I was wrong

[kevin]

Kevin, you're free now, right? That means that you take matters into your own hands to get things cleared up. You don't just sit back and wait for someone to give you a good enough reason to right a wrong.

 

There ain't no prayin' here.

There ain't no waitin' for magic.

 

It's all you.

 

Out here in the real world, rarely do we avoid stirring up our "peace" when there's more important things to take care of. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The phrase "Flogging a dead horse" comes to mind right now Fwee. I'm not sure if you are the self appointed spokesperson for these *hurt people*, but I would like to think they would come forward and speak for themselves, without me guessing who they are. If on the other hand you are talking about Reach, in your roundabout way, then we have already exchanged a few words.

 

Kevin:

[nightflight]

I think we should take Kevin at his word. All this suspicion is silly.

[Checkmate]

I think we should take Kevin at his word.  All this suspicion is silly.

 

I second that emotion. Can we drop this now, PLEASE? Give the dude a chance! It's not like he has access to the "EAC funds", or something.

[Jay]

I second that emotion.  Can we drop this now, PLEASE?  Give the dude a chance!  It's not like he has access to the "EAC funds", or something. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Although it has been entertaining watching some of you do to Kevin what many Christians did to Bob Dylan when he converted...

[Jay]

I understand the parallel that you are trying to make, but leaving christianity is not the same as converting to a religion. 

 

I think there are quite a few people that support Kevin.  He hasn't posted outside this particular thread though, and therefore, a good portion of the board may not even be aware of his deconversion.

That may be, but I am not at all convinced that de-converting is that much different than converting. I am watching what has been happening here...Kevin has described his experience as being nearly identical to that of someone who converts to Christianity. He feels at peace...he feels free...he has some concern about what his friends might say...he felt the need to come here to publicly proclaim his newfound unbelief system. And some who are already de-converts do not believe his de-conversion is for real.

 

No, I believe the experiences are very much the same. Which tells me something very important...

 

One's personal experience really doesn't mean too much...

[kevin]

One's personal experience really doesn't mean too much...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Personal experiences are just that Jay. Personal. They are all different in their own way, and I do believe they are of value. Are you saying your acceptance of christ didn't mean anything to you at the time?

 

Kevin:

 

(BTW:A big thanks to TK421, Nightflight and of course MM for restoring a little sanity)

[Jay]

Personal experiences are just that Jay. Personal. They are all different in their own way, and I do believe they are of value. Are you saying your acceptance of christ didn't mean anything to you at the time?

There was a personal emotional experience at the time. Similar to when I tell my wife that I did something that I should not have done and she forgives me. But personal emotional experiences are hardly an adequate basis for rational conclusions.

 

Yes, they may have some personal meaning. But beyond that, they don't really mean much. Because someone feels "at peace" does not really mean they are right. Nor does it mean they are wrong. It means nothing in the search for truth.

[mahjong]

Now, just for fun, blaspheme the holy spirit.

 

now THAT made me laugh!

 

 

go ahead Kevin--- do it!

 

It's too scarey at first. But when you let loose a series of epithets something inside starts giggling...

 

DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT...

 

 

mj

[Jay]

Which should tell you something important about religion in general.

Oh, it does.

If one's personal experience doesn't mean too much.  If one's beliefs seem sincere and real to the person, regardless of what the beliefs are.  How can one ever discern the truth fully.

Well, truth is not discovered based on what one believes. Truth can only be deciphered through reason.

So how can God pick one religion and then torture us humans who are basically bungling in the dark, easily fooled by our emotions, for not picking the right religion during our variable times here on earth.  Seems like stupid system to me, much to stupid for a supposedly omnipotent being.

Is that something you can prove, or something you believe because it "just doesn't seem right"?

Which is why I will stick to things that can be proven.

Me too.

[dogmatically_challenged]

QUOTE(Madame M @ Jul 30 2005, 07:09 PM)

Which should tell you something important about religion in general.

Jay

Oh, it does. xianity is not a religion. I'ts a relationship with the bestest super duper invisible friend ever.

 

QUOTE(Madame M)

If one's personal experience doesn't mean too much.  If one's beliefs seem sincere and real to the person, regardless of what the beliefs are.  How can one ever discern the truth fully.

 

Jay

Well, truth is not discovered based on what one believes. Truth can only be deciphered through the holy spook. I have more than just a belief. I have blind faith.

 

QUOTE(Madame M)

So how can God pick one religion and then torture us humans who are basically bungling in the dark, easily fooled by our emotions, for not picking the right religion during our variable times here on earth.  Seems like stupid system to me, much to stupid for a supposedly omnipotent being.

 

Jay

Is that something you can prove, or something you believe because it "just doesn't seem right in my narrow minded, definately blind belief in jesus"?

