[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] When should we change our reasoning / beliefs?

[Davian]

...
I'm actually more qualified to judge my own reasoning that you are to judge my reasoning.
...

If you were deluded, how would you know?

 

[Davian]

"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." (1 Cor 13:12)​

How does one falsify the knowledge of what salt tastes like? Can't. It is not arrived at logically, but experientially.
Likewise the existence and nature of God. "God unrevealed remains unknown." It is a mystery, in the biblical sense of the word, which never means something that cannot be understood.

"...stewards of the mysteries of God", "those entrusted with the mysteries God has revealed." (1 Cor 4:1)
"Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven." (Matt 16:17)​

When one has had a personal, unmistakable, personal interview with the Almighty, then one knows. Falsification is irrelevant. And our Father in heaven wants, invites that interview with each of us:

"'Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me." (Rev 3:20)​

Why? For what purpose? The next verse tells us:

"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." (Rev 3:21)​

That is how this Mormon boy (member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) sees it.
Until one chooses to open the door, one faces a simple (I think) question: What do I love?
Does one love the concepts of meaningless existence and/or predatory evolution? All of the great world religions have the same root and trunk: there is a greater purpose, in fact enlightened being(s) who are full of love and power to save, and they want us to be likewise.
Since you don't know which is true, I recommend that each bets his/her life on what s/he loves.

Are you infallible?

 

[ScottA]

I am not going to look through the whole thread. But you have asked for help from an observer's POV, and I think I have an observation that you could find helpful:

This is cliche and probably you are assuming that Davian understands what this cliche means to you, when in fact he doesn't understand it the way you do.

I was at a church the other day, they did that slide "there is a chasm between God and man, which man tries to bridge with Philosophy, religion, good works, but man always fails. But, God has made a bridge: (Picture of the cross reaching from side to side and people walking across it)".

There were energetic people in the audience cheering over that. But do you know that none of the people in that church except the pastor demonstrated a working knowledge of the mechanism of salvation through Jesus Christ? Sure, there were people in that audience who had emotional gratitude etc, and who clearly have some real involvement with Him in their daily lives, but because there is so much rote belief in Christianity and lots of that is misled false doctrines, those who have real, genuine faith often believe things that aren't true! How can we expect a cliche like this to effectively communicate to someone who insists on discerning reliable truth, when the cliche most often does not represent reliable truth?

I would bet that every single regular of that church, if they were asked how it is that Jesus bridges the gap, would say something like "He died to pay for my sin, so my sins are forgiven and I can live in heaven when I die". Well as the pastor continued his sermon, a great sleep came over the place and I found myself subdued by it, and had to snap put of it to pay attention to what was being said. He started describing how sin is the chasm and when we sin we create that chasm, but I know that I probably was the only one (being a visitor in that church) who had recognized the darkness that had come over the place, so most people probably were enveloped by that darkness and not fully realizing the truth that was being said.

Please remember the scripture that says the god of the world has blinded those who cannot see, and remain patient with them (holy), as The Holy Spirit uses your words to break through that darkness. I know Davian will want to jeer at this, as I have encountered him before, and nothing I said to him appeared to break through that deception, seeing as I was not behaving in a holy manner.

Still the observation here is this: if you have an opportunity to share the gospel, then share it! Don't just say that Jesus is the Good News. That is like burying the talents He has entrusted to you.

Yes, you would have had to have been there. He understood, as it was explained that what I was telling him was good news. But his MO is to pick out such details that can derail the discussion avoiding the topic at hand. You are correct about cliches. I agree. But that simply is not what was happening. Thanks.

 

[Davian]

...
Please remember the scripture that says the god of the world has blinded those who cannot see, and remain patient with them (holy), as The Holy Spirit uses your words to break through that darkness. I know Davian will want to jeer at this,

Do you also see how ridiculous that sounds?

as I have encountered him before, and nothing I said to him appeared to break through that deception,

Perhaps the deception is on your part. Are you infallible?

seeing as I was not behaving in a holy manner.

Still the observation here is this: if you have an opportunity to share the gospel, then share it! Don't just say that Jesus is the Good News. That is like burying the talents He has entrusted to you.

