Dear Banjo,

<<Why then do we need religion to “detach ourselves from this world” ? It should be as simple as walking down the street.>>

Because of ignorance about our true nature, our faith is flickering, intermittent, so we require methods or techniques to support and strengthen our will-power against the forces of attachment.

<<Could it be that it is not “the world” which “stands in our way to God” but, rather, our lack of conviction that there really is a god - in other words, our doubt ? It seems we do not have the same confidence in God as we do in the ground supporting us when we walk down the street.>>

Certainly so. Ignorance of our true nature is ignorance of God. Instead we believe our mind which tells us that we are a body, thus we trust the ground more than ourselves.

<< it must require an enormous amount of courage to have true faith.>>

Definitely. We often need to be desperate enough to find this courage.

<<So it must be for the majority of humanity. Whereas the tiny minority of true believers is already detached from this world and, presumably, in heavenly bliss.

As for the rest of us, the question is irrelevant.>>

It is not black-and-white. Very few are totally detached - the rest of us are partially attached and partially detached in varying degrees.

SHAKEY/GROUND/banjo..<<....We walk without/the..slightest hesitation...Why then..do we need religion..>>
one walks faster/alone..but life is about smelling the flowers/not following the leaders

why/religate/to..ned religion..[guidence]..to..“detach ourselves from this world”..?>>

its not the attaTCHMENT..its the constant obsession
all of us obsessed[some to the pont/of\non-function..just to earn our lac/in this hell/give a pig a tough\full of pearl/it wil chew/the pearls..to eat/its slop/but god feels/the pigs ned/for slop/thus grants-it

recall the king/who lived as a beast/of\the field[incanated/for 8 years\..he wished/for sa simpler life/wanting just to wander/his own estates..*wish-granted*

<<It should be as simple..as..[WISHING/to\physicly]..walk/down the street...[or to say/yes i did-it;when the wish was only/to visit\then return/like kids that/yet again/cross-over/soon after..birth

<<..Could it be..that it is..*not..“the world”..which..“stands in our way..to God”..but,rather,..our lack of conviction/that there really is a god>>

NICE/TRY..BANJO\.

..BUT ALL/THE DEAD/can realise/gods truth[sadly knowing/suddenly realised great shame,in some..though god was there everystep/its not god/who judges/but the thoughts we obsess about

to try to clarify..if we were together[in spirit-realm]..each word/i formmed;in my mind/would have a physical affect/in the spirit realm[using the physical..metophoricly..ie one that all arround see hear feel;know..[there really is no secrets/in the next]-life

<<..our doubt..?>>OUR PREPAREDNESS/everything..is clearly expressed/in our soul-form[often even faint traces/of our internals/are expressed/seen/

<<.It seems..we do not..have the same confidence/in God\as we do in the ground..supporting us/when we walk down..the street...[THE TRIPPING..WILL HAVE\NOUGHT-D=TO/DO..WIT ME...[SHAKY GROUNDS/ARE THINGS\SPIRITS AVOID.[damm caps]

<<...ormous amount of courage..to have..true faith.>>
NOT COURAGE..BELIEF/AS WE BELIEVE/THUS ITS PRESENTED..till we are ready..to accept/the\truth/BUT WHO VALIDATES TRUE/4\u?=you.

It is not surprising that most of us don’t make it.

<<..some people I know are persuaded..they have faith>>

lol..faith by pers-ed=weighin]..isnt 'faith'
its hope.fear..or some other emotive truickery[GOD KNOWS THAT IN OUR HEARTS/ALLOWS US ITS MANIFESTATION/AS 'our'[read mine]..YOURS-REALITIES

damm-caps

<<.even if they hesitate..?..>>
AS IN AVOIDANCE/or test..delay..avoid..<<..all their lives,..their total detachment..from the world..is inevitable...>>[yes..just like a book/that ends..before our enjoyment..of the book is over...till we open/the next book.

<<..As for..the rest of us,..the question../is/..irrelevant.>>

lol..i see how/you would/think\so..but..your wrong
yet even the wrongness isnt/going..to void the end...LO...THAT REVEALS..THE NEXT BEGINNING..with a bang..a big-bang..[..following the re-joining..[oneness]..atonement,,[at one meant]..that precedes the fall/every time...[the seperation/forms\..the place/we fall.'to'..

/too..damm/free-will...[ie-here].
its..a honey-trap..free/?\..whats..free?

.


..

Dan S de Merengue,

You are right, there things that specialists disagree upon - e.g. whether superstring theory is the best explanation of physical reality, or whether Cornelius Van Til’s views on theology best interpret what Jesus wanted to say to our century, or which version of evolution theory best reflects observed data.

In all these cases if I am not a specialist I cannot offer my common sense to adjudicate between them, because as a non-specialist I probably do not completely comprehend what the one or the other specialist is actually claiming. Nevertheless, there is a difference: Whereas without heavy mathematics one does not understand what the disagreement is about, not so in the other two cases, hence you get all sorts of adjudicators from the outside, who do not understand what it is they did not understand.

>>The Bible addresses many concerns about what is what and how things operate … Moreover, it speaks of everything.<<

Do you really believe that you would find more about e.g. how your computer operates in the Bible than from a computer scientist? I think the computer scientist knows more of this HOW, irrespective of whether he/she believes in God or not. However, he/she will give different answers to Leibnitz’s “WHY there is something rather than nothing” depending on whether he/she believes in God or not.

