Stuck (primarily for theists)

W

wynn

˙
Valued Senior Member
* * *
DISCLAIMER:
This thread is meant primarily for theistic input.
Atheists are welcome to ask questions, provided those questions are not anti-theistic in nature.
* * *


Given that a person normally learns about God from people, this puts one at the mercy of those people.

The theistic discourse is embedded in psychological and social issues, thus effectively becoming a matter of interpersonal politics between the person who seeks God and the person who (presumably) knows God.

This political factor sets the scene for all kinds of abuse.


Is there a way to avoid it?

How can a person inquire about God, without falling into the machinations of interpersonal politics?
 
For example:

We are told to approach God on God's terms, just like one would approach the President on his, the President's, terms.
Allright, seems fair.
But what are those terms? A seeker, per definition, does not know what those terms are.
So he has to turn to someone who declares to have such knowledge. At the same time, the seeker is per definition unable to identify who indeed has knowledge of God and who doesn't (if the seeker knew that, there would be no quest for him to begin with!).
And this is where the search for God becomes a matter of interpersonal politics.
And this is where I am stuck.
How to move on from here?
 
Lightgigantic, how can I know you are God's "dog" - and not someone else's?
All I "know about God", I know from you and people like you. How can I have any peace that I am not operating simply in a bubble of circular logic which will sooner or later burst and reveal there was nothing to it?
 
Simple, go to the source material and don't ask questions of anyone that may be in any way biased. ;)

You can ask someone about "God", let them show you what they think "God" is and then be given a means of evidencing "God"... but you might forever wonder if they are correct in what they see/define as "God"... afterall it was they that laid the definition in front of you.

For example, if you had never seen an "Elephant" and were given a description of this four-legged animal... and then shown to a room where there was an animal matching the description... you'd think it was an elephant, even if their description and the animal itself was actually that of a mouse.

So my only question would be, do you know what it is you're looking for?
 
Signal said:
* * *
DISCLAIMER:
This thread is meant primarily for theistic input.
Atheists are welcome to ask questions, provided those questions are not anti-theistic in nature.
* * *


Given that a person normally learns about God from people, this puts one at the mercy of those people.
Click to expand...

As a child growing up in a theist family, initially, yes. But to presume that a person is trapped and is somehow a victim for life because of their initial introduction to God does not stand up. People can later seek for themselves and from their seeking break the strength of that initial introduction to theism. (Or sometimes confirm it)



The theistic discourse is embedded in psychological and social issues, thus effectively becoming a matter of interpersonal politics between the person who seeks God and the person who (presumably) knows God.

This political factor sets the scene for all kinds of abuse.
Click to expand...

Only if the Seeker decides to remain exclusively dependant upon the person who they presume has all the answers on theism. There are some who decide to do this. It is their decision to give over their eternal security to another person. It is their decision to life up the other person to an infallible God like status. In the end they are responsible for what ever happens to them as a result of their policy to remain dependant on the other.



Is there a way to avoid it?
Click to expand...

Yes Seek beyond the introduction. Gather information independently. Seek a personal relationship with God.



How can a person inquire about God, without falling into the machinations of interpersonal politics?
Click to expand...

Pray directly to God for understanding. If one is a true Seeker one will already believe that a God exists. So seeking Gods leading would be a wise course of action.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days
 
Signal said:
For example:

We are told to approach God on God's terms, just like one would approach the President on his, the President's, terms.
Allright, seems fair.
But what are those terms? A seeker, per definition, does not know what those terms are.
Click to expand...

Well a genuine desire would be the first term. Would you agree?

And as we are talking about God. A genuine desire to be lead by God.

Of course my second point runs against the desire for independence. It is also fear inducing for many. Placing oneself in the hands of another is something many cannot do.

So he has to turn to someone who declares to have such knowledge.
Click to expand...

I would say they can read scriptures independently. But then again the seeker must believe that God has given His will through scripture.

I guess the second point would be turn to God as you are reading scripture. Ask for conviction to come upon you when you are reading the right scripture.



At the same time, the seeker is per definition unable to identify who indeed has knowledge of God and who doesn't (if the seeker knew that, there would be no quest for him to begin with!).
And this is where the search for God becomes a matter of interpersonal politics.
And this is where I am stuck.

How to move on from here?
Click to expand...

