10 Questions Every Intelligent Christian Must Answer [ANS]
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
Jonah,
We can take this one by one.
This reply misses the point of the "God hates amputees" challenge by quite some distance. A more complete way of framing the challenge is this: If God can and does heal people of various ailments such as cancer, leprosy or even death, why doesn't he also heal amputees?
There are two possible answers:
1. God does heal people of other ailments, but for some reason has no interest in restoring the limbs of amputees. Does he discriminate against them?
2. God does not heal people of other ailments. E.g. when someone recovers from cancer, it may be due to the administering of medical treatment, misdiagnosis in the first place, or simply fakery. There is less ambiguity about amputees (it's harder to fake a missing limb), hence there are no claims of a regrowth of limbs through prayer.
Maybe there's a third possible answer, but you'll have to enlighten me on that. Otherwise, you have to concede either (1) or (2) to solve the challenge.
Exactly what is the “God hates amputees” challenge supposed to prove? That God exists and hates amputees, or that God does not exists and therefore the issue does not even arise? What’s your pick, reasonable.atheist? Pick one. We can have a debate on this and I’ll give you a run for your money.
BTW, this kind of “challenge” can take many forms, such as
1. Why doesn’t God bring about world peace?
2. Why doesn’t God strike me dead right now?
3. Why doesn’t God give me a lottery win?
4. Why doesn’t God give me a husband/wife?
5. Why doesn’t God ______________ ? (add your own peeve here)
Note though that those who are fixated with demanding answers to these specific questions often missed out on other things that God has done, other miracles of healings or providence that cannot be explained naturalistically. These people are indeed guilty of suppressing the truth by their unrighteousness as the Bible so declares.
But having asked the above kind of questions we must still ask, “SO WHAT?” What does the challenge prove ultimately? What does it conclude? What is it supposed to prove? And is that conclusion proven? What I want to point out is that this atheist’s argument is likely to be guilty of a logical fallacy called a non sequitur. The fallacy is committed when a conclusion or statement does not logically follow from a previous argument or statement. Perhaps RA can prove me wrong in this?
BTW, has the atheist ever thought that God might have His reasons for not healing amputees? I suppose the thought does not even occur to them since God does not exist as far as they are concerned. Anyway, for those who are not atheists they can consider people like Bethany Hamilton who lost her arm from a shark attack (see movie Soul Surfer) or Nick Vujicic who was born without all four limbs. These Christians are the source of inspiration for millions of people, even full-limbed people! These handicapped Christians found their solace in God and in turn allowed God to use their disabilities to enable and encourage and inspire many more people and possibly touch even more lives than if they were full-limbed people. But do amputees and people in general find solace and inspiration from atheists and their atheistic worldviews? Consider this as MY challenge to you.
BTW, this challenge did not go unnoticed by other Christian websites. Some of their responses are found below
http://www.gotquestions.org/God-heal-amputees.html http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/01/30/feedback-god-heal-amputees
-
BIC, any time you have to resort to appeals to mystery, i.e.
(a) God works in mysterious ways, or
(b) documentation just happens to be sparse, but maybe there were amputees who had limbs restored,
you basically concede the point. You cannot, on one hand, argue for the importance of logic in argument, and then suddenly appeal to mystery when you don't have a valid answer.The two links you provided basically cover the same things we discuss. In fact, aside from the same appeals to the mysterious, the first link actually agrees with me on the two possible answers! (The second link misses the mark.)
1. God does heal people of other ailments, but for some reason has no interest in restoring the limbs of amputees. Does he discriminate against them?
2. God does not heal people of other ailments. E.g. when someone recovers from cancer, it may be due to the administering of medical treatment, misdiagnosis in the first place, or simply fakery. There is less ambiguity about amputees (it's harder to fake a missing limb), hence there are no claims of a regrowth of limbs through prayer.
If we think that (1) is correct, we need to explain why God appears to be discriminatory. Is God fair and just?
