• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Not sure what to believe anymore

Tinker Grey

Wanderer
Site Supporter
Feb 6, 2002
11,735
6,290
Erewhon
Visit site
✟1,140,608.00
Faith
Atheist

Great answer ... but that wasn't the question I was asking. Seriously, it is a good question about the nature of worship and a sense of oneness.

But, what I want to know is oneness with what? Is God other? How does one perceive that. Is it your conception that God is transcendent? Hence my question, "if there is no other, what are you worshiping?" {Emphasis added.}

I assume with my question that there is a coherence between the sense that we have a "spirit" and the assumption that God is spirit. Is the question of a spirit-body duality more coherent than a mind-body duality? If not, what is God?

I wonder if you are approaching God in some sort of Buddhist sense. I find it interesting reading about Muslim and Christian intellectuals including Aquinas. My sense is that as they attempt to understand or coherently define God that they bleed into a more impersonal God/force. Is this where you are?

Thanks again.
 
Upvote 0

AzA

NF | NT
Aug 4, 2008
1,540
95
✟24,721.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
NPR's All Things Considered is doing a weeklong series on The Science of Spirituality.

Today was the first installment.

The God Chemical: Brain Chemistry And Mysticism : NPR
Cheers bro... I hope to get to this in a couple of days. Traveling.

Thanks for rearticulating your question and calling me back to order, lol! Yes there is a persistent dualism in that question -- you've pinned it down with the paragraph about spirit-body. I think ditching "mind-body" and replacing it with "spirit-body" only moves goalposts; it doesn't change the game. The game is "How many ways can we split ourselves apart? Again! Again, lol!"

ittarter got me talking a little bit about where I'm at conceptually in his thread on prayer. I do recognize an impersonal approach to God, but not to the exclusion of a personal approach. I imagine some Christians might find this odd. But as you say, there's plenty of precedent for it within and outside of the tradition. By the way, if you think there's someone I should read, please recommend.

I do experience God as I move around the world. I'm not sure that, if the world is His creation and we are in His image, it could be any other way.

When defined from the perspective of "I make obeisance to you, my Liege," worship is predicated on separation between the one being honored and the one honoring:
This is fair enough. Sometimes, like during a lightning storm, that's how I feel. That presence is so powerful, so beautiful. And so very different from me.

When defined from the perspective of "I recognize you as me; therefore my psychic immune system recognizes you as me and I can draw you close or be drawn close to you without attacking you with my T-cells," worship is predicated on plural union:
And my sense is that there's something greater happening in that union than just a heap of parts. Yes, something "transcendent" but also something systemic that cannot be divided without loss to the whole.

Separation-model worship involves a clear Other that one could point to and say "That -- I'm worshipping That."
Union-model worship has no such Other but there is a Whole of which one is part. And in simply being, in union, one worships. You could call this non-worship.
 
Upvote 0

Zionsfriend

Junior Member
Jan 12, 2007
42
6
Alabama
✟22,668.00
Faith
Marital Status
Politics
US-Others

I would suggest an indepth study of evolutionism, both the pros and cons. I'm sure you know that micro-evolution (adaptation, usually within species) doesn't conflict with the Bible and is proven. Macro-evolution (major leaps in the evolutionary process) is not observable or testable by scientific means and is based mainly in the rationalized speculations of men.

An excellent article on Noah's ark can be found at the following link:

gnmagazine.org/issues/gn47/noahsark.htm
 
Upvote 0

AzA

NF | NT
Aug 4, 2008
1,540
95
✟24,721.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I assume with my question that there is a coherence between the sense that we have a "spirit" and the assumption that God is spirit. Is the question of a spirit-body duality more coherent than a mind-body duality?
Oh yeah, I thought this was important too.

I have never assumed that humans "have" a spirit in the same way that they "have" a liver. I know some churches describe man as body + spirit and/or + soul + mind or some mashup of the aforementioned, but mine didn't. Instead they described man, per Genesis 2, as body + breath of God = living soul. One could argue the merits of that composition all day long as some do, but part of its contribution is the integration of mind and consciousness and, hence, spiritual awareness into "body." The approach is holistic, doesn't allow for the denigration of the physical, treats spiritual perception as normal rather than as exceptional, and emphasizes God's ongoing presence and sustaining interaction with people.

This may be one more reason I hold the position I currently hold.
 
Upvote 0

AzA

NF | NT
Aug 4, 2008
1,540
95
✟24,721.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I hear you, Tinker.

Personally, I've never seen the whole separation/unity dichotomy as having much substance. To me, it seems like the two views compliment each other, rather than necessarily being opposed to each other.
Yep: an inclusivist view draws a big circle around both rather than leaving one on the inside and one on the outside. One expands the meaning of the other.
 
