Israel
BANNED
I could tell you 'what I knew' when I was found out by the faith of the Son of God...but that is actually immaterial, for it has never been about what I know or knew, even if we are given to know things.
And you help me remember that.
Welcome Guest!
Question
- Thread starter stringmusic
- Start date
I could tell you 'what I knew' when I was found out by the faith of the Son of God...but that is actually immaterial, for it has never been about what I know or knew, even if we are given to know things.
And you help me remember that.
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
You really use a lot of words for things that you dont want to say.
Israel
BANNED
Be patient. You will get all you need.
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
Use your decoder ring and Drink your Ovaltine
ambush80
Senior Member
It took you a while to get there but you finally did. How do you hear God? Are you sure it's not in your head?
Also, I'm quite certain that Peterson doesn't believe in an actual resurrection. His belief in God doesn't require him to believe in anything that contradicts science. He understands the value of myth. So do I. He understands that the notion of God arose from psychological predispositions that were evolved. I get intuitions that I don't know where they come from. I could call that God talking to me. Heck, I can't even pinpoint where my thoughts come from. I could easily say they come from God. But I don't simply say "It must be God" because that's seriously jumping the gun. The idea of God exists in my thoughts, which as I said, I don't know where they come from. Until it's confirmed, it's just wishful thinking.
P.S. I knew that you would like Peterson.
Last edited:
Israel
BANNED
Ambush, I hear everyone "in my head"...(although there have been a few times words were so concise, so phrased as in a conversation...much more/different than an experience of "remembering scriptures" that I would be hard pressed to not say "did anyone else hear that?")
But this is where we hear...isn't...when we "hear", where we see, when we see...etc. To tell you Jesus said "be careful how you hear" might mean little at this point to you, I don't know...nevertheless, my coming to realize in receiving his word as truth, His instructions are always necessary.
But, that being said (and yes, I did like many things Peterson said) this matter of "paying attention" which I believe he emphasized strongly in the Rogan discussion, is not unlike Jesus' instruction at all. It requires, if you will, a staying in the moment for clarity, a seeing and hearing (one might say) to discern "what is really going on". I would make a leap to say "Be still and know that I am God" is an end of that, the end (if you can receive it) in fact.
I also especially liked his ability to see that all relationships, even in "mere" discussions, are a participation in a death and life cycle where either "old" notions or appraisals (usually, or at least, often of motive) must be "updated" to an end to continuance, or this cycle abandoned, and relationship broken. On the small scale they are "this guys just a conniving liar, I'll have no more to do with him" or, on larger, when pressed, nations simply go to war. (When finding the demands of change to "accept" the being of another become greater (in perceptions) than any seen value in continuance of allowing mutual being)
The whole of the matter is that we change (little deaths and lifes) as we encounter the "what's 'out' there". If I accept his premise (which I easily do, and have) that "God" is all I don't know, this doesn't exempt in any way, or diminish the exercise of a desire to know Him. Now, here, it's easy to say (as one might say another could say) "But I want rainbow colored unicorns to exist" that does not mean that they will (for me).
But here is where things take a turn. Or, at least might be seen to. In that matter of desire...and this is where we may be found to interject "of ourselves" (ascribing motive) when dealing with one another. And please recall that for me, now, this is where rubber meets road, where the test of whether I really desire to know a "you" (and what is God if not "ultimate you"?) is either a curiosity for collecting of some info...some mere relief (there could be benefit to "knowing" someone with a gazillion dollars)...or something so deep as to be even unnamable of motive. I don't know that we can ever rightly make those discernments of one another...even though we may seek to.
I can easily admit to the experience of a shallowness of motive for myself, there have been various times I have approached this "knowing" with nothing but (later revealed) the most craven of interests. The "sugar daddy" in the sky, the desire to appear as a great collector of wisdom or knowledge "about Him", even the satisfaction of my most weak desire for self affirmation as demonstrated in the extreme of a tribalism that could be easily seen (mostly by all except myself). Who doesn't want to be...in the in-crowd? In whatever sense that is seen...the smart ones, the good ones, the right ones, the "Holy" ones?
But here is where Jesus blows this all up (or has, at least for me). And has helped me to understand the truth of a certain thing (of many things about which I have been quite emphatically...wrong). "You shall seek me and you shall find me when you seek for me with all your heart"
I assumed I knew when I was being "whole hearted". I thought I could judge the sincerity of myself. And if able there...it's a very small step to judging others...in their sincerity of motive...no? We shouldn't forget, if we are to talk about truth, and where it might be found, how very often Jesus speaks about judging others. And that is what we do...don't we? Kinda look past the actions and words and try to discern a thing that will tell us where this other "is coming from" because actually we have learned (perhaps because we do so well know it in ourselves) there's few things better to throw one "off our track" than obfuscating with words and (even) deeds. So, here is where Peterson also mentions a thing that is really an echo "speak truth!"...always..."speak truth". Wow! This will surely color our interactions...won't it? Don't be afraid to reveal yourself, "your" truth (at least as much as you see of it).
