Jump to content

The Harm To Others


Recommended Posts

That's a terrible analogy. You revealed the truth on the outset of a 12 spoked wheel. That's the truth here.

Regardless of any one elses's opinion on how many spokes there are, only one was right and everyone else was wrong!!!

 

I don't wonder that you may not understand this. Because first, one needs to transcend their earthly conscousness to open their soul's eye to the universal conscousness as it surrounds, encompasses, and lifts one's immortal soul to the highest of peaks of sprituality to that truth that is unshakablely true into the eternal.

 

Yes, davidk, you could be a wrong spoke (unless you are God, which I doubt). You grow tiresome in your closed and static system of beliefs. Tiresome. Dogmatic. Boring. If you have the "truth" give us your credentials ... prove you are infallible. Please, just do it so we can get on with a reasonable discussion. And please, do not claim to be misunderstood. You are well known here. By now, any mature adult would have recognized that the world is changing ... you remain a "stick in the mud" and who do you serve? YOURSELF?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 216
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The complete post that did not quitew make it:

 

That's a terrible analogy. You revealed the truth on the outset of a 12 spoked wheel. That's the truth here.

Regardless of any one elses's opinion on how many spokes there are, only one was right and everyone else was wrong!!!

 

I don't wonder that you may not understand this. Because first, one needs to transcend their earthly conscousness to open their soul's eye to the universal conscousness as it surrounds, encompasses, and lifts one's immortal soul to the highest of peaks of sprituality to that truth that is unshakablely true into the eternal.

 

Yes, davidk, you could be a wrong spoke (unless you are God, which I doubt). You grow tiresome in your closed and static system of beliefs. Tiresome. Dogmatic. Boring. If you have the "truth" give us your credentials ... prove you are infallible. Please, just do it so we can get on with a reasonable discussion. And please, do not claim to be misunderstood. You are well known here. By now, any mature adult would have recognized that the world is changing ... you remain a "stick in the mud" and who do you serve? YOURSELF?

 

To put it more bluntly, davidk, you lack imagination, wonder. You are a sterile rationalist who cannot see three feet beyond your nose. Is this evaluation tough and unfair? No, not in the least because that is the arrogant attitude you bring to the forum simply reflected back to you. How does it feel?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a terrible analogy. You revealed the truth on the outset of a 12 spoked wheel. That's the truth here.

Regardless of any one elses's opinion on how many spokes there are, only one was right and everyone else was wrong!!!

 

I don't wonder that you may not understand this. Because first, one needs to transcend their earthly conscousness to open their soul's eye to the universal conscousness as it surrounds, encompasses, and lifts one's immortal soul to the highest of peaks of sprituality to that truth that is unshakablely true into the eternal.

 

Yes David, it was a terrible analogy but by the analogy and your response, a very effective view and demonstration of perspectives and what happens when one is so attached to the position of being right that one ignores the true message of the story/analogy at the expense of peace, love and joy among ones brothers. Is this not the cause of all conflicts and wars in this world?

 

Technically the one who said there were many paths was right at least in his own eyes but even his perspective was limited as he saw only twelve paths because he could not see below the wheel. The moral of the analogy/story was that things are not always as they appear to one. Even when you think you are right and everyone else is wrong because one must be 'right' there is yet another view to consider that through patience and tolerance might contribute to making one to see the falsity of his/her tight grasp on the limited minds view. All this so that truth might be exposed and we might see into the unlimited reality of what is and gain a much more accurate understanding of Life. And this leads to peace rather than strife.

 

With Love in Christ,

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wayfarer2k
That's a terrible analogy. You revealed the truth on the outset of a 12 spoked wheel. That's the truth here.

Regardless of any one elses's opinion on how many spokes there are, only one was right and everyone else was wrong!!!

 

I don't wonder that you may not understand this. Because first, one needs to transcend their earthly conscousness to open their soul's eye to the universal conscousness as it surrounds, encompasses, and lifts one's immortal soul to the highest of peaks of sprituality to that truth that is unshakablely true into the eternal.

 

David, the subject of epistomology is a wide and deep one indeed. I tend to think that epistomology is a gradient scale. On the right hand side, there are the conservatives who insist that truth is complete objective and external to one's self. Truth is propositional. Once one accepts the propostion, then one accepts or has (owns) the truth and all that is left is to defend the truth against others who would challenge it. Conservatives believe, according to their propostions, doctrines, and creeds, that they HAVE the truth. Truth is then owned and must be defended at all cost. It is the ownership of truth that is important.

 

On the left hand side, there are the liberals (or mystics) who insist that truth is completely subjective and internal to one's self. Truth is experiential. Truth is never owned because experience is always limited. Therefore, while experiences are usually defended, truth is left in an ambiguous category. Liberals and mystics seem to believe that truth must always be sought, must always be pursued. It is the seeking of truth that is important.

 

I am probably the least mystical of anyone here on this forum. Many of my beliefs still stem from propositional truth. Although I have caught "glimpses of God" in my life, I have never been "caught up to the third heaven" or claimed to be a direct channel for God. So I would agree with you, to a certain extent, that there is Truth (with a capital T). Being a Christian, I would define this Truth as "God as shown in the life of Jesus Christ" -- my definition, others would disagree. But I tend to think that Jesus gives us a really reliable picture of what the "Truth of God" is like. Jesus' life points to (but does not completely encapsulate) the big Truth that we call God.

 

At the same time, I believe that our views of Truth ALWAYS get translated down to "truth" (with a small-case t). Our knowledge of Truth (for conservatives) and our experiences of Truth (for mystics) is ALWAYS "truth" with a small-case t because we, as human beings, are ALWAYS limited in knowledge and experience.

 

What all of this means to me is that when it comes to speaking of Truth, whether we are conservatives or liberals, we need to be humble about it. None of us knows everything that can be known about God. None of us experiences everything that can be experienced of God.

 

I agree with you that there is Truth. But that is Truth as God knows. It is Truth as God experiences it. It is, probably, God himself. But all human perceptions of this Truth, whether propositionally or experiencially, are still subjective, still limited, still very human. I believe there is Truth, my friend, but we can't own it. It must always be pursued. When Jesus said, "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free", maybe he was speaking of "knowing" as experiencing, as, in other biblical passages, "intercoursing" with the truth. I don't think he was speaking of only propositional truth. His truth was an experience of living in God, not a rigid set of beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am probably the least mystical of anyone here on this forum.

 

I don't know. I bet I could give you a run for your money!

 

as human beings, are ALWAYS limited in knowledge and experience.

