lindyhopper

That is the topic I origially addressed. You didn't like the words I used or the way in which I used them and have continued to not explain why or what your view of them is.You're talking about subjective proof as opposed to objective proof, I get that. That was my original point. This topic sort of overlaps the other topic on what is truth, because proof usually has something do with it. Since you can not objectively prove the objective truth, then you are left subjectively proving a subjective truth. The only way in which you can have subjective proof of the objective truth is, as I stated on the other thread, if you win the lottery of the universe (or multiverse or whatever it is). I understand what you are saying I agree. I think you understand what I am saying but you don't agree with how I am saying it or something. I think we agree. you: me: OR maybe not... Sure sounds like you are vaguely talking about something specific there.

Not talking about religions or a religion, but religion in general as I described. Well, I guess, what is your issue with the common uses of the words "believer" and "religion." I think I get what your problem with the word "religion", after all we were both apart of a cult that had a disdain for that word. Many nondenominational groups and others for some reason feel the same. Religion according to TWI was man made, was legalistic, and in someway ungodly. We can change definitions all we want, but usually when someone is talking about religion in general it is in the sense that I posted earlier..."belief in and reverence for God or a deity." Is this not what you have? Is this not what you believe? If it is then what's the problem? If it isn't then what are you talking about? I don't really carry definitions around in my heart. My heart is more for things that I love, desire, and things that I feel passionately about. It just so happens, I actually know what certain words mean. The dictionary just so happened to have the definition as I knew it to be. I quoted it to make my point, and you disagree with what the words mean. That is fine. Speak your own language, but it doesn't change what I meant, and since I was the one that brought them up then I should be the one to determine which definition I was using. No, I think we just need to know what the other person means. We don't have to agree. I told you what I meant and you disagreed with the definition, but as I said that doesn't change what I said and meant. What is your beef with the words "religion" and "believer" and what are your definitions? That would help me understand. Hey, me neither! Although, the use of the word "scripture" does imply you hold a religious belief concerning them. I think the vast majority of english speaking people would agree on that and that if you have a belief in God and Jesus Christ you would have yourself a religion of some sort. Why? Would you prefer "spiritual"? And I will continue to as long as it helps everyone else understand what and who I am talking about. I don't see it as a bad thing. Well, I suspect your suspicion would be correct as long as you continue to not tell me what you are talking about.

I didn't think I was sidetracking. You mentioned "scripture" and referenced the bible. Why is religion an unappropriate word in the context of what you wrote? I have and do. Why do you think that I don't? Actually, believer is a pretty specific word in the context of religion or, if you prefer, belief in a God or deity. There are those that believe and there are those that don't. The believing side varies a whole hell of a lot as does the non-believing side, but you either believe in a God or deity or you don't. Seems simple enough. And I was actually talking about some people that I do know and many people that I don't. Grouping and labeling is what words are for. They descibe things. They group things with similar qualities and distinguish others with dissimilar qualities. My knowing someone would have no effect on whether or not they believe in a God or deity or not. I wasn't making an anyone vs. anyone case. I was simply stating that your first sentence "proof of...whatever one belives is not a requirement of the scriptures," is not a requirement of anyone by anyone and that is a good thing for those that believe in a God or deity, because it would be impossible to do so. It is also convient because anyone can believe anything and claim that it is truth or right or whatever simply because they have proved it to themselves. This is perfectly fine, because this is just unprofoundly what we do....prove things to ourselves. BTW, what does "prove to yourself" mean anyway. What homo-sapiens? Humans? People? Becuase certainly we are all not metalsmiths, or mechanics, or viola players or existencialists or believers or innies (TWIers) or outies (bellybuttons) or scientologists or darwinists or frogs Now you are talking about people you don't know and labeling everyone with the very vague and elusive "THEM." I don't want to be one of THOSE people! (cracks open a dictionary and starts reading to see if there is something else you are talking about) You were posting about something relatively simple and I responded with a simple post. But now... add me to the list of people who have asked "What the hell are you talking about."

