I don't know if you're intentionally lying, forgettful, or just can't keep track of who said what and when. The first use of the phrase "doing the truth" is in your post #52...which seems to be a response to post #40in post #54 I asked you what you meant
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?You then, in the previously quoted post #54 denied using the phrase other than repeating my words...which I did not write
To summarize:
You talked about "the truth";
you contrasted this explicitly with those who "do what they want to do" in posts #'s 26 & 28.
I commented that from an objective standpoint, you couldn't tell "the truth" from people "doing what they want to do" in post #40.
You responded to post #40 in post #52 using the phrase "doing the truth", which was the first usage of that particular phrase.
In post #53 I asked you what you meant by "doing the truth", including your usage of the phrase in quotes
You respond in post #54 that you didn't use the phrase, but were only repeating what I said
This may seem like a lot of trouble for one small point, but it's one thing to misunderstand another's point, but you consistantly misrepresent my points, and then mount an attack against those phantom positions.
Actually Oak, you need to go to your post #40 in which you said, "You keep bringing up the contrast between people doing what they want to do, and this "truth"...."
This is where "doing the truth" came from.. There is no contrast I ever brought between "doing what you want".. and 'truth".. But this is where it all began and where my reply began responding to your question.. And could just be a misunderstanding of words...
Just so we are all clear..
And there is only one point of yours I ever talked about.. "Why does someone have to be wrong?!".. That's the only one.. No belief on truth, nothing about doing something, no contrast. Everything else is your mis-understandings of what I said..
Ahh. So, somehow, in all my years in one form of Christianity or another( I didn't 'officially' start thinking of myself as Wiccan until I was 46 or so) I either picked all the wrong Christian groups or I'm just too spiritually dull to know what you know. If only I were more special so I could figure out which of the gazillion Christian churches/groups/doctrines etc would teach me the right things that you know, T&O.
Bramble,
I did not mean this in a demeaning way, so I apologize if you think I did.. My only point is that Christianity is represnted most of the time incorrectly. Groups that call themselves Christian is a farce to begin with, as a Christian is just noted as one who follows Christ and has many differing dotrines and believes that are not necessarily 'Christian' originating but sometimes more 'group" originating. Much like Wiccan with it's many paths, only "Christian groups" usually are at odds with one another sadly enough.. Some groups put more "emphasis" on their doctrines/paths than others. Some are more open than others.
This started with Bramble bringing up what she seemed to feel was an unjust requirement to get into heaven. So if mercy and acknowledgement of God are not requirements, just a desire, are there other requirements to get into heaven? The way I understand Universalism is that God will bring everyone to heaven regardless of your beliefs or works, all will be saved. Most everyone else has a requirement. Requirements in that case are required beliefs or works to get into heaven.
So if you are not a Universalist and you believe that God only has desires for us to fulfill and not requirements, who goes to heaven and why?
Actually I'm not even sure I understand this whole "getting into heaven" thing.. I don't recall any scriptures about getting into heaven in the Christian canon. Now if we are talking about eternal life and all, then I understand, but getting to heaven as far as I know is a man made belief not written in any Christian Bible..
The thing about salvation is that God says it is not by works. If your reason for "being saved" or "going to heaven" or "having eternal life" is you *&%^#&%$^#*(.. Then it is by works and you have just dismissed the real reason.. Because God says it is by a work that someone else did. His name was Jesus. It has nothing to do with what YOU do, it has everything to do what HE ALREADY DID! And because he did it.. Well, we are made righteous and have salvation..
Does that mean everyone receives eternal life (or goes to heaven, wherever one gets that belief)? Of course not... Because God won't go against freewill. If I don't want to live forever, guess what? God won't make me!
Personally, I don't believe that anyone can have truly selfless motives. There is always a benefit to doing good or a positive insentive. It may not be cognitively planned out that way, but whether it is just a feeling or a physical benefit, you reap what you sow. You always get something positive from doing something positive.
I guess I will just have to disagree here. The man who pushes a kid out of the way of a speeding car and being killed, foreknowing that would happen, certainly didn't get anything POSTIVE out of it.. In fact, he's dead and will no longer receive anything......
Does that mean everyone receives eternal life (or goes to heaven, wherever one gets that belief)? Of course not... Because God won't go against freewill. If I don't want to live forever, guess what? God won't make me!
So what about those that do believe in an afterlife, or eternity but are not Chrisitian, like a Hindu or some other non Chrisrian religion. Many of them believe and teach some sort of afterlife.Their will might be to live forever. Does free will then work? Or is is only free will to be a Christian or not?
Actually Oak, you need to go to your post #40 in which you said, "You keep bringing up the contrast between people doing what they want to do, and this "truth"...."
Actually, that's what I did, and you misquoted me.
This is where "doing the truth" came from..
