A conundrum

[Balerion]

Canute,

I said subjective evidence, of which there is mountains. None of it is objective of course, it can never be that.

But to give the "evidence" tag to something which is subjective regarding this topic would be a leap. Faith, by definition, falls into the realm of subjectivity, so when discussing something which has no objective evidence, it would be silly to consider the subjective aspect as evidence.

In fact there is objective evidence as well, but that is subject to interpretation, which people do according to their belief systems.

There's objective evidence for a "higher" plane of existance? There's objective evidence for another reality? I'd like to see some of it, please. And don't tell me you're refering to the Bible or some other religious document.

This is the scientific view. It is entirely illogical since science has to rely on unverifiable first-person reports to determine whether a thought has even taken place.

Not entirely. If a chemical reaction occurs that a scientist would connect to a thought, and the person says a thought occured at that time, then you could conclude that a thought took place. You can't call it subjective, simply because you would have the chemical reaction, and the person to corroborate. If this hasn't actually happened yet, then fine, but that isn't to say that the method isn't in place.

I don't have proof since by the nature of the thing there can't be any.

Then the nature of the thing you speak of cannot exist. Anything that exists has to be subject to scientific examination. If the "nature of the thing" says there cannot be any means of prooving it, the "thing" is nothing more than fantasy.

The question of God and of consciousness is undecidable as far as anybody can tell.

Since when? The question of God is not undecideable...there is no objective evidence, so God must be a human-created fantasy.

That's why experience and understanding have to stand in for knowledge once you get deep enough.

More crap. That doesn't even make sense.

Your example is fine but not quite on the point.

How so?

I don't see what you mean by 'valid' here. Do you mean provable? Ultimately nothing fundamental is provable, as Popper and Kant point out.

What do you mean by "fundamental?"

I was referring to Goedel, who proved that you cannot prove everything that is true, and thus that you cannot quite prove anything that is true.

That is a bunch of bull. You and this Goedel guy both have a love for the oxymoronic statements, I see.... You say this guy PROVED that nothing is proveable....*passes out as circular logic melts synapses in brain* I don't get it, bro. You're saying this guy did something he said is impossible? Riiiight. Listen, if you can't prove something, it may only mean that you can't prove it yet...but that is only in cases like planets outside our galaxy, where you can guess that there are planets outside of our galaxy based on what we know of stars and our sun. But in a case such as the one you're saying could be true but evidence cannot be given at any point, then the lack of evidence should indicate the idea to be fiction.

Again Popper argues that truth is unknowable to science, however much it proves by reference to other scientific proofs.

Popper needs to bust out his dictionary and look up the word "Truth," because he has no f'n idea what it means. Truth is Fact. They are one in the same. So to say that there needs to be evidence supporting something to make it Fact, they are saying that there needs to be evidence to support something to make it Truth. There is no difference. Thus there is no other way than the scientific method to determine truth/fact/wisdom.

Using your logic, if there is no evidence, and no way to gain evidence of truth, how do you know it is truth? How do YOU verify these "truths" to be true? What is YOUR method?

At the very extreme the existence of the material world cannot be proved.

I'm not sure of the validity of this statement...I would say that the material world exists based on the fact that the images we recieve through the eye are interpretations of light from outside, not within. Granted, the world we say may not be what is actually there, but at least it is represented through our eyes.

And even there, I don't quite buy into that completely, either. If a block of wood is tan and is 7 inches long, two people could independantly measure, write the results, and match the color they each saw to a color sheet. Even if the color they each came up with didn't match, they could at least point at the same patch of color elsewhere and agree it was the color of the block.

Did I suggest otherwise?