"The CF Philosophy forum is not intended for general apologetics of Christianity, i.e., the defense of the Christian faith against arguments, objections or attacks from non-Christians. Nor is this forum intended as a means for Christian evangelism (persuasion) of unbelievers." link

 

[Gracchus]

Can anyone determine why my reasoning below with Davian is wrong? ...

I believe there is only two possible absolute truths about life.

1. The absolute truth is that life is meaningless, therefore, all meaning we give life is pointless and we are free to literally do whatever we want as long as no one else finds out to get us in trouble with man's law. Man's law having no meaning in the end.

Lots of people do get away with all sorts of things. some drop litter on the ground, certain that no one is going to call them on it, or at worst, they will just tell that busybody to fibble off. Still, there may be the risk of unpleasant consequences. And, regardless of some "ultimate" purpose it may be of some limited purpose to avoid the rack or the gallows.

2. The absolute truth about life is that life actually has deep meaning that we are currently unable to see because it goes beyond the physical, therefore, all meaning we give life does have a point and that point will be realized some time in the future. Therefore, we should not literally do whatever we want, but rather respect the laws and moralities in our reality and listen to our conscience that is telling us there is right and wrong and that its better to do what is right, rather than what is wrong.

Perhaps the "meaning" of life is simply beyond us, just as a cell in your gut or your big toe cannot understand that you are sitting at your computer. No single cell in your brain, can, or ever be able to understand what you are trying to think.

If there is no reason for life then searching for truth does not makes sense because in the end the absolute truth would be that there is no reason for life, rendering truth meaningless.

For you, it would seem, there is no satisfaction in art, or the search for truth. Still, you may serve some purpose, like a cell in your big toe.

This is not my "religious opinion", but rather my honest opinion and if you do not accept my honest opinion as "true", then you accept that truth has no meaning as I've explained above.

But that absolute claim that it must be one of two possibilities chosen by you is ... problematical.

Infinite timeless existence, in which you're finite existence on this earth depends upon.

The infinite river is made up of ripples, of which you and I are instances. We reflect more or less distorted images of reality, make a little noise, and then vanish, and the river flows on.

As I've said above, its unreasonable to expect absolute truth to be falsifiable.

Falsifiable does not mean false.

Yes, I understand I'm claiming by beliefs to be true without physical evidence to back my claims, but I'm backing my claims with sound reason that makes sense and if you refuse to believe sound reason that makes sense, you are then the one who is being unreasonable.

Sound reasoning based on false premises can lead to absurd conclusions.

Sound reason that makes sense does not have to be proven.

Whether it makes sense is entirely subjective. Calculus doesn't make sense to some people. Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it is wrong, and just because it does make sense doesn't mean it is right. We must continually check our observations with other observers and our conclusions against reality.

All that is expected is that you believe it until proven otherwise, then when it is proven otherwise you are justified in changing your beliefs.

That may be what you expect. Others may choose to doubt until they are convinced it would be perverse to doubt.

Actually there is sound reason to believe that extraterrestrials do not exist. Have you ever heard of Drake equation or Fermi paradox. According these, we should have come into contact with aliens a long time ago.

Well, there may be extraterrestrials that exist so far away that they could never contact us or they may simply not be interested in talking chimps.

I don't have personal evidence of aliens, so it would be unreasonable for me to believe in aliens and in fact I've been given sound reason to believe they don't exist.

As I have already pointed out, what may be "sound" to you may be just "noise" to someone else.

You've been given sound reason to believe God does exist, yet you continue to deny for reasons unknown, other than you're just being unreasonable.

We get it. Anyone who doesn't accept your arguments is "unreasonable".

Jesus

Krishna, Zeus, Odin, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, ... etc ... ad nauseam.

Good! Keep thinking, it'll come to you eventually

Not necessarily! It is not likely that you will ever get it, for instance.

 

[Crump]

May I just say that 'truth' is an absolute concept. If something is not absolutely true it is not true at all, therefore discussing whether absolute truth exists is no different to discussing whether truth exists. It is certainly a moot point, though.

 

[Chriliman]

If you were deluded, how would you know?

By comparing my thoughts and feelings to the only infinite timeless truth I know, which is my Lord and Savior Jesus. I understand you don't know an infinite timeless truth, therefore, it would be impossible for you to determine whether or not you are deluded, since you have no Truth to stand on.

