Yes, but what if we are not wrong?

[Wryetui]

I have told you the key of accepting the One True God. If you desire or wish, you may keep being lost in atheism or "considering other gods" and that's it. If you consider superior to Christ you will never find Him. You have to be the last to be the first.

 

[Freodin]

I have told you the key of accepting the One True God. If you desire or wish, you may keep being lost in atheism or "considering other gods" and that's it. If you consider superior to Christ you will never find Him. You have to be the last to be the first.

If you consider yourself to be superior to others... you should have some way to back up this claim, or be faced with at best doubt, at worst ridicule.

I might not believe in your particular deity, but I'd say that "the One True God" could do a lot better than you propose.

 

[Wryetui]

You don't know what my faith is and have no particular interest in research, so better stay at your ignorance, I don't consider myself as being superior to others at all LOL So I preach that you have to be humble before God and you tell me I consider myself superior to you.

I'm done here with people like this.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You don't know what my faith is and have no particular interest in research, so better stay at your ignorance, I don't consider myself as being superior to others at all LOL So I preach that you have to be humble before God and you tell me I consider myself superior to you.

I'm done here with people like this.

Claiming that everyone else has counterfeit currency, and that you're the only person with real money, in no way suggests a feeling of superiority?

 

[Mediate]

Needing proofs for your faith is calling yourself a non-believer. That's the point, that's what rationalism did to your culture and your christianity, rationalism and scholastics... You keep seeking proofs of God's existence instead of asking for Divine Revelation, instead of fasting, praying and being humble before God and begging Him to help you.

Translation:

Logic supplanting blind faith made you aware of the illogical nature of a god as described in the bible. Rationalism allowed your culture to move past superstitious Christianity. By seeking proofs, evidences and logical deduction rather than "Divine Revelation" (otherwise known as socially shared psychosis), and rather than starving yourself needlessly into ill-health as so many in the past have, rather than wishing to the sky which is utterly oblivious to your wishes, rather than kneeling before an idea the clergy used to maintain control, you became able to help yourself, feed yourself, enjoy your life and free yourself from delusion.

 

[YESLORDIWILL]

.

 

[Freodin]

You don't know what my faith is and have no particular interest in research, so better stay at your ignorance,...

You told us about your faith, remember? And you show up the "orthodox" icon.

But that's not the problem.

... I don't consider myself as being superior to others at all LOL

If you consider yourself in possesion of the "key to accepting the One True God", while all others are "demonic deceived", regardless of their faith or other disposition... yes, I'd say you consider yourself superiour to others.

You claim to have something that others don't. You claim to be able to state... without a lot of research it seems... that all others are just wrong.

So I preach that you have to be humble before God and you tell me I consider myself superior to you.

"I am right and you are wrong"... that's your position. That's your only argument. All others are wrong, deceived, "lost". You categorically refuse to even consider other positions.
Yes, you might be "humble before God"... which means nothing but "my claims are in fact the claims of God Himself... better accept that."

In this way, I am humble before God as well... and my God is the one true God, yours is not.

I'm done here with people like this.

As I said: "... you should have some way to back up this claim, or be faced with at best doubt, at worst ridicule."
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!

 

[Freodin]

For some reason Acts 13:45-46 comes to mind:

They were filled with envy, and spake against those things that were spoken by Wryetui, contradicting and blaspheming.

Then Wryetui waxed bold and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo I'm done here with people like this.

"How dare other people question the nonsense that I am telling them is the divine truth!"

(The ultimate guide to debate in the Christian Church from the very start)

 

[BL2KTN]

I just can't get over how lucky this kid is to be born in a timeand place where his brand of orthodoxy is mainstream! How fortunate that the one true path is taught in the same time and place of his upbringing!

 

[bhsmte]

I just can't get over how lucky this kid is to be born in a timeand place where his brand of orthodoxy is mainstream! How fortunate that the one true path is taught in the same time and place of his upbringing!

I guess the rest of us, are just unlucky.

 

[TillICollapse]

You don't know what my faith is and have no particular interest in research, so better stay at your ignorance, I don't consider myself as being superior to others at all LOL So I preach that you have to be humble before God and you tell me I consider myself superior to you.

