A Disturbing Situation

[Havoc]

Thanx Rae;

OK Whitehorse: Your claim that no one else disagrees with me is proven absolutely false. If you cannot get a ordinary claim right, how then can we expect that your extraordinary claim of absolute truth is correct?

 

[Philosoft]

Well, truth isn'tbased on personal feelings;

Absolutely. Truth is the product of sound deductive reasoning.

God is God regardless of how anyone feels about that.

Not unless you have a sound deductive argument for God. And you don't.

We don't believe the authority of scripture based upon whether or not we like it, and that is what makes a huge, monumental difference between absolute truth and subjective "truth." (I think we should make it a sticky thread on why subjective truth is a logical impossibility so I never have to type it again.)

You have no claim to "absolute truth" simply because you have a book. The implications of that are untenable.

Anyway-you're right that people who ascribe to postmodernism do choose their religions this way. But not Christianity. Christianity is about THE truth, with an authority, completely unchanged by personal feelings or preferences.

This is demonstrably untrue. Martin Luther changed the entire face of Christianity based on his interpretations that differed from the Catholic Church's.

Certainly, there are those who tamper with scripture to suit their preferences, but then they get their doctrines wrong. And these doctrines are shown for what they are by other parts of scripture and faithful interpretations, or else you end up with some liberal church loaded to the gills with falsehood, and that church develops a reputation for being what it is. False.

And the implication of this is that, because you are a unique individual with a unique interpretation of Scripture, you are the only one who knows the Truth. Good luck with your search for objectivity. You've a long way to go.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

Thanx Rae;

OK Whitehorse: Your claim that no one else disagrees with me is proven absolutely false. If you cannot get a ordinary claim right, how then can we expect that your extraordinary claim of absolute truth is correct?

Havoc, I'm not sure what claim you're referring to about no one else disagreeing with you. I think there are plenty of people who disagree with you, but that's beside the point. I'm not interested in that sort of thing anyway, so why would I say that. Right? See, you're trying to debate without answering any of my questions, so that isn't really a fair debate. Which would lead us more in this direction, then:

Have you asked God Himself? Do you want to? If you could see God with your soul, and you knew He'd welcome you, would you want to?

That's really the core of the issue. Nothing else can be straightened up without that.

Grace and peace to you,
Whitehorse

PS This isn't about my trying to convince you of what I believe. Only the Holy Spirit can do that anyway. I'm just trying to figure out what you're looking for.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

Absolutely. Truth is the product of sound deductive reasoning.

This assumes you have access to all information. Which, if you're temporal and you're dealing with an infinite and supernatural God, you don't. Since you haven't been to the other threads, I'll assume this is the first time you've been exposed to this information. If not, a direct rebuttal of this key point would be appreciated.

Not unless you have a sound deductive argument for God. And you don't.

This blanket statement is only a cosmetic argument unless you have given your rebuttal of all of my points.

You have no claim to "absolute truth" simply because you have a book. The implications of that are untenable.

This is your opinion. You're also discounting the presence and work of the Holy Spirit, which you cannot deny since you are not indwelt by Him. Again, just because you do not accept this truth or cannot see it or have not been granted evidence of it that is to your liking, approval, satisfaction, etc., evidfence scripture clearly states will not be revealed to you if you do not seek God, this does not count as a valid disclaimer that this is absolute truth. Your failure to find evidence only supports scripture's validity since it says people who demand a sign but are not seeking God will be given none.

Moreover, I do not accept your personal opinion and finite sense of sight with the absence of the Holy Spirit as valid proof that Jehovah is not God. Especially since He has been my personal companion for 30+ years.

This is demonstrably untrue. Martin Luther changed the entire face of Christianity based on his interpretations that differed from the Catholic Church's.
And the implication of this is that, because you are a unique individual with a unique interpretation of Scripture, you are the only one who knows the Truth. Good luck with your search for objectivity. You've a long way to go.

Again, this disregards everything I have already said about this. Please read all of my posts before making the same statements. I know it probably isn't your fault, but it's a waste of time to rewrite what has already been rewritten numerous times.

