- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
19 Dec 17
Even the most committed theist has doubts. Therefore, he is agnostic.
This I might give you some. Faith is accompanied by some lack and doubt.
Experience, deepens faith.
Once you grasp the program of God leading you to deepen your roots of trust in Him, you follow along happily.
Yes, through tough experiences, it is true that a little doubt arises.
Through repeated experiences you learn that trust in Him is never put to shame.
Paul learned this and passed it on to the world,
"For I am persuaded thet neither death nor life nor angels nor principalities nor things present nor things to come nor powers not height nor depth nor any other creatures will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus." (Rom. 8:38,39)
Paul had no idea in the first century what human society would look like in the year 2017 AD !
Yet here we are. And "things to come" have not dimenished, at least in a good number of human beings, the knowledge of Jesus Christ and the trust the His love is eternal, inseparable to us, indestructible, and ever faithful through whatever the universe throws against us Christians.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
19 Dec 17
The problem is that everyone thinks they know and off they go on their white charger fighting for their cause.
When Paul wrote what he wrote above, I think it was after a long time in which be became persuaded. Probably though many trials and mistakes, false starts, presumptions, he learned to walk with God.
What we see of his writings in the 13 or so epistles of the NT's 27 books, was the result of a long life consistently lived in which his faith in Christ was torture tested to the maximum.
19 Dec 17
Originally posted by @suzianneThis is 500 words of you playing the man rather than the ball.
Seriously, what is wrong with you?
I disagree less with what you say than [b]how you say it. But you know that.
Do you honestly think that by parroting all the same points you've made countless times in the past, only modifying the frequency with which you wield these points, in a blunderbuss fashion, will make these points any more palatable, o ...[text shortened]... o it as long as you have your erstwhile pals slapping you on the back, saying "oh ho, good one!"[/b]
19 Dec 17
Originally posted by @suzianneThe thing that KellyJay said that I found interesting was this: "I cannot prove what I believe, there is always room for doubt. If I knew then it wouldn't be faith, it would be knowledge." I found it interesting that he would concede that, what he believes, because he cannot prove it, is not "knowledge".
You even blundered into this thread to ram them down Kelly's throat yet again, even though no one was talking about that before you blurted your way in here. You've now done this in numerous threads, derailing conversations in your zeal to ram your point home, again
19 Dec 17
Originally posted by @fmfGnostic defined:
The thing that KellyJay said that I found interesting was this: "I cannot prove what I believe, there is always room for doubt. If I knew then it wouldn't be faith, it would be knowledge." I found it interesting that he would concede that, what he believes, because he cannot prove it, is not "knowledge".
from the web
"gnos·tic
ˈnästik/Submit
adjective
1.
relating to knowledge, especially esoteric mystical knowledge.
noun
1.
an adherent of Gnosticism"
agnostic defined
"ag·nos·tic
aɡˈnästik/Submit
noun
1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
synonyms: skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas, cynic; More
adjective
1.
relating to agnostics or agnosticism.
synonyms: skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas, cynic; More"
I propose a new term:
Untheist.
One who does not give a shyte one way or the other.
20 Dec 17
Originally posted by @sonhouseUntheist would be the atheist with unresolved issues causing great hate.
Gnostic defined:
from the web
"gnos·tic
ˈnästik/Submit
adjective
1.
relating to knowledge, especially esoteric mystical knowledge.
noun
1.
an adherent of Gnosticism"
agnostic defined
"ag·nos·tic
aɡˈnästik/Submit
noun
1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond ...[text shortened]... re"
I propose a new term:
Untheist.
One who does not give a shyte one way or the other.
20 Dec 17
Originally posted by @eladarSo you figure atheists are full of hate? You need to get out more. There actually IS more to the world than you narrow minded religion.
Untheist would be the atheist with unresolved issues causing great hate.
