Awake Or Asleep?

[CoreyD]

Only from your POV.

Ok, Let me back up and present a notion, and maybe then you will see better what I am trying to say. But bear in mind, my disclaimer —even this is not quite the way God sees it. It is only a way to look at it, no matter how logical it may seem.

Before Creation, God IS. There is no passage of time, until he created time passage, or, at least, until he created a universe that depends on event sequence.

Not that their POV has any relevance, but maybe you've heard these and understand to some degree —some physicists are proposing that 'time' is as positional as 'place', both logistical, and that all time(s) exist simultaneously. While I reject what I understand them to be saying, maybe it will help you adjust to what I am saying:

God that IS, does not depend on time in order for what he establishes to be true. It need not "become true" for him, but IS true because he spoke it. What he spoke into existence was not just the preliminaries (Adam and Even etc) nor the intermediate (the passage of history) nor the great changes/ events within this temporal existence. What God has made is US — the Final Product. The fact that it has taken these several thousand years (or several billion, if you prefer) to come to pass, and from our POV has a few more before The Resurrection happens, gives no substance to the notion that those who no longer inhabit their bodies experience time passage by sleeping or whatever you take 'sleep' to represent in the Scriptures. That was God talking to people who can only think temporally.

In the end of reasoning and faith, God's point-of-view is the only true way of things.

Thanks for taking the time to go into detail about what you believe.

Tell me if I understand you correctly.
So, I believe something that I think persons are missing.
So, if based on that, I present a concept, it should be accepted as truth, because it's something people are not seeing.
Did I understand correctly?

Would you accept it, if someone told you that during the time that someone stops breathing, their consciousness travels through the universe, and becomes aware of everything that is out there?

What I am saying is that anyone can come up with any idea they might come up with, it's still imaginative, and does not replace what is written for us.
When a person becomes so brilliant that what the scriptures actually say, becomes second place to their reasoning, that person has broken a scriptural rule, and has taken a position that is in opposition to God... perhaps without realizing it.

The scriptures put it this way:
1 Corinthians 4:6
I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.

Notice the connection between being puffed up with pride, and going beyond what is written.
Imagine that someone is always telling persons what is not actually written, but what they are seeing, whom or what are they drawing attention to... the scriptures, or their intelligence?
In that way, the person is doing what Paul is discouraging.

Human wisdom is nothing.
When we minister to people, the scriptures are the authority, and we don't try to reason our way around them.
A person who claims that Jesus went this place, or that place, during a space of time that is only in their head, is actually reasoning around, and going beyond the things written.

Do you get what is being said here?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Thanks for taking the time to go into detail about what you believe.

Tell me if I understand you correctly.
So, I believe something that I think persons are missing.
So, if based on that, I present a concept, it should be accepted as truth, because it's something people are not seeing.
Did I understand correctly?

Don't forget my disclaimer, which itself defeats the notion that what I presented was FACT. I believe it to be 'A Way To Look At Things", which I also believe to more closely represent the way God sees things, than what we extract from personal experience, and, more to the point, than what we often extract from the anthropomorphistic tone of some of Scripture.

Would you accept it, if someone told you that during the time that someone stops breathing, their consciousness travels through the universe, and becomes aware of everything that is out there?

I could, perhaps, accept that THEY believed it.

What I am saying is that anyone can come up with any idea they might come up with, it's still imaginative, and does not replace what is written for us.
When a person becomes so brilliant that what the scriptures actually say, becomes second place to their reasoning, that person has broken a scriptural rule, and has taken a position that is in opposition to God... perhaps without realizing it.

Agreed.

The scriptures put it this way:
1 Corinthians 4:6
I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.

I hear ya. And, on top of that, I affirm that the Scriptures are the final authority, as written in the originals.

Notice the connection between being puffed up with pride, and going beyond what is written.
Imagine that someone is always telling persons what is not actually written, but what they are seeing, whom or what are they drawing attention to... the scriptures, or their intelligence?
In that way, the person is doing what Paul is discouraging.

Yes and no. What the Scriptures do say is [always, I think] more than what WE take away from it. (For example), I have said elsewhere, that the Simplicity of God is a philosophically necessary result of the many and constant Scriptural references to God's other attributes. There may be no specific mentions of it in Scripture, just as there are no specific mentions of the Trinity. But it is there, none-the-less.

If people take my POV in a way that draws attention to myself, I am sorry, but it is the beauty, majesty and wisdom of God that I have in mind, when I post such things. I dearly want people to know that God is quite a bit more than their assessment of him and of this world that he made. Our arrangements we make in order to fit the facts (as we see them) into our minds are only that.

