Who Speaks?

Israel

BANNED
Is God...or no? Each man gives answer. And I must give answer for any of my presumptions if found in question, and that one specifically. I mean...who am I to ask? Who am I to query any man? Have I been made inquisitor...or is it sufficient I am limited to only those, like myself...who have found that the ultimate...and only real question? What has no care about it is well beyond my ability to cause to have care. And, if I am not content to be found speaking only to myself, I surely have no right of speaking to anyone else.


And rather than enter all the considerations of those things a man might observe to which he owes his own authorization for being and the doing of anything; (read: motive) whether religion, experience, tradition, intellect and/or education, emotion, willfulness, the subconscious and the whole scale of so called nobler and baser instincts that may constitute all or any man, let us forgo their assignment as his god.


It is easily argued that what exerts prime influence upon any man is to that man "his god", let us rather cut to the chase immediately and speak of being and beings...if the man exists in all comprised of the aforementioned (even as his own god)...is there another being (or form of it) whom (or that) is God? We are here, if granted, limiting ourselves to a person not ourselves.


And that "other" being (even if in such form of being comprehensible in the minutest sense as there) is totally removed and apart from man's experience of temporal and finite being, let us, if we can reduce to all yes or no for our purposes, consider God to be the supreme or supreme-est of being and Beings. One over all in omniscience, consciousness, presence, motive and/or purpose, power, consistency in both essence of action, and authority. The reason of, and for, everything...observed...and even not observed. The prime mover.


I know this is a big jump in such assignations for one could argue for an "idiot god", an un-self aware/unconscious god, some form of mindless energy (or even so called spirit) that moves in effect and affects all apart from any self known purpose. But, that might be the bigger leap to argue such. No?


But that argument could be made by any who might think "If one is going to assign total consciousness, one might just as well (and as easily) assign total un-self awareness/consciousness" for both are as far removed from man in his experience as any other. But if we agree consciousness is (i.e. exists) you can see the conundrum presented in such argument. If the prime mover, origin of being, supreme (of) being is without it, it is all and only a construct within the creation. Therefore no appeal to it, or even for it if only self constructed in the creation can hold any authority for appealing to.


This absurdity is made clearer if we consider this matter in term of reason...and reasoning. And one would surely include logic if we try to hold this as "the standard" (reason and logic) of determination. It is entirely like a governing principle of any data expression or data expressing apparatus which, if left to itself, must descend to chaos in entropy (and perhaps already has) if apart from any original calibration or even continued calibration/intervention to ensure data is interpreted according to some standard of accuracy. Which, for our purposes, we might call truth.


The gas pump doesn't know why it measures and "puts out" the recorded data of a gallon as it does...but you surely want to know the intention of both the fabricator and the calibrator is not caprice. (And more to the point...what would it take for you to trust a "self made" pump owing nothing to design except itself...and no knowledge of "gallon" except that which it has itself decided upon?) And do you really need explained how habits of use producing change require periodic renewal to an agreed standard? Any agreement to a concept of entropy, if applied to consciousness, would only mean it is subject to a degrading, in the creation if limited to it, not further, nor more refined, development.


The more clever of you already see the issue if we enter matters of stasis and change. What is "always the same" ( in stasis) even if inconceivable in experience (or experientially excluded) is nevertheless conceptually apprehended. So would be truth if established upon the same logic. Just as stasis can exist "in the mind" as concept but not found in experience, (except relatively) when we speak of the principle of truth as an unchanging matter, we are left with the same. Yet...who is not dogged (yes! in experience, even!) with the matter of "What is true"? With, and by, the concomitant assumption truth does exist.


But for our purposes (if we make any leap that there can even be...any purpose) I will not seek to establish any contention that because man is most often concerned with what is true this impetus must point to both its existence (truth) and the placement of such desire for knowing it as any argument that it has been placed (such desire to know)...by "a" something or someone. Wanting, even desperately, to see a pink unicorn could result in all futility. Except as one might only exist in mind...and it is not so silly a question as it may sound: "Isn't that enough?" For terms we use casually...mostly convinced of their verity until deconstructed to making no true display...even such as chaos or randomness. Order is required, and must be...for their determination.


