The Absolute Truth

[ronedee]

So, the circular reasoning belongs to you my friends. And those who refuse God.

You're joking, right?

You claim to know of the "absolute truth". Go talk to Drich about what Christianity is. Get back to me once you can both express what Christianity is without consulting the other.

So much for "absolute truth".

The onus is on you and your cohorts to prove God doesn't exsit bub!

Because for one, He is God... and if He is as omnipotent/escient etc as you and the other (not-so-omnipotents) say a God "would be"...

...well He can do WhateverTF He likes. Hows that for a little TRUTH?
________________________________________________________

[jstrodel]

Wrong. I'll have to stop you there because you're assuming all other texts are like the Bible; they can't be verified anymore. Guess what? I'm alive and able to tell you what my text means. The authors and pseudo-authors of the Bible are long gone, hence the confusion about what it means.

Well, people have trouble understanding texts today. There are many, many interpreters to authors today. There is not really that much confusion over what the Bible means. I have studied the Early Church Fathers a little bit as well as church history. Theology has essentially remained the same for the last 2000 years with maybe 10-15% variation between churches that are connected to the Bible. I had a book of the early church fathers on Christian doctrine and they are very close to modern Christians in man ways. Some doctrines like dispensational premillenialism came relatively recently.

If you go to seminary, what you learn is not only the Bible, you learn Christian history. The way that the Bible is interpreted is not only through tools people have in the 20th century, it goes back to the commentaries that were written much earlier. One of the first books that I read was Augustine's Confessions, which has commentaries on the Bible that are very similar to modern interpreters.

If you want proof of this, look at the doctrinal differences between the Catholics and the Protestants, two movements in which the people have traditionally not liked each other very much, and which have developed mostly independently of each other. If you study the differences in Catholic doctrine about the Bible, Christian ethics, etc, it is very close to Protestant doctrine.

What you are saying is factually not accurate. The Bible is simple to understand, it is just once you understand the main points there are some very difficult issues that have divided people.

The core issues of the Christian faith, who Christ is, what God is like, how Christians should live, are basically agreed upon.

This is the truth:
1. The Bible is a complicated book that has multiple interpretations
2. Where there are multiple interpretations, there is no definite, easily discernible interpretation in every case
3. There is no definite, easily discernible interpretation of the Bible in every case

I will accept that 3 is true. But for it to be significant, you must prove 4:
4. If there is no definite, easily discernible interpretation of the Bible in every case, the Bible text cannot communicate anything
or
5. If there is no definite, easily discernible interpretation of the Bible in every case, God has not revealed scripture

4: in essence the text communicates *something*, but that something is meaningless as we have Christians falling over each other trying to explain their mysterious invisible friend.

If you have two people that disagree over the interpretation of the theory of evolution, that does not mean the theory of evolution is meaningless. Your demand that Christians consider the text meaningless because their are contradictory interpretations would also make the theory of evolution meaningless, as there are different interpretations there.

Contradictory denominations makes 4 just about self-evident. 5... well, like I said, refute it or deal with it; the Bible is not the "Word of God" but rather a collection of words by fellow mammals.

The Bible prophesies that Jesus Christ will return in Isaiah (see Isaiah 53). It makes many other prophecies (see Ezekiel). It is the most important book in the modern world and the story of the most powerful civilization in history wrestling with concerns that are more relevant and close to human nature than any other book. It has been confirmed by miracles throughout the history of the Christian church. It is substantially confirmed by the Quran and other texts that point back to it. There is very good historical evidence to accept early authorship of scripture and believe that the people who wrote the New Testament experience the things that they testify to. The early Christian church believed the miracles so strongly that they were willing to die for them? Who would be willing to die for a lie? Who was Jesus Christ, was he Lord, liar or lunatic? Why have so many, including myself received miraculous confirmations in which spoke to them, often through the Bible, and revealed things to them.

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin." ~ Cardinal Bellarmine, during the trial of Galileo, 1615

"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.." ~ Hitler

Christianity: Fueling ignorance and genocide since the Bronze Age.

I am not sure what these intend to prove. There is 2000 years of mistakes you can dig up about Christianity. What does this prove about the Christian faith? The Christian faith has not fueled ignorance, the most advanced societies have come through Christianity and now have become materialistic and empty.


This doesn't counter point 5 whatsoever. Saying that the narrative has God supposedly doing things ergo the narrative is proof of God doing things is circular reasoning.

"5. If there is no definite, easily discernible interpretation of the Bible in every case, God has not revealed scripture"

Well, if you were questioning whether the narrative revealed God because of your presupposition that God must work inside of some easily discernible interpretation of the Bible, that would conquer that presupposition if it rested on the Bible text (which it doesn't).