Right...you misquoting me
There is no contrast I ever brought between "doing what you want".. and 'truth"..
Well here's one example:
There is such a thing as truth. And it has little to do with doctrines and laws and commandments. But it does exist. However it will never be found by those who do what is right in their own eyes.
But this is where it all began and where my reply began responding to your question.. And could just be a misunderstanding of words...
and here's another
And without a 'Truth' standard, there is no right or wrong religion, and as such, everyone can believe as they choose thus doing as they please, because it really is just your opinion.
Just so we are all clear..
Hmmm...we're not.
And there is only one point of yours I ever talked about.. "Why does someone have to be wrong?!".. That's the only one.. No belief on truth, nothing about doing something, no contrast.
Okay, but...
Just because it's easier to do what YOU want, and believe what YOU want to believe, and ignore everything else in life, doesn't make it right and true.
And yes, someone has to be wrong.
The fall of man is just that, those who do what they want. Unless you continue to enjoy being blind to that fact every minute of life. I'm not talking about the fall of man with Adam and Eve which is just a shadow of what happens every day. People doing what they want. Believe as they want. Kill as they desire, steal and rape as they desire. Start wars and terrorize as they desire. Trust me, it's all as THEY DESIRE, and only rarely has to do with some religion indoctrination. And usually that's just the front they play or some person controlling them (doing as THEY desire!). In the end, everyone does what they do because they desire it to be so.
There is such a thing as truth. And it has little to do with doctrines and laws and commandments. But it does exist. However it will never be found by those who do what is right in their own eyes. Because by doing so, you have blinded your ownself from knowing it, and set yourself up for only knowing that which your own self desires, which is no different than most of the world that destroys itself everyday.
Everything else is your mis-understandings of what I said..
Clear writing obviates most misunderstandings.
Edited by Oakspear
So what about those that do believe in an afterlife, or eternity but are not Chrisitian, like a Hindu or some other non Chrisrian religion. Many of them believe and teach some sort of afterlife.Their will might be to live forever. Does free will then work? Or is is only free will to be a Christian or not?
I suspect that is what he's saying, Bramble. Which kind of goes against the theory that Jesus did it all, I don't do anything to get eternal life/get into heaven. If one truly doesn't do anything (including an act of believing) to get eternal life, then universalism is the result.
The point of view prpounded in that poem is just fear motivation, "believe because the alternative is..."what? Death? Hellfire? It's not explicit.
You have a point of view that is just as likely to be true or false as anything else out there; the Muslims can make that same "what if you're wrong" speech too.
Actually, that's what I did, and you misquoted me.
Clear writing obviates most misunderstandings.
Do you know what "contrast" means Oak? let me just get the basic definition from the dictionary, which defines it as "the act of distinguishing by comparing differences"...
So now.. Prior to me even mentioning a "doing the truth".. And prior to you saying in Post 40 that I am contrasting Truth and Doing what you want, where did I compare truth with what you do and distinguish the differences? One is what something is, the other is something you do. There isn't a contrast or comparison that can be made.
Saying that my statement that "Truth can not be found ..... by those that do what is right in their own eyes" shows a contrast between "truth" itself and "doing what you want" is nothing more than straw and a twist of words, plain and simple. Comparison of the two, how?! lol.. Why don't you explain in your "clear writing" how I compared the 2? About as non-sense as if I said "John can't be found if you're Fred" and saying I compared John with Fred.. lol!
Yeah, clear writing obviates most misunderstandings when someone uses the normal defintion of words. Such as truth and contrast...
So what about those that do believe in an afterlife, or eternity but are not Chrisitian, like a Hindu or some other non Chrisrian religion. Many of them believe and teach some sort of afterlife.Their will might be to live forever. Does free will then work? Or is is only free will to be a Christian or not?
As already stated, we are given eternal life because of the one who paid the price, as believed by Christians. It's like people asking about all those who never had the opportunity to know Christ. What about all those before Christ lived? What about those in South America after Christ lived? To say it is because of what you believe, is to once again ignore what God has done, and that is He sent HIS SON to pay the price, NOT YOU!
Universalism is different in that it says everything is right.. Don't waste your time searching for truth, do what you want, cause you will have eternal life.. Does that sound the same as saying Christ died that all may be free and have life? No.. The end result isn't the same either, because Universalism says all will live forever.. Even if they didn't desire to have eternal life? To the Universalist, it matters not. And that is not what I said!
The point of view prpounded in that poem is just fear motivation, "believe because the alternative is..."what? Death? Hellfire? It's not explicit.
You have a point of view that is just as likely to be true or false as anything else out there; the Muslims can make that same "what if you're wrong" speech too.
Sorry Oak, can't find anything about fear or hellfire in that song.
I think you skipped the chorus. It's about love.
