What Is Truth?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
helga wrote:
My life is a little strange at the moment in that although I want nothing to do with the church as an organisation I believe that God is the ultimate truth. I do not however place too much emphasis on anything that is written in the bible.

There has been too much human intervention in the writing of the bible, and in the decision as to what should make it into the bible.

Further, how can anyone place too much respect in a document that calls both homosexuality and eating shell fish an abomination. To all those people out there that were previously saying that homosexually is a sin, do you tell your mate that if you see him eating a shrimp cocktail? I guess that it is lucky that I am straight and allergic to prawns.

You would if he were an Orthodox Jew! My friend, the Bible is written in context. The Kosher Laws are only for the Nation Israel – the Jewish people. The fact that homosexuality is sin in God’s sight is independent of the Law of Moses and universal. To show this, God repeats this in the New Testament in Romans chapter 1.

Also, if a murderer claims the Bible is not truth because God calls murder a sin, does that make it not the truth? You sort of make my point for me. If we go my man’s thinking, well then homosexuality is just an acceptable alternate lifestyle. In the absence of absolute truth, we can make anyting seem reasonable.[/quote]

My friend, I belive that you have also supported my claims, which are similar to those mentioned by another poster in this thread.

Pauls letter to the Romans is just that, a letter. Written by an imperfect man, a godly man no doubt, but still just a man in 57-58 AD. This letter then floated around, potentially transcribed by other imperfect men over the years until somewhere about 500 years later, another group of imperfect men decided what would be included in the bible and what wouldnt.

Do you know for sure that there are not other letters or religious writings that exist that may debunk many of the commonly accepted beliefs and christian dogma found in the bible that was accepted by the church. Can you say that in the process of the initial writings of the letter through to the development of the bible that there were not people that included their own personal beliefs that may not have necessarily been supported by God. Having been an elder in the uniting church of australia I have seen how easy it is for the desires of men to infiltrate the intentions of God.

I can understand and respect placing your faith in the word of God, my problem is that there is no way to guarantee that the bible is the word of God.

62

Ding ding ding.

We can’t tell what absolute truth is by examining the interpretations of men.

63

[quote]vroom wrote:
I can understand and respect placing your faith in the word of God, my problem is that there is no way to guarantee that the bible is the word of God.

Ding ding ding.

We can’t tell what absolute truth is by examining the interpretations of men.[/quote]

Damn you and your eloquence. But thanks for the support.

64

[quote]vroom wrote:
I can understand and respect placing your faith in the word of God, my problem is that there is no way to guarantee that the bible is the word of God.

Ding ding ding.

We can’t tell what absolute truth is by examining the interpretations of men.[/quote]

Then by your logic, what you just said cannot be absolute truth either!

65

[quote]vroom wrote:
I can understand and respect placing your faith in the word of God, my problem is that there is no way to guarantee that the bible is the word of God.

Ding ding ding.

We can’t tell what absolute truth is by examining the interpretations of men.[/quote]

What about predictive Biblical prophecy? Going back to secular history and checking the Bible against what actually happend? I have done this and it is incredible how accurate God’s Word is.

Have you investigated this, or do you just take other people’s “truth” as your own?

Challenge: Name one Biblical prophecy (not those which are awaiting fulfillment – i.e. the end times) found in the Bible that has not come true. In addition, name one statement of fact from the Bible that has been proven false in the last 4,000 years.

Think about this:

The Bible was written over a 1400 year span, by over 40 human writers (which God used)with the end result of producing a work which is internally consistent. We cannot even get 2 guys to agree to anything.

It has withstood centuries of attack, but yet it still survives intact. Why would that be if it was a book of human interpretations?

Think about it…

66

[quote]helga wrote:
vroom wrote:
I can understand and respect placing your faith in the word of God, my problem is that there is no way to guarantee that the bible is the word of God.

Ding ding ding.

We can’t tell what absolute truth is by examining the interpretations of men.

Damn you and your eloquence. But thanks for the support.[/quote]

Eloquence?

