I’ve read almost all of the Old Testament and all of the New Testament save Revelations.
[quote]pookie wrote:
I think we’re mixing stuff up here.
Establishing laws to guide and/or restrict behavior by no means supresses competition. Most law abiding citizens still compete for sexual favors and mates; and also generally compete in their work environment.
The laws try to curb the most violent behaviors because it is reasonable to believe that if anyone can kill anyone else at any time, it quickly degrades to a massive self-genocide as everyone pre-emptively kills anyone who could ever threaten them.
But making laws for “civilized behavior” by no means supresses competion in the specie. At best, it slightly regulates it. You can still kill that guy who stole your wife, but you’ll go to jail for 25 to life if you’re caught.[/quote]
Now we are on the same page.
I agree with you, but now explain to me how this would be possible:
[quote]
And no, it is not that hard to establish rules to govern the lives of men and insure that everyone pretty much leads a happy and fulfilling life. [/quote]
It is not only not “not that hard” it is impossible. If everyone lived according to the law ( orwellian nightmare) people would still suffer, just not that much.
Now if you are religious it is because mankind is flawed, if not, it is because we were never meant to live happy and fulfilling lifes, we were meant to be gene-spreading machines.
OMG. some people might even try to use the law making process to advance their own agenda.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Everything is a lie.
The above statement is the only truth.
That would be a depressing thought. I have thought about this and I have one word for it – ridiculous! This doesn’t even square with our everyday experiences. We know intuitively that there exists absolute truth. I agree, though, that it is our job to find it.
(think about that one)
[/quote]
steveo, that last statement was a logic problem - if the first statement is true, then it cannot be true. And the second statement cannot be true. And the second statement says the first one is true. It was a joke!
And the rest of the post was to get people thinken’
[quote]Steveo wrote,
Human beings ARE indeed flawed and separated from God, and indeed as you said that is why Christ had to come and die for man’s sin. This is an excellent post and brings to light now a fundamental question:
Does man’s flaw involve the recording of God’s Word or the interpretation of God’s Word, or both?
As I understand your arguments, you would say a little of both. Man is flawed so that when he recorded God’s Word, he made errors and thus we really cannot know what is Absolute Truth from error. This problem of finding truth is then further compounded by the fact that since man is flawed, he cannot agree on Absolute Truth anyway. I hope I have encapsulated your thoughts here…[/quote]
I think that is a fair encapsulation. Basically, anything involving humankind is inherently flawed and open for interpretation.
I don’t see any evidence of this. The words of the bible were written by men at the time. That is why there is a need for so much contextual interpretation. The inconsistencies in the bible preclude it being directly from God, unless you would prefer that your God is not all knowing?
Personally, I think it is hubris to think that the writings of the bible can even begin to encompass the whole of any absolute truth. Our human existence is so small and insignificant on a universal scale, that I cannot fathom that we, our lives and how we live them, are anything bit a tiny portion of a much bigger story.
However, for the purpose of what if, I cannot disprove your theory any more than I can prove mine.
I’m willing to concede that absolute truth may be out three. I am not willing to concede, as of yet, that it is possible for us to know it.
While I am happy to believe that more can be revealed via faith, I do not believe that the entire absolute truth is known to you prior to your death. The reason I say this is that if you knew absolute truth, then you would no longer require faith. Faith is always required, but knowing precludes having faith, because, to put it simply, what one knows one does not have to take on faith.
Anytime. I like to think about such things from time to time. God gave me a brain and I suspect that this was so that I could try to make use of it.
The answer to this question is not that hard. It’s really sickeningly easy. The problem is knowing the truth when you see it or when it comes accross you in some way. Most of these post seem to be dealing with objects of truth. Is this “thing” truth or not. Which really is a whole other matter. The metaphysical defitition of truth is rather simple really. The ‘things’ that fit into the definition is not a simple matter at all.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
I want to pick up on just one point you made, because this was a problem for many years for me thinking about “religion” and I know it is a sticking point for many. That is the existence of literally hundreds of religions that have their own “truths.” When I looked at this fact alone as a teenager, I concluded that if there was one God there could NOT BE MANY WAYS TO HIM.[/quote]
Why not? I know all religions claim to be the “one true way” to God; but honestly, how can you know that God, if he exists, doesn’t have many ways to him? Isn’t it a bit presumptuous to claim to know God’s ways?
I don’t mind people who wish to live in fantasy; it’s when they work actively at recruiting others in their fantasy that I get annoyed.
You believe is true. You can’t know.
