-->
@vagabond
The Truth is not created by man.
The overwhelming majority of godists.....
Posts
Total:
121
-->
@Mopac
If fornication has nothing to do with the "Truth being God" then why is it a sin? In what way does the act of marriage change the act?
-->
@drafterman
I already told you I'm not interested in debating the ethics of fornication.
I absolutely cannot condone sex outside of marriage.
You understanding fornication is not relevent to you understanding that The Truth is God.
If you being unable to reasonably accept that fornication is bad gets in the way of you accepting that The Truth is God, as I said, you've answered your own question.
If you can't accept God because you are trying to justify something, what does that say about where your heart is? You are demonstrating through your persistence on this question how these things get in the way of loving truth.
There are many people who reject God because they don't like being told that the things they are doing are wrong. As the scriptures say,
" And these are they which are sown among thorns; such as hear the word,
And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful."
So answer me this, is this one little issue you have really all it takes for you to reject The Truth as God? I am telling you that you can still believe that God exists and be wrong about other things.
As a human being, you are absolutely wrong, and that is a fundamental of my faith. That we all fall short of the glory of God and are guilty of sin. Let God be true, and all men liars.
But see, you are made right through The Truth, because it isn't you that is right, it is The Truth. By grace, through faith.
-->
@Mopac
I already told you I'm not interested in debating the ethics of fornication.
I'm not asking you to debate anything, I'm asking you to explain something.
If you can't explain what you mean by things, then maybe you shouldn't bring up those issues? Like, I'm basing this stuff off of what you wrote, and you've written several posts railing against fornication but you seem unwilling to expand on your views on the matter.
What I think is the fundamental issue here is there is some missing component. When you say "The Truth" you mean something specific. When I read "The Truth" I conceive of it as something specific. But is seems like what you mean and what I conceive are different things, and this is leading to issues in conveying the idea here.
When I read "The Truth" I simply take it to mean: "all the things that are true." As if there was a book that listed every statement that was true. That's it and nothing more. When I read "The Ultimate Reality" I take it to me "the way things really are." For example, the development of scientific theories has resulted in finer and more accurate measurements of reality. That is, we are incrementally getting closer to measuring the way the universe actually is, and that thing we are continually approaching is "the ultimate reality."
But none of those things have attributes or properties that compel me to label them "God." I don't see from whence things like "sin" comes from.
Basically, I'm at Point A and you're at Point B. I'm asking for a map to show how to get where you are, but all you can do is pontificate about how good Point B is and how bad Point A is.
If you're unwilling to explain your view or how to reach that view from a starting point of ignorance, then just say so in clear terms.
-->
@drafterman
Yes, I am talking about The Ultimate Reality. The way things actually are.And now we are actually talking about that so we can somewhere.
You are correct in that when I say, "The Truth" does not mean "all things that are true". Yet, if something is true, it is only because The Truth is in it. Just as there is no reality without The Ultimate Reality.
So when I say The Truth, I am saying "The Ultimate Reality".
You are right to say that science, at least good science, is guided by a pursuit of ultimate reality, but it is impossible for science to ever totally know the ultimate reality.
Take 2 rocks, you have 2 rocks right? 1 + 1 equals 2, right? But closer examination of these rocks reveals that they are not exactly the same. They are difference. So 1 =/= 1?
Physicists notived this and broke things down to atoms. They found that no 2 atoms are the same, so then they came up with isotopes. It has been found that no matter how far you break things down, no two observable phenomina are exactly the same. It has been found that the limits to our observation has a great deal to do with how light bends. There is a theoretical smallest possible object, but this is theoretical, and not science. It is entirely possible that there are in fact no limits to how small things can get. We don't really know, but moving on to the point...
The reason we have these problems is that we are dealing with representations of reality rather than reality itself.
Bell's theorem shows us that it is impossible to totally isolate all variables and eliminate probabilities from our physics. There are literally objects on the opposite side of the universe effecting what is going on here right now, and faster than light. Not only that, but there may be objects in the future effecting what is going on now backwards in time. All this makes the idea of having a perfect knowledge of what is going on totally absurd, but to even hammer this further...
The quantum no cloning theorem shows that information cannot be perfectly cloned.
When we are dealing with knowledge, we are dealing with representations of reality rather than reality itself.
And so the point being, to have perfect knowledge of the ultimate reality, you would have to be the ultimate reality, and there can by definition only be one ultimate reality.
Science can only get so far as an image of the ultimate reality.
And this perfect image we can have in man is known in Christian theology as the son in the trilogy, the father of course being the ultimate reality, and the holy spirit the spirit of truth, all three of these of the same essence in 1 point to in creation The Ultimate Reality as it truly is, beyond names that can be named, because it simply is what it is. The Truth Itself.
