Is Faith Valuable?

[nonbeliever_92]

It's something you'd have to experience, yourself, to fully understand.

Apparently it's something i'd have to experience, not understand it, yet attribute it to god.

Well, I was just a child when I "experienced God". And I can only speak for myself. But I knew that what I was experiencing was God, instantly. I can't explain how I knew this. I just knew it. So I began singing. I didn't know what else to do. I saw people sing "to God" in church, so that's what I did. I was only about 6 years old. I also was not frightened. Somehow I was given to know that what was happening would only happen with my permission. If I wanted the experience to stop, it would. And I remember making the decision to deliberately let it go on because I wasn't at all frightened by it. And so it continued.

I might sound like a jerk right now, but idgaf.
Many people have experiences, especially when they're younger, that they may consider supernatural (you use the term spiritual,so supernatural is not so off base) but many people also have experiences that they cannot explain and unfortunately they give it a label, kids do this most of all, in fact childhood seems to be the beginning and the height for the "god of the gaps" fallacy. Becuase they don't know better, children let their imaginations fill in the holes of their knowledge (watch Kids Say the Darndest Things) usually these things are pretty mundane and easily fixable. But when parents drive it into their kids head that there are god(s) that do wondrous, fantastic things and then the child experiences something fantastic, then the child uses that "god" to fill in the hole of them not knowing the source of the experience. Of course a predisposition to dieties is not necessary if pretty much anyone experiences something they cannot explain that seems pretty fantastic, they'll attribute it to something supernatural (although i've seen super rational people pretend to have the answer for something by explaining it with a quite natural conclusion they'd just made up.)

It was an amazing and transcendent experience that I would find both difficult and embarrassing to describe. But the point is that the experience was real,

This is fine, I never said that the experience wasn't real, that was never the point.

and so was the knowing that it was "God" at the time. Now that I'm an adult, I'm still puzzled by it. And I still can't explain it. And I can still be skeptical of it.

You can't explain it yet you know that it was god??? Thank You for finally admitting it! But seriously, you can't explain it, so you give it an explanation??? It doesn't make sense, at all. What makes it god and not a mystery?

And you're not that skeptical at all, i say this based off of your responses.

What I would call "divine" really means transcendent. Anything that helps me to transcend myself is of a divine nature. What I experienced that day was a form of physical and spiritual transcendence.

Trancending, spiritual, divine, yet all "natural" right? Are you referring to your "soul?" Is you soul a separate entity as your body?

You cannot be expected to understand what you have not experienced.

And you miss it again, I'm not trying to understand the experience, or else I would've asked about the experience, how would someone convey the experience to me anyway? I'm asking you what makes the experience "god" and you're just saying "I knew it was god" basically, if you're saying that you "just knew" that it was god, please say so. In one plain sentence.

They are not lying, and they are not mistaken.

They are lying when they say that they had an experience (not the lie yet), couldn't explain it (Almost there but still the truth), but knew it was god (there's the pretense!) If you offer explanations to unexplained phenomena, then they are no longer unexplained. If you state that the phenomenon is unexplained to you and then say that "goddidit" then you are contradicting yourself, it's a lie, unintentional, yes, but still a lie.

They are telling you what they experienced in their bodies and minds at the time.

Whoever claimed that the experience never happen please step forth, cause pureX seems to be confusing me with you.
I was never doubting the experience PureX, I was doubting the claim that it was caused by god when the claimer says that they don't know how the experience occurred in the first place. I've said this enough, I'm not repeating it.

Your godless paradigm simply can't accept what they are saying, and so has to find some other explanation. But they don't have another explanation to give you.

My paradigm can't understand why they are claiming unjustified knowledge. I'm not asking them to come up with another answer, I'm asking them to:

A) Admit that they don't have the answer

B) Admit that they call it god with good reason, and then present those reasons

C) Admit that they call it god simply because it makes them feel better.

Are these too hard to achieve?

I'm trying to understand their reasoning that "god" did something besides faith and no one, includiong you, is yet to present otherwise.

 

[PureX]

You can't explain it yet you know that it was god??? Thank You for finally admitting it! But seriously, you can't explain it, so you give it an explanation??? It doesn't make sense, at all. What makes it god and not a mystery?