I wouldn't have the temerity to say these things but for that patience I am told to have. We have had much "uncommon ground" (have we not, or so it would seem, no?) to appear perhaps as men at a total impasse. Men across the table, speaking "at" one another, it might seem. To say I have had "an impulse" to go to war with you, though at times quite attractive, has always been found a forbidden thing, I would be a liar to not admit it.
And I might also be found a liar if not saying I was already arrayed in battle garb...and indeed already at war, cunningly trying to hide aggressions with words fashioned of a false piety. See, this is where I have to abandon all sense of even knowing my own motives, I don't of myself, know myself. There are "things" I might like to think of myself, but they are always found things willing to place their finger on my side of the balance. I am very biased...toward myself.
And here one would find, if they cared to, every reason to say "Then you are the lousiest disciple of the One you claim to follow, in whom you say is truth...without room for any bias, if as you claim, truth is transcendent." I shouldn't even be talking to you, let alone as any voice at all about anything...when you admit to being little more than what appears as hypocrite. And so "biased toward yourself". You're just an empty husk. Your words just add confusion.
(If I agree, might you say "he's wallowing?")
But I think the wiser might be inclined to say "Look at how much credit he yet takes to himself!"
ambush80
Senior Member
I recognize your struggle to make sense of the world. I'm dealing with the same struggle. I don't see the difference between wishing for unicorns and wishing for a flying Jesus.
I just want to know what's true.
Israel
BANNED
There are implicit admissions in that. And to, in any way imply a patronizing or condescension in mutual agreement, would be a bad thing. An evil thing. A lie.
If we are (both) struggling to, as you say, make sense of the world, or find sense in the world...then we both are admitting we don't see it, yet have a "sense" it should be there...that is a sense for sense to the discerning of some form of truth, and that it can be known, and, in that discerning agree we will recognize it "when we see it".
But aren't we then faced with quite a conundrum? If I admit to not seeing the sense of the world, that it is absent from me (at least at present)...for by "seeking it", I am making a de facto admission "I don't have it", nor do I yet see it, and more to the point...if I find (to me) the world bereft of a yet known sense (to me)...where could I ever expect, how could I ever expect, being "in the world of no sense"...that I have the requisite
truth-o-meter to recognize this thing (that makes sense of the world) that I don't (at least as yet) see anywhere?
Now, I understand (or believe I do)...that the progress from there is not necessarily to Jesus Christ for any man.
A man might agree (or not) with the paragraph above and still say "OK, I can agree with that...but then that does not mean I am open to "other" nonsense just to fill the gaps". Such a man might say perhaps, "then I must be content in this place of not knowing, yet always seeking"
(I think Peterson may have aptly called that inhabiting the place of doubt...walking that edge of chaos and fascist order...or some such)
And understand also, I am not at all assuming that just because you posted some vids of him you agree entire with all of his words. I know I don't, but I do "like" much of what he says. For me it often appeared he is (almost) working backward from the "mythos" as substantiation that God is, as upheld by a seemingly observed universal desire for him to be, or acknowledgement of some form...that He is. But, I could be wrong in that appraisal. For if that is true, it is no more than any man wishing for that unicorn. Regardless of the prevalence of that desire. But then, that would also not necessarily testify against God's being, either, for as maker (if assumed) the placing of that desire to "know Him", know truth of the absolute, could certainly be a "built in thing".
If a man can accept this in any way he also has a question "Is Creator knowable?" or "Is creator one who makes himself unknowable and is then found to be playing the cruelest trick of all...(at least as far as man knows...cruel). To create a totally unfulfillable desire with full knowing of never intending to requite it. Where a man finds his "hat hung" (and I believe he must have his eyes opened to this) makes all the difference.
To those who say "creator" is just chemicals, and are absolutely sure in all their considerations of otherwise that this alone must be so...well, talking chemicals is still a marvel...at least to me, if no other. And I can't help but think in their knowing "of something" that is "self knowing chemicals"...that even there, it testifies of something too great for me to ever comprehend.
How chemicals could believe "they are". That's as much a mystery to me as anything else.
And yet...in one very true sense, that is also what I believe...except for the knowing part. I am persuaded that comes from something above the chemicals...otherwise...if we really don't want to be caught in "performative contradiction"...well who has ever tried to reason with potassium? Or carbon?
Wouldn't that seem kinda odd? I would guess...but only not...if there were no such thing as reason, anyway.
For if by reason, I try to reason away reason as a true thing...transcendent over all, well again...there's that phrase...performative...
ambush80
Senior Member
Talking, self knowing chemicals are indeed a mystery. Why are you persuaded that Jesus is behind them? Your maker is very much presumed. That's all.
Israel
BANNED
That's back to the "I am me, you are you" thing, which is fine, I can no more explain that than I can anything else.
You have to say "Your maker is very much presumed" from where you sit in you, and I am made to say "What else could that be but perfect?"
I had to be persuaded to be the me I am. And still do.
I need persuasion toward a thing that for me, in whatever "present" I find myself, is always different, and I have learned (and am learning) greater.
What if I told you, that (I think)...like you, there are times I could sense such of the chaos in so deep a way as all that "presumption" (as described by you) seems lost? Those times when what I call "my faith", you call "your presumption" leaves me (or is at least sensed to be nowhere to be found) and I flail like a ribbon tied to a post in a gale.
