Proof of a Higher Power

[SenseiBear]

Can somebody prove reincarnation? I'd REALLY like to see that one too. Perhaps food for another thread, eh?

Or is it more fun to poke the Christians?

Oooo, ooo, I can, I can!

Jesus said "...I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." -John 3:3 (KJV)

See, Jesus believed in re-incarnation
(women of course can make it on the first try)

 

[rmcrobertson]

Some of yawl on this thread have done earned slaps upside each side of the punim, like flippers on an old-fashioned pinball machine, with Elaine Pagels and Mieke Bal as your Scylla and Charybdis...

One wishes that the Big Guy existed, and was indeed a combo of Bud Cort and Alanis Morisette...

Alas.

"Old Nobodaddy aloft
Farted and belched & coughed
And said, 'I love hanging & drawing and quartering
Every bit as much as slaying and slaughtering.'"

 

[parmandjack]

Just for the sake of debate:

Who wrote the Bible(s) and their stories? Men, so of course it would be a masculine reference. Also, in the English language, the tense used to speak of a something without gender or an unknown individual is usually masculine, is it not?

Hey Kenpo,

I'll address this in the new thread, (fulfilled prophecies etc..), and when I get to it, if you like, i'll come back and post it here...

 

[rmcrobertson]

In other words, why aren't you barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen?

Promise Keepers want to know...

 

[Mark Weiser]

The ole group is still around lol!!

 

[parmandjack]

Jack is back!
I have to say, i thought you were done!

figured it was time I came back and had a look at what was going on

Quote:
God does not change

Jesus also doesn't change

change in what ways?

exactly... He doesn't

You said you were recently converted, what changed your mind from atheism? If you don't mind me asking.

... I had a response already to go for you on this one.. then I had to go change a diaper and make some toast, and while doing that, my kid turned off my computer.. have to try to re-organize my thoughts now...

No I dont mind you asking this question at all Scout.

I used to be on your team... I used to debate those who professed christianity (or any god for that matter), and shoot down their proofs, and besides that, christians couldn't even agree within their own ranks as to what the bible said etc... I have always been technically minded, coming from a family of engineers and having a degree in computer science myself... and I had so many questions...like where did we come from, why are we here, where are we going... etc.. you know.. all the big ones that we all have... so naturally I turned to science for the answers... but what I found over the years was that science couldn't provide any answers.

I am in the computer industry, and have moved all over the continent... at one place i worked, i sat beside a born again christian. We had some terrific debates, which I always thought I had won (i thought)... over time, she got me thinking, and i finally accepted Jesus roughly 10 years ago (or so i thought). Over time though, i realized that after stating that I was "saved", nothign about me changed... my thoughts, my words, my actions, my preconceived notions.. nothing... nothing had changed... now at this same time I had moved to minneapolis, then to raleigh, then auburn alabama, then houston. During this time of reflection, I realized that I wasn't saved before as I thought, and that I had experienced a false conversion.

Gradually, during the moves, I felt this...hmm.. I can only describe it as a "tugging" at/in my chest/heart towards God, where I experienced a "need" to know Him... i fought this urge for a long time while questioning it, and eventually, in Houston, fell to my knees and accepted Jesus, this time for real...

But wait a minute... I considered myself a pretty smart guy... not the brightest bulb or sharpest tack in the box, but smart enough, and very logical, I have to be in the industry I am in, everything is black and white, one's and zero's, etc...... so how do I begin to explain to people my new found salvation, people who i knew would laugh and argue against it? well.. study... I delved into everything I could find, and still do to this day... as an atheist I debated against the bible, god, etc...but during that time of debating, I began studying religions, simply so I could argue against them. Now, 3+ years after my true acceptance of Jesus, I have done nothing accept study the bible.. and I mean really study... as well as all the evidences for it and in support of its claims, as well as other religions. In that time, I have become a bible scholar and a student of eschatology, and am working towards paper to validate such for the secular masses.