 

[tcampen]

Those who claim that there is such thing as "absolute truth" invariable also claim to have discovered what it is, at the exclusion of the rest of the universe who differs in anyway. No one ever really says, "Yea, there's such thing as absolute truth, and that guy over there's got it. But I don't."

Such claims are far more based on personal pride and ego, and an intense need to be right above all others, rather than anything real or tangible. For if such an absolute truth really existed, there would be infinitely more agreement among people as to what that truth is. There would be some universally accepted, and objective criteria with which to evaluate and confirm that it is the "absolute truth." But, alas, all the support we have for those claims are based almost exclusively in theological doctrines and interpretation.

People aren't "rejecting" this "absolute truth" out of some desire to reject god. They are rejecting the claim of "absolute truth" due to a lack of evidence to support it. Cough up of the goods, and then maybe then we'll really have something to talk about.

 

[Havoc]

Havoc, I'm not sure what claim you're referring to about no one else disagreeing with you. I think there are plenty of people who disagree with you, but that's beside the point. I'm not interested in that sort of thing anyway, so why would I say that. Right? See, you're trying to debate without answering any of my questions, so that isn't really a fair debate. Which would lead us more in this direction, then:

Have you asked God Himself? Do you want to? If you could see God with your soul, and you knew He'd welcome you, would you want to?

That's really the core of the issue. Nothing else can be straightened up without that.

Grace and peace to you,
Whitehorse

PS This isn't about my trying to convince you of what I believe. Only the Holy Spirit can do that anyway. I'm just trying to figure out what you're looking for.

I was referring to your claim that no one agrees with me. Don't you remember making that claim?

Actually the Core of the issue is whether you have the absolute truth or not. Until you can show that you do, your claim that the core of the issue is whether I've talked to your God or not is spurious. Without you having absolute truth there's no way to show your God even exists.

I'm still waithing for you to answer my question about when you'll move out of my house.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

Hi, Havoc. How was your day.

Please take a very careful look at what you wrote:

OK Whitehorse: Your claim that no one else disagrees with me is proven absolutely false. If you cannot get a ordinary claim right, how then can we expect that your extraordinary claim of absolute truth is correct?

Did you spot it yet? At first it was so ironic I thought you were joking.

'Fraid I can't give you my house. I'd give you a praise CD as a token of my esteem, but you'd only trade it in for whatever it is you do listen to. So it would be moot.


Moreover, if you only accept truth as being that which you can see, you have no hope of finding it at all. That continues to assume you are capable. Which you aren't. So it doesn't mean it is true; it only means you can't see it. Which vastly overestimates finite ability. You're still, in a spiritual sense, claiming the world is flat.

No, it isn't spurious. (How can talking to God be spurious? Do you mean I was wrong in thinking you had, and in that sense spurious, or the idea that this would help is spurious...I'm not drawing a connection here. Do you mean, "moot?" But I don't mean to trouble you, and I think I am now.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

Those who claim that there is such thing as "absolute truth" invariable also claim to have discovered what it is, at the exclusion of the rest of the universe who differs in anyway. No one ever really says, "Yea, there's such thing as absolute truth, and that guy over there's got it. But I don't."

Such claims are far more based on personal pride and ego, and an intense need to be right above all others, rather than anything real or tangible. For if such an absolute truth really existed, there would be infinitely more agreement among people as to what that truth is. There would be some universally accepted, and objective criteria with which to evaluate and confirm that it is the "absolute truth." But, alas, all the support we have for those claims are based almost exclusively in theological doctrines and interpretation.

People aren't "rejecting" this "absolute truth" out of some desire to reject god. They are rejecting the claim of "absolute truth" due to a lack of evidence to support it. Cough up of the goods, and then maybe then we'll really have something to talk about.

More projections.

 

[tcampen]

More projections.

No. Just trying to find whether there is any substance behind these claims. As of yet, I'm still waiting. (But not holding my breath.) I've been accused of "rejecting (a particular interpretation of) god" because I loved myself and my desires too much, when in actuality I just had a different idea about god than the other person.

Now the shoe is truely on the other foot, the best response I can get is an adult version of "I know you are, but what am I?"

