Well T & O, perhaps I did miss your point, as obscured as it was with strawmen that it was in danger of becoming a fire hazard.
I can't say truth is subjective and then say some actions are wrong? Sure I can. Am I saying that only some truth is subjective? Yes I am.
The "truth" that I refer to is the "truth" that can't be verified. One person's truth is that they "know" that a god exists and communicates with them. There's no way to show that this is false, but there's no way to show another person another's inner feelings are true either. If all you're saying is that there is some "truth" that is not fully knowable or understandable Okay, so what if we agree that there is some "truth" and a right & wrong, but if nobody has it 100%, or can have it 100%, then what's the practical difference between that and there not being an objective truth? Not much of one, if any.
You keep bringing up the contrast between people doing what they want to do, and this "truth", but my point is that from an objective perspective, you can't tell which is which.
The fact that you missed my point is the reason you felt their was straw. The straw was based on your assumption I was making a point from other things I said which I was not making a point out of, else it wouldn't have been built with straw!
However, saying that "some" truth is subjective as I already said is basically saying there is no truth since it is an oxymoron for their to be such a thing as subjective truth. Relative truth sure, but subjective truth? No... That goes against the definition of "truth' that has been around for centuries, unless of course you would like to re-define the word "truth" as so many people like to do these days to suit themselves. So if you want to re-define the definition, then sure, have your 'subjective" truth.. A rose by any other name is still a rose, And that which is not a rose by any other name is still not a rose..
Speaking of "unverified truth" as being truth is a waste of time, because from what you said, what you really mean, instead of truth, is belief. And one's belief is not necessarily truth (except in your "re-defined" language). I do not say 'There is a God" and call it truth. I call it a belief. To say it is a truth, can only be done when verifiable proof is given..
And yes, you can tell what is 'truth' and what is not, because truth is verifiable. It may be relative, but it still verifiable, else it is not truth, it is called "belief" or "hyposthesis" or a "theory".. And by any other name is still the same.
The contrast I bring up is not between those "doing the truth" and those doing what they want. I think you once again have my point mixed up in the straw you conjured up in your assumptions. The contrast is regarding those who serve themselves and those who serve others. That's all. Simplicity! No sense in conjuring up extra assumptions.
The fact that you missed my point is the reason you felt their was straw. The straw was based on your assumption I was making a point from other things I said which I was not making a point out of, else it wouldn't have been built with straw!
Do you even know what a strawman argument is?
However, saying that "some" truth is subjective as I already said is basically saying there is no truth since it is an oxymoron for their to be such a thing as subjective truth.
One use of quotations is what is called the ironic quoation. This is when one says something like The are many different versions of "The Truth". The quotations in this case are not there for emphasis, they are there to indicate that I am using the word truth ironically, that I don't really believe that it is TRUTH. My point all along has been that there are many people who claim to have The Truth exclusively, but that there is often no way for those who have different versions of "truth" to prove that their version is better or more true than anyone else's.
Relative truth sure, but subjective truth? No... That goes against the definition of "truth' that has been around for centuries, unless of course you would like to re-define the word "truth" as so many people like to do these days to suit themselves. So if you want to re-define the definition, then sure, have your 'subjective" truth.. A rose by any other name is still a rose, And that which is not a rose by any other name is still not a rose..
Perhaps I can amend my characterization to "a subjective perception of the truth" (those aren't ironic quotes). There's a lot of details that make up life, the universe and everything. people view them through many different lenses: cultural, personal, etc. There's room within the big picture for differing perceptions.
Speaking of "unverified truth" as being truth is a waste of time, because from what you said, what you really mean, instead of truth, is belief. And one's belief is not necessarily truth (except in your "re-defined" language). I do not say 'There is a God" and call it truth. I call it a belief. To say it is a truth, can only be done when verifiable proof is given..
I thought I had made that clear, but apparently not. My apologies for lack of clarity. There are lots of folks out there who claim the status of The Truth for their beliefs. I'm glad to hear that you're not one of them.
The contrast I bring up is not between those "doing the truth" and those doing what they want.
Just so I don't make any unwarranted assumptions about your position, what is "doing the truth" in your opinion? And is "doing what you want" not "doing the truth", or something else?
