Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Tozer Got It

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

What do I mean by reality? I mean that which has existence apart from any idea any mind may have of it, and which would exist if there were no mind anywhere to entertain a thought of it. That which is real has being in itself. It does not depend upon the observer for its validity.
I am aware that there are those who love to poke fun at the plain man’s idea of reality. They are the idealists who spin endless proofs that nothing is real outside of the mind. They are the relativists who like to show that there are no fixed points in the universe from which we can measure anything. They smile down upon us from their lofty intellectual peaks and settle us to their own satisfaction by fastening upon us the reproachful term “absolutist.” The Christian is not put out of countenance by this show of contempt. He can smile right back at them, for he knows that there is only One who is Absolute, that is God. But he knows also that the Absolute One has made this world for man’s use, and while there is nothing fixed or real in the last meaning of the words (the meaning as applied to God), for every purpose of human life we are permitted to act as if there were. And every man does act thus except the mentally sick. These unfortunates also have trouble with reality, but they are consistent; they insist upon living in accordance with their ideas of things. They are honest, and it is their very honesty which constitutes them a social problem.
The idealists and relativists are not mentally sick. They prove their soundness by living their lives according to the very notions of reality which they in theory repudiate and by counting upon the very fixed points which they prove are not there. They could earn a lot more respect for their notions if they were willing to live by them; but this they are careful not to do. Their ideas are brain-deep, not life-deep. Wherever life touches them they repudiate their theories and live like other men.
A. W. Tozer, The Pursuit of God

Comments
But of course Bruce David,you believe your inner knowing is far more refined than mine, or anyone else's 'inner knowing' who dares disagree with you, which is exactly why you believe whatever you want. Thus not only are you egregiously wrong in logic your 'wrongness' stems from the fact that you arrogantly think you can't possibly be wrong because your 'inner knowing' tells you so. An inner knowing which you hold is better than anyone who disagrees with you! ,,, What a tangled web of self-deception you have trapped yourself in Bruce!!!bornagain77
May 10, 2011
May
05
May
10
10
2011
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
Bornagain, in response to #58: You have it exactly right. My inner knowing guides me to the truth. If your inner knowing leads you somewhere else, then go there. I have no problem with us having different beliefs. The only reason I post to these threads is to give people reading them the possibility of another point of view regarding the true nature of reality. I will tell you though, in all due respect, I don't think you yet have a clue what inner knowing actually is, nor are you yet in touch with it, at least when it comes to informing your worldview. I also believe that it will eventually come to you, as it eventually comes to everyone. Sorry if this sounds arrogant, but that is just how I see it. As far as the NDEs are concerned. You have the ones like those that Dr. van Lommel found and ones that reflect a Hellish experience. They are mutually contradictory. Given that people of all religious persuasions including atheists were in Dr. van Lommel's study, my way to reconcile the two that is consistent with what I know to be true is that people who have a deep perhaps unconscious belief that Hell exists and/or that they are headed there may experience that in an NDE, since our beliefs are very powerful (but not the only) determinants of our experience, even after death. Sorry that I reach a different conclusion from the NDEs than you do, but there you have it. We'll just have to agree to disagree.Bruce David
May 10, 2011
May
05
May
10
10
2011
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT
Bruce, yesterday why did you quote the one Near Death Experience study I cited from Lommel, but fail to cite the hellish pantheistic NDE studies I cited??? This 'prejudice' of your 'inner knowing' seems very selective to me!!! It sure seems like you got the whole game rigged. You are free to pick and choose whatever evidence you will consider because your 'inner knowing' let's you get away with this, yet our 'inner knowing' that tells us that you are full of bull is dismissed by you because somehow, in your mind, you believe that your inner knowing is more valid than ours???!!???bornagain77
May 10, 2011
May
05
May
10
10
2011
02:27 AM
2
02
27
AM
PDT
