Hypothetical yet very interesting question...

[Pam L in Mid Tenn]

In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit.

 

It seems to me that everyone here is doing (believing) as they personally see fit. :)

 

If you haven't experienced transformation then you'll not believe it.

 

Faith is beyond the realms of logic. The logic presented in these posts (and they ARE logical) will not defend the depths of faith.

 

All religions have apologetics.

 

This has been a most interesting (dare I say "enlightening") thread.

 

Oh yeah, one more thing: two plus two equals four (not five). Truth is truth. There is no "my truth and your truth." There is only TRUTH.

[Lovedtodeath]

But since you're not God...;)

Yes, God can read the heart and know if the person has good or bad intentions. Which is what I said. :confused: I don't understand this reply to my post at all. at all.

 

Oh yeah, one more thing: two plus two equals four (not five). Truth is truth. There is no "my truth and your truth." There is only TRUTH.

I completely and totally agree.

[asta]

Well, I'm certainly not God and don't know God's mind, but I tend to :iagree:. I personally find it very presumptuous to assume we're going to have the opportunity at the very last minute - think car accident or something similar. Of course, since I've never died, I don't know what happens at that very moment. Big sigh yet again.

 

Janet

 

A girl I worked with died once. Sudden unexplained death due to epilepsy (SUDEP). She was brought back by CPR.

 

She was rather flummoxed by the entire thing. She said that she was here, then she starting seizing, then there was absolutely nothing, then she was back, with cracked ribs.

 

She doesn't have "loss of consciousness" seizures, so the nothingness wasn't the seizure part, it was the dead part.

 

It pretty much blew what was left of her religious leanings.

 

 

a

[Lovedtodeath]

It pretty much blew what was left of her religious leanings.

Was she expecting one of those heaven visions? I seem to remember some shows on those and the visions of heaven that people have when they are near death have neurological explanations.

 

I hope she knows that there are Christians who don't believe that every follower of Christ goes to heaven, only some of them. John 11:24; Revelation 5:9,10

[unsinkable]

Yes, God can read the heart and know if the person has good or bad intentions. Which is what I said. :confused: I don't understand this reply to my post at all. at all.

 

I completely and totally agree.

 

No, what you said was:

 

Planning to repent at the last minute would likely not be repentance in the heart at all, and be treated thusly.

 

You wrote YOUR thoughts the matter. And you are not God. And I meant it tongue in cheek. You wrote what it might likely be and how it might be treated.

 

I, as a human, have no idea what God would do with someone who lived life and planned on repenting at the last minute. It isn't even something on my list of things to ponder...

[Lovedtodeath]

Planning to repent at the last minute would likely not be repentance in the heart at all, and be treated thusly.

Perhaps I should have taken the time to add to this.

Planning to repent at the last minute would likely not be repentance in the heart at all, and be treated thusly. God can read the heart and know whether the repentance was true or not, and it could be, after all, when a person got to that point.

 

I don't know how to word it. Sorry. God can read hearts. I think that many people are going to be shocked to find out how many people make it on judgement day. Human's ways of judging are so limited.

 

I am very upset by this conversation.:crying: I never meant to insinuate in any way that I would know how to judge someone.

[unsinkable]

Perhaps I should have taken the time to add to this.

Planning to repent at the last minute would likely not be repentance in the heart at all, and be treated thusly. God can read the heart and know whether the repentance was true or not, and it could be, after all, when a person got to that point.

 

I don't know how to word it. Sorry. God can read hearts. I think that many people are going to be shocked to find out how many people make it on judgement day. Human's ways of judging are so limited.

 

I am very upset by this conversation.:crying: I never meant to insinuate in any way that I would know how to judge someone.

 

I didn't think you really, really meant it. That's why I put the winky guy.

[KarenNC]

Truth is truth. There is no "my truth and your truth." There is only TRUTH.

 

Ah, in my experience that is usually rewritten as "There is no 'my truth and your truth.' There is only my TRUTH and your.......";)

 

But positing that "there is only TRUTH," on what basis does one decide that "your truth" is superior to or closer to TRUTH than "my truth"? In the end, faith boils down to "unverifiable personal gnosis (UPG)." One can only go on that which most closely matches one's experience of spiritual reality. I see no reason to believe that someone else's UPG is automatically superior (or inferior) to my own.

