1
   

Is there truth?

 
 
Treya
 
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 08:30 am
I watched three shows the last few days that have stirred this "spirituality" issue up again for me. Some things I would be interested to hear what others think concerning these issues. This is not an intentional attack on christianity, however, I think my questions are legitimate and would be interested to hear some answers from any christians who think they may have some along with anyone else who wouldn't mind sharing their ideals on this.

Friday I watched, "Lisa Williams, Life among the dead." Yesterday I watched, "A Haunted House, Live" and a movie called "Saved!" Three different sides of the same story. Right? I began pondering spirituality once again... One question was... if there are "good" spirits out there... are there "bad" ones as well? These ones that christians refer to as "demons"... out to kill steal and destroy...

Whose mission in life... well death really... is to keep us from the presence of an almighty, all knowing, all powerful God... or are they merely disturbed spiritual beings that were equally as disturbed in life and somehow managed to carry that with them into death? Is there really any way to know for sure? Who's word do you take on a subject like this?

Or do I get to just make up my own mind? I've thought about the "God" side of this a lot... obviously... Let me tell you something... When I was watching that movie last night they did an alter call in the very beginning... and at that moment I felt drawn to an alter... I felt an emotional pull of some sort...

Had I been in a church when I felt that I very well may have went to the alter and prayed and repented. What was that? Christians would say it was God, pulling on my heart strings... Trying to bring me "home"... to Him. After some thought though I honestly wonder if it wasn't just my emotions looking for an escape of some sort.

Looking for a way to somehow ease the pain we all face in life at different times. So, I'm right back at the same 'ol question... Why... oh why... would an all loving God "create" something (us) only to subject it to eternal damnation in the end for not following the "rules"?

Or perhaps that "damnation" isn't so much "hell fire" as described by the christians, as much as it is "feeling" like hell fire because of being forced to walk the earth eternally disturbed and caught between two worlds forever void of the presence of this God. You, know the bible does use a lot of symbolism...

Maybe the weeping and gnashing of teeth isn't caused by being burned, but just living eternally in a state of regret? Ok. ok. I know I've steered away from thinking about this stuff for quite a while. But don't you think that part of making an informed decision is looking at it from all the possible angles?

Yet that theory has a few holes in it because if people can actually talk to the dead.. well it doesn't seem to appear to me that most of them are disturbed. Maybe some are... but perhaps that is just merely from having unfinished business in life and being incapable of finishing it in death.

It also punches several holes in the "Heaven" theory. Because my understanding of heaven was that once you were there just being in the presence of this almighty God would sweep away all that your life was and He would be your only focus for eternity. I mean how can that be possible... how can you not ever feel remorse or regret if you are capable of still seeing and even making a presence in the life you just left?

Why would this God send someone back to comfort a loved one if we were actually completely satisfied in His presence? So this is what the christians call demonic activity. Some say demons appear as loved ones to those who are still alive to deceive them and draw them farther away from Gods presence, and yet this all loving God who created us with the sole purpose of serving and worshiping Him...

Who does not desire to send us to eternal damnation... does not intervene... Hum... The christians would resound with a mighty, "HE DID!!! He sent Jesus to pay the price for our sins!" Ok. So are our sins paid for or not? If he paid the price so I wouldn't have to go to hell why am I then still subject to that possibility? Oh yeah... Because I have to choose right? Hum...

If God knew I couldn't possibly pay this debt why would he pay it for me then still give me the choice of accepting that payment? Better yet... why would I even have the ability to choose if he knew there was a possibility I still wouldn't and the whole purpose of sending that payment was so I didn't have to pay????

But see even now I and anyone else who dares questioning all this and for has a lack of faith in this all loving all knowing God who doesn't want to send me to hell is subject to damnation. Hum... I'm not talking out of anger or frustration even. Just merely mystified at all the theory's out there... and trying to sort through all the rubble to come to some sort of conclusion as to a truth of some sort.

