Skepticism Is Good Up To The Point Reasonableness

[iris89]

Skepticism Is Good Up To The Point Reasonableness Is Surpassed:

INTRODUCTION:

Skepticism is good up to the point where reasonableness is surpassed. Everyone should be skeptical with regard everything that is told to him/her, but skepticism’s good qualities can turn into bad qualities when taken to an extreme. In the definition given for skepticism in Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, both reasonable and necessary skepticism and un-reasonable or philosophical skepticism (Pyrrhonism) are defined. Let’s look now at the definitions for the two taxonomies of skepticism:

In ordinary usage, skepticism or scepticism (Greek: skeptomai, to look about, to consider; see also spelling differences) refers to
1. an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object,
2. the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain, or
3. the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics (Merriam–Webster).

In philosophy, skepticism refers more specifically to any one of several propositions. These include propositions about
1. an inquiry
2. the limitations of knowledge,
3. a method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and continual testing,
4. the arbitrariness, relativity, or subjectivity of moral values,
5. a method of intellectual caution and suspended judgment,
In classical philosophy, skepticism refers to the teachings and the traits of the Skeptikoi, a school of philosophers of whom it was said that they "asserted nothing but only opined" (Liddell and Scott). In this sense, philosophical skepticism, or Pyrrhonism, is the philosophical position that one should avoid the postulation of final truths. Turned on itself, skepticism would question that skepticism is a valid perspective at all.
In religion, skepticism refers to "doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation)" (Merriam–Webster).

The word skepticism can characterize a position on a single claim, but in scholastic circles more frequently describes a lasting mindset and an approach to accepting or rejecting new information. Individuals who proclaim to have a skeptical outlook are frequently called skeptics, often without regard to whether it is philosophical skepticism or empirical skepticism that they profess.” [source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia].

Being skeptical in the ordinary usage is a very beneficial attribute and this was clearly shown by the Apostle Luke at Acts 17:10-11, “And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Beroea: who when they were come thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of the mind, examining the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so.” (American Standard Version; ASV). But, like many other things and practices it can be carried to an excess.

When carried to an excess, skepticism can result in rejecting the truth, the reality which should be accepted per John 8:32, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (Authorized King James Bible; AV). As mentioned previously, skepticism when carried to an excess is called philosophical skepticism or Pyrrhonism which is the rejection and/or avoidance with respect the postulation of final truth. In other words the real truth is rejected and/or avoided as dangerous and/or unreal.

This of course can best be illustrated by illustration, but what they are will be first covered.

WHAT ARE ILLUSTRATIONS:

First, It is important that whatever illustration we use fits the subject under discussion.

Second, it is important to anticipate the type of audience and/or reader it is being addressed to. As an example Jesus (Yeshua) Christ made no use of examples from the unique lands outside of Israel, but used examples dealing with things his audience were familiar with. His illustrations dealt with items that his listeners new well. For example, he spoke of mending clothes per Mark 2:21, “No man also seweth a piece of new cloth on an old garment: else the new piece that filled it up taketh away from the old, and the rent is made worse’ (AV); carrying on business per Luke 19:15-23, “And it came to pass, when he was come back again, having received the kingdom, that he commanded these servants, unto whom he had given the money, to be called to him, that he might know what they had gained by trading. 16 And the first came before him, saying, Lord, thy pound hath made ten pounds more.
17 And he said unto him, Well done, thou good servant: because thou wast found faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities. 18 And the second came, saying, Thy pound, Lord, hath made five pounds.
19 And he said unto him also, Be thou also over five cities. 20 And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I kept laid up in a napkin: 21 for I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that which thou layedst not down, and reapest that which thou didst not sow. 22 He saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I am an austere man, taking up that which I laid not down, and reaping that which I did not sow; 23 then wherefore gavest thou not my money into the bank, and I at my coming should have required it with interest?” (ASV); attending a wedding feast per Luke 14:7-11, “And he put forth a parable to those which were bidden, when he marked how they chose out the chief rooms; saying unto them, 8 When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him; 9 And he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room. 10 But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee. 11 For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.” (AV) ; losing something precious per Luke 15:8, “Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find” (AV). Why? He understood how people react under various circumstances, and made use of that.

Third, Jesus (Yeshua) Christ’s illustrations most frequently alluded to objects and activities that were part of their daily lives. Therefore, he referred to such things as farming, the way sheep responded to their shepherd, and the use of animal skins to store wine, for details, refer to Mark 2:22; Mark 4:2-9, and John 10:1-5. Likewise he pointed to familiar historical examples such as the creation of the first human couple at Matthew 19:4-6, “And he answered and said, Have ye not read, that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,
5 and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh? 6 So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (ASV); the Flood of Noah’s day at Matthew 24:37-39, “And as were the days of Noah, so shall be the coming of the Son of man. 38 For as in those days which were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, 39 and they knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall be the coming of the Son of man.” (ASV); the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the death of Lot’s wife at Luke 17:32, “Remember Lot’s wife.” (ASV); etc.

Now some may ask, why spend so much time defining and illustrating what illustrations are. This is being done as an illustration of an everyday event in the event of a new born child will be used to illustrate the difference between reasonable skepticism and un-reasonable philosophical skepticism or Pyrrhonism which is the rejection and/or avoidance with respect the postulation of final truth. In other words the real truth is rejected and/or avoided as dangerous and/or unreal.

THROW OUT THE WASH WATER BUT NOT THE BABY:

As new mothers well know, new born infants need frequent bathing as they have not been “house broken.” So their mothers give them a bath in water and then throw out the wash water. This is comparable to a reasonable skeptic checking all he is told in line with Acts 17:10-11, “And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Beroea: who when they were come thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of the mind, examining the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so.” (ASV). But the reasonable new mother does NOT also throw out the baby along with the wash water.

On the other hand, the un-reasonable philosophical skepticism or Pyrrhonism skeptic who believes in the rejection and/or avoidance with respect the postulation of final truth would be like the un-reasonable mother who threw out the baby along with the wash water.

Sure most of what is called religion is nothing but wash water and good examples of that are the two largest religious cults on earth, the Roman Catholic Church and Islam. Both have committed unspeakable crimes against humanity such as genocide. The Roman Catholic Church having committed genocide against the Cathars,

<<<"The Cathers found widespread popularity among peasants and artisans. They respected women, who played a major role in the movement. Alarmed at the success of Catharism, the church founded the Inquisition and launched the Albigensian Crusade in the thirteenth century to exterminate them." [source -http://www.frostcloud.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5163 ]>>>. So Catholicism is a false religion, and a skeptic would be reasonable and logical in completely rejecting it.

Islam likewise has committed genocide against many peoples with the most notable the genocide of between 80,000,000 and 100,000,000 in greater India,

< <<"Historian Will Durant wrote in The Story of Civilization (1972) that the Muslim conquest of India was "probably the bloodiest story in history." The number of people killed is estimated based on the Muslim chronicles and demographic calculations. K.S. Lal estimated in his book The Growth of Muslim Population in India that between 1000 CE and 1500 CE, the population of Hindus decreased by 80 million. The legacy of Islamic conquest of South Asia is a hotly debated issue even today." [sources - "The Story of Civilization - 1972 - by Will Durant, and "The Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India" by India's greatest historian, K.S. Lal]>>>. So Islam is a false religion, and a skeptic would be reasonable and logical in completely rejecting it.

[[for more details and references, read “Only a False Religion Commits Genocide Against Others,” by Iris the Preacher 2006.]]

However, a reasonable skeptic would not be justified in rejecting the genuine (true) teachings of the Inspired Word of Almighty God (YHWH), the Creator of all there is, the Bible. Only an un-reasonable philosophical skepticism or Pyrrhonism skeptic who believes in the rejection and/or avoidance with respect the postulation of final truth and thereby rejects the reasonable; to wit, final truth. Let’s consider reality; to wit, the reasonable.

