OT Yes, God does speak to me (and others)

[RABID]

No actually truth is not a relative term. It isn't truth unless it is beyond question actually true. My vernacular use of absolute truth is actually redundant, but I used it as a way of saying axiomatic - not open to question of any kind.

Sorry Kawdup. This is false.
There is no absolute truth in ethics.

Relativism is a whole new debate. Truth is based on perception.
Absolute truth is the opposite of faith.

 

[RABID]

LOL - this is an easy one. Who gives more, the person who only has a penny to their name, and freely gives it, or the person who has millions and gives his 10% tithe and no more?

This was simply an observation. Nothing to argue. The millionaire may tithe because he feels obligated, not because he is religious.

 

[Monster]

I really meant it - you are welcome.

I'd be interested in some New Testament examples if you can remember any of them. At least part of your belief might have a bit to do with interpretation too.

I may have said this before - the literal word of the Old Testament has quite a number of logical, moral, and possibly philosophical, shall we say "anomalies". You have to jump through quite a number of hoops to believe that some of those stories in the Old Testament are more than allegorical, but it isn't quite as difficult in the New Testament and especially in the Canonical Gospels.

John writes some things that are a bit out there, but Matthew seems pretty down to earth.

Did you know the books of the New Testament are organized in the order of their considered importance, not necessarily in chronological order? Notice what the first book is - Matthew. Notice what the last book is - Revelation. This is at least according to the Council of Trent which BTW didn't occur until the 1500's. There were at least 2 dozen previous ecumenical councils prior to this to discuss the Bible, the Christian dogma, Catholicism, and other heretical problems. The history of how the Bible we know today came to be is extremely interesting and worthy of study just by itself.

So, what am I saying? I think it is very hard to be Christian without believing that at least some part of the Bible was divinely inspired - meaning that the literal word, at least as we understand words, and specifically those words, are truly the Word of God. But it also explains why there are so many different interpreted versions by people claiming to know the Word of God.

It is amazing to follow just the simple etymology of some pretty powerful passages in the Bible from their start in Biblical Aramaic and ancient Hebrew, but a true study of the Bible would at least consider how this affects what we believe today. What if the Rosetta Stone was a lie?

It affects how Jesus, Mary, rising from the dead, ascending into heaven, and things like the body and blood of Christ are all interpreted. The one thing that it doesn't seem to affect though is the existence of God. Philosophers and Scholars for years tried to connect absolute truth to the existence of God, because then they could connect all the canons up as truth, and Christianity would be tied up in one neat little "truth" package. Well as we know, that most certainly has not happened - at least not yet. :*)

My statement about faith being required is not based in some religious teaching I received in high school, it is the actually the culmination of quite a bit of study.

So I don't fault you for your doubts, I just pray that at some point your faith will be stronger - then just think what a debater for the existence of Christ we would have.

I know all the above can be dismissed as just more preachy bologna - and that is OK, but at least maybe it can show that it isn't always the complete ignorant who might have a belief in the existence of God.

I agree with you..in part. But, you can't just throw out the OT. You can't just say that the NT renders the OT irrelevant. If you do that, then the entire creation story should be scrapped, too.

There's not much in the NT about atheists that I remember. There are a few verses that are hinting at non-believers. One is in matthew. I forget the exact verse, but something like "If you're not with me, you're against me". It's a bit vague, even if you read it in context, but I can see how some can use that against Atheists.

There have been multiple polls that have indicated that religious people trust us less than rapists. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...st-atheists-about-as-much-as-they-do-rapists/

 

[redandguilty]

Sorry Kawdup. This is false.
There is no absolute truth in ethics.

Relativism is a whole new debate. Truth is based on perception.
Absolute truth is the opposite of faith.

"in ethics" is a significant two little words to tack on there.

 

[redandguilty]

I'd like to say something about the truth being true in the absence on an observer, and the line about the tree falling in the forest being a line of bs, but Schr?dinger might take issue.

 

[RABID]

"in ethics" is a significant two little words to tack on there.

That was the context.
But it holds true philisophically as well.
Also scientically without specific and exact qualifiers.
ie: Fire is hot.

Absolute truth is not debatable.

 

[KAWDUP]

Sorry Kawdup. This is false.
There is no absolute truth in ethics.

Relativism is a whole new debate. Truth is based on perception.
Absolute truth is the opposite of faith.

