what if everything you believed was wrong?

[ronnieromance]

 

 

Have you ever thought about the possibility of God himself purpously limiting himself in one religion if it were in fact the one and only true religion?

The allegations and assumptions are made that the bible has been tampered with and is corrupt, and incomplete, lacking, but is it really?

if all things are possible for God, then is it also possible that he purpously guided us to one true path, over all others?

Particularly when one and only one path will work.

Think about eating just because someone decides they dont want to take food in through their mouth, doesn't mean that they can just absorb it through their skin because they dont like eating.

(and yes I know it is a bit of an unusual analogy)

 

I have. I think every Christian is rsiased to beleive this. I also think that man lies and the Bible was written by a man's hand regardless of where the word originated.

 

I also couldn't see Jesus killing an animal for food...Or at all, for that matter. Doesn't add up. But, you know, most people never gave the idea of Slaughter House Jesus a serious thought.

 

I beleive that upon the second coming he will be vilified as a hippie, unpatriotic, vegetarian, anti-war, tree-hugging, sissy-man. Ironic, isn't it?

 

 

 

-R-

[bluetuesday]

I used to think that way... But upon reading the Bible myself, I now see... If you read the text you will notice... look for the following quotes... As for us "being ready for new teachings" The bible is more than sufficent... The bible speaks of...

 

chris, i know where you're coming from. but all your references are the bible. if my point is that the bible can't contain god and should therefore not be looked upon as the complete word of god, why do you think you can find evidence that this ISN'T the case in the bible? of course the bible says... whatever. but the bible doesn't say everything there is to say. it's a mystery to me how a large proportion of mankind can find a book 100% infallible. it defies logic. it's an insult to the god who gave you a brain.

 

why do you think jesus didn't give his disciples a written doctrine to quote from? think about it. jesus could read, he could therefore probably write - and OTHER people found it important to write things down at the time he was alive. so why do you think jesus, the son of god, a man who knew he was bringing the most important message ever to be delivered to mankind, chose not to write that doctrine down so it absolutely couldn't be misinterpreted?

 

think about it. does it make sense to you? why not clear up the matter once and for all and be done with it?

 

could it be that jesus KNEW how men corrupted the written word of the old testament, how they could twist its meaning and make it mean the things they wanted it to? could it be that once an idea is written down it stops having life? something written down is a captured moment, a captured idea. it can't evolve and grow, it solidifies.

 

could it be that jesus didn't write down his teachings PRECISELY BECAUSE he did not want people to write down a moment in time and then for all time think it was the final word of god? jesus sent out his disciples not with a written word, but with hearts filled with the holy spirit so that god could talk to the people through those hearts. WHY?! come on chris - where is it written in the bible that jesus thought the written word was complete and good? where is the example of him scribbling down his teachings?

 

it isn't there. because jesus knew that anything he wrote would be misinterpreted - that it would imprison people into following the written word and not the LIVING WORD.

 

You paint a picture of God, as incomplete He is the God of both the Old testament as well as the New. We are told to FEAR GOD repeatedly in both the old and new testaments, it is not without reason, and it cannot be divorced from him.

 

you are making the fundamental mistake of arrogance in creating god in man's image. either god is love, or he is fear. he cannot be both. if you could only close your eyes to the words and SEE that fearing a god of love is logically inconsistent. but why ask the bible what god is like? why let other people tell you what god is like? why don't you ask him?

 

Matt.10 [28] And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

 

it is YOUR interpretation that says jesus was referring to god in this case.

 

I understand your confusion, I struggled with fearing God myself. All I can tell you is to pray to God that he will show you why it is true

 

i am not confused, bro. i do not struggle with fearing god because i don't fear god. i did pray. what he told me when i prayed, i am sharing with you now.

 

do you really think that every belief has validity? Sure your arguement is persuasive, but do you not suppose your point could possibly be misplaced?

 

i do not think any belief has total validity, neither do i think any has none. my point is that any belief which thinks it has the measure of god must be wrong. god is always more.

