What does it mean to hand your life to God?

[chris416]

The word God has been challenging for me. The idea of some powerful Being passing judgment on our lives. And, deciding who is saved and who is not...

I have been contemplating whether God is the answer or our own minds.

What does it mean to hand your life over to God? What does it mean to be saved?

We create the world in which we live everyday. Every moment, we choose. It’s an act of creation.

We live in a world in which our deep seeded beliefs are what controls the direction of our lives. What we hold most dear is the environment in which we live and grow.

We are powerful indeed.

The challenge is that we have forgotten ourselves. We have forgotten how to choose.

Positive or negative beliefs do not matter in a sense that we invite a particular outcome.

Is this why I am where I am? Why my life has not turned out how I wanted?

Are we in control of our lives? Or is it something else?

Simply thinking about what we want does not materialize a thing, but, it does set a direction.

There is a pull, a tethering that responds in kind.

God. The Universe. The Universal Mind. Whatever you call it. There is an undeniable pull. A sense of something greater. All things being equal, we all want the best for ourselves and the best for others.

I believe the inherent nature of the Universe is good. It derives connection.

Yes, there is evil in the world. There is evil in you. But there is also good in you.

So, surrender. Surrender to the power of creation.

If we can create a life we don’t want, then we can choose create a life we do.

Is this what it means to hand your life over to God?

[Overcomer]

ttruscott wrote:

GOD promises to renew our free will and free our mind's desires from being taken over by evil... That is a promise many cannot consider nor abide...

Amen to that!

I think that's one of the biggest lies of Satan -- that if we give ourselves to Christ we lose our freedom when, in actuality, we gain freedom -- freedom from the power of sin, freedom from the outcome of sin, freedom from the lies of the devil, freedom to live in a far more healthy manner on so many levels.

So much to gain with God and so much to lose without him . . . .

[shnarkle]

The word God has been challenging for me. The idea of some powerful Being passing judgment on our lives. And, deciding who is saved and who is not...

I have been contemplating whether God is the answer or our own minds.

What does it mean to hand your life over to God? What does it mean to be saved?

We create the world in which we live everyday. Every moment, we choose. It’s an act of creation.

We live in a world in which our deep seeded beliefs are what controls the direction of our lives. What we hold most dear is the environment in which we live and grow.

We are powerful indeed.

The challenge is that we have forgotten ourselves. We have forgotten how to choose.

Positive or negative beliefs do not matter in a sense that we invite a particular outcome.

Is this why I am where I am? Why my life has not turned out how I wanted?

Are we in control of our lives? Or is it something else?

Simply thinking about what we want does not materialize a thing, but, it does set a direction.

There is a pull, a tethering that responds in kind.

God. The Universe. The Universal Mind. Whatever you call it. There is an undeniable pull. A sense of something greater. All things being equal, we all want the best for ourselves and the best for others.

I believe the inherent nature of the Universe is good. It derives connection.

Yes, there is evil in the world. There is evil in you. But there is also good in you.

So, surrender. Surrender to the power of creation.

If we can create a life we don’t want, then we can choose create a life we do.

Is this what it means to hand your life over to God?

The first question I would have to ask is who are you? The reason I would ask this is that one can't hand over what they don't know in the first place. What are you handing over? What makes you think it's yours in the first place, and if you're just handing over your life, what about you? Why stop with just your life? Why not hand over you as well? I think the problem is that most people don't know who they are to begin with, and until they do, they're not going to be able to figure much of anything out.

[marco]

The first question I would have to ask is who are you? The reason I would ask this is that one can't hand over what they don't know in the first place. What are you handing over? What makes you think it's yours in the first place, and if you're just handing over your life, what about you? Why stop with just your life? Why not hand over you as well? I think the problem is that most people don't know who they are to begin with, and until they do, they're not going to be able to figure much of anything out.

Truth often speaks through paradoxes. In solitude we are least alone. Those who claim to know themselves know themselves least. In Egyptian, Greek and Roman cultures "know thyself" was the beginnings of wisdom. Socrates opined: ""The unexamined life is not worth living." Our own homely farmer poet Robert Burns usefully observed that we might be released from many follies if the powers that be would allow us to see ourselves as others see us.


