21 Feb 10
...and not by discovery. What we know about God and the truth about Him and everything else that pertains to life doesn't come from self generated discovery, but by the acknowledgment of God and persistent study of His Word in humility.
Knowledge of the truth comes from an objective experience and not from personal subjective learning.
In other words, we are totally dependant on God for all truth.
Your thoughts... After all, I may not have worded it perfectly.
21 Feb 10
Originally posted by josephwYour experience is not an objective experience, it is a subjective experience. No one can verify that you've had this experience. We just have to take your word for it that what you've experienced was a genuine 'revelation' and not something else.
...and not by discovery. What we know about God and the truth about Him and everything else that pertains to life doesn't come from self generated discovery, but by the acknowledgment of God and persistent study of His Word in humility.
Knowledge of the truth comes from an objective experience and not from personal subjective learning.
In other words, ...[text shortened]... endant on God for all truth.
Your thoughts... After all, I may not have worded it perfectly.
22 Feb 10
Originally posted by josephwNo, that's right.
...and not by discovery. What we know about God and the truth about Him and everything else that pertains to life doesn't come from self generated discovery, but by the acknowledgment of God and persistent study of His Word in humility.
Knowledge of the truth comes from an objective experience and not from personal subjective learning.
In other words, ...[text shortened]... endant on God for all truth.
Your thoughts... After all, I may not have worded it perfectly.
22 Feb 10
3 edits
Originally posted by josephwWhat I am taken back by are life changing revelations and not just supposed revelations that tend to inhance ones current position. Case in point is Paul and his encounter on the road to Damascus. Here we had a Jew whose life long work was persecuting the church and killing Christians before he left and then a polar opposite when he entered Damascus. What personal benefit was there in doing this? What fortune was to be made? In fact, he was ultimately killed for this conversion and gave up a promising career as a rabbi. In contrast, take someone like a Joseph Smith who started the Mormon faith. He aspired to become a mayor and then a commander of a nearly autonomous militia after gaining a following for declaring his "revelations". Then in 1843 he announced his candidacy for the Presidency of the United States. After losing his bid to be President, he was criticized for his power over the populace by a local newspaper. He promptly ordered the destruction of the newspaper. Then in a futile attempt to check public outrage, he declared martial law. To make a long story short, he was later killed by an angry mob.
...and not by discovery. What we know about God and the truth about Him and everything else that pertains to life doesn't come from self generated discovery, but by the acknowledgment of God and persistent study of His Word in humility.
Knowledge of the truth comes from an objective experience and not from personal subjective learning.
In other words, ...[text shortened]... endant on God for all truth.
Your thoughts... After all, I may not have worded it perfectly.
So in comparing the two men and the revelations, one was self serving and the other dedicated to self service. Which man do you think was influenced by God?
22 Feb 10
Originally posted by rwingett"Your experience is not an objective experience,.."
Your experience is not an objective experience, it is a subjective experience. No one can verify that you've had this experience. We just have to take your word for it that what you've experienced was a genuine 'revelation' and not something else.
I think you misunderstand. I'm not talking about my own personal experience. I'm referring to an experience of something not subjective in that it comes from another source, namely God.
The knowledge of the truth I'm referring to is revealed by the author of that truth.
Therefore it is by revelation, objectively, from without.
Perhaps you understand what I'm saying, and can re-word it so it is logical.
22 Feb 10
Originally posted by josephwThere is no way to verify that ANYTHING comes from god. Your so called 'revelation' is necessarily subjective. Your claim to have received a revealed 'truth' from god cannot be verified objectively. It is entirely a subjective experience. We have no option but to take your word for it when you claim to have received these alleged revelations.
[b]"Your experience is not an objective experience,.."
I think you misunderstand. I'm not talking about my own personal experience. I'm referring to an experience of something not subjective in that it comes from another source, namely God.
The knowledge of the truth I'm referring to is revealed by the author of that truth.
Therefore it is by re ...[text shortened]... m without.
