Deceived

[battig1370]

audible, you say, "of course", what about from a Christian point of view?

Peace be with you, Paul

 

[water]

The truth ...

The problem with truth is inherently connected to the nature of human knowledge. We cannot make claims about objective reality as it is, we can only offer our interpretations of it. Thus, it is forever beyond us to know absolute truth.

Whether it was Jesus or Satan that came to Saul/St. Paul?

Nobody can tell. And even if we had video material, thousands of witnesses: all this evidence can be discarded, someone can come up with some reason to consider the evidence circumstantial, and thus, anything can be discarded. Anything.

Such is the nature of human knowledge of any event that has already happened: Nothing is absolutely true, everything can be relativized.


Perhaps the only kind of truth that we can have though, paradoxically, is this: making claims about the future. Say that something will happen, and when it does happen, this means that you were speaking the truth.

Otherwise, regarding past events, the situation is indeterminate. The truthfulness of the past is accepted on faith (that the evidence we have is real and sufficient).

 

[audible]

audible, you say, "of course", what about from a Christian point of view?

Peace be with you, Paul

it should not matter what point of view, be it muslim, hindu, xian, atheist, etc.
if a thing is wrong, it's always going to be wrong, it's not suddenly going to become right, is it.

 

[Cris]

Water,

This might never happen.

Then they will never know. It does not invalidate the answer.

In case of ideologies, does this mean that the person has lived a lie?

It depends if the characteristics of the ideology can be described in terms of truth and deceit. A matter of personal preference, e.g. I like fish and someone else does not, does not lend itself to statements of truth or falacy.

 

[Cris]

Water,

...it is forever beyond us to know absolute truth...

And the same can be said about deceit. For all practical purposes relative truths are perfectly adequate until we know absolutely everything there is to know.

 

[battig1370]

water: > Whether it was Jesus or Satan that came to Saul/St. Paul? Nobody can tell.

battig1370: > Nobody can tell is like throwing up ones hand and not even looking at the evidence we to have, even though it may be circumstantial.

What kind of person would not even consider the possiblity of being deceived? Christians are not even willing to examine the possibility that it could have been Satan in the name of Jesus who came to Saul/St. Paul. Comments from Christian, It's impossible, case closed. I have received some threatening comment towards me to even consider the possibilty that it was Satan who came to Saul/St. Paul.

Why are christian scolars unwilling to examine wether it was Jesus or Satan that came to Saul/St. Paul?

How would a person even know that he or she is deceived when that person doesn't even want to consider the possibility of being deceived?

What kind of person does not want to consider the possibility of being deceived.

Peace be with you, Paul

 

[Leo Volont]

How would a person know when he or she is deceived?

Peace be with you, Paul

Christ told us the Criteria for identifying the False Apostle -- he would be a ravenous wolf in sheeps clothing and we would know the Evil Tree by its fruits.

So we would know Evil Doctrines because they would inevitably lead to bad results.

Paul's doctrines were instrumental in causing the first Schism in the Church, dividing Gentile from Jew, leading to the Riots that would provoke the Roman Legions into finally stamping out the Jewish Nation.

Then, 15 centuries later, Paulist Doctrines would be resurrected by the Printing Press and Vernacular Language Bibles, and the result would be a Paulist Rebellion that would result in the Collapse of Christendom and the moral decline of Christian Civilization.

Another Bad Fruit comes to our scrutiny as we reflect upon the fact that the Higher Religions of the World, those Religions that enjoy the Fruits of the Vine of Christ even while they do not trade in the Name of Christ, rather find Christianity to be a collection of embarrassing Doctrines -- Christianity defining Religion not as a Path to Righteousness and Spirituality, but only as a system advocating Excuses for Sin... for afterall, what is meant by "Salvation" except that Christians think they found a loophole that allows them any immoral indulgence. Then there is the matter of Christianities Polytheism -- making Jesus equal to God in order to support the Theological Pretention that the Death of this Jesus would have the required Infinite Power to override even God the Father's Power to keep the Gates of Heaven closed against Sin.

That the World's Higher Religions refuse to associate with Christianity entirely because of the embarrassing Doctrines of Paul should tell us all something... particularly since these Religions have Saints who prove the connection to the Vine of Christ, while no Paulist in History has ever been a Saint.

 

[water]

> Nobody can tell is like throwing up ones hand and not even looking at the evidence we to have, even though it may be circumstantial.

Did you read the rest of my post? *Any* evidence can be discarded, this is the problem.

What kind of person would not even consider the possiblity of being deceived?