 

I agree. It was a realization I came to after I started college. The truth was one thing in High School then when I discovered there was a whole world of information out there (specifically about the Bible) I had never been told (or had/has yet to be discovered) truth became something else. The more factual information I "gain" the more different truth looks. It is an ongoing process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me, A good rule of thumb is that if you feel the need to defend what you 'think' is Truth then it probably isn't Truth. Because once Truth is truly expierienced one finds, because of its nature, it needs no defence. It simply IS. Just a tidbit to consider.

 

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll be brief about Jesus not being manipulated by the local culture. Quite the contrary. Jesus knows that in order for the people he was speaking to, to understand, he had to speak in a language they spoke. That includes any idioms or subtleties. Culture does not change nor influence His Truth, only in how it's sufficiently communicated.

 

If two men have different moral standards directly contradicting the other (One says there is one way, while the other says; there is more than one way), they may both be wrong, one or the other may be right, but both could not be right. Don't be fooled otherwise. All religions conflict. Which do you choose?

 

I agree Life's Sanctity and Love are great standards. But on what basis do you believe the Sanctity of life and love have any real meaning? I believe they have meaning because man was created in the image of an infinite-personal God by the infinite-personal God .

---

Truth is true. Whatever is not truth is not true.

 

God's Grace to you.

 

Thank you for your thoughts, David K. I agree that culture has mainly influenced how Jesus' truth is communicated. Since we didn't have tape recorders in Biblical times, it is possible that the writers saw Jesus' message through their cultural filters, isn't it?

 

In your second statement, I am confused by your example of differing moral standards, when it sounds like you are then making a faith statement. If the truth is greater than any one religion can contain, one person could believe they know the one way, and it could actually be the one right way for them. However, others could also be on the right path for them, and that does not mean their ways are less true for them. I believe God is big enough to embrace people where they are and help them grow to know God in many ways. Jesus seemed to teach concepts that sound similar to the eastern philosophy of detachment, for example. What if what we mostly really have is a language barrier between religions?

 

If you really want to know which religion I choose, I am doing my best to follow teachings of Jesus, keeping in mind my commitment to life's sanctity and love, which is, as you have suggested, due to my belief in a creator God and Jesus, who said that by loving God and my neighbor everything else will follow. I was raised in a Christian home and have had few hurts by people who call themselves Christian. However, many people I know feel they have been harmed and wronged by Christians. Many of them (myself included) would like us to be a little less sure that we know it all, that we are somehow better than them. Jesus was extremely critical of the religiously smug of his day. His best friends were questioning and unsure of themselves, willing to keep learning. I accept that my knowledge of God is incomplete. Being on a lifelong quest to know God better and to try to relect more and more of God's glory is fun!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The complete post that did not quitew make it:

Yes, davidk, you could be a wrong spoke (unless you are God, which I doubt). You grow tiresome in your closed and static system of beliefs. Tiresome. Dogmatic. Boring. If you have the "truth" give us your credentials ... prove you are infallible. Please, just do it so we can get on with a reasonable discussion. And please, do not claim to be misunderstood. You are well known here. By now, any mature adult would have recognized that the world is changing ... you remain a "stick in the mud" and who do you serve? YOURSELF?

 

To put it more bluntly, davidk, you lack imagination, wonder. You are a sterile rationalist who cannot see three feet beyond your nose. Is this evaluation tough and unfair? No, not in the least because that is the arrogant attitude you bring to the forum simply reflected back to you. How does it feel?

minsocal,

Thank you for your response.

I knew what you were driving at when you presented the analogy, but it didn't seem to meet muster. And that was the many views where none can be considered reliable or that all are. However, there was only one that actually was.

 

I probably won't have any credentials you would seriously consider at this point, but, what I will point to is God's: He is the infinite, personal God.

 

Perhaps you could consider this:

We are on a rocky mountain, in the Alps, when a fog suddenly shrouds us in. Our guide turns and warns us that ice is forming and there is no hope. We will all likely freeze before morning. That is, unless we can find some sort of refuge.

We keep moving to keep warm until we have become completely exhausted and disoriented in the fog. We have no idea where we are, other than on a shoulder of freezing rock in a dense fog.

One of our number suggests, "What if we drop over the shoulder and hit a ledge 10 down in the fog? What would happen then?"

The guide answered, saying, "We could survive till morning in the protection of the ledge."

With no knowledge of where we are, and no reason to support such action, the one of us hangs over the edge and drops into the fog... .

This would be one kind of faith, a leap of faith!

 

Now, however, suppose we are still out on the fog enshrouded shoulder of rock arguing over our plight, when we hear a voice saying, "Hello there! You cannot see me, but I know exactly where you are from your voices. I am on the next ridge. I have lived in these mountains for over 60 years as man and boy, and I know well every foot of where we are. I assure you that just ten feet below you is a ledge where you may find shelter. If you hang and drop from where I say, you will find a ledge where you can make it through the night, and I can come get you in the morning."

It's not likely anyone would immediately run over and drop from the mountain. But it would be reasonable for us to ask some questions to make sure this 'disembodied' voice knew what he was talking about. If I asked him his name and he told me and it was a name from a well known mountain family, that would count very highly to me. When we became convinced of his answers, then I would hang and drop.

 

The historic Christian faith is not a leap. It's based on what actually exists, and Christianity is the only faith that fundamentally provides true answers to all that does. The true truth, if you will, is communicated to us from God.

--

A sterile rationalist(?)... my, my. Think if you will, of my insistence on God's revelation rather than man's intellect as the basis for knowledge (epistemology).

While a rationalist believes his reason is in itself the superior source of knowledge, I believe God through His revelation is the basic source of all knowledge. Man is created in the image of God so, reasonably, we can understand and consider what He communicates. Likewise, we can reasonably communicate His truth to others.

 

I must suggest that if this beyond your sight, it is yours that would be defined as the sterile rationalist's perspective, er... the stick in the mud!

--

Yes David, it was a terrible analogy but... a very effective view and demonstration of perspectives...

Dear Joseph,

Thanks for being courteous, I hope you understand I wish to be courteous in response, yet direct. If you claim the truth is completely subjective then you cannot rightfully criticize my take on it and be consistent with your position at the same time.

Well, you might be able to, since you can agree and disagree with any position all in the same sentence.(see above quote)

 

But both you and minsocal are standing toe to toe with me claiming at the top of your little keyboard lungs for your perspective to be the right one and mine is wrong. That is more than a little bit hypoctical for you two, don't you think? Where everyone's perspective being just as right as the other, you don't seem to have any critical leg (truth) to stand on.

 

---

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your thoughts, David K. I agree that culture has mainly influenced how Jesus' truth is communicated. Since we didn't have tape recorders in Biblical times, it is possible that the writers saw Jesus' message through their cultural filters, isn't it?

