Questioning Religion

[MrktMkr1986]

Pithy comment #103444727.

Seriously, you have watch what you say. With so much that has already been discussed, you must realise (not "know" ) that you can not truly know anything.

I disagree -- and explained why in my post.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

The magic of poor resolution CRTs. Post #629.
You state that those in Heaven do not wish to come back. Your religion states that the Holy Spirit is part of the Holy Trinity which rules from Heaven. You state that you are in contact with the Holy Spirit.
At least one of these cannot possibly be true - the others preclude this. And now you're blaming me for the contradictory and convoluted nature of your thought processes.

And why, can it not be true?

 

[PS]

"All facts are true, but not all truths are facts."


Care to further explain the difference between each one?

 

[PS]

And why, can it not be true?

Because you're saying that good spirits don't come back and yet you also say that the Holy Spirit (I'm assuming is good?) is connected to you. Which is why Famine (I would think) and I are declaring BS.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I meant the sun doesnt actually set at all.

I understand that -- that is just semantics. You know what I meant.

 

[PS]

Or do you mean semasiology?

I disagree -- and explained why in my post.

I see...but how do you knoe you're actually reading this? How do you know you're mentally stable? What if, hypothetically, you're actually tied down on a rack, pumped full of antidepressants in some institute sowhere off in Maryland? You can never know anything, to a degree of 100%. Because if you did, you would be god himself. And if you were sick, you wouldn't even realize (realize/realise- wtf is the right one?) it, because you'd be off in your own little world! It's wonderful! ....I can't wait 'till 90.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

"All facts are true, but not all truths are facts."


Care to further explain the difference between each one?

When two or more people agree on something, a consensus is formed, and this then becomes "truth" as seen by a certain group of people. One group may have a particular set of agreed "truths" and vice versa. So just because you're truth is different than SCJs truth, does not mean that it is not "true".

The above is the definition of a "truth".

A fact is an elemental principle and usually is not subject to interpretation.

The above is the definition of a "fact".

How it relates to SCJ?

SCJ may be telling us the "truth" about his relationship with the Holy Spirit, but that does not mean that it is "fact".

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Why not? After all many people use the excuse "God told me to do it" to commit all kinds of atrocious acts...I think some of it is deserving of a little bit of ridicule...

This I believe, supports exactly what I'm talking about. The person that said this, in all likelyhood did here a voice talking to them. But I can tell you, it wasn't GOD's voice. (A little reading from the New Testament will tell you the same thing). So who's voice was it?

Besides, from the tone of SCJ's posts he is having as much with this discussion as the rest of us, so I don't think he would think my ridicule contains any animosity.

I don't.

 

[PS]

This I believe, supports exactly what I'm talking about. The person that said this, in all likelyhood did here a voice talking to them. But I can tell you, it wasn't GOD's voice. (A little reading from the New Testament will tell you the same thing). So who's voice was it?

I don't.

The devil!!!! Yar!!! Evil is within!!!

The above is the definition of a "fact".

How it relates to SCJ?

SCJ may be telling us the "truth" about his relationship with the Holy Spirit, but that does not mean that it is "fact".

So, he thinks he truly has a connection, but that doesn't mean that he actually does? I think I see now.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Or do you mean semasiology?



I see...but how do you knoe you're actually reading this? How do you know you're mentally stable? What if, hypothetically, you're actually tied down on a rack, pumped full of antidepressants in some institute sowhere off in Maryland? You can never know anything, to a degree of 100%. Because if you did, you would be god himself. And if you were sick, you wouldn't even realize (realize/realise- wtf is the right one?) it, because you'd be off in your own little world! It's wonderful! ....I can't wait 'till 90.

I know I'm reading this because you're typing it. We both share a common reality, therefore it is true.

If I was in Maryland, as you described, and you are part of my "imagination", I must be a really creative thinker to have thought up all of this! j/k

Seriously, because we share a common reality, and because our reality is "generally accepted", there is a consensus -- you don't have to be God to have a consensus.

You say realise, I say realize.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

"All facts are true, but not all truths are facts."


Care to further explain the difference between each one?

The difference is "not all truths are facts........ yet".

 

[PS]

I know I'm reading this because you're typing it. We both share a common reality, therefore it is true.

If I was in Maryland, as you described, and you are part of my "imagination", I must be a really creative thinker to have thought up all of this! j/k

Seriously, because we share a common reality, and because our reality is "generally accepted", there is a consensus -- you don't have to be God to have a consensus.

I just saw an 8-inch caterpillar crawl across my ceiling.








(I'll explain to you in a second)


The difference is "not all truths are facts........ yet".

No. Not workin' for you. A truth never has to be a fact, for someone, or a group of people can change their minds, which then changes what is known as a fact.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

The difference is "not all truths are facts........ yet".

