A crucial thought experiment:

[Infinityloop]

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.
(by Carl Sagan)​

Now, if someone states that God exists, the Bible is the "word of God" (even though this is not even claimed this anywhere by the Bible which itself is a compilation of separate books with related cultural influence with differing formats, purposes and levels of authenticity), that God incarnated into the body of a Jewish carpenter 2000 years ago, that he was killed via crucifixion and will return some time in the distant future in the end times. What is the epistemology in determining whether these claims are true, or bullshit?
The only people who consider these questions as personal attacks are those who are so emotionally invested in their beliefs as crutches instead of reaching their beliefs through a logical manner. Whether we believe in Catholicism, Baptistism, Evangelism, Calvinism, Adventistism, Gnosticism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Greek paganism, Roman paganism, or any other number of religions, we should have a process that led us to the conclusions we make.
Now if we hold onto such beliefs with such strong opinions, we should be able to back such heated emotions with even stronger rational and logical reasoning. Is this not a fair thing to expect?

 

[Lisa]

Have you ever seen the wind?

 

[Artful Revealer]

Is this not a fair thing to expect?

Yes.

 

[DavidSon]

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"​

​

Suppose I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!​

​

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.​

​

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.​

​

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."​

​

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.​

​

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."​

​

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.​

​

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."​

​

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.​

​

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."​

​

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.​

​

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.​

(by Carl Sagan)​

Now, if someone states that God exists, the Bible is the "word of God" (even though this is not even claimed this anywhere by the Bible which itself is a compilation of separate books with related cultural influence with differing formats, purposes and levels of authenticity), that God incarnated into the body of a Jewish carpenter 2000 years ago, that he was killed via crucifixion and will return some time in the distant future in the end times. What is the epistemology in determining whether these claims are true, or bullshit?
The only people who consider these questions as personal attacks are those who are so emotionally invested in their beliefs as crutches instead of reaching their beliefs through a logical manner. Whether we believe in Catholicism, Baptistism, Evangelism, Calvinism, Adventistism, Gnosticism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Greek paganism, Roman paganism, or any other number of religions, we should have a process that led us to the conclusions we make.
Now if we hold onto such beliefs with such strong opinions, we should be able to back such heated emotions with even stronger rational and logical reasoning. Is this not a fair thing to expect?

@shankara brought up similar thoughts in the "Sovereignty of God" thread. The questions surrounds a word you used, epistemology (the study of knowledge). In other words, how do we know that we know?

Could you (or anyone else) elaborate on the the science of epistemology, the basics of analyzing what knowledge (or knowing) is? I'm looking at the definition but would like to hear your explanation if possible. How does one weigh personal experience against universal reason in accepting truth?

 

[Infinityloop]

@shankara brought up similar thoughts in the "Sovereignty of God" thread. The questions surrounds a word you used, epistemology (the study of knowledge). In other words, how do we know that we know?

Could you (or anyone else) elaborate on the the science of epistemology, the basics of analyzing what knowledge (or knowing) is? I'm looking at the definition but would like to hear your explanation if possible. How does one weigh personal experience against universal reason in accepting truth?

Well as an intellectual enterprise, it is a very vast subject allegedly at the root of science (although science requires immense ideological bias for it to exist in the way which it currently does in the post-modern world).

To cut+paste a general scholarly encyclopedic summation:

Defined narrowly, epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. As the study of knowledge, epistemology is concerned with the following questions: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge? What are its sources? What is its structure, and what are its limits? As the study of justified belief, epistemology aims to answer questions such as: How we are to understand the concept of justification? What makes justified beliefs justified? Is justification internal or external to one's own mind? Understood more broadly, epistemology is about issues having to do with the creation and dissemination of knowledge in particular areas of inquiry. This article will provide a systematic overview of the problems that the questions above raise and focus in some depth on issues relating to the structure and the limits of knowledge and justification.

(https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/)

It is for me, however a fundamental basis of worldview itself. Unlike many here who just believe whatever the hell they want without concern to truth, the subject of knowledge and meaning DO concern me, to the point of causing my own personal life and careers to change radically at various points of my life.

