It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

It takes humility to have a relationship with God

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   
You cannot approach God with intellect alone and understand him. It is impossible to know him and have a relationship with him with your mind alone. Non believers that try to approach God using intellect alone will continue to stumble in the dark. A relationship with God is all encompassing:


LK 10:27 He answered: " `Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'


1CO 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:

"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."


Pride and arrogance will always block a non believer from seeking and finding God. Only someone with a humble and sincere heart has any hope of having a relationship with God. Most human beings have moments in their lives when they feel crushed or in despair, it is during these times that there is hope of somebody turning to God. Our emotions and our feelings are just as important as our intellect in directing us towards a true understanding and having a genuine relationship with God.



God has given us his Word and revealed himself through Jesus Christ so that we have the opportunity to reach out to him:

Acts 2:26 From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.







Pride and arrogance:

PR 29:23 A man's pride brings him low,
but a man of lowly spirit gains honor.

PR 21:24 The proud and arrogant man--"Mocker" is his name;
he behaves with overweening pride.

PS 17:10 They close up their callous hearts,
and their mouths speak with arrogance.

PS 10:4 In his pride the wicked does not seek him;
in all his thoughts there is no room for God.


The benefits of humility:

PS 25:9 He guides the humble in what is right
and teaches them his way.

PS 149:4 For the LORD takes delight in his people;
he crowns the humble with salvation.

PR 15:33 The fear of the LORD teaches a man wisdom,
and humility comes before honor.




posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Thank you.

Truth doesn't come from knowledge.
Wisdom points to truth.
God is truth.
Pride denies God.
God gives wisdom.
God wants us to be wise.

There's an infinite amount more to say, but I don't know how.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Ahhh...intellect is a parlor trick compared to wisdom. Wisdom is like spiritual intellect. And those who are wise are always humble.

May I always aspire those same aims.

Nicely presented, brother.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Thank you for the kind comments my comrades.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by The GUT
Ahhh...intellect is a parlor trick compared to wisdom. Wisdom is like spiritual intellect. And those who are wise are always humble.

May I always aspire those same aims.

Nicely presented, brother.


Verily, venerable vessel of vestern visdom.

And you vill find many of the vise vones amongst buddhists, hindus, taoists and pastafarians also. Only they aren't that keen on 'humbleness', but prefer live-and-let-live instead (including 'gods' etc. in the principle), .....which is what I would call cutting-edge visdom.

And they don't use megaphones to tell about visdom.

"My visdom is bigger than your visdom".....unverily.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Dear Bogomil!! Hello! Nice to see you again.

I can count on you for a different and challenging viewpoint. But, perhaps, we are not so different this time.


Verily, venerable vessel of vestern visdom.

And you vill find many of the vise vones amongst buddhists, hindus, taoists and pastafarians also.

I don't think you will find anyone questioning that there are wise all over (although "pastafarians?" What's that? Italian pot smokers?) God calls to everyone; some listen, some don't. Just as He used parables from the culture of the listener, so He does now. I would not expect the stories to be the same, just the truth.


Only they aren't that keen on 'humbleness', but prefer live-and-let-live instead (including 'gods' etc. in the principle), .....which is what I would call cutting-edge visdom.
Do we agree on what "humbleness," or humility, is? I see it as having a true understanding of your position, or worth, in relationship to God and Man. (Please correct me here, my brothers, if needed.) "Live-and-let-live" sounds dangerously close to ignoring everyone else. And I don't understand "cutting-edge-visdom." Truth doesn't change, nor does wisdom.


And they don't use megaphones to tell about visdom.

"My visdom is bigger than your visdom".....unverily.

Is that what you think is being done here? One thread of thousands? And whose wisdom is being compared to whose. Bogomil, you are loved. I don't want to sound too mystic (or is it too late for that), I want everyone to hear and understand God. But everyone has the dignity that comes from being able to make free choices. I will talk to people, but never order or browbeat them. Each person is infinitely valuable, more valuable than anything in this world. I would never want to hurt or offend any of them.

