Personal beliefs are wrong and dangerous.

[methylatedghosts]

God I hate post-modernist constructivist anything goesism. Maybe I'm old fashioned. I believe there's this thing out there called "reality," and it's possible to learn truths about it.

I don't want to sound offensive, but I believe I am closer to the "ultimate reality" than you - of course I do not know you so cannot say for sure, but from this post at least I think I am. Having said that, I may also be "wrong".

methylated: I have a feeling that if you were falsely accused of murder, and the jury said their belief in your guilt was neither intrinsically right or wrong, but only wrong because you disagreed with it, you'd change your position in a hurry.

Not at all. I have come to a new realisation the last few days. Before, you probably would have been "right". Now, however, this is not true for me. Regardless of what other people say or think or do, no thing is intrinsically right or wrong. It only is right or wrong because you label it so.

 

[Fluffy]

That is certainly your right. We should strive for knowledge of the truth. We are going to disagree on wha is true though and our personal truth will dictate our personal beliefs. IF we both look at the same piece of evidence, and we interpret it into two different things, that does not make us both right. There is still onyl one truth, coorect? So, since there is only one truth, and personal beliefs are dangerous, one of us is dangerous, correct? I mean, that was the quote.

Two people can strive for a correct belief and reach different conclusions. Yes one of them must be wrong and both of them might be but that is irrelevant. As long as they are genuinely attempting to seek the truth.

For example, imagine my child has to sit a maths exam tomorrow. I know that they have revised and worked really hard but that they are not particularly great at maths. They don't do very well on the exam but I know they have tried their best. Sure getting a good result is a good thing but it is unreasonable to expect better than their best effort and it is reasonable to expect their best effort.

So it is not dangerous to be wrong (or it might be but there is little we can do about that). It is just dangerous to not care about being right. Therefore untrue beliefs are not dangerous. Not caring with a belief is true or not and not striving to hold true beliefs is dangerous.

Besides I still don't see how you can interpret the comment made as an attempt to restrict the freedom of others. Jesus suggested that we strive to love our neighbour. Do you feel that he is forcing us in some way or restricting our freedom to do otherwise? Why do you see such an intent in Seyorni's words?

 

[BUDDY]

Two people can strive for a correct belief and reach different conclusions. Yes one of them must be wrong and both of them might be but that is irrelevant. As long as they are genuinely attempting to seek the truth.

For example, imagine my child has to sit a maths exam tomorrow. I know that they have revised and worked really hard but that they are not particularly great at maths. They don't do very well on the exam but I know they have tried their best. Sure getting a good result is a good thing but it is unreasonable to expect better than their best effort and it is reasonable to expect their best effort.

So it is not dangerous to be wrong (or it might be but there is little we can do about that). It is just dangerous to not care about being right. Therefore untrue beliefs are not dangerous. Not caring with a belief is true or not and not striving to hold true beliefs is dangerous.

Besides I still don't see how you can interpret the comment made as an attempt to restrict the freedom of others. Jesus suggested that we strive to love our neighbour. Do you feel that he is forcing us in some way or restricting our freedom to do otherwise? Why do you see such an intent in Seyorni's words?

This isn't about me. I asked for clarification and based on posts that I have seen from him sense he came on the forum, I sense an aire of intellectual superiority. That, coupled with a statement that he has yet to clarify, made me ask the question. I am not assuming that he wishes to restrict freedom, but it is the mindset that has in the past set into motion the control of others and the restriction of free thinking, and therefore that mindset I believe is dangerous.

But really, how dangerous are dumb people? I could care less if someone wants to be set in there beliefs regardless of blatantly obvious evidence to the contrary. Let them be dumb, I don't give a ****. It's smart people that make statements like this, combined with a large a mount of power, that I am afraid of.

 

[Smoke]

If you read earlier posts you will see clarification. I was not calling him fascist, I was calling the idea that beliefs are dangerous and nee to be controlled fascist. I do not believe that I am being persecuted or threatened at all. I find the idea of truth before liberty threatening, and that is what I perceived from his post.

But why? Did Seyorni say everybody's beliefs need to be controlled? Did he say anything about taking away liberty? It seems to me that all too often, religious people feel threatened by mere disagreement.

 

[BUDDY]

But why? Did Seyorni say everybody's beliefs need to be controlled? Did he say anything about taking away liberty? It seems to me that all too often, religious people feel threatened by mere disagreement.