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

 

[Havoc]

But wait a minute Whitehorse. I'm claiming the house you live in and all the possessions you thought you have really belong to me. I can assure you this is the absolute truth. You simply must believe me because you cannot prove my claim is untrue. This is a completely objective claim as I absolutely know the truth of it. I understand you view it as subjective since you cannot concieve of me having the absolute truth.

Please let me know when you've vacated my property, thank you.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

Title deeds and bibles are both used as verifications of truth, even to the legal system. Back to the authority issue.

But I do enjoy your posts. You have thought through these carefully and I appreciate the skill with which you've presented your arguments.

peace

 

[tcampen]

There are objective and established means of evaluating and interpreting deeds that reasonable people can agree on, regardless of their religious convictions.

I really don't see how the same can be said for the bible.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

I think Havoc was saying that making a claim that God is absolute truth is the same as his saying my house is his. I see his point, but of course we're back to the authority issue. I don't think he meant the analogy to be exact, because property ownership is determined and established by men, and the supernatural realm is not. But to Havoc it is, because that is his religion and how he determines it.

But like you say, one is easily verifiable because it is established by men. As for the other, it should be established by God Himself.

Unless you're asking about the connection between the Bible and the legal system, which is the oath declaring legitimacy of the forthcoming testimony. People would place one hand on the Bible. While I'm guessing the ACLU has done away with much of it, I bet there are pockets where towns still use it. Now I think they use God's name, and to violate that is perjury.

 

[Philosoft]

This assumes you have access to all information.

No, it doesn't.

Which, if you're temporal and you're dealing with an infinite and supernatural God, you don't.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Since you haven't been to the other threads, I'll assume this is the first time you've been exposed to this information. If not, a direct rebuttal of this key point would be appreciated.

What "key point"? You're starting with a presupposition that God exists. You're in the hole - you can't presuppose "absolute truth."

This blanket statement is only a cosmetic argument unless you have given your rebuttal of all of my points.

No, it's a statement about logical reality. You can't simply call what you believe "the truth."

This is your opinion. You're also discounting the presence and work of the Holy Spirit, which you cannot deny since you are not indwelt by Him.

I can propose a dozen alternate explanations for the "holy spirit" phenomena, none of which you can deny.

Again, just because you do not accept this truth or cannot see it or have not been granted evidence of it that is to your liking, approval, satisfaction, etc., evidfence scripture clearly states will not be revealed to you if you do not seek God, this does not count as a valid disclaimer that this is absolute truth.

Yes, it does. All I have to do is propose a plausible alternate explanation. Then, to establish the truth of your explanation, you must construct an argument that either deduces the truth of your explanation, or falsifies all competing explanations.

Your failure to find evidence only supports scripture's validity since it says people who demand a sign but are not seeking God will be given none.

*Yawn* Alternate explanations abound.

Moreover, I do not accept your personal opinion and finite sense of sight with the absence of the Holy Spirit as valid proof that Jehovah is not God. Especially since He has been my personal companion for 30+ years.

That's okay. Sound logic is not an opinion.

Again, this disregards everything I have already said about this. Please read all of my posts before making the same statements. I know it probably isn't your fault, but it's a waste of time to rewrite what has already been rewritten numerous times.

It's certainly not my fault that you don't appear to understand logic at all.

 

[if_i_only_had_a_brain]

I think that the big picture has been absolutely missed here. We live in a world where people are decieved by their own sin. Pagans aren't to blame, they merely believe a lie because they don't have the spirit of God alive in them. The war is against the prince of this world....we don't fight with flesh and blood, but against powers and principalities in high places, if you're a Christian then I know that sounds familiar. The point i'm making is that arguing with a few people who just want to make some fuss and talk in circles and live like educated barbarians is not going to profit you or I. Praying and seeking to do the will of almighty God is what profits us in the end. I know that judgement comes to those who deserve it, and we absolutely deserve it, but it's all part of the plan, we just need to fight the good fight and go out there and show people the truth, be a witness of the love of God.

 

[Havoc]

You're right, the big picture has been absolutely missed here, and you've missed it too. The only talking incircles here has been done by those who claim to have absolute truth because they have absolute truth because they have ab****e truth.

