How I KNOW

[corvus_corax]

Hey RP?

Post 20 please?

Or perhaps I missed your reply. If so, let me know and I'll go back and look for it.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Hey RP?

Post 20 please?

Or perhaps I missed your reply. If so, let me know and I'll go back and look for it.

I apologize. My browser had divided pages just after your post and I missed it (happens too often).

I tried to explain in post #3 why I couldn’t just spit out the logic of it all. It is an issue of communication rather than merely one of knowing the logic. I had explained that if I or anyone is to explain something, then the reader must make some attempt to understand how the writer is using words so as to allow the concepts to be properly relayed. Many people would be able to easily see that this would be important, but many seem to just assume that a word is equal to whatever impression they already had even if they never considered what the word truly meant in its origin nor what the writer might be meaning by the word even in error. This leads to erroneous presumptions of what is being said and thus argument. This problem has proven itself once again on this thread just as I predicted.

But to get a little closer to the point (as requested), imagine for a moment that you are in a time when people have not yet accepted the concept of calculus even though it is being taught. Architects are accustomed to using an approximation for calculating the circumference of a circle. Some extremist named Eudoxus proposed that mathematics can be used in some way involving infinite concepts (a dubious existence at best) and Archimedes is trying to get people to see the light of how to use these concepts so as to achieve an exact answer to not only circumferences but also volumes, surface areas and many other concerns. The resident authorities on the subject proclaim that exactness cannot be achieved as history has proven time and time again.

But society is in a process of change due to its newly acquired authority over other countries and is involved in trying to get its populous to change the way they think on almost every subject so as to handle greater responsibilities of world management. This process involves confusing the population on every issue so that new perspectives can be established on a base level of the society. This leaves Archimedes with a serious problem because people are not calmly listening, but rather impassioned over every issue imaginable and easily triggered into argument as they defend their random individualized cause.

At this stage in the society, there is no high authority to which Archimedes can appeal and explain his principles because even the authorities are caught in the struggle to rearrange who shall have authority and who shall not. Thus Archimedes is left with only the general population to try to teach his mathematics principles to so as to allow progress to be made despite the times.

So as Archimedes tries to relay his concepts, he discovers that dealing with the general population is quite different than dealing with the more disciplined architects and mathematicians. The population at large struggles with more simple concerns of mere arithmetic and algebra. They even debate that mathematics is really only there to force them into slavery to the self interest of architects and the like. Other countries are still trying to break free of any authority so they are glad to help further inspire any confusion and resistance to potential sanity. The notion that mathematics isn’t even real and is merely a hoax slips into any discussion of the subject.

Archimedes tries to just present his case and quickly realizes that trying to explain calculus to those who aren’t really stable in algebra is somewhat futile and worse, leads to a flood of argument over every word he presented even before he got to the relevant parts. He faces constant heckling from the political crowd wanting to ensure that no one is seen as right on any issue. They shout, “Oh you’re just another egotist and think that you’re superior to everyone. You’re just lost in your fantasy delusions of grandeur. You should wakeup to the reality that no one can truly know anything and if you think that you do, then you are even more lost than anyone.” He tries briefly to discuss the rationality of the statement that anyone could know that no one knows, but gets nowhere because they don’t really care if their statements make sense anyway. That isn’t their agenda. Another crowd controlling voice from the back throws in a quick, “Calculus is just another old myth” and quickly slips away.

So he decides to pre-qualify anyone wishing to know of the subject by boldly stating publicly that he can calculate the exact circumference of a circle without the slightest error and presenting a few simple algebra questions then watching who, if any, can even get that far through the math. He figures that if a few can at least see the reasoning involved in algebra, then he can propose some concerns about trigonometry and eventually get to those concerns of infinite equations and calculus which finally would allow the many concerns plaguing builders to be more perfectly handled. But of course, “building” is something that a large portion of the population is pointedly against regardless of any correctness. Thus Archimedes faces the constant fire of those who simply want to disrupt any sign of organized thought.

They try to argue that numbers are not real. They argue that infinity is just imagination and doesn’t exist. They argue that Eudoxus was just a charismatic delusional dreamer trying to keep society from their more natural true sanity and natural progress and all of this trouble is because of him and those like him who try to control people with invented invisible concepts.

The easy and tempting thing for Archimedes to do is to simply let it go. He can see that eventually very many years later, someone will realize how it all works anyway. But he is plagued with the notion of all of needless struggle between now and then so he is equally tempted to not give up despite the wide spread insanity with which he must deal.