Those who have *decided* that they are not deceived.

Christians are not even willing to examine the possibility that it could have been Satan in the name of Jesus who came to Saul/St. Paul.

I take they have their reasons which I have no insight in.

I have received some threatening comment towards me to even consider the possibilty that it was Satan who came to Saul/St. Paul.

Tell me:
Whose judgement do you fear more: To be judged by God -- or to be judged by people?

How would a person even know that he or she is deceived when that person doesn't even want to consider the possibility of being deceived?

What kind of person does not want to consider the possibility of being deceived.

This is a question that screams out for generalization.

But on the whole, those who have decided to love will not consider the possibility of being deceived by the one they love. It would bring fear into the relationship, and gradually remove the love.

For example -- Are you married? Do you, on a regular basis, consider that your spouse might be deceiving you?


* * *

And the same can be said about deceit. For all practical purposes relative truths are perfectly adequate until we know absolutely everything there is to know.

... and this will be when we are immortal?

 

[Cris]

Water,

... and this will be when we are immortal?

Imortality alone doesn't imply full knowledge.

It will be when we have evolved into God.

 

[battig1370]

water: > Tell me:
Whose judgement do you fear more: To be judged by God -- or to be judged by people?

If your writing about me, "God is my judge" and God is the judge of those that judge and condenm.

Peace be with you, Paul

 

[battig1370]

According to Atheists God does not exist so they only fear the judgment from people. I have mentioned on another thread that, I think most of the religious people that say they believe in God are Atheists.

One Example: A Priest, a Bishop, or a Cardinal that goes in the back room and does his thing with one of the little children, girl or boy, does this man fear the judgment God, or men, when he walked in that back room? If he did not fear the judgment God, he is an Atheist.

Peace be with you, Paul

 

[battig1370]

1. --- many say they believe in God, but their motive and deeds are contrary to God's will.

2. --- also there are many that say, God does not exist, but their motive and deeds are in harmony with God's will.

Which would God favor, 1 , or 2?

Peace be with you, Paul

 

[Cris]

battig,

You are wrong of course on several levels.

A theist for example might well be fully convinced that a god exists but also simply might not care. That doesn't make him an atheist.

And being driven by fear of a judgmental god rather than simply doing what is right irrespective of judgement, seems to be religion by tyranny – an atrocious acceptance.

And of course most atheists do hold the belief that a god does not exist but rather are simply unconvinced by theist arguments.

 

[water]

“ A girl is ugly if she believes she is ugly. ”

That is unconnected to deception. Ugliness is meaningless; deception is not.

Just because a person believes themselves to be independent does not make them any more so. Michael Jackson, try as he may, is not Peter Pan.

I used the example with the girl who thinks herself ugly as another application of the "You are x if you believe x." cognitive pattern, which is frequent, and faulty in some applications.


Oh, and ugliness is not meaningless.


* * *

Imortality alone doesn't imply full knowledge.

It will be when we have evolved into God.

Mormon.


* * *

Whose judgement do you fear more: To be judged by God -- or to be judged by people?

If your writing about me, "God is my judge" and God is the judge of those that judge and condenm.

You said before, "I have received some threatening comment towards me to even consider the possibilty that it was Satan who came to Saul/St. Paul." -- and I wasn't sure what to make of it.
If you believe that God is your judge, then what can those threatening comments do to you?

One Example: A Priest, a Bishop, or a Cardinal that goes in the back room and does his thing with one of the little children, girl or boy, does this man fear the judgment God, or men, when he walked in that back room? If he did not fear the judgment God, he is an Atheist.

I see how you come to this. In practice, I agree.

But as Cris said:

A theist for example might well be fully convinced that a god exists but also simply might not care. That doesn't make him an atheist.

If one is fully convinced that God exists but doesn't care, I take this person is then a non-religious theist.
(Will start a thread on this.)

1. --- many say they believe in God, but their motive and deeds are contrary to God's will.

2. --- also there are many that say, God does not exist, but their motive and deeds are in harmony with God's will.

Which would God favor, 1 , or 2?

This is man's test -- the temptation of taking God's judgement into his own hands.

Namely, man's judgement is always limited in time: We may, today, judge and condemn the one you describe under 1. But or present judgement and condemnation may then disable said person to change his ways, even though he wanted and could change -- but by condemning him, we may have taken this chance away from him.

Of course, we cannot let murderers and rapists freely walk the streets. But we must know that even though man can pronounce a final judgement and execute it, this does not mean that man has the same power as God. Being able to kill in the name of justice does not make us God. We should not take pride in being able to pronounce and execute final judgements.


