Better than knowing everything, is understanding enough (to believe _____)

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

So there was a thread I posted about knowing everything, which people thought was ridiculous, so I thought I'd expand a little further (this way).

Better than knowing everything, is understanding enough (to believe _____).

Meaning, even if you know everything, there is no way you will enjoy it (to begin with) without understanding something (substantial, that you believe, for a great reason, a greater reason or a greatest reason _____ _____ before, you die).

The wisdom of this, is that it forces people to accept the mystery, they knew was true, in their hearts, before they can question the way of the mystery in their minds, for or against God - before, God.

By understanding this, we gain acceptance with ourselves and with, God before God and His angels, in Heaven. Without this, we easily condemn ourselves for sin and iniquity, that may or may not be relevance, may or may not be a hindrance (consequentially _____), may or may not be a distraction, may or may not be a delusion.

I'm not sure how quickly, you would want to progress beyond thinking about this (initial _____ _____ _____) point.

 

[steve moyers]

I'm still not sure what your asking, after reading several times. Einstein said: "I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world." I can imagine this: "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."
I can walk outside and listen to the wind in the trees and imagine that I have died and am long gone and yet: "But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you." But can I now explain the mechanics of the universe with equations? No.

 

[quatona]

_________ _________ _ ____

 

[paulm50]

That's not what religion is about.

It's about others telling you what to believe, with such a grip on power that they will go to war on anyone with a different view, or think nothing of execution others who think differently.

v

Trying to learn more.

Wrestling power from the Church has been a hard fought battle, which we are still fighting. Be it teaching the truth in schools, allowing women the same rights in church or a religion, allowing people to make their own choices, and not having religion hand in hand with Government. If we relaxed in the fight, the religions would take more control away from the people.

The power brokers at the top don't want us to "accept the mystery". They want to rule how we live our lives.

And if you don't see the examples, there's the problem.

 

[Gottservant]

I'm still not sure what your asking, after reading several times. Einstein said: "I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world." I can imagine this: "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."
I can walk outside and listen to the wind in the trees and imagine that I have died and am long gone and yet: "But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you." But can I now explain the mechanics of the universe with equations? No.

I don't know that I was asking, so much as telling you you, you need to ask, to know more (in principle).

But what you said certainly spoke to my heart (the quickening the flesh part).

 

[Gottservant]

That's not what religion is about.

It's about others telling you what to believe, with such a grip on power that they will go to war on anyone with a different view, or think nothing of execution others who think differently.

v

Trying to learn more.

Wrestling power from the Church has been a hard fought battle, which we are still fighting. Be it teaching the truth in schools, allowing women the same rights in church or a religion, allowing people to make their own choices, and not having religion hand in hand with Government. If we relaxed in the fight, the religions would take more control away from the people.

The power brokers at the top don't want us to "accept the mystery". They want to rule how we live our lives.

And if you don't see the examples, there's the problem.

Well, you are possibly angry for reasons that aren't yet clear (pointing to injustice does not necessarily make you angry).

I really liked the summary you gave "accept the mystery" because that was certainly a (potential) subtext, to what I said - and clearly that did not make you angry (but perhaps frustrated).

Unfortunately, I think the incongruence between the act of gathering together around a message (of God), and the impossibility of judging that message by its appearance (not actually gathering together yourself), is always going to confuse people that think, its supposed to be exciting before the show starts (wherever in the nation the show starts).

The problem is that even if someone believed something in common with others, before being in power, without a meaningful connection to sacrifice that is at least declared in advance (if not yet possible), whatever the belief was, before they were in power, it can be changed (which is not a good way to rule - better to determine beforehand to commit, regardless of which way what belief plays out (for whatever reasons)).

So to tell you the truth, despite your intensity, I don't know that you've addressed the fact that there is more at stake concerning leadership that what or where people have influence in (or for) - but by the same token, I can see that freedom of association is obviously not reason enough to rule (well).

 

[paulm50]

Well, you are possibly angry for reasons that aren't yet clear (pointing to injustice does not necessarily make you angry).

I really liked the summary you gave "accept the mystery" because that was certainly a (potential) subtext, to what I said - and clearly that did not make you angry (but perhaps frustrated).

Unfortunately, I think the incongruence between the act of gathering together around a message (of God), and the impossibility of judging that message by its appearance (not actually gathering together yourself), is always going to confuse people that think, its supposed to be exciting before the show starts (wherever in the nation the show starts).