I'm done here with people like this.

What if another believer in Christ, claimed that God told them specifically that Eastern Orthodoxy wasn't the "one true path" ?

 

[bhsmte]

What if another believer in Christ, claimed that God told them specifically that Eastern Orthodoxy wasn't the "one true path" ?

The defense mechanisms would kick in with some and those people would be deemed; wrong of course and likely led by evil.

 

[TillICollapse]

The defense mechanisms would kick in with some and those people would be deemed; wrong of course and likely led by evil.

I'm starting to get a bit bored with the forums :/ ... "The Bible says clearly that _____, and this is true Christianity," etc.

Speaking to defense mechanisms, I made a post awhile back (maybe in this thread, I'd have to go back and look) I actually thought was a bit interesting for consideration, but got no comment. I rarely revisit a previous comment I've made that gets ignored ... but I wanted to revisit it real quick to see if I could pimp a comment lol

The idea is that the ambiguity and confusion within the belief system, as well as concepts of unfalsifiable contradictory stances (i.e. God is something but nothing, or outside reality but real, or that eternal things can't exist except God can, or that everything has to have a cause except God, etc) is itself viewed as "spirituality". If it's confusing and linked to belief in such a context, THAT confusion is itself "spiritual". Thus, it's not confusion, now it's esoteric knowledge (from the perspective of such a believer, IOW).

I mention this in concert with "defense mechanism" because it may help define the defense mechanism for the believer subconsciously: when faced with information which may make their own belief suspect and reveal inconsistency, bias, lack of completeness, or perhaps reveal the shaky foundation ... the dissonance kicks in. But what fills the dissonance gap is more than just denial, or irrational concepts ... it's the confusion itself. That confusion itself is viewed as "spiritual stuff". It's not easily grasped or understood, not because it IS confusing, but because it must be discerned. So when such a believer confronts something confusing, the "Well, it's a mystery" kicks in. A TRUE mystery, because it's "spiritual". You get what I'm saying ? So, the more you may point out the contradictions and confusion ... the more it may just simply reinforce, "Hey, it's all the more spiritual. I don't have to understand it, I just have to believe it, the evidence it's spiritual is that it's a mystery and I am limited in my ability to understand, etc". So it's more than a defense mechanism, it's a false identification of the mechanism itself: what you see as a defense mechanism, for them is evidence they are being "spiritual". Their dissonant gap isn't just being filled with nonsense that remains nonsense ... it's still "confusing". It still causes disease. But that confusion and disease is passed off as something else: evidence they are being "spiritual" and have found some esoteric knowledge. If what I'm saying is getting lost in translation or isn't clear, no worries. Thoughts ?

 

[bhsmte]

I'm starting to get a bit bored with the forums :/ ... "The Bible says clearly that _____, and this is true Christianity," etc.

Speaking to defense mechanisms, I made a post awhile back (maybe in this thread, I'd have to go back and look) I actually thought was a bit interesting for consideration, but got no comment. I rarely revisit a previous comment I've made that gets ignored ... but I wanted to revisit it real quick to see if I could pimp a comment lol

The idea is that the ambiguity and confusion within the belief system, as well as concepts of unfalsifiable contradictory stances (i.e. God is something but nothing, or outside reality but real, or that eternal things can't exist except God can, or that everything has to have a cause except God, etc) is itself viewed as "spirituality". If it's confusing and linked to belief in such a context, THAT confusion is itself "spiritual". Thus, it's not confusion, now it's esoteric knowledge (from the perspective of such a believer, IOW).

I mention this in concert with "defense mechanism" because it may help define the defense mechanism for the believer subconsciously: when faced with information which may make their own belief suspect and reveal inconsistency, bias, lack of completeness, or perhaps reveal the shaky foundation ... the dissonance kicks in. But what fills the dissonance gap is more than just denial, or irrational concepts ... it's the confusion itself. That confusion itself is viewed as "spiritual stuff". It's not easily grasped or understood, not because it IS confusing, but because it must be discerned. So when such a believer confronts something confusing, the "Well, it's a mystery" kicks in. A TRUE mystery, because it's "spiritual". You get what I'm saying ? So, the more you may point out the contradictions and confusion ... the more it may just simply reinforce, "Hey, it's all the more spiritual. I don't have to understand it, I just have to believe it, the evidence it's spiritual is that it's a mystery and I am limited in my ability to understand, etc". So it's more than a defense mechanism, it's a false identification of the mechanism itself: what you as a defense mechanism, for them is evidence they are being "spiritual". If what I'm saying is getting lost in translation or isn't clear, no worries. Thoughts ?

