fact that nobody actually Knows God in full.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

Compare to a " You are a .....".
”
Apologies, this too is an indication of an argument against the individual. Kindly don't do it in future.

On the contrary, a healthy part of intelligent discussion is dedicated to accepting responsibility for what we say. If you present a caricatured understanding of knowledge, there is certainly nothing untoward in suggesting you have a caricatured understanding of knowledge.

“
Knowledge of god is sometimes split up into three categories
”
Ok, this is very interesting but unfortunately doesn't in any way satisfy the question. Here it is again:

In context of the discussion, that is seemingly knowledge of a god. If so, you are stating that you have less distress than non-theists. Can you justify this claim with anything substantial?

Well, to reiterate, your question is pertinent to the first category, namely

knowledge of our relationship with the Supreme

(the other two aspects of knowledge were mentioned just in case you ever find your way into analyzing the other 5 indicators - for instance deriding liberation is defined by issues surrounding knowledge of the goal of life)


It looks something like this syllogism.

P1 - acts of ignorance are the ultimate cause of distress
P2 - ignorance is essentially the state of not being aware of how/why our environment operates and how/why we operate in an environment.
Conclusion - If we become knowledgeable about our relationship with god (which determines so many other relationships, like how/why we relate to each other, how/why we relate to the physical world, how/why we relate to the body and mind we inhabit, etc etc) we clear up a great deal of the potential objects of distress.

IOW due to ignorance, a person is simply acting in a way to increase their attachment and involvement to this material world, which simply awards distress.

A classic example which we have gone over several times already is the sense of attachment one feels towards one's children, even though such a relationship will inevitably be curtailed by separation (IOW investing eternal values on temporary objects).

“
as an easy introduction, we've already been over the inescapable distress of ascribing eternal values to temporary objects (such as attachment to one's children) and how the materialist is not at all equipped with a solution.
”
Forgive me but I do not see how this answers the question. When it comes to knowledge of god/s you stated that there the six indications of showing that one knows god/s. The first indication that you mentioned had to do with being free from all kinds of material distress". I am asking you to name me just one that you are free from. The reason I ask should be apparent. So please, without talking about ones children or anything else that isn't really relevant to the question, kindly give me just one example of "material distress" that you are free from.

I'm not sure why you have such a difficulty understanding this.

If a secular government can recognize the key issues of distress that maintaining a family involves and why such a responsibility is undertaken, I am not sure why you cannot.

“
Not quite

If one has knowledge of god but has no relief from distress, that knowledge is not perfect.
”
You'll have to excuse me but this is bizarre. I mentioned that your knowledge of god/s isn't perfect because, as you admitted, you're not free from all forms of material distress. Your response was "not quite" but then went on to say: "If one has knowledge of god but has no relief from distress, that knowledge is not perfect.", which is surely the exact same thing as saying your knowledge of god/s isn't perfect because you're not free from all forms of material distress? - which is exactly what I stated.

Basically I am saying that knowledge becomes perfect when it becomes actionable. I am not saying that knowledge becomes perfect when it becomes complete (in the sense of completely displaying a 100% competency) .

IOW if one has (apparent) knowledge of god but is not experiencing relief it tends to indicate that their knowledge is not actionable (IOW they are still acting in ignorance 24/7).

This scenario is distinct from a person who experiences distress only during momentary lapses of consistency.
Big difference between a professional driver who has a minor crash about once every 7 years and someone who knocks over 90% of the red witches hats at the training centre every time.

“
In short, any knowledge based claim may place the stress of consistency on a practitioner, but for it to pass the point of being "actionable", it simply requires a certain ratio
”
That's interesting and I thank you for it. Could you possibly tell me what it has to do with my request? Here is that request once again: "I would at this stage, as asked earlier, request that you give me [just] one example that you fulfill"

Many thanks.

In terms of pedagogy, its impossible to answer a question about skill competency without calling on some model of consistency for key indicators.

IOW demanding "prove what are you skilled at" only becomes meaningful discussion when there is an agreed understanding of what establishes a key indicator.

“
For instance a "pass" is often recorded at 50% +.
”
50% heh. You'll have to forgive me, my maths isn't great - but from what I was taught, 50% works out roughly to be about half.

hehe

take it up with your local school board

I could be wrong but I'll use that anyway. Thing is, I didn't ask that you show me how you are free from half of all material distress, I asked you to present me just one example.

Many thanks.

