Post by iris89 on May 5, 2008 12:14:19 GMT -5
Pyrrhonism – A Form of Skepticism Where One Deludes Himself Into Believing There Is No Ultimate Truth:
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.
Good skepticism is where one seeks ultimate truth and keeps searching for it and continually checking all the time to be sure he/she either has found it and/or is on the correct path leading to it. It requires a very positive attitude and a rejection of most of what one is told in keeping with the principle set fourth 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). This type of skepticism is termed pragmatic realism and can only be pursued by those with an open and positive mind such as those in Beroea of whom the Apostle Paul spoke. Today, to be a genuine skeptic pragmatic realist involves the rejection of anything that does not check out as true when checked and a positive outlook that absolute truth is out there and can be uncovered if one is open minded and willing to keep diligently searching for it as one would search for a hid treasure that he/she knew existed. Only open minded and skeptic individuals can be skeptic pragmatic realist.
Now we shall look at the other type of skeptic, the negative skeptic who believes ultimate truth does NOT exist. 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.
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].
So as can be seen skepticism is a method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubts and continual testing, but unfortunately in some individuals this drive for obtaining knowledge becomes warped and/or distorted. Instead of seeking after ultimate truth, they instead seek out ways to deny that ultimate truth actually exist as we shall later see, but now we shall consider the more exacting definition of the negative form of skepticism, Pyrrhonism.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA ON PYRRHONISM:
<<<" 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 skeptics 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]>>>.
So as can readily be seen, Pyrrhonism is a DEFEATIST strategy where the one practicing it subconsciously or consciously believes as per the definition in the Catholic Encyclopedia that “Certitude is impossible of attainment.” This results in the one practicing Pyrrhonism seeking to discredit all – being completely negative with regard to the attainment of ultimate truth. Phrrhonist usually end up becoming very negative individuals and/or atheist and not believing that there is a higher power in the universe than themselves. Rather that consider the facts with an open mind that clearly show there is a higher power, they spend their time trying to find negatives and make opinionated arguments seeking to deny this reality.
ACTIONS OF PYRRHONIST:
As previously stated Pyrrhonism is a defeatist strategy where the one practicing it subconsciously or consciously believes as per the definition in the Catholic Encyclopedia that “Certitude is impossible of attainment.” To pacify their warped subconscious they usually turn to the opinionated sayings of egotistical self-centered worldly philosophers and quote them in a vain attempt to discredit that the reality of ultimate truth is out there to be found and/or also become atheist. In fact just a quick look at some of the things Pyrrhonist say clearly bares this point out. Here is an example:
<<<” One individual who is a negative thinking Pyrrhonist falsely accused me of repeating dogma from cult propaganda which is nothing but an outright lie. Here is what he said,
Repeating more repeated dogma from cult propaganda I see that defends the idea that a deity uses human beings to slaughter others and claim that god is on their side. I guess that pretty much once again proves my point that belief in a deity makes it easier for people to commit acts of violence on others. Thanks again.
Now let’s look at reality with respect what I quoted from in my last two post and you will see absolutely no cult propaganda sources:
Sources used for research product I wrote that the Pyrrhonist was addressing are as follows:
[1] Michael Shermer, The Science of Good and Evil, Chapter 8, Rise Above: Tolerance, Freedom, and the Prospects for Humanity, p. 233]
[2] The New American Bible; NAB.
[3] American Standard Version; ASV.
[4] Webster's Revised Unabridged, 1913 Edition.
[5] Authorized King James Bible; AV
[6]A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.
[7] Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
[8] The American Heritage(r) Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Obviously is plain outright lying or does NOT even know what cult propaganda is or what a cult is since NONE of these are cult propaganda, but well respected sources. But let’s look at what theologically speaking a cult is:
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]”>>>.
And another example of wrong thinking on the part of a Pyrrhonist is as following statemate made by one Pyrrhonist:
<<<” 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.”>>>. Which I believe is actually a quote of another Pyrrhonist.
My answer to this Pyrrhonist was,
<<<”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,
[[And then I gave the Catholic Encyclopedia’s definition of Pyrrhonism previously given]]
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,”>>>.
Of course this Pyrrhonist fails to realize that TRUE science is a continuous search for ultimate truth with regard to scientific things by a process of continuous trial and error and that the same process is applied by skeptic pragmatic realist – which all good scientist are – by individuals seeking ultimate truth with respect to the highest power in the universe.