Knowing it was "God" was part of the experience. You keep misunderstanding this so that you can obsess over a bit of illogic that you have conjured up for yourself. I'm not telling you that I know it was "God", now. I'm telling you I don't know what it was, but that at the time of the event, I knew it was God. Knowing this was part of the experience.

And you're not that skeptical at all, i say this based off of your responses.

I'm as puzzled as anyone. You're just ignoring it.

I'm not trying to understand the experience, or else I would've asked about the experience, how would someone convey the experience to me anyway? I'm asking you what makes the experience "god" and you're just saying "I knew it was god" basically, if you're saying that you "just knew" that it was god, please say so. In one plain sentence.

I have said so several times, now. What you failed to grasp is that the knowing came with the experience. Today, I can't explain any of it.

They are lying when they say that they had an experience (not the lie yet), couldn't explain it (Almost there but still the truth), but knew it was god (there's the pretense!) If you offer explanations to unexplained phenomena, then they are no longer unexplained. If you state that the phenomenon is unexplained to you and then say that "goddidit" then you are contradicting yourself, it's a lie, unintentional, yes, but still a lie.

This is a clever bit of sophistry, but it doesn't really work. If God is essentially a mystery, then when they claim their experience was of God, and yet was also a mystery to them, they are not contradicting themselves as you are trying so hard to suggest. Also, you keep overlooking the idea that their "knowing" it was God was a part of the experience. Therefor, they can't explain HOW they knew this any more than they can explain the rest of the experience. You're trying to imply that they must know how they know or they're lying. But this simply isn't so.

My paradigm can't understand why they are claiming unjustified knowledge. I'm not asking them to come up with another answer, I'm asking them to:

A) Admit that they don't have the answer

God is a mystery.

B) Admit that they call it god with good reason, and then present those reasons

The experience defined itself as "God".

C) Admit that they call it god simply because it makes them feel better.

They call it God because that's what the experience is to them. This doesn't make them "feel better". They're just being honest.

Are these too hard to achieve?

Your atheistic paradigm is limited and biased. As a result, you are having difficulty understanding their experience as they try to relate it and explain it to you. (I realize that the theist's paradigm is also limited and biased.)

I'm trying to understand their reasoning that "god" did something besides faith and no one, includiong you, is yet to present otherwise.

You're going to have to try and view it through their mind's eye. So far, you've only been finding fault with their view. But you can't really understand it while you're trying to find fault with it. So you don't really understand it.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

I'm telling you I don't know what it was, but that at the time of the event, I knew it was God. Knowing this was part of the experience.
I'm as puzzled as anyone. You're just ignoring it.

I'm not ignoring it, I asked before and I ask again, do you believe that the experience came from god?

. If God is essentially a mystery, then when they claim their experience was of God, and yet was also a mystery to them, they are not contradicting themselves as you are trying so hard to suggest.

It's a contradiction because they give the cause to one mystery (the experience) to another mystery ("god") yet they can't say why. Something happens that they can't explain, so they attribute it to something else they can't explain, yet will defend this standpoint securely as if it's sound. They have Unknown A and say that it's caused by Unknown B, it doesn't make sense, if it's unknown how do you attribute it to explain another unknown? What's the reasoning?

Also, you keep overlooking the idea that their "knowing" it was God was a part of the experience. Therefore, they can't explain HOW they knew this any more than they can explain the rest of the experience. You're trying to imply that they must know how they know or they're lying. But this simply isn't so.
God is a mystery.

Yes, they must know how they know or else they are not being completely honest, intellectually at least. If they don't know how then they should say they don't know. If they say that "god" did it, they should be able to explain how they know. "I just know" doesn't cut it.

The experience defined itself as "God".

The unknown presented itself as another unknown. Yeah, that made sense.

They call it God because that's what the experience is to them. This doesn't make them "feel better". They're just being honest.

No, it's honest when they say that they believe it was god, they're being dishonest when they say they "just knew."

Your atheistic paradigm is limited and biased. As a result, you are having difficulty understanding their experience as they try to relate it and explain it to you. (I realize that the theist's paradigm is also limited and biased.)
You're going to have to try and view it through their mind's eye. So far, you've only been finding fault with their view. But you can't really understand it while you're trying to find fault with it. So you don't really understand it.

Ugh, I've been through this, stop repeating this.