I think you once again have my point mixed up in the straw you conjured up in your assumptions.
Please look up what a strawman argument is!
I went through your posts and my responses to them. I can't find anywhere that I made any assumptions. Basically my responses to you where comments on and questions about your remarks in your posts, specifically your remarks addressed to me.
The contrast is regarding those who serve themselves and those who serve others. That's all. Simplicity! No sense in conjuring up extra assumptions.
Again, to avoid unwarranted assumptions, is that sattement equivalent to "doing the truth" versus "doing what you want"?
Edited by Oakspear
One use of quotations is what is called the ironic quoation. This is when one says something like The are many different versions of "The Truth". The quotations in this case are not there for emphasis, they are there to indicate that I am using the word truth ironically, that I don't really believe that it is TRUTH. My point all along has been that there are many people who claim to have The Truth exclusively, but that there is often no way for those who have different versions of "truth" to prove that their version is better or more true than anyone else's.
Perhaps I can amend my characterization to "a subjective perception of the truth" (those aren't ironic quotes). There's a lot of details that make up life, the universe and everything. people view them through many different lenses: cultural, personal, etc. There's room within the big picture for differing perceptions.
I thought I had made that clear, but apparently not. My apologies for lack of clarity. There are lots of folks out there who claim the status of The Truth for their beliefs. I'm glad to hear that you're not one of them.
Just so I don't make any unwarranted assumptions about your position, what is "doing the truth" in your opinion? And is "doing what you want" not "doing the truth", or something else?
Please look up what a strawman argument is!
I went through your posts and my responses to them. I can't find anywhere that I made any assumptions. Basically my responses to you where comments on and questions about your remarks in your posts, specifically your remarks addressed to me.
Again, to avoid unwarranted assumptions, is that sattement equivalent to "doing the truth" versus "doing what you want"?
Yes, I am well aware of what a straw man argument.. But it's hard to have straw when you're not actually arguing against something, only it was your perception that I was, thus the reason why you perceived straw! I just say burn the straw and get on with life! lol
"A subjective perception of the truth".. Sure.. Lots of people with those. In fact, I'm sure there are things in my life I regard as 'Truth" that is not.. Only, my whole point since the beginning, is there is truth, whether someone knows it or not is an entirely different discussion all together, and that not everyone can be right (except in their own eyes).
You asked, what is "doing the truth" in your opinion?.. I was actually just repeating your words.. Doing the truth.. One would have to know truth to do it. But it has nothing to do with any point I've made. But if one were to know THE TRUTH, then I guess it would have to be something that can be 'done" and therefore action is being taken to do it.. lol..
But again... No, my statement about serving one's self as opposed to others has nothing to do with 'DOING THE TRUTH" - whatever one views that as..
You asked, what is "doing the truth" in your opinion?.. I was actually just repeating your words.. Doing the truth.. One would have to know truth to do it. But it has nothing to do with any point I've made. But if one were to know THE TRUTH, then I guess it would have to be something that can be 'done" and therefore action is being taken to do it.. lol..
Hi, I've just been reading along on this thread and up to now have been most intrigued by the interaction between TrustandObey and Oakspear. But I have to say T&A you lost me here. Please elaborate.
This is a case in point of what I truly love about SOME 'Christians'. From my perspective, they seem to think they have ALL the answers (Of course, I could be wrong. It's been a while ). BUUT, if you have the audacity to not believe as they do, they can be as condescending as they want (since you're just a walking around carcass).
On top of that, should you challenge THEIR beliefs, you're 'of the devil' (does it get a little cool in that ivory tower, Bliss?), and they can walk away with that sweet air of self righteous into the sunset.
Bliss, the modern goddess religions/pagan Wiccan beliefs are not 'revealed' religions. They are experiential.
Religions of the book are considered to be Christianity, Judaism and Moslem--and they are not seen as superior to other religions, and so must be copied with a pagan 'revealed' scripture.
There are myths and legends, indigenous beliefs to learn from, also modern writings, like the Charge of the Goddess, about the goddess, but they are not 'scripture.'
