Of Christians, Ego and Delusion

Edit:
“Knowledge of the origin of space and time
Knowledge of the origin of living things on earth
Knowledge of the origin of man
Knowledge of the purpose for man's creation
Knowledge of the first marriage
Knowledge of the origin of sin and death
Knowledge of the first family of man
Knowledge of the first murder
Knowledge of the origin of the first nomad
Knowledge of the first human city
Knowledge of the origin of metal work
Knowledge of the origin of musicianship
Knowledge of the origin of agriculture
Knowledge of the origin of human government
Knowledge of the origin of human languages
Knowledge of the first migrations of humans across the globe”

Is this “knowledge” Your Knowledge, jaywill? I believe not in the authenticity of the so called sacred books regardless their religious core; and I am satisfied not from the simplification “…this is knowledge because it is written in the Bible/ in the Qu’ran/ in the Vedas etc”. I think my knowledge is really Knowledge when I am aware that something is right and something is false. All I do is promoting the right thing whilst blocking the false -and methinks this is what Green Palladin had in mind when he was talking about “morality”.

On the other hand, since you believe that the pieces of information available in your sacred books are “knowledge”, I feel free to understand that you merely believe the text instead of having created your own knowledge -and this means that you do not understand in person the “solution” (knowledge) of the “problem” in hand (ie the origin of SpaceTime etc). But I could be wrong; so kindly please let me know which way have you in person evaluated in full the “knowledge” regarding, say, the existence of the so called “Creator”
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Edit:
“Knowledge of the origin of space and time
Knowledge of the origin of living things on earth
Knowledge of the origin of man
Knowledge of the purpose for man's creation
Knowledge of the first marriage
Knowledge of the origin of sin and death
Knowledge of the first family of man
Knowledge of the first murder
Knowledge of the origin ...[text shortened]... evaluated in full the “knowledge” regarding, say, the existence of the so called “Creator”
😵

=================================
Is this “knowledge” Your Knowledge, jaywill? I believe not in the authenticity of the so called sacred books regardless their religious core; and I am satisfied not from the simplification “…this is knowledge because it is written in the Bible/ in the Qu’ran/ in the Vedas etc”. I think my knowledge is really Knowledge when I am aware that something is right and something is false. All I do is promoting the right thing whilst blocking the false -and methinks this is what Green Palladin had in mind when he was talking about “morality”.
===================================

The main point is that it is absurd for Green Palidin to accuse the Bible believer of being anti - knowledge.

He tries to make the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to be "the tree of knowledge" and that knowledge period is the Pandora's box of the Christian.

Did Adam have knowledge when he named all the animals before he ate of "the tree of knowledge" ?

I think so. Then all knowledge could not have been taboo.

What else you said maybe I'll respond to latter.

==============================
On the other hand, since you believe that the pieces of information available in your sacred books are “knowledge”, I feel free to understand that you merely believe the text instead of having created your own knowledge -and this means that you do not understand in person the “solution” (knowledge) of the “problem” in hand (ie the origin of SpaceTime etc). But I could be wrong; so kindly please let me know which way have you in person evaluated in full the “knowledge” regarding, say, the existence of the so called “Creator”
===================================

I'll have to think about this question to get more sense out of it.

I am not sure what you are asking.

black beetle:

=============================
On the other hand, since you believe that the pieces of information available in your sacred books are “knowledge”, I feel free to understand that you merely believe the text instead of having created your own knowledge -and this means that you do not understand in person the “solution” (knowledge) of the “problem” in hand (ie the origin of SpaceTime etc). But I could be wrong; so kindly please let me know which way have you in person evaluated in full the “knowledge” regarding, say, the existence of the so called “Creator”
================================

The Bible contains some knowledge given to man by revelation.

Exhaustive information is not always provided but what is important for us to know. God does not forbid us using our methods to explore and find out more or try to discover if what He has said is true.

Now I am not sure what you are asking above. But the "problem" of the existence of everything including space and time is due, I am told and believe to - " God ... who gives life to the dead and calls the things not being as being." (Romans 4:17)

Some talk was going on previosly about God being "the ground of being". I think Paul Tillich the theologian who probably coined that phrase, is right.

God calls the things not being as being. He is not only a God of resurrection, a God of uncreated Life which has no beginning and which cannot be destroyed. He is the God who calls into being those things which have no being.

The volition of the will of God brought the universe into being apparently.

In the human mind we can imagine things. With the eternal God, He imagines something and it gives it being. It comes into existence.

Time and space reflect the love of God. He has created a realm for us in which we can live. These matters are things which we need to exist - time and space and matter.

