Audie
Veteran Member
Summed up with " Man says, God says".
or, "I believe Jesus".
Which of course is actually about personal
infallibility.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Could you be wrong?
- Thread starter JJ50
- Start date
Summed up with " Man says, God says".
or, "I believe Jesus".
Which of course is actually about personal
infallibility.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Just because belief is not a choice, doesn't mean that people can't honestly hold to a false belief.
People can end up holding false beliefs because of a wide variety of reasons: incomplete data, false data, misunderstanding of data, faulty reasoning,...
I don't think anyone will knowingly hold on to beliefs they know are false.
Some might pretend though, if they feel they get an advantage out of it.
A con man, a charlatan, a sect leader drunk on power,...
But for the most part, I think people are sincere. Sincerely mistaken, but sincere nonetheless.
This again has the same problem as the previous paragraphes.
People believe false things all the time for a variety of reasons.
That doesn't mean that what you'll believe is an arbitrary choice like choosing to fried eat chicken for dinner instead of a cheese sandwich.
Belief is basically the result of the logical structure of an argument...
You'll have some premises and you'll bring it to a conclusion that sounds reasonable to you.
And if you think the premises are accurate, then you'll assume the conclusion. And you will not have a choice in that. You'll be compelled to come to the conclusion, since it's the data you think to have at your disposal that leads you to that conclusion. It's a COMPULSION, not a choice.
However, this data, those premises,.... they could be wrong. They could be incomplete. They could be misunderstood. And if any of the above, they'll lead to a false conclusion.
And you'ld be honestly mistaken.
Because it's based on a misunderstanding of what we are saying.
Here, ironically, we have a very fine example of what we are saying...
You believe "the math doesn't add up". You didn't choose to believe that, right?
Nope. You logically deduced it, from your premises stated above (why are there many religions and blabla). So you feel compelled to reach the conclusion you reached.
The problem: your premisses ... are wrong. They are strawmen of what is actually being said.
Once you understand this and accept correct premises, you'll in turn feel compelled to reach another conclusion, which will then be logically deduced from the upgraded, corrected, premises.
I'm saying you physically can't.
Go ahead: "choose" right here, right now, to HONESTLY and SINCERELY believe in the norse gods and whalhalla. And believe it as honestly as you believe that you'll get hurt when jumping from the 3rd floor unto the concrete ground. You can not. Because belief is not a choice. It is a compulsion, based on a whole bunch of factors that are not really under your control. The only thing under your control, at best, is how open minded you are (which deals with how open you are to honestly evaluate new evidence which might disprove your beliefs).
No.
If you say that you really do only "choose" to believe in your religion.
Then I can only conclude that you don't really believe in your religion.
Just like you could say that you "choose" to believe in the norse gods, in fact you won't really believe in the norse gods.
I'm here because I want to see if my beliefs can stand up to scrutiny. I don't really engage with Christians much here or try to unconvince them of Christianity. I just like reading the threads, that's all. I rarely ever debate anyone.
There are many religions because humans are religious by nature among other explanations which I don't feel like going into right now. Believing that a God or Gods exist isn't the same thing as practicing religious rituals. You seem to be conflating religious beliefs with actions consistent with belief... those are two different things. One can practice or participate in religious rituals without actually believing that God exists.
Oh my goodness dude. Relax! Stop projecting stuff onto what I'm saying. I'm not saying the you don't have free will and I'm not trying to limit your freedom. I'm just saying that I find it difficult to believe that someone could just will them self to believe that someone they've never seen or heard from their entire life exists... it's like saying I can believe that Santa exist if I want to but I can't. If you think you can do so then that's your prerogative but I know for myself that I can't do it.
I never put words in your mouth and I don't want to 'intrude into your head'. I don't care what you believe and I'm not trying to unconvince you of Christianity. Jeez, man, relax, nobody's trying to take your faith away.
Again I don't want you to become an atheist, if Christianity makes you a better person and makes you happy, then remain a Christian, I don't care. Me and other nonbelievers aren't out to get you. Also, 'conforming to Christ' would be an act of worship not an act of belief... one would have to already believe that Christs exist (which would be an act of belief) if one wants to conform to Him. Belief and worship are two different things.