Ethics? Not sure where I ever implied anything like that. I wasn't aware we were discussing ethics in relation to truth. Just truth, or absolute truth if you prefer. Your statement that there is no absolute truth in ethics is correct - that is relative all the way.

You had to know just calling my statement false would get a response. It is not false. So there.

Give me one truth that is based on perception. If you think you might have one, it was most definitely NOT absolute truth then.

Not sure how you can say that what I said specifically about truth is false. What is your definition of truth?

Absolute truth being the opposite of faith is a bit more interesting. Why couldn't I have faith in something that was absolutely true? Maybe I can't personally prove that it is absolutely true, so I compensate by allowing myself to have faith in its truth. To me its faith, but in reality "it" is actually true. I do not think they are mutually exclusive. I don't think I'm ready to give in on that last statement yet.

 

[redandguilty]

Absolute truth being the opposite of faith is a bit more interesting. Why couldn't I have faith in something that was absolutely true? Maybe I can't personally prove that it is absolutely true, so I compensate by allowing myself to have faith in its truth. To me its faith, but in reality "it" is actually true. I do not think they are mutually exclusive. I don't think I'm ready to give in on that last statement yet.

I get in trouble for talking about this. Challenging people to prove the Earth goes around the sun based on their observations rather than stuff someone read to them from books written by dead guys.

 

[KAWDUP]

I agree with you..in part. But, you can't just throw out the OT. You can't just say that the NT renders the OT irrelevant. If you do that, then the entire creation story should be scrapped, too.

There's not much in the NT about atheists that I remember. There are a few verses that are hinting at non-believers. One is in matthew. I forget the exact verse, but something like "If you're not with me, you're against me". It's a bit vague, even if you read it in context, but I can see how some can use that against Atheists.

There have been multiple polls that have indicated that religious people trust us less than rapists. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...st-atheists-about-as-much-as-they-do-rapists/

Won't belabor the point, but the OT is not completely thrown out. It is used for quite a number of things. It is relevant to explain a number of things about the covenant God had with Abraham, and why the Jews felt the laws they followed were so important. Also the connection made between Abraham and David seems to be pretty important. It is just that some of the stories could certainly be interpreted as allegorical and contain much more meaning that way. Certainly some of the numbers mentioned would strain the logical mind, but that doesn't dismiss what it does provide.

 

[KAWDUP]

That was the context.
But it holds true philisophically as well.
Also scientically without specific and exact qualifiers.
ie: Fire is hot.

Absolute truth is not debatable.

Right, exactly - so give me an absolute truth? Not sure you could find one, although I think therefore I am is pretty close.

How about 1 + 1 = 2 or even simpler 1 = 1. Is the concept of those axiomatic? Math 195, and 196 at the great U of M might have something to say about why we might believe they are. (this is a bit tongue in cheek, but talking about absolute truth is a nebulous subject at best).

 

[redandguilty]

Right, exactly - so give me an absolute truth? Not sure you could find one, although I think therefore I am is pretty close.

How about 1 + 1 = 2 or even simpler 1 = 1. Is the concept of those axiomatic? Math 195, and 196 at the great U of M might have something to say about why we might believe they are. (this is a bit tongue in cheek, but talking about absolute truth is a nebulous subject at best).

I don't get it, but I read Logicomix so I know it's a problem for Bertrand Russell.

...and that's why when people say things about how they believe things based on observation and logic rather than faith, I shrug it off.

Not to imply any support for an anti-intellectual view. I'm 100% pro-inquiry. People just seem to get into trouble when they go at it a certain way.

 

[RABID]

Ethics? Not sure where I ever implied anything like that. I wasn't aware we were discussing ethics in relation to truth. Just truth, or absolute truth if you prefer. Your statement that there is no absolute truth in ethics is correct - that is relative all the way.

You had to know just calling my statement false would get a response. It is not false. So there.

Give me one truth that is based on perception. If you think you might have one, it was most definitely NOT absolute truth then.

Not sure how you can say that what I said specifically about truth is false. What is your definition of truth?

Absolute truth being the opposite of faith is a bit more interesting. Why couldn't I have faith in something that was absolutely true? Maybe I can't personally prove that it is absolutely true, so I compensate by allowing myself to have faith in its truth. To me its faith, but in reality "it" is actually true. I do not think they are mutually exclusive. I don't think I'm ready to give in on that last statement yet.

LOL. Yeah. I was instigating a tad.

