I think without a source of truth (God for example), truth is defined by the golden rule.
For example, if there are two people on earth, and there is no God determining right from wrong, would it be wrong for person 1 to kill person 2 for person 2's land? Whose to say it is wrong? If there was a creator of those two individuals, that creator could say that it is wrong and it would be absolute truth.
Without a creator, then humans are left to figure truth out on their own. A lot of that is through the golden rule. THey don't want to be killed, so they aren't going to kill someone else. They would want to be helped out if they are homeless, so they provide help for the homeless. This kind of truth changes though as public opinion changes, so I don't know if there is real truth in the world without it coming from a Creator. Otherwise, the will of the people will determine truth as it works for them at the time instead of it being a constant truth.
Slavery was once a truth in the USA. Thankful it is not anymore, but at one point in time public opinion supported slavery.
I think you seem to be referring more to morals/values than 'truth' here. And you are making a mega huge assumption that there is one entity to control these morals/values - an assumption that will have to be shown to be a universal, absolute truth before it can be considered.
Slavery, as a general term, can be seen as a relative truth for the USA- not all people in the country had slaves (Cosmo's post ref sheep on a hill would be similar). Should one 'owner' say "I currently have a slave", then that could be seen as an absolute truth as there is no disputing the fact - this person does possess a slave at the time of speaking. Public opinion supporting is again to do with morals and values, not the expression of truth.
Not so sure that degree is worthless but then that is your truth not mine I think, especially in the social sciences, that debating the relative truth or worth or popularity is definitely worthwhile. As an historian, I would argue that truth can change over time even though most would argue that history is set in stone and facts are absolute truths. The debating of these topics is certainly worthwhile - I think that is why I have been so interested in this thread. I like that there are no hard and fast truths only a quest FOR the truth - whatever that may be
Your students are fortunate to have you as their teacher.
This has been - still is - a damn nice thread.
Thanks Hedonist! Although, they look at me like I'm a nut when I get all excited about some historical topic we're talking about but then I look at them like their crazy when they don't get excited! And yes, this has been a nice thread - would love for it to keep going!
Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
As an historian, I would argue that truth can change over time even though most would argue that history is set in stone and facts are absolute truths.
As is science - new discoveries may override 'older' theories (though I don't think completely debunk them).
But I would say that as long as these truths have been qualified (which they are in science), I would consider them absolute. But is that not 'true' for all truths then? Also, if we have to qualify them, are they then not just all 'relative' as conditions have to be met?
Riotgrl - these metaphysical debates are always interesting and worthwhile. Seems to bring up more questions than answers!
The sky is blue - absolute truth. Not really - the sky is perceived blue by a group of people at a given time.
Words are absolute? Not really as the meaning of a word can be multiple and the expression of a string of words can have different meanings depending on how they are perceived. Also language is organic. Words may be perceived as absolute truth by the one speaking them but they are still relative.
But... as I said before: "Not being omniscient, can we contemplate universal truth(s) (unalterable, absolute, permanent truth for all, all the time, everywhere - no exception). That, I'm not so sure.
I am very much enjoying a debate with no true answer. I kind of like going round in circles because you still never know where you will end up! This community definitely gives me food for thought
Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
Why is my knowing God any concern of yours?
Something you feel compelled to dispel
How 'bout you keep pursuing and realize there are people who know God
and you may well be one one day if you so choose.
It is all about choice as you pursue THE truth.
...
Don't place so much worth on yourself. I really don't care what you believe and don't try to dispell your 'beliefs'. Yeah, I call bullshit on it (just like I call bullshit on Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps whom also claim to 'know' God) because I have heard your very same story from other people, so to me, it is just a re-hashed religious views that is modified to fit the individual. But, if it works for you... it works for you and why should you care what I or anyone else have to say about it?
... My belief is that you, just like every other person alive and all whom have ever walked the planet Earth, do not 'know', with absolute uncertainty, of God.
If you need me to provide an explanation for my belief... here it is:
IF... you did indeed, 'Know' God... you would be... well, enlightened. At the very least, more enlightened that you portray yourself. But, since you provide us everyday with written messages, based upon your words that describes the world and the people in it as you see it... that this is certainly not the case. If you were to truely know God... you would see the worlds and people in it, through His eyes. What you type tells me... nope. Now... from the Moses story... well, Moses make a great case on his knowledge of God. Moses was greatly enlightened by his contact with God. Somehow... from your very words... you are not Moses-like.