Certainly there were no taped conversations, but Jesus did communicate appropriately to whomever he was speaking. His being of the culture makes any difficulty a moot point. However, if anything is true, it doesn't really matter the culture, it will always be true. That's what makes truth- true!

 

Those filters are not just from country to country, but even from generation to generation. If we are careful in considering the cultural language in which it was written, it can be applied quite correctly into our cultural language, as long as we recognize that truth is true.

 

In your second statement, I am confused by your example of differing moral standards, when it sounds like you are then making a faith statement. If the truth is greater than any one religion can contain, one person could believe they know the one way, and it could actually be the one right way for them. However, others could also be on the right path for them, and that does not mean their ways are less true for them. I believe God is big enough to embrace people where they are and help them grow to know God in many ways. Jesus seemed to teach concepts that sound similar to the eastern philosophy of detachment, for example. What if what we mostly really have is a language barrier between religions?

The second comment was an argument of simple logic. For example: If I say there is a rock, and you say it is a grease spot; both of us could be wrong, but only one of us could be right.

 

God is certainly 'big' enough to do whatever He sees fit. After all, He is good. I would suggest Jesus taught both unity and diversity. As far as detachment is concerned, it is man who detached from God, not the other way around.

 

If you really want to know which religion I choose, I am doing my best to follow teachings of Jesus, keeping in mind my commitment to life's sanctity and love, which is, as you have suggested, due to my belief in a creator God and Jesus, who said that by loving God and my neighbor everything else will follow. I was raised in a Christian home and have had few hurts by people who call themselves Christian. However, many people I know feel they have been harmed and wronged by Christians. Many of them (myself included) would like us to be a little less sure that we know it all, that we are somehow better than them. Jesus was extremely critical of the religiously smug of his day. His best friends were questioning and unsure of themselves, willing to keep learning. I accept that my knowledge of God is incomplete. Being on a lifelong quest to know God better and to try to relect more and more of God's glory is fun!

The question of "which you choose" was meant to be rhetorical, I didn't mean to be cornering you.

 

You admit relying on Jesus' teaching, yet somehow when Jesus said He is the only way, you become doubtful.

 

Sometimes simply saying you're a Christian is considered by some to be a 'better than thou' statement all by itself. And somehow, no matter how much we try to follow Jesus' example, we foul it up and hurt somebody anyway. Christians aren't immune to that, I don't know why they're expected to be. That's when forgiveness, giving and asking for, comes into play.

It is conclusive that we can't have an inexhaustable knowledge of God, but it is just as conclusive that what limited knowledge we do have is true and we can depend on it. Be willing to be obedient to God and you will be saved by your faith in Him whom He sent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, if anything is true, it doesn't really matter the culture, it will always be true. That's what makes truth- true!

 

The second comment was an argument of simple logic. For example: If I say there is a rock, and you say it is a grease spot; both of us could be wrong, but only one of us could be right.

 

As far as detachment is concerned, it is man who detached from God, not the other way around.

 

You admit relying on Jesus' teaching, yet somehow when Jesus said He is the only way, you become doubtful.

 

It is conclusive that we can't have an inexhaustable knowledge of God, but it is just as conclusive that what limited knowledge we do have is true and we can depend on it. Be willing to be obedient to God and you will be saved by your faith in Him whom He sent.

 

I have to take exception to the first sentence above. Before 1920, it was true that women were not allowed to vote in this country. It is no longer true for women of our generation. In Biblical times, women were property, and that is no longer true.

 

Also, is it really true that George Washington said, "I cannot tell a lie -- I chopped down the cherry tree."? There is truth in that statement, whether or not George actually said it, because honest George is how history recorded him to be. If we are inspired by those words we may find courage to be honest when it is difficult.

 

I disagree that the world is as simple as your simple logic of the second statement. For the things that truly matter (not bits of matter like rocks and grease) things are not as black and white as that. Each member of my family loves my husband, and we would each say "I love you" to him. None of us are wrong, but we each mean different things by the statement, and we each demonstrate our love very differently. That kind of truth is more parallel (in my thinking) to the idea of various religions. For one person, Jesus may be the Messiah and for another, Jesus may not be the Messiah, but that does not necessarily make one wrong. It may just mean they are at a different place on their journey or that they may have another equally good means of knowing God. Think of all the harm done by Christians thinking Jews were "Christ killers." Have you ever discussed faith enough with a non-Christian to believe their faith was authentic?

 

When I was talking about detachment, I was talking about how Jesus cautions us not to be of the world, not to store up treasures, not to put our love of family before our love for God. If there are things or people in this world you cannot live without, those are your gods.

 

Yes, I am doubtful of the traditional explanation that Jesus was saying He is the ONLY way. John records Jesus as saying "no one comes to the father but through me. If you know me you know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." If this is not a later addition, and we could hear Jesus on tape saying it, he follows on to interpret his own words for Philip. He is saying that He is one with God. He is the best way the disciples have of knowing God, but He also says the Father is greater than Him. I think for Jesus' disciples and for those of us who know Jesus today, He IS the best way we have of knowing God, but since God is greater than Jesus, there may be other ways to know God. I think the people who don't know Jesus are missing out on something wonderful because I have experienced Jesus to be wonderful. If I had been hurt by his followers, I might not think Jesus was so great. If Jesus represents LOVE, then LOVE is the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father but through LOVE.

 

The reason I said this might all be a later addition to Jesus' teachings is that the first part of that chapter in John seems to indicate a belief by Jesus that his Second Advent would be happening during the disciples' lifetime, since he is coming back to take them to heaven.

 

The recorded teachings of Jesus I really trust are the ones that are so contrary to basic human nature -- the ones that call us to be so much more than we are naturally. The ones that call us to love despite any situation we are in. The ones that call us to trust God, even when at times that can be so difficult.

 

I have already been saved by Jesus in so many ways. He has already freed me from MANY unhealthy patterns of behavior and negative ways of relating to other human beings. I am a new creation because of the power of God in my life. That is not to say I have "arrived," but it is exciting to see some progress!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, the subject of epistomology is a wide and deep one indeed. I tend to think that epistomology is a gradient scale. On the right hand side, there are the conservatives who insist that truth is complete objective and external to one's self. Truth is propositional. Once one accepts the propostion, then one accepts or has (owns) the truth and all that is left is to defend the truth against others who would challenge it. Conservatives believe, according to their propostions, doctrines, and creeds, that they HAVE the truth. Truth is then owned and must be defended at all cost. It is the ownership of truth that is important.

