Can one argue his/her way to a knowledge of God?

[Bill the Cat]

Said the cat who reveres Nicea over the Bible.

Nicea and the bible are both correct.

[OtherCheek]

Jeremiah said we can not trust our hearts

Read verses 5-10 of that chapter, (not just verse 9 in isolation), and put things in context.

[One Bad Pig]

Teachings have become apostate. People are apostate when they knowingly follow apostate teachings after this knowledge is made known to them. There are many, many mainstream Christians who realize that much of orthodoxy is apostate.

As Bill has said, this completely wrong. Teachings can be wrong, but only people (and by extension groups of people) can be apostate.

They came to that knowledge through their own study of church history. That is why so many have either become non-denominational, or they attend a church that comes closest to what they believe....not because they think they have found a church they totally agree with. Their desire is to worship God and follow Him. But they are able to discern in their own minds what they should believe and what they should not believe.

This actually describes my journey to Orthodoxy, with the exception that through study, I have found a church I totally agree with. I studied early church history and beliefs, studied the Orthodox Church, and found that they matched.

I have never called Christians apostate as a general broad statement. Certain individuals? Yes. In the doctrines of religions? Yes. But the people in general? No.

So Joseph Smith was wrong to call all organized churches apostate and found his own?

Truth is found in all religions; some more than others. The LDS seek truth wherever they can find it. We have no monolopy on truth.

Same here.

The individuals who have rational conversations with the LDS recognize that we are not the hopelessly misled, praying to the wrong God and believing in the wrong Jesus, non-Christian people that many orthodox Christians think we are.

How are my conversations with you (for example) not rational?

We recognize that Christ is working within us. I am sorry, but this is not something I see as being active in you. I think you have it, but it is being weighted down by what man has taught you.

But we are getting off topic, now.

God bless,

jo

I appreciate your concern, jo.

[Bill the Cat]

Read verses 5-10 of that chapter, (not just verse 9 in isolation), and put things in context.

Jer 17:5 Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.
Jer 17:6 For he shall be like the heath in the desert, and shall not see when good cometh; but shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, in a salt land and not inhabited.
Jer 17:7 Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is.
Jer 17:8 For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and that spreadeth out her roots by the river, and shall not see when heat cometh, but her leaf shall be green; and shall not be careful in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit.
Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
Jer 17:10 I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings


Contextually, the Lord is telling Jeremiah that only the Lord can know the heart. We can not trust our heart, nor can we trust the enemies of God to know what is best for us.

[jo7241974]

Nicea and the bible are both correct.

Your own argument destroys your stance as well.

[jo7241974]

One Bad Pig;2910731]As Bill has said, this completely wrong. Teachings can be wrong, but only people (and by extension groups of people) can be apostate.

God is my authority; not Bill. That said, I believe it is the orthodox definition of "apostasy" that is incorrect. That is not the opinion of the LDS Church alone. Christians everywhere believe that the church is apostate.

This actually describes my journey to Orthodoxy, with the exception that through study, I have found a church I totally agree with. I studied early church history and beliefs, studied the Orthodox Church, and found that they matched.

That is what is working for you. There are those who disagree with you; orthodoxy is not working for them. However, even though I do not agree with your beliefs, I really am happy that you have found peace in your beliefs.

So Joseph Smith was wrong to call all organized churches apostate and found his own?

No. Although every church has some truth, many of their beliefs are apostate. Determining what is truth and what is apostate is blurred. Either they teach only the truth, or they do not. The individual is then left with sifting through the mriad versions of beliefs in order to determine what they think is truth and what they don't think is truth.

How are my conversations with you (for example) not rational?

This is suited for another thread. I will say, however, that your previous post to this one had a an entirely different tone about it; and my heart immediately softened toward you. In general, though, if someone disagrees with another person's belief, this discussion format should be used to present why we believe what we do; not to disparage the other person just because they do not agree with you. I am sick of the old arguments and attacks on people, rather than discussing our beliefs. And when you get right down to it, nobody can "prove" any of it - no matter which side of the fence you are on. As soon as a person insists that they do have "proof", they lose all credibility and fall into the irrational pool.

I appreciate your concern, jo.