Forgive me. I know I've rambled, but I do that sometimes. Stick around, bogomil, this might be fun.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


You wrote:

[""Live-and-let-live" sounds dangerously close to ignoring everyone else."]

It can be that, or it can be a completely UNconditional offer of 'help'. In either case it's better than 'for your own good'-interference. And as to those not having heard whatever message of ultimate truth available on the truth-market (amongst the thousands of options), I am so optimistic about mankind, that I trust anyone wanting a 'truth' being able to ask for it.

Quote: ["And I don't understand "cutting-edge-visdom."]

A joke referring to the various types of 'wisdom' being marketed with the help of EVEN 'higher' (but undefined) reference-points.

Quote: ["Truth doesn't change, nor does wisdom."]

Who knows? This is not axiomatic. What we do know is, that the human conceptualizations of 'truth' etc. changes constantly. We can have 'local relative realities' with a high degree of certainty for the given context, but not more.

Quote (on 'wiser than you'): ["Is that what you think is being done here? One thread of thousands?"]

It's practically obligatory for preachers to include such 'absolute' claims ON all the thousands of threads.

Quote: ["Bogomil, you are loved. I don't want to sound too mystic (or is it too late for that), I want everyone to hear and understand God."]

From you (and some other theists here), that's both accepted and recieved gratefully. You don't cram it down my throat, and there will be no guys around at three o'clock in the morning, should I disagree with you. That trust I don't extend to many of our resident christian missionaries.

And btw I'm quite enthusiastic about any authentic 'mystic path' myself, and am only moderately schizoid about its inconsistency with rational reasoning. Every context has a corresponding functional perspective.

Quote: ["But everyone has the dignity that comes from being able to make free choices. I will talk to people, but never order or browbeat them. Each person is infinitely valuable, more valuable than anything in this world. I would never want to hurt or offend any of them."]

That's my impression also. And on the other thread you demonstrated a remarkable talent for being a diplomatic mediator. No mean feat.

Quote: ["Forgive me. I know I've rambled, but I do that sometimes. Stick around, bogomil, this might be fun."]

Do ramble. You made that other thread into something really worthwhile. And I tend to hang around in any case: This forum has areas of: "Here be dragons", a source a much fun in my life.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Dear bogomil,

You are an Oasis. Thanks for writing to me.


[""Live-and-let-live" sounds dangerously close to ignoring everyone else."]

It can be that, or it can be a completely UNconditional offer of 'help'. In either case it's better than 'for your own good'-interference. And as to those not having heard whatever message of ultimate truth available on the truth-market (amongst the thousands of options), I am so optimistic about mankind, that I trust anyone wanting a 'truth' being able to ask for it.

You are absolutely right, if I understand you correctly. It is insulting and counter-productive to force yourself on others to push any sort of agenda, including religious. I would ask for two exceptions, if you don't mind. One, for situations where you have the legitimate authority and responsibility for someone's spiritual growth. Say, a parent for a child. The second would be, at least for me, end of life emergencies. I asked my father, on the day of his death, about his relationship to God. I believe he and I both benefited from it.

Quote: ["Truth doesn't change, nor does wisdom."]

Who knows? This is not axiomatic. What we do know is, that the human conceptualizations of 'truth' etc. changes constantly. We can have 'local relative realities' with a high degree of certainty for the given context, but not more.

What a great time we could have with this! From Pilate and "What is truth?" to the Greeks with "Truth is saying of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not." We can even follow modern physics (and I expect nobody, even the physicists, knows where that is headed) down the chain of existence to "Nothing exists except quantum particles that wink into and out of existence in a parallel quantum universe."

This last idea has triggered an idea of what truth could mean for me, but it is difficult to express clearly and very easy to lampoon. The physicists tell us that there is nothing, really. But is reality something just a bit beyond the physicists' instrumentation? Is there no reality? If there is, is there a Prime Mover? Is God truth? Is God reality? Maybe this universe doesn't really exist and we are being prepared for His.