Brent, in response to #56. These are actually quite deep philosophical questions we are getting into here. This is good (but not in a moral sense, of course). Absolutely knowing that any of our experience is "true" (in any sense other than that it is our experience) is, from a logical point of view, impossible, IMO. It is for this reason that the philosopher Santayana held that all we can ever know is "solipsism of the present moment". Most of us believe that there is more to existence than just our experience in this moment, however. What you and I (and a few others) are discussing in this thread is what we believe there is to existence beyond our experience in the present moment. My position is that all there is is consciousness, but that when we have a physical body we live in a world of virtual reality. Instead of a computer program managing it like in a flight simulator or computer game, however, God is managing it so that your experience and my experience dovetail sufficiently for us to experience that we inhabit the same (virtual) reality. You, on the other hand, believe that the physical universe, matter, is real and has an existence independent of consciousness. I contend, based on my own thinking but informed by many other philosophers and mystics, that that position has problems when examined carefully that no one has yet been able to solve, e.g., the mind-body problem, the epistemological problem (how can we actually know that there is anything "out there"?), problems raised by the findings of modern physics, and the existence of psychic phenomena such as pre-cognition. All of these problems disappear in a world that consists entirely of consciousness entirely contained within and orchestrated by God's consciousness. Regarding your question about 2+2=4, the truth of this is not a function of the physical world. This is a truth from the realm of thought. Mathematicians prove this from the Peano postulates, a set of axioms used in the foundations of mathematics. The proof occurs in the realm of ideas, not physical objects. What is true is that the physical world conforms to that and a whole lot of other mathematics. My belief is that the reason for this is that God set it up that way. It is necessary for the purpose of physical existence to be fulfilled that the illusion be very persuasive. And it is. However, again in my view, God left enough clues lying about that when a soul is ready to see beyond the illusion into reality itself, the illusion can be seen through.Bruce David
May 9, 2011
May
05
May
9
09
2011
09:27 PM
9
09
27
PM
PDT
Bruce @54,
" . . . how do you know that the physical world is real? Can you prove, even to yourself, that you are not dreaming at this very moment?"
Well, I can differentiate between a dream and non-dream. If I couldn't, or if anyone couldn't, then we wouldn't have the word "dream" at all. But, if you say that there is a higher reality which we do not realize, and this present, seeming reality, is a dream-like state, then what makes your dream truer than mine? There is no objectivity whatever. My dream is just as true, and just as false, as your dream. Whence the grounding of your dream so that you can call it true? You have none. But you are, apparently, very confident that your dream is true. That is a contradiction. But, for fear that even this gets too complicated, let's make it as simple as possible. Please, from your worldview, show coherently that 2+2=4. You cannot. And if you cannot, then you have no grounding for anything.Brent
May 9, 2011
May
05
May
9
09
2011
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT
CannuckianYankee, in response to #50: The awareness that I am one with everything and that therefore whatever I do to another or the planet is done to myself (because "I am that") is not a moral statement, it is an ontological statement. If you are so inclined, you can derive an ethics from it, but that is a matter of choice. It is not a necessary consequence of the understanding. When one acts from love, one is not acting from any kind of moral sense. You can decide that acting from love is morally good and acting from anything other than love is morally bad if you wish, but that is a separate choice, and one that is not required in order to act from love. One can just decide to act from love simply because one chooses to, or because they like the way it feels.Bruce David
May 9, 2011
May
05
May
9
09
2011
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
Brent, For the first part of your comment (#51), my response is, how do you know that the physical world is real? Can you prove, even to yourself, that you are not dreaming at this very moment? To the second, your assertion that my desire to protect my family demonstrates my "inability to live [my] beliefs in the actual world", I respond, How so? What in that desire contradicts anything in my stated philosophy? Put another way, what in my system of beliefs prevents me from wanting them to continue to have the opportunity to learn and grow in physical existence, as they have chosen to do?Bruce David
May 9, 2011
May
05
May
9
09
2011