Many pagan beliefs are considered 'earth based'. We see the lessons of the goddess in the cycles of nature, cycles of the moon, in animal life and plant life too. Many pagans believe that the goddess is everywhere present, in every thing--immanent--and universally present, transcendant. In the major religions of the Books(Christianity, Judaism and Moslem) god is transcendant only, not immanent.
Unlike Christianity, modern pagans/goddess beliefs do not believe in the Fall, man's fallen nature, original sin or the need for a savior. For the most part we are the children of the goddess, we are sacred as is the earth. All things are erlated,we are all part of a great whole...
Wiccans believe in a balance between the goddess and the god--some say they are duo theistic, not really polytheistic. Others are hard polytheists, and others see all gods and godesses as parts of the ONE.
If you ask about the goddess, they might ask you--"Which one?"
Also, since pagans are pretty much against the whole witnessing thing--artificial persuasion--many would think if you have questions about the goddess, you should go seek the answers yourself.
Thank you Bramble, that's a pretty good primer. Most neopagans, even those who follow a "tradition", believe and act on what they have personally experienced, and do not adhere to a prescribed set of beliefs written in a book or handed down by a leader.
I could argue (and often do ) that the "revealed" religions are experiential as well. What is the Book of Romans but the apostle Paul experiencing revelation from God to write down what he wrote down? What is the Book of Joshua but the experiences of the Hebrews in conquering the future land of Israel? And many modern believers, when asked how they know that the bible is true, resort to personal experiences such as answered prayer or a "personal relationship with Jesus" to validate their belief in their written scriptures.
Pagans tend to be an eclectic bunch, if some aspect of whatever tradition they're involved in doesn't suit them, they change, or add something, or take something away to make it their own. My own beliefs change as I learn new things and unlearn others. Something that I believe today may prove to be unworkable tomorrow. It seems evident that there are things that are beyond my understanding, and may always be so. Perhaps part of what I can't perceive and understand is spiritual, or perhaps it's just physical laws that are too complex for me to grasp.
Even if there are spirits or gods, I don't believe that there is any one or any group of them that is directing my life or pulling the strings or deciding what is meant to be. Some pagan friends of mine routinely say things like "the universe wanted such and such to happen". One of them said that to me after I was turned down for a promotion that I really wanted. My response was that the universe could d*mn well ask me next time!
I observe the wheel of the year (Happy Ostara Bramble ) and study shamanism.
Everything that I believe and do is what is right for me in this time and place to the best of my knowledge and ability and may change before I finish this post as information and circumstances change. I claim no universality for what I believe.
Why? Because He manifests HIMSELF in everything ........................so..I just do. Call it gut, faith, intuition, whatever.....I believe ( it's written in my heart.)
Just wonder. Would it take an entirely big leap of faith to consider that He is IN everything besides?
Just wonder. Would it take an entirely big leap of faith to consider that He is IN everything besides?
I don't think it would, and I wonder if it isn't already present in some of the more liberal churches? There is a mainstream church in my area that talks about 'sacred space,' God the Mother, does guided meditations etc...seems right up their alley.
Oakspear--ahh, the universe!
I myself believe that both order and chaos are equally present, so while we strive to order our world, chaos may erupt!
I myself believe that both order and chaos are equally present, so while we strive to order our world, chaos may erupt!
have you ever read L.E. Moddessit's Recluce series? A "magical" world where the adept manipulate order & chaos. Fascinating stuff that has influenced how I think of the metaphysical
Sorry, T&O and Oak, it was unintentional.
I was not trying to be sarcastic or inflammatory...really. But I would like some elaboration because I really didn't understand.
This is a case in point of what I truly love about SOME 'Christians'. From my perspective, they seem to think they have ALL the answers (Of course, I could be wrong. It's been a while ). BUUT, if you have the audacity to not believe as they do, they can be as condescending as they want (since you're just a walking around carcass).
On top of that, should you challenge THEIR beliefs, you're 'of the devil' (does it get a little cool in that ivory tower, Bliss?), and they can walk away with that sweet air of self righteous into the sunset.
Ouch Sushi........ :blink:
What was meant ''tongue n cheek'' in response to OAK, didn't stop you from your ''self righteous dig'' into my intent.