The contemplation of our own insignificance helps place us in our universe. Offering ourselves to God may well be the way to wisdom; but it might also be the path to self-deception, just as good intentions pave the road to hell.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 13 by marco]

Truth often speaks through paradoxes. In solitude we are least alone.

We? To say "we" are alone doesn't sound like solitude. Moreover, many have noticed that after some period of time in what most would agree is solitude, one notices an awareness that insists one isn't alone at all.

Those who claim to know themselves know themselves least.

And that claim isn't really all that different from what I am claiming in that to know the self is to know that it isn't anything more than an idea. There's not really anything to know.

In Egyptian, Greek and Roman cultures "know thyself" was the beginnings of wisdom.

Yep, and that ship has sailed. What we really want to know is who you are after discarding the self; who you are when self referencing is no longer an option.

[marco]

Truth often speaks through paradoxes. In solitude we are least alone.

We? To say "we" are alone doesn't sound like solitude. Moreover, many have noticed that after some period of time in what most would agree is solitude, one notices an awareness that insists one isn't alone at all.

My goodness, you find difficulties where there are none. One needs to interprt the sentence correctly. Anyway you've almost stumbled on the meaning in your bit of reflection.

Those who claim to know themselves know themselves least.

And that claim isn't really all that different from what I am claiming in that to know the self is to know that it isn't anything more than an idea. There's not really anything to know.

Yes; for some this is sadly true; for others there is a wealth of wonderful information. I suppose we must put up with what chance has given us.

What we really want to know is who you are after discarding the self; who you are when self referencing is no longer an option.

These are giant words full of sound and fury, and like those put in the mouth of Macbeth they signify nothing. We are our reference point, the alpha and omega of existence; when we die then Mondays and Tuesdays die with us. Some lucky few have their words presrved, but they are no more than the whistle of a wind.


Of course we can pretend that we have established a magical link with the hereafter, with Divinity. The great Russian poet Pushkin saw himself as a "prorok" or prophet, extracting inspiration not from the Holy Spirit, but from the poetic ether. We invent our own explanations and our own gods.

[shnarkle]

We? To say "we" are alone doesn't sound like solitude. Moreover, many have noticed that after some period of time in what most would agree is solitude, one notices an awareness that insists one isn't alone at all.

My goodness, you find difficulties where there are none.

I see no difficulties. You're the one making this supposed discovery. Perhaps you might discover something more from that mote you imagine in the eyes of others.

One needs to interprt the sentence correctly.

One might spend more time in observation than indulging false assumptions.

Anyway you've almost stumbled on the meaning in your bit of reflection.

Far be it from you to provide your interpretation, lest your revelation prove false. Prove me wrong.

Those who claim to know themselves know themselves least.

And that claim isn't really all that different from what I am claiming in that to know the self is to know that it isn't anything more than an idea. There's not really anything to know.

Yes; for some this is sadly true;

Ah, yes let's add some sadness to these so-called difficulties.

for others there is a wealth of wonderful information.

Well, that sounds promising, but by now I'm sure no one is expecting anything beyond your unexplained beliefs in this vague promise.

I suppose we must put up with what chance has given us.

Ah yes, some resignation to the fates. Just what we need to justify belief in our sad difficulties.

What we really want to know is who you are after discarding the self; who you are when self referencing is no longer an option.

These are giant words full of sound and fury, and like those put in the mouth of Macbeth they signify nothing.

Well I suppose for those who aren't familiar with a point simply stated, the temptation to throw some tired reference in must be irresistable. The irony here is that it does signify nothing which to those who are paying attention is to state the obvious. Perhaps you might want to take it to the next level, and instead of repeating what's already been presented; advance the discussion?

We are our reference point, the alpha and omega of existence;

Well at least you're consistent in presenting a plural verb which agrees in number with its subject. Perhaps you might want to advance something more than your beliefs; perhaps something that explains how they might agree with the accepted science. Anyone with rudimentary skills at observation should be able to see the phenomenon of identity emerge in the later stages of infancy. The liturature is clear that this is simply an abstract construction.

The experiments conclusively show that babies will eventually recognize their reflection in a mirror and begin to pick at a stamp on their forehead. That is the reference point, and yet it is no more real than your ideas of God. They're just ideas. Of course the point here is that one needn't expire to recognize this fact. The question remains, and is as yet unanswered by those who would rather pontificate ad nauseum.

