Fallen

[miknik5]

miknik5---notice that I was responding to an atheist in my previous post. My response was meant to be a bit "tongue-in-cheek." Just so you know.

Yes, I agree with you that Christ's True Body is the place to be.

Let your yes be yes and your no be no

Anything else kind of.....well....causes confusion.

And thst does not come from God

Furthermore sir. We are to be innocentt as doves and wise as serpents. However striking first no longer makes one innocent.

 

[miknik5]

You're missing the point of the OP, miknik5. That is what we are here to discuss on this thread.

Who "lifted us up" and brought us back to where we should be?

And was it because we somehow earned or deserved this position in CHRIST, gathered up and out from the world and seated in the heavenly realms with CHRIST?

How do "we" get those outside THE DOOR in through THE DOOR offering anything but CHRIST and the truth of THE GOSPEL to all?

Can we wash and make clean the souls of men?
Can we provide The Garment and covering?

No. But we can point to the One who does.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeah, atheism is actually all about sex (and BBQing kittens, for some).

Now, now quatona! I didn't say that atheism is all about sex. I used both the qualifier "might" along with the conjunction "and" in my statement. I believe that surely .... there are many atheists who are morally aboveboard, seeking only to be completely sexually chaste, monogomous, devoted husbands and wives 'till death due them part.' Right?

(It's a good thing I'm still alive so you can ask me what I meant when I make a statement. Those dreadful problems of interpretation often get in the way of things, I know. )

2PhiloVoid

 

[SteveB28]

Who "lifted us up" and brought us back to where we should be?

And was it because we somehow earned or deserved this position in CHRIST, gathered up and out from the world and seated in the heavenly realms with CHRIST?

How do "we" get those outside THE DOOR in through THE DOOR offering anything but CHRIST and the truth of THE GOSPEL to all?

Can we wash and make clean the souls of men?
Can we provide The Garment and covering?

No. But we can point to the One who does.

Good grief.............

 

[DogmaHunter]

Sure. But the central element of evaluation here is in considering which of those specific ‘dogmas’ actually tear into a person’s having “joy” in this life.

That was my point.

ANY dogma, is one too many, as far as I am concerned.
A dogma, any dogma, is by definition an unquestionable claim or collection of claims that one MUST believe. That's what a dogma is.

Such a thing is a limitation on critical/skeptical thinking. Always. By definition.

Does believing Jesus rose from the dead inhibit my lifestyle or my joy? I don’t think so. Does Jesus/God’s command to live a holy life inhibit my lifestyle? Yes, I think so. Does this also inhibit my joy? That depends on what kinds of things are presently bringing a person joy. Some things that bring some people joy are socially problematic, at best.

For me, any limitations put on my freedom for critical thinking, is one too many.
As far as I am concerned, there are no taboo's.

Which one’s do you think are indispensable? I’d like to know your perception about this.

I don't think that that is important. I also don't want to turn it into a discussion about what the central tenents and dogma's are in the christian religion.

My only point was simply that it is a religion. This means that before one can paste the label of "christian" or "muslim" or "hindu" on one's forehead, one must meet certain criteria. Those criteria in religions, obviously, will be the belief in at least some central dogma's/doctrines. In the end, that's what defines one as a theist or follower of a certain religion, doesn't it?

You need to believe certain things to be a theist. By definition. It's what the word means.

Yes, obviously. And much of that dogmatism is a choice made by Christians. Some of it unnecessarily, I might add.

Yea well....
As you probably already notice, every dogma is unnecessary (not to mention counterproductive) as far as I'm concerned.

 

[miknik5]

Good grief.............

Sorry that you didnt understand that God is the One who brought us into fellowship with His Son

GOD.

No other

And because of That TRUTH, no man needs to "help" GOD present THE GOSPEL

The man only needs to present THE GOSPEL

GOD will do the work of transferring out of and into HIS SON whom HE chooses

 

[SteveB28]

Sorry that you didnt understand that God is the One who brought us into fellowship with His Son

GOD.

No other

And because of That TRUTH, no man needs to "help" GOD present THE GOSPEL

The man only needs to present THE GOSPEL

GOD will do the work of transferring out of and into HIS SON whom HE chooses

Meaningless, unsupported claims...........

 

[miknik5]

Meaningless, unsupported claims...........