I don't judge Oak if he beliefs nothing, in a goddess, a bug, a toad, or Jesus...........he does have a right to believe whatever he wants... but I do ''care'' about his ''soul'' IF what I believe is right. That is just the truth of the matter. I care.
Right now, we won't agree to know what that truth is.
But for you to read INTO my intent with your snide comments of judgement and arrogance, I do take offense.
The number one thing I left behind with the Way, was just that!
I am anything but an arrogant ''Christian''. But as a believer in Christ , I sometimes have to defend my position if I am called to do so. Don't you? Isn't that what this forum is for?
Why is it that NON-Christians like to scream at the ''Christians'' opinions all the time with their judgement???
Well said bliss, seems to me that some who do not want to believe that which is believable come up with quite the offense.
I like what you said about seeing and believing earlier in this thread. There is more then one way to see things, and just as real.
Believing without seeing is something that just flows from within, a gut feeling, intuition, the spirit moving within. Call it whatever, but it happens and it happens a lot.
I don't offend easily, but in my caped avenger alter-ego I fight illogic wherever I find it :blink:
Anyway, maybe my omelet cooking friend Sushi (the man made breakfast for me once...I still haven't had its equal ) was speaking tongue-in-cheek.
Okay now, this is a serious question:
What does "caring about my soul" mean? It seems to indicate that my current beliefs put my soul in some kind of danger. Can you clarify for me?
I wasn't trying to offend, I was trying to be funny, and I have gathered your humor over the posts for a while, so I am glad you are tough...............
As for omelets, I like veggie..............though, I am not convinced Sushi was T and Cing it the same way I was. But, who am I to judge his intent? I love being called..............what did you say???? Self righteous and condescending?? But, I could be wrong.
Your soul? well, that's my ''Christian'' term for the eternal part of you. but you knew that. You also know, that I said ""IF"" in bold.
meaning IF I am right about my beliefs...............and you are not......................then..........................
I never said, YOUR belief system IS in a dangerous system.............only based on my beliefs.....it could be.
but, again, i shouldn't have to clarify. Most of us here all come from at least the basic ''I believe (used to believe) in God mindset.
You shouldn't have to clearify? maybe not, but I apparently misunderstood you awhile back and don't want it to happen again.
You said that if you are right and I am wrong then my belief system could be a dangerous system (expanding upon what I asked initially: is my soul in danger). Assuming that you do believe that you are right, then you believe that my belief system could be a dangerous system. So what is this possibility of danger that you see in my belief system?
And, with your use of the qualifier "if", this means that you consider the possibility that you might be wrong about your religious beliefs?
Oakspear, I think what she cares about, is that the danger is: If God has placed eternity in every person's soul (Ecc. 3:11), and if, there really is a place, where those who rejected Christ's invitation to believe on him, to receive a new spirit and live eternally with God, if there really is a place without God for those who do not wish to be with him, then I think, maybe she does not want to see you go there, but rather be with Christ.
By accepting Christ's message, we receive a new spirit, and new body, as flesh cannot ever be holy enough to enter into his kingdom. Mankind is a fallen race. Christ is the portal to the new dimension. Corruption cannot inherit incorrpution.
Of course, that's "IF."
I believe, in these last days, God has given some amazing visions to people. We all read about Near Death Experiences, where all is lovely and light, but there are several, where it has not been. God is using everything to let people know, come to him.
Of course, this is all a big "IF."
To me, at the end of our lives, we have all made a choice to be with God, or not, in eternity. I have either said to God, thy will be done; or, God has said to me, your will be done.
So, if any of this is true, yes, she cares about you, and the eternal consequences of your choice.
Personally, I have no great respect for a god who will evaporated, dunk in a lake of fire, stick in eternal hell or what have you--anyone who isn't part of his religion.
The cruel bully guys who just happened to pick Christianity get in, that warm and kind Hindu couple down the street are out.
I can't say that I have seen Christians as superior people to unbelievers, adn more deserving of eternal goodness. SOme where, some weren't.
