Reasonable faith

[niranjan]

Originally Posted by Dondi

Everything?

Nope.

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by niranjan

Nope.

Care to be specific?

[niranjan]

Originally Posted by Dondi

Care to be specific?

Go to my post addressed to your op and you will find out.

[Sunny C.]

Originally Posted by Dondi

This is why it is healthy to step out of your paradigm. I used to be dogmatic when it came to the literal rendering of the Genesis account of creation. I think the fear many "young earthers" have is that it would destroy their faith if the bible doesn't render the six days of creation as literal 24 hour periods. But I found the opposite to be true, because when I considered the evidences for the big bang and the resulting processes that followed in the formation of the universe, I found new reasons to believe in a Creator. True, I now have to go back and re-evaluate the Genesis account, but this has enabled me to be more open to the scientific evidences that face us. Rather than destroy my faith, it has increased my faith. I can rest more comfortably in what I believe.

I don't see anything in the Genesis account of creation which suggests or implies that it is meant to be taken literally. We have an account of a hugely complex event, or process, contained within a very few words. I don't see how understanding it as a rich allegory, which seems the most common sense approach to me, can be seen as anathema to belief in God or the Bible. Taken literally there are all kinds of problems, but considered allegorically I'm nearly blown away by the wisdom and knowlege of the author(s). This is a good example of how inflexible dogma puts us in the crack of trying to explain away that which makes perfect sense in order to preserve the illusion of doctrinal innerancy.

BTW, You do know that the phrase "God helps those who helps themselves" is nowhere to be found in the Bible, but rather is a quote of Benjamin Franklin.

What?!!! Next I suppose you'll try to tell me that "cleanliness is next to godliness isn't scriptural either.

[Sunny C.]

Just in general: I think the the Holy Spirit has to have something to work with. If one considers their own personal knowlege base and thought processes including their proconcieved notions and inherited programming as the strings of a musical instrument, I think that the Holy Spirit acts by gently plucking those strings so that the resulting melody inspires connections which one might not have otherwise made. So, staying within that analogy, if one has a bunch of goop in their head, the Holy Spirit has no choice but to try to work with that. I think it's important to consider that if the Holy Spirit leads one toward truth, and it has to bang on whatever xylophone one comes equiped with, there may be many things which the Spirit inspires which are less than evolved notions in order to gently lead one toward a larger truth. This is where humility and taking a longer view of things becomes essential.

Or, I could be entirely wrong.

[Prober]

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

Or, I could be entirely wrong.

Welcome to CR, Sunny! (better late than never)

No, I generally agree with what you said.

So would you say if you have too much goop, you're a natural man, "perceiving not the things of the spirit for they are spiritually discerned"?

Regards,
Mark

[Sunny C.]

Originally Posted by Prober

Welcome to CR, Sunny! (better late than never)

No, I generally agree with what you said.

So would you say if you have too much goop, you're a natural man, "perceiving not the things of the spirit for they are spiritually discerned"?

Regards,
Mark

Thanks for the welcome!

I think that by the time we're mature enough to really consider things we've inherited a lot of preconceived notions. It takes a fair amount of effort to untangle all that programming. That's where being a noncomformist helps IMO. I guess my answer to your question would depend on the definition of what a "natural man" is. If you mean animal like, that is merely reacting to external stimulii, then I would agree. But I aspire to be a natural man in the sense of harmonious cooperation with nature. I want to realize my natural nature. Toward that end I'm trying to shed the goop in my head.

[Prober]

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

I think that by the time we're mature enough to really consider things we've inherited a lot of preconceived notions. It takes a fair amount of effort to untangle all that programming. That's where being a noncomformist helps IMO.

I'll certainly agree with that!

I guess my answer to your question would depend on the definition of what a "natural man" is. If you mean animal like, that is merely reacting to external stimulii, then I would agree. But I aspire to be a natural man in the sense of harmonious cooperation with nature. I want to realize my natural nature.

It seems like Paul is saying (text from 1 Corinthians 2:14) that being spiritual is not natural or not nature for most people. So does that mean that natural nature is sinful?