But is there an ultimate truth to anything? Or is truth something we make up as we go along... something subject to our own ideals and perceptions that have been shaped through our life experiences? Do we somehow take those life experiences with us into death? Is it possible that a christian could spend eternity feeling as though they are in eternal bliss or damnation simply because of how they believed?

And that the rest of us heathen yahoo's will spend it wandering the earth and protecting the ones we love who are still alive? Would that not be selfish on the christians behalf to be oblivious to the world around them because they spent their entire life doing things to ensure their ticket to eternal bliss? Wouldn't that be the ultimate act of selfishness, which goes against everything we are told the bible teaches?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,832 • Replies: 29
No top replies

 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 09:09 am
Is this one question or a dozen? :wink:
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 09:35 am
lol... about 30 I believe... sorry! Razz
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 12:36 pm
I lost count. Smile

There are many standards for truth. Just as there are many types of proof: anecdotal, circumstantial, empirical, etc.

What constitutes truth may depend on the circumstance.
0 Replies
 
tinygiraffe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 01:47 pm
Quote:
Why... oh why... would an all loving God "create" something (us) only to subject it to eternal damnation in the end for not following the "rules"?


he wouldn't. both neo and i agree that hell isn't anything like people think it is. in his version, unworthy people are completely obliterated (let him feel free to correct me...) and in a jewish version of what ended up known as "hell," it is more like complete awareness of your faults.

i think you'll find if you study these things further, and not only in the bible, that you'll get past this "heaven/hell" obsession so many people have. that doesn't mean there's no afterlife. maybe there is- i wouldn't worry about it, if you believe in a reasonable god, s/he'll be reasonable, right? i think people put too much stock in their interpretation of the bible. the hell they've made out to frighten people with isn't a christian thing, it's some kind of persian myth.


Quote:
Or perhaps that "damnation" isn't so much "hell fire" as described by the christians, as much as it is "feeling" like hell fire because of being forced to walk the earth eternally disturbed and caught between two worlds forever void of the presence of this God. You, know the bible does use a lot of symbolism...


of course it does. and there's where neo and i stop agreeing, i'm sure. that is, we interpret things much differently. my interpretation is a lot more open, too, not concrete. it's just not important, in my view.


Quote:
Maybe the weeping and gnashing of teeth isn't caused by being burned, but just living eternally in a state of regret?


maybe.

Quote:
Ok. ok. I know I've steered away from thinking about this stuff for quite a while. But don't you think that part of making an informed decision is looking at it from all the possible angles?


YES.

Quote:
Yet that theory has a few holes in it because if people can actually talk to the dead..


big "if" there.

Quote:
It also punches several holes in the "Heaven" theory. Because my understanding of heaven was that once you were there just being in the presence of this almighty God would sweep away all that your life was and He would be your only focus for eternity.


okay, but what does that mean? that you'll just sit there thinking "god god god god god" forever? sounds dull, also farfetched. when you stop taking things literally, you don't have to worry about ridiculous things like that. you can ponder things that are more interesting or make more sense, depending on the mood. but many angles is good, i think.

Quote:
how can you not ever feel remorse or regret if you are capable of still seeing and even making a presence in the life you just left?


imagine that...

Quote:
Why would this God send someone back to comfort a loved one if we were actually completely satisfied in His presence?


this is something that's a lot easier to comprehend when you're not full of angst. i mean, when you're used to being calm. few people are calm all the time, but as you find yourself all in all calmer over many years, this gets less difficult to imagine.

Quote:
So this is what the christians call demonic activity.


christians have a lot of theories they're afraid to understand. others break through that fear by pointing at everyone else and blaming them for letting bad things in. oh, america is suffering, because homosexuals have allowed demons to take over! blah blah blah.

talk about superficial. if you want to understand esoteric things, you're in for years of study, not a brief conversation with the pope. hey, the idea that the pope can just say anything and tell you exactly what god is like is a very new idea. none of us know. we've got stuff people wrote down, but i take it all with a grain of salt. it's the only way to keep from throwing out useful information.