* * *

And of course most atheists do hold the belief that a god does not exist but rather are simply unconvinced by theist arguments.

Would you agree that atheists have no faith that God is anything like what the Bible (Quran, etc.) say that He is?

 

[§outh§tar]

I used the example with the girl who thinks herself ugly as another application of the "You are x if you believe x." cognitive pattern, which is frequent, and faulty in some applications.

Only faulty when used in reference to meaningless "concepts", which are not concepts at all, but means of relativizing established by egoists.

Oh, and ugliness is not meaningless.

Yes it is. Unless there is foundation to egocentrism..

 

[Cris]

Water,

Would you agree that atheists have no faith that God is anything like what the Bible (Quran, etc.) say that He is?

Your statement is somewhat confusing. The term faith and then atheism in the same statement is troublesome and you also infer that atheists think there is actually a god but that he is different to the descriptions given in the bible etc.

So no I do not believe most atheists who have studied the issues hold these types of perspectives. It is more about why even introduce the concept of a god in the first place without some substantial supporting basis.

 

[water]

Only faulty when used in reference to meaningless "concepts", which are not concepts at all, but means of relativizing established by egoists.

You know, I saw it coming, your change back then. While you were still a believer, you ran around bitching about human vanity. Than line of thouhgt seems to have driven you away from Christianity, and you still seem to be following that line of thought.

Oh, and ugliness is not meaningless.

Yes it is. Unless there is foundation to egocentrism..

Would you date an ugly girl? If not, and her ugliness were the reason, then ugliness is not meaningless.


* * *

Would you agree that atheists have no faith that God is anything like what the Bible (Quran, etc.) say that He is?

Your statement is somewhat confusing. The term faith and then atheism in the same statement is troublesome and you also infer that atheists think there is actually a god but that he is different to the descriptions given in the bible etc.

So no I do not believe most atheists who have studied the issues hold these types of perspectives. It is more about why even introduce the concept of a god in the first place without some substantial supporting basis.

I think the order -- presently, with already exisisting discourses about God -- is thus:

1. The concept of god is introduced by the religious discourse.
2. There seems to be no substantial supporting basis that the religious discourse is true.
3. Some people have no faith/do not believe that God is anything like what the religious discourse says that God is like.


But historically, as mankind developed, the order is different:

1. There is some substantial supporting basis upon which knowledge can be build.
2. Various concepts develop.
3. The concept of God is developed.
4. Some people have faith/believe that God is like what the religious discourse says that God is like.


My point is that nowadays, we do not start from scratch when it comes to God. But the peoples of old did start from scratch.
We already have certain religious discourses available that contain the concept of a god. What is left is that we see if those discourses seem to correspond with the way we know reality, or not. But the concept of god is not developed anew.

The methodological difference between the way those of old have approached God and the way we do, is crucial.

To make an analogy, the way we nowadays understand the working of a lightbulb is essentially different from the way Edison understood it as he was developing it.
Our knowledge of how the lightbulb works is ex post, based on the already finished theory and product.
But Edison did not have this kind of knowledge when he was developing the lightbulb; while he was developing it, he did not know yet what exactly would come out.
It seems easy for us nowadays, to trace back the history of technology, there seems to be one guiding line. But historically, while it was happening, they were making this guideline, there was none yet, they made the path by walking it.

Saying "why even introduce the concept of a god in the first place without some substantial supporting basis" is an anachronism, forgetting how human knowledge develops.

 

[§outh§tar]

You know, I saw it coming, your change back then. While you were still a believer, you ran around bitching about human vanity. Than line of thouhgt seems to have driven you away from Christianity, and you still seem to be following that line of thought.

Are you sanctioning vanity? As I say below, this vanity is not of the individual's doing, but rather of the group. Nazi ideology trickles down to the layman and makes him proud of his heritage; the saved Christian becomes proud and thinks he sees something over a billion others cannot; the child comes to like what we could call ugly girls, because in his society, those girls are beautiful; man oppresses his fellow with law because he thinks he is doing his fellow and himself a favor.

And the layman did not think on his own that he was a superior Aryan although he now thinks he knew it all along, and the saved Christian did not think by himself that Jesus was God but now thinks his knowledge to be the result of a personal relationship, and the child did not think on his own of what ugly is and isn't, but thinks all the same that he knows what ugly is and isn't; and man, man upholds the law, man learns to love the law, because everyone else is doing it. Whoever said we think for ourselves, he lies - to us and to himself.

If all your friends were jumping off a cliff, would you jump off too?