[Marylou]

Ah, in my experience that is usually rewritten as "There is no 'my truth and your truth.' There is only my TRUTH and your.......";)

 

But positing that "there is only TRUTH," on what basis does one decide that "your truth" is superior to or closer to TRUTH than "my truth"? In the end, faith boils down to "unverifiable personal gnosis (UPG)." One can only go on that which most closely matches one's experience of spiritual reality. I see no reason to believe that someone else's UPG is automatically superior (or inferior) to my own.

 

But no one is talking "inferior" or "superior"--just "true" or "not true"--a huge difference.

[Lovedtodeath]

Truth does exist. Either I have two feet or I do not. You can believe that I do and Bill can believe that I only have one. That doesn't change what I see in my shoes or how I walk around the house. There is a truth to be discovered, and one of you would be right, the other wrong. Which one of you is right doesn't change the TRUTH.

[KarenNC]

But no one is talking "inferior" or "superior"--just "true" or "not true"--a huge difference.

 

So you do not consider "true" to be superior to "not true"? Then why worry about whether something is or is not TRUE?

 

I will rephrase:

I see no reason to believe that someone else's UPG automatically has more (or less) claim to being TRUTH than my own. By definition, I can neither verify nor disprove the validity of your spiritual experiences any more than you can mine. Therefore I see no reason to believe that what you term "my truth" is indeed anything other than "TRUTH," much less that "your truth" is instead "TRUTH," particularly if is does not match my experience of spiritual reality.

Edited October 20, 2009 by KarenNC

[KarenNC]

Truth does exist. Either I have two feet or I do not. You can believe that I do and Bill can believe that I only have one. That doesn't change what I see in my shoes or how I walk around the house. There is a truth to be discovered, and one of you would be right, the other wrong. Which one of you is right doesn't change the TRUTH.

 

Ah, but if you think you have one foot and Bill thinks you have three feet, you would both be wrong;). That would also presuppose that both of you are talking about exactly the same thing when you use the word "foot" or "one" or "three."

 

2+2=4 is only TRUTH if the people involved in the conversation agree on the meanings of the symbols "2", "+", "4", and "=". Those symbols have no inherent existence or meaning on their own aside from that which a culture chooses to give them. Agreeing on the meaning of such things is much simpler if something is physically present, such as a given number of walnuts or feet, than in something that is intangible such as "freedom," "love," or "God."

 

In a lecture I once saw, Dr. Amy-Jill Levine, a Conservative Jew who is a Professor of New Testament at Vanderbilt, described bringing her young son on campus. He saw the cross on top of the chapel and said, "Look, Mommy, lower case t." Neither the child nor the members of the chapel would be saying something that was "not true" about those intersecting pieces of wood.

 

When I use the word "God" and you use the word "God," we may be using the same term, but that term has vastly different meanings, as you and I have explored before. Likewise, when you say "Bible," I don't think I'm far afield to say that you mean a book of sacred teachings divinely inspired by an infallible, omnipotent and omniscient supernatural deity (perhaps also omnibenevolent), and therefore give it a certain place as authoritative for you and everyone else. When I say "Bible," I mean a collection of writings that describe a certain people's attempt to use limited human language to describe their encounter with that which is outside of our everyday experience, but not that that description or that encounter is any *more* real and therefore *more* authoritative (more "THE TRUTH") than my own encounters.

Edited October 20, 2009 by KarenNC

[Tea Time]

Ah, in my experience that is usually rewritten as "There is no 'my truth and your truth.' There is only my TRUTH and your.......";)

 

But positing that "there is only TRUTH," on what basis does one decide that "your truth" is superior to or closer to TRUTH than "my truth"? In the end, faith boils down to "unverifiable personal gnosis (UPG)." One can only go on that which most closely matches one's experience of spiritual reality. I see no reason to believe that someone else's UPG is automatically superior (or inferior) to my own.

 

But Christianity, and the concept of Truth contained therein, would most properly be considered at the very least a shared gnosis and probably a confirmed gnosis from the definitions I could find of that very questionable (somewhat derogatory) term.

