Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   how can any one religion make a valid claim to be the fundamental truth?
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 226 of 302 (180303)
01-24-2005 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by nator
01-24-2005 8:23 AM


Re: Truth again
Exactly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by nator, posted 01-24-2005 8:23 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by nator, posted 01-26-2005 12:04 AM riVeRraT has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 227 of 302 (180306)
01-24-2005 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by CK
01-24-2005 3:48 PM


Re: I think you may have misunderstood the question.
Well there was no needle as such - I got interested in science and started going to the library a lot. I then realised that I believed in god because I had been told that I believed in God as a child and it had become a matter of habit. That as they say was that.
Well of course your not going to believe in it because they told you so. Thats more or less what happened to me.
Absolutly believing in God should be way more than what your told. He should speak to you so you know.
Your smart enough, and even though you come out with the craziest things, I see a desire in you to know the truth.
Bless you on your journey.
I think some of the carribean spanish speaking countries use that term, and it refers to saran wrap, which is plastic and transparent. They say it when you block the TV. LOL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by CK, posted 01-24-2005 3:48 PM CK has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 228 of 302 (180308)
01-24-2005 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by ohnhai
01-24-2005 3:51 PM


Re: Love me do...
When endorphins start revealing truth to you, we got a problem captain.
Time to beam up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by ohnhai, posted 01-24-2005 3:51 PM ohnhai has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by ohnhai, posted 01-24-2005 7:23 PM riVeRraT has not replied

ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5162 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 229 of 302 (180316)
01-24-2005 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by riVeRraT
01-24-2005 6:45 PM


Re: Love me do...
actually it was dopamine (my Bad..), here's the post Message 8 watch the talk it's very interesting.
This message has been edited by ohnhai, 01-24-2005 19:24 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by riVeRraT, posted 01-24-2005 6:45 PM riVeRraT has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 230 of 302 (180320)
01-24-2005 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by riVeRraT
01-24-2005 6:16 AM


Re: Truth again
If god existed truth would be as needing of evidential standards as it is without him.Omnipotence does not have to automatically equate to being free of deceit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by riVeRraT, posted 01-24-2005 6:16 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by riVeRraT, posted 01-25-2005 8:40 AM sidelined has replied

ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5162 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 231 of 302 (180329)
01-24-2005 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by riVeRraT
01-24-2005 6:24 PM


.....
Sorry riVeRraT, but it seems you truly do not understand, the concept of what I am saying.
You seem so blinded by your dogmatic attitudes that you fail to see that even though you admit religions could be wrong and that the truth is not what you and I believe, you still assert that god is the single undeniable truth without any possibility of error in that assertion. And you do this without seeing that, that very assertion is your concept of reality and so, as open to error as anything else anyone asserts.
In saying this I also have to point out that despite my assertions that ‘no mater what anyone asserts there is a chance it could be wrong’ this too could, in fact, be wrong.
I believe with all my heart I am a good dancer, that I can strut my funky stuff better then most, but there are many who would laugh and utterly dispute that fact. Hell I have seen video evidence that they could be right, but I still believe I have some moves. Whether my belief is true or not doesn’t matter, because I have to believe it to be true else I couldn’t dance. However I still accept my belief in my ability could in fact be wrong.
You say
I am completely a nut case, and have lost my lid, or there is a God. I want to believe the second one of course
Does this mean, however distasteful to you and your own position, that you do actually accept there is a possibility, however slight, that you could actually be wrong about any and all the things you hold to be true, up to and including the existence and infallibility of God?
To all other posters, if I am being unfair to Ratty on this point, please point out where and how.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by riVeRraT, posted 01-24-2005 6:24 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by riVeRraT, posted 01-25-2005 8:37 AM ohnhai has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 232 of 302 (180401)
01-25-2005 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by ohnhai
01-24-2005 8:50 PM