As you might be aware, competency based training is now quite popular, especially in the workplace. Generally it has only two grades "competent" and "incompetent". The idea is that essentially they are only interested in assessing whether you can do the job (of course details differ, but it is not uncommon to receive a "competent" rating at around 60-70%) . Generally what is a problem is not so much doing something wrong, but doing something wrong and not being aware that it is (or not having the means to even begin to assess a workplace related problem). This is why, say, a heavy vehicle driver with a good 10 year record can be deemed competent, even the very day after having an accident.

Of course there are other aspects of knowledge that calls upon different models of assessment, namely the transmissive model (which usually is applied to key indicators that require a heavy theory knowledge base). These models are useless in assessing performance. (A classic example is where harvard physics graduates, when asked informally to solve a problem of speed and weight likely to be encountered in a public transport system involving trains were dumbfounded).

Anyway, just a bit of a background briefing on a few pedagogical issues, since its seems you are still being persistent with maintaining a caricatured picture of knowledge.

In short, if you think an admission that "I can't achieve this result 100% of the time even though I am familiar with all the theoretical prerequisites" is an admission of failure, you are probably not suited for a career in H.R.

P.S "Recorded" by who?

People who are knowledgeable of the relevant key indicators of course.

 

[wynn]

No. Not according to me.

Many of the points you have raised have been revealed by God who has allowed us to know about these things. But just because God has revealed these things it still does not change the fact that nobody actually Knows God in full.

But accepting those relevations to be revelations from/of God still comes down to your confidence that they are revelations from/of God, and not from someone else?


Other than that - Please tell me what the God you believe in is like: What is His name? What does He look like? How does He spend His time? Whom does He like to associate with? What is the color of His skin, His hair - if He has skin and hair?
When you pray to God - if you do pray-, how do formulate your prayers, to whom do you address them, what do you think of when you pray to God?

 

[wynn]

A good way in dealing with this type of suggestion is to replace the word "god" with "president". It highlights the problems.

For instance, to say that to know what/who is the president is not to say that one must be the president

Yes, this seems common sense. We also don't think that we must become an apple pie or a fir or an Indian to know what an apple pie, a fir or an Indian are.

In short, there is a point where knowledge becomes practically actionable. This can be quite a distance from complete knowledge on the subject. (for instance how much does one have to know about the president before one can properly contextualize the intent and ramifications of his speech?)

I have thought about this since you posted it, and was puzzled as to why there are so many things we accept on common sense (like apple pies, firs and Indians) and generally don't question them much - and why this common sense principle breaks down especially when it comes to God. (It certainly breaks down for me.)

Why do you think this happens?

It seems to me that for some reason, I think that I would have to 'get it right' when it comes to God all at once or nothing - and that there is no chance to change, upgrade or develop knowledge of God. In my mind, there is plenty of room to upgrade my knowledge of apple pies, for example, but little or none when it comes to God. This can get to the point of becoming paralyzing, and losing the desire to learn anything about God at all.

 

[lightgigantic]

Yes, this seems common sense. We also don't think that we must become an apple pie or a fir or an Indian to know what an apple pie, a fir or an Indian are.




I have thought about this since you posted it, and was puzzled as to why there are so many things we accept on common sense (like apple pies, firs and Indians) and generally don't question them much - and why this common sense principle breaks down especially when it comes to God. (It certainly breaks down for me.)

Why do you think this happens?

In short, because the very nature of coming to the material world indicates we have a desire to be separate.

Things like apple pies don't upset our ontological settings (in fact they get dovetailed quite nicely into a paradigm of pleasure independent from god).

But when you start talking about a personality who embodies the exact opposite of what we strive for materially (IOW someone to whom we are neither equal to or greater who also comes with an obligation of receiving service) there are opportunities for all sorts of inebrieties to enter the picture (envy, lust, wrath, etc etc).

IOW its all part of the problem of coming through with a "clean house".

It seems to me that for some reason, I think that I would have to 'get it right' when it comes to God all at once or nothing - and that there is no chance to change, upgrade or develop knowledge of God. In my mind, there is plenty of room to upgrade my knowledge of apple pies, for example, but little or none when it comes to God. This can get to the point of becoming paralyzing, and losing the desire to learn anything about God at all.

I'm not sure I understand exactly why you think that there is no opportunity for upgrade etc. Even personalities like Laksmi, Narada, Brahma etc have well documented opportunities in the 10th canto.

Of course one could mistake their sense of jnana for vjnana (and think that one already knows it all). You can find examples of this documented in the 10th canto also (indra)

 

[wynn]

In short, because the very nature of coming to the material world indicates we have a desire to be separate.

