truthfully I never even heard of codswallop.
God loves you...love him back and each other. I don't know if I love codswallop though.
Are we speaking of my truth, your truth, or Christ's truth?
You and I could be incorrect.
Quote:Are we speaking of my truth, your truth, or Christ's truth?
or your christ's truth, or his christ's truth, or someone else's christ's truth.
Have you ever had an argument with yourself and lost?
absolutely. it's the only way you can be sure you're being honest with yourself.
I always win. But then, its my alter ego that loses.
Point is we each define our separate truths .... even J.C..
We could attempt to define truth by answering the question ' why is good considered good and evil 'evil'?
Gelisgesti wrote:Point is we each define our separate truths .... even J.C..
We could attempt to define truth by answering the question ' why is good considered good and evil 'evil'?
You gave Pilate's answer.
Jesus apparently was not referring to opinion.
ooh, argumentum ad reductio pilateum!
Mt 24:35-HEAVEN AND EARTH SHALL PASS AWAY, BUT MY WORDS SHALL NOT PASS AWAY.
Bartikus...nice word magic !
But consider...
Quote:So long as MEN can breathe or eyes can see,
So long lives THIS, and this gives life to thee.
Shakespeare (Sonnet 18)
Quote:In the beginning was the word, and the word was with MAN
fresco (previous posts observing that the concept "beginning" was also invented by man)
"Beginning" is a concept of insufficient definition.
Neologist, if we expect language to completely reflect reality we will find that all words/concepts remain insufficiently "defined".
What I was referring to is the concept of 'beginning' in reference to such entities as space and time, cause and effect, and whatever logical constructs we use to make sense of reality.
neologist precisely,
That is why "sacred texts" are no more than "books of spells". Their contents aspire to "closure" of an infinite regress where none is possible. Their repeated performance as incantation amounts to a modification of "reality" in the mind of the believer which may subsequently be labelled "truth".
I don't fully see the connection. Unless you are talking about relative or subjective 'truth.'
It seems (to me) that Jesus' words imply an absolute.
Whereas Pilate's response is from your point of view.
Modern science, with its perpetually shifting paradigms, would seem to have substantiated Pilate's point of view that there is no "absolute truth".
fresco wrote:Modern science, with its perpetually shifting paradigms, would seem to have substantiated Pilate's point of view that there is no "absolute truth".
Would 'absolute knowledge' endow 'absolute truth'?
