Objective vs subjective

[Jethro Bodine]

Ah I see, I see.

At least you're not saying " because you'll burn in hell if you don't"

Which I thankyou for not saying that.

I thought that kind of went without saying.

I don't know the exact nature of hell, but I know it is a complete and utter absence of God's presence. That may sound good to those sinners who still love their sin, but actually it is an unbearable torment of mind, body, and Spirit. God has warned us ahead of time and made a way to avoid that.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I'm kinda sensing you're still in the great debate with God about what really constitutes sin, and God's justice in judging it. Am I right?

 

[poetofparables]

I thought that kind of went without saying.

I don't know the exact nature of hell, but I know it is a complete and utter absence of God's presence. That may sound good to those sinners who still love their sin, but actually it is an unbearable torment of mind, body, and Spirit. God has warned us ahead of time and made a way to avoid that.

Well if that concept of hell is true and my torment is self inflicted, then that doesn't sound all that bad.

 

[poetofparables]

I'm kinda sensing you're still in the great debate with God about what really constitutes sin, and God's justice in judging it. Am I right?

No jethro im not, I was for a long time though.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

No jethro im not, I was for a long time though.

I figured. I'm no dummy about these things. I've talked to enough people about Christianity to know what's going on inside of them.

It's interesting that love for sin (and, therefore, the conflict with God about that sin) always manifests itself as unbelief. What I mean is, instead of people saying, "yeah, I know the truth about sin and God and the Judgment to come, but I don't agree with God that what I'm doing is wrong, so I'll deal with the punishment", they say, "I don't agree that what I love to do is sin, so I don't believe all that talk about God is true.". See the difference?

The point being, you are still in that great debate with God about sin because you are firmly resisting what God says about sin and his justice in judging it. If/ when you agree with him about that--that is when the great debate ends. And that is when, and only when, you can be saved from the penalty of sin.

 

[poetofparables]

I figured. I'm no dummy about these things. I've talked to enough people about Christianity to know what's going on inside of them.

It's interesting that love for sin (and, therefore, the conflict with God about that sin) always manifests itself as unbelief. What I mean is, instead of people saying, "yeah, I know the truth about sin and God and the Judgment to come, but I don't agree with God that what I'm doing is wrong, so I'll deal with the punishment", they say, "I don't agree that what I love to do is sin, so I don't believe all that talk about God is true.". See the difference?

No, but only because I couldn't understand what you're saying. Can you maybe say it in a different way so I can understand it.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

No, but only because I couldn't understand what you're saying. Can you maybe say it in a different way so I can understand it.

Why don't people who reject salvation just come right out and say, "thanks, but no thanks, I love my sin and I don't want to give it up." Instead they say, "I don't believe in the reality of a God."

 

[poetofparables]

Why don't people who reject salvation just come right out and say, "thanks, but no thanks, I love my sin and I don't want to give it up." Instead they say, "I don't believe in the reality of a God."

Yeah, why.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Well if that concept of hell is true and my torment is self inflicted, then that doesn't sound all that bad.

Are you saying the tormenting sorrow of the 'weeping and gnashing of teeth' doesn't sound all that bad if it's self inflicted? How does that work?

Yeah, why.

I'm confident it's because they are trying to rationalize staying in the sin they love so much and for which they have little ability to stop. I used to be a Christ rejecting sinner once, too, you know.

 

[poetofparables]

Are you saying the tormenting sorrow of the 'weeping and gnashing of teeth' doesn't sound all that bad if it's self inflicted? How does that work?

Well if one is simply happy and content with themselves while here. Then they go to hell, they can only inflict there current state of happiness and contentment on themselves while there.

I'm confident it's because they are trying to rationalize staying in the sin they love so much and for which they have little ability to stop. I used to be a Christ rejecting sinner once, too, you know.

Well you had to be, you had no choice.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Well if one is simply happy and content with themselves while here. Then they go to hell, they can only inflict there current state of happiness and contentment on themselves.

At least we all have some goodness of God to enjoy in this life whether we're a believer or not. But in the total absence of God there will be no 'state of happiness and contentment'. Jesus called it 'outer darkness' if I'm not mistaken. That's hardly a description of this life for even the worst of unbelievers.

 

[poetofparables]

At least we all have some goodness of God to enjoy in this life whether we're a believer or not. But in the total absence of God there will be no 'state of happiness and contentment'. Jesus called it 'outer darkness' if I'm not mistaken. That's hardly a description of this life for even the worst of unbelievers.

I was just referring to your own state of being while in this idea of outer darkness. However if something is inflicting you that's not your inner most being, then yeah it's going to be a terrible place.

 

[poetofparables]

I was just referring to your own state of being while in this idea of outer darkness. However if something is inflicting you that's not your inner most being, then yeah it's going to be a terrible place.

Note: Its fair also to say that if you have an evil inner most being that could torment you, even if theres no outside infliction.