 

On the left hand side, there are the liberals (or mystics) who insist that truth is completely subjective and internal to one's self. Truth is experiential. Truth is never owned because experience is always limited. Therefore, while experiences are usually defended, truth is left in an ambiguous category. Liberals and mystics seem to believe that truth must always be sought, must always be pursued. It is the seeking of truth that is important.

 

I am probably the least mystical of anyone here on this forum. Many of my beliefs still stem from propositional truth. Although I have caught "glimpses of God" in my life, I have never been "caught up to the third heaven" or claimed to be a direct channel for God. So I would agree with you, to a certain extent, that there is Truth (with a capital T). Being a Christian, I would define this Truth as "God as shown in the life of Jesus Christ" -- my definition, others would disagree. But I tend to think that Jesus gives us a really reliable picture of what the "Truth of God" is like. Jesus' life points to (but does not completely encapsulate) the big Truth that we call God.

 

At the same time, I believe that our views of Truth ALWAYS get translated down to "truth" (with a small-case t). Our knowledge of Truth (for conservatives) and our experiences of Truth (for mystics) is ALWAYS "truth" with a small-case t because we, as human beings, are ALWAYS limited in knowledge and experience.

 

What all of this means to me is that when it comes to speaking of Truth, whether we are conservatives or liberals, we need to be humble about it. None of us knows everything that can be known about God. None of us experiences everything that can be experienced of God.

 

I agree with you that there is Truth. But that is Truth as God knows. It is Truth as God experiences it. It is, probably, God himself. But all human perceptions of this Truth, whether propositionally or experiencially, are still subjective, still limited, still very human. I believe there is Truth, my friend, but we can't own it. It must always be pursued. When Jesus said, "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free", maybe he was speaking of "knowing" as experiencing, as, in other biblical passages, "intercoursing" with the truth. I don't think he was speaking of only propositional truth. His truth was an experience of living in God, not a rigid set of beliefs.

 

Thank you! I was going to express the same sentiment, then I saw you'd already said everything I wanted to say :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Progress,

Thanks for taking time to discuss this with me.

 

I must continue to insist that truth is unchageable. May I explain it by your example?

That women were not allowed to vote before 1920 is a true statement. It always will be. That truth will never change. An opposing truth would be to say women had the vote prior to 1920. Saying women can vote now is not an opposing statement. Time will never be before 1920 again.

 

You're right that the world can be complex. However, I was not addressing a simple world, but the basic methodology of logic: antithesis. That is: If "A" is true, then whatever is "non-A" is not true. For example: If we have two opposing statements, only one can be true.

As far as making things black and white are concerned, in order for us to find answers or make decisions we try to reduce the question or problem as much as we possibley can by a truth/non-truth, black/white, methodology. We may never be able to reduce all issues to that simple contrast, but that is our goal everyday. The need universal truths to help us answer all the particulars.

 

Each member of my family loves my husband, and we would each say "I love you" to him. None of us are wrong, but we each mean different things by the statement, and we each demonstrate our love very differently. That kind of truth is more parallel (in my thinking) to the idea of various religions. For one person, Jesus may be the Messiah and for another, Jesus may not be the Messiah, but that does not necessarily make one wrong. It may just mean they are at a different place on their journey or that they may have another equally good means of knowing God. Think of all the harm done by Christians thinking Jews were "Christ killers."
.Your family loving your husband is wonderful, but it does not address the issue of truth being absolute. If Jesus is the Messiah, he is the Messiah. If He is not the Messiah, then He is not. Both statements cannot be true, and subjective perceptions can't change true truth.

 

Have you ever discussed faith enough with a non-Christian to believe their faith was authentic?
I have discussed and participated in other religions enough to know those beliefs cannot provide the sufficient answers that Christianity can for the basic questions of existence, morals, and epistemology.

 

When I was talking about detachment, I was talking about how Jesus cautions us not to be of the world, not to store up treasures, not to put our love of family before our love for God. If there are things or people in this world you cannot live without, those are your gods.
OK, I understand. To complete that Jesus said we need to understand we have been sent to be in the world, but we are not of the world (ex. Jn 17:13-20).

 

Yes, I am doubtful of the traditional explanation that Jesus was saying He is the ONLY way. ...

 

The recorded teachings of Jesus I really trust are the ones that are so contrary to basic human nature -- the ones that call us to be so much more than we are naturally. The ones that call us to love despite any situation we are in. The ones that call us to trust God, even when at times that can be so difficult.

The basic sinful nature of man makes him contrary to believing any scripture at all.

For example:

The Gospel of John does everything possible to explain Jesus is the incarnate God, beginning at v. 1, through v. 18. He followed this up in I John 2:23, saying that he who says otherwise is the liar.

John declares before there was any beginnng, the Word had been, and has been toward the God, and God had been the Word. The Word became flesh. In every context the person of Jesus Christ is referred to in His eternal self-existent state and the Lord Jesus at a particular time in the past became that which He was not before, a physical being. Before that He was essentially Spirit. John also said no created being has ever seen God in His totality, in His special essence as Spirit.

This all connects with the first verse which speaks of Jesus Christ also in His eternal self-existence as eternal, infinite Spirit.

John refers to some historical point in time as the beginning of this new state, and implies a continuing to be that. The contextual meaning of v 18 is this unique Son who being in the bosom of the Father, He Himself brought God out at a particular time and this unique Son who has always been in the bosom of the Father, He is the One who brought Him out to visibility and made Him understood.

 

I have already been saved by Jesus in so many ways. He has already freed me from MANY unhealthy patterns of behavior and negative ways of relating to other human beings. I am a new creation because of the power of God in my life. That is not to say I have "arrived," but it is exciting to see some progress!
Jesus can save you only because of who He is. Like John said; He is the Word, God made visible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

 

" IF A=True then non A cannot be true "

 

When dealing with absolutes and non-subjective standards this statement can be used as long as we are dealing with non-A as in direct opposition. However in this world that is filled with relativities, subjective experiences, and changing lingustics and culture over long periods of time, it is fruitless to assume we can apply this to the subjective experiences of man and his understanding of God. Why? Because no such absolute standard exists in linguistics or perception. The subjectivity of the mind must be transcended to know Truth and then no absolute explanation is possible because one must use the limitations of mind and language to explain that which is beyond it.

 

As far as relativity and subjectivity go....Consider such simplistic examples such as:

A says it is cold, B says it is not cold.

A who is 5 Foot tall says 6 feet is tall, B says it is not tall, 7 feet is tall.

A and B work at the same place and live next door to each other and A says the drive is long, B says it is short.

A says his wife is beautiful, B says she is not beautiful.

 

You get the picture. We live in a relative and highly subjective world. Sure society can set highly defined standards to alleviate such different interpretations but are those standards "true" or merely the changing whims of society and their subjective conditioning?