Quote:
Some say demons appear as loved ones to those who are still alive to deceive them and draw them farther away from Gods presence, and yet this all loving God who created us with the sole purpose of serving and worshiping Him...


see above.

Quote:
He sent Jesus to pay the price for our sins!" Ok. So are our sins paid for or not? If he paid the price so I wouldn't have to go to hell why am I then still subject to that possibility? Oh yeah... Because I have to choose right? Hum...


the jesus story isn't original and wasn't new. gods have been crucified before, even to pay for the sins of mankind. once you can move outside one group of interpretations of a story that isn't much different than others, you can look at it from lots of different angles. which one is right?
why do people ask that all the time? what makes them sure that one is right and the other is wrong, or that we can know, or that it even matters? fear of hell, etc. get past that.

Quote:
If God knew I couldn't possibly pay this debt why would he pay it for me then still give me the choice of accepting that payment?


weren't you talking about symbols before? you seem to have misplaced them now.

Quote:
Better yet... why would I even have the ability to choose if he knew there was a possibility I still wouldn't and the whole purpose of sending that payment was so I didn't have to pay????


maybe the ability to choose is something that can't be revoked unless you give it back. now that it's bestowed, it's yours until you willfully give it up, and there's nothing god can do about that. but you're not still going on about hell, are you?

Quote:
But see even now I and anyone else who dares questioning all this and for has a lack of faith in this all loving all knowing God who doesn't want to send me to hell is subject to damnation.


...if you say so.

Quote:
and trying to sort through all the rubble to come to some sort of conclusion as to a truth of some sort.


you won't reach it this year.

Quote:
But is there an ultimate truth to anything?


possibly.

Quote:
Or is truth something we make up as we go along...


possibly.

Quote:
Is it possible that a christian could spend eternity feeling as though they are in eternal bliss or damnation simply because of how they believed?


it's possible for that to happen even before death.

Quote:
And that the rest of us heathen yahoo's will spend it wandering the earth and protecting the ones we love who are still alive? Would that not be selfish on the christians behalf to be oblivious to the world around them because they spent their entire life doing things to ensure their ticket to eternal bliss?


maybe eternal bliss isn't the answer. maybe it's only part of the answer. maybe people seeking eternal bliss or eternal reward are only seeking part of the answer.

Quote:
Wouldn't that be the ultimate act of selfishness, which goes against everything we are told the bible teaches?


now there, you might be onto something.

but don't paint them all with the same brush. there are a lot of christians (somewhere!) trying to find better ways to help mankind, just for the sake of helping people. some of them aren't even looking for converts.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 03:42 pm
Treya --

Welcome back, chica, I hope you're doing well.


Is there truth?

Sure -- but I honestly believe that anyone has yet to discern it. I'm not convinced we ever will.

The amount of energy spent in proselytizing one version of truth over another is a complete waste of time, imo.
0 Replies
 
IFeelFree
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 06:13 pm
Follow your own bliss.
0 Replies
 
Ashers
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 06:29 pm
I don't really like the way spiritual truth, in that 'absolute - place it on a pedestal' sense, seems to distort and control people. Like their motives and bias towards new ideas, suddenly any/all inquiry seems to become channelled through a sometimes grotesque self gratification. This idea makes me happy! Sure, who is really going to argue with that LOL, but to me, it's more smug satisfaction than mellow contentment (all in a spiritual sense). From what I observe that seems to be because suddenly truth in this absolute sense is about who is right and who is wrong. So it's back to the self gratification again which OK each to their own but that's not my cup of tea, it'd make me feel mentally tired and weary if I ever found myself deeply entrenched in a heated debate about these spiritual truths.