I equate the bad eternal consequences for not being Christian to fear motivation. It is very effective.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
32
13
21
14
Popular Days
Mar 28
15
Mar 26
13
Mar 19
12
Mar 29
12
Top Posters In This Topic
Oakspear 32 posts
Bramble 13 posts
TrustAndObey 21 posts
cman 14 posts
Popular Days
Mar 28 2007
15 posts
Mar 26 2007
13 posts
Mar 19 2007
12 posts
Mar 29 2007
12 posts
TrustAndObey
The fact that you missed my point is the reason you felt their was straw. The straw was based on your assumption I was making a point from other things I said which I was not making a point out of, else it wouldn't have been built with straw!
However, saying that "some" truth is subjective as I already said is basically saying there is no truth since it is an oxymoron for their to be such a thing as subjective truth. Relative truth sure, but subjective truth? No... That goes against the definition of "truth' that has been around for centuries, unless of course you would like to re-define the word "truth" as so many people like to do these days to suit themselves. So if you want to re-define the definition, then sure, have your 'subjective" truth.. A rose by any other name is still a rose, And that which is not a rose by any other name is still not a rose..
Speaking of "unverified truth" as being truth is a waste of time, because from what you said, what you really mean, instead of truth, is belief. And one's belief is not necessarily truth (except in your "re-defined" language). I do not say 'There is a God" and call it truth. I call it a belief. To say it is a truth, can only be done when verifiable proof is given..
And yes, you can tell what is 'truth' and what is not, because truth is verifiable. It may be relative, but it still verifiable, else it is not truth, it is called "belief" or "hyposthesis" or a "theory".. And by any other name is still the same.
The contrast I bring up is not between those "doing the truth" and those doing what they want. I think you once again have my point mixed up in the straw you conjured up in your assumptions. The contrast is regarding those who serve themselves and those who serve others. That's all. Simplicity! No sense in conjuring up extra assumptions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I went through your posts and my responses to them. I can't find anywhere that I made any assumptions. Basically my responses to you where comments on and questions about your remarks in your posts, specifically your remarks addressed to me.
Again, to avoid unwarranted assumptions, is that sattement equivalent to "doing the truth" versus "doing what you want"? Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
Yes, I am well aware of what a straw man argument.. But it's hard to have straw when you're not actually arguing against something, only it was your perception that I was, thus the reason why you perceived straw! I just say burn the straw and get on with life! lol
"A subjective perception of the truth".. Sure.. Lots of people with those. In fact, I'm sure there are things in my life I regard as 'Truth" that is not.. Only, my whole point since the beginning, is there is truth, whether someone knows it or not is an entirely different discussion all together, and that not everyone can be right (except in their own eyes).
You asked, what is "doing the truth" in your opinion?.. I was actually just repeating your words.. Doing the truth.. One would have to know truth to do it. But it has nothing to do with any point I've made. But if one were to know THE TRUTH, then I guess it would have to be something that can be 'done" and therefore action is being taken to do it.. lol..
But again... No, my statement about serving one's self as opposed to others has nothing to do with 'DOING THE TRUTH" - whatever one views that as..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Right :huh:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Everyone can be right having only part.
But perhaps thinking they have the whole thing.
Or aware that it is only part of truth.
Not the idea that 'I' or 'We' have the whole truth.
Which makes a 'them'.
So, us and them, religion and not truth.
There is only 'us' or 'we'.
In truth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Hi, I've just been reading along on this thread and up to now have been most intrigued by the interaction between TrustandObey and Oakspear. But I have to say T&A you lost me here. Please elaborate.
Thanks :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
That's t&O...T&A is something else entirely
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Suda
T&A = Tonsils and adenoids, right Oak?
Suda (who had T&A surgery as a child)
Edited by SudaLink to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
Probably no better or worse than your 'God' does.
This is a case in point of what I truly love about SOME 'Christians'. From my perspective, they seem to think they have ALL the answers (Of course, I could be wrong. It's been a while
). BUUT, if you have the audacity to not believe as they do, they can be as condescending as they want (since you're just a walking around carcass).
On top of that, should you challenge THEIR beliefs, you're 'of the devil' (does it get a little cool in that ivory tower, Bliss?), and they can walk away with that sweet air of self righteous into the sunset.