 

You can assume observation of newtonian principles will define God for us but that is merely an assumption and is still observed using conditioned senses with makes all experiences subjective in nature. Do you really thing you can find an objective God in a subjective world by " IF A=True then non A cannot be true " ? I think not.

 

Love,

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wayfarer2k
Thank you! I was going to express the same sentiment, then I saw you'd already said everything I wanted to say :)

 

C'mon, McKenna, you can join in here. :lol:

 

Somehow this thread has turned into an epistomology thread. I guess that is okay because the knowledge or experience of truth determines how we justify or oppose the harm to others.

 

Some Christians would say that the 10 commandments (the law of Moses) are absolute truth for all time. One of those commandments says, in the KJV, "Thou shalt not kill." This is, supposedly, absolute truth for all people for all time.

 

But as soon as we look at the rest of the bible, we see this commandment violated left and right. Israel kills her enemies, supposedly, at God's behest. So the very commandment which is God's absolute truth for all people for all time is almost immediately violated, according to the scriptures, by God himself.

 

Is it absolute truth that "thou shalt not kill"? If so, why does God command Israel to kill? If conservative Christians are so big on the 10 commandments being absolute truth, then why are they so eager to go to war to kill America's enemies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When dealing with absolutes and non-subjective standards this statement can be used as long as we are dealing with non-A as in direct opposition. However in this world that is filled with relativities, subjective experiences, and changing lingustics and culture over long periods of time, it is fruitless to assume we can apply this to the subjective experiences of man and his understanding of God. Why? Because no such absolute standard exists in linguistics or perception. The subjectivity of the mind must be transcended to know Truth and then no absolute explanation is possible because one must use the limitations of mind and language to explain that which is beyond it.

 

As far as relativity and subjectivity go....Consider such simplistic examples such as:

A says it is cold, B says it is not cold.

A who is 5 Foot tall says 6 feet is tall, B says it is not tall, 7 feet is tall.

A and B work at the same place and live next door to each other and A says the drive is long, B says it is short.

A says his wife is beautiful, B says she is not beautiful.

 

You get the picture. We live in a relative and highly subjective world. Sure society can set highly defined standards to alleviate such different interpretations but are those standards "true" or merely the changing whims of society and their subjective conditioning?

 

You can assume observation of newtonian principles will define God for us but that is merely an assumption and is still observed using conditioned senses with makes all experiences subjective in nature. Do you really thing you can find an objective God in a subjective world by " IF A=True then non A cannot be true " ? I think not.

 

Love,

Joseph

So we agree here that if: A is A, then whatever is non-A is not A. That is, if this is true then its opposite is not true. This defines absolute.

---

I think you're on the right track. Communication if too subjective is non-communicative. Before serious discussion, terms and words must be mutually understood or there won't be effective communication. Take for example:

 

Cold is subjective until it is defined. Then it can be discussed objectively. We also understand definition through context. ie; "His attitude was cold toward her ".

 

If cold is defined as the temperature being below the accustomed norm, then we need to first define the accustomed norm. If the temp goes below it, then we can say with absolute certainty it is cold.

If we define men over 5'11" as being tall, then we absolutely know that both 6 & 7' tall men are tall, and absolutely certain 7' is taller than 6' without any contradictions.

 

The word 'tall' is used with other connotation as well. "That's a tall tale". 'Tall' can mean high in stature, bold, brave, a considerable height above the ground, a formidable amount, or quick. Again fluency and context and definition are critical.

 

Define it first! Then we can communicate objectively.

--

To say "There are no absolutes" is an absolute statement that is in opposition to itself (A is non-A). It is saying,"There are absolutely no absolutes". And it's absolutely false.

The opposing statement, "There are absolutes", is an absolute statement that does support itself. It's absolutely true.

Newtonian principles depend upon absolutes. Law depends upon absolutes. Without absolutes nothing can be discovered, nor relied upon. I've spoken before of the uselessness of relying on societies purely subjective "whim" to find any meaning, while pointing out the infinite-personal God's character is what makes Newtonian principle's possible. Objective and absolute truth exists, and while we each have a personal view of it, differing personal views do not erase truth, no matter how you wish to camouflage it with "subjectivity of the mind". Knowing absloutes and truths solidly exist gives us hope.

 

If you want me to believe in no discernable absolutes and in a God that is not evidenced by His creation then you have no truth or evidence to communicate. You have given me no hope. You have given only despair. You have harmed your neighbor greatly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wayfarer2k

>>If you want me to believe in no discernable absolutes and in a God that is not evidenced by His creation then you have no truth or evidence to communicate. You have given me no hope. You have given only despair.

 

I think that there are absolutes. In fact, my definition of reality is existence as God knows it, experiences it, and/or defines it. God, seen in this way, is the Truth. He is ultimate reality or existence.

 

At the same time, we are not him. Therefore, our experiences, truths, definitions, and existence is not absolute, but relative. This reminds us to be humble.

 

To me, it is like looking at the moon through a telescope. The moon is there, it is real, and there is so much more to it than we can see. But the quality of our telescope is never absolute, there is always some distortion or there are always things about the moon that our telescope simply won't allow us to see. And/or there are things about our own eyes that prevent us from seeing the moon as it really is.

 

Christianity is sort of like the telescope. It is a way of looking at God. It helps us to see God, who is real. But Christianity itself is not perfect, nor absolute. There are always distortions of how humans see/portray God. Christianity is not free of such distortions. And I suspect there are things about God that Christianity simply doesn't allow us to see.

 

Christianity, as a religion, is always in danger of exhorting telescope-worship instead of moon-worship. People tend to worship Christianity rather that the God to whom it points. Or people tend to worship Jesus instead of the God to whom he always pointed.

 

It is like the Buddhist story of the man pointing at the moon. People would rather look at the man's finger and see only that than to look where the finger was pointing.

 

Religion has the same problem. We tend to focus on the religions rather than to Whom the religion points. So rather than discussing the reality of God, we talk about whose finger is the right one. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like your analogy of the moon and a telescope, wayfarer. I'd say that even though our Christianity telescope may be spotty, God has sufficiently and clearly revealed enough about himself for us to have an accurate basic picture, though some details aren't always clear. Just because we can't know God exhaustively doesn't mean he hasn't revealed some things clearly.

 

And I don't see other religions as different fingers pointing to the same moon. I see them pointing to myself, or the Earth, or anywhere else other than the moon. That's how different religions can offer up competing truth claims: Jesus is or isn't the messiah, he is THE way or is only A way, etc. That goes back to david's discussion.