 

So are you aligning yourself with those you are complaining about?

I don't understand? When I first started to believe ,I wanted to distance myself from those who claimed to be christians, but then I read thaT I shouldnt be ashamed of being a Christian.

 

when i say i am a christian i mean i am a follower of jesus christ. i do not want to distance myself from christians and i am not ashamed of who i am.

 

you might want to re examine your statement . Do you really think everyone is guided by the voice of God?

I had something guiding me , until I realized it didn't match up with what I was reading, and the nit departed

 

i did not say that every voice you hear in your heart is god. without discernment to know the voice of god, you could be following any spirit, good or bad. but maybe the voice you heard WAS god. and because it didn't match up with a book written by men, you dismissed it.

 

I will pray that you get discernment on these matters, and that you will be led to the truth.

 

thank you. you too.

[flavius]

"i guarantee you, no one is more skeptical about these things than me. i am not easily swayed. i am logical in my beliefs - which is why some aspects of traditionally christianity always nagged away at me. such as the church's insistence that jesus' sacrifice was necessary in order for man to reach god - yet jesus told us explicitly that we could do everything he had done (john 14:12) and therefore reach god ourselves. "

 

Good point on the sacrifice. I think the Teaching a little askew on that, and as usual, it underestimates God. The idea that "God was painted into a corner, and the only way out was the crucifixion" is inconsistent with the nature of God. Rather, I see God making an end of the whole idea of sacrifice (which is pretty near anthropologically universal) by it. I think it demonstrates the inscrutable character of God, rather than a loophole that God had to wiggle through. (i.e., God was willing to endure, as a man, everything we might suffer, even the penalty for sin. This raises beyond question his compassion and fairness and worthiness as a judge.)

 

Just a hairsplit to consider, if you tend that way: Jesus was speaking of miracles already performed in Jn 14:12. The sacrifice/crucifixion does not fit in that category at all.

 

Here is something more global and important to think about, though: The whole faith from Abraham to Moses to Jesus to Bluetuesday is not really about "reaching God." (see Deut 30:12-4 and Romans 10:6-8). It is about God calling a people to himself, gathering his Kingdom People. It is not about seeking some esoteric Experience, but about Identity as "Kingdomites."

 

I have little faith in religious orthodoxy, but I would throw myself in front of a bus to please God (I hope he's not big into public transportation.) In essence, here's the Christianity I live, my manifesto:

 

"I don't know everything about God but I believe in God" (Heb 11:6)

 

"I hear the call to his kingdom, and submit to Christ as King, whatever that means and wherever it leads" (Mk 1:15)

 

"I receive the Holy Spirit and try to walk in step with it/him" (Rom 8:14)

 

"I am one with his people in faith and identity, if not always in opinions" (Jn 17:11)

 

"My life is made new by God, and I now live in the Eternal Reality." (Romans 6:4)

 

"Morality is no linger based on human rules or reason, but is now a matter of living up to the family name, God's name." (Colossians 2:21)

 

The scripture verses are not there to prove I'm right, just to say where I'm coming from.

 

When it comes to being right, or having it all nailed down, I would guess that the best of us my be at about ten percent. I want my ten percent to be the important stuff, not the list of rules, not the right membership, and not some ethereal experience. I hope I get the heart of it right.

[Outcast]

It's an interesting website, but I did not perceive a great deal of received wisdom on it.

 

I'm not getting into the futile argument against a fundamentalist. My belief is that the love of God is in all faiths; the evidence, as someone else mentioned, is that each faith has as its basis the two Great Commandments; honour a Divine force and respect and be kind to your fellow humans.

 

However, Jesus said repeatedly He'd not be back. I seriously doubt that even if He changed His mind on that, he'd tout himself to be 'The Real Jesus'. Truth is truth - he knew that before. He never before said 'listen to me because I am me'. He did claim God as His Father but didn't go around saying 'hey, look at me! I'm for sure God's Son so you should listen to me'. Nor would he do that should He go back on His word and return prematurely.