Why are there no exceptions to the laws of physics? Why does night follow day, the seasons follow one another, the stars and planets continue on course?

Most Christians believe that the regularity, the design evident in the universe, points to God, a supreme creative Intelligence.

Some scientists believe the universe is pointless, without rhyme or reason; that the human race is not the center piece, but a freak accident, the by-product of pointless material forces in a back water of the universe.

Others believe it is reasonable to believe in God the Creator, concluding from a study of the scientific evidence that a Supreme Intelligence is at work.

We do not believe God is like a super clockmaker, who then wound up the universe and left it to itself. We do not believe only in a god of the gaps, whom we use when we have no scientific explanation. We see God in the laws of nature. We do not believe in God because we need to do so, nor because we prefer to believe, as we prefer spaghetti rather than roast lamb and mint sauce. God often helps us feel good, but that is not a good reason to believe

Many of us believe the universe has been fine-tuned for the existence of humans, that a place for humans was built into the universe from the beginning. In fact, we believe the cosmos was made with us in mind. What evidence is there for this?

An enormous number of coincidences enable human life to exist. If the earth was smaller, gravity would be too weak to retain an atmosphere. If it were much bigger there would be too much hydrogen. If we were much closer to the sun it would be too hot for liquid water; if we were much further away it would be too cold for us.

Almost one hundred chemical elements occur in nature, the smallest being hydrogen, which appeared soon after the Big Bang. Nearly all the other elements were forged later when giant stars exploded. Most of the elements in our bodies were made in explosions before our sun was born.

If the force holding the hydrogen nuclei together had been much weaker, the process could not have gone past hydrogen. If this force had been only a bit stronger, the stars would have burned themselves out in millions of years, not the billions of years needed to produce life.

The production of life has depended on a fantastic and delicate balance of forces. If the nature of space had been slightly different the universe could have collapsed a fraction of a second after it began; or undergone such ferocious expansion that all matter, even atoms, would have been torn apart quickly.

We know now that neither the earth nor the sun is the center of the universe. Our sun is like a pebble on an immense beach. Why is the universe so large?

If the universe was the size of Europe it would have lasted a few milliseconds. A universe the size of our solar system would have lasted a few hours.

To claim these coincidences and many others are the product of chance is like claiming a runaway truck in a rubbish dump produced the Mona Lisa.

To sum it all up (E-equals-MxC2) shows energy and matter can not be created or destroyed by any mechanism known to man and yet one or the other or both had to come in existence at sometime or nothing we now know including mankind itself would exist. Therefore, even if a Bible that tells who created all did not exist, the universe and all in it would clearly show the existence of a Creator.

CONCLUSION:

It is only reasonable since as has been shown that matter can neither be created, but only changed into energy and visa versa by any means known but it has been shown also that the universe did not always exist that there must have been a creative act by a higher intelligence. The reasonable skeptic accepts this fact and searches for the source of this intelligence; whereas, the un-reasonable philosophical skepticism or Pyrrhonism skeptic who believes in the rejection and/or avoidance with respect the postulation of final truth and thereby rejects the reasonable; to wit, final truth, seeks to avoid this reality.

In other words, a reasonable skeptic seeks to learn truth and reality per John 8:32, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (Authorized King James Bible; AV); whereas, an un-reasonable philosophical skepticism or Pyrrhonism skeptic who believes in the rejection and/or avoidance with respect the postulation of final truth and thereby rejects the reasonable; to wit, final truth, seeks to avoid this reality.

To learn more, check out the following:

[1] religioustruths.proboards59.com/ An Educational Referral Forum

[2] www.network54.com/Forum/403209 A Forum Devoted to Exposing The False Religion of Islam

[3] jude3.proboards92.com/ A Free-Speech Forum For All

[4] www.freewebs.com/iris_the_preacher My web site.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

[iris89]

Skepticism With a Purpose and Skepticism Without A Purpose:

INTRODUCTION:

This article is actually the sequel to “Skepticism Is Good Up To The Point Reasonableness Is Surpassed:” which dealt with the two different forums of skepticism as follows,

<<<” In the definition given for skepticism in Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, both reasonable and necessary skepticism and un-reasonable or philosophical skepticism (Pyrrhonism) are defined. Let's look now at the definitions for the two taxonomies of skepticism:

In ordinary usage, skepticism or scepticism (Greek: skeptomai, to look about, to consider; see also spelling differences) refers to
1. an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object,
2. the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain, or
3. the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics (Merriam-Webster).

In philosophy, skepticism refers more specifically to any one of several propositions. These include propositions about
1. an inquiry
2. the limitations of knowledge,
3. a method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and continual testing,
4. the arbitrariness, relativity, or subjectivity of moral values,
5. a method of intellectual caution and suspended judgment,
In classical philosophy, skepticism refers to the teachings and the traits of the Skeptikoi, a school of philosophers of whom it was said that they "asserted nothing but only opined" (Liddell and Scott). In this sense, philosophical skepticism, or Pyrrhonism, is the philosophical position that one should avoid the postulation of final truths. Turned on itself, skepticism would question that skepticism is a valid perspective at all.
In religion, skepticism refers to "doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation)" (Merriam-Webster).

The word skepticism can characterize a position on a single claim, but in scholastic circles more frequently describes a lasting mindset and an approach to accepting or rejecting new information. Individuals who proclaim to have a skeptical outlook are frequently called skeptics, often without regard to whether it is philosophical skepticism or empirical skepticism that they profess." [source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia].

Being skeptical in the ordinary usage is a very beneficial attribute and this was clearly shown by the Apostle Luke at Acts 17:10-11, "And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Beroea: who when they were come thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of the mind, examining the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so." (American Standard Version; ASV). But, like many other things and practices it can be carried to an excess.

When carried to an excess, skepticism can result in rejecting the truth, the reality which should be accepted per John 8:32, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (Authorized King James Bible; AV). As mentioned previously, skepticism when carried to an excess is called philosophical skepticism or Pyrrhonism which is the rejection and/or avoidance with respect the postulation of final truth. In other words the real truth is rejected and/or avoided as dangerous and/or unreal.” [source - Skepticism Is Good Up To The Point Reasonableness Is Surpassed:, by Iris the Preacher, 2008]

Now we shall cover the foolishness of philosophical skepticism, or Pyrrhonism.

FOOLISHNESS OF PHILOSOPHICAL SKEPTICISM OR PYRRHONISM:

Before we delve deep into the subject of why this type of skepticism is foolish, let’s look at a definition of Pyrrhonism from the Catholic Encyclopedia,

<<<” Pyrrhonism
Pyrrhonism is a system of scepticism, the founder of which was Pyrrho, a Greek philosopher, about whom very little is known except that he died in 270 B. C. The best known of Pyrrho's disciples was Timon of Philius, known as the sillographer. Pyrrho's scepticism was so complete and comprehensive that the word Pyrrhonism is sometimes used as a synonym for scepticism, The scepticism of Pyrrho's school covered three points.
(1) All the dogmatists, that is to say, all the philosophers who believed that truth and certitude can be attained, were mere sophists; they were self-deceived and deceivers of others.
(2) Certitude is impossible of attainment, not only because of the possibility that our faculties deceive us, but also because, in themselves, things are neither one thing nor the other, neither good nor evil, beautiful nor ugly, large nor small. Or, rather, things are both good and evil, beautiful and ugly, large and small, so that there is no reason why we should affirm that they are one thing rather than the other. This conviction was expressed in the famous saying, ouden mallon, nothing is more one thing than another; the paper is not more white than black, the piece of sugar is not more sweet than bitter, and so forth.
(3) The reality of things being inaccessible to the human mind, and certitude being impossible of attainment, the wise man doubts about everything; that is, he recognizes the futility of inquiry into reality and abstains from judging. This abstention is called epoche. It is the foundation of happiness. Because he alone can attain happiness who cultivates imperturbability, ataraxia; and then only is the mind proof against disquietude when we realize that every attempt to attain the truth is doomed to failure.
From this account of the principles of Pyrrhonism, it is evident that Pyrrho's aim was ethical. Like all the philosophers of the period in which he lived, he concerned himself principally with the problem of happiness. The Stoics sought to found happiness on the realization of the reign of law in human nature as well as in nature. The Epicureans grounded happiness on the conviction that transitory feeling is the one important phenomenon in human life. The Eclectics placed the intellectual basis of happiness in the conviction that all systems of philosophy are equally true. The Pyrrhonist, as well as the other sceptics of that period, believed that there is no possibility of attaining happiness unless one first realizes that all systems of philosophy are equally false and that the real truth of things cannot be attained. Pyrrhonism is, therefore, an abdication of all the supposed rights of the mind, and cannot be dealt with by the ordinary rules of logic or by the customary canons of philosophical criticism.” [source – The Catholic Encyclopedia]>>>.

