₦airaland Forum

Now where does the Buddhist acknowledge the Father in their theology?!?

Where in the beatitudes does it say anything about acknowledgement?

At all events what is acknowledgment?

The man who screams praises to God in Church every sunday does not necessarily acknowldge God any more than the Atheist who is committed to Charity and love of his fellowman.

So far as the definition of "Christian" is " Christ-Like" - then the latter might actually be more Christian than the former.

Ditto the Buddhist.

Ok! Enjoy ya hypostasis!

^^^ Right.

You DO NOT have a soul.

You ARE a Soul.

viaro:
I'm sorry, that is vague. There are so many worldviews that could make such simplistic quips, but it is not an identity. Do you care to give us an identity of your 'God'?

I will NOT oblige this request -

Because i am all too aware that the ONLY further definition that will satisfy you is a definition that states that God is an entity that has a Jewish son called Jesus and that that same Jesus is the same Almighty God and that he died for my sins.

And in this you farcically imagine that all commonsense is thereby contained and resolved.

YOU are a clown.

I am not inclined towards such spiritual and theological nonsense.

viaro:
There are atheists I know who live far more credible lives than deists - no gainsaying that. However, please show me any atheist who predicates his living or ethics on "godliness". Please just show me. Your penchant to lie to the public on any "resemblance" is magically amazing!

No, it boils down to an exposé on your duplicity. Nothing more than that.

Matthew 5:8-9 is an example - "Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God." What is the 'God' that the Buddhist believes in, when you have openly tried to goon the atheist in your OP by stating: "Buddhism as a religion does not make reference to God"?? You DeepSight are a very funny conceited fellow.

It is your own chicanery on display here, if after you had openly told readers that Buddhism does not make reference to God, but at the same time you're loking to recruit atheists to be better worshippers of 'God'. A forked-tongued underhandedness was on display right from the onset of your OP, you didn't notice?

I am surprised you do not see clearly within your own post tht the pure in heart, as well as the meek and the lovers of righteousness are the folks who will be acceptable to God, regardless of whether they know of his existence or not!

This is clearly indicated in scripture when Jesus says that he will turn back those who "know" him claiming to have worked miracles in his name. . . depart from me. . . . i know thee not. . . .whreas he would accept those who may be of a differnet world view but practice kindness of heart.

Why is this so hard for you ? ? ? ?

viaro:
Let me ask you, DeepSight: what exactly is your 'God'?

The Creator of all Existence.

When i state that somebody is deluded that is no insult: it is a diagnosis -

And an eminently objective one, if that person is looking at Olumba Olumba and declaring him to be the Uncaused Cause of all existence.

Because patently there is no discernible difference between the Olumba follower and yourself.

Both of you are worshippers of fellow human beings.

An alarming and regrettable disposition.

I do have a Psychiatrist friend whose attentions you both might require especially as he would render his services to you free of Charge as a favour to me.

Huxley:

1. Is there a difference between the mind and the brain?

2. Can you tell me if any of these are physical things -

a. Thoughts

b. Love

c. Patriotism

d. Happiness

^^^ Abeg, you just dont want to admit that there are atheists whose ways are actually more godly than some theists.

And that's what this boils down to.

In relation to the Buddhist discourse (so others are not flung off the subject) the emphatic point is that a person practicing the essentials of Buddhism may very well live up to all the expectations of even your own christ as nobly encoded within the Beatitudes.

What manner of chicanery will prevent you from admitting that simple fact: preferring to dribble about on definitions!

I cannot recall any such pertinent questions: I invite you to please refer me to them and I will reflect on them sincerely.

How bodi na?

^^^ Yep: It is amazing the things one hears on this Forum.

noetic16:
your argument holds no water.

1. the God from Galilee was His coming not foretold? was His life not foretold by ancient prophets?

Foretelling something is quite another thing altogether from stating that when that thing arrives, it would be the incarnation of Almighty God. Wave Isaiah, and i will address it.

Besides you probably do not know just how many aspects of Jesus' life were deliberately cookd up in a bid to match already existing prophecy and as such claim him to be the messiah. One such is the myth of the virgin birth; a blatant falsehood contrived to defend a pregnancy out of wedlock - which would have meant death by stoning for the mother.

2. why compare the Galileean to Guru? whats the basis of the comparison?

Oh there are plenty of parallels. They both came teaching God and repentance. Thay both outrightly assert that they are not God. Nevertheless both their followres proceed to insist that they are almighty God.

