10 Questions Every Intelligent Christian Must Answer [ANS]
-
Well, then unfortunately my Truth is just simply something that is absolute. Regardless of existential experience.
Organised religion can be the mediator. Because not all are Jesus and Buddha. Not to mention the misguided conceptions of both religios thoughts. But at least it is a platform for those in search of the ultimate 'Truth', or truths(however standard of Truth they hold). And from within each religion, there will be the sheep and the lion like how u mentioned.
Its like not all who attended the University of Munich is Einstein. However, those that attended the university can strive and try and be Einstein while forever never 'be' Einstein. They however can be thier 'own'(self) Einstein.
Hence, I believe that not everyone can be the lion, and not everyone is a sheep.
But I do agree in terms of meditating in the toilet and stuff. But we cannot discount the possibilities of a controlled environment to further enhance such an 'experience'.
-
Hi fugazzi Perhaps the following book containing Buddhist wisdom can answer your puzzle. Awareness bound and unbound: Buddhist Essays by David Loy, Sunypress. The above title is a good read highly recommended for both Buddhists and non-buddhists. For non-buddhists, your attention are directed, particularly, to the last two chapters 1) The West against the rest? : a Buddhist response to the clash of civilisations, and 2) Terrorism as Religion: On identity crisis of secularism.however it is funny and ironical is that why organized religion must be the mediator. One can find a Christian mind, A Buddhist Mind , can one find a christian heart, a Buddhsit heart …..
-
Originally posted by Ghostpel:
Hi fugazzi Perhaps the following book containing Buddhist wisdom can answer your puzzle. Awareness bound and unbound: Buddhist Essays by David Loy, Sunypress. The above title is a good read highly recommended for both Buddhists and non-buddhists. For non-buddhists, your attention are directed, particularly, to the last two chapters 1) The West against the rest? : a Buddhist response to the clash of civilisations, and 2) Terrorism as Religion: On identity crisis of secularism.
If there is buddhism wisdom, what happens to Christian wisdom, Hindu wisdom, can one step in the same river twice? -
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
Well, then unfortunately my Truth is just simply something that is absolute. Regardless of existential experience.
Organised religion can be the mediator. Because not all are Jesus and Buddha. Not to mention the misguided conceptions of both religios thoughts. But at least it is a platform for those in search of the ultimate 'Truth', or truths(however standard of Truth they hold). And from within each religion, there will be the sheep and the lion like how u mentioned.
Its like not all who attended the University of Munich is Einstein. However, those that attended the university can strive and try and be Einstein while forever never 'be' Einstein. They however can be thier 'own'(self) Einstein.
Hence, I believe that not everyone can be the lion, and not everyone is a sheep.
But I do agree in terms of meditating in the toilet and stuff. But we cannot discount the possibilities of a controlled environment to further enhance such an 'experience'.
I must say this lah, many christians ought to unlearn their ways from u, U are being intelligent (not intellectual) :) -
Originally posted by Fugazzi:
Why lah, everybody seems to b ullshitting, heaven and hell are existential expereinces. It was never geographical and can never be found. it is a consequence of one’s choices and the feeling that shadows that choices.
Hell is when one is all tensed up and utterly worried and expereinces anguish and anxiety. one who is simply abiding to what is or what is not and relaxing to without fighting …. is having a heavenly experience.
Beware of those who simply parrot scriptures and quotes sources and worse is that of cutting and pasting. it is deception!You are merely engaging in special pleading by saying everybody is bullshitting except you. From where do you get your ideas about heaven and hell, that they are mere existential subjective experiences (feelings) with no objective reality? No one is saying that heaven or hell are literal geographical physical places on earth where you can find them. Your notions of heaven and hell is bereft of Scriptural support. And why beware of the Scriptures and not of you? You have cited no sources except that of your own existential musings. Why should anyone trust what you say?
-
Originally posted by Fugazzi:
What is true does not need to argued, does not need to agreed, or the need to parrot and quote theories or beliefs. The only ’’test’’ is for one to be self-HONEST n ask oneself is this – my making this statment or .. is it true or untrue in my own experience (not to be confused with psychological cos it is real only in one’s head)?
