[Arthur Brain]

I was about to pose this in zoo's thread until I noticed you were taking your leave, but as it happens it may be better to have a different thread for it anyway.

Having followed some of that thread you have an unwavering certainty in God and relation correct? To the point where it would be as unreasonable or impossible for you to even remotely doubt such? Feel free to describe it in more fitting terms if mine are askew.

My actual question itself is not so much an argument against your assurety but rather why you suppose others apparently don't have the same?

If your relation is as tangible and as assured as a man who knows he'll wake next to his wife on a morning then how can there be room for doubt? Is it the fault of the believer for not having the same as yourself?

This isn't meant to be a thread for conflict btw but I am interested in exploring some of this should you be inclined.

[kmoney]

I kinda feel like I should make a post and then delete it just to fit in.

[bybee]

Originally Posted by Arthur Brain

I was about to pose this in zoo's thread until I noticed you were taking your leave, but as it happens it may be better to have a different thread for it anyway.

Having followed some of that thread you have an unwavering certainty in God and relation correct? To the point where it would be as unreasonable or impossible for you to even remotely doubt such? Feel free to describe it in more fitting terms if mine are askew.

My actual question itself is not so much an argument against your assurety but rather why you suppose others apparently don't have the same?

If your relation is as tangible and as assured as a man who knows he'll wake next to his wife on a morning then how can there be room for doubt? Is it the fault of the believer for not having the same as yourself?

This isn't meant to be a thread for conflict btw but I am interested in exploring some of this should you be inclined.

If I may interject myself and I am!
I don't believe it works to attach one's judgment to another person's faith or lack of faith.
To find "fault" in either state is, I believe, presumptuous.
As we read over the myriad threads on this web site wherein condemnation of minute differences is rampant, we may conclude that there is no resolution to these differences so, I like to read what people believe and why they believe.
The gasbags and specious twit know-it-alls can be fun, can be boring, can be annoying but, never informative.

[Arthur Brain]

Originally Posted by bybee

If I may interject myself and I am!
I don't believe it works to attach one's judgment to another person's faith or lack of faith.
To find "fault" in either state is, I believe, presumptuous.
As we read over the myriad threads on this web site wherein condemnation of minute differences is rampant, we may conclude that there is no resolution to these differences so, I like to read what people believe and why they believe.
The gasbags and specious twit know-it-alls can be fun, can be boring, can be annoying but, never informative.

By all means bybee

I would like to stipulate that the intention of this thread isn't to judge or belittle anyone's beliefs as I too am tired of ongoing arguments (if you can call them that) where folk are labelled 'heretics' over minutiae or theological differences.

Hopefully, if TH responds, it can lead to an interesting discussion.

[Granite]

Hopefully if he responds he won't string you along and then arbitrarily decide to kill the discussion when he feels like it.

[OMEGA]

If your relation is as tangible and as assured as a man who knows he'll wake next to his wife on a morning then how can there be room for doubt? Is it the fault of the believer for not having the same as yourself?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Women are Highly Emotional creatures and can flip out at any time due to hormones.

So, Watch out !!

[Arthur Brain]

Originally Posted by Granite

Hopefully if he responds he won't string you along and then arbitrarily decide to kill the discussion when he feels like it.

Well to be fair granite, TH has reappeared in zoo's thread to answer further points since the 'taking leave' post, so it's a bit harsh to say he's arbitrarily killed discussion, and to be honest I don't really want to be arguing about TH when he's not even here to respond.

I really don't want this thread muddled up with arguments before it's even had chance to get going with a response from TH (should he feel inclined to answer)

[Town Heretic]

Originally Posted by Arthur Brain

I was about to pose this in zoo's thread until I noticed you were taking your leave, but as it happens it may be better to have a different thread for it anyway.

Well, I wanted to, but it wasn't possible, which turned out to be a good thing, since stepping away gave me a breath to resolve something I was struggling to communicate effectively without realizing it: the notion of personal infallibility. Now anyone who knows me should understand that while I frequently labor under the impression of personal, argumentative superiority, I've never claimed the right to a Bull. Not even for eight seconds.

Having followed some of that thread you have an unwavering certainty in God and relation correct?