 

(When you say "people tend to worship Jesus instead of the God to whom he always pointed," remember that Jesus not only equated himself to God, he never refused someone's worship.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wayfarer2k,

 

I think you and I can agree that if anything is true, its opposite is false.

I do not at all mean that to say, for example, our law, even though based on absolute truth and thus our being able to reason together, is going to be perfect. Knowing absolute truth exists, and knowing our efforts may only be distantly related, we do now have a legitimate reason for discussing our goals and hopes.

 

The Christian telescope is always pointing in the right direction.

---

I have problems with saying God is existence because the word has such temporal and physical connotation. I know it may seem trivial, but I simply prefer "is". God IS. And He created all that exists. That we exist is true as oppossed to our not existing which is false.

---

I need to reiterate that truth, as is our existence, is neither subjective nor relative. If these things were just merely relative, as opposed to being really true, they would not have any real meaning and we would not have any real reason to hope. That truth exists absolutely, hope can absolutely exist.

 

I believe DCJ has the Christian take on it.

You did kinda mix the metaphors a bit by putting Jesus in as the telescope at the last minute.

 

I'm not sure I would rely on many Buddhist sayings, they don't believe in any God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we agree here that if: A is A, then whatever is non-A is not A. That is, if this is true then its opposite is not true. This defines absolute.

---

I think you're on the right track. Communication if too subjective is non-communicative. Before serious discussion, terms and words must be mutually understood or there won't be effective communication. Take for example:

 

Cold is subjective until it is defined. Then it can be discussed objectively. We also understand definition through context. ie; "His attitude was cold toward her ".

 

If cold is defined as the temperature being below the accustomed norm, then we need to first define the accustomed norm. If the temp goes below it, then we can say with absolute certainty it is cold.

If we define men over 5'11" as being tall, then we absolutely know that both 6 & 7' tall men are tall, and absolutely certain 7' is taller than 6' without any contradictions.

 

Your assignment of a temperature or arbitrary point at which hot ends and cold begins is a subjective decision even if mutually agreed upon that you now call an absolute. It may be convenient for communications but it is not absolutely true. It is relatively true only. First of all there is no real opposite of heat. It is a single continuum with an arbitrary designation for communications. There are only degrees of heat, not cold. Actually Heat exists and has no opposition, Cold does not and is just a word used for linguistic convenience only.

 

If we define men over 5'11" as being tall, then we absolutely know that both 6 & 7' tall men are tall, and absolutely certain 7' is taller than 6' without any contradictions.

 

The word 'tall' is used with other connotation as well. "That's a tall tale". 'Tall' can mean high in stature, bold, brave, a considerable height above the ground, a formidable amount, or quick. Again fluency and context and definition are critical.

Define it first! Then we can communicate objectively.

 

 

What you propose as absolute truth is almost laughable. By the same logic we can all agree that there is no God and say because we define it that way that it is absolutely true. Anyone who disagrees is absolutely false. Absolute certainty as you have suggested in your two examples by defining them with our subjective minds puts you no closer to truth than your subjective and conditioned mind. lol

 

To say "There are no absolutes" is an absolute statement that is in opposition to itself (A is non-A). It is saying,"There are absolutely no absolutes". And it's absolutely false.

The opposing statement, "There are absolutes", is an absolute statement that does support itself. It's absolutely true.

Newtonian principles depend upon absolutes. Law depends upon absolutes. Without absolutes nothing can be discovered, nor relied upon. I've spoken before of the uselessness of relying on societies purely subjective "whim" to find any meaning, while pointing out the infinite-personal God's character is what makes Newtonian principle's possible. Objective and absolute truth exists, and while we each have a personal view of it, differing personal views do not erase truth, no matter how you wish to camouflage it with "subjectivity of the mind". Knowing absloutes and truths solidly exist gives us hope.

 

If you want me to believe in no discernable absolutes and in a God that is not evidenced by His creation then you have no truth or evidence to communicate. You have given me no hope. You have given only despair. You have harmed your neighbor greatly.

 

Actually, I'm not asking you to believe in anything. I'm just pointing to what I see as a hole in your logic and reasoning. I am not in despair and am of the persuasion that you will not know God or truth by your mind. Perhaps one could say God is subjectively experienced by the mind and senses yet can only be known by being One with God even as it is recorded Jesus is.

 

Love in Christ,

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If cold is defined as the temperature being below the accustomed norm, then we need to first define the accustomed norm. If the temp goes below it, then we can say with absolute certainty it is cold.

If we define men over 5'11" as being tall, then we absolutely know that both 6 & 7' tall men are tall, and absolutely certain 7' is taller than 6' without any contradictions.

(snip)

 

You have given me no hope. You have given only despair. You have harmed your neighbor greatly.

 

Davidk,

 

It seems obvious to me that what has been said here most clearly states the source of all conflict and wars and "harm to your neighbor greatly" in this world. Each of the great religions have defined the "accustomed norms". Each country defines its "accustomed norms". Each group defines its "accustomed norms". Each individual defines his/her accustomed norms". As a result each religion, country, group or individual 'thinks' with absolute certainty that they are most 'right' and the 'other' is 'wrong'. They say it with absolute certainty as if one could know with his mind what is absolutely true and are willing to argue, fight and even die to prove their "accustomed norm" is absolutely certain" and "without any contradictions"

 

Truth, at least that which religion speaks of, points to Truth yet speaks in highly subjective words. Perhaps, at least in my limited view, the most accurate words is the recorded words of Jesus when it is recorded he said, "I am the Truth". Realization of "being" is eternal and transcends mind and words. To me, it says Truth is found in 'being' and not the senses or the mind. Perhaps these words might point beyond any limited view you may have and perhaps not. After all, they are only words.

 

Love in Christ,

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wayfarer2k
I think you and I can agree that if anything is true, its opposite is false.

 

In some paradigms, yes, the opposite to truth is falsehood. But even within falsehoods, some falsehoods are closer to the truth than others are. But Jesus' mystical experiences and God-filled life was not based upon some kind of objective proof of God. He did grow up or minister within a culture that felt the need to prove God's existence. For the Jews, the existence of God was a given. What they struggled with was the question of what God expected from his people. For the Jewish leadership, God expected purity, sinlessness. For Jesus (and other prophets), God expected compassion from his people. This is why the Jews and Jesus had two almost completely different ideas of what messiah was to do.