You really need to do more reading mate!

67

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
vroom wrote:
I can understand and respect placing your faith in the word of God, my problem is that there is no way to guarantee that the bible is the word of God.

Ding ding ding.

We can’t tell what absolute truth is by examining the interpretations of men.

Then by your logic, what you just said cannot be absolute truth either![/quote]

That is our point exactly.

I am sure that I cannot come up with any prophecy that has not been fulfilled, nor do I wish to spend the time doing so, however, I will give it a go when you can prove that the writings in the bible are the word of God.

68

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
helga wrote:
vroom wrote:
I can understand and respect placing your faith in the word of God, my problem is that there is no way to guarantee that the bible is the word of God.

Ding ding ding.

We can’t tell what absolute truth is by examining the interpretations of men.

Damn you and your eloquence. But thanks for the support.

Eloquence?

You really need to do more reading mate!

[/quote]

I agree with you completely on this one aswell, which is why I am doing exactly that. Now I am not sure your intent on that one but it appears to be a subtle, and gently worded so as to appear nice personal attack. I assume that you have a reference in your ‘absolute truth’ that says it is ok to make such comments towards your fellow man?

69

[quote]helga wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
vroom wrote:
I can understand and respect placing your faith in the word of God, my problem is that there is no way to guarantee that the bible is the word of God.

Ding ding ding.

We can’t tell what absolute truth is by examining the interpretations of men.

Then by your logic, what you just said cannot be absolute truth either!

That is our point exactly.

I am sure that I cannot come up with any prophecy that has not been fulfilled, nor do I wish to spend the time doing so, however, I will give it a go when you can prove that the writings in the bible are the word of God.[/quote]

With all due respect, you seem to be writing in English, so I assume you can read English.

A few replies above I said that if you look at secular history and compare this to God’s predictive prophcies (for example the progression of the Gentile World powers as given in the Book of Daniel) you will see that God’s prediction of what would happen long before it happend, came out exactly. There are many many such prophecies that can be thus verified.

The fact that you don’t wish to “waste your time” on this, can only mean that you are not interested in seeking truth, but only confirming your unbelief.

You have the right to do this, but that doesn’t really contribute to this thread.

70

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
helga wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
vroom wrote:
I can understand and respect placing your faith in the word of God, my problem is that there is no way to guarantee that the bible is the word of God.

Ding ding ding.

We can’t tell what absolute truth is by examining the interpretations of men.

Then by your logic, what you just said cannot be absolute truth either!

That is our point exactly.

I am sure that I cannot come up with any prophecy that has not been fulfilled, nor do I wish to spend the time doing so, however, I will give it a go when you can prove that the writings in the bible are the word of God.

With all due respect, you seem to be writing in English, so I assume you can read English.

A few replies above I said that if you look at secular history and compare this to God’s predictive prophcies (for example the progression of the Gentile World powers as given in the Book of Daniel) you will see that God’s prediction of what would happen long before it happend, came out exactly. There are many many such prophecies that can be thus verified.

The fact that you don’t wish to “waste your time” on this, can only mean that you are not interested in seeking truth, but only confirming your unbelief.

You have the right to do this, but that doesn’t really contribute to this thread.
[/quote]

I have never denied that the prophecies in the bible have come true and I have always always accepted and supported this fact. In regards to wasting my time, I was referring to your comment about finding prophecies that have not come true. I do not wish ‘not waste my time with this’ because I am not seeking the truch, but as mentioned before I belive that the prophecies of the bible have come true and so therefore do not see any point in making an attempt to disprove things that I believe in. I believe that there is too much secular evidence to deny many of these things.

However, I can not accept that the entire bible is based on Gods word alone, and not influnced by the personal opinions of the writers. It is accepted that the majority of the books of the bible were initially handed down orally, before being written down in some cases many of hundreds of years later.

I respect you if you can believe that there has been no human intervention causing a variation from Gods intention in such a process.