Would you date an ugly girl? If not, and her ugliness were the reason, then ugliness is not meaningless.

That would be egoism in play. Me thinking I did not deserve an ugly girl, or that she did not deserve me. It is of course absurd, for I have no proper standard by which to measure ugliness, except for the society I was born into. And this society, as I have said for quite a bit now, influences my knowledge and my thought, and conseqently what I percieve as ugly. Therefore ugly is meaningless to me. Perhaps not to society, but to me it is meaningless, for I am not myself responsible for determining what is and what isn't ugly, but society has done it for me and as one without free will, I have inevitably been influenced by society's arbitrary standards. Just like you with ice cream..

Isaiah 53 6All we like sheep have gone astray

Sheep we are.

 

[Cris]

Water,


Knowledge has certainly accumulated over time which has in turn enabled us to develop new ideas and expand on our achievements, an evolutionary process. However, ideas about gods and superstitions have not evolved in any significant manner for millennia; they cannot since they are not based on knowledge or new discovery. They are based on one single premise – that which cannot be explained by material means must be the result of an alleged baseless supernatural realm.

It is certainly true that a religion like Catholicism has continued to develop massive texts to explain its ideas yet all of this can be reduced to a single vacuous fantasy – that a god is responsible for everything.

 

[water]

Are you sanctioning vanity?

I'm not sanctioning vanity. It is its own sanction, erm, reward.

As I say below, this vanity is not of the individual's doing, but rather of the group. Nazi ideology trickles down to the layman and makes him proud of his heritage; the saved Christian becomes proud and thinks he sees something over a billion others cannot; the child comes to like what we could call ugly girls, because in his society, those girls are beautiful; man oppresses his fellow with law because he thinks he is doing his fellow and himself a favor.

And the layman did not think on his own that he was a superior Aryan although he now thinks he knew it all along, and the saved Christian did not think by himself that Jesus was God but now thinks his knowledge to be the result of a personal relationship, and the child did not think on his own of what ugly is and isn't, but thinks all the same that he knows what ugly is and isn't; and man, man upholds the law, man learns to love the law, because everyone else is doing it. Whoever said we think for ourselves, he lies - to us and to himself.

Without other men around, man would not think much in the first place. Neither vain nor good thoughts.

If all your friends were jumping off a cliff, would you jump off too?

They have. I haven't.

That would be egoism in play. Me thinking I did not deserve an ugly girl, or that she did not deserve me. It is of course absurd, for I have no proper standard by which to measure ugliness, except for the society I was born into. And this society, as I have said for quite a bit now, influences my knowledge and my thought, and conseqently what I percieve as ugly. Therefore ugly is meaningless to me. Perhaps not to society, but to me it is meaningless, for I am not myself responsible for determining what is and what isn't ugly, but society has done it for me and as one without free will, I have inevitably been influenced by society's arbitrary standards.

Blegh. Evader. Relegator.
Still, observe your actions: You will not date ugly girls, and that's it.

Without society, there would be no you anyway, so there would be no you to influence.

Just like you with ice cream..

Excuse me?

Isaiah 53 6All we like sheep have gone astray

Sheep we are.

Hm. By this you mean that the majority of all people has gone astray?

* * *

Knowledge has certainly accumulated over time which has in turn enabled us to develop new ideas and expand on our achievements, an evolutionary process. However, ideas about gods and superstitions have not evolved in any significant manner for millennia; they cannot since they are not based on knowledge or new discovery.

(First please read my response to the next paragraph, and then come back here.)

I wonder why they haven't evolved -- probably because little can evolve in the domain of ethics.
A lot can evolve in the domain of the cognitive (by "cognitive" I mean in the sense of one of the triade of cognitive-ethical-emotive) and the material, and they in return allow for some ethical principles to be carried out more fully.

They are based on one single premise – that which cannot be explained by material means must be the result of an alleged baseless supernatural realm.

I disagree. To me, religion is mainly about ethical principles and the way to conceptualize them.
To look for proof of God is in roundabout the same as to look for proof of love or justice: one can find them only where they are, and they cannot be produced in a laboratory. They all depend on subjective experience.

It has never occured to me to seek "material evidence" of God -- not in the same sense I would seek material evidence for the existence of Nessie or "parapsychological abilities", for example.

It is certainly true that a religion like Catholicism has continued to develop massive texts to explain its ideas yet all of this can be reduced to a single vacuous fantasy – that a god is responsible for everything.

I think that to say "God is reponsible for everything" is a gross simplification and a try to absolve oneself from one's own responsibility.