Well we could say that about any word really, couldn't we? Well, shoe, what does that mean? Well, house, what does that mean? Driving, what does that mean? Car? etc. Being trained as an industrial designer I used to do that all the time to try and rethink the design of common things. So, I understand. The thing is in order for communication to work, there needs to be a relative agreement on what words mean. That is their purpose. The meanings vary and opninions vary, but in the dictionary the folks that compile the definitions try and put the most common definition first. So when I say standard I mean the most common definition. Here is religion Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity. Of, concerned with, or teaching religion: a religious text. Extremely scrupulous or conscientious: religious devotion to duty. Here is the intransitive form of believe To have firm faith, especially religious faith. To have faith, confidence, or trust: I believe in your ability to solve the problem. To have confidence in the truth or value of something: We believe in free speech. To have an opinion; think: They have already left, I believe. So I used the most common froms of those words. Words ARE limiting by nature, that is the beauty and the curse of them, but in daily conversation I think it is best to try and use common definitions if we want people to understand what we are saying. If we don't care about that then just string words together that only mean something to the speaker and perhaps other people not in the room. It would be kind of pointless, but we could do that. If we want to communicate things that are not bases on standard definitions then I think it is polite to use more words to get your point accross. I was not doing this so I just used common words with their common definitions.

We all do change like it or not. :) And here I was thinking you didn't see what I said. :) This whole line of discussion branched off of T&O saying that Christianity was not about works and believing. I personally think we can't get away from those two things. So I questioned him, becuase his view sounded interesting and something I don't think I have heard before. You answered the questions directed at him so I assumed you agreed with him. Perhaps you do, but a little effort is a little bit of works.There is nothing wrong with effort, I am all for it. I am all for people believing what they want too. I don't think it is good for all of us to not discuss what we believe openly and honestly. I don't think it is good for people with questions to not ask them and discuss them. I don't think it is possible for people to not believe in anything. I don't think it is good for people to believe in something and not have works that are associated with them. (James anyone) Agreed. Or to put it another way, you have to want to believe. One day, things will change and the truth will be revealed. We will either be too dead to realise it or we will realise that Christians were right or that Muslims were right or that the crazy guy on the corner was right or that none of us were right or that the creator of the universe was just another person who unknowingly created us one day when they sneezed, or any one of the infinite number of other possiblilities.

The standard meaning. Those that have religious faith.

No, not a troll thread. But by all means don't address the topic and just attack the poster. Yes, I hate God, and all the other things I doubt the existence of. That damned Jolly Green Giant really gets my panties in a bunch. It is not about being smarter or dumber or whatever. Don't take my opinion so personally. I would like anyone's thoughts on this if they have anything to contribute. Is there anything in there that you have a different opinion on. Am I wrong on the unprecidented experience of Paul. BTW, next time, look it up before attacking me! There are plenty of theists that have the same or a similar opinion of Paul FYI, I don't think the Bible is bs, that was another poster on here. I think there are many good things to learn from it, including Pauls writings. What I won't do is swallow the whole thing without question. I don't think atheists and agnostics are the only ones that are like this.

For some of my problems with Paul see the other thread I started. He is not described as full of "humbleness, meekness, courage, love..etc." when Jesus supposedly knocked him on his a$$. He was not in a place where he was ready let go and let Jesus in. He was on his way to kill people who were. So his example doesn't really speak to what you are saying, unless you are saying do your own thing and maybe some day Jesus will do something to you beyond your control. Any slightly more current examples that are undisputably non-fiction? I get what you are saying, I just experience of it and know of no one who credibly has. These are all acts of mind. Not everyone fights against these things. I can decide to be humble, meek, courageous, and loving. If we are in the habit of fighting them, then yes I would suspect that we would have to more or less let go, let go of our seemingly natural tendancies, but many of us choose to act in those positive ways. IMO, it is when we decide to act in this fashion that we really make a positive impact. When we let go of the former negative mindset fighting against these things, we simply are no longer making a negative impact. They are both good things to do, but one is more proactive and the other is just not destructive. That is quite impossible. Another problem is thinking we know it all or thinking we know more than we know. This is why I am agnostic. I don't think I see it all and I don't think I know it all. It is what I think has been the most honest, humble, loving, and courageous thing for me personally. I trust as little as possible in the things that I know I don't see and don't know. At times, I even question the things I think I see and know, but if you do that too much you go a little crazy. As to the heaven question, I assume, cman, that you don't believe in the traditional idea of heaven. Am I right? If so, I guess that question really wouldn't apply to you. BURN HIM ON A STAKE!

