• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A Close Look At Truth

syo

Well-Known Member
What wisdom? The wisdom to know that the serpent spoke to Eve? The wisdom to know that God flooded the entire earth? There are some Christians who are convinced that those stories are fact. There are other Christians who believe those stories are allegory.

That's not wisdom, that's confusion.

Of course, atheists do not get all their knowledge about the Bible from the Bible itself. They also have the wisdom to get knowledge about the Bible from non-Biblical sources. One example is the knowledge that the great exodus is a fabrication. Another is that the Gospels, which are written as first-person accounts and believed by many Christians to be first-person accounts, could not have been first-person accounts.



The wisdom that atheists gain from reading and understanding the Bible is the knowledge that Judaism and Christianity are the products of people trying to start a new religion based on ignorance and superstitious beliefs with which they hope to educate, enthrall and control people. That wisdom can be extended to knowledge about other religions like Islam, Hinduism, Paganism, Mormonism, Scientology, et al.
I disagree.
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
I don't think my post was so vague as this claim you made here.
However, just in case others hold the same view you hold to, it is important to get this question on Christian, and Christianity cleared up, because unless we do, we would just be talking past each other, and that would make no sense.

The claim by scholars living in the 19th, 20th century, roughly 2,000 after the fact, is this...
Early Christianity (c. 31/33–324)
Early Christianity is generally reckoned by church historians to begin with the ministry of Jesus (c. 27-30) and end with the First Council of Nicaea (325). It is typically divided into two periods: the Apostolic Age (c. 30–100, when the first apostles were still alive) and the Ante-Nicene Period (c. 100–325).

Christianity in the 1st century covers the formative history of Christianity, from the start of the ministry of Jesus (c. 27–29 AD) to the death of the last of the Twelve Apostles (c. 100) (and is thus also known as the Apostolic Age).

Note : The so-called Apostolic Fathers were preceded by what they term the Apostolic Age.
We know therefore that the foundation of Christianity was built with Jesus earlier followers. Not just the twelve, but hundreds of faithful followers - both men and women. Acts 2:1-4, 40-47


If one accepts the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, and later church fathers, it seems to me, it would be hypocritical to reject the writings of the apostles... as well as Jesus, on whose teachings those are based.

What Jesus' earlier followers said about the apostasy:
2 Peter 2:1
However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among you. These will quietly bring in destructive sects, and they will even disown the owner who bought them, bringing speedy destruction upon themselves.

2 Thessalonians 2:3, 7-10
3 Let no one lead you astray* in any way, because it will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness+ gets revealed, the son of destruction
7 True, the mystery of this lawlessness is already at work, but only until the one who is right now acting as a restraint is out of the way. Then, indeed, the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will do away with by the spirit of his mouth and bring to nothing by the manifestation+ of his presence. 9 But the lawless one’s presence is by the operation of Satan with every powerful work and lying signs and wonders* 10 and every unrighteous deception for those who are perishing, as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth in order that they might be saved.

What the so-called Apostolic Fathers said about the apostasy:
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians (often abbreviated Ign. Eph.) is an epistle attributed to Ignatius of Antioch (died c. 108/140 AD) .

The letters: warnings against false teachings
The letters of Ignatius abound in warnings against false doctrines and false teachers


St. Ignatius of Antioch - Letter to the to the Philadelphians (par. 2)
For there are many specious wolves who, by means of wicked pleasures, capture those who run God’s race. In the face of your unity, however, they will not have a chance.

Paul Barnett says, "Believers in the era following that of the apostles probably suffered a greater intensity to turn aside from Christ than did their predecessors.
Views of the early church fathers
Paul Barnett says, "Believers in the era following that of the apostles probably suffered a greater intensity to turn aside from Christ than did their predecessors. They ... were vulnerable to Jewish reprisals as well as action from the state. Details of the pressure applied to Christians to apostatize is given from both Christian and non-Christian sources ... It is understandable, therefore, that the postapostolic literature should contain many warnings not to apostatize." The following warnings not to apostatize come from the translation provided by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson in the Ante-Nicene Fathers.