Looking back on your post, maybe not to the extreme I stated. But what you were saying was that this wisdom and understanding knowledge held in the Bible was independant of scientific method, which would beg the question "Where the hell did they get it from?" And, in turn, using your logic, I figured you meant that the knowledge and understanding and wisdom just came to the authors, without them reasoning through it (Another scientific method) or examining some evidence that would lead them to believe this wisdom and knowledge and understanding to be fact. Again, I am convinced that you believe in some other way of obtaining knowledge without using the scientific method...again, I have no idea what you could possibly mean other than friggin' divine intervention.

JD

 

[Canute]

JD - I think you're a bit set in your ways for me to make any difference. Try reading some better people than me on these issues, they are not a straightforward as you currently seem to think.

 

[Balerion]

JD - I think you're a bit set in your ways for me to make any difference.

No offense, Canute--understand that I enjoy debate and I would love to continue it with you at any time, and that I harbor no ill will towards you--but this is a cop-out. What you just said was "Well, damned if I can top that."

If you actually see my point (From the last post) then admit it and hopefully you will lead a better, more enlightened life. If not, don't just walk away from it. I hate that about theist; if they lose an argument, they simply crawl into a fetal position and say "You're wrong, cuz God said so." I would hate to see you do that, because if you would just open your eyes and learn about the world you live in, you'd see that I'm right...and not just me, but every reasoning man and woman in the world.

Try reading some better people than me on these issues, they are not a straightforward as you currently seem to think.

No? Well, let's take a quick look at some of the things I said:

But to give the "evidence" tag to something which is subjective regarding this topic would be a leap. Faith, by definition, falls into the realm of subjectivity, so when discussing something which has no objective evidence, it would be silly to consider the subjective aspect as evidence.

Ok, let me elaborate...

If I were to tell you that I ran a mile and a half today, and my feet hurt, that would be subjective evidence that I ran a mile and a half. You could believe it or not.

If I tell you that I spoke with God today, that would be subjective evidence that I spoke with God.

The difference? People have run miles before. It has been witnessed and documented on film. When I say I ran a mile, whether I did or not does not take away from the fact that there is a mile and a half out there to be run. The land is there for it. But if I say I spoke with God...well...there is no evidence to say God exists in the first place. So in this case, the subjective evidence has no basis on reality, and therefore holds as much water as a fork can.

If a chemical reaction occurs that a scientist would connect to a thought, and the person says a thought occured at that time, then you could conclude that a thought took place. You can't call it subjective, simply because you would have the chemical reaction, and the person to corroborate. If this hasn't actually happened yet, then fine, but that isn't to say that the method isn't in place.

I don't see how I'm reaching here...Maybe this hasn't been proven, or the method I'm putting forward isnt' accurate, but that isn't to say that there isn't one at least available or in the works.

Then the nature of the thing you speak of cannot exist. Anything that exists has to be subject to scientific examination. If the "nature of the thing" says there cannot be any means of prooving it, the "thing" is nothing more than fantasy.

Am I wrong? When theists try to discredit evolution, they will (Twisting and turning the facts to their own purpose and claim "lack of evidence") consider lack of evidence as reason enough to believe in God, so why will they not use the same logic when it pertains to the existance of God? They fully accept this as reasonable when considering matters that conflict God, but when it comes to discrediting God, they scoff.

Since when? The question of God is not undecideable...there is no objective evidence, so God must be a human-created fantasy.

Again, how is this wrong? Science--which is the tool mankind uses to garner knowledge from it's enviroment--says that my statement is correct. Religion says it is wrong, but religion has no means of garnering knowledge from the enviroment, so I will go by what science says.

I'm tired of explaining myself. If you don't want to debate, then you should not have brought the argument in the first place.

JD

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by JDawg
religion has no means of garnering knowledge from the enviroment.

Excellent point.

 

[Canute]

Oh Damn. I'll argue then. BTW I'm not a theist.
Re. your original post.

Originally posted by JDawg
Canute,But to give the "evidence" tag to something which is subjective regarding this topic would be a leap. Faith, by definition, falls into the realm of subjectivity, so when discussing something which has no objective evidence, it would be silly to consider the subjective aspect as evidence.