Epistemology itself is highly important alongside Ontology (the nature and study of 'Being' and existence itself, especially from the wide perspective of known history itself and what we can know of the universe around us etc).
If we are to actually cut through Nihilism and Irreligion, we have to truly have a strong grasp on this.
For religious people in general (I could name several names on this forum alone) I see so many using religion as a form of escapism, which I find to be rather dangerous.
How can we follow a religion when we don't understand a religion's epistemic and Ontic claims? how can we claim to believe in God when we don't know what God isn't? how can we claim to be spiritual likewise, when we reject spiritual practice? how can we hold onto superstition (like this thread: Anti-meditation) without even having any experience in such a topic? what is and isn't "scripture"? how do we determine this? How can we be brutally and violently opposed to each other without first understanding what we and other people are without the rose-tinted glasses?

These things are important and I rarely see Christians giving it a serious look. Honestly it troubles me quite a lot. Aside from this I don't know how a person can claim several of the above things while also rejecting the meaning of things, it's so bizarre.

 

[Wigi]

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.
(by Carl Sagan)

That's why I personally don't take Carl Sagan seriously because he always produce strawman arguments or make odd 'metaphors'.

Whether the dragon exist or not, it doesn't matter since he's not expecting anything from us which begs the question why it should matters to believe there is a dragon at all? who started to speak about it and what are their motives?

The fact that they try to compare this with Christianity and making bad faith arguments after bad faith arguments while they're not as skeptic as one might think on other topics such as a multiverse they never saw or Aliens from outer space because they're fans of star Trek is kinda strange.

The reason why Christians believe what they believe is summed by this two verses:

“Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?” Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me."
John 14:22‭-‬24

"I will worship toward Your holy temple, And praise Your name For Your lovingkindness and Your truth; For You have magnified Your word above all Your name. In the day when I cried out, You answered me, And made me bold with strength in my soul."
Psalms 138:2‭-‬3

When you ignore those things you ask for proof unlike christians who lives God's promises so they don't need any further proof since they experience and testify these things.

 

[Infinityloop]

That's why I personally don't take Carl Sagan seriously because he always produce strawman arguments or make odd 'metaphors'.

Whether the dragon exist or not, it doesn't matter since he's not expecting anything from us which begs the question why it should matters to believe there is a dragon at all? who started to speak about it and what are their motives?

The fact that they try to compare this with Christianity and making bad faith arguments after bad faith arguments while they're not as skeptic as one might think on other topics such as a multiverse they never saw or Aliens from outer space because they're fans of star Trek is kinda strange.

Whether you like the analogy or not, it is a valid analogy. I put the attribution in there btw to signify that I didn't come up with it (although there are a lot of variants including the popular and stupid 'flying spaghetti monster' one).

The question is one of epistemology and not one of 'bad faith'. In general when it comes to Christanity it stems from the immense ignorance towards other religions at the expense of self-assertion (aka "I'm right because I'm right which means I'm right").
If belief alone constitutes the validity of a belief system, then Atheism would seem the natural progression. I think this usually is the progress that Atheists go through because they know nothing other than "belief for the sake of belief" in religion, considering Christianity is the largest religion in the world it is not surprising that it is also the one that produces the most Atheists (aka ex-Christians), especially in places like the USA, UK and Europe.

The reason why Christians believe what they believe is summed by this two verses:

“Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?” Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me."
John 14:22‭-‬24

"I will worship toward Your holy temple, And praise Your name For Your lovingkindness and Your truth; For You have magnified Your word above all Your name. In the day when I cried out, You answered me, And made me bold with strength in my soul."
Psalms 138:2‭-‬3

When you ignore those things you ask for proof unlike christians who lives God's promises so they don't need any further proof since they experience and testify these things.

Well personally I don't reject your quoted sentiments, no, if you're wondering.

 

[Wigi]

In general when it comes to Christanity it stems from the immense ignorance towards other religions at the expense of self-assertion

No I think it's simply a matter of whether what you put your faith in can be mixed with foreign beliefs or not. In this case Jesus doesn't explain that there are many ways that lead to God and He said He is the way.