Do you believe the Word of God

Because these "claims" are very much supported

 

[miknik5]

Colossians 1 is one claim that supports this.
There are others. I believe being seated in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus is found in Eohesians

 

[miknik5]

A man can't baptize another man into Christ

It is God who does

 

[2PhiloVoid]

For me, any limitations put on my freedom for critical thinking, is one too many.
As far as I am concerned, there are no taboo's.

... and which denotation of "taboo" are you referring to specifically? (I'm asking because I could either agree with you or disagree with you, depending on your specific meaning of "taboo.")

I don't think that that is important. I also don't want to turn it into a discussion about what the central tenents and dogma's are in the christian religion.

And that's fine with me since this thread is in the Philosophy forum and anything that devolves into apologetics here will get canned anyway.

My only point was simply that it is a religion. This means that before one can paste the label of "christian" or "muslim" or "hindu" on one's forehead, one must meet certain criteria. Those criteria in religions, obviously, will be the belief in at least some central dogma's/doctrines. In the end, that's what defines one as a theist or follower of a certain religion, doesn't it?

You need to believe certain things to be a theist. By definition. It's what the word means.

Sure. By definition. But I fail to see how holding certain things to be 'true' prevents one from further investigation about those same ideas. (I guess you've never read Hegel? )

Yea well....
As you probably already notice, every dogma is unnecessary (not to mention counterproductive) as far as I'm concerned.

...and you're entitled to your opinion. I too am not much on "dogmas," but there's little in my religious belief that squelches my "joy" in life, critical thinking being one of those "joys."

2PhiloVoid

 

[SteveB28]

Do you believe the Word of God

Because these "claims" are very much supported

There are no words from gods. There are words from men who claim that they were given to them by gods.

 

[DogmaHunter]

... and which denotation of "taboo" are you referring to specifically? (I'm asking because I could either agree with you or disagree with you, depending on your specific meaning of "taboo.")

I use that word in the broadest possible sense. By it, I mean that as far as I am concerned, literally everything should be free-game for questioning and being subject to scrutiny. In dogmatism, any species thereof, this is not the case. The dogma is not up for scrutiny. The dogma is not to be question. It is only to be accepted.

In that sense, the "taboo" would be to question the central points of the dogmatic doctrine. Consider this statement as not singling out christianity in particular, but literally any form of dogma/doctrine.

But I fail to see how holding certain things to be 'true' prevents one from further investigation about those same ideas

It is implied by the concept of the word "dogma", that it isn't up for questioning.
That's what dogma is... To be accepted without questioning...

...and you're entitled to your opinion.

Well yeah, I'm not expressing anything else here.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I use that word in the broadest possible sense. By it, I mean that as far as I am concerned, literally everything should be free-game for questioning and being subject to scrutiny. In dogmatism, any species thereof, this is not the case. The dogma is not up for scrutiny. The dogma is not to be question. It is only to be accepted.

Yes, I understand that point quite well. But trying to decry the presence of dogma as it may manifest itself in the minds of various religious people doesn't thereby liberate the "undogmatic" critic from all of the philosophical or social complexities that are still present in the world. To think that "joy" can be had, or even truly understood, as long as religion has been removed from consideration, is a mistake.

In that sense, the "taboo" would be to question the central points of the dogmatic doctrine. Consider this statement as not singling out christianity in particular, but literally any form of dogma/doctrine.

Alright. I agree, then, to some extent. But, you still have to consider that there are people like me who are religious, hold to religious truths, and still find critical thinking to be a grand and cognitively expansive part of life. Being stagnant in one's thinking is a choice, not a necessary imposition.

It is implied by the concept of the word "dogma", that it isn't up for questioning.
That's what dogma is... To be accepted without questioning...

Right. And imposing ideas in a dogmatic fashion is an unnecessary choice (especially in the case of the sacred books of most world religions, most of which in no way propound any kind of comprehensive scheme about the world--even though it seems that their followers often think those books do.)

Well yeah, I'm not expressing anything else here.

So ... there's the possibility you might be wrong?

2PhiloVoid

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes, there is something to be said for "unorganized" religion.

Better than 'disorganized' religion, I expect

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes, I understand that point quite well. But trying to decry the presence of dogma as it may manifest itself in the minds of various religious people doesn't thereby liberate the "undogmatic" critic from all of the philosophical or social complexities that are still present in the world. To think that "joy" can be had, or even truly understood, as long as religion has been removed from consideration, is a mistake.

Euh.... I'ld appreciate it if I could be the judge of what *I* consider "joy", thanks.