Of course, this Pyrrhonist fails to recognize the fact that all good scientist well know that ultimate truth with respect their line of endeavor is out there and they are continually striving to find it and are NOT negative subconscious individuals that seek to deny that ultimate truth exist. Yes, science gets better by discrete steps, getting ever closer to the truth, but NEVER by believing that ultimate truth does not exist as does a Pyrrhonist. Most individuals, unfortunately, form their religious belief without pursuing ultimate truth as they should, but by accepting that of their family and/or friends. However, a skeptic pragmatic realist well realizes, just as the good scientist, that ultimate truth with regard a higher intellect does exist and seeks to find it; whereas, a Pyrrhonist seeks at every chance to deny this with negative comments and post of philosophers.
This fact is clearly shown by the generalized part of his quote that says, “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.” Which may cover much of religion, but DOES NOT cover all.
True much of what is called religion is nothing but personal agenda of religious leaders, but this only applies to the majority. It is well known it that 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.
To be objective; to wit, a skeptic pragmatic realist, it is necessary to independently research and search for ultimate truth with respect a higher intelligence than man in the universe since religious leaders per se are only roadblocks to be bypassed in this search. Therefore, one must diligently search on his/her own if he/she is to have any possibility of finding ultimate truth with respect to a higher intelligence than man in the universe. Now let’s look at the two taxonomies of what is called Christianity.
THE TWO TAXONOMIES:
<<<” Some view gaining salvation as and easy task and feel that belonging to any old religion is acceptable to Almighty God (YHWH), but is it? Let's look at some facts, realities in keeping with John 8:32, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (Authorized King James Bible; AV).
Because I have clearly shown that actions and belief set the two groups apart so now I shall summarize the differences.
Group 1 - the genuine (true) followers of Jesus (Yeshua) Christ do NOT involve themselves with war and violence or meddle in politics, and try to follow to the 'letter' the words and commandments of Christ. Also, they have NO creedal doctrines and/or traditions.
Group 2 - the false claimants of being followers of Jesus (Yeshua) Christ involve themselves with war and violence and meddle in politics while falsely claiming to be followers of Christ, the Prince of Peace. The give 'lip' service with respect following to the 'letter' the words and commandments of Christ - the term Sunday Christian aptly fits them. They have their creedal doctrines and/or traditions and assign more importance to these than the Inspired Word of Almighty God (YHWH), the Bible.
So it is NOT my taxonomy but reality that sets the two groups clearly apart as separate classifications. Also, it is not my opinion that sets the two separate groups that are called "Christians" apart, but clearly the diametrically opposed actions of the two groups.
In fact, the Inspired Word of Almighty God (YHWH), the Bible, clearly demonstrates how difficult it really is not to be mislead by the Devil and the religious leaders of evil false religions under control of the god of this system of things. This was clearly shown by Almighty God's (YHWH's) Son, Jesus (Yeshua), in answering a question asked of him at Luke 13:23-30, "And one said unto him, Lord, are they few that are saved? And he said unto them, 24 Strive to enter in by the narrow door: for many, I say unto you, shall seek to enter in, and shall not be able. 25 When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, open to us; and he shall answer and say to you, I know you not whence ye are; 26 then shall ye begin to say, We did eat and drink in thy presence, and thou didst teach in our streets; 27 and he shall say, I tell you, I know not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. 28 There shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and yourselves cast forth without. 29 And they shall come from the east and west, and from the north and south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God. 30 And behold, there are last who shall be first, and there are first who shall be last." (American Standard Version; ASV).
Also, Jesus (Yeshua) clearly showed his genuine (true) followers would be few in number compared to the total number of mankind. Let's consider both Luke 13:24 and Matthew 7:13-14, it is in both of these that the road followed by true believers would be narrow and cramped, Luke 13:24, "Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able." (Authorized King James Bible: AV); And Matthew 7:13-14, "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, abroad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." (AV); thereby, clearly showing few would be entering the narrow gate "which leadeth unto life." In reality, it will be difficult for even true Christians to enter as testified to at 1 Peter 4:18, "And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear." (AV). In order to enter, we must have the right sort of guide, Luke 1:79, "To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace." (AV). Now, if one picks the wrong group, just because it is popular or the so called 'one to belong to in a community' and not because of Bible Truths, there is an important warning given at Matthew 15:14, "Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." (AV). In fact, being with the wrong group can mean you are NOT having fellowship with the Son of God, Jesus (Yeshua) as testified to at 1 John 1:6, "If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not [have] the truth." (AV). This danger is made abundantly clear at Luke 12:32 when Jesus (Yeshua) spoke of his true followers as a little flock and not a large one, "Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom." (AV). Simply stated, his true followers will be relatively few in number which should cause all sincere individuals to question whether mainstream religion with its vast membership is heading for the narrow gate!