Originally posted by @eladarNot hate. More like disdain. I never have denied saying I want freedom FROM religion not freedom OF religion. I want to be away, far away, from organized religions, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Jaynes, Rasta's, Scientologists, although I cringe even putting that last in the same catagory, they are a total man made religion with no doubt about it, direct from the twisted mind of L Ron Hubbard, a known science fiction writer.
No, untheists are full of hate.
How anyone can be so frigging gullible as to fall into scientology is beyond me.
I spend about 1 week checking them out back in 1969 and they kind of took me under their wing (in the shop in Wash, DC) and I went along with it but thinking it was total bullshyte but not saying that out loud, they invited me up to their inner circle and I saw what they call 'RonGrams' messages from God Ron himself.
One that struck me hard: they asked him what do we do with apostates (Scientology quitters) his answer (I read this with my own eyes): 'There is always the '45' solution' Unquote.
I assume you know what he means by that and in fact there have been mysterious murders of scientology apostates, much like Islam and early Christianity.
When I saw that I knew right away they were nut cases every one AND out for every buck they can skin off your estate and that includes getting your house signed over to them and maybe giving you a job on the 'Sea Org' at about 40 cents an hour.....
Yessir, great 'religion', Sickentology.
22 Dec 17
Originally posted by @moonbusI think liberals are more likely to believe you can either be an athiestic agnostic or theistic agnostic.
I once knew an Episcopalian priest who claimed to be agnostic, by which he meant that he did not know whether God exists but he hoped so.
In doing so you make the term agnostic useless. What you are saying is that you are human and can't really prove one side or the other.
This is true for everyone.
22 Dec 17
Originally posted by @eladarI think fundamentalists are more likely to reduce a broad spectrum of religious attitudes and world views to a false dichotomy, the true believers and the rest, the saved and the damned, theists and atheists.
I think liberals are more likely to believe you can either be an athiestic agnostic or theistic agnostic.
In doing so you make the term agnostic useless. What you are saying is that you are human and can't really prove one side or the other.
This is true for everyone.
As others have already pointed out more than once, "atheist" covers two distinct cases: those who assert that there is no God, and those who lack a belief in God. Everyone is born atheist in the second sense, but not in the first. Atheists in the first sense are people who have given some thought to the matter.
Saying that proof is lacking does not make the term "agnostic" useless to agnostics, only to those who reduce the spectrum to a false dichotomy. Saying that proof is lacking is a claim about epistemological limits, not about theological limits.
22 Dec 17
Originally posted by @eladarSo you agree with what you think liberals believe (on this point)?
I think liberals are more likely to believe you can either be an athiestic agnostic or theistic agnostic.
In doing so you make the term agnostic useless. What you are saying is that you are human and can't really prove one side or the other.
This is true for everyone.
In which case you are one of those making the term "agnostic" useless.
I do see your point. And agree to some extent.
However there are some (many?) gnostic theists who will accept no
argument that god does not exist because they know he does.
There are also many pragmatic atheists who feel that their total lack of
belief in any god amounts to (in all practical terms) to a knowledge
that there are no gods.
At the end of the day it is wordplay and semantics and doesn't really move us on.
I don't really care what label you choose to give me.
Originally posted by @wolfgang59Agnosticism is the tribute religion pays to philosophy. Before anyone can claim to know that God exists or does not exist, you have to do some epistemological homework to find out what constitutes knowledge in any field at all, and then see whether any definition of "knowledge" can be applied to theological categories.
So you agree with what you think liberals believe (on this point)?
In which case you are one of those making the term "agnostic" useless.
I do see your point. And agree to some extent.
However there are some (many?) gnostic theists who will accept no
argument that god does not exist because they know he does.
There are also many pra ...[text shortened]... emantics and doesn't really move us on.
I don't really care what label you choose to give me.
Claims to know things of a non-empirical nature were common up to Descartes. Hume changed that, forever, and there is no going back.
As Emerson said, no one has had the slightest success explaining existence. A wise statement from a man who was both philosopher and deeply religious.