We Can't Know ? ....

alissowack

This could be me just reaching for something that isn't there (though some may say that is exactly what I'm doing), I just find that if ? exists, we makes it way too easy to know Him. Religious folk go about proclaiming they have "the knowledge" seeming proud of themselves as the lowly of the world are deemed ignorant to understand. They obey rules, perform tricks and point to signs with confidence that they know what ? wants for them. I would think differently about that.

I just don't think we consider what it means to know a being that is suppose to transcend space and time. There just has to be an approach to life that a mortal just can't have in respect to ? ; that living forever is not just something that makes ? "better" than man...or that it is just a state in which we can enhance ourselves to be if we follow the rules. There has to be a constant that man just can't negotiate; that we can't make ? compromise Himself just because we can make compromises; that when ? speaks, He does so as the first and last time it will ever be said. When ? does things for good, He is not confined to the things man finds as comforts and luxuries. And when ? loves, it is not grounded in the stipulations of what we consider love to be.

Now if we just happened to "be in line" with ? , we can't take credit for it. We can't say "Heaven" or "Hell" is something earned or deserved for a lifetime is not enough to get either one. We can muster up imaginations of what these places may be like, but it won't mean much if we think of them as just rewards and consequences. People really ought to be careful in claiming they know ? ...not because to the potential of being wrong; but because of the possibility of being "dead". At least a living person can be right or wrong. And dead person can't be either one.

Shuffington

You say that people who proclaim to know ? , follow a known set of rules. But what it sounds like to me is that your taking a somewhat different route but going in a parallel direction.

By eliminating all criteria on what it means to "know ? " your in some ways creating a set of your own... So why would a theist follow your standards as opposed to someone else's with a different set of specifics?

But this is nothing new. The redefining of what "? " actually is, is always evolving.

To me, this whole discussion just seems more like mental jostling. The redefining of something never proven repackaged into something else that makes sense for the purveying spirit of today.

kingblaze84

If there is a ? , no one knows what it is all about. However, based on the universe we live in, we can ASSUME many things about it. Some say ? is evil, I've seen many websites saying that. Some believe ? is good but the reality is no one has a true grasp on this ? thing.

It's the reason I think all religions are stupid and a fraud at the end of the day. I believe there probably is a ? , but I will never claim to know everything about it.

And Step

We most definitely can know ? . The more Knowledge, Wisdom, and Understanding we gain of his creation we draw closer to him. Every time man masters some aspect of creation then we draw closer in that aspect. Yeah he transcends space and time. But guess what? So does Man and the rest of his creation. There are people who have physically returned to the essence but they are still directing men and women from beyond the grave.

The Secret to know ? is within.

alissowack

Shuffington wrote: »

You say that people who proclaim to know ? , follow a known set of rules. But what it sounds like to me is that your taking a somewhat different route but going in a parallel direction.

By eliminating all criteria on what it means to "know ? " your in some ways creating a set of your own... So why would a theist follow your standards as opposed to someone else's with a different set of specifics?

But this is nothing new. The redefining of what "? " actually is, is always evolving.

To me, this whole discussion just seems more like mental jostling. The redefining of something never proven repackaged into something else that makes sense for the purveying spirit of today.

I don't see how I am "forcing" theists to believe it, but it is to say this is kind of why I did this post. If ? exists, my perspective on Him isn't going to make Him any more true. I can say whatever I want about ? and it wouldn't matter. It wouldn't make ? more or less. If people want to believe in what I have to say about ? , then go ahead...just know that I just have one of many perspectives out there.

GSonII

alissowack wrote: »

This could be me just reaching for something that isn't there (though some may say that is exactly what I'm doing), I just find that if ? exists, we makes it way too easy to know Him. Religious folk go about proclaiming they have "the knowledge" seeming proud of themselves as the lowly of the world are deemed ignorant to understand. They obey rules, perform tricks and point to signs with confidence that they know what ? wants for them. I would think differently about that.

I just don't think we consider what it means to know a being that is suppose to transcend space and time. There just has to be an approach to life that a mortal just can't have in respect to ? ; that living forever is not just something that makes ? "better" than man...or that it is just a state in which we can enhance ourselves to be if we follow the rules. There has to be a constant that man just can't negotiate; that we can't make ? compromise Himself just because we can make compromises; that when ? speaks, He does so as the first and last time it will ever be said. When ? does things for good, He is not confined to the things man finds as comforts and luxuries. And when ? loves, it is not grounded in the stipulations of what we consider love to be.

Now if we just happened to "be in line" with ? , we can't take credit for it. We can't say "Heaven" or "Hell" is something earned or deserved for a lifetime is not enough to get either one. We can muster up imaginations of what these places may be like, but it won't mean much if we think of them as just rewards and consequences. People really ought to be careful in claiming they know ? ...not because to the potential of being wrong; but because of the possibility of being "dead". At least a living person can be right or wrong. And dead person can't be either one.

I don't really get the bold part but I agree with your argument or point for the most part. That's why I think like another poster stated that all religions and there literature is bogus for my growth. I mean honestly, how long of your life are you to spend trying to get in touch with someone who seems not to be interested in getting in touch with you? I have done all the reading and praying I am going to do. I have turn off the radio and television, stayed away from all my vices for periods and still ? has not appeared and made it known who he is to me. I have come to the realization that if ? really exists and wants us to know him the only way to know ? is to be with him in death. There is no other way that you know for sure.

BiblicalAtheist

I believe we cannot know ? directly, only indirectly through creation and limited consciousness. I believe ? dwells in darkness, silence and void. Such a place I cannot reach and can somewhat imagine through sense deprivation.

Rock_Well

One cannot know ? outside of His WORD. One cannot know the WORD outside of the Holy Spirit. One cannot know the HOly Spirit outside of the word. It's all the same. Of course no one has the ability to know ? in the sense of having Him 'figured out'. We have no idea what ? is up to other than what He revealed to us. But that which He reveals to us is FOR US, and we can KNOW ? through that much.

bambu

"Faith is what you make it that's the hardest ? since MC Ren" Andre Ben ~ Aquemini