By the way -- if you claim to be a Christian...

[3rdAngel]

But you know that I am wrong, right?!!! Then give the evidence for that and I will learn from that.

Yes indeed. At the time of writing this you were not following the conversation and drawing conclusions on what is subjective and what is objective without even knowing what was being discussed.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes indeed. You were not following the conversation and drawing conclusions on what is subjective and what is objective without even knowing what was being discussed.

Yes, I am. I know that it is an objective fact, that I am wrong, right?!!! So now I just ask for evidence of that as per objective.
I know that you both are doing subjective interpretations of being wrong, yet you treat it as objective. So I just ask for evidence.

 

[3rdAngel]

Yes, I am. I know that it is an objective fat, that I am wrong, right?!!! So now I just ask for evidence of that as per objective.
I know that you both are doing subjective interpretations of being wrong, yet you treat it as objective. So I just ask for evidence.

You are not following the conversation. If you do not know what is being discussed than how can you know what is subjective and what is objective?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your not following the conversation. If you do not know what is being discussed than how can you know what is subjective and what is objective?

Well, that is simple. You both know that the other one is objectively wrong. But that can't be the case with logic, so one of you are subjective, if not both of you about being wrong. So I just ask for objective evidence for the apparent objective fact that someone is wrong.
It is that easy. Just give objective evidence for that I am wrong and you have won.

 

[3rdAngel]

Well, that is simple. You both know that the other one is objectively wrong. But that can't be the case with logic, so one of you are subjective, if not both of you about being wrong. So I just ask for objective evidence for the apparent objective fact that someone is wrong.
It is that easy. Just give objective evidence for that I am wrong and you have won.

Thank you for proving my point. You did not follow the conversation and do not know what was being discussed so cannot comment of what is subjective and what is not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Thank you for proving my point. You did not follow the conversation and do not know what was being discussed so cannot comment of what is subjective and what is not.

Yes, I can because you claim both to be in effect objective and that includes that the other one is wrong. But that can't be the case for both of you.
So for your claim that I am wrong, I just ask for objective evidence. It is that simple.
And here is how you get out of it. It is not objective that I am wrong. That is subjective in you.

 

[3rdAngel]

Yes, I can because you claim both to be in effect objective and that includes that the other one is wrong. But that can't be the case for both of you.
So for your claim that I am wrong, I just ask for objective evidence. It is that simple.
And here is how you get out of it. It is not objective that I am wrong. That is subjective in you.

Think your argument through. You have not followed the conversation. So you do not know what is being discussed. You claim both are subjective. Now does that make any sense? Of course not. You do not know what was being discussed and what objective facts have been provided. Does what you say here mean that there is no objective claim when evidence is provided that disagrees with what the other poster says? Of course not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Think your argument through. You have not followed the conversation. So you do not know what is being discussed. You claim both are subjective. Now does that make any sense? Does what you say here mean that there is no objective claim when evidence is provided that disagrees with what the other poster says and the other poster has no response? Of course not. If you have not followed the conversation then how do you know what you are talking about. It is very clear you do not.

You are both claiming an objective interpretation of a text for how it is true. That is not possible in the end other than descriptive. But you are both claim an objective norm for the correct normative interpretation of the truth of the text.
That one is easy to spot, you don't have to follow all of the exchange. You just look for markers in some of the exchange.

And one of the markers are that you are both wrong according to the other one. See, that was easy.

 

[3rdAngel]

You are both claiming an objective interpretation of a text for how it is true. That is not possible in the end other that descriptive. But you are both claim an objective norm for the correct normative interpretation of the truth of the text.
That one is easy to spot, you don't have to follow all of the exchange. You just look for markers in some of the exchange.

And one of the markers are that you are both wrong according to the other one. See, that was easy.

How does your argument here make sense and prove that there is not a subjective and an objective argument if you have not followed the conversation? You do not know so cannot comment. You just proved my point again and do not seem to understand why your argument is flawed. Just because two people claim to be right in an argument does not mean that they are both right or both wrong and that one is not right and the other is wrong. Your argument makes no sense. I guess not as easy as you thought.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How does your argument here make sense and prove that there is not a subjective and an objective argument if you have not followed the conversation? You do not know so cannot comment. You just proved my point again and do not seem to understand what I am saying to you.