Truth based on perception is easy.
What is "good" in a religious perspective is an ethical or moral issue and therefore is not an absolute truth. The afterlife is a philosiphical issue and again is not absolute. Either can be debated, but anything based in faith is an impossible argument to prove.

Give me an absolute (redundant) truth.
(okay, you replied while I was typing this. Don't get cute with mathetical and physical laws. You know the context we are discussing! "RABID beat KAWDUP in pickems last year" is a truth, but not what we are talking about here!)

 

[byco42]

Give me an absolute (redundant) truth.

There is no absolute truth. Wait ...

 

[Monster]

Won't belabor the point, but the OT is not completely thrown out. It is used for quite a number of things. It is relevant to explain a number of things about the covenant God had with Abraham, and why the Jews felt the laws they followed were so important. Also the connection made between Abraham and David seems to be pretty important. It is just that some of the stories could certainly be interpreted as allegorical and contain much more meaning that way. Certainly some of the numbers mentioned would strain the logical mind, but that doesn't dismiss what it does provide.

If there are books in the OT that can be considered as allegory, then you're reading a book of fiction.

In fact, the OT reads exactly like what a man of that time period would want out of society. It doesn't read like something that the God I was taught about as a child would say. The NT is a bit more progressive, which is why I think so many Christians relate more with it. It's super inconvenient when you read in the OT that slavery and rape are okay, so read the NT. Much more sunshine and rainbows.

 

[RABID]

There is no absolute truth. Wait ...
__________________
"Those who stay will be champions."

+1

I stand corrected.

 

[KAWDUP]

I get in trouble for talking about this. Challenging people to prove the Earth goes around the sun based on their observations rather than stuff someone read to them from books written by dead guys.

Red - I most certainly didn't mean to ignore your comments. Your additions help explain my own deficiencies in trying to discuss any of this, and for this I thank you.

Well - certainly that is the kind of thing I was alluding to. How about this statement - "I have faith that you exist." Can I prove that? Is it an absolute truth? Hard to say as I can't currently sense you in the physical world, but if it is absolute, it doesn't change my faith right now that you exist. :*)

Another one may be, will the sun come up tomorrow? The likelihood of this is pretty darn high, but is it an absolute truth? Why are people so willing to believe this one? It is certainly much more logical and observable than God's existence, and probably provable by induction if nothing else, but if you have never observed how this phenomenon occurs, can we say that one then takes it on faith? A scientist would say no friggin' way, but what's the difference? Probably has to do with the perception that you can prove it to be true, but it is not all that clear philosophically.

Unfortunately it gets pretty esoteric pretty fast, so I probably should have left it alone at least 10 posts ago.

 

[redandguilty]

Red - I most certainly didn't mean to ignore your comments.

No worries. I don't need a response to every post.. Some comments are asides, not meant to go anywhere.

 

[KAWDUP]

LOL. Yeah. I was instigating a tad.

Truth based on perception is easy.
What is "good" in a religious perspective is an ethical or moral issue and therefore is not an absolute truth. The afterlife is a philosiphical issue and again is not absolute. Either can be debated, but anything based in faith is an impossible argument to prove.

Give me an absolute (redundant) truth.
(okay, you replied while I was typing this. Don't get cute with mathetical and physical laws. You know the context we are discussing! "RABID beat KAWDUP in pickems last year" is a truth, but not what we are talking about here!)

Ha - did you actually beat me or do you just think you beat me? I missed a couple weeks - how do you know I didn't pick my winners but just missed getting them in on time, and in reality I actually won the whole thing?

You bet ethical and moral issues are not absolute truth. The trouble with something based only on faith (notice the word only here), would be impossible to prove. True believers would say, their belief is most definitely not based only on faith, that there are observable phenomenon. That is what I thought the debate was in this thread all along. I could be wrong of course, and as michchamp will point out, quite often, but the real debate is whether the word only applies. :*)

 

[RABID]

Well - certainly that is the kind of thing I was alluding to. How about this statement - "I have faith that you exist." Can I prove that? Is it an absolute truth? Hard to say as I can't currently sense you in the physical world, but if it is absolute, it doesn't change my faith right now that you exist. :*)

Manti? Is that you?
Love, Lennay

(yeah... I win.) =P

 

[tinselwolverine]

"RABID beat KAWDUP in pickems last year" is a truth, but not what we are talking about here!)

KAWDUP < RABID < Tinsel