Christianity

[Belinda]

How can I sincerely practice Christianity if I'm not sure whether or not it is Truth.

Nothing we know is Truth. Xianity is not Truth. Truth, along with Goodness and Beauty, transcends definitions.

The best any of us can do is perceive ephemeral and incomplete examples of Good, Beauty, and Truth. It's possible to find such examples in a Xian community.

OK. If nothing "we" know of is Truth, is that "Truth"? You seem to be making a claim and negating it at the same time as far as my pea brain can tell.

Nobody knows absolute or perfect good, truth or beauty. We all have to decide for ourselves where these ideals play out in reality. If anyone does not so decide some control freak will decide for them.

[Belinda]

Nothing we know is Truth. Xianity is not Truth. Truth, along with Goodness and Beauty, transcends definitions.

The best any of us can do is perceive ephemeral and incomplete examples of Good, Beauty, and Truth. It's possible to find such examples in a Xian community.

From my viewpoint, the statement "Nothing we know is Truth" is a sweeping generalization that is difficult to support. While it is true that our understanding of truth may be limited or imperfect, it doesn't necessarily mean that nothing we know is true. There are many scientific facts and principles that have been established through rigorous observation, experimentation, and peer review. These facts and principles may not be absolute, but they are certainly true within the framework of our current understanding.

Similarly, the assertion that "Christianity is not Truth" is also subjective and dependent on one's perspective. While many may not believe in the teachings of Christianity, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are not true for those who do. The concept of truth is inherently subjective, and what one person considers to be true may not be the same for another person.

Furthermore, the statement that "Truth, along with Goodness and Beauty, transcends definitions" is also problematic from my viewpoint. While it is true that these concepts may be difficult to define or quantify, it doesn't mean that they are completely beyond definition or understanding. There are many philosophical and ethical frameworks that attempt to define and understand these concepts.

Lastly, while it may be possible to find examples of goodness, beauty, and truth within a Christian community, it doesn't necessarily mean that these qualities are exclusive to Christianity. There are many other communities and belief systems that also espouse these values. Ultimately, the existence and manifestation of these qualities are subjective and dependent on one's perspective and worldview.

Perfect truth is unknowable in a relative world. Some relative truths are better than other relative truths by virtue of criteria. Since the Enlightenment most moderns choose reason as the criterion of truth.

The concept of truth is indeed subjective , and my concepts originate in what I have been taught or willy nilly otherwise learned. My experience of Xianity is that church congregations are made of individuals, and the more individualistic the congregation is encouraged to be , the safer the individual is.

I don't know of any ethical framework that defines perfect Goodness, Truth, and Beauty except that of the Romantic poets; that this trinity is visible in natural beauty. I think there was a Zen sage who help up a flower as an example of truth, something about the whole world explained in this simple thing.Holism is determinism taken to its ultimate conclusion.

[BigMike]

Perfect truth is unknowable in a relative world.

I must say that I disagree with the statement that perfect truth is unknowable in a relative world. In fact, some truths are absolute and unchangeable, like the fact that 1+1=2. This statement is a fundamental principle of mathematics that has been proven countless times and is widely accepted as true.

While it is true that there are many subjective truths in the world that can vary depending on a person's perspective or cultural background, there are also objective truths that exist independently of anyone's opinion. The laws of mathematics, physics, and logic, for example, are considered to be objective truths that are valid regardless of who is observing them.

So, while it's important to recognize that truth can be subjective in some cases, it's also important to acknowledge the existence of objective truths like the fact that 1+1=2.

[BigMike]

Holism is determinism taken to its ultimate conclusion.

I would agree with the statement that holism is determinism taken to its ultimate conclusion. Holism, which suggests that everything is interconnected and cannot be fully understood in isolation, is consistent with the idea that every event in the universe is caused by a preceding event, and that these causal chains stretch back to the very beginning of time.

In other words, if we take a holistic approach to understanding the world, we are acknowledging that every aspect of the universe is determined by a complex web of causal relationships, and that no event occurs independently of the others. This is similar to the hard determinist view that every action, thought, and decision is predetermined by prior causes, such as genetics, environment, and past experiences.

