You shall know the Truth...

MeditationMom

Jesus' statement: "You shall know the Truth and the Truth shall set you free" - what does it mean to you?

Dades

MeditationMom wrote:

Jesus' statement: "You shall know the Truth and the Truth shall set you free" - what does it mean to you?

It sounds like a contradition to me.

Knowing the "truth" according to the bible does the exact opposite of setting you free. Instead you become bound by rules of which you had no say in the drafting of.

Dave!

The Atheist wrote:

It sounds like a contradition to me.

Knowing the "truth" according to the bible does the exact opposite of setting you free. Instead you become bound by rules of which you had no say in the drafting of.

Indeed! I think it's meant to be ironic, like 'Arbeit Macht Frei' (let's not get offended now )

Zombrex

The Atheist wrote:

It sounds like a contradition to me.

Knowing the "truth" according to the bible does the exact opposite of setting you free. Instead you become bound by rules of which you had no say in the drafting of.

Well in fairness I think the "free" bit refers to eternal life in heaven, as opposed to eternal imprisionment in hell.

But then again religions do like the vague statements that make little sense in any kind of contextual nature.

For example

God is Love What does that actually mean, beyond sounding good and being put up on churches all over Ireland? How can an emotion do anything? Was God love when He wiped out the human race? Surely "God loves" would be better.

Or I am, as God said to Moses. Again what does that actually mean? You are what exactly?

All these things sound like self help slogans, designed to sound good while actually being rather meaningless and non-commital.

BrianCalgary

MeditationMom wrote:

Jesus' statement: "You shall know the Truth and the Truth shall set you free" - what does it mean to you?

The truth is that Jesus is the Messiah who gave Himself that we may have eternal life.

Eternal life gives me hope. When I see the Amish kids getting executed, I am hopeful that they are in Heaven being surrounded by God, who is love.

The truth sets me free from the addiction of a sinful lifestyle. Instead of being bound to the sin I am instead free to live th elife that God has planned for me.

Contrary to Atheists view of Christianity being a set of rules. It is a faith that allows you to live a life that is really free of rules, in the sense that my will becomes that of God's, so I get to do what I please.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

Contrary to Atheists view of Christianity being a set of rules. It is a faith that allows you to live a life that is really free of rules, in the sense that my will becomes that of God's, so I get to do what I please.

They are still rules, even if you agree with them and follow them of your own free will.

Rules aren't defined by those that follow them, they are defined by those that don't

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

They are still rules, even if you agree with them and follow them of your own free will.

Maybe, but they certainly don't seem like rules anymore.
Every lifestyle has it's rules, either from a deity or a culture. To be living in a culture of sex, drugs and Rocknroll there are rules particular to that culture that you abide by that gives you acceptance by others.

There are rules in the culture of our soccer club that evryone goes by.

Christianities rules give me the freedom to live by a higher set of standard that sets me apart from the cultural rules, while still respecting those cultures.

Wicknight wrote:

Rules aren't defined by those that follow them, they are defined by those that don't

This seems interesting, I can't figure it. Can you expand?:)

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

This seems interesting, I can't figure it. Can you expand?:)

Certainly

Say there is a road in a street and the rule is none should go down that road.

Now, this rule only exists because people might go down that road if the rule wasn't there. If no one would go down that road anyway, there would be no need have the rule in the first place.

For example we don't have a rule saying no one should dump their old TVs in the rings of saturn, because no one can or wants to dump their old TVs in the rings of saturn.

The rule exists not because of the people who don't want to go down the road, the rule exists for the people who do want to go down the road.

For a person that doesn't want to go down the road in the first place the rule "Don't go down the road" will appear irrelivent and pointless. You already agree with the rule, the rule is unnecessary when applied to you. To them it is as pointless as a rule stating one shouldn't dump their old TVs on Saturn.

The same is true for the rules of Christianity.

You state that they don't feel like rules. That is because you already agree to follow them.

You don't want to go down the road, so the rule "Don't go down the road" doesn't seem like a rule, it just seems like normal common sense.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Every lifestyle has it's rules, either from a deity or a culture.