In other words, the philosophical skeptics, or Pyrrhonist believe there is no possibility of learning real truth; to wit, which is a rejection of the existence of real truth. Whereas, the skeptic pragmatic realist knows there is real truth and seeks actively for it – a healthy outlook.

In their absurd effort to deny even to themselves that real truth exist the Pyrrohonist pokes or makes fun of the ideal that real truth can exist and make very negative comments about anything that could possibly be real truth and/or approaching it, and of skeptic pragmatic realist who pursue finding real truth. Their comments are always negative and belittling and never up-building in the slightest. Let’s look at some examples that illustrate their negative comments designed to belittle truth which the reject off of hand.

Here are some of their strictly negative comments with respect events recorded in the Inspired Word of Almighty God (YHWH), the Creator of all there is, the Bible, with first the real account given:

[1] 1 Kings 1:9-15, “Then the king sent unto him a captain of fifty with his fifty. And he went up to him: and, behold, he was sitting on the top of the hill. And he spake unto him, O man of God, the king hath said, Come down. 10 And Elijah answered and said to the captain of fifty, If I be a man of God, let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And there came down fire from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty. 11 And again he sent unto him another captain of fifty and his fifty. And he answered and said unto him, O man of God, thus hath the king said, Come down quickly. 12 And Elijah answered and said unto them, If I be a man of God, let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And the fire of God came down from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty. 13 And again he sent the captain of a third fifty with his fifty. And the third captain of fifty went up, and came and fell on his knees before Elijah, and besought him, and said unto him, O man of God, I pray thee, let my life, and the life of these fifty thy servants, be precious in thy sight. 14 Behold, there came fire down from heaven, and consumed the two former captains of fifty with their fifties; but now let my life be precious in thy sight. 15 And the angel of Jehovah said unto Elijah, Go down with him: be not afraid of him. And he arose, and went down with him unto the king.” (American Standard Version; ASV) .

Now let’s look at a negative, belittling statement made by a philosophical skeptics, or Pyrrhonist believe there is no possibility of learning real truth,

<<<” Ok, for instance, would it be childish or one’s solemn duty to believe without question as absolute reliable history the following story?

Minimeteor answered the captain, "If I am a duly appointed public relations representatives to this portion of the galaxy of the Invisible Cosmic CEO (Chief Enflaming Officer), may fire come down from heaven and consume you and your fifty men!" Then fire fell from heaven and consumed the captain and his men.
At this the king sent to Minimeteor another captain with his fifty men. The captain said to him, "Man of CEO, this is what the king says, 'Come down at once!' "
"If I am a man of CEO," Micrometeor replied, "may fire come down from heaven and consume you and your fifty men!" Then the fire of CEO fell from heaven and consumed him and his fifty men.”>>>.

In this comment by a Pyrrhonist all one sees in negativism and a sub-conscious attempt by the Pyrrhonist to belittle reality so he/she has an excuse to not believe in reality and/or that truth can be found.

[2] Now here is a second example of how Pyrrhonist attempt to avoid reality since they believe there is no possibility of learning real truth. This time we will first detail the Pyrrhonist’s attempt to belittle reality and distort it into a negatism,

<<<” So your dogma is that you believe the bible is infallible because it was written by men claiming to be writing for their god on his behalf? That the invisible deity was guiding their very minds and hands as they wrote, since "he" apparently can't speak or write for himself?”>>>

As we see, the Pyrrhonist is trying to belittle his own creator Almighty God (YHWH), the Creator of all there is since he/she does not want to admit to truth that there is a higher intelligence in the universe than himself/herself .

Now let’s consider my answer to this Pyrrhonist,

<<<” I do not teach that dogma written by religious leaders such as the Pope is infallible although Roman Catholics claim it is when given Ex Cathedra. As I have said many times, but you do not seem to comprehend, that the Bible is NOT the product of one committee or strongman. It has over 40 individual writers who wrote under divine inspiration/guidance putting the thoughts of God (YHWH) into the words of men much as transcribing secretaries today taking transcription and then later typing it out. In other words one real author, God (YHWH), and many scribes each of whom wrote in his own style over a period of approximately 1,600 years. All of what people call or consider inconsistencies are really not such, but most often just a problem of translation and/or understanding, i.e., lack of understanding of what the original writer writing in his own language and culture meant/said in his original writing. What is remarkable, is the writers over such a period of time all wrote in harmony when even most posters on threads on this forum can not even stay on track or subject over a period of a few days and/or weeks at most with the original subject of the thread. This fact of harmony over a period so great as to almost stagger the imagination shows that it had one guiding force or author who divinely inspired its writers as humans of their own volition can not keep on track over short periods of time.

To wit, the Bible is the ONLY book God (YHWH) ever inspired men to write as his scribes. In other words, God is its author and men only put his thoughts given to them by divine inspiration into their own words, the words of men. Not only that, all the other writers of later so called religious guidance books borrowed from it and made changes in accord with their strong man or so called prophet. Take the example of Joseph Smith who borrowed from it to write the Book of Mormon, but failed to give credit or source to the Bible and twisted some borrowed things into bizarre distortions. Other examples are of course the bizarre writings of David Koresh the Prophet of the Branch Dividians of Waco, Texas; and the Quran, etc.”>>>.

[3] The Pyrrhonist always tries to confuse issues to put a negative twist on them and here is an example with respect creeds and dogma,

<<<” What is particularly cute about this trick is that it is a perfect "wild card," so lacking in content that any sect or creed or conspiracy can use it effectively. …This all-purpose loyalty-enforcer is para­noia in a pill, sure to keep the critics muted if not silent. … if this book has any success, its virulence should diminish as people begin to recognize it for what it is.”>>>.

And then, the Pyrrhonist said,

<<<” Your creed is your fanatical, single-minded devotion to your interpretation of the religious writings of religious leaders that you believe is some absolute authority or standard. And that is merely a creed that your own mind has come to sub-consciously think is absolute truth because you have been programmed by your environment and your own desire to coerce yourself to believe it in order to receive the prize you believe you will be rewarded with for doing so. You do not allow yourself the freedom to think outside of that creed or the illusion of an absolute standard because you believe that would be sinful and WRONG and so you are afraid of seeing any other point of view because that might lead to further questioning. And you have allowed yourself to be programmed in lots of small steps to believe that to be open to any other point of view (which of course is anything outside of the cult creed) will lead to becoming the dreaded "apostate" and then you wouldn't belong to those that share your creed and get together to reinforce each other in that creed”.>>>

My answers were two part as follows,

<<<” Just a quick look at my childhood clearly shows I was NOT thinking within the box of any creed, but testing all I heard or read in compliance with the principle set forth at Acts 17:10-11, "And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Beroea: who when they were come thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of the mind, examining the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so." (American Standard Version; ASV).

Now let’s look once more very briefly at my early childhood and that of the Prophet Samuel,

The facts seem to verify that I had sufficient cognitive and moral development since when you look around it is self evident that most adults lack this ability and go with "herd Mentality." How so, just look at the cult dogma of Islam and Catholicism and its spin-offs and how many adults lack sufficient cognitive and moral development to recognize the false dogma these creedal groups put out.

