Faith vs Proof

[paralleloscope]

Thanks for the topic and replies!

Another example of faith vs blind belief seems to be the choice of self-acceptance. Some seem to have been imprinted with this naturally (or learned this lesson in other life time), and others have grown up with the belief that one is not worthy of life, not worthy of love, one cannot accept oneself as one is (as a point to work from). Of course it is more complex than just a one-off imprint, since both parents and society inspire this in so many ways and on so many levels, but just to talk about the essential choice.

It seems like an unconsciously chosen belief (with many layers of confirmation), and if you'd ask one who is suffering from this whether they couldn't just substitute that belief with a belief in the opposite, that they are worthy to live, give and love, they might just flat out refuse despite it may be a secret wish of theirs as they are aware of its detrimental effects, because of the strenght of the belief and included chemical addiction.

On the bottomline it looks like one believes or has accepted to not accept self, so why not believe and accept the opposite if it is obvious that one is suffering from that choice? One reason would be the repeatedly reinforced chemical pathways and affiliate beliefs about self, which makes it feel wrong, and as you say Scottie, wherein the question of choice has been lost. To change this attitude towards oneself would seem to be one of choice with a leap of faith, of the kind that sees that one is responsible for forgetting the choices one made and that it is a forgotten or denied birthrigth to be dancing with the universe.

+

Then of course comes the work with the many limiting consequences (programs and personality traits) of not accepting self, that have to be seen and chosen differently as well, but this should be easier, if not only possible, it that fundamental accept is granted.

 

[Windmill knight]

Another example of faith vs blind belief seems to be the choice of self-acceptance. Some seem to have been imprinted with this naturally (or learned this lesson in other life time), and others have grown up with the belief that one is not worthy of life, not worthy of love, one cannot accept oneself as one is (as a point to work from). Of course it is more complex than just a one-off imprint, since both parents and society inspire this in so many ways and on so many levels, but just to talk about the essential choice.

It seems like an unconsciously chosen belief (with many layers of confirmation), and if you'd ask one who is suffering from this whether they couldn't just substitute that belief with a belief in the opposite, that they are worthy to live, give and love, they might just flat out refuse despite it may be a secret wish of theirs as they are aware of its detrimental effects, because of the strenght of the belief and included chemical addiction.

On the bottomline it looks like one believes or has accepted to not accept self, so why not believe and accept the opposite if it is obvious that one is suffering from that choice? One reason would be the repeatedly reinforced chemical pathways and affiliate beliefs about self, which makes it feel wrong, and as you say Scottie, wherein the question of choice has been lost. To change this attitude towards oneself would seem to be one of choice with a leap of faith, of the kind that sees that one is responsible for forgetting the choices one made and that it is a forgotten or denied birthrigth to be dancing with the universe.

When I came across this sort of feelings of not being worthy of existence or love, I took the philosophical angle. I reasoned that the Universe/Cosmic Mind likes the diversity of its children and loves them all just as much, the good, the bad and the ugly; and the proof is that they (we, I) exist. Otherwise I wouldn't exist! Therefore, even if I'm not perfect, the Universe loves me and thinks I am perfectly suitable for my part in the Cosmic Drama as I am. What was that saying about God not making rubbish?

Later, I also realized that my fantasies of me being unworthy are just as misguided as dellusions of grandure. I am not all broken, just as I am not perfect, and that is alright because we all are somewhere along that spectrum. Otherwise we would be some sort of abstract theological construction; God or the devil. We just are, and although that realization takes away the 'specialness' (and perhaps that's the whole point of those mind-games, to feel the rush of our supposed exceptionality and the high or low feelings that come with it), it also puts our minds in touch with our reality and our feet on the ground.

 

[Windmill knight]

Something else that might be useful to counter those thought-loops about being unworthy is the tool described in this thread:

http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,40700.0.html

Basically it helps you spot an event that kick-starts the negative thoughts and feelings, so that you can then argue reasonably against the false beliefs (it comes with handy examples).

 

[Eol]

Hi Scottie. Thanks for sharing this !

The C's have said that giving proof is violating free will, more or less. This is hard to disagree with when you really think about it.

Can you give the trasncript where the Cs said that please, for the context ?
I had hard to represent me it. In a sens I can understand. When you speak with, and know that is a naîve person and give proofs about what you said. And then you know she will take it without discernment. Or even when your interlocutor does not seems to want to see the truth. In this cases, and most of the time, it's preferable to questioned and arouse the interest.
But i can't se how you can violate the free will of a person who tries to examine in a serious way the proofs which you brings concerning a certain subject. In a sens, if giving proof is violating free will, we can ask if the proof itself, in essence, violate the free will of the observer because by tending to show him the world in a certain way ?

