I’m in a strange place: very conservative, but not Christian

[Wrangler]

I have a problem with absolute truth because absolute truth creates problems. First they can’t be proven, second what’s absolute to someone may not be absolute to someone else.

Absolutes are not only proven, they are axiomatic, meaning they are undeniable. Consider this, if absolute truth does not meet the criteria for proven, then "proven" is a concept that has no existent. That is, nothing is proven. And if nothing is proven, then that reveals yet another absolute truth. So, you must accept a contradiction to accept that absolutes do not exist. This true and independent of "you" having a problem with it.

Second, the nature of absolute truth is precisely that it does NOT depend on one person or another. Classic example is gravity. Someone can say gravity is not true for them. However, the truth is revealed when they jump off a high place.

 

[Wrangler]

If words have such absolute definitions, then why is it that if you ask 10 different people to define ‘life’, you’ll get 10 different definitions of it? You could claim they are all reiterations but you and I both know how much people already disagree on basic words.

It's a good point you make here.

I want to differentiate between language usage (words) and concepts. Relying on how people use words is an exercise in futility AS IF reality is subject to the political process of democracy. Rather focus on the notion of concepts, starting with the concept of a definition. There is such a thing as a valid definition, every bit as objective as a valid premise in science, statistics or law.

If your concepts are not valid to begin with, it inevitably means you will arrive at flawed conclusions as there cannot be a valid application to an invalid concept.

Furthermore, consider we have Concept A, Concept B, Concept C and so on. Further suppose various people use Word A, Word B and Word C to refer to different concepts. It means, in practice, you are effectively speaking a different language (even though the vocalization of words sound the same). All that is required to overcome this is to agree to a language convention.

If you're tracking with me, I can delve further into what constitutes a valid definition.

 

[Wrangler]

But if you claim there are absolutes, you are also contradicting yourself because you can’t prove them.

Untrue. I've already repeatedly proved it.

Beyond that you are setting up some kind of Strawman. There is absolutely no connection between something being noncontradictory with being proven. Let me put it this way. There is an axiom that when you eliminate the possibilities, what remains, no matter how improbable, must be true.

Finally, regarding proof, you say I have not proved it but that is merely a claim. What proof will you accept? What is a reasonable acceptance criteria of proof? BECAUSE we are talking at the conceptual level, perceptions are an invalid acceptance criteria. You cannot prove what is on the inside by looking at what is on the outside.

Hope this helps.

 

[Wrangler]

An example is the trinity. God is absolute, but by being a man such as Jesus, he is not. The trinity itself is a contradiction.

Agreed. That is why I reject the trinity.

To say 'The trinity itself is a contradiction' is an absolute.

 

[Dropship]

Buddha reached enlightenment by realizing there is no death to begin with that he didn’t even need to be resurrected.

Atheists are typically more educated when it comes to religion than other groups and a study even backs it up..

What stumps me the most is when I run into another deep thinker, one who has an aptitude for critical thinking and yet chooses to hold a religious belief. In my eyes such a person has succumbed to filling in the gap of not knowing.

1- Buddha was just a human giving us his own guesses and hunches, but Jesus was giving us God's words, spot the difference?..:)
Jesus said - "I say nothing of my own accord, I only say what my father tells me to say.." (John 12:49)

2- All nonchristian religions and most Christian denominations are junk, all sensible Christians know it and so do atheists and agnostics, no secret there..:)
Jesus said:-"Not all who call me "Lord,Lord" will enter the kingdom of heaven. Then I'll tell them plainly, I never knew you, get away from me" (Matthew 7:21-23)

TRUE Christianity is a POWER thing, that's what nonchristians don't realise-
"Our gospel came to you not simply with words but also with power" (1 Thessalonians 1:5)
Christians are kool, calm and collected because they're plugged in and it's constantly downloading into them..:)

3- The really deep thinkers take a look at what Jesus said and think "Hey this guy is something special, I want to learn more"..:)-
Jesus said- "I know where I came from and where I am going, but you have no idea where I come from or where I am going....you are of this world, I am not of this world...though you do not believe me, believe the miracles...I'll tell you things hidden since the creation of the world" (John 8:14/ 8:23/10:38/Matt 13:35)

 

[Romanov2488]

Untrue. I've already repeatedly proved it.

Beyond that you are setting up some kind of Strawman. There is absolutely no connection between something being noncontradictory with being proven. Let me put it this way. There is an axiom that when you eliminate the possibilities, what remains, no matter how improbable, must be true.