---.

Now if the analogy of that short story isn’t sufficient, I can bring it even closer to home with far more real and evident events concerning recent times and what you might call a “world-view”, but in doing so, the guilty will become exposed and very serious passion will be invoked to disrupt any further conversation because if there is one thing the deceiving vampires fear, it is you being able to see them by exposure to the clear light of day.

So, did all of this answer your question as to why I don’t just state it rather than presenting what you have called “baiting” questions? They are not intended to bait, but rather merely to qualify.

 

[Tynan]

I am right in thinking that your point is a common understanding and agreement of the concepts is needed before discussion ?

I think this is a fairly understood idea, why the need for the mystery ?

I likes this bit

He faces constant heckling from the political crowd wanting to ensure that no one is seen as right on any issue. They shout, “Oh you’re just another egotist and think that you’re superior to everyone.

Reminds me of:

READ the POSTS before you so arrogantly attempt to show yourself as being so authoritatively superior.

Now if the analogy of that short story isn’t sufficient, I can bring it even closer to home with far more real and evident events concerning recent times and what you might call a “world-view”, but in doing so, the guilty will become exposed and very serious passion will be invoked to disrupt any further conversation because if there is one thing the deceiving vampires fear, it is you being able to see them by exposure to the clear light of day.

Why if you are not going to share your revelations with us do you tease us so ?

Who are the vampires ?

 

[Sojourner<><]

It seems pointless to discuss &#8220;How to know&#8221; something, so I thought I might offer for discussion &#8220;How I know anything.&#8221;

I claim that Jesus happens to be logically correct. In a sense, to me, it wouldn&#8217;t really matter if Jesus was ever a real person or not simply because even if He wasn&#8217;t, who ever wrote the stories hit on something significantly logically real anyway. The concepts turn out right either way.

But having said that, how do I know?

I say that there are only 4 concerns to knowing and they can be typified by the following 4 questions;

1) How do you know that 2+2=4?
2) How do you know that a ball is red?
3) How do you know that anything exists at all?
4) How do you know what absolute good is?


If you can logically answer these 4 questions, then you can reason logically and you can truly know things. From all I have seen on these threads, I suspect there isn&#8217;t one person on the site that can manage it even though it is doable.

The same concepts that allow you to answer these questions is what allows you to truly KNOW, not merely suspect with high probability nor merely take someone else&#8217;s word in faith.

In my mind, 'knowing' referrs to the verification through trial that my understanding of something is correct and trustworthy. In other words, when I say that I know that 2 + 2 = 4, I'm saying that my understanding of the rules behind the mathematical language, the quantities of 2 and 4 and the operation of addition have been tried and tested and that I have found them to be worthy enough to be deemed 'knowledge'.

I can apply this same principle to the questions of the red ball and the existence of things, though I'm not going to bother with them since the real question that interests me is #4 concerning the knowledge of absolute good. For a christian, the knowledge of absolute good is a spiritual occurrence. It happens within the heart as one inwardly learns to choose to love purity, goodness and righteousness over the carnal desires. This is called 'turning to the Lord' - the spirit of God which was inside of and displayed by Jesus Christ through his actions and words. The affect this has on the way one behaves and lives can be roughly understood with this metaphor - If we think about ones body and life as a delicate and complicated musical instrument, say a grand piano, spirit would be behind the way it is played. This is why Christians are so big on seeing the evidence of salvation. However, this process of turning one's heart to the Lord is not without cost. The very fact that a heart has turned away is because of transgression, which requires restitution. Fortunately, though, this cost was paid in Jesus' death on the cross. In the context of your question, my understanding of this topic has been tried and tested just as my understanding of 2 + 2, though much more complex, and I have found it to be worthy to be deemed 'knowledge'.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

In my mind, 'knowing' referrs to the verification through trial that my understanding of something is correct and trustworthy. In other words, when I say that I know that 2 + 2 = 4, I'm saying that my understanding of the rules behind the mathematical language, the quantities of 2 and 4 and the operation of addition have been tried and tested and that I have found them to be worthy enough to be deemed 'knowledge'.