That is certainly true, and it isn't necessarily a bad thing at all.

Christianity is no different. The religion defines its rules and expects its followers to follow these rules (hence the term "followers" in the first place)

BrianCalgary wrote:

Christianities rules give me the freedom to live by a higher set of standard

That isn't really giving you freedom though. You already have that freedom. I think that was the original point.

Society gives you the freedom to live your life by Christian rules. You choose to do this, because you already have the freedom to do so.

You freely choose to restrict your original freedoms to a specific moral code laid out by your religion.

For example in society you are free to have sexual relations with pretty much anyone you want, providing of course they are up for it too. This is one of the freedoms granted to you by the state.

But you choose to restrict your own freedom by saying that you won't do that, because you believe it is against the rules of your religion. God's rules say not to, you agree with God's rules, so you don't.

This is a limit on your original freedoms given by the state. You are in a less "free" position than you were originally. Because you freely choose to do this is largely irrelivent.

I would point out that isn't necessarily a bad thing. All people do this, even us immoral selfish live-for-the-moment don't-care-about-anything atheists

But it is rather incorrect to state that doing so increases your freedom. You restrict your own freedoms because you believe, like most people, that too much freedom is a bad thing.

MeditationMom

by Wicknight- It sounds like a contradiction to me.

Knowing the "truth" according to the bible does the exact opposite of setting you free. Instead you become bound by rules of which you had no say in the drafting of.
Yesterday 23:10

by BrianCalgary- The truth is that Jesus is the Messiah who gave Himself that we may have eternal life.

So, Wicknight, you think of the truth as "Christan rules" and BrianCalgary, you think of the truth as this christian belief that "Jesus is the Messiah who gave Himself that we may have eternal life." We don't have agreement on what Jesus might mean by Truth, then. "Rules" by which to live, or "Belief" in a specific idea? Neither would give total freedom and this statement would then indeed be contradictory.

I understand your points about a more free life, Brian, by faith and good behavior - it is a higher form of freedom than "doing whatever you want", and I liked your view on this, but still, would Jesus be talking about just that? Your beliefs limit you to some extent, no matter how valuable or true they are. At least all people from other religions or atheists would say you are still limited, holding your christian belief. Or if you turn it around, don't you consider people of other beliefs or no beliefs limited in their understanding of truth, or slaves to their addictions? Is there addiction to beliefs? Is one man's addiction another man's freedom?

Does anyone think Jesus could have meant absolute truth and absolute freedom regardless of religion? Absolute freedom would have to include freedom from religion and freedom from addictions, both. Likewise, absolute Truth would have to be not a truth of this or that, but Truth independent of facts, information or beliefs. Otherwise it couldn't be the whole truth, but only a partial truth.

Zombrex

MeditationMom wrote:

So, Wicknight, you think of the truth as "Christan rules"

I think that is meant for The Atheist...

neuro-praxis

You can only know the freedom that it is to follow Christ when you are a follower of Him. You cannot argue your way into understanding. You certainly cannot argue that somebody does not feel free because of your definition of freedom.

Wicknight, you're looking for what's referred to in philosophy as negative freedom...freedom FROM restrictions. What Christians enjoy is positive freedom - freedom TO live as God planned for us.

I have never felt so liberated, so loved, so free to love and think and live and renew and enjoy and explore in all my life. Proaganda? It exists. But that's not what I'm offering, only my experience.

The real question is: can anyone ever be truly, completely free? I think not, and rightly so.

Zombrex

neuro-praxis wrote:

What Christians enjoy is positive freedom - freedom TO live as God planned for us.

You don't have to be Christian or believe in God to possess that freedom. I possess that freedom. I am free to live as "God planned" as much as you are. I choose not to because I think it is silly, but that doesn't mean I can't. There is a difference between not choosing a path and not being able to choose a path.

No offense, but I think a lot of Christians like to call this choice a "freedom" because they believe that they possess something that others don't have.

