A question for the non sabatarians(spelling?)

[Adventtruth]

If a christian believes the bible is sufficient then they will act accordingly.....

I agree, but not always.

Some believe that there is an objective source of truth, the problem is that it is human filtered, thus rendering this objective source subjective

It becomes subjective in the sense that we have trusted the objective source thus we follow its leadings, not that the subjective is of our own surmising...this followup is in harmony with your answer to question one.

.... or as the saying goes, "You can be assured that you have created God in your own image when He hates the same people you hate....."

I suppose this would have to be confirmed as truth by a source?

There are multiple ways to arrive at "truth" however the manner in which we use to search for truth determines how "true" our "truth" is....

Thanks for your good answers, but it leads me to ask you...how do you determine or arrive at truth?


AT

 

[StormyOne]

Ultimately, it would seem that all of us based our understanding of "truth" in some sort of faith in something or someone. I suspect that you and I may place our faith differently.

not a problem since we are not clones....

It would seem that there are some who look around them and reach a different conclusion than you've reached. They conclude that there was no Creator. Are their conclusions equally as accurate as your conclusions, or has one group reached a conclusion that is more accurate than the other group.

that is there journey, and every person must make that journey on their own terms in a sense.... Ultimately I believe that God can reveal himself to a person regardless of the path they are on....

Something that can be relied on for an understanding of things that are true.

BFA

Truth is progressive and a more complete truth usually causes us to discard the less complete truth believed in to that point....Likewise understanding is progressive, I understand things now that I did not understand at 20....

 

[StormyOne]

I agree, but not always.

then that is what that person must wrestle with, i.e. if they believe that the bible is sufficient why aren't they following what they believe....

It becomes subjective in the sense that we have trusted the objective source thus we follow its leadings, not that the subjective is of our own surmising...this followup is in harmony with your answer to question one.

I don't know what this statement means.... the moment something "objective" is interpreted by humans, it becomes subjective.... that is my point.

I suppose this would have to be confirmed as truth by a source?




Thanks for your good answers, but it leads me to ask you...how do you determine or arrive at truth?


AT

what do you mean truth by a source? Truth is a process, you will never "arrive" at truth, you may gain more truth as you learn and understand more, however I believe that only God has all truth and because we will never be God we will never arrive at "the truth."

 

[Adventtruth]

you are correct, there are things in the bible that are incorrect. The process is simple, if the bible narrative states that something happened, yet there is no record anywhere, no evidence no nothing, then that narrative is incorrect.

There are a number of stories in the bible that have no proof whatsoever. Such as a man named Moses and his dealings with God in being given teh ten commandments. Is this a good example? Do you believe he lived? Do you believe that happended?

Likewise if people who have degrees in biblical languages and have been dissecting/examining the text and point out inclusions, differences in styles, etc, then to me it provides enough evidence to suggest that something other than divine illumination has been at work...

And I agree here about the degeed men. But does that negate that divine illumination has been at work at some point in the text, to derive at Gods will for us in a given passage of scripture?

How do I know that there is a God? By looking around and realizing that all of this did not just happen,

That was what I realized as a heathen...good point for some, not good for others.

that someone had to create the world we see and the things that inhabit that world.

As BFA said...others may come to other conclussions.

Authoritative in what sense? Something that we must absolutely adhere to?

If there is nothing are we living in conjecture?


AT

 

[Adventtruth]

then that is what that person must wrestle with, i.e. if they believe that the bible is sufficient why aren't they following what they believe....

Becasue of sin, thats not to say believers don't try and live by truth, but because of the two natures they fail to live up to known truth. But the subject of sin is another topic for another time

I don't know what this statement means.... the moment something "objective" is interpreted by humans, it becomes subjective.... that is my point.

I understand...But my point is that truth is already with us subjectively...has been from the foundation of the universe. When it finds us, or we discover it, we make it subjective, Not that the subjective truth is born of us, but that we have adopted it as our own, but thats a moot point. I understand perfectly what you are saying and I agree.

what do you mean truth by a source?

Truth has already been established before we are born...it was established before the foundation of the world. But once we arrive at perceived truth, how do we confirm that what we believe , is infact truth? Is there any physical source that confirms ones notion of truth?

Truth is a process,

agreed.

you will never "arrive" at truth,

I disagree. example: It is true that Gods saves. But that truth is progressive in nature. He saves to the uttermost. We have arrived at the truth that is progrssive in nature.

you may gain more truth as you learn and understand more, however I believe that only God has all truth and because we will never be God we will never arrive at "the truth."

I agree some. I don't believe we will arrive at total knowledge of what absolute truth is in this world. But I believe that Christ/God is THE TRUTH as factual according to my sources. In this sense we know truth. Do you agree?


AT

 

[sentipente]

So how do you establish moral truth?


AT

Where is it written that you should?

 

[sentipente]

How do you know that to be true? By faith?