 

I do not at all mean that to say, for example, our law, even though based on absolute truth and thus our being able to reason together, is going to be perfect. Knowing absolute truth exists, and knowing our efforts may only be distantly related, we do now have a legitimate reason for discussing our goals and hopes.
Well, yes, I think we do. To restate what I've previously said, God is absolute truth. But none of us know him absolutely. We only know him and experience him relatively/subjectively. This is not a deficiency, for it makes knowing and experiencing God "personal". Nevertheless, there are a number of agreed upon character traits and experiences of God that people have shared throughout history. These shared experiences tie us together, not because we all agree upon absolute truth, but because these experiences ring true in our heart. Remember what I said about the church leaders who tried to prove to me, using the bible, that my unborn children were burning in hell? They had a number of proof-texts to assert their "truth". But their "truth" did not ring true in my heart (and it never will). They were convinced of God's absolute holiness, of man's absolute sinfulness, of the scripture's absolute trustworthiness, and of the absolute fate of human beings based upon whether those humans put absolute faith in Christ or not. But their conclusions convinced me that their "God" was not the same God I am seeking to know and experience.

 

For me, David, God and truth is not a formulaic equation like 2 + 2 = 4 that can either be proven right or wrong, true or false. Instead, my experience is much more like sympathetic vibrations in my heart. It is not necessarily a head-thing. It is a heart-thing where, when I hear the truth of God, something inside me "vibrates" with that truth and says, "Yes, this is true, seek more of this." Is it possible, with sympathetic vibrations, to get truth wrong. Sure it is. We are, not fallen human beings, but immature creations. Truth is more caught than taught. But it is just as possible to get truth wrong with propostional statements, isn't it?

 

For those who tried to tell me that God would torment children in hell, their knowledge was based upon a literal head-acceptance of the scriptures which, I believe, they never allowed their hearts to ascertain the truth of. They had separated their heads from their hearts. Truth was, for them, a matter of adding scripture 1 + scripture 2 in order to reach the sum of doctrine 3. The character of God was never considered, only the testimony of certain select scriptures which were, IMO, pulled out of context and grossly misinterpreted.

 

The Christian telescope is always pointing in the right direction.

 

I agree. But it is not a perfect telescope, nor is it the only telescope for viewing the reality of God. Our metaphor falls short of a thorough analogy because God is primarily known and experienced in the heart, not seen as a viewable object in outer space. :) But the historical Christian telescope has done a decent job of helping us to see and know God. At the same time, people often use that telescope to focus on things that are not God or things that are extraneous to him. When this happens, Christians argue over all kinds of doctrines and theological statements that, more often than not, get in the way of presenting a clear view of God and of ourselves.

 

I need to reiterate that truth, as is our existence, is neither subjective nor relative. If these things were just merely relative, as opposed to being really true, they would not have any real meaning and we would not have any real reason to hope. That truth exists absolutely, hope can absolutely exist.
Again, I don't think I've ever argued that truth doesn't exist. I've only said that we always know or experience truth subjectively or relatively. This does not lead to fuzzy thinking or fuzzy faith. Rather, as I've said, it leads us to seek to always more truth, to remain humble in our seeking, to know that knowing truth is not a science-book approach of memorizing infallible answers, but a sympathetic approach of becoming more and more free from bondages of falsehoods in our lives - wrong beliefs, wrong actions, and, perhaps most important, of the false self, the self which when thinking it is looking through the telescope at God, is really looking in a mirror.

 

This is what these other Christians did where my children were concerned, David. They did not show me the heart of God through their Christianity. What they showed me was their own hearts, where, according to their doctrines and theology, God was not compassionate. Their "truth" about God never rang true in my own heart. Nor did it sympathize with the teachings of Jesus or with the historical views of the church.

 

You did kinda mix the metaphors a bit by putting Jesus in as the telescope at the last minute.

 

Yes, I did. I am not a trinitarian. Jesus taught and demonstrated a "way" of knowing and experiencing God. That way was marked by compassion for the poor and rejected. Metaphorically, his way was a way of dying to the personal agenda of the old self and being raised to the new life and agenda of the true one-with-God-self. And this "way" is taught by all the enduring religions of the world.

 

I'm not sure I would rely on many Buddhist sayings, they don't believe in any God.

 

Again, Christianity, at its best, is not about beliefs. It is about a way of life. And though I'm sure you would argue with the notion, some Buddhist lead more Christlike lives than Christians do. For Jesus, being a follower of "the Way" was not about beliefs, it was about the Love that is God and about loving what God loves. Christianity has turned Jesus from being a telescope into God himself. And in doing so, it has replaced the "Way" of following Jesus with doctrines ABOUT Jesus. Christianity has become a set of beliefs instead of a lifestyle. And that is why America is considered to be a Christian nation -- it "believes" in Jesus, but it doesn't reflect his values, his lifestyle, his rejection of power, affluence, money, and using violence. Jesus, in America, has become someone to be believed in -- but not worthy of following. And Jesus himself had some pretty stern warnings about those who called him Lord but who had no intention of obeying his teachings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your assignment of a temperature or arbitrary point at which hot ends and cold begins is a subjective decision even if mutually agreed upon that you now call an absolute. It may be convenient for communications but it is not absolutely true. It is relatively true only. First of all there is no real opposite of heat. It is a single continuum with an arbitrary designation for communications. There are only degrees of heat, not cold. Actually Heat exists and has no opposition, Cold does not and is just a word used for linguistic convenience only.

What you propose as absolute truth is almost laughable. By the same logic we can all agree that there is no God and say because we define it that way that it is absolutely true. Anyone who disagrees is absolutely false. Absolute certainty as you have suggested in your two examples by defining them with our subjective minds puts you no closer to truth than your subjective and conditioned mind. lol

Actually, I'm not asking you to believe in anything. I'm just pointing to what I see as a hole in your logic and reasoning. I am not in despair and am of the persuasion that you will not know God or truth by your mind. Perhaps one could say God is subjectively experienced by the mind and senses yet can only be known by being One with God even as it is recorded Jesus is.

 

Love in Christ,

Joseph

I'll try to make this really, really simple for you;

If something is true, its opposite is false. If something is right, its opposite is wrong. A is A, A is not non-A.

 

Is there something that confuses you when I use the 'IF' in a proposition? ("If cold is defined as...", "If we define...", "If you want me to believe... ') I'm not going to argue with you about heat being hot!

It is grossly inappropriate for you to steal the term of "accustomed norm" when I was sampling a proposition of radically different intent. And you try to pick a fight over it. ( ... what has been said here most clearly states the source of all conflict and wars.... ) WOW! I had no idea conflict and wars started over deciding what temperature was typical for springtime in Paris. No wonder those Germans attacked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll try to make this really, really simple for you;

If something is true, its opposite is false. If something is right, its opposite is wrong. A is A, A is not non-A.

 

Is there something that confuses you when I use the 'IF' in a proposition? ("If cold is defined as...", "If we define...", "If you want me to believe... ') I'm not going to argue with you about heat being hot!

