Parables: The Way to Heaven

Author: Discipulus_Didicit

Posts

Total: 437
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
A nihilist like disgusted is not a truth seeker.
Are you going to put yourself in the same category as him?

As my God is The Truth, to call an atheist a truth seeker makes no sense. An atheist doesn't believe in truth.


And maybe you know that is stupid, but you still identify yourself as an atheist. I can't imagine this comes from anything other than being too prideful to repent from this error.

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@disgusted
You have an icon you call truth.

As it is written in St Paul's letter to the Colossians...

"He is the image(Greek word Ikon) of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence."
 

And that is why iconoclasm is a heresy, and what is nihilism but an extreme form of iconoclasm?


Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Mopac
I think that Truth worship stands on its own.

Orthodox Christianity makes claims about the nature of truth, the claims which we have been discussing. Does it matter whether these claims are accurate?

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
These are not so much claims about The Truth so much as claims about the nature of our relationship to The Truth. Specifically as worshippers of The Truth.

It's really about the relationship.




Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
These are not so much claims about The Truth so much as claims about the nature of our relationship to The Truth. 

Let me clarify. You have claimed, among other things, that the universe and everything was brought into existence by a power from outside the universe. Does it matter to you whether this is actually the case?
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
And that is why iconoclasm is a heresy, and what is nihilism but an extreme form of iconoclasm?

Are you sure about this?

Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@disgusted
Genuinely curious here... are you actually a nihilist? I know most people are by Mopacs definition, but I mean using the actual definition.

Just curious.
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Ummm no. I have wonderful meaning in my life but religion is the opiate of the masses and it begins with them teaching the young who have brains like a sponge to fear death. People need to embrace life in all it's beauty because it's all we have. We evolved on this rock through the exact same processes as the dinosaurs, are they now living for eternity in paradise or do any of the godists claim they are?
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I am saying that everything is contingent on The Ultimate Reality.

Without that there is no universe. Everything was brought into being because The Ultimate Reality is there.


Disgusted doesn't believe there is an ultimate reality, therefore he doesn't believe that there is anything that is ultimately real. If that isn't nihilism, I don't know what is.

disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
You don't have a clue what I believe so stop lying.
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
And that is why iconoclasm is a heresy, and what is nihilism but an extreme form of iconoclasm?

Are you sure about this?


Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Mopac
I am saying that everything is contingent on The Ultimate Reality.

Without that there is no universe. Everything was brought into being because The Ultimate Reality is there.

I understand the claim well Mopac, for you have already told me your claim when you said "God spoke everything into existence" and other things.

I must now say this... If you think I am unintelligent and that I am stupid, so much so that there are many in the world that are more intelligent than I, then you are probably correct.

I must also now say this... If you think I am unintelligent and that I am stupid, so much so that I do not understand your exceedingly simple to grasp claim, then you are most certainly incorrect.

Furthermore, I am not wondering to myself "Is Mopac's claim correct?", for that question is not in my mind right now.

The question was simply this... Does it matter to you whether these claims are accurate? This was my question, for that is what I asked. What is the answer?

Disgusted doesn't believe that there is anything that is ultimately real.
This seems unlikely, but why are you saying this to me anyway?

For behold : If I wanted to know what Disgusted believes then I would surely say "Disgusted, what do you believe?" and I would surely not say "Mopac, what does Disgusted believe?"

Furthermore, if you want to know what Disgusted believes then you should surely say "Disgusted, what do you believe?" and you should surely not say "Mopac, what does Disgusted believe?"

Therefore, for these reasons, I will speak no more with you on the topic of what Disgusted believes.
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
Without that there is no universe. Everything was brought into being because The Ultimate Reality is there.
you, mopac, seem unwilling to grasp no-one here is disputing that.    What is disputed is whether 'ultimate reality'  = 'abrahamic god'. 



Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
Well, if it wasn't the case, how do you explain me?

I think I know my faith better than you.


Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit


My religion is Truth worship. Does that not make it clear that I care about what is true?




keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
What is disputed is whether 'ultimate reality'  = 'abrahamic god'. 

Well, if it wasn't the case, how do you explain me?
You evolved from matter produced in the big bang.

How do you explain me?

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
That has nothing to do with my question and you know it.

I insist that The Ultimate Reality is God, and this is what Orthodoxy teaches, a religion you would say has The Abrahamic God. 
How do you explain this?




Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Mopac
My religion is Truth worship. Does that not make it clear that I care about what is true?

If you were to say to me "I do care that the details and descriptions of my belief are true, and that I know the truth" then I would surely conclude that you do care that you know the truth, and knowing the truth matters dearly to you.

But if you were to say "I think that Truth worship stands on its own." then I could not necessarily conclude the same as above and I would surely say to myself the following:

"Perhaps Mopac is saying here that worshiping the truth is all that is dear to him and it stands on its own, and that he cares not if the details and descriptions are true, for the worship alone is dear to him and it is enough... Perhaps, however, Mopac is saying that worship is dear to him and also that knowing whether the details and descriptions of the truth which he makes in his claims are true is dear to him. I do not know based only on this  whether only the one is dear to him or if both are dear to him, for has has not spoken simply and plainly. Perhaps I should ask him myself."

