I come seeking truth.

[Town Heretic]

More of a realist, actually (often called a pessimist by optimists). I read this forum a bit before joining, and I think my chances are pretty good.

Well, it all depends on how one defines the miraculous, I suppose. I'm only having a bit of fun with you, as per my simple "That's bad" response to your complaint on point.

Re: Egbert is hard on whom...

The former, though in some other areas I practice the latter as well.

That sounds healthy enough.

Oh, my mistake. I should have said classic liberal, since "social liberal" has a definition beyond a distinction from the "fiscal" arena.

Ah, that's understandable then. It's not as funny, mind you, but it's understandable.

And how does it [theology] seem to you now?

Familiar.

:think: I find myself more concerned with working out my obligation to others than I am in spending time arguing the non-salvific, except as an exercise in intellectual curiosity.

 

[bucksplasher]

Time or Money

Time or Money

Are you able to search the forum to see if certain topics were already brought up? It doesn't look like I can (I would prefer to before starting a thread on something), but I was wondering if that is just a privilege that is granted after some number of posts or days as a member.

I understand that after so many posts you get some info and privileges or if you become a dues paying member you also get benefits. You are moving up the ladder already.

Don't worry about past posts for after they die hardly anyone thinks to resurrect them again. tWINs

 

[Mysterion]

Excellent! Thanks. Do you know any of the original languages (Hebrew, ancient Greek, Latin)?

Ha! I wish!

No, not a specialist in languages per se, but just about as resourceful as one can possibly be without that particular skill. Something I should look into, nevertheless. Anyway, this should be fun.

 

[Egbert]

Well, it all depends on how one defines the miraculous, I suppose.

I gather your experience has been disappointing. Yet...you stayed.

:chuckle:

I'm only having a bit of fun with you, as per my simple "That's bad" response to your complaint on point.

Nothing wrong with that; perpetual solemness is a drag.

:think: I find myself more concerned with working out my obligation to others than I am in spending time arguing the non-salvific, except as an exercise in intellectual curiosity.

...Hence more than 4,000 posts...?

 

[bucksplasher]

So Humble

So Humble

Well, it all depends on how one defines the miraculous, I suppose. I'm only having a bit of fun with you, as per my simple "That's bad" response to your complaint on point.

Re: Egbert is hard on whom...

That sounds healthy enough.

Ah, that's understandable then. It's not as funny, mind you, but it's understandable.

Familiar.

:think: I find myself more concerned with working out my obligation to others than I am in spending time arguing the non-salvific, except as an exercise in intellectual curiosity.

You are indeed the Champion. I'll have to continue piecing together the pattern of your beliefs I see. tWINs

PS I can see where an actual statement brings unnecessary attacks and thus wasted time defending them but a general statement might not be too difficult.

 

[Egbert]

I understand that after so many posts you get some info and privileges or if you become a dues paying member you also get benefits. You are moving up the ladder already.

Okay, thanks for the info. How about you, though? At your position, do you have a search button at the top of the page?

Don't worry about past posts for after they die hardly anyone thinks to resurrect them again. tWINs

But presumably the veterans are aware that the subforums are filled with redundant threads, right?

Ha! I wish!

No, not a specialist in languages per se, but just about as resourceful as one can possibly be without that particular skill. Something I should look into, nevertheless. Anyway, this should be fun.

Indeed; I'm sure I'll have questions in the future.
I intend to learn ancient Greek someday, but many other subjects are also attractive. :juggle:

 

[Gurucam]

Religious and political indoctrination routinely downplay the complexities of their respective issues. In everyday life I am often surrounded by oversimplified viewpoints; here I hope to have some richer discussions and appreciate the diversity of the arguments.

The basics: I am an 18-year-old guy from the midwest. Currently I am a somewhat skeptical Christian with some unconventional views, a classic liberal and a fiscal conservative. During the past year, I have developed my religious and political views a lot, though I have raised more questions than I have answered. I hope to reach more conclusions throughout debate, study and thought.

You hope to reach more conclusions throughout debate, study and thought?

If these are 'conclusion' of Truth, then it is is not likely that you will find them through that pathway. You will find Truth by searching you heart.

 

[PyramidHead]

i like good music, hit me up if you need any

 

[bucksplasher]

Redundancy

Redundancy

Okay, thanks for the info. How about you, though? At your position, do you have a search button at the top of the page?