Now, that is my belief and I admit... I may be wrong. You may be describing exactly how God sees the world and all of us in it and everyone who has ever been in it... but, I am guessing, 'Not so much'.
Sorry... but, as I have stated, the truth isn't all about what you would like to hear and often times, the things you don't want to hear. That is why so many people never see the lies they believe in.
Your first highlighted statement can be said to you as well.
Why so important to you to insult others beliefs by calling them bullshit?
I mean really why so hostile and negative? Then in the next breath say you accept others beliefs
when your actions and words show you do not.
Your second highlighted statement is your belief
How can one make a statement so absolute? So absolute about others?
How can you know no one else can know God?
Is it really you who is unable to imagine let alone experienceanything here in this world
that could possible allow you to know God?
The next statements again show your mindset... God = religion.
Are you are unable to separate? which may be why in your case
you are unable to know God.
Is it that you can not embrace religion as yours so you can not know God?
you've blocked any process.
Enlightenment comes from many sources ...
it sounds like you believe God would enlighten as is written in religion.
Do you have a preconceived idea of God?
Do you have a preconceived idea of what it would be like to be with God?
These are all your ideas of what one would experience
if they knew God. But of course this is just your perceptions of an event
you have not experienced and you rely on religion to fill in what you don't know.
Understandable.
Your final statement is very sad. A mindset that can not rejoice with others
because they believe and know God. There is a hint of aloneness, anger,
jealousy in it. I understand this from when I was an atheist. Thinking others lived a lie. The truth was I was living without.
You say you don't know but it sounds more like you will not.
You are listening to your head. It is not your head that has the final say,
it is your heart.
I am very much enjoying a debate with no true answer. I kind of like going round in circles because you still never know where you will end up! This community definitely gives me food for thought
Yep.. may not find a universal answer but one may end up with a truth they were seeking!
How 'bout you keep pursuing and realize there are people who know God
and you may well be one one day if you so choose.
It is all about choice as you pursue THE truth.
My problem is that everyone seems to have a different method of bringing God into their lives.
And if its a choice, i've made it, and the results are that I can't be convinced that there is a God simply because my brain won't let me define it. I believe in science and Mother Nature, and that's enough for me. I know what some might say, that I havent really opened up or fully chosen to let God in...
People are simply wired too differently for this to be the way of having the ability to know God -- making a choice to accept him...My personal opinion is that some people's brains simply wont allow it. So why cant God just chose them?
My problem is that everyone seems to have a different method of bringing God into their lives.
And if its a choice, i've made it, and the results are that I can't be convinced that there is a God simply because my brain won't let me define it. I believe in science and Mother Nature, and that's enough for me. I know what some might say, that I havent really opened up or fully chosen to let God in...
People are simply wired too differently for this to be the way of having the ability to know God -- making a choice to accept him...My personal opinion is that some people's brains simply wont allow it. So why cant God just chose them?
Very nicely-put, JP - especially the highlighted part...pretty much the road I'm travelling.
I don't really have anything to add, it's quite the thread though.
When one tries to preach a relative truth as an absolute - as Pandora is attempting - it ceases to be truth at all, in my opinion. What is it about relative truths that people can't just keep them to themselves? If one is convinced that they KNOW GOD, then either prove it, or admit that it is a personal truth that may be truth for them, but not everyone.
I mean, I believe in God for my own reasons, yet I would never attempt to make my truth anyone elses. It's way too personal to push on anyone else. Yet why can't people be happy with their truths and keep it to themselves? Is it something psychological?
What is it about relative truths that people can't just keep them to themselves? .....
...or admit that it is a personal truth that may be truth for them, but not everyone.
Relative truths are all part of conversation/discussion - all the time (as are absolute truths). How people deal with their relative truth/belief is different for all. Some see this as absolute/dead cert, others understand it as 'personal'. Whilst the 'learned' philosophers past and present distinguish between both quite adamantly, the question of universal truth is still wide open and, I believe will never get 'solved' when it comes to these theological 'truths'!
Something psychological? Don't know.. is it part of wanting to 'be right'? Wanting their truth to be 'it'? Anybody here savvy about this?
