I apologize for the delay.
SouthStar said:
"SouthStar, do you think that a person who often, in public says about themselves, "I am good. I am trustworthy. I am honest." really is good, trustworthy and honest?"
I don't know that this information is enough for me to make a sound judgement. I don't know if any amount of information (at least as far as hearsay goes) will suffice for proper judgement.
I am surprised at your response. Stunned.
Personally, I intuitively discard a person who often, in public says about themselves, "I am good. I am trustworthy. I am honest."
Those who truly are good, trustworthy and honest do not talk about it often, and in public.
I believe one should beware of people who profess themselves to be good people.
SouthStar said:
I never claimed salvation by works did I?
No, you haven't. But you have also said how it is impossible to have faith by willing it. This way, salvation seems completely out of reach for you.
SouthStar said:
I don't know that I need salvation, except for hearsay.
Could you say that you *want* salvation though?
If you simply ask yourself, without thinking what you should or should not want -- could you say that you want salvation?
SouthStar said:
I want to believe, but who must I believe and why?
This is odd. If you want to believe, then you also must have some idea of *what* it is that you want to believe.
Or, there is something else behind your wanting to believe.
I mean no pun, but I know from personal experience that "wanting to believe" can be a compensation for something else, for something that does not directly have something to do with religious faith.
SouthStar said:
Certainly can't trust myself since I am a depraved sinner, but who will I trust?
You give yourself no positive credit.
See your loop: You cannot trust yourself because you are a depraved sinner. You therefore need an external authority whom you can trust. But since you are a depraved sinner and you cannot trust yourself, you cannot trust your understanding of whatever anyone tells you. So whatever anyone tells you is of no use to you anyway.
So it would take a miracle for you to believe. But if a miracle would happen, you would doubt it -- because you doubt yourself, you would doubt the miracle because you would think you saw wrong, depraved sinner that you are, and unable to trust yourself and your own judgement.
I think I have thought this way for some two or three years. But I don't think that way anymore. What happened, what have I done? I can't say, there is no recipe, no plan. Simply put, I got tired of thinking that way. But you cannot will yourself to become tired of something, it just has to happen.
SouthStar said:
Another sinner? Or someone who claims to no more be a sinner? How can I trust them?
Then tell me what does it take that you would consider someone as trustworthy -- what should this person be like?
SouthStar said:
I am trying to coincide everything we have been talking about in the other threads so forgive me if I seem to be rehashing.
No problem, I think it is good that way, very good.
I am following, as you can see.
SouthStar said:
This thread raises the question of is it possible to will yourself to believe? But we must now ask, given a good amount of evidence that someone is trustworthy, is it possible to will myself to trust them? I doubt so. Can I will nagging thoughts away? No. If I wanted to could I will nagging thoughts away? No. That is something far from my 'conscious' ability and therefore we must concede that trust too is beyond our capability.
No. You are forgetting something very important. For our reason to work properly, it needs data. Data takes time and energy to gather and analyze it. We only have a limited amount of time and energy. So we, forced by the immediacy of life (for we must eat and all that), act.
Act somehow, even though we know we have not collected all the data that we could or think that we should have.
This lack of data we compensate for with trust. We cannot but trust, whether we are aware of this trust or not.
How much we trust (whether we end up abulic or acting on blind faith) and what we think about our trust, how we evaluate it -- this is what actually is the issue when we are talking about trust. So this is what we ought to talk about.
SouthStar said:
Wow, you've really gone hook line and sinker for this "be all you can be" philosophy. Can I want to have faith? Do I know how to build faith? Do I know how to get faith? Even if I did, is it not based on hearsay? Is that too not faith? Does that not imply I am immersing my self in this same "vicious circle"?
You just said, "God, give me patience, but make it quick!"
SouthStar said:
I am incapable of trust; do you know how to trust? Can you tell me how?.
You are capable of trust. You just don't see it. Yet.
And you don't trust your trust.
Every irrational thing that you do or believe is not trust yet; but trust defnitely is irrational.
When you tie your shoelaces, you then forget about them, and you *trust* the knot won't become undone. If you wouldn't trust, you'd be checking your shoelaces all the time. Yet when they do become undone, this surprises you, at least a little, doesn't it?