If we think that (2) is correct, then (a) stop saying that God supernaturally intervenes in the restoration of health and (b) stop arguing for the efficacy of prayer in doing so.
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
BIC, any time you have to resort to appeals to mystery, i.e.
(a) God works in mysterious ways, or
(b) documentation just happens to be sparse, but maybe there were amputees who had limbs restored,
you basically concede the point. You cannot, on one hand, argue for the importance of logic in argument, and then suddenly appeal to mystery when you don't have a valid answer.The two links you provided basically cover the same things we discuss. In fact, aside from the same appeals to the mysterious, the first link actually agrees with me on the two possible answers! (The second link misses the mark.)
1. God does heal people of other ailments, but for some reason has no interest in restoring the limbs of amputees. Does he discriminate against them?
2. God does not heal people of other ailments. E.g. when someone recovers from cancer, it may be due to the administering of medical treatment, misdiagnosis in the first place, or simply fakery. There is less ambiguity about amputees (it's harder to fake a missing limb), hence there are no claims of a regrowth of limbs through prayer.
If we think that (1) is correct, we need to explain why God appears to be discriminatory. Is God fair and just?
If we think that (2) is correct, then (a) stop saying that God supernaturally intervenes in the restoration of health and (b) stop arguing for the efficacy of prayer in doing so.
Excuse me, have you made your pick? Please do that before i proceed further. -
Excuse me, BIC, I have limited interest in engaging you. I have little trust in your ability to "follow the argument wherever it leads".
Why don't you offer an answer yourself and play both sides?
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
Excuse me, BIC, I have limited interest in engaging you. I have little trust in your ability to "follow the argument wherever it leads".
Why don't you offer an answer yourself and play both sides?
Perhaps you refuse to take your pick because you fear to follow the argument wherever it leads? Looks like you are wishing to choose easier opponents while going for an ad hominem remark. So be it then. I have no wish to play both sides. Neither do you, ya? -
The fallacy and some aspects of organized religion cannot be cancelled out or the lack of knowing (not knowledge) – some years ago there was a Iranian (twin baby or conjoined ….?) and came here for surgery. All got together to pray for the success of the surgery, sadly, the surgery was a failure – then again all got together to pray for …. An intelligent one would know that this is downrite stupidity! Prayer in any form to any … is only prayer if it is of gratitude, however, that seems not to be the predicament of many – it is begging for … a prayer of supplication. Assuming God existed and created creatures, animate n inanimate in his/her/??? image why a conjoined baby or a physical impediment (add one what comes to mind) to a new-born baby. The reality has been that wars, famine, poverty hunger disease … preceded one’s being born here and when one kicks the bucket – it will still go on. It is has been always the way it is and the only thing that can be attributed (in some instances ) is the abuse and misuse of resources by human beings cos of greed , eg logging or or be attributed to some genetic deficiency or ...
-
Thank you, ThunderFbolt, for your questions. Here are my answers.
---------------------------------------------------
Question 1
1. God does not owe us anything.
2. God is not a vending machine.
So people pray to him for...? To thank him for doing nothing?
Answer 1
God is my King. Pray to give Him praise and glory.
God is my Provider. Pray to thank Him for all the good things He has given.
God is my Father. Pray that I may be a good son to Him.
God is my Saviour. Pray to ask Him to protect me and provide for my needs.
God is my Friend. Pray to share my joys and my sorrows with Him.
God is my Counsellor. Pray to receive wisdom from Him.
God is my Big Boss. Pray that I may obey Him more.
God is my Shepherd. Pray that He may lead me and that I may follow Him.
There are so many things to pray and thank God for. How can you say He did nothing? Has God not given you life? The ability to breathe? Food to eat? Water to drink? Clothes to wear? A computer to surf internet?
---------------------------------------------------
Question 2
Here's the problem.
(i) God created the world perfect.
(v) Man sinned.
There is an obvious contradiction when you put in the statements:
(iii) Sin is not perfect.
(iv) Man is created by God.
(v) Man should be perfect.
Answer 2
Step 1: God created a perfect world. Man was perfect too.