Yes, but you’d never know which one it was. All religions have adherents who are absolutely convinced (as you are) that theirs is the right one.
And they are all equally convinced that all the other religions are false ones. Stalemate.
Apparently, enlightenment from a false religion works identically as enlightenment from the true one. There appears to be no difference between the “One True Religion” and the myriads of false ones.
Doesn’t it make more sense if they are all false? Or alternatively, they are all good? Must be why 99% of the people who follow one or another religion pick it the old-fashioned way: use the same one Mon and Dad did. Or the spouse, in some cases…
Whether you admit it or not, you’ve picked a religion. You’re not talking of your relationship with Allah through his prophet Muhammad, now are you?
And as I’ve said previously, it would all be fine and dandy if your personal relationship with God was kept personal. For some reason, the need to spread the Word is irresistible among many of the believers.
Again, that won’t convince anyone who’s not already converted.
Yeah, but which Holy Book should I pick?
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
While God cannot be proven in a mathematical sense, He can be put to the test, well sort of. You could put Him to the test by reading His Word with an open mind, asking Him to show you the truth. If He is not real, nothing would happen and you could go on your merry way.[/quote]
Ah. It’s settled then.
[quote]But if He is real, and you really are honest about your search, I 100% guarantee that He will somehow show you His truth.
Your move…
[/quote]
Ah I see. If I read his Word with an open mind and still conclude there’s no God; it’s because I’m not really honest.
It’s a bit of a Catch-22. Either I come around to your point of view and agree you’re right, OR I disagree with you, but only because I’m not honest enough in my search for God.
So A) You’re right and I eventually agree, or B) You’re still right and I’m dishonest.
What about C) You’re wrong?
[quote]Mordred wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
While God cannot be proven in a mathematical sense, He can be put to the test, well sort of. You could put Him to the test by reading His Word with an open mind, asking Him to show you the truth. If He is not real, nothing would happen and you could go on your merry way. But if He is real, and you really are honest about your search, I 100% guarantee that He will somehow show you His truth.
Your move…
And what do you have to say to people who have in fact done this and were revealed nothing? I was not touched by any “Holy Spirit”. I was not moved. “His” truth was nowhere near evident to me. What is your explanation for this?
[/quote]
Did you miss the “you really are honest about your search” part?
[quote]orion wrote:
It is not only not “not that hard” it is impossible. If everyone lived according to the law ( orwellian nightmare) people would still suffer, just not that much.
[/quote]
There is a difference between establishing the laws and enforcing them.
Previously, I posted a link to the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If everyone would stop bashing the U.N. for it’s other problems and take a few minutes to read it, you might see that it’s not half bad as far as establishing guidelines for populations to live together.
As a quick test, you might notice that Article 4 and 5 are nowhere to be found in the 10 Commandments. Torturing your slave breaks no Commandment. A slight ommission, but made all the more suspect as those Commandments supposedly originate from a perfect, all-knowing, all-loving God. Maybe Moses really dropped the 3rd stone tablet after all. Those things are heavy, you know.
Back to the topic at hand: If every nation, over the world, would agree the the UDoHR and honestly work to make sure it was respected, don’t you think we’d have a better world overall? Of course, you’ll never get to that point; but the initial discussion was about whether it is possible to establish moral rules without an “Absolute Moral Autority” and I believe it is.
Enforcing the rules afterwards is a whole other issue.
[quote]orion wrote:
we were never meant to live happy and fulfilling lifes, we were meant to be gene-spreading machines.[/quote]
Well, that might be what the genes intended, but once you get self-awareness, members of the self-aware specie might become more interested in the individuals than in blindly propagating the genes.
We’re not pure, gene-programmed response packets.
Easy example: Many young men wish to bed as many woman as possible. BUT very few to none of them wish to have kids with each woman.
So in that case, some of the systems that have evolved to insure procreation, such as sexual attraction and sexual pleasure get trumped by what the intelligent, self-aware individual, wishes for himself (ie, the pleasure of the sexual act, but without the responsibility of another kid).
You can’t reduce everything to genes. Yes, it works for bacterias and most simple lifeforms, but once you get a more complex brain, it’s not so simple. It might even be that intelligence is an evolutionary dead-end, and not so advantageous from a gene point of view. The dinosaurs did pretty well without it for hundreds of millions of years. I guess intelligence pays off in “spreading the genes” if we eventually colonize space and the galaxies.
[quote]pookie wrote:
orion wrote:
we were never meant to live happy and fulfilling lifes, we were meant to be gene-spreading machines.
