The Dreamworld IS The Kingdom Of Heaven. PAY ATTENTION to your dreams.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread

The Dreamworld IS The Kingdom Of Heaven.

The Dreamworld IS Real.

PAY ATTENTION to your dreams.

-- Gabriel (irrsc@yahoo.com), August 27, 2004

Answers

Hi Gabriel

Please elaborate.

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 28, 2004.


Have you ever seen your dog twitch around or growl in his sleep? Everyone with a dog knows even pets have dreams.

"Welcome, Fido, to the Kingom of God... I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the..."

Dreams certainly shed light on our own minds, but in order to conclude that dreams are the Kingdom of God - well, I suppose you gotta be smoking some major weed in order to reach that supreme level of revelation.

"If God made man in his image, why are there so many idiots?"

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), August 28, 2004.


Max? How do you know that a twitching dog is actually dreaming? Maybe, the dog is just twitching.

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 28, 2004.


Not only is it easy to deduce by simple observation, especially when the dog seems to be reacting to something in his sleep, even scientists accept the fact that dogs dream.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), August 29, 2004.

In other words, Max, it is an educated guess because in all of reality we really don't know what is happening with the twitching dog. Now, can we also apply this reasoning on other things that look like it is something? A hunch. This is how some people come to the conclusion that life exists in far off galaxies. We truly do not know, but we deduce it to be true. Some doctrines and theologies are also deduced, but we really never know for sure that those are the truth. Ah! but we do have faith that the twitching dog is dreaming. We see humans twitch in their sleep and later discover they were dreaming. It also happens to us, as we give a violent jolt during sleep.

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 29, 2004.



Zarove says animals have souls (I have no opinion to this position). Maybe animals can dream?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 29, 2004.

>In other words, Max, it is an educated guess because in all of reality we really don't know what is happening with the twitching dog.<

The probability is high enough to say, YES, we do know the dog is dreaming. Are we able to record the dog's dreams on a tape and prove it that way? No. Are we able to deduce and come to a very reliable conclusion based on the dog's behavior? Yes indiddly doo.

>Now, can we also apply this reasoning on other things that look like it is something? A hunch. This is how some people come to the conclusion that life exists in far off galaxies.<

It's more than a hunch that a dog dreams. It's a reliable conclusion that can be deduced through logic and even tested by indirect scientific means.

>Some doctrines and theologies are also deduced, but we really never know for sure that those are the truth.<

There are different arenas of proof. Some is historical. Some is philosophical. Some is scientific. You cannot prove scientifically that Lincoln was president anymore than you can prove the existence of truth using scientific means. Through science and logical deduction we can be reasonably sure that the dog is dreaming. Through philosophy we can come to an absolute conclusion that Truth exists.

When you watch a dog barking in its sleep and wake up still barking and looking around as if it was chasing something... you'll come to the same conclusion and have very little doubt about it. It's funny and the obvious conclusion is that the dog was dreaming. It's not a huge mystery or some strange muscle spasm. Now, if you want proof that the dog was dreaming of a rabbit or a cat... that's a whole other thing.

>Ah! but we do have faith that the twitching dog is dreaming.<

Every bit of knowledge we possess has an element of faith involved. Where are you trying to go? Or are you just trying to make me yawn? ;)

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), August 31, 2004.


>Zarove says animals have souls (I have no opinion to this position). Maybe animals can dream? <

Animals don't need souls in order to dream. The soul is more than the mind or brain. Monkeys have a brain and can think and possess memories that can contribute to a dream experience.

The soul is the consciousness deep within - the window to the Eternal.

Here's a saying I made up to illustrate the difference between humans and animals: "The dog may enjoy the steak, but he'll never savor the moment."

Only humans can savor moments because only humans have that window that allows them to step out of time and space look at things for an instant and know preciousness. There are other abilities the human soul possesses besides savoring moments and experiences.

Reason is not the evidence of a soul. Animals can reason. The human soul is something deeper than just reason. It's a "center-point" that only humans possess which reflects God's Consciousness or Light. It does not generate its own Light. Our souls are reflecters of God's Eternal Light.

Our souls are NOT Eternal as most believe. That's an idea from Greek philosophy and Eastern religions. As Jesus said, our souls can be destroyed. Nothing that can be destroyed can possibly be Eternal. Not only this, but only God is Eternal. To believe souls are Eternal is to be polytheistic, but most don't realize this fact.