I don't believe Paul is what so many people have believed him to be. First off, look at his "conversion." His particular experience is totally unprecidented. He is not a humble, meek, loving, guy trying to genuinely seek God when he finds Jesus. He is out on his way to try and kill and persecute more Christians. Unprecidented. Jesus speaks to him audibly and through a vision. There is no other record that I know of in which Jesus does anything like that. A random discple we have never heard of and never here about again is the guy that comes and heals him. What seems like overnight he goes from killing Christians to preaching to them. What is he preaching? Not exactly the words of Jesus. The life of Jesus? Nope. How could he? He never knew Jesus. In fact many people see contradictions between what Jesus supposedly said and what Paul taught. Of course, the only evidence of what we believe Jesus said were things written after the epistles, but that is another topic. I think many of the things in Paul's epistles undermine many things in the Gospels. It is a Christianity that leans toward a new legalism, not the Christianity of the Gospels. It is almost as though Paul went from one plan of attack to another. He threw in a gas pumps and snow type story and claimed that he was the new apostle. The other guys were apostles to the Jews and he was the apostle to everyone else. It just all seems a little fishy. Of course so does the whole thing about there being no mention of Jesus anywhere until at least 40 years after his death, at which time he is "resurrected" by who?

As humans, I think this is pretty self-evident. Thankfully and conveniently for believers the scriptures don't require an impossibility. I think most thinking people are compelled to do this regardless of a commandment. It just seems to be apart of how we figure things out. The thing is that we may all prove things, but for some, certain things can be proved to oneself and certain things can not be, and these differ from person to person. On the other hand, I think that if we boil down "that which is good" I think that most of us are on the same page basically. For example..."rock on." I am totally with you on that one.

Exactly, this means that Sushi still eats kittens on Fridays.

Personally, I don't believe that anyone can have truly selfless motives. There is always a benefit to doing good or a positive insentive. It may not be cognitively planned out that way, but whether it is just a feeling or a physical benefit, you reap what you sow. You always get something positive from doing something positive. You may not have said anything about believing and doing , but it is there in the mix. Ok, so they're not your motives, that still requires you giving up your own motives. Taking yourself out of the equation is an act, maybe just a mental process, but it is an act. Why? Perhaps because you believe a certain thing that incourages this act? Why choose to take yourself out of the equation as apposed to not doing so? A belief. We can not get away from believing and acting on those beliefs or acting on something else. We either use our mental faculties and act on what we believe or we don't use them and react to circumstance instinctively or automatcally or stupidly. If I am wrong please give me an example to show otherwise.

Happy Birthday +/-ODD. Hope things are well with you, my friend.

Ok, but you could have someone who desires that you fulfill a requirement. The desire and the requirement could be the same thing. This is how I see desires and requirements. A desire is something that I may have that ends without consequence. A requirement is more like an "if, then" statement. If you don't do this, then that will happen, or if you do that, then this will happen. Some desires I have for other people and for myself will also be requirements. Lets say I am in school. I may desire to get an "A", but if I get an "F" I will fail. If I continue to get A's I will be on the honor role. If I continue to get F's I will have to take the class over again. It is probably the desire of my teacher, principal, and school board that I and everyone else get A's all the time, but if we don't we will not all get on the honor role. Simple enough. This started with Bramble bringing up what she seemed to feel was an unjust requirement to get into heaven. So if mercy and acknowledgement of God are not requirements, just a desire, are there other requirements to get into heaven? The way I understand Universalism is that God will bring everyone to heaven regardless of your beliefs or works, all will be saved. Most everyone else has a requirement. Requirements in that case are required beliefs or works to get into heaven. So if you are not a Universalist and you believe that God only has desires for us to fulfill and not requirements, who goes to heaven and why?

