Signs that this is hell: "There will be gnashing of teeth"

[stu]

Wtf?

Dude, here's WTF...
You're using words like philosophy, reasoning knowledge, to describe and support something as true. Namely a personal religious experience you've had.

Surely you agree that were you applying those disciplines properly, there should generally be some consistency and coherence in what you post.

So contradicting yourself most of the time makes a lot of what you say sound absurd. But then that is what religion does a lot of the time to people. Makes them sound and be absurd.

You have been strongly implying that what is true is important to your special personal belief. No surprise as most religions do tend to use, or rather misuse, the word truth in their claims...

you have knowledge, a "knowledge of Christ", it saves!

My reference to "knowledge of Christ" as what saves

but no, knowledge not enough, you need faith...

You have one go beyond knowledge, to the land of faith,

but no, faith no good, causes ignorance

People live by faith, which always contains, and is contaminated, by ignorance

you need truth

My reference to "knowledge of Christ" as what saves, is a generally ignored reference to something the apostate Paul said, among the few things he said that were actually true.

but no, truth can be meaningless

"I am the truth and the life" means absolutely nothing.

Even when the Christ in your "Knowledge of Christ as what saves" upon which your whole proposition rests states he is the truth, you say that "means absolutely nothing".

If you hadn't WTF'd yourself before now, this would be a good time.

Self-contradiction round and round in circles is why I said religion eh? because it is the effect religion has on so many people.

My suggestion is simply that it would be far more honest and truthful of you to reference blind faith alone rather than making inconsistent, incoherent, contradictory claims of philosophy, reasoning, knowledge and truth via personal religious belief.

 

[Good1]

Dude, here's WTF...
You're using words like philosophy, reasoning knowledge, to describe and support something as true. Namely a personal religious experience you've had.

Surely you agree that were you applying those disciplines properly, there should generally be some consistency and coherence in what you post.

Dude, wtf?

I busy atm and don't even have time to read your entire list of your prevarifications. So imma try digest this one or two sentences at a time.

If religion means faith, as you have insisted...and you have admitted that faith and knowledge are not the same thing...then how can my experience of the reception of knowledge, and described emphatically as the reception of "knowlege", be a "religious experience"??? At no time did I say I received faith. I already had that, and so do you.

It's you who are mincing words, prevaricating, and introducing inconsistency of meanings.

I simply agreed with you, if you want to equate faith and religion, adding, hell is a religion. But we have yet to hear what word you would use to describe the discernment of, or the work of discerning between faith and knowledge!!!!

Provide a word before you complain about mine.

Nor have you told us of your own experience of the "knowledge of Christ", as you have claimed to have had.

 

[stu]

If religion means faith, as you have insisted...and you have admitted that faith and knowledge are not the same thing...then how can my experience of the reception of knowledge, and described emphatically as the reception of "knowlege", be a "religious experience"???

I'm saying you can only reasonably and honestly describe that experience as the reception of religious faith, for the many reasons I've already laid out.

I am also saying it is somewhat dishonest because of such an experience to try and supplant the words religious and faith with the word knowledge.

But even if your religious faith was designated as a "knowledge" experience, that doesn't elevate it over any other religious faith "knowledge" experience, as you have implied it should.
Every religiously motivated Tom Dick and Harry has throughout history been trying to portray their brand of religious belief as a "knowledge" experience.

So to actually establish real knowledge by some other value, rather than just blind faith that it is knowledge, clearly something more is needed to classify knowledge properly.

But we have yet to hear what word you would use to describe the discernment of, or the work of discerning between faith and knowledge!!!!

That there is need for discernment is the point and it's a good one. In our discussion however, it hardly matters what that might be .
Thing is, bottom line, from all evidence and knowledge that is available to everyone, upon any rational inquiry your "knowledge" identifies itself as religious faith along with all those others. As far as religion goes - discernment enough.

It's just more honest to call something which has every element and characteristic of a horse, a horse, and not attempt pretense or belief it is a "knowledge of a Unicorn" experience.

 

[Good1]

I'm saying you can only reasonably and honestly describe that experience as the reception of religious faith, for the many reasons I've already laid out.

I'm busy again today so I'll just bite off this first statement for processing. Will read other statements as time permits.

So you are the one saying my reception of knowledge was a religious experience, as you define religion: = faith.

So I hope it is clear to you that you are the one mincing words, terms, and meanings...while I remain consistent and coherent in my use of the terms that I use, keeping track what is knowledge, what is faith, what is reason, what is logic, and what is philosophy.

Especially, what is the difference between faith and knowledge.

Reason and logic are subsets of philosophy, which is the love of wisdom. And this is work.

The reception of knowledge requires no work, only a proper invitation.

For the faithful faith-filled denizens of hell, it may take some work to retain, and not lose, any knowledge that has been recieved.

The reception of knowledge is a subset of a conversation we were having about how reality proves itself, versus how a world built on imagination proves itself.

You will accept faith's proofs as the only proof, if you are still interested in what you think faith has to offer. With this desire, you could gain an entire world based on faith. But in exchange, you would lose consciousness of an entire world based on reality. That world is your "soul".

While it might be possible for the knowledgeable to receive faith from the faithful, the faithful can only receive knowledge from the knowlegeable.

 

[stu]

So you are the one saying my reception of knowledge was a religious experience, as you define religion: = faith.

