7
   

"What is truth?" (John 18:38)

 
 
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 10:26 am
After watching my fellow a2kers pummel each other in the evolution/creation threads, I submit this in the interest of mercy and peace. :wink:

An interesting conversation reportedly took place between Governor Pilate and Jesus Christ, recorded at John chapter 18, vss. 37, 38: Jesus said "For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone that is on the side of the truth listens to my voice." 38 Pilate said to him: "What is truth?"

So I ask: What is acceptable proof in a spiritual sense?

To which I add: Would your standard be practical?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 7 • Views: 12,403 • Replies: 186
No top replies

 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 10:41 am
Re: "What is truth?" (John 18:38)
neologist wrote:
So I ask: What is acceptable proof in a spiritual sense?

Faith.
Aberro
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 01:36 pm
The stronger a persons faith, the less proof they need to believe something to be true. Convince some "all they need is faith" and they'll believe just about anything.

Personally speaking, I'm not one of strong faith. I won't believe something to be "fact" until there is an overwhelming body of evidence in favor of one side. That said, just because I don't believe something to be "fact" doesn't mean I don't have personal leanings.

I don't consider anything that falls under "religion", including my own beliefs, to be fact. That doesn't mean I can't recognize and appreciate the possibility that they are.
theMadJW
 
  0  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 02:29 pm
Aberro wrote:
The stronger a persons faith, the less proof they need to believe something to be true. Convince some "all they need is faith" and they'll believe just about anything.

Personally speaking, I'm not one of strong faith. I won't believe something to be "fact" until there is an overwhelming body of evidence in favor of one side. That said, just because I don't believe something to be "fact" doesn't mean I don't have personal leanings.

I don't consider anything that falls under "religion", including my own beliefs, to be fact. That doesn't mean I can't recognize and appreciate the possibility that they are.


Mad replies: Aberro, you are half correct! The "Faith" most claim they have is emotional gullibility; they believe many things that simply are not true, based on their church or temple. REAL faith is nothing like that- it's more like YOUR assessment! Consider the inspired words of the Apostle Paul,
Hebrews 11: 1="Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." KJV

Church people, Jews, and Muslims all ignore what was said by the ORIGINAL prophets- and listen only to tha latter FALSE prophets!

Agape!
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 04:57 pm
This.....
Quote:
What is acceptable proof in a spiritual sense?


is antithetical to this...

Quote:
To which I add: Would your standard be practical?


In my concept of a "spiritual sense" there is no division between "observer" and "the world". Instead there is only holistic timeless unity. Such a "Truth" is self evident to me. "Proof" doesn't come into it.

But "practical purposes" implies a dualistic separation of self and world such that that "self" needs to plan and attempt to control its spatio-temporal dealings with an "external reality". In that sense "truth" is "what works" in facilitating "successful control".

Religionists who claim "spiritual truth" are merely playing with the "control issue" by selectively putting bits of it "in the gift of some divine entity". (whence the "free will" debate) However since such an entity is presumably "outside space and time", it has no logical connection with the "control issue". i.e. concepts of "proof" and "evidence" are futile. The "entity" is merely a non-spiritual projection of dualistic thinking.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 05:50 pm
But what constitutes "successful control" and who would ever dream of expecting any such possibility of a human agency which had not been granted revelation and had not risked being sacrificed for His pains.

Fat cats are all very well but they might be talking through their pockets.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 10:13 pm
Fresco: "In my concept of a "spiritual sense" there is no division between "observer" and "the world". Instead there is only holistic timeless unity. Such a "Truth" is self evident to me. "Proof" doesn't come into it."

Very well stated. You see it or you don't. One cannot be persuaded to "believe" it.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 11:00 pm
Spendius,

What constitutes "successful control" ?.......You getting back from the pub in one piece!.......If you want to attribute that to "divine providence" that's your business ! Smile
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 11:33 pm
Quote:
However since such an entity is presumably "outside space and time", it has no logical connection with the "control issue". i.e. concepts of "proof" and "evidence" are futile. The "entity" is merely a non-spiritual projection of dualistic thinking.


"outside space and time" is as you say, only a presumption. What if God (if he/she/it exists) IS space and time, and/or the Universe, and/or some other combination. Such would effect your conclusion, would it not?
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Sep, 2007 01:24 am
vikorr,

In that case "I" would not be separate from "God". The entity would have no (dualistic) "parental" or "personal" status with respect to the welfare of individual "selves". It would be the "God of Spinoza" (or Einstein). Those who would claim otherwise (a) do not understand the concept of holistic spirituality and (b) are in denial of the impersonal quality of "the laws of nature". In essence "holistic spirituality" has all the qualities of "empathic involvement" usually attributed to "God's Love". The practical problem is that "brotherly love" (in which separate "selves" are transcended) is firmly rooted in the realm of the "spiritual" as opposed to the "spatio-temporal" world. The result is ludicrous scenarios of army chaplains of opposing sides "blessing their flock" as they go off to the killing fields.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Sep, 2007 09:23 am
So far, the answer seems to be that truth is esoteric.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  2  
Reply Sun 30 Sep, 2007 09:30 am
you're born you die In between, in everyday matters we have the illusion of control.. but we have none. Good actions do not necessarily bring good reactions and vice versa.

We die, and life goes on quite well without us, and we fade into the faint memory of even those we thought loved us.

We are insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

That's truth.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Sep, 2007 09:34 am
BPB, You pose your definition by giving examples of things you believe to be true. That's fine as far as it goes. But how do you discern if they are true?
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Sep, 2007 10:29 am
anecdotal evidence... I pay attention..life lessons that I have experienced and I have observed in everyone else I know.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Sep, 2007 10:35 am
So truth may be discovered by analysing anecdotal evidence.

I'll buy that to a point. . .
0 Replies
 
theMadJW
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Sep, 2007 11:12 am
It appears that Truth is (in MOST cases) whatever Fantasy one WANTS to believe in!
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Sep, 2007 12:37 pm
neologist wrote:
So far, the answer seems to be that truth is esoteric.

Spiritual Truth. You asked for proof in a spiritual sense, so most of the opinions expressed probably bear no small relationship to how each person feels about "Spiritual".
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Sep, 2007 01:17 pm
While BPBear's account of "spiritual truth" does not go far enough, it's realistically cynical tone is a necessary ingredient of the "transcendental" approach to spiritual enlightenment.

We inidividual egos are insignificant in the grand scheme, but the grand scheme is very significant--at least that's how it seems to this small portion of the scheme: "me".
0 Replies
 
Aberro
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Sep, 2007 01:19 pm
theMadJW wrote:
It appears that Truth is (in MOST cases) whatever Fantasy one WANTS to believe in!


When is that not the case?
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 10:01 am
rosborne979 wrote:
neologist wrote:
So far, the answer seems to be that truth is esoteric.

Spiritual Truth. You asked for proof in a spiritual sense, so most of the opinions expressed probably bear no small relationship to how each person feels about "Spiritual".
I was not intending to direct the thread in that way; but you are right.

But I also asked about practicality. I was hoping to lend some perspective to the threads on creation and evolution by highlighting the different standards often applied in the search for truth.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » "What is truth?" (John 18:38)
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/26/2022 at 09:04:39