Those who never heard about Jesus?

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Antipas

Jesus (the One in Jesus) has come to save us all from alienating ourselves from him. While yes, Jesus testified that ancient Pharisaical Judaism was tragically errant, Jesus revealed the way of love that transcends all religious laws and traditions. This path of love is comprised of loving God and loving others. This raised the bar from religious rule keeping to having to evaluate all that we do through the lense of love, a superior ethic compared to any form of law keeping. Christ's death upon the cross has much theological significance for Christians (Atonement and Propitiation). But from a broader more global perspective, we see that God is willing to suffer anything to set us free from religious bondage that we might be our true selves under the umbrella of his unfailing love.

ya.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by thephnxman

You should heed the words of the Lord Jesus, as well as the apostles
and prophets that the Lord has chosen, as Brother Blume, others here,
and myself have done.

"And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these
words, and said unto him, 'Are we blind also?'
Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but
now ye say, 'We see'; therefore your sin remains."

eerily, exactly what i would tell anyone who imagines that they can defend 'judge others, do not judge yourself.'

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Esaias

If something is true, it is true regardless if any, some, none, or all acknowledge it to be true. There is no such thing as relative truth, as in "true for you but not for me". 2+2=4 for both of us, even if I believe with all my heart that 2+2=5. In that case, I do not have an alternative truth, I simply have an error, ie a falsehood.

The word truth implies objectivity, not relativity. So "true for thee but not for me" is inherently a contradiction and a non-possibility. We may have different even contradictory opinions, but not truths. If something is a truth, that simply means it is factual and corresponds to reality. And therefore cannot differ from one person to another. Facts are, after all, facts.

Religion and metaphysics and ethics and philosophy and theology are a searching out of the facts, and drawing conclusions from those facts. If truth is relative, then there is no such thing as knowing - of any kind, except the delusional, illusory, non-reality kind.



Who determines the importance of a particular "life topic"? Who determines what life topics are to be explored, as you put it? Either reincarnation is a factual reality... or it is not. Even if reincarnation were selective (only certain people reincarnate) it would still be a fact. So either it exists... or it does not.

If it does, and I believe it does not, then I am deceived. And deception is inferior to knowing reality. If reincarnation is false, and yet I believe that it is true, then again my knowing does not correspond with Reality, and I am under a spell of delusion. And since knowing things as they are is superior in every way to "knowing" things as they are not (ie knowing truth is better than not knowing truth, and being deceived), then it follows that if we desire to know reality we will begin with the assumption that some things are true and their opposites are false, and that falsehood is to be rejected.





My previous paragraph answers that question.

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by shazeep

eerily, exactly what i would tell anyone who imagines that they can defend 'judge others, do not judge yourself.'

You're welcome: all I did was place a mirror in front of you!

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Antipas

Being able to do simple math doesn't mean one is capable of proper spiritual discernment.

Simple math proves that 'truth' is objective, not relative. I said nothing about an ability to do arithmetic computations as a prerequisite to discerning spiritual truth. However, an inability to recognise the existence of 'objective truth' as a reality is a bar to being able to discern spiritual truths.

Let's say that you're a painter painting a commissioned work outside a field and I'm the farmer who happens to own that field. Suddenly we're confronted with a summer rain storm.

Question:
Is it a good day or a bad day? What is the "truth"?

You might look at your ruined canvas and say that it is a terrible day. I may look at my crops and say it is a good day. And indeed, we're both right. The rain was bad for you and your canvas, but it was good for me and my crops. There is your truth and my truth.

Wrong, that is not a demonstration of alternative truths. It is a demonstration of alternative opinions. A more proper analogy would be the painter paints the field, as it is raining, without the rain, while claiming it was an accurate representation of the field at that particular point in time (as it was raining). The painter says 'Well, in MY truth there is no rain, because that's not happy' whereas the farmer says 'Boy, you artistes sure are dumb, cause you can't tell when it's rainin and when it aint.' Either it's raining, or it's not. Either the painting is an accurate rendition of the facts at the time, or it's not.

Whether the raining is 'good' for the painter or the farmer is not a matter of TRUTH, but opinion. The rancher down the road might have an altogether different opinion than either the painter or the farmer. When the farmer says 'it is good' he means 'I want it, I like it, I have a need and this fulfills the need'. The rancher may think 'it is bad' meaning 'I have to bale hay today but now it's raining and all wet and so I have to put it off another day thus delaying the acquisition of winter feed for my cattle and so I don't like the rain today'. None of them are statements of objective truth except as statements of the individuals' opinions. 'It is raining' vs 'it is not raining' is a statement of objective truth-claims, one of which is false if the other is true.