And behold: It was indeed the second thing, and not the first, that you said before. Therefore all these things and more I did think in my mind, and that is the reason I asked you the question "Does it matter to you whether what you believe is true?"

And if you say yes, I will accept this answer. And if you say that only the worship is important and not the knowledge, then I will accept this answer. Thusfar however you have said neither of these things plainly by saying either yes or no to my question and I am thus forced to ask again.

Does it matter to you whether what you believe is true?
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@disgusted
No you are a freedom hating, bigot.
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Mopac
I have seen this conversation as well...

How do you explain me?

You evolved from matter produced in the big bang.

How do you explain me?

That has nothing to do with my question and you know it.

And perhaps it is the case, Mopac, that he did not answer your question. Is it not also the case, however, that you did not answer his?

Furthermore his question seemed to be one which indicated that he wished to know more about what you believe, and is it not the case that teaching others what you believe is the reason you are on this forum, which you have said in the past that you do not enjoy being on?

Therefore I entreat you to answer his question, for doing so would seem to further your purpose here, if your purpose here is indeed to teach others what you believe, and not to ignore his question simply because he has not answered yours, whether or not his lack of an answer was from an incorrect understanding of your question or some other reason.
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
I insist that The Ultimate Reality is God, and this is what Orthodoxy teaches, a religion you would say has The Abrahamic God. 
How do you explain this?
I genuinely tried to answer 'How do you explain me?'.  I realise now that  'me' meant something like 'what i believe'.  Sorry - it wasn't on purpose.

OK, we agree about 'reality', that is we agree that things like matter and energy, elephants, televisions, chairs, stars etc etc. all 'exist'; they are 'real'.

As reality exist it must have a 'source', or 'origin'.  That is to say there must be an 'ultimate reality' that underpins 'ordinary reality'.

I suggest we are more or less on the same page so far!

But what is this 'ultimate reality' like?  It is my impression your belief is 'that which underpins ordinary reality' is the Biblical God.

I believe that ultimate reality - ie the thing that underpins reality - is just piece of mindless physics, the details of which get clarified every day by cosmologists.


Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
 that is we agree that things like matter and energy, elephants, televisions, chairs, stars etc etc. all 'exist'; they are 'real'.


There are two odd ones out there. They "exist" but they are certainly not "real".
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Knowledge =/= The Truth.

In fact, gnosticism is considered a heresy. Gnosticism is pretty much "knowingism". It is faith in understanding.

And really, I have explained my faith quite thoroughly, probably even moreso to Keith than you as he has been here longer than you. 


If you don't believe what I am saying is true, but instead think I mean something other than what I am saying, no amount of me answering questions is going to be satisfactory. I am not intentionally dodging questions.

Keith questions whether The Abrahamic God is The Ultimate Reality. I gave him a legit answer. That answer was, if that is the case, how do you account for me and my testimony? 

And truly, if he acknowledges The Ultimate Reality, he acknowledges the existence of God, but he denies God as God in order that the scripture be fulfilled...

"because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened."
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
I don't truly believe it can be known whether The Ultimate Reality is "mindless", but I can say that the mind I possess is very different than the mind of an ant. How much different must The Mind of God be! It is a mystery.

I think it is important to note that we are using the medium of creation to describe The Uncreated. 

And really, there is a limit to knowledge. No matter how smart cosmologists get, they are going to run into the same problem. And in 3000 years, people are probably going to look at their writings and scoff at them in much the same way you might scoff at how ancient theologians described God.

Knowledge =/= The Truth

Utility =/= The Truth





Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Mopac
The question you have answered is this: "What does Mopac believe, and does he believe it? and what are the details and descriptions of his beliefs, which he believes?"

And you have answered this question thoroughly, and I do not dispute the answers you have given to this question.

However, this is not the question I am asking now.

If I were to say "Mopac thinks that it is important whether the details and descriptions of his beliefs are accurate and true" would I be speaking correctly or incorrectly? This is my question, and it has not been answered.

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit

I would like to be as accurate as possible, but as long as I am using the medium of creation there is a certain level of inaccuracy that can not be overcome.

The hope is that all these things will eventually lead to theophany. 

Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
I would like to be as accurate as possible, but as long as I am using the medium of creation there is a certain level of inaccuracy that can not be overcome.

Very well, this answers my question quite satisfactorily.

Before we go on I think it would be good to summarize our conversation thus far in as few words as possible, and I wonder if you could tell me whether you would accept the following summary as being fairly accurate (keeping in mind that I am trying to do so in as few words as possible and may leave out some detail as a result) as if we cannot agree on so basic a thing then I fear no progress has been made, but I think that we have in fact made some progress.