You never know, Olumb Olumba Obu might just be a reincarnation of Jesus from Nazareth.

And what is your obsession with WoF? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Get a life.

Why do you call your leader, Olumba Olumba Obu, god almighty when the man himself has said severally that he’s not God?

You might want to address this same question to the deluded Trintarian lot who also insist that a similar fellow who lived in Galilee a while back is also Almighty God.

Good grief.

viaro:
If only the filter had allowed for the second half of my post, I explained in detail why you cannot make this vacillation from Buddhism, past your OOI, and then on to a narrowed position that zeroes in on "only" the Theistic conception of God.

YOU SIR - love to complicate things unduly. Especially when you are shying away from answering a dead-on simple question.

Simple question I asked was - and I will rephrase it yet again to please your eminence -

Is it possible for an Atheist to live a life that is pleasing to the God that YOU believe in?

Haba. Simple question. Stop running around and screaming define this, define that; when that which should be defined has been clearly defined already. If the question is so frightening for you, just say so and pass on jaare.

Remember the parable of the good samaritan?

Krayola:
Why does it matter.? This is an (anonymous) internet forum isn't it . . I think dwellin on stuff like that is kinda petty tbh. It's about the contents of the post IMO, not the poster. Besides that has been flogged into the ground.

viaro:
I really wonder why DeepSight often makes recourse to very petty issues like that.

Oh come on guys, cut me some slack!

Aside from debating issues we are also here to catch some fun dont you know?!!!

Just trying to catch my fun!

Besides if I registered as a new user and began to interact with you guys insisting I was a different person, there's no biggie in your trying to unmask me. No biggie at all.

ilosiwaju:
Deepsight, very wonderful topic. If there is any religion that deserves my respect and admiration, it is buddhism and i even kinda practised it for a while. I can claim not to be a buddhist but i learnt so so many things from buddhist text and i still read them though.

That's really great and nice to know that peeps at this end of the world can actually take to its fundamentals.

To me, buddhism is a religion of the individual and his environment and is a more humane religion than christianity and islam combined. While the four noble truths are indeed noble, while peace is so much a virtue, the emphasis on mind development/meditation(which i still manage to squeeze out some 10minutes for daily) and so on. Some things that puzzle me as a life's student about buddhism are:
1. Reincarnation, which to me is not so distant from the heaven and hell concept. I will understand if someone, say a zen buddhist monk now explains to me that the whole reincarnation thing is like the yoruba concept of "eewo"(taboo- not exactly intended to fool but protect you and so on). I am yet to come to grasp of reincarnation.

The assitant to our legal team is a Finnish lady who practices deep Yoga daily. She is currently in India for a Month of such rituals.

In her view reincarnation is nothing but a definition of the well known law that energy cannot be destroyed but merely changes state. Something to think on.

2. An almost unreasonable respect for animals. For one, i am a vegetarian but for health reasons only. I could sneak a hot dog once a year though but thats how much i'll consume meat. Fish i dont like at all so i stick to my favorites (indomie, beans) and unfortunately, i dont eat fruits. yes! i dont. Now, buddhism does not exactly prohibit meat eating but the buddha said not to eat an animal that was intentionally killed for your meal. So a tsunami victim cow is better to be eaten than one from, say abattoir. I understand but dont fully comprehend. Animals are not to be killed, sure but there is silence when it comes to nuisances like vermin. Some monks even carry brooms while walking so as to avoid stepping on insects(a noble sentiment, quite easier in some mountains in malaysia and co. Try it in oshodi) Some of these issues have proved quite tricky for the dalai lama.

Wwell it does seem an extreme. But I am certain it is not a fundamental principle of pure buddhism, which is anchored around the Four noble Truths.

@ Viaro -

I am at a loss.

You have stated that I did not mention which God I had in mind.

I thought i did -

I said -

So my question should be interpreted thus -

"Do you think that it is possible for the Atheist to do the will of YOUR CHRISTIAN GOD - without knowing of or recognising HIS existence at all?"

And if you were Muslim then I will simply replace the word "God" with the word "Allah" to make it clear that I am referring to God as the Muslim perceives him. Thus I would ask an Abuzola - "Do you think that it is possible for the Atheist to do the will of Allah - without knowing of or recognising HIS existence at all?" And I would ask a Deep Sight - "Do you think that it is possible for the Atheist to do the will of OOI [   ] - without knowing of or recognising HIS existence at all?"