In my mind that ties in with heaven and rewards as well, doing good for it's own sake is in the only thing that makes "spiritual" sense to me, rewards are literally backwards to me in that respect. The former seems to release the shackles but that's another topic I guess.

The thing that springs to my mind though with "spiritual truth" is, as opposed to the argument about the nature of truth itself, just consider the possibility of other religions. I don't mean as substitutes, not even (unless you want to) the specific ideas held in other faiths. I just mean the possibility of other religions, the idea of them. So yeah, there are quite a few Christians around oh but by the way there are also hundreds of millions of Hindu's and Buddhists that have totally different cultures, religious ideas and attitudes towards the nature of religion itself. I don't say this to entice anyone towards those religions but rather to lessen the grip that Christianity may hold on an individual thereby lessening the perception that might/number counts equate to "truth", righteousness or importance (political/social importance being a different kettle of fish!).

(All I'm getting at with this last bit^^ is that if you eliminate the importance of one religion over others, you can take another step, just as wisely (IMO), to eliminate the importance of a religion over an individual. This is how I view it generally speaking anyway and what seems like a reasonable step to "following your own bliss" rather than being constricted from the very beginning by worries about right and wrong).
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 07:06 pm
There is truth. But it cannot be told.

You may know it. Perhaps everyone does. But if you try to communicate it with words it will cease to be truth and become something else. Something that can be twisted to whatever end you seek. This is the nature of words.

It is relatively easy to hold a holistic concept in your mind. The concept of universe, for instance. I think everyone has a version of this, which they see in their mind's eye whenever they think about it. It takes one second to form this image, however vast it may be. But try to dress it in words, and you may never finish explaining. Most likely you will lose yourself in the process and forget what you were explaining.

So there is truth, just not in words.

And for the record, this does not apply to the empirical true/false, let's verify by experiment meaning of the word "truth". We can say that water boils at one hundred degrees celsius at sea level, and it's the truth. But then we may start to think about all the concepts that are required for this to make any sense at all, and we may begin to wonder again...
0 Replies
 
IFeelFree
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 08:32 pm
Words are only pointers. With spiritual truth the problems are compounded because we are trying to communicate insights or experiences that others may not share. I sometimes say that the experience of Self or pure consciousness is the silent awareness that is alive at the core of your being. The words don't express the experience all that well, but it is the best I can do. What is "silent awareness"? I once had a discussion online with someone who seemed to sincerely want to understand what I was talking about. I tried saying it in different ways and all they could get was that it was some emotional experience. They just didn't "get it". The basic problem is that "silent awareness" refers to something which is not of the mind, and so the mind can't conceive of it. Silent awareness is the state of no-thought, whereas mind is thought. To further complicate matters, it is possible for the silent awareness to coexist with thought.
0 Replies
 
MC Kruger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 10:54 pm
Edit [Moderator]: Link removed


Edit [Moderator]: Link removed 5
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 09:26 am
neologist wrote:
I lost count. Smile

There are many standards for truth. Just as there are many types of proof: anecdotal, circumstantial, empirical, etc.

What constitutes truth may depend on the circumstance.


So does that mean then that people can have different truths and one truth isn't necessarily more right than the other?

Quote:
i think you'll find if you study these things further, and not only in the bible, that you'll get past this "heaven/hell" obsession so many people have. that doesn't mean there's no afterlife. maybe there is- i wouldn't worry about it, if you believe in a reasonable god, s/he'll be reasonable, right? i think people put too much stock in their interpretation of the bible. the hell they've made out to frighten people with isn't a christian thing, it's some kind of persian myth.


Thank you for taking the time to break this all up and answer as much as you can. I have a silly question here Tiny.... what should I study? Other religions?And who's to say what's right?

Quote:
Quote:
Why would this God send someone back to comfort a loved one if we were actually completely satisfied in His presence?
this is something that's a lot easier to comprehend when you're not full of angst. i mean, when you're used to being calm. few people are calm all the time, but as you find yourself all in all calmer over many years, this gets less difficult to imagine.