DD: Describe to me your theological beliefs, please.

M: I believe that god exists as a trinity, that this trinity is made of several parts that exist co-eternally with each other, these parts are of the same substance and undivided, that everything was spoken into existence, and other things (described in detail in post 150)

DD: Very well, and why do you believe these things?

M: I would say the reason I believe these things to be true would be "experiential knowledge" (post 167)

DD: These are experiences that you have personally had and that have led you to this conclusion? In other words, personal experiences?

M: Certainly.

DD: And could you go into more detail regarding these experiences?

M: I will say only that my experiences are as personal as anyone's walk. (post 178)

DD: Very well, I am content to leave it at that. My next question, then... Is it important to you that the things that you have said regarding the trinity and everything else you have said are true?

M: This is important to me, yes. (post 206)

DD: I see.

M: Although I do not claim absolute certainty on the matter. There is a certain level of inaccuracy that can not be overcome (post 206)

DD: A wise position to take.
Many words have been removed to make this summary, for that is the purpose of a summary, but I think it is an accurate representation of the conversation so far. I do have more questions, but would like to first make sure we are on the same page about this summary being relatively true to the spirit of the conversation. If you say this is accurate then I will ask my next question, but if not accurate please point out the perceived flaw.
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
--> @Mopac
And that is why iconoclasm is a heresy, and what is nihilism but an extreme form of iconoclasm?

Are you sure about this?


Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
You don't understand.

The Ultimate Reality is God.

Every atheist argument is contingent on making God something other than this, so it is not meaningless. Quite the opposite. 

And another. thing, there is no "my ultimate reality". The words are not meaningless.


Do you understand what ultimate reality means? There can only be ONE. It is what it is. Exactly what it means. How can words do it justice? That is what we recognize as being The One True God. The very God of Truth.


The church fathers didn't teach Calvinism. It isn't what the church teaches.

I don't normally link outside the site, but this article is first in a  series that pretty well explains the issue specifically between what Orthodoxy teaches and Calvinsim.

It would be better to ask a Calvinist what they believe rather than the subjective interpretations and criticism of non-Calvinists. 

I am  a Calvinist. I am Presbyterian. I suggest that all true Christians are reformed in Doctrine. 

A Calvinist is someone who simply holds the truths of the Scriptures as understood by the Apostles and taught by the church fathers. Augustine several hundred years later taught Calvinism years before Calvin came along.

The Core Essence of Calvinism is not predestination despite what anti-Calvinists say. In fact if you were to read Calvin's Institutes - four volume systematic theology - predestination hardly rates a mention. The core message of Calvinism, like the NT Scriptures is salvation by faith through grace. Trusting in the righteousness of Christ as Romans 10 clearly puts it. TULIP is an acronym that some use to describe Calvinism. I note it is primarily used today by non-Calvinists as a slander. But I like it and I teach it to my children in the following manner:

Total Depravity - I teach my children that this means all humanity has fallen into sin. That there is no one who is good. I don't teach like the link alludes to that humanity lost the image of God. That was a lie and a misrepresentation of what we believe. We hold the view that the image of God is in every human. Yet we also teach that all humans are sinful and that everyone because of this sin - deserves to go Hell. 

Unconditional Election - I teach my children that this means that no one can earn their salvation. That in fact the only way to reconciliation with God is through Jesus. It means we don't have to meet conditions. We don't have to be a particular race, or colour, or sex, educational level, or political bent, or sexual orientation, or rich or poor, or even creed. We cant earn our way to heaven with money, or bribes, or importance, or intelligence, or by doing good works. Elections is entirely in God's hands. 

Limited Atonement - despite some people's misrepresentation of what Calvinist's teach, this doctrine asserts primarily that not all people go to heaven. It is a doctrine of exclusivity. Yet it is a doctrine of assurance for believers. It teaches that those whom Jesus died for will be saved because their sins have definitely been atoned for. We would argue that unlimited atonement means that all people go to heaven because Jesus has paid the price for all people. 

Irresistible Grace - We teach our children that those God has called and who recognise his voice - will be unable to resist his grace because grace is a gift that comes from God and is given without even the condition of receiving it. 

Perseverance of the saints - We teach our children than those who are God's people will live lives in accordance with his will.  Hence, though we don't believe good works saves any person, we take the view that all those who are saved will by virtue of their salvation want to and indeed be known for their good works.  As James teaches - faith without works is dead. 

Are we the only true church? No but we are part of the One True Church for we hold the truths of the apostles and the ecumenical creeds and we seek to live in accordance with the Spirit of God in his Word. 
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret

Total Depravity
For such low life despicable bastards you sure have an outlandishly high opinion of yourselves in the rest of it.
Hubris being the highest state you reach it would seem.
Do you teach your children that your god deliberately creates billions of people for the sole purpose of torturing them for eternity?

will be unable to resist his grace because grace is a gift that comes from God and is given without even the condition of receiving it. 
Can you even imagine how asinine this is?