Choosing One's Beliefs

[osgart]

the bible says, 'Faith is the evidence of things not seen, and substance of things hoped for'.

so I can see choosing to believe something and than having faith in that belief could take one on one inspired journey, transcending the mundane of the physical reality.

you choose to have faith in some ideal concept, and that faith takes you on some kind of journey that bears the fruits of that faith in that concept.
whereas having no faith whatsoever, you simply take things as is, and never really journey into any higher possibilities.

for me, I would have to substantiate that faith with evidence in the real world in order to take a faith journey of believing in something. But if it's inspiring enough I may take the journey anyway and risk being trampled under foot.

 

[Dantedeven]

For to see the truth is to see your own faults.
And teach yourself to recognize them.
The noble man is always honest towards himself.
And always seeks refuge within the Lord.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't even choose that, it's just who I am.

This is a bit fatalistic. I doubt if anyone actually fully knows themselves any more than they can truly know anyone else.

'To say yes or no is to be immobile on two feet.' - paraphrased from the Gita.

 

[shunyadragon]

For to see the truth is to see your own faults.
And teach yourself to recognize them.
The noble man is always honest towards himself.
And always seeks refuge within the Lord.

I am dubious of the use of 'truth' here as well as anywhere from the fallible human perspective.

I do not believe the 'Lord' offers refuge. To seek 'refuge' is to avoid the journey without justification for ones self, nor what one believes.

 

[Willamena]

This is a bit fatalistic.

Fatalistic is, "What will be will be." It's not, "What is is."

The future "is not," it hasn't happened yet.

I doubt if anyone actually fully knows themselves any more than they can truly know anyone else.

Then there's belief.

 

[shunyadragon]

Fatalistic is, "What will be will be." It's not, "What is is."

I do not see any difference. 'What is' and 'what will be is' a continuum without distinction.

 

[Willamena]

I do not see any difference. 'What is' and 'what will be is' a continuum without distinction.

That's a difference.

 

[PureX]

I am dubious of the use of 'truth' here as well as anywhere from the fallible human perspective.

I do not believe the 'Lord' offers refuge. To seek 'refuge' is to avoid the journey without justification for ones self, nor what one believes.

I think the "refuge" being referred to is the Divine Spirit as it manifests within us.

 

[PureX]

I am dubious of the use of 'truth' here as well as anywhere from the fallible human perspective.

We humans often use the word "truth" when what we are actually referring to is honesty.

 

[shunyadragon]

We humans often use the word "truth" when what we are actually referring to is honesty.

In this reference in the context of two two different lines 'truth' refers to truth,' and 'honesty refers to honesty.'

 

[shunyadragon]

I think the "refuge" being referred to is the Divine Spirit as it manifests within us.

I go with the word as is unless the author provides their interpretation.

 

[Willamena]

I go with the word as is unless the author provides their interpretation.

"As it is" is an interpretation.

 

[shunyadragon]

"As it is" is an interpretation.

Not coherent. From this perspective you are proposing a language of chaotic interpretation. The English language is based on definitions and context of how words are defined. It is ok to use words in creative interpretive ways, but context is important, and yes, an explanation is often needed to put the meaning of words in esoteric meaning.

It would be very laborious to read very much writing without coherent context and meaning. Something like reading 'Finnegan's Wake,' which I studying, but it in itself is too laborious to just read.

 

[Milton Platt]

We can all know THAT we don't know even if we don't know WHAT we don't know.

If you're looking for an excuse not to believe me, you don't need one. Your are free to believe whatever you wish. If you're looking for an excuse to pretend that you know the truth even though you know you could be wrong, you don't need one. You can pretend whatever you want. But the fact that you think you do need an excuse, and justification, lends credibility to my original observation. And the fact that you have found yourself to be wrong about what you thought was true in the past, does also.

How do you know what you just wrote is true?

 

[PureX]

How do you know what you just wrote is true?

Do I have to know? Or can I just believe it so long as it 'works' as true in my limited experience and understanding of existence?