Dear Banjo,

I came across the Rev. Saunders’ article accidentally, to get you a quote you requested. Remember, I never had formal RE, but what he says is more or less what I heard from many, educated and not-so-educated, Catholics. I think - but please don’t again ask for a quote - that the good old ladies, as much as they believed in the Lourdes miracles, considered it a sin to assume that this belief is obligatory for every Catholic.

I do not understand how you relate the distinction between public and private revelations (a heavily theological terminology to distinguish between what a Catholic/Christian MUST and CAN believe which doesn’t make sense if you do not believe in God) to metaphysics as such. There are many things philosophers can say, which are neither verifiable nor falsifiable and which are not related to any “revelation”, private or public.

>>It suddenly becomes “evident” to him. <<

This does not necessarily apply to the existence of something independent of the scientist’s mind or coming from such source (Rev. Saunders’ two revelations): mathematicians as well have their Eureka moments when it suddenly becomes EVIDENT to them how to solve a given problem. They do not have to believe that this is a revelation coming from God.

>> The problem is that the “evidence” must be readily observable by anyone, what the Rev. Saunders calls “public” - in other words, it must be “objective”.<<

Again, no mention of the word “evidence” in Rev. Saunders’ article, and as I tried to explain in my link, it makes sense only with respect to a group (e.g. the jury) who decide whether it is convincing or not. Only in trivial cases is this group “anyone”.

You could find “evidence” for things which would convince a mediaeval thinker but not a contemporary scientist, and vice versa. Whatever evidence would convince a "Dawkinsian" that God exists would probably not convince an educated Christian that this is the God he/she believes in. And vice versa.

>> I commiserate with them (the believers) <<
For a believer’s reply see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15315#264888.

Yuyutsu,
You say faith is not about understanding. Yet I don't think faith should contradict reason. Faith and wisdom are to be complementary. As it is said in the first chapter of the Proverbs:
"Fear of the LORD is the foundation of true knowledge,"

I've often wondered about that line of thinking that says the Bible contains helpful wisdom, while allowing for that same Bible to contain error. This doesn't add up for me.

To take your example, you suggest that Genesis chapter 1 is teaching something about honouring the sabbath. This may well be true, for as it says in Exodus 20:9-11
"You have six days each week for your ordinary work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath day of rest dedicated to the LORD your God. ... For in six days the Lord made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything in them; but on the seventh day he rested. That is why the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy."

Yet I don't see how this teaching is to be followed if it is based on a falsity. For it says that God has set a pattern for us to follow. Yet if the first part is not true, how can it be the example that we are meant to follow?

I could list many other examples. If there is a lesson which refers back to a previous event, and yet that event never occurred, then how can there be value or credibility in the lesson?

uote..<<..Yuyutsu,..''You say faith..is not about understanding.
Yet I don't think..faith should contradict reason...Faith and wisdom are to be complementary...>>

,,<<..As it is said in the first chapter of the Proverbs:
"Fear of the LORD is the foundation of true knowledge,">>..

oops hang-on/yES ONCE/BUT ITS WRITTEN AS WIsdom 7 other times
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=fear+of+god+beginning+wisdom&

dan?..<<..>>I've often wondered about that line of thinking that says the Bible contains helpful wisdom, while allowing for that same Bible to contain error. This doesn't add up for me.>>

dan/its about freewill/not prejudging the slinters\in each others eyes
its about allowing te tares/and the wheat\to but briefly meet/here[in satans-realm]..;

<<..in six days the Lord made the heavens,..the earth,..the sea,
and..flora/fauna/micro-biota\micro-beast/bacteria/fungi-slime..

<..everything in them; but on the seventh day\he rested.>>

WE MAY KNOW/THEN..BY THEIR SIGN,,

<<..That is why the Lord blessed the Sabbath
day and set it apart as holy...Yet I don't see how this teaching is to be followed..*if it is based on a falsity...>>

THE BIBLE IS BEST READ AS A HOLO-GRAM/WHERE EVERYTHING..IN IT=IS AS IF/NOW..that we know as if by hind sight the work/and its fruits[see demons get much out of the book/at a lower-level'to be sure'..yet/angels see only the light/knowing error isnt,,'of'..god/thus not ever 'eternaly'..real.

<<>For it says that God..has set a pattern..for us to follow...Yet if the first part is not true..how can it be the example..that we are meant to follow?>>

a man/begins..as a seed..yet in that seed is infinite potential
life is a maze/everytime we see the door/its a wall/but once we turned/the corner..huge undreamed of vistas/get revealed/every end=a new beter beginning/there are no wasted steps/no small parts\only small actors.

<<..If there is a lesson..which refers back/to\..a previous event, and yet that..event..never occurred,..then how can..there be valueor credibility..in the lesson?>>

im sorry dan/its called the 67 BOOKS [SORRY BI=2=THE TWO/BOOKS]
BUT MATE/NOT THE 70 TEACHINGS..its about our human naturE/ALLOWING US INTO THE MINDS OF THE SCRIBES/damm caps\and thus they entry into ours.

via words we can talk beyond death/how amasing is that
please test me on those you think refute/these things is why i live for.