Not to take this example too far; but we act on some trust all the time, whether we like it or control it or are aware of it -- or not.
SouthStar said:
Ignorance is bliss they say. God's withdrawal as a test would be quite weird. The One I placed my entire trust in, the One who knew beforehand what my response to His 'withdrawal' would be, for Him to hide Himself and then punish me in Hell for all eternity for my reaction (as if I wanted to react that way) is beyond my comprehension. I would understand how losing trust could be my fault if circumstances were different, but the fact is, I did not want to lose trust; my "will" was of no consequence.
YOU DO NOT KNOW WHETHER YOU WILL END UP IN HELL.
Right now, times may be hard. But you don't know whether you will get to hell or not -- until you actually get there.
If you believe in the Christian explanation of hell, then you will see where you'll come after you die here. But as long as you are alive, you do not know what is going to happen then.
SouthStar said:
James 1
26 If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless.
Let us take this verse in context. My translation reads "If anyone among you considers himself religious...". As far as my intelligence reports, I am not part of the you James is speaking to. If we are to be honest with ourselves, I cannot be the audience ("you") of 2000 years past James spoke to. Otherwise, if we are to interpolate fancifully, "you" still refers to the body of believers, which we say I am not a part of.
To have it your way:
NOW, you are not part of "those James is speaking about (with the fanciful extrapolation)".
But ONCE IN THE PAST, you considered yourself to be part of those. It was that time IN THE PAST that you put all your trust in Him. And for THAT TIME IN THE PAST, the verse from James does apply to you.
Let's remind you that you now don't have the faith you had once, and that that "tremendous insult" was directed at that faith that you had once. So that verse from James applies.
SouthStar said:
Also, when we take the phrase "tremendous insult" it does not refer to a hurt ego, but rather to his monumental misunderstanding (and that's putting it mildly) of just how much faith I put in God. Thus we may say the insult is to my previous 'state' and is of no consequence to myself now.
It is of consequence to yourself now.
That insult was directed at your "previous state", and your reaction shows (reaction: you felt insulted) that you were (back then) going against that verse in James, you were boasting with your faith.
And you were boasting with your faith, this is the bad thing about it, the bad thing whose consequences we can see *now*.
That you took insult, and the way you took insult, helps us to reconstruct what went on in your past. And what went on back then lead to what is now.
SouthStar said:
You are being drawn into the circle as well water, be careful. How do you know "one simply does"?
I trust myself that way.
SouthStar said:
So sin is now subjective. I see. So the omniscient God who knows before hand what sins we will commit has resolved to create our individual ideas on sin which He knows very well we cannot live up to. But wait, after failing, we are going to burn in Hell for all eternity for what we were predisposed to. Nice.
I know it hurts.
But don't be cynical.
SouthStar said:
Why do you assume sin is universal knowledge?
Human societies, I think all of them, have the concepts of "good" and "bad", or "good" and "evil". They discern between "right" and "wrong".
The actual contents of these concepts may vary throughout societies, but the fact that these concepts are present testifies of that certain distinction being made between phenomena.
SouthStar said:
To quote you, "the cognitive pattern" is to assume sin is not universal knowledge until proven otherwise.
We cannot use cognitive patterns ad lib, and apply them whenever we find it convenient.
SouthStar said:
“ Eventually, you could discard ALL human knowledge, in any form, as hearsay. ”
That is the problem it is human knowledge. Even when we try to apply this to the divine, it is still human knowledge
Yes, so it is, in a nutshell.
SouthStar said:
Decisions are NOT made consciously. Why people keep assuming that is really beyond me.
Decisions are made consciously, they just take more time than you are willing to admit at the moment.
SouthStar said:
Even if I was to assume like others (and without valid reason), that I could consciously choose to trust someone and the end result would be that I indeed did trust that someone, you (plural) are ignoring the end result, which is I will be punished in torment for all eternity for my choice. I don't know about you, but this doesn't seem very much like free will is the "better, more positive outcome". Most people (not necessarily me) in fact, would argue that free will in this system implies "do what you don't want to/do what someone else wants you, or else you will burn for all eternity". How any rational person can associate this with free will is beyond me.
