Thinking for one’s self?

[Eleve]

Further, even if “Why not” were in answer, you could only adopt a position on that basis if you yourself judged both the position and the basis to be correct. Even when you go out of your way to judge poorly, you can’t escape from the fact that you have to judge things one way or another.

 

[Michael_Allen]

Further, even if “Why not” were in answer, you could only adopt a position on that basis if you yourself judged both the position and the basis to be correct. Even when you go out of your way to judge poorly, you can’t escape from the fact that you have to judge things one way or another.

An alternative is a position where we say we believe because of a gift of grace.

In my case I didn’t analyse things, at least to begin with. I was quite peacefully and happily living my life when I experienced the tug of grace, that led to me reading the bible and praying. If someone asks me why I believe in Jesus I can’t, in all honesty, say it was because I analysed the truth claims and compared them with all other religions. Maybe that would be the best way, but it simply wasn’t the way with me.

 

[D_Martin]

If I ask you why, saying ‘why not’ isn’t an answer.

Who says, you? It worked for me, I’m satisfied with it. How was it for you?

If you have a problem with the answer I gave you, then, oh well.

Besides when is it that any one in this world has to meet your satisfactions in anything?

Have a nice day.

 

[jimmy]

Who says, you? It worked for me, I’m satisfied with it. How was it for you?

If you have a problem with the answer I gave you, then, oh well.

Besides when is it that any one in this world has to meet your satisfactions in anything?

Have a nice day.

Usually the idea of a conversation is to communicate, and since this is the philosophy forum it should also be rational. The whole idea behind this thread, and your way of responding is anything but rational. You have idealized stupidity and being a sheep.

There was a psychology experiment done in the 50’s, the Milgram study, that studied this attitude in people. You begin to understand how someone can become a nazi or accept some other extreme view.

 

[D_Martin]

Usually the idea of a conversation is to communicate, and since this is the philosophy forum it should also be rational. The whole idea behind this thread, and your way of responding is anything but rational. You have idealized stupidity and being a sheep.

Are you saying that it is stupid to be one of the Lord’s sheep? Is that correct?

There was a psychology experiment done in the 50’s, the Milgram study, that studied this attitude in people. You begin to understand how someone can become a nazi or accept some other extreme view.

How is it that the Lord’s view is extreme?

I’m talking about the value of what the Lord Jesus has to say, or what He thinks, or what He does. Not the value of what I think. How can that be deceptive in His church, and amongst His People?

How is it that you consider yourself Catholic? Is what I’m woundering about.

 

[jimmy]

Are you saying that it is stupid to be one of the Lord’s sheep? Is that correct?

How is it that the Lord’s view is extreme?

I’m talking about the value of what the Lord Jesus has to say, or what He thinks, or what He does. Not the value of what I think. How can that be deceptive in His church, and amongst His People?

How is it that you consider yourself Catholic? Is what I’m woundering about.

I am wondering whether you are even human, considering that you refuse to think for yourself.

 

[D_Martin]

I am wondering whether you are even human, considering that you refuse to think for yourself.

Well if you mean as in human nature, that one’s nature doesn’t seem to be human, to each there own opinion, but to be clear human nature isn’t something the Lord our God adores like many who hold human nature on high do. As clearly evident the result of human nature is death, but the result of God’s nature revealed in Jesus Christ is Life everlasting. Evident in the resurrection of Christ. Therefore putting on Christ as Paul says is to be advisable if one seeks the same result of everlasting Life. Jesus clearly states that what is to be valued is His Life that He has given for us to receive, not the life of fulfillment of the flesh.

 

[davidv]

Well if you mean as in human nature, that one’s nature doesn’t seem to be human, to each there own opinion, but to be clear human nature isn’t something the Lord our God adores like many who hold human nature on high do. As clearly evident the result of human nature is death, but the result of God’s nature revealed in Jesus Christ is Life everlasting. Evident in the resurrection of Christ. Therefore putting on Christ as Paul says is to be advisable if one seeks the same result of everlasting Life. Jesus clearly states that what is to be valued is His Life that He has given for us to receive, not the life of fulfillment of the flesh.