If you really read it, you would see that it also describes the ''what if you are right" side too!
Hmmm, well. In general being wrong is a badthing. The What if your wrong? phrase seems to imply something not so good to me, too.
But then, that is where a lot of Christian doctrines are at--Our One Right Way or dire trouble...an exclusionary religion.
Okay T&O I get where you are coming from. I don't personally believe in the fallen man/need for a savior scenario.
In the fear motivation context--my children have run into this quite a bit over the years, as they visit churches and hang out with Christian friends. They have noticed it ( heard the 'You're going to hell speech'), it has bothered them...we have talked about fear motivation with them.
Do you know what "contrast" means Oak? let me just get the basic definition from the dictionary, which defines it as "the act of distinguishing by comparing differences"...
Yes, that is one of the dictionary definitions.
So now.. Prior to me even mentioning a "doing the truth".. And prior to you saying in Post 40 that I am contrasting Truth and Doing what you want, where did I compare truth with what you do and distinguish the differences?
let's try this definition: "To set in opposition in order to show or emphasize differences" or " juxtaposition of dissimilar elements".
One is what something is, the other is something you do. There isn't a contrast or comparison that can be made.
How about Ephesians 2:1 - And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins - The state of being dead, what people are is contasted by implication with an act of God, "hath he quickened".
Saying that my statement that "Truth can not be found ..... by those that do what is right in their own eyes" shows a contrast between "truth" itself and "doing what you want" is nothing more than straw and a twist of words, plain and simple.
Once again you demonstrate a lack of understanding of what a strawman argument is, and I have not twisted your words, but quoted them verbatim.
Comparison of the two, how?! lol.. Why don't you explain in your "clear writing" how I compared the 2? About as non-sense as if I said "John can't be found if you're Fred" and saying I compared John with Fred.. lol!
You placed the concept of "truth", which you used in your argument against my position that there doesn't necessarily need to be someone who is wrong alongside the description of people who "do what they want", "do what is right in their own eyes" or "believe as they choose thus doing as they please. A juxtoposition, a contrast. And your illustration is specious.
Yeah, clear writing obviates most misunderstandings when someone uses the normal defintion of words. Such as truth and contrast...
Sorry Oak, can't find anything about fear or hellfire in that song.
I think you skipped the chorus. It's about love.
If you really read it, you would see that it also describes the ''what if you are right" side too!
Wish you could hear it "in the original''.
fair enough, I'll re-read it. And by the way, "not explicit" means "implicit", which means "implied", which means that it's not spelled out.
"WHAT IF......" by Nicole Nordeman
What if you're right?
And he was just another nice guy
What if you're right?
What if it's true?
They say the cross will only make a fool of you
And what if it's true?
What if he takes his place in history
With all the prophets and the kings
Who taught us love and came in peace
But then the story ends
What then?
Okay, I see it, but it's just a setup for the chorus:
(chorus)
But what if you're wrong?
What if there's more?
What if there's hope you never dreamed of hoping for?
What if you jump?
And just close your eyes?
What if the arms that catch you, catch you by surprise?
What if He's more than enough?
What if it's love?
Okay, love, great
What if you dig
Way down deeper than your simple-minded friends
Thanks, I didn't see this rude dig the first time.
What if you dig?
What if you find
A thousand more unanswered questions down inside
That's all you find?
What if you pick apart the logic
And begin to poke the holes
What if the crown of thorns is no more
Than folklore that must be told and retold?
You've been running as fast as you can
You've been looking for a place you can land for so long
Okay, nice verse
But what if you're wrong?[/b]
Okay, I read into it. No hellfire and damnation and bad stuff. My fault.
But what if I'm wrong? I miss out on what? Love? I've got that. Eternal life? What else? I imagine that all the stuff that I miss out on if I'm wrong I can still get.
And Bliss, just to clarify in the midst of the food fights, I have no problem with Christianity in general, or with Christians wanting to believe in Jesus or prayer or what have you. What I do have a problem with is when my own beliefs are relegated to second class status, or that I'm in need of "saving". Any arguments that I make against the bible being God breathed, or God existing, or Jesus being an historical character, or the efficacy of prayer are all in the pursuit of the point of view that one person's religion is not necessarily any more "correct" than anyone else's. I can't prove your beliefs wrong, but neither can you demonstrate that yours are superior to mine. Reverse the pronouns in that sentence and it's still the case.
let's try this definition: "To set in opposition in order to show or emphasize differences" or " juxtaposition of dissimilar elements".
How about Ephesians 2:1 - And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins - The state of being dead, what people are is contasted by implication with an act of God, "hath he quickened".
Once again you demonstrate a lack of understanding of what a strawman argument is, and I have not twisted your words, but quoted them verbatim.
