Proof of....whatever one believes is not a requirement of the scriptures.
As humans, I think this is pretty self-evident. Thankfully and conveniently for believers the scriptures don't require an impossibility.
We are to prove all things.
Well all things that come my way I reckon.
And hold fast to the Good.
I think most thinking people are compelled to do this regardless of a commandment. It just seems to be apart of how we figure things out.
The thing is that we may all prove things, but for some, certain things can be proved to oneself and certain things can not be, and these differ from person to person. On the other hand, I think that if we boil down "that which is good" I think that most of us are on the same page basically.
For example..."rock on." I am totally with you on that one.
Well we could say that about any word really, couldn't we?
Well, shoe, what does that mean?
Well, house, what does that mean?
Driving, what does that mean?
Car? etc.
Being trained as an industrial designer I used to do that all the time to try and rethink the design of common things. So, I understand.
The thing is in order for communication to work, there needs to be a relative agreement on what words mean. That is their purpose. The meanings vary and opninions vary, but in the dictionary the folks that compile the definitions try and put the most common definition first.
So when I say standard I mean the most common definition.
Here is religion
Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.
Of, concerned with, or teaching religion: a religious text.
Extremely scrupulous or conscientious: religious devotion to duty.
Here is the intransitive form of believe
To have firm faith, especially religious faith.
To have faith, confidence, or trust: I believe in your ability to solve the problem.
To have confidence in the truth or value of something: We believe in free speech.
To have an opinion; think: They have already left, I believe.
So I used the most common froms of those words.
Words ARE limiting by nature, that is the beauty and the curse of them, but in daily conversation I think it is best to try and use common definitions if we want people to understand what we are saying. If we don't care about that then just string words together that only mean something to the speaker and perhaps other people not in the room. It would be kind of pointless, but we could do that.
If we want to communicate things that are not bases on standard definitions then I think it is polite to use more words to get your point accross. I was not doing this so I just used common words with their common definitions.
I didn't think I was sidetracking. You mentioned "scripture" and referenced the bible. Why is religion an unappropriate word in the context of what you wrote?
Why not look for proof yourself?
I have and do. Why do you think that I don't?
I asked 'what is a believer' because that is not specific.
You are talking about people you don't know.
Grouping and labeling them with a vague 'standard meaning'.
Actually, believer is a pretty specific word in the context of religion or, if you prefer, belief in a God or deity. There are those that believe and there are those that don't. The believing side varies a whole hell of a lot as does the non-believing side, but you either believe in a God or deity or you don't. Seems simple enough. And I was actually talking about some people that I do know and many people that I don't. Grouping and labeling is what words are for. They descibe things. They group things with similar qualities and distinguish others with dissimilar qualities. My knowing someone would have no effect on whether or not they believe in a God or deity or not.
Making an us vs them case.
I wasn't making an anyone vs. anyone case. I was simply stating that your first sentence "proof of...whatever one belives is not a requirement of the scriptures," is not a requirement of anyone by anyone and that is a good thing for those that believe in a God or deity, because it would be impossible to do so. It is also convient because anyone can believe anything and claim that it is truth or right or whatever simply because they have proved it to themselves. This is perfectly fine, because this is just unprofoundly what we do....prove things to ourselves. BTW, what does "prove to yourself" mean anyway.
There is only 'us'. We are them.
What homo-sapiens? Humans? People? Becuase certainly we are all not metalsmiths,
or mechanics,
or viola players
or existencialists
or believers
or innies (TWIers)
or outies (bellybuttons)
or scientologists
or darwinists
or frogs
Now you are talking about people you don't know and labeling everyone with the very vague and elusive "THEM." I don't want to be one of THOSE people!
(cracks open a dictionary and starts reading to see if there is something else you are talking about)
You were posting about something relatively simple and I responded with a simple post.
If you want to talk about believers, then a more specific understanding is needed.
You brought in to the topic both religion and believers. Not Me.
Plus you gave a definition of believers that I don't agree with.
Which I informed you that i didn't agree with a standard definition.
What part do you not know what I'm talking about?
If you have to open a dictionary for a definition then you don't know what the word means in your heart. And I am not rushing any of this, so take your time in talking or don't talk. Either one.
We should agree on the meaning and definition of a believer before speaking of one, don't you think?
And I do not need religion to talk about scripture, God, Jesus Christ or any other words in the scriptures.
I grow tired of being labeled religous, when I speak of these things.