 

i believe that when the student is ready, the teacher will appear.

 

Except, as fallible humans, we can make mistakes about who is a genuine teacher. I promise you that the adherents of the 'faith' of Jim Jones or David Koresh felt as strongly that they had found 'truth' as you may about this new version of Jesus.

 

without discernment to know the voice of god, you could be following any spirit, good or bad.

 

In my observation of humans and human behaviour over the years, I have seen (and also read) that humans are extremely good at persuading themselves that they have discernment. Chris777 is every bit as sure he has the necessary discernment as you do. Which, IMHO, is why we must never trust ourselves as the ultimate arbiters of what is truth, nor should we cast absolute faith on any human's interpretation of truth.

 

The moment someone states s/he is positive about something is the moment I begin to worry about that person. We cannot be positive. Ever. We do not have the knowledge. The best we can do, IMHO, is to do the best we can. Act on what we believe to be true, but maybe testing it against the broadest tests of truth (the two Great Commandments) is the ultimate guarantee that we're not going astray. Believe in the Divine. I happen to believe that God and universal love/consciousness are one and the same.

 

Jesus was likely a manifestation of God; all other men of wisdom were inspired by God but I'd never believe any other humans who claimed to BE God in any form. It is not necessary, you see, to believe a human is God to accept truth and wisdom which is why I seriously doubt that Jesus would return and say 'hey - I'm God and I'm Baaaaaaaaack'.

 

OTOH, I think there are plenty of humans who have somehow tapped into love/consiousness and have received wisdom that they pass on. But again, if one starts claiming she or he is THE person to listen to, I flee.

 

In recent years, some of the best stuff I've read I get from a place you'll find if you google Totally Unique Thoughts. But my 'prophets' have been Hermann Hesse and Earnest Larsen and Robin Sharma and some Deepak and Hugh Prather and Iyanla Van Zant and even a bit of Dr. Phil LOL. Plus bits and pieces from many other people who I think have, even if only for short periods of time, plugged into love/consiousness and received wisdom to share with us.

 

I was born Catholic and still am but my high school study of world religions showed me that truth and love could be found in all religions and, as others have said, it only made sense to me that God would speak to different peoples in ways appropriate to them. That the Two Great Commandments can be found in all faiths tells me that they must be Truth. And therefore I hang my faith on them, believe in god of love rather than one of fear or vengeance, and measure any prophecies or teachings I encounter against those principles.

 

My original religion fails my test in some measure as do all faiths - at least in their bureaucratized forms - but I have found love and truth in clergy and members of the Catholic faith as I have in clergy and members of other faiths and so I refuse to shun religions; rather I look for the bits of truth which can be found in them all and gladly learn from people who adhere more closely to their religions than I do mine for that reason.

[bluetuesday]

It's an interesting website, but I did not perceive a great deal of received wisdom on it.

 

thanks for looking at it, it's good to get other people's opinions. i had a different experience of the site and the teachings on it, but of course we are all different and searching for the truth in our own unique ways.

 

However, Jesus said repeatedly He'd not be back.

 

yes, and if you read the site this is repeated. jesus is not back, because jesus never went away. he is with us always, even until the end of time. so this site does not claim jesus is back - quite the opposite. it says that jesus has continued to reach out to humans for the last 2,000 years and is still doing it. the site is one of many ways, that's all.

 

as fallible humans, we can make mistakes about who is a genuine teacher. I promise you that the adherents of the 'faith' of Jim Jones or David Koresh felt as strongly that they had found 'truth' as you may about this new version of Jesus.

 

you forgot catholics! of course we can make mistakes, the ability defines us. but because some are wrong does it mean all are? my friend, i don't claim to have found 'truth' since i don't believe truth, at least not ultimate truth, can necessarily be expressed in words. i said the site was interesting and that the teachings felt true.