 

[PureX]

I'm not ignoring it, I asked before and I ask again, do you believe that the experience came from god?

I don't know, now, because I'm older and more skeptical of everything. At the time I did believe that it was "God".

It's a contradiction because they give the cause to one mystery (the experience) to another mystery ("god") yet they can't say why. Something happens that they can't explain, so they attribute it to something else they can't explain, yet will defend this standpoint securely as if it's sound. They have Unknown A and say that it's caused by Unknown B, it doesn't make sense, if it's unknown how do you attribute it to explain another unknown? What's the reasoning?

But it WAS KNOWN to them at the time it happened. That was part of the experience. And if they have not become skeptical of it since then, it still is known to them to be as it was. You can't accept this, however, because you have chosen to believe that God does not exist except as an idea. So you need some sort of objective verification to change your mind. But they don't need this. Unlike you, they have accepted the experience for what it was to them at the time. They aren't lying to you, and they aren't fools. They simply have not chosen to question the experience they had, as you have. Because for them, the experience IS their verification. And had you had the experience, yourself, you might feel the same way.

You keep saying that something happened to them that they can't explain, but they can explain it. You just can't accept their explanation.

Yes, they must know how they know or else they are not being completely honest, intellectually at least.

This is a rule that comes from your paradigm, not from theirs.

If they don't know how then they should say they don't know.

But the DO know. They just don't know how they know. So to say that they don't know would be dishonest from their perspective. Remember, it's YOU who is making the big deal of the 'how' of it. They don't care about how it happened.

If they say that "god" did it, they should be able to explain how they know. "I just know" doesn't cut it.

Yes, you keep repeating this. But is it wise to expect other people to know, appreciate, and follow the rules of your paradigm? Is it wise for you to presume that your paradigm is superior to theirs, as you do? And, you want them to admit that they don't really know what happened, but are you really willing to do the same? Or aren't you really going to go on assuming that 'God is just an idea'. I mean, if you aren't willing to sincerely question your own position, how fair is it to be insisting that other people accommodate you by questioning theirs?

The unknown presented itself as another unknown. Yeah, that made sense.

It does to them. They mystery of the experience was in keeping with the mysterious nature of "God".

No, it's honest when they say that they believe it was god, they're being dishonest when they say they "just knew."

No they aren't. That's exactly how they experienced it. They 'just knew' it was "God".

 

[nonbeliever_92]

One does not know, they believe it to be, this is the main problem here, people claiming knowledge when it is undeserved. No matter how awe inspiring or fantastic and beneficial an experiece may be, it in no way merits a god claim when they claim that they can't explain it.

 

[PureX]

I think there is confusion here regarding knowing something, and explaining it. The assumption seems to be that we can't claim to 'know' that which we can't explain the natural mechanisms of, and I believe this untrue.

I have, for example, had the pleasure of 'knowing' intimately, the body of a certain young woman. We lived together for years and I had direct physical experiences with her body. Thus, I can say that I "knew" it. Yet I can't explain it's physical mechanisms as I am not a biologist or physician. I can't explain the love I felt or why I felt it. I can't explain how my mind could memorize the feel of that body in my hands and retain that memory for decades.

My point is that to "know" something is to experience it directly. That doesn't mean we can explain that experience to others. Nor does it mean that we should be expected to. To "know" something is to testify to having experienced it. It doesn't mean that we are responsible for justifying it's existence as well.

 

[The Wizard]

I can know and be certain that faith and belief affects reality, plus individual or collective experience. It is a virtue and value, starting from the inside and outward. There is no fairytale about it... IMO. It has it's immediate and acummulative results, objectionally.

 

[Meow Mix]

I think there is confusion here regarding knowing something, and explaining it. The assumption seems to be that we can't claim to 'know' that which we can't explain the natural mechanisms of, and I believe this untrue.

I have, for example, had the pleasure of 'knowing' intimately, the body of a certain young woman. We lived together for years and I had direct physical experiences with her body. Thus, I can say that I "knew" it. Yet I can't explain it's physical mechanisms as I am not a biologist or physician. I can't explain the love I felt or why I felt it. I can't explain how my mind could memorize the feel of that body in my hands and retain that memory for decades.