So anything subjective isn't evidence. Consciousness is an illusion, so is pain, so is happiness, and so is my intention to post this reply. Presumably QM proves that there is no evidence that anything exists. All evidence for anything is subjective in the end, although 'inter-subjective' is sometimes used to get around admitting this.

[There's objective evidence for a "higher" plane of existance? There's objective evidence for another reality? I'd like to see some of it, please. And don't tell me you're refering to the Bible or some other religious document.[/B]

I'd happily talk about this. However as you don;t agree with Goedel or Popper (or presumably Kant and all the rest) then I don't think I can say much. The evidence from Goedel is the reason Roger Penrose argues for something existing beyond science.

[Not entirely. If a chemical reaction occurs that a scientist would connect to a thought, and the person says a thought occured at that time, then you could conclude that a thought took place. You can't call it subjective, simply because you would have the chemical reaction, and the person to corroborate. If this hasn't actually happened yet, then fine, but that isn't to say that the method isn't in place.[/B]

The thought is subjective. No amount of peering at tubules, axions or neurons will ever change that. Thus, by your defintion of evidence, there is no evidence whatsoever that thoughts exist. So what's the point of studying chemical reactions in the brain? Oh yes, because we have thoughts that don't exist.

[Then the nature of the thing you speak of cannot exist. Anything that exists has to be subject to scientific examination. If the "nature of the thing" says there cannot be any means of prooving it, the "thing" is nothing more than fantasy. [/B]

Perhaps you'd like to try proving this somehow. If you can't prove it then, according to your logic, it isn't true.

[Since when? The question of God is not undecideable...there is no objective evidence, so God must be a human-created fantasy.[/B]

Now I wonder why everyone else didn't think of that?

[More crap. That doesn't even make sense. .[/B]

And it never will, since this is what you don't see.

[That is a bunch of bull. You and this Goedel guy both have a love for the oxymoronic statements, I see.... You say this guy PROVED that nothing is proveable....*passes out as circular logic melts synapses in brain* I don't get it, bro. You're saying this guy did something he said is impossible? Riiiight. Listen, if you can't prove something, it may only mean that you can't prove it yet...but that is only in cases like planets outside our galaxy, where you can guess that there are planets outside of our galaxy based on what we know of stars and our sun. But in a case such as the one you're saying could be true but evidence cannot be given at any point, then the lack of evidence should indicate the idea to be fiction.[/B]

If you're going to argue stuff like this at least get up to speed with issues that bear on it.

[Popper needs to bust out his dictionary and look up the word "Truth," because he has no f'n idea what it means. Truth is Fact. They are one in the same. So to say that there needs to be evidence supporting something to make it Fact, they are saying that there needs to be evidence to support something to make it Truth. There is no difference. Thus there is no other way than the scientific method to determine truth/fact/wisdom.[/B]

Please read some decent philosophers or scientists on this issue.

[Using your logic, if there is no evidence, and no way to gain evidence of truth, how do you know it is truth? How do YOU verify these "truths" to be true? What is YOUR method?[/B]

Sorry - can't remember the point here.

[Looking back on your post, maybe not to the extreme I stated. But what you were saying was that this wisdom and understanding knowledge held in the Bible was independant of scientific method, which would beg the question "Where the hell did they get it from?" [/B]

I didn't actually say that, or mean it.

[And, in turn, using your logic, I figured you meant that the knowledge and understanding and wisdom just came to the authors, without them reasoning through it (Another scientific method) or examining some evidence that would lead them to believe this wisdom and knowledge and understanding to be fact. Again, I am convinced that you believe in some other way of obtaining knowledge without using the scientific method...again, I have no idea what you could possibly mean other than friggin' divine intervention. JD [/B]

Close your eyes and add 2 + 2. There, you just reached a conclusion without the use of science.

Gotta rush but will be back.