Apostolic Fathers
Main article: Apostolic Fathers
The Apostolic Fathers were Christian theologians who lived in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD, who are believed to have personally known some of the Twelve Apostles, or to have been significantly influenced by them. Their writings, though popular in Early Christianity, were ultimately not included in the canon of the New Testament once it reached its final form. Many of the writings derive from the same time period and geographical location as other works of early Christian literature that did come to be part of the New Testament, and some of the writings found among the Apostolic Fathers' seem to have been just as highly regarded as some of the writings that became the New Testament. The first three are considered the chief ones; Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp.
Clement of Rome
Main article: Pope Clement I

His epistle, 1 Clement (c. 96), was copied and widely read in the Early Church. Clement calls on the Christians of Corinth to maintain harmony and order. Outside of the canon of the New Testament, it is the earliest extant epistle from a Church Father.
Ignatius of Antioch
Main article: Ignatius of Antioch

Ignatius of Antioch (also known as Theophorus) (c. 35 – c. 110) was the third bishop or Patriarch of Antioch and a student of the Apostle John. En route to his martyrdom in Rome, Ignatius wrote a series of letters which have been preserved. Important topics addressed in these letters include ecclesiology, the sacraments, the role of bishops, and the Incarnation of Christ. He is the second after Clement to mention Paul's epistles.

Hence, the so-called Apostolic Fathers witnessed the rising of the apostasy, and some of their teachings were already being affected.
By the third century, apostate Christianity bloomed.
Rise of Christendom
In the beginning of Christendom, early Christianity was a religion spread in the Greek/Roman world and beyond as a 1st-century Jewish sect, which historians refer to as Jewish Christianity. It may be divided into two distinct phases: the apostolic period, when the first apostles were alive and organizing the Church, and the post-apostolic period, when an early episcopal structure developed, whereby bishoprics were governed by bishops (overseers).

The post-apostolic period concerns the time roughly after the death of the apostles when bishops emerged as overseers of urban Christian populations. The earliest recorded use of the terms Christianity (Greek Χριστιανισμός) and catholic (Greek καθολικός), dates to this period, the 2nd century, attributed to Ignatius of Antioch c. 107. Early Christendom would close at the end of imperial persecution of Christians after the ascension of Constantine the Great and the Edict of Milan in AD 313 and the First Council of Nicaea in 325


The earlier followers of Christ - living not 2,000 year after, but during the actual period - identified as Christian. The origin of that term is based on what is mentioned here - mentioned in the OP.
Christians - Wikipedia
Christians are people who follow or adhere to Christianity, a monotheistic Abrahamic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. The words Christ and Christian derive from the Koine Greek title Christós (Χριστός), a translation of the Biblical Hebrew term mashiach (מָשִׁיחַ).

While there are diverse interpretations of Christianity which sometimes conflict, they are united in believing that Jesus has a unique significance.


The only relation between the early Christians, and Christendom, is that they believing that Jesus has a unique significance.
Apart from that, there are significant differences between the Christian, and "Christians". One is based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. The other is based on doctrines of apostate Christianity.


If we understand a Christian to be based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, then it is not being consistent, when one disregards the meaning, and applies it however they want. This is also hypocritical.

What I mentioned in the OP is not unsubstantiated, but supported by the evidence here presented. If we do not agree on this, we are not on the same page, and cannot discuss this subject.
You provided nothing substantial to dismiss it, but only confirmed what was said, in my original post.

Everything you wrote here simply emphasizes that Christians have been arguing about what to include as God's Word and what it exactly means since the very beginning. It certainly doesn't indicate that Christians have a better grasp of what the words mean than non-Christians do.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
I only ask simple questions, such as asking which congregation, group or church you might go to.
If you don't go to church then that's fine by me.


No. G-Mark describes how Jesus joined with the Baptist's mission/campaign against Temple and Priesthood greed, corruption, hypocrisy and its money-go-round.
His main call was for 'Mercy and not sacrifice'.
So..... No..... I cannot agree.


Yeah... OK..... so you do not identify with any of the thousands of different Churches or congregations. A Christian loner, possibly?


So much for your OP Spoiler.........
{19:24} And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. {19:25} When his disciples heard [it,] they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?

We see what we want to see.......
We see what we want to see.......
Many do... it's true.

We could be reasonable though, if we want to avoid that.
Do you think you are being reasonable with that quotation, and application?
If so, your last words are accurately applied.

Some other people on the other hand, are reasonable in their evaluations.
That allows for meaningful discussion, don't you agree?