 

Jesus was likely a manifestation of God; all other men of wisdom were inspired by God but I'd never believe any other humans who claimed to BE God in any form.

 

what then do you think of jesus' assertion 'ye are gods'?

 

OTOH, I think there are plenty of humans who have somehow tapped into love/consiousness and have received wisdom that they pass on. But again, if one starts claiming she or he is THE person to listen to, I flee.

 

i agree. there is no ONE version of the truth. there is no ONE messenger or teacher or guru. i am pleased that the site i mentioned makes it expressly clear NOT to make the teachings thereon into any form of doctrine. it talks a lot about progressive revelation, and about spiritual beings (jesus being just one) using many messengers. if the site had ever made a claim to be THE ONE or to be infallable or to be THE TRUTH, i would have fled.

 

In recent years, some of the best stuff I've read I get from a place you'll find if you google Totally Unique Thoughts.

 

thanks, i'll check it out.

 

That the Two Great Commandments can be found in all faiths tells me that they must be Truth. And therefore I hang my faith on them, believe in god of love rather than one of fear or vengeance, and measure any prophecies or teachings I encounter against those principles.

 

an excellent way to live! me too.

[Outcast]

what then do you think of jesus' assertion 'ye are gods'?

 

Danger always exists in looking at one tiny phrase which was not spoken in English, not quoted directly, and translated and re-translated over thousands of years.

 

A few years ago, a large number of Bible scholars studied the Gospels and decided that very little of the utterances attributed to Jesus in the Bible probably were spoken by him. As I recall, the Two Great Commandments were part of the very little of the Bible that was considered likely to be authentic in terms of what Jesus may actually have said.

 

jesus is not back, because jesus never went away. he is with us always, even until the end of time. so this site does not claim jesus is back - quite the opposite. it says that jesus has continued to reach out to humans for the last 2,000 years and is still doing it. the site is one of many ways, that's all.

 

Yeah - again, any sort of claim that this is directly from Christ however it's explained gives me the heebies. If you find truth and wisdom there, good, I guess, but to me that's an attempt to give what's on that site higher credibility than the words of anyone else and that's where I'd draw the line.

 

I think truth has to stand on its own and is worthy on its own. As an analogy (although a slightly silly one), one reason I've never posted my photo or other details about me is that I don't want people to follow my advice (or not) because of who I am; if what I say is useful, then good. If not, also good. But for someone to say 'she's X or Y age or looks like a model/Frankenstein' and therefore her advice is better/worse would get in the way of whether or not what I say is useful, IMHO.

 

If this dude has sufficient wisdom, then people should find their way to his site because of that without him having to affiliate himself with anyone.

 

I'd just caution you to keep a good dose of skepticism handy as you read his site and not be inclined to give it more credence simply because of the claim that it's actually Him.

[quankanne]

very well put, Outie, very well put.

 

I believe that those folks who demonstrate the "love God, love one another" commandments put forth by Christ are the folks who are tapped into Him, because they allow themselves to be called back to Him, revealing themselves as the share that love. Whether they bear the title Christian or some other – it all flows back to God, and I think we tend to forget this as we focus on that which divides, rather than that which unites us.

 

if jesus were alive in body today, would his teachings be the same as they were 2,000 years ago? … the human race had progressed to the point where it could come to a deeper understanding of god. so why should the same not be true now? after all, the human race has again moved on.

 

how much plainer does it need to be said than "love God and love one another"? Love is not something that has to become part of a scientific or chemical process, it doesn't have to become "new, improved, bigger and better" for it to have merit, it merely needs to exist. People seem to think "bigger and better" change should also apply to spirituality to give it deeper understanding, but in what amounts to a simple relationship between you and God in whatever way you've found best to express that relationship, simple speaks loudest. And I think Jesus understood that when he boiled the Ten Commandments down to those two simple directives. It doesn't need to be bogged down my explanation or extrapolation, by formula or scientific fact, it just needs to be, because it's visceral, not external.