Edited by SushiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Bliss, the modern goddess religions/pagan Wiccan beliefs are not 'revealed' religions. They are experiential.
Religions of the book are considered to be Christianity, Judaism and Moslem--and they are not seen as superior to other religions, and so must be copied with a pagan 'revealed' scripture.
There are myths and legends, indigenous beliefs to learn from, also modern writings, like the Charge of the Goddess, about the goddess, but they are not 'scripture.'
Many pagan beliefs are considered 'earth based'. We see the lessons of the goddess in the cycles of nature, cycles of the moon, in animal life and plant life too. Many pagans believe that the goddess is everywhere present, in every thing--immanent--and universally present, transcendant. In the major religions of the Books(Christianity, Judaism and Moslem) god is transcendant only, not immanent.
Unlike Christianity, modern pagans/goddess beliefs do not believe in the Fall, man's fallen nature, original sin or the need for a savior. For the most part we are the children of the goddess, we are sacred as is the earth. All things are erlated,we are all part of a great whole...
Wiccans believe in a balance between the goddess and the god--some say they are duo theistic, not really polytheistic. Others are hard polytheists, and others see all gods and godesses as parts of the ONE.
If you ask about the goddess, they might ask you--"Which one?"
Also, since pagans are pretty much against the whole witnessing thing--artificial persuasion--many would think if you have questions about the goddess, you should go seek the answers yourself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Thank you Bramble, that's a pretty good primer. Most neopagans, even those who follow a "tradition", believe and act on what they have personally experienced, and do not adhere to a prescribed set of beliefs written in a book or handed down by a leader.
I could argue (and often do
) that the "revealed" religions are experiential as well. What is the Book of Romans but the apostle Paul experiencing revelation from God to write down what he wrote down? What is the Book of Joshua but the experiences of the Hebrews in conquering the future land of Israel? And many modern believers, when asked how they know that the bible is true, resort to personal experiences such as answered prayer or a "personal relationship with Jesus" to validate their belief in their written scriptures.
Pagans tend to be an eclectic bunch, if some aspect of whatever tradition they're involved in doesn't suit them, they change, or add something, or take something away to make it their own. My own beliefs change as I learn new things and unlearn others. Something that I believe today may prove to be unworkable tomorrow. It seems evident that there are things that are beyond my understanding, and may always be so. Perhaps part of what I can't perceive and understand is spiritual, or perhaps it's just physical laws that are too complex for me to grasp.
Even if there are spirits or gods, I don't believe that there is any one or any group of them that is directing my life or pulling the strings or deciding what is meant to be. Some pagan friends of mine routinely say things like "the universe wanted such and such to happen". One of them said that to me after I was turned down for a promotion that I really wanted. My response was that the universe could d*mn well ask me next time!
I observe the wheel of the year (Happy Ostara Bramble
) and study shamanism.
Everything that I believe and do is what is right for me in this time and place to the best of my knowledge and ability and may change before I finish this post as information and circumstances change. I claim no universality for what I believe.
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Just wonder. Would it take an entirely big leap of faith to consider that He is IN everything besides?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
I don't think it would, and I wonder if it isn't already present in some of the more liberal churches? There is a mainstream church in my area that talks about 'sacred space,' God the Mother, does guided meditations etc...seems right up their alley.
Oakspear--ahh, the universe!
I myself believe that both order and chaos are equally present, so while we strive to order our world, chaos may erupt!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Sorry, T&O and Oak, it was unintentional.
I was not trying to be sarcastic or inflammatory...really. But I would like some elaboration because I really didn't understand.
But if my query goes unanswered that is ok as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bliss
Ouch Sushi........ :blink:
What was meant ''tongue n cheek'' in response to OAK, didn't stop you from your ''self righteous dig'' into my intent.
I don't judge Oak if he beliefs nothing, in a goddess, a bug, a toad, or Jesus...........he does have a right to believe whatever he wants... but I do ''care'' about his ''soul'' IF what I believe is right. That is just the truth of the matter. I care.
Right now, we won't agree to know what that truth is.
But for you to read INTO my intent with your snide comments of judgement and arrogance, I do take offense.