But that is Christian theology, which is true. See, Christianity acknowledges this in its theology, because Christianity acknowledges the absurdity of expressing what is fundamentally uncreated through the medium of creation the best as it is built into the scriptures and its theology.
So the point of true religion is relationship with the ultimate reality, and this is done through sincere faith and charity.
In the end, the discipline of loving God above all else and showing charity brings one closer in heart to God. It stands to reason that this makes one a more rational, loving, happy, and peaceful person, which is true.
See, the faith is not in understanding, knowledge, or any created thing.. it is in God and our relationship to God.
But whether or not you are a disciple of God, to be adopted as a son by God, it is still no great thing to acknowledge that God at the very least most certainly exists. Even if you don't make The Truth your God, The Truth still has all authority over your life, and The Truth is God. To surrender to this is to accept reality. To fight it is to willingly prefer delusion to The Truth.
So no, the. existence of God is not even really up for debate. God certainly exists, and being uncertain of this is always a matter of mistaken identity.
How much love it takes to willingly go to execution and even torture in order to spread the good news that The Truth is what sets you free? That hey, it's never too late to do the right thing? That peace and happiness comes from loving God and one another?
Yet even now, there are people who make them enemies to the cause, prefering those who want to chop their heads off, or those who have sacrificed truth for the sake of hedonism. Salvation is only with God.
Pardon my pontificating, I hope you get what I'm trying to say.
-->
@Mopac
Yes, I am talking about The Ultimate Reality. The way things actually are.And now we are actually talking about that so we can somewhere.You are correct in that when I say, "The Truth" does not mean "all things that are true". Yet, if something is true, it is only because The Truth is in it. Just as there is no reality without The Ultimate Reality.So when I say The Truth, I am saying "The Ultimate Reality".
Right, but to me, "all things that are true" and "the way things actually are" are just different ways of saying the same thing. So, of "all things that are true" is not "The Truth" to you, then we aren't talking about the same thing and I don't understand what you are talking about when you say "The Truth."
What is "The Truth" other than the sum of all things that are true?
-->
@drafterman
It is ok if we have to talk it out for the sake of clarity. This after all, one of the goals of GOOD debate. Edification through a mutual striving for truth.
I would not say that The Truth is the sum total of all things that are true, it is definitely greater than this.
Things are not true unless The Truth is in it. So The Truth precedes truth. If something is true at all, the truth that is in it comes from The Truth. For that reason, truths don't build up to The Truth. The Truth is the ground that truths build on.
I think the best I can explain the difference is.. think of a truth as being like The Truth after processing and filtering. A truth is an abstraction from The Truth. The difference between an apple and apple sauce. Or maybe an apple and an apple seed. Or maybe an apple and a picture of an apple? These are probably not the best metaphors. It is really the difference between Existence Itself and an existent thing. The sum of all existent things does not make Existence Itself, but the essence of Existence Itself is in every existent thing.
The Truth is what is Ultimately and Eternally Reality.
If you believe in truths at all you must necessarily also believe in The Truth.
-->
@Mopac
I understand your analogy and how it relates to "truths" vs "The Truth."
But, I have no idea what this extra stuff is and I don't believe in it. I don't believe there is anything more or greater than simply the sum of all things that are true. I am an existentialist and believe that existence precedes essence, which is little more than our conscious abstractions of things that exist.
-->
@drafterman
The Ultimate Reality Exists, and that is its essence. Existence is the essence of The Truth.
Obviously, if it doesn't exist, it isn't The Truth.
So I'm not talking about something that soley exists in consciousness.
In that sense, I am not sure we are actually in disagreement.
I think you think The Truth is simply an essence and not That Which Exists Eternally.
Sure, if you think that The Truth is simply the sum of all truths, you could say that is how you understand God. I would still say that God is greater than the sum of all truths.
Is an automobile greater than the sum of its parts?
-->
@Mopac
Right, and I don't believe there is anything that is "Greater than the sum of all truths", so I don't believe in God.I would still say that God is greater than the sum of all truths.
And since you do believe that God is greater than the sum of all truths, you should recognize that what you believe in as God is something I don't believe in.
-->
@drafterman
But, I have no idea what this extra stuff is and I don't believe in it. I don't believe there is anything more or greater than simply the sum of all things that are true. I am an existentialist and believe that existence precedes essence, which is little more than our conscious abstractions of things that exist.
Here's what I'm getting from his "argument".
1) He's defined God as Truth and Ultimate reality (or perhaps it's the dictionary that defines God as having those aspects) either way....
