sandandfoam
Veteran Member
I believe in the idea of God. I believe that this idea is real to me. I believe in the universe around me. Does the 'theist' label apply to someone who holds these views?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Could you translate this to: "God is real to me"?I believe in the idea of God. I believe that this idea is real to me.
You'd be amazed how many people believe in the universe..I believe in the universe around me.
I know I wouldn't be calling you atheist... but that was not your question, right?Does the 'theist' label apply to someone who holds these views?
Why would you want a label?I believe in the idea of God. I believe that this idea is real to me. I believe in the universe around me. Does the 'theist' label apply to someone who holds these views?
I believe in the idea of God. I believe that this idea is real to me. I believe in the universe around me. Does the 'theist' label apply to someone who holds these views?
I disagree with this last part. Gnosis and Agnosticism are intricately woven together.Agnosticism is not to be confused with a view specifically opposing the doctrine of gnosis and Gnosticism—these are religious concepts that are not generally related to agnosticism.
We know what the word “agnostic” means and probably also what the word “Gnostic” means. The one denotes a claim not to know what most people think they know, the other a claim to know what most people do not dream of knowing. They might sound far distant from one another, even polar opposites. But this morning I mean to suggest that they are one and the same.
And the agnostic shares this knowledge with the Gnostic. The main difference, as I hope to show, is one of terminology, and of mythology. The ancient Gnostics, claimers of esoteric knowledge, could not yet escape the mythic form of consciousness, but they did manage to do the next best thing. They escaped the gravity of the dominant myth. They managed to snap out of the collective delusion that I have just described, the supposed knowledge of the masses, of the pew potatoes . . .
But however that may be, my point is that even here the agnostic and the Gnostic are one, for the Gnostic claims to know not only the unknown but the unknowable. Tillich says the revelation to the Gnostic is not a solution of the mystery, but the revelation of that mystery as a mystery. One does not decode it; rather, one basks in it. That is something some people experience. Ontological or not, it is ontic. But at any rate it is not discursive knowledge. It is of such knowledge that the Te Tao Ching warns, “Those who know don’t say. Those who say don’t know.”
doppelgänger;1218362 said:Why would you want a label?
doppelgänger;1218362 said:Why would you want a label?
That's one reason. Though as you'll see above, it's not Stephen's main reason. I'm okay with using labels, as long as one doesn't start thinking they are really all that representative of what various people so labeled believe or do. That just leads to sloppy thinking and divisiveness.To give someone else a short description of his beliefs without losing half an hour and having to answer 20 questions? Isn't that were a label is for? Because that's where I use them for.
That's why I think labels are not for yourself, but for all others. Yet it seems Stephen wants the label specially for himself.doppelgänger;1218377 said:That's one reason. Though as you'll see above, it's not Stephen's main reason. I'm okay with using labels, as long as one doesn't start thinking they are really all that representative of what various people so labeled believe or do. That just leads to sloppy thinking and divisiveness.
doppelgänger;1218369 said:What the gnower knows is that no truth can be reduced to words and symbols. Thus, the gnostic knows that "God," "Tao," "Brahman," "The Absolute" all represent the fundamentally unknowable and inexpressible. By this very same knowledge, the gnostic is thereby also agnostic.
Robert M. Price has a nice essay about this: Sermon - The Agnostic a Gnostic by Robert M. Price
I think you're right.it might be better not to bother with the merry-go-round of the theist/atheist/agnostic debate, and just allow the inner life of your heart and soul its intimate privacy.
Unless and until you clarify what you mean this thread will not get very far ...I believe in the idea of God. I believe that this idea is real to me.
Good question.
I think labels can be of assistance in determining where one is at. And I'm not sure where I'm at. I'm getting there (I think).
I feel that neither the theist or atheist label (as I see them applied here) fits me. I think part of where I am at can be determined by examining my position in relation to others.
It's a little bit like when I study something,if I try to express it and find I cannot, then it indicates to me that my knowledge is not as good as I had presumed. Know what I mean?
I believe in the idea of God. I believe that this idea is real to me. I believe in the universe around me. Does the 'theist' label apply to someone who holds these views?
I believe in the idea of God. I believe that this idea is real to me. I believe in the universe around me. Does the 'theist' label apply to someone who holds these views?
That's what I do.I'd call myself whatever is most confusing to other people.
doppelgänger;1218456 said:That's what I do.