Finally, regarding proof, you say I have not proved it but that is merely a claim. What proof will you accept? What is a reasonable acceptance criteria of proof? BECAUSE we are talking at the conceptual level, perceptions are an invalid acceptance criteria. You cannot prove what is on the inside by looking at what is on the outside.

Hope this helps.

I see all axioms as fallible since they hinge on human (fallible) observation. That’s where we disagree I think. When you say that something is axiomatic, that is you, a fallible being saying that. Axioms at best are tools to help us navigate and survive. If God could be reached or realized through axioms, then it all goes back to the finite defining the infinite.

My idea of proof is very loose. We can pretend we have proven something but ultimately, there is no proof of anything. Since I am also a nondualist, ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ are one. I am within creation, but also without…since all creation is an appearance within my consciousness.

There is no point to creation without an observer and there is no point to consciousness alone without manifesting as some sort of form.

 

[Romanov2488]

1- Buddha was just a human giving us his own guesses and hunches, but Jesus was giving us God's words, spot the difference?..:)
Jesus said - "I say nothing of my own accord, I only say what my father tells me to say.." (John 12:49)

2- All nonchristian religions and most Christian denominations are junk, all sensible Christians know it and so do atheists and agnostics, no secret there..:)
Jesus said:-"Not all who call me "Lord,Lord" will enter the kingdom of heaven. Then I'll tell them plainly, I never knew you, get away from me" (Matthew 7:21-23)

TRUE Christianity is a POWER thing, that's what nonchristians don't realise-
"Our gospel came to you not simply with words but also with power" (1 Thessalonians 1:5)
Christians are kool, calm and collected because they're plugged in and it's constantly downloading into them..:)

3- The really deep thinkers take a look at what Jesus said and think "Hey this guy is something special, I want to learn more"..:)-
Jesus said- "I know where I came from and where I am going, but you have no idea where I come from or where I am going....you are of this world, I am not of this world...though you do not believe me, believe the miracles...I'll tell you things hidden since the creation of the world" (John 8:14/ 8:23/10:38/Matt 13:35)

What you are doing here is emphasizing the exclusivity aspect of Christianity. Every religion does this. You think Jesus is cool because he came back from the dead. The Muslims think Muhammed is cool because he split the moon. Muhammed too, claimed that Allah has spoken to him. He too is only saying what Allah has told him.

When I think of Jesus, I see that the majority of people (including Christians) have misunderstood his teachings. For example when he said, “I and the father are one”. Most people take that as only Jesus is one with the father. That is quite different from what I gather from what he said. And what I gather from it is that he was only referring to his own personal experience, pointing to something that is greater than this name and form. I am all on board with the idea of myself being something more and greater than just a human being. Call it eastern, call it mysticism, call it whatever. But to me ‘perfect’ and ‘imperfect’ are one.

What denomination are you by the way given that you said most Christian denominations are junk?

 

[Romanov2488]

Agreed. That is why I reject the trinity.

To say 'The trinity itself is a contradiction' is an absolute.

So what would you identify yourself as for the sake of identification? You rejecting the trinity is a huge admittance. This is getting good. There is no Christianity without the trinity according to Christianity. They would call you a wolf in sheep’s clothing by quoting that famous verse Matthew 7:15.

 

[Taken]

The liberals ask me how the hell are you conservative and don’t believe in god? The conservatives ask me, how the hell do you not believe in God, but aren’t liberal? I get into it with the Christians, the atheists, the liberals, and the conservatives. People say ohhh don’t let labels affect you. Those labels mean a lot. If you are Christian in the fundamental, that massively affects your political stance. And if you are not a Christian, then your political stance on issues will be seen as very unChristian by the typical Christians.

I consider myself spiritual, but not religious. I was raised Christian Orthodox but I never cared to take it seriously.

It’s just funny because I have a lot of Christian values but I never liked the idea of not being my own ultimate authority which I guess allows me to hold many unChristian values at the exact same time. It’s tough. I consider the other alternative of someone like myself to be a liberal Christian…that too is another conundrum.

Can anyone offer any insight into this?

What do you want to be?
And does what you want to be, HAVE a Label?
You indicate the Label...Spiritual.
No clue what that term means to you.

Care to expound?

 

[Wrangler]

I see all axioms as fallible since they hinge on human (fallible) observation.