But presumably the veterans are aware that the subforums are filled with redundant threads, right?



Indeed; I'm sure I'll have questions in the future.
I intend to learn ancient Greek someday, but many other subjects are also attractive. :juggle:

we live for redundancy and I have a search button. It takes effort to find old threads new threads are easier. tWINs

 

[Egbert]

You hope to reach more conclusions throughout debate, study and thought?

If these are 'conclusion' of Truth, then it is is not likely that you will find them through that pathway. You will find Truth by searching you heart.

That sort of truth is probably not the kind I am looking for. Truth that you can only find in yourself is subjective, and is normally not applicable to other people or theories.

 

[Town Heretic]

I gather your experience has been disappointing.

What on earth would make you think that? :idunno:

Yet...you stayed.

:chuckle:

For any number of reasons, not the least of which is the fellowship of likened and antithetical minds, yes. I dabble in apologetics, odd bits of something very much like humor, enjoy a little politics (though mostly as a centrist moderator) and making the occasional odd observation.

Re: humor as metaphor...

Nothing wrong with that; perpetual solemness is a drag.

Careful there or you'll needlessly offend friend Persephone66. :squint:

Re: 101 Damnations...or, It Saves Me/It Saves Me Not.

...Hence more than 4,000 posts...?

And nary or hardly a one disputing the right of a brother to drink wine or refrain from dancing in the aisles. If you're going to insist on coming to conclusions before you have all the facts...:think:...you're going to fit in nicely on either side of things around here.

That said, there are any number of serious, studious and thoughtful people at TOL to give you wider and more fully realized perspective on faith...and on that which stands in opposition to it, for that matter.

 

[Gurucam]

That sort of truth is probably not the kind I am looking for. Truth that you can only find in yourself is subjective, and is normally not applicable to other people or theories.

Sorry see next post:

 

[Gurucam]

That sort of truth is probably not the kind I am looking for. Truth that you can only find in yourself is subjective, and is normally not applicable to other people or theories.

First of all welcome to the forum.

And indeed I would like to take your inquiry, appropriately and therefore very seriously. To that end I would ask:

What do you mean by 'that sort of truth' and 'the kind of truth'?
I know truth to be knowledge which is total, accurate and clear. The same every where and any where.

Are you suggesting that there are different kinds of truth?

The mysteries of the kingdom of God is essentially the knowledge which one must have in order do everything correctly on earth so as to live a heavenly life on earth. This knowledge is described as Truth in the N.T.

When Jesus walked on earth, He delivered Truth only to His disciples because only they had the intuitive actualization to know, discern and/or appreciate Truth. Everyone else was only intellectually actualized and this did not qualify them to know discern or appreciate Truth or to get confirmation of same from Jesus. Why indeed, is Truth such a big deal?

Fact is that if your actions are informed by knowledge which is 'total, accurate and clear' (i.e. Truth) it never fails to bring forth the exactly desired results bountifully, at the most appropriate time, in the most harmonious and appropriate manner.

In fact such actions deliver you into Heaven on earth. And indeed you would find that such actions would not result in the destruction of the God designed life sustaining integrity of God's creation. (i.e. like the destruction of the Ozone layer)

Indeed you must be aware that it is because our actions which includes our daily activities are not informed by knowledge which is total, accurate and clear, that we are undermining and destroying our physical and spirit bodies and our environment whiles precipitating natural disasters with increasing frequency and intensity and so ending the world as we know it in parts.

Indeed it is the most routine activities of our modern civilized lifestyle which are destroying the God designed life sustaining integrity of God's creation and also leading to increases in intensity and frequency of natural disasters.

I ask you who has informed our modern civilized lifestyle. Certainly not intuits. It is indeed those who used the path ways of debate, study and thought. They are our 'intellectuals' who included our modern scientists. They seem far from the final frontier of Truth. Indeed their wisdom seems to be, at best, half baked theories.

Now I can ask you more accurately: With respect to your statement, 'that sort of truth is probably not the kind I am looking for. Truth that you can only find in yourself is subjective, and is normally not applicable to other people or theories.'

Are you suggesting that if Truth is obtained through an externally oriented search of debate, study and thought it would be different from Truth which is obtained intuitively through one's heart from the source of all knowledge?