Alright. I agree, then, to some extent. But, you still have to consider that there are people like me who are religious, hold to religious truths, and still find critical thinking to be a grand and cognitively expansive part of life. Being stagnant in one's thinking is a choice, not a necessary imposition.

Just like me, you are entitled to your opinion, off course.

So ... there's the possibility you might be wrong?

How can I be wrong about what I experience as joyfull??

As far as *I* am concerned, I find it immensly important that I can question literally everything.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Euh.... I'ld appreciate it if I could be the judge of what *I* consider "joy", thanks.

I was speaking in a general way and mainly in reference to the OP (i.e. oioimoi).

Just like me, you are entitled to your opinion, off course.

Yes, of course. I'm all open to being "wrong"; I wouldn't be a proponent of 'education' if this weren't the case.

How can I be wrong about what I experience as joyfull??

Apparently, I need to clarify. When I asked you about the possibility of your being wrong (at whatever various moments in your life something like that may occur), I was simply wanting to know if you are conscious about your own effort(s) in remaining non-dogmatic about your own worldview.

As far as *I* am concerned, I find it immensly important that I can question literally everything.[/QUOTE]That's great! That's how it should be! And I think that is a better choice than that of being dogmatic.

The only problem is in knowing the extent to which a person's being free--to not only ask questions, but to freely pursue whatever interests she has--will indeed bring "joy" to that person? Personally, I'm not so sure that any of us is really clear as to what "joy" is, or as to a reasonably clear identification as to what it should be or could be. To look into that realm of thought would be to swim into a deep philosophical inquiry.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Apparently, I need to clarify. When I asked you about the possibility of your being wrong (at whatever various moments in your life something like that may occur), I was simply wanting to know if you are conscious about your own effort(s) in remaining non-dogmatic about your own worldview.

Anybody can be wrong about anything.
And I, for one, would like to have it pointed out to me if it is the case.

And yes, I consiously and explicitly try to avoid being dogmatic about anything.

The only problem is in knowing the extent to which a person's being free--to not only ask questions, but to freely pursue whatever interests she has--will indeed bring "joy" to that person?

What brings joy to person A isn't necessarily the same to person B.
I'ld say that it is rather subjective.

Personally, I'm not so sure that any of us is really clear as to what "joy" is, or as to a reasonably clear identification as to what it should be or could be. To look into that realm of thought would be to swim into a deep philosophical inquiry.

I think that is like trying to fight a loosing battle.

Sounds like trying to objectively defining what "joy" is and how one has to achieve it.
The way I see it, if I'ld ask 10 different people what brings them "joy" in their life, I'ld most likely get 10 different answers. And none of them would be "wrong".

 

[miknik5]

There's a difference between little treasures/"joys" that will eventually pass and True Treasure/ "Joy" that doesn't

Reference Matthew 6:19-21

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Anybody can be wrong about anything.
And I, for one, would like to have it pointed out to me if it is the case.

And yes, I consiously and explicitly try to avoid being dogmatic about anything.

Well, it sounds like we're on the same page about all that.

What brings joy to person A isn't necessarily the same to person B.
I'ld say that it is rather subjective.

Yes, and I've asserted the same earlier on in this thread (just not to you directly perhaps.)So ... ditto.

I think that is like trying to fight a loosing battle.

Sounds like trying to objectively defining what "joy" is and how one has to achieve it.
The way I see it, if I'ld ask 10 different people what brings them "joy" in their life, I'ld most likely get 10 different answers. And none of them would be "wrong".

I guess that what I am concerned about is ...it seems to me, anyway...that many times when people "wake up" and find themselves unjoyful, and they perceive that religion has somehow hampered their access to whatever missing "joy" they think they're entitle too, that somewhere in the mix of all the downing of religion is a dash of dishonesty.

People will trade in religion for various things that supposedly bring them "joy," and typically those things they're craving are, let us say, relational in nature, sexual in nature. The problem is that chasing mental and/or physical interaction with another human being isn't necessarily what it is often touted to be. That "ideal" partner can still leave us cold, or broken-hearted, maybe even financially broke, sometimes with an STD, or with a drug habit, or some other addiction, and so on.

So, in my estimation, all this rhetoric about 'religion' getting in the way is a kind of make-believe smoke-screen. It would be better to just be honest and say, "Y'know, I'm really craving some not necessarily licit interaction with other people (SEX!!!), and my religious beliefs make be feel guilty for wanting some of those things (...even though I don't really know if those things will fully bring me the "joy" I'm hoping for...)

2PhiloVoid