- Mar 21, 2005
- 19,419
- 673
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
These are not objective tests: there is no way to objectively verify whether someone believes in a certain statement or not.
Upvote
0
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.
These are not objective tests: there is no way to objectively verify whether someone believes in a certain statement or not.There ARE objective Tests -- the problem is, people have come in to CORRUPT what is true and that makes it hard for one who is NOT a Christian to know what those truths are in order to spot one; alot of times, TIME has to tell
.
The bible gives us doctrinal truths that must be accepted, (repentance, turning from sin, fruits of God's Spirit, outward works we do, our love for other saints, and not leaving the faith, etc.)
I fail to see the objective test.There is a true test. But, it is often times seen in retrospect. While its happening, it just seems like something one must do.
There is an unexplainable deep hunger for the Word of God that accompanies salvation. Like a newborn does not have to be taught to suck for his mother's breast. Its spiritual instinct.
Its a drive that takes over. We must have it or its painful... like touching dry ice is painful. Its a soul anguish if we are denied. Denied like I was for almost ten years because of the circumstances of my salvation, having been Jewish.
When I was finally given the Word I devoured it with amazement. It was not something done out of intellectual curiosity. It was an absolute NEED.
Is there any objective way to gauge whether my answer is truthful or not? Is so, what? If not, then there is no objective test, as I said.Do you have any strong desire to accept, serve, pray to/talk with, worship and obey the God of the Bible?
I just asked a simple yes or no question - how about we get that answer first instead of the cart before the horse?Is there any objective way to gauge whether my answer is truthful or not? Is so, what? If not, then there is no objective test, as I said.
Fine, I'll bite.I just asked a simple yes or no question - how about we get that answer first instead of the cart before the horse?
Fine, I'll bite.
My answer: yes.
Now, answer my question: is there any objective way to gauge whether my answer is truthful or not? Is so, what? If not, then there is no objective test, as I said.
You appear to have completely missed my point. All I asked was whether there was an objectively verifiable test for 'Christian-ness'. I never implied that the lack of such a test equals a lack of possible 'Christian-ness'.Is there an objective way to verify? That its possible to answer you in a way you can grasp?
Is there an objective way to describe to another a taste? One that they never experienced? One that is unique? Does it mean the taste is not real, if one can not describe it?
In other words.... some things are only verifiable by experiening it for oneself. NOT BY DESCRIBING IT.
That is why I see this type of challenge you are presenting as being illogical silliness, which is crouched in appearing to having an intellectual approach. For one can not describe what can only be known by experiencing it for oneself.
In regards to God's omniscience and man's free will?
If God is truly omniscient?
He would know how to grant free will to those he creates.
Does the fact that he can create free will in his creatures? Depend on the creature's ability to perceive how it can be?
Can God not create free will? Even though how he does it? Is not to be understood by the created?
The lack of comprehension of a reality does not nullify it being a reality.
I never said that it must.Its not nullified because something can not be verified according to a limited single means One, demanded by someone that it must be proven one way.
Even omniscients cannot know how to cause two mutually exclusive premises to be simultaneously true. Omniscience is a logical absolute, and therefore follows the laws of logic.
I have already answered this - I know the Q is pointed to genez, but the answer is YES, the problem is, you need to know what God's truth is first TO PROPERLY TELL WHO'S THE CHRISTIAN as far as doctrine is concerned.Now answer my question:
Is there an objectively verifiable test for 'Christian-ness'?
If someone says they are a Christian, is there any objevtive way to test the truthfulness of their claim?
Have you read my very long conversation with Wiccan_Child in this thread? If you claim that there is a contradiction between freewill and foreknowledge you are either making a claim that foreknowledge is causal or you are poorly defining free will.Why bother. The logical conflicts from a God that knows the furture and can never be wrong and freewill should be obvious. They are are to me at least.