It seems not a bad argument at all, but I am not seeking to maneuver to such end of agreement. For it is, at this point, just as easy and legitimate to say man just made it all up...the notion of truth, and the truth of things...and the desire to know it. Yet, no matter the extent we may agree (or disagree) he appears dogged by its acquisition. Seeking knowledge that is (need it be said?)...true. If self evidence is provably corrupted by that contention to any other man, of myself (if no other) I believe it...true. Self evidence often takes a bad rap, for it seems unprove-able to any consistency among men. Yet, isn't self evidence the starting point in man, any man...for knowing? If I "be not"...of what matter can anything be? No, I am (are you?) convinced of myself..."I am".


Now one might be as contrarian as he cares to be even saying "There is no such thing as truth" or, "Truth, if it exists, is not knowable", sounding vaguely atheistic in the first case and agnostic in the second. But one quickly sees the issue in such, for only an essential liar would seek to make a true statement that denies either the existence or know-ability of truth. Such self evidence should not be hard to understand. It is very much like a man saying "Everything I say is a lie." Of what use would it be to ask that man "Is that true?" Or even respond to him? Isn't it self evident the man that is saying "there is no ultimate truth" seeking to utter an ultimate truism?


But please, read no more into this than what I say. I am (specifically) not saying "Do not respond" but only asking the question if one can find any use in it. (Querying the man who declares himself liar) So the questions stands as it is "Of what use...?"...for either one believes there is a use and may by thinking on it come to it for response...or might say, "There is no use to it..." (Or even ignore all together) But, here again, the issue is not of any maneuvering to an agreement with me, per se.


The issue, if there is one (and you are already in the process of some agreement or disagreement) is to the matter of consistency and expression...does the man agree in himself? Does the man agree with himself? And if so, to what?


The matter of expression is already a completely settled thing, and that settled by existence. Is that true? Everything makes statement of its being by its being. Yet, might one ask "What is there (is there?) of man that seems unsatisfied by self evidence?" Not only so, but appears compelled to "add to" self evidence in such a way as to leave absurdity brazenly pointing at himself in his expression? And, perhaps rightly, you consider whether this writer is most absurd of all things. Trying to "prove" self evidence could be a foundation found for all lying.


"I think, therefore I am" on its surface may sound profound. (Talk about a mix...surface and profound!) And even though I am unable to ask of him whom that is first attributed as expressed, I nevertheless am provoked to the question of it. "What about the rock?" Do you see? Am I being contrarian? Absurd? If you cannot prove "thinking in a rock"...does it have less being than the thing claiming its existence is proved by it (thinking)?


The story of the philosophy professor thinking himself clever set a sign over the chair as class assignment "Prove the chair exists". Yet he was himself taken to school, and could not deny the student an A+ who responded "What chair?". Do you see? Do you also see the truth of it...regardless of whether you care to argue whether this "once" took place on a campus or is just "made up"? Do you begin to see that in all matters of truth...facts themselves (as we know them, call them...even call them the "true things") can be trumped? And perhaps not only "can be"...but in truth in fact...must be? Might a man consider what seems all obverse to his thinking (and if so, how?) that truth is in all what supports fact, and facts; and not the other way around?


I cannot, in fact, prove whether the rock thinks at all, but is that of any matter? Does it "be less", exist less, than myself...especially if I seek to establish my own being as "I am" because I believe I "think"? You can deny as fact that I think at all, (and I have little doubt some of you do) again, is that of any matter to my being? Is it made less...by what you think? Bump into me (as you are truly doing here) or the rock with your being, and find answer in yourself. The only question that remains, if there is one, is matter of expression. And whether the consistency of one's self (if one cares to give out response) is consistent in what is given out. For what man gives out in word may be real as fact in what he gives out of thoughts and intents...but, are they true?


Seeking to navigate these matters with reason, or any process of rational consciousness requires the most basic assumption often overlooked...which if ignored becomes presumption; that there is a thing as reason and that it is both real and in some fashion useful. Our own logic, though to us so inescapably self evident must bear examination. Not merely its end product of confirmation or rejection of interpretation of data to our own minds, but its very foundation of utility to that end.


Any presumption here, or simple assumption/assertion that reason must exist merely because it presents itself to my mind as self evident and existent...must bear examination. Especially if our assumption at all includes it as being a reliable process for the establishment of truth in ourselves. It's then seen as too far a leap till established, that it exists in every man; or, even if internally established and understood by any man...that it is therefore present in any other man.


The simplicity is absurd. If there is no reason to, nor for the universe, (here inclusive of all material matters including time and space man experiences in being) but the contention is that reason exists as a real matter of consideration (and for all considerations...of utmost utility as logic) whence its origin? In other words, if there be no logic to, nor for the universe, how does it exist as real (even if only agreed as found in man) in the universe? Agreeing man exists...in the universe.