We've covered this before axioms are conceptual not rooted in perceptions. It seems you cling to a subjective, mystical viewpoint. What you see or don't see is irrelevant to what there is to see. This is the greatness of Columbus; he pursued a path others did not see and found half the globe and told people. No one else did that since the beginning of time.

The other half of the globe was always there. It's just that the world did not see what was there to see.

 

[Wrangler]

When you say that something is axiomatic, that is you, a fallible being saying that.

My nature matters not. It is not about me. What matters is the undeniable aspects of reality.

Your quip of not knowing anything is a word game you play with yourself. To propagate it, you must throw a 'not' into what you know. Just because there are things we do not know, does not mean there is no things that we know. You even deny the processes of your own mind, deny Descartes, Gognito Ergo Sum, I think, therefore I am.

We've already talked about how the basis of action is not knowledge but faith. People act without knowing all things but in the acting some things are learned, become known.

Axioms at best are tools to help us navigate and survive. If God could be reached or realized through axioms, then it all goes back to the finite defining the infinite.

There is no such thing as infinite; in application it is merely an ongoing series but at any point it remains finite.

God himself is finite. The universe is finite. A grain of sand is finite. In Scripture, God reveals he has limited patience and will one day destroy unbelievers and evil and death itself.

 

[Wrangler]

So what would you identify yourself as for the sake of identification?

Biblical unitarian Christian.

You rejecting the trinity is a huge admittance.

I've rejected the trinity at the start, many decades ago, as an obvious violation of the 1st and 2nd Commandments. As I grew in wisdom and stature I realized it also violates definition, language usage and logic.

Consider the juxtaposition of the famous John 3:16, God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son. There is no "Father" in this verse, who is repeatedly identified in Scripture as alone being God. Basic reading comprehension reveals:

1. "God" (I read for emphasis, in his wholeness, in his unitarian nature) is the subject of the sentence.
2. The son is the object of the sentence.
3. "God" (I read for emphasis, in his wholeness, in his unitarian nature) does the giving.
   
4. The son is what or who is given.
5. The reason for this giving has nothing to do with how the son feels.
6. The sentence explains the reason for this giving is because "God" (I read for emphasis, in his wholeness, in his unitarian nature) loves us.
7. Subjects of sentences are not objects of sentences. Ergo, the son is not God.

There are many such verses in Scripture that juxtapose God from Jesus. Also Jesus emphasized who we are praying to is in heaven, while Jesus was on Earth saying this. In a later passage Jesus tells us whatever we ask the Father will be given IF we ask it in his name. So, obviously we are not to pray to Jesus.

I think it is also important to point out that Jesus never taught the trinity. He taught us to pray to "our" Father, not 'my Father and not 'your' Father. This means his Father is our Father. He did not teach us to pray to a trinitarian god. "Father" is singular, consistent with the ~7,000 singular pronouns used in reference to God.

The real passion for trinitarianism is the man-is-god thesis, which repeats the motivation for the Original Sin. The easiest way to defeat the trinity is to expose the non-existent 3rd "person." People do not pray TO the holy spirit; people pray FOR the holy spirit.

This is getting good.

:)

 

[Wrangler]

There is no Christianity without the trinity according to Christianity. They would call you a wolf in sheep’s clothing by quoting that famous verse Matthew 7:15.

Trinitarianism is a 4th century man-made idol. Proof of this is the complete absence of it in Scripture. To be clear, when I write that the trinity is not found anywhere in Scripture, I mean that neither the word nor the concept of the trinity is explicitly in the Bible. To avoid the inevitable Appeal to Strawman, there simply is no verse that reads something like The nature of God is a trinity - consisting of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit who are co-equal, co-substantial and co-eternal - and if you do not believe this, you cannot be saved but are damned to hell forever. If there were such a verse, it would be the most quoted verse in Scripture by those who claim one’s salvation depends on believing it. The concept of the trinity is so important that in 66 books, it is not mentioned once!

Trinitarians rely on 2 basic tactics in a desperate attempt to 'support' their inherently contradictory doctrine:

1. Dualism
2. Artificial Synthesis

Dualism is the anti-logic mystical principle that contradictions exist. For instance, Scripture states the obvious over and over again that Jesus is a man. This is deemed by trinitarians not definitive because of the principle of dualism.

Artificial Synthesis is the tactic of constructing a doctrine by piecing together various portions of verses out of context and demanding a particular interpretation of the component verses. By such construction, any doctrine may be so 'supported.' For instance, trinitarian devotion to John 1:1 the word was with god does not even reference Jesus. They insist "the word" does, however, words are WHAT's not WHO's.