Step 2: Man disobeyed God.
Step 3: Sin entered the world as a result.
Step 4: The world was no longer perfect, and neither was man.
Step 5: The penalty of sin is eternal hell.
Step 6: Jesus Christ generously paid the penalty for His people.
Step 7: The evidence that a person has had his sin paid for by Jesus is that he repents and believes the Gospel.
Step 8: This offer is available to everybody and it is valid until the point of death.
Step 9: Those who have not had their sin paid for by Jesus Christ will have to pay for it themselves.
Step 10: On the last day, God will destroy this imperfect world, and He will create a new heaven and earth. God will restore perfection and He will live with His people forever.
---------------------------------------------------
Question 3
If you think www.creation.com is a scientific site, I would strongly suggest you go through our dear Singapore education system. If you have gone through and you still believe that that site says the truth, our system really has failed you.
Answer 3
Yes, I know www.creation.com is a scientific site. And I was educated in Singapore. I do not understand why you say that the system has failed me.
---------------------------------------------------
Question 4
Well, then why do good things happen to bad people?
Answer 4
For the record, all people are bad people. We have all sinned and do not meet the perfect standard that God requires.
Good things happen to bad people because of God is merciful. If God had given us exactly what we deserve, we would all be in hell right now. But God withholds His punishment and gives us time to repent, and even a chance to be saved from punishment.
Every good thing is from God, and it is God's right to choose whom to bless with which good things. Has He not blessed you with the breath of life? With food to eat and water to drink? With clothes to wear and parents to love you?
Have you thanked God instead of faulting Him for giving you good things? God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance. But this will not last forever. The day will come when God will say that time is up, and then He will withdraw His kindness from the people who keep rejecting Him.
---------------------------------------------------
Question 5
Mohammed, Buddha, even Joseph Smith left behind more evidence for their existence than Jesus Christ. Why don't you believe in them?
Answer 5
I believe that Mohammed, Buddha and Joseph Smith were real, historical people, as was Jesus Christ.
However,
Mohammed did not pay the penalty for my sins, and neither did he claim to do so.
Buddha did not pay the penalty for my sins, and neither did he claim to do so.
Joseph Smith did not pay the penalty for my sins, and neither did he claim to do so.
Jesus Christ paid the penalty for my sins, and He declared it with absolute authority.
---------------------------------------------------
Question 6
Rephrasing what Dawkins has said, if you were born in India, you would be saying the same thing about Brahman. If you were born in the Middle East, about Allah. If you were born in Ancient Greece, about Zeus. Your mind just tries to rationalize what others have told you with what you can observe on your own.
Answer 6
There are 26 million Christians in India.
There are 1.5 million Christians in Saudi Arabia.
I do not have the statistics for ancient Greece, but the LORD willingly adopted non-Israelites who wanted to follow Him and live among His people.
Just as it is written in the Bible, Jesus Christ has purchased with His blood people from every tribe, language and nation.
It is also written in the Bible that there are few who will enter in at the narrow gate that leads to life (evidenced by the low percentages in each country).
You can enter the narrow gate too, if you want to. But do you want to? You have God's promise that He will prepare a room for you in heaven if you enter.
--------------------------------------------------- -
Assuming God existed and created creatures, animate n inanimate in his/her/??? image why the prayer that is asking for ????. So one can only surmise that man created God in his/her/??? own image (of what god is , should be or will be), hence the constant praying and asking for .....
-
Muse over this - When the clouds release rain, does it choose on whom to rain or where to rain - does it decide who deserves or not deserves to experience it?
-
Hello Reasonable.Atheist,
I shall try to answer your question.
Your question was:
This reply misses the point of the "God hates amputees" challenge by quite some distance. A more complete way of framing the challenge is this: If God can and does heal people of various ailments such as cancer, leprosy or even death, why doesn't he also heal amputees?
There are two possible answers:
1. God does heal people of other ailments, but for some reason has no interest in restoring the limbs of amputees. Does he discriminate against them?