Obviously, Jesus (Yeshua) recognized that some children had sufficient cognitive and moral development to recognize truths when he said, Luke 18:17, "Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no wise enter therein." (American Standard Version; ASV). Actually a child is more likely not to be fettered by false dogma than an adult. Obviously I was such a child who by nature was a natural skeptic pragmatic realist; whereas, the adults around me had already been corrupted by "herd mentality." Also, at that age I had never even heard of the group you mention so get real.

You obviously are unaware of the Prophet Samuel who was taken to the tabernacle at Shiloh, probably between the age of three and sic years per 2 Chronicles 31:16, "besides them that were reckoned by genealogy of males, from three years old and upward, even every one that entered into the house of Jehovah, as the duty of every day required, for their service in their offices according to their courses;" (ASV), and was left there in the charge of High Priest Eli per 1 Samuel 1:24-28, "And when she had weaned him, she took him up with her, with three bullocks, and one ephah of meal, and a bottle of wine, and brought him unto the house of Jehovah in Shiloh: and the child was young. 25 And they slew the bullock, and brought the child to Eli. 26 And she said, Oh, my lord, as thy soul liveth, my lord, I am the woman that stood by thee here, praying unto Jehovah. 27 For this child I prayed; and Jehovah hath given me my petition which I asked of him: 28 therefore also I have granted him to Jehovah; as long as he liveth he is granted to Jehovah. And he worshipped Jehovah there." (ASV). Thus Samuel ‘ministered to Jehovah’ as a boy, and as pointed out at 1 Samuel 2:26, he became more likable both from Almighty God (YHWH) standpoint and from that of men.

Now, I am NOT saying all children are like Samuel and/or myself, but that in no distracts from those who are. As I have said before, "As I have said in part before, When I was a very young girl brought up in a religiously divided household I could readily see both cult religions represented were completely wrong. When I was about eight years old, I started a search for the true religion as I well knew neither Catholicism (RCC) nor Islam could be that. I was constantly at the local library in my native village trying to learn more and by the time I was about 10 years old, I had taught myself to read English since most of the books on history and religion were either in English or German. I selected English as I considered it the up and coming language." Now, yes, that is very different from 99% of children of those ages, but that in no way changes the reality of my life.”>>>.

And, the second part of my answer to such negative nonsense was,

<<<” With respect presenting myself as an absolute authority, that is something I did NOT do as my job was to get the students to really start thinking for themselves as skeptic pragmatic realist instead of just accepting what any authoritive figure said at face value. If you notice, in my research products, I present the facts and always reference well the sources with this concept in mind - giving others the facts for them to check and if necessary adjust their thinking. With this in view, I never say with which group (religious) I may or may NOT associate with, I am not trying to 'sell' a group but put forth reality. But I will tell you this, I belong to no creed and accept no creedal dogma of any group. All should learn to stop sub-consciously thinking in a creedal framework. Look at Peace, he is completely brainwashed to reality and I believe he really believes the propaganda he puts forth - this is very dangerous and I have tried to open his mind with some very strong post against Islam. Has not yet worked - he may be permanently trapped.>>>.

And, to this, the Pyrrhonist said,

<<<” Thank you for continuing to give evidence that you in fact do follow an absolute creed - that your belief in the bible as an infallible source of infallible truth is infallible.”>>>.

But, now let’s look at what a ‘creed’ is,

Irivng Hexham's Concise Dictionary of Religion, first published by InterVarsity Press, Carol Stream, USA, 1994, second edition, Regent College Press, Vancouver, 1999.

CREED: from the Latin credo: "I believe." Creeds are a distinctive feature of CHRISTIANITY. Athough well developed creeds do not occur in the BIBLE, rather rudimentary creedal forms found there provide models for later statements; e.g. Deuteronomy 26:5-9; 1 Corinthians 15:3-5; Romans 1:3-4; and 10:9-10. In CHRISTIAN HISTORY three creeds have achieved particular prominence: (1) the APOSTLES' creed was supposedly written by the Apostles; (2) the NICENE creed which embodies in altered form, and without the anathemas, the CHRISTOLOGICAL teaching of the Council of Nicaea adopted in answer to ARIANISM and probably rests on creeds from Jerusalem and Antioch; (3) commonly called the ATHANASIAN creed and is popularly attributed to ATHANASIUS but it is thought to be a fourth or fifth century Canticle of unknown authorship. As a direct statement of Trinitarian belief it became the test of ORTHODOXY and competence of the clergy in the West from the seventh century on. The REFORMERS valued it highly while the ANGLICANS made liturgical use of it. But the Eastern, or GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH, refused to recognize it.

And in, The Catholic Encyclopedia,

Creed
(Latin credo, I believe).
In general, a form of belief. The work, however, as applied to religious belief has received a variety of meanings, two of which are specially important. (1) It signifies the entire body of beliefs held by the adherents o***iven religion; and in this sense it is equivalent doctrine or to faith where the latter is used in its objective meaning. Such is its signification in expressions like "the conflict of creeds", "charitable works irrespective of creed", "the ethics of conformity of creed", etc. (2) In a somewhat narrower sense, a creed is a summary of the principal articles of faith professed by church or community of believers. Thus by the "creeds of Christendom" are understood those formulations of the Christian faith which at various times have been drawn up and accepted by one or the other of the Christian churches. The Latins designate the creed in this sense by the name symbolum which means either a sign (symbolon) or a collection (symbole). A creed, then, would be the distinctive mark of those who hold a given belief, or a formula made up of the principal articles of that belief. A "profession of faith" is enjoined by the Church on special occasions, as at the consecration of a bishop; while the phrase "confession of faith" is commonly applied to Protestant formularies, such as the "Augsburg Confession", the "Confession of Basle", etc. It should be noted, however, that the role of Faith is not identical with creed, but, in its formal signification, means the norm or standard by which one ascertains what doctrines are to be believed.
The principal creeds of the Catholic Church, The Apostles', Athanasian, and the Nicene, are treated in special articles which enter into the historical details and the content of each. The liturgical use of the Creed is also explained in a separate article. For the present purpose it is chiefly important to indicate the function of the creed in the life of religion and especially in the work of the Catholic Church. That the teachings of Christianity were to be cast in some definite form is evidently implied in the commission given the Apostles (Matthew 28:19-20). Since they were to teach all nations to observe whatsoever Christ had commanded, and since this teaching was to carry the weight of authority, not merely of opinion, it was necessary to formulate at last the essential doctrines. Such formulation was all the more needful because Christianity was destined for all men and for all ages. To preserve unity of belief itself was quite clearly stated. The creed, therefore, is fundamentally an authoritative declaration of the truths that are to be believed.

And in, Religious Tolerance Dictionary by the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance.

Creed: Fropm the Latin word "credere" -- to believe. A short statement of religious belief, usually motivated by a desire to emphasize church teaching as opposed to a heresy. There are a number of creeds within the Christian religion: the Apostles creed, Nicene creed are the most popular. However, the former is little used in Eastern Orthodox churches.

Basically creeds are man developed beliefs or formalization of religion; none of which do I accept. The term "creed" no where appears in the Bible since it is a manmade thing and NOT something put forth by Almighty God (YHWH). I accept NOT the teachings of men, and all creeds are just that as shown by the examples given in the Concise Dictionary of Religion; whereas, the Bible clearly says at Matthew 15:1-9,


"Then there come to Jesus from Jerusalem Pharisees and scribes, saying,

2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

3 And he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?

4 For God said, Honor thy father and thy mother: and, He that speaketh evil of father or mother, let him die the death.

5 But ye say, whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, That wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me is given to God;

6 he shall not honor his father. And ye have made void the word of God because of your tradition.

7 Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying,

8 This people honoreth me with their lips; But their heart is far from me.

9 But in vain do they worship me, Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men." (American Standard Version; ASV).

