Oscillation(s) in belief
- Thread starter Oscillation
- Start date
True faith and belief comes from within ones self. As long as you want to believe more then you don't want to believe, you will always have faith.
"Why would you believe in something that's made up by man?"
But what if it's not made up? All too often we ask of others to give an answer within our own world view. That'll make it pointless! You gotta question your own world view, and that goes for both atheists and theists.
But what if it's not made up? All too often we ask of others to give an answer within our own world view. That'll make it pointless! You gotta question your own world view, and that goes for both atheists and theists.
First off, let me just say that I applaud faith and those who have it.
What is this truth? With the multitude of beliefs, environments and climates, how can you expect one truth to apply to al? Is there a consequence to not conforming to this truth? Assuming that I never learn the truth, and never care to seek it out - will I be punished, and by whom?
It seems to me that with the incredible diversity of people, nature and choice, there is no way for there to be any ultimate truths of existence. As humans we come up with conditions for societies and guidelines for how to live optimal lives, but never a solemn truth for all to adhere to. A divine truth that doesn't embrace all, and give all equal footing, doesn't seem right. If there was such a truth, wouldn't all religions end up looking alike? And if they don't, does that mean that those religions are all inherently evil? Is Judeo-Christianity the salvation and answer to everything?
I meant that I believe in basic logic, that there is a true and a false. Some may say "there is no truth" or perhaps even "what might be true to you aren't to me" or alike. I don't believe in the relative... atleast, I don't think so. Nevertheless no one will ever know the truth to the fullest. I'm not only talking about God, spirituality and such, just plane simple truth and the way we look at reality.
What happens if someone believed in something else than the truth? Probably mostly nothing. What happens if I believed it was thursday today (it's monday)? Nothing, since I have my summer holiday and the days all look the same. But what happens if I believe I can jump off a building and survive? I will most likely die. So I cannot tell what will happen if you don't believe in what's true, it depends.
If the truth were made my humans, yes, then there would never be an ultimate truth. Humans are different. But if it were made up it probablu wouldn't be true in the first place. Truth must - in my perspective - stand outside the human mind, or how I should put it in better words. You're talking more of ideals, morals and ethics, I belive? There is a truth for this aswell, I think, but I'm not sure what the truth is at the moment.
Let me ask you something. You say that "a divine truth that doesn't embrace all, and give all equal footing, doesn't seem right." Why not?
Are you referring to human made truth or divine truth? Because for there to be a truth, it has to have been there since the creation of the universe, right? A truth isn't subjective, it is a hard fact that everyone must realize. What is the truth? What if I hold a different truth to you, is that as valid as yours? If my God is the Jewish God, or the Vishnu, am I following the wrong truth?
Mortality is an objective reality (as Kant called it). There is no truth behind it, other than the risk of death. Mortality is a fact. You could call it a truth, but that implies that it is something that we have learned along the way. Mortality is a condition of living, and has always been known to us. It is not something that we discovered cognitively. Time has been proven to not exist, and to vary greatly comparatively to what you are doing, and how fast you travel. Humans made up our (gregorian) weekdays in 1582. Not everyone follows the Gregorian calendar, or even weekdays. The Hebrew calendar, for example, is much older and follows the moons movement instead of the suns movement. They currently live in the year 5775. That's their reality.
What is the divine truth? Where does it come from? Who made the divine truth? How can it apply to everyone? I don't know the truth, so it cannot be universally true, can it?
That was vague, I agree. What I meant to share was that a universal truth that comes from outside the human mind must be readily available to all of humanity. If we in the western world are the only ones who share it, how can we be so sure that it is universal and not just something that applies to us? How can we be sure that it is not something that we made up along the way? People all over the world hold very different cultural and religious "truths", it seems illogical for there to be one over-arching truth. To me, at least.
All this you are saying maked sense, and I agree. However, if I understood you correctly, you seem to believe that the truth must be obvious: if there is a universal truth about religion, why haven't others already found the same truth as "we", right? I don't know, I ask the same questions... But I do believe that truth doesn't have to be obvious at the first place, but by investigation and further knowledge, there will be light spread over it and we will see much clearer. This is what I believe, no matter what religion of philosophy we're talking about.
It's when we make actual statments about the origin of life and the present universe (and alike) that there will be a true and a false. There will be different perspectives, I agree, and there may be several statments that are right, but this is because they work with different languages, and models, if you may. It is important to see the truth in every statment, and the lie in every statment. Could it be so?
