Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Belief: Directive vs. Reflective
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 16 of 20 (734662)
08-01-2014 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Stile
07-30-2014 12:13 PM


Re: Direct Reflections
I don't present two alternatives because I think they are the only ones possible.
I only present them because they are the only two I know of. Feel free to submit another and we can discuss it.
What's the point? You know everything you believe and the jaws of life wouldn't change that belief as proved by previous fruitless encounters.
Of course, it should also be pointed out that for all your whining you couldn't present a 3rd alternative.
I don't have to, the burden of proof isn't upon me to prove your dichotomy is false, the burden is upon you to prove it is true.
I don't have to prove salvation in Jesus Christ is not in your two groups, you have to prove it can be put into your two groups. That's not whining, that's an accurate knowledge of the notation of logic.
What did you expect, that I would just put my faith in Christ into one of your categories? The problem is you have a motive of diminishing and disproving that faith, I am not going to comply with the inferior wisdom of human reason/humanism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Stile, posted 07-30-2014 12:13 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-01-2014 11:10 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


(1)
Message 17 of 20 (734664)
08-01-2014 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Phat
07-30-2014 10:49 AM


Re: Direct Reflections
Keep in mind that those of us who know God (or believe that we do) God is an objective "still small voice" that we see as external (and thus objective) wisdom whereas for the other folks, it appears as if we are subjectively rationalizing our responses and beliefs.
But it's arrogant for them to assume this, from ignorance of that belief. Anyone who is genuinely born-again knows that the knowledge of God is given to us in a sequence of events that are far beyond any doubt. This is how God has chosen to do it, because He won't do it the puney gods way. (men). Men would only validate Him scientifically, in their arrogance and their weak attempts to refute God this way, are shot full of holes. Objectivity does not equate to a lack of ignorance. Objective prayer-experiments are an example of astonishing ignorance of what the bible says. Since the scientists have no way to understand what the bible means, and since they don't study each religion before the experiments, their ignorance is logically GUARANTEED. (I know this, from my studies, Phat, it's true they won't consider any basic theology such as reverence for God or His unwillingness to be put to the test, or his sovereignty, they don't even know those scriptures and theologies exist!!!!).
thus Stile uses logic the only way he knows how
People that don't study subjects like logic, the only way they know how is fallaciously. I speak from experience, because I also reasoned fallaciously when I was an ignoramus.
IF God exists and exists the way that you and I believe, Stile will be just fine.
Statements like this don't help us, Phat, by bowing to the evolutionists on the forum by saying, "if" God exists. Phat this won't make them like you or accept you. You don't have to pretend the matter is, "if". Those who are born again are given the knowledge of the truth, to say "if", or to say, "I believe God exists" to an evolutionist, is to effectively be a false witness, and lie, or mislead them.
No, it is not a subjective, relative experience. When God exists, the external proves the internal decision. We do know God exists, and nothing they say changes this, they can write a thousand posts, that will not change the truth, the life of God is true, God is true. We know it, but we can't prove it. Don't conflate the two.
As for Stile, I'm sure he's polite and all the rest, it's none of my business to judge him. I would never argue that it is impossible to do good things an be generally good as a none-Christian, I know there are well-meaning but ignorant people in existence, phat, you shouldn't feel the need to school me, although I am younger than you, there is a lot I have studied and I have the ability to figure out many things.
For example when you said, God is objective, or we believe it, I think you might have been referring to a JTB (justifed, true belief). Epistemologically, there is a problem with this called the "Gettier problem".
A variation would be my example of knowing the time. You look at your watch and it says 4pm, you look at the clock and it says 4pm, you look at yet another clock five minutes later and it says 4.05pm.
Now let us pretend that the first clock had stopped at 4pm, the second clock had stopped at 4pm and the third clock had stopped at 4.05pm, and the actual true time, was never 4pm, and never five past 4pm, but actually was 1pm.
You would have a justified true belief that it had been 4pm, and that five minutes later it was five past 4pm.
Christians do have this type of JTB in one sense, but only in regards to our senses and natural experiences.
But there is much more to it that the matters of evidence, proof and knowledge. There are also matters of supernatural input. After all, when we read the scriptures and it says things are known by the spirit of God, such terminology can only be understood by those who are spiritually born. You can only even know what that means, only by experiencing the spiritual according to an exclusive definition of "spiritual" as defined biblically and originally, not the vague modern definition of such words. So we can't squeeze God into our limited human-reason, phat. Also the evidence of His handiwork is beyond dispute, the evolutions are refuted, when all lumped together.
Of course, what are the chances of the clock-scenario? From my own experiences I would have to say that I have been misled to the point of perhaps observing hundreds of clocks all saying 4pm. Which is just not going to happen, and not only does this happen to me, but it all happens in steps and sequences that also must only happen according to a developing plan. Therefore I would have to see a clock that stopped at 4pm, then 17 minutes later see a clock that had stopped at 4.17pm, then precisely one hour later, see a stopped clock that said 5.17pm.
If you have any experience of God, you will agree this is how accurate He is. To say this is chance, is simply a nonsense, only an air-head would believe that, if they had experiences such things.
There comes a point in the Christian life, that you almost laugh, because you have had so many accurate encounters with God that if that was the only way of measuring whether He is there, you would have to conclude that if He wasn't there, then the universe was deliberately tricking you into thinking He was. But there is no rational reason to believe that, just as there is no rational reason to believe that a super-streak of victories in a casino is coincidental.
Imagine if the casino owner walked up to someone that had would twelve times in a row, highly improbable odds, and the casino owner said to him, "I'm calling the police."
Imagine if the winner were to say to him, "no, don't call the police, you are indulging in confirmation-bias, you see, before I won twelve in a row, I actually lost eight in a row, and if you check your CCTV, you will see that I lost eight in a row."
But this doesn't mean I discount your sayings phat, I know you mean well and you also are a very polite and good person, but sometimes I think you HELP the evolutionists by adopting their sayings because you believe you can't refute them when they say, "if" God exists, because of their arguments.
Instead you need to come to people like me, and we will refute what they say for you, and then you won't feel the need to have to be peer-pressured into accepting their errors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Phat, posted 07-30-2014 10:49 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Stile, posted 08-11-2014 10:54 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 18 of 20 (734693)
08-01-2014 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by mike the wiz
08-01-2014 5:10 AM