If what is true does not need to be argued, why are you then constantly stepping on your own toes by arguing for the truth of existentialism? If you are having an experience, that experience is personal to holder. Whatever feelings you are feeling is yours, not anyone's else. How then do you propose to test the truth of these experiences in order not to be confused with one's psychological state of mind? What's the method, the yardstick, or the standards by which to judge?
-
Originally posted by Fugazzi:
Muse over this This is meant for those who are on the journey of ’’discovering’’/ ’’recognising’’ the source of one’s creation (heaven n hell, resurrection and or so on so forth – which are merely labels n concepts). This entails being a lion, being courageous, willingness to question and examining of beliefs and being open to finding out. This entails seeing, one cannot conclude n how to conclude that which is an existential happening (not to be confused with dictionary meaning).
It is never meant for followers. Following entails being sheep, cos those who follow without questionig or exploring are simply too weak-minded and there is no journeying at all, simply parroting and quoting …. This simply entails looking for … and one can only look for something already concluded, definitions, concepts and … and look for it in something to reaffirm and repeat ….
Who is being the ’’lion’’ or who is being the ’’sheep’’ – one’s intuitve heart never lies.
Ps – when one gets offended or feels threatend about one’s beliefs/traditions, then jolly know this, one is simply identifying with … to ’’prop’’ oneself up. One’s sense of self is threatened and hence the straw-cluthcing stance of being defensive.
Fugazzi, Are you willing to, and have you ever, question and examine your own existentialist musings?
-
Originally posted by Fugazzi:
What is true does not need maintenance, what is untrue nees to be maintained. What is a belief, where does it come from. it is repeating what could have been true for someone or borrow from books, scriptures or …. to reaffirm one’s position. till that is knowinly expereinced by oneself – it amounts to nothing. to quote, to repeat is lying to oneself! it belies this prejudice and bigotry and when that is present, nothing matters except bleating away like sheep!
Truly the truth does not need maintenance. But who speaks of that anyway? Rather one speaks FOR the truth, proclaims the truth, and defends what is true.
How often do you repeat to yourself that everything is existential? How come then you are not lying to yourself? Special pleading again?
Truth of the matter is this, to repeat something to oneself is NOT necessarily lying to oneself. The only time when that is so is when what is being repeated is itself false. One is either repeatedly telling himself the truth or the lie.
-
Originally posted by Fugazzi:
That which is pyschological is not eternal (herenow, existential) and that which is psychological is time-bound ( past n future). The thread is entitled eternal hope. Hope is futurizing. Perhaps what was meant was everlasting (which is time-bound) Intellect is acquired thru learning from outside of oneself thru books, parents, schools or theology/ideology and it bound to react to what is. That which transcends psychology is spirit soul or god or whatever one feels resonates with oneself. It is a knowing, a surrender (not to a person or a theology or ..) to what is; an acceptance of what is. When one is being kind, being loving, being , a process, in being so one is already emobodying the qualities so very much espoused in religion or what-have-you. This person has transcended the duality of what is good, what is ugly or … (the latter are divisive and a consequence of conditioning or …
Jesus was spiritual. How? His being kind, his being …. So it was with Buddha, Krisha and so many others, too numerous to mention here. Theirs was a spiritual experience shared with human beings. Of course, those around them were open and willing to surrender. The mistake or the erroneous assumption is that it was a surrender to a person or … No it is in the disappearnce of one ‘self” that the ’’merger’’ happened or happens. Buddha, Jesus embody the nameless, the formless!
My standing in a garage does not make me a car nor does my standing in a church or t emple make me spiritual, in the latter it may make me religious, spirituality all said and done is transcendence of all creeds, dogmas, theology, ideology and it is thru the unlearningof one ‘self’ that it may happen or at least an understanding , a knowing. It is the synthesis of poralities that one is free – eg love n hate (actually it is fear!) are not two but non-dual. Human mind divides and chooses and in choosing the split happens within. Hot and cold are not two but one. One can choose and deny or keep the other at bay. How long? It is mere suppression and it woud surface. It is the nature of existence! Religion is learning …. and spiritual is unlearning …. and hence the word spirit! Religion is collective and spirituality is individual. Truth is collective hence the talking about it and what is true is an individual experience and a partaking of what unfolds.