 

[Cris]

Close your eyes and add 2 + 2. There, you just reached a conclusion without the use of science.

Wanna bet? Mathematics is a branch of science.

From Webster - Mathematics: the science of numbers and their operations, interrelations, combinations, generalizations, and abstractions and of space configurations and their structure, measurement, transformations, and generalizations.

 

[Mystee]

Hey all,
Ok granted I have only read a little and scanned most, but all I can see on this thread is bored people playing head games. We are told in the Bible that we are not to fight over things that don't matter in the long run IT IS A TOOL OF THE DEVIL! The reason religious people don't always trust science is because (as stated in the first few post of this thread) science changes day by day. God is constant. He is eternal. That is the origin of faith. You can't always trust something that is always changing eventually it's going to change too much or contradict itself. Not God; He has told us in the Bible that he will never change. Faith doesn't mean you never doubt; it means you are always willing to trust even if you don't understand. I didn't get that out of any dictionary. That's just what I know. Don't argue about concepts and definitions. Look at yourselves you are fighting like children. You will get no where playing head games with each other. You will all leave believing you have won, but you will all be ultimately defeated. Cut the rhetoric, get to the meat. There's more to life than arguing with people about science and math and the definition of faith. If you want to know what faith is go find something worthy of your faith and experience it yourself. And that's what I have to say about that.

Christ's Love to all of you,

Mystee

 

[Cris]

Mystee,

all I can see on this thread is bored people playing head games.

Does your insulting arrogance come from your religion or is that just you? Perhaps you should read further and realize that most posters here are very serious about what they post.

The reason religious people don't always trust science is because (as stated in the first few post of this thread) science changes day by day.

Yup that is reality.

God is constant. He is eternal.

There are only two things that never change and that is change itself, and things that do not exist.

That is the origin of faith.

Faith means a belief without proof. How is that connected with things not changing?

You can't always trust something that is always changing eventually it's going to change too much or contradict itself.

Why? How do you substantiate this claim? Can you provide an example?

Faith doesn't mean you never doubt; it means you are always willing to trust even if you don't understand.

You cannot both trust and doubt simultaneously. If you ever doubt God then clearly you are not in a state of trust.

I didn't get that out of any dictionary. That's just what I know.

Have you ever considered taking a course in logic, it might help you avoid such mistakes.

Don't argue about concepts and definitions.

That would be fine if everyone agreed on the definitions otherwise communication becomes impossible or difficult.

If you want to know what faith is go find something worthy of your faith and experience it yourself.

And what is there that is worthy of irrational belief?

 

[Mystee]

for Cris

Cris,
I should have seen a response like this coming. You like to debate. That's cool just be sure what you're debating is worth while. I refuse to get into playing head games with you, so I just have a few things to say. First of all I am sorry you took my first comment as an insult it wasn't intended that way, but looking back it could have been reworded.

Originally posted by Cris

There are only two things that never change and that is change itself, and things that do not exist.

This is a nice idea unfortunately it's not true.

You cannot both trust and doubt simultaneously. If you ever doubt God then clearly you are not in a state of trust.

I guess that could have been worded better too. What I meant was not understanding something completely creates doubt, but faith is trusting though you do not understand completely. Are we expected to know the mysteries of the universe or know God's motives? No, but we are asked to trust.

Have you ever considered taking a course in logic, it might help you avoid such mistakes.

I like how you rebuke me for an unintentional insult and then intentionally return one.


And what is there that is worthy of irrational belief? [/B]

Not irrational belief, my friend. Trust. Faith. It is not all just blind faith and believing fairy tales. There is truth here for anyone willing to look and listen. You hear what you are listening for. If you listen for a way to catch me in my words, you will find it. But if you listen for the voice of God you will hear it. It works both ways and only you can decide what to listen for. Don't pick my every word apart and shoot cutting comments, it is purposeless.

One last thing. I noticed you never commented on this line.