2. God does not heal people of other ailments. E.g. when someone recovers from cancer, it may be due to the administering of medical treatment, misdiagnosis in the first place, or simply fakery. There is less ambiguity about amputees (it's harder to fake a missing limb), hence there are no claims of a regrowth of limbs through prayer.
Maybe there's a third possible answer, but you'll have to enlighten me on that. Otherwise, you have to concede either (1) or (2) to solve the challenge.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer
(1) Jesus Christ has historically regenerated bodyparts, including limbs. That is, if you are willing to believe the written accounts of Matthew the tax collector (our modern day equivalent of an accountant) and Luke the doctor (that is why many healthcare institutions are named after him).
(2) God made our bodies to heal. After the disobedience of Adam and Eve, sin entered the world and along with it death, disease and injury. In His mercy, God gave us an immune system that will fight disease. In His mercy, God enables our bodies to heal. We will still die physically, because that was God's promise to Adam and Eve if they ate the forbidden fruit. Hence, our bodies start dying the moment we are born.
(3) It is important to understand that sickness, injury (including amputations) and death are a result of sin entering the world after the fall of Adam and Eve.
(4) God made our bodies to heal in certain conditions. The conditions to heal flu are helped by plenty of sleep and water. The conditions for re-attaching an amputated limb are keeping the severed limb in contact with the body and ensuring a good supply of blood and nutrients. The conditions to cure cancer are a mystery (which is why we are still searching for a cure for cancer, and if God is willing we will find it).
(5) God is merciful and has given us medical knowledge to help meet some of these conditions that facilitate healing. God had already stated during the time of Moses that any abilities we acquire, which includes medical skills, are ultimately a result of God's provision.
(6) Healing takes place if it is God's will because all good things come from God and healing is a good thing. Healing does not take place if it is not God's will.
(7) Administering of medical treatment is a blessing from God. Misdiagnosis is the fault of man. Fakery is of the devil, and there are many masquerading as servants of God.
(8) There is a boy in my church who, just last year, had his finger severed when a heavy door closed on it (the reality of sin affects everything, including a decrease in our level of alertness). It came off completely and was lying on the floor. The doctors reattached it (God's provision of medical skills), my elders prayed over it (seeking God's blessing) and today his finger is as good as new (praise God for His mercy).
(9) At the end of this age, God will seperate His people from those who are not His people. God's people will live in heaven where perfection is restored and sin is eradicated. His people will experience the fullness of God's blessing, where there is no death, disease or injury (or amputations). God's enemies will be in hell, which is a place where there is zero amount of God's blessing. In hell there is no healing, no medical skills, no immune system and no escape.
(10) You can still become a friend of God if you repent of your sins and believe in Jesus Christ. God's offer still stands while you are yet alive. I plead with you, together with all the apostles and saints, to flee from the impending judgment to Jesus Christ. I can take you to church if you want.
**************************************************************************
I gave you 10 points because that is the big picture. But in short:
My (8) answers your number 1, and
my (5), (6) and (7) answers your 2.
**************************************************************************
[Deuteronomy 8:17-18] You may say to yourself, "My power and the strength of my hands have produced this wealth for me."But remember the LORD your God, for it is He who gives you the ability to produce wealth, and so confirms His covenant, which He swore to your forefathers, as it is today. -
Hello Fugazzi,
You asked:
Muse over this -
When the clouds release rain, does it choose on whom to rain or where to rain – does it decide who deserves or not deserves to experience it?Jesus Christ answers:
[Matthew 5:45] He (Your Heavenly Father) causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
God decides. Neither you nor I deserve any rain. But God is merciful. He gives us good things that we do not deserve.
-----------------------------------------------
Shall we thank Him together?
-
Jonah,
1. Let's put the biblical accounts aside. The reliability of the Bible is a separate issue that I don't want to go into here. We should just focus on modern-day accounts of God-assisted healing.
2. You need to figure out whether you think God takes an active hand today in healing the sick and wounded. Does he (a) sit back and let medical science do its thing, or does he (b) actively pick and choose people he wants to heal?