Of course we can pretend that we have established a magical link with the hereafter, with Divinity.

Let's not. How about making an honest attempt to advance something more than one's imagined fanciful arguments of straw.

We invent our own explanations and our own gods.

Not all. Some aren't inventive or inspired at all, and must rely on the inspiration of others. Unfortunately it has the opposite effect when it isn't necssary or relavent.

[marco]

We? To say "we" are alone doesn't sound like solitude.

Here is Byron's stanza from which I quoted.

Then stirs the feeling infinite, so felt
In solitude, where we are least alone;
A truth, which through our being then doth melt,
And purifies from self: it is a tone,
The soul and source of music, which makes known
Eternal harmony, and sheds a charm
Like to the fabled Cytherea’s zone,
Binding all things with beauty;—’t would disarm
The spectre Death, had he substantial power to harm

Perhaps you might want to advance something more than your beliefs; perhaps something that explains how they might agree with the accepted science.

We are discussing handing over one's life to God. Of interest is the possible figurative meaning in this statement. Of little interest is "accepted science." I advanced a piece of Byron to indicate that we can tease meaning out of an apparent contradiction.

The experiments conclusively show that babies will eventually recognize their reflection in a mirror ................... The question remains, and is as yet unanswered by those who would rather pontificate ad nauseum.

Social experiments do not conclusively show anything. They form the basis for theories and may back up one's theorizing. Those who pontificate incessantly do so "ad nauseam", by the way. Ad is a Latin preposition ( in whose usage I am apparently deficient) and takes the accusative; in this case, we have a first declension noun, nausea, whose accusative singular is nauseam.

As it happens, Sartre's novel, La Nausée, (Nausea) would address some of the points thrown up here about self-knowledge. So via irrelevance we can come back to the subject. Go well.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 17 by marco]

Then stirs the feeling infinite, so felt
In solitude, where we are least alone;
A truth, which through our being then doth melt,
And purifies from self: it is a tone,
The soul and source of music, which makes known
Eternal harmony, and sheds a charm
Like to the fabled Cytherea’s zone,
Binding all things with beauty;—’t would disarm
The spectre Death, had he substantial power to harm

shnarkle wrote:

Perhaps you might want to advance something more than your beliefs; perhaps something that explains how they might agree with the accepted science.

We are discussing handing over one's life to God. Of interest is the possible figurative meaning in this statement.

Pray tell, which figure are you referring to? For there to be figurative meaning, there must needs be an actual figure of speech to give it that figurative meaning. There are quite a few, pick a figure, any figure; preferably the one which gives figurataive meaning to this statement.

Of little interest is "accepted science."

While you may prefer the unaccepted sciences which supersitiously posit a flat earth, unlike you; I am perfectly willing to listen with an open mind to your position. It is no secret that yesterday's superstitions are tomorrows science. When one is talking about the self it's of plenly interest to a number of sciences; psychology and psychiatry, just to name two. Forgive me for not noticing that restrictions had been placed on the discussion which exempt using one's observations. Byron is referring to one's feelings. Were these feelings not teased from you as well, or are they just presented for their as yet unidentified figurative meaning?

I advanced a piece of Byron to indicate that we can tease meaning out of an apparent contradiction.

Right, you've claimed it to be figurative meaning from a literal contradiction; or are you claiming it to be a figurative contradiction?

Social experiments do not conclusively show anything.

So are you saying that they conclusivly show nothing? I think most would agree that experiments aren't meant to conclusively show anything. They're meant to conclusively show something, and many times something specific. The best way to see what many of our modern day studies are meant to conclusivly show is to look at who is funding these expermimental studies. The sugar industry has conclusively shown that there is no direct link between sugar consumption and diabetes, heart disease, obesity or cancer. Big tobacco companies conclusively showed us that there were possible correlatins between tobacco use, but that these corellations didn't necessarily cause nicotine addiction etc. They weren't conclusively showing anything. They were conclusively showing something quite specific. These were their conclusions

They form the basis for theories and may back up one's theorizing.

Sounds like you've concluded that experiments support theories which don't conclusively show anything. Are you attempting to tease meaning out of these statements?