Now being this is the case, it behooves all genuine (true) followers of Jesus (Yeshua) to show neighbor love and warn their neighbors of the need to seek genuine salvation and to get OUT OF EVIL FALSE RELIGION regardless of what it is called or how long their families and friends have been members of it. This would be required by what Jesus (Yeshua) said at Matthew 22:37-40, "And he said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second like unto it is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 40 On these two commandments the whole law hangeth, and the prophets." (ASV).
We will consider how this love of neighbor requires all genuine (true) followers to warn their neighbors of evil false religion by exposing it for what it is.[source - Good People Can Be In Evil False Religions: by Iris the Preacher, 2008]>>>.
So as we can see, any generalization of religion would be just plain WRONG as it would not, even in the case of what is called Christianity, cover all cases. In fact, it does NOT cover the important case of those really searching for ultimate truth, so is just plain very deficient.
CONCLUSION:
In fact, one Phrryonist said,
<<<”What if Jesus was not the Messiah”>>>
But in typical Phrryonist negative fashion failed to give any reason for his question. But of course the reason is that Phrryonist do not want to believe ultimate truth exist and to justify their untenable position seek to throw out negative doubts instead of being positive and investigating with an open mind.
Also, you can almost always spot a Phrryonist by his/her use of negative terms such as sky deity for Almighty God (YHWH), false accusations against those seeking ultimate truth, Etc.
Phrryonist use methods like Satan the Devil used in the Garden of Eden recorded at 2 Corinthians 11:3-4, “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve in his craftiness, your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity and the purity that is toward Christ. 4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we did not preach, or if ye receive a different spirit, which ye did not receive, or a different gospel, which ye did not accept, ye do well to bear with him.” (ASV).
In fact, to discuss opinions/ideas of men with Phrryonist is a true waste of time as clearly shown by the Apostle Paul when he encountered these Phrryonist and 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.” (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? We should do likewise.
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
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.
Good skepticism is where one seeks ultimate truth and keeps searching for it and continually checking all the time to be sure he/she either has found it and/or is on the correct path leading to it. It requires a very positive attitude and a rejection of most of what one is told in keeping with the principle set fourth 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). This type of skepticism is termed pragmatic realism and can only be pursued by those with an open and positive mind such as those in Beroea of whom the Apostle Paul spoke. Today, to be a genuine skeptic pragmatic realist involves the rejection of anything that does not check out as true when checked and a positive outlook that absolute truth is out there and can be uncovered if one is open minded and willing to keep diligently searching for it as one would search for a hid treasure that he/she knew existed. Only open minded and skeptic individuals can be skeptic pragmatic realist.
Now we shall look at the other type of skeptic, the negative skeptic who believes ultimate truth does NOT exist. 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.
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].
So as can be seen skepticism is a method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubts and continual testing, but unfortunately in some individuals this drive for obtaining knowledge becomes warped and/or distorted. Instead of seeking after ultimate truth, they instead seek out ways to deny that ultimate truth actually exist as we shall later see, but now we shall consider the more exacting definition of the negative form of skepticism, Pyrrhonism.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA ON PYRRHONISM:
<<<" 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 skeptics 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]>>>.
So as can readily be seen, Pyrrhonism is a DEFEATIST strategy where the one practicing it subconsciously or consciously believes as per the definition in the Catholic Encyclopedia that “Certitude is impossible of attainment.” This results in the one practicing Pyrrhonism seeking to discredit all – being completely negative with regard to the attainment of ultimate truth. Phrrhonist usually end up becoming very negative individuals and/or atheist and not believing that there is a higher power in the universe than themselves. Rather that consider the facts with an open mind that clearly show there is a higher power, they spend their time trying to find negatives and make opinionated arguments seeking to deny this reality.