Anyway, I mention the above only to highlight a point, the point is that everything i have found and studied and researched, has only reinforced my belief in the accuracy and inerrancy of the bible. After 30+ years of disbelief, and 7 years of uninvolved false conversion, 3+ years later and I am truly convinced by both faith in Jesus, but also because of the solid proofs supporting the bibles accuracy, which in turn supports the claims that Jesus is the only way... but sadly, this is where christians start to argue. Many christians profess faith in Jesus, but argue against the bibles inerrancy etc... but that raises a valid argument for the skeptics and atheists.. and that is this... if a person claims to be a christian, but then argues against the documents that their faith is based on, doesnt that make them hypocrits? You can then ask what part of the bible they believe to be true, and base their faith on it... then you can ask, well what convinces them that that part is true while another part is false? taking it further, you can then state validly that if one part is false, then the whole christian faith crumbles because the very book that the faith is built on is not valid or true or reliable... and this is where being born again becomes important... if you are truly saved, not a false conversion, then you truly accept Jesus into your life.. once this is done, it is impossible to then, not be a christian anymore at some later date due to changed opinions or doubts etc... because once saved, you are His forever, given that you were truly saved in the first place (i hadnt been)... and this is called fundamentalism... being born again, you follow Jesus' teachings, and the fundamentals of the religion, as they are presented in the bible, and not some other source. This then produces changes in your life, which turn into good works, you are not saved by your deeds or works or actions etc...but only through Jesus, adn once that is accomplished, He then begins to make changes in your life which produces deeds that show Him.

It is true that the bible teaches that new christians are like babes, and are to be fed milk, and only given meat when they are mature enough to handle it... however, this scriptural teaching is not referring to how long you've claimed to be a christian, it is referring to spiritual maturity. It teaches that a mature christian can read and understand the scriptures, much more so than an immature christian... therefore, a person who has claimed christianity for 50 years, is not necessary more educated and/or spiritually more mature than someone with 3 years....

I'm sorry, I think I went on a tangent there, but I was attempting to explain the path that i went on since my true conversion from atheism, and why I belive completely, He becomes your life, and you(I) experince and feel the changes He makes in me, thereby further solidifying my belief ...

But listen...I have started another thread labelled 'fulfilled prophecies prove the bible', or something to that effect...i'm attempting to answer questions there...

I hope this wasn't too long winded an answer Scout, to your question of why I changed sides, and i hope I managed to express to you what I was actually thinking...

 

[michaeledward]

I'm sorry, I think I went on a tangent there, but I was attempting to explain the path that i went on since my true conversion from atheism, and why I belive completely, He becomes your life, and you(I) experince and feel the changes He makes in me, thereby further solidifying my belief ...

Actually, that was the most thoughtful post you have made on the subject, it was not a tangent.

While you continue to be judgemental about other people's lives, it is kind of nice to see the tone turned down. And I still disagree.

Mike

 

[Makalakumu]

Very thoughtful post, Jack. :asian:

 

[kenpo tiger]

Actually, that was the most thoughtful post you have made on the subject, it was not a tangent.

While you continue to be judgemental about other people's lives, it is kind of nice to see the tone turned down. And I still disagree.

Mike

What he said.

I personally believe in free will, and that I am responsible for my actions toward others, no one else. But that's a thread gank, and maybe, just maybe, we can discuss it elsewhere.

 

[heretic888]

Whew!! Finally got my **** back to a computer. Y'know, Hurricane Frances and all. Had a few more problems to worry about than chattin' online.

Well, anyways, I just wanted to address a few major points that piqued my interest in the last 6 or 7 pages of the thread (yikes, guys):

1. Would you consider the Jungian concept of the collective unconscious on the same level as what you indicated above (re: perennial philosophy)?

Well.... somewhat. I would concede that there is clearly a cross-cultural basis for the archetypes that Jung and Campbell talked about. I would agree that the two are on the "same level" if you are referring to a human commonality.

I do not, however, feel most of the Jungian archetypes are on the same cognitive or "spiritual" level as the insights and experiences of the world's mystics (which is the basis for the perennial philosophy). Most are extremely prerational, not transrational, and have more to do with early survival drives. The mother archetype Jung talked about, for example, has less to do with a nirvanic cessation or a type of Platonic deity mysticism --- and more to do with organizing the experiences of human infants in regards to a preverbial "mother".

Now, granted, some of the archetypes are genuinely transrational. Most, however, are not.

2. My personal opinion is that human beings invent a god/gods/goddesses/religions/GOD based on the influence of their environment and their own biological/psychologic needs.

I would basically agree with this. The creation of a particular religion or deity could involve a lot of different elements --- everything from cultural worldviews, linguistic stylisms, socioeconomic modes of production and institutions, and (most importantly) individual experiences and observations.