3. If your answer is (a), then we don't have to bother with praying.
4. If your answer is (b), then you have a whole host of challenges. But relevant to the "God heals amputees" challenge is this: you have to explain why he allows a child's severed finger to work again, or why he cures someone's mother of cancer, and yet he doesn't let a person's amputed limb regrow.
-
It was a methaphor to expand on n introspect, not to be interpreted literally lah. As for quoting the bible as an answer it is no anwer at all. It is merely repeating from a source and how true or not true is only when one really expereinces it for onself. U say, that we do not deserve. Really, then what do we deserve? Read the below in its entirety and it feels like man seems to have created God in his image and hence the utter mess. The fallacy and some aspects of organized religion cannot be cancelled out or the lack of knowing (not knowledge) – some years ago there was a Iranian (twin baby or conjoined ….?) and came here for surgery. All got together to pray for the success of the surgery, sadly, the surgery was a failure – then again all got together to pray for …. An intelligent one would know that this is downrite stupidity! Prayer in any form to any … is only prayer if it is of gratitude, however, that seems not to be the predicament of many – it is begging for … a prayer of supplication. Assuming God existed and created creatures, animate n inanimate in his/her/??? image why a conjoined baby or a physical impediment (add one what comes to mind) to a new-born baby. If God created all of everything in his/her Image - then it must include perfection n imperfection of all that we face and experiecne. So this idea of perfection, good, bad, is man's ideas in his head and projected onto GOd. The reality has been that wars, famine, poverty hunger disease … preceded one’s being born here and when one kicks the bucket – it will still go on. It is has been always the way it is and the only thing that can be attributed (in some instances ) is the abuse and misuse of resources by human beings cos of greed , eg logging or or be attributed to some genetic deficiency or
-
Jonah, iF someone tells me that a flower near my house is beautiful. He/she expereienced it, and now telling me that it is so. I can believe it, but till I have really experienced it for myself, it means nothing. If I go around telling someone that this particular flower is beautiful without existentially experincing it, i must be a hypocrite lah. At the most, it is psychological and socially possible.
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
BIC, any time you have to resort to appeals to mystery, i.e.
(a) God works in mysterious ways, or
(b) documentation just happens to be sparse, but maybe there were amputees who had limbs restored,
you basically concede the point. You cannot, on one hand, argue for the importance of logic in argument, and then suddenly appeal to mystery when you don't have a valid answer.The two links you provided basically cover the same things we discuss. In fact, aside from the same appeals to the mysterious, the first link actually agrees with me on the two possible answers! (The second link misses the mark.)
1. God does heal people of other ailments, but for some reason has no interest in restoring the limbs of amputees. Does he discriminate against them?
2. God does not heal people of other ailments. E.g. when someone recovers from cancer, it may be due to the administering of medical treatment, misdiagnosis in the first place, or simply fakery. There is less ambiguity about amputees (it's harder to fake a missing limb), hence there are no claims of a regrowth of limbs through prayer.
If we think that (1) is correct, we need to explain why God appears to be discriminatory. Is God fair and just?
If we think that (2) is correct, then (a) stop saying that God supernaturally intervenes in the restoration of health and (b) stop arguing for the efficacy of prayer in doing so.
reasonable.atheist,
I am puzzled. Which part of my reply appealed to mystery? In any case, atheists often point out that there are mysteries of nature that they believe (by faith) would in time be explained by science. If atheists can appeal to mysteries then why can't Christians appeal to mysteries? Or is this a case of double standards and special pleading on your part?
Just one exception is sufficient to refute the challenge but I think I can do better. In the Gospels it is recorded that Jesus healed the ear of the servant which was amputated by Peter at the time of Jesus' arrest. Also, Jesus healed many lepers (which would usually involve certain amount of physical loss) and made the lame walk (which may also involve some physical loss of legs). The Bible teaches that God is love, so the charge that God hates amputees or is discriminatory towards amputees is a blatant falsehood. Moreover, to make this into an issue of fairness and just is inappropriate. In the first place, God NEVER promised that every sickness and infirmity would be healed for those who believe in Him. Neither is this taught in the Bible nor evidenced in the life of the apostles. Paul had a thorn in the flesh that was never removed. Of course, Paul also had his head "amputated" by Nero! Thus your first possible answer is demolished.