I think that the faith is not what we understand collectively of her. Most of the people in religion have faith because they expect something else. And in the other side, their 'faith' is strengthened by the fear. But they are just believes. The scientists don't have faith in the scientific method. They trust her because they expect to end in the most objective result through her. If the faith exist, It must be totally different from this. I did not question myself on this subject a lot. And I did not often wonder if my actions were motivated by faith, or if I was afraid of having no it and acting as a zombie.

For me, faith is an impulse where there is no expectations. And the faith can be strengthened by obervations, signs, or even proof. I shall say that the faith is a knowledge which cannot be prove in a material way. In a certain way, i don't see realy difference beetwen Faith, knowledge and love. Proofs which underlies the truth, the reality, is the car and faith is the gasoline wich gives the boost necessary for the starting up and allwos to make advance the car. :D Seems to me that both are necessary.

And then we can say : What is the truth ?

Many people have said that all is illusion, even the Cs. Then what ? How can all be illusion ? If all is illusion, so nothing is, right ? Let's say this : If evertbody is tall, how could they say that without an object of comparison wich is smaller than them ? (I don't know if i'm clear )
I think, it's the great Paradox of the universe in which we live( Light/Shadow - Being/Not-Being etc...) Ultimately, all can be consideried as an illusion, but in every levels of existences, all this is realy REALY real. And we have to learn all the lessons (the truth that is ultimately relative but real in our level of existence) to be able to graduate to the next level. The purpose of that ? Observe, learn and be amazed, constantly. Having fun right ? :D What are the limitations here ? It's juste beautiful !

So, would the illusion allow the experience ?

 

[T.C.]

Can you give the trasncript where the Cs said that please, for the context ?

Q: (L) Mike Lindeman has proposed that we submit the
channeling to 'rigorous testing.'
A: Mike Lindemann does not channel, now does he? What
sort of rigorous testing does he propose?
Q: (L) He didn't say. I guess they want short-term
predictions and all sorts of little tests...
A: Precisely, now what does this tell you?
Q: It tells us that he wants proof.
A: Third density "proof" does not apply, as we have
explained again and again. Now, listen very carefully: if proof
of that type were possible, what do you suppose would
happen to free will, and thusly to learning, Karmic Directive
Level One?
Q: (L) Well, I guess that if there is proof, you are believing in
the proof and not the spirit of the thing. You are placing your
reliance upon a material thing. You have lost your free will.
Someone has violated your free will by the act of
PROVING something to you.
A: If anyone CHOOSES to believe, that is their prerogative!
Q: (PZ) [unintelligible remark]
A: You did not completely understand the previous
response, Pat. And what would constitute proof?
Q: (L) Predictions that came true, answers that were
verifiable about a number of things.
A: Those would still be dismissed by a great many as mere
coincidences. We have already given predictions, will
continue to do so, but, remember, "time" does not exist. This
is a 3rd density illusion. We don not play in that sandbox and
cannot and never will. The primary reason for our
communication is to help you to learn by teaching yourselves
to learn, thereby strengthening your soul energy, and
assisting your advancement.
Q: (L) Are you saying that your primary reason is just to
teach us? This small group?
A: Because you asked for help.

 

[Eol]

Can you give the trasncript where the Cs said that please, for the context ?

Q: (L) Mike Lindeman has proposed that we submit the
channeling to 'rigorous testing.'
A: Mike Lindemann does not channel, now does he? What
sort of rigorous testing does he propose?
Q: (L) He didn't say. I guess they want short-term
predictions and all sorts of little tests...
A: Precisely, now what does this tell you?
Q: It tells us that he wants proof.
A: Third density "proof" does not apply, as we have
explained again and again. Now, listen very carefully: if proof
of that type were possible, what do you suppose would
happen to free will, and thusly to learning, Karmic Directive
Level One?
Q: (L) Well, I guess that if there is proof, you are believing in
the proof and not the spirit of the thing. You are placing your
reliance upon a material thing. You have lost your free will.
Someone has violated your free will by the act of
PROVING something to you.
A: If anyone CHOOSES to believe, that is their prerogative!
Q: (PZ) [unintelligible remark]
A: You did not completely understand the previous
response, Pat. And what would constitute proof?
Q: (L) Predictions that came true, answers that were
verifiable about a number of things.
A: Those would still be dismissed by a great many as mere
coincidences. We have already given predictions, will
continue to do so, but, remember, "time" does not exist. This
is a 3rd density illusion. We don not play in that sandbox and
cannot and never will. The primary reason for our
communication is to help you to learn by teaching yourselves
to learn, thereby strengthening your soul energy, and
assisting your advancement.
Q: (L) Are you saying that your primary reason is just to
teach us? This small group?
A: Because you asked for help.

