Comments on: Making the Spiritual World Real

By: thefallencleric

thefallencleric — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:05:34 +0000

Thanks for commenting, Lars. My meaning is that if there were a Rorscach inkblot in the stereogram, then the person who is vague in describing what they see is closer to capturing it’s reality than the person who sees something specific. If one person says “I saw a dog” and one says “I know I saw something but I couldn’t make out what it was,” then that person comes closest to what is actually in the stereogram, which in reality is simply a blot of ink.

This was my way of explaining how it is that fundamentalism, which seemingly has the clearest descriptions of God, could actually apprehend less of the truth about God than a person or religion who is far less clear and specific. Just a possible way of explaining what would otherwise appear to be contradiction to some, and paradox to others.

My stereogram example is actually meant to account for relativism in religious perspectives. It gives a possible explanation for how it is that people can see such vastly different things with regard to religion. The image in the stereogram, by nature, reflects back much of what is already in you to begin with. Of course ultimately it is just an analogy and, like every analogy, breaks down at some point.

I hope that addressed your concern.

— Sent from my iPod touch

By: Lars Hundere

Lars Hundere — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 14:39:07 +0000

I’m an agnostic keenly interested in engaging in dialogue/dialectic with the academic, or ‘moderate’ expession of faith (which you seem to express well). Your arguments are compelling and your insights are redressing.

Yet I’m puzzled by your statement:

” … the person who gives what seems to be the least clear description is the one telling you most accurately what is actually in there.”

Really smacks of relativism to me.

By: Elizabeth Morin

Elizabeth Morin — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:56:11 +0000

Remarkable.

By: naterdog

naterdog — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:02:49 +0000

You’re having to much fun with this.

By: thefallencleric

thefallencleric — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:30:35 +0000

Okay, undo everything I’ve said above about a shark. I changed the image, now you can see under the stereogram what it is you’re looking for inside of it.

By: thefallencleric

thefallencleric — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:11:49 +0000

When it comes to New Testament stuff on truth, I find John 3:19-21 extremely compelling. We have built our entire church, really, on the implications of that passage. I expounded on this a bit with a 5 part series I did on my blog, starting with http://thefallencleric.com/2009/09/28/truth-prt-1.

By: thefallencleric

thefallencleric — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:56:41 +0000

Thanks for the credit back. I hope all went well.

By: naterdog

naterdog — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:45:12 +0000

Dave,
I used this idea im my sermon this week and quoted you a little (full credit to you where it was due). It worked out great. The sermon was the full armor series from Ephesians 6 and I talked specifically about truth. I found a couple sights that allow me to make your own stereograms. I threw the images up on the screen and gave a prize to the persons who could see it first. Thanks for the great idea!

By: wojodojo101

wojodojo101 — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:22:58 +0000

no, its a trap!

By: thefallencleric

thefallencleric — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 23:18:42 +0000

Kevin – it’s a shark!