Ishamael

For the last time, I reiterate. Truth - logical statement, that is correct at this particular point of time. ___ If you have better definition, go ahead, and offer it. Your previous one was to ambigous to use.

No problem. I`d offer to discuss over the IM service for convenience (log could be posted later here, if there is a need), though. Hum, though, I don`t know, how to pass over my contact information. I`m quite loathe to post them directly in forum (or in profile), and you don`t seem to let us unbelievers use private messaging.

You seem to be missing one crucial point. Logical statement defining event that already occured is always true at any point of time after the event, including current. Compare: "I have cut on my finger." - this might be true today, when it had happened, but it won`t be true in a week, when the cut will heal. "I had cut on my finger." - this statement is truth at any point of time after the cutting occured.

Convenience. I do not see love as a universal goal. What I seek is knowledge. I want to know, why things happen and how. I want to know, how I can make things happen, and how I can stop them from happening. Should 'love thy neighbor' be a universal rule, it would certainly be much easier for me to carry out my search for knowledge in friendly environment. And no, I would not want christians to be attracted to me. Don`t confuse my definition of love, and christian definition of love. My point was, that christian love, despite being quite widely advertised, is seriously rare to come by as bona fine article. _____ Don`t you get it, Cobalt? Christianity IS your idea and standard you spread. It might not be invented by you, but it is yours as well nontheless, and you are working on furthering it. Oh, and entirely same with my atheism. I have proof, that God does not exist, and I`m standing at it. I might agree with you on philosophical points, but I will never contend that God exists without ironclad proof. Defending your beliefs, and preemptively attacking are different things, though. Defending what you believe in - I would expect no less from any honorable person. But lashing out at minutae provocation, and attacking not the offending argument with logic, but arguer with insults... That seems to be encountered most often. Certainly shows the depth of conviction, no?

Not that fast. Your examples are truth only within this particular period of time. But after your death or before your birth, your statements were lie, regarding you. --- When you define it like this, it is entirely same, as my definition that "truth is a logical statement, which is correct at this particular moment of time".

Roughly. I find it pretty unpleasant to wade through rethorics of explanation. What I did dragged out of that would sum up to: 1) God cares for everyone. 2) God forgives everyone. 3) God will give bliss to everyone in heaven. By everyone, as far as I can see, is meant "everyone christian".

Mutual attraction.

Oh, my point is in testimonial habits. As you yourself said, you bring that up in a middle of relevant conversation, as any rational person would. You do not put a significant effort to advertise your testimony to as much people as possible. Unlike the "See all christian testimonies!" sites, which make a point of testifying in a headachingly-annoying manner. This would be advertisement, and another reason, why only christian testimonies are found in such numbers. Other religions simply haven`t caught up with modern advertising strategies, yet. Islam and Judaism seem to be pretty close, though.

Among my odd jobs, I`ve worked as translator. As for my definition... This is the definition I use. For me, truth is a part of logic mathematics. If you are seeking to discuss infosphere... As I said, I disagree with assertion, that it is rigid set of information. It is a packet of probabilities.

I`m not scared of christians. I`m sad for them. World is full of wonderful things, yet they reject all the marvels and secrets in their relentless hunt for love. It is very unsettling... Just how humankind in general yearns for love. That makes the few of us who wants other things quite the outcasts, you know. People automatically assume, that all is done in the name of love. And so, they first assume, that I`m reaching out for that. And when they realise I do not, they assume I`m a heartless monster. That is true, in a way. I have the advantage over moralous people, having no compunctions about doing what I deem necessary. What a lot of people do not get, that my reasoning will most of the time yield same result, as their morals - if for different reasons. (pardon the pun). ___ My remark about christians being dangerous much earlier comes from what I`ve seen lately, not from my personal fear of christians. As I said it then, I find the tendency to deny the facts the most dangerous. I would not want to ally with someone, who might reject facts like that. Who knows, what fact they`ll reject next time. ________ Cobalt... You are supposed to do your best to further your OWN ideas and standards, simple as that. If it so happens, that mine and yours conflict, we will have to work out compromise, or fight for it. Simple, eh? As for your quotes... First is simply wrong. I`ve seen good tree give bad fruit, and bad tree giving good fruit. Second - idealistic. If everyone loved thy neighbor, that would be it, no? I`ve yet to see one iota of that love, at least. When you`ll see the saint who does, please point him/her out to me.