You placed the concept of "truth", which you used in your argument against my position that there doesn't necessarily need to be someone who is wrong alongside the description of people who "do what they want", "do what is right in their own eyes" or "believe as they choose thus doing as they please. A juxtoposition, a contrast. And your illustration is specious.
Yup.
There you go again.. Haven't a clue.. Taking my words out of context. And once again, not realizing that the main part of any defintion of contrast is to show differences between things. Truth and your position that there doesn't need to be someone who is wrong is a contrast. 2 differing things contrasted. However, people who do what they want and defining truth was never put in contrast ever.. And you have yet to prove it. Where?! Come on, show us, since you seem to think it was?! Where?!
You either can't read a simple sentence or continue to like to try and read into things. Just as you tried to read into Bliss's statement and everyone else's.. No one was attacking those who don't believe in God. You're problem with thinking your "understanding" of their words is truth, is the reason you don't see that I never put a contrast between defining truth and the things people do.. My statement, 'Truth can not be found ..... by those that do what is right in their own eyes" shows no contrast..
But thanks for playing the definition game. Always trying to redefine things. What's your definition of truth again? Subjective beliefs. Explains everything!
Hmmm, well. In general being wrong is a badthing. The What if your wrong? phrase seems to imply something not so good to me, too.
But then, that is where a lot of Christian doctrines are at--Our One Right Way or dire trouble...an exclusionary religion.
Okay T&O I get where you are coming from. I don't personally believe in the fallen man/need for a savior scenario.
In the fear motivation context--my children have run into this quite a bit over the years, as they visit churches and hang out with Christian friends. They have noticed it ( heard the 'You're going to hell speech'), it has bothered them...we have talked about fear motivation with them.
What if you're wrong?! It could go either way.. Some see it as fear, some see it as a statement worth considering.. If someone came to me and said something I did may be wrong and it could cause others problems, I wouldnt be pushed by fear to fix it. I would consider it someone being friendly enough to point out something that maybe I overlooked and should look at so I can help others not have problems. I think a lot of things in life could go either way, positive or negative. But it's always in our best interest to motivate out of love. As the Christian Bible states, 'The goodness of God leads men to repentance', not the fear of the unknown..
And that is how I view it.. God has made available eternal life to those who want it. He sent His son who paid the ultimate price. And now eternal life is available. God has promised to care for me the rest of my life now and in the future, and there have been many times he had too cause I couldn't. Why would I not want to live with Him for eternity?! But then again, I do believe it!
Since you don't believe in a fallen man, do you believe man is perfect then?! No problems with any of them? Maybe they make mistakes but really everyone's heart's and motives are perfect? Or maybe imperfections make no difference?
There you go again.. Haven't a clue.. Taking my words out of context.
And once again, not realizing that the main part of any defintion of contrast is to show differences between things.
Truth and your position that there doesn't need to be someone who is wrong is a contrast. 2 differing things contrasted. However, people who do what they want and defining truth was never put in contrast ever.. And you have yet to prive it. Where?! Come on, show us, since you seem to think it was?! Where?!
I could copy quotes until the cows and whatever farm animals are available come home and it would avail me not.
You either can't read a simple sentence or continue to like to try and read into things.
Wow, a false dilemma!
Just as you tried to read into Bliss's statement and everyone else's..
Wow! Hyperbole
No one was attacking those who don't believe in God.
Okay. I didn't say that there was any attacking going on. Iam free to disagree with points being made, am I not?
You're problem with thinking your "understanding" of their words is truth, is the reason you don't see that I never put a contrast between defining truth and the things people do.. My statement, 'Truth can not be found ..... by those that do what is right in their own eyes" shows no contrast..
Nooooo...of course not :blink:
But thanks for playing the definition game. Always trying to redefine things.
What's your definition of truth again? Subjective beliefs. Explains everything!
Strawman argument! Truth: "the state of being the case, fact, the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality, a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics>,the body of true statements and propositions,the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality" - I don't think most religious beliefs fall under these definitions, even the big one: the existance and/or nature of "God". If one person says that God is best described by the bible, and another says that God is best described by the Koran, and a third believes that "goddess" is a better description, and they all say that they're beliefs and perceptions are THE TRUTH, there beliefs and perception of what is THE TRUTH comes down to their differeing opinions and is therefore subjective. It doesn't matter how convinced each f the three may be, or how many spiritual experiences they claim to have, their experiences are subjective and have no claim to being THE TRUTH. That's what I believe is subjective.
Maybe there is something out there that can be categorized as THE TRUTH, that can be objectively viewed and seen as such. I don't see anyone claiming to be able to objectively demonstrate it. TRUTH isn't subjective, perception is subjective. And if all of our perceptions of what truth is are subjective, then no one can credibly claim to decide who is right and who is wrong.