I know it is ackward for some to imagine these things in connection to the love of God. But seriously, in His love God has brought into being an environment in which human beings can exist. We need time. We need space.

God does not need them but called them into being when they were not.

The problem is solved for me, as far as their origin is concerned. I am excited to learn what ever the researchers are able to figure out in their theories about time and space.

But God is the one who called things not being as being.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=========================
You accuse me of arrogance but my position is based on what the best and brightest human beings have discovered over all of recorded history.
==========================

I asked you about arrogance when you put out there your opinion about what the Bible means followed quickly by saying your weren't interested ferent books" have added any meaning to your life in your "absurd" universe.[/b]

I asked you about arrogance when you put out there your opinion about what the Bible means followed quickly by saying your weren't interested in examining different interpretations.
It's not that I'm not interested in opinions. I just don't see how different interpretations can change the facts.

My comment about the best and brightest was in response to your belief that the bible offers a viable alternative to the theories of Darwin, Bohr, Einstein, Lemaitre, Hawking, etc.

I don't think the most essential truths about life can only be grasped by the smartest fellows in the class.
I don't believe that either. But all of us lesser lights can look to the theories of the best and brightest can't we?

I agree that your repenting cannot wipe away any immoral act. But is the fact that Jesus Christ on His cross received the justice due the sinner, that can wipe away an immoral act.
In my worldview an immoral act is a stain that can never be removed. Not so with Christianity. In this paradigm it is in our nature to sin.

The forgiven sinner is not a sinner with a debt to pay. He is a sinner with a debt that has been paid.
This is what I mean: a clean slate.

Originally posted by Green Paladin
[b]I asked you about arrogance when you put out there your opinion about what the Bible means followed quickly by saying your weren't interested in examining different interpretations.
It's not that I'm not interested in opinions. I just don't see how different interpretations can change the facts.

My comment about the best and brightest was . He is a sinner with a debt that has been paid.[/b]
This is what I mean: a clean slate.[/b]

This is the only comment that I think I will respond to right now:

======================================
In my worldview an immoral act is an indelible stain that can never be removed. Not so with Christianity. In this paradigm it is in our nature to sin.
======================================

It is true that an immoral act leaves a kind of damage on the soul who committed it.

David, conspired to have a man murdered so that he could steal his wife. The Bible records the matter candidly.

And David suffered some things latter in life because of his act of immorality.

But on the other hand there is an unspeakable peace that pervades the conscience and one is assured of the smile of God, when one believes into Jesus Christ.

If after receiving Christ you were to go and try to remind God of your sins He would say "I don't know what you are talking about. I don't remember."

"For I will be propitious to their unrighteousnesses, and their sins I shall by no means remember anymore."

The word of God says God will remove our sins from us as far as the east is from the west. That is an infinite distance. He does not remember your sins when you believe into Christ.

It is not that He has overlooked them. It is that He has judged them on Calvary. Whether God likes you or doesn't like you, it is the righteous thing for Him to do to forgive you.

We have the boldness under the blood of Jesus to say "God even if you don't love me, it is righteous for you to forgive me because Christ has died for me."

This is the power of the Gospel. And the accusations whether by the self or by Satan the accuser are silenced by the blood of Jesus. The stain is gone before God.

Peace like a mighty river floods the heart because the Holy Spirit bears witness to the truth of God. He will by no means remember your sins any more. They are gone.

My past is Christ.
My legacy is Christ.
My history is Christ.

My history is before the face of God in the Person of Jesus the Son of God. He Himself is my past record. My rightness is Christ Himself.

If you really really want to lose something, lose your sins under the blood of Jesus. It is a supernatural matter. I was judged in Christ's death. Justice was imputed on my behalf.

If a person owes 100 million dollars it makes no sense for him to boast that he has saved 12 dollars to pay the dept. God's justice was exhausted on Christ for my sins. I am free.

Now I think I'll look at some other books. I am free.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Good point.
There are certain things that are universal to all humans. The delusion of the ego. Death.
I believe you have to start with the correct premise, put it into action and follow it through to its logical conclusions.
The ego will justify all sorts of behaviours in a bid to appear righteous before God.
Always remain realistic ,for at the ...[text shortened]... know what is right for you.
Only a strong conviction will carry you through to the other shore

Seem like the reality is that very few know what is right for themselves. With that in mind, "strong conviction" is about the last thing they should have.

Originally posted by whodey
Hey, let go of my ego!! 😠

Quit waffling about.

Originally posted by Green Paladin
Being dull-witted is considered a positive boon in Christianity.