ACTIONS OF PYRRHONIST:
As previously stated Pyrrhonism is a defeatist strategy where the one practicing it subconsciously or consciously believes as per the definition in the Catholic Encyclopedia that “Certitude is impossible of attainment.” To pacify their warped subconscious they usually turn to the opinionated sayings of egotistical self-centered worldly philosophers and quote them in a vain attempt to discredit that the reality of ultimate truth is out there to be found and/or also become atheist. In fact just a quick look at some of the things Pyrrhonist say clearly bares this point out. Here is an example:
<<<” One individual who is a negative thinking Pyrrhonist falsely accused me of repeating dogma from cult propaganda which is nothing but an outright lie. Here is what he said,
Repeating more repeated dogma from cult propaganda I see that defends the idea that a deity uses human beings to slaughter others and claim that god is on their side. I guess that pretty much once again proves my point that belief in a deity makes it easier for people to commit acts of violence on others. Thanks again.
Now let’s look at reality with respect what I quoted from in my last two post and you will see absolutely no cult propaganda sources:
Sources used for research product I wrote that the Pyrrhonist was addressing are as follows:
[1] Michael Shermer, The Science of Good and Evil, Chapter 8, Rise Above: Tolerance, Freedom, and the Prospects for Humanity, p. 233]
[2] The New American Bible; NAB.
[3] American Standard Version; ASV.
[4] Webster's Revised Unabridged, 1913 Edition.
[5] Authorized King James Bible; AV
[6]A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.
[7] Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
[8] The American Heritage(r) Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Obviously is plain outright lying or does NOT even know what cult propaganda is or what a cult is since NONE of these are cult propaganda, but well respected sources. But let’s look at what theologically speaking a cult is:
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]”>>>.
And another example of wrong thinking on the part of a Pyrrhonist is as following statemate made by one Pyrrhonist:
<<<” 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.”>>>. Which I believe is actually a quote of another Pyrrhonist.
My answer to this Pyrrhonist was,
<<<”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,
[[And then I gave the Catholic Encyclopedia’s definition of Pyrrhonism previously given]]
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,”>>>.
Of course this Pyrrhonist fails to realize that TRUE science is a continuous search for ultimate truth with regard to scientific things by a process of continuous trial and error and that the same process is applied by skeptic pragmatic realist – which all good scientist are – by individuals seeking ultimate truth with respect to the highest power in the universe.
Of course, this Pyrrhonist fails to recognize the fact that all good scientist well know that ultimate truth with respect their line of endeavor is out there and they are continually striving to find it and are NOT negative subconscious individuals that seek to deny that ultimate truth exist. Yes, science gets better by discrete steps, getting ever closer to the truth, but NEVER by believing that ultimate truth does not exist as does a Pyrrhonist. Most individuals, unfortunately, form their religious belief without pursuing ultimate truth as they should, but by accepting that of their family and/or friends. However, a skeptic pragmatic realist well realizes, just as the good scientist, that ultimate truth with regard a higher intellect does exist and seeks to find it; whereas, a Pyrrhonist seeks at every chance to deny this with negative comments and post of philosophers.
This fact is clearly shown by the generalized part of his quote that says, “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.” Which may cover much of religion, but DOES NOT cover all.
True much of what is called religion is nothing but personal agenda of religious leaders, but this only applies to the majority. It is well known it that 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.
To be objective; to wit, a skeptic pragmatic realist, it is necessary to independently research and search for ultimate truth with respect a higher intelligence than man in the universe since religious leaders per se are only roadblocks to be bypassed in this search. Therefore, one must diligently search on his/her own if he/she is to have any possibility of finding ultimate truth with respect to a higher intelligence than man in the universe. Now let’s look at the two taxonomies of what is called Christianity.
THE TWO TAXONOMIES:
<<<” Some view gaining salvation as and easy task and feel that belonging to any old religion is acceptable to Almighty God (YHWH), but is it? Let's look at some facts, realities in keeping with John 8:32, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (Authorized King James Bible; AV).
Because I have clearly shown that actions and belief set the two groups apart so now I shall summarize the differences.
Group 1 - the genuine (true) followers of Jesus (Yeshua) Christ do NOT involve themselves with war and violence or meddle in politics, and try to follow to the 'letter' the words and commandments of Christ. Also, they have NO creedal doctrines and/or traditions.
Group 2 - the false claimants of being followers of Jesus (Yeshua) Christ involve themselves with war and violence and meddle in politics while falsely claiming to be followers of Christ, the Prince of Peace. The give 'lip' service with respect following to the 'letter' the words and commandments of Christ - the term Sunday Christian aptly fits them. They have their creedal doctrines and/or traditions and assign more importance to these than the Inspired Word of Almighty God (YHWH), the Bible.