71

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
You have the right to do this, but that doesn’t really contribute to this thread.
[/quote]

You started this thread about truth and your belief that God is the absolute truth. Being a christian you must believe that the bible is the word of God and therefore a direct link to your belief of what absolute truth is. I have simply stated that I believe that there is too much potential for human intervention for every single word of the bible to be taken as the word of God.

My point in all my posts is that I belive God is the absolute truth, I just dont think that we have Gods absolute truth accurately recorded in the books that have been interpreted and selected by man to form the bible.

72

Still waiting for an answer to a simple question.

An object is traveling at .9c relative to a fixed point. We both measure its length, but from two different reference frames. We use the same methods and equipment. We get two different results. Which one of us is right?

73

[quote]vroom wrote:
If someone, for example, has sex with a minor and believes that it is moral to them, we should just wink at it and not prosecute? After all, if there are no moral absolutes (i.e. “T” ruth) then how can we judge someone in such a situation?

History has shown that the concept of a “minor” has been very relative over time.

Maybe you should find an example of something that has actually been absolute if you want to decry moral relativism?[/quote]

Vroom,
I believe Steveo is refering to the present on the minor issue.

74

A truth is a factual statement about a physical object or states of affairs in the physical world. It can be shown to be true via presentation of evidence, freely examined and tested by knowledgable skeptics.

Arguing about the truth, science, or anything else with a person of faith is a waste of time, to the extent that his faith is concerned with the subject at hand. You can muster all the facts, evidence, etc that you like, and it makes no difference, because you are concerned with the external, physical world, where the faithful are concerned with protecting their faith, regardlesss of the lengths to which they must go to do it. (God hid the dinosaur bones to trick us!) The truth is beside the point for these people.

I no longer argue anything with the believers. It’s like trying to teach a pig to sing. It’s a waste of time and it annoys the pig.

So – Why would a religious person post about the truth? He is only concerned with the parts of it that he can manipulate to bolster his beliefs.

I have come to believe that humanity will really begin to make progress only when we throw off the primitive yoke of superstition, and spend our time taking care of each other and our planet, not worrying about pleasing some ghost in the sky.

“Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers. It tells people to go out and stick their noses in other people’s business.”

      Jesse Ventura
75

When I made my post I looked up a site that had the Golden Rule in it, and how it was described under various religions.

http://www.teachingvalues.com/goldenrule.html

(This is not an endorsement of that site, just the content on that page that I found with good ol’ google.)

I found this one interesting

Islam : No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself. -Sunnah

Man, I wish more Muslims lived by that one, but from what I can tell, many (especially those who cannot read) are only told part of the Qur’?n as its suits those who incite violence. So … is the part they are told truth? Or is the ommission of certain parts reduce the truthfulness of the rest that they are told? Such as kill the infidel?

Similarly, what do we do about the parts of Christianity that were censored - the dead sea scrolls? The bits the Romans didn’t want us to hear. And when versions of Christianity appear apart from Catholic, what do we do about them - are they also truths? or lies invented for some agenda? or greater perceptions of the previous truths?

Should people be allowed to have their own versions of truth? If we tell them they cannot, isn’t that disobeying the Golden Rule?

These are rhetorical questions. I honestly believe that there are certain concepts such as fairness that are hardwired into every human, and although upbringing might distort their concepts of fairness, the ability to recognise the concept of fairness is innate.

But not in mad people. And not in babies either.

I believe a civilisation’s role is to steer its people towards the realisation of fundamental concepts of humanity such as fairness, opportunity, freedom to improve one’s life, helping others, charity etc… education etc… and for those who a) cannot achieve this and b) have not yet achieved it, steer them or protect them (or protect others from them) as best as possible.

What are these fundamental truths of humanity - well it is our job to try and figure them out.

One of the bigguns is the idea of change being inevitable, and resistance to change being inevitable … The desire for stability and yet the yearning for growth. Perhaps all truths need to be expressed as paradoxes.

The importance of humilty /awe and the importance of pride / esteem.

Everything is a lie.
The above statement is the only truth.