How 'bout you keep pursuing and realize there are people who know God
and you may well be one one day if you so choose.
It is all about choice as you pursue THE truth.
My problem is that everyone seems to have a different method of bringing God into their lives.
And if its a choice, i've made it, and the results are that I can't be convinced that there is a God simply because my brain won't let me define it. I believe in science and Mother Nature, and that's enough for me. I know what some might say, that I havent really opened up or fully chosen to let God in...
People are simply wired too differently for this to be the way of having the ability to know God -- making a choice to accept him...My personal opinion is that some people's brains simply wont allow it. So why cant God just chose them?
I feel the same way about believing in Jesus Christ. I am not convinced,
so I understand what you are saying.
I wish I could be convinced, I feel a connection but it is not whole in my being
as is knowing God. And I can not live a lie.
In your last sentence would you know if God did?
I made a conscious decision to allow myself to be open to possibilities.
It came years after being in a very dark place. Years after choosing to continue my life,
a really tough decision.
Now I feel that choice allowed God to choose me for the gifts I have received.
I would have been fine not knowing, I expected to be an atheist for life,
but that was not my path. Now I understand why it was not.
The fine pieces of my life's puzzle has fit together and without knowing God
one would be missing until I left this world.
Your path is your own, fitting your puzzle pieces together.
To me you seem at peace with what you believe Jonny, and what others believe.
I think anyone would consider this your answer to God.
I don't really have anything to add, it's quite the thread though.
When one tries to preach a relative truth as an absolute - as Pandora is attempting - it ceases to be truth at all, in my opinion. What is it about relative truths that people can't just keep them to themselves? If one is convinced that they KNOW GOD, then either prove it, or admit that it is a personal truth that may be truth for them, but not everyone.
I mean, I believe in God for my own reasons, yet I would never attempt to make my truth anyone elses. It's way too personal to push on anyone else. Yet why can't people be happy with their truths and keep it to themselves? Is it something psychological?
Why do you think I am trying to make others believe as I do? I speak only for myselfnot for everyone.
I answer only to the constant challenge from some that it is impossible to know God,
which is foolishness.
Why should we keep our truths and experiences to ourselves?
Do you not speak about your accident and preach what you learned from that experience?
Do you feel that is something psychological perhaps ... the need to have people know this?
I don't really have anything to add, it's quite the thread though.
When one tries to preach a relative truth as an absolute - as Pandora is attempting - it ceases to be truth at all, in my opinion. What is it about relative truths that people can't just keep them to themselves? If one is convinced that they KNOW GOD, then either prove it, or admit that it is a personal truth that may be truth for them, but not everyone.
I mean, I believe in God for my own reasons, yet I would never attempt to make my truth anyone elses. It's way too personal to push on anyone else. Yet why can't people be happy with their truths and keep it to themselves? Is it something psychological?
Why do you think I am trying to make others believe as I do? I speak only for myselfnot for everyone.
I answer only to the constant challenge from some that it is impossible to know God,
which is foolishness.
Why should we keep our truths and experiences to ourselves?
Do you not speak about your accident and preach what you learned from that experience?
Do you feel that is something psychological perhaps ... the need to have people know this?
If you speak for yourself, drop the bullshit with Cosmo. "Enlightened" behavior is not one slathered with hostility. You'd think that you'd know that.
I don't really have anything to add, it's quite the thread though.
When one tries to preach a relative truth as an absolute - as Pandora is attempting - it ceases to be truth at all, in my opinion. What is it about relative truths that people can't just keep them to themselves? If one is convinced that they KNOW GOD, then either prove it, or admit that it is a personal truth that may be truth for them, but not everyone.
I mean, I believe in God for my own reasons, yet I would never attempt to make my truth anyone elses. It's way too personal to push on anyone else. Yet why can't people be happy with their truths and keep it to themselves? Is it something psychological?
Why do you think I am trying to make others believe as I do? I speak only for myselfnot for everyone.
I answer only to the constant challenge from some that it is impossible to know God,
which is foolishness.
Why should we keep our truths and experiences to ourselves?
Do you not speak about your accident and preach what you learned from that experience?
Do you feel that is something psychological perhaps ... the need to have people know this?