2) Truth and reality exist therefore God exists
3) If you deny God exists then you deny truth and ultimate reality exist
So you would be right in thinking it's a circular argument. However, to make things more simple for him, if God does indeed exist would you then agree with those terms or disagree? since he's given you really no reason to accept an extension of truth and reality (being God, or vise versa) you have no reason to buy into it. However, just to spice things up, why don't we elaborate on WHY truth or reality exists the way it does and why those things exist at all. What if we said that truth and reality could only logically exist by that of a medium which could manifest such things, well obviously truth and reality have no relevance without a conscious observer, and it's more logically reasonable to consider that truth and reality come from an intelligent or conscious aware reality. Again though, I'm giving you no reason to accept this extension other than commonsense. Could you start with that platform and work with it? after all what would truth and reality mean without any observer? how does truth and reality produce alone or by themselves.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that is we disappeared truth and reality would not exist, but if the Ultimate reality, conscious Observer disappeared then how could they exist as a thing or reality? this is more of a reasoned proposition so you have to be a bit more flexible if you want to progress at all.
-->
@drafterman
If you believe that the ultimate reality is the sum of all things true, you still believe the ultimate. reality. You believe God exists.
You believe God differently than I do, or at least think you do
-->
@EtrnlVw
If you don't accept that God is the ultimate reality, there is an inconsistency between your definition of God and thousands of years of writing about God.
Theologians do not always agree with each other. They do not always believe the same things. It is not up for debate that God means The Ultimate Reality. Theologians have different beliefs about what the ultimate reality is, but they do not dispute that this is what God means.
See, the thing is, and I know how obnoxious this is to someone who puts their faith in knowledge and understanding, but everybody is wrong. If this wasn't the case, God wouldn't be what God is.
So I am not saying that if you deny God that you are. denying that truth and reality exists. I'm saying that this is what your words mean, even if this is not what you believe.
If you believe that ultimate reality exists, but deny God, you are recognizing God but refusing to acknowledge God as God.
What does scripture say this leads to?
"Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things."
-->
@Mopac
If you don't accept that God is the ultimate reality,
Show me where I said that. That god is NOT the ultimate reality. What I said was, is that you gave the poster no reason to accept that truth and ultimate reality are God. I did not say I don't believe in God, and that God is not that.
-->
@EtrnlVw
I already know you wouldn't say that, I apologize if it came off that way. I was speaking in a general sense. Not you personally, but universally.
-->
@Mopac
Understood.
-->
@Mopac
It's easy for us to accept that the Creator, or God, or the first Source is the culmination of all truth and reality because we've already accepted premises and logic for why God exists. However, when speaking with a materialist/naturalist you have to find a way to bridge that gap like he kept suggesting. He's right, only that you aren't helping him not that you're wrong. To bridge the gap, you have to show WHY it's a superior belief that God is the source of truth and reality and I gave him something to consider.
-->
@EtrnlVw
I appreciate any help. I am trying my best to be lucid and easy to understand.
Really, all I can think of is that the very idea of a truth or reality is nonsensical unless The Truth exists.
See, without The Truth, there are no truths. Of course, the idea that there are no truths is easily proven false simply by existing.
So believe me, it is my intention to be as clear as possible. My goal here is to demystify, not confuse.
-->
@Stronn
That does not mitigate the fact that Christians, for example, reject and interpret differently most of what is written in the Bible. Yet every Christian will adamantly state that the Bible is the one and only gospel of truth.
-->
@Mopac
The Pebble is different to the pebble in what way?
-->
@vagabond
The difference between The Truth and the the truth is...
The Truth I am refering to here is The Ultimate reality.
Contrasted with a truth or truths, like "The truth is that Donald Trump is the president of The United States."
One truth is only true for a season or true because of other facts, but The Truth is noncontingent and eternal.
-->
@Mopac
I didn't ask you that, answer my question.
-->
@vagabond
"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."
-->
@Mopac
Can't answer my question. As always the godist only has access to the brain of a primitive, superstitious , ignorant savage.
The words of your primitive savages mean nothing.
-->
@Mopac
Not according to how you've previously defined it, no.If you believe that the ultimate reality is the sum of all things true, you still believe the ultimate. reality. You believe God exists.
-->
@drafterman
So you don't understand God the way I do, but you still believe God exists because you believe The Truth exists.
I defined God as The Ultimate Reality, and not really me, I didn't make that up.
Understanding of God =/= God.
If you can see that, you can see qhy it isn't necessary that we believe the same, because we are both wrong.
-->
@Mopac
Right, but we established that what you mean by those words isn't what I mean. Just because we label them the same thing doesn't make them the same thing.
-->
@drafterman
What makes something true?
-->
@Mopac
What makes something true?
Bad question because it's not about somethings - 'True' does not apply to things but to statements about (or descriptions of) things.
A statement is 'True' if it describes reality.
-->
@keithprosser
What is truth?