No faith is ascendant

[Pah]

While I agree that there are a myriad of interpretations of what faith holds, I am curious as to what standard you use to make the statement that none are ascendant over another? Sorry to take this thread off course a little but I had to know. We may have to take this discussion to another thread.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

Another thread it is.

This totally aside from the American pluralism that renders everything equal.

Claims of "we are the true church" abound. Many fingers point at heretical faiths. And yet, not one can claim truth except by personal revelation. Scripture, dogma, creed must all be verified by that process. Even the clerical pronouncements are ultimately derivied from the thought that "this is ture" which only can be given through the Holy Spirit, in the case of Christianity.

When the basis of supernatural truth can not be gotten objectively, it becomes a subjective proof. It has practical application, self-identity for the believer, and sufficiency. When one claims a conversation with God, it can be doubted by those others outside the conversation but not disproven.

It becomes not "I am right" but "everyone is right" though some will cling to their unique truth. When everyone is right, all are equal and one is not superior to another.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

It all depends what you mean by "ascendant!"

IMV, some faiths are ascendant, in particular something new and growing, while others are in decline....

Nor is it true that all faiths either espouse or claim some sort of "only way" stance: there are religions that are explicitly accepting of other faiths! (Mine is one.)

Best,

Bruce

 

[Pah]

Greetings!

It all depends what you mean by "ascendant!"

IMV, some faiths are ascendant, in particular something new and growing, while others are in decline....

Nor is it true that all faiths either espouse or claim some sort of "only way" stance: there are religions that are explicitly accepting of other faiths! (Mine is one.)

Best,

Bruce

I take it to mean a position and not the process. An ascending faith may not become ascendant at the end of it's journey. I guess superior to other faiths migh be a good working definition.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

When everyone is right, all are equal and one is not superior to another.

The problem is, Pah, if everyone is right then no one can be wrong. If none of us can be wrong, then every quack, wacko, and nutcase can but a shingle on their a$$ and do whatever they want in the name of religion.

1) We are condoning every cult that destroys the lives of people in the name of religion
2) We condone every religious war
3) We condone religious slavery: economic, spiritual, artistic, and knowledge

I can't do that, Pah. Some religions have truth, and some religions suck the life out of humanity. We can observe that some religions are incredibly harmful to humanity.

 

[Jerrell]

Amen Pah, I agree with you. If everyone is right, then everyone is wrong. There can only be one true religion logically, though we dont want to accept it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Amen Pah, I agree with you. If everyone is right, then everyone is wrong. There can only be one true religion logically, though we dont want to accept it.

I don't think that you understand Pah's post.

 

[Jerrell]

o...lol....okay....i got it now...

 

[Pah]

The problem is, Pah, if everyone is right then no one can be wrong. If none of us can be wrong, then every quack, wacko, and nutcase can but a shingle on their a$$ and do whatever they want in the name of religion.

1) We are condoning every cult that destroys the lives of people in the name of religion
2) We condone every religious war
3) We condone religious slavery: economic, spiritual, artistic, and knowledge

I can't do that, Pah. Some religions have truth, and some religions suck the life out of humanity. We can observe that some religions are incredibly harmful to humanity.

I'm not adressing behavior but the spirituality of a faith.

 

[Pah]

Amen Pah, I agree with you. If everyone is right, then everyone is wrong. There can only be one true religion logically, though we dont want to accept it.

I'm not talking about religion either. I'm talking about faith and not using it synonymously with a church or with a religion.

 

[Karl R]

The problem is, Pah, if everyone is right then no one can be wrong. If none of us can be wrong, then every quack, wacko, and nutcase can but a shingle on their a$$ and do whatever they want in the name of religion.

1) We are condoning every cult that destroys the lives of people in the name of religion
2) We condone every religious war
3) We condone religious slavery: economic, spiritual, artistic, and knowledge

I can't do that, Pah. Some religions have truth, and some religions suck the life out of humanity. We can observe that some religions are incredibly harmful to humanity.

I see an easy solution to that. People obey the laws regardless of what their faith tells them. Laws are chosen to benefit the society as a whole, not fit the preferences of one faith.

I don't like abortions, but I'm pro-choice. I don't think my moral preferences should dictate the laws (particularly since I think banning abortions would be disastrous to society as a whole).

I don't see a moral problem if people want to practice polygamy (provided all the spouses consent), but I think that law banning polygamy should be obeyed.

If someone believes murder is morally acceptable, I won't have a real problem unless he or she starts breaking the law that says it's illegal.

I trust people more if their beliefs line up with the law, simply because it's easier to obey a law that you feel is moral and ethical. But I recognize someone can follow a law that they don't necessarily agree with.

