water I used to be a part of a church i was born into a religious family. Once i read the Bible i knew that church was false and i left it. I did go looking for a "true" denomination but after spending some time looking i never found one that conformed to the bible. I came to the understanding that i did not have to belong to a denomination to be a follower Of The Messiah Jesus. It seems to me that every denomination wraps a lie up in a thousand truths Some have more lies than others but they all seem to have an inbuilt stumbling stone. It seems to me that the world has set up a thousand partial truths designed to sabotage the message of Jesus to make it to no effect. My world view is basically this. The world is satan's playground and he has full reign to do what he can to deceive all mankind. i believe satan has set up hundreds of religions and denominations all designed to lead people away from the truth into deception. I believe the need you have is to have fellowship with brothers and sisters in Jesus. You want to be a part of a community of faith? I understand the need. we all need love and support from friends. i live pretty much alone in my faith. sometimes i run into another follower of Jesus and it is a great joy to me when i do. Unfortunately in this world there are not many about. I met one on the internet a few months ago in a chat room. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! He was an ex- Egyptian Army Officer a former muslim, who had been convicted in his heart about the people he had killed in battle. He was living alone away from his family because they had tried to kill him for converting to Christianity, fortunately the local coptic "christians" where avoiding him because they where too scared of the local muslims. This guy had a chance to develop a true relationship with God unimpeded by religion and he was very happy and i was blessed to have had the opportunity to share some fellowship with him. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Well i believe one must know themselves, have good self knowledge, to have a relationship with God. But as for self-esteem i am not so sure. Self-esteem is to hold oneself in high esteem and that is self pride. Maybe you and i do not have the same definition for these words? Maybe that is our big problem in communicating? I believe that one needs to accept what one is. In effect be a peace with ones self while not being in agreement with ones faults. One has to accept that one is forgiven. They also have to forgive themselves. In that way they can forgive the faults in others. All Praise The Ancient Of Days
are there any that support your claims of feral children not recognizng acts of god and showing no signs of spirituality?
Your question tells me that you never even tried to do the research. Not one case has shown feral children to exhibit any of these social behaviors. Of course, feel free to mention any cases to the contrary. On the other hand, a child born in a community will quickly pick up the traditions there. You see, where there is an absence of traditions, there is nothing to be learned by the child. Unless you know of any one raised in isolation who suddenly became Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Satanist, or even prayed, showed reverence, and MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL: showed any sign of morality. I think not.
no i never tried to do the research, as its not an area that interests me and the points you are trying to make with the research you have done dont stand up, so i wouldnt have wasted my own time on such a fruitless exercise. i did search google and found the hits for feral children but none that i glanced at where related to the spiritual perceptions of feral children. tradition does not equate to spirituality neither does morailty. if anyone raised in isolation came into contact with missionaries of whatever religion i see no reason why they would not adopt the practices of their new "community". however i dont know any personally, no.
It's funny that the whole feral children thing came up. Look at this link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/chitribts/20050619/ts_chicagotrib/happyslapyobsbreedfearanger
Quote Ad: “My world view is basically this. The world is satan's playground and he has full reign to do what he can to deceive all mankind. i believe satan has set up hundreds of religions and denominations all designed to lead people away from the truth into deception. “ * So why does your god go to these extremes to abuse and test his flock? Why does he place confusion in the way of those seeking him?
my geuss and it is only a geuss, is those who only find confusion are confused about what they are seeking.
But do you think this is how it should be? Are you really the only person who loves God and seeks Him in his Word? Do you at least meet with "two or three" on a regular basis? "Denominations" are just that: names. The church comes together under different names, but divisions are caused by those who separate themselves from it - not by those who work to keep them coming together in unity. The body of believers should work together to keep itself healthy. If the nose leaves because of the eyes, they both lose. No doubt Satan is pleased when this happens. Hebrews 10:24-25 And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching. But evidently standing alone isn't the way God wishes it to remain. If you still stand alone after 20 years, you must ask yourself what blessings and insights you might be giving up: Mark 10 28 Then Peter began to say to Him, "See, we have left all and followed You." 29 So Jesus answered and said, "Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My sake and the gospel's, But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.