Not at all, so it's good you checked this. I obviously have not been clear. I try to be more specific this time. I give here 1 example:
When you see someone do something wrong, which is also harmful to others, then it's maybe best to tell them, unless more harm would follow
(example: Seeing a strong rapist raping someone, and you are weak, then better not tell the rapist, but get a strong person to stop him raping)

*) So, this example makes it clear to me, that there is never 1 rule for all circumstances.
*) In general it's good IMO, to not tell others their feeling/faith is wrong (this is different from actions !!!)
*) If someone hurt others because they say "God tells me to hurt you" then it is good to stop them hurting others

Also, I think that generally the main focus should be to "discover our own mistakes, rather than focus on mistakes others are making"
Thanks for attempting to clarify.
When you say harmful to others, do you mean physical harm only?
Or would that include all possible harm?


You totally misunderstood what I meant (I am not aware I was so bad in explaining myself). I try to be more clear now.
1) All humans have a conscience, that can be used to know the difference between "right and wrong".
2) Conscience when used to discriminate "right and wrong" in yourself is relatively easy
3) Conscience when used to discriminate "right and wrong" for others, is more difficult. Especially when it come to their feelings/faith.

When conscience is used to cleanse our own thoughts, words and deeds, then it's easier to discriminate between "right and wrong"
Once we cleanse your own mistakes, we will be more equipped to help others. A blind man is generally not the best help for another blind man
(Note: of course another blind man probably better understands you, when you are blind, but of course there are exceptions)
It's good to hear that you believe in man having a conscience.
Do you think a person can harm someone else's conscience?

You seem to be referring to figurative blindness. Am I understanding correctly?
To say that someone is blind is not judging them? How do you determine that they are blind?


I like that, people asking simple questions. I also try to keep it simple
I believe Spirituality is quite simple...some people make it complex
To say that "some people make it complex", is to say you know that they are making it complex. You are not judging them? So they are not wrong to say they know some people are wrong, and make things difficult, and don't understand, or want to?


Normally that is my argument too:). Today I did not even think of this:lightbulb:

An interesting thought just comes into my mind right now.

IF the Bible is true, so, what Jesus said is true, meaning The Truth is simple, and even children can understand
THEN a Christian (or Jesus follower) making things over complicated, professes he does not know The Truth yet

Not even needed to debate about it, or give proof, because he gave evidence of it by making things complicated
Over complicated?
So one is not wrong when one says they know something is true.
For example, they know that someone is over-complicating things IF what Jesus said is true, because they know that IF what Jesus said is true, THEN it must be simple. He knows this... Or is that his opinion?


Everything you wrote here simply emphasizes that Christians have been arguing about what to include as God's Word and what it exactly means since the very beginning. It certainly doesn't indicate that Christians have a better grasp of what the words mean than non-Christians do.
How are you in a position to say what Christians have been doing, when you do not accept the history of Christians?
Are you just here to say anything that you want to say regardless of if it is accurate or not?
Why would you do that? What's your aim... to distract from any meaningful information? Why?

Clearly, for one to make such an erroneous statement, one must not know anything about Christians.
Like I said, it makes no sense talking past each other.
If you can show me a time during the Apostolic Age, when Christians have been arguing about what to include as God's Word and what it exactly means, we can talk, but apart from that, you basically just said whatever you feel like saying, which is incorrect, and thus not meaningful, in any way.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Thanks for attempting to clarify.
When you say harmful to others, do you mean physical harm only?
Or would that include all possible harm?
Hurting others can be done in many ways: physical, verbal, emotional/mental (can be sensed by facial expression etc)
So, what I meant is "actively hurting others" in the above forms: physical, verbal emotional/mental.
If you think you have information that is good for others, then I do not classify it as hurting when you don't give it to them (if they did not ask for it)
If you think you have information that is good for others, then it might be harmful for them if it's not the right time/place to give it.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
It's good to hear that you believe in man having a conscience.
Do you think a person can harm someone else's conscience?
I don't think someone can harm someone else's conscience
But when I belittle someone, then, when it happens a lot, that person might lose self-confidence
When you lose self-confidence then it's more difficult to "listen" to your conscience
So, conscience is still intact, but you are kind of disconnected
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
You seem to be referring to figurative blindness. Am I understanding correctly?
To say that someone is blind is not judging them? How do you determine that they are blind?
The part with the blind person, was meant as literal blind, not figurative blindness
And I said "Once we cleanse our own mistakes, we will be more equipped to help others"
So, that part is just about introspection and self effort, I was just speaking about improving myself first
If I believe that 1+1=7 (which is a mistake), then I first need to correct my mistake, before I can help others with math
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
I like that, people asking simple questions. I also try to keep it simple
I believe Spirituality is quite simple...some people make it complex

To say that "some people make it complex", is to say you know that they are making it complex
No. I just said "I believe Spirituality is quite simple...some people make it complex". That is all.
Compare it with a cook "I create a simple round flat cake, but a chief cook creates a complex wedding cake"
I do like to look at it though, but I guess I am too practical. If I close my eyes, both taste the same.