I`m Russian. And while I speak on English fluently, I think on Russian. ---- Here is the definition of truth, then. Truth is any logical statement, that is correct at the moment of issuing such statement.

Finally... That is the high point of the whole idea with testimonies. While it`s entirely understandable to share the story within conversation, going out and touting that story is quite another deal. Do you notice the difference? So I ask you again... Would any of you just go around the net or around the city, grab the random man, and testify to him out of blue?

That`s one of the points I raised before. How does one differentiates true christians and pharisees? ___ Why, of course my standards and my idea of what`s better for the world. That`s how it always was, that`s how it always will be. Cobalt, problem with your higher power is incredible inertia of this high power. Noone can just pop over in God`s office, and say - "Good day, sir, it`s a good weather in heaven today, as always. Would you please put your resolutions on those papers? There are some problems, which we can`t quite solve by instruction. Oh, and fourth division of seraphims requests another cloudcarrier for better coverage over Asia, they`ve passed over a request for you to sign." Thus, the task of actual decision on particular problems will fall on the shoulders of priest. I believe I do not need to explain to you, what would happen, if a smart and cruel person would attain this title. For smart and cruel one it`s easiest, actually. Does name Torquemada rings a bell? ____ God`s commandments were not updated in two millenias. For all that time, the actual arbitration of questions had been relegated to priests. Which, obviously, could not afford pioneering ideas for the fear of being accused in subverting the holy texts, and persecuted for heresy. But Bible does not have it all, anymore. Back then, noone would think, that humans will ever possess the power to start a local Armageddon all by themselves, noone thought that humans would fly through sky, or lurk under water in metal contraptions. There is no direct God`s commandment on this, and so, it falls upon human followers to figure out the course of action. ____ In this, you are not different from me - I just allow myself wider choice of options. But both of us are trying to further our ideals and standards.

Well, that could be treated the other way around, undone. Follower of Bachus would say, that you abandoned god, and turned into heresy, you know? It`s all relative. _____ But once again, not answering my question. Would you purposefully go around and tout that testimony to people you don`t even know? Or would you just share it with your friends, who helped you to achieve that?

In my personal understanding, truth is any logical statement, that is correct at the moment of issuing the statement. "Right now, it`s hot here." - me saying this would be truth, as it is over 30 C here right now at this particular moment. "I have gold-plated dirigible." - me saying this would not be truth, since at this particular moment, I can not produce correct information on whereabouts of my gold-plated dirigible. ___ When fuzzy logic comes into play, concept of truth becomes a bit more convoluted. For example, statement "I am god." for me would be truth, but for you would be false. This occurs, when concepts in question have ambigous/fuzzy definition. ___ People subscribing to some forms of faith have the concept of "ultimate truth". To the best of my understanding, this concept includes precise information about universe on -inf -> + inf scale by all dimensions including time. This concept I disagree with, as it`s defintion contradicts the postulates of quantum physics. When "truth" is used to refer to the entirety of information in universe, it could only be described in probabilities, not in rigid figures. At this point, I claim, that word "truth" is used incorrectly, since it is binary (truth/false), and can`t be used to examine probabilities.

I mean literally. Would any of you consider just standing up one day, walking out on street and yelling - "Listen everyone! I had accepted Jesus into my heart, and my life is wonderful now!" Or, a digital analog - go and make a site, which professes your testimony? ___ I do not mean submitting your testimony to existing site. I mean starting a separate site just to show your testimony.