If you speak for yourself, drop the bullshit with Cosmo. "Enlightened" behavior is not one slathered with hostility. You'd think that you'd know that.
you sound so hostile... are you why?
speaking of bullshit... it it not I calling another's belief's bullshit...
maybe you missed that Jeanwah? The op's hostility was addressed awhile back
due to rudeness and now you too :?
I see you do not want to answer my questions just be rude.
That is a sure fire way to lock a thread...
being rude.
Let's be kind to each other, respectful of beliefs, I think we can do that yes?
I don't really have anything to add, it's quite the thread though.
When one tries to preach a relative truth as an absolute - as Pandora is attempting - it ceases to be truth at all, in my opinion. What is it about relative truths that people can't just keep them to themselves? If one is convinced that they KNOW GOD, then either prove it, or admit that it is a personal truth that may be truth for them, but not everyone.
I mean, I believe in God for my own reasons, yet I would never attempt to make my truth anyone elses. It's way too personal to push on anyone else. Yet why can't people be happy with their truths and keep it to themselves? Is it something psychological?
...
That is one of the fundament properties of truth... it exists.
If you look at it one way... only absolute truth (i.e. 1 + 1 = 2 or death being a fact of all life). All relative truths should be relgated to belief. While it is true, that some beliefs can be truths, no truths are beliefs... truths are truths.
Example: Rev. Fred Phelps states (very loudly and very obnoxiously) that he knows God. With his knowledge of God, he claims to know that 'God Hates Fags'.
Truth or Belief?
The truth is... we don't know if God hates fags or not. But, I am taking Rev. Phelps at face value, not because I don't like the guy, rather I know he does not know God as he professes. Truth is not on his side, so I can call bullshit on his claims. Rev. Phelps posseses belief... not truth.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
This reminds me of the other thread about the homeless man and the boots.
You know we may try to judge all homeless people by the actions of one
but would that be good common sense? Of course not.
And once someone actually lives homelessness do they not have some vision to offer,
light to shed, of course they do...
from an understanding place.
People can try to dispel others beliefs by lumping them where they do not belong
but that doesn't change the truth, it just hides it.
I don't believe in truth. It is all perception and man-made conception. It doesn't really exist.
...
Great example. This says alot. A belief in truth... rather a disbelief in truth.
Like the great question, 'Does God Exist?'
Either YES or NO. Simple answer with a billion complications
...
The statement can also be made as the following: "I don't believe in God. It is all perception and man-made conception. It doesn't really exist."
True statement that is applied universally? Or Relative belief based upon the individual?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Example: Rev. Fred Phelps states (very loudly and very obnoxiously) that he knows God. With his knowledge of God, he claims to know that 'God Hates Fags'.
Truth or Belief?
The truth is... we don't know if God hates fags or not. But, I am taking Rev. Phelps at face value, not because I don't like the guy, rather I know he does not know God as he professes. Truth is not on his side, so I can call bullshit on his claims. Rev. Phelps posseses belief... not truth.
I hate to continue with this god thing but it does relate to absolute/relative truths. We have two examples of people who see as absolute (and not relative) truth that they know God. God is God - one 'entity'. But one who 'knows' this entity 'knows' that god hates fags. Should knowing god be an absolute truth, then the other person who claims the absolute truth ref knowing god should have the same truth regarding God's likes or dislikes since 'knowing god' is absolute.
I'm guessing the person here who claims 'knowing' god (not the reverend) would deny god hates fags. Then this would go to show that 'knowing' god would be a relative truth for this person and not absolute.
I hate to continue with this god thing but it does relate to absolute/relative truths. We have two examples of people who see as absolute (and not relative) truth that they know God. God is God - one 'entity'. But one who 'knows' this entity 'knows' that god hates fags. Should knowing god be an absolute truth, then the other person who claims the absolute truth ref knowing god should have the same truth regarding God's likes or dislikes since 'knowing god' is absolute.
I'm guessing the person here who claims 'knowing' god (not the reverend) would deny god hates fags. Then this would go to show that 'knowing' god would be a relative truth for this person and not absolute.
...
I talk to several people regarding this, including an Air Force Chaplain.
My answer to the question, 'Does God Exist?' is... 'I don't know'.
My reasoning is in my belief that God is such a tremenously complicated concept that it is beyond the scope of human comprehension, either on an intellectual level or an emotional level. That is why no one can explain God. That is why no one in the entire history of humanity has been able to explain Him. I suppose, the closest one was Moses... but, even then, there are so many variables in the Moses story that it makes it hard to sort out truth from artistic license.