I'm actually quite calm here. Not even frustrated. Sorry if it came off that way. I'm just looking at a whole new world that is completely unfamiliar to me because of the 17 yrs I spent believing the Christian way. You know what I mean?

Quote:
why do people ask that all the time? what makes them sure that one is right and the other is wrong, or that we can know, or that it even matters? fear of hell, etc. get past that.


Heh... I'm trying to get past it here. Thats why I'm asking so many questions. Christians say God is about love and not fear. Which is a deception of their own because christianity is based in fear if you ask me. Otherwise why would there be so much talk about hell fire and wanting to save people from it?

Quote:
but don't paint them all with the same brush. there are a lot of christians (somewhere!) trying to find better ways to help mankind, just for the sake of helping people. some of them aren't even looking for converts.


You are right. I know. I didn't mean to paint them all with the same brush. However, I do think that of the majority...

JPB wrote:
Treya --

Welcome back, chica, I hope you're doing well.


Is there truth?

Sure -- but I honestly believe that anyone has yet to discern it. I'm not convinced we ever will.

The amount of energy spent in proselytizing one version of truth over another is a complete waste of time, imo.


Hi JPB. Smile Thank you. I'm doing fine. I'm not sure if this is a waste of time or not just yet. I think its interesting actually. But I can see why it would be a waste of time for others and it's all good. I respect that side of it too. Smile

Ashers wrote:
I don't really like the way spiritual truth, in that 'absolute - place it on a pedestal' sense, seems to distort and control people. Like their motives and bias towards new ideas, suddenly any/all inquiry seems to become channelled through a sometimes grotesque self gratification. This idea makes me happy! Sure, who is really going to argue with that LOL, but to me, it's more smug satisfaction than mellow contentment (all in a spiritual sense). From what I observe that seems to be because suddenly truth in this absolute sense is about who is right and who is wrong. So it's back to the self gratification again which OK each to their own but that's not my cup of tea, it'd make me feel mentally tired and weary if I ever found myself deeply entrenched in a heated debate about these spiritual truths.

In my mind that ties in with heaven and rewards as well, doing good for it's own sake is in the only thing that makes "spiritual" sense to me, rewards are literally backwards to me in that respect. The former seems to release the shackles but that's another topic I guess.

The thing that springs to my mind though with "spiritual truth" is, as opposed to the argument about the nature of truth itself, just consider the possibility of other religions. I don't mean as substitutes, not even (unless you want to) the specific ideas held in other faiths. I just mean the possibility of other religions, the idea of them. So yeah, there are quite a few Christians around oh but by the way there are also hundreds of millions of Hindu's and Buddhists that have totally different cultures, religious ideas and attitudes towards the nature of religion itself. I don't say this to entice anyone towards those religions but rather to lessen the grip that Christianity may hold on an individual thereby lessening the perception that might/number counts equate to "truth", righteousness or importance (political/social importance being a different kettle of fish!).

(All I'm getting at with this last bit^^ is that if you eliminate the importance of one religion over others, you can take another step, just as wisely (IMO), to eliminate the importance of a religion over an individual. This is how I view it generally speaking anyway and what seems like a reasonable step to "following your own bliss" rather than being constricted from the very beginning by worries about right and wrong).


Hi ashers. Smile I'm not really wanting to find who's right and who's wrong necessarily, however I do think in the process of finding ones own truth there must be a ridding of what they don't consider truth right? So maybe it's not so much about "who" as it is about "what" is right or wrong... So the process of elimination is important indeed... but it's a process as well, right?

Cyracuz wrote:
There is truth. But it cannot be told.

You may know it. Perhaps everyone does. But if you try to communicate it with words it will cease to be truth and become something else. Something that can be twisted to whatever end you seek. This is the nature of words.