You are looking at trust and deciding statically, as if trust were something that can be declared and accepted, just like that.
I know this well; I had "friends" who declared that they are my friends, and then they expected me to think them friends, even though they did nothing that would, in my estimation, justify calling what we had "friendship".
The other option besides mechanically declaring and accepting trust is to not trust at all. And you seem to be wandering between these two extremes -- as if these two extremes (and some unindetifiable in-between) is all there is.
What did we say about the circles of thinking -- and how we can enter a new, bigger circle only after the smaller one cannot accommodate us anymore?
SouthStar said:
Sin is actually not like that. It is not the piling that damns you, just one sin and you're out of the ballgame.
And you do not believe in forgiveness, or what?
The "theory" of sin is part of Christianity, and the "theory" of forgivenes is also part of that same Christianity. Meaning that you have to apply both the "theory" of sin as well as the "theory" of forgiveness if you want to be true to Christianity.
SouthStar said:
In fact, we can infer from Scripture that we are born in sin. Therefore there is nothing tricky about it, or nothing to avoid, since you are born a sinner and born with predispositions to certain sins. Again, how any sane person can associate this with the "better, more positive" free will is beyond me.
It will come. Things take time.
SouthStar said:
I must object again. Let us not assume there is some conscious embracing of a position.
No. What is really troubling you, and I think you can see it, is that "consciously embracing a position" looks as if it were a one-time act.
And it is so: but only if we observe it in retrospection.
The perspective we choose to view things does change the way we see them: whether we observe someting ex post or ex ante makes a difference in what we actually see.
While if we are in the present, we may be *in the process of* "embracing a position", and we are doing it consciously (we can observe that we are weighing arguments), but until we have actually *finished* that process, we can't name it "embracing a postion" at all!
While we are in this process, to us, it is just some shapeless thing that we are in; but what this thing is, we will be able to tell only once it is finished.
What it is we can tell only after we have entered the bigger circle, and this we can do, only when we in fact can.
Because as long as we are in the process, we are in some smaller circle, and we can assume that there will come a bigger one to accomodate us, but until we are so far, we cannot know what that bigger circle is.
SouthStar said:
In fact, I would argue the "unconscious" has already made up its mind whether or not we are to believe something before we ourselves (the conscious) have made the false pretense of thinking it over carefully.
This is what it looks like, yes.
But all this can be explained with your circles theory, or with the "holistic explosion", and it is reasonable to believe that all human knowledge is gained that way.
SouthStar said:
Why we give so much credit to ourselves, I don't know.
We do it in retrospect, and from this, we gain confidence for future decisions.
SouthStar said:
This is why I protest when we do not factor God's 'responsibility' into the equation, He has some control (if we are to be honest, full control) over what our predispositions are.
All-knowing does not mean all-controlling-and-exercising-this-control!
SouthStar said:
I think this is another cum hoc ergo propter hoc. We must first establish whether we are in any position to assume/know that belief is the precedent for action. For in doing so, we must then concede that action is the precedent for belief, an admission which immerses us in yet another circle.
Technically, this is true. But we do not always start everything from scratch. We do learn and remember things.
And once we have learned and remembered things, this then can function as belief, and if we act on what we have learned and remembered, then this is action.
You do not learn from scratch each morning how to brush your teeth, do you?
SouthStar said:
That said, it cannot be either you accept it or not as if we can choose to accept something.
Yes we do. Only that "I chose to accept something" is said in hindsight -- this is the factual part.
What is problematic is "I will choose to accept something" -- this is the dogmatic part.
SouthStar said:
“ “ How again did we reach the conclusion that if I want God's grace I will do what I think has to be done? ”
We reached it by insight. ”
Whose insight?
Ours.
(Yes, I know your objection.)
SouthStar said:
Who initiated (in the truest sense) that insight?
They "were there", and we, due to holistic causality, "worked on those thougts".
SouthStar said:
But I have not said I refuse to believe in God.
No, you haven't said that. I just felt I need to make it clear, as I often see it confused.
SouthStar said:
In fact, to make my position clear: I am only an atheist in the sense that I have strong reasons for doubting Christian theology. Let it be noted to all that I have not flat out rejected it, rather, I have declined to put it as my everything and my all.