I point out that God is perfectly capable of speaking on his own as in Matthew 3:17, God says “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” When I ask who says these words, obstinate trinitarians say 'the Father' but I remind them that Jesus is not called the Son of the Father. ;)

Artificial Synthesis explains why trinitarians copy and paste numerous verses they claim 'support' their dogma; they are hoping something sticks. They have a mantra that everything in Scripture 'points' to the trinity. This supposes a mountain of implied support. They continue to assert this mountain even when each individual cited verse is fully refuted. And they never consider why 'support' for the doctrine is always 'implied.'

To them proof texts, like 1 COR 8:6, 'For us, there is one God, the Father' are not definitive. Yes, trinitarians have called me a wolf in sheep’s clothing, the anti-Christ and even Satan himself. And this reveals a disturbing truth of trinitarianism; it does not bring forth the fruit of the Spirit.

 

[Dropship]

What you are doing here is emphasizing the exclusivity aspect of Christianity. Every religion does this. You think Jesus is cool because he came back from the dead..
..when he said, “I and the father are one”. Most people take that as only Jesus is one with the father. That is quite different from what I gather from what he said...
What denomination are you by the way given that you said most Christian denominations are junk?

1- Yup, coming back from the dead marks JC out as something special, unlike the founders of all other religions who are corpses in graves somewhere..:)

2- He made it clear multiple times that he WASN'T God, yet amazingly some people still think he was!
E.g.-Jesus said:-"Why do you call me good? Only God is good" (Luke 18:19)

3- I'm non-denominational because I don't need any pastor, minister, vicar or pope etc to do my thinking for me..:)
Jesus said:-"You have one teacher, me" (Matthew 23:10)
"And the common people heard him gladly" (Mark 12:37)

Running with the herd won't do anybody any good if they're all going up the spout..:)
"Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12 KJV)

 

[Wrangler]

Wrangler, question for you.

I think it is plural. Questions. And good. I'm glad you asked. :)

I may have to break up my responses into several posts.

If God is the absolute, how can something relative know God? Only the absolute can know the absolute.

I never said yet that God is the absolute. I'm not sure why assert we are not absolute.

Consider Jefferson's Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. Happiness and Liberty are in degrees, yes. But life is absolute.

If we are all born in sin, then for lack of a better word, we are all born retarded.

LOL. There are betters words: mistaken and evil. We are all born prone to make mistakes and think, feel and act in evil ways. This depravity is the equality of the human condition.

Why should we listen to the fallible regarding the infallible?

Scripture says to test. However, do not shoot the fallible messenger. We know God because he revealed himself to us, not because we brilliantly figured it out by ourselves.

 

[Wrangler]

We clearly do not know according to Jesus, so why is someone like me a bad guy for admitting that I do not know?

Jesus was referring to those Roman guards who were torturing and murdering him.

You are a bad guy because Scripture says that God has provided numerous proofs but you are too stiff necked to humble yourself to his Works and Words.

You may say that the Bible is infallible, but we aren’t. It is the fallible who says that the Bible is infallible.

The book of Job delves into that. God asked Job where was he when God was laying the foundations of the world?

By saying that God is the absolute and that mankind is not, it is a contradiction of sorts when mankind goes around acting as if they know the absolute.

It is not a contradiction to recognize the reality of absolutes. Perhaps it is the notion of absolutes that you are stuck on. What are the alternatives?

You say it is denying knowing anything. If that were true, you would not be able to figure out how to log into this site, let alone do it repeatedly. ;)

Another alternative asserted is that 'everything is relative.' Another internally contradictory premise. Most things are conditional but within those conditions, they are absolute. Take a zebra for instance. True, it has black and white stripes. However, each individual stripe is one or the other. There aren't too many grey zebra's running around.

 

[Romanov2488]

Jesus was referring to those Roman guards who were torturing and murdering him.

You are a bad guy because Scripture says that God has provided numerous proofs but you are too stiff necked to humble yourself to his Works and Words.



The book of Job delves into that. God asked Job where was he when God was laying the foundations of the world?



It is not a contradiction to recognize the reality of absolutes. Perhaps it is the notion of absolutes that you are stuck on. What are the alternatives?

You say it is denying knowing anything. If that were true, you would not be able to figure out how to log into this site, let alone do it repeatedly. ;)

Another alternative asserted is that 'everything is relative.' Another internally contradictory premise. Most things are conditional but within those conditions, they are absolute. Take a zebra for instance. True, it has black and white stripes. However, each individual stripe is one or the other. There aren't too many grey zebra's running around.