So i hope the question is clearer now - namely that the Atheist ab initio has no conception of God: thus the only conception we are working with is that of the Theist - thus we are inquiring if it is possible that an Atheist can unknowingly live his life in a manner that is pleasing to God as conceived by a Theist - such as yourself.

I dont know if I am speaking gibberish, but what i am trying to put across is that a mind that rejects God's existence may still be capable of doing many things that you as a Christian or Abuzola as a Muslim would describe as God's will for mankind.

So i do not understand what you mean when you say I have not mentioned what God i refer to.

I explained in the above that I mean to ask if the Atheist may do the will of God (as conceived by a Theist) - without acknowledgfing that such a God exists.

Basically if you see a man who loves his fellow man and yet is an Atheist, would you say that in the act of loving his fellow man he is actually in line with the will of God as YOU understand God to be?

I think its that simple. I cant see a confusion there.

easylogic:
Thanks deepsight for your response.I am happy that you are keeping it civil and hopefully we can get something out of this

Of course, civility must always be the plank guiding our interaction.

You in particular are an outstanding gentleman and I value your contributions immensely.

__________________________________________________________
2.   That the uncaused cause or “un-sourced” source is the One Supreme Eternal God who created all that exists.
_______________________________________________________________________

You see my contention with this statement is:

1.It does not follow that if something is uncaused then it is God,abstract objects such as numbers,logical are thought of being uncaused or neccesarily existing.no one believes that there was a time 1 or 2 did not exist.

Your concern is catered for by the fact that I have not merely said “uncaused” – but rather I said “uncaused cause” – thus indicating that God is said to be God not only because he himself is “uncaused” but also because he is also the “cause” of everything else that exists. Numbers may be “uncaused” but are not the “cause” of everything else that exists, and as such are not described as an “uncaused cause.”

2.The act of creating everything does not qualify one to be a God.

I urge you to ponder on this and see if there is any greater attribute that should qualify a being as the ultimate being of all existence – save that such a being is the cause of all existence.

The act of creation might show a being whose very powerful,but power alone is just one of the  3 major attributes that are traditionally associated with a maximised being.Knowledge and morals are the other key essential attributes.

How do you define morals? Is a God who creates laws to deal with all moralistic situations and therefore non-interventionist less moral than a God who creates a world he has to consistently tinker with?

It is very clear that the deist god is a non interventionist type of God.And this is exactly what sets apart Deism from traditional forms of Theism.I have never heard of a form of deism which includes revelations and intervention.

I already told you that not all Deists have this view.
Have a look at this and please note the bolded part -

Wikipedia

Deism (\ˈdi:iz(ə)m\[1] or \ˈdē-ˌi-zəm\)[2] is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe, and that this (and religious truth in general) can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need for either faith or organized religion. Deists tend to, but do not necessarily, reject the notion that God intervenes in human affairs, for example through miracles and revelations.

Nevertheless I accept that Non-Interference is a major Deistic line of thought.

I also set out why I believe the concept does not in any way suggest an amoral God.

[I stated]
____________________________________________________________________
Now since God created all that exists, the following also necessarily holds true –

1.   Nothing exists that God is not responsible for; God spawns all existence – there therefore cannot be anything unknown to God. God is thus omniscient.
2.   The same principle holds true in rendering God omnipotent – namely that everything that exists derives from God. God thus has complete control over the entirety of existence.
______________________________________________________
[You responded -]
we can't really know if this is true,since the deist god does not reveal his character to humans,we will be guessing whether he has control of this universe.

It is odd for you to suggest that a being who is said to create ALL EXISTENCE would have no control over what he has created.

It could be said that infact,he has lost control of the universe,
a) there is untold moral evil and natural evil in  the world.

- I am aware some deist would say that the presence of natural evil is just "gods" way of bringing about natural process.While i agree that this point is indeed valid,this does not explain moral evil. Infact there is a paradox here

Please see my opening posts in this thread for my views on this.
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=411142.msg5664703#msg5664703

-  If a deist says that moral evil should not be viewed as being something bad,it is just a natural process encompassing natural selection and the fittest survive adage of evolution,then we can ask why are there behaviors that seem to go against this principle.Eg Why aren't human beings getting rid of beggars,lepers old people who are burdens to the society.If Africa was to follow "the fittest survive" policy, we should be killing off people who are burdens to society.Acts of altruism should be nonexistent.
       - But if a deist says indeed god does interfere or he set everything in the beginning in such a way that good will win over evil in the end,then we are obliged to ask,"How do you know that?" The deist god has not revealed his intentions in any book,video tape or written message.Secondly, according to the tenets of deism,god uses natural means to bring about his will,the only natural means we know as pertains morality,is through natural selection.so we are back at square one.