It is like an atheist saying that once they rejected the Creationist view of the world they were "free" to explore the world in new ways. In reality a Creationist is just as free to explore the world in new ways, but he chooses not to because he has already made up his mind about how the world is made. An atheist has no more freedom, though he might like to think he does to make it seem like he is doing better than a theist.

neuro-praxis wrote:

I have never felt so liberated

Liberated from what? And why did you need God to liberate you from this (what ever it was).

You seem to be saying that God has provided you with something, and that this has given you new options in life. That is great and all, but as I said God hasn't provided me with anything and I am as free to love and think and live and renew and enjoy and explore as you are.

I didn't need God to be able to do this, though some might believe it was God that allowed them to clear their mind and given them clarity.

wolfsbane

MeditationMom said:

Jesus' statement: "You shall know the Truth and the Truth shall set you free" - what does it mean to you?

It means the same to me as it meant to Christ. The context of the quotation makes it clear:
John 8:31 Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. 32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
33 They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can You say, ‘You will be made free’?”
34 Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. 35 And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever. 36 Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.

Free from the power of sin; free to love and serve God. Coming to Christ for salvation; trusting His righteousness rather than our own to make us right with God; recieving from Him the new nature that enables us to desire to do His will.

That's what every true Christian has found to be true in practice.

robindch

> "You shall know the Truth and the Truth shall set you free" - what does it mean to you?

As Wicknight says, the sentence doesn't really mean anything at all as its stands. JC doesn't say what 'truth' is, nor what 'free' is, nor how the former will allow you to experience the latter. It's a piece of prose designed to sound nice. After all, who's not in favour of truth, freedom and apple-pie?

However, if you bear in mind that it's one of the more direct instances in the bible of religion selling religion (and that it's therefore an ad-line and not to be trusted), and you rewrite it as "You shall know religion and religion shall ensnare you", then the sentence makes fairly good sense.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

JC doesn't say what 'truth' is, nor what 'free' is, nor how the former will allow you to experience the latter. It's a piece of prose designed to sound nice.

Truth: John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. Knowing the truth is knowing Christ.

Free: John 8:34 Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. 35 And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever. 36 Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed. Emancipated from the power of sin is true freedom.

Knowing the Son, being His follower, brings this freedom from the dominion of sin in one's life. It sets our desires on the just, holy, good things and not on the unrighteous, perverted, evil things we formerly served.

robindch

> Truth: John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No
> one comes to the Father except through Me". Knowing the truth is knowing Christ.

You've given a quote where one guy says that he's the "truth", but that doesn't explain what "truth" is, any more than saying that "truth" is a first-century Palestinian, or a man with a beard, or a carpenter or a jelly-bean. Would you like to try to provide a more concise definition of truth, one that will convey some genuine meaning, or allow me to get some grasp of what it is that you believe that "truth" is?

> It sets our desires on the just, holy, good things and not on the
> unrighteous, perverted, evil things we formerly served.

Out of interest -- since I reject the notion of "saving" -- do you believe that I "serve" unrighteous, perverted and evil things?

babyvaio

robindch wrote:

You've given a quote where one guy says that he's the "truth", but that doesn't explain what "truth" is, any more than saying that "truth" is a first-century Palestinian, or a man with a beard, or a carpenter or a jelly-bean. Would you like to try to provide a more concise definition of truth, one that will convey some genuine meaning, or allow me to get some grasp of what it is that you believe that "truth" is?

Surah/Chapter 002 - Al-Baqarah. Verse 119.

English Translation (The Noble Qur'an)
Lo! We have sent thee (O Muhammad) with the truth, a bringer of glad tidings and a warner. And thou wilt not be asked about the owners of hell fire.


Qur'an is the Truth, the Gospel is the Truth, the Torah is the Truth and the Psalms is the Truth (except that the last three quoted do not exist on Earth anymore in their original form).


Surah/Chapter 002 - Al-Baqarah. Verse 109.

English Translation (The Noble Qur'an)
Many of the People of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) long to make you disbelievers after your belief, through envy on their own account, after the truth hath become manifest unto them. Forgive and be indulgent (toward them) until Allah give command. Lo! Allah is Able to do all things.

Surah/Chapter 002 - Al-Baqarah. Verse 144.