If belief alone constitutes the validity of a belief system, then Atheism would seem the natural progression. I think this usually is the progress that Atheists go through because they know nothing other than "belief for the sake of belief" in religion, considering Christianity is the largest religion in the world it is not surprising that it is also the one that produces the most Atheists (aka ex-Christians),

I think atheism is a normal progression when you live in a highly materialistic environment where your well being and your temporary pleasures are deified. I think you can agree that public schools won't encourage you to believe outside of this material world.
But the side effect of this secularisation it's more consumerism, a direspect of our environment, increased numbers of depression and suicide among the youth and I personally think that's what the rulers in the western world wanted.

It seems pretty obvious for me that people aren't happy when they neglect their spiritual needs and it could be the reason why some vegans who pretend to be non religious looks like religious extremists when you hear their speech.

 

[Mr.Anderson]

oh, this reminds me of the invisible pink unicorn thing

 

[Mr.Anderson]

I'm no philospher, and I have no knowledge whatsoever in the fields of epistemology or ontologics.

I like the part where you say "I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.". There are lots of things that exist but Science can't prove but still, everybody regard them as truth.

Last week I was pondering about the nature and influence of spirits in this earthly realm. Concepts such as egregores and toughtforms (things from chaos magic) really help in understanding this kind of stuff. Concepts end up having some kind of life on their own, that's actually what a meme is.

To everybody reading this, let's make na experiment: everytime you take a shower or use the bathroom imagine i'm right there in the same space as you, watching you doing your stuff there. The expected result is that you'll feel unconfortable in a similar way as if I was really there, even tough i'm not there... or am I?

 

[A Freeman]

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity! "Show me," you say.​

​

The great red dragon, devil and Satan/Iblis are descriptive terms Lucifer earned as a result of his criminal actions. A dragon uses its tail/tale to draw its victims into its clutches, and everything that comes out of its mouth burns its victims. A perfect description of lying Lucifer/Satan/Iblis/the devil. He is also referred to as being a serpent, because everything that comes out of his mouth is poison.

Now, if someone states that God exists, the Bible is the "word of God" (even though this is not even claimed this anywhere by the Bible which itself is a compilation of separate books with related cultural influence with differing formats, purposes and levels of authenticity),

Please see a few randomly selected verses from the dozens and dozens of references to the "Word of God" made throughout the Scriptures.

1 Samuel 15:10 Then came the Word of the "I AM" (God) unto Samuel, saying,

1 Kings 6:11 And the Word of the "I AM" came to Solomon, saying,

1 Chronicles 15:15 And the children of the Levites bare the Ark of God upon their shoulders with the staves thereon, as Moses commanded according to the Word of the "I AM".

Jonah 1:1 Now the Word of the "I AM" came unto Jonah the son of Amittai, saying,

Amos 7:16 Now therefore hear thou the Word of the "I AM": Thou sayest, Prophesy not against Israel, and drop not [thy word] against the House of Isaac [Isaac's sons].

Isaiah 1:10 Hear the Word of the "I AM", ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the Law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah.

Jeremiah 1:4 Then the Word of the "I AM" came unto me, saying,

Ezekiel 1:3 The Word of the "I AM" came expressly unto Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the river Chebar; and the hand of the "I AM" was there upon him.

Malachi 1:1 The burden of the Word of the "I AM" to Israel by Malachi.

Matthew 13:19 When any one heareth the Word of the Kingdom, and understandeth [it] not, then cometh the wicked [one], and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.

John 1:1 In the Beginning was the Word (Truth - in Hebrew is Nazir), and the Truth was with God (NOT with Lucifer/Satan the Devil), and the Word was God.

Revelation 1:1-2
1:1 The Revelation of Christ Jesus, which God gave unto him, to showunto His servants things which must shortly come to pass; and He sentand signified [it] by His angel unto His servant John:
1:2 Who bare record of the Word of God, and of the testimony of Christ Jesus, and of all things that he saw.

that God incarnated into the body of a Jewish carpenter 2000 years ago, that he was killed via crucifixion and will return some time in the distant future in the end times. What is the epistemology in determining whether these claims are true, or bullshit?