True, more than simple denial fills the dissonance gap.

You will also see; confirmation bias right behind the denial. Lets say a person denies the theory of evolution and the fact that 97% of Phd biologists strong support it. They will deny this strong evidence, because it creates discomfort with their current strongly held beliefs. In concert with the denial, will be a clinging to the 3% that have doubts about the theory of evolution and they will be clung to with a tight grip.

Some people can compartmentalize better than others. Some people eventually have their ability to continuously deny and use confirmation bias as their rational also be eventually eroded away. When they do, they come to realize they were wrong and they get over the hump of recognizing they can't keep playing this game, because it is exhausting. The breaking point is this typically; is it more painful to keep playing the game, or is it more painful to let go of my belief.

Of course, those with such a powerful psychological need to keep playing, keep tying themselves in knots and dig the hole deeper. Not difficult to identify those types of folks when they are around.

 

[TillICollapse]

True, more than simple denial fills the dissonance gap.

You will also see; confirmation bias right behind the denial. Lets say a person denies the theory of evolution and the fact that 97% of Phd biologists strong support it. They will deny this strong evidence, because it creates discomfort with their current strongly held beliefs. In concert with the denial, will be a clinging to the 3% that have doubts about the theory of evolution and they will be clung to with a tight grip.

Some people can compartmentalize better than others. Some people eventually have their ability to continuously deny and use confirmation bias as their rational also be eventually eroded away. When they do, they come to realize they were wrong and they get over the hump of recognizing they can't keep playing this game, because it is exhausting. The breaking point is this typically; is it more painful to keep playing the game, or is it more painful to let go of my belief.

Of course, those with such a powerful psychological need to keep playing, keep tying themselves in knots and dig the hole deeper. Not difficult to identify those types of folks when they are around.

Yes yes ... BUT, what I'm saying is that many believers will likely still experience that same discomfort, but eventually they except it as something other than what it is. It's not confusion, discomfort, exhaustion of needing to rely upon circular logic and confirmation bias ... at some point they have an "ah-ha !" moment, and ACCEPT it as actual evidence that what they have found and filled the gap with is, in actuality, SUPPOSED to give that effect. Thus, the dissonance is relieved because they've even decided to label it something otherwise: it's "spiritual".

A parallel example would be the person (believer in this instance) who lives in grueling self depreciation or shame based living, always feeling guilty for their thoughts, or feelings, or desires, etc. "I am a sinner, this is a horrible feeling." To get over this feeling and compensate and alleviate it, they try to discipline their mind, feelings, thoughts ... in the name of righteousness, or not sinning, or appeasing, or trying to please, etc. That discomfort and anguish and pain is recognized as such at first ... until eventually it gets accepted. "It's SUPPOSED to feel this way. Not because I'm evil, but because I'm actually repentant ! This is evidence the repent-sin-repent-sin cycle is actually WORKING !" and thus that oppression actually becomes identified as ... repentance. Evidence their guilt matters. So they continue the cycle. It reinforces itself because they've accepted it as something other than what it is.

Or again, similar to the person who accepts abuse as "love", or manipulation as truth. At some point, they accept it as something other than what it is.

With the above mentioned defense reactions, that confusion and discomfort and lack of cohesion in logic, gets accepted and EXPECTED to produce those results. Thus, the experience is accepted and neutralized. It's now no longer causes the same discomfort, because now it's identified as "spiritual". The confusion and discomfort itself.