English Translation (The Noble Qur'an)
We have seen the turning of thy face to heaven (for guidance, O Muhammad). And now verily We shall make thee turn (in prayer) toward a qiblah which is dear to thee. So turn thy face toward the Inviolable Place of Worship, and ye (O Muslims), wheresoever ye may be, turn your faces when ye pray) toward it. Lo! those who have received the Scripture (Jews and Christians) know that (this Revelation) is the truth from their Lord. And Allah is not unaware of what they do.

JimiTime

wolfsbane wrote:

MeditationMom said:

It means the same to me as it meant to Christ. The context of the quotation makes it clear:
John 8:31 Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. 32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
33 They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can You say, ‘You will be made free’?”
34 Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. 35 And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever. 36 Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.

Free from the power of sin; free to love and serve God. Coming to Christ for salvation; trusting His righteousness rather than our own to make us right with God; recieving from Him the new nature that enables us to desire to do His will.

That's what every true Christian has found to be true in practice.

Bravo Wolfsbane:) Its all about context, I was delighted by your response. Out of context you can go round in circles. In context its not even a question.

Excelsior

I take it to me that Jesus, a Jew of the 2nd Temple period, understood knowing as his contemporaries did. Not as a Platonic ideal "out there" to be abstractly grasped but a relationship to be entered into. Specifically, a relationship with him, since he claims to be Ultimate Reality in the flesh.

To be free, therefore, we must know Jesus.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

Certainly

Say there is a road in a street and the rule is none should go down that road.

Now, this rule only exists because people might go down that road if the rule wasn't there. If no one would go down that road anyway, there would be no need have the rule in the first place.

For example we don't have a rule saying no one should dump their old TVs in the rings of saturn, because no one can or wants to dump their old TVs in the rings of saturn.

The rule exists not because of the people who don't want to go down the road, the rule exists for the people who do want to go down the road.

For a person that doesn't want to go down the road in the first place the rule "Don't go down the road" will appear irrelivent and pointless. You already agree with the rule, the rule is unnecessary when applied to you. To them it is as pointless as a rule stating one shouldn't dump their old TVs on Saturn.

The same is true for the rules of Christianity.

You state that they don't feel like rules. That is because you already agree to follow them.

You don't want to go down the road, so the rule "Don't go down the road" doesn't seem like a rule, it just seems like normal common sense. .

Well said. Thanks

Wicknight wrote:

Christianity is no different. The religion defines its rules and expects its followers to follow these rules (hence the term "followers" in the first place)


That isn't really giving you freedom though. You already have that freedom. I think that was the original point.

Society gives you the freedom to live your life by Christian rules. You choose to do this, because you already have the freedom to do so.

You freely choose to restrict your original freedoms to a specific moral code laid out by your religion.

For example in society you are free to have sexual relations with pretty much anyone you want, providing of course they are up for it too. This is one of the freedoms granted to you by the state.

But you choose to restrict your own freedom by saying that you won't do that, because you believe it is against the rules of your religion. God's rules say not to, you agree with God's rules, so you don't.

This is a limit on your original freedoms given by the state. You are in a less "free" position than you were originally. Because you freely choose to do this is largely irrelivent.

I would point out that isn't necessarily a bad thing. All people do this, even us immoral selfish live-for-the-moment don't-care-about-anything atheists

But it is rather incorrect to state that doing so increases your freedom. You restrict your own freedoms because you believe, like most people, that too much freedom is a bad thing.

The only 'rule' in Christianity is to follow Jesus. in following Him we are from from the culture around us. My kids are teenagers and face the pressure of society to have sex, to drink, and to chase material gain.

Sex ouside of marriage is bad (leads to STD's unwanted pregnancies, etc.). Drunkeness is bad (driving and drinking, etc). Material gain gives short term satisfaction, and ends up being empty.

Whereas Christ sets you free from thoses societal pressures.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

Well said. Thanks

No problem

BrianCalgary wrote:

The only 'rule' in Christianity is to follow Jesus.

Well that is kinda like saying the only "rule" in democratic society is to not break the law (not break the rules).

This would be impossible to do without knowing the individual laws you are not supposed to break. The same is true with Christianity. You cannot hold true to the top level rule without first knowing all the individual rules.

