believing without believing & faith
I mentioned in another post that I used to be a Christian & believed in the Bible. I had faith. I was taught to believe that the Bible is the word of God. After I denounced Christianity I knew that I could never again believe something or put my faith in the writings of some book just because it is supposed to be true.
So when I am to “believe without believing” what is the difference between that and blind faith?
Oh, & while your at it… can God make a boulder sooo heavy even He canââ?¬â?¢t lift it?
D5 Creation
I think belief is just another word for intending. To believe without believing means that once we break free of our incultured belief system we realize that reality as we thought was all in our head, so to speak. Knowing that frees us to believe whatever is convienant for us and that in helps us act impeccably.
As far as your second question;
That depends on which manifestation of God your talking about. I believe Jesus would have no problem whatsoever. But the Father, he’s nursing a hernia he got last week rocking Indonesia. 😆
Does one need blind faith? I don’t think so. I have no way of knowing the specifics of how the members of Carlos’ nagual party came into their knowledge, or whether or not those books are factually acurate.
I used to believe that they were only because of the impact they had on my life. However, I have definitely gotten to a point where I don’t believe one way or another. I don’t believe without believing. I just use what I find useful, and try to enjoy and improve life as much as possible while I’m still here.
But I have also become much more open to other options as well. The only thing I really have any interest in is freedom. And so I look for methods that I feel enhance my sense of freedom.
One of Buddhism’s main points is the fact that you don’t need blind faith to put the methods that Buddhism presents into action. They say try it, and see for yourself if it works or not.
I feel that is a good outlook for anything one does.
Nagualism and the mood of the warrior has tempered my spirit in such a way that it allows me to view other methods through the eyes of Nagualism.
I believe that things can work together. Nagualism enhances other methods and vice versa. Maybe I’m right, maybe I’m wrong.
Believing without believing is very hard to explain but I know that it isn’t just blind faith. It is more like a stalking technique.
The context in which I reply may be mysterious. Care to elaborate though per Carlos’ instructions. That chapter “Having to Believe” comes to mind. (Tales) I know you can quote the chapters like Bible verses so a suitable context can be found here. Let me recapitulate. Notice how some mebe webe wanna be warriors and warriorlings go playfully licking their hands to their deaths. While the other man is in his world day in and day out struggling. Look at how you yourself struggle. Your in your world day in and day out. Your a being that thinks, feels doesn’t fee,l cries, doesnt cry. The story is all you. Most people go from act ot act without any effort. This is where we part softly at the break. . . Nothing short of continous action is the antidote. This is how the story of the two cats ‘Max,” the reddish brown one and the one who do no even have a name came to blows.. Carlos felt that Max’s ‘catness’ so to speak was what made him the proper warrior in the end. While the other man– don’t be concerned with what the other man is doing. Wasn’t accounted for at first.
So you see in applying this to a modern religous man-behind-the-scenes is very simple. The apostle Paul said “That which I do I do not do . And that which I do not do I do” Or if you prefer saying man-on- Earth seeing God’s love.
Which do you think accounts for our unavoidable end? Stupid death. Remeber that. They’re as different as they can be.
[QUOTE][COLOR=blue]Because I’m Hottie Scottie Duarte and I’m very softly parted at the break. . ..