However, it's worth noting that while holism and determinism share some similarities, they are not identical concepts. Holism is a philosophical approach to understanding the world, whereas determinism is a scientific and metaphysical theory that attempts to explain how events in the universe are caused. Additionally, some determinists may not necessarily subscribe to a holistic view of the universe, as they may believe that some events can be understood in isolation.

That being said, as a hard determinist, I would argue that the holistic perspective is a useful way to think about the world, as it helps us to recognize the complex interconnectedness of all things and the ways in which our actions and decisions can have far-reaching consequences. By embracing a holistic worldview, we can gain a deeper appreciation for the ways in which we are all part of a larger system, and can work to make more informed and responsible choices that take into account the needs and well-being of others.

[BigMike]

Knowledge refers to information that is backed up by evidence and has been verified through observation, experience, or scientific research. It is generally considered to be objective and can be shared among different people.

Beliefs, on the other hand, are subjective and personal. They are ideas or concepts that people hold to be true, but may not be based on evidence or proof. Beliefs can be influenced by personal experiences, cultural and societal norms, and religious or spiritual convictions.

Faith is similar to beliefs in that it involves accepting something as true, even in the absence of concrete evidence. However, faith typically involves a strong conviction or trust in a particular religious or spiritual doctrine, and often involves a personal relationship with a deity or higher power.

Blind faith refers to a belief or trust in something without any evidence or rational basis. It is often used to describe an unwavering devotion to a particular belief or ideology, even in the face of contradictory evidence or logical inconsistencies. Blind faith can be dangerous, as it can lead to extremism, intolerance, and a lack of critical thinking.

Clearly, many members of this forum fall into the category of dangerous blind faith.

Motivated reasoning is the cognitive bias where people selectively interpret or distort information to support their pre-existing beliefs or values. This means that people tend to seek out information that confirms their beliefs and ignore or dismiss information that contradicts them.

Motivated reasoning can be dangerous because it can lead people to make poor decisions, ignore important information, and become entrenched in extreme or harmful beliefs. For example, political polarization and tribalism can result from motivated reasoning, where people are unwilling to engage with opposing views and become more extreme in their own beliefs.

Motivated reasoning can also lead to confirmation bias, where people overestimate the validity of information that supports their beliefs, and underestimate the validity of information that challenges them. This can result in a lack of critical thinking, poor decision-making, and even harm to oneself or others.

In addition, motivated reasoning can exacerbate groupthink, where people conform to the beliefs and values of their social group, even if they are harmful or incorrect. This can lead to a lack of diversity of thought and a reluctance to challenge the status quo, which can be dangerous in situations where dissenting voices are needed to prevent catastrophic outcomes.

[Harbal]

I just have to tell you how it is.

Of course you do; it's your duty as a true Christian, no matter how much they don't want to hear it, or how annoying it is for them to keep being told, you have to tell them.

[Immanuel Can]

I just have to tell you how it is.

Of course you do; it's your duty as a true Christian, no matter how much they don't want to hear it, or how annoying it is for them to keep being told, you have to tell them.

Quite right. Because the goal isn't to make oneself liked, at their expense; it's to save people from absolute disaster, if at all possible.

I often quote him, because he's an Atheist and a God-hater, and yet I think he got this absolutely right. Here's Penn Jillette:

“I’ve always said that I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe that there’s a heaven and a hell, and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life, and you think that it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward—and atheists who think people shouldn’t proselytize and who say just leave me along and keep your religion to yourself—how much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?

“I mean, if I believed, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that a truck was coming at you, and you didn’t believe that truck was bearing down on you, there is a certain point where I tackle you. And this is more important than that.”

[Gary Childress]

I just have to tell you how it is.

Of course you do; it's your duty as a true Christian, no matter how much they don't want to hear it, or how annoying it is for them to keep being told, you have to tell them.

Quite right. Because the goal isn't to make oneself liked, at their expense; it's to save people from absolute disaster, if at all possible.

I often quote him, because he's an Atheist and a God-hater, and yet I think he got this absolutely right. Here's Penn Jillette:

“I’ve always said that I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe that there’s a heaven and a hell, and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life, and you think that it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward—and atheists who think people shouldn’t proselytize and who say just leave me along and keep your religion to yourself—how much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?