Just think of the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden. According to the myth, the serpent convinced Eve to eat the fruit from this tree with the promise that doing so would bring her wisdom. This act brought evil into the world. Ever since, knowledge has been associated with evil very core of the bible and embracing it is considered a positive expression of one's faith.

Seems like the vast majority don't consider themselves to be "dull-witted". In fact, they believe themselves to be exceptionally clear thinking despite evidence to the contrary as shown in the examples in my OP. They believe themselves to be quite logical. It is part of their delusion. They are convinced that those who see the Bible as "internally inconsistent" as being "superfiscial [sic]" or having "little minds" as JW demonstrated in his OP:

Why did Ralph Waldo Emerson say " A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines " ?

There is great consistency with the revelation of the Bible. But there is also the need to look into matters deeper. Some superfiscial readers are quickly stumbled by what they see as inconsistencies which often times are really not contradictions.

Little minds purporting to be so much more intelligent than everyone else often boast gleefully that they have found "inconsistencies" in the Bible. But more often their "problem" have their root in superfiscial understanding of the larger picture of things.

They are compelled to do this in order to hold onto their beliefs. It is a clear indication of the depth of their delusion.

BTW, JW and Epi are the respective posters in the examples from my OP. Clearly they believe themselves to be quite logical.

The question is, "What, if anything, can be done to help them?" Obviously appealing to reason is of little use.

Originally posted by Green Paladin
Being dull-witted is considered a positive boon in Christianity.

Just think of the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden. According to the myth, the serpent convinced Eve to eat the fruit from this tree with the promise that doing so would bring her wisdom. This act brought evil into the world. Ever since, knowledge has been associated with evil very core of the bible and embracing it is considered a positive expression of one's faith.

The bible can hardly lay claim to being the most internally consistent document in the history of the world. Illogic is at the very core of the bible and embracing it is considered a positive expression of one's faith.

I don't know any Christians who embrace illogic. What is more true, IMO, is that non-Christians who don't understand the Bible tend to make hasty conclusions about its contents, e.g., re: yours above: the internal consistency of the Bible is remarkable considering the number of authors and span of centuries involved in its making, the examples of which far outweigh any inconsistency (BTW, there are no inconsistencies which affect any essential doctrinal truth). The remedy to this problem would be a sincere study of authorial intent and context throughout scripture, and perhaps several classes at a good seminary to grasp basic orthodox Christianity; however, that would involve the dissolution of long-held and convenient prejudices about not only the Bible but those who call themselves Christians.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Seems like the vast majority don't consider themselves to be "dull-witted". In fact, they believe themselves to be exceptionally clear thinking despite evidence to the contrary as shown in the examples in my OP. They believe themselves to be quite logical. It is part of their delusion. They are convinced that those who see the Bible as "internally inconsi gs.[/quote]

They are compelled to do this in order to hold onto their beliefs.

They are convinced that those who see the Bible as "internally inconsistent" as being "superfiscial [sic]" or having "little minds" as JW demonstrated in his OP:

What it demonstrates is a lack of a basic understanding of Christian orthodoxy and a firm grasp of the Bible in its entirety. It has nothing to do with intelligence (usually).

Seems like the vast majority don't consider themselves to be "dull-witted". In fact, they believe themselves to be exceptionally clear thinking despite evidence to the contrary as shown in the examples in my OP

The first example in your OP is true; it simply needs elucidation for those who lack a basic understanding of orthodox Christianity. The seed (1 John 3:9) that God plants within the believer cannot sin (that is what it means when it is said that a Christian cannot sin), and yet the flesh itself remains prone to sin (1 John 1:8), i.e., the flesh is not without sin. There is a perpetual war, as long as the flesh lives, between the Spirit within the believer and the believer's flesh. This is orthodox Christianity 101; I suggest you take a few classes.

Your second example is also true; Christ demands daily repentance for sins as they arise (Matthew 6:12), to do so is obedience to Christ. Again, Christian orthodoxy 101.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Seems like the vast majority don't consider themselves to be "dull-witted". In fact, they believe themselves to be exceptionally clear thinking despite evidence to the contrary as shown in the examples in my OP. They believe themselves to be quite logical. It is part of their delusion. They are convinced that those who see the Bible as "internally inconsi ...[text shortened]... ing, can be done to help them?" Obviously appealing to reason is of little use.

==========================
They are compelled to do this in order to hold onto their beliefs. It is a clear indication of the depth of their delusion.

BTW, JW and Epi are the respective posters in the examples from my OP. Clearly they believe themselves to be quite logical.