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT
f/n; In the description of this following video is a discussion of 'physical evidence' that indicates that reality actually does conform to the Theistic belief that we go to a 'eternal dimension' upon our separation from this 'temporal' body, As well there is discussion of 'separation from God' which is not possible in Bruce's 'preferred' belief system; Mickey Robinson On Sid Roth - Evidence For Life After Death Discussed in Description http://www.vimeo.com/22834087bornagain77
May 9, 2011
May
05
May
9
09
2011
03:39 AM
3
03
39
AM
PDT
Bruce David and CannuckianYankee, interesting that Bruce would use just one of my references for Near Death Experiences (NDE's) while ignoring the full body of evidence that I have presented to him that has clearly shown that there is 'something to' the Judeo-Christian culture which is completely unique when compared to other non-Judeo-Christian cultures. Especially this reference from a pantheistic culture which is typical with other studies from pantheistic cultures; Near-Death Experiences in Thailand - Todd Murphy: Excerpt:The Light seems to be absent in Thai NDEs. So is the profound positive affect found in so many Western NDEs. The most common affect in our collection is negative. Unlike the negative affect in so many Western NDEs (cf. Greyson & Bush, 1992), that found in Thai NDEs (in all but case #11) has two recognizable causes. The first is fear of 'going'. The second is horror and fear of hell. It is worth noting that although half of our collection include seeing hell (cases 2,6,7,9,10) and being forced to witness horrific tortures, not one includes the NDEer having been subjected to these torments themselves. http://www.shaktitechnology.com/thaindes.htm i.e. as CannuckianYankee has somewhat alluded to, when a individual person's 'interpretation' of the NDE is given precedence over the actual elements mentioned by the person, then the 'imagination' is given too much play in evidence, which is exactly what me must guard against, especially in this area of studying Near Death Experiences. It is very important to give full weight to the entire 'body of evidence', from a broad base in EACH unique culture studied, so as to negate the 'imagination factor' that individuals bring when interpreting; And when this correct method is used we see,,,,: Several studies (Pasricha, 1986, Schorer, 1985-86) & Kellehear, 1993) Murphy 1999,2001) have indicated that the phenomenologies of NDEs is culture-bound. (Of Note: Judeo-Christian Culture NDEs are by far the most pleasant "phenomena") http://www.shaktitechnology.com/thaindestxt.htm thus Bruce David, the way in which you have 'cherry picked' exactly which evidence you will look at, while completely ignoring the rest of the body of evidence I have presented to you that testifies so sharply against you, invalidates any claim of impartiality that you may had from your 'inner knowing' in this area!!!! Here are a few of the 'common elements' of NDE's from Judeo-Christian cultures: Near Death Experience - The Tunnel, The Light, The Life Review http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4200200/ --------------------- here is a NDE I found yesterday from a man who was shot in the head; Near Death Experience Testimony - To Outer Darkness (Hell) and Back - Matthew Botsford - video http://vimeo.com/19297257bornagain77
May 9, 2011
May
05
May
9
09
2011
03:26 AM
3
03
26
AM
PDT
Bruce, I think I must ask if you believe a thing may be both A and non A at the same time and in the same way. From what I can understand in what your position seems to be, I don't know how you could justify believing in the concept, even, of contradiction. If everything is illusory, there seems no ground for even suggesting that reality can be known, or worse, even really exist. If what, according to you, seems to be our physical world isn't real, and isn't therefore a valid means by which to come to an understanding of reality, then what makes your, or anyone's, imagination of what reality is like any better or more true than another's? And, then, this would get right back to the very thing that Barry was quoting, that if one's beliefs are not able to actually be lived by in this world, then they must be rejected as wrong. But you have NO standard by which to judge your understanding. It could be 100% correct, or 100% incorrect, but you have no way of knowing. It is purely subjective, isn't it? I'll add that I think your position that it isn't inconsistent to defend your family, for example, shows one instance of this inability to live your beliefs in the actual world. There seems to be a stronger instinct within you that rejects your actual stated beliefs. So why wouldn't you consider that stronger instinct to be in accordance with reality; a reality that "fits" within the actual world? Sorry! I think that is somewhat of a mish-mash of questions, but hopefully you can get what I'm saying.Brent
May 9, 2011
May
05
May
9
09
2011
01:01 AM
1
01
01
AM
PDT
