Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm presuming, OP refers to tangible postulate from any religion. One, that can be seen, touched, heard, or, otherwise, identified by generally accepted methods, available for humans.
No matter how "pretty" #6 is, it is not objective and tangible. Besides, it's a moral or ethical statement, not religious postulate.
I think you are using evolution to mean something that happens over centuries to a species. I am saying at the moment of creation for each individual they have value.
As a Quaker, my religion doesn't believe in water baptism as a necessary component for anything. Moreover, we don't have an official clergy as there is no need to separate anyone or dictate to someone how they should interact with God overriding their freewill. All people anywhere can find their unique ways of connecting to God.
The point of the passage wasn't to make baptism (water or anything else (1) a component of the value of the individual. That was the division into wheat and chaff (good and bad humans). I thought about the other point and I'd say that the individual worth is as a member of the species. The individual 'creation' is part of the evolutionary process, yes?
Without getting into Calvinism, the problem with religion is that, even if members of the species are created equal, as soon as they are adopted into a religion (one with hellthreat) they become divided into worthy of being saved and not (you may know that I reckon what one believes is what counts in Christian doctrine, not good deeds). That even without the doctrine that God knew which would be saved into the barn and which burnt, before creation even started.
Now, from what I've seen of Quakers (which isn't much - I worked with one and he told me a bit about it) they have Humanised Christianity a fair bit. I Humanise it just that bit more.
(1) I had half a mind to cut that out of the passage, but I thought I'd post it in full to avoid any protests about mutilating scripture and its meaning.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-25-2021 at 09:02 AM..
I'm presuming, OP refers to tangible postulate from any religion. One, that can be seen, touched, heard, or, otherwise, identified by generally accepted methods, available for humans.
No matter how "pretty" #6 is, it is not objective and tangible. Besides, it's a moral or ethical statement, not religious postulate.
I take 'objective truth' to be something demonstrably so or true, specific to that religion. And not just a fact like how many churches there are or how many Bibles have been printed. It is (I'd guess) some objective truth that validates the religion as true, more than other religions or atheism for that matter. I'd guess that is the point of the question.
That Pilate was provably a real person won't help as Dick Whittington was a real person, but that doesn't make the Pantomime stories true. The objective truth of a religion has to be something that is related to the religious claims. That Jesus was crucified is I think probably true. It might not be. It is possible that the story was concocted out of the fact that crucifixion was a known and not infrequent punishment for rebellion even in Judea before the Romans took over (1). But that wouldn't prove Christianity. If he died and stayed dead, that would disprove it (2). It is the resurrection that is what has to be true. I have an argument that the nearest thing to an 'objective truth' is the letters of Paul. Up to about Ephesians or Philemon, perhaps, I accept them as actual epistles of an actual Paul (you couldn't make the fellow up ) in which case his account of discussion (not to say run in) with two of the disciples of Jesus is true. In which case a Jesus for them to be disciples of is true.
But even that doesn't make the resurrection true. But that's another discussion .
(1) it was not understood by those who protested the scene of mass crucifixion at the end of Life of Brian, that such events were the more usual end of rebels against authority, whether Hasmonean, Herodian or Roman than one, two or five...sorry, three...of them, though one film critic mentioned that was actually the case.
(2) I mention again the funny story about the Talpiot tomb where a bone box containing (or had contained) the bones of Jesus was claimed to have been discovered. The Believers were screaming with delirious glee on the forum (Atheist Network, which is what I infested at the time) about objective proof of Jesus, until we pointed out that, if so, that answered the objection of the Christians to atheism - "If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, produce his body!" Well if so, his body was now produced and he hadn't risen. The resultant silence was instant and earth -shaking.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-25-2021 at 08:58 AM..
I for one do Not keep talking about ' objective truth ' (but religious truth -> God's Word < - yes - John 17:17)
I find the opposite of objective is: subjective. That would be a personal opinion over God's opinion as found in Scripture.
What comes to my mind is the ' object lesson ' Jesus taught at Matthew 21:19-20.
The apostles saw that unproductive fig tree wither away.
Thus, Jesus was giving them an 'object lesson' or perhaps one could say -> an objective truth that unfaithful Israel was like that withered-up fig tree. By outward appearance they claimed to observe God's regulations but inside they were barren and without producing good fruitage - Galatians 5:22-23.
Jesus' goal, aim, purpose, intention was showing them what the end result would be like for that fruitless nation.
No. In the context of the OP topic and the symbolic meaning. The story only appears in Mark and Matthew. Not in Luke. That means it was not in the original synoptic gospel (1). And of course it doesn't appear in John. You may take it, that is an invention to make a symbolic point. It did not (like most of the gospel -story) actually happen.