Didn't everyone including Einstein and Jesus who brought (new) knowledge to earth, obtain their 'Truth' from a source which they connected to within their heart and not from any debate, study and thought which essentially taps on sources without?

The question arises therefore: What is Truth? That is: what is the definition of Truth which when used as a word it will convey the same meaning to everyone?

With out that we will be using lots of words and descriptions at every event that we seek to use the word. And indeed how will one truly know what you seek?

Then also another question may be: Is Truth different from truth?
If so, how?

These ideas are indeed the most fundamental starting points for any seeker of Truth and indeed most appropriate for you, based on your opening statement.

With kindest regards.

 

[Egbert]

I'm back...

I'm back...

...and now an agnostic atheist (or whatever you want to call a person who believes in no specific God, but is open to the idea of mysterious spiritual presences of human or other origin). My inquiry into Christianity as a possibly true religion is over, though I remain interested in studying its scriptures and origins in a historical context.

 

[Town Heretic]

...and now an agnostic atheist (or whatever you want to call a person who believes in no specific God, but is open to the idea of mysterious spiritual presences of human or other origin). My inquiry into Christianity as a possibly true religion is over, though I remain interested in studying its scriptures and origins in a historical context.

No offense, but you're 18...your judgment centers haven't finished developing yet and you're in a poor position to make decisions of this magnitude. Secondarily, I could have saved you a great deal of time (well the time you spent, at any rate) by telling you at the outset that love in reserve isn't love and won't garner you anything. Similarly, a skeptical approach of the cross is a doomed one.

As to the nature of your inquiry, I'd bet my bottom dollar you barely scratched the surface of what was there to be considered, your approach notwithstanding... Fortunately, and not to beat a dead horse, you're young. There's time.

 

[Egbert]

No offense, but you're 18...your judgment centers haven't finished developing yet and you're in a poor position to make decisions of this magnitude.

If I am mature enough to accept Christ, or to be condemned to Hell for failing to do so, then I am mature enough to reach a conclusion regarding the probability of the existence of God. Would you be offering the same advice if I had announced that I became a born-again Christian? If you believe God would hold me accountable, then I do not think I should purposefully delay my conclusions.

Secondarily, I could have saved you a great deal of time (well the time you spent, at any rate) by telling you at the outset that love in reserve isn't love and won't garner you anything. Similarly, a skeptical approach of the cross is a doomed one.

And the skeptical approach is "doomed" because Christian dogma cannot hold up under proper scrutiny. That is not a virtue of faith, either; it simply puts it in the same category with other religions that almost all of us consider ridiculous.

As to the nature of your inquiry, I'd bet my bottom dollar you barely scratched the surface of what was there to be considered, your approach notwithstanding... Fortunately, and not to beat a dead horse, you're young. There's time.

Obviously I have studied only a small fraction of the total information available on the subject — but then the same is true for you or any other person. I am confident of my conclusion because I have looked at the relevant arguments and thought about the big picture. When you consider the religion as a whole, there really isn't very much to argue about. Either there is evidence for the Judeo-Christian God's existence, or there isn't. The Bible also can be quickly assessed simply by highlighting a few major inconsistencies or nonsensical pieces of doctrine. Christianity is highly dependent on the Bible to be an infallible source, which it isn't.

 

[Town Heretic]

If I am mature enough to accept Christ, or to be condemned to Hell for failing to do so, then I am mature enough to reach a conclusion regarding the probability of the existence of God.

I didn’t say anything about your maturity. I merely noted that you are biologically less capable at this point in your development. You’re much more likely to make poor decisions without recognizing it. It wasn’t offered as an insult, only an observation of biological fact.

Would you be offering the same advice if I had announced that I became a born-again Christian?

Of course not, but that doesn’t make your implied point. To illustrate, say you come to me and tell me that you’ve decided to attend college, but secretly your reason for this is that you want to hang out and socialize, meet girls and enjoy that scene. You’ll go to class and do well enough to remain, but your intent isn’t to receive an education. You’ve made a wise choice for the wrong reasons. My approval wouldn’t have anything to do with your judgment.

If you believe God would hold me accountable, then I do not think I should purposefully delay my conclusions.

I didn’t say you should, but given your conclusion, your mistake in method, your all too brief consideration and the consequences I’d rather you take a bit more time.

And the skeptical approach is "doomed" because Christian dogma cannot hold up under proper scrutiny.