Well, that might be what the genes intended, but once you get self-awareness, members of the self-aware specie might become more interested in the individuals than in blindly propagating the genes.
[/quote]
No, they are not able to, unless that impulse is part of their genetic programming. Otherwise they could not even conceive that idea.
[quote]
We’re not pure, gene-programmed response packets.
Easy example: Many young men wish to bed as many woman as possible. BUT very few to none of them wish to have kids with each woman.
So in that case, some of the systems that have evolved to insure procreation, such as sexual attraction and sexual pleasure get trumped by what the intelligent, self-aware individual, wishes for himself (ie, the pleasure of the sexual act, but without the responsibility of another kid).[/quote]
Young men are not programmed with the desire to procreate, they want to have sex. They lust, they desire…
Don?t you see that now, because of contraception, we are fulfilling the commands of our masters (the genes) more than ever before in history!
Young men right now have sex,no responsibility and they can do so without feeling guilty…
They have obeyed three genetic orders which would have never been possible without human intelligence. Seems like human intelligence does its job well.
[quote]
You can’t reduce everything to genes. Yes, it works for bacterias and most simple lifeforms, but once you get a more complex brain, it’s not so simple. It might even be that intelligence is an evolutionary dead-end, and not so advantageous from a gene point of view. The dinosaurs did pretty well without it for hundreds of millions of years. I guess intelligence pays off in “spreading the genes” if we eventually colonize space and the galaxies.[/quote]
I do not reduce everything to genes, but I hope in can convince you that it is not as easy to trick them as you seem to think.
Those ideas we come up with are not independent of our genetic programming, they usually try to further the genetic agenda.
Like the meme-complex religion for example.
[quote]orion wrote:
No, they are not able to, unless that impulse is part of their genetic programming. Otherwise they could not even conceive that idea.[/quote]
That’s ridiculous. Many ideas have nothing to do with “spreading the genes” and you can still have them.
Well, yes, but those urges are there to help propagate the specie, “spreading the genes” at the same time.
Is spreading sperm around what you meant by “spreading your genes”. Much good it does them if they don’t fertilize.
And contraception is a funny idea for genes to “allow” if they wish to get around. If everyone used contraception all the time, everywhere, the specie would end with this generation. No more genes.
[quote]Young men right now have sex,no responsibility and they can do so without feeling guilty…
They have obeyed three genetic orders which would have never been possible without human intelligence. Seems like human intelligence does its job well. [/quote]
You lost me there… what three genetic orders? I see nothing in desire, sex or whatever that requires intelligence.
I you want to convince me, you’ll have to explain yourself better. I think you attribute to our genes way (way, way, WAY!) more intent and control than they actually have (which is pretty much none at all, as far as intent goes.)
Many ideas are “bad” from a survival point of view. For example:
- WMDs (especially nuclear and bio).
- Heavy Pollution
Those 2 examples can lead to extinction by destroying the biosphere. Unless the genes “think” it’s a good idea to leave the room for the microbes and the roaches, it’s not in their best interest to “allow” those ideas to florish. But florish they do.
You sound like someone who’s just read “The Selfish Gene” by Dawkins.
[quote]pookie wrote:
orion wrote:
No, they are not able to, unless that impulse is part of their genetic programming. Otherwise they could not even conceive that idea.
That’s ridiculous. Many ideas have nothing to do with “spreading the genes” and you can still have them.
Young men are not programmed with the desire to procreate, they want to have sex. They lust, they desire…
Well, yes, but those urges are there to help propagate the specie, “spreading the genes” at the same time.
Don?t you see that now, because of contraception, we are fulfilling the commands of our masters (the genes) more than ever before in history!
Is spreading sperm around what you meant by “spreading your genes”. Much good it does them if they don’t fertilize.
And contraception is a funny idea for genes to “allow” if they wish to get around. If everyone used contraception all the time, everywhere, the specie would end with this generation. No more genes.
Young men right now have sex,no responsibility and they can do so without feeling guilty…
They have obeyed three genetic orders which would have never been possible without human intelligence. Seems like human intelligence does its job well.
You lost me there… what three genetic orders? I see nothing in desire, sex or whatever that requires intelligence.
I do not reduce everything to genes, but I hope in can convince you that it is not as easy to trick them as you seem to think.
I you want to convince me, you’ll have to explain yourself better. I think you attribute to our genes way (way, way, WAY!) more intent and control than they actually have (which is pretty much none at all, as far as intent goes.)
Those ideas we come up with are not independent of our genetic programming, they usually try to further the genetic agenda.