I'm not decieved and I don't sin. I understand that you believe we all deserve the judgement of your God but quite frankly I have yet to see a Christian give anyone a compelling reason for doing so, other than "trust me, I'm not lieing".

 

[Met]

This is reffereing to Havoc and the Republican on the first page. I agree with Havoc. I think God would rather see a world with diversity but everyone following a general goodness then the world all Christians. As far as I've seen Republicans and many (not all) Christians only hear want they want to. I knew someone who wouldn't learn more about other religions because he was too afraid he would convert. Also for the republican saying we blame Christians all the time. You don't have the right to say that for you blame democratics and other religions more the the other religions blame christians. As for democrats the biggest problem we've run into is the Bill Clinton affair. Which is more publicized then Bush's attack on Saddam. It is good we got rid of him but lying about war is not the way to go.

 

[Godzman]

This is reffereing to Havoc and the Republican on the first page. I agree with Havoc. I think God would rather see a world with diversity but everyone following a general goodness then the world all Christians. As far as I've seen Republicans and many (not all) Christians only hear want they want to. I knew someone who wouldn't learn more about other religions because he was too afraid he would convert. Also for the republican saying we blame Christians all the time. You don't have the right to say that for you blame democratics and other religions more the the other religions blame christians. As for democrats the biggest problem we've run into is the Bill Clinton affair. Which is more publicized then Bush's attack on Saddam. It is good we got rid of him but lying about war is not the way to go.

the biggest problem that dems have run into is not the Bill Clinton affair that is minor in terms of, trading secrets with China, and bargaining with North Korea and avoiding taking Osama down when they had the chance, who really cares about Clinton and his interns

 

[tcampen]

I think Havoc was saying that making a claim that God is absolute truth is the same as his saying my house is his. I see his point, but of course we're back to the authority issue. I don't think he meant the analogy to be exact, because property ownership is determined and established by men, and the supernatural realm is not. But to Havoc it is, because that is his religion and how he determines it.

But like you say, one is easily verifiable because it is established by men. As for the other, it should be established by God Himself.

Unless you're asking about the connection between the Bible and the legal system, which is the oath declaring legitimacy of the forthcoming testimony. People would place one hand on the Bible. While I'm guessing the ACLU has done away with much of it, I bet there are pockets where towns still use it. Now I think they use God's name, and to violate that is perjury.

The bible and god are both used in official oaths and such, but are NEVER required, as explicitly stated in the constitution.

As for the analogy, I agree with you when you say, "one is easily verifiable because it is established by men. As for the other, it should be established by God Himself." Yes, let god or gods establish it himself, herself, themselves or whatever. This beautifully illustrates why it is absurd to allow and rely on men (and women) to make such ultimate determinations and force them on others thru the government or otherwise. It show why such is really a subjective concept.

Well said.

 

[tcampen]

I think that the big picture has been absolutely missed here. We live in a world where people are decieved by their own sin. Pagans aren't to blame, they merely believe a lie because they don't have the spirit of God alive in them. The war is against the prince of this world....we don't fight with flesh and blood, but against powers and principalities in high places, if you're a Christian then I know that sounds familiar. The point i'm making is that arguing with a few people who just want to make some fuss and talk in circles and live like educated barbarians is not going to profit you or I. Praying and seeking to do the will of almighty God is what profits us in the end. I know that judgement comes to those who deserve it, and we absolutely deserve it, but it's all part of the plan, we just need to fight the good fight and go out there and show people the truth, be a witness of the love of God.

Just curious....how do you expect people to be drawn to your faith through your example when you come out of the gates accusing all others who differ from your religous views as believing a "lie"? Those are strong words that I don't think you'd appreciate being directed at you, either. If we are "educated barbarians" for simply disagreeing with YOUR spriritual views (which may or may not correspond with god's), then do you consider yourself a religious bigot?

If you've got something to say, then say it and back it up with something all reasonable people can give weight to, such as evidence or logic. But please don't just jump in with name calling and conclusory statements that have absolutely no support. That reallly gets us nowhere.