Nooby struggle to get a firm grip on God.

[jpeps]

musher0 thanks indeed for mentioning these guys.
I find them very interesting too. Sadly you
and I are the only persons caring about
their personal approaches to Theologies about God. ?

Paul Johannes Tillich (August 20, 1886 – October 22, 1965) was a German-American Christian existentialist philosopher and theologian. Tillich is widely regarded as one of the most influential theologians of the 20th century.[1]

The Christian message provides the answers to the questions implied in human existence. These answers are contained in the revelatory events on which Christianity is based and are taken by systematic theology from the sources, through the medium, under the norm. Their content cannot be derived from questions that would come from an analysis of human existence. They are ‘spoken’ to human existence from beyond it, in a sense. Otherwise, they would not be answers, for the question is human existence itself.[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tillich

[musher0]

Thanks for the reference, jpeps.

But that's from an encyclopedia article... maybe slanted to the Christian variant of the
author of the article.

In this book from Tillich, he appeared to search for the proof of the existence of God
beyond any particular religion (in my mind anyway). I'll have to go back to the Municipal
Library and find the title of this Tillich book again... where he mentions Christianity only
in passing, and says something like: "What is your ultimate, fundamental, value? In
other words: what is the value that you cannot live without? That's where God resides."
God within. Not out there next to the Milky Way.

Of course, this is from memory, it is my own understanding, and I'm no theologian.

BFN.

[jpeps]

where he mentions Christianity only
in passing, and says something like: "What is your ultimate, fundamental, value? In
other words: what is the value that you cannot live without? That's where God resides."
God within. Not out there next to the Milky Way.

Of course, this is from memory, it is my own understanding, and I'm no theologian.

BFN.

Makes sense. There was a large influx of eastern spirituality occurring during his lifetime, such as D.T. Suzuki.

[RSH]

Hi.

This is just nooby's post above. I just fixed the messed up 'url' tags.

Hello, again.

Here is another idea which was a revelation to me, struck me in the face,
actually, because this statement is so obvious, and I had been looking for a
plausible definition for such a long time...

"God is in the knowledge relationship between the subject and the object of
knowledge." (Read in a book by Paul Tillich.)

So... (to me, anyway) whatever this knowledge relationship may be: a student
studying geography, a singer singing a song, you having a conversation with a
friend, or re-discovering your wife's body while caressing her... God is in the
moment of that learning process. Even in the reading and writing of these posts...

To me, that was another "handle", in addition to the one above, a way for my poor
limited mind to imagine and understand God, or the Source of Being, or the Notion-
Beyond-All-Notions, or the Superior Power, or Whatever-HIs/Her/Its-Name-Is.

For you... well, you have to decide for yourself, to find your own handle, don't you?

BFN.

musher0

That is a good find indeed.I tried it on some years ago too
but failed to find other seeing this to be useful

apart from friends of Tillich. Wieman had these views? IIRC
http://uudb.org/articles/henrynelsonwieman.html

And rather recently Gordon Kaufman? on Wieman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_D._Kaufman

[nooby]

Hello, nooby.

Well, since I believe that my "handle" to God is a personal one, I am in a difficult position.
I cannot criticize the person who personally believes that his/her approach has to be
collective, or in reference to collective scriptures­. If I believe in the "personal handle"
approach, I cannot be a missionary for any collective approach. Shucks.

BFN.

musher0

I welcome friendly criticism from you.

Having less than one year to live I try to
concentrate on the contribution you share
so give me hints on my thinking.

It is obvious I do something very wrong.
So what can it be.

Your approach is individual while others have
a collective approach.

Yes that seem to work as you say. You can criticize
maybe their individual interpretations then
but not their collective approach because
the Collective kind of describe what the believer
should live up to

while you personal individual approach to God
is something that works for you as an individual?

Have I hopefully get something of what you refer to?

thanks RSH for caring about the faulty set up url

jps was there two Susuki?= Both writing books
and doing speeches to Buddhists or just one?

Yes wikipedia should know

[nooby]

where he mentions Christianity only
in passing, and says something like: "What is your ultimate, fundamental, value? In
other words: what is the value that you cannot live without? That's where God resides."
God within. Not out there next to the Milky Way.

Of course, this is from memory, it is my own understanding, and I'm no theologian.

BFN.

Makes sense. There was a large influx of eastern spirituality occurring during his lifetime, such as D.T. Suzuki.

Yes these western theologians seems to see
great value in Western interpretations of
Buddhism and some Veda old Hindu teachings.