Obviously, I haven't prepared this thought to go out into company. I mention the beginnings of it only because of your well known tolerance and mercy. (I'm buttering you up, hoping to avoid the slashing attacks that jumble of thoughts deserves.)

And btw I'm quite enthusiastic about any authentic 'mystic path' myself, and am only moderately schizoid about its inconsistency with rational reasoning. Every context has a corresponding functional perspective.

I wonder about the inconsistency myself, but where is the inconsistency? Rationality cannot accept mysticism, it doesn't have the words or concepts in its vocabulary. But mysticism can admit of a rational universe, it just adds to and explains it. (Here I'm not sure I'm on strong logical ground, but my heart accepts it and rejoices.)

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


You wrote:

["It is insulting and counter-productive to force yourself on others to push any sort of agenda, including religious. I would ask for two exceptions, if you don't mind. One, for situations where you have the legitimate authority and responsibility for someone's spiritual growth. Say, a parent for a child."]

As with so many other aspects of theism (basically relying much on regressive arguments), there's always an option of regressing the reference-points. In this case the operational words would be " someone's spiritual growth", which in its worst form would be: 'For your own good' and in a more decent form could lead to the question: "What are the optimal premises for spiritual growth?"

Believing like me or giving a child the tools to evaluate and choose, when the time comes where the child can form/formulate personal opinions?

Quote (on absolute 'truth' or not): ["What a great time we could have with this! From Pilate and "What is truth?" to the Greeks with "Truth is saying of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not." We can even follow modern physics (and I expect nobody, even the physicists, knows where that is headed) down the chain of existence to "Nothing exists except quantum particles that wink into and out of existence in a parallel quantum universe."]

I feel comfortable in my philosophical scepticism without absolutes. For mundane, pragmatic existence I have the relative 'truths' of high probability in the local 'relative reality'. Ultimately gravity may be an illusion, in the meantime it's a daily-life truth it does well to 'believe' in. But I've said this before.

Quote: [" The physicists tell us that there is nothing, really. But is reality something just a bit beyond the physicists' instrumentation?"]

Not exactly 'nothing nothing'. Rather 'something nothing', where the 'nothing'-part is based on non-observation. A little bit of the 'something nothing' has been made demonstrable by the use of logical abstraction. The speed of light is maximum inside the observable cosmos. Obvious there is a situation, where the speed of light isn't the maximum (~ the consequences of socalled quantum-entanglement). So there must be an 'outside' to the observable cosmos also...a 'something' out there.

Quote: ["Is there no reality? If there is, is there a Prime Mover? Is God truth? Is God reality? Maybe this universe doesn't really exist and we are being prepared for His."]

Our knowledge, concepts and ability to conceptualize are to small. A very promising approach would be to broaden the range of our intrinsic scope. Enhance our optional intuitive experince of existence, just as e.g. 'mystics' do. If such as: "This which tastes like monday and has a colour outside the common spectrum" is a common experience-base, ot would be a step forward.

(I 'swear', that I once saw a colour not existing in the normal spectrum. Just as bees can see ultraviolet as a colour).

Quote: ["I mention the beginnings of it only because of your well known tolerance and mercy. (I'm buttering you up, hoping to avoid the slashing attacks that jumble of thoughts deserves.)"]

Thanks. But for some theists on this forum, I'm the anti-christ's PR manager.

Quote (on incompability of rational and mystic): ["I wonder about the inconsistency myself, but where is the inconsistency? Rationality cannot accept mysticism, it doesn't have the words or concepts in its vocabulary. But mysticism can admit of a rational universe, it just adds to and explains it. (Here I'm not sure I'm on strong logical ground, but my heart accepts it and rejoices.)"]

Logic is logic enough to know its own limits: "So far, and the competence runs out". (Which makes the theist 'intelligent design' concept so pitiful. It's based on phantom-logic). "The proper 'tool' for the context" necessitates 'tools' for the unknown.