Thank you T.C. I have a kind of block there. I am going to think about this concept of "proof" more intensly.

 

[PhoenixToEmber]

Brilliant post, Scottie! Very insightful. Dancing with the universe seems a lot more fun than waiting for proof that it's real - in a sense, we have to have the guts to get up and ask it for a dance rather than waiting for it to take you by the hand.

Faith has been on my mind a lot lately, especially after starting a new job and entering unfamiliar territory, and just trying to have faith that I'm making the right decisions. As well as being in a new relationship with someone and all of the vulnerability and fear that can result from opening up and bearing one's soul - which ties into what you said about love. You have to have faith you will grow from the process without any expectation or anticipation of how it will turn out (which is like seeking the 'proof'). Faith is definitely taking the first step and trying to remember that the journey is more important than the destination.

"Take the first step in faith. You don't have to see the whole staircase, just take the first step." -Dr. MLK, Jr.

Just do it!

 

[kenlee]

So it seems appropriate that we observe an alternation between evidence and faith (like breathing). The evidence must help us to trust in faith. But the evidence is not always the "miracle", it is priority the work. For it seems to me that the spiritual work done to develop our intuition and releases the flow of ideas. Thus, it seems that faith and evidence are two sides of the same coin.

Yes, I think looking for evidence is important with our understanding of what it means to have faith. Words attributed to the Buddha says: "for everything that is born and comes into being contains within itself the seeds of its own dissolution".

There is evidence of this reality all around us! That's the world we live in. So accepting this evidence, and seeing it, that is, that there is a destructive force leading mankind/humanity into it's inevitable ruin is equally important with the recognition that within this increased chaos there opens something higher, something unseen, where there can be a partnership of sorts between the higher and lower realities that can open us up to the realization that there are still limitless possibilities so that in a cubic centimeter of possibility the impossible can become possible. It's the only hope for mankind imo. But it takes more then just believing with false hope. It takes action and an inner knowing of a certain kind and I think this takes the form of small groups leading the way for humankind as a whole and not large scale political organizations who say they act for the ''benefit of mankind" but because of their lack of knowledge, awareness and willingness to acknowledge reality, along with their self serving intent, invariably invoke a destructive force that's equal and opposite to their perceived goals that they simply cannot/will not see.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Very well said Scottie, and timely too! When I think about the idea of faith, it is inseparable from the idea of trust. Maybe they're just synonyms.

Safe to say that's the case!

It might be helpful to consider where the word comes from. Unfortunately, like so many words, the way we think about this one comes with over 1000 years of religious baggage. Because of that baggage, we often think of faith as something like "belief in something that cannot be proven rationally, i.e. that Jesus saved us by dying for our sins". But that's not an accurate definition of what the word actually meant, and it's actually a pretty twisted perversion of what was originally a pretty basic and straightforward concept.

The word that the writers of the New Testament used was pistis, which had a range of meanings at the time. There were around five basic meanings: fidelity/faithfulness, pledge (as a token of fidelity, or as something entrusted), trust, belief, proof.

But basically, there were two overarching categories: one having to do with social relationships, and the other with how we come to know things (epistemology). In the 1st century, Jewish historian Josephus used the word (and its related words) a lot in his writings. 77% of the time he uses it in its social context, 23% in its intellectual context. Philo used it slightly differently (32% social, 63% intellectual, 5% as a super-virtue). The Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint) is more like Josephus: 70-90% of the time it uses pistis in the relationship sense.

In terms of relationships it had to do with the dynamic between a person who has the following qualities: faithfulness, loyalty, reliability, trustworthiness, or fidelity. And a second person who thus places their trust (or faith) in that person, because of those qualities. In other words, "I trust you, because you are trustworthy." (Or, to better capture its use as a noun: "I have faith in you, because of your faithfulness.") The word 'pistis' could be used to describe either side of this relationship. And the relationship was often accompanied by some type of offering, or gift, either as a sign of one's trustworthiness, or as a sign of one's trust. (This is the 'pledge' definition of pistis.)

The intellectual meaning has a similar dynamic going on with it. But in this case, we don't trust in a person; we trust in an idea or proposition, because of some sort of proof or argument that it is true. If we have reason to think it is true and real, we trust in it. In other words we believe it. And it was used in a fairly common-sense way. For example, I could say, "I believe that Caesar was a real person because there are documents and archaeological evidence that this is true." We have the proposition ("Caesar was real"), which can be either true or false, like any proposition. And we either believe it or not depending on the quality of the evidence. (In this usage, pistis most often referred to the actual proof or argument given for why it is true.)