Are you arguing that:
1. God must reveal himself in a definite, easily discernible way, otherwise God is not God?
2. I know this through philosophical theology
3. ...

If so, prove that concept. Why must God reveal himself in a definite, easily discernible way?

Consider your work cut out for you. I demand explanations, so better start asking your god. Otherwise, consider your belief system invalid or severly questionable until any sort of explanation is given for such fundamental controversies.

Invalid because you can't see the truth of it from your ignorant presuppositions? Why would I think that? You know when I read these forums, I feel badly, because I have had a supernatural experience and i know what I am saying is true, and you are debating me and reasoning about all these things with words.

[downbeatplumb]

The onus is on you and your cohorts to prove God doesn't exsit bub!

No it isn't.

Theists are making the claim that there is a god so It's up to you to prove it bub.

Saying that though.

Every claim made over the centuries for god that has had the technology to properly investigate it has found no god required.

Cue the shuffling of goal posts.

Now god lives over here, it has changed from a violent death dealing thing that wiped out your crops or sank your ship if you didn't pray enough or failed to give the church enough money to a lovely comforter. there is a reason believers used to be called "god fearing".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8

[Whateverist]

You can call the Holy Spirit an intuitive mind, or even feelings if you like! But the Holy Spirit represents "ABSOLUTE TRUTH"!

What else can be called that? What do we know as absolute truth? Things we see? Things others tell us? Math? Science? People?

.
.

If there is no absolute truth in what we see or know, where are we to turn?

I'm not much concerned with absolute truth. Just plain old for-sure truth is hard enough to come by. Truth has to do with correspondence between claims about things and how those things actually stand. "The truth" only arises as a concept in the context of language. There is no "truth" apart from language. Without language, what is is and that's it. With language what I say is so has to actually be as stated or else it isn't the truth.

Language is pretty new so truth is also pretty new. We've evolved to handle language and in the process, the means for creating the concept of truth. However we did not evolve to pursue the truth. We evolved to pursue dinner. Language helped us get dinner; the concept of "the truth", not so much.

So I'm not really sure what you mean by "absolute truth". I suspect you really mean something like the "truth about the absolute", rather than the highest degree of truth. What is the absolute? Is anything real less real than any other real thing? Even if your god were real, how would its reality be any more or less real than any one of us?

[ronedee]

You can call the Holy Spirit an intuitive mind, or even feelings if you like! But the Holy Spirit represents "ABSOLUTE TRUTH"!

What else can be called that? What do we know as absolute truth? Things we see? Things others tell us? Math? Science? People?
If there is no absolute truth in what we see or know, where are we to turn?

I'm not much concerned with absolute truth. Just plain old for-sure truth is hard enough to come by. Truth has to do with correspondence between claims about things and how those things actually stand. "The truth" only arises as a concept in the context of language. There is no "truth" apart from language. Without language, what is is and that's it. With language what I say is so has to actually be as stated or else it isn't the truth.

Language is pretty new so truth is also pretty new. We've evolved to handle language and in the process, the means for creating the concept of truth. However we did not evolve to pursue the truth. We evolved to pursue dinner. Language helped us get dinner; the concept of "the truth", not so much.

So I'm not really sure what you mean by "absolute truth". I suspect you really mean something like the "truth about the absolute", rather than the highest degree of truth. What is the absolute? Is anything real less real than any other real thing? Even if your god were real, how would its reality be any more or less real than any one of us?

I'm trying to wrap my head around what you are saying...but it seems that either you don't think there is an absolute(one) truth, or it doesn't exist?

Every atheist ...eh...rational atheist I've conversed with has always pointed out that "a god, if he indeed so exists....would be omnipotent."
(i.e. able to do anything!)

So...wouldn't that "theory" alone, in itself, prove that there "might" be "one truth" or One God...somewhere, beyond our understanding?

Do we NOT search for answers to EVERYTHING? I mean what is the point of trying to find water on other celestial bodies?

Maybe because we "don't know" everything yet? Do we stop looking because we think we are right...

Translation? We don't know jack about anything in life! And that's why we keep searching.... For the Truth!

And here is the Atheistic paradox....You are willing to accept the fact that there are things you don't know about.....BUT, God is not one of them! Even IF He created EVERYTHING!

And this is also why being an Atheist is just plain ignorant!

[Neo-Scholastic]

...You are willing to accept the fact that there are things you don't know about.....BUT, God is not one of them!...And this is also why being an Atheist is just plain ignorant!

Ohhh! I like it!

[Tonus]

And here is the Atheistic paradox....You are willing to accept the fact that there are things you don't know about.....BUT, God is not one of them! Even IF He created EVERYTHING!