I haven't labeled anyone and you have at least twice here now.
Religous and believers. the later of which I suspect you will
When you say as in I Thessalonians 5:21: We are to prove all things.
Well all things that come my way I reckon.
And hold fast to the good.
Does that apply to believing beyond a shadow of a doubt?; e.g. as is requirement in the gospels to recieve all types of healing, when healing was ministered? e.g. Mark 9:23 Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.
So then, if you propose that you, and perhaps me, or anyone can believe as they want to and to prove what things come our ways on an individual basis or disprove it...Then how is one able to believe beyond a shadow of a doubt to be healed and does that mean as soon as any shadow of a doubt comes in the healing is lost?
I can understand that I am proving to myself or becoming totally convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt as Mark 9:23 states in essense but if you can disprove what you proved.... and healing is a work of God then aren't you indicating that it is possible to disprove God by then not believing beyond a shadow of a doubt thus disproving what you proved?
I hope I did not misunderstand You?? If I did please help to understand!
Not talking about religions or a religion, but religion in general as I described.
If you want to talk about believers, then a more specific understanding is needed.
You brought in to the topic both religion and believers. Not Me.
Plus you gave a definition of believers that I don't agree with.
Which I informed you that i didn't agree with a standard definition.
What part do you not know what I'm talking about?
Well, I guess, what is your issue with the common uses of the words "believer" and "religion." I think I get what your problem with the word "religion", after all we were both apart of a cult that had a disdain for that word. Many nondenominational groups and others for some reason feel the same. Religion according to TWI was man made, was legalistic, and in someway ungodly. We can change definitions all we want, but usually when someone is talking about religion in general it is in the sense that I posted earlier..."belief in and reverence for God or a deity." Is this not what you have? Is this not what you believe? If it is then what's the problem? If it isn't then what are you talking about?
If you have to open a dictionary for a definition then you don't know what the word means in your heart. And I am not rushing any of this, so take your time in talking or don't talk. Either one.
I don't really carry definitions around in my heart. My heart is more for things that I love, desire, and things that I feel passionately about. It just so happens, I actually know what certain words mean. The dictionary just so happened to have the definition as I knew it to be. I quoted it to make my point, and you disagree with what the words mean. That is fine. Speak your own language, but it doesn't change what I meant, and since I was the one that brought them up then I should be the one to determine which definition I was using.
We should agree on the meaning and definition of a believer before speaking of one, don't you think?
No, I think we just need to know what the other person means. We don't have to agree. I told you what I meant and you disagreed with the definition, but as I said that doesn't change what I said and meant. What is your beef with the words "religion" and "believer" and what are your definitions? That would help me understand.
And I do not need religion to talk about scripture, God, Jesus Christ or any other words in the scriptures
Hey, me neither! Although, the use of the word "scripture" does imply you hold a religious belief concerning them. I think the vast majority of english speaking people would agree on that and that if you have a belief in God and Jesus Christ you would have yourself a religion of some sort.
I grow tired of being labeled religous, when I speak of these things.
Why? Would you prefer "spiritual"?
I haven't labeled anyone and you have at least twice here now.
And I will continue to as long as it helps everyone else understand what and who I am talking about. I don't see it as a bad thing.
Religous and believers. the later of which I suspect you will
NOT KNOW WHAT THE HELL I'M TALKING ABOUT.
So I didn't bring it up. You did.
Well, I suspect your suspicion would be correct as long as you continue to not tell me what you are talking about.
They have there own things to see and prove to themselves.
That is the topic I origially addressed. You didn't like the words I used or the way in which I used them and have continued to not explain why or what your view of them is.
You're talking about subjective proof as opposed to objective proof, I get that. That was my original point. This topic sort of overlaps the other topic on what is truth, because proof usually has something do with it. Since you can not objectively prove the objective truth, then you are left subjectively proving a subjective truth. The only way in which you can have subjective proof of the objective truth is, as I stated on the other thread, if you win the lottery of the universe (or multiverse or whatever it is).
I understand what you are saying I agree. I think you understand what I am saying but you don't agree with how I am saying it or something.
I think we agree.
you:
I'm trying to be as generic as possible and not get into a particular subject. Just how we understand, learn and experience wisdom.
me:
This is perfectly fine, because this is just unprofoundly what we do....prove things to ourselves.
OR maybe not...
This is the topic-Proof....
Glad you are..perhaps others can help.
They have for me.
Sure sounds like you are vaguely talking about something specific there.