That's impossible. There are 6.5 billion people on this planet. As a result, there is no way on Earth (pun) every single person will share the same set of truths.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I just saw an 8-inch caterpillar crawl across my ceiling.



(I'll explain to you in a second)

Please do -- I'm curious now.

The difference is "not all truths are facts........ yet".

No. Not workin' for you. A truth never has to be a fact, for someone, or a group of people can change their minds, which then changes what is known as a fact.

...or a truth...

But you are absolutely correct. 👍

 

[PS]

Please do -- I'm curious now.

If I were mentally unstable, and I had indeed seen a monster insect, or just made it up, and were to convince you and everyone else that it happened, it wouldn't make it neither truth nor fact. . . would it? It wouldn't be fact, that's for damn sure. The same goes for Christ, although he's a lot better at convincing people of his existence. "zomg they got out of the burning house alive! bless de lord@!!!1" . Good, but not a miracle or work of a higher being.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

If I were mentally unstable, and I had indeed seen a monster insect, or just made it up, and were to convince you and everyone else that it happened, it wouldn't make it neither truth nor fact. . . would it? It wouldn't be fact, that's for damn sure. The same goes for Christ, although he's a lot better at convincing people of his existence. "zomg they got out of the burning house alive! bless de lord@!!!1" . Good, but not a miracle or work of a higher being.

If you were mentally unstable and saw a monster insect then I would feel bad for you. However, if you made it up intentionally, that would make a liar.

If you were able to convince me and everyone else that it happened and we believed it, it would be considered a truth to both me, you, and everyone else you told. Some may choose not to believe because they were not there to see it. So their truth will be different than our truth.

If definitely would not make it fact because there is room for speculation, despite the apparent truths.

I'm not quite finished with this post ... but I have to go eat dinner now. Be back in about 1/2 hour or so...

...so be prepared for my speech...

 

[PS]

If you were able to convince me and everyone else that it happened and we believed it, it would be considered a truth to both me, you, and everyone else you told. Some may choose not to believe because they were not there to see it. So their truth will be different than our truth.

Yah, that makes sense. But when do we get to hear the big speach?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Because you're saying that good spirits don't come back and yet you also say that the Holy Spirit (I'm assuming is good?) is connected to you. Which is why Famine (I would think) and I are declaring BS.

Why do you believe this to be so impropable?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Yah, that makes sense. But when do we get to hear the big speach?

As soon as I finish setting up this DVD player for my mom. I'll be back a little later.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Why do you believe this to be so impropable?

May I interject? Thanks.

His "truth" is different from your "truth". I explained all about truth and fact in an earilier post.

 

[PS]

Why do you believe this to be so impropable?

Because it's the same as saying

"You only get burned if your hand is too close to the flame. I can stick my whole arm in fire though and not get burned."

It's contradictory. You say one thing, and then go off and say something else that counters it. I don't know if you're admitting to it or what, but it's not getting any funnier.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

The devil!!!! Yar!!! Evil is within!!!.

By some chance, possibly, maybe, could this be, a fundamental truth?

So, he thinks he truly has a connection, but that doesn't mean that he actually does? I think I see now.

I don't think it at all. I know it. In fact, I know it with more clarity and assurety, than I ever had prior to knowing it. But, I will admit this has been a progressive developement over time. BTW I'm not the only person who can testify to it. Millions of other people know what I'm talking about, some of them on this thread. But, just like you won't find the Holy Spirit on a Ouija board, You'll rarely see or hear anyone talking about it in secular media sources. Challenge your objectivity, and tune in to some Christian TV and Radio. You will soon find out I'm not the only one who knows about it.

 

[PS]

You're right, they're just as crazy as you. For the last time, noone can 100% anything. You can have 100% faith, or belief in something, but you can never know something 100%. It's just not possible. There's always that degree or variation or one underlying factor that could screw everything up. You could "know" where something is, but you can't know 100% where it is, unless you're in constant contact with it, meaning constantly touching it, because if you aren't, then there's always that chance that someone else has moved it, and you therefore don't know where it is. The same is with the Holy Spirit (or what ever other holy/highpower blah blah blah there is oout there)-- you may just be insane and hearing voices or having strange feelings and simply believe it is the Holy Spirit.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I don't think it at all. I know it. In fact, I know it with more clarity and assurety, than I ever had prior to knowing it. But, I will admit this has been a progressive developement over time. BTW I'm not the only person who can testify to it. Millions of other people know what I'm talking about, some of them on this thread. But, just like you won't find the Holy Spirit on a Ouija board, You'll rarely see or hear anyone talking about it in secular media sources. Challenge your objectivity, and tune in to some Christian TV and Radio. You will soon find out I'm not the only one who knows about it.

That is a truth, as you can see.

You're right, they're just as crazy as you.

Greg, that's not fair...

For the last time, noone can 100% anything.

