Subjective or Objective Truth on a deserted island

[Jeanette_L]

Angainor:

Which part of
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

is false? partial truth? subjective truth?

I’d say it is not complete, so it would be partial. Anytime you take one verse without the fuller truth that the other verses provide, it would be partial truth. The other verses give us more insight into the words and the meanings of those words in this verse. Like what it is to believe…to believe in the Son means believe everything, everything that Jesus lived, taught, commanded. So the word believe has different meanings in different contexts. It’s not just a fuzzy acknowlegement about who He is, but about buying the whole package, the whole enchilada.

There’s alot in that little word…Believe.

Bottom line, if he’s only focused on one verse, Partial Truth is my vote.

 

[Angainor]

JSmitty2005:

Angainor, regardless of what interpretation “Wilson” comes up with, John 3:16 does not mean that mere mental assent to Jesus as the Son of God will give us eternal life. After all, “even the demons believe that and tremble.” (James 2:19) We must believe in the Gospel in its entirety…which includes Christ’s Church, the Catholic Church.

I did not say Wilson’s interpretation included “mere mental assent to Jesus as the Son of God will give us eternal life.”

 

[Angainor]

Magicsilence:

His interpretation is totally correct and true as long as his idea as to what the words meant were fully in line with what the Church has always taught them to mean.

In Christ.

Andre

“His idea as to what the words meant”?

Let’s say his idea as to what the words mean lines up with what the words mean.

 

[Angainor]

Jeanette L:

I’d say it is not complete,…

No, of course Wilson does not comprehend all of Truth. But is what he does comprehend Objectively true?

 

[Jeanette_L]

Angainor:

No, of course Wilson does not comprehend all of Truth. But is what he does comprehend Objectively true?

I’d have to say at this point, that since I am not God, and cannot see into the mind of Wilson and what he understands each concept in this verse to mean, I cannot say his comprehension is Objective Truth.

I can say that the verse is Objectively True, it is God’s Word. Comprehension of the Truth in the verse is very rarely objective for an individual. We bring too much to the table, even if we have never heard of Christ or Christianity before.

 

[Angainor]

Jeanette L:

I’d have to say at this point, that since I am not God, and cannot see into the mind of Wilson

You don’t have to see into the mind of Wilson. I told you what is on the mind of Wilson:For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
Jeanette L:

I’d have to say at this point, that since I am not God, and cannot see into the mind of Wilson and what he understands each concept in this verse to mean, I cannot say his comprehension is Objective Truth.

Funny. You cannot see into the mind of me and understand my comprehension of the words yet you [post=1420056]agreed with me[/post] that: God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

 

[Jeanette_L]

Angainor:

You don’t have to see into the mind of Wilson. I told you what is on the mind of Wilson:For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Funny. You cannot see into the mind of me and understand my comprehension of the words yet you [post=1420056]agreed with me[/post] that: God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

And yet, what I agreed to is what my own comprehension was of this verse, for I have no idea what your comprehension is of this verse. I can agree that this verse is what it says, and give a great big AMEN to it, and yet I cannot separate from this same verse what I believe as a whole about eternal life and how it is attained, and all this may be completely different from the belief system you bring into that verse when you read it.

We’re still back to square one. When you don’t explain what you do believe that verse means to you personally and completely, I can only agree on an imcomplete level.

 

[mschoir01]

“His idea as to what the words meant”?

Let’s say his idea as to what the words mean lines up with what the words mean.

I believe you should read one of our better authors, Mr. Patrick Madrid. His short, yet enlightening work, Where Is That In The Bible, contains in its opening, a very good example of what is going on here. I recommend it to you wholeheartedly as it makes plain the difficulty inherent in these sorts of arguments.

I would also like to quote from a very old, very good poem:

"So oft in theologic wars, the disputants, I ween
Rail on in utter ignorance of what each other mean.

And prate about an elephant not one of them has seen."

• The Six Blind Men and the Elephant

 

[JimG]

If Wilson has never heard of Christ or Christianity, and reads only this one verse, it will likely be meaningless to him. You didn’t specify whether or not Wilson has ever heard of God, or what the concept of God might mean to him.

The words of the verse are objectively true. But unless Wilson has some basis for understanding what the author intended to convey, he’s not going to comprehend much.