I don't want to be a pest, so just let me know if you would prefer not to answer the following question:

Q: If we should read the Scriptures, how can we determine whether the particular passage we are reading at a given moment is articulated according to who God is, or if it is contrary to who God is?
​

BFA

Something can never from from nothing so the existence of something implies that its source is something. That source is the Creator. I call him/her/it Creator because it created whatever now exists -- either the substance or the mechanism. I don't know the Creator's properties because I have never seen the Creator. I can use the properties of what He has created as a lower bound of His own properties but that is all I can do. The only faith I exercised is faith in the logic of my argument.

You began with a very big IF. We have no obligation to read any book that has been written nor are we prohibited from doing the same. Nothing can be contrary to who God is because it is all an expression of Himself. Gen. 3 makes that point rather clearly. Why I would want to pursue something I have no way of verifying is beyond me. According to the Bible our problems began when one created being wanted to be like the Most High. It is incredulous Christians should continue to make the same mistake in the name of piety.

 

[StormyOne]

There are a number of stories in the bible that have no proof whatsoever. Such as a man named Moses and his dealings with God in being given the ten commandments. Is this a good example? Do you believe he lived? Do you believe that happened?

The verdict is still out... you are correct, there is scant evidence of any of that, however since I believe that Moses did NOT write the books attributed to him, and why those books read the way they do as well as their purpose, I understand what was happening in the larger scheme of things.....

And I agree here about the degreed men. But does that negate that divine illumination has been at work at some point in the text, to derive at Gods will for us in a given passage of scripture?

if that is what you choose to believe, fine.... just don't ask me to share that belief...

That was what I realized as a heathen...good point for some, not good for others.

as I said, it is a journey....

As BFA said...others may come to other conclusions.



If there is nothing are we living in conjecture?


AT

we may be doing just that..... some are more comfortable with that than others.....

 

[sentipente]

I would not go as far as to say God intended for man to sin in any form. But I would say God knew what men would do before they did it. To imply that God intended is to say God mapped it out and planed it. If this is the case, God is responsible for sin.

AT

Interesting that you have no problem positing that God had not control over the nature of His creation. He knew what man would do and did not like it one bit but was powerless to prevent it. Not my kind of God.

 

[Adventtruth]

The verdict is still out... you are correct, there is scant evidence of any of that, however since I believe that Moses did NOT write the books attributed to him, and why those books read the way they do as well as their purpose, I understand what was happening in the larger scheme of things.....

if that is what you choose to believe, fine.... just don't ask me to share that belief...



as I said, it is a journey....





we may be doing just that..... some are more comfortable with that than others.....

Thanks for the dialog.


AT

 

[sentipente]

Something that can be relied on for an understanding of things that are true.

BFA

The problem arises when we believe that we have the understanding that this authority has and are supposed to impose it on others. Life would be wonderful if we shared without imposing, being content merely to point out logical inconsistencies.

 

[StormyOne]

Becasue of sin, thats not to say believers don't try and live by truth, but because of the two natures they fail to live up to known truth. But the subject of sin is another topic for another time

two natures? I don't believe in the concept.... one cannot live up to "truth." One can live by what they believe in and/or live because of what they are... whatever that is....

I understand...But my point is that truth is already with us subjectively...has been from the foundation of the universe. When it finds us, or we discover it, we make it subjective, Not that the subjective truth is born of us, but that we have adopted it as our own, but thats a moot point. I understand perfectly what you are saying and I agree.

ok...

Truth has already been established before we are born...it was established before the foundation of the world. But once we arrive at perceived truth, how do we confirm that what we believe , is infact truth? Is there any physical source that confirms ones notion of truth?

why do we need confirmation? what is it you wish to "prove?"

I disagree. example: It is true that Gods saves. But that truth is progressive in nature. He saves to the uttermost. We have arrived at the truth that is progrssive in nature.

I disagree... the statement he saves to the uttermost is meaningless.... If God has saved me it is not a partial save, it is complete when he does it....

I agree some. I don't believe we will arrive at total knowledge of what absolute truth is in this world. But I believe that Christ/God is THE TRUTH as factual according to my sources. In this sense we know truth. Do you agree?


AT

you don't know what God knows so your truth remains partial....

 

[Adventtruth]

Interesting that you have no problem positing that God had not control over the nature of His creation. He knew what man would do and did not like it one bit but was powerless to prevent it. Not my kind of God.

Becareful not to add to what I wrote sentipente. I never ever said nor did I imply that God had no control over the nature of His creation. I never said nor implied that God was pwerless to prevent it.


This is the kind of twisting that starts infighting and arguments on these boards.

You are being a rouser here, plain and simple.


AT

 

[sentipente]

Becareful not to add to what I wrote sentipente. I never ever said nor did I imply that God had no control over the nature of His creation. I never said nor implied that God was pwerless to prevent it.


This is the kind of twisting that starts infighting and arguments on these boards.