So no wonder that Watts and Susuki get welcomed

A lot of books made to inspire their admires.

I am a total absolute nobody and I know
almost nothing


but I felt very happy when I found out the
Shinran interpretations of Amitabha from
around 800 AC.

To me a natural interpretations of Amida
is a possible symbolic emotional faith.

Have any of you taken time to look into such
metaphoric interpretation?

Here is the to me most likely and useful such text.

Had it not been Buddhist then I would adopt it
instantly. Such lovely relation to existence itself.

[jpeps]

jps was there two Susuki?= Both writing books
and doing speeches to Buddhists or just one?

Yes wikipedia should know

You might be thinking of Shunryu Suzuki (Suzuki Roshi) who died in San Francisco in 1971.

[nooby]

jps was there two Susuki?= Both writing books
and doing speeches to Buddhists or just one?

Yes wikipedia should know

You might be thinking of Shunryu Suzuki (Suzuki Roshi) who died in San Francisco in 1971.

Was he deep into traveling around lecturing?

But less famous. The DT. Suzuki where even
famous here in Sweden. I where around 17
when reading him first time book based on a
dialog with Erik From collected exchanges
between them?

So I have looked into these guys since around 1962 to 1965?

So many years trusting totally unreliable believers.

They are even more dogmatic then the protestant
Evangelic missionaries.

That was a time when I still hoped that Buddhism
where something of value.

Man did I get disappointed when I realized
that they where so much or deep into woo.

[jpeps]

Man did I get disappointed when I realized
that they where so much or deep into woo.

Let's not worry about your understanding zen, okay? Yes, I'm sure it's all very disappointing.

[Bruce B]

I wrote everyday in a forum for atheists
and another one for theists and they
did assert me that God had to be real
or else that God would be a false god.

I guess one need to be a better thinker than what I am
to find words for your criticism.

Humans cannot make God. They can make objects and art designed to represent various gods. They can have objects of worship. They can have conceptions of God.

But none of this constitutes 'making' or 'creating' God.

One need to look at this from many angles.

They need God to be real or else it is not God.
But there is no evidence for a real God
So logically the believers have to make that God
or else it all falls apart in front of their own eyes.

I most likely use the wrong words but I fail to find
other words just now,

Repeated

They need God to be real or else it is not God. But there is no evidence for a real God. So logically the believers have to make that God or else it all falls apart in front of their own eyes.

I need my girlfriend to be real, (genuine and truthful) with me. But I lack evidence that such is true. Failing my criteria as she does, things might fall apart.

I have pretty much concluded that she is Bubble Gum. Something that sticks to your shoe, clothing or hair and is hard to remove.

Sometimes I think she is a Dragon Lady.

Maybe I lack the skill necessary to understand the reality, indeed, the very nature of her being.

Point being this: If I believe she is a Dragon Lady, a good dream that turns into a nightmare or Bubble Gum, does not factor when making the determination if she is real.

Summary: Maybe she is real. Maybe she is not. My inability to accurately interpret her does not alter the fact of her existence or non-existence.

[jpeps]

Summary: Maybe she is real. Maybe she is not. My inability to accurately interpret her does not alter the fact of her existence or non-existence.

You'll know for sure when you pay the tab.

[nooby]

But Bruce we both do know that such woman and man
deceiving themselves and others does actually exist.s
Some of them are innocent in that don't know about it
while others are consciously make use of deceptive means
to get what they want from others.

They are not what them appears to be. Real authentic persons
that one can trust, They exists logically but emotionally they lie
about them selves

Real as in reliable and somebody to believe in
and regardless manage to either fake it till they make it
or they have a delusion about themselves being Grand like
very authentic and genuine. The story about Jesus is close to that.

Jesus appears to have confidence that God is not only his father
but have giving him the power to heal the wold if he accept to dies
for the big cause. Very close to modern day terrorism?

Them too being deluded.

Sadly my English is not on the level needed to explain
how it works.

[nooby]

jpeps ,I did get much out of doing Zen meditation. After a few years
and very brief practice I could accept what I hated very badly.

My tinnitus annoying me madly. Using easy Zen strategy I just
let go of the fact that the noise is still as many dB as ever but
my body don't care to get upset anymore.

What I talk about is the Righteousness shown by the Buddists

They are always right and there is not hint they ever can be wrong

That is 100% dogmatic views of woo dogma to me.

But as I t told you we have to disagree upon. I think you are in a bubble
in having having no choice. other than defending you big delusion.

