"Seek me and you will fine me"..."Seek me and you won't find me"

[Orias]

Even in a perceived insincerity, one will always speak with certain sincerity.

Whether or not it applies to further your understanding, or her understanding, or both.

I do not believe there is such a thing as an insincere seeker, such a person would not seek (to find God), they just seek to see how others find God. Which in essence, is not completely insincere.

 

[Pegg]

What I want to know is how one can be an insincere seeker.

It doesn't really seem logical, and by that I mean it doesn't seem like something that could exist.

some only ask questions to start arguments or to express their sarcasm.

some don't really want an answer...eg, when Pilate asked Jesus 'what is truth'? Jesus knew that pilate wasnt asking a sincere question, but rather making a statement to the effect that truth cannot be found.

some are looking for the purpose of point scoring or finding faults.

there are many ways to be an insincere seeker.

 

[Thief]

Even in a perceived insincerity, one will always speak with certain sincerity.

Whether or not it applies to further your understanding, or her understanding, or both.

I do not believe there is such a thing as an insincere seeker, such a person would not seek (to find God), they just seek to see how others find God. Which in essence, is not completely insincere.

Check the motivation.
The spirit in the question reveals the mind and heart.

 

[Orias]

See I had a similar encounter with a guy on facebook who was a spiritual teacher, but he saw my questions as insincere when I expected an honest answer.

I think post #41 can contribute to that. You're right about people wishing to express their sarcasm or start arguments but thats just the way the some people find the answers they are looking for. Its not about being content to accept whatever is imposed upon them, but willing to go an extra length just to make sure. Its testing the steel of a blade before using it in battle.

In the end, I think people that conclude in someone asking an insincere question are ultimately concluding that they don't wish to give a sincere answer.

 

[Orias]

Check the motivation.
The spirit in the question reveals the mind and heart.

What is motivation enough?

Asking insincere questions or asking no questions at all?

How does one know unless they do not express, and others are not around to observe this expression?

Insincerity comes with indifference, and indifference comes with the inability to perceive a motivational stimulus. Thus if a person were truly insincere, they would not go through the lengths to understand what the others perceive, thus they would not care to start an argument or rely what they feel is being communed to them.

Seekers on both ends, need to understand each other in order to attain a more complete understanding of that which they are specifically seeking.

 

[Pegg]

]
In the end, I think people that conclude in someone asking an insincere question are ultimately concluding that they don't wish to give a sincere answer.[/COLOR]

or they would prefer to avoid an argument

 

[Thief]

See I had a similar encounter with a guy on facebook who was a spiritual teacher, but he saw my questions as insincere when I expected an honest answer.

I think post #41 can contribute to that. You're right about people wishing to express their sarcasm or start arguments but thats just the way the some people find the answers they are looking for. Its not about being content to accept whatever is imposed upon them, but willing to go an extra length just to make sure. Its testing the steel of a blade before using it in battle.

In the end, I think people that conclude in someone asking an insincere question are ultimately concluding that they don't wish to give a sincere answer.

Well....that 'cuts' people a lot of slack.

Still..in this playing field called debate....
Many participants are here for the sarcasm and nay saying.
It makes them feel better.
And they are not sincerely seeking God.

 

[Orias]

or they would prefer to avoid an argument

But what good is avoiding an argument if it leaves the opposite side in discontent?

This is why I say that sometimes those who do such a thing do not truly wish to give a sincere answer, because they see the argument as trying to crush them, as opposed as the arguer trying to gain a greater understanding.

Well....that 'cuts' people a lot of slack.

Still..in this playing field called debate....
Many participants are here for the sarcasm and nay saying.
It makes them feel better.
And they are not sincerely seeking God.

Who does things that makes them feel bad? And if there are such people, don't these actions ultimately make them feel good?

I do not believe one would be insincere in their attempt to seek God, while trying to start an argument that will ultimately conclude in their happiness in the end.

Avoiding an awkward moment, or avoiding something one possess liability over does not solve or prove anything, it just digs them in a deeper hole.

The way out is confrontation.

 

[Thief]

But what good is avoiding an argument if it leaves the opposite side in discontent?

