 |
On the Christian board yesterday, someone made a comment that their truth was different from someone else's truth. Just because we believe something.. does it make it truth? How can we know if something is true. Is there such thing as absolute truth?
Isn't truth based on facts not faith?
How is this question suitable for the religious discussion topic area? It's more aof a philosophical topic - there are many school of thought on how to define truth.
Maybe we should discuss - "what is faith" also. You seem to believe that faith and fact are mutually exclusive. If we carry that to its logical, that would mean that if you have faith in your wife being true to you, then it is not factual or you have no basis for believing that to be true.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
The Bible says that we should always be prepared to give a reason for our faith. That would suggest that there are indeed facts behin our faith (which their are). Thus I would dispute the suggestion that faith is by necessity not based upon fact.
This question is also found in the Bible:Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
John 18:38
Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault [at all].
Tj3,
I totally agree with you. Unfortunately, nk believes there is NO God and Cap is unsure. Then on the Christian board someone came in and stated their truth is different than mainstream Christianity. So maybe the better question should have been, how do I show someone that there is absolute truth?or maybe it is just a dumb question because without faith... I can't. Your thoughts?
Not so. My 'belief' in my wife being true to me is based on historical data and knowledge of her through her actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
John 14:6
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
(KJV)
This is a definite, exclusive statement. Jesus did NOT say "a way" "a truth" "a life". You either believe it or you don't, but for anyone who believes the Bible, it is indisputable and it is absolute.
Yes because jesus had all the answers??
He IS the answer. Now, what was your question?Quote:
Originally Posted by aaj2008
He was dead, but is now alive, seen by more than 500 at one time, and ascended back to the Father in the sight of (likely) those same 500 believers.
I would say He does have all the answers.
The answer?? So you've met him? Oh wait you prayed to him and a miracle happened right? Oh OK... so like I said in another thread... to prove jesus real first you must prove the Bible real correct? Ok.. Noah's Ark? That is a moral story... are most child moral stories based on actually facts? No. Sorry... but your God and your Jesus are imaginative characters in a book.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
The Bible is true. Everything that it has predicted has come to pass EXACTLY they way the word of God said it would. If you read Daniel he was given a vision of 4 world empires.. before they were empires. History PROVES that the bible is accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by aaj2008
4 world empires... yes and this book was written when? Oh yeah that's right... after they had already risen and fallen... History does not prove its accuracy... me saying that in the future I will die is statement that I can accurately make because everything dies... I can also say A new world power is upon us... because yes eventually one day a new world power will come... see what I'm saying... And also you said God said these things in the Bible... Did he speak in words or in prayer to humans? Oh that's right he spoke in prayer... oh wait.. wait.. I think I'm getting something... oh here it comes... nope it was just a fart...
No it wasn't written before the world empires came and left. AND if you read and understood the Bible, Daniel did way more than say psst. Guys, 4 world powers are going to come. He gave details concerning them. NO way anyone could be that accruate. You will note that the 4th empire wasn't overthrown either. No way Daniel could have known THAT! I suppose you are going to tell me that Daniel wrote it AFTER the fall of the Roman empire. And isn't it interesting that there has not been any MORE empires? Oh, Hitler tried but it wasn't to be... why? Because GOD SAID 4.
Jesus put his stamp of approval on Daniel, he called Daniel a prophet not a historian.
ClassyT : Linguistic the words "true" or "truth" refer to the property of being in accordance with the actual state of affairs.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
And as the word "actual" refers to reality, it should refer to Objective Supportive Evidence as its only guideline.
Unfortunately in the religious field the words "true" or "truth" are used in and out of season to SUGGEST a level of accuracy, and in effect are used to provide some BOGUS VALIDITY to personal interpretations that are at best only covered by Subjective Supported Evidence.
So the person making that remark was partly correct : although there can be only one real "truth", in many philosophic fields - including religion - any reference to "truth" refers to a PERSONAL INTERPRETATION of what is BELIEVED to be correct.
And as such different persons can hold different "truths" about one and the same issue.
As to your query on "Absolute Truth" : in science the words "true" and "truth" are never used, as science is based on a system of claim, check, re-check, and support.
In general : NO , there is no "Absolute Truth". Although most people will interpret their own views as "true" or "the truth", any of the essential required Objective Supported Evidence for the validity of that claim is always absent.
:)
.
.