Truth: "the state of being the case, fact, the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality, a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics>,the body of true statements and propositions,the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality" - I don't think most religious beliefs fall under these definitions, even the big one: the existance and/or nature of "God". If one person says that God is best described by the bible, and another says that God is best described by the Koran, and a third believes that "goddess" is a better description, and they all say that they're beliefs and perceptions are THE TRUTH, there beliefs and perception of what is THE TRUTH comes down to their differeing opinions and is therefore subjective. It doesn't matter how convinced each f the three may be, or how many spiritual experiences they claim to have, their experiences are subjective and have no claim to being THE TRUTH. That's what I believe is subjective.
Maybe there is something out there that can be categorized as THE TRUTH, that can be objectively viewed and seen as such. I don't see anyone claiming to be able to objectively demonstrate it. TRUTH isn't subjective, perception is subjective. And if all of our perceptions of what truth is are subjective, then no one can credibly claim to decide who is right and who is wrong.
Glad you finally realize there is no such thing as subjective truth. And since no one here has claimed their beliefs are truths, only beliefs, not sure why you keep repeating your point that everyone already knew before and still knows..
Glad you finally realize there is no such thing as subjective truth.
No finally about it. My position hasn't changed; you finally understood what I was saying.
And since no one here has claimed their beliefs are truths, only beliefs, not sure why you keep repeating your point that everyone already knew before and still knows..
What the h#ll do you care how many times I repeat myself? Don't read my posts if it bothers you.
If someone believes that what they believe is true, do they not view those beliefs as truth? Maybe not, but that would certainly be a reasonable assumption. That's what I was addressing.
Still waiting on that contrasting proof too...
Yeah, well, I provided it, you rejected or ignored it...we're obviously not going to see eye-to-eye on that subject...how about we consider that particular horse dead and posthumously beat some other animals?
If someone believes that what they believe is true, do they not view those beliefs as truth? Maybe not, but that would certainly be a reasonable assumption. That's what I was addressing.
Sure, if you like to assume.. Why would someone believe something if they didn't think it was true?! That kind of goes against the defintion of BELIEVE! DUH! Main definition is "to accept as true".. But to believe something as true and to believe it as 'Truth" are 2 different things. One says I believe what I am thinking concerning something is right and true, the other says I am right, this is truth, everyone else is wrong. Most people know the difference.. Everyone on here has not shown differently, only as usual, your assumptions are wrong.
Yeah, well, I provided it, you rejected or ignored it...we're obviously not going to see eye-to-eye on that subject...how about we consider that particular horse dead and posthumously beat some other animals?
Provided proof? Where? A statement that has both words in it?! Gee.. Wow.. That must mean I am contrasting so many things.. In fact that sentence I was contrasting "meaning" with 'things" and "contrasting" with "that".. Sounds like another bail of straw for you!
The fall and perfection...I don't believe the nature of man is any different today than it was in the beginning. I don't see that a savior has changed the essence of humankind I don't think perfection even enters into human life. Humans are complex beings, with strengths and weaknesses, with ability to learn and change for the better or for the worse. A myriad of differences, but all human.
I don't think there was a time before the fall where humans were more perfect. I think they were just human, like they are today.
As far as a friend telling me I'm wrong or in danger due to religious beliefs, I think that is silly. I'm not sacrificing kittens on the devil's altar, afterall--and don't knpow anyone who is. Would my life be better if I believed like you?
We were big on that back in the day, witnessing. Made alot of promises that worked in the good times but didn't in the bad times. During the bad times we had to back pedal, find excuses, faults, open doors...
No religion gives a person a perfect life, all ups and no downs. I don't think that is the nature of life.Yes, I do believe people can improve their lives by being Chrisitian. But I've also seen people have that same type of growth experience in pagan faiths and as non religious people. I think it is a myth that Christians are way better people, that non Christians have awful lives full of selfishness and strife. So do, some don't--some Christians do and don't.
Why would someone believe something if they didn't think it was true?!
They wouldn't, which was my point.
That kind of goes against the defintion of BELIEVE! DUH! Main definition is "to accept as true"..
Again, exactly my point.
But to believe something as true and to believe it as 'Truth" are 2 different things. One says I believe what I am thinking concerning something is right and true, the other says I am right, this is truth, everyone else is wrong.
Etymology: Middle English trewthe, from Old English trEowth fidelity; akin to Old English trEowe faithful -- more at TRUE
1 a archaic : FIDELITY, CONSTANCY b : sincerity in action, character, and utterance
2 a (1) : the state of being the case : FACT (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY (3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics> c : the body of true statements and propositions
3 a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality b chiefly British : TRUE 2 c : fidelity to an original or to a standard
4 capitalized, Christian Science : GOD
- in truth : in accordance with fact : ACTUALLY
Most people know the difference..
So who's making up their own definitions now?