How's that for a rambling mix of topics?

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), August 31, 2004.


I'm not trying to make you yawn at all, Max. If anything, I'm trying to wake you up from your dream state. 8)

You are using science to make an educated guess, a hunch, a calculated assumption, and a coincidental judgement. You still can't prove that the twitching dog is dreaming. I would agree that the dog is dreaming and won win the $64,000 question. But, we never can prove anything.

"Every bit of knowledge we possess has an element of faith involved. Where are you trying to go? Or are you just trying to make me yawn? ;) "-Max.

Try to stay awake on this one, Max. You've said it yourself, "...element of faith". In other words, we mask our doubts by having faith and believing in that faith. That faith is scientifically, philosophically, and cognitively unprovable, yet it becomes the truth. For example, many believers will go to their deaths having faith that they will never deny. History shows evidence of Jews, Pagans, Heathens, Christians, Gnostics, Atheists, and so more dying because they were true to their faith. That faith was real for them, even if in conflicts with many other faiths. So, what does that prove to us spectators? If the dog twitches, if a martyr dies, if a theology illuminates, if a doctrine teaches, if one's faith manifests, who is to say that it is truth. Many can interpret Scriptures to their own personal realities.

....

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 31, 2004.


The twitching dog is a metaphor that deals with the nature of human beliefs. Many people have "animated" their faiths and have come to accept their faith as the truth. It may very well have some truth or non at all, but for them it becomes irrelevant because it is already too real. For you and me, we are correct and have the truth. You will not budge from your garden because there is no error in your faith(doctrine/theology). Is there? I will not enter into your garden because my faith does not allow it. Yet, each of our gardens will allow us to enter freely, oh only by reservation in yours (I forgot). Sounds paradoxical, "aber interisant"!

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 31, 2004.



Gabriel is a spammer, I have seen her on dozens of boards now with the same mesage.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), August 31, 2004.

>You've said it yourself, "...element of faith". In other words, we mask our doubts by having faith <

Nope. ELEMENT OF FAITH is not "other words" for WE MASK OUR DOUBTS BY HAVING FAITH.

ELEMENT OF FAITH means we confidently trust, based on the evidence before us, that a certain claim is absolutely true. It's not a mask.

You know the name of your mother. In fact, you know it for absolute certain. However, you're only relying on the testimony of the witnesses who back that claim - likely your mother is included in that list of witnesses.

You know your own name. There is no doubt in your mind as to your own name, however, there is an element of faith involved. You must trust your memory and trust that all the cards in your wallet and bills and letters that come to your house are yours. You have to trust that you were not kidnapped and raised to believe a lie about your parents. You do not have faith in order to "mask" doubt about your name. You have faith because the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor and thus you trust the weight of evidence. Faith here is a confident belief. It's not wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is not faith.

We KNOW without a doubt (and without masks) that Abraham Lincoln was the President of the USA. But, my knowledge of this fact includes an element of faith (trust) that all the overwhelming evidence and witnesses are trustWORTHY enough to rely upon fully. We do not have an inkling of doubt that he was president. Faith is confident belief, not unconfident belief... or a "mask" for doubt as you like to call it.

>and believing in that faith.<

You and the other poster on this board named faith01 have both implied by your wording of sentences that FAITH and BELIEF are two different things. I'm not sure where you get these terms confused. You don't believe in faith. Faith IS belief... the terms are synonymous. Faith is a confident belief.

>That faith is scientifically, philosophically, and cognitively unprovable, yet it becomes the truth.<

Only a truth claim can be proven or disproven. If you use the term "Faith" to mean "a set of truth claims" then you are still wrong.

Proof is relative to the person you are trying to persuade. For example, you cannot prove anything to a person who denies the reality of absolute truth and logic. It's impossible. Everything you tell him is absurd. However, you can prove something to a person who accepts absolute truth and reason. So, proof is totally relative to the person you're dealing with. Truth, however, is not subjective.

(Much of discussing such things hinges on proper English terminology so we are not talking past each other.)