Then you must make a genuine appeal to God himself. And do not fear.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days
 
Signal said:
* * *
DISCLAIMER:
This thread is meant primarily for theistic input.
Atheists are welcome to ask questions, provided those questions are not anti-theistic in nature.
* * *


Given that a person normally learns about God from people, this puts one at the mercy of those people.

The theistic discourse is embedded in psychological and social issues, thus effectively becoming a matter of interpersonal politics between the person who seeks God and the person who (presumably) knows God.

This political factor sets the scene for all kinds of abuse.


Is there a way to avoid it?

How can a person inquire about God, without falling into the machinations of interpersonal politics?
Click to expand...

if what you're seeking is god, then why oh why (again) are you looking at people?
 
We’re born ignorant of where we came from, if anywhere, what reason we’re here, if for any reason, and where we’re going, if anywhere. At the same time we may not even be willing to seek answers to these questions, whether because we’ve presumed there can be no answers or because we’re too proud to admit we don’t know them already.

But if we’re not so presumptuous and if we’re honest and humble enough to admit we don’t know, then we’ll become seekers and may well have to experiment with more than one path to the truth we seek. IMO we all have a tendency-a preference- to believe we already possess all relevant truth regarding the "big questions" and this is called pride, so if a person resists having a change of mind then I’d be suspicious of them-they’ll probably never even begin the journey.
 
In my opinion, if there is a God, he is equally available to everyone. Your perception is just as valid as that of Jesus or any disciple.
 
Mind Over Matter said:
We’re born ignorant of where we came from, if anywhere, what reason we’re here, if for any reason, and where we’re going, if anywhere. At the same time we may not even be willing to seek answers to these questions, whether because we’ve presumed there can be no answers or because we’re too proud to admit we don’t know them already.

But if we’re not so presumptuous and if we’re honest and humble enough to admit we don’t know, then we’ll become seekers and may well have to experiment with more than one path to the truth we seek. IMO we all have a tendency-a preference- to believe we already possess all relevant truth regarding the "big questions" and this is called pride, so if a person resists having a change of mind then I’d be suspicious of them-they’ll probably never even begin the journey.
Click to expand...

You already said that exact thing before, haven't you?

I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say.


if a person resists having a change of mind
Click to expand...

Letting one's mind change "as it will" is a recipe for insanity, you do see this?
 
Adstar said:
Well a genuine desire would be the first term. Would you agree?

And as we are talking about God. A genuine desire to be lead by God.

Of course my second point runs against the desire for independence. It is also fear inducing for many. Placing oneself in the hands of another is something many cannot do.



I would say they can read scriptures independently. But then again the seeker must believe that God has given His will through scripture.

I guess the second point would be turn to God as you are reading scripture. Ask for conviction to come upon you when you are reading the right scripture.


Then you must make a genuine appeal to God himself. And do not fear.
Click to expand...

Truisms ...
 
Signal said:
Because of solipsism, for crying out loud!
Click to expand...


Solipsism (play /ˈsɒlɪpsɪzəm/) is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. The term comes from Latin solus (alone) and ipse (self). Solipsism is an epistemological or ontological position that knowledge of anything outside one's own specific mind is unjustified. The external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist. In the history of philosophy, solipsism has served as a skeptical hypothesis.


If it is because of solipsism then you would not be looking towards other people because solipsism is the belief that anything outside your own mind is not dependable.

So you reply to me makes not sence. In relation to the question posed to you.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days
 
Sarkus said:
So my only question would be, do you know what it is you're looking for?
Click to expand...

Thank you for this question.

I suppose I am looking for the freedom, the right, the justification, to go about my spiritual quest in a way that makes sense to me, as opposed to having to constantly give in to the demands of others, no matter what those demands are and no matter who they are; and then to have the hope that things would still make sense even if I do them "my way".
 
Adstar said:
Solipsism (play /ˈsɒlɪpsɪzəm/) is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. The term comes from Latin solus (alone) and ipse (self). Solipsism is an epistemological or ontological position that knowledge of anything outside one's own specific mind is unjustified. The external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist. In the history of philosophy, solipsism has served as a skeptical hypothesis.


If it is because of solipsism then you would not be looking towards other people because solipsism is the belief that anything outside your own mind is not dependable.

So you reply to me makes not sence. In relation to the question posed to you.
Click to expand...

Looking within, one runs into the danger of solipsism - solipsism is short of insanity.

Looking without, one runs into the danger of being swallowed by interpersonal politics.


So where should one look?
 
Signal said:
Thank you for this question.