And God does heal people of other ailments, and there is nothing wrong with God using medicine and doctors to do that. You are basically arguing that it is either deity or doctor, prayer or physician. This is a false dilemma fallacy. God can heal miraculously or use medicine to heal. Even Paul told Timothy to use a little wine for his stomach and other frequent illness since wine has some healing properties. Again there is no need to frown on doctors or medicine. So your second possible answer is also demolished.
But let's not forget my earlier posting. What is the challenge supposed to prove? You have completely side-stepped that question.
-
Originally posted by Fugazzi:
Jonah,
iF someone tells me that a flower near my house is beautiful. He/she expereienced it, and now telling me that it is so. I can believe it, but till I have really experienced it for myself, it means nothing. If I go around telling someone that this particular flower is beautiful without existentially experincing it, i must be a hypocrite lah. At the most, it is psychological and socially possible.You are confused between your subjective experience of something and its objective reality. If the beautiful flower is there, whether you have seen it for yourself is besides the point. Can you say that the flower is not there? If you want to tell people about it, just say that someone told you that a flower near your house is beautiful, though you have not seen it. How does that make you a hypocrite? You would be a liar though if you say that you have seen it when you haven't.
-
Let me give u another eg lah, if i were to tell a friend that the corner coffeshop near my place that sells carrot cake is fantastic and that I tasted it. It is true for me. If i tell my friend and he/she goes around repeating what (he/she) never tasted as fantastic - is not that simply parroting me and being a hypocrite. I m simply believing without finding out and worse I go around repeating, that is stupidity!
-
Originally posted by Fugazzi:
Let me give u another eg lah, if i were to tell a friend that the corner coffeshop near my place that sells carrot cake is fantastic and that I tasted it. It is true for me. If i tell my friend and he/she goes around repeating what (he/she) never tasted as fantastic – is not that simply parroting me and being a hypocrite.
I m simply believing without finding out and worse I go around repeating, that is stupidity!It is true for you indeed that the carrot cake is fantastic in so far as you have tasted it. It is also true that the corner coffeeshop sells carrot cake but I may not have tasted it to agree with your opinion about its taste. So there are two statements of truth here. Your friend doing that is not being a hypocrite but a liar. You should be able to tell the difference between a hypocrite and a liar.
-
Truth ( not dictionary meaning or psychologica/social meaning) is only true when it is spoken out of one experiencing it. Otherwise, simply it is bullshitting oneself, just borrowing other's ideas,/concepts or other's expereinces and making it one's own - yes, it is real but only in one's mind!
-
Originally posted by Fugazzi:
Truth ( not dictionary meaning or psychologica/social meaning) is only true when it is spoken out of one experiencing it. Otherwise, simply it is bullshitting oneself, just borrowing other’s ideas,/concepts or other’s expereinces and making it one’s own – yes, it is real but only in one’s mind!
Which begs the question, is it true that truth is only true whe it is spoken out of one experiencing it? If one does not experience something, does that truth cease to be the truth? Again it seems you are CONFUSED between experiencing something and the truth of something. You have in fact reduced truth to whatever you have experienced. You have boxed reality to your own experience. You have reduced floodlight to spotlight. You have boxed truth to your experience. You have reduced the moon to your finger.