And as much as this is a prior assumption; that is until it is settled to any man he exists, he obviously cannot go any further in considerations. Yes, this is required so we not proceed in presumption...as absurd sounding as it is perhaps, do I exist? And if to reason and if by reason I do establish that I do, my knowing of being is established upon reason. And this is where the question of its origin, source, nature, essence become paramount.


For were I to deny reason for the universe (as all things extant) but maintain there is reason in the universe, even if only that it is in me, how does a thing in a system acquire what is not given to the system...for the system? Or better...if denied as being given to, in, or for the system over all, can it be...in it "apart"? If by our reason we seek to, (in simplest terms make a step outside the system for examination of it, its nature and foundations of what is a given about it) reason must collapse the moment it is denied as being "there". If reason...at best, can only lead ultimately to "there is no reason", or "I find no reason nor see any"...it is self denying. Self abnegating. For, if reason is a function of consciousness (establish to yourself your axioms) but deny consciousness as reason for the universe (all matters extant)...ultimately consciousness is not only deniable...but denied. For how can one use a device/process (if we can reduce to that description) to establish its ultimate absence?
 

Israel

BANNED
Here's an absurd example. But it cuts the matter of intellectual honesty as surely as I can offer any hope for the hope that is in me. How that foundational in all is the matter of intellectual honesty of self evidence which, if denied in principle can only build according to corruption a tower of knowledge that is of itself, all corrupt.


You and I travel in vessels equipped such as they are. In them I will concede you find consciousness "in yours" as I do in mine. Here "amount"...even if it were measurable, matters not. The quality of the matter is all, and only salient...in whatever measure it is, it is sufficient enough it is. And sufficient to us.


A man travels by plane. In it are devices of data delivery. These devices are not self knowing of significance of data, only the pilot interprets that...much as whatever thing in you and me (by concession agreed to its presence?) interprets what "our reason" tell us. Funny, but we even say it so..."[my] reason tells me", "[my] logic tells me" and the "me" speaks.


In the plane there are altimeters, air speed indicators, whatever host of instruments/devices onboard to deliver data to the pilot for his interpretations for safe travel. Are we not so much so, in ourselves? We want "true data", not a product of some ill manufacture or faulty conception. We want intelligently conceived and constructed devices to be "telling us" distance from earth to prevent unwanted crash, air speed to ward off unintended stall, fuel indicators not manufactured by a drunken fool, nor at worse...according to random design.


Even were the pilot capable of building all his own devices to the point of his complete satisfaction and trust to their function...he would still have built, have had to build according to some prior concept of knowing (not only salience of such data, but necessity for avoiding catastrophe), in other words he would have to build from a knowing before the knowing of the reason it need be trustworthy. Knowledge of catastrophe to be averted. If that knowing is not there previous to start of construction of device the "reason" for device, if not assigned...is not only moot, but not establish-able. Which is perhaps why one does not find carousels, nor rice cookers (of necessity) in cockpits.


I told you it was absurd. But how much more absurd is it for a man, who claiming there is no reason for the universe, seeking to assign no reason by reason, or worse...claiming reason exists in him...but it is at best all function of random construction...without "reason" for it? Working as it were...by no law. Just random molecular/sub molecular arrangement or chaotic chemical interplay...creating consciousness to reason.


I wouldn't fly so...nor make another move (if I were intellectually honest) and so informed (or had it revealed) that my basis of trust was all of chaos. Or, at very least, inescapably know if doing so, all onus and culpability for catastrophe was then only my own.


And no less...for any cost incurred for whatever I crash into.


No man is reasonable until he discovers it exists beyond himself, shared to him, for him...even with a reason...to make him reasonable. Man can only oppose himself, and does, when he proposes reason exists everywhere in the universe (by laws universal he is ever in striving to uncover)...but not for it.


Only faith is reasonably spoken...all else is only allowed in tolerance by mercy and grace. But these are, that is...mercy and grace, another matter for discussion; though not a different discussion.


Who speaks?
 
Last edited:

gordon 2

Senior Member
How's about that intellectual honesty is for the birds and that spiritual honesty is where it be at. How's about that the spiritual tumblers or the meshing of spiritual gears gives real torque that justice has a divine source and that the intellect just let's us read about it. In other words the proof of God and his attributes is only available from observation within a life lived with, though and in God and not from outside observation.