BrianCalgary wrote:

in following Him we are from from the culture around us.

Again, the use of the word "free" here is rather misleading.

Would it make sense to say that by following the laws of a state I am "free" from breaking the law?

BrianCalgary wrote:

Sex ouside of marriage is bad (leads to STD's unwanted pregnancies, etc.).

It is perfectly possible to have sex outside of marriage and not develop any of these problems. It is perfectly possible to have sex within marriage and developed these problems.

It is a question of eduction and responsibility.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Drunkeness is bad (driving and drinking, etc).

Again it is perfectly possible to drink (or even get drunk) and not cause these problems

I don't know your children, but using the car analogy if I did not think someone was responsible enough to drive, or that they could not drive a car without being safe on the road, I would instruct them never to drive. But most people are responsible enough to drive, or at the very least most people are capable of being responsbile enough to drive, with proper guidence and education.

Baring in mind that it would probably be not possible to stop my children from driving a car at some point in the future, I would be far more interested in being involved with them learning to do so responsibly, rather than just simply decreeing that "you shall never drive".

BrianCalgary wrote:

Whereas Christ sets you free from thoses societal pressures.

Well I would not be 100% sure about that myself. I agree totally with the drinking and material gain argument, but not having sex for years on end is not a recommended practice.

Our bodies are designed primarily to have sex. There is no morality based in this instinct, it simply exists. Surpressing it can lead to phsychological problems in later life, as well as health problems.

I would imagine that your children will eventually find partners in their 20s, and possibly marry. That would be great. But I would also worry that your children would marry out of an almost instinctive urge to have sex, rather than "true love". This will eventually lead to a break down in the marriage later on. The desire for sexual intimacy can often be confused with real love, especially in those not experienced to tell the difference.

Just something to think about.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

You've given a quote where one guy says that he's the "truth", but that doesn't explain what "truth" is, any more than saying that "truth" is a first-century Palestinian, or a man with a beard, or a carpenter or a jelly-bean. Would you like to try to provide a more concise definition of truth, one that will convey some genuine meaning, or allow me to get some grasp of what it is that you believe that "truth" is?

A big subject, but I'll do my best.

Christ in His person, as revealed by His behaviour and teachings, reveals to us the facts about God and ourselves that we need to know in order to be saved. This salvation is from the power of sin in this life and the punishment of sin in the next life. The sinner is set free when he/she embraces the truths Christ reveals. This includes the truth about Himself, so accepting the truth about Jesus means accepting Him as Lord and Saviour and following Him as such.

The truths Christ has given us includes all He has revealed personally and all He has revealed by His servants whom He taught by the Holy Spirit and sent out with the message. A good place to start in examining these truths is the Gospel of John.

A few examples of the truth He reveals:
There is no-one righteous in God's sight:
Romans 3:19Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

Righteousness comes only by faith in Christ:
Romans 3:21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

This righteousness that is received by faith comes by Christ having paid for our sins by being punished on our behalf:
Romans 3:24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood...

Out of interest -- since I reject the notion of "saving" -- do you believe that I "serve" unrighteous, perverted and evil things?

Yes. Each man's pet sins will differ, but whether one is a proud Pharisee, a skeptical Sadducee or a licentious Tax-collextor, they are all slaves to sin.

I know nothing of your personal life, so I can only comment on your state as revealed on this list. Right here you reveal yourself as a sinner, for you do not believe on God's Son:

John 16:8 And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 of sin, because they do not believe in Me;

John 3:36Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."

CerebralCortex

The Atheist wrote:

It sounds like a contradition to me.

Knowing the "truth" according to the bible does the exact opposite of setting you free. Instead you become bound by rules of which you had no say in the drafting of.

I thought atheists didn't engage in religious debates because they were areligious.

babyvaio

CerebralCortex wrote:

I thought atheists didn't engage in religious debates because they were areligious.

I guess they don't want to admit (although they know) that God exists and that He created them - seems like they wana be independent...but no go. They can't explain why they have to die (prob they will say, it's a natural process - out bodies wear out...) :cool:

Dades

CerebralCortex wrote:

I thought atheists didn't engage in religious debates because they were areligious.