I think the laws should benefit the society, and the individuals should follow the laws. With this system, no one faith is ascendant over the others, but this still leaves us the ability to all get along (even with quack wacko nutjob religious lunatics).

 

[Maxist]

Heritical are higher than Theist. That is the way of things.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

And yet, not one can claim truth except by personal revelation. Scripture, dogma, creed must all be verified by that process. Even the clerical pronouncements are ultimately derivied from the thought that "this is ture" which only can be given through the Holy Spirit, in the case of Christianity.

Even most Christians believe that there is such a thing as general revelation("Baker's Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics" Norman Geisler : General revelation refers to God's revelation in nature as opposed to his revelation in Scripture...General revelation is important to Christian apologetics, since it is the data with which the theist constructs arguments from the existence of God (see Cosmological Argument; Teleological Argument). Without it there would be no basis for Christian apologetics.")

When the basis of supernatural truth can not be gotten objectively, it becomes a subjective proof. It has practical application, self-identity for the believer, and sufficiency. When one claims a conversation with God, it can be doubted by those others outside the conversation but not disproven.

In the case of Christianity, one claiming a conversation with God could be objectively looked at through Scritpure (Deut 13:1-3; Heb 13:8). Christianity is not the only religion with this type of standard. Islam would use the Qur' an, etc. One who does not believe in God could use philosophical argeuments as their standard which would come up against theistic arguments which biols down to once again general revelation and it's validity which could objectively be observed through the first principles of logic and even more.

It becomes not "I am right" but "everyone is right" though some will cling to their unique truth. When everyone is right, all are equal and one is not superior to another.

If this is true than I could state that you are wrong and I would also be right, but that violates the first principle of the law of noncontradiction. (IBID p.250 "Being can not be nonbeing, for they are direct opposites. And opposites can not be the same. For the one who affirms that 'opposites can both be true' does not hold that the opposite of this statement is true")

Now, I had to wonder when you made the statement in the other thread that I was addressing whether you were emphasizing the U.S. legal toleration of all faiths or a philosophical standard, which is why I asked the question I did without jumping to conclusions. Now that I see that you were emophasizing a philosophical standard, I must state that I strongly disagree.

The problem is, Pah, if everyone is right then no one can be wrong. If none of us can be wrong, then every quack, wacko, and nutcase can but a shingle on their a$$ and do whatever they want in the name of religion.

1) We are condoning every cult that destroys the lives of people in the name of religion
2) We condone every religious war
3) We condone religious slavery: economic, spiritual, artistic, and knowledge

I can't do that, Pah. Some religions have truth, and some religions suck the life out of humanity. We can observe that some religions are incredibly harmful to humanity.

This is also a pretty valid point

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[Pah]

Even most Christians believe that there is such a thing as general revelation("Baker's Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics" Norman Geisler : General revelation refers to God's revelation in nature as opposed to his revelation in Scripture...General revelation is important to Christian apologetics, since it is the data with which the theist constructs arguments from the existence of God (see Cosmological Argument; Teleological Argument). Without it there would be no basis for Christian apologetics.")

All logical argument for the existance of God have been shown to be faulty. There is no science, not withstanding the other new thread, to prove the existance of God. Niether science nor logic thus deny the presumption of all theological argument. God exists by faith and faith alone. Congregational faith is nothing more than personal faith in agreement with other personal faith. Revelation from nature must presume the existence of God which is based on faith. In fact, revelation itself must be based on faith. The voice you hear is not a mental illness (although the courts have called it such in criminal case) but a true communication with God.

How does one acquire faith but in agreement with the word of God, verified by the Holy Ghost

In the case of Christianity, one claiming a conversation with God could be objectively looked at through Scritpure (Deut 13:1-3; Heb 13:8). Christianity is not the only religion with this type of standard. Islam would use the Qur' an, etc. One who does not believe in God could use philosophical argeuments as their standard which would come up against theistic arguments which biols down to once again general revelation and it's validity which could objectively be observed through the first principles of logic and even more.

All scripture that purports to prove God is cyclic in the assumption that it is the divine word.

That being said, Deut 13 says it is a test that God gives and you have to agree with the scrpture or follow the new prophet. Faith in the word as revealed bu the Holy Ghost, will keep you from straying.

While Hebrews 13:8 may have applicability to this thread, I see more support in Heb 13:9

9Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings. It is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace, not by ceremonial foods, which are of no value to those who eat them.

You must accept this verse as right and instructive because you see the truth of it - the truth that is a matter of faith - the faith that is conformed by revelation.