I don’t think that this is a problem: Altruistic acts also play a role in furthering the interest and survival of the species as the instinct to protect one another continuously saves people from many a danger.

Since this is the case it is only natural that both competitive and altruistic instincts should exist side by side.


As an aside, let me say that I am uncomfortable with the the “the Deist God.” I have said before that there is no such thing. There is only God and people may have different perspectives on God.

That is why natives and tribes worldwide have also had perspectives on the Supreme being. They did not need any “scriptures” to have such perspectives, did they? Would you conclude that the Yoruba “Olodumare” for example is not a reference to the almighty creator?
 

b) Current science and observations tell us Everything is tending towards disorder,the universe is headed for a heat death.Infact our own sun will obliterate us in 5 billion years,that is if an asteroid or comet will not have destroyed it by then.This does not show a God who is in control.A God whose creation will destroy itself,shows a god who either is unwilling to do anything or is unable.Again,a deist cannot say,that "God's plan is this and that, ", a deist has no way of knowing that.

I am struggling to see how a destruction of this world or even the whole universe implies a God who is not in control.

It is natural for finite things to have a beginning and an end – given that they are not the Infinite God Himself.

How does this fact imply a loss of control?

You are suggesting to me that the fact that you are born and you die implies that God has lost control of the universe!

I think that is a very strange assertion indeed.

1) We cannot know if this Deist god possesses foreknowledge,

2)We cannot know whether the deist god possesses middle-knowledge.

You see if god possessed middle knowledge he would look and see,under which circumstances that he would need to create and put peter so that he ends up willingly marrying jane.Eg, If peter meets jane at 25 when she has blossomed,he would fall for her.etc

What do you understand by a Being who is said to be responsible for ALL that exists. ALL EXISTENCE IN TOTALITY?

Is it rational to contend that such a being could be responsible for ALL existence in totality and at the same time be ignorant of parts of any component of existence, however conceived.

I think that is an eminently strange view to have.

It does! A couple brings forth a child.In his teenage days

1.he starts smoking bhang
- The father says nothing to him.
2. he starts sleeping with love-peddlers.
- the father says nothing
3. He drops out of school and threatens to kill his sister.
-the father says nothing
4.he actually goes ahead and kills his sister
-the father says nothing.

The only conclusion we can derive from this type of parent is that, he is either amoral,or he's truly evil.Inaction to acts of evil or goodness shows a god who has no sense of justice.An attribute even his own creations seem to have!

Did you miss that God is said to have created perfect laws that guide his creation?

How does that equate with haven done nothing?

Is it your realistic expectation that a voice would thunder out of “heaven” condemning every wrong deed of every human being once such deeds are done?

Come on.

Where are this laws? the natural laws?again if we to follow the evolutionary model of natural selection where the fittest survive,the world would be a very bad place,where weaker people in society would be terminated,universal health care would be a dream,basically it would be every man for himself,every society for itself.

I already explained that altruism also has evolutionary benefits for groups and species, so it is natural for it to exist side-by-side with competitiveness.

So actually,human beings have fashioned a better moral system than a deist god! by us ignoring the natural laws as pertaining to morality,we have been able to create societies which cater for old people,terminally ill people and basically most people who are of little value to the society.If we were to let nature run its cause,then ,as i have said before,the world would be a bad place to live.

It is very wrong to say this given that nature has already placed the love-instinct not just in humans but even animals.

Have you watched the Video “Battle at Kruger” – where an entire herd of buffalo unite to fight a pack of lions who had captured on of their own?

There. Both love and competition side by side.

All beautifully provided by nature.

[Quote]

[I said] -
__________________________________________________________
If you reflect on it: you may realize that only an imperfect God would actually create a world in which he has to return to tinker with things constantly
________________________________________________________________________

[You responded] -
MMh not really,but this is out of the discussion,though i'm willing to take it up in a different thread.[/quote]This is absolutely within the discussion because it rather shows the concept of an interfering God to be internally inconsistent with the idea of perfection – thus showing that the Deist perception of a non-interfering God is both more plausible and does more honour to God.

In Conclusion

While the question of who's version of god is the right version is inconsequential to whether a God exists,i believe that any version of a god or any worldview, must fulfill two basic criteria

1. The concept of God must be internally consistent.
2. The concept of god must be consistent with what is observable in nature and life.