The problem is that even if someone believed something in common with others, before being in power, without a meaningful connection to sacrifice that is at least declared in advance (if not yet possible), whatever the belief was, before they were in power, it can be changed (which is not a good way to rule - better to determine beforehand to commit, regardless of which way what belief plays out (for whatever reasons)).

So to tell you the truth, despite your intensity, I don't know that you've addressed the fact that there is more at stake concerning leadership that what or where people have influence in (or for) - but by the same token, I can see that freedom of association is obviously not reason enough to rule (well).

The basics of Christianity, much of which Jesus taught, are fine. My anger, if one can call it that, is what people do with religion. From establishing strict laws, executing those who disagree or break them, persecuting minorities, going to war, trying to elect leaders of countries, and putting their hands in my pockets.

 

[Gottservant]

The basics of Christianity, much of which Jesus taught, are fine. My anger, if one can call it that, is what people do with religion. From establishing strict laws, executing those who disagree or break them, persecuting minorities, going to war, trying to elect leaders of countries, and putting their hands in my pockets.

Hmmm. Well, Jesus said not what goes into a man defiles a man, but what comes out of a man defiles a man.

So, it could be that you are assigning motive to people who espouse religion, as if it is them and the religion simultaneously (that doesn't make sense to me, but for whatever reason, it might still (make sense) to you - I don't know).

To be accurate, it is the people - the religion is the flavour (that may or may not be anything).

 

[paulm50]

Hmmm. Well, Jesus said not what goes into a man defiles a man, but what comes out of a man defiles a man.

So, it could be that you are assigning motive to people who espouse religion, as if it is them and the religion simultaneously (that doesn't make sense to me, but for whatever reason, it might still (make sense) to you - I don't know).

To be accurate, it is the people - the religion is the flavour (that may or may not be anything).

I would agree. So a religion that will tell me how to keep slaves, threat my wife as second class, oppress minorities, would of executed me for asking questions or disagreeing, make rules contrary to the way we are made, tell me to go to war, etc. Isn't for me. And that's the religion, not the people in it.

Or, and this is serious, were those rules written by god or man?

 

[Gottservant]

I'm sort of frustrated that you don't emphasize how important leadership is, while you bash religion, because that would prove you knew you were making sense (not that you aren't, just that I can't tell ____).

As I said, and as you said, Jesus is believable (words and all).

Where you go from there, making rules and such, is more a question of Justice - which Jesus didn't say "I thought about", He said "you should have" (which at the very least indicates that almost any rule would be fundamentally acceptable, if you committed to it, the way Jesus did - if you think about it).

Where I think you are getting confused (possibly) is working out how to correct what you think you remember as "injustice" by identifying where you could possibly assume the error most likely, would have begun - as if the appearance of one thing, guarantees the presence of another, in the minds of (most? no,) anyone.

The reality is, it is harder to believe what Jesus said after you commit to believing it, whether there are believers or not, whether they lead or not, whether or not either of these is just corrupt and nothing else (to begin with _____ there is more - let the reader take note ()) - so realistically, I would start there (and then either try to justify laws specifically for yourself, give or take religion, or try to justify laws in general, give or take government (not that you asked for my opinion - take it or leave it - but I don't think you've done either (maybe you think you have, I don't know)).

 

[paulm50]

I'm sort of frustrated that you don't emphasize how important leadership is, while you bash religion, because that would prove you knew you were making sense (not that you aren't, just that I can't tell ____).

As I said, and as you said, Jesus is believable (words and all).

Where you go from there, making rules and such, is more a question of Justice - which Jesus didn't say "I thought about", He said "you should have" (which at the very least indicates that almost any rule would be fundamentally acceptable, if you committed to it, the way Jesus did - if you think about it).

Jesus said we should keep to the old rules, where did he say we can ignore them. Or did someone else say that?

Where I think you are getting confused (possibly) is working out how to correct what you think you remember as "injustice" by identifying where you could possibly assume the error most likely, would have begun - as if the appearance of one thing, guarantees the presence of another, in the minds of (most? no,) anyone.

Does the bible oppress gays, have rules about keeping slaves, makes rules about women, was heresy a crime?

The reality is, it is harder to believe what Jesus said after you commit to believing it, whether there are believers or not, whether they lead or not, whether or not either of these is just corrupt and nothing else (to begin with _____ there is more - let the reader take note ()) - so realistically, I would start there (and then either try to justify laws specifically for yourself, give or take religion, or try to justify laws in general, give or take government (not that you asked for my opinion - take it or leave it - but I don't think you've done either (maybe you think you have, I don't know)).