Let me bring an example: would you say it's either true or false that Earth is round? That is what I would like to call a statment about our present universe. Making statments about "the origin of life" or "the present universe" wasn't meant to be an exclusive list, it was just a few examples. The key point is to make concrete statements about anything - statements that's either true or false. Of course there are some statements that are neither true nor false - like paradoxes - but I do not believe that for example Jesus is both devine and not. Either he was/is son of God or not. You could argue it's a matter of perspective, that "son of God" can mean different things, but when it all comes around I believe only one is true.
There could be other examples: is my shoe black?; is there a boogieman?; etc.
I also shortly want to say that I am capable of viewing things from different perspective, and I myself have many times come to the conclusion in different matters that "they are both right, in a way". So even if it may be looking like I'm telling you there is always either or, I don't mean to say that. What I'm trying to say is that there either are a God or there aren't, because this is a question that can't be both right and wrong at the same time - atleast not without any further explanation, imo.
Anyway, I could go on like this and end up not making myself any clearer. I tend to loose even myself in this kind of talk because of the complexity it creates in the language: at some point you even have to start question if what you're saying is understood the same way you meant it to be, and all hell breaks loose as the understanding or simple communication evaporates into thin air. It's a place I don't want to visit by too deep investigation about reality. I've been there before.
Doesn't matter: both of them. Or what do you mean by "divine statement"? Perhaps I misunderstand you?
Are you equating the shape of Earth to the story of Jesus? One is an objective truth, you're right, it can't be disputed that the world is round and that your shoes hold the colors that they hold. Jesus, though, is a highly divisive character in history.
Some look at Jesus and see the son of God, some look at him as a failed Messchiah that failed to bring peace to Earth, some don't even accept that he existed, or that his deeds were blown out of proportion by the writers of the Bible.
Since we can't go back in time and look at Jesus and judge him by his actual deeds, we can't claim to know the truth. So it's a subjective truth to you what you choose to believe about him. Does that make sense?
Well, there could be an intangible God that sort of just is a fluid entity, and not really there or not. We don't know. All we have to measure space and existence is our limited "Earth science" and materials.
If God exists - I don't know. I really don't. I tend to believe that John Lennon was right when he sang "God is a concept by which we measure our pain"
The more we suffer, the more we believe in God and a fair judgement of those that torment us.
Humans are basically logical creature, with a strong sense of dignity. If we feel slighted or like we aren't getting what we feel that we deserve, we don't have the feeling that justice has been served.
If you can't achieve justice by your own while you're alive, a belief that someone is on your side is comforting. Life is tough enough as it is, a hope that justice will prevail doesn't seem bad to me. It just doesn't feel right, either. If God loves everyone, why would he be more on your side than your tormentors?
I have no interest in letting any Hell break loose. It's summertime, man.
A divine statement is a Godly statement. It's something that came from above, and that we have control over. An Earthly Example: In a few hours, the sun will go down. It will happen, even though it has never gone down today.
Eh... yes? I'm not telling you the story of Jesus is true. I'm only saying that it's either true or false, just as a statment about the shape of Earth is either true or false. History is either true or false, and if Jesus has taken his place in history or not, the history about Jesus has it's truth.
I wish I could elaborate my thoughts further.
Yes, it totaly makes sense! But I claim that nevertheless there still is a truth about Jesus, whatever we believe about him. Our belief is subjective - truth is objective. The problem is that we never will know the truth, unless we become truth ourselfs (it's a philosophical claim, that might be wrong, but I found out that it might be that way. Hard to explain, and too OT).
Yes, why why would he? Perhaps he isn't. Who knows!
This is still a little fuzzy to me. Sorry!
Good! We're somewhat on the same page then.
I guess. I don't know. History is blurry. Sometimes parts of things took place, and other things were exaggerated or extended for the sake of the story.
Sure! What is true to you is truth to you. I come from a religious family, and I know how live and guttural faith can be. It's a lovely thing and heart-warming to experience.
My questions were never intended to critique or question your faith, it was just an attempt to gain insight to your perception of reality, I guess.
I find that the more knowledge you seek out, the less clear everything gets. I used to think that I knew everything, and that everything had a point. That everything had a truth and a falsehood. Now I'm doubting how much there truly is to believe with great certainty.
All that I cherish at this point is love and kindness. The more we show it to the ones around us, and the world as a whole, the better we all are.
Maybe that's the point of God. Realizing that we're all deeply dependent on each other, and working together while we're here, even when it's hard and inconvenient.
I hope so
I have heard of gnosticism before, and after watching this video my stance towards it hasn't change much.
* Paul, in his own letters, spend a whole lot of time getting rid of the gnostic teachings within the early church.
* The early church (1st century) had indeed already some of the teachings that the video claims that only the gnostics had, and I agree that you lost some when Constantine entered the picture, but it survived with the monks. Even the "real" church has been sceptical towards the institutional church - if that's how you should call it.