My point is that to "know" something is to experience it directly. That doesn't mean we can explain that experience to others. Nor does it mean that we should be expected to. To "know" something is to testify to having experienced it. It doesn't mean that we are responsible for justifying it's existence as well.

So are you saying that experiencing an oasis in a desert is knowledge, discounting off-hand the reasonable proposition that it's a mirage?

That's what nonbeliever is attempting to convey here, I think, and I would agree with him/her: experience isn't knowledge especially when it flies in the face of other evidence.

 

[Meow Mix]

I can know and be certain that faith and belief affects reality, plus individual or collective experience. It is a virtue and value, starting from the inside and outward. There is no fairytale about it... IMO. It has it's immediate and acummulative results, objectionally.

Disagreed, reality is what it is regardless of what we believe about it and we can't alter that.

 

[The Wizard]

Disagreed, reality is what it is regardless of what we believe about it and we can't alter that.

So, this religion forum, for which you are posting has nothing to do with other people's religions or beliefs. Hmmm... It would still be here and be the same way regardless of other's beliefs. Hmmmm... So, no beliefs have taken any part in the creation of this site or the reason you're here and posting messages in the first place about other's beliefs. How interesting...

 

[Meow Mix]

So, this religion forum, for which you are posting has nothing to do with other people's religions or beliefs. Hmmm... It would still be here and be the same way regardless of other's beliefs. Hmmmm... So, no beliefs have taken any part in the creation of this site or the reason you're here and posting messages in the first place about other's beliefs. How interesting...

Perhaps I've misunderstood you. Do you believe that our beliefs alter reality directly simply by believing it; or were you simply saying that people affect reality in accordance to their beliefs?

The first is what I was objecting to, the second is obviously true.

 

[Kriya Yogi]

I think faith is only good if what you believe in makes sense, is practical, and rings true to your heart. It also is only good if you can apply the teachings you hold faith in to your life and prove it to yourself without a doubt that it holds truth. Reading scriptures are of little value if you cannot apply them to your life and see a difference that it claims. If it makes you a better and spiritual person and brings you closer to God then it is a good thing to have faith in.

It is better to explore the cool waters of God's bliss and presence within yourself then to read truths that your limited consciousness might not fully understand. Faith and belief then surely becomes true wisdom once things are experienced for yourself. My Guru always said read a little, meditate MORE!!! The same can be applied to christianity. Read a little, pray and commune more with God. Ask for his understanding more and more. Only he can uncover and show you true understanding.

 

[The Wizard]

Perhaps I've misunderstood you. Do you believe that our beliefs alter reality directly simply by believing it; or were you simply saying that people affect reality in accordance to their beliefs?

The first is what I was objecting to, the second is obviously true.

Beliefs follow the objective laws of cause and effect, as of any human action. I don't think they can alter or change natural or Universal laws though. I think this is what you were meaning, such as a belief breaking the laws of physics or something, and so I would agree with you on that part. We just had some criss crossing of expression... IMO.

If you would call everything that you're experiencing right now as a reality... then you will know where I was coming from with the post. I'm not sure how the semantics or meaning of it would be though.

 

[Meow Mix]

Beliefs follow the objective laws of cause and effect, as of any human action. I don't think they can alter or change natural or Universal laws though. I think this is what you were meaning, such as a belief breaking the laws of physics or something, and so I would agree with you on that part. We just had some criss crossing of expression... IMO.

If you would call everything that you're experiencing right now as a reality... then you will know where I was coming from with the post. I'm not sure how the semantics would go towards the meaning or definition though.

Yep, seems to me that I was just misunderstanding you. Sorry for that.

I wouldn't say that what I'm experiencing right now is necessarily reality, though hopefully my senses are giving me correct information about reality -- it's a reasonable enough assumption; or perhaps just a necessary assumption to say they do (or usually do).

I'd say though that senses can fail sometimes such as with a mirage or when a person experiences a hallucination, so I'd say it's a good idea if (like a midget at a urinal) we all kept on our toes.

 

[The Wizard]

Yep, seems to me that I was just misunderstanding you. Sorry for that.

I wouldn't say that what I'm experiencing right now is necessarily reality, though hopefully my senses are giving me correct information about reality -- it's a reasonable enough assumption; or perhaps just a necessary assumption to say they do (or usually do).

