Christian Pride.

You cannot know that this is the case. You, as an empiricist (presumably) have not the tools to enable such knowledge. No tools - no comment. Agnosticism is an option for you though

as long as we all see and hear the same things it doesn't matter whether they're accurate or not, it becomes our reality.sensory input has nothing to do with faith. You're playing with words again.

quote:

---

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." - St Paul

---

Your own lord and master contradicts you!

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Faith (as meant in the Biblical sense): evidence of things not seen. In other words you do not need to have seen it in order to have evidence. I wouldn't disagree with this for a moment - the Biblical answer to philosophical empiricism in a nutshell

Just as you "cannot know" that my alien friend Zaafg talks to me daily from his home planet.If something cannot be known then there exists no knowledge to speak of.You have the same amount of "knowledge" about God as I do.None.You have only faith.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

How can you know that I do not know something. I know a fox ran across my path last night. You might believe me or not. That you cannot know that one did has no bearing on what I know.It would be interesting to see how you build on this assertion though. I am curious.

With regard to God I can know you lack evidence of God because you are unable to produce any.Therefore, there exists no known means for you to get or impart your "knowledge".If something cannot be known then there exists no knowledge to speak of.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

...pay attention to St Paul :

quote:

---

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

---

In other words, if you haven't seen it yet then you have faith.
If you've seen it then there's no need for faith.are we agreeing so far ?

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Is this a little pride (..."you can't know what I know...nyeah,nyeah,nyeah")?It is not really about what you can or do know. It is about what you can or do show. If you showed us the tracks of the fox and some fur caught in the brambles, then you would be more likely to be believed. You could even test the fur to estimate how long it had been there. You could have an experienced tracker declare a span of time in which the tracks were likely to have been made. If that span included last night then your declaration is even more believable.Jesus showed that He had power by healing people and rising from the dead. These demonstrations lent weight to His declaration of His divinity. He cast out demons, showing some corroboration for His claims of Who He worked for. He went to the cross despite having the power to avoid it, thus showing His willingness to sacrifice Himself for us. This is the example that your leader left for you.
He even said His followers would do greater things than these.All I see from True Christians is pride of position without anything to show that pride is warranted. No healings (please correct me with demonstrable examples if I am wrong in this or the next few statements). No raising from the dead. No demons cast out, in fact no demons shown to exist at all. No walking on water or stopping storms. No multiplying of food.
Nothing but pride.Pride in their "superior" moral code.
Pride in their "knowledge" of the spiritual realm.
Pride in their humility.
Pride in their connection with the Holy Spirit (tongues...laughing...barking...swooning...blah,blah,blah).So, what do you have to show us that you are actually connected to the Father? Jesus showed evidence of His connection and said that His followers would be able to do the same. Can you?

Of course, everyone thinks they are right. I think I am right. I have yet to see any evidence about my religious beliefs that would indicate
I am wrong.It is just that some people feel they are right, and try to impose their beliefs on others,because they think they know best for everyone, and others let people find their own paths.In addition, some people believe because they follow a specific path they are 'forgiven' above others (thus morally superior). One of the most annoying obnoxious sayings that some of the fundy's use is 'Christians are not perfect, just forgiven'. Edited by ramoss, : No reason given.

Not at all. It was a statement you should agree with. Rick cannot know that a fox ran across my path last night. All the tracks in the world will not enable him to know it. You yourself say that such evidence might make them believe - which is a different thing to knowing altogether. I simply dealt with Ricks fallacious statement that if he cannot know something then I cannot know. His was an IF/ THEN statement devoid of logic. If so then showing I am proud because of what I say is a fools errant. Something I mentioned a few posts ago to someone. Pride cannot be shown to be the case on the basis of dismissing the premise out of hand. There is no way to dismiss it in any empirical fashion even though those arguing attempt to do so. Those who live by empiricism die by it too. They make the charge of pride - then let them make the case. That is what it is about. Agnostiscm is the only answer: they cannot know whether I am being proud for they cannot know I know not. See fox analogy aboveOne may assume the premise and argue that under that I am being proud but that is a different thing than what is being attempted here Your conflating knowing something and believing something. Remember too that even such things didn't result in people believing him. Many did, many didn't. Just goes to show the inherant problems with empiricism. People will not even believe their own eyes. Your claim, your opinion to hold - your case to make. Who is the accused and who is the accuser here. Sleight-of-hand from here to end of post attempts to place the onus on me (the person defending the charge against them) to prove their case. It is a clumsy attempt to sidesteps the problem that you have making a case. Can you demonstrate that I am proud (I mean without erecting strawmen positions for me to occupy)? I think not.May I suggest we sail off into the sunset together on the good ship Agnosticism on this matter. Stalemate. I'll even forget it that I was the accused and you the accuser - I can't say fairer than that LAQ

...Don't give up the day job eh?

quote:

---

creavolution writes:

​

regardless, you surely must accept that it is you who ultimately makes the decision whether or not to reject God, thus You most certainly have some responsibility for your own salvation

​

Thing is, the things that get presented don't have "God" stamped on them so you don't know (in an intellectual sense) that is God you are rejecting. It happens on another level. The heart if you will. For example:

​

I considered whether to take a particular job once. All rational like, I sat down and made a list. Two in fact. Pro's and Cons of this job. I wrote every pro and con I could think of and then applied an approximate weighting to each item. I figured that it would suffer from some subjectivity but by sheer weight of numbers I would get a god (by editops! Honest!) enough approximation

​

The pro's ran to 5 lines. The cons to a page and a half. I took the job. My heart was right - my intellect wrong.