The number one thing I left behind with the Way, was just that!
I am anything but an arrogant ''Christian''. But as a believer in Christ , I sometimes have to defend my position if I am called to do so. Don't you? Isn't that what this forum is for?
Why is it that NON-Christians like to scream at the ''Christians'' opinions all the time with their judgement???
This is getting a little ridiculous.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Well said bliss, seems to me that some who do not want to believe that which is believable come up with quite the offense.
I like what you said about seeing and believing earlier in this thread. There is more then one way to see things, and just as real.
Believing without seeing is something that just flows from within, a gut feeling, intuition, the spirit moving within. Call it whatever, but it happens and it happens a lot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Belief in the unseen is common to many faiths, not just Christianity.
And the tongue in cheek answer to Oak did not look tongue and cheek to me, Bliss. I saw it in a much less friendly light.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Bliss:
I don't offend easily, but in my caped avenger alter-ego I fight illogic wherever I find it :ph34r:
Anyway, maybe my omelet cooking friend Sushi (the man made breakfast for me once...I still haven't had its equal
) was speaking tongue-in-cheek.
Okay now, this is a serious question:
What does "caring about my soul" mean? It seems to indicate that my current beliefs put my soul in some kind of danger. Can you clarify for me?
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
bliss
I wasn't trying to offend, I was trying to be funny, and I have gathered your humor over the posts for a while, so I am glad you are tough...............
As for omelets, I like veggie..............though, I am not convinced Sushi was T and Cing it the same way I was. But, who am I to judge his intent? I love being called..............what did you say???? Self righteous and condescending?? But, I could be wrong.
Your soul? well, that's my ''Christian'' term for the eternal part of you. but you knew that. You also know, that I said ""IF"" in bold.
meaning IF I am right about my beliefs...............and you are not......................then..........................
I never said, YOUR belief system IS in a dangerous system.............only based on my beliefs.....it could be.
but, again, i shouldn't have to clarify. Most of us here all come from at least the basic ''I believe (used to believe) in God mindset.
That said, I still care.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Hmmm. Additions in red are mine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
You shouldn't have to clearify? maybe not, but I apparently misunderstood you awhile back and don't want it to happen again.
You said that if you are right and I am wrong then my belief system could be a dangerous system (expanding upon what I asked initially: is my soul in danger). Assuming that you do believe that you are right, then you believe that my belief system could be a dangerous system. So what is this possibility of danger that you see in my belief system?
And, with your use of the qualifier "if", this means that you consider the possibility that you might be wrong about your religious beliefs?
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Oakspear, I think what she cares about, is that the danger is: If God has placed eternity in every person's soul (Ecc. 3:11), and if, there really is a place, where those who rejected Christ's invitation to believe on him, to receive a new spirit and live eternally with God, if there really is a place without God for those who do not wish to be with him, then I think, maybe she does not want to see you go there, but rather be with Christ.
By accepting Christ's message, we receive a new spirit, and new body, as flesh cannot ever be holy enough to enter into his kingdom. Mankind is a fallen race. Christ is the portal to the new dimension. Corruption cannot inherit incorrpution.
Of course, that's "IF."
I believe, in these last days, God has given some amazing visions to people. We all read about Near Death Experiences, where all is lovely and light, but there are several, where it has not been. God is using everything to let people know, come to him.
Of course, this is all a big "IF."
To me, at the end of our lives, we have all made a choice to be with God, or not, in eternity. I have either said to God, thy will be done; or, God has said to me, your will be done.
So, if any of this is true, yes, she cares about you, and the eternal consequences of your choice.
Edited by SunesisLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
The eternal consequences of choice.
Personally, I have no great respect for a god who will evaporated, dunk in a lake of fire, stick in eternal hell or what have you--anyone who isn't part of his religion.
The cruel bully guys who just happened to pick Christianity get in, that warm and kind Hindu couple down the street are out.
I can't say that I have seen Christians as superior people to unbelievers, adn more deserving of eternal goodness. SOme where, some weren't.
I equate the bad eternal consequences for not being Christian to fear motivation. It is very effective.
Not interested.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.