We can see this, for example, in the parallels between many Hellenistic philosophers of the Meditarranean in contrast to the Vedanta and Mahayana philosophers of the East. Plato is clearly talking about many of the same concepts and principles as Nagarjuna and Shankara, but it is "clothed" in very different cultural guises.

3. Despite their differences, the purposes served and the commonalities shared between the faiths are very similar.

True enough. But, the particular points I was referencing in regards to the perennial philosophy have to do with the raw experiences that many mystics in sages have reported. I am not simply referring to similar worldviews or shared values, but actual commonalities in mystical experience (Rumi, Johannes Eckhart, Catherine of Genoa, Shankara, Nagarjuna, Plotinus, etc.)

4. Marxists don't burn people at the stake, Christians do.

Errr.... might want to rethink this claim, methinks. People who claimed to be following the "Marxist vision" have done some pretty horrid and brutal things. The "cultural revolution" of Maoist China comes to mind, as does the invasion of Tibet. Let's not forget the yumminess that was state-enforced atheism under Stalin's rule, either.

The point is that this stuff is not in any way unique to "religions" in the formal sense, but underly any real jingoism, ethnocentrism, xenophobia, and fanaticism in general --- including the atheistic variety.

5. Jesus is the ONLY WAY, so sayeth the Bible.

Ugh. This again.

The problem here is that people are taking a particular verse from the New Testament ("I am the Way, the Life, and the Truth. No one goes to the Father but by Me.") completely out of context. I have already discussed this with someone via PM, so I'll just copy-and-paste my reply to him:

Contrary to popular belief, the gospels of the New Testament are not freely interchangeable works. What is said, for example, in the Gospel of John may not necessarily "fit" or apply to what is said in the Synoptics.

It is relevant that the verse in question is found in the Gospel of John. At the very beginning, the author of the text (who most definately is not "John") identifies the character Jesus (whom he may or may not have believed existed in a literal-historical sense) with the Logos (which is translated rather poorly as 'Word'). The Logos is a very old Greek philosophical principle that was first formally put forth by Heraclitus in the 6th century BCE. Philo Judaeus (circa 15 CE) of Alexandria was probably the one that was responsible for the popularization of the concept among Jewish circles.

Anyways, the Jesus of John's Gospel is clearly making reference to the Logos (which would probably be more accurately translated as 'Reason' in the Hegelian, not Aristotlean, sense) during his many "I Am" speeches. This is evident, for example, when he claims, "Before Abraham was, I am". The "I" that Jesus is referencing here throughout John's Gospel is clearly not some individual person that lived 2,000 years ago. This is also evident in the, "No one comes to the Father but by Me". If we took this statement literally about a historical personality that lived 2,000 years ago --- and not the Logos itself --- then this means that no one had "come to the Father" before Jesus was born in Bethlehem. That, to me, is a very arrogant and jingoistic statement.

Also, an Aramaic interpretation of the text also makes it evident that John's Jesus is referring to the "I AM" that was revealed to Moses in Exodus.

I think both of those interpretations, of the "I" in John referring to both the Logos and "I AM", are more accurate than the common fundamentalistic interpretations.

6. One day soon, Christians will be persecuted by the world!!

Okay, claims like this are just silly. Stop reading "Left Behind" and start reading the news once in a while. Christians are not in any way being formally persecuted by anyone.

Ideas like this propagate, once again, when Biblical texts are read out of their proper contexts. The Revelation of John is an intertestamental Jewish apocalypse that Christian scribes edited slightly to give it a "Christian" face. The great evil being referenced is the Roman Empire, and it was most likely written around the time that the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed (70 CE). Stuff like this was a dime a dozen back then --- apocalypses were very popular in the intertestamental Jewish literature.

Just my thoughts, of course. Laterz.

 

[Jim]

A REAL higher power wouldn't want or need proof.... Nor would I believe in a higher power who wanted/needed to show any proof. That's what good old fashioned 'faith' is for kids!

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Oh yes, I forgot. Blind faith somehow elevates something such as God above such trivial things as rational understanding. Or maybe it's just the personal significance that makes religious people afraid to question it.

 

[MisterMike]

Oh yes, I forgot. Blind faith somehow elevates something such as God above such trivial things as rational understanding. Or maybe it's just the personal significance that makes religious people afraid to question it.

I don't think that's what he was saying. But you are beginning to look like an ****.