Recommended Posts
year2027
God first
Beloved cman
God loves you my dear friend
I been watching this tread hoping others will reply
I love it because its the way I see it too
We give a reason so others wanted to look into it know our reason even the reason I feel its right in my heart
what I have proved in my heart I have made my own beliefe
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Well spoken cman.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
I think most thinking people are compelled to do this regardless of a commandment. It just seems to be apart of how we figure things out.
The thing is that we may all prove things, but for some, certain things can be proved to oneself and certain things can not be, and these differ from person to person. On the other hand, I think that if we boil down "that which is good" I think that most of us are on the same page basically.
For example..."rock on." I am totally with you on that one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
What is a believer lindy?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
The standard meaning.
Those that have religious faith.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
I don't have a standard meaning.
Yours is those that have religious faith.
I suppose that is what you believe a believer is.
Only one definition? Not hardly.
Religious? what is that? Faith? what is that?
Very broad terms and limiting that which is unlimited.
If what it means is limited in your thinking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Well we could say that about any word really, couldn't we?
Well, shoe, what does that mean?
Well, house, what does that mean?
Driving, what does that mean?
Car? etc.
Being trained as an industrial designer I used to do that all the time to try and rethink the design of common things. So, I understand.
The thing is in order for communication to work, there needs to be a relative agreement on what words mean. That is their purpose. The meanings vary and opninions vary, but in the dictionary the folks that compile the definitions try and put the most common definition first.
So when I say standard I mean the most common definition.
Here is religion
Here is the intransitive form of believe
So I used the most common froms of those words.
Words ARE limiting by nature, that is the beauty and the curse of them, but in daily conversation I think it is best to try and use common definitions if we want people to understand what we are saying. If we don't care about that then just string words together that only mean something to the speaker and perhaps other people not in the room. It would be kind of pointless, but we could do that.
If we want to communicate things that are not bases on standard definitions then I think it is polite to use more words to get your point accross. I was not doing this so I just used common words with their common definitions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Lindy,
Why side track into religion?
Why not look for proof yourself?
I asked 'what is a believer' because that is not specific.
You are talking about people you don't know.
Grouping and labeling them with a vague 'standard meaning'.
Making an us vs them case.
There is only 'us'. We are them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
I didn't think I was sidetracking. You mentioned "scripture" and referenced the bible. Why is religion an unappropriate word in the context of what you wrote?
I have and do. Why do you think that I don't?Actually, believer is a pretty specific word in the context of religion or, if you prefer, belief in a God or deity. There are those that believe and there are those that don't. The believing side varies a whole hell of a lot as does the non-believing side, but you either believe in a God or deity or you don't. Seems simple enough. And I was actually talking about some people that I do know and many people that I don't. Grouping and labeling is what words are for. They descibe things. They group things with similar qualities and distinguish others with dissimilar qualities. My knowing someone would have no effect on whether or not they believe in a God or deity or not.
I wasn't making an anyone vs. anyone case. I was simply stating that your first sentence "proof of...whatever one belives is not a requirement of the scriptures," is not a requirement of anyone by anyone and that is a good thing for those that believe in a God or deity, because it would be impossible to do so. It is also convient because anyone can believe anything and claim that it is truth or right or whatever simply because they have proved it to themselves. This is perfectly fine, because this is just unprofoundly what we do....prove things to ourselves. BTW, what does "prove to yourself" mean anyway.What homo-sapiens? Humans? People? Becuase certainly we are all not metalsmiths,
or mechanics,
or viola players
or existencialists
or believers
or innies (TWIers)
or outies (bellybuttons)
or scientologists
or darwinists
or frogs
Now you are talking about people you don't know and labeling everyone with the very vague and elusive "THEM." I don't want to be one of THOSE people!
(cracks open a dictionary and starts reading to see if there is something else you are talking about)
You were posting about something relatively simple and I responded with a simple post.
But now...
add me to the list of people who have asked
"What the hell are you talking about."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
If you want to talk about religion, pick one.
If you want to talk about believers, then a more specific understanding is needed.
You brought in to the topic both religion and believers. Not Me.
Plus you gave a definition of believers that I don't agree with.
Which I informed you that i didn't agree with a standard definition.
What part do you not know what I'm talking about?
If you have to open a dictionary for a definition then you don't know what the word means in your heart. And I am not rushing any of this, so take your time in talking or don't talk. Either one.
We should agree on the meaning and definition of a believer before speaking of one, don't you think?