Things like apple pies don't upset our ontological settings (in fact they get dovetailed quite nicely into a paradigm of pleasure independent from god).

But when you start talking about a personality who embodies the exact opposite of what we strive for materially (IOW someone to whom we are neither equal to or greater who also comes with an obligation of receiving service) there are opportunities for all sorts of inebrieties to enter the picture (envy, lust, wrath, etc etc).

Yes, this is something I have thought too.

IOW its all part of the problem of coming through with a "clean house".

I don't understand this phrase, though.

I'm not sure I understand exactly why you think that there is no opportunity for upgrade etc.

Well, that's the thing, the other part of the answer to my inquiry.

Coming from the typical atheist or popular Christian perspective (which is so for many of us), there indeed is no room or scope foreseen for developing or upgrading knowledge of God.

Typical atheists would have us start with full knowledge before engaging in any worship of God.
Popular Christians would have us start with perfect love for God (assuming that we already know all there is necessary to know about God).

To me, both seem impossible.

Bottomline, the notion that knowledge of God could develop or be upgraded is completely outlandish to me, I just seem to be unable to accept it.

 

[lightgigantic]

I don't understand this phrase, though.

I was just suggesting that even though we may be doing the exact same activities of a saintly person (sadhana, etc), the different states of the performers (ie the cleanliness of their "houses" ... aka absence of lust, wrath, etc) confers different degrees of results

Well, that's the thing, the other part of the answer to my inquiry.

Coming from the typical atheist or popular Christian perspective (which is so for many of us), there indeed is no room or scope foreseen for developing or upgrading knowledge of God.

hence most of them have an indra-experience headed their way to deal with this

Typical atheists would have us start with full knowledge before engaging in any worship of God.

That's just nonsense since there is no field of knowledge (not even their beloved empiricism) which also operates like that

Popular Christians would have us start with perfect love for God (assuming that we already know all there is necessary to know about God).

as mentioned many times in various places, love is tied to a comprehension of the personality involved. For instance if I demanded that you develop perfect love for my next door neighbor, it might pose problems if I can't even explain what they look like, what their interests are, etc etc

To me, both seem impossible.

Bottomline, the notion that knowledge of God could develop or be upgraded is completely outlandish to me, I just seem to be unable to accept it.

the vaishnava line is that it develops from nama, to rupa, to guna and then finally lila.

IOW there is a very good reason why the path is explained as "name, form , qualities and pastimes" in that order.

 

[swarm]

Typical atheists would have us start with full knowledge before engaging in any worship of God.

That is mistaken. Atheists rarely if ever ask for full knowledge of god. They ask for actual knowledge of god. Many would be happy to start with merely reasonable knowledge of god and go from there. But what they are offered is empty claims about god with no actual knowledge what-so-ever and that frankly isn't good enough.

Popular Christians would have us start with perfect love for God

Actually they tend to start with obedience and obeisance in my experience, they a few bring out some of their idea of "love," which tends to be pretty twisted actually.

 

[SnakeLord]

On the contrary, a healthy part of intelligent discussion is dedicated to accepting responsibility for what we say. If you present a caricatured understanding of knowledge, there is certainly nothing untoward in suggesting you have a caricatured understanding of knowledge.

Actually no. What is healthy is to discuss and mention where arguments are flawed.

1. Frankly I find that you're completely incapable of debating with anything relevant and find that most things you do talk about show a deep lack of education on the issues.

2. That argument is flawed because A/B/C.

While 1 fits you rather well, it does not in any way aid "healthy discussion". Anyway, let's progress and see if I receive any relevant responses.

... IOW due to ignorance, a person is simply acting in a way to increase their attachment and involvement to this material world, which simply awards distress....

While again all very interesting, it doesn't address the question.

Once again, note:

When it comes to knowledge of god/s you stated that there the six indications of showing that one knows god/s. The first indication that you mentioned had to do with being free from all kinds of material distress"

Those were your given indications that one knows a god. My first question was that obviously, if you claim to know god, you would also claim to be free from "all kinds of material distress" or certainly suffering less from material distress than non-theists. I have asked if you can support that. So far of course, you haven't actually provided so much as one form of material distress that you are free from.

If you're not free from "all material distress" then how could I take your statements seriously? But here we're not even saying "all", I'm just asking for one. You told me that 50% is good enough, I only want one that you are free from.

If a secular government can recognize the key issues of distress that maintaining a family involves and why such a responsibility is undertaken, I am not sure why you cannot.