I can apply this same principle to the questions of the red ball and the existence of things, though I'm not going to bother with them since the real question that interests me is #4 concerning the knowledge of absolute good. For a christian, the knowledge of absolute good is a spiritual occurrence. It happens within the heart as one inwardly learns to choose to love purity, goodness and righteousness over the carnal desires. This is called 'turning to the Lord' - the spirit of God which was inside of and displayed by Jesus Christ through his actions and words. The affect this has on the way one behaves and lives can be roughly understood with this metaphor - If we think about ones body and life as a delicate and complicated musical instrument, say a grand piano, spirit would be behind the way it is played. This is why Christians are so big on seeing the evidence of salvation. However, this process of turning one's heart to the Lord is not without cost. The very fact that a heart has turned away is because of transgression, which requires restitution. Fortunately, though, this cost was paid in Jesus' death on the cross. In the context of your question, my understanding of this topic has been tried and tested just as my understanding of 2 + 2, though much more complex, and I have found it to be worthy to be deemed 'knowledge'.

I can agree with everything said here except for one important issue.

The beginning of knowledge rather than faith or believing is not about seeing the evidence or experience, but rather simply declaring concepts.

Typically today, as happens throughout history, people take their concepts for granted and forget that a concept has nothing to do with reality other than as a mental tool to be used later. All of mathematics is simply declared or defined. It has no need to be compared to reality to be verified. The value of mathematics must be verified by seeing that it actually does help measure something more accurately than you might have done otherwise.

Definitions and declarations clear the path to eventual understanding for the conscious mind, without which all is futile.

The spiritual light found through faithful following is certainly needed and a good place to start if no conscious understanding can be accomplished before hand.

The problem comes in when so many remain with only a spiritual heart felt understanding, but never rise to the full conscious understanding. Until the spirit and the conscious mind can come into harmony, there will always be weakness in faith. that weakness will always make any demostration to others of greatness less than it could have been and the reputation of christianity suffers.

Jesus had no intention for people to keep ONLY faith and never rise into full understanding.

The path to full understanding (without assumption or room for doubt) is open to those who will merely seek it (faithfully).

Humility, even to all you thought to be important, is the governer and final measure of the potential for success.

The path is open for those who are humble enough to merely listen and seek absolute truth and thus certain "knowledge". If you have to be teased and lured into humility, then you are in trouble. The nearer future is not that of luring into humility but crushing into it.

 

[David Gould]

It seems pointless to discuss “How to know” something, so I thought I might offer for discussion “How I know anything.”

I claim that Jesus happens to be logically correct. In a sense, to me, it wouldn’t really matter if Jesus was ever a real person or not simply because even if He wasn’t, who ever wrote the stories hit on something significantly logically real anyway. The concepts turn out right either way.

But having said that, how do I know?

I say that there are only 4 concerns to knowing and they can be typified by the following 4 questions;

1) How do you know that 2+2=4?
2) How do you know that a ball is red?
3) How do you know that anything exists at all?
4) How do you know what absolute good is?


If you can logically answer these 4 questions, then you can reason logically and you can truly know things. From all I have seen on these threads, I suspect there isn’t one person on the site that can manage it even though it is doable.

The same concepts that allow you to answer these questions is what allows you to truly KNOW, not merely suspect with high probability nor merely take someone else’s word in faith.

1.) By definition.
2.) By observation plus definition. However, I guess this depends on your definition of 'know'.
3.) By the fact that observations, whether true ones or false ones, exist.
4.) The concept is unintelligible to me, so I do not know that.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

1.) By definition.
2.) By observation plus definition. However, I guess this depends on your definition of 'know'.
3.) By the fact that observations, whether true ones or false ones, exist.
4.) The concept is unintelligible to me, so I do not know that.

I agree with 1 and 2 but 3 could use a little brushing up.

As to (4), the one giving people the most trouble, you know that there is something being called good whether accurately or not, thus the word has a concept associated with it. Unlike most words these days, that one seems to be holding up pretty well to its common concept. The larger concern in society of course is that word "absolute" which means, of course, the ultimate extreme of the pure concept.

It shouldn't be too hard to put those together.

 

[David Gould]

I agree with 1 and 2 but 3 could use a little brushing up.

As to (4), the one giving people the most trouble, you know that there is something being called good whether accurately or not, thus the word has a concept associated with it.

Unlike most words these days, that one seems to be holding up pretty well to its common concept. The larger concern in society of course is that word "absolute" which means, of course, the ultimate extreme of the pure concept.

It shouldn't be too hard to put those together.

I understand that the word has a concept associated with it. I find this concept unintelligible, like 'square circle' or 'married bachelor'. I cannot hold in my mind what such a thing might actually be.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

I understand that the word has a concept associated with it. I find this concept unintelligible, like 'square circle' or 'married bachelor'. I cannot hold in my mind what such a thing might actually be.