* When they chose wich books would enter the bible, the canon, thehy had some demands on the scripts: it had to be written by someone who actually had seen Jesus first handed (exept from Paul who still had seen Jesus in a vision), and the teachings had to already been excepted troughout the spread church. Therefore many of the gnostic writings didn't enter the book - because they were written in the 2nd century, and all the other who entered the bible were written in the 1st century. In other words they were source-critical.
I don't have any sources on this facts, but I don't doubt I could find them if I had the time and the interest in doing so. Right now I have to sleep though, and to be honest I don't think I will search for it - only if I absolutely have to! I did learn all this a long time ago, so it's hard to recall more information. I read about these things continiusly though.
It still was indeed an interesting video and I did learn some new things about gnosticism.
OBS! If I sound rude or anything like it, I blame the late hour and my state of mind of sleep. I have no intension of spreading disharmony, so I hope I haven't written anything that will be interpreted as it. Peace!
There is no way of proving that anyone met jesus
The gnostic ideas predate the time jesus was said to be alive
The gnostics have just applied a more metaphysical interpretation of the story but the roman catholic church applied a literal interpretation to the story
Its really a difference in outlook which i believe has some relevance to MBTI
So the gnostics tend to look for the meaning behind things and are able to see extra dimensions to things but the literal approach is very concrete and basically dictates to people how they should interprete and how they should think and feel
So what i'm saying to any intuitives out there who are struggling with their faith is that perhaps they could explore a more gnostic avenue to spirituality because i believe they will ultimately find that a more profound and meaningful experience than having some priest telling them a very old resurrection story (that massively pre-dates christ) as if it was historical fact (their mind will rebel against being told that a guy literally walked on water and that doubt will undermine their faith and they will end up throwing the baby out with the bath water)
The reality of the abrahamic religions is that they all have their roots in the far older RIG-VEDA
Jesus is Krishna
The problem with religions as Jung said is that they stop people from seeking a religious experience
The old mystery schools gave people an entheogenic libation which gave them a direct religious experience. This was watered down and then lost to the literal church who now give people bread and wine as a communion. But that wine used to be entheogenic temple wine. Indeed the vatican is built on an ancient pre-christian site where prophetesses were given entheogenic temple wine and would impart insight to people (no doubt visitors could partake of the wine too)
That depends on your outlook at the concept of "proof", but for the most part, yes, I agree - just as there is no way to prove anything in history.
This I did not know about!
Yes, gnostics seek gnosis and the liberation from matter, and christianity tells you that matter is good. This is one of the problems gnostics had with the story of Jesus as being incarnated God: why would God step down and take part in "evil" matter? The goal is to become free of matter, but here we have a god that let himself become man.
Is this a correct description of the two?
Maybe so, but I doubt that MBTI tells you what religious believe you have. It may tell you how you approch religion overall, but not what you belive in. That's what I think anyway.
As seems to be the state I'm in... I doubt.
Right now I don't dare to ask you telling me more about this. First off I'm about to have a test on soon, and I shouldn't get involved in too much lengthy, deep reading, and second I don't think I'm just ready yet to seek out new religions. I have to seek within my own first.
We seem to have a similar opinion on that, when you define "religion" as the institutional kind of religion. Christianity isn't just an institution... but I don't have to tell you that.
I doubt the veracity in this information, I must say I do. This could be because I've been told something else my whole life, or it could be because it's just not true at all. For now I have to believe the latter (otherwise I wouldn't have stuck with Christianity, would I?).
Muir. I'm thankful for the information you give, and at a different time I would have found it deeply interesting. Right now I still find it interesting, but some part of me is in deep depression, and I can't handle too much of this kind of information that puts everything you believe in at test. I already have my beliefs at test, and if I have to not only choose whether I believe in christianity or not, but even whether I believe in gnosticism or not - and what would hinder me to go on and think about other religions? - I don't think I'm able to handle it right now.
I don't what to hinder you to tell me more about this, but I beg you too think about my psyche rather than your own belief that "this is the shit", this is the truth. If that is the case, I can't handle the truth right now... not yet. But truth will eventually find it's way to me, or I'll find my way towards it. I have no doubt in that! I seek the truth, whatever the truth is, for truth is what you ought to believe in anyway. But sometimes - about allways - you are stuck with what you precieve to be true, and you cannot know what's true untill you questions what you believe. Right now it's time for questioning, not finding truth. Does it make sense?
There is a little gnostic deep inside me anyway... if you look closely at what I've just written (too find truth you must have knowledge, gnosis, not knowledge as this world sees it, but on a deeper level - or higher, if you may).
Please, continue to take part in this topic, and give your input. Just think about what I've just writtten (if you understand me, that is).