Those who pontificate incessantly do so "ad nauseam",

By Jove, I think we've found some common ground.

by the way. Ad is a Latin preposition ( in whose usage I am apparently deficient)

Don't forget figuratively as well.

and takes the accusative; in this case, we have a first declension noun, nausea, whose accusative singular is nauseam.

We're on a roll. The gods in their benevolence are shining down upon us harmonious agreement. Do you feel it, or are we no longer allowed to refer to our feelings unless they come to us sponaneously via the Muse?

As it happens, Sartre's novel, La Nausée, (Nausea) would address some of the points thrown up here about self-knowledge. So via irrelevance we can come back to the subject.

Sounds promising. Perhaps you would like to share some of these points which you find particularly relevant in their irrelevance?

Go well.

And return the same with more of your much appreciated erudition.

[marco]

We are discussing handing over one's life to God. Of interest is the possible figurative meaning in this statement

.

Pray tell, which figure are you referring to? For there to be figurative meaning, there must needs be an actual figure of speech to give it that figurative meaning.

The interpretation can be literal or figurative. Many would not know if a figure of speech was present or not, especially with some of the exotic figures such as antonomasia and prolepsis. In the case of "handing over one's life to God" one is not literally handing over and so this is figurative language. God may represent goodness, charity, piety and so this would constitute metonymy.

Social experiments do not conclusively show anything.

So are you saying that they conclusivly show nothing?

I neither said this nor think it. My quibble is simply with the adverb "conclusively". Your discourse on the benefits of experiments in industry is noted.

[shnarkle]

We are discussing handing over one's life to God. Of interest is the possible figurative meaning in this statement

.

Pray tell, which figure are you referring to? For there to be figurative meaning, there must needs be an actual figure of speech to give it that figurative meaning.

The interpretation can be literal or figurative.

And if the author intended it to be figurative they would necessarily provided a figure of speech to carry out their intention. Therefore a literal interpretation would be incorrect. It must be one or the other; it can't be both.

Many would not know if a figure of speech was present or not, especially with some of the exotic figures such as antonomasia and prolepsis.

The careful reader would know that it wasn't literal. The figure would emphasis something that literal speech can't, hence the need for the figure. So while it may not be necessary to articulate the name of the specific figure, the figure can be ascertained by matching the figure of speech with its definition and usage.

In the case of "handing over one's life to God" one is not literally handing over and so this is figurative language.

You're begging the question. Presenting this as a given doesn't prove it's figurative. Pointing out what the figure is emphasizing proves it is figurative and by doing this we will then learn the exact figure being used, and be able to identify it by name.

God may represent goodness, charity, piety and so this would constitute metonymy.

Not really. A metonymy means a change of noun or name whereas representation denotes the figure Metaphor. Metonymys are more like the figure Symbol than the figure Metaphor. The figure Metaphor would look like this: God is(i.e. represents) good; God is(represents) charity; God is piety. The thing about the figure Metaphor or comparison by representation is that all terms must be taken literally. The figure is contained exclusively in the verb or copula. Therefore the term "your" literally means your. The term "life" literally means life, and the term "God" literally means God. So one's life is represented to God. This doesn't work. It must be another figure.

You might be able to make an argument for a metonymy of effect, in that God effects goodness, piety, or charity, but I can't think of any examples off hand so I leave it to you to prove your point. Perhaps you had something else in mind?

However, I think it would be more profitable to simply stick with the sentence we were originally dealing with to find that figure. So we could say that handing one's life to piety, or charity is a metonymy in that we exchanged God for these terms, but that's not what we're dealing with, are we? We could just as easly have exchanged terms like "laziness", "sloth" etc. Picking these terms out of thin air doesn't work as they must be articulated in the sentence to be exchanged.

My quibble is simply with the adverb "conclusively".

Interesting point. Perhaps we could look a bit more deeply at the exceptions to this rule. What happens when a child doesn't develop this separate identity? I think you are assuming that the conclusion proves this is the only result, when it is quite true that it isn't always the case. This doesn't negate the objective fact that these identities are formed. I wasn't concluding it as a necessary outcome; just the most common. This points us to the crux of the matter, doesn't it? There is the self and then there are those who either don't develop this identity or their identity becomes fractured, or their identity is later discarded temporarily and in some rare cases permanently.