What makes you think God's intent is abuse and deception? It's our own desires that deceive us. It's when every sheep wants to lead his own flock that they leave the care of the shepherd. That's when malpractice and false teaching start overwhelming them, causing God's name to be slandered. Jesus himself said: "a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand" (Mark 3:24). So if you want to see what God wants, look in the places where you see faith, not where you find division. If you only look for division that's all you'll see, and that will be your truth. Tests may come to prune the church, so only the faithful remain. I've said this many times before: in most cases, denominations show that people would rather leave the building than the church, or the church than the faith. And God knows us by our faith, not our place of worship. Have you ever been to most of these "denominations" to see what they teach? Do you think a name is enough to indicate complete disagreement? If a teacher deviates from the Bible, he is leading his flock astray. If the flock deviates, you may safely wonder why they call themselves Christian; and no doubt you will find egos and selfishness in any of them. But that's not why we go to church, or what a church is for. These are distractions from God, not distractions by God.
Quote J: “So if you want to see what God wants, look in the places where you see faith, not where you find division.” * Indeed. I have. That is why I stay out of churches. Quote J: “Have you ever been to most of these "denominations" to see what they teach? Do you think a name is enough to indicate complete disagreement? If a teacher deviates from the Bible, he is leading his flock astray. If the flock deviates, you may safely wonder why they call themselves Christian; and no doubt you will find egos and selfishness in any of them.” * Simply, If the word of this god was clear, there would be “ONE” church. For example the Catholic Church is unified. There are practically no further Catholic denominations. The 30 000 offshoots are all Protestant. Why are the Catholic teachers not deviating? Quote J: “But that's not why we go to church, or what a church is for. These are distractions from God, not distractions by God.” * Why do you go to church? Allcare.
That sounds like a knee-jerk answer to me. If you are really looking for a good church - one where humility and honesty is prized above glamour and popularity - PM me and I'll try to help you find one. They might not be everywhere, but I assure you they exist - as do the kind of Christians that prefer them. That's just a convenient excuse, to speculate about how things "would" be and to discard things because they don't match that "ideal". The problem is that "clarity" doesn't depend only on the truth itself, but also on the people who hear it. Some things simply are difficult to understand, while other things are all the more controversial because they are "clear" (like the issue of homosexuality, or the Pope's decision on contraceptives). It would be wrong to think Catholicism is unified over these issues because they don't have "denominations". They also have their "orders" and traditions, but they understand the power of tradition and the unity it can give. Hence the liturgies, creeds and confessions (some that the Protestants still share, like the Nicene creed). If Luther had his way, the issues might have been resolved within the church (which is why he wrote his 95 theses - for discussion), but the Pope wouldn't have it. (The movie Luther is out on DVD now; do yourself a favour and rent it). The Protestant tradition works a little differently. It recognizes the Bible as the only measure of authority (instead of the Pope), which is why each "church" or denomination seems separate from one another. The advantage is that nobody but the Bible can determine doctrine, the disadvantage is that there is nobody to stop a teacher from preaching his own interpretation. If he is censured by his congegation, he merely takes people who feel likewise and builds a new building somewhere else. It's an unchristian way of resolving problems, and most of the problems are actually superficial anyway, but pride "in the name of God" is almost impossible to argue against, so most people prefer to leave and try to get by on their own steam. All of this simply confirms to me that the walls of God's kingdom are erected within each person - where he aligns himself in or outside it - but with each person himself also a brick in the wall. Church walls don't work because they cause division and promote labels. I just don't let them confuse me; my faith doesn't depend on any particular interpretation or dogma. To those who know the Cornerstone personally, God's kingdom is being built spiritually (1 Peter 2:5). For me, not to go to church - any church - is to deny what I believe, and what I said above. I'm free to visit any church and see for myself when someone is advancing his own agenda, or God's. But for the sake of the work that needs to be done - within myself as well as in the world - I think one should participate in one community rather than drift aimlessly between them.