Re: .....
And you do this without seeing that, that very assertion is your concept of reality and so, as open to error as anything else anyone asserts.
No, what I said early to someone, was that "IF" there was a God, wouldn't you expect him to be the truth?
Then I go on to elborate how I think I know this God. But I will not tie it to any religion.
There is the religion of God, then there is the religion of man.
Your question was, what religion can claim to hold the truth, not is there a God or not.
I am basically saying that I do not believe that religion can hold truth, as it is not the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by ohnhai, posted 01-24-2005 8:50 PM ohnhai has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by ohnhai, posted 01-25-2005 11:11 AM riVeRraT has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 233 of 302 (180403)
01-25-2005 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by sidelined
01-24-2005 7:47 PM


Re: Truth again
If god existed truth would be as needing of evidential standards as it is without him.
Right, and the bible shows us how.
Omnipotence does not have to automatically equate to being free of deceit.
That goes against what the bible teaches us. It also seems highly unlikely. I can't picture God to be a liar, that would really mess things up now wouldn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by sidelined, posted 01-24-2005 7:47 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by CK, posted 01-25-2005 8:48 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 240 by sidelined, posted 01-25-2005 8:25 PM riVeRraT has replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 234 of 302 (180404)
01-25-2005 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by riVeRraT
01-25-2005 8:40 AM


Re: Truth again
Ah so you agree with the Bishop of Oxford as quoted in my signature?

quote:
Literalistic young earth creationism is an insult to God, suggesting that he would arbitrarily and capriciously break his own exquisite laws whenever it suited him. Worse, the evidence for the fact of evolution is so knockdown overwhelming that we can reconcile it with young earth creationism only by assuming that God deliberately planted false evidence, in the rocks and in the genetic molecules, to trick us. Could a cruder blasphemy be imagined?
The Bishop of Oxford

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by riVeRraT, posted 01-25-2005 8:40 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by riVeRraT, posted 01-25-2005 11:18 PM CK has not replied

Juhrahnimo
Inactive Member


Message 235 of 302 (180408)
01-25-2005 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by riVeRraT
01-16-2005 7:19 PM


Soul
Rive,
You're right, it is a good question. I've heard and read it broken down in three parts: Body, soul, and spirit.
Body (obvious)
Soul (the mind, the will, and the emotions)
Spirit (that which goes back to God (one way, or the other).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by riVeRraT, posted 01-16-2005 7:19 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by crashfrog, posted 01-25-2005 10:38 AM Juhrahnimo has replied
 Message 242 by riVeRraT, posted 01-25-2005 11:22 PM Juhrahnimo has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 236 of 302 (180424)
01-25-2005 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by Juhrahnimo
01-25-2005 9:15 AM


Re: Soul
I don't understand the dichotomy between soul and spirit. If the spirit is neither my mind nor my body, then what is left to go back to God that is me? How can I think or feel in the afterlife if the spirit is not the soul?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Juhrahnimo, posted 01-25-2005 9:15 AM Juhrahnimo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Juhrahnimo, posted 01-25-2005 2:58 PM crashfrog has not replied

ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5162 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 237 of 302 (180427)
01-25-2005 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by riVeRraT
01-25-2005 8:37 AM