On the contrary. I am willing to accept that there are things we don't know about... including god. It seems to me that the only difference between us is that you ponder the lack of evidence for god and decide that he's there, and I ponder the lack of evidence and decide that he's not. You are able to provide as much proof for his existence as I am able to provide against it. For everything except god, we'd reach the same conclusion.

[FallentoReason]

Wrong. I'll have to stop you there because you're assuming all other texts are like the Bible; they can't be verified anymore. Guess what? I'm alive and able to tell you what my text means. The authors and pseudo-authors of the Bible are long gone, hence the confusion about what it means.

Well, people have trouble understanding texts today. There are many, many interpreters to authors today. There is not really that much confusion over what the Bible means. I have studied the Early Church Fathers a little bit as well as church history. Theology has essentially remained the same for the last 2000 years with maybe 10-15% variation between churches that are connected to the Bible. I had a book of the early church fathers on Christian doctrine and they are very close to modern Christians in man ways. Some doctrines like dispensational premillenialism came relatively recently.

If you go to seminary, what you learn is not only the Bible, you learn Christian history. The way that the Bible is interpreted is not only through tools people have in the 20th century, it goes back to the commentaries that were written much earlier. One of the first books that I read was Augustine's Confessions, which has commentaries on the Bible that are very similar to modern interpreters.

If you want proof of this, look at the doctrinal differences between the Catholics and the Protestants, two movements in which the people have traditionally not liked each other very much, and which have developed mostly independently of each other. If you study the differences in Catholic doctrine about the Bible, Christian ethics, etc, it is very close to Protestant doctrine.

What you are saying is factually not accurate. The Bible is simple to understand, it is just once you understand the main points there are some very difficult issues that have divided people.

The core issues of the Christian faith, who Christ is, what God is like, how Christians should live, are basically agreed upon.

The fact that there's 30 000+ denominations blows your suggestion out of the water; that the Bible is easy to understand. Something "easy" to interpret you would think would give considerably a lot less interpretations than 30 000+.

4: in essence the text communicates *something*, but that something is meaningless as we have Christians falling over each other trying to explain their mysterious invisible friend.

If you have two people that disagree over the interpretation of the theory of evolution, that does not mean the theory of evolution is meaningless. Your demand that Christians consider the text meaningless because their are contradictory interpretations would also make the theory of evolution meaningless, as there are different interpretations there.

The difference between evolution and Christian theology is that the Christians have had all the available "data" on their theology for the past 2000 years -- it's there in the Bible. Evolution in comparison is but a toddler where lots more things are yet to be uncovered, and thus, giving us a better picture of the whole. It's an unfair comparison and a red herring. We're talking the supposed "inspired Word of God" which is meant to be the ultimate truth here... an ultimate truth that can be explained in 30 000+ different ways...

The Bible prophesies that Jesus Christ will return in Isaiah (see Isaiah 53). It makes many other prophecies (see Ezekiel). It is the most important book in the modern world and the story of the most powerful civilization in history wrestling with concerns that are more relevant and close to human nature than any other book. It has been confirmed by miracles throughout the history of the Christian church. It is substantially confirmed by the Quran and other texts that point back to it. There is very good historical evidence to accept early authorship of scripture and believe that the people who wrote the New Testament experience the things that they testify to. The early Christian church believed the miracles so strongly that they were willing to die for them? Who would be willing to die for a lie? Who was Jesus Christ, was he Lord, liar or lunatic? Why have so many, including myself received miraculous confirmations in which spoke to them, often through the Bible, and revealed things to them.

Ah, good old Apologetics 101. Brings back memories...

Isaiah 53 is not prophecy because it isn't referring to Jesus. Isaiah 52 speaks of a "servant" which Isaiah 53 then talks about. If we look at previous chapters, what do we find(?):

"Israel, my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen" ~ Isaiah 41:8
"O Jacob, my servant, and Israel whom I have chosen" ~ Isaiah 44:1
"O Jacob my servant" ~ Isaiah 44:2
"Remember these things, O Jacob, and Israel, for you are my servant...you are my servant, O Israel" ~ Isaiah 44:21
"Jacob my servant and Israel my chosen one" ~ Isaiah 45:4
"his servant Jacob" ~ Isaiah 48:20
"You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified" ~ Isaiah 49:3

Quite clearly, the "prophecy" about Jesus is nowhere to be found because the servant seems to be Jacob and/or Israel. Your apologetic line is just in fact a Christian invention that relies on misusing the OT.