Is it too difficult to see that the word "good" is being used to signify "something that helps a goal"?

Obviously at most levels that "something" would be relative to the goal in mind or felt to be progress toward a consciously unidentified goal to achieve.

 

[David Gould]

Is it too difficult to see that the word "good" is being used to signify "something that helps a goal"?

No. That is fine. It is the concept 'absolute good' that I am referring to. If any particular good depends upon the particular goal, it cannot be absolute.

For example, if the goal is, 'Get rid of all Jews in the world,' it would be good to gas them all. But I am unclear how inserting 'absolute' here can make sense in any way.

As I said, it is square circle time. I can understand 'square'; I can understand 'circle'. Combing the two, though, leaves us with a non-concept.

Obviously at most levels that "something" would be relative to the goal in mind or felt to be progress toward a consciously unidentified goal to achieve.

Of course. And that is why there cannot be an absolute involved here.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Of course. And that is why there cannot be an absolute involved here.

The larger concern in society of course is that word "absolute" which means, of course, the ultimate extreme of the pure concept.

The ultimate extreme of the help to a goal would be something that could not possibly help that goal any more. It would indicate the "perfect" help or support.

That would mean the goal would have the maximum assistance possible to its achievement.

Now, if you only have a short term goal in mind, like going to the store, then whatever absolutely ensured you getting there would be the absolute good for that particular goal.

So that is one form of the "absolute good".

But then everyone really has far more than one goal in their lives. This would mean that the "absolute good" would be whatever ensured that EVERY goal they had was achieved. This is typically impossible simply because often one goal prevents another.

So that would be a second type of "absolute good" (usually impossible).

But also everyone has a highest priority goal even if they don't recognize it. They might think that they have 2 or more equally high priority goals in their life. But what this really means is that their true high priority is the goal of ensuring all of the equally high priorities. It still settles to one true highest priority. But it has to be noted that most people have priorities that they don't recognize consciously. Thus the "absolute good" would be whatever ensured to the maximum possible degree that their highest priority (recognized or not) got accomplished.

This would be the third type of "absolute good".


Now the ensuing questions and discussion if all of that was seen and agreed to, would involve what in reality actually meets the criteria of the "absolute good" as it relates to which ever goal type we were talking about. So far, we have merely given it conception or definition.

 

[David Gould]

The ultimate extreme of the help to a goal would be something that could not possibly help that goal any more. It would indicate the "perfect" help or support.

That would mean the goal would have the maximum assistance possible to its achievement.

Now, if you only have a short term goal in mind, like going to the store, then whatever absolutely ensured you getting there would be the absolute good for that particular goal.

So that is one form of the "absolute good".

Okay. But that is certainly not what most people mean when they talk about an absolute good.

But then everyone really has far more than one goal in their lives. This would mean that the "absolute good" would be whatever ensured that EVERY goal they had was achieved. This is typically impossible simply because often one goal prevents another.

So that would be a second type of "absolute good" (usually impossible).

Agreed - but again that it not what people usually mean when they talk about an absolute good.

But also everyone has a highest priority goal even if they don't recognize it. They might think that they have 2 or more equally high priority goals in their life. But what this really means is that their true high priority is the goal of ensuring all of the equally high priorities. It still settles to one true highest priority. But it has to be noted that most people have priorities that they don't recognize consciously. Thus the "absolute good" would be whatever ensured to the maximum possible degree that their highest priority (recognized or not) got accomplished.

This would be the third type of "absolute good".

Agreed. And again, this does not match what people talk about when they discuss 'absolute good'. When they are discussing 'absolute good' they use it in contrast to 'relative good'. The 'relative' in 'relative good' is referring to the fact that the good is always relative to a particular goal - nothing is absolutely good because good is always relative to the goal.

Now the ensuing questions and discussion if all of that was seen and agreed to, would involve what in reality actually meets the criteria of the "absolute good" as it relates to which ever goal type we were talking about. So far, we have merely given it conception or definition.

If that is the definition of absolute good that you are using, I have no problem with it. Again, though, it is not the way the phrase is commonly used. The way the phrase is commonly used - to dismiss the idea that the merit of an action depends on the goal behind the action - is incoherent.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Okay. But that is certainly not what most people mean when they talk about an absolute good.



Agreed - but again that it not what people usually mean when they talk about an absolute good.