That's a strange impression to have. In this non-secular world you can't really be an atheist (in more than name) without giving serious thought to theistic declarations. Most people are brought up religious, therefore require some kind of thought process to arrive at a different conclusion. Then to ignore any debate after that would be akin to closing your mind.

Every theist is (a)theist toward every other religion. It doesn't stop them having an opinion or discussion concerning other religions however.

babyvaio wrote:

They can't explain why they have to die

Asking why we have to die is like a child asking why a tree is made of wood.

babyvaio

The Atheist wrote:

That's a strange impression to have. In this non-secular world you can't really be an atheist (in more than name) without giving serious thought to theistic declarations. Most people are brought up religious, therefore require some kind of thought process to arrive at a different conclusion. Then to ignore any debate after that would be akin to closing your mind.

Every theist is (a)theist toward every other religion. It doesn't stop them having an opinion or discussion concerning other religions however.

Asking why we have to die is like a child asking why a tree is made of wood.

No, not really. Based on what you're saying, one might ask you: is, in your eyes, your life worth anything at all? Is it? I'm asking because I don't want to make certain conclusions.

Asiaprod

babyvaio wrote:

No, not really. Based on what you're saying, one might ask you: is, in your eyes, your life worth anything at all? Is it? I'm asking because I don't want to make certain conclusions.

I thought long before answering this one, and then I realized that respect is the same in any language, culture or religion.
If I were to answer this question, as an atheist that is, my answer would be, just how important do you think YOU are in the great plan of life, and what is YOUR life worth.

Your life is worth what YOU make it worth by the the principles and morals YOU uphold, and the deeds YOU carry out.
<Damn, beginning to sound like JC with all those caps>

Dades

babyvaio wrote:

Based on what you're saying, one might ask you: is, in your eyes, your life worth anything at all? Is it? I'm asking because I don't want to make certain conclusions.

Of course my life is important to me, to my wife, my family, and on a diminishing scale to negligible down through those that know me well, to not at all. I'm an atheist, not a nihilist.

But the importance one puts on one's life is irrelevant to any question as to why we die. We all die no matter how important we believe our lives to be.

Zombrex

babyvaio wrote:

is, in your eyes, your life worth anything at all? Is it? I'm asking because I don't want to make certain conclusions.

Why do people keep asking this to atheists?

My logic as to why life if valuable is quite simple.

- I think my life is valuable. I don't want to die, or be killed, nor do I wish my freedoms to be oppressed.

- I therefore assume most other people think like this.

- To treat other lifes with no value would inflict suffering on others that I would not wish on myself.

- Therefore I respect the value of the life of others because I have little desire to inflict unnecessary suffering on others.

Notice no God in that logic.

It is perfectly possible to have a moral reason why life is valueable without a God-says-so clause.

babyvaio

Asiaprod wrote:

I thought long before answering this one, and then I realized that respect is the same in any language, culture or religion.
If I were to answer this question, as an atheist that is, my answer would be, just how important do you think YOU are in the great plan of life, and what is YOUR life worth.

Your life is worth what YOU make it worth by the the principles and morals YOU uphold, and the deeds YOU carry out.
<Damn, beginning to sound like JC with all those caps>

Sorry Asia, I am not important, not at all. However, my life is important since God gave me my life and I am responsible what I do with it (the same way He gave it to you, but you don't even wana admit that and be grateful to Him, cos you're probably so independent, like American government is thinking, yeah?).

And don't answer with a counterquestion. Just answer the question.

babyvaio

The Atheist wrote:

Of course my life is important to me, to my wife, my family, and on a diminishing scale to negligible down through those that know me well, to not at all. I'm an atheist, not a nihilist.

But the importance one puts on one's life is irrelevant to any question as to why we die. We all die no matter how important we believe our lives to be.