But it's important to keep in mind that this STILL isn't the kind of religious belief we were raised to believe in! A conviction can change based on the quality of the evidence, so this kind of belief can range from "a pretty good reason to think it's true" all the way to a very very strong conviction that "this is almost certainly true". Pistis never meant 'blind belief'. There were only rational convictions that some things are true, i.e. 'beliefs', because there was good evidence for them being true. And beliefs can change based on evidence: they are not necessarily set in stone.

Of course, just like with anything else, you get good examples and bad examples. Some people will have very low standards or ideas about what constitutes good evidence. Some may even ignore evidence altogether and focus on some wishy-washy notion of blind belief, or set their beliefs in stone even if they don't have a good reason for doing so. But that doesn't have any bearing on just figuring out what the words actually mean, or should mean - in other words, the realities they describe: our rational faculties, how we come to know things, and the relationship between the knower and the truth. The idea of truth and the process of forming justified beliefs (even if only as working hypotheses) remain as a reality of how humans work and how the universe works.

With all that said, I think what Joe wrote right here pretty much gets to the heart of the matter. It probably even gets to the heart of what the earliest Christians were trying to promote:

So it seems to me that the first step in feeling like we can trust others (i.e. get love and validation from others) is to make ourselves trustworthy people and we do that by being loving towards others and validating them. For sure, it takes strength and courage to do this, but it is the best way to get what we need. And interestingly, as part of this process of extending love and validation to others, we become stronger people, we find resources we didn't know we had, which ends up meaning that we don't need or demand that others be so impeccably (by our needy standards) trustworthy i.e. understand, validate and love us.

 

[Menna]

The Cs said they are here to teach us how to learn. Have any of you looked into meta learning

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta_learning

There are obviously books on the subject and I have switched careers and now that I am more self aware than when I went through testing years ago. I can feel when I retain more information. I know that when I take practice tests the emotional response to a wrong answer pushes me to find out why I got the question wrong and the simple fact that it says I was wrong engages me and I look over questions and answers closer.

I plan on looking into meta learning as it will help with knowing myself and have a practice application as well.

 

[Buddy]

Have any of you looked into meta learning

Yes! It's learning how to learn!

From the wiki page:

Five principles were enunciated to facilitate meta-learning. Learners must:

(a) have a theory, however primitive;
(b) work in a safe supportive social and physical environment;
(c) discover their rules and assumptions;
(d) reconnect with reality-information from the environment; and
(e) reorganize themselves by changing their rules/assumptions.

I failed pre-algebra in the 8th grade due to a failure of B and C. This was sort of a mental trauma for me and I never made it beyond business math from then on.

When learning the steps to solve a problem, I must hold my mind open to impression in a nag-free environment so as I watch myself perform the steps I learn the major pattern. My math teacher at that time spoke harshly to students and told us from the beginning that she would walk around the room during test-time and random times, counting down and talking because it would "help to make us concentrate." It had the opposite effect on me - to the point I was ready to bawl in frustration.

I would, on principle, recommend meta-learning to anyone, though I haven't looked at any specific presentation of it. Thanks, Menna!

 

[Menna]

People may fail Spanish or Science class when they are 16 and walk around for decades believing they cant learn a language or are poor at the sciences however maybe the process of learning was unrealistic in setting, information and testing. Maybe the teacher was a poor teacher. Maybe the student was not self aware or had other problems at the time.

Through meta learning I believe any subject can be learned and during this learning we learn about ourselves.

 

[nicklebleu]

I had a brush with meta-learning very early on in high-school. There was a subject called "descriptive geometry" at which I was very bad. I nearly got kicked out of school due to my grades, but received another 6 months grace period to pull myself together. While I enjoyed my teacher's classes, because didactically he was very good, he hated me (for whatever reason) and so did I. And I was frightened by him, because he would expose me before the whole class as stupid.

During one of the visits of my mother to the teacher, he told her, that I had reached my mental potential and that I would never finish high-school. She told me that and I was furious and resolved: I'm going to show you bastard! I found a student for some auxillary lessons and within about 10 sessions, this became my strongest subject.

What this student taught me, was: 1) you can learn anything, there is no mystery involved, 2) you need to approach any problem methodically, and if you cannot see the solution after a while, let go, do something else and come back to it later with a fresh mind, and 3) learning or solving a problem is as much an emotional as an intellectual problem, so both sides need to be taken into account.

My emotional side was, that I was too stupid to understand and not really deserving to go to uni. And my father had died about one year before, so all the family was still traumatised and in disarray.

He changed my life around, I've never seen him again, but I will always be grateful for what he taught me and for who he was. Because today I know, with certainty, that I can learn all I want.

 

[Menna]

The word can't in my last paragraph should be replaced with can

 

[Windmill knight]

The word can't in my last paragraph should be replaced with can

Done.