No, that is why I requested clarification from him regarding what he meant by his statement. If he meant what I thought he meant, I would not be offended or threatened, but I would disagree.

 

[Autodidact]

I don't want to sound offensive, but I believe I am closer to the "ultimate reality" than you - of course I do not know you so cannot say for sure, but from this post at least I think I am. Having said that, I may also be "wrong".

I don't know about "ultimate reality" and I'm not trying to set up a contest. I'm just talking about regular old reality. What I'm asserting (horrors! fascism!) is that there is such a thing. I'm asserting that the table continues to exist and remains a table when I leave the room!

Not at all. I have come to a new realisation the last few days. Before, you probably would have been "right". Now, however, this is not true for me. Regardless of what other people say or think or do, no thing is intrinsically right or wrong. It only is right or wrong because you label it so.

Let me make sure I understand you. You're falsely accused of murder. You're innocent. You present irrefutable evidence of your innocence. The jury says, "Evidence, schmevidence. We enjoy believing that you're guilty. There's no such thing as something being "right", and your guilt is true for us! So enjoy spending the rest of your time in prison!" And that's O.K. with you. Is that right?

 

[blackout]

Originally Posted by methylatedghosts
I don't want to sound offensive, but I believe I am closer to the "ultimate reality" than you - of course I do not know you so cannot say for sure, but from this post at least I think I am. Having said that, I may also be "wrong".

I don't know about "ultimate reality" and I'm not trying to set up a contest. I'm just talking about regular old reality. What I'm asserting (horrors! fascism!) is that there is such a thing. I'm asserting that the table continues to exist and remains a table when I leave the room!

I'm pretty sure methylated's post was mostly just a "tongue in cheek" way of expressing that we each/all have our own beliefs that we choose to "view reality through" and CREATE our very Reality In... on account of the VERY fact that we think they are the "best" or the "highest" or the "right" ones. (for a whole host of reasons)
Yet we cannot ALL/each be right? Or can we?

Let me make sure I understand you. You're falsely accused of murder. You're innocent. You present irrefutable evidence of your innocence. The jury says, "Evidence, schmevidence. We enjoy believing that you're guilty. There's no such thing as something being "right", and your guilt is true for us! So enjoy spending the rest of your time in prison!" And that's O.K. with you. Is that right?

What if this "irrefutable evidence" is coming from sources you deem from experience to be untrustworthy? Or what if you are an "empath" and a person who has a gift in "reading" people... and what you are "reading" in the tone, facial expressions, body language etc etc etc ALSO tells you that the irrefutable evidence MAY VERY WELL NOT BE so irrefutable after all. And what if you believe that OTHER IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE is PURPOSELY being witheld that would shed a WHOLE new light on the "irrefutable evidence" that has been put forth.

I don't say this to be derogatory about my husband,
but you only have to look at my marriage to see how two people can be sharing a situation...
discussing it... living it out together,
and yet clearly they are NOT "experiencing/seeing" the same reality/"situation" at all.
The very same "irrefutable facts" have COMPLETELY different meaning to all parties involved.
I see and understand as I BELIEVE.
My husband sees and understands as HE BELIEVES.
How else could/should it be?

And then the question... "Who is RIGHT?"

Once you come to see ...
"disconnected conversation" after "futile arguement"...
with no end in sight...
that the question itself will bear no good or healing fruit...

it becomes easier to finally see that
from our own perspectives... we each are.
(right/rightful of our own beliefs/outlooks)

So now my question has become...
"How can we each keep our own valid "RIGHTS"
(pun intended)
from hurting one another?"
(and consequently the children)

No one should wind up "compromised".
(even though compromise is necessary)

How do we do that?


Perhaps this would be the more important question we should be asking
as a planet of people?

Most importantly FOR ME...
the question must become...
"how do I do that?"

The answer for me lies in "Reality Majik".
For you it might lie somewhere else.

Whatever works. Right? :rainbow1:

 

[Mr. Peanut]

I'd rather not believe in anything as to believe something I know is untrue. This is why I believe the apostles who, all but John, died proclaiming Jesus as crucified, buried, and risen, and the way, the truth, and the life. They would not die for proclaiming something--the resurrection--they only made up. Furthermore, Jesus said that we can know the truth and the truth will set us free. When we trust in Him for salvation and truth we are set free from the bondage of religion and rules and worrying whether we are 'good enough', because he WAS good enough and has set free all who have trusted in him. 224 verses in the Bible use the word, "truth" most of which describe God.