And Deistic thought fulfils both criteria!

e) the christian conception of God and Deist God are radically different and mutually exclusive.If one version of God exists,then necessarily the other one does not exist.Christians believe in a Tri-une,Omni and personal God who regularly intervenes and is knowable,whose plans he has revealed in scripture and who plans on revealing himself in his full nature sometime in the future. Whether this is true or not is not the question.But as we can see this concept of God is radically different from a non-interfering,non-interventionist,unknowable God who is not interested in the affairs of the world.Christians and deists cannot be speaking of the same God,it is not a matter of perception as Deepsight put it,this is a fundamental conceptual difference of Deity.

Come on. So the Christian, Muslim, Igbo, Yoruba and Greek worldviews which all have a conception of the Almighty Creator must have all been speaking about different Creators?


Haba. Considering human diversity is it likely that we would all conceive the Creator the same way?

Thanks again for your comments Viaro.

Errrrrr. . . how can i put this?

Maybe you should just look at the simple example i gave -

Man X - Believes God exists. Loves his fellowman. Actively helps build his community. Does extended charity work.

Man Y - Believes God exists. Is rabidly anti-social. A hired assasin and corrupt politician. Despises charity. Cruel and bitter minded.

Man Z - Does not believe God exists. Loves his fellowman. Actively helps build his community. Does extended charity work.

Let me make this clear:

  1. We are speaking about Man Z - the Atheist - as such the question of "which God" does not arise at all because he does not believe in any God whatsoever! Pertaining to him the "God" definition is totally out of the question.

  2. The God - definition of which you speak is thus only relevant to the Theist who believes in God.

  3. Consequently the definition that should apply should be the Theist's definition - namely that the question I asked you works with the Theists Definition of God in mind.

So my question should be interpreted thus -

"Do you think that it is possible for the Atheist to do the will of YOUR CHRISTIAN GOD - without knowing of or recognising HIS existence at all?"

And if you were Muslim then I will simply replace the word "God" with the word "Allah" to make it clear that I am referring to God as the Muslim perceives him. Thus I would ask an Abuzola - "Do you think that it is possible for the Atheist to do the will of Allah - without knowing of or recognising HIS existence at all?" And I would ask a Deep Sight - "Do you think that it is possible for the Atheist to do the will of OOI [ ] - without knowing of or recognising HIS existence at all?"

So i hope the question is clearer now - namely that the Atheist ab initio has no conception of God: thus the only conception we are working with is that of the Theist - thus we are inquiring if it is possible that an Atheist can unknowingly live his life in a manner that is pleasing to God as conceived by a Theist - such as yourself.

I dont know if I am speaking gibberish, but what i am trying to put across is that a mind that rejects God's existence may still be capable of doing many things that you as a Christian or Abuzola as a Muslim would describe as God's will for mankind.

I hope the question is clearer now?

The Judaic God is interesting!

After issuing many such genocidal orders he turns over a new leaf and incarnates on Earth as Jesus preaching love and pacifism.

God grew up!

mavenbox:
I smell a derailment.

I dont think so, Viaro comments and concerns are spot on and deal directly with the core issues applicable to this thread.

viaro:
No, we can't just swing it on my own Christian concept of God for these reasons:[

(a) First, viaro is not a Buddhist - I've noted that the concept of 'god' in Buddhism is quite different from what obtains in other worldviews.

We can swing it on whatever precept of God you are happy to suggest. I will work with any.

In this you might note as a help the broad flavour of the worship of God which I had talked about viz:

Deep Sight:
For me the worship of God simply involves a pursuit of harmony and love and perhaps also a living passion for the wonder of existence.

- which precept of worship is couched in broad terms and as such is not contingent on having ANY precept of God at all or even acknowledging that God exists.

- Thus my willingness to accept any precept of God which you may be willing to advance.

- However as a further help perhaps I should couch my initial statement this way – A man might be an atheist: but love his fellow man. He is as such in loving his fellow man doing the will of God – even if he is not aware of the fact. He is indeed doing the will of God to a greater degree than a Theist who despises all his fellowmen.

- Hence my question to you inquiring if an acknowledgement that God exists is required to do the will of God.

viaro:
Second, this thread is not about the Christian concept of 'God' - and I would not be entertaining any deviations to turn or swing it otherwise from the Buddhist concept to now the Christian concept of 'God'.

- Hope the foregoing has addressed this.