Perhaps you understand what I'm saying, and can re-word it so it is logical.[/b]
The only way it can be re-worded so that it is logical is to say that all revelation is entirely subjective.
22 Feb 10
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettSo on the one hand you say we can determine if something can be determined objectively and, on the other hand, seem to indicate that everything we experience is subjective?
There is no way to verify that ANYTHING comes from god. Your so called 'revelation' is necessarily subjective. Your claim to have received a revealed 'truth' from god cannot be verified objectively. It is entirely a subjective experience. We have no option but to take your word for it when you claim to have received these alleged revelations.
The only w ...[text shortened]... can be re-worded so that it is logical is to say that all revelation is entirely subjective.
I think a better way of saying it is that we experience things subjectively but have evidences as to what we think is reality.
22 Feb 10
Originally posted by whodeyIf it happens to me (internally) and cannot be verified by anyone else, then it is a subjective experience. Revelation exists solely within the mind of the individual. It cannot be verified by a third party. It is therefore a subjective experience. This makes claims for revelation the least trustworthy forms of evidence.
So on the one hand you say we can determine if something can be determined objectively and, on the other hand, seem to indicate that everything we experience is subjective?
22 Feb 10
Originally posted by josephwYou mean truth of god comes from faith and not science?
...and not by discovery. What we know about God and the truth about Him and everything else that pertains to life doesn't come from self generated discovery, but by the acknowledgment of God and persistent study of His Word in humility.
Knowledge of the truth comes from an objective experience and not from personal subjective learning.
In other words, ...[text shortened]... endant on God for all truth.
Your thoughts... After all, I may not have worded it perfectly.
22 Feb 10
Originally posted by rwingettSo the many witnesses that claimed to see Jesus resurrected would be objective evidence for you? In addition, suppose a group of you were in a desert and you saw a mirage on the horizen?
If it happens to me (internally) and cannot be verified by anyone else, then it is a subjective experience. Revelation exists solely within the mind of the individual. It cannot be verified by a third party. It is therefore a subjective experience. This makes claims for revelation the least trustworthy forms of evidence.
22 Feb 10
Originally posted by whodeyThe former is unverifiable hearsay while the latter can be demonstrated to be false.
So the many witnesses that claimed to see Jesus resurrected would be objective evidence for you? In addition, suppose a group of you were in a desert and you saw a mirage on the horizen?
22 Feb 10
Originally posted by josephwNo. There are two books: scripture and nature.
...and not by discovery. What we know about God and the truth about Him and everything else that pertains to life doesn't come from self generated discovery, but by the acknowledgment of God and persistent study of His Word in humility.
Knowledge of the truth comes from an objective experience and not from personal subjective learning.
In other words, ...[text shortened]... endant on God for all truth.
Your thoughts... After all, I may not have worded it perfectly.
Prophecy reflects the social conditioning of the individual prophet. Isaiah was a courtier and prophesied accordingly; Ezekiel was a bumpkin, and ditto.
Newton felt a religious calling in penetrating the veil of nature.
God being ineffable, we had better apply our minds to the study of nature.
22 Feb 10
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI read an argument recently that was very interesting. I basically said that to believe in miracles was blasphemous. If the laws of nature are laid down by god, then violations of those laws would necessarily be contrary to the will of god. Therefore belief in miracles is blasphemy.
No. There are two books: scripture and nature.
Prophecy reflects the social conditioning of the individual prophet. Isaiah was a courtier and prophesied accordingly; Ezekiel was a bumpkin, and ditto.
Newton felt a religious calling in penetrating the veil of nature.
God being ineffable, we had better apply our minds to the study of nature.
22 Feb 10
Originally posted by whodeyNo, science is a methodology for searching for truth. There is no reason to restrict it to the material universe. The only possible reason for not applying scientific principles to the study of God is if for some reason he cannot be studied objectively.
Science is the search for truth ONLY within the material universe. It is rather finite and limited in that regard.
Whether or not you think science is a good methodology or the best methodology is another matter, but you would be something of a hypocrite to accept it only where it suits you.