Beyond that, Logic —our mental GPS — is always fitting and fitted to Scripture. If something in Scripture doesn't make sense to us, it is often because we are reading it according to our bias —our bias needs adjusted, and our final conclusions need to wait for more wisdom.

Human wisdom is nothing.
When we minister to people, the scriptures are the authority, and we don't try to reason our way around them.
A person who claims that Jesus went this place, or that place, during a space of time that is only in their head, is actually reasoning around, and going beyond the things written.

I repeat that I too believe in the plenary verbal inspiration of the originals, and that Scripture is always the final authority, objective and not of private interpretation. But I also repeat that we ALWAYS read it with ignorance, bias, human self-deterministic mindset and self-importance —try though we might to mitigate that tendency. It is unavoidable that we will do that to one degree or another.

Do you get what is being said here?

Again, bear in mind what I said at the start —that what I presented is a useful "way to look at things". It does not detract, contradict nor deny what Scriptures says at all, as far as I can tell, and it opens up Scripture, and, in particular, the nature of God and what he has done and is doing, more than the notions that depend on the will of man to accomplish what God had in mind from the beginning.

Those who get 'spiritual indigestion' from what I say, do so because of certain premises they take to be even axiomatic. For example, they will say, "The command implies the ability to obey", and, "God would never harm anyone", and, "My salvation absolutely hinges on my decision." From those assumed principles, they read scriptures to say what their biased POV demands.

Now, I also understand that the principle I have just levied against them, (that they assume certain premises to be axiomatic), will be used to measure me, and no doubt I will fall short. God have mercy on all of us —none of us have it quite right, and it is a dangerous thing to misrepresent Him!

Thank you for your kind tone, in light of what you may take for detestable misrepresentation of God's person.

 

[CoreyD]

Don't forget my disclaimer, which itself defeats the notion that what I presented was FACT. I believe it to be 'A Way To Look At Things", which I also believe to more closely represent the way God sees things, than what we extract from personal experience, and, more to the point, than what we often extract from the anthropomorphistic tone of some of Scripture.

I could, perhaps, accept that THEY believed it.

Agreed.

I hear ya. And, on top of that, I affirm that the Scriptures are the final authority, as written in the originals.

Yes and no. What the Scriptures do say is [always, I think] more than what WE take away from it. (For example), I have said elsewhere, that the Simplicity of God is a philosophically necessary result of the many and constant Scriptural references to God's other attributes. There may be no specific mentions of it in Scripture, just as there are no specific mentions of the Trinity. But it is there, none-the-less.

If people take my POV in a way that draws attention to myself, I am sorry, but it is the beauty, majesty and wisdom of God that I have in mind, when I post such things. I dearly want people to know that God is quite a bit more than their assessment of him and of this world that he made. Our arrangements we make in order to fit the facts (as we see them) into our minds are only that.

Beyond that, Logic —our mental GPS — is always fitting and fitted to Scripture. If something in Scripture doesn't make sense to us, it is often because we are reading it according to our bias —our bias needs adjusted, and our final conclusions need to wait for more wisdom.

I repeat that I too believe in the plenary verbal inspiration of the originals, and that Scripture is always the final authority, objective and not of private interpretation. But I also repeat that we ALWAYS read it with ignorance, bias, human self-deterministic mindset and self-importance —try though we might to mitigate that tendency. It is unavoidable that we will do that to one degree or another.

Again, bear in mind what I said at the start —that what I presented is a useful "way to look at things". It does not detract, contradict nor deny what Scriptures says at all, as far as I can tell, and it opens up Scripture, and, in particular, the nature of God and what he has done and is doing, more than the notions that depend on the will of man to accomplish what God had in mind from the beginning.

Those who get 'spiritual indigestion' from what I say, do so because of certain premises they take to be even axiomatic. For example, they will say, "The command implies the ability to obey", and, "God would never harm anyone", and, "My salvation absolutely hinges on my decision." From those assumed principles, they read scriptures to say what their biased POV demands.

Now, I also understand that the principle I have just levied against them, (that they assume certain premises to be axiomatic), will be used to measure me, and no doubt I will fall short. God have mercy on all of us —none of us have it quite right, and it is a dangerous thing to misrepresent Him!

Thank you for your kind tone, in light of what you may take for detestable misrepresentation of God's person.

Thanks again, but I'll like to point out two things that I often try to draw to person's attention.