You can believe that someone exists but not worship them.
Look at who's telling me what I can and can't believe now. You get mad at me for telling you that you can't choose to believe that God exists but now you tell me that I can choose not to believe that God exists. Wow. Kinda hypocritical isn't it?
If you think you can choose to believe in time travel or unicorns that's your business. I know I personally can't. And since you seem to get worked up over nothing, I think I'll end this conversation with you.
Last edited:
Audie
Veteran Member
Of course we all can be, and are often enough, honestly
mistaken.
However, we also have a very large contingent of people
who are dishonestly mistaken.
In this forum, a good example is the creationists.
It is impossible to be an informed and honest creationist.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
Pairs of statements like the above always leave me feeling like I am, most definitely, on the correct side of "belief." What I consider the more credulous minds among us, capable of believing all sorts of outlandish things, are the ones I see making these sorts of statements displaying cognitive dissonance. Out of one side of your mouth you state that "nobody can know exactly what would happen", but then follow it up by describing particular ideas about what would happen. And yes, I know you added a qualifier of "exactly" before the "what would happen" part, but this is just covering your butt so that you have an "out" when I call you out like I am doing now. You can say "Well, I don't know exactly" ... just enough to know that all "created" things would be destroyed - a completely loaded statement assuming that things were "created" in the first place, and assuming that God's presence would destroy it all - which comes along with all sorts of detail you didn't even have to state - all humans and animals killed, all types of matter destroyed because nothing at all is strong enough to withstand God, etc. In other words, your statements encompassed quite a lot of detail, and yet "nobody can know exactly." It's ridiculous.
I also noticed your little segue that I left out of the pair of ideas/quotes for brevity above. It goes something like this:
I believe that this information was inserted between the first sentence and the last as a sort of "buffer," to make it more likely that I would forget that you had just admitted that "nobody can know exactly what would happen." It may have even been done subconsciously. I see this kind of thing all the time when people are making an admission, but still really want to go against what they just admitted was accurate/correct. I've honestly probably done this myself in the past. But it is something I try not to do, because admitting something and then backtracking like you did is very much like the old "Now I'm not racist, but..." type of statement that sort of gears the listener up for the fact that you really are racist, you just don't like the appearance.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I think you are using the word "honest" in another way that I am here.
I use it in terms of being sincere.
I think creationists are very sincere.
They are intellectually dishonest in their argumentation, sure.
But they don't seem to be realising it. Their problem is that they employ / have learned faulty reasoning. Reasoning, that is in fact intellectually dishonest. But they have been told that this is not the case.
Consider a brainwashed person, which bears a lot of similarities here...
A brainwashed person, is honestly mistaken.
You can't really blame a brainwashed person for being brainwashed. They are victims, after all.
If they'ld realise there faulty reasoning, if they'ld realise they are brainwashed, then they would no longer be brainwashed...
So, while definatly frustrating to talk to - to the point they might also draw the blood from under my fingernails -, I always try to remind myself that they don't actually know any better. They don't want to know any better either, which is part of the larger problem. And which also can't be fully blamed on them personally, since it's part of their indoctrination to close of their minds to outside information that contradicts their dogmatic beliefs.
It's quite a clusterf**k situation to be in.
While they can drive me absolutely mental in discussions, I feel quite sorry for them, actually.
Perhaps I'm just incredibly optimistic or something...
But I like to think that the vast majority of such people are quite sincere and just honestly try to do what they think they should be doing in context of their worldview - no matter how mega warped that worldview might be.
When the reference is referring to a name of God it is used as a proper noun. When it’s speaking about actual persons a proper noun is rightfully used as in this instance ...