A specific 'god' with specific characteristics, chosen amongst some thousand optional candidates, with some 50.000 structures (religions etc) build around them, supported by circular premises isn't my idea of a good 'tool' for making the unknown into the known.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Dear bogomil,

You nailed me with some solid objections, some due to sloppiness on my part. Allow me to try and make repairs.

As with so many other aspects of theism (basically relying much on regressive arguments), there's always an option of regressing the reference-points. In this case the operational words would be " someone's spiritual growth", which in its worst form would be: 'For your own good' and in a more decent form could lead to the question: "What are the optimal premises for spiritual growth?"

Believing like me or giving a child the tools to evaluate and choose, when the time comes where the child can form/formulate personal opinions?

You're quite right that regressive arguments have a large role in deism, but when you are looking at the beginning or end of time, ultimate meaning, and all those sorts of extreme concepts, you're going to back into extreme, even infinite positions. Regressions, even infinite regressions, are sometimes the only things that make sense.

The parent/child business is a little trickier. As you pointed out, there comes a time when the the child chooses his own personal opinion. Time passes and he becomes an adult with children of his own. Who teaches the children? Who decides what is to be taught? The parent? If the parent chose the mystical as his opinion, I would think he is just being true to his beliefs.

Besides your position seems to be that the mystical way of learning and experiencing shall not be displayed until the child is "old enough." That seems to be "loading the dice," and assuming that keeping the child from mysticism is good and exposing him to it is bad.

Say! I just noticed that you might accept dealing with the question "What are the optimal premises for spiritual growth?" Do you see spiritual growth as a necessary development? (I'm guessing that your answer will be "Yes, provided that it is based on, and returns to enlarge, the scope of rationalism.")

I feel comfortable in my philosophical scepticism without absolutes. For mundane, pragmatic existence I have the relative 'truths' of high probability in the local 'relative reality'. Ultimately gravity may be an illusion, in the meantime it's a daily-life truth it does well to 'believe' in.

I agree with you almost completely. That's how I live as well. But I would consider reason to be a good candidate for an "absolute," and of course, you know I'm a big fan of the Eternal Absolute (Yay! Rah Rah, Go God!) Excuse me, I got a little carried away there for a moment. Still being carried away for a moment, I visualize us sitting in a faculty lounge somewhere with pipe, cigar, and brandy saying: "Ho Ho Smithers! You foiled my argument that time. Well, Willoughby, you shouldn't have tried that post hoc argument with that half a priori twist. You should have known I'd catch you out." (Sorry, I seem to be having trouble concentrating here.)

Our knowledge, concepts and ability to conceptualize are to small. A very promising approach would be to broaden the range of our intrinsic scope. Enhance our optional intuitive experince of existence, just as e.g. 'mystics' do. If such as: "This which tastes like monday and has a colour outside the common spectrum" is a common experience-base, ot would be a step forward.

(I 'swear', that I once saw a colour not existing in the normal spectrum. Just as bees can see ultraviolet as a colour).

YES YES YES!!!


Thanks. But for some theists on this forum, I'm the anti-christ's PR manager.
Nahhh, you're just a strong thinker.


The proper 'tool' for the context" necessitates 'tools' for the unknown.

A specific 'god' with specific characteristics, chosen amongst some thousand optional candidates, with some 50.000 structures (religions etc) build around them, supported by circular premises isn't my idea of a good 'tool' for making the unknown into the known.
True, but is God the tool for making the unknown known, or is He the unknown Himself? I see mysticism as a (the?) tool for learning about the unknown as reason is a tool for learning about the known. Mysticism lets us learn the taste of Monday, and that brings us closer to God.

Thanks a lot, bogomil, you're doing wonders for me. Gratefully and

with respect,

Charles1952

p.s. I honestly don't know, but are we falling into a sin of intellectual pride here? Or snobbery, if you don't see pride as a sin? Remember the headline "It takes humility to have a relationship with God." I wonder if I (or we) am running a big risk here.



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join