You are being a rouser here, plain and simple.


AT

The implication is in your statement. If He allowed what He did not want to happen it was because He really wanted it or had no power to stop it. Don't run away from your assumptions, or don't speak until you know what you are really saying.

 

[Adventtruth]

two natures? I don't believe in the concept....

Ok, thats fine.

one cannot live up to "truth." One can live by what they believe in and/or live because of what they are... whatever that is....

Same thing as living up to truth.





ok...

why do we need confirmation? what is it you wish to "prove?"

You must know that just as truth is in the world, error is in the world as well. How do you confirm truth is truth and not error?

I disagree... the statement he saves to the uttermost is meaningless.... If God has saved me it is not a partial save, it is complete when he does it....

This may be a segment where we can't reach harmony. I see uttermost salvation established at conversion, I think you see salvation from some other time period. I see temporal salvation as well as eternal salvation, but by God...one by default the other by grace.

you don't know what God knows so your truth remains partial....

My sense of knowing THE truth is always in belief that God is absolute truth and no lie is in Him. But from your perspective I agree.


AT

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Something can never from from nothing so the existence of something implies that its source is something.

Although I've read this sentence several times, I can't seem to follow what you're saying.

That source is the Creator.

How do you know that to be true?

I can use the properties of what He has created as a lower bound of His own properties but that is all I can do.

How do you know that the properties you see are "His own properties?"

The only faith I exercised is faith in the logic of my argument.

I suspect that there is much more to it than that. You've expressed faith in a being you have never seen. Upon what is that faith based?

You began with a very big IF. We have no obligation to read any book that has been written nor are we prohibited from doing the same. Nothing can be contrary to who God is because it is all an expression of Himself.

Is the concept of "hatred" an expression of who God is? How can we know for sure?

Gen. 3 makes that point rather clearly.

Can we rely on Genesis 3 for anything? Is Genesis 3 true? How can we know?

According to the Bible our problems began when one created being wanted to be like the Most High. It is incredulous Christians should continue to make the same mistake in the name of piety.

This may be a valid concern if the goal is to be like Jesus Christ. Certainly, that seems to be the objective of SDA fundamental belief #16. However, I don't believe my objective is "to be like the Most High." The more I understand who God is, the more I realize that I am not the Most High. I am interested in knowing more of God, not in being Him.

BFA

 

[Avonia]

This may be a valid concern if the goal is to be like Jesus Christ.

We are made in God's image - no emulation necessary. The task at hand is getting to know more about who we are.

Poor action is a result of our poor understanding in this matter.

 

[sentipente]

BFA, your questions are becoming very tiresome because they reflect a deliberate lack of basic understanding. Do you see a difference in this context between the Source and the Creator? Do you have some basis on which to doubt what is referenced in Gen. 3. Please note that you are beginning to sound very childish in your retorts. Faith in the logic of my arguments lead me to the conclusion that the Creator must be a sentient being; in this argument I did not begin with faith in that being. You are trying to rebut rather than understand.

 

[sentipente]

#16. However, I don't believe my objective is "to be like the Most High." The more I understand who God is, the more I realize that I am not the Most High. I am interested in knowing more of God, not in being Him.

BFA

If you were not so intent on rebutting you would have noted the difference between wanting to be and wanting to be like. I find it difficult that you wish to know the type of information you are seeking about the Creator so you can discard it all.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

BFA, your questions are becoming very tiresome because they reflect a deliberate lack of basic understanding.

(1) It is very correct that I do not understand your position. Hence my questions.

(2) If my questions are tiresome, I would sincerely invite you to refrain from replying to them. I will not seek you out or "hound you" based on your lack of reply. You are under no obligation to me. If this is not a conversation that you enjoy, or a conversation that you believe is worthy of your limited time, then please move on to other discussions with my blessings.

Do you see a difference in this context between the Source and the Creator?

No. But I am trying to understand where your ideas come from. What is the "context?" What is the basis?

Do you have some basis on which to doubt what is referenced in Gen. 3.

Based on our prior discussion, I am trying to understand why you deem Genesis 3 to be authoritative. Is there a reason you would prefer to avoid that question?

Please note that you are beginning to sound very childish in your retorts.

Thanks for your opinion. I don't understand what that opinion is based on, but you are welcome to it nonetheless.

Faith in the logic of my arguments lead me to the conclusion that the Creator must be a sentient being; this argument I did not begin with faith in that being.

Then you have confirmed exactly what I said. Our faith is built on different things; it has a different source.

You are trying to rebut rather than understand.

I suspect that it is your time spent in forums, and not any real understanding of my motivations, that leads you to this conclusion.

If you were not so intent on rebutting you would have noted the difference between wanting to be and wanting to be like.

Please re-read my post. This difference is the very basis of my post.

I find it difficult that you wish to know the type of information you are seeking about the Creator so you can discard it all.

I genuinely do not understand this statement.

BFA