Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Absolutely. Truth is the product of sound deductive reasoning.Whitehorse said:Well, truth isn'tbased on personal feelings;
Not unless you have a sound deductive argument for God. And you don't.God is God regardless of how anyone feels about that.
You have no claim to "absolute truth" simply because you have a book. The implications of that are untenable.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.)
This is demonstrably untrue. Martin Luther changed the entire face of Christianity based on his interpretations that differed from the Catholic Church's.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.
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.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.
Havoc said: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 said:Absolutely. Truth is the product of sound deductive reasoning.
Not unless you have a sound deductive argument for God. And you don't.
You have no claim to "absolute truth" simply because you have a book. The implications of that are untenable.
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.
I was referring to your claim that no one agrees with me. Don't you remember making that claim?Whitehorse said: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.
Havoc said: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?
tcampen said: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.
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.Whitehorse said:More projections.
No, it doesn't.Whitehorse said:This assumes you have access to all information.
Assumes facts not in evidence.Which, if you're temporal and you're dealing with an infinite and supernatural God, you don't.
What "key point"? You're starting with a presupposition that God exists. You're in the hole - you can't presuppose "absolute truth."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.
No, it's a statement about logical reality. You can't simply call what you believe "the truth."This blanket statement is only a cosmetic argument unless you have given your rebuttal of all of my points.
I can propose a dozen alternate explanations for the "holy spirit" phenomena, none of which you can deny.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.
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.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.
*Yawn* Alternate explanations abound.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.
That's okay. Sound logic is not an opinion.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.
It's certainly not my fault that you don't appear to understand logic at all.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.
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 internsMet said: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 bible and god are both used in official oaths and such, but are NEVER required, as explicitly stated in the constitution.Whitehorse said: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.
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_i_only_had_a_brain said: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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?