Again, you are having causal issues.Not to mention the implications of God being evil to the point of purposefully creating people for the soul purpose of damning them, since He already knows if they'll accept Christ or not.
You appear to have completely missed my point. All I asked was whether there was an objectively verifiable test for 'Christian-ness'. I never implied that the lack of such a test equals a lack of possible 'Christian-ness'.
Absolutely! You can look at their testimony, their works, their faith… etc etc etc. These are all valid test to give evidence of “Christian-ness” but none can give you absolute certainty, as discusses earlier in this thread that belongs to God alone. Also, you presume the only type of evidence you can offer for an existence claim is objective, and this is clearly false.Jeez.
I do not believe omniscience is consistent with a denial of omnipotent. Luckily Christians make both claims about God. Being a big fan of the transcendental argument logical consistency exist because it reflects God’s nature, not the other way around.Even omniscients cannot know how to cause two mutually exclusive premises to be simultaneously true. Omniscience is a logical absolute, and therefore follows the laws of logic.
This is a version of the Socratic fallacy.If someone says they are a Christian, is there any objevtive way to test the truthfulness of their claim?
Quote:
If someone says they are a Christian, is there any objevtive way to test the truthfulness of their claim?
This is a version of the Socratic fallacy.
Naturally. But incomprehension is not the issue here: one arrives at a logical contradiction when one assumes that there is both an omniscient and free will.
Ditto.No end in sight.
Can you spell this out in laymans terms for me please?
Have you read my very long conversation with Wiccan_Child in this thread? If you claim that there is a contradiction between freewill and foreknowledge you are either making a claim that foreknowledge is causal or you are poorly defining free will.
Again, you are having causal issues.
It's a valid question to highlight the nonsense that arises when one ascribes omnipotence / omniscience to an entity.This is known as a pseudo-question. Its like asking, Can God win an arm wrestling match against Himself? or, If God beat Himself up, who would win? or, Can Gods power defeat His own power?
What question are you referring to? I made a statement, nothing more.The question is nonsense because it treats God as if He were two instead of one. The phrase stronger than can only be used when two subjects are in view, for example, Bill is stronger than Bob, my left arm is stronger than my right arm, etc. Since God is only one, and since He has no parts, it makes no sense to ask if He is stronger than Himself. Thats why this is a pseudo-question. It proves nothing about any deficiency in God because the question itself is incoherent. </STRONG>
Agreed. I still don't see your point though.The Can God make a rock so big He cant lift it? challenge is no threat to Christian theism
Assuming you know what God's truth is, can you give me a list of the conditions required for one to be classified as a Christian?I have already answered this - I know the Q is pointed to genez, but the answer is YES, the problem is, you need to know what God's truth is first TO PROPERLY TELL WHO'S THE CHRISTIAN as far as doctrine is concerned.
As far as I can tell, they're following their Christian doctrine: label gays as abominations, etc.Obviously that nutjob at Westborough church that goes picketing against homosexuals with HATE signs and crashing funererals - they are displaying hearts and attitudes inconsistent with the Christian doctrine.
Therefore, you CAN assess that they're frauds to the faith.
There is a gross presumption you have made: you have equated homosexuality with sexual immorality. Can you justify this presumption?Same with active homosexuals inside the churches - the Bible CLEARLY forbids sexual immorality - and 1 Cor 5 says it's to be put out of the church (when openly embraced) - instead, people hire actively gay and gay supporting CLERGY. THIS is a clear act of sin that defies the definition & standards of Christianity.
We don't OPENLY promote & embrace sin.
By all means, explain to me what Christianity is about.But unfortunately many nonchristians aren't real great at knowing what Christianity is all about - there's lots of misnomers & stereotypes we're thrown into...
You presume that all Christians must follow the same doctrine as you. Did it ever occur to you that you are the one who has misinterpreted the Bible?plus there are many who PROMOTE sin and who applaude the few denominations who have put homosexuals in their clergy and who defy the clear doctrines in the Bible.
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?