Well, Cobalt, I haven`t accused you of being hostile, yet? Those are my reasons for being here. I`m trying to understand, why christianity had rejected me so far. Obviously, I try to be respectful within my limits - aka, not lowering myself to personal slander or "ur religuun sukz" commmnts (shudder). As long as people return the favor, I`m more then fine here. Heard the saying - "Truth is often born in argument."? That might quite happen here as well. ____ As for problem... I`m assuming, that you are talking about the problem of life in general... It`s really simple for me. "Stand up, and try to make world around you a better place. Don`t wait for God, Devil or other people to do it for you - if you want things done, you do them yourself." As such, I tend to examine every situation logically, and seek the best way to further my own means and ideals.

That definition is not accurate. All events and all existance. All of events, that ALREADY occured? Or all of events, that had occured, are occuring, and will occur in the future? All existance - all that existed until THIS point of time? Or all that existed, exists and will exist in the future?

Cobalt, I do not need to know what you adhere to, to claim there are people, who do not adhere to what you practice. Why I`m here? To see, if you christians are utterly evil in my understanding, or if there are decent minds between you, which I could not expect a backstab from every moment. So far, my experience with christians (once again) is not favorable, and every encounter makes it worse. I`ve been accepted and welcomed in all kinds of circles - atheist, pagan, buddhist, hinduist... For crying out loud, one of the most genuinely good persons I know, grandpa Mahmud, is a devout Muslim. That did not prevented him or me from helping each other to solve our mutual problems. The only socium that universally rejected me was christianity. There is something inherently xenophobic with christianity, something that drives me away all the time. And I want to know, what is it, and if it`s really as universal, as it seems to be. I`m looking for christian socium, that has it within itself to peacefully coexist with everyone else. Can I have directions to such... Anyone? ___ As for God and Satan... Satan is a creation of God. God is perfectly aware of what Satan is capable. Yet, God does nothing to prevent Satan from doing evil. This means God condones evil. Think about it..... Father (God) brings rabid pitbull (Satan) into his children`s playroom (Existance) and lets pitbull loose on his children (humanity). HOW is that benevolent? Any human to do this would be rightfully called a sadistic abomination. And yet, this is your All-Loving God? No. The only reasonable explanation would be, that there is NO God, and NO Satan. Humans have sole responsibility for what they do, for every single breath, step and word. And they better be prepared to deal with repricussions of those actions. There is no sin, and no virtue. No morals and no commandments. Just humans. Humans, who like to control other humans and play with dolls and gods. This is scary, isn`t it? There is NO judgement, but the one rendered by humans onto humans. No rules, but ones rendered by humans onto humans. And no forgiveness. Simply.... None. No use waiting for such. Better accept responsibility and step up to make things right.

Does your truth includes what will occur in future as well?

Last account makes my blood boil with aggravation. Frankly, how can one identify a person to be "homosexual", if they themselves do not want it? I would hazard an educated guess, that person in question had fancied himself to be bisexual, but after experiencing same-sex relationship had decided, that he likes females better. Please, do not use incorrect terms, when describing such accounts. It only adds to confusion. ____ Returning back to original topic... 1) You may notice, that all testifying people had inherently wanted to undergo changes and convert to christianity. That is confirmed by the accounts themselves. 2) You may also notice, that they are encouraged to provide their testimonies. Especially in the net - there is more then one christian site, which actively promotes submission of such accounts. (I do not believe I`ve seen such offers from other religions.) So... Is this genuine proof or advertisement trick? ____ I still hold to my opinion, that this is placebo effect. A few loud testimonies, and affirmation snowballs into an avalanche - the more people testify, the more become assured, that their own conversion had yielded good results, and they go testify as well. Honestly. Would any of you "testify", if you haven`t seen the testimonies before?