This is why I say that sometimes those who do such a thing do not truly wish to give a sincere answer, because they see the argument as trying to crush them, as opposed as the arguer trying to gain a greater understanding.



Who does things that makes them feel bad? And if there are such people, don't these actions ultimately make them feel good?

I do not believe one would be insincere in their attempt to seek God, while trying to start an argument that will ultimately conclude in their happiness in the end.

Avoiding an awkward moment, or avoiding something one possess liability over does not solve or prove anything, it just digs them in a deeper hole.

The way out is confrontation.

When the pharisees came asking which law is greatest....
they came for the argument....not the law.
The question is serious....not sincere.

They went away unhappy.
From that hour forward they plotted to kill Him.

How do you think it went as they stood from their dust?...later on?

 

[Orias]

When the pharisees came asking which law is greatest....
they came for the argument....not the law.
The question is serious....not sincere.

They went away unhappy.
From that hour forward they plotted to kill Him.

How do you think it went as they stood from their dust?...later on?

So then you see seriousness as being pretensive?

How can one be sincere yet not be serious? Do you think this is a joke?

When one comes to find the law, and to argue it, they are testing it. Its called, reassurance, to be cast aside like that is to sell and test and unfinished product on un-desiring population.

 

[Thief]

So then you see seriousness as being pretensive?

How can one be sincere yet not be serious? Do you think this is a joke?

When one comes to find the law, and to argue it, they are testing it. Its called, reassurance, to be cast aside like that is to sell and test and unfinished product on un-desiring population.

Nay.
The pharisees came asking the law....testing the Carpenter.
They sought to trap Him in His own words.
Scripture makes note of this.

 

[Orias]

You cannot simply push this aside, what good is law if there is nothing for it to contain?

They came to test it, to prove that it is indeed law and not a fraudulent face. If there is nothing to test against this might or law, then it is not so.

 

[Pegg]

But what good is avoiding an argument if it leaves the opposite side in discontent?

This is why I say that sometimes those who do such a thing do not truly wish to give a sincere answer, because they see the argument as trying to crush them, as opposed as the arguer trying to gain a greater understanding.

some people are discontent with the answers anyway


But i have to agree, that it is no reason to withhold an answer to a question.

 

[waitasec]

that is not the case imo. The bible is Gods word...our creator. His word is for everyone, but not everyone chooses to accept it. That is the problem.

he is your creator...that is how YOU experience your experience of god.
i do not fit in your shoes, nor do i see what you see when it comes to a subjective understanding.

because the bible writers claim to be writing Gods word...his thoughts and message to mankind.

this message resonates with you
i resonate to another understanding.
neither understanding is objectively right or wrong.
what would be wrong, for me, is if i were to ignore my questions...i can't do that.

I reasoned that they were either serious, or they were making it up. I studied it with an open mind that those writers were 'possibly' telling the truth.

again this resonates with you.
and there is nothing wrong with that.
what i don't understand is the position you put yourself in when applying YOUR understanding to everyone else when no one can see what you see but you.

my conclusion is that they were indeed telling the truth. But i only came to that conclusion after looking into it.

good for you.
my conclusion is different.

I think that is how we individually need to approach every piece of writing that claims divine authorship.
And only by studying can we determine if the writing is from God or not.

exactly...and not everyone is going to come up with the same conclusion...because they are ultimately, individuals.

Well there is only one God Almighty... all religions agree to that. It makes sense to me that he would identify himself in one way to all mankind rather then in many different forms and by many different teachings (all very contradictory) which would be confusing.

for you.

I tend to believe that there can be only one truth, while others may believe that truth is subjective and changes...i dont. So the bible was a good solid source of information that satisfied me personally.

and that is why an 11 yr old mentally challenged girl is subjected to be executed for the mistreatment of a holy book
or why same sex couples cant get married
it's an act of control justified by hubris

i can't think of anything lamer than that...
:sorry1:

 

[Thief]

You cannot simply push this aside, what good is law if there is nothing for it to contain?

They came to test it, to prove that it is indeed law and not a fraudulent face. If there is nothing to test against this might or law, then it is not so.