In general : NO , there is no "Absolute Truth". Although most people will interpret their own views as "true" or "the truth", any of the essential required Objective Supported Evidence for the validity of that claim is always absent.
:)
.
.[/QUOTE]
Cred,
Thank you for your OPINION.
However, you have faith that she will continue to follow the historical precedent. You cannot be certain of it, but based upon what you do know, you have faith that it will continue. So you have faith based upon truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
There is only one absolute truth and God is that truth. This is a prerequisite for virtuous morality. Without God there is no absolute authority and without authority there is no objective or absolute truth; hence, no morals. Without morals, there is no distinction between good and evil. Every issue of good versus evil becomes a game of secular moral relativism.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
Rationalism and relativism are normally diametrically opposed concepts, but here they form a synergistic merger changing dubious logic morphing into an absolute fact by moral relativists. The concept of objective truth becomes completely foreign. Morality requires a standard or a guide for our actions that is subordinated to an ultimate purpose. In the case of the most basic fundamental rules, all actions are subject to an omnipotent ruler (God). Reasoning in the light of His ultimate purpose is moral order, to govern in the light of His fundamental moral rules produces law and order-social stability.
My experience has been that some believe they have absolute sovereignty and independence of God and His authority; one religion is as good as another. Looking inward for authority, each rationalist holds the necessary individual authority to establish basic cosmic truths. This seems to transform into complete independence from any social morality not otherwise originating from the interior. This degradation continues with the implied right to judge moral and civil law. The argument extended is to say that God’s laws are relative; “what’s true for you, may not be true for me”. Polls and consensus becomes the important indicator for right and wrong; rather than God’s immutable truth. And finally, in the extreme the relativism requires absolute freedom of thought in matters of morality and religion.
Morality requires a standard or a guide for our actions that is subordinated to an ultimate purpose. In the case of the most basic fundamental rules, all actions are subject to an omnipotent ruler (God). Reasoning in the light of His ultimate purpose is moral order, to govern in the light of His fundamental moral rules produces law and order-or social stability.
As with the French in 1792, we see disrespect for an adherence to a moral certitude. God is missing in “rational” daily thought (secularism). Truth becomes “relative” as “reason” becomes justification. Both are opposed to God’s word being truth, and His redemptive forgiveness. The French Revolution is a good example of Rationalism run amuck. Thousands of Catholics were martyred along with their Bishop. The revolution jailed and executed Jesuits, confiscated the property anybody remotely loyal to Rome’s Church.
The Mass was mocked during the French Revolution. The revolutionist thought themselves to be in the ultimate Age of Reason; the “Church of Notre Dame de Paris became a temple of Reason, and the feast of Reason [not the Eucharist] was celebrated on 10 November. The Goddesses of Reason and Liberty were not always the daughters of low people; they frequently came of the middle classes.” What actually came to the French was godless socialism without an absolute truth. They were so successful that Lenin once remarked that he modeled the Communist horror on the French Revolution.
Relativism is a theology holding that all points of view are equally valid – this is the source of the rationalist’s tolerance of immorality. The argument usually takes the form; “one religion is as good as another;” The notion is terribly illogical. Given any two denominations both hold mutually contradictory fundamental truths (or they wouldn’t be different denominations), thus both can’t be true. One or both must be wrong. Being in error can’t represent God’s reveled truth. We can conclude that this particular religion in error and as such not true; after all, God doesn’t teach error, right? It would be equally unreasonable to assume that one God would reveal schizophrenic and contradictory truths to varying groups.
JoeT
Then we should not believe that your views of no absolute truth are true. Nor should we believe your belief that there is no God. Because these are just your own interpretation of your views as true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
I'm going to pipe in.
I believe in God, but I don't believe that the bible is the word of God, it's just a book written by man, that's it.
I don't believe in organized religion, I don't attend church, I don't read the bible, but I do believe in God. So, were do I get my belief from? What is my truth?
My beliefs are personal, from things that I have experienced but cannot prove. It's very possible that the experiences I had were not God related, but I believe that they were, and therefore I believe in God.
I don't think God created the universe, I think he may have helped but that science also had a hand in it.
I don't believe in miracles, if I ever see one then of course I'll change my mind, but up until now, I've never seen one.
Am I right? Is my belief true? To me it is, but obviously most people do not agree with my views, so what is true, who is right?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:33 PM. |