Is there objective Truth?

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

Not sure how historical atrocities and barbarism got in there, the crucifixion of christ was neither.  It's just a story.

I was referring to the crusades actually.

"I'd really like to understand why you believe that chocolate is better than vanilla...so let's talk baseball!"

..................?

I agree that this is an ineffective approach in resolving this issue; however, this is not the approach I'm suggesting. I have shared a personal and direct experience and observation that I have had with other Christians, namely that they say that their beliefs are based in love, understanding, and peace.  Hence, I'm seeking to understand that idea from their point of view.  

Peace and understanding, apparently, means vicarious redemption through blood sacrifice

Does every Christian agree with you on this point or is this ultimately how you make sense of Christianity?

[The Grand Nudger]

@Ark
Like I said, depends on who you ask.  If you're asking me, that never happened...so...?

[The Grand Nudger]

I was referring to the crusades actually.

Meh, just a war.  Like any war...there are the reasons we go, and there are the strings those who send us pull.  I don;t see those as particularly christian atrocities, or barbarism in the first place.
(you're talking to a joe)

I agree that this is an ineffective approach in resolving this issue; however, this is not the approach I'm suggesting. I have shared a personal and direct experience and observation that I have had with other Christians, namely that they say that their beliefs are based in love, understanding, and peace.  Hence, I'm seeking to understand that idea from their point of view.  

Their point of view is, necessarily,  a christian pov...vicarious redemption through blood sacrifice.  Otherwise you're not asking them anything related to christianity in the first place.  

Does every Christian agree with you on this point or is this ultimately how you make sense of Christianity?

Well, the offer is on the board.... any of them can come and deny the vicarious redemption through blood sacrifice, offered by jesus on the cross, and available through no other means. "Peace and understanding" won't get you through the gates, my friend.  Not to a -christian-. I'm sure we can find some non-heterodox nutters here and there.....but I don't think that's who we're discussing, and you won;t find many here in any case, eh? The notion that every christian would agree on anything is, ultimately, laughable...but if they don't agree on the subject of christ...not a name, a title...in what way would they be christians to begin with? It's the lone non-negotiable thing in the entire theology.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting, if I were you.  That they might call this "peace and understanding" is no different than you calling the furry thing in the corner "cat" and my buddy Juan calling it "gato". In their defense...it certainly sounds better as an affirmation of faith acceptable in a college environment than "torturing a jew for all the bad shit I've done".

[Edwardo Piet]

All truth is objective.

As long as you don't open the window and let in the cold....

I don't understand your metaphor I'm afraid.

Could you rephrase it as a non-figurative logical argument?

[Edwardo Piet]

It won't work though. Just warning you. Unless we redefine what 'truth' means it cannot not be objective.

[The Grand Nudger]

Theres the rub, like my highschool algebra teacher loved to say "define your variables".

If truth is, as we conceptualize it, the product of sound propositions and valid means of inference it could be nothing other -than- objective...whatever that's worth to someone.  That we use the term colloquially to refer to a million private and disparate "truths" is irrelevant....if we're having a -rational- discussion. The rules are what they are, the product is whatever it will be, no matter who or what plays the game.

[Edwardo Piet]

The truth, already defined, is simply that which corresponds to reality regardless of if it is subjective reality or objective reality and regardless of whether anyone exists to define it.

Based on the premise of what the word 'true' means it is either objectively true that objective reality existed before humans existed to create a language and define such words as 'true' or it is objectively not true. A=A, even before we invented the concept, just as two things plus another two things is still four things, even before we invented the concept, and all that jazz.

[Edwardo Piet]

[...]truth is, as we conceptualize it[...]nothing other -than- objective...whatever that's worth to someone.

I can fully agree with this.

That we use the term colloquially to refer to a million private and disparate "truths" is irrelevant....

I don't think it's even an established colloquial meaning of the term. It's like those people who use 'literally' to mean 'not literally'. It has been bastardized so many times that now it's actually an official dictionary sense of the word. 'literally' can literally mean 'not literally' now. Maybe that will happen with "truth".

And dictionaries track languages, so maybe it's already happening, maybe there's already a sense of the word 'truth' that means 'what I personally think that may not actually be true at all', and sure language grows like this, that's the way language works... I'm not going to not complain at all though because it's annoying how there are so many dumb fucks who can't use words correctly that often they get to redefine the language.

if we're having a -rational- discussion.  The rules are what they are, the product is whatever it will be, no matter who or what plays the game.

I agree 100%

[The Grand Nudger]

That's the great thing about colloquial meanings...they're not established so much as a work in progress as-practiced and subject to endless variation.  

That's how the word "fuck" became the singlemost versatile and expressive word in the english language. Asking someone to define truth and asking them to define fuck gives us a nice demonstration of just how serious this oh-so-serious business is. 

[Edwardo Piet]

Oh I love the word "fuck".

'Literally' being used to mean 'not literally' would be fun too if the usage didn't come about through massively dumb fucks who didn't even know what the original word meant. I don't like to associate words with sheer stupidity!