When abuse is accepted as love, lies are accepted as truth, oppression is accepted as freedom ... the person becomes more than numb to it. They are now viewing their reality through another lens and mechanism all together. No need to "deny". It's okay to reinforce it, because it's viewed as "working correctly" when that happens.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes yes ... BUT, what I'm saying is that many believers will likely still experience that same discomfort, but eventually they except it as something other than what it is. It's not confusion, discomfort, exhaustion of needing to rely upon circular logic and confirmation bias ... at some point they have an "ah-ha !" moment, and ACCEPT it as actual evidence that what they have found and filled the gap with is, in actuality, SUPPOSED to give that effect. Thus, the dissonance is relieved because they've even decided to label it something otherwise: it's "spiritual".

What you mention, is all part of them being able to rationalize their position and basically play mind games with themselves, because their specific defense mechanisms have driven them in that direction. The internal battle that I mentioned in the people that just say; it is spiritual, is still going on, but they outwardly chalk it all up to a spiritual thing, to provide comfort.

Lets say a person gets fired from a job and they were fired because of behaviors that were not acceptable. Some people, will have such defense mechanisms, that they will claim; my boss had it out for me all along and this all happened because he can't recognize good talent and has no clue what he is doing and he hates me and that is why I was fired. The real story could be completely different, but some, can actually convince themselves, that their take on reality is true, no matter how much evidence they are presented with.

We have defense mechanisms for a reason and we all use them to some degree. They can be a healthy way to help us cope, if they are used in a manner that is inside the bell curve of normal.

Some may appear to be calm in their approach and rationalize their way, but there is a lot of turmoil going on inside, which they tend to get good at hiding, because they have become skilled at selective rationalization.

One clue you can pick up with these folks, is how often they contradict themselves in their statements. When one has the defense mechanisms in overdrive, they will eventually contradict themselves quite often.

 

[TillICollapse]

What you mention, is all part of them being able to rationalize their position and basically play mind games with themselves, because their specific defense mechanisms have driven them in that direction. The internal battle that I mentioned in the people that just say; it is spiritual, is still going on, but they outwardly chalk it all up to a spiritual thing, to provide comfort.

Lets say a person gets fired from a job and they were fired because of behaviors that were not acceptable. Some people, will have such defense mechanisms, that they will claim; my boss had it out for me all along and this all happened because he can't recognize good talent and has no clue what he is doing and he hates me and that is why I was fired. The real story could be completely different, but some, can actually convince themselves, that their take on reality is true, no matter how much evidence they are presented with.

We have defense mechanisms for a reason and we all use them to some degree. They can be a healthy way to help us cope, if they are used in a manner that is inside the bell curve of normal.

Some may appear to be calm in their approach and rationalize their way, but there is a lot of turmoil going on inside, which they tend to get good at hiding, because they have become skilled at selective rationalization.

One clue you can pick up with these folks, is how often they contradict themselves in their statements. When one has the defense mechanisms in overdrive, they will eventually contradict themselves quite often.

I'm with you on all of this, but I'm taking it a step further in certain contexts:

What I'm saying/thinking/wondering, is that the "inner turmoil" is no longer really going on any longer with some believers. They have identified that inner turmoil as "necessary", or a sign their belief is actually "working" ... and it eventually gets to the point where the turmoil is gone, and that type of thinking becomes the norm. Not that it because the norm, yet they still face turmoil, rather it becomes the norm and there no longer is any turmoil. It may be there for a moment, and then poof it becomes "peace" or some such. It now *makes sense*.

What I think often happens (which is a generalization but not an absolute one, in that I don't think it happens to all people) ... is that the believer thinks, "This unbeliever feels the way I do, they are just in denial. They think the way I do, they are just trying to repress it. They are just angry, full of bitterness towards something. They know deep down inside what I say is true, and they are in full defense mode for whatever reason, denying denying denying. But they know, they know I'm right and they can feel it inside and out."

Then you have the unbeliever, who may look at the believer and think, "This person realizes, internally, their reasoning is based on speculative flim flam that is easily washed away with a puff. They know their own morality is superior to that of the very thing they claim to believe in, and this conflict is going on within them and they are in such denial to maintain this front it's scary. They know the answers they have to these questions is nonsense, but they can't face it ... but that conflict is there. It's easy to see."