I think that the way it was, they way you knew it, the way you were taught, it was not sufficient for you -- that's all.
But this doesn't mean all faith and religion is lost and over for you.
SouthStar said:
To say there is no God however, is to say all the indescribable emotions I have felt either stem from insanity or a bad case of misattribution. I am not ready to accept this.
"A bad case of misattribution" would be if you were to think that God is that old man with a beard.
But if we have no clear-cut definition of God, then we can also hardly speak of misattributions.
SouthStar said:
You see, Christianity disagrees with you. It is: believe or don't believe. Of course, even you see that is gross simplification, but that is the Gospel truth. The Bible offers no middle ground.
Ah. Oh.
What is that about perseverance and character and hope?! What does the Bible say about that?!
And as for Christians who tell you there is no "middle ground":
Fuck 'em.
If their Christianity consists of going around and pointing fingers, and being busy playing card-carrying country club members, then they aren't worth listening to anyway.
Those people don't care about *you*, they only care about propagating what they think Christianity is, and you are merely an object in their play.
They give you no credit whatsoever, they undermine the faith that you do have, and they treat you as if you were an uncapable mindless thing.
It's not worth to be an object in someone's play.
SouthStar said:
Even if we are to discuss independent of Christian theology, I don't know how you arrived at that supposition.
By experience.
SouthStar said:
“ You seem to have completely ignored the part when I said:
12 Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him.
It might require years of searching and torment for *you*; it might require many sleepless nights for *you*; it might require blood and guts from *you*. But know that this is *you*, and not some ideal potential Christian that you want to be, or so it seems.
You strike me as thinking that *you* are the one designing your trials and having control over them. -- Trials don't work that way. You cannot be both your own experimentator and the experiment, your own tester and the test. ”
Please 'dumb it down' for me. I am not sure what you are getting at. Sometimes the eyes burn hotly but we see nothing.
I am saying hat things take time. Tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiime sometimes. Years.
And blessed are those who persevere.
You, on the other hand, seem to be viewing your faith as a school test, that actually has a school frame -- a something that is to be studied for a week or two, and then absolved, and then you have the grade written in your report, and that's it.
On top of it, you want to be the one who writes your own test, and grades it (as if you were the teacher), and then, somehow, you are to put yourself into the role of the student and solve the test.
In other words, you are assuming you already are in that bigger circle, while you, at the same time, see that you are still in the smaller one.
SouthStar said:
“ Alright.
Please answer the question:
If you sin, does that mean God is not helping you?
If God indeed were as Christianity says He is (good, just, loving), would this mean that you would not sin? ”
James 1
13Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.
16Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren. 17Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning. 18Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures.
No. I want you to answer those questions as *you* see fit, don't give me some Bible quotes.
SouthStar said:
In fact, any way we look at it, taking responsibility from God is taking his omnipotence away from Him; in effect, saying 'God, we can do something you can't. So much for being omnipotent'.
No. You are allowing for only these options:
Either
1. God does it all, and we are puppets.
2. We do it all, but then God has his fun punishing us.
If 1, then we could also have no knowledge of God -- as entities, in order to be puppets, do not know they are puppets, and so for them, there is also no puppetmaster: it is the puppets who think it is only them and nobody else.
2 is just negativistic wishful thinking.
Note that 1 and 2 can be mixed up though, into a hellish brew called relativism.
SouthStar said:
James 1
5Instead you ought to say, "If the Lord wills, we shall live and do this or that." 16But now you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil.
To take this in context, James is saying "Do not claim anything is of your own doing, rather attribute it to God, for it is His will for you to "do this or that". Therefore we must attribute all responsibility to God.
No. Your reading is a possible reading, certainly, but I think you are going into extremes. The way I read that passage, it says, "You can't rule over circumstances. [Sometimes it looks like you can. But this should not make you presumptuous.]"
SouthStar said:
“ You do not know that you live voluntarily, either.
It all depends on where you *direct* your love, or your life. This -- where you are directing it: this you can see, and steer. ”
If I steer it, then He is not omniscient.
No.
Omniscient does not mean all-controlling-and-exercising-this-control!