Accept the Truth, it will set you free, guaranteed!

 

[Davian]

Yes, you would have had to have been there. He understood, as it was explained that what I was telling him was good news.

I recall, how most of the people on the planet will burn for eternity, for reasons beyond their control. Not such great news, it would seem. But then, it was only hypothetical.

But his MO is to pick out such details that can derail the discussion avoiding the topic at hand.

Your topic - the preaching of your religion - is off-topic for this forum.

 

[Davian]

May I just say that 'truth' is an absolute concept. If something is not absolutely true it is not true at all, therefore discussing whether absolute truth exists is no different to discussing whether truth exists. It is certainly a moot point, though.

Words are defined by how they used, and what context. As I see the word "truth" used by religionists in these forums, it would seem to be used to reference their own personal religious opinion.

 

[Davian]

By comparing my thoughts and feelings to the only infinite timeless truth I know, which is my Lord and Savior Jesus.

That would be circular, to compare your beliefs to your beliefs in an attempt to validate your beleifs.

I understand you don't know an infinite timeless truth, therefore, it would be impossible for you to determine whether or not you are deluded,

I am not the one making the truth claims here.

since you have no Truth to stand on.

And, by all appearances, all you have is opinion.

Accept the Truth, it will set you free, guaranteed!

I do not accept your religious opinion as truth.

 

[Chriliman]

Words are defined by how they used, and what context. As I see the word "truth" used by religionists in these forums, it would seem to be used to reference their own personal religious opinion.

So you don't agree that truth can be thought of as infinite and timeless?

If not you must think truth is finite and based on time, therefore, truth comes to an end and all that's left is meaninglessness...

 

[Davian]

So you don't agree that truth can be thought of as infinite and timeless?

I do not think of religious opinion as "infinite and timeless".

If not you must think truth is finite and based on time, therefore, truth comes to an end and all that's left is meaninglessness...

No, I do not think that. The meaninglessness I see is in your posts.

 

[Chriliman]

I do not think of religious opinion as "infinite and timeless".

Proof that you are deluding yourself into thinking that I'm claiming to be infallible when I'm clearly not.

No, I do not think that. The meaninglessness I see is in your posts.

More delusion on your part because my posts are clearly not meaningless.

 

[seeking633]

To reason on things unseen without faith is to lack the truth of these things.

There is no revelation of the divine without the Spirit of Truth (John 15:26, 2 Tim 2:25). And from this, the Spirit of Truth is freely available only to those of faith (Acts 2:38), exercised, a demonstration of things unseen (Hebrews 11:1). But faith itself cannot be without repentance, a change of mind (Romans 12:2). For the mind of man, the human mind, is at enmity with God (Romans 8:7).

And in that way, the mind without faith cannot reason on things unseen.

 

[paulm50]

I was at a church the other day, they did that slide "there is a chasm between God and man, which man tries to bridge with Philosophy, religion, good works, but man always fails. But, God has made a bridge: (Picture of the cross reaching from side to side and people walking across it)".

Why do you think Man is trying to bridge that chasm in the way your section of religion wants them to?

This is my major problem with religions. They all sing a different song and many in a different key, and all claim their song in their key is the only true way. They claim and not have any proof.

There were energetic people in the audience cheering over that. But do you know that none of the people in that church except the pastor demonstrated a working knowledge of the mechanism of salvation through Jesus Christ? Sure, there were people in that audience who had emotional gratitude etc, and who clearly have some real involvement with Him in their daily lives, but because there is so much rote belief in Christianity and lots of that is misled false doctrines, those who have real, genuine faith often believe things that aren't true! How can we expect a cliche like this to effectively communicate to someone who insists on discerning reliable truth, when the cliche most often does not represent reliable truth?

This could be any church any religion even a group of football supporters. All claiming their team is the best. You can't expect people to be convinced on cliches anymore. Modern science, the abandoning of heresy laws, has led to new discoveries and asking questions about why bibles are wrong.