Re: Direct Reflections
So what's the third option?
How does your faith in Christ fall outside of the two options given?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by mike the wiz, posted 08-01-2014 5:10 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 19 of 20 (734703)
08-01-2014 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by mike the wiz
08-01-2014 4:45 AM


mike the wiz writes:
I think this shows ignorance of people that are genuinely born again Christians.
That sounds like the No True Scotsman fallacy. Anybody who disagrees with you is not a "true" Christian.
FYI, almost everybody I know is a "born again" Christian and I have no reason to think they are less genuine than you are.
mike the wiz writes:
It's fair to say that atheists aren't going to be looking around for genuine examples, when in their own minds they have enough evidence to rule it all as "false".
I have no axe to grind here. I'm talking about people I know and love. I hope they are "true" Christians. I wish what they are saying was true - but I fear they're deceiving themselves.
mike the wiz writes:
I hope you understand my point. It can be difficult to know what I am talking about if you are not me.
Maybe you could express yourself more clearly if you quoted logic texts less and used logic more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by mike the wiz, posted 08-01-2014 4:45 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 20 of 20 (735315)
08-11-2014 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by mike the wiz
08-01-2014 5:45 AM


Reflecting on the Topic
mike the wiz writes:
As for Stile, I'm sure he's polite and all the rest, it's none of my business to judge him.
You sure do a lot of judging while declaring that it's none of your business.
quote:
Directive Belief
A directive belief is a belief someone holds that describes how they should live their life.
Reflective Belief
A reflective belief is a belief someone holds that describes how their life is lived.
No one else can decide for you if your beliefs are Directive (following the party-line) or Reflective (doing it because you feel it's right).
You are the only one who can decide this, and you can even change your mind at any time.
You could even hold beliefs that fall into some third category that has yet to be explained.
My only point is that Reflective beliefs are more individually powerful than Directive beliefs.
I'm not really talking about any specific belief.
The belief could be about God, or it could be that aliens stole your pet goldfish.
A reflective believe will be more powerful.
If you believe in God because that's the way you feel based on your experiences and you then live your life in a God-filled sense because of this conviction... that's more powerful than going to church on Easter weekend because your mom wants you to.
I didn't really think the idea was all that controversial. It was only meant to get people thinking about their beliefs and how they lead their lives. Getting those two to line up will make for a better life. In this world and any other possible plane of existence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by mike the wiz, posted 08-01-2014 5:45 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024