[musher0]

@Bruce B:

Does your Bubble-Gum / Dragon-Lady girlfriend have a sister ? She seems to be from
a very original family! (Where is the tongue-in-cheek icon?)

But seriously:
Proving the existence of a girlfriend is not the same as proving the existence of God.
You pinch her, and you hear "ouch". No such response from God... You and her are
physical entities. You and her cannot occupy the same space, although I'm sure both
of you try at times!

God is not a physical being, but Tillich's argument about God being in the knowledge
relationship can be proven. There is something going on there. To be trivial: by exams,
for example; there is what you knew before and what you know after.

I did not know that Adelaide was a city in Australia until I looked at a map of Australia.
Before, I thought it could only be the first name of an Anglophone woman.

Most of us learn something new every day, but we are not always aware of how.
Strange at it may seem, we say: "I learned a new trick on my Puppy today." Try to
go back to the time you did not know this trick. Now that you know it, it his very difficult
to imagine that you did not know it. Ok, this is only a little trick on a computer, but how
you learn(ed) it is very close to a mystery.

So there is a gap or a jump or a flash between not knowing and knowing anything.
We know knowledge exists, because this morning I did this this way, this afternoon
somebody showed me a better way to do it, and this evening I am doing in this new
way.

So I'd say Tillich is right: God is in this gap or jump or flash in the instant of knowing.
We know we learn, we can measure the result or efficiency of what we learned, but the
act itself of knowing / learning is in large part a mystery.

But as I said, it is my understanding. You better read Tillich than me!

@ nooby:

When I say that I am in an inferior position to argument when I say that belief or faith
is personal -- as compared to someone who says that belief or faith is collective, I am
referring to the tremendous power of combining religion + politics, or religion + society.
Pick any history book and search for wars of religion: the Saint-Barthelemew in France,
the English civil wars, the Jews burned at the stake in medieval Spain, the early
Egyptian Christians burning the Library of Alexandria, the most complete library of its
age...

One single individual with his / her little belief cannot withstand such forces.

But at the same time, nuns were creating and running hospitals, monks were founding
the first public schools and universities. The combination of religion + society is a very
powerful force, for bad, or good...

@ jpeps (?)
I don't think Tillich was influenced by Buddhism or oriental religions as such. But I am
pretty sure he knew of early existentialists such as Heidegger, Kierkegaard, and
Husserl. He had to: in the 1920's he was teaching philosophy at University of Berlin.

Enough said for now! (And the group said: "Phew!")

musher0

[jpeps]

@ jpeps (?)
I don't think Tillich was influenced by Buddhism or oriental religions as such. But I am
pretty sure he knew of early existentialists such as Heidegger, Kierkegaard, and
Husserl. He had to: in the 1920's he was teaching philosophy at University of Berlin.

The idea of "God" not being some external entity was being taught and written about during the same period by Suzuki and others. Here is one scathing review I just found on Tillich:

"Tragically, he did not even believe in the God of the Bible, the one who is called "the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Eph. 1:3). If one does not believe in a personal God -and Dr. Tillich did not -how could he ever pray or beseech God for comfort and support? The fact is Paul Tillich confesses that he did not pray; he meditated. "

http://www.gospelhour.net/pdf/2546.pdf

[jamesbond]

Nooby, if you *choose* to look for God, you will find Him.

For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

Some people "find God in all things", bless them!

A god that you can fit within the confines between your ears is by definition not God. So search on .
May you find what you seek .

[nooby]

A god that you can fit within the confines between
your ears is by definition not God..

Yes I know that both atheists and theists
came to that conclusion a very long time ago.

Maybe they got it from the Greeks?

That is why I don't trust philosophic theology.

Humans can do some logical thinking
but our relation to God IMO is mainly about
and the to me main relation to God is emotional.

God touches your heart and you answer don't
have to be logical. You trust God in same way
as you trust another human being

You can logically confide that a god exist
but not being touched in your heart at all. ,
You can ttrust that such a god exist and still
chose another trust in another God that you have
no logical as in having a relation with a human friend
and not a logical reasoning on that love. You just
fall in love with their personality. .

Am I out on the limb that breaks or have Ifirm grip on the tree trunk?
Holding on to the strong branches while climbing climbing
on to God like on a ladder to heaven

[Bruce B]

Real as in reliable and somebody to believe in and regardless manage to either fake it till they make it
or they have a delusion about themselves being Grand like very authentic and genuine. The story about Jesus is close that.