What has this got to do with the question? Here it is again:

"When it comes to knowledge of god/s you stated that there the six indications of showing that one knows god/s. The first indication that you mentioned had to do with being free from all kinds of material distress". I am asking you to name me just one that you are free from. The reason I ask should be apparent. Kindly give me just one example of "material distress" that you are free from."

IOW if one has (apparent) knowledge of god but is not experiencing relief it tends to indicate that their knowledge is not actionable (IOW they are still acting in ignorance 24/7)

Having knowledge of god, (according to your statements of the 6 indications), requires being free from "all kinds of material distress". I am asking you if you are indeed free from all material stress, (just asking you to name one actually), and pointing out that if you are not, your own statements put you in a rather tricky position: You don't know god, your knowledge [lack of] isn't therefore actionable, and you're acting in ignorance 24/7. As that's the case, why should I listen to a word you say?

This scenario is distinct from a person who experiences distress only during momentary lapses of consistency.

I see, so it's not really being free from "all kinds of material distress" but just not suffering from them all all the time? (which applies to pretty much everyone). With agreement, we can move on to the next.

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

On the contrary, a healthy part of intelligent discussion is dedicated to accepting responsibility for what we say. If you present a caricatured understanding of knowledge, there is certainly nothing untoward in suggesting you have a caricatured understanding of knowledge.
”
Actually no. What is healthy is to discuss and mention where arguments are flawed.

So in the above example, you don't have the means to determine where the mention of the flaws in your argument finishes and where the mention of your flaws as an individual begins?

“
... IOW due to ignorance, a person is simply acting in a way to increase their attachment and involvement to this material world, which simply awards distress....
”
While again all very interesting, it doesn't address the question.

Once again, note:

When it comes to knowledge of god/s you stated that there the six indications of showing that one knows god/s. The first indication that you mentioned had to do with being free from all kinds of material distress"

Those were your given indications that one knows a god. My first question was that obviously, if you claim to know god, you would also claim to be free from "all kinds of material distress" or certainly suffering less from material distress than non-theists. I have asked if you can support that. So far of course, you haven't actually provided so much as one form of material distress that you are free from.

I did however mention the standard models of compentency based claims are verified in professional environments (like the workplace for example) and how your attitude of "all or nothing" stands outside of the model.

If you're not free from "all material distress" then how could I take your statements seriously? But here we're not even saying "all", I'm just asking for one. You told me that 50% is good enough, I only want one that you are free from.

Actually what I mentioned was that in some circumstances (like secondary education for example), 50% is considered sufficient to award a "pass". It was an introduction to issues of competency based assessment that challenge ideas brought up by your caricatured representation of pedagogy/knowledge.

“
If a secular government can recognize the key issues of distress that maintaining a family involves and why such a responsibility is undertaken, I am not sure why you cannot.
”
What has this got to do with the question? Here it is again:

"When it comes to knowledge of god/s you stated that there the six indications of showing that one knows god/s. The first indication that you mentioned had to do with being free from all kinds of material distress". I am asking you to name me just one that you are free from. The reason I ask should be apparent. Kindly give me just one example of "material distress" that you are free from."

To reiterate, if you cannot understand the whole program of raising children as inviting a host of examples of distresses (all of which come under the banner of ascribing eternal values to temporary phenomena), it seems any further discussion is curtailed.

“
IOW if one has (apparent) knowledge of god but is not experiencing relief it tends to indicate that their knowledge is not actionable (IOW they are still acting in ignorance 24/7)
”
Having knowledge of god, (according to your statements of the 6 indications), requires being free from "all kinds of material distress". I am asking you if you are indeed free from all material stress, (just asking you to name one actually), and pointing out that if you are not, your own statements put you in a rather tricky position: You don't know god, your knowledge [lack of] isn't therefore actionable, and you're acting in ignorance 24/7. As that's the case, why should I listen to a word you say?

Having knowledge of god confers all relief consistently.
What may not be consistent is being able to act on that knowledge all the time.
This is not to say that a person who experiences such inconsistency is in the same boat as a person who has no knowledge of god ... much like a professional driver who experiences on average one minor crash every seven years is not in the same boat as someone who knocks over 90% of the red hats at the training centre all the time.

IOW if you insist on determining the validity of the claim with out incorporating issues of consistency, you are departing from standard models of competency assessment.

Or to say it another way, if you think "all forms of distress" can only be interpreted as meaning that a person in such knowledge must exhibit 100% consistency, you are making exclusive demands that are not met in any other discipline/profession (from science, to transport, to hospitality).

clear?