[bluetuesday]

how much plainer does it need to be said than "love God and love one another"? Love is not something that has to become part of a scientific or chemical process, it doesn't have to become "new, improved, bigger and better" for it to have merit, it merely needs to exist.

 

the river of life flows, it doesn't stay still. i am not talking bigger, better, newer for the sake of it. that would be nonsense. i am talking about a path, which by its nature leads you somewhere further than you were before. jesus talked about following a narrow path. he never, ever mentioned standing still or merely existing. if god is love, then love must move or god is unable to transcend himself. god is always more. why then is not love always more?

 

jesus came to expand upon the laws of moses. he came in part because the law, which was seen at the time to be the final word of god, needed updating. a NEW understanding is what jesus brought. he talked about the laws of god being written on hearts - which grow and change - he absolutely refuted the claims of the religious leaders that the law was written in stone and was unchanging.

 

so why would it be different now? i find it much harder to accept that the teachings delivered to people 2,000 years ago are all god ever has to say to his children, than i do to accept that jesus is still speaking today.

[Outcast]

so why would it be different now? i find it much harder to accept that the teachings delivered to people 2,000 years ago are all god ever has to say to his children, than i do to accept that jesus is still speaking today.

 

I agree with Quank who agreed with me LOL. What else do you need than 'love God, love one another'?

 

That's it. Simple, elegant, and doesn't require elabourate interpretation by anyone. Why did Jesus deliver new 'laws'? Well because the older laws were about how to keep yourself alive in the desert, mostly. However the 'old' laws (10 Commandments) weren't different; just restated - if you spend a bit of time, you see that all the original Commandments fit into either 'love god' or 'love one another'. I suppose if Jesus were to simplify it any more, it would boil down to LOVE - but that's all that's needed, IMHO.

[quankanne]

God is always more. why then is not love always more?

 

"More isn't always better, Linus. Sometimes it's just more." Julia Ormand to Harrison Ford in the 1995 remake of Sabrina.

 

and sometimes things need to be simplified for their full effect to be felt. Like love and faith/spirituality. More is nice, but it really doesn't add anything if the central point's being missed!

 

i find it much harder to accept that the teachings delivered to people 2,000 years ago are all god ever has to say to his children, than i do to accept that jesus is still speaking today.

 

because each person has his or her own individual spiritual journey (whether they accept or reject God), what God reveals is ongoing and fresh even today. He still speaks to us today; his words aren't just limited to the Bible. Remember, the Bible is meant to inspire others into that personal relationship with God, to be sort of an open doorway to a relationship with him.

[bluetuesday]

More is nice, but it really doesn't add anything if the central point's being missed!

 

yes, i'm beginning to realise that myself.

[Nollipap]

Being a devout-christian-turned-devout-atheist, I can say that the journey away from religion certainly wasn't easy. The reasons for Especially when your entire family is religious, and you're made to feel like the black sheep.

 

While my reasons for becoming an athiest are as unshakable as the foundations of the earth, there are some christian writings which I find especially inspiring.

 

My favourite is probably 1 Cor. 13 1-12, that famous passage about love that all christians have probably heard.

 

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.

 

Love is patient and kind

Love does not envy or boast

It is not arrogant or rude.

It does not insist on its own way

It does not keep score of wrongdoings

It does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices in truth.

Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

 

Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away.

For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the end comes, the partial will pass away.

 

When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. But when I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

 

While this passage has obvious overtones of the afterlife, it is perhaps the one passage in the bible that every athiest should live by. And that is not because it is holy, or because it has been inspired by a god or suchlike, or because it will save you, but because it is wisdom. It is the essence of wisdom, and it carries a lesson for all, even a cantankerous, self-involved young man like me. ESPECIALLY for someone like me.

 

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that it does not matter what you believe. Whether it's right or wrong (in terms of truth) is besides the point. The point is that we should all be brothers and sisters, and love each other, regardless of what the truth is.