See, the problem is, that those who believe, believe that these is the afterlife, but those who don't believe in that - they deny. For the believers it's just a drop of water in a huge ocean. Take a look back in your life, and you'll realize that all those past years seem like a drop of water. You might die tomorrow, or your family. Then what? You lived all of your life just to get some sad memories? In vain? It doesn't make sense, cos you and I both know that that's gonna happen, we just don't know the order (who goes first to meet the Lord).

babyvaio

Wicknight wrote:

Why do people keep asking this to atheists?

My logic as to why life if valuable is quite simple.

- I think my life is valuable. I don't want to die, or be killed, nor do I wish my freedoms to be oppressed.

- I therefore assume most other people think like this.

- To treat other lifes with no value would inflict suffering on others that I would not wish on myself.

- Therefore I respect the value of the life of others because I have little desire to inflict unnecessary suffering on others.

Notice no God in that logic.

It is perfectly possible to have a moral reason why life is valueable without a God-says-so clause.

Wicky, if you think your life is precious, to whom are you grateful for your life? I mean it's an obvious gift man, you didn't give it to yourself, did you? I didn't think so. And to my mum and dad... it doesn't count. They didn't give it to you either.

Dades

babyvaio wrote:

You might die tomorrow, or your family. Then what? You lived all of your life just to get some sad memories? In vain? It doesn't make sense, cos you and I both know that that's gonna happen, we just don't know the order (who goes first to meet the Lord).

Personally I hope to leave happy memories behind me.

Babyvaio - you are obviously uncomfortable with the idea that life could be just what you see here. You live in a box where every question you have no answer for is answered by God. If you could handle the notion that not everything has to happen for a reason you could understand others think.

robindch

> my life is important since God gave me my life

Erm, your parents gave you your life, not your deity...

babyvaio

robindch wrote:

> my life is important since God gave me my life

Erm, your parents gave you your life, not your deity...

Ur deadly wrong :cool:

See you shortly on the other side.

babyvaio

The Atheist wrote:

Personally I hope to leave happy memories behind me.

Babyvaio - you are obviously uncomfortable with the idea that life could be just what you see here. You live in a box where every question you have no answer for is answered by God. If you could handle the notion that not everything has to happen for a reason you could understand others think.

See you too overthere atheism, shortly. I think you both might remember what I said.

And PS: no, I'm not uncomfortable at all, I actually am full of hope.
And I don't need to have all the answers.

robindch

> See you shortly on the other side.

Which one? The christian, islamic, jewish one? Or another one?

I'd hate for somebody to wake up unexpectedly in, for example, Hades and discover that Apollo was the deity with his finger on the lightning button!

Zombrex

babyvaio wrote:

Wicky, if you think your life is precious, to whom are you grateful for your life?

My parents.

babyvaio wrote:

I mean it's an obvious gift man, you didn't give it to yourself, did you?

No, my parents gave it to me.

babyvaio wrote:

And to my mum and dad... it doesn't count. They didn't give it to you either.

Yes, I think you will find they did.

God didn't make me, my father and my mother made me. In fact how they made me is one of the most well understood areas of biology, and God doesn't factor anywhere in the process. Its rather distrubing to think of my parents having sex, so I will just point you to a good biology book and you can read exactly how they did make me and what they made me out of.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Why do people keep asking this to atheists?

My logic as to why life if valuable is quite simple.

- I think my life is valuable. I don't want to die, or be killed, nor do I wish my freedoms to be oppressed.

- I therefore assume most other people think like this.

- To treat other lifes with no value would inflict suffering on others that I would not wish on myself.

- Therefore I respect the value of the life of others because I have little desire to inflict unnecessary suffering on others.

Notice no God in that logic.

It is perfectly possible to have a moral reason why life is valueable without a God-says-so clause.

Exactly. All that's required is the realisation that other people are real.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

babyvaio wrote:

See you too overthere atheism, shortly

I doubt that, wormfood.

Asiaprod

babyviao wrote:

Sorry Asia, I am not important, not at all. However, my life is important since God gave me my life and I am responsible what I do with it (the same way He gave it to you, but you don't even wana admit that and be grateful to Him, cos you're probably so independent, like American government is thinking, yeah?).

What on earth have I or any of us here have to do with the American Government.

