• 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!

New member - ietsist

Sir Joseph

Sir Joseph

Member
sew.excited73 said:
Hi!

We are discussing exactly that in this thread: Do You Find Ietsism a Likely and/or Plausible Belief?
Hope to see you there :) .
Click to expand...

From what I read, letsism sounds like an attractive label or spiritual position for a relativist.

Although relativism is prevalent in today's culture, particularly with moral issues, it's a self refuting concept. I'd counter that choosing a religion should be done objectively based upon evidence, not feelings. Religions are not all the same, nor all partially right, nor all equally defensible with evidence. With opposing doctrinal beliefs, either they're all wrong, or one's right and the others are wrong. Letsism allows you to muddle through the mess and not determine truth in the matter.

I've met and befriended many atheists, agnostics, and vaguely spiritual people who were raised Catholic, including my own Father. Unfortunately, the Catholic Church has a propensity of turning many people away from organized religion of any kind. I'd encourage you not to give up on seeking the right path to God. If you study Christian apologetics fairly, you'll find far too much evidence to ignore. You'll find the faith's Biblical foundation solid despite the abundance of churches and false teacher/preachers undermining it.
 
sew.excited73

sew.excited73

Wendy-Anne - I am Dutch/British
Sir Joseph said:
From what I read, letsism sounds like an attractive label or spiritual position for a relativist.

Although relativism is prevalent in today's culture, particularly with moral issues, it's a self refuting concept. I'd counter that choosing a religion should be done objectively based upon evidence, not feelings. Religions are not all the same, nor all partially right, nor all equally defensible with evidence. With opposing doctrinal beliefs, either they're all wrong, or one's right and the others are wrong. Letsism allows you to muddle through the mess and not determine truth in the matter.

I've met and befriended many atheists, agnostics, and vaguely spiritual people who were raised Catholic, including my own Father. Unfortunately, the Catholic Church has a propensity of turning many people away from organized religion of any kind. I'd encourage you not to give up on seeking the right path to God. If you study Christian apologetics fairly, you'll find far too much evidence to ignore. You'll find the faith's Biblical foundation solid despite the abundance of churches and false teacher/preachers undermining it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think you are right there is a large part of relativism involved in my belief. Especially as my personal beliefs are based on some of my personal spiritual experiences, which form the basis of my personal beliefs… but I could never use those personal experiences as ‘proof’ or even ‘evidence’ to someone else.

Ietsism (which starts with an ‘i.’ by the way, and is pronounced eat-sism, with ‘eat‘ as in ’I eat a burger’) does however not “allow me to muddle through the mess and not determine the truth”. There is actually no allowing involved, it is just that no religion has been able to present me with any proof or evidence that overrides my personal spiritual experiences (and thus my truth as it stands).

And yes, that is why I respect relativists, because everyone has their own personal experiences, which provide some level of proof to them, and their proof might not satisfy me, but it is true to them, so who am I to say they are wrong to believe what they do? …after all, they might be right and I might be wrong.

I am happy for you, that you find Christian Apologetics Biblical Foundations solid… I wish I could be so sure about what it is I truly believe… but so far I only know what I truly don’t believe, and that is that there is actually a religion or official spiritual organisation that KNOWS 100% for a fact, that what they believe is The-One-and-Only-Truth.

I think that preachers who dare to claim they know, probably just want to feel more important than the average man who ‘knows nothing’.
I would rather claim to know nothing for sure and derogatorily be called a ‘fence sitter’ than to offend a potentially existing God, by claiming I know exactly what he/she/it wants. Let alone not just for me but from everyone else too. And especially if it is just because the interpretation of those preachers comes from this old book, that was written, by humans, many, many years ago and therefore it is the absolutely correct interpretation and everyone else’s interpretation is wrong?

I also find it strange that people so cling to their version of the bible, and out of hand dismiss newly dug up records, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, and label them as heresy before they are even researched, let alone debunked?
Why is it that some people are satisfied by picking just one version in history -mostly the Constantine version/the version by the council of Nicaea- and forget that that was just done by just another bunch of people so many years ago, who probably knew less about the ‘truth’ than we do now, thanks in part to science… so there should never be an update to those old books either, even when new information presents itself?

So yes, I ’muddle through the mess and do not determine the truth’, but that’s only because I don’t think anyone, apart from maybe God itself, knows the full truth. Maybe one day we will know, but we probably have to die first before we know for sure.

I can wait. ;)
 
Last edited:
Sir Joseph

Sir Joseph

Member
sew.excited73 said:
Yeah, I think you are right there is a large part of relativism involved in my belief. Especially as my personal beliefs are based on some of my personal spiritual experiences, which form the basis of my personal beliefs… but I could never use those personal experiences as ‘proof’ or even ‘evidence’ to someone else.

Ietsism (which starts with an ‘i.’ by the way, and is pronounced eat-sism, with ‘eat‘ as in ’I eat a burger’) does however not “allow me to muddle through the mess and not determine the truth”. There is actually no allowing involved, it is just that no religion has been able to present me with any proof or evidence that overrides my personal spiritual experiences (and thus my truth as it stands).

And yes, that is why I respect relativists, because everyone has their own personal experiences, which provide some level of proof to them, and their proof might not satisfy me, but it is true to them, so who am I to say they are wrong to believe what they do? …after all, they might be right and I might be wrong.

I am happy for you, that you find Christian Apologetics Biblical Foundations solid… I wish I could be so sure about what it is I truly believe… but so far I only know what I truly don’t believe, and that is that there is actually a religion or official spiritual organisation that KNOWS 100% for a fact, that what they believe is The-One-and-Only-Truth.

I think that preachers who dare to claim they know, probably just want to feel more important than the average man who ‘knows nothing’.
I would rather claim to know nothing for sure and derogatorily be called a ‘fence sitter’ than to offend a potentially existing God, by claiming I know exactly what he/she/it wants. Let alone not just for me but from everyone else too. And especially if it is just because the interpretation of those preachers comes from this old book, that was written, by humans, many, many years ago and therefore it is the absolutely correct interpretation and everyone else’s interpretation is wrong?

I also find it strange that people so cling to their version of the bible, and out of hand dismiss newly dug up records, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, and label them as heresy before they are even researched, let alone debunked?
Why is it that some people are satisfied by picking just one version in history -mostly the Constantine version/the version by the council of Nicaea- and forget that that was just done by just another bunch of people so many years ago, who probably knew less about the ‘truth’ than we do now, thanks in part to science… so there should never be an update to those old books either, even when new information presents itself?

So yes, I ’muddle through the mess and do not determine the truth’, but that’s only because I don’t think anyone, apart from maybe God itself, knows the full truth. Maybe one day we will know, but we probably have to die first before we know for sure.

I can wait. ;)
Click to expand...

Appreciate your time and attention for a fair response. You're in good company here on this website, though I hope to counter influence you a bit in any future posts on the subject.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top