 

But given that that term has a recent wiccan origin, it seems like a term that isn't very useful. There are other terms to cover various philosophical positions without having to make up new ones just to avoid the old ones that people might have ideas about already. So, how does this really contribute to the conversation except to throw in a wrench and pitch us all into the dark world of relativism where no one is allowed to make any distinctions about anything. So, let us at least call a spade a spade. RELATIVISM is nice for personal satisfaction. It is difficult to sustain civilization based upon it.

 

If everyone is honest, we have to admit that no one actually thinks that all people's personal experience of truth is equally valid or equally useful or equally correlated to reality. We may believe all people are "equal" in value or "equally valuable" (This is a definitely a Christian belief.), but no thoughtful person really believes all ideas are "equal," troublesome though that fact might be in practice. What we do believe (or have believed traditionally for some time in the USA) is that people are completely free to believe whatever they want and feel good about it and enjoy it fully even if it is dead wrong so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. So be at peace, everyone! ;) (yeah, right! :D)

[Lovedtodeath]

I like you Tea Time. :)

[KarenNC]

But Christianity, and the concept of Truth contained therein, would most properly be considered at the very least a shared gnosis and probably a confirmed gnosis from the definitions I could find of that very questionable (somewhat derogatory) term. But given that that term has a recent wiccan origin, it seems like a term that isn't very useful.

 

Oh, certainly, people have shared a great many different ideas about spiritual reality over the course of human history, but I would be interested to see the criteria by which you determine that Christianity is "confirmed" as what is being called "The TRUTH." Gnosis is a Greek word meaning "knowledge." The Greek language precedes Wicca by a few millenia.;) I am not sure why you believe I would choose to use something that I considered derogatory to describe my personal experiences with spiritual reality.

 

There are other terms to cover various philosophical positions without having to make up new ones just to avoid the old ones that people might have ideas about already.

 

Which one would you like to use?

 

So, how does this really contribute to the conversation except to throw in a wrench and pitch us all into the dark world of relativism where no one is allowed to make any distinctions about anything. So, let us at least call a spade a spade. RELATIVISM is nice for personal satisfaction. It is difficult to sustain civilization based upon it.

 

If everyone is honest, we have to admit that no one actually thinks that all people's personal experience of truth is equally valid or equally useful or equally correlated to reality. We may believe all people are "equal" in value or "equally valuable" (This is a definitely a Christian belief.), but no thoughtful person really believes all ideas are "equal," troublesome though that fact might be in practice. What we do believe (or have believed traditionally for some time in the USA) is that people are completely free to believe whatever they want and feel good about it and enjoy it fully even if it is dead wrong so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. So be at peace, everyone! ;) (yeah, right! :D)

 

If you have gathered from my discussion that I believe that "all people's personal experience of truth is equally valid or equally useful or equally correlated to reality," you are quite mistaken. I fully believe that those who are monotheists are flat wrong about the nature of spiritual reality. If I did not, I would have remained a Christian---it would have been much simpler on so many levels. Their mistaken beliefs may be useful to them, and I hope they are, but just because they believe it's so is not sufficient grounds for me to agree with them. Of course, I also don't necessarily agree with a great many polytheists (or duotheists like most Wiccans), either, but since they are much less likely to be vested in denying that the Gods exist, it's not as much of an issue.;)

 

Ultimately, my point was, and remains, that one is unlikely to be able to use logical arguments to convert someone out of religious convictions springing from actual personal experience and knowledge (personal gnosis--which is by its nature unverifiable) rather than convictions based on a dependence on someone else's description of spiritual reality.;)

Edited October 20, 2009 by KarenNC

[Spy Car]

You can believe that I do and Bill can believe that I only have one.

 

I'd be inclined to believe you have two feet :confused:

 

1+1+1 = [ ]? :tongue_smilie:

 

Bill

[KidsHappen]

I'd be inclined to believe you have two feet :confused:

 

1+1+1 = [ ]? :tongue_smilie:

 

Bill

 

:lol:

[Lovedtodeath]

I'd be inclined to believe you have two feet :confused:

 

1+1+1 = [ ]? :tongue_smilie:

 

Bill

LOL, well, my husband's uncle has only one. How would you know? Yep, I decided to pick on you in my post. :D

[Lovedtodeath]

If you have gathered from my discussion that I believe that "all people's personal experience of truth is equally valid or equally useful or equally correlated to reality," you are quite mistaken. I fully believe that those who are monotheists are flat wrong about the nature of spiritual reality. If I did not, I would have remained a Christian---it would have been much simpler on so many levels. Their mistaken beliefs may be useful to them, and I hope they are, but just because they believe it's so is not sufficient grounds for me to agree with them. Of course, I also don't necessarily agree with a great many polytheists (or duotheists like most Wiccans), either, but since they are much less likely to be vested in denying that the Gods exist, it's not as much of an issue.