***

The authorship of the books is partly where all the credibility of the story crumbles. We have "Matthew", a supposed witness, using "Mark" as the basis for his work, according to modern scholarship (Markan Priority). That begs the question "why in the hell would a direct witness need to rely on the hearsay account of Mark"? Clearly, the tradition that "Matthew, an Apostle of Jesus, wrote the Gospel according to Matthew" is a bunch of nonsense. If you wish, you can read more of what has already been discussed about the credibility of it all here: http://atheistforums.org/thread-15499.html

The apologist involved last posted on this forum on the 1st of November, the same date that DeistPaladin made (what was to be) his last argument. My guess is that he left and has since possibly deconverted... you've got a tough gig defending those books.

***

People dying for their beliefs tells us only one thing: they were strong believers. We can't gather anything about the truth of those beliefs. Otherwise, according to similar logic, Allah is real because Muslims blow themselves up.

***

Every religion claims to have been answered by their god. Your anecdotes are only useful to you, but useless for proving anything about your religion to anyone else. I have said all this before...

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin." ~ Cardinal Bellarmine, during the trial of Galileo, 1615

"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.." ~ Hitler

Christianity: Fueling ignorance and genocide since the Bronze Age.

I am not sure what these intend to prove. There is 2000 years of mistakes you can dig up about Christianity. What does this prove about the Christian faith? The Christian faith has not fueled ignorance, the most advanced societies have come through Christianity and now have become materialistic and empty.

You keep asserting that Christianity has been the most influential force and I'm simply pointing out that it's been the most horrid thing to happen to humanity at the same time.

Well, if you were questioning whether the narrative revealed God because of your presupposition that God must work inside of some easily discernible interpretation of the Bible, that would conquer that presupposition if it rested on the Bible text (which it doesn't).

Are you arguing that:
1. God must reveal himself in a definite, easily discernible way, otherwise God is not God?
2. I know this through philosophical theology
3. ...

If so, prove that concept. Why must God reveal himself in a definite, easily discernible way?

It's not a "must" per se... the way in which the Bible and Christians talk about their beliefs should be reflected in reality: miracles should have happened every now and again at my Pentecostal church of ~1000 people, answered prayers shouldn't look like a trivial coincidence based on explainable factors... basically, I look up from the Bible and the world doesn't look like what the Bible says it's like.

Consider your work cut out for you. I demand explanations, so better start asking your god. Otherwise, consider your belief system invalid or severly questionable until any sort of explanation is given for such fundamental controversies.

Invalid because you can't see the truth of it from your ignorant presuppositions? Why would I think that? You know when I read these forums, I feel badly, because I have had a supernatural experience and i know what I am saying is true, and you are debating me and reasoning about all these things with words.

Yes, it is true that you experienced *something*. The nature of that experience is where you're delusional and you so badly want it to be related to scribblings of tribal people and a cult who hijacked an unrelated religion. It's an illusion based on your perception of the world, just like a magician pulls off an illusion because my perception of the trick is that of the audience's, but if I were to walk around the side...

Maybe you need to look at your beliefs from a different angle. The natural explanation is out there, but you clearly have confirmation bias.

---

You're joking, right?

You claim to know of the "absolute truth". Go talk to Drich about what Christianity is. Get back to me once you can both express what Christianity is without consulting the other.

So much for "absolute truth".

The onus is on you and your cohorts to prove God doesn't exsit bub!

Because for one, He is God... and if He is as omnipotent/escient etc as you and the other (not-so-omnipotents) say a God "would be"...

...well He can do WhateverTF He likes. Hows that for a little TRUTH?
________________________________________________________

I'm a Deist.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Quite clearly, the "prophecy" about Jesus is nowhere to be found because the servant seems to be Jacob and/or Israel. Your apologetic line is just in fact a Christian invention that relies on misusing the OT.

Actually the traditional understanding of Isaiah 53 was Messianic for both Christians and Jew until about the 11th century. Christians said the messiah in question was Jesus, the Jews said it was a future messiah. It wasn't until the Crusaders were confronting European Jews with the idea that the Jesus as the messiah, that a certain Rabbi, whose name eludes me at the moment, reinterpreted the Isaiah 53 as referring to the nation of Israel. And that novel interpretation has since become the norm.

[FallentoReason]

Quite clearly, the "prophecy" about Jesus is nowhere to be found because the servant seems to be Jacob and/or Israel. Your apologetic line is just in fact a Christian invention that relies on misusing the OT.

Actually the traditional understanding of Isaiah 53 was Messianic for both Christians and Jew until about the 11th century. Christians said the messiah in question was Jesus, the Jews said it was a future messiah. It wasn't until the Crusaders were confronting European Jews with the idea that the Jesus as the messiah, that a certain Rabbi, whose name eludes me at the moment, reinterpreted the Isaiah 53 as referring to the nation of Israel. And that novel interpretation has since become the norm.

Nowhere does the text indicate that the "servant" already explicitly mentioned a handful of times is now going to represent the messiah. Why should I believe it's miraculously about Jesus now?