I would bet that every single regular of that church, if they were asked how it is that Jesus bridges the gap, would say something like "He died to pay for my sin, so my sins are forgiven and I can live in heaven when I die". Well as the pastor continued his sermon, a great sleep came over the place and I found myself subdued by it, and had to snap put of it to pay attention to what was being said. He started describing how sin is the chasm and when we sin we create that chasm, but I know that I probably was the only one (being a visitor in that church) who had recognized the darkness that had come over the place, so most people probably were enveloped by that darkness and not fully realizing the truth that was being said.

Here you nailed why many religions are failing. Jesus died, because he was unable to get off the cross and prove he was a god. Sin is often emotions that are necessary to ensure we reproduce, and that we strive to learn more.

Please remember the scripture that says the god of the world has blinded those who cannot see, and remain patient with them (holy), as The Holy Spirit uses your words to break through that darkness. I know Davian will want to jeer at this, as I have encountered him before, and nothing I said to him appeared to break through that deception, seeing as I was not behaving in a holy manner.

What is it that we can't see? We can see Genesis is fiction, the bible contradicts itself, the threats that are made, and the carrot that no one has ever verified.

Still the observation here is this: if you have an opportunity to share the gospel, then share it! Don't just say that Jesus is the Good News. That is like burying the talents He has entrusted to you.

So tell us the good news. We are going to heaven after we die, no longer cuts it.

 

[oi_antz]

Why do you think Man is trying to bridge that chasm in the way your section of religion wants them to?

I am sorry Paul, I actually do not know what you are asking from me here, because I am confused by this expression "your section of religion". I will be happy to give you an answer to this question if you can help me be sure that I have understood properly what is being asked.

Jesus died, because he was unable to get off the cross and prove he was a god.

Matthew 26:53, John 10:18 and Matthew 26:39 shows that actually, Jesus seems to have chosen to go to the cross and to stay there. Though we will agree that because of this decision, He was unable to bring Himself down from there to prove He was a god. The interesting question, is why did He submit Himself to this? What are your thoughts about that?

Sin is often emotions that are necessary to ensure we reproduce, and that we strive to learn more.

Actually, it isn't. Sin is a conviction by the conscience of something we like that is not holy.

What is it that we can't see?

What makes you think I am talking about a "we"? As for you in particular, it appears to me you haven't seen actually what I was saying. Take another look at it in a couple of years.

So tell us the good news. We are going to heaven after we die, no longer cuts it.

What good news? What makes you think that I have good news to tell you?

 

[oi_antz]

Do you also see how ridiculous that sounds?

No I don't.

Perhaps the deception is on your part. Are you infallible?

That is possible. I am not infallible. I do not try to deceive people though, especially on this website, as I discuss matters pertaining to truth.

"The CF Philosophy forum is not intended for general apologetics of Christianity, i.e., the defense of the Christian faith against arguments, objections or attacks from non-Christians. Nor is this forum intended as a means for Christian evangelism (persuasion) of unbelievers." link

Thanks.

 

[oi_antz]

Yes, you would have had to have been there. He understood, as it was explained that what I was telling him was good news. But his MO is to pick out such details that can derail the discussion avoiding the topic at hand. You are correct about cliches. I agree. But that simply is not what was happening. Thanks.

Ok, thank you for showing me this, I did not look far into it. Perhaps my whole observation is faulty then. I suppose, the story I shared might be useful. Oh well. Yes I know how Davian likes to operate so I trust your perception in this case.

 

[paulm50]

Proof that you are deluding yourself into thinking that I'm claiming to be infallible when I'm clearly not.

He's right. No religious teaching is infinite and timeless in the real sense of the words. They are all written and suited for that time. They can be changed to fit today, but do they still adhere to the thoughts of the original writers?

The obvious one is Paul changing the laws that had to be kept, against the words of Jesus. He did this purely to increase his following, and took little regard of what Jesus said.

In many cases religious people refuse to accept newer versions, clinging to their old ways. And why so many insist on quoting from an ancient book that has repeatedly been proven to be wrong.

 

[oi_antz]

The obvious one is Paul changing the laws that had to be kept, against the words of Jesus. He did this purely to increase his following, and took little regard of what Jesus said.

I was pretty sure that St. Paul was not particularly aware of what Jesus said - do you believe he was? Do you know who educated him about Jesus?