>For example, many believers will go to their deaths having faith that they will never deny. History shows evidence of Jews, Pagans, Heathens, Christians, Gnostics, Atheists, and so more dying because they were true to their faith. That faith was real for them, even if in conflicts with many other faiths. So, what does that prove to us spectators? If the dog twitches, if a martyr dies, if a theology illuminates, if a doctrine teaches, if one's faith manifests, who is to say that it is truth.<

Logos is the absolute Witness of what is true. HE is to say what is Truth.

Your point is not persuasive. All you're saying is that, because many people are sincere enough to die for their beliefs, then there's no way of knowing whether one person is right and another is wrong. In fact, I sense that you may even be offended if a person were to claim another person died in vain for his belief. The fact is, some people do die in vain for lies. They may be sincere, but they're sincerely wrong. There is such thing as objective truth.

>Many can interpret Scriptures to their own personal realities.<

Yes, but Rod...

1. Truth is Objective. 2. We can know the Objective Truth.

If you deny either of these points, everything you say means absolutely ZIP. If you deny either of these claims, you contradict yourself before you even open your mouth to speak.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), August 31, 2004.


ELEMENT OF FAITH means we confidently trust, based on the evidence before us, that a certain claim is absolutely true. It's not a mask rod: We cannot base our faith on the confidence that something is evident. "Blessed are they who have not seen, yet they do believe."

You and the other poster on this board named faith01 have both implied by your wording of sentences that FAITH and BELIEF are two different things. I'm not sure where you get these terms confused. You don't believe in faith. Faith IS belief... the terms are synonymous. Faith is a confident belief.

rod: Faith is a truth that a person believes or chooses not to believe. Suddenly, a belief becomes one's faith.

Your point is not persuasive. All you're saying is that, because many people are sincere enough to die for their beliefs, then there's no way of knowing whether one person is right and another is wrong. In fact, I sense that you may even be offended if a person were to claim another person died in vain for his belief. The fact is, some people do die in vain for lies. They may be sincere, but they're sincerely wrong. There is such thing as objective truth.

rod: Wow! Max. You also have the power to read people's minds. I'm am offended of the believer's murders/killing. Whether they have the truth or not is not up to man to decide, but it is for God's judgement.

Yes, but Rod...

1. Truth is Objective. 2. We can know the Objective Truth.

If you deny either of these points, everything you say means absolutely ZIP. If you deny either of these claims, you contradict yourself before you even open your mouth to speak.

rod: There is only one truth. There are many doctrines. There are many believers who claim to have that truth. You seem to exhibit that aura of being in the truth, along with your arrogant character. I suppose that arrogance is a trait of being in the truth? I highly doubt that. So, that would be a red flag in my book, before I open my book.

Proof is relative to the person you are trying to persuade. For example, you cannot prove anything to a person who denies the reality of absolute truth and logic. It's impossible. Everything you tell him is absurd. However, you can prove something to a person who accepts absolute truth and reason. So, proof is totally relative to the person you're dealing with. Truth, however, is not subjective.

rod: Hmm..interesting view. So, let's go back in time and apply your hypothesis on the people of a less modern time. Look at the miracles and signs that were used to try to persuade the people during Christ' time. Those works were beyond human understanding and logic. It defied science and there wasn't anyone around to give a logical explanation for Christ walking on water, healing the sick, and feeding the thousands. Yet, the people had one resolve--faith. They could not prove what they believed. The conclusion fell on miracles. Was it St. Matthew who wrote that we are not to concern ourselves with the wonders of Heaven as we cannot even comprehend earthly things? I believe so.

Your statement is inline with agreeing with me.

"So, proof is totally relative to the person you're dealing with. Truth, however, is not subjective. "

And, it is that relativety of truth that people exhibit. It is that relative truth that becomes the believer's reality. Here are examples of that reality:

Judaism
Christianity--Batist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, Apostolic, Catholic,Episcopalian, Lutheran, and on, and on.

All Those Other "Isms".

Is your faith the truth and infallible doctrine, Max?

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 01, 2004.


ELEMENT OF FAITH means we confidently trust, based on the evidence before us, that a certain claim is absolutely true. It's not a mask

This must have some truth to it, Max.

rod: We cannot base our faith on the confidence that something is evident. "Blessed are they who have not seen, yet they do believe."