I don`t see a reason for Satan to create dosen martyrs in one swipe. Moreso, I do not see a reason, why God would allow that to happen in any case. Satan is God`s creation as well - God created ALL. ______ Cobalt, in all fairness, any buddhist can say - "Of course, there is universal moral norm, it`s just that not everyone adheres to it." This "not everyone" would include you as well. Same goes for every other religion/philosophy, that has scriptures/lore. ______ I`m not particularly interested in beliefs. Yes, the philosophical ideas are faschinating topic, and I would like to discuss that... But what I am interested in, is practical implementations of those morals, and how to make sure that people adhering to different morals would be able to cohabitate without wasting away their lifes and resources on setting their disputes through wars. ______ You may notice, that most warlike are three Abrahamic religions. Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Each one waged more then one war and committed more then one atrocity for the sake of religion. Each one fought both others. Modern followers of each of those religions will renounce that, of course. There are myriad excuses. "They were not true followers." seems to be most popular one. However... THat does NOT interests me. I know, that religions were used as casus belli, and I want to know, what enabled all that. So I could make sure, that I take no part in that.

Well... Shalazi pass... It`s something personal. Suffice to say, that I am sure that no benevolent god would`ve allowed that to happen. No matter what. As for culture gap... It`s one of my reasons, why`d I show up here in first place. My contacts with christians so far had proved to be less then civil, and I`m trying to determine, if christianity as a society is a lost cause, or christians could be negotiated with - at least some of them. ____ As for your suggestion. Yes. There MUST be black&white social norms to ensure, that society does not regresses into anarchy. However, there is MORE then one society around the world, and each society has own set of norms to uphold. Thus, there is no universal moral norm - your morals might be rejected in society, which adheres to different standards. Once again - war is a prime example of such conflict. Two societies, which can not come up with some compromise consensus regarding their social norms will reject ALL morals to enforce their law. The old "cause justifies the means" principle. This is why the idea of universal morals is flawed. Because everyone has own idea about what universal morals should be. Social norm is a legislative manifestation of average sum of this particular society personal moral beliefs, no more, no less. ____ There are numerous attempts to make such coexistance at least tolerable for everyone, but it`s not easy. There`s always someone who "knows better".

Oh, this is where we have misunderstanding then. For me, christianity is the society of christians. Teachings of Jesus are scriptures of christianity. And I don`t like society of Christians, because every socium I`ve encountered so far is hostile, xenophobic and bigoted. While I do agree with you, that it`s simply because you are all imperfect, I see no reason, why you all reject striving for perfection and instead wallow in your xenophoby. My assertion is, that while all those, who identify themselves as christians (weather you acknowledge them as such or not), claim that they are adhering to scriptures, I`ve seen FOLLOWERS step over them time and time again. Followers. Not Jesus. Followers. My complaints were, that there are no way to identify genuinely good christians in the conditions of hostility and xenophoby, propagated by the likes of Phelps and Falwell. Once again, I knew saints and abominations among christians individually, but I`ve never encountered SOCIUM of christians, which would not be hostile. This gives all christians universally a bad name, and THAT was my complaint. If you want to be treated as good person, be one. Simply saying, that you adhere to Jesus` teachings is not enough. ___ Scriptures of christianity are entirely different thing. I consider them an example of fine philosophy, and while I do not agree with them in it`s entirety, I can appreciate it`s valid points. However, I do NOT discuss the philosophical values of christianity here. Current debate had been firmly directed into sociological discussion. If you wish to debate those... That`s entirely different question, and entirely different topic. ___ I would also like to specifically point this out... Consider, that I do NOT believe, that there IS God. Since I do not believe he exists, all I have to make up my opinion on christianity is christians. And as I already said numerous times, so far, christians made bad impression. I make up my opinions based on actions, not formal allegiance... If you want to be considered good - do good.

Eh. Sorry. Socium would mean a group of people, who are united by cohabitation, collaboration and common sets of laws. Prime example would be a country or nation. Another would be a church. In my example I`ve been referring mostly to separate nations.