Bruce, "After all someone experiencing oneness as “being in similar situations” generally does not conclude that what one does to another one does to oneself and that what one does to the planet, one does to oneself." But how would you know that? Suppose people who don't believe in your idea of oneness accept that what they do to another has consequences that can either come back to haunt them, or if they do good to another, return as a blessing to them. Isn't that pretty much the same sort of moral view? That view is found throughout scripture- particularly in the Proverbs. You don't have to accept a literal oneness to have that view. Sorry to keep harking on this - and I did say I would stop, but this statement is really out of line with the reality of others' basis for morality. What kind of oneness assumes that others can't have your same basis for morality? It appears decidedly un-oneness to me. Have you ever heard of the golden rule? What makes you think that rule is unique to those who accept your philosophy? Just because you take that rule - (which I believe is not unique to any particular group) and apply it in a different idiom does not imply that you therefore own it. There is a reason why Jesus states the golden rule as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." It's a command, and not a plea for the same to be done to you. What we would have done to us is the standard for measuring what we ought to do to others, but it is a standard that doesn't need to expect anything in return. In other words we do good to others because it is good, and not because we would benefit in any way from it. But it just so happens that when we do good, there IS more benefit to us than if we do evil, just as your philosophy implies (even if you reject the idea of good and evil). That's simply the way God designed it. So you've shown that even in your philosophy there's a measure for goodness and for loving others, which you seem to deny, but you keep trying to show the opposite. Why not at least take some credit for that little bit of logic?CannuckianYankee
May 9, 2011
May
05
May
9
09
2011
12:44 AM
12
12
44
AM
PDT
CannuckianYankee, regarding #47: Well then I guess we'll just have to continue to agree to disagree, since I am quite certain that mystics, including Pim van Lommel's patients who had NDE's, mean it as I have described it. After all someone experiencing oneness as "being in similar situations" generally does not conclude that what one does to another one does to oneself and that what one does to the planet, one does to oneself. And my teacher's teacher, Bulent Rauf, was speaking literally and from his own personal experience when he said, "God shows you he is you, and then, little by little, He shows you how He is everything else."Bruce David
May 9, 2011
May
05
May
9
09
2011
12:08 AM
12
12
08
AM
PDT
Bruce and BA77, While I absolutely appreciate much of what BA has to say, I don't really endorse the kinds of evidence he uses for near death experiences for that very reason. I do believe that some people may have genuine near death experiences, while others (sort of like those who claim to have been abducted by aliens), have very active imaginations, and I don't know one way or the other - nor could I know, which are in fact genuine and which are not. I don't, for example, believe that simply because a person is a Christian and has claimed to have a near death experience, that I should take them at their word. At the same time, I would not be necessarily suspicious of a NDE claim simply because it came from someone who is not a Christian. The fact is, I don't know either way. I believe in life after death on logical and scriptural grounds, but I don't necessarily need to have physical evidence for every little thing I believe, because they have other well grounded evidences, which are logically tied to other beliefs for which there is strong evidence. I base my belief in life after death in my belief in God, and it follows from logical arguments for His existence, coupled with the reality of the afterlife in Scripture. I don't then need to go looking for evidence of the afterlife to satisfy that belief. I personally am skeptical of the idea that the dead return to us to inform us of what it's like. The reason for this skepticism, is because the details of such a phenomenon could then be interpreted as new revelation, and I believe revelation (from human beings) was closed after the scriptures were written down, and there's a very good scriptural basis for why I believe that. Thus, I don't think believing in near death experiences is crucial for accepting life after death as a real phenomenon. I'm probably more likely to accept a peson's report of a NDE if it isn't coupled with grand visions of having gone to heaven and returned with a new message for all of us. There seems to be some of that going on in some of these reports, but not all. I think what is interesting though, is the similarities between various NDE claims. But I think more needs to be studied and known before coming to any definitive conclusions.CannuckianYankee