I really don't have to. If I am objectively wrong, you make the actual argument for how you know that with objective evidence.
Something like this:
To say something wrong is objectively wrong, because ...
And then you fill in the ...

 

[3rdAngel]

I really don't have to. If I am objectively wrong, you make the actual argument for how you know that with objective evidence.
Something like this:
To say something wrong is objectively wrong, because ...
And then you fill in the ...

You are objectively wrong. The reason being is that you have not followed the conversation so you do not know who is being subjective and who is being objective and who has provided supportive evidence and who has not, because you simply have not followed the conversations. I am not sure why you cannot see this to be honest. Anyhow, might leave it here. Perhaps we will agree to disagree.

Take Care.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are objectively wrong. You have not followed the conversation so you do not know who is being subjective and who is being objective and who has provided supportive evidence and who has not, because you simply have not followed the conversations. I am not sure why you cannot see this to be honest.

Yeah. I can't see as see that other people are wrong.
You have made a free floating informal deduction, which is invalid and for which the concussion is not supported.
Fact as premise one: I haven't followed the discussion.
C: Therefore I am objectively wrong.

The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise and is thus invalid as a deduction. Further the conclusion is not supported by any other evidence and thus is free floating as unsupported by evidence.

 

[3rdAngel]

Yeah. I can't see as see that other people are wrong.
You have made a free floating informal deduction, which is invalid and for which the concussion is not supported.
Fact as premise one: I haven't followed the discussion.
C: Therefore I am objectively wrong.

The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise and is thus invalid as a deduction. Further the conclusion is not supported by any other evidence and thus is free floating as unsupported by evidence.

Ok good luck with that.

Take Care

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ok good luck with that.

Take Care

Well, you don't like that you are wrong, don't you! Well, you are not and neither am I. We just think/feel differently.
Because I know that "I" and "you" work in both directions and that I am not special and neither are you for this debate, unless you can give objective evidence for that, you are special.
It is that simple.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evidence already provided. See post # 208 linked and post # 510 linked. You are probably better off not commenting on things you have not been following.

Once again you admit your losses and run away instead of defending them properly. When challenged to reproduce your second post without interruption, which means that you could not inject your false narrative, you ran away.

 

[Windwalker]

That is true.
What does it mean to follow Christ?
I understanding it means to follow Christ's example and teachings.
Is that your understanding as well?

Sure, yes. Following his teachings however does not mean you have to read the Bible to know what those are. What about those who are illiterate? Do they need to learn how to read, then own a Bible and read it every day in order to be a Christian?

You did qualify being a Christian as someone who reads the Bible. So that is a problem for the illiterate, isn't it?

When Jesus said... “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was yet with you, that all the things written about me in the Law of Moses and in the Prophets and Psalms must be fulfilled.” (Luke 24:44)
(Luke 24:45) Then he opened up their minds fully to grasp the meaning of the Scriptures,

Do you consider these scriptures to have been important to Jesus, and did Jesus consider them important to his followers?

First, all those verses have Jesus telling them what the scriptures had told them. Were all his disciples literate? I doubt that. Aside from Matthew, I doubt any of them were. Did they all own Bibles? Absolutely not! So how could they have read the scriptures themselves?

Back then, the only place you could access the scriptures was the local synagogue, which may have a scroll or two on hand, and then some trained rabbi to read it for the people who went there, who couldn't read themselves. People didn't have Bibles laying around on their coffee tables in their homes in the suburbs back then! Nor if they did, would have been able to actually read them.

You see the problem so far? If not, I'll explain it more clearly in a minute.