The gnostics argue that the jelous and violent god of the old testament is the demiurge NOT the true source of all
eastern religions say this world of 'matter' is one of illusion which they call 'maya'
Science too is now questioning the nature of our of 'physical' reality and is hypothesising about 'string theory' and a 'holographic universe' etc
So jehovah would be the generator of that illusion....
This would mean that christians and jews are worshippers of the lord of matter. Certainly the jews and christians have proven themselves historically very concerned with affairs of matter for example personal wealth eg 'protestant work ethic'
The greek cross had equal horizontal and vertical planes as the vertical plane represents SPIRIT whilst the horizontal plane represents MATTER. Therefore symbolically the greek cross represents an INTENT towards a balance of spirit and matter as a means to harmonious exitence within this 'physical' realm
The Latin cross however changed this and threw everything out of balance. It moved the horizontal axis up the vertical axis thereby symbolically expressing an imbalance between spirit and matter which created an unrealistic mindset leading to distortion in their thinking; this lead to violence against others in the albigensian crusades, in the witch hunts and in the various activites of the inquisition all whislt the hierarchy of the roman church themselves lived in palaces filled with the treasures of the world...ivory towers removed from the common people
If we are to try and walk a harmonious path through this world of maya surely a middle path is required which acknowledges both aspects of our experience and seeks to balance them?
Yeah usually your geographic location determines which religion you are exposed to from birth
But MBTI will likely affect how you engage with that religion and all religions have en esoteric and an exoteric side
The gnostics believed that humanity were roughly divided into somatics, pneumatics and hylics. One group would likely never seek understanding beyond literal, concrete religion. Another group may have interest in seeking a deeper understanding whislt the third group will always hunger for a deeper meaning
I have some sympathy with this world view because i have debated with many people and have found vastly differing degrees of willingness to engage with topics on a level deeper than that presented by the various manifestations of authority
However there are dangers with such a view as well because if taken as gospel by a cynical person they can be used as justifications for elitism; this then is what the black lodge do; they believe that only they as an elite group able and willing to look deeper behind things should make all the decisions for society
However I believe the information should be available to all but what a person does with that information will vary depending on their MBTI and with how developed their intutitive capacities are
The question is whether or not those intuitive capacities can be awoken by all
Your own religion is part of a long tapestry woven through time, not a stand alone origional
It seems to me that the authorities have always dictated to the masses what the 'truth' is
But the gnostics are people who have decided to not blindly believe what authority dictates to them and instead to move forward in their lives with an open and curious mind in their own pursuit of the truth
I think the 'truth' as dictated to the masses by institutionalised religion will always come under question by all except the most subserviant mind because it is riddled with inconsistencies
This questioning or loss of faith can often lead to a 'dark night of the soul' type situation but this is not a negative thing because it is simply a shaking off of the mind forged manacles which then allows a free mind to go forward and explore the possibilities for themself
Although letting go of the apron strings of authority can be frightening at first it is the beginning of an adventure that should prove more than stimulating enough for one life time.
It also allows the person to then revisit all the religious stories they have been taught but with new eyes allowing a more symbolic and metaphorical interpretation which ultimately will prove more satisfying to the heart and the mind than the tall stories of the institutional authorities
Very slow on the uptake here, Muir, as I just recently realized that your avatar is from the Mysterious Cities of Gold. I went through to find a thread started by you and realized that in this section of the forum you were helping a lot of people process different thoughts rather than starting a lot of threads. Thanks for listening and giving your thoughts as well.
My two young daughters love hearing the Cities of Gold soundtrack. Here is one of our favorites:
Short, but beautiful - like life
Wishing you and everyone here health and happiness.
Full soundtrack link
where is the City of Gold?
There is in this city of Brahman an abode, the small lotus of the heart; within it is a small ākāśa (space). Now what exists within that small ākāśa, that is to be sought after, that is what one should desire to understand.
As far as this great ākāśa extends, so far extends the ākāśa within the heart. Both heaven and earth are contained within it, both fire and air, both sun and moon, both lightning and stars; and whatever belongs to him (the embodied creature) in this world, and whatever does not, all that is contained within the ākāśa of the heart.
...
Those of his fellows who belong to him here, and those who are gone, and whatever else there is which he wishes for and does not obtain – he finds all that by going into his own Self. For there, indeed, lie those true desires of his, covered by what is false.
...
The Self, indeed is below. It is above. It is behind. It is before. It is to the south. It is to the north. The Self, indeed, is all this. Verily, he who sees this, reflects on this, and understands this delights in the Self, sports with the Self, rejoices in the Self, revels in the Self, Even while living in the body, he becomes a self-ruler. He wields unlimited freedom.
Chandogya Upanishad