That’s a powerful declaration. It would, however, be a tad more convincing if coupled with a powerful examination. It’s doomed because you can’t love in reserve, can’t issue an invitation with the doors bolted and will never have a meaningful relationship based on suspicion…I realize that most emotional entanglements at your age are little more than that but as an approach to God it is woefully insufficient.

That is not a virtue of faith, either; it simply puts it in the same category with other religions that almost all of us consider ridiculous.

Then those people, your peers and that general company, whom you have decided to side with, are under the same obligation to answer the challenge I make to you.

Obviously I have studied only a small fraction of the total information available on the subject — but then the same is true for you or any other person.

It isn’t necessary to read every tome by every Christian with an exegesis…but you should be familiar with the central understandings of any faith you’re considering. It isn’t your fault that I’ve had more years of serious study than you’ve lived, but that doesn’t mean a day is the same as a week is the same as a month, year, decade, and so on. Perhaps by the time you reach my age you will have greatly surpassed my understanding and accomplishment. I hope that is the case and would be happy to learn of it, but at present you know little and from that want make decisions of real importance and I’m counseling you not to hurry.

I am confident of my conclusion because I have looked at the relevant arguments and thought about the big picture.

Your confidence isn’t at issue. Your judgment, exposure and the limited development of your reasoning at this juncture are more to the point. Nothing to hang your head over, but it is something to be aware of and to take into account when making anything like a judgment of this magnitude.

When you consider the religion as a whole, there really isn't very much to argue about. Either there is evidence for the Judeo-Christian God's existence, or there isn't.

I agree. And there is as much for Him as there ever will be against Him or for any other proposition. Now then, what constitutes evidence? What is sufficient as a threshold? Do you understand that any position you take in relation to what is can be viewed as a statement of faith? And have you fully considered the matter with the requisite information at hand to make an informed and meaningful choice?

The Bible also can be quickly assessed simply by highlighting a few major inconsistencies or nonsensical pieces of doctrine.

Rather, if you could do so you would at best make an argument that Galileo was right and that the Bible is a book of faith, not science; but, first you’d have to actually do that, wouldn’t you?

Christianity is highly dependent on the Bible to be an infallible source, which it isn't.

If you mean the credibility of Christianity rests on the Bible, I’d say that’s true in part, though how you mean that is important.

 

[annabenedetti]

Religious and political indoctrination routinely downplay the complexities of their respective issues. In everyday life I am often surrounded by oversimplified viewpoints; here I hope to have some richer discussions and appreciate the diversity of the arguments.

The basics: I am an 18-year-old guy from the midwest. Currently I am a somewhat skeptical Christian with some unconventional views, a classic liberal and a fiscal conservative. During the past year, I have developed my religious and political views a lot, though I have raised more questions than I have answered. I hope to reach more conclusions throughout debate, study and thought.

This is a great blog by someone who used to be an atheist and was quite vocal about it on her blog. Her conversion story can be found in the links just under her profile on the upper left of her blog. She's a terrific writer, and reading her blog is both fun and profitable. Give it a try.

Conversion Diary - The Diary of a Former Atheist

 

[Revelation]

I didn’t say anything about your maturity. I merely noted that you are biologically less capable at this point in your development. You’re much more likely to make poor decisions without recognizing it. It wasn’t offered as an insult, only an observation of biological fact.[/COLOR}

Wow, watch the ad hominems fly in this thread! Are you so threatened by the 18 year old's arguments that you have to resort to those kind of tactics?

 

[Town Heretic]

Wow, watch the ad hominems fly in this thread! Are you so threatened by the 18 year old's arguments that you have to resort to those kind of tactics?

Find anything in the quote that preceded the declaration above that was, in fact, an ad hominem. I noted the biological impairment to judgment that accompanies people of this age, arguably into their early twenties. That is simply a fact and one relevant to the discussion, especially in light of subsequent declarations on his part regarding the nature of his rejection and the estimation of its reasonableness.

I could hardly address his argument, given he made none, declaring the matter closed after some degree of unexposed examination. I challenged him on particulars or the need for them and, where there was a general underlying principle, sought to address it even absent that called for and particular posit. Lastly, I set out that my observations were not offered as personal criticism, but in the hope that he might slow his consideration or reverse it until such time as he could make a more informed decision.

You know what they call a mistaken revelation, don't you?