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 01, 2004.


rod,

There is a paper by Timothy Enloe called "What is Truth". A very good paper you should read sometime. He has not posted it up on his site, but you might find it in a google cache somewhere.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 01, 2004.



I'll look for it.

I've spent some quality time with pre-Christian and pre-Judaic Law. I think I understand "relative" truth, too.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 01, 2004.


I emailed it to you. You cannot find it on the 'net.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 01, 2004.

i'm reading it in chunks at a time. the article doesn't say anything about pre-Christian faith and the mass confusion there. Am I to ignore the mass confusion we see today?

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 01, 2004.


David.

Please read the history books to make sure you have a full grasp of what others attempt to teach. That article you sent me makes some rather bold assertions regarding history in general. I'm more of a free thinker on many things. I have used the "quasi-Catholic" tag on myself. And, that is because of all of my self-driven desire to find the facts.

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 01, 2004.


"That article you sent me makes some rather bold assertions regarding history in general."

Like??

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 01, 2004.


The monks are made out to look like some kind of Scriptures horders who don't want to share with their peoples. The Protestants come to the rescue and disseminate Scriptures to the world. Uh, preaching and teaching had been going on. The Catholics brought Christianity to England. Actually, things were working just fine til Henry VII caused social upheaval (sp?)

.......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 01, 2004.


Henry VIII, I'm typing standing up.

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 01, 2004.


I'm still reading that article, David. The author sure does seem to have the same characteristics of a magesterium. We can't disagree or question his views. He is basically telling us to believe and not question (skepticism is to be avoided). He is also exhibiting "relativism" by throwing his view against the Roman Catholic Church walls. This is the problem I see with these constant battles, which have existed since before the 16th century. I see a refusal to submit to the Church. I don't see a quest for truth, but a battle of defiance. I don't want to see that. I want to see Protestant or Catholic provide the truth, not relative truth.

Once again, the article bases their view on "Sola Scriptura". It would be ok to submit to that system of faith, but look at history. I know; skepticism is not part of the equation. But, it really is. All people experience some degree of doubt. The truth should eradicate those doubts, those skeptical thoughts. Adam and Eve had to cope with their doubts, which manifested itself via disobedience. And, they were there with God from the start. And, where would that put those Calvinism doctrines of depravity?

The author accusses the "Romans" of their tactics, yet manages to use the same tactics on the "Romans". His magesterium is "Sola Scriptura". Every denomination has their magesterium. I still can understand how anyone can be correct, at this point. No wonder we have atheists and agnostics in this world.

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 01, 2004.


Oops

I still can't understand how anyone can be correct, at this point. No wonder we have atheists and agnostics in this world.

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 01, 2004.


>Faith is a truth that a person believes or chooses not to believe. Suddenly, a belief becomes one's faith.<

You need the dictionary definition of faith. If we're using the English language, we have to agree on the terms:

FAITH n. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

Faith is belief... confident belief.

>Wow! Max. You also have the power to read people's minds. I'm am offended of the believer's murders/killing. Whether they have the truth or not is not up to man to decide, but it is for God's judgement.<

I'm not sure what this paragraph of yours means. Sorry. Lemme guess: Are you saying it's impossible to know whether a person has the Truth or not? If so, I'll ask you, can we ever know for sure if Jesus and the apostles had the Truth?

> There is only one truth. There are many doctrines. There are many believers who claim to have that truth. You seem to exhibit that aura of being in the truth, along with your arrogant character. I suppose that arrogance is a trait of being in the truth? I highly doubt that. So, that would be a red flag in my book, before I open my book.<

You confuse arrogance with conviction. It's not arrogant to insist that 1+1=2. It's not arrogant to insist that jumping out of a flying airplane without a parachute will most likely lead to death. It's not arrogant to deduce something philosophically and be sure about it.

Arrogance is overbearing pride in one's self. I say very little about myself. I keep myself out of this. Conviction is having a strong belief.

Rod, having a strong belief is not arrogance as you suppose. It can be easily confused as such by some. There are kings and popes who called for the execution of many who held strong beliefs because they felt such people were simply being arrogant.

But you've called me lots of names on other threads without any particular reason. I'm not surprised.