Yes. I'd say it follows from trust in the object (God) of my apprehension/experience, both in conversion and in walk. That's demonstrably not a belief in my own infallibility. It's an extension of an intellectually and spiritually necessary reliance on that object.

Else I'm reduced to, "God of my arguable experience, if you actually are perhaps you'll forgive me so that I can mostly feel that I'm potentially a new creature and begin what I can consider might well be relation...and thanks, maybe."

Well there's no way that one is going into the drink.

To the point where it would be as unreasonable or impossible for you to even remotely doubt such? Feel free to describe it in more fitting terms if mine are askew.

Hopefully I did that.

My actual question itself is not so much an argument against your assurety but rather why you suppose others apparently don't have the same?

Why can't everyone ride a bike (assuming the physical ability is present as a parallel for capacity in your question)?

If your relation is as tangible and as assured as a man who knows he'll wake next to his wife on a morning then how can there be room for doubt?

The want of doubt isn't continuously dependent. Rather, it flows from the apprehension of God. At that point I have a choice. If I choose God, if I rely on his grace and desire to enter into relation then I must choose to trust Him. My future assurance is in reliance on that necessary trust and not in some notion of my own infallibility.

I was having a number of aggressive conversations that essentially boiled down to "You can't be certain" in part. And I knew that I could be, that for relation to be meaningful I must be, but it wasn't until I stepped away that I saw where I needed to draw a distinction. First I had to draw a breath.

Is it the fault of the believer for not having the same as yourself?

The apostate has simply made a mistake in not recognizing the proper object of his trust, in confusing that initial process with the ongoing methodology of relation. It's understandable. And it makes me see a need in the Body. I'd bet there are a great many people standing on a less firm ground than they imagine for that very reason.

This isn't meant to be a thread for conflict btw but I am interested in exploring some of this should you be inclined.

Of course not, git. ...what?

[Town Heretic]

Originally Posted by kmoney

I kinda feel like I should make a post and then delete it just to fit in.

I think I can speak for everyone of every stripe in suggesting you consider that as a larger practice.

[kmoney]

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

I think I can speak for everyone of every stripe in suggesting you consider that as a larger practice.

[Arthur Brain]

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

Well, I wanted to, but it wasn't possible, which turned out to be a good thing, since stepping away gave me a breath to resolve something I was struggling to communicate effectively without realizing it: the notion of personal infallibility. Now anyone who knows me should understand that while I frequently labor under the impression of personal, argumentative superiority, I've never claimed the right to a Bull. Not even for eight seconds.

Indeed, and as I mention later in the post as well I don't think you were ever arguing for personal infallibility anyway, though sometimes I do have to have a thesaurus on standby when reading that thread...

Yes. I'd say it follows from trust in the object (God) of my apprehension/experience, both in conversion and in walk. That's demonstrably not a belief in my own infallibility. It's an extension of an intellectually and spiritually necessary reliance on that object.

Else I'm reduced to, "God of my arguable experience, if you actually are perhaps you'll forgive me so that I can mostly feel that I'm potentially a new creature and begin what I can consider might well be relation...and thanks, maybe."

Well there's no way that one is going into the drink.

So would it be fair to say that you no longer have faith or trust then? That trust initially in itself is what brought about the certainty of your relation, a 'springing board' so to speak?

Hopefully I did that.

Meh, not bad....

Why can't everyone ride a bike (assuming the physical ability is present as a parallel for capacity in your question)?

Well, given like you say they have the physical capability then I would say most although some would take a lot longer than others to get the hang of it. Even then would everyone be able to ride the bike to Olympic sporting standard?

The want of doubt isn't continuously dependent. Rather, it flows from the apprehension of God. At that point I have a choice. If I choose God, if I rely on his grace and desire to enter into relation then I must choose to trust Him. My future assurance is in reliance on that necessary trust and not in some notion of my own infallibility.

Well, I wouldn't argue that you've claimed personal infallibility at any point, and I'm not quite sure why others would make that claim either, but if I'm reading this correctly you still have a measure of trust? That's a disconnect for me if so because once you're sure or certain of a thing then the necessity or relevance of trust/faith becomes redundant doesn't it?