You will get no where playing head games with each other. You will all leave believing you have won, but you will all be ultimately defeated. Cut the rhetoric, get to the meat. There's more to life than arguing with people about science and math and the definition of faith.

Did you find some truth in it? Of course even if you did you would never admit it. I'm just interested in what you have to say to it.

Lots of Love,

Mystee

 

[Cris]

Mystee,

One last thing. I noticed you never commented on this line.

You will get no where playing head games with each other. You will all leave believing you have won, but you will all be ultimately defeated. Cut the rhetoric, get to the meat. There's more to life than arguing with people about science and math and the definition of faith.

Did you find some truth in it? Of course even if you did you would never admit it. I'm just interested in what you have to say to it.

It seemed to be just metaphors, unsupported opinions, and arrogant assertions.

 

[Cris]

Mystee,

You like to debate. That's cool just be sure what you're debating is worth while.

Why? Isn’t debating in its own right worthwhile, whatever the topic?

One of the greatest things in life is communicating with others, so does it really matter what you talk about.

 

[Mystee]

Originally posted by Cris
Mystee,

It seemed to be just metaphors, unsupported opinions, and arrogant assertions.

hmmm. arrogance was never my forte, and it wasn't intended as a metaphore. but you might have something with that whole opinion thing. Though, in my own defence, it was stated out of experience. I know how it is in chat rooms and such. Endless dribble pours out, head games are played, and everyone ends up one step back from where they started. I'm trying to avoid that. Pity really, When I first started reading your posts I thought we were gonig to have a real debat with maturity and honesty. I never expected you to pick apart each line, take it out of context, and somehow in your own mind disprove it. I'm pretty disapointed at the insults and rhetoric, but you have been here much longer than me. If you're just in it to debate for the sake of debating, have at it. But the Bible warns against fighting over meaningless things. It is a waste of time and energy and, as I've said before, benefits no one in the end. I hope you can someday see through the junk to see truth.

Love,

Mystee

 

[Cris]

Mystee,

When I first started reading your posts I thought we were going to have a real debate with maturity and honesty. I never expected you to pick apart each line, take it out of context, and somehow in your own mind disprove it.

Then take care with what you say. I’m pretty sure I have not taken anything out of context though. Perhaps you should not try to predict what you think I should say or believe. Since you appear to have been exposed to some fundamentalist Christianity then I suspect I can assume you have been appropriately conditioned by Christian propaganda. Is that correct?

Can you debate objectivity using your own skills in reasoning or are you only here to quote the bible and proselytize, which is what you have demonstrated so far?

If you're just in it to debate for the sake of debating, have at it.

I enjoy a challenge, but the subject material is also very important.

But the Bible warns against fighting over meaningless things.

Who are you to judge what is meaningless? The life of an ant to a Buddhist is sacred, but to most of us it is just a pest to be destroyed. One of the most abhorrent aspects of Christianity is that it inadvertently encourages judgmental arrogance. Other people have other values and that is the value of debates here.

It is a waste of time and energy and, as I've said before, benefits no one in the end. I hope you can someday see through the junk to see truth.

You still seem to be judging me. Consider for a moment that your opinions might be wrong.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Cris
Wanna bet? Mathematics is a branch of science.

From Webster - Mathematics: the science of numbers and their operations, interrelations, combinations, generalizations, and abstractions and of space configurations and their structure, measurement, transformations, and generalizations.

Yes you're right. I meant just to point out that if people insist that only entities and processes that can be observed in a third-person sense exist then their view runs quickly into trouble.

BTW good reply to Mystee. As you say "One of the most abhorrent aspects of Christianity is that it inadvertently encourages judgmental arrogance." Unfortunately this gets people's backs up and sidetracks the whole debate, as Mystee demonstrates.

 

[Jan Ardena]

apologies for the long, overdue post...

Originally posted by Cris

But is it blind faith like religious faith?

