Truth

I believe in absolute truth, not relative truth.

I don't understand, neo. Do you respect your doubts? Do you give them full consideration?

Quote:

I believe in absolute truth, not relative truth.

Kate, there is a passage in Romans somewhere, where Paul says words to the effect of "One man believes it is wrong to eat meat, and for him it is wrong, while another believes it is okay to eat meat, and for him it is okay."

Quote:

I believe in absolute truth, not relative truth.

Kate, there is a passage in Romans somewhere, where Paul says words to the effect of "One man believes it is wrong to eat meat, and for him it is wrong, while another believes it is okay to eat meat, and for him it is okay."

echi wrote:

I don't understand, neo. Do you respect your doubts? Do you give them full consideration?

Doubts; Uncertainties; Unanswered questions; They all fit into the same category right?

When we get into an automobile, we do so with the understanding that we might have an accident. Yet we drive anyway because we have faith in our driving skills, auto maintenance, etc. My faith exceeds that.

how do you like the new avatar?

neologist wrote:

echi wrote:

I don't understand, neo. Do you respect your doubts? Do you give them full consideration?

Doubts; Uncertainties; Unanswered questions; They all fit into the same category right?

When we get into an automobile, we do so with the understanding that we might have an accident. Yet we drive anyway because we have faith in our driving skills, auto maintenance, etc. My faith exceeds that.

Your religious faith exceeds your faith in auto safety -- So what? You haven't addressed the question whether you respect your doubts regarding religion. Perhaps you could give an example of a doubt you have had and then demonstrate the method you used to overcome it.

. . . One doubt or question I had in particular is the issue of foreknowledge and free will as it relates to the timing of Satan's rebellion. For if Adam and Eve had brought forth children before sinning, our world situation could be entirely different today. But, before I go into my reasoning on this issue, I must ask: Can you see what I mean?

Most religious traditions have a body of doctrine that adherents of that religion view as truth. This may take the form of a creed or catechism, it may refer to a book such as the Bible or the Koran, or it may be an unwritten code shared by believers. Unlike scientific truth or observed truth, religious truth often makes the claim of being either revealed or inspired by God.

When there is a clash between religious truth and scientific truth, various methods have been used to reconcile the two. During the Middle Ages, for example, there was a conflict between Roman Catholic dogma on the one hand and an emerging body of scientific knowledge on the other. Sometimes the established church sought to suppress scientific truth, as in the case of Galileo, but often the two truths were allowed to coexist, which led to the doctrine of the two truths. According to this compromise, there is a lesser truth, scientific truth, which holds that the earth orbits the sun, and a greater truth, religious truth, that holds that the earth is the fixed center of the universe. According to the doctrine of the two truths, these two truths were both true in their own sphere. [47][48] In the 20th Century, there were similar attempts to explain apparent conflicts between religious truth and scientific truth, especially where the age of the earth, the historicity of a universal flood, and the evolution of species were concerned. The conflict between religious truth and scientific truth continues in the 21st Century.

. . . spiritual truth cannot be understood through either circumstantial and/or anecdotal evidence because there is no circumstantial and/or anecdotal evidence for spiritual truth.

Circumstantial evidence are unrelated facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about something unknown. Circumstantial evidence is usually a theory, supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence.

Anecdotal evidence is an informal account of evidence in the form of an anecdote or hearsay. The term is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, such as evidence-based medicine, which are types of formal accounts. Some anecdotal evidence does not qualify as scientific evidence because its nature prevents it from being investigated using the scientific method. Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy and is sometimes informally referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who..."; "I know of a case where..." etc. Compare with hasty generalization). Anecdotal evidence is not necessarily typical; statistical evidence can more accurately determine how typical something is.

. . . spiritual truth cannot be understood through either circumstantial and/or anecdotal evidence because there is no circumstantial and/or anecdotal evidence for spiritual truth.

. . . I cannot think . . .