It is relatively easy to hold a holistic concept in your mind. The concept of universe, for instance. I think everyone has a version of this, which they see in their mind's eye whenever they think about it. It takes one second to form this image, however vast it may be. But try to dress it in words, and you may never finish explaining. Most likely you will lose yourself in the process and forget what you were explaining.

So there is truth, just not in words.

And for the record, this does not apply to the empirical true/false, let's verify by experiment meaning of the word "truth". We can say that water boils at one hundred degrees celsius at sea level, and it's the truth. But then we may start to think about all the concepts that are required for this to make any sense at all, and we may begin to wonder again...


Wow. That is some interesting insight Cyracuz. It seems that dismissing different concepts, forming your own, and leaving it at that should be quite easy. Maybe it is... But in this world we seem to be bombarded daily with different ideas, not just religious ones either. I think for personal growth someone needs to be willing to consider all sides of an issue and come to a their own conclusion... However, doing so would require (if you ask me) them to seek information from sources other than themselves in an effort to see all the angles, don't you think?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 10:24 am
Treya wrote:
neologist wrote:
I lost count. Smile

There are many standards for truth. Just as there are many types of proof: anecdotal, circumstantial, empirical, etc.

What constitutes truth may depend on the circumstance.


So does that mean then that people can have different truths and one truth isn't necessarily more right than the other?
No.

Take a criminal trial, for example, compared to a physics experiment.

A person may be found guilty or innocent largely because of circumstantial evidence. Even the forensic evidence may be predominantly non replicable.

The physicist, on the other hand, must conduct a carefully controlled operation with particular attention to accuracy and replicability.

In both cases, what is arrived at as 'truth' may later be disproved.

But, what about spiritual truth? Can we ever know about the Creator: Does he exist? What is his purpose for us? Why does evil exist? What happens when we die?

Regardless of the many speculations about these matters, my own personal and strongly held opinion is that, if a loving and all powerful creator exists, he would make answers to the above questions available to sentient creatures in a manner easily understood by even the least sophisticated. Esoteric priesthoods would not be necessary.
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 10:33 am
neologist wrote:
Treya wrote:
neologist wrote:
I lost count. Smile

There are many standards for truth. Just as there are many types of proof: anecdotal, circumstantial, empirical, etc.

What constitutes truth may depend on the circumstance.


So does that mean then that people can have different truths and one truth isn't necessarily more right than the other?
No.

Take a criminal trial, for example, compared to a physics experiment.

A person may be found guilty or innocent largely because of circumstantial evidence. Even the forensic evidence may be predominantly non replicable.

The physicist, on the other hand, must conduct a carefully controlled operation with particular attention to accuracy and replicability.

In both cases, what is arrived at as 'truth' may later be disproved.

But, what about spiritual truth? Can we ever know about the Creator: Does he exist? What is his purpose for us? Why does evil exist? What happens when we die?

Regardless of the many speculations about these matters, my own personal and strongly held opinion is that, if a loving and all powerful creator exists, he would make answers to the above questions available to sentient creatures in a manner easily understood by even the least sophisticated. Esoteric priesthoods would not be necessary.


Ok. That makes some sense, but neo... I thought you believed in a creator? Or am I misunderstanding something here? Perhaps you think this creator has made the answers available? If so let me ask you this... why would these answers be so open to be interpreted however the reader or listener, or whatever chooses to? It makes no sense.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 05:07 pm
Treya wrote:
neologist wrote:
Treya wrote:
neologist wrote:
I lost count. Smile

There are many standards for truth. Just as there are many types of proof: anecdotal, circumstantial, empirical, etc.

What constitutes truth may depend on the circumstance.


So does that mean then that people can have different truths and one truth isn't necessarily more right than the other?
No.

Take a criminal trial, for example, compared to a physics experiment.

A person may be found guilty or innocent largely because of circumstantial evidence. Even the forensic evidence may be predominantly non replicable.

The physicist, on the other hand, must conduct a carefully controlled operation with particular attention to accuracy and replicability.

In both cases, what is arrived at as 'truth' may later be disproved.

But, what about spiritual truth? Can we ever know about the Creator: Does he exist? What is his purpose for us? Why does evil exist? What happens when we die?

Regardless of the many speculations about these matters, my own personal and strongly held opinion is that, if a loving and all powerful creator exists, he would make answers to the above questions available to sentient creatures in a manner easily understood by even the least sophisticated. Esoteric priesthoods would not be necessary.


Ok. That makes some sense, but neo... I thought you believed in a creator? Or am I misunderstanding something here? Perhaps you think this creator has made the answers available? If so let me ask you this... why would these answers be so open to be interpreted however the reader or listener, or whatever chooses to? It makes no sense.
I believe Jehovah, whose name means 'he who causes to become' caused the bible to be written and has protected its essential translations. And, while the truth must be searched, it is not far off from any of us. (Proverbs 2:4)
0 Replies
 
Ashers
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 07:14 pm
Hey Treya Smile,

Treya wrote:
Hi ashers. Smile I'm not really wanting to find who's right and who's wrong necessarily, however I do think in the process of finding ones own truth there must be a ridding of what they don't consider truth right?


What is ones own truth though? Is that the relative, personal conclusion we come to that adjusts our bearing to the rest of the world or is it our discovery of the absolute, objective Truth that some know and some don't but that independent to ourselves, exists out there. Life seems more relative and subjective to me, more negotiable than say, rigid and objective so I see the former "truth" as having spiritual origins and the latter as being hostile to this.

Treya wrote:
So maybe it's not so much about "who" as it is about "what" is right or wrong... So the process of elimination is important indeed


To me, the dogma that some religious authorities try to push on people, has absolutely no meaning outside of man. People to create the dogma, people to use and control it, people to dismiss it or people to be manipulated by it, whatever really. That's why I wonder (to myself as much as anything) about reducing the importance of one religion over another and one religion over any individual. They, in themselves, mean nothing i.e. the religions, the ideas…without other individuals to breathe life into it all. So I totally agree about a process of elimination. I don't know much about world religions, one of the reasons I post here (!) but from what I've read/heard/understood, some flow infinitely more easily with me than others. Where does the process of elimination begin from though? Should it begin with a level playing field (the idea from one religion, conceivably, as inspirational as the idea from a small child?) because of the real nature of ideas and dogma or not?

Wholesale acceptance of a religious canon (rather than picking and choosing) becomes unnecessary if religious authority/importance loses it's touch but also…one bad idea or interpretation (whether perceived by us or pushed onto us by another) needn't mean that an entire religion is devoid of any good or inspiration etc.

Treya wrote:
... but it's a process as well, right?


Defintely seems that way to me but what isn't? I read a great little book a few years ago called, The Wisdom of Insecurity by Alan Watts. It was all about the intrinsic quality of process (as in change or a state of becoming) in all of life and our sense of it which he felt lead some of us to feel sad about having nothing concrete to ever grab onto. I've always looked on process and change differently ever since I guess, there was real wisdom in that book's outlook that's for sure.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 11:04 pm
The Truth is tomato and onions can improve meatloaf.
0 Replies
 
tinygiraffe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 11:04 pm
Treya wrote:
neologist wrote:
I lost count. Smile

There are many standards for truth. Just as there are many types of proof: anecdotal, circumstantial, empirical, etc.

What constitutes truth may depend on the circumstance.


So does that mean then that people can have different truths and one truth isn't necessarily more right than the other?


assuming there is unflawed truth, our access to it is not unflawed. to be fair, we have to compensate by recognizing that we can always be wrong.


Quote:
Thank you for taking the time to break this all up and answer as much as you can. I have a silly question here Tiny.... what should I study? Other religions?And who's to say what's right?


i try to understand all i can. one of the things that has shaped my thinking is a silly quote from fox mulder on the xfiles- in one episode, he says something that might be a bit out of character, and scully says: "what happened to 'trust no one?'" he replies: "i changed it to 'trust everyone' - didn't i tell you?"

i think that if you're trying to find merit in religion, this is the best approach. stay away from everything you're afraid of, and break that rule whenever you feel you can afford to, as often as you feel you can afford to. learn all you can.

also try to find the roots of each religion- sometimes they evolve into something better, but occasionally, looking at what it was provides a lot of insight into what you're looking at now. a fun place to start is the zeitgeist film, but only for fun. you'll get serious later, if you want to. but don't assume that just because something is fictional doesn't mean you won't pick up a useful detail.

i don't know how much of zeitgeist is accurate (i'd watch out for the conspiracy theory put forward by david icke... blech...) but just the part about crucified gods and the possible origin of the ten commandments makes it worthwhile. you'll find your own sources and interests, and please bring them up on this forum.

Quote:
I'm actually quite calm here. Not even frustrated. Sorry if it came off that way. I'm just looking at a whole new world that is completely unfamiliar to me because of the 17 yrs I spent believing the Christian way. You know what I mean?


when i said that, i was referring to a general calm, not a constant one or while you were writing. it's a fact that most people mellow with age. i'm not accusing you of being immature, i'm saying what you asked about is the kind of thing that reveals itself with time. that's not the only answer, you might think of something much sooner- thinking from a generally mellow framepoint might help there, that's all.

Quote:
Heh... I'm trying to get past it here. Thats why I'm asking so many questions. Christians say God is about love and not fear. Which is a deception of their own because christianity is based in fear if you ask me.


"fear" is the english translation of at least two words in the bible, ruach, and pachad. pachad is the "fear" we usually refer to with the english word, ruach is more like "awe." i think this is what "fear of god" is supposed to refer to. we have phrases in english like "awesome fear" but feeling both at the same time probably isn't common or easy to do.

both are used poorly by aspiring christians (and frauds) to control people.

Quote:
Otherwise why would there be so much talk about hell fire and wanting to save people from it?


i don't call this christianity. if they do, i think that's sad. anyway, there's no monopoly on christianity. really the only way to have one is to have only one christian. in theory, it's all the same thing- and mormons for instance have a very tight control on their belief system. but even they fail to indoctrinate everyone equally or uniformly, try as they might.

not all christians believe in the persian hell myth. there are other versions of hell eariler in the judeo-christian tradition that make more sense.

Quote:
You are right. I know. I didn't mean to paint them all with the same brush. However, I do think that of the majority...


maybe you mean the loudest, most obnoxious minorities. i hope that's what they are. somehow i don't think they're the majority, but maybe most christians are stupid- i don't know for sure. a lot of non-christians think this, sometimes myself included. jesus might say that if most people remain hungry, the fault lies with those that didn't feed them, and if most people remain uneducated, the fault lies with those that didn't educate them. there might be more truth there than meets the eye. but even then, i don't approach that with a fundamentalist view. i certainly try not to.
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Oct, 2007 10:18 am
Sorry I haven't been able to get back to the responses on this guys. I fractured my wrist the day after I wrote the original post, and now I'm stuck trying to respond one handed! I probably should have waited to post this because it's entirely too time consuming to respond at this point! Sorry! Thanks for your responses though.
0 Replies
 
tinygiraffe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Oct, 2007 01:09 pm
Treya wrote:
Sorry I haven't been able to get back to the responses on this guys. I fractured my wrist the day after I wrote the original post, and now I'm stuck trying to respond one handed! I probably should have waited to post this because it's entirely too time consuming to respond at this point! Sorry! Thanks for your responses though.


feel free to revive the topic anytime your wrist heals or you get more time.
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. » Is there truth?
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/26/2022 at 03:52:32