I'd say though that senses can fail sometimes such as with a mirage or when a person experiences a hallucination, so I'd say it's a good idea if (like a midget at a urinal) we all kept on our toes.

Darn, I was hoping I helped show someone something. But, you would be suprised at some people who deny it. Ironicly, the very language they use to ridicule beliefs was aided by people's lives and beliefs... their own ancestors.

So, there is really a presence of it in everything, on the cause and effect plane. This is why various yogis were correct when they said, "the beliefs in God or the Divine can be found in everything." Some people just have a problem connecting it with their own experience of Life and what they see around them. And, upon that, one must also include many other religions or beliefs. There is no bias or favoritism on my part . Even the statue of Zuess or the great pyramids are still affecting the World and people (like now), ad infinitum. I just call it Omni-presence.

 

[Kriya Yogi]

So, there is really a presence of it in everything, on the cause and effect plane. This is why various yogis were correct when they said, "the beliefs in God or the Divine can be found in everything." Some people just have a problem connecting it with their own experience of Life and what they see around them. And, upon that, one must also include many other religions or beliefs. There is no bias or favoritism on my part . Even the statue of Zuess or the great pyramids are still affecting the World and people (like now), ad infinitum. I just call it Omni-presence.

This is very true. Faith has to be cultivated or rather uncovered within us. It is there to be brought out. If they would just watch their life they would see the in-numerable ways in which God works through it; their faith will thus be strengthened. Few people look for his hidden hand or consider the course of events as natural and inevitable, even though their prayer was blantantly answered.

 

[The Wizard]

This is very true. Faith has to be cultivated or rather uncovered within us. It is there to be brought out. If they would just watch their life they would see the in-numerable ways in which God works through it; their faith will thus be strengthened. Few people look for his hidden hand or consider the course of events as natural and inevitable, even though their prayer was blantantly answered.

Very insightful and true. Many look for the evidence without examining the subtle and invisable planes of cause and effect. They look for some physical deity when the connection is within someone, but plays it's role in objective creation on the outside world when taken as a reality. I noticed your avatar, I have only gotton to the third eye and love it... including the chi.. the rest is beyond me though.

 

[Kriya Yogi]

Very insightful and true. Many look for the evidence without examining the subtle and invisable planes of cause and effect. They look for some physical deity when the connection is within someone, but plays it's role in objective creation on the outside world when taken as a reality. I noticed your avatar, I have only gotton to the third eye and love it... including the chi.. the rest is beyond me though.

Thank you! I have witnessed my own prayers being answered to many times to count. So you meditate on Chakras huh? My avatar symbolizes to me the astral spine and the creative life force awakening the spiritual centers in our spines. When all are illumined your being is illumined as well.

 

[The Wizard]

Thank you! I have witnessed my own prayers being answered to many times to count. So you meditate on Chakras huh? My avatar symbolizes to me the astral spine and the creative life force awakening the spiritual centers in our spines. When all are illumined your being is illumined as well.

I have my concentration points and principles, yes. Everything I experience revolves around what most deem as the third eye chakra. The creative life force is what I call chi energy, but I have heard it refferred to as, prana, orgone, cosmic, etc... IMO. Incorporated with prayer or intention, it can help things come into fruition.

I have never achieved all of those center points at once though... I suppose such is also related to the art of Kundalini. I could be wrong.

 

[Kriya Yogi]

I have my concentration points and principles, yes. Everything I experience revolves around what most deem as the third eye chakra. The creative life force is what I call chi energy, but I have heard it refferred to as, prana, orgone, cosmic, etc... IMO. Incorporated with prayer or intention, it can help things come into fruition.

I have never achieved all of those center points at once though... I suppose such is also related to the art of Kundalini. I could be wrong.

Yes I meditate and try to attune my consciousness on the third eye as well. I have not gotten to that point in Kriya yet where you mantra the inner sounds of the chakra as you focus on those spiritual centers. Instead I meditate on pulling my chi from the base chakra with my breath in which all our life force is connected and raise it up through the astral spine through the chakras up to the spiritual eye and back down to the base of the spine. This causes a magnetic pull of my consciousness from outward normal human experience to allow experience of inner God presence or his bliss. Through deep practice and devotion for God this magnet in the spine becomes stronger and stronger until your body is fully equipped to experience the shock of superconscious samadhi. Some day like everyone I hope to get there.