Re: .....
I am basically saying that I do not believe that religion can hold truth, as it is not the truth.
Thankyou.
Your question was, what religion can claim to hold the truth, not is there a God or not
Conceded.
Then I go on to elaborate how I think I know this God. But I will not tie it to any religion..
If I may:
From Encarta Dictionary:English(UK):
Religion (noun)
1. Beliefs and worship
RELIGION people’s beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature and worship of God, a god, or gods, and divine involvement in the universe and human life
2. Particular system
RELIGION a particular institutionalized or personal system of beliefs and practices relating to the divine.
As you can see a religion can be either an institution like the Catholic Church or a set of personal beliefs in the nature of the divine. So you have to realise that as you have a well developed set of ideas and beliefs as to the nature of the divine you do have a religion, a personal one. And as both you and I have said that no religion can hold claim to the truth, you have to see that this means that your religious views as to the nature of God do carry the possibility of being wrong.
This isn’t about whether god exists or not, it truly isn’t.
It’s about whether any religious viewpoint (and thus a religion) can make an undeniable claim to be true, to the exclusion of all others. In truth, this not only applies to religion but to all areas of human thought and concepts.
You have already admitted that no religion can make a totally accurate claim to the truth, and yet not see that this also applies to your religious view points as much as it does to the big organised religious institutions.
There is the religion of God, then there is the religion of man
I know what you are trying to say here but, it doesn’t change the fact that this is a religious point of view and as such forms part of your own personal religion and thus as open to error as anyone else’s region.
--Edit-- Altered some spacing forclarity --
This message has been edited by ohnhai, 01-25-2005 12:00 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by riVeRraT, posted 01-25-2005 8:37 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by riVeRraT, posted 01-25-2005 11:51 PM ohnhai has replied

Juhrahnimo
Inactive Member


Message 238 of 302 (180466)
01-25-2005 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by crashfrog
01-25-2005 10:38 AM


Re: Soul
There are numerous discussions and commentaries on that subject, and I'm always open to new ways to look at it. But, since you ask, here's my take:
Adam was created from the dust of the earth. But so were dogs for that matter, so what's the difference between these two creatures? God gave man a spirit; something the dog doesn't have (don't respond with a [qs] on that or this thread will turn into a Bible study). I can probably guess what you're thinking, but don't starting loading your gun yet; plz hear me out first. God is a spirit, and in order for us to commune with him in a "living" way we must have a "living" spirit; thus, God gave Adam a spirit. God can communicate with his entire creation (even "the rocks would cry out") but MAN is different because of his Spirit that "came from" God. But then how does the spirit commune with the flesh (or body)? That's where the "soul" comes into play: The mind, will, and emotions.
Back to the dog (before you start loading); the dog ALSO seems to have a mind, will, and emotions (anyone who has ever had a dog KNOWS that dogs can think, can be quite stubborn, and can be happy or sad or display a number of various emotions (perhaps debatable). And anyone who has owned SEVERAL dogs can attest to the fact that EACH dog is VERY unique with its own "personality" (also semantically debatable). But (stop reaching for your ammunition, plz), let's look at it this way: Let's say you have some moisture that inadvertantly got into your fuel tank and it mixed with that over-priced aliphatic hydrocarbon mixture that you just finished pumping. Ah, wait; it DIDN'T mix! It can't! To get that moisture out of your tank (at least a QUICK and CHEAP way of doing it) is to pour in something that CAN "mix" with both gasoline AND water; for example, ethynol. It'll move the moisture right out (assuming a balanced mixture) of your tank.
The H2O won't mix with the C7H16, but the C2H6O can work to bring them together (same chain). Don't argue with me on my chemistry, it was my worst subject, but just use the example for the question's sake (a truly BAD analogy, but it's the only one that I could come up with). So, the soul (C2H6O) sort of straddles two "warring" players; the body (H20) and spirit (C7H16) together. These two STILL "war" against each other, but they're nevertheless stuck in their situation (combustion chamber). You used the word dichotomy, but man is really trichotomous while dogs are dichotomous. As to the "dog", note that he does NOT have a spirit. Man, on the other hand has an "extra helping" from God that gives him a special designation of a "living" soul (as opposed to just a "soul").
Imagine if, say NosyNed gives his life to Christ and I eventually meet him in heaven. Will I be able to recognize him? I mean, will he look like he does in his "avatar" or how he looked in his high school yearbook? Or even his baby picture? (Now THAT I would like see!) The answer is NEITHER; in spirit (and in heaven) we are neither young nor younger, neither male nor female (Matt 22:30), etc. God uses the he/she, Father/Son, and many "mansions", etc. designations because that's about all we can understand. What heaven will really be like cannot be comprehended by us at this point.
So much for that tangent. But in the Bible, the words soul and spirit often seem to be used interchangeably or even simultaneously, but a hebrew/greek scholar could shed lots of light on that (see Matt 10:28, 12:18, 26:38, and Luke 12:20, Acts 2:27, 2:31, etc, etc. And an even peculiar use of the word "soul" is in Revelation 16:3; and there are many others uses of the words soul and spirit in the Bible.
But just looking at the CONTEXT of the use, we do see the Bible make a striking difference between soul and spirit:
I Thess 5:23 writes:
And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ
And:
Hebrews 4:12 writes:
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Of course, some commentaries will say the use of "soul" in that verse really means "body", but I don't think it difficult to separate the "body" from the "spirit"; men do that to each other every day (sadly). What the Hebrew writer is talking about is something supernatural. But in the previous verse, Paul DOES refer to three separate entities. A psychologist uses the terms "conscious" and "sub-conscious" or the layman would refer to "use your heart, not your head", etc. The Soul and Spirit, which God's Word can divide asunder, are as different as when a defendant pleads "not guilty" (coupled with LOTS of excuses) with his mouth but knows in his heart that he's guilty as a rat. Just my opinion.
Anyway, to you specific question:
Crash writes:
If the spirit is neither my mind nor my body, then what is left to go back to God that is me?
When the body dies, so does the mind, will, and emotions. Now the next question: Does the Spirit have mind, will, and emotions? Well, yes, of course. But the spirit is perhaps sort of like PC game software that resides on your HARD DRIVE, but "runs" in random access memory. When you shut your PC down, everything in RAM "dies" but the program on the hard drive is still there, along with any updates to "high scores", "completed levels", "user names", etc. What was "running" in RAM was sort of like the C2H6O as mentioned before. Hey, now THAT could be developed into a GOOD analogy! (but nevermind). But now we're getting deeper and deeper; so deep that I'm not even sure what the topic of this thread is anymore (I had to go back and check it; I think we might be ok). Anyway the Spirit (with full memory of life) moves on as outlined in the Bible:
Revelation 20: 11 writes:
And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened...
Again, this is just my take. Due to my windiness, you might have to read my post twice (sorr). And instead of this turning into a thread between Crash and me, I would like to hear some others' thoughts on this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by crashfrog, posted 01-25-2005 10:38 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by ohnhai, posted 01-25-2005 3:12 PM Juhrahnimo has not replied

ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5162 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 239 of 302 (180469)
01-25-2005 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Juhrahnimo
01-25-2005 2:58 PM


Soul: Off Topic?
I apologise, for interrupting an interesting conversation but this is off topic and I thought we were gonna wait for a new topic to be started. One I would be happy to participate in.
However as this thread is rapidly running out of space I’d prefer it if the remaining space was used for the OP topic.
Sorry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Juhrahnimo, posted 01-25-2005 2:58 PM Juhrahnimo has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 240 of 302 (180601)
01-25-2005 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by riVeRraT
01-25-2005 8:40 AM


Re: Truth again
riVeRrat
sidelined writes:
If god existed truth would be as needing of evidential standards as it is without him.
Right, and the bible shows us how.
But the evidence is poor to non-existent. There is little agreement across the spectrum of people who believe the bible just what the meaning behind it is.The morals that it supposedly outlines are free to interpretation as each sees fit and the range of standards for what constitutes a right action in a given situation is dependant on what the individual wishes to draw his arguement from.
sidelined writes:
Omnipotence does not have to automatically equate to being free of deceit.
That goes against what the bible teaches us. It also seems highly unlikely. I can't picture God to be a liar, that would really mess things up now wouldn't it?
It is a part of his nature since we are made in his image according to the bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by riVeRraT, posted 01-25-2005 8:40 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by riVeRraT, posted 01-26-2005 12:03 AM sidelined 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