The final answer: I don't know.

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by greymare

tao, have you been watching hharry potter, again??

or drunk, again!

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by Alex P

And you can see it in our world? Can you give at least one clear example?

faith

hope

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Know? Or hope and trust in faith? The two are not the same.

see what integrity does to people?

They learn to face reality, square up!

that would depend on if a person was after accurate knowledge ,or just knowledge based on mens thoughts

as in contrast; this Mee me character does nothing but follow the words of men.

Meaning if the birds and the bees shared how life existed, he would tell his kid, God (some dude on a thrown) magically created it.

Rather than just being honest and say "i don't know"

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Actually in the orthodox traditions, none.

Whether man accepts the answers, is a whole other question.

The prevalent philosophy of the West, shaped by the Enlightenment, was founded on an erroneous assumption — "the triumph of art over nature" (Novum Organum Francis Bacon) (that science could explain and tame all nature), and continues to run its course, in the pursuit of 'progress' and 'freedom', even though the growing weight of evidence suggests somewhere, someone went wrong.

"The entrance into the Kingdom of man, founded on the sciences, being not much other than the entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven, where into none may enter except as a little child." Novum Organum Francis Bacon.

Above is a typical formative psychology of the Enlightenment. Here we can see that science has replaced faith ... the belief that science will put man back in the Garden of Paradise, or rather, in the absence of Eden, science will create a new Paradise for man ... he no longer has any need of God.

Sir Francis Bacon aka.. Shakespeare....

Baconian Evidence for Shakespeare Authorship


Gotta love integrity.

As long as man exercises his option to say "I don't know" without obligation to find out, as long as he insists his own ignorance is more valid than truth, because it's the authentic expression of his autonomous freedom ... he betrays himself, and his seed ...

Thomas

Brilliant!

Or how about another bacon

Bacon's approach is well-characterized by two quotations from his works:

If in other sciences we should arrive at certainty without doubt and truth without error, it behooves us to place the foundations of knowledge in mathematics."

— Opus Majus, bk. 1, ch. 4

Mathematics is the gate and key of the sciences. …Neglect of mathematics works injury to all knowledge, since he who is ignorant of it cannot know the other sciences or the things of this world."

— Opus Majus

math is the universal language

That was Roger.... early 13th century

Inprisoned for almost 20 years for being a friar with a mean sense of obligation to the truth.

Love 'em like the uncles of namesake.......

My family are all bacon bits as this lineage is what holds the line back to the the single digit centuries.

And if you really do your homework you will find that Roger had a serious light pursuit, as well.

It's a family tradition!

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

of course, you only have my word for it, but you must admit that it is patently impossible for you to substantiate your belief without actually producing a parallel version of human history. to quote gandalf, "even the very wise cannot see all ends".

Which perfects the reality that no faith has the answers complete.

perhaps you are right in one way, though, tao. if religious people had actually done what they were told to do, rather than ignoring large parts of it to do with peace, social justice and morality, the world might be a much nicer place.

Correct. As the first precept is integrity or honesty. And if integrity was kept in pursuing knowledge, that may even contradict the belief itself, this world could be a better place.

i.e.... mankind created all words. So with this fact in place then religion could not have revealed all that is true in fact 1500-2000 years ago.

i'm not saying "more religion" is the answer. i'm saying "more of the right sort of religious behaviours" is the answer.

Compassion?

We can all agree but compassion never meant to retain ignorance or complacency to magic and omnipotence. As we learned the earth revolves around the sun, means we are subject to what nature reveals as true.

Think about it; mankind can misrepresent what it believes to be true; nature reveals what is true.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Thomas

For many westerners, the uptake of exotic Asiatic doctrines and practices with the implicit promise of a self-serving short-cut to bliss, nirvana, satori, etc., has been described as spiritual narcissism, in fact auto-eroticisme was the term deployed.

Deployed by whom, Thomas? Where are you reading these things?

Thomas, I am not aware of any Oriental philosophies that implicitly or explicitly endorse "shortcuts" and narcissism of this kind. Buddhism in particular has a long-term view of personal discipline.

Recall that some Bodhisattvas choose not to be released because they want to come back and help the planet and alleviate the suffering of others. Now that's selflessness, commitment to virtue and compassion, devotion and surrender.

Arguably, the level of dedication reflected in such an approach is far more compelling than the taken-for-granted attitude that G-d's Grace is unconditionally available to free me from sin at all times, so now I can go and sin some more.

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Deployed by whom, Thomas? Where are you reading these things?

