The Central Paradox of All Faiths

[sealchan]

well yeah.....using the Name for lesser intents could be hazardous

I believe the Name is synonymous to......I AM!
as a declaration

and that declaration is synonymous to.....Let there be light!
as consequence to the action of Self awareness

and we should be careful as we approach that Name

I suspect …..It....responds to us
as if we are reflections

and if our reflections are not …..pleasant
if our reflection is blurred or distorted

the mirror can be broken

Name = existence...as if nouns invoke being in our consciousness although this seems like a cheap stunt somehow. When God had Adam name the animals (Genesis 2:19-20) that is the name that they had. Why did God do this?

In Matthew 5:33-37, Jesus says not to make an oath, not to invoke something or someone else to bolster the value and reliability of your own promise. Would that not move to corrupt the value of that which you unfairly invoked when at one time or another you fail to live up to your word?

 

[sealchan]

No, I will NEVER be able to be perfect until I get power from Jesus, when I meet him. Let's be logical--I can be a Christian 1,000 years--and just as you shall--I will sometimes obey my conscience and sometimes disobey its promptings (sin, imperfection).

Because I trust Jesus for salvation, He will give me power to never sin anymore when I need it (to enter a moral and physical utopia where I cannot harm fellow citizens).

I didn't mean to imply that Jesus perfects us as a final outcome...I meant that Jesus leads us towards perfection. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[sealchan]

Yes we can. If there is only one.

Yes.

Now all we need is for the believers in the world's religions who don't already know this to get a clue.

 

[firedragon]

Yes.

Now all we need is for the believers in the world's religions who don't already know this to get a clue.

Great.

Cheers.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Anyway any sincere thoughts welcome.

Never heard of this before, but then I'm not familiar with that line of thinking. Why not just say God, if that's what you mean?

May I help?

It's a garment, a material trapping, fringes on God's leather jacket... a Name helps the human mind attach to it.

For belief systems that encourage detachment.. the Name becomes much less important.

This has many explanations given by Baha'u'llah, which translated means "Glory of God" or "Glory of the Lord".

Attachment to Names is one of our failings.

In short we can know nothing of God, as God is beyond our capacity of knowledge and it is the Names (Messengers) God has given His message through that become all we can know of God.

This is why a Baha'i will offer that one needs to study the person, life and message given by the Messenger. That Name, in the age it is revealed, is the "Self of God".

All praise we give to any Messenger and all praise we give to God in Faith all reverts back to all those Names.

It is a massive subject and the Kitab-i-Iqan given by Baha'u'llah is all about this concept.

We tend to mangle the original intent of the Message that the Names of God gave us.

Regards Tony

 

[Skwim]

It's an earth-centric view certainly so it was only true for Earthlings to begin with.

So what? It's still a truth.

Not all truths change from completely totally true to completely totally not true. That probably never happens.

Interesting. How about showing us an instance when a truth changes to a somewhat truth, or a kind of truth, or a partial truth, OR . . . . a non-truth.

Will 2 + 2 = 4 always be true?

Yup.

.

 

[sealchan]

So what? It's still a truth.


Interesting. How about showing us an instance when a truth changes to a somewhat truth, or a kind of truth, or a partial truth, OR . . . . a non-truth.


Yup.

.

Far be it for me to dissuade you from your Earth-bound, grounded practicality. It works just fine where we all are most of the time.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I didn't mean to imply that Jesus perfects us as a final outcome...I meant that Jesus leads us towards perfection. Sorry for the confusion.

Is there confusion, still? My understanding from the Bible is now imperfect despite any sanctification, future perfect at the Rapture.

 

[Skwim]

Far be it for me to dissuade you from your Earth-bound, grounded practicality. It works just fine where we all are most of the time.

Just as I figured, when asked to put up, you clam up.

.

 

[sojourner]

I've had an audacious thought that naturally wants me to let it loose on the Internet...

The central revelation of all religion is the understanding and preservation of the meaning and value of the Name and that to which it refers. Meaning arises from the Name being good and valuable and in some way belonging to its knower. The meaning of the Name must not be sullied by associations with what is bad or of no value. In truth the Name pervades all things in such a way that the right mental effort yields value in all things THROUGH the Name.

The Name is knowable but not finally reducible to any other specific physical object or mental idea. It is, in this sense, immune to critique or corruption even as it is ephemeral in the extreme. Those who literalize or otherwise try to anchor the subject of the Name to an idea or physical reality create the potential for the corruption of that name. At the same time it requires a continuous diligence in our hearts and minds not to want to corrupt the Name in exactly this way.