You are not judging them?
Correct, I am not judging them. If they enjoy complex solution, I am fine with that.
I would never be a good wedding cake baker...just too complex for me.
But I do like to watch him make it, and the end product looks great
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Over complicated?
So one is not wrong when one says they know something is true.
For example, they know that someone is over-complicating things IF what Jesus said is true, because they know that IF what Jesus said is true, THEN it must be simple. He knows this... Or is that his opinion?
In the Bible Matthew 18, I read that Jesus said:
18 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”

2 He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. 3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.
I think this verse explains it all.....And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven"

 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Hurting others can be done in many ways: physical, verbal, emotional/mental (can be sensed by facial expression etc)
So, what I meant is "actively hurting others" in the above forms: physical, verbal emotional/mental.
If you think you have information that is good for others, then I do not classify it as hurting when you don't give it to them (if they did not ask for it)
If you think you have information that is good for others, then it might be harmful for them if it's not the right time/place to give it.
Do you believe that parents should hold back from disciplining (I don't mean physically pounding them, nor abusing) their children, just because the child may feel hurt at the time?
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
I don't think someone can harm someone else's conscience
But when I belittle someone, then, when it happens a lot, that person might lose self-confidence
When you lose self-confidence then it's more difficult to "listen" to your conscience
So, conscience is still intact, but you are kind of disconnected
What do you think of 1 Corinthians 8:9-13?


The part with the blind person, was meant as literal blind, not figurative blindness
And I said "Once we cleanse our own mistakes, we will be more equipped to help others"
So, that part is just about introspection and self effort, I was just speaking about improving myself first
If I believe that 1+1=7 (which is a mistake), then I first need to correct my mistake, before I can help others with math
What if you believe 1+1=7, and you are thinking that you would like to correct the person that believes 1+1=5?
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Do you believe that parents should hold back from disciplining (I don't mean physically pounding them, nor abusing) their children, just because the child may feel hurt at the time?
My father hit me when I was 5 years old.
I crawled under the car. He explained to me, why he hit me physically. And I felt totally senang (didn't know this word at the time though).

Sai Baba loves to discipline us. And I loved to be disciplined by Him. Why, you might think? Simple, because He is full of selfless Love.

When there is pure Love, then discipline is no problem. Because pure Love knows exactly what is appropriate to do.

Circa 50% of the people nowadays divorce. When they divorce today, we all know the cause was lots of unsolved issues maybe years ago
Same when a child feels hurt then obviously the parent made some mistake prior to the hurt. So the parent better discipline himself also
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
What if you believe 1+1=7, and you are thinking that you would like to correct the person that believes 1+1=5?
IF I am a good teacher, and he asks me to teach him then I would teach him
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Good point they make in these verses:

Once my mother was told by her doctor that she will never be able to walk again, and needs a wheelchair now.
Then she asked me for help, because she knew that by diet alone (and God's Grace), I accomplished "miracles"

So, I had a very limited diet for her, BUT I told her "I will come to you, so we do it together, otherwise it's too difficult for you". I did not even think about the fact that I was ca. 20 kg underweight. I just wanted to help her. After 3 days she was able to stand up straight again and after 1 week she was able to walk without pain. That is now many years ago. The doctor's diagnosis was totally wrong.
 
Last edited:

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
We see what we want to see.......
Many do... it's true.
Ah......... but you have the clear sight.... yes?

We could be reasonable though, if we want to avoid that. Do you think you are being reasonable with that quotation, and application?
If so, your last words are accurately applied.
Ah........ so when you read what Jesus said it is clear as day, but when others tell you what he said it needs to fit with your ideas?
We see what we want to see?

Some other people on the other hand, are reasonable in their evaluations.
That allows for meaningful discussion, don't you agree?
Oh come off it........... you can't even just tell about yourself, about your church, if any, or have any kind of discussion.....
You've written off billions of Christians as 'Christians' to tell us that your way is the only way.....

If you cannot tell us about your Truth (see the thread title) then there cannot be a 'Close Look at Truth'.
 