 

But humanity, poor, proud humanity, from societies to cultures to individuals, we are each too caught up in what we perceive the truth to be. And even though our version of the truth may be purer and more 'correct' than another's, its our insistence on proving the point that makes us as a species, miss the Real Truth.

[Outcast]

Well, well, nolli! How's your cantakerous self?

[Nollipap]

*grin*

 

Good, 'nyu? Decided I'd drop by and cause some trouble.

 

This place is badly in need of a new shade of paint, too.

[bluetuesday]

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that it does not matter what you believe. Whether it's right or wrong (in terms of truth) is besides the point.

 

i firmly disagree with this statement. i think it matters very much what you believe. or is my belief that naughty children should be stabbed to death as valid as someone else's belief they should be forgiven?

 

what you said also disagrees with this statement...

 

The point is that we should all be brothers and sisters, and love each other, regardless of what the truth is.

 

... which says that what we SHOULD be doing is being loving and forgiving, which is all well and good if loving and forgiving is your belief, but what if it isn't? you've already claimed that what you believe doesn't matter, which presupposes that all belief is valid. this is an illusion. the search for truth is the ONLY THING that will prevent you slipping into this mindset, whether you come down on the side of god or atheism.

 

But humanity, poor, proud humanity, from societies to cultures to individuals, we are each too caught up in what we perceive the truth to be.

 

it's a fine balancing act. being non-attached to other people's acceptance of your own belief is a sign of spiritual maturity. being uninterested in gaining the wisdom which will enable you to discern truth, isn't.

 

its our insistence on proving the point that makes us as a species, miss the Real Truth.

 

i'm not sure. i suspect it's more than that. the ego that convinces us we've found the truth and it's time to stop looking, is what makes us miss the real truth. no belief should be an unquestioned destination. it should be a reflection of where the thinker is at that time.

 

any belief that stops you seeking for the truth, and that includes atheism of course, is an illusion of the ego. it is a declaration of rightness. it is THIS that divides and blinds, in my opinion.

[Outcast]

This place is badly in need of a new shade of paint, too.

 

I always thought so LOL.

 

It is possible to step into a meta discussion of spirituality, but one has to always keep the observer effect in mind.

[MarnieGirl]

finding out everything you believed in was wrong is a possible side effect of putting faith into things you cannot see or prove. it's a risk some people take, and some people don't.

 

if you find out and live to tell the tale, please let us know.

[Nollipap]

i firmly disagree with this statement. i think it matters very much what you believe. or is my belief that naughty children should be stabbed to death as valid as someone else's belief they should be forgiven?

 

The point is that what an individual believes, does not constitute a truth.

 

... which says that what we SHOULD be doing is being loving and forgiving, which is all well and good if loving and forgiving is your belief, but what if it isn't? you've already claimed that what you believe doesn't matter, which presupposes that all belief is valid. this is an illusion. the search for truth is the ONLY THING that will prevent you slipping into this mindset, whether you come down on the side of god or atheism.

 

You're 100% right, any belief is an illusion. And of course it may be wrong or right, but that can only be measured against other beliefs, which may be wrong or right. The whole thing is ABSOLUTELY circular. Which makes a "search for truth" pointless on any scale larger than the individual, and demonstrably pointless on the individual level, as well.

 

it's a fine balancing act. being non-attached to other people's acceptance of your own belief is a sign of spiritual maturity.

 

(Or of nihilism )

 

being uninterested in gaining the wisdom which will enable you to discern truth, isn't.

 

There is no truth beyond an immediate personal one. "Searching for truth" implies that an individual can never attain it or recognise it, since 'recognising' it would imply that it should have been recognisable immediately. A personal truth at any given moment is but a snapshot in time, which may or may not evolve into a new "realization" (or be dismissed) as time passes. A personal truth is a vignette of consciousness over time. Without memory, our 'personal truths' would not exist.

 

i'm not sure. i suspect it's more than that. the ego that convinces us we've found the truth and it's time to stop looking, is what makes us miss the real truth. no belief should be an unquestioned destination. it should be a reflection of where the thinker is at that time.