Everyone on here has not shown differently,
All your base are belong to us!
only as usual, your assumptions are wrong.
My assumption that what people believe as true they also believe as truth? My assumption was based on the dictionary meaning of the word. If anyone means something different than what the dictionary definition states, then yes, I am in error in my assumption.
Provided proof? Where? A statement that has both words in it?!
No, not merely a statement with both words in it.
Gee.. Wow.. That must mean I am contrasting so many things.. In fact that sentence I was contrasting "meaning" with 'things" and "contrasting" with "that"..
Do you really believe that that's what I'm saying?
Sounds like another bail of straw for you!
Do you find this strategy effective in real life?
Edited by Oakspear
I'm not sacrificing kittens on the devil's altar, afterall--and don't knpow anyone who is.
Well, that disagrees with MY schedule, Bramble. You have next Wednesday at our 24 hour kitten sacrificing vigil.
Actually, I'm the one who sacrifices the kittens. Bramble here sacrifices the puppies. So much sacrificing, so little time. (note to self: Must interview for NEW Asst. Sacrificer)
I've never really investigated if other faiths besides Christianity posit the "fallen man" theology, but it doesn't seem to be central to any others. In the early centuries of the Christian church, the doctrine of the fall of man and its implications wasn't settled. Pelagius, a monk from the British Isles taught that mankind could avoid sinning and freely choose to obey the commandments of God and did not have a nature that predestined them to sin, as Augustine taught. Pegius' teaching were declared a heresy.
I agree with Bramble in that not believing that man is "fallen" does not imply that man is perfect or does not need to change or improve himself. Man is far from perfect and many religious beliefs and practices can offer paths to improving man's state. In fact, most religion, outside of the component regarding the nature or existance of a divinity or divinities, is largely concerned with actions: ethics, morals, interactions among people.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
32
13
21
14
Popular Days
Mar 28
15
Mar 26
13
Mar 29
12
Mar 19
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 29 2007
12 posts
Mar 19 2007
12 posts
TrustAndObey
Actually Oak, you need to go to your post #40 in which you said, "You keep bringing up the contrast between people doing what they want to do, and this "truth"...."
This is where "doing the truth" came from.. There is no contrast I ever brought between "doing what you want".. and 'truth".. But this is where it all began and where my reply began responding to your question.. And could just be a misunderstanding of words...
Just so we are all clear..
And there is only one point of yours I ever talked about.. "Why does someone have to be wrong?!".. That's the only one.. No belief on truth, nothing about doing something, no contrast. Everything else is your mis-understandings of what I said..
Edited by TrustAndObeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
Bramble,
I did not mean this in a demeaning way, so I apologize if you think I did.. My only point is that Christianity is represnted most of the time incorrectly. Groups that call themselves Christian is a farce to begin with, as a Christian is just noted as one who follows Christ and has many differing dotrines and believes that are not necessarily 'Christian' originating but sometimes more 'group" originating. Much like Wiccan with it's many paths, only "Christian groups" usually are at odds with one another sadly enough.. Some groups put more "emphasis" on their doctrines/paths than others. Some are more open than others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
Actually I'm not even sure I understand this whole "getting into heaven" thing.. I don't recall any scriptures about getting into heaven in the Christian canon. Now if we are talking about eternal life and all, then I understand, but getting to heaven as far as I know is a man made belief not written in any Christian Bible..
The thing about salvation is that God says it is not by works. If your reason for "being saved" or "going to heaven" or "having eternal life" is you *&%^#&%$^#*(.. Then it is by works and you have just dismissed the real reason.. Because God says it is by a work that someone else did. His name was Jesus. It has nothing to do with what YOU do, it has everything to do what HE ALREADY DID! And because he did it.. Well, we are made righteous and have salvation..
Does that mean everyone receives eternal life (or goes to heaven, wherever one gets that belief)? Of course not... Because God won't go against freewill. If I don't want to live forever, guess what? God won't make me!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
I guess I will just have to disagree here. The man who pushes a kid out of the way of a speeding car and being killed, foreknowing that would happen, certainly didn't get anything POSTIVE out of it.. In fact, he's dead and will no longer receive anything......
Edited by TrustAndObeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
So what about those that do believe in an afterlife, or eternity but are not Chrisitian, like a Hindu or some other non Chrisrian religion. Many of them believe and teach some sort of afterlife.Their will might be to live forever. Does free will then work? Or is is only free will to be a Christian or not?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Bliss:
The point of view prpounded in that poem is just fear motivation, "believe because the alternative is..."what? Death? Hellfire? It's not explicit.
You have a point of view that is just as likely to be true or false as anything else out there; the Muslims can make that same "what if you're wrong" speech too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
Do you know what "contrast" means Oak? let me just get the basic definition from the dictionary, which defines it as "the act of distinguishing by comparing differences"...