Does that make spiritual nature, being "un-natural", unreasonable? Just thinking out loud.

Toward that end I'm trying to shed the goop in my head.

I also...

[Sunny C.]

Originally Posted by Prober

I'll certainly agree with that!
It seems like Paul is saying (text from 1 Corinthians 2:14) that being spiritual is not natural or not nature for most people. So does that mean that natural nature is sinful?

Does that make spiritual nature, being "un-natural", unreasonable? Just thinking out loud.
I also...

I understand what you're saying, but Paul also talks about the natural law. The law that is written into our very being as opposed to an externally enforced, ritualistic law. Do you know what I'm talking about? And, in considering the nature of the Logos it stands to reason that there is a natural way that everything works which one, theoretically anyway, can participate in and with. That which opposes the natural law, I would say, is the goop. Paul recognized that he himself had goop on the brain, but when he says that he has to die daily to himself so that he can live in Christ, I think he's referring to that which prevents one from living in the light of the Logos. So in that sense he's trying to be a natural man (under my definition.

[Sunny C.]

As an afterthought: It's truly unfortunate that sexual self-repression became confused with aceticism. Paul has that problem, but at least he takes a moderate, empathetic position when counselling others. People, some people, think that if one were to embrace his natural nature it would lead to all sorts of unabashed sexual debauchery, but the fact is that it is the sexual repression itself which leads to compensating through fetishism and the like. If everyone ran around naked we wouldn't have the problem with pornography we have. So you might say that Paul's sexual self-repression leads to his having to fight his own nature. That's a broad oversimplification of course.

[Prober]

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

I understand what you're saying, but Paul also talks about the natural law. The law that is written into our very being as opposed to an externally enforced, ritualistic law. Do you know what I'm talking about?

I think so.

And, in considering the nature of the Logos it stands to reason that there is a natural way that everything works which one, theoretically anyway, can participate in and with.

Yeah.

That which opposes the natural law, I would say, is the goop. Paul recognized that he himself had goop on the brain, but when he says that he has to die daily to himself so that he can live in Christ, I think he's referring to that which prevents one from living in the light of the Logos.

Sin?

So in that sense he's trying to be a natural man (under my definition.

You're losing me...so it's a good thing to be natural? Or is being natural something to overcome to understand G-d.

Was Paul lamenting his un-naturalness? Complaining about having to die daily?

My impression of the text is that he's looking at being natural in a perjorative sense.

Thoughts?

[Sunny C.]

I'm getting dangerously close to puppeteering Paul. That would be disingenuous on my part. I really shouldn't be speculating on the essence or actions of the Holy Spirit either since what I have in mind doesn't strictly equate with the Christian conception of it. And I can't comment on the nature of sin since the concept of sin is inconsequential to my way of thinking as well. So I'm kind of in a quandry as to what I can, in honest good conscience say.

I'll try to come up with something that reflects my own thoughts on the matter, but I'll have to think about it.

[Sunny C.]

Hey Mark,

Maybe you could give me your definition of natural man and then we could work from within that context? I'm just afraid we're going to wind up talking past each other; using the same terms but meaning different things.

[Prober]

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

Hey Mark,

Maybe you could give me your definition of natural man and then we could work from within that context?

Sure. To me, the natural man is the "old, fleshy" man. the one before baptism of water and the Spirit. He doesn't understand the Spirit and doesn't realize any need for it. After baptism, the Spirit leads the "new man" into all truth, so his "eyes are open" spiritually.

I guess sort of like Siddharta (sp) sees a poor sick man and he's never seen one before and suddenly he has to know how to end suffering. He never thought about that before(neither did I). He's always been natural man.

You go from being natural man to spiritual man with natural man still on the inside, still wanting out.

?

[Sunny C.]

Oh, OK I see what you mean. What was the question again? Oh yeah

Does that make spiritual nature, being "un-natural", unreasonable?

I guess, if you equate the old sinful man with reason. So that would make being born again a process of losing one's capacity for reason?