Agreed. And again, this does not match what people talk about when they discuss 'absolute good'. When they are discussing 'absolute good' they use it in contrast to 'relative good'. The 'relative' in 'relative good' is referring to the fact that the good is always relative to a particular goal - nothing is absolutely good because good is always relative to the goal.



If that is the definition of absolute good that you are using, I have no problem with it. Again, though, it is not the way the phrase is commonly used. The way the phrase is commonly used - to dismiss the idea that the merit of an action depends on the goal behind the action - is incoherent.

How can something be "relative" if it achieves ALL goals?

And if it achieves the goals as to their priority in the absolute most possible manner, then again, how is that not absolute in that the goals were still ALL addressed as to their priority?

 

[David Gould]

How can something be "relative" if it achieves ALL goals?

As you have pointed out, no act can achieve contradictory goals.

And if it achieves the goals as to their priority in the absolute most possible manner, then again, how is that not absolute in that the goals were still ALL addressed as to their priority?

Again, no act can acheive contradictory goals. Further, I am unclear what you mean by 'absolute most possible manner'. Do you mean fastest? Most cost-effective in monetary terms? Most cost-effective in terms of lives lost? Most energy efficient? Least impact on the environment?

As an example, if my goal is to kill all Jews, and your goal is to save as many as possible, what actions are 'good' in this scenario? Can we determine that my actions are good and yours are not? Or can we find that, provided our individual actions matched our individual goals, we both acted in a morally good fashion?

 

[ReluctantProphet]

As you have pointed out, no act can achieve contradictory goals.



Again, no act can acheive contradictory goals. Further, I am unclear what you mean by 'absolute most possible manner'. Do you mean fastest? Most cost-effective in monetary terms? Most cost-effective in terms of lives lost? Most energy efficient? Least impact on the environment?

As an example, if my goal is to kill all Jews, and your goal is to save as many as possible, what actions are 'good' in this scenario? Can we determine that my actions are good and yours are not? Or can we find that, provided our individual actions matched our individual goals, we both acted in a morally good fashion?

Before I respond, can you point out the conceptual difference between what I have stated and what you are asking about?

 

[David Gould]

Before I respond, can you point out the conceptual difference between what I have stated and what you are asking about?

I do not understand the question.

 

[Sojourner<><]

I can agree with everything said here except for one important issue.

The beginning of knowledge rather than faith or believing is not about seeing the evidence or experience, but rather simply declaring concepts.

Typically today, as happens throughout history, people take their concepts for granted and forget that a concept has nothing to do with reality other than as a mental tool to be used later. All of mathematics is simply declared or defined. It has no need to be compared to reality to be verified. The value of mathematics must be verified by seeing that it actually does help measure something more accurately than you might have done otherwise.

Definitions and declarations clear the path to eventual understanding for the conscious mind, without which all is futile.

I think I see where you're going with this idea of declarations being requisite to knowledge. This is a very fuzzy area where I'm afraid that our loose semantics can easily confuse the issue. It sounds like you're saying that concepts first exist purely in thought before they can ever be verified and lead to understanding and knowledge am I right?

I'm simply arguing that these concepts that exist as pure thought are a form of understanding, whether correct or incorrect since one can posses a myriad of false and true, complex and simple understandings. Knowledge would then be this same understanding after the fact has been established that its level of trustworthiness is somewhere around the 'factual' or 'truth' level.

Sure math simply exists within the mind and has nothing to do with reality... In highschool I was involuntarily forced to take trigonometry where the 'knowledge' of my superiors was passed down to me. However, as of this moment I doubt that I could successfully pass on to you even 2% of what I learned there simply because I found no practical use for these concepts in my normal life. It has all passed away over time and can no longer be considered 'knowledge'. Therefore, in my mind, the knowledge I have are those conceptual understandings that have survived the fires of real life.

The spiritual light found through faithful following is certainly needed and a good place to start if no conscious understanding can be accomplished before hand.

The problem comes in when so many remain with only a spiritual heart felt understanding, but never rise to the full conscious understanding. Until the spirit and the conscious mind can come into harmony, there will always be weakness in faith. that weakness will always make any demostration to others of greatness less than it could have been and the reputation of christianity suffers.

Jesus had no intention for people to keep ONLY faith and never rise into full understanding.

The path to full understanding (without assumption or room for doubt) is open to those who will merely seek it (faithfully).

I'd agree with you that Jesus wanted us to seek wisdom, however I don't believe that it is possible for anyone to reach an absolutely full understanding of spiritual things while on this earth because of the writing of Paul (on the differences between this life and the next): "11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known."