Sorry to burst your bubble Cris, blind faith is faith without question, religious faith is faith in God, either way faith is independent of both.

I tend to trust (have faith in) certain people and plans because I have past experience (evidence) that they can be trusted or that my plans usually succeed.

I’m quite sure most people do, but the faith aspect pertains to the unknown.

Now if the person is a complete stranger then I would not put my trust (faith) in him. And if the plan was developed by someone or something I had not experienced before then again I would have no evidence to put my trust (faith) in that plan.

That’s a fair comment, but upon reading or hearing the plan, it may sound reasonable, and you may wish to know more, this is the start of faith.

People use faith in many different contexts when perhaps a more appropriate word might be better.

Please tell me how it is possible to “use” faith?

I have heard about people who plan their future assuming they will win the lottery.

They may plan all they like, but their faith lies in the six numbers they have chosen to be the winning numbers.

A leap of faith into the unknown is synonymous with guessing, and most guesses about anything complex are almost certainly wrong.

Guessing is different from faith. When one tries to win the lottery, his faith lies in his or others ability to guess the right numbers.

But a student would know it can be done so there is no leap of faith just a skill to be learnt based on the evidence created by others showing what is possible.

Knowing it can be done by others is one thing, doing it yourself is another, especially when your initial attempts always fail. The faith aspect is manifested by the belief that one day he will be able to ride like the others, he just doesn’t know how or when. The belief may be true or false, as there are a lot of people who cannot ride, but at the time it doesn’t matter either way.
The knowledge that so many other people can do it, strengthens the students faith and belief in his ability, and eventually what seemed like a mountain to climb is no more difficult than a badgers burrow. He will realise that the knowledge already exists within himself and there is no need of outside influence.

I understand blind-faith to mean a belief that something is true without evidence showing it to be true.

Firstly ask yourself “what is faith?” One doesn’t need evidence to have faith in something, or having faith in something doesn’t mean you believe it to be a truth. Faith stands alone, it is not a contrived act. By saying “I have faith in God” doesn’t mean I have faith in God. Ones faith in God is shown automatically, when it is needed.

But believing something without knowing what you are believing is just stupidity, surely?

That is why it is called blind-faith.

This is nonsense. I’ll substitute what faith means and then you should see it more clearly.
So where “belief without proof” is concerned facts are only useful in establishing a stronger “belief without proof”.

Your understanding of the words are mixed up.
Faith doesn’t “mean” belief, it means you believe and trust in…..
One can believe without having faith.

Gibberish, right?

I wouldn’t say it was gibberish, just a lack of understanding from your part.

A belief without proof (faith) cannot establish a truth, since a truth requires proof.

It is true that I like fries, but I cannot prove it. You can either believe me or not.
Evidence, facts and proofs can all lead to the truth, but without them the truth still remains, so a truth does not require facts.

but to believe a fact, there first has to be an element of faith.
If I apply this to the Newton scenario then because there was demonstrable proof that the laws worked then I didn’t need to believe without proof (faith). But at near light speed they were no longer facts. I’m trying to figure how faith might fit in but I can’t see it.

Did you actually see proof demonstrated, were you there, or are you relying on someones testimony?

People who believe in a god cannot be using their power to reason since reason requires factual support and everyone agrees that the existence of a god has not been proved.

Who says believing in God requires factual support? That’s the first thing.
Have you read the teachings of Jesus? Have you read the Qur’an, the Bhagavad Gita, the Vedic scipts? If yes what conclusion have you come to? Do you understand them? If your understanding is anything like your understanding of what “faith” is, then I seriously doubt it.
Trying to prove God in the way you would like, is like trying to catch air in the palm of your hand and then put it in a box for another day. There is no scripture or saint past or present who has said that God is made of matter, they all come to the same conclusion that God is pure spirit, so how can God be proved with gross material implements. God can be proven through the mind and intelligence.

No it is free to everyone.

Interesting statement; in what way is it free?