Many ideas are “bad” from a survival point of view. For example:
- WMDs (especially nuclear and bio).
- Heavy Pollution
Those 2 examples can lead to extinction by destroying the biosphere. Unless the genes “think” it’s a good idea to leave the room for the microbes and the roaches, it’s not in their best interest to “allow” those ideas to florish. But florish they do.
Like the meme-complex religion for example.
You sound like someone who’s just read “The Selfish Gene” by Dawkins.[/quote]
I have read a little bit more than that on this issue.
You confuse genetic programming with the “planned” outcome of that programming.
Genes give us emotions, desires, instincts, that under the conditions 30000-50000 years ago, would have led to a certain outcome: the “best” genes would have spread.
Now, that the cultural rules have changed - not really that much - we still act according to that genetic programms if that makes sense or not is not important - we do. How could we not?
If a woman is free of parasites (clear skin, eyes), has reserves to survive a pregnancy (strategically placed fat depots) is not that important anymore, but we are still attracted to her.
If we interpret those instructions in a way that actually endeangers their very reason to exist, it does not prove that those instructions do not exist or that we don?t act on them, it only proves that those instructions were not meant to work in the 21th century which is why the outcome might be different than intended.
However, they have worked so far, the threat of mutual destruction worked. Instinctive self-preservation, very usefull in a creature that still has a job to do, gene-spreading…
Almost everything we call “culture” is a variation of natures themes like sex, social hierachy, control of resources, mating, offspring, death…
[quote]vroom wrote:
Again, I would urge you to end the hijack (as you did with that other thread last May) and start your own. Do you know how to start one?
Steveo,
I have to disagree. This side discussion is very apropos to the discussion of truth.
Disagreements about the meaning of various passages in the bible, by believers that are desirious of being devout Christians, are a direct argument against man being able to ascertain the absolute truth.[/quote]
I did NOT hijak the “Only One Truth” thread last May any more than the atheists or irreligious and unconcerned hijaked that thread. You lie.
Vroom is right about me not having to start my own thread. But he is wrong about some things:
Vroom, you judge us both as “devout Christians.” By what standard do you make that judgment? steveo is NOT a Christian. He is an unbeliever. He denies that the death of Christ demands and ensures the salvation of all whom He represented at the cross. Everyone without exception who believes that Jesus died for those who perish are not Christians. steveo is just as lost as those atheists whom he is trying to convert.
So, vroom, it is not a “direct argument against man being able to ascertain the absolute truth” as you thought. What I say (because the Bible says) is true, what steveo says is false.
Also vroom, your statement is self-refuting because you just claimed to ascertain the absolute truth that man is unable to ascertain the absolute truth. So, according to you there is at least one absolute truth man can ascertain. And that is, the absolute truth that man cannot ascertain the absolute truth.
Skeptics say that we cannot know anything for certain. But this statement is self-refuting (like vroom’s above), for according to the skeptic we can know for certain that we cannot know anything for certain.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Interesting that even amongst believers, that Absolute Truth seems to remain ever elusive.
By the way, did you hear that Pope John Paul II managed to send a message from Heaven?
Apparently he’s disappointed because Heaven isn’t as lavish as the Vatican.[/quote]
For true Christians, for true believers in the True Christ of the Bible–and not a false “christ” who cannot save like the one steveo believes in–Absolute Truth does not remain elusive. The fact that you would think pope John Paul II is a Christian shows that you haven’t a clue as to what a Christian is.
[quote]extol7extol wrote:
pookie wrote:
Interesting that even amongst believers, that Absolute Truth seems to remain ever elusive.
[/quote]
— START JOKE —
By the way, did you hear that Pope John Paul II managed to send a message from Heaven?
Apparently he’s disappointed because Heaven isn’t as lavish as the Vatican.
— END OF JOKE —
[quote]
For true Christians, for true believers in the True Christ of the Bible–and not a false “christ” who cannot save like the one steveo believes in–Absolute Truth does not remain elusive. The fact that you would think pope John Paul II is a Christian shows that you haven’t a clue as to what a Christian is.[/quote]
Er, you did understand that I was posting a joke right? You know, a smattering of words meant to provoke some slight amount of mirth? Haha and all that?
For the rest, whether your Christ is better, faster and slices thinner than SteveO’s, I don’t really care. Why don’t you guys get your shit together by PM and we can get back to “The Truth” later on?
Extol,
I question whether any statement I make, whether it is in fact right or wrong, qualifies as absolute truth.