(think about that one)

76

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

First, I agree with you, and no, I didn’t lift this from somewhere else. Next, the next question is why does humanity have this ability to question it’s existence when no other living creature does?

[/quote]

Because creatures that evolve ever more complex simulations of their surroundings will sooner or later lead to a creature that has such a good simulation going inside its head that it includes itself.

77

[quote]bosox4L wrote:
helga wrote:
bosox4L wrote:
someone answer my question

An athiest is someone who doesnt believe in a diety or higher poweer. It is not exclusive of believing in the christian god.

Damn, so I’m just nothing haha? [/quote]

You are spiritual!

78

Steveo,

Stop getting your panties in a wad. I’m not arguing that there is no truth in the bible or in other such writings.

I’m simply pointing out that those writings were created by men and are interpreted by ourselves.

There are at least two people between whatever truth may have been revealed and what you are seeing within it.

Now, I don’t know about you, but I place very little faith in mankind with respect to our ability to accurately convey information and to accurately absorb what is conveyed.

Points such as this are difficult for some of those that choose a literal interpretation of the bible, but that is not my fault.

Sometimes you have to accept the realities of the world around you, and that it is the way it is, not the way that you want it to be.

79

It is the height of egotism for you to assume that only you (and those who agree with you) have reached the “Absolute Truth” that no religion can claim to have absolute truth. That statment of yours above is inherently exclusionary, for it excludes all those who disagree with you. It is also self-refuting since you just claimed the “Absolute Truth” that no one can claim absolute truth.

Was it the height of egotism for Jesus Christ to say that “I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6)?? Jesus said I AM THE TRUTH. That statement has absolute truth written all over it. By claiming that He is the TRUTH, He is claiming to have a monopoly on all truth.

Also, when Christ says no one comes to the Father except through Him, He is being VERY inherently exclusionary.

You also said that Jesus was all about “love and acceptance, not hate and intolerance.” Well, it should be obvious that true love necessarily is intolerant of certain (and many) things. True love does not accept certain (and many) things.

True Christians who love God HATE the wicked with perfect hatred (Psalm 139:22), AND they LOVE their enemies (Matthew 5:43). Is this paradox? In no way. It is talking about two senses – two different considerations. They LOVE those
whom they count as ENEMIES. They LOVE them when they bless them and do well to them and pray for them. They HATE them when they count them as the enemies of God and, by extension, their enemies.

To quote one of your(absolute truth??) statements again:

You see, if you give the words Jesus, love, hate, and intolerance their Biblical definitions then I would agree. The Jesus of the Bible hates the people who say that there are many ways to heaven, etc. There are millions and millions of people preaching “tolerance” and yet they cannot and will not tolerate the absolute truth claim made by Christ in John 14:6.

Jesus is about love. But He does not love everyone. Jesus is about acceptance but He does not accept everyone. As John 14:6 said, no one is except through Him.

There are millions and millions of professing Christians who say that Jesus died for everyone without exception, thus denying John 14:6. They do not believe that His saving work on the cross makes the only difference between heaven and hell. These aforemention religionists are blasphemers. They are just as lost as the most vile pervert on the face of this earth.

In fact, Jesus Christ said that it would be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the inhabitants of Sodom than for those self-righteous religionists that believe that something other than the death of Christ makes the only difference between heaven and hell.

Mat 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye
escape the damnation of hell?

Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your
father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he
speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Joh 8:55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should
say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and
keep his saying.

80

[quote]vroom wrote:
I can understand and respect placing your faith in the word of God, my problem is that there is no way to guarantee that the bible is the word of God.

Ding ding ding.

We can’t tell what absolute truth is by examining the interpretations of men.[/quote]

Hello vroom. Apparently you CAN tell what “absolute truth” is by examining the interpretations of men. You just examined the interpretation of the poster above, and then proceeded to state the “absolute truth” that we can’t tell what absolute truth is by examining the interpretations of men. You say “we” can’t. But “you” just did.