The first step in determining the validity and accuracy of these historical accounts is to actually read them, free from all preconceived notions and religious superstitious nonsense, paying attention to detail.

Christ NEVER claimed to be "God incarnate"; He only ever claimed to be the Son of God (over 40 times). In fact, we are throughout Scripture that Christ is the FIRSTBORN Son of God, the Beginning (First) of the creation of God (Father).

Romans 8:28-29
8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [His] purpose.
8:29 For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of His Son, that he might be the FIRSTBORN among MANY brethren.

Colossians 1:12-18
1:12 Giving thanks unto the Father, Which hath made us meet to be sharers of the inheritance of the holy people in Light:
1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated [us] into the Kingdom of His dear Son:
1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, [even] the forgiveness of sins:
1:15 Who is the imageof the invisible God, the FIRSTBORN of every creature:
1:16 For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for him:
1:17 And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist.
1:18 And he is the head of the body, the community: who is THE BEGINNING, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence.
1:19 For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell*;

*Which is why Father (God) made/created His Dear Son, known here on Earth as Christ, FIRST; i.e. Christ is the BEGINNING of the creation of God.

Revelation 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness (see Rev. 1:5), THE BEGINNING of the creation OF God;

The second step in determining the validity and accuracy of these historical accounts is to gather all of the available evidence and apply the same rules that are universally applied by historians.

Is there evidence that Jesus was The Messiah/Christ/Mahdi incarnated? Absolutely. There are over 300 prophecies that He fulfilled, making it a mathematical certainty that He was exactly Who He said He was.

http://oneinmessiah.net/333Prophecies.htm

Is there evidence of the crucifixion? Absolutely. There are eye-witness accounts, gathered shortly after the event took place. The same goes for the Resurrection. With all historical events, the shorter the time-interval between the event and it first being recorded, the more accurate it's considered to be. How long ago something happened is really irrelevant; good evidence doesn't become bad evidence just because of the passage of time.

https://www1.cbn.com/medical-view-of-the-crucifixion-of-jesus-christ

http://www.evidenceunseen.com/christ/the-crucifixion-of-christ/

There is a relatively recent film that came out entitled "A Case For Christ" (2017) , which chronicles the path that the former atheist Lee Strobel traveled to gather this very information. Definitely worth seeing.

The bottom line is that there is overwhelming evidence of all of these things IF someone is motivated to seek the truth (Jer. 29:13, Matt. 7:7-8).

The only people who consider these questions as personal attacks are those who are so emotionally invested in their beliefs as crutches instead of reaching their beliefs through a logical manner. Whether we believe in Catholicism, Baptistism, Evangelism, Calvinism, Adventistism, Gnosticism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Greek paganism, Roman paganism, or any other number of religions, we should have a process that led us to the conclusions we make.

Agreed. Divide and conquer is a classic satanic strategy that's been used against us for thousands of years and people still don't seem to get it or see it coming. Satan divides people into different political parties, different denominations, religions, cults, sects, etc. all the time, to create endless emotional, ego-driven arguments which help no one. When will we ever learn?

There is no such thing as political parties or organized religions except in the people's minds who believe in these illusions (lies). Rational thought and logical reasoning, free of emotion, will always prevail in any honest pursuit of the truth.

 

[DavidSon]

That's why I personally don't take Carl Sagan seriously because he always produce strawman arguments or make odd 'metaphors'.

Whether the dragon exist or not, it doesn't matter since he's not expecting anything from us which begs the question why it should matters to believe there is a dragon at all? who started to speak about it and what are their motives?

The fact that they try to compare this with Christianity and making bad faith arguments after bad faith arguments while they're not as skeptic as one might think on other topics such as a multiverse they never saw or Aliens from outer space because they're fans of star Trek is kinda strange.