ellion, Hence my explicit ex negativo approach. I haven't though about this that way, but yes. Religion is here traditionally represented by the Catholic Church, and it pretty much functions like a political party. Not few people go to church the way one would go to a meeting of a political party, and this is part of the elitism religious people often exhibit here. But essentially, there is not much difference between a political party and a religion: Both are following and representing a particular ideology/philosophy, each its own. * * * §outh§tar, One-way induction (the usual scientific approach) is based on working with reductionisms. Reductionisms as such are never acceptable; arguing for or against reductionisms is ultimately nothing but arguing strawmen. Hence I reject this method of reasoning. You Latin on me? And this is probably the hardest point for me to bring across. To address preconceptions, another set of preconceptions has to be used. But if this other set is such that it effectively annulls the first set, then we can get to being rid of preconceptions! Who is to say? Who is to judge? No, and that is the thing. There is no linear logic, no derivation necessary to find God exists and acts. No "If A, then B". All that is needed is insight. Insight has the form "If A then B, and simultaneously if B, then A". The drawback is that insight cannot be planned, of course. But it is no less reasonable. You could never relate to Mowgli anyway. So, what does this say about scientists who claim that there is no evidence for God? Yes, it tends to turn into banality. "Suspending thoughts" does not mean "to force yourself to stop thinking", even though many times, this is exacty how it is practiced. Buddha smiles.
ellion, Good point, that I have been working on to relate to SouthStar. I say one can relate to God without actually calling himself "religious" or using the word "God". If you look at (some) religious/spiritual people, you'll see that the essence of their spiritual convictions is not in the words or the particular rituals they perform. Some of these people deem that to be merely external forms that only have symbolic meaning. This leads to hypothesize that spirituality is possible even without those external symbolical forms (which are culturally specified). * * * Crunchy Cat, Would you like a cookie now? * * * §outh§tar, If it can be shown that feral children do not react to all other beings the same way, ie. that they shun ones but are attracted to others, then this is, for me, enough proof that they can distinguish between good and evil. The only problem I see here is that our "modern" society has mystified esp. evil, and thus laden the concept with all sorts of connotations, which are nothing but hot air. A rabid dog is evil for you, it is dangerous for you, it can harm you. In the same sense, the person pointing a gun at your head is evil. One should shun evil is the basic lesson. But since the word "evil" has been so mystified, it is almost useless. * * * Crunchy Cat, Since I am a tricky constructivist bastard (hee hee hee), I have foreseen all this, and nimbly avoided any definitions -- to see how people would respond. Personally, I do not have an ex positivo definition of God; all along, I am working on an ex negativo definition of God, ie. what God is not. It seems that the ex negativo approach leads right to God! This ex negativo approach is, I hope, visible through all the arguments I make here. What truth? Is "truth" a thing that can be found? Can we get into the car and drive somewhere, and there find "truth"? Yes, the traps of ex positivo definitions. Everywhere. Hence it cannot be neatly located. Well, if they put their trust in a skydaddy or some such ... See, if they are not sure who they put their trust in, then they should not be surprised that their trust is "broken". You can see in everyday communication that people have a strong tendency to be very lax in communication. They say something, and assume that the person that was meant for has heard and understood them; few make the effort to check if they have actually been heard. When it comes to spiritual matters, this lax approach to communication backfires, and "trust is broken" and as a result, people say there is no God. You mean "Why doesn't God appear in the form of a handsome young man to go out with me for a cup of tea (I don't drink coffee)?" I say God always interacts with us in ways we understand, in ways that are meaningful to us. This, however, may be nothing of an extra-special and super-spectacular kind, but very plain and mundane things -- things that we, in our pride and materialism, think to be impossible to be acts of God. We like to insist that what God is has to conform to *our* ideas of what God is; whereby our ideas of God are based on a particular understanding of achievements and characteristics of ourselves. Like, we would accept that a comet or a tsunami is an act of God, but most would be reluctant to accept a stray cat coming to your house to be an act of God. * * * (Q), I was talking about scientific findings that are results of insight, not of one-way induction (as it is usually done). * * * (Q), Any theory that has ever been refuted. Where shall we start? That the atom cannot be divided any further? * * * Crunchy Cat, And? I don't mean to be cynical. But what am I to do with those theories? Will they make my life better, make me any happier? Can I take them out for lunch, cuddle with them, write them poems? Science is supposed to make human lives better. But while it cures some diseases, eases others, it also promotes relativism. How is human life to be worth anything to anyone, if it is to be viewed merely as a chemical soup? * * * MarcAC, No, I am all in for the scientific method. It is just that I want it to be used consistently. * * * (Q), Had Einstein not suspended his already existing Newtonian knowledge, he could have not come to the findings in relativity that he did. Or are you saying you can logically derive relativity from Newtonian postulates? * * * Crunchy Cat, But this is arguing strawmen. Take any religious assertion about God, keep it per se, and it can be refuted. But this doesn't mean that the religious assertions are wrong or ultimately falsifiable. What is wrong is the reductionist approach that was used. God, as well as any other phenomenon, is always to be understood holistically -- for what it is; reduce it to a few characteristics and they should be easy to refute or found meaningless. This doesn't render said phenomenon meaningless though. The only problem is that the phenomenon as what is it, in its wholeness, remains obscured to us. We can get closer and truer to it though, if we make an effort to not indulge in reductions of said phenomenon. Hence my ex negativo approach. * * * glaucon, The original post links to a thread, and there, the arguments for circularity are layed out, mainly by Wes Morris.
Adstar, In other words, you've been making the conscious effort to avoid all reductionisms. But why? What do you think Satan did that? Yes. Easier said than done. Much easier said. Yes, I think so too -- that we hold different definitions. But from what you've said elsewhere, I think I understand you. I don't view self-esteem as "holding oneself in high esteem"; but more as in knowing what one can do and what one can't. You know, when I read this ... it all seems so simple to you. If you could only live in my mind for an hour! You'd run! * * * SouthStar, But those are all surface forms, culture-specific, not universal. * * * stretched, What makes you think this is an abuse? There has to be both confusion and clarity; or one would have never known clarity. I say God does not place confusion in the way of those seeking Him. He merely allows it. * * * ellion, Yes. And seeing confusion can potentially motivate them to seek clarity. * * * stretched, And, what is your point? * * * ellion, I say this is a sweeping statement. The *practice* of Christianity has lead to confusion.
i re read the article and it is still about anti social behaviour orders. how are ASBO's related to this discussion?
Quote J: “That sounds like a knee-jerk answer to me. If you are really looking for a good church - one where humility and honesty is prized above glamour and popularity - PM me and I'll try to help you find one. They might not be everywhere, but I assure you they exist - as do the kind of Christians that prefer them.” * Jenyar. You are truly a decent guy. Thanks for your offer, but I am not searching for a god. I have found my own truth regarding god. Quote J: “That's just a convenient excuse, to speculate about how things "would" be and to discard things because they don't match that "ideal". The problem is that "clarity" doesn't depend only on the truth itself, but also on the people who hear it.” * The bottom line is that there “is” great confusion, reflected via the silly number of offshoots. Every second Christian thinks the Church they attend have it wrong, so they start their own church. The big trend presently seems to be “Bible Based Teaching” churches. Oops, aren’t you all using the same Bible? So it’s not confusing, god just created people confused. OK. What’s that? The devil you say? OK. Quote J: “It would be wrong to think Catholicism is unified over these issues because they don't have "denominations". They also have their "orders" and traditions, but they understand the power of tradition and the unity it can give. Hence the liturgies, creeds and confessions etc etc” * It never amazes me that everyone forgets (or ignores) that the Catholic church was the first and earliest church, and therefore probably closer to the original intentions and truths behind Christianity. The split happened after 1500 years of solid Catholic Christianity. But besides that, no other world religions are as split apart as is Christianity. Simply put, you can say “all churches teach essentially the same message.” I can say, “then why so many different churches?” Quote J: “I just don't let them confuse me; my faith doesn't depend on any particular interpretation or dogma. To those who know the Cornerstone personally, God's kingdom is being built spiritually (1 Peter 2:5).” * That is apparent in your posts. Quote J: “For me, not to go to church - any church - is to deny what I believe, and what I said above. I'm free to visit any church and see for myself when someone is advancing his own agenda, or God's. But for the sake of the work that needs to be done - within myself as well as in the world - I think one should participate in one community rather than drift aimlessly between them.” * Fair comment dude. I genuinely think you are admirable in your approach, and I always appreciate your self honesty. Allcare.