As he spake these words, many believed on him. Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him...ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free...If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

 

[Autodidact]

I'd rather not believe in anything as to believe something I know is untrue.

Good for you. Sounds like we're on the same side.

This is why I believe the apostles who, all but John, died proclaiming Jesus as crucified, buried, and risen, and the way, the truth, and the life.

This brings up the question of how you figure out what is true. For example, how do you know these beliefs of yours about the apostles are true?

They would not die for proclaiming something--the resurrection--they only made up.

And nobody in the history of the world has ever been mistaken about anything.

Furthermore, Jesus said that we can know the truth and the truth will set us free. When we trust in Him for salvation and truth we are set free from the bondage of religion and rules and worrying whether we are 'good enough', because he WAS good enough and has set free all who have trusted in him. 224 verses in the Bible use the word, "truth" most of which describe God.

How do you know what Jesus said? Did someone record it? Did they transcribe it? Write it down at the time? Soon after? When was this purported record of what Jesus said even made? Do you even know? Don't you want to be sure that what you believe is true? newsflash: Christianity is a religion.

 

[Somkid]

I have to say I agree with "It's wrong and dangerous to believe what you want to believe. We should strive to believe what's true, weather we like it or not".

The crusades, inquisitions not to mention what is going on in the world today is directly related to fiction, fantasy and superstition.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I have to say I agree with "It's wrong and dangerous to believe what you want to believe. We should strive to believe what's true, weather we like it or not".

The crusades, inquisitions not to mention what is going on in the world today is directly related to fiction, fantasy and superstition.

That's what YOU want to believe. :yes:

 

[methylatedghosts]

I'm pretty sure methylated's post was mostly just a "tongue in cheek" way of expressing that we each/all have our own beliefs that we choose to "view reality through" and CREATE our very Reality In... on account of the VERY fact that we think they are the "best" or the "highest" or the "right" ones. (for a whole host of reasons)
Yet we cannot ALL/each be right? Or can we?

It was - I see it probably didn't come across like that now though...

Let me make sure I understand you. You're falsely accused of murder. You're innocent. You present irrefutable evidence of your innocence. The jury says, "Evidence, schmevidence. We enjoy believing that you're guilty. There's no such thing as something being "right", and your guilt is true for us! So enjoy spending the rest of your time in prison!" And that's O.K. with you. Is that right?

What people do to me to live to their ideals of what is right or wrong, or what they get enjoyment out of, has no bearing on Who I Really Am. I am more free than many other people I know. Whether locked up in prison, "right"-fully or not, I am free within. If I do not go within, I go without. That is my mantra, and that is my freedom. I couldn't care less what people do to me. Beat me - I'll soon heal and I won't have changed. Imprison me - I'm free to travel anywhere I like within. Kill me - The ultimate release and I'll come back to do it again. Is it ok with me? sure. Prison probably would give me more time to look within than I currently have.

 

[cardero]

There is nothing incorrect about having beliefs, thinking that one can romance and own them is.

 

[Mr. Peanut]

Good for you. Sounds like we're on the same side. This brings up the question of how you figure out what is true. For example, how do you know these beliefs of yours about the apostles are true? And nobody in the history of the world has ever been mistaken about anything. How do you know what Jesus said? Did someone record it? Did they transcribe it? Write it down at the time? Soon after? When was this purported record of what Jesus said even made? Do you even know? Don't you want to be sure that what you believe is true? newsflash: Christianity is a religion.

There are books about all your questions. Its called Christian Apologetics. I have examined the evidence myself, and upon my own investigations over my life-time, come to believe the Bible and the words in it are true and reliable and God's very Word to us. I can only tell you I am absolutely convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is true. It is up to each one of us to examine these things for ourselves and draw our own conclusions. It is also wise to respect others regardless of whether or not we come to differing conclusions.

 

[Aasimar]

I have no beliefs other than my own personal beliefs, who else's could I possibly have?

 

[Autodidact]

There are books about all your questions. Its called Christian Apologetics. I have examined the evidence myself, and upon my own investigations over my life-time, come to believe the Bible and the words in it are true and reliable and God's very Word to us. I can only tell you I am absolutely convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is true. It is up to each one of us to examine these things for ourselves and draw our own conclusions. It is also wise to respect others regardless of whether or not we come to differing conclusions.