Your reference [[[the Pyrrohnist]]] to ‘creeds’ clearly show that you have NOT been able to get the precepts of men out of your sub-conscious, but that is just one of the signs of a skeptic of the philosophical skepticism or Pyrrhonism which is the rejection and/or avoidance with respect the postulation of final truth. So I am not at all surprised.

So as can be seen, ‘creeds’ are man made items of belief, and not Almighty God (YHWH) given beliefs. Now while all creeds are dogma, NOT all dogma is creeds. Let’s look at the definition of dogma, but first at another negative comment by the Pyrrhonist,

<<<” So you follow no creed, but you believe and teach the dogma that the religious documents written by religious leaders claiming to receive communication from a deity is infallible and absolutely true and must be believed or else one will not be rewarded with eternal life? Is that correct?”>>>.

Now let’s look at my answer and the definition of dogma,

<<<” I do not teach that dogma written by religious leaders such as the Pope is infallible although Roman Catholics claim it is when given Ex Cathedra. As I have said many times, but you do not seem to comprehend, that the Bible is NOT the product of one committee or strongman. It has over 40 individual writers who wrote under divine inspiration/guidance putting the thoughts of God (YHWH) into the words of men much as transcribing secretaries today taking transcription and then later typing it out. In other words one real author, God (YHWH), and many scribes each of whom wrote in his own style over a period of approximately 1,600 years. All of what people call or consider inconsistencies are really not such, but most often just a problem of translation and/or understanding, i.e., lack of understanding of what the original writer writing in his own language and culture meant/said in his original writing. What is remarkable, is the writers over such a period of time all wrote in harmony when even most posters on threads on this forum can not even stay on track or subject over a period of a few days and/or weeks at most with the original subject of the thread. This fact of harmony over a period so great as to almost stagger the imagination shows that it had one guiding force or author who divinely inspired its writers as humans of their own volition can not keep on track over short periods of time.

To wit, the Bible is the ONLY book God (YHWH) ever inspired men to write as his scribes. In other words, God is its author and men only put his thoughts given to them by divine inspiration into their own words, the words of men. Not only that, all the other writers of later so called religious guidance books borrowed from it and made changes in accord with their strong man or so called prophet. Take the example of Joseph Smith who borrowed from it to write the Book of Mormon, but failed to give credit or source to the Bible and twisted some borrowed things into bizarre distortions. Other examples are of course the bizarre writings of David Koresh the Prophet of the Branch Dividians of Waco, Texas; and the Quran, etc.”>>>.

And now the definition of dogma,

Irivng Hexham's Concise Dictionary of Religion, first published by InterVarsity Press, Carol Stream, USA, 1994, second edition, Regent College Press, Vancouver, 1999, defines dogma as,

DOGMA: a Greek term meaning "that which seems GOOD." It was used in antiquity to refer to such things as the decrees of Kings and principles regarded as axiomatic by various PHILOSOPHICAL schools. DOGMA is now applied somewhat generally to those official beliefs which are considered to be fundamental and the acceptance of which is a necessary condition of membership.

And in, Religious Tolerance Dictionary by the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance.

Dogma: From the Greek word "dogma" (a decree). A revealed truth defined by a faith group. It is important to realize that one group's dogma is often another group's heresy.

And in, The Catholic Encyclopedia

The word dogma (Gr. dogma from dokein) signifies, in the writings of the ancient classical authors, sometimes, an opinion or that which seems true to a person; sometimes, the philosophical doctrines or tenets, and especially the distinctive philosophical doctrines, of a particular school of philosophers (cf. Cic. Ac., ii, 9), and sometimes, a public decree or ordinance, as dogma poieisthai.

In Sacred Scripture it is used, at one time, in the sense of a decree or edict of the civil authority, as in Luke, ii, 1: "And it came to pass, that in those days there went out a decree [edictum, dogma] from Caesar Augustus" (cf. Acts 17:7; Esther 3:3); at another time, in the sense of an ordinance of the Mosaic Law as in Eph., ii 15: "Making void the law of commandments contained in decrees" (dogmasin), and again, it is applied to the ordinances or decrees of the first Apostolic Council in Jerusalem: "And as they passed through the cities, they delivered unto them the decrees [dogmata] for to keep, that were decreed by the apostles and ancients who were at Jerusalem" (Acts 16:4).

Among the early Fathers the usage was prevalent of designating as dogmas the doctrines and moral precepts taught or promulgated by the Saviour or by the Apostles; and a distinction was sometimes made between Divine, Apostolical, and ecclesiastical dogmas, according as a doctrine was conceived as having been taught by Christ, by the Apostles, or as having been delivered to the faithful by the Church.

So dogma can be manmade, i.e., the creeds or it can be Almighty God (YHWH) given such as in the Inspired Word of Almighty God (YHWH), the Creator of all there is, the Bible. The two are very different in there is NO truth in manmade dogma; whereas, in Almighty God (YHWH) given dogma there is nothing but truth.

With respect age I do not know since it wasn’t a wake-up one day and realize what is final truth, but a very long process continued over many years and then a search for a group of individuals that only taught in line with what was determined to be final truth which in itself is a misnomer as learning continues all the time.

So as can readily be seen, the Pyrrhonist is in gross error and just being negative since he/she does not believe in final truth. The comment of the Pyrrhonist shows his/her warped thinking and rejection of belief in a final truth,

<<<” Which shows your lack of understanding of reality per John 8:32, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (Authorized King James Bible; AV). Why so? Because, while all creeds are dogma, and that of the wrong type, NOT all dogma is a creed.”>>>.

CONCLUSION:

Pyrrhonist offer nothing of value to anyone, but are just skeptics without a purpose who reject the concept that there is final truth. This makes them very negative and causes them to belittle truth as sub-consciously they can not accept the ideal of final truth.

Skeptic pragmatic realist, on the other hand, diligently seek final truth in a very objective way and are not swayed by peers and or others while pursuing their search for final truth. I count myself among the skeptic pragmatic realist who are skeptics with a purpose.

Just examine what Pyrrhonist say, it is negative and not up-building and clearly shows the rejection of the belief that there is a final truth. In other words, they serve no useful purpose.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

[iris89]

hI Everyone

As I told a poster, who is a Pyrrhonist, on a thread in another forum:

######## either forgets or is ignorant of the Apostle Paul’s encounter with worldly egotistical self-centered philosophers, and how he DID NOT waste time discussing all of their many ideas/opinions, but went on to show them the truth. Let’s look at Acts 17:18-34, and learn reality and why not to waste time discussing silly opinions/ideas of with worldly egotistical self-centered philosophers with them from the example set by the Apostle Paul:

“And certain also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him. And some said, What would this babbler say? others, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached Jesus and the resurrection.
19 And they took hold of him, and brought him unto the Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new teaching is, which is spoken by thee?
20 For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean.
21 (Now all the Athenians and the strangers sojourning there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell or to hear some new thing.)
22 And Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus, and said, Ye men of Athens, in all things, I perceive that ye are very religious.
23 For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. What therefore ye worship in ignorance, this I set forth unto you.
24 The God that made the world and all things therein, he, being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 neither is he served by men’s hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he himself giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26 and he made of one every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed seasons, and the bounds of their habitation;
27 that they should seek God, if haply they might feel after him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us:
28 for in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain even of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and device of man.
30 The times of ignorance therefore God overlooked; but now he commandeth men that they should all everywhere repent:
31 inasmuch as he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
32 Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked; but others said, We will hear thee concerning this yet again.
33 Thus Paul went out from among them.
34 But certain men clave unto him, and believed: among whom also was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.” (American Standard Version; ASV).

As can be seen, the Apostle Paul did not waste time discussing their opinions/ideas with the philosophers, but got right into delivering reality, the truth to them per John 8:32, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (Authorized King James Bible; AV) so why should I deviate from this example set by the Apostle Paul?

Worse yet, ######## wants me to discuss this nonsense when those making it are NOT even present, i.e., third hand nonsense – just how ridiculas can one get so as to request such nonsense?