Is that Jesus' teaching?
Do you get that impression from Jesus words?
(Matthew 22:29) . . .You are mistaken, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. . .
(Matthew 26:54) . . .how would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must take place this way?. . .
(Mark 14:49) . . .this is to fulfill the Scriptures. . .
(Luke 24:27) . . .starting with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them things pertaining to himself in all the Scriptures. . .
(John 5:39) . . .these [the scriptures] are the very ones that bear witness about me. . .
(John 7:15, 16) 15 And the Jews were astonished, saying: “How does this man have such a knowledge of the Scriptures when he has not studied at the schools?” 16 Jesus, in turn, answered them and said: “What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him who sent me.

That's not the impression one gets from what Jesus said.

How about those above?

Again, only a select few could read the scriptures or had access to them. So your statement that in order to be a Christian you have to read the Bible cannot be true.

No average Christian would ever have owned their own Bibles prior to the mid 1400's in Europe and the invention of the Gutenberg press. And even then, only those that could afford one. And then, only those who were literate enough to be actually able to read one, let alone theologically trained enough to understand any of it.

The literacy rate you see today, is radically different than what it was even, a century ago! The worldwide illiteracy rate in 1900 was 78.6%! That means a little over a hundred years ago, only 21.4% of the world's population could read. It wasn't until after the 1950's that literacy rates moved above 50%. And even today, around 15% of the world's population is still illiterate.

Yet, are you saying they couldn't be a follower of Christ? Surely, "reading the Bible" cannot be a condition of being a Christian then. Correct?

That's what I have been trying to explain to you before.
They would not be Christians, in that case. They might call themselves that, or be viewed that way by the world, since everyone is a Christian today, as long as they "go to church", or self profess.
That's not Christianity, according to your definition.

That's not my definition. I said if what you said was correct, then the above would be true. I don't accept that as true.

Some do recognize that Christianity involved two basic things - following Christ's example and teachings.

Sure, they should know his teachings. However..... there are those who do the will of the Father, who "follow Christ" in their actions, who have never even heard of Jesus and his teachings. "Those who do the will of my father are my brothers and sisters...".

Didn't Paul say in Romans about the Gentiles who do not have the law, but do by nature the things required of the law, that they fulfill the law? Who then is really a Christian? Those who read the Bible, or those that do from the heart what the teachings of Jesus are, even if they've never heard of him before? I vote for the latter.

 

[nPeace]

She has never read the Bible. She was taught to be a Christian by her grandmother in an oral tradition. She is an oral folk version of being Christian.

I hope your wife comes to the realization that's not following Jesus, but following human traditions.
I hope eventually she does take note of what Jesus said about that... if she really is serious. Matthew 15:6-9

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I hope your wife comes to the realization that's not following Jesus, but following human traditions.
I hope eventually she does take note of what Jesus said about that... if she really is serious. Matthew 15:6-9

Well, nice try. But she is a Christian, but not your kind.

 

[Windwalker]

Many people, evidently, think this way.

This is a good sign then. There is hope for the world.

Where do you recommend we get accurate knowledge of God?

Through prayer and meditation. Through direct communion of your heart with the Spirit of God.

I am not talking about hearing voices, or being told secret information. But I am talking about a heart of openness and willingness and receptiveness to hear that 'still small voice'. If you live a life like this, then you can have a growing and more accurate knowledge of God. "For all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God."

This is very different from reasoning your way through life by reading about God. That's not really knowing God. That's knowing about God.

They certainly felt studying the Bible was important.

Sure, scripture can help illuminate our feet on our path, but if that is all there is, that is not walking in the Light. I think this cartoon illustrates very clearly what I am trying to convey:

This is the difference between learning about God, and knowing God.

How do you suppose one gets spiritual fulfilment without the scriptures?

Through the Spirit. I experienced God, before I experienced religion and read the Bible.

Again, if you were illiterate and could not read the Bible, would you be unable to have spiritual fulfillment? What about those poor souls who lived before the printing press was invented and couldn't afford one even if they could read?

 

[Windwalker]

Jesus knew and referenced the scriptures. His followers followed him in that regard. Isn't that one way we follow Christ?

It's a tool of support, not the Door to knowing God. You can know God never having read a single word from it.