I was having a number of aggressive conversations that essentially boiled down to "You can't be certain" in part. And I knew that I could be, that for relation to be meaningful I must be, but it wasn't until I stepped away that I saw where I needed to draw a distinction. First I had to draw a breath.

I think perhaps that latterly with PureX your positions overlapped into some area of common ground. It isn't necessary for your own certainty to undermine other's relation/belief which may be different. (IMO) I think to some extent this was going on.

The apostate has simply made a mistake in not recognizing the proper object of his trust, in confusing that initial process with the ongoing methodology of relation. It's understandable. And it makes me see a need in the Body. I'd bet there are a great many people standing on a less firm ground than they imagine for that very reason.

Why do you see it as understandable? What are people mistaking to fail to have the same certainty of tangible relation as they would with their spouse do you think?

Of course not, git. ...what?

Charmed I'm sure....

[Arthur Brain]

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

I think I can speak for everyone of every stripe in suggesting you consider that as a larger practice.

Ohhhhh yes.....

[meshak]

AB,

I have to give you a credit for keeping up with TH's arguments. I did a few times with him and that was my maximum. He can go on forever.

[Town Heretic]

Originally Posted by Arthur Brain

Indeed, and as I mention later in the post as well I don't think you were ever arguing for personal infallibility anyway, though sometimes I do have to have a thesaurus on standby when reading that thread...

What's a thewhozzit and how do I look it up? Insidious.

So would it be fair to say that you no longer have faith or trust then?

No...faith is the general understanding that I trust something I'm incapable of fully apprehending or encompassing and yet I rely on its nature through what I can. Trust is established in the decision of reliance and remains absolute, as it logically and practically must. Else, that silly bit of hedging I offered, if more seriously and with less amusing consequences.

That trust initially in itself is what brought about the certainty of your relation, a 'springing board' so to speak?

A bit backwards (something I'm sure you heard a great deal from instructors in school and family members, friends, passers by, as you grew into a parody of adulthood...where was I?)...oh, yes, trust is the decision to rely on the object apprehended, on God. But it is the opening of relation, so you aren't completely off (something you likely haven't heard as frequently).

Well, given like you say they have the physical capability then I would say most although some would take a lot longer than others to get the hang of it. Even then would everyone be able to ride the bike to Olympic sporting standard?

That's not bad (supra). But everyone here can trust in God. The difficulty or difference is in the apprehension and choice.

Well, I wouldn't argue that you've claimed personal infallibility at any point, and I'm not quite sure why others would make that claim either,

Partly my fault for setting out what follows that trust without distinguishing it from the apprehension and choice, the reliance on the object and not self. If they're still doing it they're simply being goofy.

but if I'm reading this correctly you still have a measure of trust?

Hopefully my above clarified the ongoing nature and necessity of trust in that object/God.

That's a disconnect for me if so because once you're sure or certain of a thing then the necessity or relevance of trust/faith becomes redundant doesn't it?

I think I've addressed that as well, but my certainty rests on my trust which rests on the decision I made in apprehending. Faith is my willingness to engage that trust in the face of an object I can't encompass.

I think perhaps that latterly with PureX your positions overlapped into some area of common ground. It isn't necessary for your own certainty to undermine other's relation/belief which may be different. (IMO) I think to some extent this was going on.

I think we're looking at the same thing, but his approach differs and our lexicon is a muddle. It was a relief to have a sense that at the last of our give and take he'd come to see what I wasn't attempting and to see that perspective/lexicon/choice distinction between us as an honorable if potentially impervious wall.

Why do you see it as understandable?

Because our first thought is of ourselves and we learn to measure the world by that and in relation to our judgment of it. In Western culture that's hammered like an absolute. It's really more remarkable that the Christian faith has found a home in that and completely unsurprising, now that I've considered it, that the nature of the overlay can frequently cause the particular problem I note. It would also explain a great deal of the falling away around the edges that the West is experiencing...I'm going to have to mull it a bit more. I suspect I have at least part of the answer, but it's going to take more than that to upset and alter that wave.

Charmed I'm sure....

That's the spirit! Or, in your case and more likely, the spirits.

[Nang]

TH,

Speaking of "spirit," are you inclined to factor in the Holy Spirit regarding your experience, decision, faith, and assurance?

Nang