​

You can make a decision for God if you do not know it is God you are deciding for? Can you?

---

er... right... classic Iano diversionary tactics...but regardless, you make that decision do you not? so you are at least in some respect responsible for making that choice are you not?

Read Romans 7. The latter section culminating in "Oh wretched man that I am". The man is under conviction of his lawbreaking. He sees the law, sees it is good, sees it is Gods law, realises he is a sinner - that he cannot keep the law and realises what that means.God made all this known to him. Man will cry out to God but that is no more a free-willed decision that the decision of a man to flee a raging fire. There is no choice about it and no decision to be made at that point - it is his only course of action.The opportunity to reject happened all along the way there - before man knew there was a fire all around him. It is along the way that a man has the free will to reject. Not at the point where he can no longer reject.If man does not reject Gods attempt to bring him before the raging fire then to that place God will bring him. Man is sure to turn to God then. He will have no choice at that point{AbE} Now where would man slot in pride here? Especially since that self same process can be applied to anybody. A man can only be proud that he stood up to God and had the balls to reject him. Foolish pride you would agree - but pride all the same. The other man will be humbled. He was headed to perdition and someone else hauled him out of it."I was jaywalking and that driver managed to steer the car past me and crash into a pole, killing himself. What a good jaywalker I am - managing to escape death like that"Edited by iano, : No reason given.

No, I agree that I cannot do anything but point out indications of pride in speach, mannerisms...etc. That may be considered a failing of empirism. I don't think it is however, because that which I can point out as evidence can be observed by others. Admittedly, the interpretation may be different but enough evidence can pursuade someone to change their interpretation.The problem with your method of "knowing" is that you can't show anyone else what you know. You can tell them you had an experience and even describe that experience, but you cannot provide them the experience. So, the "knowing" has no real meaning to anyone but you. In fact, if another believer says they "know" this spiritual truth that you claim you know, you can't tell if they really do, because it is all about feelings and subjective impressions.
If that's all that is important, and you don't care that anyone believes you, then that's ok. However, that attitude explains the apparant apostacy that is happening in the church today....empty spirituality.Regarding my statement of Christians being prideful without any evidential support for their exclusive relationship with God... True, I have little evidence that you are proud and even less that you have not worked miracles. Maybe you can provide some indication that you have.
However, my personal experience with groups of True Christians has revealed:
1. Condescension
2. Showy displays of "gifts" with no substance and no resultant fruits.
3. Indignation when their "interpretation" is questioned.
4. Advocation of the suppression of others.
5. Rejection of those not like them.Those all indicate unwarranted pride from my point of view.I probably shouldn't generalize about all Christians from my own experience, but I have seen this same behavior from the majority of the Christians I have met in 8 different communities. Maybe I am just poor at choosing whom I befriend.

According to a pre-set model of what pride is. Your own model. But if someone shows you the model against which they say what they say and that model (even if you do not believe it but they do) excludes the possibility of pride (pride in self, about self. about what one has achieved etc) then surely one cannot say the person is proud.If, for instance, God communicates with me (and it is eminantly feasible - all he has to do is exist and chose to do so) then I am not being proudful in saying so if his communication with me relies not on any merit in me. If he doesn't actually exist then I am either deluded and think he is communicating with me. Which is not pride. Or I am lying and am just saying so for whatever reason I do. Lying about something is not an exhibition in pride. That would be false pride. Proud of something you haven't done, achieved etc. That is not pride either.Come to think of it: even for a person to be proud about their relationship with God in the ugly sense I take you to mean it ( "I am better than another thus God chose to communicate with me because of that. Ain't I great!"), God would have to exist in order for the person to be proud of it. Thus, if you genuinely think someone is proud then be careful - you have just accepted God exists. Perhaps false pride would be a better thing to accuse someone of. Granted. The problem is mine only in so far as I cannot convince another definitively. There is no problem in that for me personally however. Your train of thought unhinges here slightly. I can have an experience that only I experience and it remains objective - like the fox only I saw running across the road. That was objective. Lack of demonstrability does not render something unobjective. And I can tell if another knows too at times. For if there is no empirical way to this knowledge (and I exlude learned-from-Church knowledge here too) and the only way is for God to provide it then if they know what I know then God had to be the one to let them know too. It is not that I don't care if anyone believes me or not. I do care. But my caring changes not the fact that I know (and accept) that no one is going to believe me. It is not my purpose here that people believe me. That they don't is to be expected. I do what I do in full knowledge that no one is going to believe me. Those words would require all the debate that has gone into pride (for it has taken 149 posts to conclude it is false pride we should be talking about) But on face value and as they are (arguably) commonly understood: Shame on them

well... let's see... The opportunity was there, but the man did not reject. His choice.. no? Again... "if MAN does not reject", Man's choice. no?whether made at the last minute, before the 'raging fire' or made earlier, man makes the choice not to reject.
therefore man has a direct input into his own salvation, and thus may feel a sense of achievement as opposed to the poor 'swine' who mave have made a different choice. rather, he mede the choice to allow himself to be hauled out of it. countless other folk make a different choice every day, the choice to seemingly allow themselves to be draw toward perdition.you are, at least in part, responsible for your own salvation(delusion?).