>Hmm..interesting view. So, let's go back in time and apply your hypothesis on the people of a less modern time. Look at the miracles and signs that were used to try to persuade the people during Christ' time. Those works were beyond human understanding and logic. It defied science and there wasn't anyone around to give a logical explanation for Christ walking on water, healing the sick, and feeding the thousands. Yet, the people had one resolve--faith. They could not prove what they believed. The conclusion fell on miracles.<

The miracles were evidence enough for many to be convinced (strong belief) that Jesus was the Son of God.

>And, it is that relativety of truth that people exhibit. It is that relative truth that becomes the believer's reality. Here are examples of that reality:

Judaism Christianity--Batist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, Apostolic, Catholic,Episcopalian, Lutheran, and on, and on.

All Those Other "Isms".

Is your faith the truth and infallible doctrine, Max?<

If by Faith you mean "A set of principles or beliefs" then yes I am convinced my positions are absolutely true. If I were not convinced, I'd be a make-believer and discussing truth here would lack any weight... It'd simply be a matter of taste. Truth is not a matter of taste.

I do not, however, attach my name to the Truth and brand it and sell it and create organizations and groups, spread it around, and sit back and enjoy the monetary support that follows - as some do. I also do not believe the Truth can be altered a little and instituted by a government and forced upon a population - as has been the case with most of the history of Christianity.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), September 05, 2004.


If you have the truth, then you should have the arrogance to bring all to your teachings. Bring it to all nations, kind of deal.

"You confuse arrogance with conviction. It's not arrogant to insist that 1+1=2. It's not arrogant to insist that jumping out of a flying airplane without a parachute will most likely lead to death. It's not arrogant to deduce something philosophically and be sure about it."

I see conviction in the martyrs and pagans and heretics who went to their deaths in the hands of those arrogant protectors of the faith. But, that conviction doesn't make them vessels of the truth. The same applies to us. We can believe that we have the truth and move mountains. I heard of people seeing images of the Immaculate Conception in the sky. They, who saw, believe.

Uh, how big of an airplane are we talking about? How high? How fast?

Uh, that's just some humor, Max. I know; you want me to be serious.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 05, 2004.


Is it true that each man has his own way of believing in Christ? A pastor once told his congregation (and me) such an idea. He continued with the idea that each man has a unique way of worhipping God; each person having specific talents, skills, and thoughts to accept Christ and to Glorify Him. So, I got to thinking--ecumenism. Hmmm. Could this explain why our world is steeped in diverse faith systems? And, could they all be acceptable to God, forget man (he'll believe something if that's all he's been fed). It sounds impossible, though.

...

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 05, 2004.


Here is a little something written a ways back, at least slightly before 1600:

The procedure which the Church uses today is not that which the Apostles used: for they converted the people with preaching and the example of a good life, but now whoever does not wish to be a Catholic must endure punishment and pain, for force is used and not love; the world cannot go on like this, for there is nothing but ignorance and no religion which is good.--Giordano Bruno.
Now, of course, the Church operates much differently: Her clergy has become more enlightened since the Dark Ages. Bruno still held a conviction to the Church, but not Her confused men of the cloth. Nevertheless, Bruno does make some points. He believed in Apostolic teachings--handed by Jesus--and works. But, he points out the disasters of believing in "religion". Afterall, Bruno does get burned at the stake for having "philosophical", make that heretical, beliefs. Bruno did go to his death believing he had the truth. It may not have had anything to do with Salvation, but others considered his truth to have cost his Salvation.

Bruno believed in things that, which today, seemed logical. He believed in an infinite universe becasue God is infinite. I guess this went against the ortodox view that all was created at one time. Genesis and all that...He also believed that other life existed in those far off planets. That isn't so bad, but wait. He imagined those life forms worshipping other Gods. Maybe he should have said, "our God"? He didn't believe in the Holy Trinity. He believed that the devil would be Saved. The Gospel of St. Peter (maybe the Apocalyps of Peter) asserts the same idea.

We now have a hunch that the universe is infinite. We have observed the creation of new suns in the comsos. Some have tallied the number of extraterrestrial life as a factual probabili

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 05, 2004.


OOPS!

We now have a hunch that the universe is infinite. We have observed the creation of new suns in the COSMOS. Some have tallied the number of extraterrestrial life(OTHER PLANETS) as a factual probability.

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 05, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