God & Lies

[Jeremiah]

We may want to move this discussion to a high school science class. Mods can we get the thread moo-ved please?

 

[sojourner]

Facts are an "observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true". They are based on our perception and understanding of the truth.

In fact established facts can even be proven wrong as we learn and perceive more of existence. Truth however will remain true even if we don't understand it or don't perceive it.

Nope. If the fact is "proven wrong," then it wasn't a fact to begin with. It was only "true" because that's the meaning we assigned to it. "The earth is flat" was a fact, until we discovered differently. That "fact" does not exist, because it was never a "fact" to begin with.

So... what is the truth? Is the Bee Gees a good music group? How do you know? What is the standard? Who sets it? How do you quantify it? You can dig up facts about the band all day, but none of them speak to the truth of whether the band is "good" or not. That's because truth is subjective -- it is a matter of perception and meaning, not a measurable quantity.

 

[sojourner]

We may want to move this discussion to a high school science class. Mods can we get the thread moo-ved please?

Or, we could move it to an elementary school theology class...:areyoucra

 

[Jeremiah]

Or, we could move it to an elementary school theology class...:areyoucra

Sounds like a waste of time.

 

[sojourner]

Sounds like a waste of time.

I can't fix the level of theological engagement in the OP...

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Facts are an "observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true". They are based on our perception and understanding of the truth.

In fact established facts can even be proven wrong as we learn and perceive more of existence. Truth however will remain true even if we don't understand it or don't perceive it.

I was pretty sure that you were mistaken when you claimed not to debate semantics. One can't discuss anything without trying to get a fix on what our words mean.

By the way, assuming your definition of 'truth', can a human ever be certain that his beliefs are aligned with truth?

If so, which person? And how does he know? By claiming that the Holy Spirit guides him?

If not, if a person can never know the truth, what is the use of truth?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Depends on the lies, do you believe the lies to be true or do you understand they're false but build a relationship on it? If you believe the "lies" then they are not lies to you, so then you have a foundation of a relationship with God, even though they could be lies to the person next to you

 

[Jeremiah]

I was pretty sure that you were mistaken when you claimed not to debate semantics. One can't discuss anything without trying to get a fix on what our words mean.

By the way, assuming your definition of 'truth', can a human ever be certain that his beliefs are aligned with truth?

If so, which person? And how does he know? By claiming that the Holy Spirit guides him?

If not, if a person can never know the truth, what is the use of truth?

It is not semantics, it is philosophy, and he really does have it backwards. But to each their own.

 

[sojourner]

It is not semantics, it is philosophy, and he really does have it backwards. But to each their own.

It is sematics, because you've failed to identify what truth is.

 

[Quintessence]

Feel free to fill in the blanks.

That is how it ultimately is for each of us, isn't it?

To be honest, I don't know how to begin to interpret the question from the perspective of my theology. Truth is not such a simple beast. "Lies" believed to be "truth" have a strong power and efficacy in the minds of those that hold to them. So for most purposes, what is important is trust, not what "The Truth" of things is.

For example, I recall hearing a story recently on NPR about a woman who found out late in life that her father was not her biological father. She could have thrown a temper tantrum and concluded her relationship with her father was nothing but a lie. But instead she did the mature thing and realized that relationships are more complicated than that. What makes a father isn't the ability to have a child, but to have a meaningful and loving relationship with them. The man who thought he was her father didn't know either. He did the mature thing too. He wasn't even mad at his wife for keeping this from him. Because he loved this girl he raised as a daughter and that relationship was powerful and meaningful in spite of being based on a "lie." They all cherished what they had instead of fussing over irrelevant details.

 

[Thief]

That is how it ultimately is for each of us, isn't it?

To be honest, I don't know how to begin to interpret the question from the perspective of my theology. Truth is not such a simple beast. "Lies" believed to be "truth" have a strong power and efficacy in the minds of those that hold to them. So for most purposes, what is important is trust, not what "The Truth" of things is.

For example, I recall hearing a story recently on NPR about a woman who found out late in life that her father was not her biological father. She could have thrown a temper tantrum and concluded her relationship with her father was nothing but a lie. But instead she did the mature thing and realized that relationships are more complicated than that. What makes a father isn't the ability to have a child, but to have a meaningful and loving relationship with them. The man who thought he was her father didn't know either. He did the mature thing too. He wasn't even mad at his wife for keeping this from him. Because he loved this girl he raised as a daughter and that relationship was powerful and meaningful in spite of being based on a "lie." They all cherished what they had instead of fussing over irrelevant details.

We listen to the same channel.

But can you apply this to God the Father?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It is not semantics, it is philosophy, and he really does have it backwards. But to each their own.

Actually I find sojourner's explanation of the terms to be more reasonable than your own. Although of course my own humble analysis would be the finest of all.

You've not really read philosophy, have you? If you had, you would know that the very first business of a philosopher is to define his own words as he is using them.

It's one reason I don't read philosophers myself. I don't love them enough to learn their languages.

 

[sojourner]

As I see it, philosophy seeks not to define thetruth, so much as it seeks to define atruth that has meaning for the philosopher. AFAIW, for the philosopher, facts don't point to the truth, rather, truth creates meaning out of fact.

 

[chinu]

Can one have a healthy relationship with God if that relationship is founded on lies?

If its impossible to have a healthy relationship even with SPOUSE if that relationship is founded on lies, than do you think GOD is a fool ?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

As I see it, philosophy seeks not to define thetruth, so much as it seeks to define atruth that has meaning for the philosopher. AFAIW, for the philosopher, facts don't point to the truth, rather, truth creates meaning out of fact.

Good way to put it.

 

[Jeremiah]

G

Actually I find sojourner's explanation of the terms to be more reasonable than your own. Although of course my own humble analysis would be the finest of all.

You've not really read philosophy, have you? If you had, you would know that the very first business of a philosopher is to define his own words as he is using them.

It's one reason I don't read philosophers myself. I don't love them enough to learn their languages.

You, Sir, must have purple skin with yellow stripes! I can see it in the way you post!

I suppose to a person who has low reading comprehension, philosophy could seem as if written in a different language. I would suggest you try putting it in the proper context for an easier read.

 

[McBell]

I suppose to a person who has low reading comprehension, philosophy could seem as if written in a different language. I would suggest you try putting it in the proper context for an easier read.

Especially when someone who claims to be speaking "philosophy" absolutely refuses to define the terms they use...

Context?
Do you even know what the word means?

 

[Thief]

G

You, Sir, must have purple skin with yellow stripes! I can see it in the way you post!

I suppose to a person who has low reading comprehension, philosophy could seem as if written in a different language. I would suggest you try putting it in the proper context for an easier read.

Easier read.....as for those with low reading comprehension?

 

[Thief]

Perhaps we could say....IF....

IF God lies...why would He?

Such as not describing the 'void' to the scribe.....
Or maybe the scribe would not understand.

Or describing in detail how Man was actually made?
Evolving from ape and then genetically manipulated.
That might be too much for scribes living before the microscope.

And mass elimination of so called.....undesirables...
Or maybe the scribe is just trusting Something Greater than himself.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I suppose to a person who has low reading comprehension, philosophy could seem as if written in a different language. I would suggest you try putting it in the proper context for an easier read.

I have no good idea what you're trying to say. You're welcome to try again though.