Originally posted by moon1969
I had the exact opposite experience. I broke out of the religious superstition, moving toward free thinking and healthy skepticism. The transition was such a positive in my life.

If any out there are brainwashed in religious susperstition, and are questioning the delusions, I highly recommend efforts to break out of the brainwashing. It will free you to be objective and sound.

Doesn't sound like you properly got exposed to the Jesus I have got to know. If you felt the way you did then whatever you escaped from was not the true living God but probably some very poor and oppressive counterfeit of Him.

Religion sucks in many ways. What you rejected wasn't God I can guarantee it. I would even go as far as suggesting that it was God that helped you break out of whatever you were in.

Originally posted by twhitehead
If you cant answer them all at once, then why not start a thread on each? They may all be relevant.

[b]So what's your pleasure - from what you have raised which 1 or 2 issues would you like to discuss?
They are all interesting and I cant choose. You pick.

BTW- I will give you one good reason why the scientific method is not a good way of exc ...[text shortened]... s to be known, doesn't seem to have a plan for me, so hes not a particularly good teacher.

As regards the Holy Spirit, he seems to teach each individual something different, so I would not consider him a trusted authority.
And worst of all, this God that wants to be known, doesn't seem to have a plan for me, so hes not a particularly good teacher.
------------------------whitey--------------------------------------------------------

He might tell you about His plan if you would listen to Him. God will not force Himself upon you. If you don't want to seek Him then that's your business and your choice. No teacher can teach someone who won't listen or entertain the idea that they might learn something new. Not even God.

I say this not as a personal insult or judgement. I myself was in the wilderness for many years with my fingers in my ears.

Originally posted by twhitehead
If you cant answer them all at once, then why not start a thread on each? They may all be relevant.

[b]So what's your pleasure - from what you have raised which 1 or 2 issues would you like to discuss?
They are all interesting and I cant choose. You pick.

BTW- I will give you one good reason why the scientific method is not a good way of exc ...[text shortened]... s to be known, doesn't seem to have a plan for me, so hes not a particularly good teacher.

hey are all interesting and I cant choose. You pick.

---------------------------whitey------------------------------------

The Muslim question then? You wanted to know why I didn't take the Muslim pill? This Ok with you?

Originally posted by knightmeister
hey are all interesting and I cant choose. You pick.

---------------------------whitey------------------------------------

The Muslim question then? You wanted to know why I didn't take the Muslim pill? This Ok with you?

I personally would really like to know that one particularly .

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I personally would really like to know that one particularly .

Before I do , I want to be crystal clear that I'm not disparaging Islam , simply saying why I believe in Christ and not Islam.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Before I do , I want to be crystal clear that I'm not disparaging Islam , simply saying why I believe in Christ and not Islam.

Of course. Good.
I've often wondered about such things, sometimes too deeply and prolly for too long.
Just keep in mind that I see christianity as a valid way for some but not for me.
That Jesus guy must have some power. I've seen his "magic" work on people where you see it deep in their eyes. You dont question that. Well I dont, Fabian might 🙂

So why christianity and not islam?

Originally posted by knightmeister
He might tell you about His plan if you would listen to Him.

Sorry, that just doesn't cut it. We are talking about the best teaching methods here and I am pointing out Gods students failure rates are quite enormous. His teaching methods are poor at best. So your argument earlier that God does some things in certain ways because it should be obvious to me that this is a good teaching method does not hold up to scrutiny.

Originally posted by knightmeister
The Muslim question then? You wanted to know why I didn't take the Muslim pill? This Ok with you?

Yes. I think this question is central to the OP. The OP explains the catch 22 of being faced with a pill and not having enough information to decide whether or not to take it.
So your answer to the Muslim pill must explain why you don't face a catch 22 with the Muslim pill. How come you have enough information about the Muslim pill but not the Christian pill.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Have you not come across the very effective counter argument to the "there is no absolute truth" statement.

Namely - do you believe this is ultimately true?

I wasn't scoffing - just playfully wondering if you realized the paradox inherent in such an argument?

Right yeah I see, apologies for over reaction; but to the question, I'm usually quite careful to use non emphatic phrases like 'to me' or think/feel etc and to me Agnosticism is not a claim that there are no absolute truths, but rather that those absolutes are unknowable, I think Lol.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Right yeah I see, apologies for over reaction; but to the question, I'm usually quite careful to use non emphatic phrases like 'to me' or think/feel etc and to me Agnosticism is not a claim that there are no absolute truths, but rather that those absolutes are unknowable, I think Lol.

Agnosticism is not a claim that there are no absolute truths, but rather that those absolutes are unknowable

---------------kev-------------------------

But the same paradox applies here. How do you "know" the above is true? And do you believe that what you claim is "absolutely" true?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Of course. Good.
I've often wondered about such things, sometimes too deeply and prolly for too long.
Just keep in mind that I see christianity as a valid way for some but not for me.
That Jesus guy must have some power. I've seen his "magic" work on people where you see it deep in their eyes. You dont question that. Well I dont, Fabian might 🙂

So why christianity and not islam?

For me the major difference between Islam and Christianity is how they attempt to address the problem of bridging the gap between God's goodness and holiness and man's sin (or flawed humanity).

