Are Protestants "saved? "

[marks]

i would say bc the def of AT = "objective proof," which we obv dont have for those

This only describes the difference between something being true, and your ability to ferret that out.

Whether or not you possess the proof of something, or even the ability to measure it, that has nothing to do with whether that something is real or true.

It's only true if I can see it? That doesn't sound like good reasoning at least to me.

 

[Joseph77]

well, i can try,
He who says he knows does not yet know as he ought
As a man thinks, so is he
and prolly the "double-minded" stuff too?

Good ! How does that relate at all to your previous posts ? (denying the absolute truth God Himself Reveals through Jesus and in all of His Revelation to men) ?

 

[bbyrd009]

You don't mean that the actual sky was falling, instead, their "sky" was falling, that's right?

So it isn't true that the sky was falling, only Chicken Little's metaphorical sky was truly falling. Let's do get our definitions down

well, i dont think it was metaphorical for CL, was it? He would have sworn it as "truth," wouldn't he?

 

[bbyrd009]

This only describes the difference between something being true, and your ability to ferret that out.

well, so you say

Whether or not you possess the proof of something, or even the ability to measure it, that has nothing to do with whether that something is real or true.

no disagreement here

It's only true if I can see it? That doesn't sound like good reasoning at least to me.

that was not said that i am aware of

 

[marks]

imply nothing, Einstein already demonstrated that, yes. The train deal with the people standing in two places, etc

Right. We had fun as kids with an equation that would "show" that 1=2.

I'm not talking about quantum particle physics, perspective of the observer, or any other physics relativity.

 

[marks]

well, i dont think it was metaphorical for CL, was it? He would have sworn it as "truth," wouldn't he?

Was he right?

What would you say?

 

[bbyrd009]

Good ! How does that relate at all to your previous posts ? (denying the absolute truth God Himself Reveals through Jesus and in all of His Revelation to men) ?

ha well the only thing i would be denying there is that any of that fits our mutual definition of "AT"

well, plus revelation is not given to all men, i guess
plus No son of man may die for another's sins

 

[marks]

Indeed! I could respond to each one, but I won't because I know from experience that on every point some man will have a counterpoint.

Then why your question if they could be known?

 

[amadeus]

How is anything discerned, ever, at all , according to God (not according to men) ?

It is discerned according to God as it is. If we are led by the Spirit of God, then we discern it as He does. How well are we doing?

 

[marks]

well, so you say

So then is the universe created by your perception?

 

[bbyrd009]

Right. We had fun as kids with an equation that would "show" that 1=2.

I'm not talking about quantum particle physics, perspective of the observer, or any other physics relativity.

i would argue they are quite pertinent though

 

[bbyrd009]

So then is the universe created by your perception?

to that i would only reiterate as a man thinks, so is he
but i'm sure you are aware of the theory that suggests exactly that, which is btw pretty hard to dispute?

 

[marks]

It's only true if I can see it? That doesn't sound like good reasoning at least to me.

that was not said that i am aware of

True . . . you did not say that. But it is the logical conclusion to your reasoning. Absolute truth = objective evidence, is what you wrote.

Objective evidence is something you can measure. So then what shall we say? If you have no objective evidence, then it's not Absolute Truth. Is that not what you mean?

 

[marks]

i would argue they are quite pertinent though

Myself, they are entirely different things. Like comparing how to bake a cake with why we want to bake a cake.

 

[marks]

to that i would only reiterate as a man thinks, so is he
but i'm sure you are aware of the theory that suggests exactly that, which is btw pretty hard to dispute?

But is does not say that "as a man thinks, so is his world around him", does it?

I'm well aware of that theory. It leaves you with the problem of origins, for one. There are more. Is that what you think is happening?

 

[amadeus]

Then why your question if they could be known?

If I answered each one, do you suppose that they would all be right and agree precisely with every answer of everyone else on this thread? If not, why not? Does God ever speak through me? Does He ever speak through you or anyone else who has participated on this thread? Do any of us need to or want to grow closer to God?

 

[bbyrd009]

It's only true if I can see it? That doesn't sound like good reasoning at least to me.



True . . . you did not say that. But it is the logical conclusion to your reasoning. Absolute truth = objective evidence, is what you wrote.

Objective evidence is something you can measure. So then what shall we say? If you have no objective evidence, then it's not Absolute Truth. Is that not what you mean?

to that i would say that we have plenty of objective evidence for things we cannot see

Myself, they are entirely different things. Like comparing how to bake a cake with why we want to bake a cake.

hmm, i'd ask for a diff analogy there

But is does not say that "as a man thinks, so is his world around him", does it?

i'm not sure how much the two can be separated, might be spl itting hairs now, but ok

I'm well aware of that theory. It leaves you with the problem of origins, for one. There are more. Is that what you think is happening?

youd have to recall the theory i guess, sorry, dunno
Or just state a single AT from Scripture maybe

 

[bbyrd009]

 

[Joseph77]

It is discerned according to God as it is. If we are led by the Spirit of God, then we discern it as He does. How well are we doing?

God Knows.

 

[marks]

to that i would say that we have plenty of objective evidence for things we cannot see

Nice deflection!