|
Paul
|
 |
« on: October 18, 2011, 08:24:47 AM » |
|
Interesting opinion that I found online which contemplates the difficulty of dialog along with definitions that would allow a dialog to begin.
There is a difference between truth and fact, and fundamentalism and fanaticism stems from a confusion between the two. Evolution is a theory that is seen as a fact. The story of the Fall is true. Interestingly, the Fall is treated very differently by Muslims, Jews, and Christians, who each have their own truth about the Fall. Religious truths can differ from poetical truths, but both truths resonate in the person who contemplates the truth in question. The legends of Hamlet, Luke Skywalker, and Humphrey Chimpden Earwicker are true, even though none of them are factual (although the existence of Amleth of Denmark was most likely a fact, if Saxo Grammaticus is to be believed). Forcing the Fall to be factual is crazy, and makes for craziness. When believers try to force fact to succumb to truth, or force truth to succumb to fact, they can leave a trail of blood in their wake.
The sign of a civilized person is to allow others to have different truths than themselves, and to respect the truths of others, even when they differ from their own, especially when that respect is reciprocated.
Ignorance is ignorance of fact. A Pashtun soldier who does not know how to count to ten is ignorant. Superstition is ignorance of truth. People who think their Creator created their daughters with flawed genitalia that require clitorectomies or worse in order to be presentable are superstitious. Fanaticism is confusing the two and insisting that others do as well. David Barton is a fanatic, as was Lenin. Notice that the fundamentalist and the militant Atheist both confuse truth with fact, the fundamentalist by insisting that truth overwhelm fact, and the militant Atheist by insisting that fact overwhelm truth. Neither, usually, have solid epistemological grasp of truth or fact.
So, with this in mind, can an acceptance of other opinions ever be taken seriously to go forward in discussions?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Anxiety
|
|
« Reply #1 on: October 20, 2011, 03:11:04 AM » |
|
I'm confused by how the word truth is being used here. Can you explain?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 28, 2011, 11:06:53 PM by Anxiety »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Bruce Blagg
The Silverback
Administrator
Full Member
 Offline
Posts: 334
Prrrrr
|
|
« Reply #2 on: October 20, 2011, 01:54:44 PM » |
|
I agree with Anxiety. I'm not sure how Truth is being defined at all. I also find his definitions to be his and quite convenient for his argument.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Paul
|
|
« Reply #3 on: October 21, 2011, 08:38:32 PM » |
|
I believe that is the main issue here - what is truth? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TruthYou will note at the link that there are many official definitions of truth. Each is correct from a certain standpoint, yet they don't all agree on how to get there. Yet, great arguments and debates are fought over the "truth". Which begs the question, is it acceptable to have a different thought of truth and still be accepted that it is correct? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Anxiety
|
|
« Reply #4 on: October 22, 2011, 01:00:30 AM » |
|
Why don't you define what sort of "truth" you are using, so as not to equivocate on the meaning?
Just because language allows for different meanings of truth doesn't mean there exist different types of truth.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Paul
|
|
« Reply #5 on: October 22, 2011, 06:48:34 PM » |
|
Truth has a variety of meanings, such as the state of being in accord with fact or reality.[1] It can also mean having fidelity to an original or to a standard or ideal.
I would choose to use the definition to be one of an ideal/standard - the ideal/standard of acceptance.
Acceptance is a person's agreement to experience a situation, to follow a process or condition (often a negative or uncomfortable situation) without attempting to change it, protest, or exit. (wikipedia)
This definition brings about a middle ground that allows for dialogue. The caveat is that one must be willing to place their personal ideology on the back burner fully with a disconnect to experience someone's "truth" without question. Once the experience of that point of view is processed without prejudice, can one appreciate where that truth leads or directs that person's interaction with others.