Faith might be a gift, but it is also nurtured by spiritual experience. We can have faith that God is just by the witness that He is in life experiences ( His behavior). There not only seems to be a moral order in our consciousness which we can intellectualize about, but also a spirit with its own moral order and power which only experience can prove.

I like to intellectualize that Abraham found God to be just ( attribute) because of two things principally: A) The Egyptian returned his wife and B) the reason they returned her.

1. Having the return of your wife is no small deal.

2. The Egyptians were God fearing.

1= to A and 2= to B.

A+B = God is just and spiritually active in the world.(Inside and outside of Abraham's experience.)

The whole story of Abraham is one of God's will to be good or just with man and bless man when gleaned from an intellectual perspective. That God is, is proved within Abraham's life with God... from Abraham's life experience to Abraham God is real. Abraham believed because God was significant and active in his personal life experience.

And so it is our life experience which prove God as being of independent will and of the long game, independent of our wills ( intellectual) more than not too often in the short games...
 
Last edited:

gordon 2

Senior Member
The argument that God is unjust.

Genesis: Abraham and Abimelek
20 Now Abraham moved on from there into the region of the Negev and lived between Kadesh and Shur. For a while he stayed in Gerar, 2 and there Abraham said of his wife Sarah, “She is my sister.” Then Abimelek king of Gerar sent for Sarah and took her.

3 But God came to Abimelek in a dream one night and said to him, “You are as good as dead because of the woman you have taken; she is a married woman.”

4 Now Abimelek had not gone near her, so he said, “Lord, will you destroy an innocent nation? 5 Did he not say to me, ‘She is my sister,’ and didn’t she also say, ‘He is my brother’? I have done this with a clear conscience and clean hands.”

6 Then God said to him in the dream, “Yes, I know you did this with a clear conscience, and so I have kept you from sinning against me. That is why I did not let you touch her. 7 Now return the man’s wife, for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you will live. But if you do not return her, you may be sure that you and all who belong to you will die.”


----------------------

Now ask yourselves what kind of death are we at here? Intellectually( consciously) ask your self what was it all about that Abimelek would fret that he and the innocent were as good as dead for his having taken a married woman? And then ask your self spiritually the same question: What kind of death are we talking about spiritually and does it differ from an intellectual assessment? What effect would the threat of spiritual death have on someone spiritual or someone who understands that God has a moral code which provides for blessings and a positive life in the present and future? What effect would a threat as this have on someone who knew by experience what it was like to live without God as a friend you could laugh with?

Personally I think Abimelek had spiritual smarts before he had intellectual smarts. The peace he garnered with Abraham for this is immeasurable. I hope his descendance is having a super duper good day :).
 
Last edited:

Israel

BANNED
Yes. The intellect must find its place of being informed of the spirit. Till then...what "it thinks it knows" regardless of informing, will only lead to calamity to the extent God wills.
Abraham believed he had some good reason to be clever about his relationship to Sarah thinking it would spare his life. He had not yet learned that the same faith that had called him was no less for his preserving in that call. This is what I understand as your description of experience...the outworking of matters, not according to what once was found useful resource (even cleverness) but all in accord with a completely different "way" of life...that is life.

This is also I trust where the matter you describe as "spiritual honesty" would also enter...in that place where God has made plain his intent of preservation, and that preservation...is in His hands alone. This in no way reflects any less or poorly upon Abraham's faith, this matter that "got him started" so to speak...and would (as God well knew and understands) take him away from the once safe appearing shores and into the deep in which he was to learn to trust the One who called him...for everything. He was now walking in the place where all is needed to be shown...and would be. The lessons to each of us may vary in particulars...but the patience and forbearance of God toward our own ignorance of such a "way" remains.

God's knowing our need of mercy in the call of this life that so opposes all previously understood as useful to us never wanes. The once use of our intellect for our own advancement and preservation, even to the revealing of its having formed itself in response to our need to assure our selves of safety must make way for the God of salvation...all safety...safeness...saving. And we are appointed to this learning.

Paul once saw fit to be lowered in a basket to escape enemies. But much later, when warned by a prophet what would await the man to whom the girdle belonged if he persisted in his claimed course that man said:

Then Paul answered, What mean ye to weep and to break mine heart? for I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.

He had seen and learned over the course of his calling that the readiness was all, and just as Jesus endured His appointed time to be a sure benefactor and provider of this unspeakable gift Paul was too uncaring of any necessity to the preserving of his own life.

I suppose I was less clear than I'd hoped.


Faith is all and only what has reason to speak.
 