Its like what is written at Acts 17:21, “(Now all the Athenians and the strangers sojourning there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell or to hear some new thing.)” Now because he has sunk to such absurd nonsense is absolutely no reason for me to follow him into the muck of egotistical men and their stupid opinions.

To learn more, check out the following:

[1] religioustruths.proboards59.com/ An Educational Referral Forum

[2] www.network54.com/Forum/403209 A Forum Devoted to Exposing The False Religion of Islam

[3] jude3.proboards92.com/ A Free-Speech Forum For All

[4] www.freewebs.com/iris_the_preacher My web site.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

[iris89]

Hi Everyone

One poster asked, on another forum:

Have you ever heard about the Seven Foundations of Creation. The Seven Laws of Adam?

The Inspired Word of Almighty God (YHWH) NOWHERE mentions the “The Seven Laws of Adam,” so anyone alluding to them is just engaging in silly egotistical worldly philosophy as were the men of Athens of old as revealed by Acts 17:21, “(Now all the Athenians and the strangers sojourning there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell or to hear some new thing.)” (American Standard Version; ASV).

Now with respect the Noahides Laws he mentioned, they are NOT found as such in the Bible, but are found only in the oral tradition of the Jews as set down in the Talmud (the western or Jersulem Talmud). Let’s look at reality:

B'nei Noah (Hebrew: áðé ðåç) or Children of Noah or Noahides is a modern monotheistic movement which observes the Seven Laws of Noah. According to Jewish law, non-Jews are not obligated to convert to Judaism, however they are required to observe the Seven Laws of Noah.
Technically, the Hebrew term B'nei Noah applies to all non-Jews as descendants of Noah. However, nowadays it is also used to refer specifically to those non-Jews who observe the Noahide Laws.

The Seven Laws of Noah (Hebrew: ùáò îöååú áðé ðç, Sheva mitzvot B'nei Noach), often referred to as the Noahide Laws, are a set of seven moral imperatives which, according to the Talmud, were given by God to Noah as a binding set of laws for all mankind.[1] According to Judaism any non-Jew who lives according to these laws is regarded as a Righteous Gentile and is assured of a place in the world to come (Olam Haba), the Jewish concept of heaven.[2] Adherents are often called "B'nei Noah" (Children of Noah) or "Noahides" and may often network in Jewish synagogues.
The Noahide Laws were predated by six laws given to Adam in the Garden of Eden.[3] Later at the Revelation at Sinai the Seven Laws of Noah were regiven to humanity and embedded in the 613 Laws given to the Children of Israel along with the Ten Commandments, which are part of, and not separate from, the 613 mitzvot. These laws are mentioned in the Torah. According to Judaism, the 613 mitzvot or "commandments" given in the written Torah, as well as their reasonings in the oral Torah, were only issued to the Jews and are therefore only binding upon them, having inherited the obligation from their ancestors. At the same time, at Mount Sinai, the Children of Israel were given the obligation to teach other nations the embedded laws. It is actually forbidden by the Talmud for non-Jews on whom the Noahide Laws are still binding, to elevate their observance to the Torah's mitzvot as the Jews do.[4]
While some Jewish organizations, such as Chabad have worked to promote the acceptance of Noahide laws, there are no figures for how many actually do. Noahides exist predominantly in the United States, South America and Europe

The seven laws listed by the Talmud are[5]
1. Prohibition of Idolatry: You shall not have any idols before God.
2. Prohibition of Murder: You shall not murder. (Genesis 9:6)
3. Prohibition of Theft: You shall not steal.
4. Prohibition of Sexual Promiscuity: You shall not commit adultery.
5. Prohibition of Blasphemy: You shall not blaspheme God's name.
6. Prohibition of Cruelty to Animals: Do not eat flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive. (Genesis 9:4)
7. Requirement to have just Laws: You shall set up an effective judiciary to fairly judge observance of the preceding six laws.
[source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]

He, even has the audacity as to list a politician as a source and we all know they say what is politically expedient at any given time.

Now what this poster should really be concerned with is the Ten Commandments given in Exodus the 20 th. chapter as follows: -Exodus 20:1-17-

“And God spake all these words, saying:––
2 I, am Yahweh thy God,––who have brought thee forth out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of servants:––
3 Thou shalt not have other gods, besides me.
4 Thou shalt not make to thee an image, or any form, that is in the heavens above,––or that is in the earth beneath,––or that is in the waters, beneath the earth:
5 thou shalt not bow thyself down to them, nor be led to serve them––For, I, Yahweh, thy God, am a jealous GOD, visiting the iniquity of fathers, upon sons, unto three generations and unto four, of them that hate me;
6 but shewing lovingkindness unto thousands of generations, ––of them who love me, and keep my commandments.
7 Thou shalt not utter the name of Yahweh thy God, for falsehood, for Yahweh will not let him go unpunished who uttereth his name, for falsehood.
8 Remember the sabbath day, to hallow it:
9 Six days, shalt thou labour, and do all thy work;
10 but, the seventh day, is a sabbath, unto Yahweh thy God,––thou shalt do no work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy servant, nor thy handmaid, nor thy beast, nor thy sojourner who is within thy gates.
11 For, in six days, did Yahweh make the heavens and the earth, and the sea––and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day,––for this cause, Yahweh blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it.
12 Honour thy father, and thy mother,––that thy days may be prolonged upon the soil, which Yahweh thy God is about to give unto thee.
13 Thou shalt not commit murder.
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
15 Thou shalt not steal.
16 Thou shalt not testify against thy neighbour, with a witness of falsehood.
17 Thou shalt not covet, thy neighbour’s house,––thou shalt not covet, thy neighbour’s wife, nor his servant, nor his handmaid, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything which belongeth unto thy neighbour.” (Rotherham Bible of 1902; RB).

His lack of concern for the Ten Commandments is astonishing and shows he prefers sayings of worldly philosophers and politicians over those commandments of Almighty God (YHWH), the Creator of all there is – how absurd can one get?

As I told another poster on another thread,

######## either forgets or is ignorant of the Apostle Paul’s encounter with worldly egotistical self-centered philosophers, and how he DID NOT waste time discussing all of their many ideas/opinions, but went on to show them the truth. Let’s look at Acts 17:18-34, and learn reality and why not to waste time discussing silly opinions/ideas of with worldly egotistical self-centered philosophers with them from the example set by the Apostle Paul:

“And certain also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him. And some said, What would this babbler say? others, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached Jesus and the resurrection.
19 And they took hold of him, and brought him unto the Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new teaching is, which is spoken by thee?
20 For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean.
21 (Now all the Athenians and the strangers sojourning there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell or to hear some new thing.)
22 And Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus, and said, Ye men of Athens, in all things, I perceive that ye are very religious.
23 For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. What therefore ye worship in ignorance, this I set forth unto you.
24 The God that made the world and all things therein, he, being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 neither is he served by men’s hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he himself giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26 and he made of one every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed seasons, and the bounds of their habitation;
27 that they should seek God, if haply they might feel after him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us:
28 for in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain even of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and device of man.
30 The times of ignorance therefore God overlooked; but now he commandeth men that they should all everywhere repent:
31 inasmuch as he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
32 Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked; but others said, We will hear thee concerning this yet again.
33 Thus Paul went out from among them.
34 But certain men clave unto him, and believed: among whom also was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.” (American Standard Version; ASV).

As can be seen, the Apostle Paul did not waste time discussing their opinions/ideas with the philosophers, but got right into delivering reality, the truth to them per John 8:32, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (Authorized King James Bible; AV) so why should I deviate from this example set by the Apostle Paul?

Worse yet, ######## wants me to discuss this nonsense when those making it are NOT even present, i.e., third hand nonsense – just how ridiculas can one get so as to request such nonsense?