I suppose I am looking for the freedom, the right, the justification, to go about my spiritual quest in a way that makes sense to me, as opposed to having to constantly give in to the demands of others, no matter what those demands are and no matter who they are; and then to have the hope that things would still make sense even if I do them "my way".
Click to expand...
But first we must back up and begin by asking ourselves, "What is freedom?"

I would be glad to give you some thoughts on that matter too, if you like.
 
Last edited:
I'll discuss the law of Chirst that gives us the freedom to love in the deepest way possible. For the sake of simplicity, I will devide freedom up into two main types; namely, inner freedom and external freedom. Inner freedom refers to the freedom to be all we can possibly be. And external freedom refers to freedom of action, the freedom to do all we can possibly do.

Inner Freedom

Inner freedom, the freedom to be all we can possibly be, is a state of fulfilled being rather than a way of acting. Inner freedom means freedom from such things as isolation, suffering and death, in short, from all that prevents us from being fully alive. because all of us must die, none of us can attain total inner freedom while on earth. However, we can attain various degrees of inner freedom, and, by means of religion, the hope of perfect inner freedom after death.

An example of a kind of inner freedom is found in the experience of two people who fall deeply in love, and in their love are set free in an experinece of unlimited happiness.

The inner freedom of this love, for all its power and wonder, is obviously not total and final. A bribe, for example, cannot promise her spouse freedom from all suffering, much less can she promise him freedom from death. In short, her love does not have the power to make him all he can possibly be.

Nevertheless, the inner freedom found in human love is real. Furthermore, it brings out two important thruths about inner freedom. The first is that inner freedom is found in a love relationship. It is love that makes us all we can possibly be.

the second point is that the couple in love achieve inner freedom by means of external freedom. In other words, their daily actions toward each other are the means by which maintain inner freedom of love. if a husband, for example, "freely" chooses to be unfaithful to his wife, his freedom of action becomes the means of destroying his inner freedom to be he can possibly be in love. Ultimately, his action is a kind of antifreedom force. No matter how "freely" he chose to be unfaithful, he nevertheless freely chose not to be free. What is seen here is that in a love relationship one is free to do what he or she must do in order to be faithful to love.

Human love, as we know it on this earth, eventually ends in death, but God's love does not. The Church's celebration of Easter is a constant reminder that the focus of faith in Chirst is notgrounded in his high moral values or his great wisdom. Rather Jesus offers to us a participation in his own total victory over death. It is the Christian hope that in Christ we will become all we can possibly be. The alleluias sung on Easter morning are grounded in Jesus' promise that "whoever believes in me, though he should die, will come to life; and whoever is alive and belives in me will never die" (Jn 11:26), and in the realization that his promise will be fulfilled because he has given us the Spirit. It is St. aul who said, "If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will bring your moral bodies to life also through his Spirit dwelling in you" (Rm 8:11).

We will, of course, reach our goal of total inner freedom only in heaven. The point is, however, that we will achieve total inner freedom only by means of external freedom. It is at this juncture that we see the impostance of Christian morality. Our moral actions are the means to achieving the inner freedom of perfect fulfillment in God. An immoral act is an act freely performed against one's own ultimate freedom. As with all people in a love relationship, the Christian is free to do what he or she must do in order to be faithful to love. Freedom without this fidelity to love is not freedom but license.

The point is brought out in the story of adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. In freely choosing to disobey God, they freely chose to undermine their own inner freedom. Just as a husband or wife is free to love his or her spouse, he or she is also bound by that love. We can see there the paradoxical truth that moral obligations are in the last analysis obligations to our own freedom.

Lastly, it is worth pointing out that, just as inner freedom is not found in the possession of any external object, so too the hindrances to inner freedom come ultimately from within ourselves, in our free choice not to be true to love. We become, in short, our own obstacle to our own freedom, prisoners locked within ourselves.

External Freedom

External freedom is not the freedom to be all we can possibly be, but rather the freedom to do all we can possibly do. This is what most people think of when they hear the word "freedom". External freedom, in a Christian context, is a means to an end. We attain to inner freedom by responding to God's love in our daily actions. Thus morality can be seen as a free response to God's call to perfect freedom. There is then a paradox in human freedom. The paradox is that the free choice not to respond to God;s call is a free choice not to be free, because it is a free choice not to fully be. We bear within us not only the seeds of our own fulfillment but also the seeds of our own destruction. This is the meaning of sin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top