Last edited:

Israel

BANNED
I was awakened in the matter of intellectual honesty, (or conversely dishonesty) by another's contribution in a discussion of it. It was Hummerpoo's and I trust he will not mind my reference of it, not for matter of point but matter of sight.

Just my take.

I think "intellectual dishonesty" is lying to yourself.

If one knows that what he are saying will not hold up under close scrutiny, which we often see of in politics, and elsewhere, when something is advocated knowing that only an infinitesimal portion of the hearers, to whom it is targeted, will investigate, or will even care if it is true if it sounds good to them; that is a lie.

If one is aware that he has not sufficiently informed himself to advocate for the position taken, or has utilized information that he has not identified as insufficiently investigated; that is "intellectual dishonesty".

It is my opinion that a large portion of what we read and hear, and a large portion of what we write and say, in this life, qualifies for one of these categories. Just look at my opening sentence, it disqualifies all that I have said from being reliable.

"Just my take.

I think "intellectual dishonesty" is lying to yourself."

I am often pressed to this matter in regards to Jesus' story of the man building many barns.


"Just my take" on the why of that being pressed (but only God knows) would be that my mind often seeks out that same groove to run in. I find it natural.


And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully: And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits? And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry. But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided? So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.



And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits? And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry.

Jesus discloses He has hearing of these inner dialogues of a man speaking within himself...one part to another. One part assuring another of a thing it has of itself, in truth, no assurance of. Yet, it speaks as though it does and the hearing part may even find this most reasonable. In this story the soul is persuaded it has (for whatever reasons) "many years" to enjoy. The man might be young, the man may appear of good health...the man might know nothing of coming storms and lightning strikes, an asp under his bed, a less than adequately chewed piece of meet, an occlusion in his left main coronary artery, a rotten rung on a ladder, a brigand with a knife... ad infinitum.

But in all his lacking of things to be considered the only one that matters is the will and purpose of God for him. That is what was "left out" in his self speaking calculus. His days are already numbered and measured out, regardless of whatever other info has come to him in his experience.

But of course he doesn't think he is lying to himself (and neither do I as I do...when I do)...and even the believer, and perhaps especially the believer is being cautioned that, not only are all these inner dialogues heard and plain, but unless or until God inserts Himself there...we are very content to believe ourselves. And God knows how often and much I need such dissuasion. And God knows that such to me...is salvation. A man quite content, naturally...to continually lie to himself. And from such...what could only proceed but lies to others?

The renewal of mind to "be ready" and not "get ready" for His appearing (in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye) is His tireless occupation. To remind...re-mind a man that all intents and plans (no matter how seemingly noble they may even be, or spiritual or seemingly efficacious in the service of the gospel) are always and only according to His will and purpose...and that already purposed in Christ.

But Christ would not have us ignorant of that man always speaking within himself. Who can escape him? Heeding voices...as voices are given and were given...for "a" reason. Our great gift is the intrusion of the only one that is of reason.

But God said unto him, Thou fool...

We do not know from the parable if the man heard. or even if he did...his response. Did he "sober up?" Was he allowed time to consider what was told him? Could he, did he get past the sting of being called a fool?

Did he rejoice?

I hear God! God is calling me a fool! But, nevertheless, I hear God! And He is speaking to me! Directly! Because what I hear...I never even considered! Or could! I have God's attention! O! happy day! I am real in God's sight!


But we do know God speaks...and spoke to him. And regardless, we who believe know Jesus does not speak frivolously, and in one sense (if we have read of it) it is now "too late" for us to feign an ignorance about such matters.

Who "else" takes the lesson is quite out of our hands, and how they take it. At best all we may be able by grace to accomplish is in truth confirm such lesson has been given...even if we be found rightly incurring judgment in any misapplication or mishandling. And submit to any lumps...even "thou fool" as needed...if needed, when needed.

There is an over riding voice no matter how man "other" voices may seek to add to each other as if by such addition there is a multiplication of power. Such is faithlessness, deceived by numbers to a distribution of such deception.

There are always only two voices, one of reason and with reason to speak, and a stranger...allowed for a season in deception that it has both right...and reason to speak.

The reason for all creation, the reason of all creation, the reason in all creation is all of One. There is no "other reason"...only not reason.

'Worthy art Thou, O Lord, to receive the glory, and the honour, and the power, because Thou -- Thou didst create the all things, and because of Thy will are they, and they were created.'
YLT
 
Last edited:
Top