 

[Free]

If truth is objective and absolute then why do religious people struggle to produce the evidence of their claims. When religious people claim that they know the "Truth" isn't that in their minds an objective claim. If it is in fact an objective claim then shouldn't these religious people have a massive body of theoretical evidence to support the claims they make.

To get this thread back on track, what was the intent of the opening post? Truth is objective and absolute, regardless of whether or not it is religious, and any truth claim should have evidence of some sort to back it up.

Many truth claims within Christianity are historically based and need to be judged as all historical claims to truth are. Take the literal, physical resurrection of Jesus, for example. There is no more important claim for the Christian (and everyone for that matter) than this, so much so that even Paul says our faith is worthless if it didn't happen. Judged as an historical truth claim, the evidence best supports the idea that Jesus did, in fact, rise from the dead.

Are there any claims in Christianity in particular that you think are lacking in evidence?

 

[poetofparables]

To get this thread back on track, what was the intent of the opening post? Truth is objective and absolute, regardless of whether or not it is religious, and any truth claim should have evidence of some sort to back it up.

Many truth claims within Christianity are historically based and need to be judged as all historical claims to truth are. Take the literal, physical resurrection of Jesus, for example. There is no more important claim for the Christian (and everyone for that matter) than this, so much so that even Paul says our faith is worthless if it didn't happen. Judged as an historical truth claim, the evidence best supports the idea that Jesus did, in fact, rise from the dead.

Are there any claims in Christianity in particular that you think are lacking in evidence?

Yes, but lets start with what you said "resurrection " the claim to resurrection is not only a historical claim, but also a present one. Christians are supposed to have Godly powers to the raise the dead. This is one objective claim made by Jesus, so the burden is on the christian to verify that claim by resurrecting dead people.

 

[OzSpen]

Yes, but lets start with what you said "resurrection " the claim to resurrection is not only a historical claim, but also a present one. Christians are supposed to have Godly powers to the raise the dead. This is one objective claim made by Jesus, so the burden is on the christian to verify that claim by resurrecting dead people.

Poet,

I notice that you don't provide any sources for your claim that 'resurrection' is 'a present one [i.e. claim]'. You state that Christians are supposed to be able to raise the dead but again, you have not given the evidence. You might be correct, but in this statement you are making assertions without evidence. How about some source evidence please so that we have some of your 'objective' evidence that we can discuss it?

 

[poetofparables]

Poet,

I notice that you don't provide any sources for your claim that 'resurrection' is 'a present one [i.e. claim]'. You state that Christians are supposed to be able to raise the dead but again, you have not given the evidence. You might be correct, but in this statement you are making assertions without evidence. How about some source evidence please so that we have some of your 'objective' evidence that we can discuss it?

That's a good point, my statement is not valid till I do. I'll see what I can do, and sorry for the late reply.

 

[poetofparables]

Poet,

I notice that you don't provide any sources for your claim that 'resurrection' is 'a present one [i.e. claim]'. You state that Christians are supposed to be able to raise the dead but again, you have not given the evidence. You might be correct, but in this statement you are making assertions without evidence. How about some source evidence please so that we have some of your 'objective' evidence that we can discuss it?

I'll post this source, from the bible.

John 14:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. 12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

Go ahead and tell me what you think that verse means and if Jesus is or is not pointing out that those who believe in him they can do the things he has been doing. He also states that those who believe in him can do greater things, maybe it means something else I'm open for a different point of view.

 

[chessman]

John 14:11-13New International Version (NIV)
... 12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. ...

if Jesus is or is not pointing out that those who believe in him they can do the things he has been doing. He also states that those who believe in him can do greater things, maybe it means something else I'm open for a different point of view.

You didn't ask me but I'll share my thoughts:

First, the NIV is not the most accurate translation for that verse in that the articles and pronouns describing The One that will do greater works are clearly singular in the original Greek, yet translated plural for some odd reason, by the NIV.

John 14:12 Truly, truly I say to you, the one who believes in me, the works that I am doing he will do also, and he will do greater works than these because I am going to the Father. ​

Obviuosly Jesus doesn't mean the disciples (Thomas/Phillip) were (at that moment) believing in Him (as God) as He just got through kind-of scolding them for their unbelief in Him. Plus, He would have said to them that "you" will do greater works, not "The One" or he if that's what He meant.

I believe The One Jesus meant who was destined to do even greater works (Godly signs/miracles) was/is none other than the Holy Spirit (God). Just read the rest of the discussion where the Holy Spirit is promised to them later (Jesus hadn't returned to The Father just yet leaving The Holy Spirit with us).

And it is my belief that the Holy Spirit has done just that. Bringing billions of believers into believing in Him as God and thus healing them (in an Eternal sense).

Way greater works, indeed has He done than heal a few.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28 And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues ? Do all interpret?" (1 Corinthians 12:27-29 NIV)

The answer to the rhetorical question being 'no', of course. Those who have the gift of working miracles are the ones who work miracles.

And it has been suggested that raising somebody up to eternal life, after the resurrection, is the greater work that Jesus was talking about. The work that the church would later do.