Its like what is written at Acts 17:21, “(Now all the Athenians and the strangers sojourning there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell or to hear some new thing.)” Now because he has sunk to such absurd nonsense is absolutely no reason for me to follow him into the muck of egotistical men and their stupid opinions.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

[iris89]

Hi Everyone

As I told one Pyrrhonist, [[Pyrrhonist believe there is no possibility of learning real truth; to wit, which is a rejection of the existence of real truth.]], on another thread in another forum:

[1] I belong to no cult or creed but only accept the Inspired Word of Almighty God (YHWH), the Creator of all there is and NO creedal and/or cult dogma whatsoever, but I believe that you really do not understand exactly what a cult is in theological terms. Also, I believe you have NEVER participated in deprogramming individuals who have been in a cult as I have.

But let’s look once more at what a cult is in theological terms as you are obviously ignorant of this reality.

WHAT IS AND IS NOT A CULT,

Cults are characterized by a charismatic leader(s) who claim infallibility either on the basis of direct communication with a deity, for example, Almighty God (YHWH) or on the basis of ex Cathedra, absolute direction by a deity. Often they have many other features such as strangeness, weirdness, dangerousness, etc. But these are NOT defining features of a cult, but only relative features often associated with cults such as the Charles Manson group, the Brian David Mitchell group, the Osama bin Laden group, etc.

First strangeness and weirdness are only relative terms and not absolute since what appears strange to one individual may not appear strange to another and the same goes for weirdness. There is an animistic group in Africa that worships mushrooms where the whole congregation when they find a mushroom gets down and worships it, this is very strange and weird to most in the USA; however, many of our religious practices would seem very strange to them. Therefore, since strangeness and weirdness are relative terms and/or features, they can in no way be defining terms.

However, having a charismatic leader(s) who claim infallibility either on the basis of direct communication with a deity or on the basis of ex Cathedra is a defining none relative feature of all cults. Without this claim of infallibility, a group can NOT be a cult even if they are strange, weird, dangerous, etc. which are relative terms often fitting a cult in one specific context. To reemphasis, to be a cult a group of any kind must claim infallibility for its leader(s); if it does not it is something else other than a cult. This was brought out by one reporter as follows:

Bin Laden fits the definition of a cult leader, experts say
Cleveland Plain Dealer/October 28, 2001
Michael Sangiacomo
Independence -- Osama bin Laden is a religious leader who claims his authority comes directly from God and who wants to destroy people and countries that do not share his rigid religious beliefs.

That points to him being a cult leader, concluded speakers at this weekend's Leo J. Ryan Education Foundation national conference, held at the Hilton Cleveland South Hotel in Independence. The conference ends this morning.

He can dress his sect up any way he wants, but bin Laden is just one more apocalyptic cult figurehead who cites his inside track to the almighty as justification for abhorrent acts, the speakers said.

Second, In our modern world of the new millennium, the word "cult" has become largely overused and is now a catch-all for any group, religion or lifestyle which someone doesn't understand, or with which they happen to disagree. This is a dangerous trend, as many of the organizations labeled a cult by dissidents are truly legitimate groups. Once the taint of the term "cult" is applied to a particular group, it is often difficult to change that image to the public.

At this reporter stressed, "the word "cult" has become largely overused and is now a catch-all for any group, religion or lifestyle which someone doesn't understand, or with which they happen to disagree. This is a dangerous trend, as many of the organizations labeled a cult by dissidents are truly legitimate groups. Once the taint of the term "cult" is applied to a particular group, it is often difficult to change that image to the public."

Therefore, to separate what is really a cult from those groups falsely labeled cults by bigots that do not like them for one reason or another, it is necessary to determine if their leader(s) claim infallibility or not. If they do NOT claim infallibility, they are NOT a cult. If someone claims the leader(s) o***roup claim infallibility, then they should show proof of this or otherwise STOP MAKING FALSE ACCUSATIONS! If they continue to make false accusations, they are false accusers and liars, prima face.

APPENDIX:

1a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. b. The followers of such a religion or sect. 2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual. 3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual. 4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease. 5a. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing. b. The object of such devotion. 6. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.
[The American Heritage(r) Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.]

1.
a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
b. The followers of such a religion or sect.
2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
5.
a. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
b. The object of such devotion.
6. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.
[The American Heritage(r) Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright (c) 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved]
cult cult,ritual observances involved in worship of, or communication with, the supernatural or its symbolic representations. A cult includes the totality of ideas, activities, and practices associated with a given divinity or social group. It includes not only ritual activities but also the beliefs and myths centering on ... [Encyclopedia.com is a service of ALLC. Copyright ? 2003]
Example, "irst, they packed their suitcases neatly and dressed themselves in black-shirts, pants and tennis shoes. Then, one by one over a period of several days, they ate applesauce or pudding laced with a barbiturate and chased it with vodka. Finally, again one by one, they lay down on cots or bunk beds and, joyously believing they were destined to rendezvous with a heaven-bound UFO, put plastic bags over their heads to hasten death. Two members of the Heaven's Gate cyber-cult remained alive to remove the plastic bags, drape the 37 bodies in purple shrouds and tidy up. Then, they" [Special Report: KILLER CULTS: In California and Quebec, 44 die for the promise of salvation]
cult - A relatively temporary religious group whose members are generally recruited among poor people in a state of emotional crisis, which has an informal, loosely organized structure governed by charismatic leadership, involves no formal rituals, relies on emotional displays during ceremonies, and actively rejects major social institutions. [http://www.webref.org/sociology/c/cult.htm]
Cult: From the Latin word "cultus" -- meaning worship. Cult is a word with many religious meanings (and some secular as well) which should be used with great care to avoid misunderstanding. We recommend the neutral term "new religious movement" be used in its place. Even better is to refer to a religious group by its name:
1. Traditional theological usage: a style of worship and its associated rituals. It can be applied to any faith group.
2. Sociological usage: a small religious group that exists in a state of tension with the predominant religion; e.g. Christianity in Pakistan.
3. General religious usage: a small, recently created religious group; not a variant of an established religion. Often headed by a single charismatic leader.
4. Evangelical usage: a religious group that considers themselves to be Christian but which denies one or more historical beliefs of Protestant Christianity.
5. Counter-cult movement usage: Same as Evangelical usage.
6. Anti-cult movement usage: a small, evil religious group, often with a single charismatic leader, who engage in deceptive recruiting, brainwashing and other mind control techniques
7. Popular belief: A doomsday, dangerous, destructive religious movement whose members risk their life to belong. [Copyright (c) 1996 to 2002 incl. by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance]
cult
In modern general usage a cult is a religious group that follows a living leader who promotes new and unorthodox doctrines and practices, normally a small fringe group centered around a single charismatic individual who uses unethical forms of persuasion to manipulate followers. Usually they conduct their operations in secrecy. [http://bookshelf.info/wordlists/e/eec/www/=C.html]

[2] You posted the following,

Science does something that religion never does, and never will do: science welcomes and incorporates facts as they are presented, whether they agree with the theory to which they apply, or not, and adjusts any discovery to incorporate the newly-discovered evidence – thus growing and improving the view we have of reality. Science is never "proven" – it offers a view that explains the world as we see it, a view that is subject to improvement, adjustment, or even reversal, if the facts require that to be done; science gets better by discrete steps, getting closer to the truth, with each step. Religion, on the other hand, is set, hardened, incorrigible, dogmatic, and incapable of changing its notions. It rules as a dictator, denying any and all facts that oppose its dogma. It does not grow.

But you seem unable to tell the difference between science and opinions of egotistical self-centered worldly philosophers which you obviously show adoration to, but there is a tremendous difference between the opinions of those of egotistical self-centered worldly philosophers you show adoration for as if they were some type of collective cult leader for Pyrrhonist like yourself. Now, I am in no way against skeptics since I am one myself, but there is a very big difference in the outcome of being a skeptic pragmatic realist looking for a positive outcome and realizing ultimate truth, and a Pyrrhonist - As I have said before,

Before we delve deep into the subject of why this type of skepticism is foolish, let's look at a definition of Pyrrhonism from the Catholic Encyclopedia,

<<<" Pyrrhonism

Pyrrhonism is a system of scepticism, the founder of which was Pyrrho, a Greek philosopher, about whom very little is known except that he died in 270 B. C. The best known of Pyrrho's disciples was Timon of Philius, known as the sillographer. Pyrrho's scepticism was so complete and comprehensive that the word Pyrrhonism is sometimes used as a synonym for scepticism, The scepticism of Pyrrho's school covered three points.