1. It's okay to use the scriptures to point out that "God is quite a bit more than their assessment of him and of this world that he made", but if we let the scriptures do that, instead of us, we demonstrate that the scriptures are the authority.
2. If we view the scriptures as the authority, we allow that, and not our ideas, or thoughts on what we read, to be the truth. In that way, we acknowledge that correct knowledge of truth is attainable from scripture, and not as many people claim - the idea that we all are in the same boat, and no one can claim to know correctly.

So, let's use this topic, to demonstrate these.
God is outside of time, therefore X.
God is outside of time, therefore X is one possibility, we don't want to dismiss.
God is outside of time, therefore it is possible that in the time not known to us, Jesus went to paradise with the thief.

None of this reasoning uses the scriptures as the authority.
Rather, what it does, is indicate that the idea is just as valid as the scriptures, and can even be scripturally based... though it's not. It's simply an idea.

When Jesus condemned the Pharisees, it was for this said reason. Please read Matthew 15:1-12
Note that Jesus said in verse 6, that they were invalidating God's word, by their doctrines.
What they were teaching, they claimed they were basing it on what they know about God.

I find there are many warnings in the form of examples, in the scriptures, which many today are failing to learn from, and although we see from history, the results (the thousands of various denominations, and growing) of failing to see and learn from these warnings, that isn't going to stop it.
The scriptures do point out why. 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12

So, it would be difficult for persons taking this course, to see that they are on a wrong path.
Do you find anything I said here, disagreeable?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Thanks again, but I'll like to point out two things that I often try to draw to person's attention.

1. It's okay to use the scriptures to point out that "God is quite a bit more than their assessment of him and of this world that he made", but if we let the scriptures do that, instead of us, we demonstrate that the scriptures are the authority.
2. If we view the scriptures as the authority, we allow that, and not our ideas, or thoughts on what we read, to be the truth. In that way, we acknowledge that correct knowledge of truth is attainable from scripture, and not as many people claim - the idea that we all are in the same boat, and no one can claim to know correctly.

So, let's use this topic, to demonstrate these.
God is outside of time, therefore X.
God is outside of time, therefore X is one possibility, we don't want to dismiss.
God is outside of time, therefore it is possible that in the time not known to us, Jesus went to paradise with the thief.

None of this reasoning uses the scriptures as the authority.
Rather, what it does, is indicate that the idea is just as valid as the scriptures, and can even be scripturally based... though it's not. It's simply an idea.

When Jesus condemned the Pharisees, it was for this said reason. Please read Matthew 15:1-12
Note that Jesus said in verse 6, that they were invalidating God's word, by their doctrines.
What they were teaching, they claimed they were basing it on what they know about God.

I find there are many warnings in the form of examples, in the scriptures, which many today are failing to learn from, and although we see from history, the results (the thousands of various denominations, and growing) of failing to see and learn from these warnings, that isn't going to stop it.
The scriptures do point out why. 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12

So, it would be difficult for persons taking this course, to see that they are on a wrong path.
Do you find anything I said here, disagreeable?

Whether or not it is 'disagreeable' is irrelevant. I find [some of] it mistaken. You still seem to misunderstand, that all people, including myself, when reading Scripture, have a 'take-away' that is mistaken to some degree. You seem, ('to me'—granted), to think that the words that one reads in Scripture mean at [THE READER'S] 'face value', modern day, what they meant when written, and, further that God would not stoop to anthropomorphisms and forebearance and kindness towards people's broken, weak, ignorant and self-important mindsets.

Perhaps I shouldn't assume you are one of those who say that "God deals with us where we are at." It is a weak truism, valid in some cases, but it is off point. But it is perhaps descriptive of the amazing way his Word is written: He does not lie, nor even weaken the truth, when he uses anthropomorphisms; he is presenting absolute fact in such a way that the new believer can have some sort of understanding, later to be improved on, added to or even transformed. He is presenting absolute fact in a way the a long-time believer understands at a different depth and for different purposes from even other long-time believers, yet the long-time believer is responsible to understand that all he has is a point-of-view and not absolute truth. The truth is within us, in our minds and hearts, but we can't express it well even to ourselves. God is that truth.

One thing that I think is amazing about his Word is that the anthropomorphisms, symbolic language, parallels and allegories are all seen by us from OUR point-of-view which is the opposite spectrum from how God sees. For example, our notion of "Father" while mistakenly assumed by readers to apply to our Heavenly Father, is allowed and even induced by God's use of scriptures to us, as a sort of stepping stone on our way to maturity and knowing him. He is not represented by our earthly fathers —it is they who are poor copies of HIM. IMHO most things by which we reason about God are like that. We see it all backwards.