So... in order to really know God... would make you a very special individual. I mean, like up there with Moses and Jesus. I have yet to meet such a person and odds tell me that it is probably unlikely. Which I am okay with because I enjoy the journey.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Example: Rev. Fred Phelps states (very loudly and very obnoxiously) that he knows God. With his knowledge of God, he claims to know that 'God Hates Fags'.
Truth or Belief?
The truth is... we don't know if God hates fags or not. But, I am taking Rev. Phelps at face value, not because I don't like the guy, rather I know he does not know God as he professes. Truth is not on his side, so I can call bullshit on his claims. Rev. Phelps posseses belief... not truth.
I hate to continue with this god thing but it does relate to absolute/relative truths. We have two examples of people who see as absolute (and not relative) truth that they know God. God is God - one 'entity'. But one who 'knows' this entity 'knows' that god hates fags. Should knowing god be an absolute truth, then the other person who claims the absolute truth ref knowing god should have the same truth regarding God's likes or dislikes since 'knowing god' is absolute.
I'm guessing the person here who claims 'knowing' god (not the reverend) would deny god hates fags. Then this would go to show that 'knowing' god would be a relative truth for this person and not absolute.
I know God that's all I know... gee you guys are funny ... I see...
how many atheists does it take to...
I can't deny God hates gays ... how could I do that? :? How could any of us?
My gut tells me the Reverend preaches the Bible that might be interpreted by him
to not be in favor of gay relationships.
I don't think you should be using the term fag that is disrespectful.
I don't really have anything to add, it's quite the thread though.
When one tries to preach a relative truth as an absolute - as Pandora is attempting - it ceases to be truth at all, in my opinion. What is it about relative truths that people can't just keep them to themselves? If one is convinced that they KNOW GOD, then either prove it, or admit that it is a personal truth that may be truth for them, but not everyone.
I mean, I believe in God for my own reasons, yet I would never attempt to make my truth anyone elses. It's way too personal to push on anyone else. Yet why can't people be happy with their truths and keep it to themselves? Is it something psychological?
...
That is one of the fundament properties of truth... it exists.
If you look at it one way... only absolute truth (i.e. 1 + 1 = 2 or death being a fact of all life). All relative truths should be relgated to belief. While it is true, that some beliefs can be truths, no truths are beliefs... truths are truths.
Example: Rev. Fred Phelps states (very loudly and very obnoxiously) that he knows God. With his knowledge of God, he claims to know that 'God Hates Fags'.
Truth or Belief?
The truth is... we don't know if God hates fags or not. But, I am taking Rev. Phelps at face value, not because I don't like the guy, rather I know he does not know God as he professes. Truth is not on his side, so I can call bullshit on his claims. Rev. Phelps posseses belief... not truth.
But is death a fact? I say this because maybe we should define death. If I believed in Buddhism or Hinduism and thus in reincarntion it could be argued that I am not truly dead only waiting a bit before reentering this physical realm. Unlike Christianity or Islam where I move into a different realm - heaven for instance.
Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I hate to continue with this god thing but it does relate to absolute/relative truths. We have two examples of people who see as absolute (and not relative) truth that they know God. God is God - one 'entity'. But one who 'knows' this entity 'knows' that god hates fags. Should knowing god be an absolute truth, then the other person who claims the absolute truth ref knowing god should have the same truth regarding God's likes or dislikes since 'knowing god' is absolute.
I'm guessing the person here who claims 'knowing' god (not the reverend) would deny god hates fags. Then this would go to show that 'knowing' god would be a relative truth for this person and not absolute.
...
I talk to several people regarding this, including an Air Force Chaplain.
My answer to the question, 'Does God Exist?' is... 'I don't know'.
My reasoning is in my belief that God is such a tremenously complicated concept that it is beyond the scope of human comprehension, either on an intellectual level or an emotional level. That is why no one can explain God. That is why no one in the entire history of humanity has been able to explain Him. I suppose, the closest one was Moses... but, even then, there are so many variables in the Moses story that it makes it hard to sort out truth from artistic license.