Theists believe a god exists without proof.

Theists believe in God, that is the definition.

This is fact, an essential truth. Blind faith is a belief in something without proof. Hence religious faith = blind faith.

Gotchya!!

2 a : unable or unwilling to discern or judge <blind to a lover's faults> b : UNQUESTIONING <blind loyalty> <blind faith>
Websters.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[=SputniK-CL=]

Jan

"...blind faith is faith without question, religious faith is faith in God, "

Then, I think, blind faith = religious faith. The last thing Catholics do is question their faith & religion but they most certainly have faith in God.

"They may plan all they like, but their faith lies in the six numbers they have chosen to be the winning numbers. "

I think there is a profound difference between faith and hope, dont you?

"...or having faith in something doesn’t mean you believe it to be a truth. Faith stands alone, it is not a contrived act. By saying “I have faith in God” doesn’t mean I have faith in God. Ones faith in God is shown automatically, when it is needed. "

Yes, having faith in something does mean you believe it to be the truth. I have argued this point over and over with you. I think hope suits your definitions better.

 

[Mystee]

[Since you appear to have been exposed to some fundamentalist Christianity then I suspect I can assume you have been appropriately conditioned by Christian propaganda. Is that correct? ]

As for what I have been exposed to, since I am such a young christian, and I did not grow up in the church I have been exposed to quite a lot less "propaganda" than you may suspect. Only a year in the church, I am still (believe it or not) not very set in my ways. A lot of what I say is truth that has been told through the Bible; it is unchanging. If I say something out of opinion I always state that before I go on. I have not yet (I believe) been properly conditioned. (Though it is not the conditoning you refered to) This is conditioning for me. Having to stand up for what I believe in and prove my points as best as I can has really taught me to examine myself. I hope it has done the same for you.

[Can you debate objectivity using your own skills in reasoning or are you only here to quote the bible and proselytize, which is what you have demonstrated so far? ]

I have and always will refer to the Bible. As I said before it is truth. Unlike my opinions it will never fail me or be disproved. It is unchanging.

[Who are you to judge what is meaningless? The life of an ant to a Buddhist is sacred, but to most of us it is just a pest to be destroyed. One of the most abhorrent aspects of Christianity is that it inadvertently encourages judgmental arrogance. Other people have other values and that is the value of debates here.

You still seem to be judging me. Consider for a moment that your opinions might be wrong. ]

ok 3 references to judging in one short paragraph. I am sorry if I somehow seem judgemental to you, but I don't see where I have been. Judging is taking the power of God into your own hands. If someone said "Your gonig to Hell'' or "God will never forgive you" that is judging. I haven't gotten close to saying something like that. Stating God's truth, even when it convicts others, is never judging. No I can't say what is meaningless. To me, anything that is not ultamatly for the glory of God, it is meaningless. That could just be my own opinion shining through, but somehow I think God would agree. It's probably even in the Bible somewhere though I couldn't say where.


Christ's undying love to you,

Mystee

 

[Cris]

Mystee,

Having to stand up for what I believe in and prove my points as best as I can has really taught me to examine myself. I hope it has done the same for you.

You remind me of me 30 years ago when I was a very outspoken and active teenage Christian. Taking a position and fighting for that cause helps to focus the mind wonderfully. The real value is whether you will learn and grow from the experience. If you are intelligent and can think clearly then eventually you should find that truth is not so easily achieved as you hope and are claiming.

I have and always will refer to the Bible. As I said before it is truth. Unlike my opinions it will never fail me or be disproved. It is unchanging.

It is the mark of an enlightened mind when it is realized that there is rarely anything that can be claimed as never or always. The bible has some wisdom, has many errors and inconsistencies, but was written in times of significant barbarism, ignorance and widespread superstitions, and where the world was ruled by ruthless authoritarianism. Read it with care and objectivity.

I am sorry if I somehow seem judgmental to you, but I don't see where I have been.