Well, you partly see the symbolism - the fig tree related to the worthiness of the Jews (in Christian thinking) but I think it goes further than that. The symbolism in that Jerusalem (as well as Judea and Galilee pretty much) and the Temple itself was destroyed in the Jewish war, and Christianity argued that this was the punishment of the Jews for not accepting Jesus. The point is that the time was not right for Jesus' sacrifice to save the Jews. The symbolic tree would not bear the fruit of Faith in Jesus that would have saved them. Jesus weeps over this. He predicts the destruction of the Temple. The doctrine and the references are clear and Mara Bar Serapeon's letter (often cited as extra -biblical evidence for Jesus) may be explained by his having heard this claim that the Jewish war happened 'because they killed their king'.
(1) the evidence of the 'Lucan omissions' piles up until it is undeniable, I'd say that Mark/Matthew material has to be some document or gospel -version added into the original. That is why we get two feedings of loaves and fishes, where Luke and John agree, there was only one.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-25-2021 at 09:10 AM..
Many religions claim to have objective truths, yet those claims can rarely be substantiated. Stating them as facts, doesn't make them so.
Please provide one like the headline asks, but more importantly, tell us why you feel it is the case. Remember, if it is stated in a "holy book" of your religion, that makes it the claim, not the fact.
Almost everything about religion is subjective, not objective.
However I think you ought to allow people to at least quote from their holy book without writing it off completely before they even start.
There must have been at least some facts that were written at the time.
People's names, locations, relationships etc could have been factual though I'm not sure how 2000 years later any of it can be proven outright.
And I qualify that by saying that I think we all have to be careful with the word 'fact'. Facts are only facts until overturned, superceded or until proven otherwise. The redefining of the word planet for example is no longer the same fact that it was 20 years ago.
Playing devils advocate here but I'm guessing that nothing anyone presents in this thread will be acceptable?
Almost everything about religion is subjective, not objective.
However I think you ought to allow people to at least quote from their holy book without writing it off completely before they even start.
There must have been at least some facts that were written at the time.
People's names, locations, relationships etc could have been factual though I'm not sure how 2000 years later any of it can be proven outright.
And I qualify that by saying that I think we all have to be careful with the word 'fact'. Facts are only facts until overturned, superceded or until proven otherwise. The redefining of the word planet for example is no longer the same fact that it was 20 years ago.
Playing devils advocate here but I'm guessing that nothing anyone presents in this thread will be acceptable?
I think that pretty much sums up the objective of his creating the thread to begin with, but QB may have thrown a wrench into this plan. Of course, he can surely argue with what she posted as an objective truth from the Quaker point of view as being an actual truth, given humanity's propensity to do otherwise.
Repent of sins to Jesus Christ and get baptized with water and the spirit and receive the Spirit of the living God............ Millions of people have received the Spirit of God in a profound way ..... Would it be Honorable to their witness as lies of them receiving God’s living Spirit on their spiritual space
Receiving living spirit from a non-existent deity???
Almost everything about religion is subjective, not objective.
However I think you ought to allow people to at least quote from their holy book without writing it off completely before they even start.
There must have been at least some facts that were written at the time.
People's names, locations, relationships etc could have been factual though I'm not sure how 2000 years later any of it can be proven outright.
And I qualify that by saying that I think we all have to be careful with the word 'fact'. Facts are only facts until overturned, superceded or until proven otherwise. The redefining of the word planet for example is no longer the same fact that it was 20 years ago.
Playing devils advocate here but I'm guessing that nothing anyone presents in this thread will be acceptable?
You can substitute "Made up" or "Fairy tale" for "subjective".
Almost everything about religion is subjective, not objective.
However I think you ought to allow people to at least quote from their holy book without writing it off completely before they even start.
There must have been at least some facts that were written at the time.
People's names, locations, relationships etc could have been factual though I'm not sure how 2000 years later any of it can be proven outright.
And I qualify that by saying that I think we all have to be careful with the word 'fact'. Facts are only facts until overturned, superceded or until proven otherwise. The redefining of the word planet for example is no longer the same fact that it was 20 years ago.
Playing devils advocate here but I'm guessing that nothing anyone presents in this thread will be acceptable?
If I may refer to the recent and persistent Arachnid Fudge (something off the trolley of the Hogwart's express, perhaps) about binary thinking and the sliding scale of probability, 'Facts' are technically not certain. I mentioned recently about the flat - earth belief. That was pretty much proven, but some rejected the mere scientific evidence. It was the start of the space -race that produced the visual evidence. I won't go into the extra level of ignorance and denial but will just say it is not now about disputing the interpretation of the evidence, but denying it all as a global lie.