“I mean, if I believed, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that a truck was coming at you, and you didn’t believe that truck was bearing down on you, there is a certain point where I tackle you. And this is more important than that.”

All this over something that is impossible to know in theory or communicate to anyone but yourself. What a burden God has given you.

[commonsense]

You contradict what you’ve posted earlier about God’s spoken word.

I don't think I do.

But if you think I do, I'm prepared to hear about it. Go ahead.

You contradict what you’ve posted earlier about God’s spoken word.

I don't think I do.

But if you think I do, I'm prepared to hear about it. Go ahead.

I think you said that the evidence for God’s existence is that he speaks.

But the proof of God’s existence depends on the characteristics of the individual.

The answer turns out to be quite simple: one has to be willing to look.

So the evidence is limited. That betrays the validity of the evidence.

[Immanuel Can]

Of course you do; it's your duty as a true Christian, no matter how much they don't want to hear it, or how annoying it is for them to keep being told, you have to tell them.

Quite right. Because the goal isn't to make oneself liked, at their expense; it's to save people from absolute disaster, if at all possible.

I often quote him, because he's an Atheist and a God-hater, and yet I think he got this absolutely right. Here's Penn Jillette:

“I’ve always said that I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe that there’s a heaven and a hell, and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life, and you think that it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward—and atheists who think people shouldn’t proselytize and who say just leave me along and keep your religion to yourself—how much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?

“I mean, if I believed, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that a truck was coming at you, and you didn’t believe that truck was bearing down on you, there is a certain point where I tackle you. And this is more important than that.”

All this over something that is impossible to know in theory or communicate to anyone but yourself.

And yet, you've been told how to find out. And you prefer cynicism to an honest experiment. Can such cynicism be cured? Not by me.

But with God, all things are possible.

[Immanuel Can]

But the proof of God’s existence depends on the characteristics of the individual.

Can you explain? I honestly don't understand what you're trying to communicate in this sentence.

[Gary Childress]

Quite right. Because the goal isn't to make oneself liked, at their expense; it's to save people from absolute disaster, if at all possible.

I often quote him, because he's an Atheist and a God-hater, and yet I think he got this absolutely right. Here's Penn Jillette:

“I’ve always said that I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe that there’s a heaven and a hell, and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life, and you think that it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward—and atheists who think people shouldn’t proselytize and who say just leave me along and keep your religion to yourself—how much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?

“I mean, if I believed, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that a truck was coming at you, and you didn’t believe that truck was bearing down on you, there is a certain point where I tackle you. And this is more important than that.”

All this over something that is impossible to know in theory or communicate to anyone but yourself.

And yet, you've been told how to find out. And you prefer cynicism to an honest experiment. Can such cynicism be cured? Not by me.

But with God, all things are possible.

What, talk to God? If I talk and something answers, how will I know if it's God or not? How would I discern the voice of God from that of a malicious demon (if such things exist)?

[commonsense]

But with God, all things are possible.

So God is responsible for belief in and following the path of Satan.

[commonsense]

Quite right. Because the goal isn't to make oneself liked, at their expense; it's to save people from absolute disaster, if at all possible.

I often quote him, because he's an Atheist and a God-hater, and yet I think he got this absolutely right. Here's Penn Jillette:

“I’ve always said that I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe that there’s a heaven and a hell, and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life, and you think that it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward—and atheists who think people shouldn’t proselytize and who say just leave me along and keep your religion to yourself—how much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?

“I mean, if I believed, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that a truck was coming at you, and you didn’t believe that truck was bearing down on you, there is a certain point where I tackle you. And this is more important than that.”

All this over something that is impossible to know in theory or communicate to anyone but yourself.

And yet, you've been told how to find out. And you prefer cynicism to an honest experiment. Can such cynicism be cured? Not by me.

But with God, all things are possible.

[commonsense]

But the proof of God’s existence depends on the characteristics of the individual.

Can you explain? I honestly don't understand what you're trying to communicate in this sentence.

Depends on the willingness of the individual