Anyway any sincere thoughts welcome.

I think I agree with you, but I’m just trying to wrap my head around what you mean by “name.”

 

[sojourner]

The Name is simply the name of God or of some central principle of why and how things work. Buddha-nature, etc. Whatever that central WORD is (plus that "thing" which it is meant to refer to), it has the quality of the NAME.

J. Philip Newell puts it really well: “There is a tune, deep in the human soul, that we are being invited to remember.” (Speaking of the note, or frequency, or “word” of creation that comes forth from the Source of being)

 

[sealchan]

Just as I figured, when asked to put up, you clam up.

.

From my point of view I already answered this question. I just took it that your own bias toward common-sense, practical perspectives didn't allow you to grant me the acknowledgment that even your common-sense language was full of bias in a technical sense. This technical sense isn't important in most cases. As a math and physics major, once upon a time, I may be more impressed with this sort of example than you are.

It is trivial to come up with isolated facts that, for all intents and purposes, will never seem to change from being a fact.

What is non-trivial and much more consequential to one's epistemology is to address the "facts" of more complex situations which are much more bias or arbitrary standards laden. It is much more difficult to claim that truths do not change with each new piece of information added to such situations.

My clamming up was meant to be a courtesy, but I see it was taken as an affront, perhaps, as a dismissal on my part.

 

[sealchan]

I think I agree with you, but I’m just trying to wrap my head around what you mean by “name.”

My focus on the word "name" comes from my limited study of dreams involving God. I recently posted about it here:

The God Dream

In this thread which is a re-posting of a thread from another forum, I describe a set of motifs that I find are common to those dreams I have encountered which literally involve God or a God-like being in some way.

I might have said that knowing God was the central paradox or that knowing one's self is the central paradox or the nature of being. But my using the word "Name" was meant to try to transcend the distinction. Assigning a name to something as ephemeral or unsubstantial as one's self or a God or the Way is a particularly interesting example of something that is very common place. We all have personal names and names for places and objects. But psychologically, for us human beings, so much is riding on our association to our names and our names are also dependent on our sense of our relationship to that which is ultimate,

All the major religions seem to have a centrally important divine person or principle that is named. Trying to define what that name is pointing to exactly often turns into mystical somersaults of rationality, which might be acceptable in small doses but becomes mind-numbing when contemplated too long. Its as if certain things that we name if we try to rationally describe them runs us off the tracks of rationality altogether...and yet these ultimate things are so vitally important to us.

Another thread gets at what is mythical even in secular society:

The Modern Myth

Many of today's mythic concepts might share the same qualities of the "Name" so if you believe in "consciousness" or "free will" you have this idea that is highly important but impossible to rationally define or talk about. I see that as a paradox.

 

[Skwim]

My clamming up was meant to be a courtesy, but I see it was taken as an affront, perhaps, as a dismissal on my part.

Nope. Just as an excuse to avoid my challenges:

1) How does something true become untrue?

2) How does the truth that on November 12, 2019 the moon was full become an untruth?

3) How about showing us an instance when a truth changes to a somewhat truth, or a kind of truth, or a partial truth, OR . . . . a non-truth.​

Not that I expect a straight answer to any of these, but I'm willing to be surprised.


.

 

[sealchan]

Nope. Just as an excuse to avoid my challenges:

1) How does something true become untrue?

2) How does the truth that on November 12, 2019 the moon was full become an untruth?

3) How about showing us an instance when a truth changes to a somewhat truth, or a kind of truth, or a partial truth, OR . . . . a non-truth.​

Not that I expect a straight answer to any of these, but I'm willing to be surprised.


.

The fact that you think you would be surprised by me not giving a straight answer is a little insulting. I don't think you are recognizing that I have given you a direct answer only it was not the one that you were expecting perhaps.



Here is a second effort that, no doubt, won't seem satisfying...

1)
Something true becomes untrue often when one learns new information or gains a new perspective

2)
That truth is dependent on local (tribal?) perspective and arbitrary standards (calendar). It is also a good example of an inconsequential fact that does not have any controversy to it because it is established in fairly universal standards of description. As such it makes for a poor example of other statements that are not so definable by universal standards yet are highly more consequential to those who find themselves at a disparity as to the truth or value of those statements. In this sense, your example is not representative of truth statements in such a way that it makes a convincing argument. I do grant that within the confines of arbitrary standards and the local perspective all known people (us Earthlings) it is an enduring truth...as trivial as it is.