When one assumes that something/someone higher is above us – it is negating oneself, it is disrespecting oneself. It is bondage, it is servitude. It has come about cos of the utter folly of man creating god in his own image (man’’ image of …
.Lest it is misconstrued – i dont believe or disbelieve and it matters that one is willing to question oneself and be open to possibilites. However and whatever it is unwise to blindly imbibe or follow ….
PS – Take the eg of prayer, if god created man in his own image, then why pray and ask for this and that – is this not in other words saying that there is something that is lacking in the process of creating …
why is this transpiring – cos man has created god according to his own prejudices n bigotry. hence, the labelling, the excluding, the …Prayer if and when it is of gratitude – is being thanful for all that is transpiring and that includes the excluded ….
When I look beneath the multitude of often confusing words you post that confounds the reader more than anything, I think I can nail down your ideology or religion to what I call the "ing-ism". All one needs to do is to add "ing" to the words you use! For example, to know, love, talk, eat, think, feel, etc is inferior to knowING, lovING, talkING, eatING, thinkING, feelING etc. Not only that, there is this attitude of not committing to anything, as in, neither believe nor disbelieving, neither agreeing nor disagreeing, not this not that etc.
You keep speaking out against blindly following dogma, that is all well and fine. No one should blindly follow what anyone says. But the problem is that you simply conclude that all religious people are merely blindly following religious leaders or books. It seems that for you, unless someone agrees with your existentialist worldview musings, then he must be a blind religious follower parroting sacred Scriptures. In short, for you there is no such thing as a religious person who has examined his own religious beliefs.
Am I right? Or am I be-ING right?
-
Originally posted by Fugazzi:
I am open to anything that resonates of what is true, hence the stance of questioning and expereincing instead of simpy repeating and quoting something of the past that could have been true or untrue. Existence never repeats itself Existence is allergic to any sort of dogmas, doctrines or idelogies
however it is funny and ironical is that why organized religion must be the mediator. One can find a Christian mind, A Buddhist Mind , can one find a christian heart, a Buddhsit heart …..
One can still commune with ’’god’’ or even meditate in a toilet! why the need for a mediator – unless it is assumed one is non-thinking and too stupid that I need someone to guide me.
Ps – Truth here is not as defined in the dictionary, truth here is that which can only be partaken of existentially, not boxed in
Fugazzi, how do you resonate with what is true when truth to you is relative, and can even be contradictory?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Fugazzi, how do you resonate with what is true when truth to you is relative, and can even be contradictory?
just look no more than the bible. full of contradictions and inconsistencies as ever.
full of fanciful stories and tales, just like the tooth fairy and santa claus?
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
just look no more than the bible. full of contradictions and inconsistencies as ever.
full of fanciful stories and tales, just like the tooth fairy and santa claus?
Again the usual mere assertions with evidence. BTW, Jacky, do you know what is a contradiction? I have debated many atheists and Bible critics who don't even know what a contradiction is when I took them to task. Are you any different?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Again the usual mere assertions with evidence. BTW, Jacky, do you know what is a contradiction? I have debated many atheists and Bible critics who don't even know what a contradiction is when I took them to task. Are you any different?
i LOL when u said debate LOOL. u know what is a debate or not, full of garbage and nonsense coming from u.....a pri kid is a better debater than u r lol -
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
i LOL when u said debate LOOL. u know what is a debate or not, full of garbage and nonsense coming from u.....a pri kid is a better debater than u r lol
Oh really? Which primary school are you now attending, Jacky boy boy? -
muse over this: That god created man in his image is most probably true, That MOST Christians created god in their own image is more truer than the former. As long as beleifs are questioned alarm bells ring, why, cos the sense of onself (one's image, one's attachment to .... or one's belief is ''propping'' one UP) n the fear(s) is that it may all be untrue n cause the eventual demise of the self; natureally would have one defending their beliefs n what they are attached to. If I believe I am a Muslim or a Hindu, n I try to live by the Koran/Bhagadvita, the moment someone questions/challenges/criticizes the Koran or the ... , i m bound to flare up and be upset, Why? cos I am holding onto/attached to, identified with .... that which ''props'' my sense of self (Me) or that which fulfils me. My SENSE OF SELF IS THREATENED! Try criticizing someone who has no beleifs, no disbeliefs, no identification with ... no attachment with ... I doubt one will have a reaction, most likely would be that of a response. One's intuitve heart never lies. One has a choice to wake up and live or one can pretend, sleepwalk and live in an illusion.