Upvote 0

twmws

Member
May 26, 2009
7
0
46
Colorado Springs, Colorado
✟22,617.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Believes God created evolution, espcially in animals. Do I believe humans evolved from monkeys, um well not really. Have humans evolved, well yes, our brains have gotten bigger and with science we are living longer and in some cases grown taller than say 200 yrs ago.
 
Upvote 0

wiggsfly

Walking the tightrope of life
Nov 20, 2005
3,187
158
✟4,140.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I have also questioned my faith (as I think all of us do whether we admit it or not). The key is to remember that science was originally pursued to explain God's methodology. It wasn't until later that as humans learned more of how God works in our world that they decided their knowledge of his methods was enough to dicredit his existence.
 
Upvote 0

AzA

NF | NT
Aug 4, 2008
1,540
95
✟24,721.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Hey Tinker --
I was doing some work just now, came across a short passage in some of my notes, and thought of you and our conversation here. The passage gets at some of the integrated ideas we had the other day.

Hope you're doing well!

The statement is by a guy named Ervin Laszlo; I think he's done some pretty cool work in the area of systems theory and the integration of science, philosophy, and human society. There's a little book of his I read several months ago: The Systems View of the World: A Holistic Vision for Our Time. Short, provocative; you might check it out.
 
Upvote 0

Bick

Member
Site Supporter
Mar 14, 2005
241
13
Garden Grove, California, USA
✟2,141.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Politics
US-Republican

MY COMMENTS: My friend, you are not alone in what you are going through; I have read testimonies of others with similar stories.

There is a Christian organization, Reasons to Believe, whose web site is
www.reasons.org. It is staffed by Pres. Hugh Ross, PhD in Astronomy, Vice-Pres. Fazale Rana, PhD in Biology, Dave Rogstad, PhD in Physics and other scientists who are Christians.

They are evangelical in doctrine, and through lectures, radio talks, and publications, they present the view that science and the Bible are not at odds, but are compatible.

I would urge you, wblastyn and others, go to their web site and be enlightened as to the truth in God's Word, as well as nature. For all truth originates with God.

Here is a quote from one of their advertisment brochures:

"Even though scientific research as conducted at major universities follows the rules (worldview) of naturalism, this research points again and again to a reality beyond nature. Indicators of a transcendent, purposeful, personal Creator have grown to overwhelming proportions. Nontheists (and antitheists) at the cutting edge are perplexed. Yet most people outside the scientific community---and even many specialists within it---are unaware of the magnitude of the evidence."

Many excellent publications can be purchased over the internet.

Blessings, Bick
 
Upvote 0

Tinker Grey

Wanderer
Site Supporter
Feb 6, 2002
11,735
6,290
Erewhon
Visit site
✟1,140,608.00
Faith
Atheist

Thank you for thinking of me. Things are going well. I hope you can say the same.

Since you recommend it, I might look into the book. But, I must say that that quote doesn't seem all that promising. Seems like he is engaging in mind reading. Perhaps with more context it sounds better.

Seriously, logical and rational people can't appreciate a sunset?

That passage is bit too black and white.
 
Upvote 0

AzA

NF | NT
Aug 4, 2008
1,540
95
✟24,721.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
He's saying that people are different, and also that people are multifaceted. He's also saying that a framework that requires people to jettison Facet A in favor of Facet B, even when Facet A may be more appropriate in a certain context, does those people a disservice. Much post-secondary education privileges analytics, linear logic, knowledge by dissection. That has helped us to know a lot and in that knowing we've come to know that there are other ways to know!

Of course logical people enjoy sunsets; I certainly do. My analytic brain isn't oozing out of my ear while I'm experiencing a sunset with all my senses and intuitive side. My linear mind is simply not my lead tool in that moment; I have another tool to use and so lead with that.

In that section Laszlo is suggesting is that as a collective we've built up an overdependence on analytic when our synthetic side also has amazing gifts to bring us. And so collectively we will profit by reintegrating.

Watched a fascinating TED presentation the other day on the respective processing contributions of left and right brain hemispheres, described by a neurobiologist who'd observed herself during a stroke and recovery.

I do say Laszlo and other systemic writers may provoke you, lol (his is both a description and a manifesto, and manifestos often push the boat way out into the sea). But give it a shot and let's chat about it. It does not disparage logic; it simply proposes that logic is not the Sum and that an approach that accommodates the composite as well as its parts provides a more comprehensive picture of what's around us and what we're a part of.

I like that it doesn't denigrate the linear approach because this means it's not taking the low and easy road of doing the same pooping-on-the-other that the analytic framework has often done to the intuitive and relational approach. I wouldn't find it credible if it did "poopy."

The majority of the book, though, is less about this issue, and more about describing the several layers of systems we can see in the world (human beings included). It's a good stretch for that description alone... and interestingly, the description itself is linear!
 
Upvote 0