(Is it OK to speak of "experiences" we have in these bodies, while these bodies sit in a jon boat catching crappies?)
What if said that at those times life is simply too much to bear? Could you possibly believe me?
I understand that a man might say "You don't know what you are talking about, you're just being dramatic, you don't know at all what it means to despair of life...at all"
Such a man (who answers thus) would, could, might, probably think he has measured a suffering to himself in such grandeur he couldn't possible allow that another man could even come close to understanding. But I say this to you of "my suffering" believing that you can grasp it, you have sensed it, you do...know it.
Another man might say: "Yes, I know something of that experience, the terrors of seeing oneself so isolated, so alone....even to the feeling entirely cut off from what was once such a comfort...perhaps a wife, a child,...whatever are those things that offered help to that man, or hope to that man, as though they were like nothing toward anything of help to him now in that gale. In fact...he's so cut off he can't even begin to say anything to them, for where he presently inhabits in his flailing, even words seem an insufferable vanity"
If that (answering man) was so disposed...even to agree to that commonness of experience, would it be (if he were addressing a man who claimed to "have faith") too much a stretch to imagine such a man saying "Well then, if you still have had such experiences...what use then is Christ? Seems to me "your answer" (Christ) as opposed to my agnosticism is no better." Such a man might well think "if I can really find the truth, (surely not like 'this other guy') this experience of storms will surely stop!" "I'll have hit bedrock, I'll have, no matter what, a thing immovable, unshakeable of truth...that even the worst storm I have known, or can possibly conceive...will not move me".
Yet, how much rests upon "possibly conceive"!
Now, if a man knows nothing of this...but has only all his life known smooth sailing, of course this sounds absurd. "What need have I of anything...sailing for me is always a relaxation, I really don't know what you are talking about...in fact, I think you are crazy...look how easy I sail!" But, to be honest here (can we be honest here?) I think I would have a pretty hard time believing such a man. Oh, I believe that for whatever reasons he might try to "hide" his storms (after all, isn't it fun in one sense to sail past a guy trying to get his sheets all squared away as they flap willy nilly in the wind...while you have your vessel all trimmed out and cruising smoothly...just as though you hollered (which in truth your comportment might indeed be hollering, as you relax, beer in hand) "too bad you're such a lousy sailor, learn better next time...must suck to be you".
I think we christians might not be as unfamiliar (at least I am not) with the "fun" of this as we may care to admit. It's cool to look all cool, especially if one sees anything of this life in competition with one another. Then, it's doubly cool to have (if you could have it) all the other boats in some sort of disarray as you cruise past, proving your mastery of what now befuddles most others. Don't we like that...at least a little bit?
You don't have to believe me here, of course. You don't have to believe we (might be) given to parade, "christian" or otherwise. You can surely say "I believe there are people "not like that", and that you are just trying to generalize, to ameliorate in some sense, the obvious guilt you have in being such a peacock"
And who knows...maybe you'd be right.
Maybe you do know some good simple folks, or even are one, who has never enjoyed any display of self assurance.
Obviously a man like me would just be a contamination to them, or in their midst. I wouldn't be fit to speak a word to them. But, I could sure learn from them. I think they must be the "kind" of people that would stop their boat and ask "hey do you need any help? May I be of assistance?" And have not one interest in showing me what they "know" over what I do not, just an interest that a sailor might enjoy doing what was given as gift to do, safely. And, I don't think they'd have to say a thing about their knowledge of stormy waters, they'd show it as they cruised up so gently next to my rocking vessel, tossed about in threatening wave, without even the slightest bump of hulls.
It would be like "I didn't even notice our having come together".
But you sure showed up when I need you most, especially when I was totally convinced "ain't no one knows how to do this without going under". Just ain't no one...no one at all..."Out there".
They might ask "didn't you hear your own screams for help?"
No, I didn't, I truly didn't, I don't know what I'm doing or have done...at all.
Last edited:
ambush80
Senior Member
I believe I said to you once, and I'm paraphrasing here, that whatever you might have done in the past, you don't seem like that bad of a guy. That was me encouraging you to untangle your rigging.
Israel
BANNED
Thanks. I don't know, but thanks.
Had I known, I think I would have done things differently. But "had I known" means I wouldn't have been who I was, then...the one who "didn't know".
And, if I wasn't "who I was then", then surely I couldn't be who I am ...now. Who thinks he would have done things differently, had he only known...then.
So...what don't I know now that would change me...in the now?
Just everything.
The everything must change me.
ambush80
Senior Member
I sincerely hope you know better now than you did then. Per Peterson: "New Sprouts"
I can honestly say that simply by virtue of being conscious, at no time do I ever feel like I'm getting dumber, only sometimes stagnating.
Israel
BANNED
That's what appears the obvious conundrum. The "then" is particularly seen as the time I thought I "knew better"...which has in every way always led to a place of realization..."I did not".
Nevertheless, your hope extended in kind words is not diminished, nor despised.
Nevertheless, your hope extended in kind words is not diminished, nor despised.