So to be more specific to our current discussion, we assume time-passage to be universally relevant, because most of the Bible is written to us according to our experience and worldview. The more we get to know God, the less our assessment of him is by us assumed valid. He is more amazing and wonderful, wise and 'beyond finding out' than we could have imagined when we were new believers. This does not induce us to careless use of the Scriptures, but it does promote a lifetime of investigation.

Just today, on another site, someone tried to quote several scripture verses ("proof texting") in order to demonstrate that God learns things he did not know, and that he depends on us and our obedience in order to accomplish all he set out to do, and that the totality of fact is a separate matter from what he had in mind to make when he created. Ignoring the rather obvious misuse of some of the 'proof texts', the very method is rife with error. You here seem to think me doing that same thing, imposing my worldview on the scriptures. I'll grant you that I do some of that —as I said before, it is pretty much unavoidable— but so do you and all believers. To assume that what comes to your mind at face value reading is therefore "what the Scriptures are saying", is bad reasoning, and self-important.

Time passage is OUR experience. God is not like us. We already know he spoke creation into existence. What makes us think the end result is, to him, not already done? Only our experience of time passage makes us think that way.

If you can show where I have departed from Scripture, I am willing to listen, but please do not do the style of their so-called 'proof-texting' that takes references out of context, or ignores the force of Scripture —in this case concerning just WHO God is.

 

[CoreyD]

Whether or not it is 'disagreeable' is irrelevant. I find [some of] it mistaken. You still seem to misunderstand, that all people, including myself, when reading Scripture, have a 'take-away' that is mistaken to some degree. You seem, ('to me'—granted), to think that the words that one reads in Scripture mean at [THE READER'S] 'face value', modern day, what they meant when written, and, further that God would not stoop to anthropomorphisms and forebearance and kindness towards people's broken, weak, ignorant and self-important mindsets.

Perhaps I shouldn't assume you are one of those who say that "God deals with us where we are at." It is a weak truism, valid in some cases, but it is off point. But it is perhaps descriptive of the amazing way his Word is written: He does not lie, nor even weaken the truth, when he uses anthropomorphisms; he is presenting absolute fact in such a way that the new believer can have some sort of understanding, later to be improved on, added to or even transformed. He is presenting absolute fact in a way the a long-time believer understands at a different depth and for different purposes from even other long-time believers, yet the long-time believer is responsible to understand that all he has is a point-of-view and not absolute truth. The truth is within us, in our minds and hearts, but we can't express it well even to ourselves. God is that truth.

One thing that I think is amazing about his Word is that the anthropomorphisms, symbolic language, parallels and allegories are all seen by us from OUR point-of-view which is the opposite spectrum from how God sees. For example, our notion of "Father" while mistakenly assumed by readers to apply to our Heavenly Father, is allowed and even induced by God's use of scriptures to us, as a sort of stepping stone on our way to maturity and knowing him. He is not represented by our earthly fathers —it is they who are poor copies of HIM. IMHO most things by which we reason about God are like that. We see it all backwards.

So to be more specific to our current discussion, we assume time-passage to be universally relevant, because most of the Bible is written to us according to our experience and worldview. The more we get to know God, the less our assessment of him is by us assumed valid. He is more amazing and wonderful, wise and 'beyond finding out' than we could have imagined when we were new believers. This does not induce us to careless use of the Scriptures, but it does promote a lifetime of investigation.

Just today, on another site, someone tried to quote several scripture verses ("proof texting") in order to demonstrate that God learns things he did not know, and that he depends on us and our obedience in order to accomplish all he set out to do, and that the totality of fact is a separate matter from what he had in mind to make when he created. Ignoring the rather obvious misuse of some of the 'proof texts', the very method is rife with error. You here seem to think me doing that same thing, imposing my worldview on the scriptures. I'll grant you that I do some of that —as I said before, it is pretty much unavoidable— but so do you and all believers. To assume that what comes to your mind at face value reading is therefore "what the Scriptures are saying", is bad reasoning, and self-important.

Time passage is OUR experience. God is not like us. We already know he spoke creation into existence. What makes us think the end result is, to him, not already done? Only our experience of time passage makes us think that way.

I'm not following how this relates to what was said.

If you can show where I have departed from Scripture, I am willing to listen, but please do not do the style of their so-called 'proof-texting' that takes references out of context, or ignores the force of Scripture —in this case concerning just WHO God is.

If you don't think the scriptures in the thread are clear enough on how you "departed from Scripture", there is nothing more I can say that will make a difference.

Take care.