I believe that sin is the cause of death, not human nature. The sin that caused death was an act contrary to human nature. The human nature as God created it is perfected in obedience to him. Disobedience is anti-human nature. Thinking for oneself in not automatically contrary to putting on Christ. For some, not thinking for themselves would lead to not following Christ because they would follow the thinking of a non-Christian.

 

[PRmerger]

Could thinking for one’s self be over rated? Truthfully, thinking for one’s self would only qualify in the self justification of one’s self, in the presence of one’s self. As in what we think is only justified by ourselves, and no one else, unless of corse some one else agrees to think the same.

(Hope that was said clearly)

Interesting. I just had a discussion with my DDs on this very issue.

There are some things in which one can, indeed “think for oneself”, which means, as I understand it: read both sides of a position and then come to your own opinion.

It is an informed opinion that is achieved through gathering data and deciding which you prefer. (Example: read some movie reviews, watch the movie, and then “think for one’s self” about whether it was good or not.)

However, there are some things that one cannot “think for one’s self”. One must conform to truth.

For example, one cannot “think for one’s self” that it should cost only 10 cents to mail a letter.

If one attempts to do this at his local post office, I guarantee you that his thinking for himself will be otiose.

Another example: an engineer can decide to “think for one’s self” and use his own ideas for building a bridge, but if he does not conform his views to objective mathematical data, many will die as a result of his “thinking for one’s self.”

 

[jimmy]

Interesting. I just had a discussion with my DDs on this very issue.

There are some things in which one can, indeed “think for oneself”, which means, as I understand it: read both sides of a position and then come to your own opinion.

It is an informed opinion that is achieved through gathering data and deciding which you prefer. (Example: read some movie reviews, watch the movie, and then “think for one’s self” about whether it was good or not.)

However, there are some things that one cannot “think for one’s self”. One must conform to truth.

For example, one cannot “think for one’s self” that it should cost only 10 cents to mail a letter.

If one attempts to do this at his local post office, I guarantee you that his thinking for himself will be otiose.

Another example: an engineer can decide to “think for one’s self” and use his own ideas for building a bridge, but if he does not conform his views to objective mathematical data, many will die as a result of his “thinking for one’s self.”

I disagree. A time like that is when you especially can think for yourself. If 35 cents is more than I think it should cost, maybe I won’t send a letter. I will do it by email. You can always think for yourself.

Second, thinking for yourself doesn’t imply being a stupid moron. An engineer is forced to think. If he doesn’t do his own thinking his bridges will collapse.

Which leads to a third point. Thinking for yourself doesn’t necessarily lead to a new conclusion, even though it might. When you think you examine the information for yourself, and if you come up with a different conclusion, so be it.

 

[PRmerger]

I disagree. A time like that is when you especially can think for yourself. If 35 cents is more than I think it should cost, maybe I won’t send a letter. I will do it by email. You can always think for yourself.

This is exactly what I mean.

You can have an opinion, informed by your investigation of how much fuel costs, building and mailtruck maintenance costs, salaries for postal workers, etc etc etc…about how much it should cost to mail a letter…

but you cannot think for yourself how much it actually does cost. The objective truth is, today, 3/23/13, it cots 46 cents to mail a letter.

(Purists: please hold off on tell me that a letter that is bigger than ___ and weighs more than ____ won’t cost 46 cents. This will be my response: )

 

[Peter_Plato]

Not to trust in one’s own judgment is a contradiction in terms. To trust in some thing or another is to affirm whichever things it proposes as true. But if my judgment says that something is true, then that’s just to say that I affirm it; there is no difference between judging and affirming.

Of course, it may be that God wants us to trust his judgment. But that would be in addition to trusting our own judgment. In other words, it would be aligning our judgment with God’s, and thus trusting in both.

This is a good point. Some consider “doing God’s will” as an abdication of their own, but in reality it is not possible to do God’s will unless a person has the personal autonomy to do so. Jesus said, “My will is to to do the will of my Father.” This means he had full personal autonomy, a will that was free to do God’s will.

Similarly, regarding “thinking for oneself.” As a Father, God wants us to come to full knowledge of the truth, including the whys, hows and whats.