Perception is reality. You can alter your reality by choosing to perceive it differently. For example, what if I told you that there is no such thing as "death"? In fact, I don't believe there is such a thing as death. I see what most of our society calls death is a moment of transformation. It is when our soul leaves the body a butterfly leaves a cocoon. We do not die, therefore, there is no death. However, if you firmly believe in the dark and dreary concept of death that is so prevalent in our society, that is what you will experience as you die. I will be filled with joy at my transformation.

Perception is not reality. Ask anyone who works as a caregiver for a dementia patient or a schizophrenic. Perception is by definition different from the reality being perceived. Perceptions can be misleading and even totally false. Furthermore, you have equivocated on the meaning of perception. There is a difference between perception as a cognizance of sensory data on the one hand, and 'perception' as an opinion or belief. By confusing those two uses of the term, you have committed the fallacy of equivocation. Sophistry thrives on equivocation. Claiming you 'perceive death as one thing' meaning in reality you have a particular opinion about death has zero bearing on what death is or is not as a factual occurrence.

Truth and fact are two very different things.

More fallacy of equivocation. Truth is that which corresponds to reality - ie FACT.

TRUTH, noun

1. Conformity to fact or reality; exact accordance with that which is, or has been, or shall be. The truth of history constitutes its whole value. We rely on the truth of the scriptural prophecies.

My mouth shall speak truth Proverbs 8:7.

Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth John 17:17.

2. True state of facts or things. The duty of a court of justice is to discover the truth Witnesses are sworn to declare the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth

3. Conformity of words to thoughts, which is called moral truth

Shall truth fail to keep her word?

4. Veracity; purity from falsehood; practice of speaking truth; habitual disposition to speak truth; as when we say, a man is a man of truth

5. Correct opinion.

6. Fidelity; constancy.

The thoughts of past pleasure and truth

7. Honesty; virtue.

It must appear

That malice bears down truth

8. Exactness; conformity to rule.

Plows, to go true, depend much on the truth of the iron work. [Not in use.]

9. Real fact of just principle; real state of things. There are innumerable truths with which we are not acquainted.

10. Sincerity.

God is a spirit, and they that worship him must worship in spirit and in truth John 4:23.

11. The truth of God, is his veracity and faithfulness. Psalms 71:22.

Or his revealed will.

I have walked in thy truth Psalms 26:3.

12. Jesus Christ is called the truth John 14.

13. It is sometimes used by way of concession.

She said, truth Lord; yet the dogs eat of the crums-- Matthew 15:27.

That is, it is a truth; what you have said, I admit to be true.

In truth in reality; in fact.

Of a truth in reality; certainly.

To do truth is to practice what God commands. John 3. (Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language)

So we see that your premises are factually incorrect, so it is no wonder that your conclusions are likewise factually incorrect, that is to say, not true.

For example, let's look at the story of, The Boy Who Cried Wolf....



What truth is taught here? That if you are given to lying and exaggeration no one will believe you, even if you're one day telling the truth. Now, the story is filled with moral truth. But this story is not based on "fact". This boy probably never existed, nor the wolf, or the villagers. It is expresses truth, but not fact. For just a moment, imagine if God Himself inspired the story. Would it be any less sacred or it's truth any less important, even though it is not a "fact"?

It appears you do not understand what role parables, fables, maxims, anecdotes, proverbs, and aphorisms serve in conveying truth. The story is a parable. A parable is a fictitious story designed to illustrate a fact, generally a moral rule, maxim, or ethical statement of fact. The story is fictitious, the moral of the story ('liars lose credibility even when they later tell the truth') is a moral axiom. Universal observation indicates the axiom is generally truthful, meaning the story illustrates a truth, namely that in most circumstances people do not believe known liars even if the liar states a truth. Although it is also generally true that the gullible and those not disposed to objective truth tend to believe known or even proven liars.

I think you have not really thought out the things you have accepted as the framework of your worldview. I see numerous factual errors in your premises, and assumptions, as well as lack of familiarity with the various genres of 'spiritual literature' as illustrated by your obvious unfamiliarity with the concept of parables and how they relate to 'truth'.

As a result, I do believe you are not at all qualified to make any kind of believable statements about 'the world's religions' and much less about mankind's religious literature.

Again, if a person can't recognise that 1+1=2 as an objective fact not subject to opinion then it is highly doubtful they have anything substantive to say about metaphysics and philosophy.

[phareztamar]

I think you have not really thought out the things you have accepted as the framework of your worldview. I see numerous factual errors in your premises, and assumptions, as well as lack of familiarity with the various genres of 'spiritual literature' as illustrated by your obvious unfamiliarity with the concept of parables and how they relate to 'truth'.

As a result, I do believe you are not at all qualified to make any kind of believable statements about 'the world's religions' and much less about mankind's religious literature.