May 9, 2011
May
05
May
9
09
2011
12:06 AM
12
12
06
AM
PDT
Bruce, Regarding Oneness. Some people use that as a metaphor for our being in similar situations - we are one as in all being one human family, and can relate to each other in that regard. In fact, our ability to do things with great collective effort is often the result of our setting aside our differences for a greater cause. That's not quite the same as being literally one as if there is nothing which makes us unique individuals. For such people oneness is not intended to be taken as literally as you take it - as if our individuality is not even in consideration. Individuality in my opinion is something to be celebrated, not scorned. It is part of the mark, which makes us human. So I can accept that kind of "oneness," but not the kind that you endorse.CannuckianYankee
May 8, 2011
May
05
May
8
08
2011
11:19 PM
11
11
19
PM
PDT
Here is the link I referred to in #45: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOeLJCdHojUBruce David
May 8, 2011
May
05
May
8
08
2011
11:08 PM
11
11
08
PM
PDT
CannuckianYankee: I'm definitely ok with agreeing to disagree. I would like to say one thing in closing, however. None of the ideas and beliefs in my spiritual perspective are original with me. In other words, they are shared by many others. In particular, virtually every mystic from every spiritual and religious tradition affirms the Oneness. It is even mentioned by Pim van Lommel in a YouTube video that was linked in one of Bornagain77's comments that one of the realizations that results for people from their near death experiences is that everything is one, and that the result of this realization is that love and compassion become primary in one's life. At the end of the video, he even states that when one realizes our oneness, our interconnection with each other, then we know that what we do to another we do to ourselves, and what we do to the planet, we do to ourselves. So you see, my ideas are not so far out as you seem to think.Bruce David
May 8, 2011
May
05
May
8
08
2011
11:01 PM
11
11
01
PM
PDT
Bruce, I believe that God has designed the universe in such a way, and has indeed designed us in such a way as to allow us the benefit of determining within our own understanding what is logically valid and what is logically absurd in order for us to be able to live our lives in the real world. As such, StephenB and I, or any of the onlookers and other contributors don't really have to try and find contradictions in your thinking. That they exist is quite apparent in what you've written. Does this mean that we ourselves are not also prone to doing the same? Not in the least - we all are human; but I think if one appreciates God as he is - a self-sufficient necessary being outside of ourselves, completely transcendent of all that exists, one is less likely to make the absurd contradictions you have laid out for us, and much more likely to be able to live out our philosophy in the real world; which is what Tozer is concerned with in the OP. It's not a conceit on our part, but more of an acknowledgement of and an insistence on what is reality as opposed to what is not. And we believe these distinctions are life-deep (as Tozier says) and not just brain-deep. If our opinions then are important to you, which they apparently is not, then it shouldn't matter to you that we are able to find these contradictions. If we are as you say a part of God, then our thinking is also a part of God and a part of you. It makes no sense then that you should try to counter your own thinking. The very fact then that it is not your own thinking would indicate that at least we are not a part of God as you seem to believe you are.... I leave the "...." because there really is no end to this. An acceptable "ending" would be to just agree to disagree and move on. So in that I'm in agreement. ;)CannuckianYankee
May 8, 2011
May
05
May
8
08
2011
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT
i.e. that dog don't hunt!!! :)bornagain77
May 8, 2011
May
05
May
8
08
2011
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT
Bruce, Bruce, Bruce, Here is your philosophy in a nutshell; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fk1ceWinU-Ebornagain77
May 8, 2011
May
05
May
8
08
2011
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT
CannuckianYankee, You, like StephenB, insist on trying to find logical contradiction in my thinking where none exists. Your arguments are based on twisting my meaning into something other than what it is. It is pointless for me to refute you again, as you won't accept my reasoning anyway. Let anyone reading these posts decide for him or herself who makes the most sense.Bruce David
May 8, 2011
May
05
May
8
08
2011
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT
Bruce, "Transcendent, yes, but not separate. We are each an individuation of Him, in His image and likeness." This makes no logical sense whatsoever. If we are in His image and likeness, and yet we are Him or a part of Him, it would stand to reason that the distinction of our being in His image or likeness are unnecessary. We are Him. It would be similar to say "I as me, am in my image and likeness." It's merely a tautology, which defines nothing substantially. If we are God, it is a given that we are in His image and likeness. The reason we can make the distinction of being in God's image and likeness, is precisely because we are not God.CannuckianYankee
May 8, 2011
May
05
May
8
08
2011
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT
Bruce, "To use an analogy I have used before, my dream characters are a part of me, yet contingent upon me, not me upon them." You're assuming that your "dream characters" are real and not a product of your subconscious. Anyway, I'm not talking about dream characters, but that which we can all acknowledge as real - you and I are contingent and not necessary. If we believe that God created us, then there is that to contend with. If we were created by God, then at least we are contingent and not necessary. If we then believe that we are a part of God or God Himself (according to your own creation story), we become necessary to God; yet we can't be necessary, since we were created by Him. Therein lies the absurdity. It's not a false logic at all.CannuckianYankee
May 8, 2011
May
05
May
8
08
2011
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT
CannuckianYankee: "So in your philosophy it would appear that we are not contingent beings, but necessary." Not necessary in the sense that God is a necessary being. Only in the sense that we are necessary to His plan; it won't work without us. Our existence is still contingent. "Furthermore, there appears to be a contradiction in your assessment that we are both God and created by God. It leads inextricably to the infinite regress problem of who created God. If we as created beings are God, then God is contingent and not necessary, which would be an absurd contradiction in terms." Nonsense. To use an analogy I have used before, my dream characters are a part of me, yet contingent upon me, not me upon them. Their existence within me does not make me contingent upon myself. That is false reasoning. In the same way, our being a part of God yet contingent upon Him in no way makes God contingent. That is false logic.Bruce David
May 8, 2011
May
05
May
8
08
2011
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT
Bruce, I don't think the mystery of the trinity is necessarily taken purely on faith, and it provides a sufficient counter argument to your creation story as well as an answer to your misunderstanding of free will. In your view, God is insufficient without us, so He creates us in order to experience the virtues you mention, which we are then free to express or not to express. With God as trinity there is no need for Him to create us. God is self-sufficient, and as such, he has unlimited free-will within His character. His creating us is a reflection of the virtues He already possesses and experiences. So we are not necessary, but God is necessary for us to exist, and our creation and existence are a reflection of His character. We are created in His image such that we also have free-will (but limited) within our character to express those virtues or not. We don't, for example have the free will to not exist, but our existence is contingent on God's existence and His will to create us. So in your philosophy it would appear that we are not contingent beings, but necessary. In Christianity the only necessary being is God Himself - not contingent on anything, but self sufficient and eternally existing. The very fact that we are created (and at present we physically die), would indicate that we are not necessary beings. This would stand true even if we are atheists. We don't arrive at the trinity doctrine solely on faith, but from both scripture and reason, while much of what is the Trinity may remain a mystery as would be expected. Furthermore, there appears to be a contradiction in your assessment that we are both God and created by God. It leads inextricably to the infinite regress problem of who created God. If we as created beings are God, then God is contingent and not necessary, which would be an absurd contradiction in terms.CannuckianYankee
May 8, 2011
May
05
May
8
08
2011
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT
Brent, Actually I see two more questions in your comment #32. "Also, if we are one—one with God and one another—how is there ANY God?" The only way I know how to answer this is to give a short version of my "creation myth", if you will. In the beginning was the "I am that I am." Call Him God. Now God knew that He was magnificent, creative, loving, and joyful, but in the absence of the opposite of these, He could not EXPERIENCE them. So in a stupendous act of creation, He divided Himself into billions of individuations of Himself (ie, us, our souls). He then created the physical universe within Himself as well (as virtual reality). Now the individual souls, each still a part of Him, could choose to incarnate into the physical, in the process forgetting their true nature. Thus, living (temporarily) in the illusion, they each could experience the opposites of those qualities of God and themselves, and thus EXPERIENCE their magnificence, lovingness, and joy (to mention a few), and God, through His individuations of Himself, could experience them as well. So you see, this physical existence, while yet an illusion, has a holy purpose, in which we, as parts of Him, participate in an absolutely necessary way. Please note: this is an attempt to summarize in one paragraph what takes pages and pages to explain in Conversations with God. I don't begin to imagine I have really done it justice. If you are genuinely interested in understanding it, I recommend that you read Conversations with God, Book 1, by Neale Donald Walsch. I realize that this contradicts Christian dogma in several fundamental ways. But to me it makes far more sense than Christianity, with its notions of sin and a God who although unconditionally loving nonetheless condemns and punishes the majority of humanity, in many cases totally unfairly. "But you did say that God gave us freedom, and therefore it seems a contradiction, for to be given freedom presupposes that there is one with the power and transcendence to give it, and therefore it comes from a source that IS separate from ourselves." Transcendent, yes, but not separate. We are each an individuation of Him, in His image and likeness. But since both we and the physical universe exist within Him, He is both immanent and transcendent. The great mystery in this philosophy is how God managed to give parts of Himself free will. This I readily admit I do not understand. I accept it on faith, much like a Christian accepts the mystery of the Trinity on faith, or the mystery of how God could have created anything outside of Himself from absolutely nothing.Bruce David
May 8, 2011
May
05
May
8
08
2011
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT
Brent, Thank you for the civility of your response. You obviously disagree with me, yet you express your disagreement in the form of questions rather than attacks. I regard this as the essence of civil discourse, which allows for the possibility of genuine understanding between people (which is not to say that I necessarily expect we will end up agreeing with each other). I appreciate it very much. As I read your comment, I see two fundamental questions. The first has to do with how I regard murder, which of course can stand for any act that is normally considered particularly heinous, in my philosophy, and the second seems to be something like how can there be any notion of God if there is only One Existence of which everything is a part. I will take them in order. The first thing it is necessary to understand is how I see this physical existence, which is that it is an illusion. It isn't real. It is a kind of virtual reality in which we immerse ourselves in order to experience what can be known but not experienced in actual reality. So murder or any act committed here does not carry the same kind of importance that it would were this existence not an illusion. Secondly, I take the statement that we are made in the image and likeness of God very seriously. However, I also hold that the process of being born into a physical body includes forgetting that fact. This is so that we can fulfill the purpose of this illusion, which is to have the exquisite and holy experience of remembering. And when we do remember, even partly, Who We Really Are, murder or other "heinous" acts become a non-issue. Anyone who remembers his or her true nature simply would not do such a thing, not because it would be wrong, but because it would violate their nature. So when someone does commit murder, it is a result of their not yet having remembered Who They Really Are. The appropriate response is not to condemn them, but to remind them. Now this is not to say that therefore no one has a right to defend themselves or their loved ones, or that society has no justification for protecting its members from being murdered. There are many motivations for action other than punishment or to correct a moral wrong. Likes and dislikes, preferences, desire, fulfillment of a chosen goal, love of beauty, and passion are all possible motivators for action that do not necessarily involve any moral condemnation at all. So I can, for example, protect my wife and son from an attempted murder without any necessity of including moral condemnation in the reason for my action. Likewise, the members of a society can collectively agree to set up deterrents to murder such as incarceration out of a collective desire to continue physical existence that does not include moral condemnation, revenge, or punishment per se. (Not that I believe that's actually how it is at this stage of humanity's spiritual evolution. I am speaking theoretically here, anticipating an objection I have encountered before.) That is my answer to your first question. Since this is already pretty long, I will address your second question in another comment.Bruce David