I think the point that the opening poster is making is that we should never assume our thinking is correct simply because it is our own. We tend to become vested in our own understanding and have a difficult time relinquishing it when it is time to move on. I think his point is that we should maintain a certain detachment from our own point of view and be ready and willing to see beyond it when we have warrant to do so.

In a sense, we must keep a “bird’s eye view” of our own convictions and continually try to reflect upon them with some degree of skepticism.

The problem, it seems to me, with many “amateur” skeptics is that they fail to apply skepticism to their own belief system, but apply it vociferously to opposing viewpoints.

I think D_Martin is suggesting that our active beliefs should be open, that we should maintain a certain distance from them with the knowledge that, almost for certain, what we currently think is subject to revision. I don’t believe he is saying we should stop thinking, but that we should not fall prey to the notion that our thoughts are correct just because they are our own.

Is that correct D_Martin?

 

[PRmerger]

I think D_Martin is suggesting that our active beliefs should be open, that we should maintain a certain distance from them with the knowledge that, almost for certain, what we currently think is subject to revision. I don’t believe he is saying we should stop thinking, but that we should not fall prey to the notion that our thoughts are correct just because they are our own.

Indeed.

Is this not really just a reformulation of the Biblical mandate to “examine everything”?

Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good - 1 Thessalonians 5:21

 

[D_Martin]

I believe that sin is the cause of death, not human nature. The sin that caused death was an act contrary to human nature. The human nature as God created it is perfected in obedience to him. Disobedience is anti-human nature. Thinking for oneself in not automatically contrary to putting on Christ. For some, not thinking for themselves would lead to not following Christ because they would follow the thinking of a non-Christian.

Well the flesh we walk in today is the place of sin, isn’t it? And what brought that about? God’s nature, or man’s nature? And it is man’s nature to pursue the fulfillment in things of the flesh. This is not to say “cured is the flesh and all therein”, but it is the place of sin where sin happens and it is mankind that has been given charge therein. It is not God’s nature to make the flesh the place of sin, so man’s nature, and God’s nature is contrary for sure. It is man who need not follow his own way, and follow the Way of the Lord that was fulfilled in the flesh by Jesus Christ the Son of God, who is the revelation of God’s nature (Ways) in the flesh.

There are many that presume that because one is born into the world one is automatically in the image and likeness of their Creator and Judge. When Adam and Eve were first made this was true, but what did they really loss that day in the garden, when they were hiding from the Voice of the Lord (which is the Truth the Way the Life) in shame and guilt and self condemnation? Is the image and likeness of God guilt, hides from the Truth (Voice of the Lord) condemns self and or others, so on and so forth?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well the flesh we walk in today is the place of sin, isn’t it? And what brought that about? God’s nature, or man’s nature? And it is man’s nature to pursue the fulfillment in things of the flesh. This is not to say “cured is the flesh and all therein”, but it is the place of sin where sin happens and it is mankind that has been given charge therein. It is not God’s nature to make the flesh the place of sin, so man’s nature, and God’s nature is contrary for sure. It is man who need not follow his own way, and follow the Way of the Lord that was fulfilled in the flesh by Jesus Christ the Son of God, who is the revelation of God’s nature (Ways) in the flesh.

There are many that presume that because one is born into the world one is automatically in the image and likeness of their Creator and Judge. When Adam and Eve were first made this was true, but what did they really loss that day in the garden, when they were hiding from the Voice of the Lord (which is the Truth the Way the Life) in shame and guilt and self condemnation? Is the image and likeness of God guilt, hides from the Truth (Voice of the Lord) condemns self and or others, so on and so forth?

It is not correct to say that man’s “nature” brought about sin. Sin was the result of choice that resulted in the degeneration of man’s nature. Redemption is the remaking of human nature to what it was originally. That is only possible by using our wills to cooperate with grace in reforming our nature from its fallen state. That is why salvation is a process, not a one time event. The first step is freeing our wills from slavery to fallen nature (redemption), then comes the process of cooperating with grace towards sanctification (salvation). We cannot save ourselves, but God’s hands are tied if we choose not to cooperate with grace, since “self” is essentially our identity as an autonomous being. God does not act to change us without our assent.

 

[D_Martin]

Interesting. I just had a discussion with my DDs on this very issue.