"Walk a mile in the other person's shoe" becomes an applicable truth. Full immersion in a subject brings about a less confrontational role in the discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Paul
|
|
« Reply #6 on: October 22, 2011, 06:56:23 PM » |
|
If each side takes on the defense of the other's position, then in a clear understanding of the experience a meaningful dialogue can engage. Trying to use the typical "proof of substance or objectiveness" does not move either side to "truth" but rather to a non-bendable concept of ego. Which the end purpose is not one of understanding and cooperation, but rather coercion and arrogance. So look at the orinal question in the thread and let's dialogue. Three egos battling for supremacy!!! LOL    |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Paul
|
|
« Reply #7 on: October 23, 2011, 08:27:37 AM » |
|
Example: A mother dies from a slow painful disease and leaves behind 4 daughters. They all grieve for the loss that has occurred in their lives.
1. An agnostic, she knows that her mother is no longer in pain, yet is not sure of any afterlife. Still it hurts her emotionally.
2. A New Age/ mystic believer, she goes through her theology and chants/prays to help guide her mother's soul to the next level/heaven. Still she is in emotional pain.
3. A Born Again Christian, whose theology places her mother in the hands of Jesus. She is not sure that her mother was a "saved" person, and is distraught about the consequences, even though her mom is not in pain. Still it hurts her emotionally.
4. An atheist, who recognizes there is no afterlife, contemplates the good and the bad of her mother's life and what legacy the mom left if any. Did the mom's life have any value to the good of mankind is her big question. Still it hurts her emotionally.
What is the truth? -1. Mom is certifiable dead in the physical form.
2. All are in pain. Each will have to deal with the emotional baggage brought on by their beliefs.
To me - they are all true.
I would present the opportunity to you to walk a mile in each one of their shoes, ACCEPT that each philosophy is true and then tell me how do deal with their pain from their philosophy of life. Not from your own personal philosophy but theirs.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Anxiety
|
|
« Reply #8 on: October 23, 2011, 11:35:53 AM » |
|
Why must you equate belief with truth?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Paul
|
|
« Reply #9 on: October 23, 2011, 02:25:22 PM » |
|
Because for anything to be true - one must "believe" that their perception of the information relied on is believable reality.
ex.
factual truth - one must believe that the facts or objective tests are indeed reality.
spiritual - one believes that the metaphysical phenomena is real
theological - one believes that the information provided is correct creating a reality for them.
A person of a low intelligence and probably illiterate cannot comprehend that pictures can be sent around the world through the air instantaneously. That fact of "media" is impossible and a fairy tale. There is no perception to them. It is magic, demons, godlike, but never factual, as they cannot perceive the technology.
A person of high intelligence may not be able to perceive the creation of the universe in any other terms then scientific. Yet, they cannot prove what caused it to happen. Creation then is a theory that we exist, yet has no start point or logical provable particle, mass, collapse, energy field that would account for it. Because if there was, what was it made of, how did it get there and we become involved in a vicious cycle of the infamous "chicken or the egg". So, it begs the answer do we really exist? For which it is a perception game.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee Encinosa
|
|
« Reply #10 on: October 26, 2011, 09:58:22 AM » |
|
What a person believes has no bearing on absolute truth. To stay on topic, the fall must be true if your theology is correct. The Bible plainly teaches the fall of mankind. If there where never a fall or transgression then there was never a need for atonement.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I will rise,when He calls my name,no more sorrow,no more pain
|
|
|
|
Paul
|
|
« Reply #11 on: October 26, 2011, 01:43:52 PM » |
|
That is true for those of the Christian faith. Yet the originators of the same story have a slightly different viewpoint. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/758-adam The Jewish view concerning Adam's sin is best expressed by Ammi (Shab. 55a, based upon Ezek. xviii. 20): "No man dies without a sin of his own. Accordingly, all the pious, being permitted to behold the Shekinah (glory of God) before their death, reproach Adam (as they pass him by at the gate) for having brought death upon them; to which he replies: 'I died with but one sin, but you have committed many: on account of these you have died; not on my account'" (Tan., Ḥuḳḳat, 16).THe Koran teaches: http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/1196/ Islam rejects the Christian concept of original sin and the notion that all humans are born sinners due to the actions of Adam. God says in the Quran:“And no bearer of burdens shall bear another’s burden.” (Quran 35:18) Every human being is responsible for his or her actions and is born pure and free from sin. Adam and Eve committed a mistake, they repented sincerely and God in His infinite