It is grossly inappropriate for you to steal the term of "accustomed norm" when I was sampling a proposition of radically different intent. And you try to pick a fight over it. ( ... what has been said here most clearly states the source of all conflict and wars.... ) WOW! I had no idea conflict and wars started over deciding what temperature was typical for springtime in Paris. No wonder those Germans attacked.

 

Hi Davidk,

 

Yes that was simple enough for me David. Thank you.

 

No confusion here.

 

The 'IF" and definitions is where all conflicts begin and I was merely pointing out that all of life's conflicts are based on propositions and subjective definitions. I used your example because the reasoning to me is the same reasoning that is the cause of all conflicts and wars. It seems you miss the point. Yes, wars and conflicts start over temperatures and the definition of 'cold' and 'hot' but perhaps your mind doesn't see the metaphor.

 

There are degrees of truth as there are degrees of heat. The assumption you made that "heat being hot" that you say you are not going to argue with me about demonstrates this. How much heat in space does it take to make hot? It is subjective if you can receive what I am saying. However, No fight here my brother Davidk. You are safe with me.

 

Love in Christ

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay this is kind of pointless. Davidk, everyone gets your point, and nobody is disputing it. What is True is true. Yes. Absolutely. That is indisputable. What is disputable is exactly what constitutes this Truth, the one with a capital T. This is not obvious. It's just not. That's why there's argument about it. That's why philosophers and theologians and the like have been arguing for millenia and coming up with new theories that are for the most part decent but tend to have a flaw, which is generally that they make assumptions. This is a flaw in that it is a weak point in the argument, but at the same time I'm not blaming philosophers and theologians for basing their arguments on assumptions...they have to. The only thing we can be certain of is our own existence, and that is something we cannot prove to each other. We can base theories on the assumption that the world around us does in fact exist, as science does, but this means that even science is based on an assumption. Much less objective fields (e.g. philosophy and religion) are even worse in this regard. And from an outsider's perspective, Christianity is no different from the rest...it is another theory that is based on assumptions, including assumptions about the world and about the nature of God. You can say that these assumptions are based on Revelation, but even this is unprovable (since, again, the only thing you can be certain of is your own existence), and the fact that this "Revelation" is not consistent with reality does not help its case. (Argue all you want, but the fact is that for one to argue that the Bible is literally true in its entirety, one has to defy every single scientific field - including biology, astronomy, physics, and geology - not to mention other fields of study such as linguistics and anthropology; and, I would argue, simple logic.)

 

This is, I believe, what everyone has been trying to say. Nobody is saying that Truth does not exist. Of course it does. It has to. We just can't be sure that we know any of it, let alone a lot of it.

 

I'm not sure I would rely on many Buddhist sayings, they don't believe in any God.

 

Oh give me a break. Neither did Sartre, whom you're fond of quoting.

 

Sorry to be so blunt and direct but it feels like you're arguing about the small details and missing the big picture, which wayfarer already summarized in Post #54 (to which, I may note, you never replied).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay this is kind of pointless. Davidk, everyone gets your point, and nobody is disputing it. What is True is true. Yes. Absolutely. That is indisputable. What is disputable is exactly what constitutes this Truth, the one with a capital T. This is not obvious. It's just not. That's why there's argument about it. That's why philosophers and theologians and the like have been arguing for millenia and coming up with new theories that are for the most part decent but tend to have a flaw, which is generally that they make assumptions. This is a flaw in that it is a weak point in the argument, but at the same time I'm not blaming philosophers and theologians for basing their arguments on assumptions...they have to. The only thing we can be certain of is our own existence, and that is something we cannot prove to each other. We can base theories on the assumption that the world around us does in fact exist, as science does, but this means that even science is based on an assumption. Much less objective fields (e.g. philosophy and religion) are even worse in this regard. And from an outsider's perspective, Christianity is no different from the rest...it is another theory that is based on assumptions, including assumptions about the world and about the nature of God. You can say that these assumptions are based on Revelation, but even this is unprovable (since, again, the only thing you can be certain of is your own existence), and the fact that this "Revelation" is not consistent with reality does not help its case. (Argue all you want, but the fact is that for one to argue that the Bible is literally true in its entirety, one has to defy every single scientific field - including biology, astronomy, physics, and geology - not to mention other fields of study such as linguistics and anthropology; and, I would argue, simple logic.)

 

This is, I believe, what everyone has been trying to say. Nobody is saying that Truth does not exist. Of course it does. It has to. We just can't be sure that we know any of it, let alone a lot of it.

Oh give me a break. Neither did Sartre, whom you're fond of quoting.

 

Sorry to be so blunt and direct but it feels like you're arguing about the small details and missing the big picture, which wayfarer already summarized in Post #54 (to which, I may note, you never replied).

Being is blunt does not make you disrespectful. There is no need to apologize.

 

I don't think we disagree here about the existence of true truth. And I agree that we are able to, and should, discuss whether things are true or not. The point I was trying to make with Joseph was just that. Since we know there is true truth, we have a basis from which to rationally discuss whether things are true.

I don't discount subjectivity, but likewise, I do not think it blinds us to the truth to the extent Joseph proposes. By your simply saying truth exists shows objectivity.

Acknowledging the little formula, the one I'm sure your familiar with by now, is the big picture. It is the universal from which the details of other arguements can be rationally discussed.

 

As far as existence may be concerned, it's is not in asking that I am not there but rather that I am! Sartre's position. The universe is there, what explains this? It is from this question I have found Christianity is no theory but entirely true, and the Biblical epistemology supports the observation.

 

While Sartre was certainly no Christian, nor was Buddah, I didn't say not to believe anything they said.

 

When we speak of whether the Bible is true or not, it does lend itself to discussion. I respectfully disagree about its confilct with science. That could be another thread. (Did God create everything in 6 days. Some yes; others, no. Who's correct? Does the Bible say 24 hour days? How does that conflict with science? Etc.)

--

For you McKenna---

"None of us knows everything that can be known about God. None of us experiences everything that can be experienced of God." - wayfarer

I have spoken with emphatic agreement to this before.

 

"When Jesus said, "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free", maybe he was speaking of "knowing" as experiencing, as, in other biblical passages, "intercoursing" with the truth. I don't think he was speaking of only propositional truth. His truth was an experience of living in God, not a rigid set of beliefs." - wayfarer

I agree in part. Let me say that this quote is said in pretty certain (rigid) terms. The full quote is, "Jesus therefore was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you abide in my word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." Jesus did not equivocate. True truth is firm and immovable (rigid). Jesus says clearly He has communicated to them the truth, therefore it can be known (intellectually and experientially).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service