And scripture also contradicts itself and promotes a lot of nonsense such as homophobia, misogyny, slavery, etc. so I don’t need to take it as absolute. The God in the Bible literally asked of Abraham to murder his own son Isaac as a testament of his faith and no matter how much apologists want to rationalize a god asking of someone to murder their son just to appease, it will never change my mind. Your average Christian believes the Bible is solely the New Testament and at the same time contradicting themselves that it is the word of God when they refute the Old Testament which is actually validated in the New in Timothy 3:16 which states all scripture is inspired by God. Much of the Old Testament is left out in the schools and churches such as the story of Lot where God commended Lot for offering up his daughters to be gang raped after which they sleep with their father.

The relative is the absolute and vice versa. One single whole playing as two opposites. Have you ever heard the saying, “The only constant is change”? It’s a lot like that. The absolute changes, change is absolute. Pantheism where God is creation itself makes a lot more sense than theism.

Atheism is what happens when you read the Bible. Christianity is what happens when someone else reads it for you.

Protestants are big on believing that salvation happens through faith and grace alone (not works) since Jesus paid it all. So you mean to tell me that if I live a lifetime of crime and deceiving others, as soon as I accept Jesus as my savior in my last few breaths, I am automatically saved? Or I have heard them say that faith in Jesus is already a work alone. Clearly it doesn’t matter if you live a life full of peace and helping others, you will go to hell all because you don’t accept Jesus as your savior.

 

[Romanov2488]

I think it is plural. Questions. And good. I'm glad you asked. :)

I may have to break up my responses into several posts.



I never said yet that God is the absolute. I'm not sure why assert we are not absolute.

Consider Jefferson's Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. Happiness and Liberty are in degrees, yes. But life is absolute.



LOL. There are betters words: mistaken and evil. We are all born prone to make mistakes and think, feel and act in evil ways. This depravity is the equality of the human condition.



Scripture says to test. However, do not shoot the fallible messenger. We know God because he revealed himself to us, not because we brilliantly figured it out by ourselves.

He revealed himself to us based off fallible witness testimony and by people who knew nothing of electricity.

I am asserting we are not absolute in the context of being physically limited as a form, unlike God.

 

[Romanov2488]

1- Yup, coming back from the dead marks JC out as something special, unlike the founders of all other religions who are corpses in graves somewhere..:)

2- He made it clear multiple times that he WASN'T God, yet amazingly some people still think he was!
E.g.-Jesus said:-"Why do you call me good? Only God is good" (Luke 18:19)

3- I'm non-denominational because I don't need any pastor, minister, vicar or pope etc to do my thinking for me..:)
Jesus said:-"You have one teacher, me" (Matthew 23:10)
"And the common people heard him gladly" (Mark 12:37)

Running with the herd won't do anybody any good if they're all going up the spout..:)
"Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12 KJV)

Jesus is not the only archetype of a savior whose been resurrected. So has Mithras, Krisha, Horus.

 

[Romanov2488]

My nature matters not. It is not about me. What matters is the undeniable aspects of reality.

Your quip of not knowing anything is a word game you play with yourself. To propagate it, you must throw a 'not' into what you know. Just because there are things we do not know, does not mean there is no things that we know. You even deny the processes of your own mind, deny Descartes, Gognito Ergo Sum, I think, therefore I am.

We've already talked about how the basis of action is not knowledge but faith. People act without knowing all things but in the acting some things are learned, become known.


There is no such thing as infinite; in application it is merely an ongoing series but at any point it remains finite.

God himself is finite. The universe is finite. A grain of sand is finite. In Scripture, God reveals he has limited patience and will one day destroy unbelievers and evil and death itself.

If God is finite, then that goes against the eternal nature of God according to the Abrahamic religions.

I reject I think, therefore I am because I am without having to think. Everyone has had gaps in their thinking of no thought whilst existing. When you go to sleep, you’re not thinking. Yet you don’t cease to be. And saying that you’re still thinking even while asleep due to brain processes would be moving goal posts because your brain sending signals to your organs to function is not the same as consciously thinking as you normally do.

How can I exist purely because I think? I do not think myself into existence. I am surprised you haven’t quite looked into what Descartes said a bit deeper. I don’t think Descartes was that foolish to believe that he exists simply because he thinks, but more that thinking is an indicator that one exists.