So now.. Prior to me even mentioning a "doing the truth".. And prior to you saying in Post 40 that I am contrasting Truth and Doing what you want, where did I compare truth with what you do and distinguish the differences? One is what something is, the other is something you do. There isn't a contrast or comparison that can be made.
Saying that my statement that "Truth can not be found ..... by those that do what is right in their own eyes" shows a contrast between "truth" itself and "doing what you want" is nothing more than straw and a twist of words, plain and simple. Comparison of the two, how?! lol.. Why don't you explain in your "clear writing" how I compared the 2? About as non-sense as if I said "John can't be found if you're Fred" and saying I compared John with Fred.. lol!
Yeah, clear writing obviates most misunderstandings when someone uses the normal defintion of words. Such as truth and contrast...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
As already stated, we are given eternal life because of the one who paid the price, as believed by Christians. It's like people asking about all those who never had the opportunity to know Christ. What about all those before Christ lived? What about those in South America after Christ lived? To say it is because of what you believe, is to once again ignore what God has done, and that is He sent HIS SON to pay the price, NOT YOU!
Universalism is different in that it says everything is right.. Don't waste your time searching for truth, do what you want, cause you will have eternal life.. Does that sound the same as saying Christ died that all may be free and have life? No.. The end result isn't the same either, because Universalism says all will live forever.. Even if they didn't desire to have eternal life? To the Universalist, it matters not. And that is not what I said!
Edited by TrustAndObeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
bliss
Sorry Oak, can't find anything about fear or hellfire in that song.
I think you skipped the chorus. It's about love.
If you really read it, you would see that it also describes the ''what if you are right" side too!
Wish you could hear it "in the original''.
Edited by blissLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Hmmm, well. In general being wrong is a bad thing. The What if your wrong? phrase seems to imply something not so good to me, too.
But then, that is where a lot of Christian doctrines are at--Our One Right Way or dire trouble...an exclusionary religion.
Okay T&O I get where you are coming from. I don't personally believe in the fallen man/need for a savior scenario.
In the fear motivation context--my children have run into this quite a bit over the years, as they visit churches and hang out with Christian friends. They have noticed it ( heard the 'You're going to hell speech'), it has bothered them...we have talked about fear motivation with them.
Edited by BrambleLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
But what if I'm wrong? I miss out on what? Love? I've got that. Eternal life? What else? I imagine that all the stuff that I miss out on if I'm wrong I can still get.
And Bliss, just to clarify in the midst of the food fights, I have no problem with Christianity in general, or with Christians wanting to believe in Jesus or prayer or what have you. What I do have a problem with is when my own beliefs are relegated to second class status, or that I'm in need of "saving". Any arguments that I make against the bible being God breathed, or God existing, or Jesus being an historical character, or the efficacy of prayer are all in the pursuit of the point of view that one person's religion is not necessarily any more "correct" than anyone else's. I can't prove your beliefs wrong, but neither can you demonstrate that yours are superior to mine. Reverse the pronouns in that sentence and it's still the case.
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
There you go again.. Haven't a clue.. Taking my words out of context. And once again, not realizing that the main part of any defintion of contrast is to show differences between things. Truth and your position that there doesn't need to be someone who is wrong is a contrast. 2 differing things contrasted. However, people who do what they want and defining truth was never put in contrast ever.. And you have yet to prove it. Where?! Come on, show us, since you seem to think it was?! Where?!
You either can't read a simple sentence or continue to like to try and read into things. Just as you tried to read into Bliss's statement and everyone else's.. No one was attacking those who don't believe in God. You're problem with thinking your "understanding" of their words is truth, is the reason you don't see that I never put a contrast between defining truth and the things people do.. My statement, 'Truth can not be found ..... by those that do what is right in their own eyes" shows no contrast..
But thanks for playing the definition game. Always trying to redefine things. What's your definition of truth again? Subjective beliefs. Explains everything!
Edited by TrustAndObeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
What if you're wrong?! It could go either way.. Some see it as fear, some see it as a statement worth considering.. If someone came to me and said something I did may be wrong and it could cause others problems, I wouldnt be pushed by fear to fix it. I would consider it someone being friendly enough to point out something that maybe I overlooked and should look at so I can help others not have problems. I think a lot of things in life could go either way, positive or negative. But it's always in our best interest to motivate out of love. As the Christian Bible states, 'The goodness of God leads men to repentance', not the fear of the unknown..
And that is how I view it.. God has made available eternal life to those who want it. He sent His son who paid the ultimate price. And now eternal life is available. God has promised to care for me the rest of my life now and in the future, and there have been many times he had too cause I couldn't. Why would I not want to live with Him for eternity?! But then again, I do believe it!