The truth tends to merely be what the individual makes of it, which is why when it comes to religion there is no real truth. There are merely a myriad of scriptural interpretations of what people personally and fallibly view as the truth, thus resulting in schisms born of disagreement.
 
Last edited:

nPeace

Veteran Member
The truth tends to merely be what the individual makes of it, which is why when it comes to religion there is no real truth. There are merely a myriad of scriptural interpretations of what people personally and fallibly view as the truth, thus resulting in schisms born of disagreement.
Seems to me you are saying that whatever one makes of something is truth. So if one thinks that when it comes to religion there is no real truth, that is truth.
Do you really believe that is how we evaluate truth?
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Ah......... but you have the clear sight.... yes?
If that proves to be true, then it is true, but I did not say what you claimed.
I presented information, that can be looked at and considered as to whether it is true or not.
Is it?
If you cannot deny it, or demonstrate that it isn't, then it is.

We consider, discuss, evaluate, investigate, whether information is true or not.
That's the reasonable approach, no?

Ah........ so when you read what Jesus said it is clear as day, but when others tell you what he said it needs to fit with your ideas?
We see what we want to see?
No. That is wrong, and does not fit the truth as seen here, in any way, shape, or fashion.
We have not even discussed what you said about what Jesus said.
If you wanted to, we could have, but you don't seem to want to, since you made an application, which I suggested isn't reasonably applied, and your response is an untruthful rhetoric about me, rather than discuss the scripture, which I implied you unreasonably applied.

Oh come off it........... you can't even just tell about yourself, about your church, if any, or have any kind of discussion.....
You've written off billions of Christians as 'Christians' to tell us that your way is the only way.....

If you cannot tell us about your Truth (see the thread title) then there cannot be a 'Close Look at Truth'.
Oh come off it...?
There seems to be some animosity here. Are you offended by something I said, or did?
Would you like to talk about it?

Apparently, you think that somehow truth as is being discussed in this thread must be about me.
Why, is quite befuddling to me.
I thought we were discussing the OP on these forums.
Has RF changed its position, and we are now discussing the poster?

I hoped that posters were here to discuss the posts of the user.
If you believe "A Closer Look at Truth" means examining the poster, then I am sorry to disappoint you.

Perhaps you can help me to appreciate how that is to be the case, and I will consider if that has any truth to it.

From your statement, I get the impression you believe that truth is relative to each individual.
If that is the case, then the information in the OP, or any post, for that matter, may be irrelevant to you, since you could say, "That is your truth, but it is not my truth."

In a case like that, there seems to be no room to reason, or be reasonable.
Am I being unreasonable?
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
My father hit me when I was 5 years old.
I crawled under the car. He explained to me, why he hit me physically. And I felt totally senang (didn't know this word at the time though).

Sai Baba loves to discipline us. And I loved to be disciplined by Him. Why, you might think? Simple, because He is full of selfless Love.

When there is pure Love, then discipline is no problem. Because pure Love knows exactly what is appropriate to do.

Circa 50% of the people nowadays divorce. When they divorce today, we all know the cause was lots of unsolved issues maybe years ago
Same when a child feels hurt then obviously the parent made some mistake prior to the hurt. So the parent better discipline himself also
So it is okay to "hurt" someone for their benefit?

IF I am a good teacher, and he asks me to teach him then I would teach him
Am I correct to say IF it is your opinion, that you think you are a good teacher?

Good point they make in these verses:

Once my mother was told by her doctor that she will never be able to walk again, and needs a wheelchair now.
Then she asked me for help, because she knew that by diet alone (and God's Grace), I accomplished "miracles"

So, I had a very limited diet for her, BUT I told her "I will come to you, so we do it together, otherwise it's too difficult for you". I did not even think about the fact that I was ca. 20 kg underweight. I just wanted to help her. After 3 days she was able to stand up straight again and after 1 week she was able to walk without pain. That is now many years ago. The doctor's diagnosis was totally wrong.
So, conscience can be wounded, or hurt then... are you in agreement?
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
So it is okay to "hurt" someone for their benefit?
I did not say that. I just gave you my experience. You are free to interpret it as you like, like the parables in the Bible.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
IF I am a good teacher, and he asks me to teach him then I would teach him
Am I correct to say IF it is your opinion, that you think you are a good teacher?
A good teacher will help others when asked (good, as in having good intentions, as in having a good heart)
A bad teacher might not want to help others,or even hurt others (bad, as in having bad intentions)
 
Top