Thomas, I am not aware of any Oriental philosophies that implicitly or explicitly endorse "shortcuts" and narcissism of this kind. Buddhism in particular has a long-term view of personal discipline.

Recall that some Bodhisattvas choose not to be released because they want to come back and help the planet and alleviate the suffering of others. Now that's selflessness, commitment to virtue and compassion, devotion and surrender.

Arguably, the level of dedication reflected in such an approach is far more compelling than the taken-for-granted attitude that G-d's Grace is unconditionally available to free me from sin at all times, so now I can go and sin some more.

a response of truth

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

a response of truth

And that's true, too !

Good to meet you, Bishadi.

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

And that's true, too !

Good to meet you, Bishadi.

Peace to any with the compassion to represent what is pure!

the pleasure of meeting like compassion is what every person can appreciate... but do they know it when they see it?

that is left unanswered

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Arguably, the level of dedication reflected in such an approach is far more compelling than the taken-for-granted attitude that G-d's Grace is unconditionally available to free me from sin at all times, so now I can go and sin some more.

In line with what BB said, this reflects on an improper attitude, improper understanding and improper interpretation, and an incorrect application. In fact, the words of Jesus as written were; "go, and sin no more."

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

but do they know it when they see it?

Indeed. That works both ways.

[Alex P]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

Peace to any with the compassion to represent what is pure!

the pleasure of meeting like compassion is what every person can appreciate... but do they know it when they see it?

that is left unanswered

Get a room....

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Thomas

When discussing 'faith' — which is the context in which the question was framed, knowledge or information is then determined as either 'informative' or 'performative'. Informative just adds to the bank of stuff we already know, and that's about all its does. Performative on the other hand is not merely a communication of things that can be known — it is of the order of a life-changing commitment.

Very well, I thought I had said as much.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Going back to tradition, to Bacon, and by the evidence of my eyes, many toady (*today?*) interpret 'gnosis' to be data of the informative kind, thus we have all manner of charlatans peddling the truth of 'gnostic Christianity' which amounts to little more than intriuing and enticing exotica ... food for the modern mind and its penchant for conspiracy theories.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Thomas

The true Christian gnosis is of the performative order ... initiation into the Christian Mysteries does not result in me knowing something you don't know, it involved me engaging with the Divine in a way I could not do before, and indeed which man cannot do of his own account.

I accept the term "man" to mean humanity, correct? I agree that of my own will and power I am helpless. But I do not need a formal order to teach me how to reach out and plug into the Divine.

Originally Posted by Thomas

So in the last analysis, the statement 'I don't know' is a sure sign that 'Faith' a knowing which in itself has the power to be performative, is reduced by man to something purely informative, and about which, when someone asks, 'can it make a difference' the only answer can be ... "I don't know."

Therein lies a great deal of the struggle, and the logical fallacy behind Bishadi's assumptions, the idea that the magisteria of logic holds any authority over the magesteria of faith. "I don't know" is a mode of understanding within "science." Whereas my experiences in spirit make the hope and trust in faith very real in practical terms (performative) for me personally. But this is a subjective truth. It is empirical *to me,* it is evident *to me,* it is real *to me,* but by the terms of logical reason do not constitute valid objective evidence. Bishadi's grossest fallacy in this discussion is the presumption that logic reigns supreme over matters of spirit, which it decidedly does not.

Spirit cannot be proven, therefore it does not exist. Or so say those who have not experienced spirit.

Originally Posted by Thomas

The schism between denominations in pre-Reformation times was of a different order, they turned on the objective apprehension of the truth.

In this we could not agree more.

[juantoo3]

Quote:
What is the nature of time?

Between all measurement.


Quote:
What is gravity?

entangled energy


Quote:
What is the relationship of matter to energy?

Mass is energy (light) affixed in time.


Quote:
What is light made of?

Electric and magnetic field at perpendicular planes; see the cross!


Quote:
Why do flags wave in the wind? All of these are simple physics questions...without answers.

Until now!

I'm afraid these answers are as lacking as those you seem to object to. They are certainly not universally accepted physically valid explanations, which means they are not truth according to your conditions. They are your beliefs.

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I'm afraid these answers are as lacking as those you seem to object to. They are certainly not universally accepted physically valid explanations, which means they are not truth according to your conditions. They are your beliefs.

Do you read to know how to use the keyboard you are typing into?

Does it work?

Then a set of equations is unknowlingly what defines how the key board works.

So in china, unless someone understands the same language, they could not use the same reading material that you have but the math is the same.

In suggesting the line items of science; the math is universal.

May not be accepted, probably because it is not published but in reality quite universal.

Point is when the items of conveyance are suggested they are backed by the universal language.