I believe in Jesus, he lived, he was followed by very powerful persuaders who carried his message and added to it.

The most powerful was Constantin, however he was looking for a new religion to hold the Empire together and by then many had converted. On the promise of life after death.

Now, answer this. How many laws did the Church add to the way we live, that were already laid down. And have you studied how the Human body works in relation to sex and reproduction? If not read up on the subject and ask yourself why are there laws in opposition to the way we were made?

 

[Gottservant]

I don't actually think I made a point, quite as complicated as you (seem to?) think it warranted.

The point is simply this: certain words have power (this Jesus knew), but for the most part men (good, bad, ugly, stupid) ignore this fact, regardless of how much power it looks like they have (give or take culture, give or take religion, give or take wars and nations and kingdoms, for the most part).

What you are looking at, is the human condition (but what you are complaining, is that corruption is more intense for certain words, than for others (which certain men you (certainly not immediately) can't correctly identify (as related to good works, bad works or art (certainly you have remained continually negative so far (which is not objective, if, as you say, you would like to judge)) may or may not have the wisdom to discern).

Basically, I think you are being unfair, and you haven't been impartial enough to meaningfully prove otherwise (but of course, you may decide to disagree vehemently).

 

[paulm50]

I don't actually think I made a point, quite as complicated as you (seem to?) think it warranted.

No. I didn't give the answer you were looking for.

The point is simply this: certain words have power (this Jesus knew), but for the most part men (good, bad, ugly, stupid) ignore this fact, regardless of how much power it looks like they have (give or take culture, give or take religion, give or take wars and nations and kingdoms, for the most part).

If these words are do powerful, how are they ignored so easily?
And to say give or take, makes no sense. These things have to be considered if the bible is involved in them.

What you are looking at, is the human condition (but what you are complaining, is that corruption is more intense for certain words, than for others (which certain men you (certainly not immediately) can't correctly identify (as related to good works, bad works or art (certainly you have remained continually negative so far (which is not objective, if, as you say, you would like to judge)) may or may not have the wisdom to discern).

The Human condition is to do better than the last generation or others. This is the same condition that governs many species and our closest relatives in the animal kingdom. This leads to corruption as a tool to improve one's lot.

Such as, the Canaanite, had a great place to live. Israelis saw it as a better place than what they had. So took it at the end of a sword. They have as much right to say it was god ordering it, as the numerous commanders have since then.

Proof of a kind and loving god, would of been him appearing on Earth and telling the Canaanites to leave. Same as he could of done in Egypt.

Basically, I think you are being unfair, and you haven't been impartial enough to meaningfully prove otherwise (but of course, you may decide to disagree vehemently).

You may think it unfair. Addressing your original question.

"Better than knowing everything, is understanding enough (to believe _____)."

So if one believes god commands people to do things, like slaughter others. Can you understand that enough?
As it would be easier, kinder and more loving to just appear and tell them to do as he says.

My belief is they were just mortal men, corrupted by greed urging their troops to win a battle, kill everyone and take the land. Easier to understand and believe, than the bible version.

 

[grasping the after wind]

No. I didn't give the answer you were looking for.If these words are do powerful, how are they ignored so easily?
And to say give or take, makes no sense. These things have to be considered if the bible is involved in them.

The Human condition is to do better than the last generation or others. This is the same condition that governs many species and our closest relatives in the animal kingdom. This leads to corruption as a tool to improve one's lot.

Such as, the Canaanite, had a great place to live. Israelis saw it as a better place than what they had. So took it at the end of a sword. They have as much right to say it was god ordering it, as the numerous commanders have since then.

Proof of a kind and loving god, would of been him appearing on Earth and telling the Canaanites to leave. Same as he could of done in Egypt.
You may think it unfair. Addressing your original question.

"Better than knowing everything, is understanding enough (to believe _____)."

So if one believes god commands people to do things, like slaughter others. Can you understand that enough?
As it would be easier, kinder and more loving to just appear and tell them to do as he says.

My belief is they were just mortal men, corrupted by greed urging their troops to win a battle, kill everyone and take the land. Easier to understand and believe, than the bible version.

I would be interested to know your take on how a religion differs from a non religious ideology in acting and motivating human beings to act. Since my take is that they are exactly the same , I see the cause of the actions as being the basic nature of humans to oppress each other and not either the ideologies or religions that they use as excuses for doing so.