 

QUOTE(Madame M)

Which is why I will stick to things that can be proven.

Jay

Me too. The bible is proven. God is real because the bible says so. And the bible is true because it's the word of God. hehe!

[Cerise]

There was a personal emotional experience at the time.  Similar to when I tell my wife that I did something that I should not have done and she forgives me.  But personal emotional experiences are hardly an adequate basis for rational conclusions.

 

Yes, they may have some personal meaning.  But beyond that, they don't really mean much.  Because someone feels "at peace" does not really mean they are right.  Nor does it mean they are wrong.  It means nothing in the search for truth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Unless what you are searching for is peace.

 

And then "truth" can go hang itself for all the searcher cares. For most people "turth" is a buzzword for "what I want to be true" in any case. On both sides of the coin.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Unless what you are searching for is peace.

 

And then "truth" can go hang itself for all the searcher cares.  For most people "turth" is a buzzword for "what I want to be true" in any case.  On both sides of the coin.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Unless your talkning about me. God absolutely does not exist. hehe.

[spamandham]

One's personal experience really doesn't mean too much...

 

Yet, "personal experience" is the rallying cry of those who can't defend their faith with evidence and reason.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Yet, "personal experience" is the rallying cry of those who can't defend their faith with evidence and reason.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If Jay said he saw jesus with his own eyes, and saw jesus fly around like a pixie, turned club soda into a wine cooler, Id at least believe he saw something.

 

I mean I believe in UFO's and I even seen one before. I can get into specifics. It could be reasonably assumed that I saw something. Right?

 

Yet when it comes to the xer's personal proof of god I never met any really that could ever coherently define why they believe.

[Jay]

Yet, "personal experience" is the rallying cry of those who can't defend their faith with evidence and reason.

Not me. I would never ask you to believe anything based on any personal experience.

[Thurisaz]

I think we should take Kevin at his word.  All this suspicion is silly.

 

Seconded.

There's always some possibility that we're being set up by someone. Damn, I could have been setting you up in a truly dastardly two-year plot!

 

Of course, those who feel offended in whatever way by Kev's previous postings are free to demand an excuse. For me, that's all too long ago, so I think I'll keep silent on that one and let you discuss that privately.

[Thurisaz]

Yet, "personal experience" is the rallying cry of those who can't defend their faith with evidence and reason.

 

Or those who don't even try to "defend" their faith...

[Jay]

Jay

Well, truth is not discovered based on what one believes. Truth can only be deciphered through reason.

 

Which is why I left religion.  Faith is not reasonable.  If religious belief rested on reason, faith would be unnecessary.

It is not all about faith. Faith without any basis is useless.

 

Heb. 11:1

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

 

The Bible itself makes this claim about faith.  Faith, which is a belief in a thing not prove, somehow gives substance to things not seen and hoped for.  What this sounds like to me a belief makes something a person hopes for or can not see (fantasy, wishes) into a reality- to that person.  Nothingness does not make nothingness real.

Well, if you go on to read the rest of the chapter, you can find out what the writer was intending to say, rather than what "it means to you".

 

(Madame)

So how can God pick one religion and then torture us humans who are basically bungling in the dark, easily fooled by our emotions, for not picking the right religion during our variable times here on earth.  Seems like stupid system to me, much to stupid for a supposedly omnipotent being.

 

(Jay)

Is that something you can prove, or something you believe because it "just doesn't seem right"?

 

Well, it's obvious to me that the supposed truth of Christianity is not obvious to everyone.  For instance, you were probably raised in a Christian household, at the least a Christian dominant country.

hehe...My house was hardly Christian. My father is an atheist, and my mother is without the ability to reason whatsoever.

 

You are a Christian now.  Someone who was born in a Hindu country approaches you to tell you about Hinduism.  Do you automatically reject their religion because it does not coincide with yours (your truth) or do you automatically convert to Hinduism (their truth)?  I bet the first option is more to your leaning then the second.  Why?

Actually, I automatically reject Hinduism because it is self-contradictory. Because I believe that the Law of Non-Contradiction is a logically proven law, I reject things that violate it. I think you should avoid making the assumption that Christianity was my first stop on the train.

Now turn it around, you approach the Hindu and tell them about Christianity.  They reject it automatically.  Why?  Is it because they are "evil" or deliberately closing their mind to the truth?

Maybe, maybe not. In a hypothetical, motives are difficult to assume.

Were you closing your mind to their truth?

I have done plenty of that in my life...

You or a generic Christian would say that the Hindu was closing their mind but that the Christian was guarding themselves against lies.

Are you putting words in my mouth? Please don't do that. It is very unbecoming. Dogmatically Challenged just spent a whole post doing that, and he looks a little silly.