Thank you OBP. I appreciate your concern for me as well....truly!

God bless,

jo

[Bill the Cat]

Your own argument destroys your stance as well.

In your dreams!

[One Bad Pig]

God is my authority; not Bill. That said, I believe it is the orthodox definition of "apostasy" that is incorrect. That is not the opinion of the LDS Church alone. Christians everywhere believe that the church is apostate.

I agree, Bill is not your authority. I wouldn't say it's the "orthodox" definition per se, but the dictionary one. To say that a teaching is apostate just isn't good English.

That is what is working for you. There are those who disagree with you; orthodoxy is not working for them. However, even though I do not agree with your beliefs, I really am happy that you have found peace in your beliefs.

I wish I could reciprocate, but I believe that truth is absolute, not relative. I am sad that you are following something that is false.

No. Although every church has some truth, many of their beliefs are apostate. Determining what is truth and what is apostate is blurred. Either they teach only the truth, or they do not. The individual is then left with sifting through the mriad versions of beliefs in order to determine what they think is truth and what they don't think is truth.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. I agree that the Bible is a complex compilation of documents. Even with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it is easy for us to import our own ideas into our understanding of the text. Fortunately, we have 2,000 years of interpretation to assist us, all the way back to the apostolic era. Assuming that the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church, it's reasonable to believe that at least a sizable minority of interpretations will be correct down through the centuries.

This is suited for another thread. I will say, however, that your previous post to this one had a an entirely different tone about it; and my heart immediately softened toward you. In general, though, if someone disagrees with another person's belief, this discussion format should be used to present why we believe what we do; not to disparage the other person just because they do not agree with you. I am sick of the old arguments and attacks on people, rather than discussing our beliefs.

I try to never disparage someone just because they disagree with me. I have a tendency to call a spade a spade, though, and call out poor or evasive arguments. I have been attempting lately to find common ground and find at least something I can agree with, even if I disagree with the rest of the post.

And when you get right down to it, nobody can "prove" any of it - no matter which side of the fence you are on. As soon as a person insists that they do have "proof", they lose all credibility and fall into the irrational pool.

Not every proposition can be proven, but IMO there is sufficient evidence to prove many things. On quite a mundane level, for example, I can prove that my chair will hold me without collapsing by sitting in it.

Thank you OBP. I appreciate your concern for me as well....truly!

God bless,

jo

I'm glad we can agree on something.

[Sparko]

if someone disagrees with another person's belief, this discussion format should be used to present why we believe what we do; not to disparage the other person just because they do not agree with you. I am sick of the old arguments and attacks on people,
jo

Jo, if you truly feel that way, then why are most of your comments in these threads not actually you presenting why you believe what you do, but to just make snide comments instead?

examples:

Said the cat who reveres Nicea over the Bible.
====
Do as Sparko says; not what Sparko does.
====
It amazes me how anti's continue to argue while they keep shoving their own mounds and mounds and mounds of skeletons back into their overflowing closets. BTW, it has crossed my mind that those who believe in original sin readily accept the unthinkable - which is that newborn babies are sinful creatures due to their own lineage (which includes all of mankind). How ludicrous for them to turn toward the LDS Church and complain about the Priesthood.

These people are not interested in truth. They just want to argue for the sake of argument.
====
Methinks someone doesn't like to lose when another plays someone's game. Alas, in losing, someone pines and whines even though that someone was the cause. Pouting, someone now follows the other, transparently trying to retaliate in vain.
===
Actually, it is you anti-LDS types who get rattled when you cannot rattle our faith. The more faith we exhibit, the harder you try to destroy it. So be it.
====
Geez, did ALL of you anti-LDS take the same class of reading incomprehension?????
===

[jo7241974]

One Bad Pig;2910910]I agree, Bill is not your authority. I wouldn't say it's the "orthodox" definition per se, but the dictionary one. To say that a teaching is apostate just isn't good English.

It doesn't have to be good english for a concept to be understood.

I wish I could reciprocate, but I believe that truth is absolute, not relative. I am sad that you are following something that is false.