So... in order to really know God... would make you a very special individual. I mean, like up there with Moses and Jesus. I have yet to meet such a person and odds tell me that it is probably unlikely. Which I am okay with because I enjoy the journey.
You will never understand knowing God until you let go of religion = God
something it appears you are incapable of.
...
That is one of the fundament properties of truth... it exists.
If you look at it one way... only absolute truth (i.e. 1 + 1 = 2 or death being a fact of all life). All relative truths should be relgated to belief. While it is true, that some beliefs can be truths, no truths are beliefs... truths are truths.
Example: Rev. Fred Phelps states (very loudly and very obnoxiously) that he knows God. With his knowledge of God, he claims to know that 'God Hates Fags'.
Truth or Belief?
The truth is... we don't know if God hates fags or not. But, I am taking Rev. Phelps at face value, not because I don't like the guy, rather I know he does not know God as he professes. Truth is not on his side, so I can call bullshit on his claims. Rev. Phelps posseses belief... not truth.
But is death a fact? I say this because maybe we should define death. If I believed in Buddhism or Hinduism and thus in reincarntion it could be argued that I am not truly dead only waiting a bit before reentering this physical realm. Unlike Christianity or Islam where I move into a different realm - heaven for instance.
...
Physical death that occurs on this planet in relation to all living things is a fact.
As for afterlife, reincarnation, etc... we do not know the true answers.
My belief is Man created these belief systems to add more meaning to his existance and seperate himself from all other life on this planet. To make his life more meaningful than just a body that possesses life... like a cat.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
I talk to several people regarding this, including an Air Force Chaplain.
My answer to the question, 'Does God Exist?' is... 'I don't know'.
My reasoning is in my belief that God is such a tremenously complicated concept that it is beyond the scope of human comprehension, either on an intellectual level or an emotional level. That is why no one can explain God. That is why no one in the entire history of humanity has been able to explain Him. I suppose, the closest one was Moses... but, even then, there are so many variables in the Moses story that it makes it hard to sort out truth from artistic license.
So... in order to really know God... would make you a very special individual. I mean, like up there with Moses and Jesus. I have yet to meet such a person and odds tell me that it is probably unlikely. Which I am okay with because I enjoy the journey.
You will never understand knowing God until you let go of religion = God
something it appears you are incapable of.
...
Proof that you only believe to know God and do not actually (truthfully) know God...
God would tell you to not be so passive/agressively snarky.
...
Note: That is my 'belief'.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
But is death a fact? I say this because maybe we should define death. If I believed in Buddhism or Hinduism and thus in reincarntion it could be argued that I am not truly dead only waiting a bit before reentering this physical realm. Unlike Christianity or Islam where I move into a different realm - heaven for instance.
...
Physical death that occurs on this planet in relation to all living things is a fact.
As for afterlife, reincarnation, etc... we do not know the true answers.
My belief is Man created these belief systems to add more meaning to his existance and seperate himself from all other life on this planet. To make his life more meaningful than just a body that possesses life... like a cat.
Death, ie cessation of all functions, end of bodily life is probably what I would call an absolute, universal truth. We all cease to live eventually, a physical function no two ways about it.
The response to death, ie reincarnation, heaven or hell or plain old 'dust to dust, ashes to ashes' bit is all relative. Looking at philosophies/religions which believe in reincarnation and or an afterlife in another realm, it is the 'soul' which travels - not the body. Another set of beliefs. Thus we can still say that physical death is absolute.
Comments
I think you seem to be referring more to morals/values than 'truth' here. And you are making a mega huge assumption that there is one entity to control these morals/values - an assumption that will have to be shown to be a universal, absolute truth before it can be considered.
Slavery, as a general term, can be seen as a relative truth for the USA- not all people in the country had slaves (Cosmo's post ref sheep on a hill would be similar). Should one 'owner' say "I currently have a slave", then that could be seen as an absolute truth as there is no disputing the fact - this person does possess a slave at the time of speaking. Public opinion supporting is again to do with morals and values, not the expression of truth.
Thanks Hedonist! Although, they look at me like I'm a nut when I get all excited about some historical topic we're talking about but then I look at them like their crazy when they don't get excited! And yes, this has been a nice thread - would love for it to keep going!
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
I am very much enjoying a debate with no true answer. I kind of like going round in circles because you still never know where you will end up! This community definitely gives me food for thought
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
Why so important to you to insult others beliefs by calling them bullshit?