If I may cite the Touchstone Biggie, the nativity is as demonstrably false as anything in the gospels (and there is a heck of a lot, trust me - I'm an atheist) and apart from the chronological discrepancy (separated by the rule of Archelaus), or the 1 - 2 years between the birth and the magi arriving, the tales conflict. They went back to Nazareth a fortnight after the birth, according to Luke, but were still in Bethlehem - where they lived - when the Magi arrived and they intended to return there after they'd fled to Egypt but changed their plans and went to live in Galilee where (according to Luke) they already lived.
But even that doesn't entirely rule out a Bethlehem birth; technically. Making stuff up to account for it is a Christian apologetics Method. But apart from Mark not having a nativity at all, which is heavy evidence that the two (terminally conflicting) accounts were separately invented later on, John, where the matter of where the Messiah should be born (and it wasn't Galilee) is raised at...7.44 if Memory serves me correctly....Ha! 7.42 close John should (even parenthetically) have said 'But they knew not that Jesus was indeed born in Bethlehem, so there'. That he doesn't, is more heavy evidence that this lack of a Bethlehem birth became a Problem for Christianity and so stories were invented to put it right.
I apologise (not really ) for the lengthy exposition, but the point is that while one cannot be 100% certain, this is one that you can bet on being a fabrication, a tall story and not true, as much as you could bet on the Battle of Kadesh, even if we can see the Spin in Ramesses' account, being true and indeed the Siege of Jerusalem by the Assyrians being true, as they confirm it, though they debunk the Bible account.
So far as sliding scale goes, .. a planet is a planet or it isn't, if for sOA, we take the characteristics we use to make the definition as being universals/constants. When first discovered, Pluto was assumed to be one more planet of the planetary disk. Then the odd orbit was discovered. It was assumed that it Had been a planet but had got a knock. Then the Kuiyper -belt objects were discovered and that showed that Pluto was a Kuiyper object and not a planet after all. The parameters hadn't changed, but the information had. I don't mind, as it was an embarrassment that Holst had never written a 'Pluto' (attempts to write one were even more of an embarrassment).
The parameters for a reptile and a mammal haven't changed, but information has made dinosaurs look more like mammals now than reptiles, especially since the connection with birds became proven, pretty much.
I'm losing grip on the argument now.... yes. The parameters are the same, but changing evidence slides the scale, improves (or decreases) the probability and fixes the plausibility - at least in the state of current knowledge.
There is still the Binary of whether one (logically) believes or not and - apart from some real on the wire matters (1)- the choice Ought (on evidence) to be clear, and to go against the evidence or to refuse to opt for a belief position is irrational, invalid, perverse, denialist and has an element of silly-pooh about it.
(1) whether I believe there are intelligent races somewhere else in the universe, I really neither believe nor disbelieve. This is rather interesting as logically not knowing should mandate not believing. But the probability of life and a reasoning alien species is so compelling that it really does push back the mandated non belief to an 'edge of the coin' situation. In that one example.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-25-2021 at 10:39 AM..
Define “objective truth.” What is the object of this thread?
An objective truth is one that is true regardless of what people believe. It would be true if people did not exist, and logically it would be true if a god existed or not.
So an objective truth from a religion can be one that is taught by that religion or discovered by it, but it will not be exclusive to that religion.
A god can not create objective truths, it can only agree with them or have an objective truth as one of it's properties (such as being objectively good).
That is why any rule defined by a god would be subjective, not objective.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) in which case his account of discussion (not to say run in) with two of the disciples of Jesus is true. In which case a Jesus for them to be disciples of is true. 
. 
If I may refer to the recent and persistent Arachnid Fudge (something off the trolley of the Hogwart's express, perhaps) about binary thinking and the sliding scale of probability, 'Facts' are technically not certain. I mentioned recently about the flat - earth belief. That was pretty much proven, but some rejected the mere scientific evidence. It was the start of the space -race that produced the visual evidence. I won't go into the extra level of ignorance and denial 
a planet is a planet or it isn't, if for sOA, we take the characteristics we use to make the definition as being universals/constants. When first discovered, Pluto was assumed to be one more planet of the planetary disk. Then the odd orbit was discovered. It was assumed that it Had been a planet but had got a knock. Then the Kuiyper -belt objects were discovered and that showed that Pluto was a Kuiyper object and not a planet after all. The parameters hadn't changed, but the information had. I don't mind, as it was an embarrassment that Holst had never written a 'Pluto' (attempts to write one were even more of an embarrassment).
yes. The parameters are the same, but changing evidence slides the scale, improves (or decreases) the probability and fixes the plausibility - at least in the state of current knowledge.