Christianity believes that it is God who reaches down to man via grace (the cross etc) and saves Him out of his predicament. In Islam , as far as I see , there is no such provision. Islam is to me basically the OT in a different guise. It lacks the extra dimension of salvation and seems to expect men to live up to God's standard via a form of legalism. If you understand what legalism is then you will see the difference. In Islam , the way to God is through devotion and practice ,whereas in Christianity it is God who transforms by his Spirit (grace) which leads to devotion.

The problem in the OT and Islam is this - How can man be put right with a Holy God? The NT answers this dilemma. In my mind Islam is like Judaism - I've got loads of respect for both of them , but there's a bit missing in my opinion.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Agnosticism is not a claim that there are no absolute truths, but rather that those absolutes are unknowable

---------------kev-------------------------

But the same paradox applies here. How do you "know" the above is true? And do you believe that what you claim is "absolutely" true?

I do not see a paradox in not claiming to know an absolute truth knightmeister. I fear you along with a lot of other people have been manufacturing absolute truths from what you would like to / or perceive to be absolute truths for so long that you cannot get your head around this concept. IF I WAS CLAIMING THAT THE UN-KNOWIABILITY OF ABSOLUTE TRUTHS WAS AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH THEN YES THERE IS A PARADOX BUT I'M DOING NO SUCH THING IT'S A BELIEF/BEST GUESS BASED ON LISTENING TO PEOPLE LIKE YOURSELF WHO CLAIM ABSOLUTE TRUTHS AND WHAT I CAN ONLY CALL MY OWN 'INTELLECTUAL INSTINCT'.

P.S the second part of my post isn't in uppercase because I'm shouting I'm just speaking really slowly and clearly. I will try and find some references to the philosophical argument as to why we cannot honestly claim to know the absolute truth.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
I do not see a paradox in not claiming to know an absolute truth knightmeister. I fear you along with a lot of other people have been manufacturing absolute truths from what you would like to / or perceive to be absolute truths for so long that you cannot get your head around this concept. IF I WAS CLAIMING THAT THE UN-KNOWIABILITY OF ABSOLUTE TRUTHS WAS AN the philosophical argument as to why we cannot honestly claim to know the absolute truth.

I would agree with you to a certain extent. There is a difference between the claim that we can know absolute truth and the claim that absolute truth exists.

Just to clarify

You are saying that it is your belief that absolute truth does not exist.

You are also saying that it is your belief that absolute truth is unknowable.

But by implication you still have a belief in an absolute truth of sorts because you believe "that absolute truth does not exist". The problem here is that even if you are not sure about this premise (and it's your "guess" ) the premise itself is still absolute and if found to be true would imply the exact opposite of what you claim.


The only way out of this is to claim that you believe that the premise " absolute truth does not exist" is a relative truth and might only apply to some people or some parts of the universe and not others.

So , if for example , you believe that your premise (however tentatively you believe it) could be true for you but not true for me (simultaneously) then you would be into clear water. I doubt this is what you are saying. Therefore what you believe is an absolute truth.

Do you get it yet?

In short the issue is not about how strongly you hold the premise - its about the PREMISE ITSELF. Even if you were only 0.00000000001% convinced of your premise it would still be an absolute premise and a statement of absolute truth.

Similarly , if you claim that the "unknowability of absolute truth" is not an absolute truth then you open the door to me claiming that I can know absolute truth whilst you cannot. Basically it would be true for you and not true for me. Instinctively this should alert you to something being wrong about the premise. However , you might be Ok with this. If so then why raise the point or try to convince me of anything. God exists for me and he doesn't for you - and both of us are right!!!! LOL

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes. I think this question is central to the OP. The OP explains the catch 22 of being faced with a pill and not having enough information to decide whether or not to take it.
So your answer to the Muslim pill must explain why you don't face a catch 22 with the Muslim pill. How come you have enough information about the Muslim pill but not the Christian pill.

The OP explains the catch 22 of being faced with a pill and not having enough information to decide whether or not to take it.

-----------whitey---------------------------

And that's the question. How much information is "enough" before we make any moves? And also what the risk is in tasting the pill.

If we feel that we have little information then maybe a little taste of the pill might be appropriate. The Matrix analogy isn't a complete analogy because in the film its a complete one way ticket. We also need to consider what the pros and cons might be of tasting or taking said pill. I would suggest that the possibility of knowing the eternal living God is a pretty good pro.

After all what does one have to lose? If you ask God to reveal his Spirit to you and absolutely nothing happens then no big loss there. Do you fear that something might happen?

Originally posted by knightmeister
I would agree with you to a certain extent. There is a difference between the claim that we can know absolute truth and the claim that absolute truth exists.

Just to clarify

You are saying that it is your belief that absolute truth does not exist.

You are also saying that it is your belief that absolute truth is unknowable.

But by impli nything. God exists for me and he doesn't for you - and both of us are right!!!! LOL

No windupmeister I Am not claiming that absolute truths do not exist, how many times are you going to ask me that. I'm simply saying they are unknowable by us. If you can show me proof of an absolute truth i.e the existence, / non existence of god and I do not mean the funny feeling you get when your god decides to get in touch. Once more it,s not about truth it,s about Knowledge; truths will or will not exist independent of our perceptions it,s wether we can have knowledge of those truths. I am not trying to convince you of anything I am trying explain to you why your whole evangelical diatribe is completely without purpose other than satisfying your egotistical wet dream of Apparently "KNOWING"(shouting now) god exists and that he wants you for a sunbeam. BTW I am as entitled to express my view regarding your/our inability to know as you are to express what you believe; thats why it,s called a forum as apposed to the knightmeister show.