wisdom forgave them. God tested Adam so that he could learn and gain experience. In this way God prepared Adam for his role on earth as a caretaker and a Prophet of God. From this experience, Adam learned the great lesson that Satan is cunning, ungrateful and the avowed enemy of mankind. Adam, Eve and their descendants learned that Satan caused their expulsion from heaven. Obedience to God and enmity towards Satan is the only path back to Heaven.Three different "truths". Each is valid for that religion, all share a central theme, that Adam screwed up a good thing, each has a different consequence going forward. To go forward in a dialog with the other two, is it beneficial to emphatically state that they are wrong and your particular truth is right? Or to recognize a central theme as a starting point to open dialogue and find an atmosphere of cooperation for the benefit of all. Absolute truth = a perspective to each individual only. Why would this definition suddenly bother you? Is it ego, satan influence on man, man's rebelliousness nature, lack of humility, or stubbornness that there may be other ideas not the same but workable, maybe an affront to your own sense of "absolute truth". What bothers us is a mirror of what we don't like in ourselves being reflected back to us for clarity. Just asking for contemplative use. If three different religions all based on the same words and thoughts cannot find an "absolute truth" that would be the same for each of them, then how do we know what it is? They all use the "word of God" as their reference. Two of them use the exact wording. Which is right? The originators, or the interpreters, which also then brings in the other religion as it is an interpretation of the original ? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee Encinosa
|
|
« Reply #12 on: October 27, 2011, 10:40:44 AM » |
|
Three different "truths". Each is valid for that religion, all share a central theme, that Adam screwed up a good thing, each has a different consequence going forward. I guess I'm not understanding your definition of truth? Only one can actually be true. There are only two religions in the world. There is the religion of human achievement and the religion of divine grace. Only one can be true! To go forward in a dialog with the other two, is it beneficial to emphatically state that they are wrong and your particular truth is right? Or to recognize a central theme as a starting point to open dialogue and find an atmosphere of cooperation for the benefit of all. It is beneficial to teach the truth. This is not my particular truth this is God's truth which is absolute. Timothy commanded certain people in Ephesus not to teach false doctrine any longer. He commanded them he didn't cooperate with them. We are commanded as Christians to preach the gospel and correct false doctrines not to be politcally correct as to not offend any one. Absolute truth = a perspective to each individual only.
Why would this definition suddenly bother you? Your definition alarms me! The definition you have given is actually relativism not universal truth. Is it ego, satan's influence on man, man's rebelliousness nature, lack of humility, or stubbornness that there may be other ideas not the same but workable, maybe an affront to your own sense of "absolute truth". What bothers us is a mirror of what we don't like in ourselves being reflected back to us for clarity. Just asking for contemplative use. It's really simple! There are two types of people in the world. You have believers and non-believers. There is only one way that is workable and that is Jesus Christ. If three different religions all based on the same words and thoughts cannot find an "absolute truth" that would be the same for each of them, then how do we know what it is? They all use the "word of God" as their reference. Two of them use the exact wording. Which is right? The originators, or the interpreters, which also then brings in the other religion as it is an interpretation of the original ? The Holy Spirit will testify to which one is truth. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I will rise,when He calls my name,no more sorrow,no more pain
|
|
|
|
Anxiety
|
|
« Reply #13 on: October 27, 2011, 03:00:26 PM » |
|
The original question, "Must the stories of the fall or other biblical stories be True?" is a question of historical truth. Historical truths are events that happened in the past that can be verified as having happened. Though the standards and process of verification might vary from person to person, the events of the past do not.
In this way it manner, it both relative and objective (situated in the reality of the past).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Paul
|
|
« Reply #14 on: October 27, 2011, 05:40:34 PM » |
|
Anxiety, I agree with your definition as written. However, the Fall was before and objective documentation can be located. Since there is no "discoverable proof" known as of yet, does the lack of evidence passed on through the ages be considered false?
Or, does it stay valid till we have the capability to discern without any question the validity or not. ex. The earth was the center of the universe, the world was flat, the sun orbited around the earth all are "truths" that were held by the scholars and scientists of their day. Until the technology became available to discern a new "truth".
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