You have no choice when you became a Christian. Once you assert that God and the bible is truth as you have done and are doing then the implication is that if anyone disagrees then they must be wrong. Your judgment is automatic and cannot be helped, but it is offensive. You should also realize that once you adopt such an approach then you are refusing to accept alternatives, in effect your mind is closed to other options, since you feel you have discovered truth. In effect you are no longer searching for truth, since you believe you have found it, instead you are merely preaching. And that is not welcome here.

Stating God's truth, even when it convicts others, is never judging.

But yes it is, since you are asserting that you are right and therefore everyone else who disagrees must be wrong. That is judgmental.

To me, anything that is not ultimately for the glory of God, it is meaningless.

And so you have judged the opinions of everyone else who doesn’t share your conviction as meaningless then, right?

Some advice I doubt you will heed for a while -

Do not believe on the strength of traditions even if they have been held in honor for many generations and in many places; do not believe anything because many people speak of it; do not believe on the strength of sagas of old times; do not believe that which you have yourself imagined, thinking a god has inspired you. Believe nothing which depends only on the authority of your masters or of priests. After investigation, believe that which you yourself have tested and found reasonable, and which is for your good and that of others.

 

[Mystee]

Originally posted by Cris
Mystee,

You remind me of me 30 years ago when I was a very outspoken and active teenage Christian.

I noticed you still haven't given me the details on your time as a christian. I'm very curious. Why did you stop being a christian?

If you are intelligent and can think clearly then eventually you should find that truth is not so easily achieved as you hope and are claiming.

How did you come to this conclusion? Are you one of those people who thinks nothing comes easy? (I am not assuming I am asking)

The bible has some wisdom, has many errors and inconsistencies, but was written in times of significant barbarism, ignorance and widespread superstitions, and where the world was ruled by ruthless authoritarianism.

This contradicts itself a lot. It is similar to saying Jesus was just a good teacher. There is no middle ground. Either it is truth or it is a bunch of bull. If you can see that some of it has wisdom than the wisdom should be throughout also. It is one thing; it can't be picked apart and devided into truth and false. Either is is bless by God and all true or it is a bunch of people conspiring to fool the world for generations to come.

In effect you are no longer searching for truth, since you believe you have found it,

Why is it that when when you are serching for something it is always in the last place you look? Because once you have found it you stop looking. Why shouldn't I think I have found truth? Are you really content to spend your whole life searching and never except it once you have found it because "That wouldn't be open minded." Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out. (Joke)

[to me, anything that is not ultamatly for the glory of God is meaningless.]

And so you have judged the opinions of everyone else who doesn’t share your conviction as meaningless then, right?

Here is an example of you taking things out of context. If you look at my post you will see right after that I said it was mostly just my opinion.


in Christ's eternal Love,

Mystee

 

[=SputniK-CL=]

Mystee,

"This contradicts itself a lot. It is similar to saying Jesus was just a good teacher. There is no middle ground. Either it is truth or it is a bunch of bull. If you can see that some of it has wisdom than the wisdom should be throughout also. It is one thing; it can't be picked apart and devided into truth and false. Either is is bless by God and all true or it is a bunch of people conspiring to fool the world for generations to come. "

You agree that the bible is human interpretation of what those poeple saw as God, yes? Then it could be full of mistakes, even though the word proclaims itself to be the truth...

"Why shouldn't I think I have found truth? Are you really content to spend your whole life searching and never except it once you have found it because "

Because your 'truth' has too many faults too mention. There are better, more reasonable explanations available for the workings of the Cosmos. Are you content to spend your whole life accepting your 'feelings and never to search for truth?

"If you look at my post you will see right after that I said it was mostly just my opinion."

By saying this, you are admitting the possibility that your opinion may be wrong! But im sure the bible holds exactly the same view, and it doesnt claim it as its opinion, but its fact. Dont you see how arrogant the assertion of religion is?