“
This scenario is distinct from a person who experiences distress only during momentary lapses of consistency.
”
I see, so it's not really being free from "all kinds of material distress" but just not suffering from them all all the time? (which applies to pretty much everyone). With agreement, we can move on to the next.

Actually its about having the knowledge base to solve a problem, and applying the relevant issues of competency based assessment to determine consistency.
If its a case of "pretty much everyone" int the case of solving the distress of ascribing eternal values to temporary things, I think you have to explain exactly what knowledge base a gross materialist is calling upon to draw consistent results.
(good luck!)

 

[SnakeLord]

I did however mention the standard models of compentency based claims are verified in professional environments (like the workplace for example) and how your attitude of "all or nothing" stands outside of the model.

Note 1: Can you or can you not support that you are free from 'all kinds of material distress' or even just so much as one? Yes or no.

Note 2: It's not "my attitude", it's your claim. You stated that it was one of the indications, not I. If you were wrong in your original assertion then feel free to ammend it.

Actually what I mentioned was that in some circumstances (like secondary education for example), 50% is considered sufficient to award a "pass".

If it has no relevance to your being free from all/or some kinds of material distress, why waffle on about it? I am interested in your original six indications of how one comes to know god and to what degree, if any, you fulfill the first. You do or you don't fulfill the first indication that you mentioned? If so, how?

To reiterate, if you cannot understand the whole program of raising children as inviting a host of examples of distresses

Yes, raising children brings about a good deal of stress. What has this got to do with your original list and whether you do or do not fulfill the requirements you put on that list?

if you think "all forms of distress" can only be interpreted as meaning that a person in such knowledge must exhibit 100% consistency

No, I indeed stated that if you use the statement to mean "free from all kinds of material distress... at some time or another", then it applies across the board and doesn't really say anything of any value.

Clear?

I think you have to explain exactly what knowledge base a gross materialist is calling upon to draw consistent results.

According to you ten seconds ago, we're not talking about consistency with regards to the statement "free from all kinds of material distress". You started getting all funny with me because I had assumed that the statement was to do with consistently being free from all kinds of material distress.

Kindly get your thoughts together. When you say free from "all kinds of material distress", do you mean consistently or not? Can we suggest that if one is more consistent, then they know god more? If so, can you kindly explain whereabouts you are with regards to consistency?

P.S Kindly address the statements and questions directly.

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

“
I did however mention the standard models of competency based claims are verified in professional environments (like the workplace for example) and how your attitude of "all or nothing" stands outside of the model.
”
Note 1: Can you or can you not support that you are free from 'all kinds of material distress' or even just so much as one? Yes or no.

Yes

I can support it in the standard manner that all competency based claims are supported

Note 2: It's not "my attitude", it's your claim. You stated that it was one of the indications, not I. If you were wrong in your original assertion then feel free to ammend it.

On the contrary, whether you are willing to accept the standard means for asserting a competency based claim has everything to do with the issue.
“

Actually what I mentioned was that in some circumstances (like secondary education for example), 50% is considered sufficient to award a "pass".
”
If it has no relevance to your being free from all/or some kinds of material distress, why waffle on about it?

As mentioned, it is a brief (and hopefully non-controversial) introduction to how competency based claims are commonly understood to function

I am interested in your original six indications of how one comes to know god and to what degree, if any, you fulfill the first. You do or you don't fulfill the first indication that you mentioned? If so, how?

A good way to unpack a competency based claim is to examine what theoretical knowledge base a person has to draw on and then secondly examine the situations in which they apply it.

For instance, in the case of being free from material distress (taking the particular instance of ascribing eternal values to temporary phenomena), one could examine what is (theoretically) claimed to be the means to diffuse/contextualize the situation and the degree that it is practicable (or "do-able")

“
To reiterate, if you cannot understand the whole program of raising children as inviting a host of examples of distresses
”
Yes, raising children brings about a good deal of stress. What has this got to do with your original list and whether you do or do not fulfill the requirements you put on that list?

well, you were asking of a particular example .....

“
if you think "all forms of distress" can only be interpreted as meaning that a person in such knowledge must exhibit 100% consistency
”
No, I indeed stated that if you use the statement to mean "free from all kinds of material distress... at some time or another", then it applies across the board and doesn't really say anything of any value.
Clear?

persons commonly involved in analyzing competency based claims may beg to differ

at the very least, a professional driver who experiences on average one minor crash every seven years is not in the same boat as someone who knocks over 90% of the red hats at the training centre all the time.

