For the context of the following comments please click on the hyperlinks above them.
Bob Seidensticker – You may have something to say… but I have no idea what it is.
That’s ok. I can’t read mathematics beyond the basics. However, I do respect the ability in others. And it’s nice when they take the time to teach me a little about it.
Sometimes, just the intuition of a thing is enough.
Bob Seidensticker addressing Anton – “…you seem to be one of those maddening Christians who explain everything just like an atheist… Why not just take that last step into atheism?!”
A more evolved conceptualization of God does not equate to atheism.
If you were a Buddhist, your question might make the kind of sense that you seem to think it does.
Why not retain your atheistic sensibilities but add the missing ingredient? The open ended and impeccable unknowing required. The complement to your highly developed empiricism.
Then inquire into the infinity of infinities that can only be conceived of as Singularity. The eternal Now.
Bob Seidensticker – And it tells us that the feeling of the supernatural is a delusion.
Anton – Um, no, that’s what you guys do. And you do it because you think anything empirical inquiry doesn’t deal with isn’t evidence, because otherwise it would be empirical.
I’m not saying the sky’s the limit on table-knocking and Jesus-on-toast. I’m just saying that religious people aren’t the only ones with a self-validating belief system.
Like a man in a wheelchair who insists it’s impossible to dance.
Deliberate self-lobotomy. The latest rage.
Bob Seidensticker – “The proof is in the pudding.”
So when the Scientologist or Mormon or Pastafarian says that he has found the path to the divine, we must accept that as true? I would’ve thought that you’d need to make allowance for people deluding themselves.
One has to apply the same level of discipline to this enquiry as any scientist.
Do the work yourself.
Learning to recognize the path is a skill learned through practice.
The path itself is our very nature, and rises to assist at every turn.
It’s not about religion.
Consider that synchronicity is the ordinary.
An adequate conception of God as the Entirety makes terms like “cosmic bond”, “divine will” or supernatural anything foolishly relative. Completely inadequate. So there is no need to assure us that you don’t hold these views.
There is nothing that is not God. You, me, the savant or the autistic engage within this according to our abilities.
These abilities are malleable. This is evolution. Regressive, Static or Awakening.
The infinite multitude of relative self. Seamlessly not different. The Entirety.
There is no ownership of self. Awareness being the very nature of the eternal present. The singularity of I am.
Thank you for your wisdom and equanimity.
Thank you. Good response.
I am far from representing the intelligentsia and am not a professor. My questions reflect the path of “Grace” as I experience it.
I feel obligated to jab at “orthodox theology” when I find that it does not serve to awaken us to the essential “Singularity” of God.
Hence my questions.
But my use of the word “low” may have set things off in an unfruitful direction. Language is difficult in all spheres. Especially when approaching the unknowable.
Again, Thank you.
How does your education at BJU promote your sanctification? (What is the nature of sanctification as you currently understand it?)
How much of your education is about your personal evangelism? ( I wanted to use the word training here instead of education. Should I have?)
How does BJU keep God’s glory central?