Aha. Yes, that is what I was thinking all along. I know Karen doesn't think that all people's experience of truth is equally valid. That is why she is a polytheist.;)

[Tea Time]

Oh, certainly, people have shared a great many different ideas about spiritual reality over the course of human history, but I would be interested to see the criteria by which you determine that Christianity is "confirmed" as what is being called "The TRUTH." Gnosis is a Greek word meaning "knowledge." The Greek language precedes Wicca by a few millenia.;) I am not sure why you believe I would choose to use something that I considered derogatory to describe my personal experiences with spiritual reality.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unverified_personal_gnosis

 

"The term appears to have originally appeared in print in Kaatryn MacMorgan's book Wicca 333: Advanced Topics in Wiccan Belief, published in March 2003, but seems to have originated in Germano-Scandinavian Reconstructionist groups in the 1970s or 1980s. The same phenomenon has also been referred to as "personal revelation", or "unverifiable personal gnosis" (in a somewhat derogatory sense)."

 

SPG (Shared Personal Gnosis) - indicating a mystical vision shared by a number of unrelated people, preferably, one arrived at independently of one another.

 

"CG (Confirmed Gnosis) - indicating that substantiating evidence for an incidence of UPG or SPG has later been found in the lore. This is also sometimes referred to as CPG (Confirmed Personal Gnosis)."

 

I think Christianity would be considered CG by this definition. This in no way validates it as truth, it simply validates that many people shared the experience and came away with the same concepts, including the idea that they had had more than just a "spiritual experience" but that they had experienced something they considered "Truth." And let's face it; if we really believed we saw someone rise from the dead, we might just get on board with that, too.

 

However, I admit freely I am no expert on these terms. I find them condescending, personally. But you may like them!

 

I just wanted to make sure that we did use the term relativism, because that is what your philosophical point of view embraces, and as I said, it is great for personal satisfaction and self esteem, it is a poor standard on which to build a civilization, as we are witnessing all around us.

 

Hey, that's just my UPG! ;)

 

If you have gathered from my discussion that I believe that "all people's personal experience of truth is equally valid or equally useful or equally correlated to reality," you are quite mistaken. I fully believe that those who are monotheists are flat wrong about the nature of spiritual reality. If I did not, I would have remained a Christian---it would have been much simpler on so many levels. Their mistaken beliefs may be useful to them, and I hope they are, but just because they believe it's so is not sufficient grounds for me to agree with them. Of course, I also don't necessarily agree with a great many polytheists (or duotheists like most Wiccans), either, but since they are much less likely to be vested in denying that the Gods exist, it's not as much of an issue.;)

 

Ultimately, my point was, and remains, that one is unlikely to be able to use logical arguments to convert someone out of religious convictions springing from actual personal experience and knowledge (personal gnosis--which is by its nature unverifiable) rather than convictions based on a dependence on someone else's description of spiritual reality.;)

 

 

Well, if I am getting it correctly, I think by your point you mean that you can't logically argue someone out of a personal spiritual experience, and I won't argue with you there. However, I do know many, many people experience a change in religion/belief/spirituality based on logic and reason, so I do think it is worthwhile to follow logical arguments in studying religion and belief.

 

Beyond that I can't go much further. Your position is, for me, like trying to hold a fish. I have no idea what you think or what you believe because it is not defined, so I certainly can't argue whether it is good or bad, useful or pointless, true or untrue.

Edited October 20, 2009 by Tea Time
missed part of my quote

[asta]

And "Your own, personal, Jesus" was coined by Depeche Mode in 1989.

 

(In case anyone was wondering.) :auto:

Edited October 20, 2009 by asta

[Tea Time]

NT

Edited October 20, 2009 by Tea Time