Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I appreciate his ten truths, not because I necessarily agree with all what he has put together, but because he has taken the time to develop a coherent statement of his philosophy.
When I used to be interviewing teacher candidates, one part of the process was a "written" statement of educational philosophy. Half of it had to be written on the computer, and half written by hand. The process was often an eye-opener.
Universal truths are simply facts, either already established as fact or yet to be recognized as such.
Again the simple dictionary definition: "Truth, that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality."
If you really need examples of facts or truth, I'm either not understanding what you want or your aversion to accept the simple and obvious is also getting in the way due to some sort of biased way of thinking I doubt I'm able to change or overcome.
I'm not a miracle worker, but if you really do need examples, please explain why and I'll do my best to help further the understanding here as best I can perhaps tomorrow, but until then, really?
When the earth was believed to be flat, and widely agreed upon, it was a fact.
When the sun was believed to travel East to West, it was widely agreed upon to be a fact.
These were never truths, even though we thought they were.
I can quote many more examples but I am sure you can come up with truth based on widely agreed upon facts, because I am unable to understand how you think. Truth does not necessarily derive from facts. You may postulate a theory, or a law based on facts.
Truth is a concept, as is love, or beauty. You cannot argue with that kind of truth or change it based upon some kind of widelyagreed upon facts.
Truth is not a synonym for reality. Even reality is only what we believe it is, and it is not always widely agreed upon, and anyway what doe widely mean? 80% of the earth's people? 65% of Americans? If they agree it becomes truth?
If you are thinking of facts as evidence while prosecuting a crime, for instance, still it is not truth. To be truth it should mean we have never, ever, put a person in jail, or executed him, because we found the truth. We managed to find evidence that connected him to the crime. We would never know what the truth is.
No, I probably can't, because it would require you to have to rely to some extent on faith, and that's something you don't seem to want to do. Besides, even if you were to be willing to concede that there are certain "truths" that are impossible to understand through science, you'd have to accept these truths to be be your own relative truths, and I don't think that would satisfy you. Faith works for me; it may not work for you at all. I can't even explain why I believe some of the things I do, and it's frustrating to even try. It's that, not shame, that makes me reticent to engage in a dialogue on the subject.
I don't. My dad, who was a professor of German and Humanities knew a great deal about him and really liked his works. Personally, his beliefs about God don't seem to me to play into this at all. The quote I gave is equally valid for believers and non-believers, IMO.
Some people can simply dismiss the "remainder" and go about living as if it didn't matter. Others can anxiously await some scientific discovery that will clear matters up once and for all. And still others -- like me -- are willing to involve the existence of a Higher Power in trying to make sense of these things, because we are committed to the idea that not only does God exist, but that He is a personal God who knows and loves each and every one of us. I understand, really I do, how that may sound to someone who doesn't believe as strongly as I do in such a God. Honestly, I have pretty much concluded that a person can't will himself to believe any more than a person can will himself not to believe. For this reason, I almost never let people into that part of me. It's almost as if my belief in God is part of my DNA. Trust me, even though I was taught about God by my parents, ours was not a home where God and sin and Heaven and Hell and miracles, etc. were spoken of much at all.
At any rate, I appreciate the fact that you've at least been respectful of my beliefs, and that you've given me an opportunity to express myself. I just don't know that there's much more for me to say that I haven't already said.
Ah! You're back. Nice...
Again fair enough. Seems we understand one another perhaps well enough too, but I'm not as inclined to leave it where you do. Not sure either of us is so inclined given the ongoing comments we're both posting here and there. For people like me in any case...
Relying on faith is not necessary any more than it is necessary to believe the Earth is flat.
It's not what I "want to do" but what facts, reason and logic lead me to do.
What truths are these that are impossible to understand through science?
I don't have to accept any truths that are not pretty well accepted as universal.
Again, truth is not a function of what satisfies us.
Yes He (or She) is a personal God, that personal reality touched upon in Truth One.
Also again, truth is not a function of what we will ourselves to do. Shouldn't be anyway.
Trust me, if you were taught some other religion by your parents, like say if you were born in Thailand, the odds you would be Mormon are slim to none. Those world religion demographics don't mean anything to you?