I mean really why so hostile and negative? Then in the next breath say you accept others beliefs
when your actions and words show you do not.
Your second highlighted statement is your belief
How can one make a statement so absolute? So absolute about others?
How can you know no one else can know God?
Is it really you who is unable to imagine let alone experience anything here in this world
that could possible allow you to know God?
The next statements again show your mindset... God = religion.
Are you are unable to separate? which may be why in your case
you are unable to know God.
Is it that you can not embrace religion as yours so you can not know God?
you've blocked any process.
Enlightenment comes from many sources ...
it sounds like you believe God would enlighten as is written in religion.
Do you have a preconceived idea of God?
Do you have a preconceived idea of what it would be like to be with God?
These are all your ideas of what one would experience
if they knew God. But of course this is just your perceptions of an event
you have not experienced and you rely on religion to fill in what you don't know.
Understandable.
Your final statement is very sad. A mindset that can not rejoice with others
because they believe and know God. There is a hint of aloneness, anger,
jealousy in it. I understand this from when I was an atheist. Thinking others lived a lie.
The truth was I was living without.
You say you don't know but it sounds more like you will not.
You are listening to your head. It is not your head that has the final say,
it is your heart.
I'll be sure to point them out
Yep.. may not find a universal answer but one may end up with a truth they were seeking!
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
My problem is that everyone seems to have a different method of bringing God into their lives.
And if its a choice, i've made it, and the results are that I can't be convinced that there is a God simply because my brain won't let me define it. I believe in science and Mother Nature, and that's enough for me. I know what some might say, that I havent really opened up or fully chosen to let God in...
People are simply wired too differently for this to be the way of having the ability to know God -- making a choice to accept him...My personal opinion is that some people's brains simply wont allow it. So why cant God just chose them?
When one tries to preach a relative truth as an absolute - as Pandora is attempting - it ceases to be truth at all, in my opinion. What is it about relative truths that people can't just keep them to themselves? If one is convinced that they KNOW GOD, then either prove it, or admit that it is a personal truth that may be truth for them, but not everyone.
I mean, I believe in God for my own reasons, yet I would never attempt to make my truth anyone elses. It's way too personal to push on anyone else. Yet why can't people be happy with their truths and keep it to themselves? Is it something psychological?
Relative truths are all part of conversation/discussion - all the time (as are absolute truths). How people deal with their relative truth/belief is different for all. Some see this as absolute/dead cert, others understand it as 'personal'. Whilst the 'learned' philosophers past and present distinguish between both quite adamantly, the question of universal truth is still wide open and, I believe will never get 'solved' when it comes to these theological 'truths'!
Something psychological? Don't know.. is it part of wanting to 'be right'? Wanting their truth to be 'it'? Anybody here savvy about this?
I feel the same way about believing in Jesus Christ. I am not convinced,
so I understand what you are saying.
I wish I could be convinced, I feel a connection but it is not whole in my being
as is knowing God. And I can not live a lie.
In your last sentence would you know if God did?
I made a conscious decision to allow myself to be open to possibilities.
It came years after being in a very dark place. Years after choosing to continue my life,
a really tough decision.
Now I feel that choice allowed God to choose me for the gifts I have received.
I would have been fine not knowing, I expected to be an atheist for life,
but that was not my path. Now I understand why it was not.
The fine pieces of my life's puzzle has fit together and without knowing God
one would be missing until I left this world.
Your path is your own, fitting your puzzle pieces together.
To me you seem at peace with what you believe Jonny, and what others believe.
I think anyone would consider this your answer to God.
I speak only for myself not for everyone.
I answer only to the constant challenge from some that it is impossible to know God,
which is foolishness.
Why should we keep our truths and experiences to ourselves?
Do you not speak about your accident and preach what you learned from that experience?
Do you feel that is something psychological perhaps ... the need to have people know this?
If you speak for yourself, drop the bullshit with Cosmo. "Enlightened" behavior is not one slathered with hostility. You'd think that you'd know that.
speaking of bullshit... it it not I calling another's belief's bullshit...
maybe you missed that Jeanwah? The op's hostility was addressed awhile back
due to rudeness and now you too :?
I see you do not want to answer my questions just be rude.
That is a sure fire way to lock a thread...
being rude.
