> General Discussions
How'd THEY do it??
Deborah-Leigh:
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/agnostic....for more details...
Agnosticism (from the Greek a, meaning "without" and gnosis, "knowledge", translating to unknowable) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly theological claims regarding metaphysics, afterlife or the existence of God, god(s), or deities — is unknown or (possibly) inherently unknowable. Some agnostics take a stronger view that the concept of a deity is incoherent, thus meaningless and irrelevant to life. The term is used to describe those who are unconvinced or noncommittal about the existence of deities as well as about other matters of religion. Early Christian church leaders used the Greek word gnosis (knowledge) to describe "spiritual knowledge". "Agnostic" came from the union of it to the Greek / Latin prefix a, and was originally coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869 to describe his philosophy. Agnosticism is not to be confused with religious views opposing the doctrine of gnosis and Gnosticism— these are religious concepts that are not generally related to agnosticism.
Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge or, alternatively, that while certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge. Agnosticism in both cases involves some form of skepticism. Data collection services[1][2] often display the common use of the term, distinct from atheism in its lack of disputing the existence of deities.
Agnostics are normally listed alongside categories such as atheist and non-religious, although this may be misleading. For example prominent agnostics such as Aleksander Kwaśniewski and Michelle Bachelet have been notably Christian in their outlook. Qualifying agnosticismCritics of the term "agnostic" claim that there is nothing distinctive in being agnostic because even many theists do not claim to know God(s) exists -- only to believe it. Under this asserted distinction between the words "belief" and "knowledge," agnosticism has recently started suffering from terminological ambiguity. While critics maintain the distinction is not contrived; others reject the distinction as trifling. By contrast, compare:
"I believe God(s) exist(s)" means that "I know God(s) exist(s)".
"I believe God(s) exist(s)" can still mean "I don't know if God(s) exist(s)".
If this distinction is accepted, the term agnostic becomes orthogonal to theism without further qualifiers, and many qualifiers become contradictory unless the distinction is accepted. If this distinction is ultimately accepted by the larger public, the group formerly described by the term will again find themselves without a label, because the qualifiers provided would be inappropriate for their philosophy.
For me either you are not understanding which is a carnal mind condition that is not equipped to undersand and is not able to see or know the things of the Spirit. If you are understanding the things that are discerned by the Spirit through the Spirit that gives knowledge, wisdom and comprehensive insight into the ways and purposes of God then your understanding comes not from being any class of Christian but from the Spirit of Christ Himself.
I would not believe or follow any teaching that comes from a carnal mind. God is not the author of confusion which for me is a fruit of carnality. So if a person says they are carnal and then produces many teachings....I would know not to take any in or to heart. :D I would not even waste a pinch of salt on it!
Peace to you
Arcturus :)
Dean Peterman:
Dear Arcturus,
Thank you! Your insightful and well worded post cuts to the heart of the issue. You have expressed my thoughts exactly. I wish I could have said it as eloquently as you did.
Regarding agnostics. I once read the book of an atheist who expressed the thought that there is no such thing as an agnostic when it comes to belief in God. A theist is someone that believes in the existence of God. An A-theist is someone that does not believe in the existence of God. The only difference is that the one who calls himself an atheist claims he knows with a certainty that God does not exist. Likewise, the agnostic DOES NOT BELIEVE that God exists. However, their reasons are different. They don't claim that they can prove that God does not exist as some atheists do BUT they do not believe in the existence of God. The fact that they don't believe in the existence of God means they are atheists no matter how they try to define themselves or how hard they try to avoid the label.
These are the words of an atheist not mine. But I agree with them.
Further, if someone does not believe that God exists they are detached from reality. So, no matter how much information they have memorized they will always be confused.
Arcturus, all of my words cannot match the power of the words God gave you to speak on this subject. Thank you for standing up for the truth.
Sincerely,
Dean
Deborah-Leigh:
To add Dean,
Ray teaches the following that has a bearing on this discussion as I see it.
http://bible-truths.com/lake15-B.html
People want to be their own demigod, which cannot be controlled by anything or any one. This is the one area were all humanity can shine.
People don’t approve of God’s way of doing things. They argue that if God is sovereign and operates as the Scriptures tell us, then it isn’t fair and it isn’t even morally right.
They say that for God to be in total control of us would be to treat us like robots. And that it would be evil for God to predetermine us to do evil before He allows good to be done in us. And so, as the world of Christendom does not approve of the God of Scripture, they create their own god in their own image—one that they themselves can control by the power of their own supernatural freedom of will. And because they cannot with a carnal mind love and obey God, and
"…because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall SEND THEM strong delusion, that they should believe a [the] LIE: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness" (II Thes. 2:10-12).
It follows as is carried elsewhere in the Forum on the Sinners Prayer Thread noted by Kat:
Ray says:
http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,4181.0.html ------
Dear Jim:
Primarily, we must repent of our "carnal minds" which HATE God (I realize that most people do not believe that they ever hated God, but by their disobedience,they prove that they did),
Peace to you
Arcturus :)
Dean Peterman:
Thanks again Arcturus. I am so glad you decided to contribute to this post. I knew you would have some words of wisdom for us.
Sincerely,
Dean
Pax Vobiscum:
So, am I to understand that since a very learned man does not agree with my theology, that I should then question his integrity as a historian?
That seems more akin to malice than wisdom.
Peace
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version