The reason why Christians believe what they believe is summed by this two verses:

“Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?” Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me."
John 14:22‭-‬24

"I will worship toward Your holy temple, And praise Your name For Your lovingkindness and Your truth; For You have magnified Your word above all Your name. In the day when I cried out, You answered me, And made me bold with strength in my soul."
Psalms 138:2‭-‬3

When you ignore those things you ask for proof unlike christians who lives God's promises so they don't need any further proof since they experience and testify these things.

I like the verses you gave but not everyone will be led to to faith in the Almighty because of a 30 page book named the Gospel according to John. We should be able to speak about our faith in terms that can be SHARED and experienced by everyone. The thought experiment isn't to restate our beliefs egotistically, but to talk about what can be understood universally.

I've said this before but Christians referring to the NT almost only quote form Revelation, John, and the Epistles of Paul. Back and forth endlessly. You see it online and I can go back through older threads at VC to show it. The synoptic Gospels (the lessons on love, teaching from scripture, interpreting the Law, doing the work of God, condemning the literalist Pharisees, etc.) don't seem to appeal to the emotional and fanatical mind of mainstream Christians.

When all you can quote are gnostic, cryptic, an apocalyptic phrases about the Son of Man don't be surprised when the children of society start to turn elsewhere. Those are personal revelations. No one can truly see the imagination of someone else. You say faith in God is declining in the western world because of materialism, I disagree. The teachings of the holy spirit, of morality and righteousness have to be brought up in a way that the next generation can relate to. The Catholic, Evangelical, and Liberal churches are failing miserably at this.

Human beings have an innate reverence for God. Only a small % of people don't recognize a higher power. If we step back and look the similarities between nations is astounding. Our religions share the same drive toward the good, the light, the positive. The concept of judgement, of discernment between right and wrong is universal. These facts bring me joy. God is experienced by all. The idea of an alien God far in some other dimension is a false concept. To suggest that the power that is in all, that IS ALL in this magnificent universe only "spoke" to a nomadic tribe in North Africa is ridiculous.

Unless you were time-ported from 3rd Century Anatolia, an exaltation of the pre-existence of Christ or the ransom atonement paid by Jesus is meaningless theological nonsense. These concepts existed only in their own micro-world, and I think there they will perish. In another 2000 years false beliefs won't matter. Socrates said that knowledge is true belief "with an account" (meaning explained or defined in some way). I hope my friends here can consider these thoughts.

 

[Wigi]

We should be able to speak about our faith in terms that can be SHARED and experienced by everyone. The thought experiment isn't to restate our beliefs egotistically, but to talk about what can be understood universally.

i don't think we can be more explicit than the verses I've quoted.
Everyone can talk and overexplain himself about God but the problem remains on whether you want to put your faith in it or not.

The teachings of the holy spirit, of morality and righteousness have to be brought up in a way that the next generation can relate to. The Catholic, Evangelical, and Liberal churches are failing miserably at this.

I see people doing these things, I see youth pastors doing the job but it's not just the churches that are to be blamed it is also the fact that there is a significant number of persons who don't want to hear about anything that doesn't satisfy the self. Prosperity gospel for example wouldn't work if we weren't in this materialistic state of mind in the west.

an exaltation of the pre-existence of Christ or the ransom atonement paid by Jesus is meaningless theological nonsense

As long as you don't understand nor have lived this reality in your life. The carnal mind doesn't understand the things of the Spirit.

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."
1 Corinthians 1:18

These concepts existed only in their own micro-world, and I think there they will perish. In another 2000 years false beliefs won't matter

But what you said is not really different than what Greek philosophers at that time or thinkers like Voltaire or Nietzsche said centuries ago yet the word was spread and a non-believer like me heard it.

Socrates said that knowledge is true belief "with an account"

But the problem rests on my willingness to believe this account and accept it as the truth. If I refuse it, I can also deny that people have this knowledge and claim it's not possible to have this kind of knowledge.

 

[Todd]

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."
1 Corinthians 1:18

It would be wonderful if the true message of the cross was actually born out in the majority of so called believers. The problem is that the Church (at least the church in America) has watered down the message of the cross to simply being about going to heaven or going to hell, when there is actually very little in the Bible that speaks about this. 2 Timothy 3:1-5 describes the majority of the church in America very well.

