 |
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?
The answer is what is fact?
Quote:
Originally Posted by killergrrr
The answer is a question?
What is the validation for your beliefs?Quote:
Originally Posted by Altenweg
Yep, all true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I totally agree with you Galveston! There are many though, who believe their truth is as good as mine (mine is based solely on the Bible) give me some ways to show them that the Bible CAN be believed. I think the Jew alone should convince people that the Bible is absolute truth.. also prophecy. The Bible is so accurate that it is scary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I don't need to validate my beliefs to you. If I was claiming my belief as fact, then I would have to validate, but I know that I just believe, I don't claim that God is indeed a fact.
You are the one that claims that God is fact, so what is the validation for your beliefs?
No one ever said that you had to validate your beliefs to me or anyone else. If you believe something to be true, then there must be a reason or else that belief, is by definition without reason or not rational.Quote:
Originally Posted by Altenweg
I would not be able to put all the reasons for believing God is a fact in one message, but I did start several times providing evidence for one of the reasons on another thread. Here is one reason (reposted message from another thread):Quote:
You are the one that claims that God is fact, so what is the validation for your beliefs?
----------------------------
As you well know, and as I established very early on in this discussion we have only two options, and that is that God created all that there is, or that it came about naturally. I have asked a number of questions now to which neither you nor your atheist friends could provide a plausible answer. If there is no possible means by which these events occurred naturally, then there is onbly once answer. God created and thus God exists. For each of these questions for which there is no natural answer, you have a proof of God. And there are many many more proofs that could yet be posted. The usual respond to these issues from non-Christians are insults, ad hominems, and ridicule - but no answer. That is in and of itself an admission that no answer for a natural explanation exists.
EYE : How about the eye. Can anyone give a plausible explanation as to how the eye came to be?
DNA : In every living or previously living cell, we find an operating system (O/S) program written which is more complex than any MAC or PC. In addition to the program, we find that every cell has the built in capability to read and interpret this programming language. And this goes back to the simplest, and, according to evolutionists, most ancient type of cell in existence.
If one found a PC with Windows O/S on it, or even a simple handheld with Windows CE O/S on it, it would automatically be taken to be proof positive of the existence of a capable and intelligent advanced designer. Do any atheists have a plausible explanation for how this advanced programming language, along with reader/interpreter came to be?
SIMPLE SINGLE CELL :
How did the simple cells come to be created?
POND SCUM : Pericles claimed that the answer to the question abive was that the single cells came from pond scum, which is in and itself a form of life - how did it come to be?
AUSTRALIAN BRUSH TURKEY : An interesting animal. It does not sit the eggs to incubate them, but rather creates a compost pile to provide the heat, which must be maintained at aorund 33 degress. The eggs are laid down at the precise depth and in a circle where that exact heat will be maintained. The turkey does not lay the eggs right away, but waits until the compost pile has reached the necessary temperature. The is requires that the brush turkey understand heat and decomposition, as well as how the heat radiates and be able to calculate the precise depth and pattern at which the necessary heat occurs. And it has to understand that this is all required to hatch chicks. To have gained this knowledge by chance would be impossible because there are too many variables to all the brush turkey to figure out the linkage between heat and hatching eggs and then precisely what heat is required and how to obtain it. The existence of God and his creation of this animal explains this.
MACAWS : Macaws are birds that feed on poisonous seeds, and in order to live, after they eat, they must eat a certain type of mud which neutralizes the poison.
How did this evolve? What is the natural explanation for this? The existence of God explains it.
----------------------------------------
You did indeed, in post #23. You wrote:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
That was a question. I trust that you understand the difference between a question, and a requirement.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Do you always speak condescendingly to people?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Spot on Alty!! You clearly stated that you BELIEVE that, and what you BELIEVE should always be respected !Quote:
Originally Posted by Altenweg
But not with Tj3, who intolerantly refuses to accept that other people have other ideas about "God", and that these other ideas have identical validity to the idea Tommy has himself.
That is : until someone can provide OSE for any specific idea claim on "God".
But that OSE will never be forthcoming, as it does not exist.
Next to that : belief and OSE are impossible to match anyway.
Tommy BELIEVES in his Christian version of "God", no problem.
You BELIEVE in your Deist version of "God". No problem neither.
But Tommy claims that what he BELIEVES is "true", "true" as in factual.
But when Tommy is asked to support his BELIEF, and is asked to why his views are more valid than your version or any other version, Tommy can only come up with some pseudo OSE by using arguments based on evolution, and than suggest that it is OSE for his views on "God".
Of course that is not correct. He knows it, you know it, I know it, almost everyone here knows it.
The only proof for the existence of "God" is direct OSE for the existence of "God"
The only proof for the Christian version of "God" is direct OSE for the Christian version of "God".
NOTHING ELSE WILL DO !!!
Only Tommy refuses to accept that. Tommy's idea of "true" and "truth" seems to be quite different to the ideas of those who live with ratio, logic, knowledge, understanding, and tolerance.
For any intelligent person the words "true" or "truth" refer to the property of being in accordance with the actual state of affairs.
And as the word "actual" refers to reality, it should refer to OSE 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.
You accept your views as BELIEF. You respect other (and others) views.
Tommy however insists intolerantly that his views are factual, refuses to accept that other ideas are of equal validity, and seems to be ashamed for what he only can BELIEVE but can not can provide OSE for.
What a nice display of the difference between the linguistic meaning and the religious unsupported interpretation of the words "true" or "truth"!!
:rolleyes:;):p:);):rolleyes:
.
.
Cred,
You refuse to even consider you may be WRONG. Let me ask you this... what IF you are wrong. What if there is a God... what happens then?
Then we are wrong. What if the true god is Zeus then we are all wrong. Man has thought of so many religions in the time we have been here how can you dismiss any of them without dismissing all of them.
So I don't live my life in fear of ifs there are just to many.
Besides if you read the history of heaven and hell in Christianity you find that it is was only added when Christianity started to loose favor when other religions at the time offered that service. So I find it really hard to fear something that got added on as value added service to Christianity when it losing favor. That's just me though.
Milk is coming out my nose. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
This is not a logical argument. By what means did "god" accomplish any of these things? If you cannot answer in detail how god did these things, then it is you who have no argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Science DOES have explanations for all the things you list. But the important point is that religion cannot account for how god works. That's the whole point of faith. You, TJ3, can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't pretend to dabble at logic and scientific argument and then duck out with a faith based argument at the critical juncture. With science, you are either in the game or you are out.
Demanding a mechanistic argument from science (which is correct to do) but not demanding a mechanistic argument from the alternate hypothesis (god) is not a scientific argument. It is the opposite of science, logic, and rigor. So while I don't question your faith, you are "out" when it comes to making a rational argument.
What? That is simply not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
What part are you questioning?
I think she means the bit about heaven and hell being added on later. I'm curious about that too. Can you elaborate?
That heaven and hell are an add on... I have to fix dinner for my kiddies but I will be happy to show you scripture to prove otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
If you do have scripture you would be getting it from the New Testament. Which was written several hundred years after Christianity was formed. So that wouldn't be evidence for Christianity had it in the beginning.
I'll look it up and get back with you on a source.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:33 AM. |