 

'zackery.

 

any belief that stops you seeking for the truth, and that includes atheism of course, is an illusion of the ego. it is a declaration of rightness. it is THIS that divides and blinds, in my opinion.

 

The "search" for truth is thus a pointless excercise, as truth cannot be established definitely, no?

[Nicholas]

hey, you look railimaf.

 

how much plainer does it need to be said than "love God and love one another"?

 

is it possible too much has already been said, thus obscuring that?

 

The "search" for truth is thus a pointless excercise, as truth cannot be established definitely, no?

 

what about the people in eastern religions who have claimed to reach a state of enlightenment, limited though they may be. if there were anyone to throw in the truth towel before the match was over, it wouldn't be them, no?

 

i'm in belfast right now. there are still cages on the windows and cameras on the street. some people still haven't resolved among themselves the question of whether anne boleyn or catherine of aragon would make a better wife for king henry viii.

[bluetuesday]

You're 100% right, any belief is an illusion. And of course it may be wrong or right, but that can only be measured against other beliefs, which may be wrong or right. The whole thing is ABSOLUTELY circular. Which makes a "search for truth" pointless on any scale larger than the individual, and demonstrably pointless on the individual level, as well.

 

tut tut. i didn't say that any belief was an illusion. i said that thinking all belief was valid was an illusion.

 

the rest of what you said is a fine demonstration of relativity. you say good can be measured only against bad, and visa versa. you therefore say that there is no ultimate truth (or ultimate good), only relative truth.

 

this dualistic mindset is responsible for humans thinking they know everything, and part of that is the thinking that nothing can be truly known and that every piece of knowledge or understanding has equal validity.

 

for a scientist, this is a terrible argument. the belief that nothing can ever be known is not what has driven the world to better itself for the last several millennia. what drives scientific discovery is that belief that current thinking is wrong or incomplete. the same is true of a spiritual search. does that mean scientific search is useless?

 

returning to relativity, i say god, and by extension truth, has no opposite. there is only truth, and a load of red herrings. yet the right way isn't merely one way. it IS however, one way of thinking. and that way of thinking is that there isn't only one way of thinking.

 

There is no truth beyond an immediate personal one.

 

you don't know how right you are. but you think you're right because you think there is no truth. *i* think you're right because there IS a truth, and yes, it's personal for every person on the planet. personal in the way you mean it implies 'unprovable' and therefore, worthless. right?

 

however, i look at it differently. let's examine a nice easy example. you and i share an apple. you look at the apple and think it's greeny red. i think it's more greeny pink. you think your bite tastes bitter. i think my bite tastes sweet. does that mean there is no apple?

 

it's the same with truth. people failing to agree on its look and taste doesn't mean it doesn't exist. and of course, by your own argument, if you think truth doesn't exist, you must conceed that it only doesn't exist for you personally. and either my argument that truth exists is a valid as yours, or your argument that nothing exists renders this whole conversation obsolete.

 

"Searching for truth" implies that an individual can never attain it or recognise it, since 'recognising' it would imply that it should have been recognisable immediately.

 

oh come on. this has no logical basis whatsoever. you're not even trying! you're assuming that the search is fruitless until a conclusion is reached. being good enough, finally, at maths after 14 years in school to get a degree in the subject doesn't make the maths you learned at the age of 6 wrong because you superseded it along the way.

 

it is necessary to learn gradually, in small bites, according to your level of growth and understanding, to come to a point where you are ready to sit really hard papers. you imply that a 6 year old maths student SHOULD have been able to look at university papers and immediately recognised the truth in them if they were ever true. an extraordinary opinion. and quite wrong.

 

A personal truth at any given moment is but a snapshot in time, which may or may not evolve into a new "realization" (or be dismissed) as time passes. A personal truth is a vignette of consciousness over time. Without memory, our 'personal truths' would not exist.