Then law as the pharisees worked with was reactive.
an eye for an eye....a law of condemnation.

The law as taught by the Carpenter is proactive...you first....
Do unto others as you would have it done unto you.

And the test they came with was aimed right at the Carpenter....
and they were not sincere in their asking.
They were serious...not sincere.

 

[Poisonshady313]

to be fair, the context of proverbs 1:28 is about a person who hates knowledge and did not choose to fear the lord...

and in matthew the context is the sermon on the mount were those he was speaking to wanted jesus' knowledge and chose to fear the lord

what gets me is, why would someone who doesn't understand is all of a sudden a person who hates knowledge as a person who understands that making a decision based on fear is the worst reason to make a decision...

i don't get it. unless this idea of god in proverbs is just a control freak.

There's a great big difference between not understanding, and someone who hates knowledge... i.e. someone who knows better but does the wrong thing anyway.

Read the whole Proverb.


1. The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel, [are]; 2. To know wisdom and discipline, to comprehend words of understanding; 3. To receive the discipline of wisdom, righteousness, justice, and equity; 4. To give prudence to the simple, knowledge and discretion to the youth. 5. Let the wise man hear and increase learning. The understanding man shall acquire wise counsels 6. to understand an allegory and a figure, the words of the wise and their riddles. 7. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and discipline. 8. Hearken, my son, to the discipline of your father, and do not forsake the instruction of your mother; 9. for they are a wreath of grace for your head and a necklace for your neck. 10. My son, if sinners entice you, do not consent; 11. if they say, "Come with us; let us lie in wait for blood; let us hide for the innocent, without cause; 12. let us swallow them up alive like the grave, and the whole ones like those who descend into the pit. 13. We will find all precious possessions; we will fill our houses with plunder. 14. Cast your lot among us; we will all have one purse" 15. my son, do not go on the way with them; restrain your foot from their path, 16. for their feet run to evil, and they hasten to shed blood. 17. For the net is scattered without cause in the eyes of all winged fowl, 18. but they lie in wait for their blood; they hide for their lives. 19. So are the ways of everyone who commits robbery; it will take away the life of its owner. 20. Wisdoms shout in the street; in the squares she gives forth her voice. 21. She calls at the head of the noisy streets; she utters her words at the entrances of the gates in the city; 22. "How long will you naive ones love naivete, and the scoffers covet scoffing, and the fools hate knowledge? 23. You shall repent because of my reproof; behold! I will pour out my spirit to you; I will let you know my words. 24. Since I called you and you refused, I stretched out my hand and no one listened, 25. and you have made nothing of all my advice, and you did not desire my reproof 26. I, too, will laugh at your calamity, I will scoff when what you fear comes; 27. when your fear comes like a storm, and your calamity comes like a whirlwind; when trouble and straits come upon you. 28. Then they will call me, and I will not answer; they shall seek me, and they shall not find me. 29. Because they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the Lord; 30. they did not desire my advice, they despised all my reproof- 31. they will eat of the fruit of their way, and from their counsels they will be sated, 32. for the backsliding of the naive shall slay them, and the tranquility of the fools shall cause them to perish. 33. But he who hearkens to me shall dwell confidently and shall be tranquil from the fear of harm."

 

[Thief]

some people are discontent with the answers anyway


But i have to agree, that it is no reason to withhold an answer to a question.

And the Carpenter answered questions with parables.
for those who understand...having ears that hear...

As other participants attempt to point out....
truth can be misunderstood, and then administered harmfully.

Not all questions deserve a response.
Many people deliberately lead the topic astray by demanding answers.

No one owes you a response.

 

[waitasec]

There's a great big difference between not understanding, and someone who hates knowledge... i.e. someone who knows better but does the wrong thing anyway.

but what would qualify someone to HATE knowledge. think about that for a second.

it is clear, at least for me it is, it the one who doesn't understand or agrees with the god of israel HATES knowledge. it's just a simplified reaction to the fact that the god of israel didn't make sense or was not understood to those outside of the assembly of israel.

btw, fearing god is not the beginning of all knowledge...
recognizing what ones limitations are is the beginning of knowledge.