Word Power II
James Campbell was once talking with a Priest and was asked
'Mr. Campbell, do you believe in a personal God?' To which he
replied he did not. Then the priest observed,'I suppose there
is no way I can prove the existence of a personal God to you?'
To which James Campbell replied,'if you could, then what would be
the value of faith?'
The Pocket Oxford Dictionary (1925 edition) defines faith as:
'belief in divine truth without proof'. Now both James Campbell
and the priest obviously held this definition of the word 'faith'.
Of course, faith in it's modern useage has come to mean something
a little different, or has it?
And what of the other key word in this scenario? Belief, as defined
by POD (above) means: 'Trust, confidence, acceptance of a thing as
true'.
So, both the term faith and the term belief are, in actuality, abstract
terminologies. They are words which construct a scenario that
occupies the energies of the logical cortexes of the brain. Except
that belief also contains a kinetic energy concerning an issue of
acceptance.
Now, the simple question I wish to pose is this: why would you need to
have a belief in something that you already know? Paraphrased: why
would you need to have faith in something that has already been proven?

With or without the 'God gene VMAT2' it seems clear to me that if we
dispense with humanented (humanenting: attributing human
characteristics to the character of a Supreme Being/Great Spirit/God)
God definitions and simply allow the supreme definition of 'God' as being
Unconditional Love, then the proof of this lovingness not only surrounds
and infuses our every 'metaphor of relativity' but does in fact lie within
our 'spiritual DNA coding'.

Since we know all the spiritual truths _ and may choose to manifest
them in consciousness or choose not to manifest them _ what is there
to have 'faith' in? What is there to believe?

Do we seek to 'prove' our very existence in this so_called reality of life?
Is it required that we have 'faith' that we actually read these words and
therefore are? It was once written 'I think therefore I am', maybe it is
better written 'I fee therefore I am'. WYSIWYG - what you sense is what
you get,hehehehe

Interesting how we will rather play intellectual ping_pong with concepts,
imbibe the 'authority of someone else's experiences', debate with our
word-games the validity of this or that theory......rather than accept our
own inner feelings about an issue of spiritual truth.

You know what I know, spiritually speaking. We all have equality of
knowledge in this area. It is neither a question of faith nor a question
of belief...it is an issue of acceptance of our own inner voice when it
speaks to us of manifesting, or beholding the manifestations of, spiritual
truths.

If there is a 'God' and the definition of 'God' is unconditional love
(and anything less than that is a much lesser humanented 'God') why
do we consider it so strange _ we snowflakes of sensing _ that we are
a part of God and therefore are living proof, in this life's walk, of a truth?

Acceptance of who you truly are is neither a question of belief nor a
question of faith..it is simply the application of 'in-sight'. Looking within.

Have a listen to Wet Wet Wet singing ‘Love is all around’.....it’ll
give you a clue :)