And I am sad that you are following something that is false.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. I agree that the Bible is a complex compilation of documents. Even with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it is easy for us to import our own ideas into our understanding of the text. Fortunately, we have 2,000 years of interpretation to assist us, all the way back to the apostolic era. Assuming that the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church, it's reasonable to believe that at least a sizable minority of interpretations will be correct down through the centuries.

It is human nature to add your own spin ("your" is not meant to be you personally), which could actually and reasonably lead us further and further away from the original truths as they were taught. Just as you feel that it is reasonable to believe that at least a sizable minority of interpretations will be correct; likewise, it is reasonable to believe that at least as many have strayed. We also know that the Apostles were already concerned about this while they were still alive. Now some people will say that those issues were addressed and rectified. Yet, even if that is true (that those issues were corrected), it would be naive to think this would not be a continuing problem; especially once the Apostles were gone.

The purpose of the councils was to try to keep beliefs true to the original teachings - indicating, obviously, that the church was in disagreement. Regardless of who represented the minority, or who represented the majority, of which beliefs were hung on to....or embellished to make them more understandable, it is inevitable what is taught today is not exactly what was taught or even understood originally. Even with the power of the Holy Spirit, as you have wisely pointed out, man still will import his own thoughts. Then we see the rise of the need for the Reformation. Subsequently, truth is up for grabs. Even if you look at the "essentials" there is derision within Christendom. To not recognize this derision exists, is also naive.

I try to never disparage someone just because they disagree with me. I have a tendency to call a spade a spade, though, and call out poor or evasive arguments. I have been attempting lately to find common ground and find at least something I can agree with, even if I disagree with the rest of the post.

We should all be following your example.

Not every proposition can be proven, but IMO there is sufficient evidence to prove many things. On quite a mundane level, for example, I can prove that my chair will hold me without collapsing by sitting in it.

The mundane is much easier to "prove". Of course, we cannot even guaranty a chair will not collapse by sitting in it if we've been eating too many donuts. No one is able to prove or disprove God. At best we can use our reasoning skills to great lengths; but we cannot prove. See how people even argue about the Holy Spirit. Yet the Holy Spirit is the only power available to mankind to witness that God exists and that Jesus is the Christ to the convincing of our own spirits. It is after we exercise faith in Christ and believe in Him that we know the Bible is the Word of God. For those who do not believe, the Bible is just a book with words in it.

I'm glad we can agree on something.

Me, too!

God bless,

jo

[jo7241974]

Jo, if you truly feel that way, then why are most of your comments in these threads not actually you presenting why you believe what you do, but to just make snide comments instead?

examples:

I see you don't like to lose the battles you have started. Now you are following me around and whining like a child. Grow up Sparko.

[Sparko]

I see you don't like to lose the battles you have started. Now you are following me around and whining like a child. Grow up Sparko.

gee there you go again Jo.

You are the one who said

"if someone disagrees with another person's belief, this discussion format should be used to present why we believe what we do; not to disparage the other person just because they do not agree with you. I am sick of the old arguments and attacks on people,"

and yet that seems to be your standard operating procedure, to disparage and attack with ad homs. You should at least follow your own claimed guidelines if you really feel that way. Do what you say.

[OtherCheek]

Jer 17:5 Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.
Jer 17:6 For he shall be like the heath in the desert, and shall not see when good cometh; but shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, in a salt land and not inhabited.
Jer 17:7 Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is.
Jer 17:8 For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and that spreadeth out her roots by the river, and shall not see when heat cometh, but her leaf shall be green; and shall not be careful in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit.
Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
Jer 17:10 I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings


Contextually, the Lord is telling Jeremiah that only the Lord can know the heart. We can not trust our heart, nor can we trust the enemies of God to know what is best for us.

"We can not trust our heart?" Can we always trust our head?

In that case, I cannot trust you whenever you speak from the heart. Neither should you trust yourself when you speak from the heart.

In fact, why don't you just cut it out, and that way you will always be as honest as the day is long.

[jo7241974]

"We can not trust our heart?" Can we always trust our head?

In that case, I cannot trust you whenever you speak from the heart. Neither should you trust yourself when you speak from the heart.

In fact, why don't you just cut it out, and that way you will always be as honest as the day is long.

It is the heart of a man who has departed from the Lord that cannot be trusted. The man who trusts the Lord and who has hope in the Lord, however, is blessed. You can recognize him by his fruit.

The closer we stay to God; the more we seek His guidance; the more in-tune we are with the promptings of the Holy Spirit; the less likely we will be deceived by our own inclinations to make choices that are not in agreement with what the Lord wants us to do. Each individual knows if they personally trust and hope in the Lord; therefore, they can come to trust their heart if they are trusting and hoping in the Lord when they make choices. If a righteous person is having trouble distinguishing between God's will and their own will, they can use their heads by way of reasoning things out. They can see if they made their "heart"-felt choices in accordance with God's will by looking at the fruit of their own actions.

We cannot know for sure if another man truly trusts and hopes in the Lord. Man uses the principle of looking at another's fruit all of the time. It is how we teach ourselves who we think we can trust versus who we cannot trust; from the mundane through the tough issues. It is how we give ourselves the best chance of making our decisions because we base our decisions about others in accordance with their actions. Actually, we don't have any other way to determine a man's motivation because we don't have the ability to see inside their heart.

Only God can see into our hearts; and He tests us to see if will continue trusting and hoping in Him, or if we will depart from Him.

God bless,

jo

[One Bad Pig]

It is human nature to add your own spin ("your" is not meant to be you personally), which could actually and reasonably lead us further and further away from the original truths as they were taught.

Of course. That's why it's important to not go it alone when studying scripture. Consensus, especially when coming from people of varying backgrounds, tends to cancel out such spin.

Just as you feel that it is reasonable to believe that at least a sizable minority of interpretations will be correct; likewise, it is reasonable to believe that at least as many have strayed. We also know that the Apostles were already concerned about this while they were still alive. Now some people will say that those issues were addressed and rectified. Yet, even if that is true (that those issues were corrected), it would be naive to think this would not be a continuing problem; especially once the Apostles were gone.

Of course it's a continuing problem. However, we also have the continuing help of the Holy Spirit, and an increasing deposit of materials to draw on.

The purpose of the councils was to try to keep beliefs true to the original teachings - indicating, obviously, that the church was in disagreement. Regardless of who represented the minority, or who represented the majority, of which beliefs were hung on to....or embellished to make them more understandable, it is inevitable what is taught today is not exactly what was taught or even understood originally.

Actually, the councils were called to settle ambiguities in such a way that would be true to the original teachings. What is taught today (in Orthodoxy, at any rate) is not a departure from, but a clarification of what was taught and understood originally.

Even with the power of the Holy Spirit, as you have wisely pointed out, man still will import his own thoughts. Then we see the rise of the need for the Reformation. Subsequently, truth is up for grabs.

There was a need for the Reformation in the West, but not in the East. Coincidentally, the West had submitted itself to the rule of one man, the pope, whereas the East has always settled things through councils. Unfortunately, the Reformers could not even decide what needed to be reformed, and seem to have relied heavily on a single Church Father (St. Augustine) rather than look for a consensus.

Even if you look at the "essentials" there is derision within Christendom. To not recognize this derision exists, is also naive.

Do you mean division? There are very few significant divisions in the East - and one of those (between the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox) is quite close to disappearing (for all that it started 1500 years ago).

The mundane is much easier to "prove". Of course, we cannot even guaranty a chair will not collapse by sitting in it if we've been eating too many donuts. No one is able to prove or disprove God. At best we can use our reasoning skills to great lengths; but we cannot prove. See how people even argue about the Holy Spirit. Yet the Holy Spirit is the only power available to mankind to witness that God exists and that Jesus is the Christ to the convincing of our own spirits. It is after we exercise faith in Christ and believe in Him that we know the Bible is the Word of God. For those who do not believe, the Bible is just a book with words in it.

Oh, I think we can offer sufficient proof for many things. We don't have just the Holy Spirit acting directly on us. We have the writings of others who have been inspired by the same spirit. We have evidence, both archaeological and written (both favorable and hostile) that we can use to verify the accuracy of eyewitness accounts that have been handed down. We have, uniquely in creation, the ability to reason. The question becomes how open someone is to accept said proof. There are none so blind as those who will not see (not singling you out here). When that proof threatens to undermine what we've placed our trust in, it becomes all that more difficult to accept.