And I do not need religion to talk about scripture, God, Jesus Christ or any other words in the scriptures.
I grow tired of being labeled religous, when I speak of these things.
I haven't labeled anyone and you have at least twice here now.
Religous and believers. the later of which I suspect you will
NOT KNOW WHAT THE HELL I'M TALKING ABOUT.
So I didn't bring it up. You did.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Me-Why not look for proof yourself?
You-I have and do. Why do you think that I don't?
This is the topic-Proof....
Glad you are..perhaps others can help.
They have for me.
But the proof was only to me, not them.
They have there own things to see and prove to themselves.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RainbowsGirl
Dear Cman,
When you say as in I Thessalonians 5:21: We are to prove all things.
Well all things that come my way I reckon.
And hold fast to the good.
Does that apply to believing beyond a shadow of a doubt?; e.g. as is requirement in the gospels to recieve all types of healing, when healing was ministered? e.g. Mark 9:23 Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.
So then, if you propose that you, and perhaps me, or anyone can believe as they want to and to prove what things come our ways on an individual basis or disprove it...Then how is one able to believe beyond a shadow of a doubt to be healed and does that mean as soon as any shadow of a doubt comes in the healing is lost?
I can understand that I am proving to myself or becoming totally convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt as Mark 9:23 states in essense but if you can disprove what you proved.... and healing is a work of God then aren't you indicating that it is possible to disprove God by then not believing beyond a shadow of a doubt thus disproving what you proved?
I hope I did not misunderstand You?? If I did please help to understand!
Thank You, RG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Hi RainbowsGirl
What I meant by disproving is that something is disproved by proving something else.
Or disproved because of it's fruit or other of a number of variables.
What I didn't mean to imply was to prove and disprove the same thing.
If something is proven then it holds it's place untill something disproves it. and whatever disproves it would prove something else.
I'm trying to be as generic as possible and not get into a particular subject. Just how we understand, learn and experience wisdom.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RainbowsGirl
Thanks Cman,
I get your point now!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Not talking about religions or a religion, but religion in general as I described.
Well, I guess, what is your issue with the common uses of the words "believer" and "religion." I think I get what your problem with the word "religion", after all we were both apart of a cult that had a disdain for that word. Many nondenominational groups and others for some reason feel the same. Religion according to TWI was man made, was legalistic, and in someway ungodly. We can change definitions all we want, but usually when someone is talking about religion in general it is in the sense that I posted earlier..."belief in and reverence for God or a deity." Is this not what you have? Is this not what you believe? If it is then what's the problem? If it isn't then what are you talking about?I don't really carry definitions around in my heart. My heart is more for things that I love, desire, and things that I feel passionately about. It just so happens, I actually know what certain words mean. The dictionary just so happened to have the definition as I knew it to be. I quoted it to make my point, and you disagree with what the words mean. That is fine. Speak your own language, but it doesn't change what I meant, and since I was the one that brought them up then I should be the one to determine which definition I was using.
No, I think we just need to know what the other person means. We don't have to agree. I told you what I meant and you disagreed with the definition, but as I said that doesn't change what I said and meant. What is your beef with the words "religion" and "believer" and what are your definitions? That would help me understand.Hey, me neither! Although, the use of the word "scripture" does imply you hold a religious belief concerning them. I think the vast majority of english speaking people would agree on that and that if you have a belief in God and Jesus Christ you would have yourself a religion of some sort.
Why? Would you prefer "spiritual"?And I will continue to as long as it helps everyone else understand what and who I am talking about. I don't see it as a bad thing.
Well, I suspect your suspicion would be correct as long as you continue to not tell me what you are talking about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
You're talking about subjective proof as opposed to objective proof, I get that. That was my original point. This topic sort of overlaps the other topic on what is truth, because proof usually has something do with it. Since you can not objectively prove the objective truth, then you are left subjectively proving a subjective truth. The only way in which you can have subjective proof of the objective truth is, as I stated on the other thread, if you win the lottery of the universe (or multiverse or whatever it is).
I understand what you are saying I agree. I think you understand what I am saying but you don't agree with how I am saying it or something.
I think we agree.
you:
me:
OR maybe not...Sure sounds like you are vaguely talking about something specific there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
lindy,
I don't get why you try to pin me down to something I haven't said.
I'm not even going to try to straighten out what you have complicated for yourself.
You are doing a lot of guessing as to my motives and intent and meaning.
When it is very plain and simple.
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.