And don't answer with a counterquestion. Just answer the question

Sorry Boss. Why, you have spent hours on this forum doing exactly the same thing. So its good enough for you to do it, but we can't. With this "safe in my box" attitude of yours Its impossibly hard to answer any of your questions since you don't really want answers. Your question is really very simple, you just want to make it complex.
The answer to is my life important is, of course, everyone's life is important.
to themselves,
their dependents
there family
their country

And if they be so inclined, their God.

IFX

MeditationMom wrote:

Jesus' statement: "You shall know the Truth and the Truth shall set you free" - what does it mean to you?

Nothing but words to inspire people who need hope.
The truth lies in logic. And it won't set you free, it will deepen your understanding and probably annoy or disappoint you from time to time.
Christians try to hang on to that word, by incorrectly using it, (i.e. outside it's dictionary definition). I think this is to convey that they have some deeper understanding, which ironically cannot be supported by evidence or logic - therefore it's nto truth. It's just a poor choice of words.
I'd have more respect for Christianity if they didn't use and just stuck to correct usage of the English language. If Jesus took feedback I would suggest an alternative maxim: 'Hope and dreams are the essence of your soul' or something like that.
That's my view.

Excelsior

It seems illogical to me to view Jesus through your lens. Jesus was a Jew of the 2nd Temple era. Surely the only logical way to interpet his words are with the terms and context of his historical situation in mind.

Therefore, it seems illogical in the extreme to put the words, "Hope and dreams are the essence of your soul" in the mouth of Jewish prophet and rabbi living under Roman oppression claiming to be the promised one.

IFX

Excelsior wrote:

It seems illogical to me to view Jesus through your lens.

So you don't agree with correct use of the English language then?

Excelsior wrote:

Jesus was a Jew of the 2nd Temple era. Surely the only logical way to interpet his words are with the terms and context of his historical situation in mind.

Agree, but the historical situation /context also contains the following:
1. Society had little knowledge of science
2. Society had little knowledge or understanding of the human condition. People like to say good things about their mates for example.
3. Low literacy rates among the general public
4. Probability that most biblical literature could be spin.
5. Fact that Jesus wrote nothing himself.
6. Fact that the Gospels were only written about 30 years after Jesus died.
7. Fact that several Gospels were omitted from the Bible as the powers that be didn't like their particular literature. In fact more Gospels were omitted from the Bible than were included in it. This is proof that the Bible contains selective editing.
8. Fact that Christianity was a cult movement until the Romans decided to popularise it.
They took about 300 years to come to the decision of adopting it. Part of the reason for this is because it is a lot easier to become a Christian than a Jew (no man had to touch his private skin) and Islam was not around at the time.
Therefore, if the Romans wan't a monotheism, which made sense from a organisational point of view, it had to be Christianity.
9. Fact that many Jews who lived at the same time as Jesus, did not believe that Jesus was the son of God.
10. No historian of the time made any reference to a Jesus miracle. Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny for example, make no reference to any miracle by Jesus. Tacitus did make a reference to Jesus, but not to any Jesus miracle. Therefore the only evidence we have, is narratives from some his mates, who wrote about at least 30 years later in another language.
11. There is debate amongst theologians over who wrote the actual Gospels and the order they were written.
12. None of the Gospel writers wrote history about anything else. It is therefore very difficult to ascertain how good historians they were? If they wrote about something else and we could compare that we other historical record, we might have a chance.
13. The Gospels contain some major factual fallacies. For example Luke 3, ascertains the age of human species by providing the ancestory right back to Adam. This is inconsistent with all evidence provided by Science.

We must look at the context objectively and not selectively. Many Christians don't even know many of the above.

Excelsior wrote:

Therefore, it seems illogical in the extreme to put the words, "Hope and dreams are the essence of your soul" in the mouth of Jewish prophet and rabbi living under Roman oppression claiming to be the promised one.

It is illogical to claim you have truth, if you have no evidence or no logic.
It is impossible to proof one is the son of God. Even if Jesus can (and I dispute that he did) create miracles, it does not proof he is the son of God. I agree, it increases the probability he is / was not a normal human but it does not proof he is / was the son of God. That cannot be proven.