So it is NOT my taxonomy but reality that sets the two groups clearly apart as separate classifications. Also, it is not my opinion that sets the two separate groups that are called "Christians" apart, but clearly the diametrically opposed actions of the two groups.
In fact, the Inspired Word of Almighty God (YHWH), the Bible, clearly demonstrates how difficult it really is not to be mislead by the Devil and the religious leaders of evil false religions under control of the god of this system of things. This was clearly shown by Almighty God's (YHWH's) Son, Jesus (Yeshua), in answering a question asked of him at Luke 13:23-30, "And one said unto him, Lord, are they few that are saved? And he said unto them, 24 Strive to enter in by the narrow door: for many, I say unto you, shall seek to enter in, and shall not be able. 25 When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, open to us; and he shall answer and say to you, I know you not whence ye are; 26 then shall ye begin to say, We did eat and drink in thy presence, and thou didst teach in our streets; 27 and he shall say, I tell you, I know not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. 28 There shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and yourselves cast forth without. 29 And they shall come from the east and west, and from the north and south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God. 30 And behold, there are last who shall be first, and there are first who shall be last." (American Standard Version; ASV).
Also, Jesus (Yeshua) clearly showed his genuine (true) followers would be few in number compared to the total number of mankind. Let's consider both Luke 13:24 and Matthew 7:13-14, it is in both of these that the road followed by true believers would be narrow and cramped, Luke 13:24, "Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able." (Authorized King James Bible: AV); And Matthew 7:13-14, "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, abroad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." (AV); thereby, clearly showing few would be entering the narrow gate "which leadeth unto life." In reality, it will be difficult for even true Christians to enter as testified to at 1 Peter 4:18, "And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear." (AV). In order to enter, we must have the right sort of guide, Luke 1:79, "To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace." (AV). Now, if one picks the wrong group, just because it is popular or the so called 'one to belong to in a community' and not because of Bible Truths, there is an important warning given at Matthew 15:14, "Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." (AV). In fact, being with the wrong group can mean you are NOT having fellowship with the Son of God, Jesus (Yeshua) as testified to at 1 John 1:6, "If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not [have] the truth." (AV). This danger is made abundantly clear at Luke 12:32 when Jesus (Yeshua) spoke of his true followers as a little flock and not a large one, "Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom." (AV). Simply stated, his true followers will be relatively few in number which should cause all sincere individuals to question whether mainstream religion with its vast membership is heading for the narrow gate!
Now being this is the case, it behooves all genuine (true) followers of Jesus (Yeshua) to show neighbor love and warn their neighbors of the need to seek genuine salvation and to get OUT OF EVIL FALSE RELIGION regardless of what it is called or how long their families and friends have been members of it. This would be required by what Jesus (Yeshua) said at Matthew 22:37-40, "And he said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second like unto it is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 40 On these two commandments the whole law hangeth, and the prophets." (ASV).
We will consider how this love of neighbor requires all genuine (true) followers to warn their neighbors of evil false religion by exposing it for what it is.[source - Good People Can Be In Evil False Religions: by Iris the Preacher, 2008]>>>.
So as we can see, any generalization of religion would be just plain WRONG as it would not, even in the case of what is called Christianity, cover all cases. In fact, it does NOT cover the important case of those really searching for ultimate truth, so is just plain very deficient.
CONCLUSION:
In fact, one Phrryonist said,
<<<”What if Jesus was not the Messiah”>>>
But in typical Phrryonist negative fashion failed to give any reason for his question. But of course the reason is that Phrryonist do not want to believe ultimate truth exist and to justify their untenable position seek to throw out negative doubts instead of being positive and investigating with an open mind.
Also, you can almost always spot a Phrryonist by his/her use of negative terms such as sky deity for Almighty God (YHWH), false accusations against those seeking ultimate truth, Etc.
Phrryonist use methods like Satan the Devil used in the Garden of Eden recorded at 2 Corinthians 11:3-4, “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve in his craftiness, your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity and the purity that is toward Christ. 4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we did not preach, or if ye receive a different spirit, which ye did not receive, or a different gospel, which ye did not accept, ye do well to bear with him.” (ASV).
In fact, to discuss opinions/ideas of men with Phrryonist is a true waste of time as clearly shown by the Apostle Paul when he encountered these Phrryonist and 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.” (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? We should do likewise.
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