“These Suns of Truth are the universal Manifestations of God in the worlds of His”
Bahá’u’lláh
By Suns of Truth it is referring to Beings like Buddha, Jesus, Moses, Muhammad and so on so a proper noun must be used even for the word sun as it is referring to a person not the sun in the sky.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I do not really know what would happen. I simply interpreted a certain passage as I did, but I could be wrong.... Here it is again:
“Were the Eternal Essence to manifest all that is latent within Him, were He to shine in the plentitude of His glory, none would be found to question His power or repudiate His truth. Nay, all created things would be so dazzled and thunderstruck by the evidences of His light as to be reduced to utter nothingness. How, then, can the godly be differentiated under such circumstances from the froward?” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 71-72
I interpreted “reduced to utter nothingness” to mean destroyed, but I do not know exactly how that would happen. On the other hand, “nothingness” could mean something else and maybe it does because of what the following sentence says: “How, then, can the godly be differentiated under such circumstances from the froward?” If everyone was destroyed there would be nobody left to differentiate! So nothingness must mean something else...
I am very tangential in my thinking, so sometimes I have discordant thoughts.
Whatever I said, I did not do it to deliberately mislead you, I was just explaining what I think these passages mean, and of course I could be wrong.
This might be a game for you but it is not a game for me. I was just trying to have a friendly discussion. I am not trying to convince you of anything or win any arguments.
Think about this: The ones called to Heaven have that first or earlier resurrection - Revelation 20:6; 2:10; 5:9-10
They are the ' brothers ' of Matthew 25:40. They are the little or smaller flock of Luke 12:32.
Whereas the ' sheep ' of Matthew 25:37 do Not go to Heaven, but can remain on Earth as part of the humble meek who inherit the Earth as promised at Psalms 37:9-11, 29. They are the ' other sheep ' or majority of John 10:16.
I find Revelation 20:1-4 is about those called to Heaven.
Revelation 1:5 about ' everlasting life ' on Earth.
In other words, the dead resurrected ' during ' Christ's reign can live eternally on Earth at the 'end' of the 1,000 years.
That means at that end time the earthly resurrected have proven faithful to gain everlasting life on Earth.
Those resurrected ' during ' Christ's reign could still fall away, that is why Satan is released - Revelation 20:7-10
Satan will see there are those who remain faithful at that last testing time.
The earthly resurrection will start early during Christ's rulership with such faithful ones such as King David (Acts of the Apostles 2:34) and people like Abraham and other faithful ones of old, besides other faithful ones throughout the centuries. Remember: 'There is going to be' (future tense) a resurrection......- Acts of the Apostles 24:15.
A resurrection of both the righteous and unrighteous. Only the wicked destroyed forever - Psalms 92:7.
.... and I find that the God of the Bible supplied that dynamic energy needed to create the material realm of existence.
Because it was God's abundant 'Power and Strength' - Isaiah 40:26 - that He used to create the visible world for us.
I find Pilate asked, " What it truth ? " at John 18:38
Jesus was there to teach what the Scriptures teach - John 18:37
Pilate's retort was in effect saying the concept of truth was too broad or too elusive to merit attention.
So, Pilate and Jesus were talking about two different truths with Jesus referring to 'divine truth'.
Or, as Jesus said at John 17:17 that Scripture is religious truth.
Jesus making the distinction between what is religious truth and religious lies.
Such truth originating with his God, and lies originating with Satan - John 8:44.
Whereas, Pilate was speaking about truth in general, subjective (or I suppose objective) truth.
Like many people today think that truth is Not absolute truth, but ever-changing truth.
Ever changing depending on the time or the situation at hand.
That thinking allows people the freedom to make their own determination of what is right or what is wrong.
Especially when determining with respect to moral or value standards.
Whereas, the Bible contains unchanging truth, unfailing truth century after century - Proverbs 2:6
I find God and Lord are titles and Not personal names.
So, yes, Buddha, Jesus, Moses, Muhammad are proper nouns, and God and Lord are Not names but titles.
Audie
Veteran Member
Mantra chanting is just ignored.
If the bible were so wonderful it would
not contain garbage like 6 day poof and flood
The dictionary is having new words added to it almost everyday in this age.
I agree.
I am wondering which of Jesus' beliefs you think will turn out to be true, or prove to be absolutely wrong.
I can't find anything wrong with the ' religious truth ' that Jesus taught.
Yes, language evolves, for who reads Tyndale's Bible today because of its archaic English.
Adding words does Not change that such words as Lord and God are titles and are Not proper names.
The Tetragrammaton stands for God's name and Not the word Lord, nor the word God.