I'm sorry, I'm obviously missing something. Perhaps it is that I don't know your specific ideas of who and what God is etc.. It is hard to keep everyone's specific beliefs straight. How is this not a believing of one thing over another and a doing of one thing over another, or a not doing one thing over another (same thing really). Mercy is a work and acknowledgment of God is a belief. How is this any different from what Bramble described... Do niether of them get in, because one has mercy and not acknowledgment and the other has acknowledgement and not mercy? Or are you saying that as long as you seek God whether it be in a Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or Budist way, as long as you are trying to turn towards God and are merciful he will accept you into heaven? I still see that as based on belief and works. The only way I can see it having nothing to do with works or believing is Universalism. Honestly, I don't see humans doing much of anything else outside of believing and doing something other than thinking about what they believe or what they have done and what they will do next. Am I wrong?

So it's not about believing or doing but about motives? Selfless motives are usually attached to selfless acts or "works." The motives themselves would have to be formed from some sort of belief wouldn't it? Just trying to figure out what you're saying here. Your one sentence answer(?) is a little vague.

I would like to think I have a pretty good understanding of what much of the Bible is talking about. I would also think that most serious Christians would think the same, in spite of their respective denominations or non-denominations. So, if it is not about believeing one thing over another and not about doing one thing over another....then what exactly is it all about?

I think there is a discrete way to nurse and there is whipping the boob out while trying to get the kid to latch. A mom should realise that some might not want to see her boobs in a non-sexual way and should go the discrete route. If mom does this then I think moms should be able to nurse wherever and whenever they feel like it. It is natural and it is the best thing for a baby. People need to not be so uptight. I think there was a story a few years back about a woman getting thrown our of a Wendy's for nursing. Craziness. Apparently, some of the patrons couldn't choke down their grease burger while seeing a baby have some of mommy's milk in their periphery.

To be clear, I believe the question Oak posed was, "does the lack of belief in Santa make it a religion?" The answer is no. The same way that atheism and agnosticism are not religions. Do atheists and angnostics have a religion as per your definition? Yes, but atheism and agnostisism are not them. That lack of belief has little to do with the way they act and whether or not they murder or steal or are just plain bastards. It would be more accurate to say that, for example, secular humanism was their religion (if that fits the person). It could be a number of other labels as well, but their lack of belief in a god has little to do with how they live and what guides their life. It all comes down to faith, folks. That is why these arguements are so pointless. One claiming that their god is "God all Mighty" or the "creator of the heavens and the earth" or "the one true God" has nothing to do with whether those claims are true or not. Is there an ultimate truth? I believe there is. The thing is none of us will ever know until we get there, IF we get there. This simple fact is why in my opinion it is very logical and important to have a huge helping of humility when it comes to your personal belief in a god. You, me, the rest of them, everyone could be completely wrong. Unfortuantely, many views of religion (theistic) require the adherent to believe completely 100% that their god is God or the head God. It seems this makes it more about who's god is bigger and badder and truer and trying to prove that one way or the other, and not about how we live our lives and treat others, and for Christians that is what it is supposed to be all about...the Law of Love. What is important, IMO, is how we deal with eachother, which is something that all religions address. Some in a not so appealing way, which is why many of us don't think those religions are right. They don't appeal to our sense of right and wrong. That is what it comes down to. What we believe and what is truth only coincide if your unvarafiable claim of truth just happens to hit the lottery in the infinite number of other unvarifiable possibilities. It is like picking your "Big Game" numbers and claiming you have the winning ticket, even though there hasn't and will not be a drawing (at least not until we are all dead). Everyone would want to believe they have the winning ticket, but no one would really know. Hopefully it is YOUR office pool that wins. Good Luck!