Since you don't believe in a fallen man, do you believe man is perfect then?! No problems with any of them? Maybe they make mistakes but really everyone's heart's and motives are perfect? Or maybe imperfections make no difference?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Maybe there is something out there that can be categorized as THE TRUTH, that can be objectively viewed and seen as such. I don't see anyone claiming to be able to objectively demonstrate it. TRUTH isn't subjective, perception is subjective. And if all of our perceptions of what truth is are subjective, then no one can credibly claim to decide who is right and who is wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
Glad you finally realize there is no such thing as subjective truth. And since no one here has claimed their beliefs are truths, only beliefs, not sure why you keep repeating your point that everyone already knew before and still knows..
Still waiting on that contrasting proof too...
Edited by TrustAndObeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
If someone believes that what they believe is true, do they not view those beliefs as truth? Maybe not, but that would certainly be a reasonable assumption. That's what I was addressing.
Yeah, well, I provided it, you rejected or ignored it...we're obviously not going to see eye-to-eye on that subject...how about we consider that particular horse dead and posthumously beat some other animals?Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
Sure, if you like to assume.. Why would someone believe something if they didn't think it was true?! That kind of goes against the defintion of BELIEVE! DUH! Main definition is "to accept as true".. But to believe something as true and to believe it as 'Truth" are 2 different things. One says I believe what I am thinking concerning something is right and true, the other says I am right, this is truth, everyone else is wrong. Most people know the difference.. Everyone on here has not shown differently, only as usual, your assumptions are wrong.
Provided proof? Where? A statement that has both words in it?! Gee.. Wow.. That must mean I am contrasting so many things.. In fact that sentence I was contrasting "meaning" with 'things" and "contrasting" with "that".. Sounds like another bail of straw for you!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
The fall and perfection...I don't believe the nature of man is any different today than it was in the beginning. I don't see that a savior has changed the essence of humankind I don't think perfection even enters into human life. Humans are complex beings, with strengths and weaknesses, with ability to learn and change for the better or for the worse. A myriad of differences, but all human.
I don't think there was a time before the fall where humans were more perfect. I think they were just human, like they are today.
As far as a friend telling me I'm wrong or in danger due to religious beliefs, I think that is silly. I'm not sacrificing kittens on the devil's altar, afterall--and don't knpow anyone who is. Would my life be better if I believed like you?
We were big on that back in the day, witnessing. Made alot of promises that worked in the good times but didn't in the bad times. During the bad times we had to back pedal, find excuses, faults, open doors...
No religion gives a person a perfect life, all ups and no downs. I don't think that is the nature of life.Yes, I do believe people can improve their lives by being Chrisitian. But I've also seen people have that same type of growth experience in pagan faiths and as non religious people. I think it is a myth that Christians are way better people, that non Christians have awful lives full of selfishness and strife. So do, some don't--some Christians do and don't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Main Entry: truth
Pronunciation: 'trüth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural truths /'trü[th]z, 'trüths/
Etymology: Middle English trewthe, from Old English trEowth fidelity; akin to Old English trEowe faithful -- more at TRUE
1 a archaic : FIDELITY, CONSTANCY b : sincerity in action, character, and utterance
2 a (1) : the state of being the case : FACT (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY (3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics> c : the body of true statements and propositions
3 a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality b chiefly British : TRUE 2 c : fidelity to an original or to a standard
4 capitalized, Christian Science : GOD
- in truth : in accordance with fact : ACTUALLY
So who's making up their own definitions now?All your base are belong to us!My assumption that what people believe as true they also believe as truth? My assumption was based on the dictionary meaning of the word. If anyone means something different than what the dictionary definition states, then yes, I am in error in my assumption. No, not merely a statement with both words in it. Do you really believe that that's what I'm saying? Do you find this strategy effective in real life? Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
Well, that disagrees with MY schedule, Bramble. You have next Wednesday at our 24 hour kitten sacrificing vigil.
Actually, I'm the one who sacrifices the kittens. Bramble here sacrifices the puppies. So much sacrificing, so little time. (note to self: Must interview for NEW Asst. Sacrificer)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I've never really investigated if other faiths besides Christianity posit the "fallen man" theology, but it doesn't seem to be central to any others. In the early centuries of the Christian church, the doctrine of the fall of man and its implications wasn't settled. Pelagius, a monk from the British Isles taught that mankind could avoid sinning and freely choose to obey the commandments of God and did not have a nature that predestined them to sin, as Augustine taught. Pegius' teaching were declared a heresy.
I agree with Bramble in that not believing that man is "fallen" does not imply that man is perfect or does not need to change or improve himself. Man is far from perfect and many religious beliefs and practices can offer paths to improving man's state. In fact, most religion, outside of the component regarding the nature or existance of a divinity or divinities, is largely concerned with actions: ethics, morals, interactions among people.
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.