Again, if a person doesn't know that 1+1=2 then it is highly doubtful they have anything substantive to say about metaphysics and philosophy

BAM

[Esaias]

Let us now discuss sophistic refutations, i.e. what appear to be refutations but are really fallacies instead. We will begin in the natural order with the first.

That some reasonings are genuine, while others seem to be so but are not, is evident. This happens with arguments, as also elsewhere, through a certain likeness between the genuine and the sham. For physically some people are in a vigorous condition, while others merely seem to be so by blowing and rigging themselves out as the tribesmen do their victims for sacrifice; and some people are beautiful thanks to their beauty, while others seem to be so, by dint of embellishing themselves. So it is, too, with inanimate things; for of these, too, some are really silver and others gold, while others are not and merely seem to be such to our sense; e.g. things made of litharge and tin seem to be of silver, while those made of yellow metal look golden. In the same way both reasoning and refutation are sometimes genuine, sometimes not, though inexperience may make them appear so: for inexperienced people obtain only, as it were, a distant view of these things. For reasoning rests on certain statements such that they involve necessarily the assertion of something other than what has been stated, through what has been stated: refutation is reasoning involving the contradictory of the given conclusion. Now some of them do not really achieve this, though they seem to do so for a number of reasons; and of these the most prolific and usual domain is the argument that turns upon names only. It is impossible in a discussion to bring in the actual things discussed: we use their names as symbols instead of them; and therefore we suppose that what follows in the names, follows in the things as well, just as people who calculate suppose in regard to their counters. But the two cases (names and things) are not alike. For names are finite and so is the sum-total of formulae, while things are infinite in number. Inevitably, then, the same formulae, and a single name, have a number of meanings. Accordingly just as, in counting, those who are not clever in manipulating their counters are taken in by the experts, in the same way in arguments too those who are not well acquainted with the force of names misreason both in their own discussions and when they listen to others. For this reason, then, and for others to be mentioned later, there exists both reasoning and refutation that is apparent but not real. Now for some people it is better worth while to seem to be wise, than to be wise without seeming to be (for the art of the sophist is the semblance of wisdom without the reality, and the sophist is one who makes money from an apparent but unreal wisdom); for them, then, it is clearly essential also to seem to accomplish the task of a wise man rather than to accomplish it without seeming to do so. To reduce it to a single point of contrast it is the business of one who knows a thing, himself to avoid fallacies in the subjects which he knows and to be able to show up the man who makes them; and of these accomplishments the one depends on the faculty to render an answer, and the other upon the securing of one. Those, then, who would be sophists are bound to study the class of arguments aforesaid: for it is worth their while: for a faculty of this kind will make a man seem to be wise, and this is the purpose they happen to have in view. (On Sophistical Refutations, I:1, by Aristotle.)

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Antipas

Consciousness is a creative force. What we perceive, we experience. You perceive that I'm saying these things, when I'm not. Let's use the creative force of consciousness to shift this into a more real perspective so that you might truly understand what I'm saying.

Jesus (the One in Jesus) has come to save us all from alienating ourselves from him. While yes, Jesus testified that ancient Pharisaical Judaism was tragically errant, Jesus revealed the way of love that transcends all religious laws and traditions. This path of love is comprised of loving God and loving others. This raised the bar from religious rule keeping to having to evaluate all that we do through the lense of love, a superior ethic compared to any form of law keeping. Christ's death upon the cross has much theological significance for Christians (Atonement and Propitiation). But from a broader more global perspective, we see that God is willing to suffer anything to set us free from religious bondage that we might be our true selves under the umbrella of his unfailing love.

You see, you created a false reality that no doubt got your blood pumping and your fingers feverishly typing away. You created a problem, just to attack it. You really didn't contemplate the realities I was trying to explain to you. Frankly, you should have written this to someone else. Because it certainly didn't pertain to anything I had said.

I wrote what I did, in direct response to what you wrote. That Jesus came, not to save us from sin, but from the wrong impression of God that you claim Judaism had.

did not Jesus ultimately suffer the death of the cross to demonstrate that God is not the narrow, racist, legalistic, bloodthirsty, and vengeful God of Pharisaical Judaism?

Let me ask you this, do believe that sacrifice of Jesus was necessary for our salvation? Yes or no.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Antipas

Blume, let me contemplate your questions. I'll return to them.

I noticed, you didn't argue that anything I said about Christianity is untrue. I'm sure that even you have been prone to debate over something like the idea of a talking snake for hours.

But it should be noted, snakes don't talk. That's a fact. They don't have the physical ability to do so, and never did.

We're talking about God and the bible. If you discount supernatural then there is not much of a chance for chat.

[votivesoul]

This thread took quite the turn.

For those with whom I was at first interacting, please allow me the chance to say I may be completely wrong, and am open to that, as much as anything. I'm merely trying to grasp at the answer to the original question as much as I know how.