If this is true than I could state that you are wrong and I would also be right, but that violates the first principle of the law of noncontradiction. (IBID p.250 "Being can not be nonbeing, for they are direct opposites. And opposites can not be the same. For the one who affirms that 'opposites can both be true' does not hold that the opposite of this statement is true")

I see "rightness and wrongness" as subjective, i.e., the best ice cream is vanilla - no, the best ice cream is strawberry. I see no reason not to extend that subjectivity to all other truths aside from scientific "truths"

Now, I had to wonder when you made the statement in the other thread that I was addressing whether you were emphasizing the U.S. legal toleration of all faiths or a philosophical standard, which is why I asked the question I did without jumping to conclusions. Now that I see that you were emophasizing a philosophical standard, I must state that I strongly disagree.

It is absolutely a national position but I can see it belonging in personal thought and faith as well. I fail to see why the truth of faith must be objective when there is no proof of an external religious theory. That does not minimize the closely held faith.

This is also a pretty valid point

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria[/

The point that I made was that every mainline faith and every cult injures at some time and place. I'll further state that condonning is not the same as accepting - have your vanilla, have your strawberry, I like coffee ice cream. I'll be true to my tastes as I expect you will be to yours.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

All logical argument for the existance of God have been shown to be faulty. There is no science, not withstanding the other new thread, to prove the existance of God.

Right, with the intellectual prowess of changing definitions of words and scientific laws to fit conclusions, etc. I'm sorry but I am just not impressed as of yet. Every discussion I have gotten into with somebody over this subject just turns into a debate over adlibs and linguistic conventionalism. I would love to have a one on one with you over this subject since you seem to have come to some presupposed faith based conclusions your self. We could just start with the logic behind causality, which I am sure you have some exceptions for and go from there.

God exists by faith and faith alone. Congregational faith is nothing more than personal faith in agreement with other personal faith. Revelation from nature must presume the existence of God which is based on faith. In fact, revelation itself must be based on faith...
How does one acquire faith but in agreement with the word of God, verified by the Holy Ghost

Believe it or not, faith in God existed long before the any recorded word of God. Where did that faith come from? I'll almost bet your answer to this question almost matches the the definition for general revelation.

All scripture that purports to prove God is cyclic in the assumption that it is the divine word.

And this statement is made under the assumption that there is no proof for God's existence let alone that there is a God's word making it just as cyclic as you are accusing the use of scripture being. The point I was trying to make had nothing to do with using scripture to prove God's existence to a nonbeliever but as an objective standard to test the validity of someone who claimed to have had a conversation with God which is what you had brought up. But I have more to state about that later in this post.

That being said, Deut 13 says it is a test that God gives and you have to agree with the scrpture or follow the new prophet. Faith in the word as revealed bu the Holy Ghost, will keep you from straying.

While Hebrews 13:8 may have applicability to this thread, I see more support in Heb 13:9

Heb. 13:8 concludes to a perspicuitiveness of Jesus Christ/God which would naturally conlude a perspicuitiveness of His word. So as Deut 13:1-3 would conclude, if what someone claims as a special revelation from God is not perspicuitive with God's word, then one could logically conclude that it is not of God. Other religions use the same objective standard for the most part.

9Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings. It is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace, not by ceremonial foods, which are of no value to those who eat them.


You must accept this verse as right and instructive because you see the truth of it - the truth that is a matter of faith - the faith that is conformed by revelation.

Uh o.k. That still does not negate that there is other proofs that could support it's truthfullness.

I see "rightness and wrongness" as subjective, i.e., the best ice cream is vanilla - no, the best ice cream is strawberry. I see no reason not to extend that subjectivity to all other truths aside from scientific "truths"

Thanks for proving my point about linguistic conventionalism. You have conveiently turned "all other truths" into a matter of subjectively chosing a flavor of ice cream and then make an exception for scientific "truths" making that statement a direct contradiction. (BTW, I am of the opinion that anybody who doesn't think mint chocolate chip ice cream is the best flavor is absolutley insane). My favorite part, however is the fact that you make scientific and objective claims about things that you claim are unscientific and subjective which naturally draws the question of how can you logically do that without playing some of those infamous adlib games?

It is absolutely a national position but I can see it belonging in personal thought and faith as well. I fail to see why the truth of faith must be objective when there is no proof of an external religious theory. That does not minimize the closely held faith.

Then where is all this religious oppression coming from that so many people seem to be fighting against?!

The voice you hear is not a mental illness (although the courts have called it such in criminal case) but a true communication with God.

I had to save this statement for last since it happened to be my favorite. Are we now using probaly the most subjective of sciences as disproofs for God? On top of that there is an appeal to the same legal system that you disagree with in some areas but obviously are hinting at agreeing with in this area. How conveient!!! I expected better from you than this Pah.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[Booko]

I think the laws should benefit the society, and the individuals should follow the laws. With this system, no one faith is ascendant over the others, but this still leaves us the ability to all get along (even with quack wacko nutjob religious lunatics).

And if the law declares your faith illegal, what then?