 

[paulm50]

I would be interested to know your take on how a religion differs from a non religious ideology in acting and motivating human beings to act. Since my take is that they are exactly the same , I see the cause of the actions as being the basic nature of humans to oppress each other and not either the ideologies or religions that they use as excuses for doing so.

I would say a lot of it is the same, we are guided by the same drives and emotions. Religion was a great tool to lead and steer people. In some faiths it still is.

I don't need to explain how it is with Islam and Judaism, the evidence is there. This was how we were 1 few 100 years ago.

Religions have the laws of oppression written into them, simple one is heresy. This has allowed for so many to be slaughtered. A more recent one is the Church's opposition to Gay marriage. Marriage is a civil contract between two people, the Church has no say in it. Marriage was always a civil contract, until the Church decided to change that. So long as Gays don't want to be married in a church, the church shouldn't interfere in people's lives.

On the positive side of religion. Look at all the beautiful and marvelous buildings constructed by religion. Pyramids, Parthenon, Angkor Wat, Petra, Stonehenge, Mayan Pyramids, Taj Mahal, etc. OK so people died to build these monuments to their gods.

Would the Roman Empire, and all the others, been able to exist without the glue of a religion to hold it together?

Now the flip side. Would Germany have been able to wage WW2 without the "Nazi" religion? That was a belief by people who thought they knew and understood everything.

Only believe in what you understand, and don't be swayed by those who tell us what to believe claiming they understand better. Unless it's proven. And so far not encountered a religion that can prove itself to be right.

 

[Emmy]

Dear Gottservant. Better than knowing everything, is understanding enough to believe. I agree wholeheartedly.
In Matthew 22: 35-40: Jesus tells us: " The first and great Commandment is: Love God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. The second is like it: love thy neighbour as thyself." Jesus tells us: " on these two Commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." In Matthew 7: 7-10: we are told: " ask and you shall receive,"
we ask for Love and Joy, then we thank God and share all love and joy with our neighbour; ( neighbour is all we know and all we meet, friends and not friends) We keep asking and receiving, then share all Love and Joy with our neighbour. 2 Commandments, to ask God and thank and share, easy to remember, and God will see us and God will approve and bless us.
We will find that people will treat us the same as we treat people, and love is very catching. God is Love, and God wants loving sons and daughters. The Bible tells us to " Repent and be Born Again," give up our selfish and unloving behaviour, and start loving and caring for all around us. A Christian`s weapon is love and joy, with love we can overcome all unfriendly and unkind behaviour. The Holy Spirit will help and guide us, and Jesus our Saviour will lead us all the way: JESUS IS THE WAY. God made us in His image, we are quite capable of love and kindness, Let love become our new way of living, God is Love and God wants loving men and women.
Paul tells us in 1) Corinthians 13: 13: " and now abide Faith, Hope, Love: these three, but the greatest of these is LOVE. To know love beats everything. I say this with love, Gottservant. Greetings from Emmy, your sister in Christ.

 

[Gottservant]

If these words are do powerful, how are they ignored so easily?

Because people don't quote them, in contexts that reveal their power - they either keep them to themselves, regardless of what they already wanted to do, or they change them, as if what they were, isn't what gave them power.

 

[paulm50]

I would be interested to know your take on how a religion differs from a non religious ideology in acting and motivating human beings to act. Since my take is that they are exactly the same , I see the cause of the actions as being the basic nature of humans to oppress each other and not either the ideologies or religions that they use as excuses for doing so.

It's impossible to have a single take on this. It depends on the ideology and the people imposing it. Because as you say it comes down to the individual. And yes they use ideologies or religions as excuses. So were the original writers doing the same? They can't be made exempt because they claim they were led by god. Some Muslims today say this and 1,000s of christians have done in the past and a few do today.

Because people don't quote them, in contexts that reveal their power - they either keep them to themselves, regardless of what they already wanted to do, or they change them, as if what they were, isn't what gave them power.

Then the words aren't as powerful as some believe. The power comes from the people imposing them.

 

[Gottservant]

Then the words aren't as powerful as some believe. The power comes from the people imposing them.

I think this is the crux of the impasse - we seem to be circling around.

Is there any way you could say what you just said, in a way that had power?

 

[paulm50]

I think this is the crux of the impasse - we seem to be circling around.

Is there any way you could say what you just said, in a way that had power?

Yes. A little literal but used the world over.

If I said the words while holding a gun to your head.

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.