It is just perception though.  Being born a Hindu is no more a fault of their than yours was to be born a Christian.  But, according to my example it is no more likely a Hindu to abandon their faith and pick up yours, then it is for you to abandon yours and pick up theirs.  Why?  Because you both have been immersed in an ideology which has been told to you as truth, and has thus made it difficult if not impossible for either of you to abandon your beliefs.  Therefore, if Christianity is the one truth and all those who do not believe on Jesus as their savior go to hell, then the Hindu is at a grave and unfair disadvantage.

ok...

A person who reasons, looks at this senario on neither the side of the Hindu nor the Christian, and says, "there truly is no way to discern the truthfulness of one religion or another.  It is all based on the belief of the person which is subject to their own biases, teachings, experiences and culture."  The unreasonable, biased, person says, "but I know that I know because I know."

I agree with you that position is unreasonable. Fortunately, I do not take that position. I do believe that it is possible to discern truth.

I'd like to know how you are sticking to things that can be proven, when your own religion says you must have the faith of a child, and defines faith as nothing more than wishing and hoping which gives personal reality to these wishes.

I believe that atoms exist, even though no one has ever seen one. I believe that atoms also have electrons. I believe that valence electrons can be coerced to break free from their orbits and provide electrical current. I believe all those things to be true, yet science has not shown me pictures of this actually happening.

 

I believe my wife when she says she loves me, but I cannot provide scientific proof that it is true.

 

I believe that I exist, and am not simply a character in someone else's dream, yet I cannot prove that scientifically either.

 

Either those things are provable scientifically, they are not provable at all and I should abandon them immediately, or there are other ways to prove things than the scientific method.

[Mike D]

Actually, I automatically reject Hinduism because it is self-contradictory. Because I believe that the Law of Non-Contradiction is a logically proven law, I reject things that violate it.

How do you know Hinduism contradicts itself? Maybe your not interpreting the Vedas correctly? We can certainly find many many violations of the law of non-Contradiction within Christianity, but we are told we are taking things out of context or just plain don't understand the Bible because we don't have the holy spirit and Jesus guiding us.

 

No offense, but it just seems silly that someone would reject hinduism for violating the law of non-contradiction but accept Christianity with open arms when it clearly does the same thing.

[Mike D]

 

Great point!  ITA!!!   I guess that Jay doesn't have the right tools to appropriately interpret the Vedas in order to make it jive....regardless of the obvious contradictions.

Jay doesn't have the holy cow guiding him to help him understand Hinduism That's why all of those Indians can think logically when it comes to computer programming, but still accept Hinduism as perfectly logical

[Amethyst]

Jay doesn't have the holy cow guiding him to help him understand Hinduism

 

LOL!

 

See where eating too many burgers gets you?

 

[Mike D]

LOL!

 

See where eating too many burgers gets you?

 

Maybe if I ate more hamburgers I could see that Jesus being his son and dad at the same time doesn't violate the law of non-contradiction

[Jay]

Apply to your beliefs then too, Jay.  To us ExC's, your religion is just as unprovable as anyone elses.  If personal experience was truth, or just "knowing" cuz' it feels right proved the god(s) people believe in, all religions would be true.

I agree. Which is what I began harping about a few pages back. Personal experience cannot possibly be a means to finding truth. I do not believe what I believe because it "feels right". I believe because I have found it to be true.

You expect Muslims to drop Allah and accept your version of god?

thankful, that would be silly. Of course I do not expect that.

Your expected to do the same to yours according to Islam.

Perhaps. And that expectation will not be fulfilled.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Not me.  I would never ask you to believe anything based on any personal experience.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are a very strange kind of xian.

 

BTW. I was teasing you in my post that parodied your post to Madame M.

 

Feel free to tell me to go play in traffic. hehe.

[Jay]

How do you know Hinduism contradicts itself?  Maybe your not interpreting the Vedas correctly?

Fortunately, I did not rely on my own interpretation when I was investigating it. But my claim about Hinduism is not based on textual word play. It is in regard to the basic philosophical tenets of the religion. Hinduism teaches that all religions are true. But Hinduism has two tenets that must be believed: The Law of Karma and reincarnation. Most other religions to not accept those tenets. In fact, it was that dogmatism that caused the birth of Buddhism. Hinduism says that there are many paths, although most of the paths claim exclusivity. Hinduism says that exclusivity is flatly wrong, but that a path that claims exclusivity is valid. That is a plain violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction.

 

I see that some have not studied Aristotle and are unfamiliar with what, exactly, the Law of Non-Contradiction is. I do not claim that the Bible is without error. I do not accept the Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy. But a book written by men containing errors is hardly a violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction. Systematically, I do not believe that my belief system violates that law.