Merely re-stating the text as Wilson’s “interpretation” doesn’t help. Does Wilson just have the words themselves in his mind, with no meaning attached to them? If so, they might as well be in Swahili.

Nevertheless, if–and it’s a big if–Wilson understands the meaning behind the words correctly, then his interpretation is true.

 

[Jeanette_L]

mschoir01:

"So oft in theologic wars, the disputants, I ween
Rail on in utter ignorance of what each other mean.

And prate about an elephant not one of them has seen."

• The Six Blind Men and the Elephant

But you’re taking all of the FUN out of it!

 

[JimG]

I think you may have stumbled onto a new and promising method of ecumenical dialogue.

When Baptists, Catholics, Methodists, and Luterans get together for dialogue, we’ll start by selecting one verse for discussion.

When I’m asked for my interpretation of the verse, I’ll repeat the verse and say, “That’s my interpretation.”

Baptist: My interpretation is: (restates the same verse.)

Catholic: That’s mine too!

Methodist: My interpretation is: (restates the same text).

Lutheran: I think we’re in agreement here.

Problem solved.

 

[Angainor]

mschoir01:

I believe you should read one of our better authors, Mr. Patrick Madrid. His short, yet enlightening work, Where Is That In The Bible, contains in its opening, a very good example of what is going on here. I recommend it to you wholeheartedly as it makes plain the difficulty inherent in these sorts of arguments.

I would also like to quote from a very old, very good poem:

"So oft in theologic wars, the disputants, I ween
Rail on in utter ignorance of what each other mean.

And prate about an elephant not one of them has seen."

• The Six Blind Men and the Elephant

Yes I know the blind guys and the elephant.

When a blind guy feels the elephants trunk and concludes that the elephant resembles a snake, is he wrong because he doesn’t know what the rest of the elephant resembles?

 

[Angainor]

JimG:

Nevertheless, if–and it’s a big if–Wilson understands the meaning behind the words correctly, then his interpretation is true.

Hello JimG.

I agree completely. Do you understand what that means?

 

[JimG]

Angainor:

Hello JimG.

I agree completely. Do you understand what that means?

It means, since there is agreement, I am going to bed.
Or maybe it means the rules of epistemology will have to be rewritten.

 

[Angainor]

JimG:

It means, since there is agreement, I am going to bed.
Or maybe it means the rules of epistemology will have to be rewritten.

May I ask? How did you vote?

 

[St.Eric]

If Wilson was completely honest he would have a natural reaction such as this:

Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.
**“How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. **

Acts 8: 30-31



You need a “none of the above” option on your poll choices

 

[thistle]

St.Eric:

If Wilson was completely honest he would have a natural reaction such as this:

Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.
**“How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. **

Acts 8: 30-31



You need a “none of the above” option on your poll choices

 

[Angainor]

St.Eric:

You need a “none of the above” option on your poll choices

People were slow in voting, so I wondered if I needed a fourth choice, but “none of the above?”

An interpretation is either false or true, isn’t it?

What other choice would you use as a fourth choice?

 

[mschoir01]

Angainor:

People were slow in voting, so I wondered if I needed a fourth choice, but “none of the above?” That would cover a lot of ground

An interpretation is either false or true, isn’t it? Not necessarily.

What other choice would you use as a fourth choice?

There are several options. Since Roman Catholics believe that the faith is a seamless garment, the plucking of a quote outside of the whole is incomplete. Incomplete truth? Like the blind man who found the elephant very like a wall. If the statement in its essence may be true, but it is incomplete, could it be a half-truth? Here is my vote: insufficient truth. On a more positive note, how about the beginning of truth? Hey! We need some philosophers to enter into this debate to define the argument - I can’t remember what this sort of exchange is called.

In any case, it seems that you sincerely want this statement to be true. Really - read Patrick Madrid - he can make it so clear!

 

[St.Eric]

Angainor:

People were slow in voting, so I wondered if I needed a fourth choice, but “none of the above?”

An interpretation is either false or true, isn’t it?

What other choice would you use as a fourth choice?

Yes, “none of the above” should be a choice. Wilson does not have to have an interpretation. I would venture to guess WIlson would read it and say “what does this mean? I don’t know.” Like the Eunich in Acts 8, he didn’t even begin to interperet what it meant. He needed someone to instruct him. Wilson would need this as well.