The true message of the cross is about change in the here and now, not about the afterlife. Salvation is so much more than just where someone is going when they die. I believe that is what @DavidSon was partly referring to when he said:

The synoptic Gospels (the lessons on love, teaching from scripture, interpreting the Law, doing the work of God, condemning the literalist Pharisees, etc.) don't seem to appeal to the emotional and fanatical mind of mainstream Christians."

The majority of Christians, just want to do enough to make themselves feel good so they are falsely assured they are going to heaven and not hell, while not inconveniencing their current lifestyle to heavily. Sure they will clean up their outward, visible appearance (i.e quite publicly drinking, smoking, doing drugs, put on the facade of sexual purity, refrain from swearing, etc) but the majority of them are still the same miserable souls inside with hatred towards those who have offended or crossed them, and more concerned about their own well being, then their neighbor's. They might even perform the token random act of kindness now and then, when it is convenient for them. But most will not interupt their own plans and agendas at the spurr of a moment to help a complete stranger in need.

Most Christians (in America) don't truly know how to love their enemies. They might say they do, but as soon as they are hurt or offended by anyone (including and especially by another supposed believer) their true colors will show. Even if they never physically or outwardly act on their feelings, the hate and bitterness continues to rot their souls from the inside out. This is the true perishing that Paul is referring to in 1Cor 1:18, not going to hell.

The majority of professing Christians, have rarely personally experienced true delieverance and healing from the emotional pain and baggage they carry. They have just learned to hide and bury it, so they can be accepted by a congregation of fellow "believers", who are all hding behind a similar facade.

All these things consitiute the real power of God in the message of the Cross and are so much more meaningful than "are you going to heaven or hell?"

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

@Todd

I agree, with the addition of one word...

“The true message of the cross is about change in the here and now, not [only] about the afterlife.”

 

[Todd]

@Todd

I agree, with the addition of one word...

“The true message of the cross is about change in the here and now, not [only] about the afterlife.”

Yes, but if one focuses or emphasises the power of the cross in this lifetime the afterlife will take care of itself. The whole point is that the Church in general focuses to much on the afterlife and not the here and now.

Those who think they only have to worry about the afterlife and ignore the power of the cross in the here and now, are missing the point.

 

[Aero]

"True wisdom comes to each of us when we realize how little we understand about life, ourselves, and the world around us." -Socrates

Of course, that quote follows a similar theme of subjects I often talk about. Socrates referred a lot to the close-mindedness of the general populace. How so people many assume they are right and refuse to learn from one another.

As far as the Dragon thought experiment goes. It makes me think of invention. Take the lightbulb for example. The lightbulb is one of man's creations. It started as an idea in someone's head, and I imagine nobody thought it was real until they saw it work. But it was real before the light ever shined from the little bulb.

Dragons are presumably another of mans inventions. They exist in our minds, art, and dreams. So how are they not real? That's why in my book saying dragons exist is a true statement.

 

[Karlysymon]

how can we claim to be spiritual likewise, when we reject spiritual practice? how can we hold onto superstition (like this thread: Anti-meditation) without even having any experience in such a topic? what is and isn't "scripture"?

Do you have limits on which spiritual practices to engage in or are you open to any and every practice even though the Koran could forbid some of those practices? And if you have limits, what defines them?

Are you suggesting that we should partake in various spiritual practices as grounds to effectively reject them? As in; “don’t reject it unless you’ve experienced it”? Do I, like Aleister Crowley tried to conjure up the god Pan and sort of lost his mind, have to conjure up ancient gods or demons to see how it works for me inorder to reliably discredit the spiritual practice? What if I never make it out alive? And if you have aforementioned limits, wouldn’t someone use your own argument against you that “don’t reject it unless you’ve experienced it”?

ps; will address other bits from your posts when iam able to

 

[Infinityloop]

Hey Karlysymon

Do you have limits on which spiritual practices to engage in or are you open to any and every practice even though the Koran could forbid some of those practices? And if you have limits, what defines them?