If that is all ABSOLUTE TRUTH is, a simple correct fact, then it is too trivial to be an important question anyway.
However, if I have the power to speak ABSOLUTE TRUTHS, then I have certainly not lived up to my potential on this planet so far!
I think perhaps I shall simply declare everyone my minions and run the place as I see fit… thanks for the tip, but you now qualify as a minion as well.
Okay Pookie sorry my response took so long.
You wanted to know what I meant when I said I am not to be a friend of the world.
The world is the earth which is fallen and full of sin. My permanent home is in heaven with the Lord and I am only on the earth for a temporary time, basically just the first page of a never-ending book. Therefore I am supposed to be in the world but not of the world. Becoming a friend of the world would mean embracing it, considering it my home and valuing my life here. I should not delight in, meditate on, or plan my life around anything that does not bring glory to God.
I hope that explains it.
[quote]pookie wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
While God cannot be proven in a mathematical sense, He can be put to the test, well sort of. You could put Him to the test by reading His Word with an open mind, asking Him to show you the truth. If He is not real, nothing would happen and you could go on your merry way.
Ah. It’s settled then.
But if He is real, and you really are honest about your search, I 100% guarantee that He will somehow show you His truth.
Your move…
Ah I see. If I read his Word with an open mind and still conclude there’s no God; it’s because I’m not really honest.
It’s a bit of a Catch-22. Either I come around to your point of view and agree you’re right, OR I disagree with you, but only because I’m not honest enough in my search for God.
So A) You’re right and I eventually agree, or B) You’re still right and I’m dishonest.
What about C) You’re wrong?[/quote]
Pookie,
I am NOT saying that at all and I am not trying to play any tricks. I just stand upon the Word of God, and if someone honestly wants to know Him, He will reveal Himself, that’s all.
Again, I do realize what you are saying and how this seems. Honestly, I would have written just about everything you have 12 years ago.
I say, just read and see what happens. Again, if it is all BS then you’ve read some great literature.
But if eternity depends upon it…
Take care.
[quote]pookie wrote:
extol7extol wrote:
pookie wrote:
Interesting that even amongst believers, that Absolute Truth seems to remain ever elusive.
— START JOKE —
By the way, did you hear that Pope John Paul II managed to send a message from Heaven?
Apparently he’s disappointed because Heaven isn’t as lavish as the Vatican.
— END OF JOKE —
For true Christians, for true believers in the True Christ of the Bible–and not a false “christ” who cannot save like the one steveo believes in–Absolute Truth does not remain elusive. The fact that you would think pope John Paul II is a Christian shows that you haven’t a clue as to what a Christian is.
Er, you did understand that I was posting a joke right? You know, a smattering of words meant to provoke some slight amount of mirth? Haha and all that?
For the rest, whether your Christ is better, faster and slices thinner than SteveO’s, I don’t really care. Why don’t you guys get your shit together by PM and we can get back to “The Truth” later on?
[/quote]
Pookie,
When I began this thread, I was looking for honest discussion between people about Absolute Truth. For me, it is in the Word of God. The truth needs to be tested using some standard – again for me that standard is the Bible.
Some people have different agendas. I have not called into question anyones faith or salvation based on my opinion, but have given clear Bible verses and reasoning to back up my Bible positions. To attack anyone as being “not a Christian” without knowing that person, violates the New Testament prohibition on false judgement…“judge not that ye be judged…”
God knows who is born-again or not and I will not attack back. Jesus said we must “turn the other cheek” when attacked and so I will.
I will continue to pray for all of you guys – Vroom, Pookie, and others. I think you are all great guys from the discussions we have had. I do hope that you find the Absolute Truth. It is vital that we do so.
By the way, Vroom I agree that on this side of Heaven we cannot know it completely. That is 100% true and very perceptive on your part. You are very bright and insightful and seem very honest in your posts. I do appreciate that!
I will monitor this thread and post when I can. If any have direct questions for me, please PM me as you wish.
Take care!
SteveO
“Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behond, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.” Matthew 7:1-5
“My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not, And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation {satisfaction} for our sins, and not for our’s only, but also for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD.” 1 John 2:1-2
“For God so loved THE WORLD, that he gave his only begotten Son, that WHOSOEVER BELIEVITH IN HIM {and act of the volitional will}, should not perish, but HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the WORLD through him MIGHT BE SAVED. He that believeth {again, an act of the volitional will} on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he HAS NOT BELIEVED {i.e. not acted upon the truth of God’s Word about His Son Jesus} in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” John 3:16-18 {These are the words of Jesus Christ Himself}