My Religion

[Guyver]

Whoa! It just occurred to me that there could be an evangelical Christian on this site who actually has read the Satanic Bible before they were converted. So, they would know if I’m a liar or not. That’s great.

So, you could judge what I say as coming from Satan or not by comparing what I claim to believe in by what the Satanic Bible says. Right? If I claim to believe things that the devil doesn’t believe, then I’m not the devil right.

Oh wait. The devil can lie. Ok nevermind, maybe that test won’t work. Ok. Here’s another test. If you believe that God is love, then you can judge my beliefs based on whether or not they uphold that belief. If what I believe doesn’t correspond to the notion that God is love, then maybe you can criticize my beliefs and reject them. How’s that? Is that a good test Gideon?

 

[Guyver]

You have run off the rails already.

You have assumed that truth exists and that it can be arrived at. Back up a bit and tell me what makes you adhere to that presupposition. All you have said so far in support of it's existence is feeling good or bad.

And, are you speaking of objective truth or subjective truth?

Great point. Sorry, by judging the methods of this forum, it seemed to me that everyone just preaches what they want over and over and then no one really reads it or says much about it.

Your judgement, while not wrong, was preemptive because I haven’t gotten that far yet. This is Rejective Knowism 101, and your points relate to Rejective Knowism 301. Rejective Knowists have come to understand that neither truth nor God can fully be known in this existence.

Now, if we could just define either term, we’d actually be able to discuss them.

 

[Guyver]

“I don’t know” is a truth and therefore accepted by Rejective Knowists.

 

[Guyver]

Since Rejective Knowists believe that if God exists, he must be good....they are willing to admit there are things they don’t know, and that is ok.

 

[Guyver]

If God is good, then there is nothing to fear. If God is not good, one should fear because we are in hell, or there is no God.

 

[Guyver]

Thank you for reading. I will continue the topic when time permits and answer any questions you ask.

 

[Truster]

"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them".

There is no confirmation of anything you have said in the scriptures.

 

[Guyver]

"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them".

There is no confirmation of anything you have said in the scriptures.

Yes, there is. Perhaps you haven’t read closely enough?

Two of the chief principles of Rejective Knowism (RK) are found in scripture. I’ll restate.

1. God is infinite in understanding and knowledge.

2. God is love.

And speaking of scripture....do you know what it means? Scripture means “sacred writings.”

According to RK, only truth is sacred. So, the only writings which are scripture are those that are true. All non-truth must be rejected by Rejective Knowists. Non truth is as meaningless as fantasy so it is rejected by RK.

 

[Truster]

Yes, there is. Perhaps you haven’t read closely enough?

Two of the chief principles of Rejective Knowism (RK) are found in scripture. I’ll restate.

1. God is infinite in understanding and knowledge.

2. God is love.

And speaking of scripture....do you know what it means? Scripture means “sacred writings.”

According to RK, only truth is sacred. So, the only writings which are scripture are those that are true. All non-truth must be rejected by Rejective Knowists. Non truth is as meaningless as fantasy so it is rejected by RK.

I was explaining your sort of doctrine to a visitor yesterday.

I had a number of things on my shopping list and one of the items was "washing up liquid". In a blast from the past, I read it as "liquid up washing". In my drunken and drug taking days this was hilarious. Not so now but it does explain how false teachers use false doctrine. The doctrine contains the words of truth but they are in the wrong order and out of context. They fail to convey absolute and well-ordered truth...

 

[Guyver]

I was explaining your sort of doctrine to a visitor yesterday.

I had a number of things on my shopping list and one of the items was "washing up liquid". In a blast from the past, I read it as "liquid up washing". In my drunken and drug taking days this was hilarious. Not so now but it does explain how false teachers use false doctrine. The doctrine contains the words of truth but they are in the wrong order and out of context. They fail to convey absolute and well-ordered truth...

So, do not kill and kill not don’t have the same meaning? Since one is ordered correctly and the other not, one is true and the other false?

Interesting.

 

[Guyver]

so you are in denial of the truth and you don't know God

Rev 20:10 and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done.
Rev 20:14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
Rev 20:15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

The Revelation is a false prophecy. Since it is not true it’s words are meaningless.

Did you know that the Bible instructs believers to judge prophecy and reject false prophecy?

Did you know that the Bible contains clear instructions on HOW to judge prophecy and reject false ones?

If the answer is no, you have more bible study to do. You are a long way from truth.

 

[Truster]

So, do not kill and kill not don’t have the same meaning? Since one is ordered correctly and the other not, one is true and the other false?

Interesting.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of Elohim: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

[k0de]

So, the first principle of Rejective Knowism is that truth supersedes belief. And a related sub principle is that in order to arrive at truth, one must be willing to sacrifice all beliefs.

Well, my religion accepts all seekers of truth, so we allow for those who can’t go all in. If one cannot be willing to abandon all beliefs in order to arrive at truth, then they must be willing to question all beliefs with the highest scrutiny. If they can’t do this, then Rejective Knowism is not for them. They should find another religion because this one won’t work for them.

There are many other religions available to choose from where people don’t have to really think too much.

John 18:

37. "Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

38. Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

I believe Jesus because I hear his voice.

So what is your definition of the truth?

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

 

[Guyver]

I believe Jesus because I hear his voice.

What does he say?

So what is your definition of the truth?

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

Truth is that which is not false.

 

[Jacob]

Truth can be known.

 

[quip]

Truth is that which is not false.

That's a useless tautology...it offers us no insight into the nature of Truth.

Our motto is a simple one, we reject what is false, embrace what is true, and question everything that is not known.

How does RK discern one claim of Truth from an equally competing claim?

 

[Guyver]

Truth can be known.

Sure. Especially in the field of mathematics.

 

[Guyver]

That's a useless tautology...it offers us no insight into the nature of Truth.

It does offer the most basic of insights regarding its nature. But if you have a superior definition, bring it on.

How does RK discern one claim of Truth from an equally competing claim?

I guess that would have to be seen on a case by case basis. If two claims are equally acceptable then do they reach the same conclusion, or different conclusions? If A equals B, then not A equals not B right?

RK allows for the suspension of judgement as I said earlier. Sometimes IDk is the truth and that is acceptable.

 

[quip]

It does offer the most basic of insights regarding its nature. But if you have a superior definition, bring it on.



I guess that would have to be seen on a case by case basis. If two claims are equally acceptable then do they reach the same conclusion, or different conclusions? If A equals B, then not A equals not B right?

Well, A and B are equally competing thus, they're contradictory claims asserting identical Truths. How do you discern the Truth claim from the false one?

RK allows for the suspension of judgement as I said earlier. Sometimes IDk is the truth and that is acceptable.

That seems reasonable yet, I see you hold faith in the Bible (you've used it to demonstrate points prior). How may you assert the Bible as demostrative Truth as opposed to any other sacred text?

 

[Jacob]

Sure. Especially in the field of mathematics.

I minored in Mathematics.

Do you know what a truth statement is? A claim? A proposition?