-
Originally posted by Fugazzi:
muse over this:
That god created man in his image is most probably true, That MOST Christians created god in their own image is more truer than the former. As long as beleifs are questioned alarm bells ring, why, cos the sense of onself (one’s image, one’s attachment to …. or one’s belief is ’’propping’’ one UP) n the fear(s) is that it may all be untrue n cause the eventual demise of the self; natureally would have one defending their beliefs n what they are attached to.If I believe I am a Muslim or a Hindu, n I try to live by the Koran/Bhagadvita, the moment someone questions/challenges/criticizes the Koran or the … , i m bound to flare up and be upset, Why? cos I am holding onto/attached to, identified with …. that which ’’props’’ my sense of self (Me) or that which fulfils me. My SENSE OF SELF IS THREATENED!
Try criticizing someone who has no beleifs, no disbeliefs, no identification with … no attachment with … I doubt one will have a reaction, most likely would be that of a response.
One’s intuitve heart never lies. One has a choice to wake up and live or one can pretend, sleepwalk and live in an illusion.ha! thats pretty much true!
-
Originally posted by Fugazzi:
muse over this:
That god created man in his image is most probably true, That MOST Christians created god in their own image is more truer than the former. As long as beleifs are questioned alarm bells ring, why, cos the sense of onself (one’s image, one’s attachment to …. or one’s belief is ’’propping’’ one UP) n the fear(s) is that it may all be untrue n cause the eventual demise of the self; natureally would have one defending their beliefs n what they are attached to.If I believe I am a Muslim or a Hindu, n I try to live by the Koran/Bhagadvita, the moment someone questions/challenges/criticizes the Koran or the … , i m bound to flare up and be upset, Why? cos I am holding onto/attached to, identified with …. that which ’’props’’ my sense of self (Me) or that which fulfils me. My SENSE OF SELF IS THREATENED!
Try criticizing someone who has no beleifs, no disbeliefs, no identification with … no attachment with … I doubt one will have a reaction, most likely would be that of a response.
One’s intuitve heart never lies. One has a choice to wake up and live or one can pretend, sleepwalk and live in an illusion.What do you mean when you said that it is probably true that God created man in His image? Are you affirming the Bible's teaching on this, or are you having your own private musings on this that has nothing to do with the Bible's teaching except for using the words of the Bible?
What do you mean by Christians creating God in their own image? Please elaborate and provide some support.
Every belief that is questioned or challenged will always be met with a variety of responses depending on the person. A seasoned defender of the faith will not be easily fazed by the typical charges of the village atheist or Bible critic but a novice may pound on the panic button. Everyone needs to defend his beliefs at one time or another. Even YOU do that too when it comes to your existentialist view of life. If your belief is not worth defending then it is not worth believing.
BTW, is it necessary to flare up or be upset when one's beliefs are being questioned or challenged? The answer is NO. The response need not be anger. One can just as well be motivated to dig deeper and find out the answers and emerge from that inquiry more rooted in his faith.
A person who has NO beliefs, disbeliefs etc does NOT exist in reality. You show me such a person and I will show you what his beliefs are in less than 5 minutes after I have cross-examined him. Either that or this person is lying.
-
Muse over this - This is for intelligent not the idiotic types lah - Can i swim in the sea and look for the sea ? If I am looking for the sea while swimming in it, I must have this idea of what the sea must be ought to be, should be not be. In other words, either I am not physically in the sea or yet to swim in the sea and all my talk and words amount to nothing, it is real in my head (psychological and if i get lucky, some social relevance) otherwise there is no existential reality, only when i m swimming and tasting it and experiecning it, is it real Muse over this means this - to reflect and subscribe/unsubscribe - and for those who personalise it and get upset then it must certainly be a fiction that one is living and hence the fear of collapse!