The question is, "What, if anything, can be done to help them?" Obviously appealing to reason is of little use.
=============================

Green Palidin,

Some of us have grown tired of refuting ThinkoOne.
Sometimes he starts a new thread (which is the old one again), I submit to it but with no intention of repeating to him what he's been told many times.

I see your point and I will try to become clearer;

We agree that the so called "source of knowledge" regarding the religious text that in your opinion is sacred, is a product of "revelation". However it seems to me that this revelation was manifested solely to the scribes of that text and not to you in person.
So again I ask you: how did you evaluated in person this revelation and which way it became Your Knowledge instead of remaining simply what it actually is, ie a belief?
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
I see your point and I will try to become clearer;

We agree that the so called "source of knowledge" regarding the religious text that in your opinion is sacred, is a product of "revelation". However it seems to me that this revelation was manifested solely to the scribes of that text and not to you in person.
So again I ask you: how did you evaluat ...[text shortened]... y it became Your Knowledge instead of remaining simply what it actually is, ie a belief?
😵

==================================
We agree that the so called "source of knowledge" regarding the religious text that in your opinion is sacred,
============================

I think you used the word "sacred".
I think you also used the phrase "religious text".
I think you also introduced the phrase "source of knowledge".

====================
is a product of "revelation".
===================

I did use this word "revelation". Continue ...

==========================================
However it seems to me that this revelation was manifested solely to the scribes of that text and not to you in person.
==================================

I think you are touching on some finer points in what some theologians discribe as the distinction between "revelation" and "illumination".

I probably will just try to zero in on what you're getting at as a bottom line. Now I may miss your point. But I will try to address it.

=================================
So again I ask you: how did you evaluated in person this revelation and which way it became Your Knowledge instead of remaining simply what it actually is, ie a belief?
===================================

I am not sure I can help you with your question. But here is what I have to say.

God is trying to communicate with man. In doing so God has told us some things.
Yes, we can choose to believe those things or not believe them.

Can they be absolutely proved in the sense of something like mathematical certainty? I don't think many of them can be proved in this way.

Then again what can really be absolutely proved ? Can we prove that the universe was not created 15 minutes ago ?

Some philosophers would say that there is no way to absolutely prove that the universe did not come into existence 15 minutes ago.

So, I believe God knows all the facts and has revealed some of them to man. They still remain a matter of belief.

But can I prove that the earth is not standing still and the whole univese is not moving around it ? I mean really prove it ? I don't think anyone can absolutely prove that the earth is not standing still.

We can have a sense that we are on the right track to believe something. But to totally prove many things, we would have to know all knowledge. And we do not.

To absolutely prove some things (maybe all things) we would have to be omniscient. And we are not last time I checked.

This is all in the realm of objective knowlege about stuff. Nothing here concerns touching God Himself. The Bible's real aim is to bring people into fellowship with God Himself.

Many people think that arrival occurs when they have the "right" data about things - creation, animals, fossils, stars, sun, man, etc. These people often have a frustration with the Bible because it does not behave like an exhaustive encyclopedia objectively informing mankind about all the details of how the world works mechanically.

They may puzzle as to why Genesis didn't go into more detail about quantum physics if it is suppose to be this communication from the all powerful Creator? Why didn't Jesus spend more time teaching His disciples about gravity, radio waves, the speed of light ? I mean this is the stuff we really need to know !

But I think this communication is somewhat poetic at times and seeks to convey to the largest number of people throughout the unfolding history of civilization the pertinent matters essentially which are related to the plan of God and the salvation of man.

I also think it is important to see what is actually said there. Did it actually say that God created the sun, moon, and stars on day 4? Questions like this often require looking into the original language. And the better Bible scholars are careful to examine what is actually written there and what is not actually written.

Given all this there are still areas of disagreement. But the major matters are repeated many times and in many ways. The most essential aspects of this revelation from God to man, therefore, is clearly spoken in more than one place.

.... ths my thoughts this morning on your question. Sorry if I missed your concern. Someone else might do better.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Delusion, n. 4.Psychiatry. A fixed, dominating or persistent false mental conception resistant to reason.

A sure sign of this is long and never ending posts filled with quotes from some dusty old manual. Some people fall so much in love with the sounds that flow from their mouths when they learn a particular language that they lose the ability to appreciate that language is just a way of talking about the world and not the world itself.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
A sure sign of this is long and never ending posts filled with quotes from some dusty old manual. Some people fall so much in love with the sounds that flow from their mouths when they learn a particular language that they lose the ability to appreciate that language is just a way of talking about the world and not the world itself.

erased