May 8, 2011
May
05
May
8
08
2011
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
CannuckianYankee: "I know you think you answered it, but all you really gave is platitudes with no connection to anything tangible. Love is meaningless without some anchoring in tangibles." You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I must disagree. In my understanding, love is what philosophers sometimes call a primitive concept. It cannot be defined in any terms other than itself. You either know what it is or you don't. God is love. We, being created by Him in His image and likeness are also love. Love expresses itself into the creation in many ways. Certainly Jesus' death on the cross, if it is in fact true that he had foreknowledge and chose it as a sacrifice for all of humanity, was a great expression of love. There are many, many others also, but none of these expressions of love define it. It cannot be defined. It just is. "What is your tangible for oneness, which would cause anyone outside yourself to grasp what you’re talking about?" You may not believe this, but I personally know hundreds of people who know exactly what I am talking about (no exaggeration), and given the popularity of the Conversations with God series of books, I suspect there are millions. "I would say then that StephenB has given a pretty accurate depiction of how your philosophy plays out if you were to try and live it consistently." StephenB continues to make errors through his belief that reason can give him access to genuine truth. His example turns the truth backwards. One who truly knows the oneness never acts from "What I do to or for myself I do to or for another." Rather, he or she acts from "What I do to or for another I do to or for myself." StephenB (and I suspect you also) cannot see the difference because they appear to be logically equivalent. But I can tell you for certain that the difference makes all the difference. You either see it or you don't.Bruce David
May 8, 2011
May
05
May
8
08
2011
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT
Bruce, "I didn’t brush it aside. I answered his misrepresentation of my philosophy in my first paragraph (#22). How an awareness of Oneness is reflected in how one lives one’s life is right there if you take the time to understand it." I know you think you answered it, but all you really gave is platitudes with no connection to anything tangible. Love is meaningless without some anchoring in tangibles. As such, so is oneness. You argue outside tangible reality and it all becomes pretty much meaningless. I referred to Jesus' sacrifice on the cross as the greatest example of love. Jesus' sacrifice is the tangible for what love means, and I would add that love in action is laid out in 1 Cor:13. What is your tangible for oneness, which would cause anyone outside yourself to grasp what you're talking about? I would say then that StephenB has given a pretty accurate depiction of how your philosophy plays out if you were to try and live it consistently.CannuckianYankee
May 8, 2011
May
05
May
8
08
2011
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT
Bruce David @9, Thanks for the response. I know you've been grilled in lengthy threads before, so thanks for responding even though you obviously risk more grilling. I say that, however, because I think I can imagine how it makes you feel, but I must say that, if you are wrong in your understanding, it is a good thing for you to be grilled. So, how do you deal with, for example, murder? Is that an innocent "exploring" of life, acceptable because God (who we are a part of) has given us freedom? So, as God, we can kill another part of God and God won't be mad? I don't get it. Also, if we are one---one with God and one another---how is there ANY God? The idea of God includes, primarily even, the idea of one who is transcendent, above. But if we are one, there is simply no "above". There couldn't be ANY God. It is a meaningless word. But you did say that God gave us freedom, and therefore it seems a contradiction, for to be given freedom presupposes that there is one with the power and transcendence to give it, and therefore it comes from a source that IS separate from ourselves. So, it seems that your understanding is even internally contradictory.Brent
May 8, 2011
May
05
May
8
08
2011
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
Response to Mung (#28): So, what, you think God is so limited that He cannot hold my mind and your mind within His mind? I'll tell you this: If you really BELIEVED that I do not exist, like you believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, say, then I would cease to exist IN YOUR EXPERIENCE. I would still be hanging around in some others' though.Bruce David
May 7, 2011
May
05
May
7
07
2011
11:10 PM
11
11
10
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply