Archive for the ‘assume’ Category

      Acceptance, evidence, and proof for spiritual beliefs are the topics, today. Also, there is more on why one ought not assume that Jesus is dead, and Christianity as a belief system. The “Yahoo! Answers” writer using ID “Canadian Duck” (Level 4 with 4,760 points, a member since January 4, 2010) posted the following:

Why cant theists understand that personal experience is not evidence unless they can prove it?

People say that they see Elvis Presley or Jesus all the time, a lot of theists claim to “feel” god, how the f*ck is that evidence? Someone please explain this logic, a christian tried to convert me by saying he saw jesus lmao.

THE BATTLE AXE: Jesus Lives! (05/04/2013) (5.) Christianity endures as a belief system that is balanced, dependable, detailed, lucid, productive, sensible, and sound. Even the youngest believers are easily able to recognize the connections between, and among the multiple elements and levels of sacred truth; and are able to trace clear connections for assumption, process, and understanding that must be acquired and built up. Belief systems must be closed, and may not allow inclusion of contradictions, exaggerations, half-truths, impurities, and lies. Even so, as with Christian belief, statements appear that serve as announcements, approximations, commands, conditional truths, promises, veiled truths, and understatements. As a closed system manifesting GOD, judgment and salvation, Christian belief does not directly address many issues relevant to other belief systems. Included are historical and natural events, philosophies, politics, and human sexuality. In general, those continuing in Christian belief gain a reputation as affectionate, approachable, blameless, committed, compassionate, creative, dutiful, faithful, firm, fearless, friendly, generous, gentle, honest, humble, industrious, intelligent, open, plainspoken, prudent, sensitive, sober, stable, thrifty, unprejudiced, unwavering, and wise. (6.) An assumption is a statement taken to be true without complete documentation and detailed evidence in order to construct or support a necessary awareness, and systematic truth. To “assume,” then, is to propose conditional acceptance of a statement as true so that it may be used temporarily to present a unique argument. Assumptions are used as starting points, while conclusions are understood as end points. Where one begins with assumptions that are accurate and correct, they may add on and fit together various statements of fact to establish a closed and perfect structure comprised entirely of truth. However, where one begins with false assumptions, they may only arrive at false conclusions, and a structure having questionable foundations. Where one assumes that Jesus is dead, they agree to rely upon and use the false notion that Jesus is deceased as though it is a proven and valid fact that determines the truth-value for all other statements about the divinity, eternal life, spirit presence, and continuing work of Jesus. To “presume” is to assume that one may take upon oneself the authority, privilege, property or status of another without their agreement, knowledge, or permission and without that of those having greater rank and position. Where “to assume” is to take thought that may be contrary to truth “to presume” is to take action contrary to truth. Presumption is held to be sin, and is accounted as a form of stealing (i.e., taking the belongings of another without their knowledge and permission; identity theft). Where one promotes truths that contradict, counterfeit, disagrees with, and opposes the truth presented through the holy writings, they are said to presume upon GOD. See Deuteronomy 17: 8-13, Numbers 14: 43-45, Deuteronomy 18: 15-22, John 10: 10, 1st John 2: 21-25, 2nd Peter 2: 9-11 and Psalm 19: 7-14, King James Version.

THE GOLDEN ARROW: Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught. And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned? Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him. (John 7: 14-18, KJV)

THE DOUBLE DAGGER: Jesus Lives! (05/04/2013); Illusion? (04/25/2013); Not of Legal Age? (04/26/2013); Why Blood? (04/13/2013); Time Before the Sun? (04/14/2013); To See With New Eyes (11/06/2012); A Life Companion? (11/07/2012); Suppose I Am Wrong? (09/28/2012); What is Reality (a.k.a. Truth)? (09/29/2012) Why Religion, Anyhow? (02/18/2012); On The Messiah (02/19/2012)

     Canadian Duck, here are some ideas that have been carefully examined by many mature Christian believers and continue to be useful as guides when considering judgment and spiritual truth:

(1.) Eyewitness experience, personal testimony and reports of spiritual events (e.g., apparitions, dreams, visions, visitations, etc.) are measured and weighed using internal standards generated within a detailed belief system. Outsiders, and those lacking the concentration, knowledge, and skill to apply the belief system’s rules for consistency and clarity, cannot achieve the goals of corroboration.

(2.) Material offered “in evidence” need not be repeated reports that are exactly the same. Differences and diversity do not stifle corroboration, where peculiar facts may reinforce and support spirit truths on many levels otherwise overlooked, and not immediately taken into account. Thus, the weighing of spiritual truth involves more than physical events. Included are such features as duration, effect, nature, purpose, and specific spirit substance—faith, holiness, joy, love, wrath against sin, etc.

(3.) There is no “burden of proof” for spiritual experience. Where you say, This orange juice is cold and sweet!, it is not reasonable to demand you produce “empirical evidence.” The dynamics for mutual acceptance, respect, trust and truth should be sufficient. Even so, to ask for clarification, details and elaboration (that you, say a little more) might not be out of line.

      There is far more to be said, correctly applied, and spiritually apprehended. (For example, (4.) The convicting evidence from GOD is intended for those who obey the Almighty, who are part of the ministry and work, and is not for unbelievers. The “evidence”, in fact, is an aspect of himself, an imparted, indwelling spirit from GOD (we say, the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Prophecy, the Spirit of Truth). By internalization, and the ongoing operation of GOD, believers all come to understand.) Even so, I trust this fragment will be useful. Be it unto you according to your faith.

Washington, DC