Nostr Web Client

I agree with the article in a general sense. But this sentence...

"Do not rely on your own understanding, but in all your ways acknowledge the Lord."

I think the effort to separate understanding as something different from our ability to observe & experience reality is kinda the same problem that the "believe the science" crowd suffers from. I don't think God wants us to renounce the use of our God given faculties & resort to some sort of blind acceptance & I don't think there's any sort of natural struggle between acknowledgement of God & understanding. The word "acknowledge" actually undermines the implied separation. To acknowledge is to incorporate a thing into your own understanding.

The goal is to eliminate the internal division & align all parts of ourselves. There are no sacrifices, only things we want & costs to get there. There are also costs for choosing indulgence over higher aims. A healthy person makes decisions based on all of their best knowledge. The internal struggle is an imaginary form of self deception we use to pat ourselves on the back for doing the thing we really wanted anyway, & then often to justify indulgence as a periodic "reward" for all of our imaginary struggle. It's idiotic & self destructive.

Too often religious people choose to identify with their whims & attribute what they know is the better idea to some outside force. Thoughts are like the weather. You don't have to feel guilty about or identify with the dumb ones. Your understanding that they are dumb & wrong allows them to be easily dismissed for better ideas. People who pour energy into "why did I dare to have that thought," & beat themselves up about it, are actually only asking for more. We get more of what we focus on.

Dr.EAD 2y ago

Not speaking for/from the op, but:

Proverbs 3:5-6 (the verses you referenced) in context seem to be broadly an appeal to humility*, to know that you do not know, like Socrates.

But also an appeal to the true source of wisdom: a genuinely external force, source, or really, entity, that is YHWH.

If this entity is not real or cannot be communed with, then this is obvious absurdity.

BUT… if He is real, and we CAN know Him… then hypothetically, nothing could be better, and no greater state of humility exist than submitting oneself directly to He who is above all things.

*(this seems to be exactly what the aforementioned “trust the science” crowd, and bad-science in general, is lacking: you cannot search for what you think you already have)

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Pastor Coin 🫡 2y ago

Nailed it

Jeff Swann 2y ago

The way I see things, God is the very fabric of reality. The act of seeking to understand, & to observe, & to appreciate the world around us IS communion with God. It is denying reality & indulging our delusions that separates us from God/reality.

So in that sense, yes, wisdom comes from God.

But there is no "submission" to God that doesn't still involve thinking & understanding & choosing our own actions. To suggest otherwise sounds very much like making decisions purely based on whichever whims & feelings we decide to attribute to God. It's just moving delusion to a different layer of thought.

Pastor Coin 🫡 2y ago

Yes, we submit to God by using our own thinking and actions. It's a choice at make or don't make

Dr.EAD 2y ago

As I like to say, “If the universe is a self-driving car, you might as well call it KITT.”

😉🏎😂

Fair warning tho, that might be understood or spoken of as pantheism, which I don’t think is quite what you mean, altho about as close as traditional monotheism. Or maybe, something quasi-platonic? Socrates’ agnostic monotheism, but more impersonal and absent like Plato’s forms?

😬🤔

Dr.EAD 2y ago

I do understand your concern tho: a submission to something external must be exactly that, and many in their religious practice(s) simply rewrite, rename, and grant excess authority to their own (albeit “higher” in some sense) whims.

So I do think this is a valid and sound concern…

Nevertheless, to make it a rule or principle presumes total knowledge of the data. If even one religious experience is legitimately-divine, this is not the case, and to ignore such a possibility is to presume your own conclusion, i.e. the fallacy of begging the question.