I try to be respectful while at the same time pointing at where I think there is room for further consideration and/or discussion depending on the interest, but at the same time I've done this enough times to know these differences cannot be reconciled once we get of this age beyond reason. Whether it be the call for faith or call for reason, no matter. I think I shared my Cement Theory with you somewhere along the way as well. Right?
When the earth was believed to be flat, and widely agreed upon, it was a fact.
When the sun was believed to travel East to West, it was widely agreed upon to be a fact.
These were never truths, even though we thought they were.
I can quote many more examples but I am sure you can come up with truth based on widely agreed upon facts, because I am unable to understand how you think. Truth does not necessarily derive from facts. You may postulate a theory, or a law based on facts.
Truth is a concept, as is love, or beauty. You cannot argue with that kind of truth or change it based upon some kind of widelyagreed upon facts.
Truth is not a synonym for reality. Even reality is only what we believe it is, and it is not always widely agreed upon, and anyway what doe widely mean? 80% of the earth's people? 65% of Americans? If they agree it becomes truth?
If you are thinking of facts as evidence while prosecuting a crime, for instance, still it is not truth. To be truth it should mean we have never, ever, put a person in jail, or executed him, because we found the truth. We managed to find evidence that connected him to the crime. We would never know what the truth is.
I wrote more than I wanted to.
You will find that it doesn't help those who do not think very deeply about things. Simple and obvious usually means shallow and oblivious. This does NOT refer to any one person in particular - for those inclined to see insult where there is none.
I appreciate his ten truths, not because I necessarily agree with all what he has put together, but because he has taken the time to develop a coherent statement of his philosophy.
When I used to be interviewing teacher candidates, one part of the process was a "written" statement of educational philosophy. Half of it had to be written on the computer, and half written by hand. The process was often an eye-opener.
Thanks, but if you are going to be a part of my congregation, you must accept all my truths entirely, without questioning and pass them along to others, in both printed and hand written form!
There is only one Truth.
That being Reality, or Now.
The rest is set of opinions every human being has, based on ever changing set of information, usually false, that human acquires.
If one is in pursuit of The Truth, all one needs to do is to be in Now.
What is VERY hard to achieve and was accomplished only by few in human history.....
PS. Per its definition, Truth IS only one. There may be not multiple truths.
There are many truths, just not about the same thing is perhaps what you mean...
The truth is what it is whether we're around to have opinion about it or not. Yet another truth...
When the earth was believed to be flat, and widely agreed upon, it was a fact.
When the sun was believed to travel East to West, it was widely agreed upon to be a fact.
These were never truths, even though we thought they were.
I can quote many more examples but I am sure you can come up with truth based on widely agreed upon facts, because I am unable to understand how you think. Truth does not necessarily derive from facts. You may postulate a theory, or a law based on facts.
Truth is a concept, as is love, or beauty. You cannot argue with that kind of truth or change it based upon some kind of widelyagreed upon facts.
Truth is not a synonym for reality. Even reality is only what we believe it is, and it is not always widely agreed upon, and anyway what doe widely mean? 80% of the earth's people? 65% of Americans? If they agree it becomes truth?
If you are thinking of facts as evidence while prosecuting a crime, for instance, still it is not truth. To be truth it should mean we have never, ever, put a person in jail, or executed him, because we found the truth. We managed to find evidence that connected him to the crime. We would never know what the truth is.
I wrote more than I wanted to.
You make a very good point, but I doubt you really think I am not well aware there were many such beliefs back in the day that were "widely agreed upon" then later proven not to be true at all. It's not true, for example, to say "when the Earth was believed to be flat, and widely agreed upon, it was a fact." We both know that wasn't a fact then and isn't a fact now...
Perhaps it would have been a good idea for me to point out that today's manner in which to distinguish what is fact vs what is not is quite different from back when we didn't know as much about the importance of the scientific method like we do today. This is a common source of confusion as well, as if to suggest that today science can't get something wrong or can't correct itself as we learn more.
The most significant difference I am pointing at in this respect is that between the scientific method vs religion, theism. Which is the best way to ARRIVE at the truth over time? Seems to me the answer has proven itself over and over already, ever since modern day science came onto the scene...
Truth is not a concept! You simply want to define truth in such a way as to leave space to debate what we really need not debate. A way to validate what can't be established as truth. Not sure why, but I have a theory or two about that as well...