So you have both sides (in certain instances where this may apply obviously), looking at each other, assuming the other is using different processes to understand, but experiencing the same things nonetheless. That is to say, though the believer is using "belief" and the unbeliever is using "critical thinking/skepticism" (if they are using those methods), they both feel they are in denial of the truth, because they both believe the other to be feeling the same things anyway when something contradictory comes up, or something that pulls the rug out from a held concept, etc.

What I'm saying, is there comes a point where a person actually LEARNS to process differently, and what we assume is going on inside the other person ... isn't always happening. Sure, I agree, there are tell-tale signs that a person is experiencing that internal conflict still. To me, one of the most common is when they begin to project outwardly in their defense mechanisms, or when they over compensate with self-righteous proclamations, etc. Things of that nature. BUT ... I think there comes a point where they actually *change*. The response to stimuli isn't the same for the other. For example ... on certain stimuli, in order to even PRETEND to respond to it the way a believer might, you would probably have to fake it to a degree you may not even be able to fake it. It would be beyond intellectually dishonest ... it would be as though you had to be a surreal caricature you would even feel angry about, as though you were lying to your ownself. The same could be said to be true of the other person. It would be like forcing themselves to be someone they are not.

So this is more of what I was trying to speak to ... that point where a person actually responds differently, and it doesn't take effort, they have now been conditioned. Do you think that a person can reach that stage, where they actually have become conditioned to filter things in such a way, that their own experience is absolutely no longer the same as your own ? I mean, to me it makes sense, because it seemingly applies in other areas of life all the time with human beings: not all humans will respond the same way to the same stimulus. But sometimes even radically so ... for some pain causes sexual pleasure, for others it is revolting or terrifying only. For some abuse = love, for others abuse=abuse. I think at times, the believer filters things similarly.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm with you on all of this, but I'm taking it a step further in certain contexts:

What I'm saying/thinking/wondering, is that the "inner turmoil" is no longer really going on any longer with some believers. They have identified that inner turmoil as "necessary", or a sign their belief is actually "working" ... and it eventually gets to the point where the turmoil is gone, and that type of thinking becomes the norm. Not that it because the norm, yet they still face turmoil, rather it becomes the norm and there no longer is any turmoil. It may be there for a moment, and then poof it becomes "peace" or some such. It now *makes sense*.

What I think often happens (which is a generalization but not an absolute one, in that I don't think it happens to all people) ... is that the believer thinks, "This unbeliever feels the way I do, they are just in denial. They think the way I do, they are just trying to repress it. They are just angry, full of bitterness towards something. They know deep down inside what I say is true, and they are in full defense mode for whatever reason, denying denying denying. But they know, they know I'm right and they can feel it inside and out."

Then you have the unbeliever, who may look at the believer and think, "This person realizes, internally, their reasoning is based on speculative flim flam that is easily washed away with a puff. They know their own morality is superior to that of the very thing they claim to believe in, and this conflict is going on within them and they are in such denial to maintain this front it's scary. They know the answers they have to these questions is nonsense, but they can't face it ... but that conflict is there. It's easy to see."

So you have both sides (in certain instances where this may apply obviously), looking at each other, assuming the other is using different processes to understand, but experiencing the same things nonetheless. That is to say, though the believer is using "belief" and the unbeliever is using "critical thinking/skepticism" (if they are using those methods), they both feel they are in denial of the truth, because they both believe the other to be feeling the same things anyway when something contradictory comes up, or something that pulls the rug out from a held concept, etc.

What I'm saying, is there comes a point where a person actually LEARNS to process differently, and what we assume is going on inside the other person ... isn't always happening. Sure, I agree, there are tell-tale signs that a person is experiencing that internal conflict still. To me, one of the most common is when they begin to project outwardly in their defense mechanisms, or when they over compensate with self-righteous proclamations, etc. Things of that nature. BUT ... I think there comes a point where they actually *change*. The response to stimuli isn't the same for the other. For example ... on certain stimuli, in order to even PRETEND to respond to it the way a believer might, you would probably have to fake it to a degree you may not even be able to fake it. It would be beyond intellectually dishonest ... it would be as though you had to be a surreal caricature you would even feel angry about, as though you were lying to your ownself. The same could be said to be true of the other person. It would be like forcing themselves to be someone they are not.