“
I think you have to explain exactly what knowledge base a gross materialist is calling upon to draw consistent results.
”
According to you ten seconds ago, we're not talking about consistency with regards to the statement "free from all kinds of material distress". You started getting all funny with me because I had assumed that the statement was to do with consistently being free from all kinds of material distress.

Put it this way, I am all to familiar with the problems of persons who operate out of "transmissive" models have when they attempt to approach issues pertinent to competency based assessment.

eg - CGA-Canada's professional education program is "competency-based". "Competency-based education" approach claims to differ from the theoretical knowledge-based model by requiring students to perform tasks and roles to standards expected in the work environment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certified_General_Accountant

Kindly get your thoughts together. When you say free from "all kinds of material distress", do you mean consistently or not?

As previously mentioned, the knowledge base confers consistent results.
The ability of the performer to act on such knowledge may not be consistent.

As a practical (and hopefully non-controversial) example, suppose an accountant is supposed to be able to perform all sorts of financial paperwork in conjunction with the latest guidelines of the tax authority.
Just because there are peer review bodies in place to check (and even locate) persons who do not meet that criteria in no way suggests that that there are problems of consistency with the knowledge base.
In fact the moment you start talking about any knowledge base that confers an automatic 100% consistency of its performers is the moment you start to get suspicious .....

Can we suggest that if one is more consistent, then they know god more?

perhaps
But generally different scores of consistency indicate greater practical experience. That is why many job vacancies advertise "previous experience preferred".

If so, can you kindly explain whereabouts you are with regards to consistency?

I could, but it would require that you have the patience to at least be familiar with the key indicators.

P.S Kindly address the statements and questions directly.

The requirements for a concise answer is a concise question.
Seeking a clarification on a claim of competency with a transmissive model is not concise.

 

[Adstar]

So it is actually all down to your confidence in your perceptions of God's will for you?

Not in His will for me personally. But in His will in general.

I am confident that God has revelled to me what He wants me to know.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Adstar]

But accepting those relevations to be revelations from/of God still comes down to your confidence that they are revelations from/of God, and not from someone else?

True. And i have respect and admiration and love for what has been revealed.

Now if the message is evil and i have respect and admiration and love for it then i am justly condemned for i would be an embracer of evil.

Other than that - Please tell me what the God you believe in is like:

He is above all Just, but He has gone to lengths to provide a way that He can be the Justifier and therefore the Redeemer of people. That shows a level of care for people, a desire to save.

What is His name?

I don't think He has a name as such. The only reason we need names is because there are other like individuals around us. If you where the only human being that existed then you would have no need of a name, you might call yourself "I am what i am" or some such thing.

Because there is only 1 God then all there really are, are acceptable titles. When moses asked God what name he should call him when he went to give his message to the Jews God said " “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”"

I remember when i first read that i thought i could detect an air of exasperation, it is almost as if God gave himself a name right at that moment of time just to placate a foolish human who needed a name. But when you look again at it ‘I AM it is not really a name it is a statement.

most of the said names of God that people use are just title's. i often use YAVEH or the God of Abraham or the Ancient Of Days. They are all just titles. When i talk to God, i just talk to Him, I know He knows my thoughts.


What does He look like?

Never seen Him myself believe John has given the best description of Him in the book of Revelation. His skin on his feet is like very fine brass and He shines His head and hair are pure white.

How does He spend His time?

I don't believe His time bears any relation to our time. Which leads me to think your question here is based on your perception of a measurement that has no significance to what your seeking to measure. It is like asking what is the volume of a mile.

Whom does He like to associate with?

He deals with everyone.

What is the color of His skin, His hair - if He has skin and hair?

As above.

When you pray to God - if you do pray-, how do formulate your prayers, to whom do you address them, what do you think of when you pray to God?

I never formulate prayers, when i talk to God i just talk to Him. I know that God knows all the thoughts i think towards Him. Sometimes i will use one of the acceptable titles then again sometimes i will not. The intent of my mind to communicate with the Creator of all existence is i believe enough.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[wynn]

I never formulate prayers, when i talk to God i just talk to Him. I know that God knows all the thoughts i think towards Him. Sometimes i will use one of the acceptable titles then again sometimes i will not. The intent of my mind to communicate with the Creator of all existence is i believe enough.

Do you think it should be enough for others as well?

I find your approach very abstract. In fact, so abstract that I see no way to implement it in my life.