Again fair enough. Seems we understand one another perhaps well enough too, but I'm not as inclined to leave it where you do. Not sure either of us is so inclined given the ongoing comments we're both posting here and there. For people like me in any case...
Yeah, I have a hard time leaving a conversation when the person I'm talking to is still responding to my posts. At some point, however, it seems that most conversations of this sort do seem to start going in circles, and this one seems to be headed that direction.
Quote:
Relying on faith is not necessary any more than it is necessary to believe the Earth is flat.
When there is proof of something, there is no need to rely on faith. Unless I'm mistaken, it has been proven conclusively that the Earth is not flat.
Quote:
It's not what I "want to do" but what facts, reason and logic lead me to do.
Yes, but when the facts are inconclusive, where do reason and logic lead you?
Quote:
What truths are these that are impossible to understand through science?
Well, for starters, either the human spirit continues to live on after the body dies or whether it also ceases to exist. When science can prove that there is no such thing as what which we religious people refer to as our "spirit," then I will use reason and logic to conclude that death is final. Until then, I won't.
Quote:
I don't have to accept any truths that are not pretty well accepted as universal.
That's right. You certainly don't, and neither do I. But that does leave us with unanswered questions, and I'm inclined to believe certain things that can't be proven to be "true." Those things are my own truths, but I would never suggest that I couldn't possibly be wrong.
Quote:
Again, truth is not a function of what satisfies us.
Universal truths aren't. Personal, relative truths certainly can be. If I'm outside and it's 40 degrees and breezy, I'm going to say, "It's cold!" That's 100% true for me. Someone else might disagree and say it's actually quite warm, and that person's statement is 100% true for him. So what is "cold" anyway? How do we define the word, and what determines the truth of the statement, "It's cold outside"?
Quote:
Yes He (or She) is a personal God, that personal reality touched upon in Truth One.
Okay, but we definitely don't see that "personal God" in the same way, so whose truth about God is accurate? I'm saying that someday, we'll know. There will be no more questions, and the answered will not have been arrived at through the scientific method.
Quote:
Also again, truth is not a function of what we will ourselves to do. Shouldn't be anyway.
I agree. When I'm cold, that truth is not a function of what I want, but of what I observe. I'd like it very much if I could will myself to believe that 40 degrees is comfortable.
Quote:
Trust me, if you were taught some other religion by your parents, like say if you were born in Thailand, the odds you would be Mormon are slim to none. Those world religion demographics don't mean anything to you?
See now, I'm feeling a tad insulted. Do you honestly think this question has not occurred to me at least a thousand times in my life and that I haven't come to exactly the same conclusion you have? Of course, if I were born in Thailand, the odds of my now being LDS would be extremely small. On the other hand, they were extremely small for the 22,000 Mormons in Thailand today. That's a small number, relative to the Thai population, of course, but those people had to make a choice and something about LDS teachings obviously made sense to them.
Quote:
I try to be respectful while at the same time pointing at where I think there is room for further consideration and/or discussion depending on the interest, but at the same time I've done this enough times to know these differences cannot be reconciled once we get of this age beyond reason. Whether it be the call for faith or call for reason, no matter. I think I shared my Cement Theory with you somewhere along the way as well. Right?
Honestly, I can't remember your doing so, but you may have done so without referring to it by that name.
Finally, I have no problem continuing this conversation, but I do wonder if you really see it as leading anywhere productive. For my part, while it is entirely possible that I may change certain specific beliefs, I'm not going to stop listening to what I feel is communication from God. If you think you might be able to dissuade me from doing so, I just want to give you a heads up that you're wasting your time. I wouldn't want to do that.
Yeah, I have a hard time leaving a conversation when the person I'm talking to is still responding to my posts. At some point, however, it seems that most conversations of this sort do seem to start going in circles, and this one seems to be headed that direction.
Seems to me it's the same ongoing conversation with you and others when it comes to this forum generally speaking, so whether continued with any one individual or others is simply a function of responding to whatever comments inspire me to comment. The inevitable circles are largely because of what is covered here (including my Cement Theory)...
Does get dizzying at times, but that tends to depend on the people in the exchange as well...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