So this is more of what I was trying to speak to ... that point where a person actually responds differently, and it doesn't take effort, they have now been conditioned. Do you think that a person can reach that stage, where they actually have become conditioned to filter things in such a way, that their own experience is absolutely no longer the same as your own ? I mean, to me it makes sense, because it seemingly applies in other areas of life all the time with human beings: not all humans will respond the same way to the same stimulus. But sometimes even radically so ... for some pain causes sexual pleasure, for others it is revolting or terrifying only. For some abuse = love, for others abuse=abuse. I think at times, the believer filters things similarly.

With some, if they can get to a point to shut off all outside reality (anything that goes against their belief), they may have actually gotten to a point where they do not experience the inner turmoil, or maybe not as often.

But, you have to remember, when they display strong indications of denial, confirmation bias and selective reasoning, it is typically driven by this inner turmoil.

 

[TillICollapse]

But, you have to remember, when they display strong indications of denial, confirmation bias and selective reasoning, it is typically driven by this inner turmoil.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm not convinced one way or another.

I think if that inner turmoil gets responded to immediately as, "It's working !" and then immediately goes to some sort of peace or understanding, they have effectively become conditioned to where their body kicks into a "different mode" then another person would kick into.

I mean, consider those who work in trauma. In my experience, certain people respond to critical situations better than others. For whatever reason. Take a person who is already showing ability to respond with a calm and rational demeanor during a crises, and give them proper training ... and you can help hone their ability to be helpful and efficient during such scenarios. It doesn't always involve detachment, or a concentrated effort to do so. For some, it comes "naturally".

However take the person for whom it doesn't come naturally, and train them ... in order to keep their cool and calm, it will take much more of a concentrated effort. It will involve detachment, distancing themselves from the situation, etc. I believe I remember that you've worked in the medical community ... I'm assuming you know what I'm talking about. There are some providers, regardless of the level, whom you can tell distance themselves, become detached, and HAVE to trivialize the situations they encounter in order to deal day to day. Others, come off like happy sociopaths lol. Others, are still able to effectively maintain compassion and empathy, without being detached, and still respond with brilliance when the moment comes. There are all kinds.

What I'm not convinced of yet, is that the inner turmoil hasn't become effectively "conditioned" into some other response from the person, to where they are not responding, feeling, and thinking things others simply are not. The idea of hell actually BRINGS THEM JOY, for example. No inner turmoil. Or that guilt and fear they feel, has become peaceful and reassuring. It transforms immediately. Fear comes ... but their response to the fear effectively goes into other directions. At this point, the inner turmoil is no longer driving it. It's morphed into something else entirely. You don't think so though ? You think it's always the inner turmoil essentially ? This is the point I'm not convinced of yet. Sometimes ? Absolutely. All the time ? I don't think so. I think it can morph effectively into something else.

 

[contratodo]

Hello there guys. I am sure this have been discussed before in this forum, but I would like to know your point of view in my post here. What if, after all, the judeo-christian turns out to be the only one (as I believe He is), you die, but you realize you are perfectly conscious, you have your memories intact, but you are standing before Christ, before God, and it turns out that your entire life you have been denying Him. What now?

I don't want to debate the possibility of: yeah, but what if it's not true and you have been believing in a lie your whole life? I don't mind about that.

So, what if it turns out to be all true and you will most likely burn, not being able to assume God's love? (In this case, note that I do not have the knowledge to know who is going or not going to be in the state of hell).

I'm going to hopefully be able to say exactly these words:
"I am an unprofitable servant, I have done that which was my duty to do"
Luke 17:10

The full assurance that I will not burn is if I follow the commands of Christ-
Matthew 7:21-23, 1st John 2:3

The commands of Christ are here - Matthew 5 through 7 and Luke 6;
also Galatians 5:19-21, 1st Corinthians 6:8-10 and Revelation 21:7-8
If we are doing those simple things, we can be sure of heaven.
And Christ told us specifically what to say when we stand before God -
Luke 17:10