-
Originally posted by Fugazzi:
Muse over this – This is for intelligent not the idiotic types lah – Can i swim in the sea and look for the sea ? If I am looking for the sea while swimming in it, I must have this idea of what the sea must be ought to be, should be not be. In other words, either I am not physically in the sea or yet to swim in the sea and all my talk and words amount to nothing, it is real in my head (psychological and if i get lucky, some social relevance) otherwise there is no existential reality, only when i m swimming and tasting it and experiecning it, is it real
Muse over this means this – to reflect and subscribe/unsubscribe – and for those who personalise it and get upset then it must certainly be a fiction that one is living and hence the fear of collapse!
Muse over this - The one swimming in the sea and looking for the sea is like the atheist living in God's created world and asking "Where is the evidence that God is the Creator of this world?" Everything around us in nature shouts "DESIGN!" but the atheist suppresses that truth.
-
I m not an atheist nor am I a non-atheist, , so where do i belong? I will belong somewhere with certainty if i am looking to reaffirm my sense of self or find meaning to my self. AN why would I do that, cos i want to feel secure and add value to my self. I am not secure within. I will latch onto anything that props me up. Most question, certainly they do, but look for answers and (most likey to reaffirm what has been told to them. They do not question beleifs, traditions, so on so forth and why? There is another type that questions, – they question and not look for answers but reevaluate, examine and drop what is misleading or erroneous. The third type – simply being aware of …. , cos the latter is a synthesis of inner and outer (inner and outer) Hence, i reiterate one can be religious and gravitate towards being spiritual. Religion, most are merely pointers to being spiritual. Religion (all) is learning and of course, for the seeker the possibility of it as a device to being spiritual is there. For the follower, if one is sleepwalking – it is nothing but rituals after rituals. Spirituality is unlearning, not collecting, it is unlearning, a process where one unloads all the ’’rubbish’’. True or false all depends on where one is on the spectrum of learning/unleraning/relgion/spirituality
-
Originally posted by Fugazzi:
I m not an atheist nor am I a non-atheist, , so where do i belong? I will belong somewhere with certainty if i am looking to reaffirm my sense of self or find meaning to my self. AN why would I do that, cos i want to feel secure and add value to my self. I am not secure within. I will latch onto anything that props me up.
Most question, certainly they do, but look for answers and (most likey to reaffirm what has been told to them. They do not question beleifs, traditions, so on so forth and why? There is another type that questions, – they question and not look for answers but reevaluate, examine and drop what is misleading or erroneous. The third type – simply being aware of …. , cos the latter is a synthesis of inner and outer (inner and outer) Hence, i reiterate one can be religious and gravitate towards being spiritual. Religion, most are merely pointers to being spiritual. Religion (all) is learning and of course, for the seeker the possibility of it as a device to being spiritual is there. For the follower, if one is sleepwalking – it is nothing but rituals after rituals. Spirituality is unlearning, not collecting, it is unlearning, a process where one unloads all the ’’rubbish’’. True or false all depends on where one is on the spectrum of learning/unleraning/relgion/spirituality
Please try not to repeat your posts leh. If I also post my reply here people would be reading double!
-
Islam is the only way and redemption to paradise. As a muslim convert from christianity, i find spiritual awakening and and sense of peace which i had never experienced before A puzzle was finally solved. Im glad i made the right choice
-
Originally posted by ISTARI:
Islam is the only way and redemption to paradise. As a muslim convert from christianity, i find spiritual awakening and and sense of peace which i had never experienced before A puzzle was finally solved. Im glad i made the right choice
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
just look no more than the bible. full of contradictions and inconsistencies as ever.
full of fanciful stories and tales, just like the tooth fairy and santa claus?
Ar jacky you did not study Bible and said full of contradiction. You still primary student, too high level for you?
God bless you.
-
Originally posted by TrueSon:
Ar jacky you did not study Bible and said full of contradiction. You still primary student, too high level for you?
God bless you.
TS,
THe bible is full of contradictions. Even christian scholars admit that tthe bible has errors. You are the one that dont know christian history and the bible.