There are some things in which one can, indeed “think for oneself”, which means, as I understand it: read both sides of a position and then come to your own opinion.

It is an informed opinion that is achieved through gathering data and deciding which you prefer. (Example: read some movie reviews, watch the movie, and then “think for one’s self” about whether it was good or not.)

However, there are some things that one cannot “think for one’s self”. One must conform to truth.

For example, one cannot “think for one’s self” that it should cost only 10 cents to mail a letter.

If one attempts to do this at his local post office, I guarantee you that his thinking for himself will be otiose.

Another example: an engineer can decide to “think for one’s self” and use his own ideas for building a bridge, but if he does not conform his views to objective mathematical data, many will die as a result of his “thinking for one’s self.”

PRmerger

It seems what you are saying here is Truth prevails and one must kneel to the Truth, if you do otherwise, there are undesirable consequences.

Who and what is the Truth? Isn’t it Jesus Christ the Word of God? And isn’t it true that through Him, all thing where made, and without Him nothing was made?

Considering thought, and all possible thoughts that can be thought, is there anything new under the sun? Therefore choosing for one’s self is merely agreeing to judge for one’s self what is good and what is evil. Again seeing that there is nothing new under the sun, then trusting one’s own judgement is key to the precept of “thinking for one’s self”, rather than, trusting God’s Judgement in all things.

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger

It seems what you are saying here is Truth prevails and one must kneel to the Truth, if you do otherwise, there are undesirable consequences.

'zactly.

Think of an engineer building a bridge who does not kneel to mathematical and physical truths.

Who and what is the Truth?

What is Truth is that which coincides with reality.

Isn’t it Jesus Christ the Word of God? And isn’t it true that through Him, all thing where made, and without Him nothing was made?

:yup:

Considering thought, and all possible thoughts that can be thought, is there anything new under the sun?

Probably not. :nope:

Therefore choosing for one’s self is merely agreeing to judge for one’s self what is good and what is evil. Again seeing that there is nothing new under the sun, then trusting one’s own judgement is key to the precept of “thinking for one’s self”, rather than, trusting God’s Judgement in all things.

Your “therefore” is a non-sequitur, D_Martin.

We as human creatures have not been given the right to “judge for one’s self what is good and what is evil.” That is above our pay grade. The task we have been given is to discern what’s already been judged as good and evil by God.

 

[D_Martin]

It is not correct to say that man’s “nature” brought about sin. Sin was the result of choice that resulted in the degeneration of man’s nature.

I’m not sure you’re correct here, death is the result of sin, (“for the wages of sin is death”), but did sin exist before Adam and Eve trusted what the serpent said? It may have not come into the world as of yet until they actually ate of the tree, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it didn’t exist.

No one but humans brought sin into the world, or maybe better said invited sin into the world.
And in truth God’s Judgement was for them, don’t eat don’t die, but after hearing what the serpent said, they didn’t believe that did they?

Redemption is the remaking of human nature to what it was originally.

Wouldn’t the original have to be God’s image, God’s likeness?

That is only possible by using our wills to cooperate with grace in reforming our nature from its fallen state. That is why salvation is a process, not a one time event. The first step is freeing our wills from slavery to fallen nature (redemption), then comes the process of cooperating with grace towards sanctification (salvation). We cannot save ourselves, but God’s hands are tied if we choose not to cooperate with grace, since “self” is essentially our identity as an autonomous being. God does not act to change us without our assent.

You might not agree at first, but here me out. We don’t change, you can’t make wickedness change into righteousness. Wickedness is removed, discarded, and replaced with righteousness. And righteousness is not of ourselves, only of God. It is the same with Holiness. No one gets out of going through the fire the burns any from us all that is not of God, hence burning away that which is of ourselves. Holiness is not of human nature at all in anyway, it is of God and is required to be in the Presence of God, isn’t it?

 

[D_Martin]

We as human creatures have not been given the right to “judge for one’s self what is good and what is evil.” That is above our pay grade. The task we have been given is to discern what’s already been judged as good and evil by God.

You are correct there PRmerger, but its difficult to get that across to the many who believe otherwise.

 

[PRmerger]

You are correct there PRmerger,

My favorite words to read on the CAFs.