(1) All the dogmatists, that is to say, all the philosophers who believed that truth and certitude can be attained, were mere sophists; they were self-deceived and deceivers of others.

(2) Certitude is impossible of attainment, not only because of the possibility that our faculties deceive us, but also because, in themselves, things are neither one thing nor the other, neither good nor evil, beautiful nor ugly, large nor small. Or, rather, things are both good and evil, beautiful and ugly, large and small, so that there is no reason why we should affirm that they are one thing rather than the other. This conviction was expressed in the famous saying, ouden mallon, nothing is more one thing than another; the paper is not more white than black, the piece of sugar is not more sweet than bitter, and so forth.

(3) The reality of things being inaccessible to the human mind, and certitude being impossible of attainment, the wise man doubts about everything; that is, he recognizes the futility of inquiry into reality and abstains from judging. This abstention is called epoche. It is the foundation of happiness. Because he alone can attain happiness who cultivates imperturbability, ataraxia; and then only is the mind proof against disquietude when we realize that every attempt to attain the truth is doomed to failure.

From this account of the principles of Pyrrhonism, it is evident that Pyrrho's aim was ethical. Like all the philosophers of the period in which he lived, he concerned himself principally with the problem of happiness. The Stoics sought to found happiness on the realization of the reign of law in human nature as well as in nature. The Epicureans grounded happiness on the conviction that transitory feeling is the one important phenomenon in human life. The Eclectics placed the intellectual basis of happiness in the conviction that all systems of philosophy are equally true. The Pyrrhonist, as well as the other sceptics of that period, believed that there is no possibility of attaining happiness unless one first realizes that all systems of philosophy are equally false and that the real truth of things cannot be attained. Pyrrhonism is, therefore, an abdication of all the supposed rights of the mind, and cannot be dealt with by the ordinary rules of logic or by the customary canons of philosophical criticism." [source - The Catholic Encyclopedia]>>>.

In other words, the philosophical skeptics, or Pyrrhonist believe there is no possibility of learning real truth; to wit, which is a rejection of the existence of real truth. Whereas, the skeptic pragmatic realist knows there is real truth and seeks actively for it - a healthy outlook.

In their absurd effort to deny even to themselves that real truth exist the Pyrrohonist pokes or makes fun of the ideal that real truth can exist and make very negative comments about anything that could possibly be real truth and/or approaching it, and of skeptic pragmatic realist who pursue finding real truth. Their comments are always negative and belittling and never up-building in the slightest. Let's look at some examples that illustrate their negative comments designed to belittle truth which the reject off of hand.[source - Skepticism With a Purpose and Skepticism Without A Purpose: at religioustruths.proboards59.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=announcements&thread=698 (2 nc. Post down)].

[3] You say I keep posting the same type of answer, but then what should you expect when you figuratively keep posting the same old smelly nonsense with a slightly new wrapper. It is as if you picked up a dead roadkill skunk and kept putting him into a different bag – it would still smell, and the same goes for the smelly opinions of egotistical self-centered worldly philosophers to whom you obviously show adoration that you keep posting.

To learn more, check out the following:

[1] religioustruths.proboards59.com/ An Educational Referral Forum

[2] www.network54.com/Forum/403209 A Forum Devoted to Exposing The False Religion of Islam

[3] jude3.proboards92.com/ A Free-Speech Forum For All

[4] www.freewebs.com/iris_the_preacher My web site.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

[iris89]

Hi Everyone

One Pyrrhonist on another forum has been making unfounded false and misleading accusations against me, and here is my answer to this misguided one.

<<<”As a young girl I could see right through the hypocrisy of many who claimed to be serving Almighty God (YHWH) and were not; whereas, [[misguided Pyrrhonist]] could not. When he finally did in old age, he did NOT follow a realistic path to find the truth, but took the unrealistic path of taking the negative course and denying that ultimate truth existed; to wit, he became a Pyrrhonist. For details on Pyrrhonist, go to:

[go to] religioustruths.proboards59.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=announcements&thread=700

or jude3.proboards92.com/index.cgi?board=ch&action=display&thread=146

Also, check out,

[go to to check out] People Are Losing Their Grip On Reality

religioustruths.proboards59.com/index.cgi?board=miscelaneousdoctrines&action=display&thread=1202229080

or

jude3.proboards92.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=ch&thread=1202229206

Also, he is not telling the truth when he says,

You then go on to claim over and over and over and over again, that because this kind of thing is in the book that as a girl of 12 you convinced yourself to be absolute truth.

WRONG, I knew from a much earlier age that absolute truth was out there to be found, but at 12 years of age, I was still actively searching for it. As I have explained elsewhere, it is a long search with many wrong leads to be checked out and rejected and at 12 years of age I was deep in the process of checking out many wrong leads and rejecting them in keeping with the principle set forth by the Apostle Paul at Acts 17:10-11, "And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Beroea: who when they were come thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of the mind, examining the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so." (American Standard Version; ASV).

He then says,

Then you turn around and condemn this kind of violence in other religions.

Clearly showing his ignorance between violence for violence sake such as the taught lust for violence, greed, and hate that is in many in Islam. Why? Let’s look at reality, it is not what either the Bible or the Bible knockoff the Qur'an actually say, but how religious leaders be they priest and/or imams or muftis or what ever teach the people is the interpretation of what is written either in the Bible or the bible knockoff the Qur'an that matters and governs actions. It matters not what the Bible and/or the Bible knockoff really say. People go by what they are taught by their religious leaders. Take the genocide committed by the Roman Catholic Church at the direction of their supreme religious leader, the pope, what mattered was not that the Bible clearly said at Exodus 20:13, "Thou shalt not kill." (Authorized King James Bible; AV), but what their religious leaders told them. Therefore, it is the religion at fault, irregardless of what their particular holy book, be it the Bible or the Bible knockoff the Qur'an may say. Neither in so called Christianity or in Islam are most individuals actions really governed in any way by what their particular holy book really says, but they are governed by the interpretation of their religious leaders. Thus, knowing this reality, one would be either just plain stupid and/or dumb to even bother looking at a particular religion's holy book and expect the members would conform to it. Take the Rig Vede and find me for example a Hindu actually conforming to it instead of the interpretation given to it by his religious leaders, like looking for a needle in the haystack per K.S. Lal, India's greatest historian.

He then says this intentionally distorted item to try and cloud reality,

Then you turn around and say you are a pacifist. Some pacifist - making excuses for the group of Hebrews that wrote their own religious documents to justify their own actions to kill, plunder and take virgin girls for themselves as property and who knows what else.

First, I am making no excuses for anyone, but simply stating reality.

Second, I well understand the great difference between lust for violence, greed, and hate; and the necessity for righteous judgment such as the judgment of Noah’s day on an ungodly world and later judgments, but he, being a negative thinking Pyrrhonist is unable to make this distinction. That, though, is his problem and not mine and he should NOT be falsely accusing me because of his inability to recognize true reality.

His inability to make realistic distinctions between lust for violence, greed, and hate; and the necessity for righteous judgment such as the judgment of Noah’s day on an ungodly world and later judgments, but he, being a negative thinking Pyrrhonist is unable to make this distinction., is clearly shown in the next item he posted.

How can you live with yourself denouncing such disgusting, horrible, tribal savagery if you would see such stories in any other religion and yet so easily have a complete blind eye and even go so far as to claim it all as righteousness when it is in the history of your own religious heritage? It is just bizarre beyond comparison.

How utterly stupid and ignorant is this his false accusation against me.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89