(Qur'an, not "koran' whatever that is)

I think even before coming to that position (of accepting a religious worldview) we have to go through the same reasoning anyway. Whatever you mean by 'those practices', is fundamentally 'another religion's practices'. All religions have meditation so I don't think you're referring to that (but I could be wrong).
I don't think it's valid to judge through the lens of our own dogma, which is why we must have a level of scientific method (if it works it works, if it doesn't it doesn't) in our religious mindset either way. Best thing we could do under the circumstances of taking a dogma as fact is to say "my dogma says this is bad, but I don't know if this is even a thing, let alone if it's bad but I trust my dogma because it informs my worldview". I do find dogma however, to always fall short of actual spiritual reality almost by default. I think it's by design too because the legalistic aspect of religion (which Protestants still follow under other guises anyway) informs it's social and political trends anyway which are the most accessible to the common person, unlike spiritual discipline and experience.

What defines them? it's always the dogma of the religion we accept isn't it?

Are you suggesting that we should partake in various spiritual practices as grounds to effectively reject them?

No, I'm not suggesting anything either way. I am criticizing the legitimacy of many superstitions coming from the "we" camp you mention. I don't think that someone who hasn't had any actual experience in these topics can be taken seriously as a voice of discussion. It shows too in the incoherent fictitious garbage that comes out as a result. It's ignorance and it is fed off by those who know that people of that demographic will just lap up superstitious notions about certain topics.

What if I never make it out alive?

I am not able to take that question seriously but I'm not sure if you where being serious or not.
If you are suffocating yourself in some kind of practice or doing extended baptism or something, maybe you won't make it out alive. If you have epilepsy and decide to practice some kind of thing with strobe lights, it raises questions.
It's just like day-to-day work in that regards to our safety.

And if you have aforementioned limits, wouldn’t someone use your own argument against you that “don’t reject it unless you’ve experienced it”?

I flip this to the notion of antispiritual religiosity that I see promoted by certain 'Christians' here. I fail to see anything substantial in a belief system that merely reads a book, prays (without any ritual) and goes to a building to sing songs once a week. If you're not trying to cultivate connection with the Holy Spirit, I can't see any reason to accept that a person in question even knows what the Holy Spirit even is.

Weirdly enough, the implied conclusions in your questions are rather secular by-nature. I don't want to make assumptions about you but the religious experience/lifestyle is supposed to cut through the falsehood of the mundane antispiritual world around us, not become a propelling force for it.
It seems quite obvious to me that the mentality of the Protestant form of Christian is indeed very much one 'of the world' through it's apprehension towards and even outright opposition to the spiritual world. This honestly is incredibly sad for me to see time and time again.

 

[Lisa]

All religions have meditation so I don't think you're referring to that (but I could be wrong).

You are wrong, Christianity isn’t about meditation in the sense you mean by emptying your mind..we are told to think on threes things. Which means use your mind to think about what you’ve just read And pray about it, because God is the one that renews our minds.

I flip this to the notion of antispiritual religiosity that I see promoted by certain 'Christians' here. I fail to see anything substantial in a belief system that merely reads a book, prays (without any ritual) and goes to a building to sing songs once a week. If you're not trying to cultivate connection with the Holy Spirit, I can't see any reason to accept that a person in question even knows what the Holy Spirit even is.

One does not need a ritual to pray to God. One does not even need to bow down to pray...you can pray while going to sleep, waking up and going through your day by directing your thoughts to God. Simple..and He hears.

The Bible isn’t just a book it’s a book inspired by God so that it also teaches you about God. The Holy Spirit is the one that guides you and teaches you what the Bible is all about. It’s very much interactive because God is involved.

The songs sung are in Praise to God...we need to remember that God is great and powerful especially since we also live in the world. It’s not for nothing we sing those songs!

When Jesus does for our sins He also brought along with forgiveness of sins, reconciliation with God. Anyone can have a relationship with God when they believe in Jesus...that is what makes Christianity so special.