They're not questions that I need to answer, Peanut, they're questions that YOU need to answer. I know the answers: You have no basis whatsoever for these beliefs. I know you're convinced; we're trying to ask whether you have any reasonable basis on which to be convinced. You asserted, as a fact that is a basis for your belief, that all of the apostles were martyred. I deny that you have any basis on which to believe that fact, because it's not a fact. They were not, at least, not that we know of. Apparently you have no idea on what basis you believe that, have not researched the actual history of the matter, and in fact believe things, many things, for no reason whatsoever. On that basis, I now deny your assertion that you'd rather not believe something unless you know it's true. In fact, you are happy to believe things with no good basis on which to know whether they're true or not.

btw, did you notice this was a general discussion about belief and opinion, which you once again de-railed with your incessant preaching, demonstrating yet again that you are incapable of joining a general conversation with other people without sdredging in your irrelevant religious beliefs? Do you have anything to contribute to the conversation about truth, liberty, and personal opinion?

 

[Mr. Peanut]

They're not questions that I need to answer, Peanut, they're questions that YOU need to answer. I know the answers: You have no basis whatsoever for these beliefs. I know you're convinced; we're trying to ask whether you have any reasonable basis on which to be convinced. You asserted, as a fact that is a basis for your belief, that all of the apostles were martyred. I deny that you have any basis on which to believe that fact, because it's not a fact. They were not, at least, not that we know of. Apparently you have no idea on what basis you believe that, have not researched the actual history of the matter, and in fact believe things, many things, for no reason whatsoever. On that basis, I now deny your assertion that you'd rather not believe something unless you know it's true. In fact, you are happy to believe things with no good basis on which to know whether they're true or not.

btw, did you notice this was a general discussion about belief and opinion, which you once again de-railed with your incessant preaching, demonstrating yet again that you are incapable of joining a general conversation with other people without sdredging in your irrelevant religious beliefs? Do you have anything to contribute to the conversation about truth, liberty, and personal opinion?

All the apostles were not martyred, John lived to be quite old and although tradition has it that he was boiled in oil he survived and was also exiled to the Isle of Patmos where he wrote Revelation. The other apostles died for their faith, the places and details of which are accepted by most scholars i have read. What have the scholars you read said about the deaths of the apostles? I wish you would quit telling me how I know or do not know what I know, I have studied these things for years and am middle-aged now. What I have learned is quite enough to convince me. While I enjoy sharing my beliefs, that is what we are here for, right? I do not enjoy having you attack and argue with every little thing I say. I am sharing my faith, my belief, my religion, on a religious forum as kindly as I know how. I love everyone here as well, and bare no guile toward anyone. I don't know what more to say to you.

 

[cardero]

I have no beliefs other than my own personal beliefs, who else's could I possibly have?

Many of the beliefs that people collect and encourage were most likely available and conceptualized before the person existed (and will remain unconcluded long after one passes). It is the way that one recognizes, organizes and reasons them that gives the beliefs the illusion that they are owned. There are not really many original beliefs anymore.

 

[Autodidact]

All the apostles were not martyred, John lived to be quite old and although tradition has it that he was boiled in oil he survived and was also exiled to the Isle of Patmos where he wrote Revelation. The other apostles died for their faith, the places and details of which are accepted by most scholars i have read. What have the scholars you read said about the deaths of the apostles? I wish you would quit telling me how I know or do not know what I know, I have studied these things for years and am middle-aged now. What I have learned is quite enough to convince me. While I enjoy sharing my beliefs, that is what we are here for, right? I do not enjoy having you attack and argue with every little thing I say. I am sharing my faith, my belief, my religion, on a religious forum as kindly as I know how. I love everyone here as well, and bare no guile toward anyone. I don't know what more to say to you.

And once again you cite no support at all, just allege that you are well-studied. Let's pick a random apostle and look at the historical documents. How about Bartholomew?
The fact that you, a stranger, believe something, is not helpful to us. What would be helpful would be to know on what basis you believe it. What historical documents or accounts of same have caused you to believe that St. Bartholomew was martyred? Or do you just accept that because you read it in some apologetics somewhere? I think you'll find that the historical support for this assertion is weak or non-existent. Or would you prefer Matthew? Or Thomas? Or Simon? You pick. Myth and tradition are not history.

What we are here for is to have conversations about various topics, not just your particular brand of Christianity. If you have nothing to contribute to the subject of the OP, then it is better not to post. Preaching is not conversing.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

If you think.."Kill the infidel (everyone)" then you are on the dangerous side.

If you think.."Love all" then im guessing you are on a path of peace.