| Subject: | [socialcredit] The mind of God | | Date: | Wednesday, August 31, 2005 11:00:16 (-0600) | | From: | Chick Hurst <chickhurst @....ca>
|
Jim Said; "Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life."
Chick says; anyone can say the same thing; in the name of Christianity,
several people have claimed the same or similar things, most modern day
evangelists and the infallibility of the Pope for example.
Jim said; The man/God - Jesus - is a necessity to bring man to God. Without
Jesus, and the trinity, man is lost searching for the Truth,"
Chick said; [This] can only be assumed to be true if you are Jim or of the
same mindset as Jim."
Chick says; Hindu person, Jew person, Muslim person, Buddha person, Jain
person, whoever person, can very easily reject this statement of Jim's
because they do not hold to the importance of Jesus.
Jim said: Let's explore this statement further, and it has to do with the
nature of the truth. Now a half truth is not the truth. You further went
on to define the truth with the following statement:
" Deng Ming Dao says about Truth: "There are three levels of truth;
Experience, reasoning, and knowing. All other assertions should be
> rejected.
Jim said: The first two definitions of the truth can be rejected outright.
Not one of us gathers enough experience to know the truth. We are limited
by perceptions, age, geography .........
Chick asks: Does this mean that the flood in New Orleans is the figment of
the imagination. I would strongly suggest that this is a very real truth.
I have lost the use of an eye. I know people who have lost limbs. Is Jim
saying that this is not truth; that it is in fact the figment of the
imagination?
If I go up on a mountain and meet face to face with God and he gives me
stone tablets with the ten commandments on them is that different from
Moses, if so how? If I go into the wilderness and wrestle with the devil,
how is that different from the experience of Jesus, or anyone else?
If I have no right to make claims of enlightenment, the meeting with God, or
the wrestling with inner demons, then, how can anyone, including those who
wrote the bible about any of the characters in their book?
Jim said: Reason alone cannot find the truth as is demonstrated by Godel's
theorem: The only thing that can be proven with absolute certainty is that
nothing can be proven with absolute certainty.
Chick asks: If this is true, then why are we expected to believe the
theories of Einstein, Newton, Douglas or anyone else? Is it not, only by
reason that we are able to study the wisdom of others and glean from it what
we are able to reason as truth from all our learning, perceptions,
understanding, etc, and try to accept part or all of it as a truth and from
there continue to advance that learning to teach and build a better society?
Jim wrote: The last definition is more intriguing. Knowledge is defined by
Chick as:
"There is a third type of truth that is different from these two. This is a
way of direct spiritual knowing. Wholly internal, this mode is the direct
experiencing of truth through the opening of higher faculties. Meditation
gives one perceptions of absolute certainty. There is no doubt of need of
other investigations; this knowledge is beyond words, descriptions, and
rationalization. In fact one must be careful not to let the fruits of one's
meditation pass into the realm of rationalization. This will subject you to
the relativity of external truths and ruin your confidence. To avoid doubts
and conflicting opinions, followers of Tao keep their revelations secret.
Then what is known directly is absolutely yours."
Jim said: This method of obtaining Truth Kierkegaard describes as Socratic
(it is also the method of the Buddhist). To Socrates, the truth was already
in us, but we have forgotten what we already knew, and it was only a matter
of recollection of the truth. This means that the truth lies in all of us
waiting to be remembered if we focus our attention towards our inner truth.
In other words, one become one with truth (God) by becoming that truth
himself in a state of "nirvana".
Chick says: I don't think this is exactly right. I am not a Buddhist master
but the way I understand it is that one does not become one with God in a
state of enlightenment, or nirvana, the term used in Hindu and Brahman, but
one is already one with God and one learns this through enlightenment. Even
Jesus said that the truth is within, as is the highest temple.
Jim Said: The contrary position is that man is born in error (sin), and the
truth does not exist in man, but exists outside of him. In this event, a
teacher becomes of the outmost importance, because without a reference
point, there can be no truth. In this instance the teacher (Jesus Christ)
must be the Truth itself (God). The Truth which transcends time must enter
time in order to teach those in time who are in error, and the Truth then
becomes a paradox.
Chick says and asks: This to can be rejected outright by at least 80% of the
world's population, those who do not consider themselves Christians.
Also, time is a human scientific theory; the same as is the law of Gravity,
or relativity, reasoned and expanded upon by man. If we must reject
reasoning as a method of learning truth, then must we not reject the
statement? Time is a human scientific theory; the same as is the law of
Gravity, or relativity, reasoned and expanded upon by man. If we must
reject reasoning as a truth, then must we not reject the statement?
If we accept time as an element of God or as being God, then are we not
accepting that man is one with God? If that is the case, regardless of who
we are, do we not learn from both the other humans as well as from our
relationship with God? If we reject our oneness with God, then are we not,
perhaps, considering that God is a separate entity and perhaps the teachings
of the ancient Taoist masters are true? If that is the case, is God not
whatever we perceive God to be? And is God not then one with Tao, as is
everything else. Tao is the term used to describe the absolute, which can
not be worshiped, and God being the deity that can be worshiped.
Jim said: The question then becomes is man capable of becoming the Truth
(God) by recollection of what one forgot, or is it necessary for God to
enter time to teach man (i.e. God becomes immanent).
One [school of thought] believes that man is less than God and needs
salvation, while the other belief system dictates that one is equal with God
and has God "in him".
Chick says: There is a difference between being one with God and being
equal to or with God. I would think that if the human being considered them
self equal with God, that human could reject God outright and totally
unnecessary because if one is equal then one is just as good as and,
considering man's ego, makes God redundant. Perhaps I am wrong, but, my
learning indicates that the human is constantly searching and believing in
that one thing that is bigger and better than it's self.
Chick
|
The mind of God
Reply to this message