...not what I was thinking of but there was a story from Eli Stanley Jones (the "sand in the machinery of life" guy and a Methodist missionary to India in the first few decades of the 20th century) in which he said something like a woman told him she did not have faith of her own but she had faith in his faith. Something to that effect. Not what I was thinking of but sort of similar... I'll keep looking. Thanks WW, maybe HCW will chime in. You would think, though, that if there was documented photos of the actual incident that they would have been blown up on one of the PFAL chart boards. I can't imagine VPW keeping something like that quite.

That's what I figgered, but they are all somewhere in a box in storage. I guess there wasn't much to the story, other than a man on VP's train in India wanting VPW to heal him, but he says "I don't believe in your Jesus, but I believe you can heal me." He heals him in the name of JC yadda yadda and the train begins to pull off, and VP yelles something to the guy. Is that the gist? I am having a hard time finding that link. I'll keep at it. Thought it was here, but no. There are some online books though for your reading.

I was perusing through links a couple of weeks ago from a link in a doctrinal thread and came across some writings that sounded similar to some of the things VPW taught and I came across a story of a man this minister (the writer) had healed. Wouldn't you know it, but this story sounded remarkably like the one of the guy VP said he healed in India on the train. The one where he said something like, "I don't believe in your jesus, but I believe you can heal me." All my TWI books are in storage and my memory is a little fuzzy, so if any of you could relay the original story here, I will look for that link again. At the time I was thinking to myself, "Holy crap, even this story was stolen." I'll try and find it, but any of you have any other insight into this?

PMosh, Congrats! Wow, a little mini-mosher. All the cliches that everyone says about how it changes your life.....don't even scratch the surface. Here's to diapers and no sleep!

For me it was more that we were taught not to have faith...that we had proof. Once I realized all I actually had was faith, I realised the whole religion package wasn't for me. Faith (in the religious sense) didn't make sense for me. Of course, if I was raised to have faith I might have accepted that a bit more, but I don't think it would have been any more logical. Many people in our generation are leaning away from religious faith, not just we who were in TWI. It can't all be pinned on them, plus there are plenty that still believe and are still involved with TWI. So I can't agree with you, Rascal, in blaming TWI for our "turning away form God." Perhaps it is more of a cultural thing or just an individual thing.------------------------------------------------------------------- I dealt with this a little. I have two boys. Before I had kids I thought about this and came to the conclusion that, for me, an all knowing, all powerful, invisible, eye in the sky is not the only way to make sure that your moral compass is always pointing north. In fact, I think that unless we are damaged pretty badly, we all make judgements and choose our paths according to what makes sense to us. Whether it is the general law of love in Christianity or the five tenets of faith in Islam or the sanctity of all life in Budism or secular humanism, we all do what we think makes sense to us based on how we were raised, our education- both formal and experiencial, and to some degree our culture. After all, once you take away the gods and the spirituallism it is all humanism. How we are raised is a big one. Kids learn by example from an early age. Live a good life, treat your children with love and respect and that is how they will treat others, regardless of your brand of religion. Don't do those things and watch your kid grow up treating others without love and respect. Along the way, give your kids some sound reasoning, expose them to many ideas, cultivate critical thinking and they are well on their way. It isn't about making them obey vs. punishment and eternal judgement, but about teaching them HOW to make the right choices. That's my take on it.

I always felt this was a little uncomfortable. Either there were a number of people jumping over eachother, competing to start first (with the loudest one usually winning), or there was an awkward silence with someone eventually starting becuase SOMEONE had to do it. I even remember being told that it was good to jump in there loudly...it showed boldness, blah blah blah. They were incouraging the competition so people could prove how spiritually mature they were. They were just more obnoxious! I'm a quite person and I speak dilliberately. So obviously I'm not very spiritual;) The other thing that comes to mind is that the leader of the meeting supposedly had God working in them to choose who to call on, whether this be during the meeting or before hand while planning for it. Apparently, they have come to the realization that this isn't happening. Nooooo, really?