Why? Because there are so many "truths"?

You can have 100% faith, or belief in something, but you can never know something 100%. It's just not possible. There's always that degree or variation or one underlying factor that could screw everything up. You could "know" where something is, but you can't know 100% where it is, unless you're in constant contact with it, meaning constantly touching it, because if you aren't, then there's always that chance that someone else has moved it, and you therefore don't know where it is.

Interesting comparison -- and it all falls back to truth vs. fact.

Let's say for example someone moved the object from your car to your bedroom:

The FACT is that someone moved it, therefore it is no longer there. If I asked you where it was and you told me it was in your bedroom, that would be the truth -- not necessarily fact. The same applies to SCJ. While some people KNOW THAT THEY HAVE THE HOLY SPIRIT, others who have not experienced the Holy Spirit will tend to call it a fantasy. However, what if there really is a Holy Spirit? Does that make your truth wrong? NO! What if there is NO Holy Spirit? Does that make SCJs truth wrong? NO!

Therefore, personal attacks such as "you're right, they're just as crazy as you" is not necessary. For you might be the crazy one, remember? You shouldn't jump to conclusions.

The same is with the Holy Spirit (or what ever other holy/highpower blah blah blah there is oout there)-- you may just be insane and hearing voices or having strange feelings and simply believe it is the Holy Spirit.

Perhaps. That is why I asked SCJ about exorcisms -- because demonic possession is really mental illness (multiple personality disorder specifically).

Remember this:

Whenever faced with topics like this, always ask yourself what is "truth" and what is "fact".

 

[SuperCobraJet]

The difference is "not all truths are facts........ yet".

No. Not workin' for you. A truth never has to be a fact, for someone, or a group of people can change their minds, which then changes what is known as a fact.

While the definition given, actually bolsters my point, I do not agree with it. I believe a truth is a constant, and will always be proven out to be factual over time. For instance, it was an accepted truth at one time that the Earth was flat, because people agreed it was. However what was thought to be a truth, was in fact a lie, and never was a truth. So how can a truth actually be a truth if it eventually does not become a fact. Also I believe it may be possible to override a truth with another truth, in the same way gravity(which is a truth and a fact) can be overridden with the truth and fact of aerodynamic wing lift. This is another good example of an accepted truth(man couldn't fly) actually having been a lie.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

You're right, they're just as crazy as you. For the last time, noone can 100% anything. You can have 100% faith, or belief in something, but you can never know something 100%. It's just not possible. There's always that degree or variation or one underlying factor that could screw everything up. You could "know" where something is, but you can't know 100% where it is, unless you're in constant contact with it, meaning constantly touching it, because if you aren't, then there's always that chance that someone else has moved it, and you therefore don't know where it is. The same is with the Holy Spirit (or what ever other holy/highpower blah blah blah there is oout there)-- you may just be insane and hearing voices or having strange feelings and simply believe it is the Holy Spirit.

With man, I agree. But with GOD, not so.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

The difference is "not all truths are facts........ yet".

Incorrect -- plain and simple.

While the definition given, actually bolsters my point, I do not agree with it.

Now why the hell would you do that? I created that definition to do just that -- help you and bolster your point. Now you don't agree?! All that work for nothing, thanks.

I believe a truth is a constant, and will always be proven out to be factual over time.

That is incorrect because there are many truths. Not all truths can become fact at the same time. You cannot have:

1. the truth that God exists

and

2. the truth that God does not exist

It is impossible to have two truths proven out to be factual over time. One must prevail over the other. Eventually, one truth will be proven wrong and when that happens, it will become a myth or whatever. The other truth will become FACT.

For instance, it was an accepted truth at one time that the Earth was flat, because people agreed it was. However what was thought to be a truth, was in fact a lie, and never was a truth. So how can a truth actually be a truth if it eventually does not become a fact.

Because a truth arises out of 2 or more peoples acceptance of "something". Facts can differ from truths in the example I provided below with the document.

Let's say for example you leave a document in your car and someone moves it into your bedroom without your knowledge. If someone asks you about the document and you tell them that it is in your car, you would be telling them the truth -- however, in this case, the truth is not necessarily FACT because it is no longer in your car. It is in your bedroom.

Also I believe it may be possible to override a truth with another truth, in the same way gravity(which is a truth and a fact) can be overridden with the truth and fact of aerodynamic wing lift.

Greg is right about the aerodynamic example, but I understand the what SCJ is trying to say.

Correct. I agree with you 100% here.

This is another good example of an accepted truth(man couldn't fly) actually having been a lie.

I know that.

 

[PS]

The difference is "not all truths are facts........ yet".