-
Man, u seem really stuck with definitions lah. I m talking about the expereicne of the ''heart'', u are prattling on about the experince of the ''mind''. there is a big difference. Please lah, u seem to have already concluded what should be without even tasting it yourself. A finished product eg a can of coke, labelled is no more ''alive'' it can be considered as truth. It is a thing. Can a human being who is either (assuming) evolving or regressing be considered a finished product - he/she is alive and a process. If I were to say that u are arrogant, I have labelled u, it may be true but not truth; cos u may change or u may know something new and how can it be truth. Unless a human being is reduced to a thing. U seem more concerned about debating, about wanting to win as opposed to wanting to know, wanting to find out. Can one objectify love - when it is a subjective phenomena. One grows psychologically (mind, actully one is simply growin old/regresses) or grows spiritually (heart, one grows UP, one evolves) - many avoid the latter cos it is uncertain and entail inner exploration and what--not. One has to be open to knowing. The former is easy, just parrot and repeat or gather knowledge. The former is good and useful for transactions, debate, market place, but utterly useless in the matters of the heart, religion or love.
-
Originally posted by Fugazzi:
Man, u seem really stuck with definitions lah. I m talking about the expereicne of the ’’heart’’, u are prattling on about the experince of the ’’mind’’. there is a big difference.
Please lah, u seem to have already concluded what should be without even tasting it yourself.A finished product eg a can of coke, labelled is no more ’’alive’’ it can be considered as truth. It is a thing. Can a human being who is either (assuming) evolving or regressing be considered a finished product – he/she is alive and a process. If I were to say that u are arrogant, I have labelled u, it may be true but not truth; cos u may change or u may know something new and how can it be truth. Unless a human being is reduced to a thing.
U seem more concerned about debating, about wanting to win as opposed to wanting to know, wanting to find out.Can one objectify love – when it is a subjective phenomena.
One grows psychologically (mind, actully one is simply growin old/regresses) or grows spiritually (heart, one grows UP, one evolves) – many avoid the latter cos it is uncertain and entail inner exploration and what—not. One has to be open to knowing. The former is easy, just parrot and repeat or gather knowledge.
The former is good and useful for transactions, debate, market place, but utterly useless in the matters of the heart, religion or love.
Definitions are often the starting place for arguments. Anyway I am pointing out the fallacies in your posts. You seem to be chronically stuck in an either/or mindset instead of seeing that it can also be both/and. -
Muse over this lah - Knowledge binds one Knowing transforms one (freeing) I may be stuck or not stuck but i rather be confused or utter i dont know and explore and find out, rather than fall back on defintions (conclusions) and simply argue for the sake of winning and oblivious to imposing of color on what is transparent.
-
Originally posted by Fugazzi:
Muse over this lah -
Knowledge binds one
Knowing transforms one (freeing)I may be stuck or not stuck but i rather be confused or utter i dont know and explore and find out, rather than fall back on defintions (conclusions) and simply argue for the sake of winning and oblivious to imposing of color on what is transparent.
Muse over this more. Knowing PRESUPPOSES knowledge.
The problem is that you don't know what you are talking about! You are making self-refuting statements and still think you are selling some kind of deeply true (and also not true since it can always change) kind of philosophy of life. Yet you seem to pride yourself in holding to self-refuting statements as though it is some kind of higher consciousness and enlightenment.
-
Knowing PRESUPPOSES knowledge - If u tell me the Bible is the truth. It may have b een true for u. How can it be true for me if i dont know, and even before finding out n if I already conclude that it is truth based on what I have heard or read - what is there to know, i will simply look for ''things''/ expereinces to reinforce my beleifs or reject what does not reinforce my beliefs about or I will simply quote u or from the bible - i simply believe it. If i am resistant to finding out - i can pretend, the reality is that i fear and suppress my doubts and reject anything that questions my beleifs. however, when i do not decide, on what is true or what is truth, but I am willing to find out the knowledge that I may have acquired from outside of myself may help/may not help (and ti will only help) when i am being open to ... Using logic of the mind and looking for logic in something that the human mind cannot grasp is fighting with what is not. Hence, I say parking one's mind nowhere -there is a possibility of finding out. It it not out there but an inward journey. Transformation happens from the inner knowing. Change always from the outside. Change is akin to pruning the leaves and branches of a tree, it is superficial. Transformation is examining the roots and making the change from within. It has depth and there is a difference.