Humility, even to all you thought to be important, is the governer and final measure of the potential for success.

The path is open for those who are humble enough to merely listen and seek absolute truth and thus certain "knowledge". If you have to be teased and lured into humility, then you are in trouble. The nearer future is not that of luring into humility but crushing into it.

Have I been arrogant in some way? If I have then I apologize.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

I think I see where you're going with this idea of declarations being requisite to knowledge. This is a very fuzzy area where I'm afraid that our loose semantics can easily confuse the issue. It sounds like you're saying that concepts first exist purely in thought before they can ever be verified and lead to understanding and knowledge am I right?

I'm simply arguing that these concepts that exist as pure thought are a form of understanding, whether correct or incorrect since one can posses a myriad of false and true, complex and simple understandings. Knowledge would then be this same understanding after the fact has been established that its level of trustworthiness is somewhere around the 'factual' or 'truth' level.

Sure math simply exists within the mind and has nothing to do with reality... In highschool I was involuntarily forced to take trigonometry where the 'knowledge' of my superiors was passed down to me. However, as of this moment I doubt that I could successfully pass on to you even 2% of what I learned there simply because I found no practical use for these concepts in my normal life. It has all passed away over time and can no longer be considered 'knowledge'. Therefore, in my mind, the knowledge I have are those conceptual understandings that have survived the fires of real life.

I would agree with ALL of this 100%. (well, ok 99.9%)

I'd agree with you that Jesus wanted us to seek wisdom, however I don't believe that it is possible for anyone to reach an absolutely full understanding of spiritual things while on this earth because of the writing of Paul (on the differences between this life and the next): "11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known."

I respectfully submit that you (and most) have misunderstood what Paul was talking about. And I also have to state that the amount understandable is a great deal more than what has been understood. The limits of what is understandable have not even been scratched in the area.

Have I been arrogant in some way? If I have then I apologize.

I was referring to the need to be extremely humble far more than normal so as to accomplish a clear mind. And not humble to ME, but humble to all around you, Reality itself.

 

[Sojourner<><]

I respectfully submit that you (and most) have misunderstood what Paul was talking about. And I also have to state that the amount understandable is a great deal more than what has been understood. The limits of what is understandable have not even been scratched in the area.

I was referring to the need to be extremely humble far more than normal so as to accomplish a clear mind. And not humble to ME, but humble to all around you, Reality itself.

So you must be referring to the loss of self or ego in attaining some higher plain of consciousness? I'm familiar with this but I am inclined to think that this idea of loss of self is itself widely misunderstood by most, and is even part of the Christian belief. It is much like the essense of the true worship of God in which one becomes so enthralled in His glory that all one can do is lose himself in God. However, I don't believe that the existence of 'self' will ever fully evaporate but it will lose its self-centeredness since: "...by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many." (1 corinthians 12:13,14).

As it pertains to the acquisition of understanding, the Christian faith teaches us (I can provide scripture if you like) that there are two kinds of wisdom: man's and God's. God's is eternal and true whereas man's is temporary and very, very fallible. It also teaches us that God's wisdom is freely given to those who ask with the right motive, therefore it is not 'acquired' as much as 'received' by our minds. If it were to be acquired, it would be of us and not of God. And you are right in what you say about humility here because it is very needed in order to ask and receive without becoming puffed up and big headed. However, this all means that we are but mere vessels of His wisdom and we in reality possess no real understanding of our own - He simply provides what we need when we need it. This part is difficult to learn since the 'self' clings so very tightly to it's understanding which is very valuable for sure, if it is correct.

 

[Emmy]

Dear ReluctantProphet, Jesus told us,(while He lived among us) unless you believe like a child, you will never enter God`s Kingdom." Children can tell, who loves them, and who does not. I say this humbly and kindly, ReluctantProphet, so do thousands of Christian men and = women, myself included. We know that Jesus has helped, and still helps AND guides, many young, or not so young lives. History proves that Jesus has lived, Christians know that Jesus died, to save us; to reconcile us to God. Men have tried to disprove the Bible, God`s Word, but the Bible still, after 2000 years, or so, talks to us, helps us to understand, consoles us, uplifts us, teaches us, and helps to lead us back to God. Those are facts, and they are easy to understand, and I know that God talks to our HEARTS, He gives Peace and Joy to all who ask for it, and His LOVE is for ALL. I say this humbly and with the certain knowledge, that God`s Love and Forgiveness is real. Sincere greetings from Emmy, sister in Christ.