 

[heretic888]

A REAL higher power wouldn't want or need proof....

A REAL "higher power" wouldn't want or need anything. A REAL "higher power" would be completely transcendent of any defining characteristics or anthropomorphisms. A REAL "higher power" could only be "known" via mystical communion or contemplative union --- not by looking into the Big Bang or coming up with teleological arguments based on Aristotlean logic.

This is verily the Buddhist doctrine of shunyata and mu, the Vedantic doctrine of nirguna Brahman, the Kabbalistic doctrine of kether and ayn, the Tao that "cannot be mentioned", the Platonic and Neoplatonic doctrine of the One, the Valentinian doctrine of the Abyss, the 'dazzling darkness' referred to by St. Denys Areopagite, the 'Ground of the soul and God are one' referred to by Meister Johannes Eckhart, the 'Ground of All Being' mentioned by Paul Tillich and Thomas Merton, the.... well, you get the idea.

It should also be mentioned that the various Semitic root words associated with the Divine Name --- Elat or Alat (Canaanite), Elohim (Hebrew), Alaha (Aramaic), and Allah (Arabic) --- all point to this. EL is the definite article, the word "the". And, LA is its opposite, the negation of anything, the word "no". The No. Or, if you prefer.... the Abyss, the Nothingness, the Void, the Emptiness, the Formless, the Dazzling Darkness, and so on. Or, if you don't like those metaphors, you can always stick with the Kabbalalistic doctrine of Ein Sof Aur --- the 'Limitless Light'. It all points to the same thing, no matter how you slice it.

Meh. I think I've made my point.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

MisterMike:

Your opinion is noted and disregarded appropriately.

 

[heretic888]

Now, now, guys.... play nice.

 

[kenpo tiger]

It should also be mentioned that the various Semitic root words associated with the Divine Name --- Elat or Alat (Canaanite), Elohim (Hebrew), Alaha (Aramaic), and Allah (Arabic) --- all point to this. EL is the definite article, the word "the". And, LA is its opposite, the negation of anything, the word "no". The No. Or, if you prefer.... the Abyss, the Nothingness, the Void, the Emptiness, the Formless, the Dazzling Darkness, and so on. Or, if you don't like those metaphors, you can always stick with the Kabbalalistic doctrine of Ein Sof Aur --- the 'Limitless Light'. It all points to the same thing, no matter how you slice it.

I don't question your scholarship. However, in Hebrew, LOH is no, AYN is nothing.

I've been waiting for someone to bring in Kabala. Can it be considered in the same light as the rest of Judaism, since it deals with a realm that could be considered 'heretical' in some circles?

 

[heretic888]

I don't question your scholarship. However, in Hebrew, LOH is no, AYN is nothing.

Heh. Well, I may have goofed on the exact specifics of the spelling --- I don't have my sources right in front of me, after all.

But the point remains the same: all those rendering of the Semitic conceptualization of the Divine literally say something like "The No". Or, to be slightly more interpretative, they combine existence ("the") with nothingness ("no"). This points to a concept of Nonduality, and is more than slightly reminiscent of the Buddhist doctrine of shunyata, the Hindu nirguna Brahman, or the the Valentinian-Christian Ineffable One or Abyss.

Another translation I have heard of these Semitic root-words, which I found particularly interesting, is "Holy Absence".

I've been waiting for someone to bring in Kabala. Can it be considered in the same light as the rest of Judaism, since it deals with a realm that could be considered 'heretical' in some circles?

I don't see why not.

Virtually all schools of any religion are considered "heretical" in different circles. I'm sure there are points were the different mainstream schools of Judaism don't exactly get along.

In any event, Kabbalah can trace its beginnings at least to various schools of Jewish Gnosticism present in the first century CE (and claims to go back further, all the way to Moses). This cannot be said for most of the extant schools of Judaism.

Just my thoughts, of course. Laterz.

 

[Mark Weiser]

I was told by a certain source that this subject should be studied only by a well grounded Rabbi due to the implications. Hmmm makes you wonder what is really in the study of this? lol

 

[kenpo tiger]

I was told by a certain source that this subject should be studied only by a well grounded Rabbi due to the implications. Hmmm makes you wonder what is really in the study of this? lol

I recall hearing something to that effect also. Could be that our forefathers viewed it as a threat to their teachings. With numerology rampant in all religions, it begs the question as to why the mystical side isn't more dominant.