Never mind how I define religion. Your "reception of knowledge" conforms to the formal definitions of the words religious faith whether I say it does or not.

I remain consistent and coherent in my use of the terms that I use, keeping track what is knowledge, what is faith, what is reason, what is logic, and what is philosophy.

Contradiction is not coherency....

Reason and logic are subsets of philosophy, which is the love of wisdom. And this is work.

The reception of knowledge requires no work, only a proper invitation.

Really!?
Reason and logic requires work.
Your 'reception of knowledge' requires no work.
Then by your own words it follows, your 'reception of knowledge' has little if anything to do with reason and logic.

Only pointing out the inconsistencies and illogical contradictions within your dissembling argument and pretense that 'reception of knowledge' is something other than religious faith.

By all means believe in it, but it is not honest to try and say it is other than a religious faith.

 

[tommcginnis]

Three quotes to consider -- each with it's own, very important, point.
Please enjoy.

“The unhappy person resents it when you try to cheer him up, because that means he has to stop dwelling on himself and start paying attention to the universe. Unhappiness is the ultimate form of self-indulgence. When you're unhappy, you get to pay a lot of attention to yourself. You get to take yourself oh so very seriously.”
― Tom Robbins, Jitterbug Perfume

“A sense of humor...is superior to any religion so far devised.”
― Tom Robbins, Jitterbug Perfume

“Our individuality is all, all, that we have. There are those who barter it for security, those who repress it for what they believe is the betterment of the whole society, but blessed in the twinkle of the morning star is the one who nurtures it and rides it in, in grace and love and wit, from peculiar station to peculiar station along life's bittersweet route.”
― Tom Robbins, Jitterbug Perfume

“Never underestimate how much assistance, how much satisfaction, how much comfort, how much soul and transcendence there might be in a well-made taco and a cold bottle of beer.”
― Tom Robbins, Jitterbug Perfume

Okay, so, *four* quotes. So shoot me.

(Quite possibly my best ET post.)

 

[Good1]

Never mind how I define religion. Your "reception of knowledge" conforms to the formal definitions of the words religious faith whether I say it does or not.

Basically you're trolling now.

You can't even be bothered to be held to your own definitions.

Now, some "formal definition" somewhere literally conflates faith and knowledge?

I have to be bound by that, but you don't have to be bound by your own definitions?

Show us the "formal definition" where faith is conflated with knowledge.

Contradiction is not coherency....

Dude, you have yet to show any contradiction. But you have already run away from your own definition of religion, and now want to hide behind some "formal definition" somewhere. Not very coherent.

Really!?
Reason and logic requires work.
Your 'reception of knowledge' requires no work.
Then by your own words it follows, your 'reception of knowledge' has little if anything to do with reason and logic.

Yes that's right. The reception of knowledge has little if anything to do with reason and logic. And you have still not found a contradiction in anything i've said.

Reason and logic will not take you into the stratosphere of knowledge.

They are a way to point faith at knowledge, or prepare the mind to invite knowledge.

Philosophy, and all it's subsets, such as reason and logic, is a faith-based endeavor.

Faith is work. Philosophy is work. Logic and reason are work.

Knowledge does not take work. It can be received...or not.

Only pointing out the inconsistencies and illogical contradictions within your dissembling argument and pretense that 'reception of knowledge' is something other than religious faith.

By all means believe in it, but it is not honest to try and say it is other than a religious faith.

Keep believing, religiously, that religious faith is the same thing as the reception of knowledge.

Logic alone tells us that believing and knowing are exclusive states of mind that cannot coexist.

That which knows believes nothing.

That which believes knows nothing.

At best, you can point belief at what is true, and hope to get some sort of confirmation after an invitation.

 

[stu]

Full circle.

You have stated logic and reason will not take you to knowledge. uh.

Therefor there is nothing in what you have said that can determine nor define the knowledge you say can be received.

No way to know it is not bad, untrue, misleading, trivial, illogical or irrational knowledge, except blind faith that it isn't.

What you are describing and defining, and as you attach the word Christ to what you are calling knowledge, is simply religious belief.

It's not unusual for a person with religious faith to explain or justify their belief by trying to elevate it above all reason.... into the realms of the unreasonable.

 

[Good1]

Full circle.

You have stated logic and reason will not take you to knowledge. uh.

No, I said they won't take you into the stratosphere of knowledge.

You can take them TO the stratosphere, but not beyond.

This is again, because faith and knowledge are mutually exclusive.

While reason and logic may be faith's best product...or even a product despite the natural waywardness of faith, they have to stay in the realm of faith.

So I am describing knowledge as something that exists and arrives as though it was alive...by invitation. Hence the term "Christ" to describe an alive being.

With reason and logic you could stand at the edge of the stratosphere, but would have to wait for knowledge to sweep you up into its realm.

 

[Good1]

.

It's not unusual for a person with religious faith to explain or justify their belief by trying to elevate it above all reason.... into the realms of the unreasonable.

Hey, you need to start getting more consistent with your use of words. "Religious faith"? Dude, faith is faith is faith. And there is a big difference between faith and knowledge. It is the most fundamental difference in the world.

What is the difference between religious faith and atheistic faith? To me not much.

At best, you can point faith at something that is actually true, and hope for confirmation.

You can point faith at knowledge, for example.

Tell me, what religion points it's faith at knowledge?