Conquer Club

In that case "absolute truth" would be an oxymoron even under daddy1gringos definition.

MeDeFe wrote:In that case "absolute truth" would be an oxymoron even under daddy1gringos definition.

Exactly.

But a few pages back me and gringo agreed not to define 'truth' and 'true' too rigidly and go with general definitions instead. Like “in accordance with fact; that agrees with reality; not false…exact; accurate; right; correct” and so on. We agreed that that would be easiest, especially since the main discussion was focused on 'absolute'.

MeDeFe wrote:But a few pages back me and gringo agreed not to define 'truth' and 'true' too rigidly and go with general definitions instead. Like “in accordance with fact; that agrees with reality; not false…exact; accurate; right; correct” and so on. We agreed that that would be easiest, especially since the main discussion was focused on 'absolute'.

The thing is that reality itself is subjective. Many people 'know' that the threat of communists invading our country and destroying our government is real. Others 'know' that the elephant that lives in their bellybutton is real.

Facts that are in line with that reality are then declared true, and all others are declared false.

There is no absolute truth because there is no absolute reality, in the sense that the subjective reaction to the world around is reality.

vtmarik wrote:The thing is that reality itself is subjective. Many people 'know' that the threat of communists invading our country and destroying our government is real. Others 'know' that the elephant that lives in their bellybutton is real.

Facts that are in line with that reality are then declared true, and all others are declared false.

There is no absolute truth because there is no absolute reality, in the sense that the subjective reaction to the world around is reality.

Gotta disagree with ya here vt. (surprise surprise) I would say that our perception of reality changes, but that we all perceive the same reality. It's like the Indian fable of the blind men and the elephant. The elephant is there, and looks the way it does, but everyone's perception of the elephant is different. Reality is there, and is the way it is, but we perceive it differently.

i guess id wonder what the point in trying to ascertain such a absolute truth would be then. Frankly if every person is going to percieve things differently, there is really nothing which you could use to distinguish which reality would be absolutly true, since none of us are starting from the point which would be that reality, if such a thing existed.

Perhaps if Someone who did know about reality, and chose to write a book?

it would be hearsay to assume that you were getting reality from any specific version over any other version though. And subsequently to claim that other versions were wrong and yours was right....would be outside of what was possible to claim given you couldnt verify whether or not they were being true about their reality.

Consistency with reality.

vtmarik wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:But a few pages back me and gringo agreed not to define 'truth' and 'true' too rigidly and go with general definitions instead. Like “in accordance with fact; that agrees with reality; not false…exact; accurate; right; correct” and so on. We agreed that that would be easiest, especially since the main discussion was focused on 'absolute'.

The thing is that reality itself is subjective. Many people 'know' that the threat of communists invading our country and destroying our government is real. Others 'know' that the elephant that lives in their bellybutton is real.

Facts that are in line with that reality are then declared true, and all others are declared false.

There is no absolute truth because there is no absolute reality, in the sense that the subjective reaction to the world around is reality.

I agree with you vt - to some extent.

As I said in another thread, the concept of universal truth boils down to whether you are a theist or an atheist.

Under the assumption that an omnipotent and, more importantly, omniscient being exists, there certainly is absolute truth, because obviously whatever an all-knowing being perceives is truth.

MR. Nate wrote:Consistency with reality.

it would appear that anyones perception of that would still be flawed though, and therefore would be unqualified to assume that the consistency they derive from their own experience translates to someone elses.

Than you had better be certain that you are
a) interpreting ALL your experiance
b) doing so with a truly open mind
c) listening to the experiences of others as you pursue the true nature of reality.

MR. Nate wrote:Than you had better be certain that you are
a) interpreting ALL your experiance
b) doing so with a truly open mind
c) listening to the experiences of others as you pursue the true nature of reality.

i suppose i would pose whether or not that would be possible if you had attached yourself to a belief system that projected a specific sense of reality that was different than one you could possibly experience.

i doubt anyone lives up to this criteria, but id imagine you come closer to each of those qualifiers by remaining unattached to religious dogma.

Does it matter if you lead an evil and selfish life when you just have to accept Christ at the last moment to get your pass into heaven

got tonkaed wrote:i suppose i would pose whether or not that would be possible if you had attached yourself to a belief system that projected a specific sense of reality that was different than one you could possibly experience.

i doubt anyone lives up to this criteria, but id imagine you come closer to each of those qualifiers by remaining unattached to religious dogma.

So, your arguing that even if there is a specific system which is consistent and accurate in it's description of reality that we should refrain from moving toward in just in case there are varying opinions? wouldn't it be better to allow the other systems (which you believe to be less accurate) to inform and interpret your system?

As for dogma, I would say that one should continually reconsider it often with an open mind, but I don't think it necessarily eliminates ones ability to properly interpret or to listen.

You're good, I am evil.


That is the general rule.

joecoolfrog wrote:Does it matter if you lead an evil and selfish life when you just have to accept Christ at the last moment to get your pass into heaven

yes it does matter,you have to be true to your self in life ,if you repent your life just for heaven then your life becomes meaningless

On the other hand, wouldn't you think that not repenting and spending eternity in hell makes your life meaningless as well?

MR. Nate wrote:On the other hand, wouldn't you think that not repenting and spending eternity in hell makes your life meaningless as well?

No Mr Nate, my life is now with the woman i love ,its my soul that meaningless for with out love life is meningless .

And eternity in hell or a life of love ,you know my answer to that

We could use a test to determine if a person is universally good or universally evil.

satanspaladin wrote:

joecoolfrog wrote:Does it matter if you lead an evil and selfish life when you just have to accept Christ at the last moment to get your pass into heaven

yes it does matter,you have to be true to your self in life ,if you repent your life just for heaven then your life becomes meaningless

Couldnt agree more !
Lets all try to be good honest loving people in the world that we know definitely does exist If there really is a heaven and I get refused entry because I wouldnt suck up to Gods supposed son then tough

satanspaladin wrote:

MR. Nate wrote:On the other hand, wouldn't you think that not repenting and spending eternity in hell makes your life meaningless as well?

No Mr Nate, my life is now with the woman i love ,its my soul that meaningless for with out love life is meningless .

And eternity in hell or a life of love ,you know my answer to that

I won't deny that a life without love is meaningless, but I would be very careful to define love so narrowly that a single relationship with a human being constitutes the complete spectrum of love. I certainly love a number of individuals, each within the parameters (although probably not the limits) that God has provided. And certainly, love for God must carry more weight than love for another human being.

It seems to me that this is were your hangup is. You don't trust God at a very basic level - you've mentioned you don't think He is just. I would encourage you to be very sure that He is unjust and absolutely undeserving of your love before continuing in your rejection of Him. FYI, I have found not only that God is just in the final equation, but that justice is a part of the reason He deserves our love.

Damnit! Create your own thread instead of derailing this one!

NESconqueror wrote:We could use a test to determine if a person is universally good or universally evil.

Drizzle ranch dressing on their head. If they stab you, they're evil. If they punch you and/or say "Hey, what the hell man?" they're borderline.

its not a "be good" or "be bad" but is more a "be nice" and "be not nice"