How I KNOW

[ReluctantProphet]

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.

Once again, I agree with perhaps one minor exception.

I agree that the "non-self" issue is only a direction to take, it is not intended as an absolute destination to reach. I find some Buddhists who proclaim otherwise, but then what religion doesn't have the extrme zealot.

But I think I should point out that although it was indeed said that man's knowledge is fallable whereas God could not be, it also says that one day, all shall be known.

If man is indeed to be perfected by the Holy Spirit, then how could he be forever held away from certain knowledge or understanding? One cannot easily find what he does not seek and upon seeking with humble heart, so shall he find.

So I am only saying to not be too hasty in thinking that nothing is ever truly found and that certainty can never be known. The real issue isn't whether it can be known, but whether it can ever be shown.

But to see requires eye that can see. Why paint a beautiful and perfect picture and wave it before the eyes of the blind? Them not seeing or any before them not seeing its perfection only attests to the difficulty in seeing, not the impossibility.

Seek eyes that are not blinded by clouded waters. With those eyes seek the compass that cannot be misaligned by the hearts of men. With clear eyes and compass in sight, seek the dry Earth where water cannot rise but at worst simply fall and run off. Upon finding that dry land, stand upon it more solidly than you could with your ship at the sea.

If you believe that all Earth has been covered by the sea and have no faith that there is indeed dry land, then you receive what is due to the measure of your faith. But I have to ask, why would you ever be told to seek understanding if there was no understanding to be found? And if one cannot stand upon understanding, then in what manner is it truly understanding?

God is not empty of purpose. The Father has not created a child with no intent of him becoming a man and standing without need of nursing. Nor has he created the man to be led only by his mother's heart and a wonderer forever in blindness of mind.

At what point to you stop doubting that God is accomplishing and begin to accept the proximity of accomplishment? Why would a path be given if not to be taken to a worthy destination?

Having not seen the destination, by what means do you declare that it is not within reach? It only takes one turn of a final key to open the last door to what was an entirely hidden mansion of the King of all kings.

Doubt what I say when you can clearly see that I have spoken in error. But doubt as to whether the destination is to be ever sought or found, and you will not clearly see even when you are at it.

Hold to faith during the darkness, but do not declare that there is no light to ever be seen, else you will not recognize it even when in the midths of it.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

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.

I agree. Were you expecting for me not to?

 

[Sojourner<><]

Once again, I agree with perhaps one minor exception.

I agree that the "non-self" issue is only a direction to take, it is not intended as an absolute destination to reach. I find some Buddhists who proclaim otherwise, but then what religion doesn't have the extrme zealot.

But I think I should point out that although it was indeed said that man's knowledge is fallable whereas God could not be, it also says that one day, all shall be known.

If man is indeed to be perfected by the Holy Spirit, then how could he be forever held away from certain knowledge or understanding? One cannot easily find what he does not seek and upon seeking with humble heart, so shall he find.

So I am only saying to not be too hasty in thinking that nothing is ever truly found and that certainty can never be known. The real issue isn't whether it can be known, but whether it can ever be shown.

But to see requires eye that can see. Why paint a beautiful and perfect picture and wave it before the eyes of the blind? Them not seeing or any before them not seeing its perfection only attests to the difficulty in seeing, not the impossibility.

Seek eyes that are not blinded by clouded waters. With those eyes seek the compass that cannot be misaligned by the hearts of men. With clear eyes and compass in sight, seek the dry Earth where water cannot rise but at worst simply fall and run off. Upon finding that dry land, stand upon it more solidly than you could with your ship at the sea.

If you believe that all Earth has been covered by the sea and have no faith that there is indeed dry land, then you receive what is due to the measure of your faith. But I have to ask, why would you ever be told to seek understanding if there was no understanding to be found? And if one cannot stand upon understanding, then in what manner is it truly understanding?

God is not empty of purpose. The Father has not created a child with no intent of him becoming a man and standing without need of nursing. Nor has he created the man to be led only by his mother's heart and a wonderer forever in blindness of mind.

At what point to you stop doubting that God is accomplishing and begin to accept the proximity of accomplishment? Why would a path be given if not to be taken to a worthy destination?

Having not seen the destination, by what means do you declare that it is not within reach? It only takes one turn of a final key to open the last door to what was an entirely hidden mansion of the King of all kings.

Doubt what I say when you can clearly see that I have spoken in error. But doubt as to whether the destination is to be ever sought or found, and you will not clearly see even when you are at it.

Hold to faith during the darkness, but do not declare that there is no light to ever be seen, else you will not recognize it even when in the midths of it.

I hope that I haven't confused what I was trying to say since I'm not trying to imply that understanding can never be possessed, nor am I saying that God's wisdom is received without understaning as in a blindly accepted instruction. I'm only suggesting that God's wisdom is not of us and cannot be acquired by us as if we possess full rights to this understanding. The way of Christ is to humble himself and then be exalted by God. The way of the enemy is to exalt himself and then be destroyed by God. God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble, and this applies to His wisdom.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

I hope that I haven't confused what I was trying to say since I'm not trying to imply that understanding can never be possessed, nor am I saying that God's wisdom is received without understaning as in a blindly accepted instruction. I'm only suggesting that God's wisdom is not of us and cannot be acquired by us as if we possess full rights to this understanding. The way of Christ is to humble himself and then be exalted by God. The way of the enemy is to exalt himself and then be destroyed by God. God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble, and this applies to His wisdom.

If it is not from God, it is error.

 

[exploring]

If it is not from God, it is error.

Sorry to butt in
error is from god as well, surely?

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Sorry to butt in
error is from god as well, surely?

You're welcome to "butt in" as long as you address the topic.

Realize that the converse of a statement is not declared by the statement.

If I say that a steak tastes good, I have not declared that if something tastes good, it is a steak.

I stated that "if it is not from God, then it is error". This does not say that if it is error then it is not from God.

God, if by no other reasoning than simple definition, contains no error. This statement does not exclude God from being able to cause error. But nor does it state that God does cause error.

 

[exploring]

You're welcome to "butt in" as long as you address the topic.

Realize that the converse of a statement is not declared by the statement.

If I say that a steak tastes good, I have not declared that if something tastes good, it is a steak.

I stated that "if it is not from God, then it is error". This does not say that if it is error then it is not from God.

God, if by no other reasoning than simple definition, contains no error. This statement does not exclude God from being able to cause error. But nor does it state that God does cause error.

If you mean that error can be "not from God" but still caused by him, then you mean something different by "from" than what i have undestood. is this so?

 

[ReluctantProphet]

If you mean that error can be "not from God" but still caused by him, then you mean something different by "from" than what i have undestood. is this so?

This isn't the thread to argue about what the word "from" means.

 

[exploring]

This isn't the thread to argue about what the word "from" means.

We'll get nowhere if we aren't clear about the terms we use

 

[ReluctantProphet]

We'll get nowhere if we aren't clear about the terms we use

I'd be the last to argue with that, but some words are a little beyond priority in that most of the more important words are still being left out. Get the more essencial one's straight and if the lesser one's are still a problem, then clean those up too.