Many books have been written about Jesus. Am I safe to presume you refer to the four gospel stories?

FYI: I don't recall ever trying to prove the existence of deity to anyone.

If I wanted to prove the existence, which I couldn't, I think the first thing I would want to discover is, what the criteria is for belief.

The Gospel stories portray Jesus' post-crucifixion form as not immediately recognizable by many around him. Thomas' criteria was tactile. Others were at first disbelieving, but later believed without the need for touch.

We are all different.

The girlfriend I mentioned, I suppose is an Atheist. I don't think she had a choice to be otherwise, there was no opportunity to learn at home, school or in the community.

If she wanted a religion, which I don't think she did, it would have been better for her to find it (religion) in Communism.

If she had any kind of spiritual leadership, the 'prophet' would have been Chairman Mao.

It seems to me her primary value says, "money, money and more money."

Our values are not the same and often conflict.

I'd like her to go to church in order that she can be exposed to values apart from money, sex and power.

In order to do that, I would need to find a church that serves food, sweets and beverage after meeting.

~~~

About churches; Men write the books and make the organizations. Men are flawed, some more than others. Because of this fact, we don't want to find ourselves attending services at Westboro Baptist Church.

I'm saying the Christian organizations are operated by confessed sinners, who ideally are sincerely improving their personal values and morals toward the standards of their church and God as they understand him.

I think, choose wisely as one can, but even at that, there is a good chance the lady next to you at the pew, whom you're sharing a hymn book is a sinner. (just kidding, but not kidding)

I suggest, don't look for righteous people at church. Rather look for people who are trying to improve. The Christian values are not who they are, the values represent ideals they hope to achieve.

Jesus appears to have confidence that God is not only his father but have giving him the power to heal the wold [sic] if he accept to dies for the big cause. Very close to modern day terrorism?

I didn't learn it that way. On the other hand, there are thousands and thousands of different Christian 'ministries', and I haven't had even remote contact with the vast majority of them.

For one example of things I learned, is a prayer central to Christianity which is often called the "Lord's Prayer" (found in Matthew and Luke)

Your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth, as it is in heaven.

Considering that one would give thanks for what he does have and ask for what he doesn't have, this verse by asking is an acknowledgment that the Lord's will is not being considered done on earth as it is in heaven.

I think you will find that if asked the question, 'Do you believe the Lord's will is being done on earth as it is heaven?', just about anyone would say no.

The last four words, might say this:

". . . deliver us from evil."

Them too being deluded.

Some are deluded, and like you, I think by their religion.

Some are also very self aware.

Sadly my English is not on the level needed to explain how it works.

It is hard for anyone. And I don't think any of us are professional writers. Or that my use of English is noteworthy. In any event, you do great.

[musher0]

@ jpeps:

To me, your pdf reference has no value. Christianity (all of its variants) is guilty of so
many cultural and historical murders in the name of the Lord, it has infringed its own
"Thou shalt not kill" commandment so many times, it has mixed up politics and true
search for and attachment to a Higher Being so many times, that it is has lost any
connection to the Rule of Love that Jesus gave, it has carved out of it any meaning that
it may have on a personal level.

It is clear to me that humanity has to go beyond any official religion to survive. Burn me
at the stake, and my point will be proven.

Why would meditation be inferior to prayer, anyway, in the search for closeness with
the Ultimate Being? Because some religions who have killed a lot of dissidents and
Aboriginal cultures say so in their scriptures? It is not tragic at all, we should rejoice that
Tillich did find an additional way. Come on! Get a (spiritual) life!

BFN.

musher0

[jpeps]

@ jpeps:

To me, your pdf reference has no value. Christianity (all of its variants) is guilty of so
many cultural and historical murders in the name of the Lord, it has mixed up politics
and true attachment to a Higher Being so many times, that it is has lost any connection
to the Rule of Love that Jesus gave, it has carved out of it any meaning that it may
have on a personal level.

Why would meditation be inferior to prayer, anyway, in the search for closeness with
the Ultimate Being? Because some religions who have killed a lot of dissidents and
Aboriginal cultures say so in their scriptures? Come on! Get a (spiritual) life!

BFN.

musher0

Tell me something I don't already know. The scathing review was by fundamentalists who didn't like the adoption of eastern practices like meditation. Tillich was a part of a significant change in the direction of orthodox teachings (IMHO that's a good thing, but others might disagree).

BTW/ I thought the criticism..which expressed the fear of giving up an external deity who is there personally protecting you..said a lot.