[quote author=viaro link=topic=411111.msg5673697#msg5673697](c) Third, I'm sure the atheists to whom you're preaching 'worship' and 'God' to, already should expect you to delineate what 'God' exactly you're speaking about. If it was a matter of the Christian 'God', the atheist already takes a position that he/she is not a worshipper of 'God', let alone a 'better worshipper' (as you put it). This is why it would look like you're trying to pull the rug from under us if you advance 'worship' and 'God' without specifics from your own matrix.[/quote]- Hope the foregoing has addressed this.

[quote author=viaro link=topic=411111.msg5673697#msg5673697](d) Fourth, I certainly made clear that you would have to demonstrate that you both adhere to and be consistent with whatever 'God' you want to discuss. If you want me to proceed with the Christian concept of 'God', then please show me clearly that you adhere to the Biblical faith of God as well as be ready to be consistent in your faith in Him. If you cannot do so, then it means that you have a different concept of 'God' that you want to present to the atheist - and that is why it is incumbent upon you to explicate that 'God' for the atheist so he/she could be the desired "better worshipper" that you envisage.[/quote]- Hope the foregoing has addressed this.

Looking forward to your answer to the question now -

Does one require an apprehension that God exists -

in order to do the will of God?

Easylogic, Thanks for Your great comments.

Really useful input in balancing the thought development of this thread.

I am on my way to my office and will revert later in the day.

Cheers.

JeSoul:
Oh dear. If only you would apply this concession when condemning and declaring certain elements of the christian faith irrational dogma. I mean I hear this disclaimer below: but still, there is a huge MAY HELP in there. There are observable limits to the efficacy of your "test of reason", limits that are no doubt a handicap in understanding matters beyond ones [size=24pt]current [/size] grasp.

The bolded word underlines my point.

viaro:
Hello DeepSight,

Thanks for your question. I'd like a context for your question before I address it. If you first tell us what 'God' you are intending to discuss and adhere to in all consistency, then I can provide an answer with substance.

Viaro -

Let us work with your concept of God as a Christian. That will do.

Awaiting your response.

Thanks.

Thanks KunleOshob.

You might note that i have stated the limits of our knowledge to be the issue - and not that things are illogical.

Centuries ago comets were illogical and magical.

With the expansion of the limits of knowledge we can now see how logical a comet is. Nothing magical there.

Thus it might not be healthy to accept things based on faith alone.

Proper faith should derive from a causative construct.

Hi Viaro. . .

Thanks for your great comments. Funny cartoon!

Let me put a question to you.

Does one require an apprehension that God exists -

in order to do the will of God?
Thanks.

^^^ My take is that it does not matter.

Like you once said - its the message, and not the messenger.

^^^ Na Obama?

Carrying on now. . .

I had stated that i would like to discuss Reason, Nature and Humanism.

We had started with Reason.

Many people tend to assert that "faith is beyond reason". . ."spiritual things cannot be understood by reason and logic". . ."this or that spiritual matter defies understanding . . ." etc.

Indeed such statements are often used as a sweeping defense of illogical religious dogma.

I positively assert that that there is nothing that exists that is contrary to reason or logic.

Indeed - it is not possible for an illogicality to exist. By its very definition, an illogicality is an impossibility.

Now let's be careful here - It is clear that there is much that is unknown to mankind. It is also clear that there is much that mankind does not understand.

It is in my view more apt to say that one does not know something, or that one does not understand something: than to state that that thing "transcends" logic or reason - or that that thing is "illogical."

If we are careful to stop and reflect: we can easily see that all things which exist exist by and of a cause or rationale.

This is immediately obvious once we consider that there is nothing that derives its meaning or existence without a construct of cause, rationale, purpose or deduction. In simpler terms i might say that apples do not pop out of thin air; they grow on a tree which contains natural processes suited to develop apples.

An apple would not exist in the absence of those processes.

I do not know if I have properly conveyed what i am trying to say: but the summary is that all things are rational, have a construct, are reasonable and that it is absolutely impossible for a pure illogoicality to exist. Rather the limits of our knowledge may constrain us from understanding the rationale for certain things.

Based on this thinking I believe that nothing transcends reason and logic: and accordingly, reason is a firm tool in the hands of mankind for the understanding and deduction of even the highest things - physical or meta-physical.

Accordingly, and especially in light of my earlier posts on "Reason" I believe all spiritual truth should be viewed with the test of reason and that this may help in sifting the wheat from the chaff: the intelligible from the unintelligible and the vain and empty myth from that which is pure eternal truth.