3)
As I am sure you are aware of Newtonian mechanics seemed like a complete description of physical motion in a gravitational field until relativity and quantum mechanics was developed. Of course, the discovery of the latter didn't cause all the buildings built based on the former to suddenly collapse because Newtonian mechanics. This is because Newtonian mechanics is "true enough" within the practical parameters for human beings in their environment to have reliable architecture.

There are also countless examples of people who, with a passion, will tell themselves that something is true about another person and even go so far as to warn others..."don't trust him"..."that person isn't truthful"...etc. Only later they discover that because they were lied to by a trusted source or that they sincerely misunderstood something which normally would indicate a problem only in this case it was entirely misleading. Such occurrences happen with a high frequency as we pass through the world full of people and events and try to understand what we should and should not concern ourselves with and why. It is, perhaps, in this realm where truth is most changeable from one end of the true-false spectrum to the other.

If this doesn't work for you, I think we should agree to disagree. You can think you didn't get a fair answer and I will think that you were too biased to recognize the answer you were given.

By the way, keep up the posts showing hypocrisy in Christianity. I sincerely appreciate them.

 

[Bird123]

But where does truth lead? To a nice neat rational system that can supply the answers to all necessary questions? Or are there so many strings left dangling that to hold onto any of them is futile and even that vital sense that we need to know that we are a meaningful part of existence is to be deferred until the deadline of all deferrals arrives?

Can anyone truly live in that vacuum of meaning?

The answers to everything surround us all. If one is waiting for Discovery to come to one instead of actively searching, one will truly be in a vacuum. There would be nothing to do except make up beliefs and live in the box one attempts to create around oneself. On the other hand, a need will be created that will get us to leave that box in order to realize truth. Has anyone out there been getting any needs that forces you into action?

Remember, we choose the lessons we learn through our choices. First one must learn to crawl. On the other hand, doesn't a hungry student learn and advance much quicker???

That's what I see.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Imo violence is the paradox, a spy vs spy thing.

 

[Martin]

I've had an audacious thought that naturally wants me to let it loose on the Internet...

The central revelation of all religion is the understanding and preservation of the meaning and value of the Name and that to which it refers. Meaning arises from the Name being good and valuable and in some way belonging to its knower. The meaning of the Name must not be sullied by associations with what is bad or of no value. In truth the Name pervades all things in such a way that the right mental effort yields value in all things THROUGH the Name.

The Name is knowable but not finally reducible to any other specific physical object or mental idea. It is, in this sense, immune to critique or corruption even as it is ephemeral in the extreme. Those who literalize or otherwise try to anchor the subject of the Name to an idea or physical reality create the potential for the corruption of that name. At the same time it requires a continuous diligence in our hearts and minds not to want to corrupt the Name in exactly this way.

Anyway any sincere thoughts welcome.

Naming might be inevitable, but the process of naming inevitably leads to having to define the thing or experience being named.
I think names can be useful as a placeholder or pointer, but I don't think they should be taken too literally, or attached to.

 

[sealchan]

The answers to everything surround us all. If one is waiting for Discovery to come to one instead of actively searching, one will truly be in a vacuum. There would be nothing to do except make up beliefs and live in the box one attempts to create around oneself. On the other hand, a need will be created that will get us to leave that box in order to realize truth. Has anyone out there been getting any needs that forces you into action?

Remember, we choose the lessons we learn through our choices. First one must learn to crawl. On the other hand, doesn't a hungry student learn and advance much quicker???

That's what I see.

I think that you correct in so far as one should always strive to be open to learning more, that our ignorance surrounds us at every turn. But answers are certainly not there to be had when and where we need them no matter how hard we look for them unless we allow ourselves a measure of faith.

Even a lifelong effort to be objective and open wont always do it. We cannot afford to wait for certainty and objectivity in all things. I would argue that while such an attitude is commendable, it is, in the end, much more than impractical.

 

[sealchan]

Naming might be inevitable, but the process of naming inevitably leads to having to define the thing or experience being named.
I think names can be useful as a placeholder or pointer, but I don't think they should be taken too literally, or attached to.

I think that to develop a healthy sense of self worth requires us to engage in the management of our own name's value and meaning. Religion is a sort of practice for how to do this with a divine Other such that we can also do this for our essential Self.

As children and young adults we find our own meaning as we also learn rules of decency and fair play that simultaneously upholds our own value and the value of others. We have, of course, the more advanced lesson that we are important as individuals but that importance is also firmly grounded in what we can do for others. We can, in this sense, learn to transcend labels, but one cannot transcend that which they first have not achieved some sense of mastery.

I dont think that most people end up successfully defining themselves or their divine Others. It is always a work in progress, an art and the subject and the canvas seem to change over time.