Let's be kind to each other, respectful of beliefs, I think we can do that yes?
That is one of the fundament properties of truth... it exists.
If you look at it one way... only absolute truth (i.e. 1 + 1 = 2 or death being a fact of all life). All relative truths should be relgated to belief. While it is true, that some beliefs can be truths, no truths are beliefs... truths are truths.
Example: Rev. Fred Phelps states (very loudly and very obnoxiously) that he knows God. With his knowledge of God, he claims to know that 'God Hates Fags'.
Truth or Belief?
The truth is... we don't know if God hates fags or not. But, I am taking Rev. Phelps at face value, not because I don't like the guy, rather I know he does not know God as he professes. Truth is not on his side, so I can call bullshit on his claims. Rev. Phelps posseses belief... not truth.
Hail, Hail!!!
You know we may try to judge all homeless people by the actions of one
but would that be good common sense? Of course not.
And once someone actually lives homelessness do they not have some vision to offer,
light to shed, of course they do...
from an understanding place.
People can try to dispel others beliefs by lumping them where they do not belong
but that doesn't change the truth, it just hides it.
Great example. This says alot. A belief in truth... rather a disbelief in truth.
Like the great question, 'Does God Exist?'
Either YES or NO. Simple answer with a billion complications
...
The statement can also be made as the following:
"I don't believe in God. It is all perception and man-made conception. It doesn't really exist."
True statement that is applied universally? Or Relative belief based upon the individual?
Hail, Hail!!!
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities...
Truth isn't.
I hate to continue with this god thing but it does relate to absolute/relative truths. We have two examples of people who see as absolute (and not relative) truth that they know God. God is God - one 'entity'. But one who 'knows' this entity 'knows' that god hates fags. Should knowing god be an absolute truth, then the other person who claims the absolute truth ref knowing god should have the same truth regarding God's likes or dislikes since 'knowing god' is absolute.
I'm guessing the person here who claims 'knowing' god (not the reverend) would deny god hates fags. Then this would go to show that 'knowing' god would be a relative truth for this person and not absolute.
I talk to several people regarding this, including an Air Force Chaplain.
My answer to the question, 'Does God Exist?' is... 'I don't know'.
My reasoning is in my belief that God is such a tremenously complicated concept that it is beyond the scope of human comprehension, either on an intellectual level or an emotional level. That is why no one can explain God. That is why no one in the entire history of humanity has been able to explain Him. I suppose, the closest one was Moses... but, even then, there are so many variables in the Moses story that it makes it hard to sort out truth from artistic license.
So... in order to really know God... would make you a very special individual. I mean, like up there with Moses and Jesus. I have yet to meet such a person and odds tell me that it is probably unlikely. Which I am okay with because I enjoy the journey.
Hail, Hail!!!
how many atheists does it take to...
I can't deny God hates gays ... how could I do that? :? How could any of us?
My gut tells me the Reverend preaches the Bible that might be interpreted by him
to not be in favor of gay relationships.
I don't think you should be using the term fag that is disrespectful.
But is death a fact? I say this because maybe we should define death. If I believed in Buddhism or Hinduism and thus in reincarntion it could be argued that I am not truly dead only waiting a bit before reentering this physical realm. Unlike Christianity or Islam where I move into a different realm - heaven for instance.
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
Ya, but it's in context
something it appears you are incapable of.
Physical death that occurs on this planet in relation to all living things is a fact.
As for afterlife, reincarnation, etc... we do not know the true answers.
My belief is Man created these belief systems to add more meaning to his existance and seperate himself from all other life on this planet. To make his life more meaningful than just a body that possesses life... like a cat.
Hail, Hail!!!
Proof that you only believe to know God and do not actually (truthfully) know God...
God would tell you to not be so passive/agressively snarky.
...
Note: That is my 'belief'.
Hail, Hail!!!
Death, ie cessation of all functions, end of bodily life is probably what I would call an absolute, universal truth. We all cease to live eventually, a physical function no two ways about it.
The response to death, ie reincarnation, heaven or hell or plain old 'dust to dust, ashes to ashes' bit is all relative. Looking at philosophies/religions which believe in reincarnation and or an afterlife in another realm, it is the 'soul' which travels - not the body. Another set of beliefs. Thus we can still say that physical death is absolute.