While the definition given, actually bolsters my point, I do not agree with it. I believe a truth is a constant, and will always be proven out to be factual over time. For instance, it was an accepted truth at one time that the Earth was flat, because people agreed it was. However what was thought to be a truth, was in fact a lie, and never was a truth. So how can a truth actually be a truth if it eventually does not become a fact. Also I believe it may be possible to override a truth with another truth, in the same way gravity(which is a truth and a fact) can be overridden with the truth and fact of aerodynamic wing lift. This is another good example of an accepted truth(man couldn't fly) actually having been a lie.

You should become more familiar with aerodynamics before making statements like that. Planes do not defy gravity-- they displace air and use air pressure and air density to their advantage.

Greg, that's not fair...

I know, I as just kidding.

Why? Because there are so many "truths"?

No, because to have 100% knowledge of something, means to have taken into consideration 100% of all factors that could affect the outcome of anything, which is impossible, since many of them are changing constantly.

Interesting comparison -- and it all falls back to truth vs. fact.

Here we go...

Let's say for example someone moved the object from your car to your bedroom:

How do you know they moved it? jk

The FACT is that someone moved it, therefore it is no longer there. If I asked you where it was and you told me it was in your bedroom, that would be the truth -- not necessarily fact.

Oh, but it is there. It is fact, because in a hypothetical situation, if someone really did put it in my room, and I really did see and still can see that it is in my room, and I say it is in my room, then hypothetically in reality, it is fact.

The same applies to SCJ. While some people KNOW THAT THEY HAVE THE HOLY SPIRIT, others who have not experienced the Holy Spirit will tend to call it a fantasy. However, what if there really is a Holy Spirit? Does that make your truth wrong? NO! What if there is NO Holy Spirit? Does that make SCJs truth wrong? NO!

But how do they know they have the Holy Spirit? They could be misinterpreting it. Heck, it could be from that hangover or night of salsa food, or all those anti-depressants someone is on.

However, what if there really is a Holy Spirit?

Then good for it, let's just hope it's really the HS that's talking to SCJ.

Does that make your truth wrong?

Not if he honestly believes in it.

What if there is NO Holy Spirit? Does that make SCJs truth wrong?

Then his truth may be right, but his facts are wrong and therefore doesn't know 100% that it's the Holy Spirit. If he knew 100% (hypothetically of course), then he would obviously "know" there is no such thing.

Now why the hell would you do that? I created that definition to do just that -- help you and bolster your point. Now you don't agree?! All that work for nothing, thanks.

Because he contradicts himself.

Correct. I agree with 100% here. Which is why I NEVER QUESTION MY RELIGION!

Now you're doing it too-- you just said to QUESTION EVERYTHING...

[edit]

Oh, and man can't fly. We can glide at high speeds, and we can ride large vehicles which fly.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Therefore, personal attacks such as "you're right, they're just as crazy as you" is not necessary. For you might be the crazy one, remember? You shouldn't jump to conclusions.

I like this analogy, and I appreciate the moral support. However I don't take PS's comments or anyone elses personally. I've stated that in prior posts. The reason I don't and I've stated this already too, is because there was a time I thought very much the same way and when people tried to tell me the same things I'm telling you, I thought they were some kind of religious fanatic nut case.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

You should become more familiar with aerodynamics before making statements like that. Planes do not defy gravity-- they displace air and use air pressure and air density to their advantage.

Don't let that blind you from the point he was trying to make.

I know, I as just kidding.

OK.

No, because to have 100% knowledge of something, means to have taken into consideration 100% of all factors that could affect the outcome of anything, which is impossible, since many of them are changing constantly.

Good point, but you're not going to convince someone that their "truth" is right or wrong until a FACT has been proven.

Here we go...

Again, and again, and again, and again...

How do you know they moved it? jk

I'm psychic. j/k

Oh, but it is there. It is fact, because in a hypothetical situation, if someone really did put it in my room, and I really did see and still can see that it is in my room, and I say it is in my room, then hypothetically in reality, it is fact.

That's not what I meant. The last place you saw the object was in your car. If someone moved it somewhere else without telling you, you would continue to believe the "truth" that the object is still in the car. The FACT is that the object is in your bedroom. You're not lying, your telling the truth -- even though its not a fact.

But how do they know they have the Holy Spirit? They could be misinterpreting it. Heck, it could be from that hangover or night of salsa food, or all those anti-depressants someone is on.

That is a possibility, but until it can be proven as fact, it is merely one "truth" among a sea of "truths".

Then his truth may be right, but his facts are wrong and therefore doesn't know 100% that it's the Holy Spirit. If he knew 100% (hypothetically of course), then he would obviously "know" there is no such thing.

His truths cannot be wrong until they are proven wrong.

Because he contradicts himself.

I see that now.

Now you're doing it too-- you just said to QUESTION EVERYTHING...

I still believe in questioning everything -- I said that because if one truth (God exists) overrides another truth (God does not exist), I'd like to know that death is not "final". Still question everything, that's just my set of personal beliefs.