 

what are you saying, that memory and consciousness are necessary for truth, therefore truth can't exist without them? see my previous comments. also try explaining consciousness. i'll start a new thread if you like.

 

The "search" for truth is thus a pointless excercise, as truth cannot be established definitely, no?

 

no. this is bit like taking advice from a vegetarian about whether the search for the perfect burger exists. the vegetarian doesn't care. it stopped eating burgers a long time ago. it's happy without them.

 

you have described yourself as a devout atheist. that tells me you think you have found the truth that there is no god. you are therefore not a searcher of the truth because why would you need to be? you either don't believe it exists or you believe you have already found it.

 

any search you make now for god would first need to recognise that you are not always right. i''m graciously betting that it's a close call as to whether hell will freeze over first.

[flavius]

This whole thread makes me want to have you all over on my patio and pass around some beers. It's a great example of the limitation of Discussion Boards as a means of human interaction.

 

Now admit it. Wouldn't that be FUN??

[blind_otter]

No. But hot chocolate would be lovely.

[Guest]

tut tut. i didn't say that any belief was an illusion. i said that thinking all belief was valid was an illusion.

 

If thinking that all belief is valid, is an illusion, then logically the counterpoint is also an illusion. In other words, if some belief is valid, what are you measuring it against to ascertain its validity? If not all beliefs are valid, then it implies that some beliefs are. This is just as much an illusion.

 

the rest of what you said is a fine demonstration of relativity. you say good can be measured only against bad, and visa versa. you therefore say that there is no ultimate truth (or ultimate good), only relative truth.

 

It's not a question of good or bad/right or wrong/yin or yang or of opposites. You cannot define something without being able to measure it against something else. It can never be ANYTHING but 'relativity'.

 

Yes, you are correct, I say there is no ultimate truth, except perhaps that the only ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth, only relative truth.

 

this dualistic mindset is responsible for humans thinking they know everything,

 

Not so sure where you got that one from...

 

and part of that is the thinking that nothing can be truly known and that every piece of knowledge or understanding has equal validity.

 

Nothing can be truly known in completeness because it is logically impossible to get a total perspective on it. Our understanding of a something is always a function of our perspective on it. All understanding is equal in terms of this incompleteness. Understanding is never equal in terms of our perspective.

 

for a scientist, this is a terrible argument. the belief that nothing can ever be known is not what has driven the world to better itself for the last several millennia. what drives scientific discovery is that belief that current thinking is wrong or incomplete.

 

False. Scientific discovery is driven by inductive logic, not exclusion nor by imagination. Science is not driven by what isn't known, it is driven by known phenomena which demand explanation, according to the interest of the investigator. This process of explanation is science in itself, and it in turn yields further phenomena which demand further investigation and explanation.

 

A scientist doesn't go to the laboratory every morning with a blank mindset of "What don't I know? Let's see what I can discover". This mindset would not have a starting point for experimentation. How would this scientist go about "discovering the unknown"? Obviously, the scientist's thoughts need to be occupied with a certain currently known, but unexplained (in part or in total) phenomenon which forms a basis for further inquiry.

 

Science's self-referential doubt does not 'invalidate' a certain collection of 'data', it merely enforces (at least for honest scientists) a pattern of reevaluation of what is "known". The reevaluation does not neccessarily change "older" data when "new" knowledge is "known", it may simply germinate a new path of related enquiry.

 

the same is true of a spiritual search. does that mean scientific search is useless?

 

Well, if a spiritual "search" is based upon self-doubt, then logically it cannot be called a "faith", since a "faith" requires an acceptance of certain fundamental postulates. What is it that you are searching for? A measure of the truth of the postulates, or the resultant phenomena that is yielded by your analysis of the postulates?

 

That is the difference between a spritual search and a scientific search. The scientific search is based on known phenomena and most often yields phenomena.

 

returning to relativity, i say god, and by extension truth, has no opposite.

 

Correct. There are no opposites, only relative interpretations.

 

there is only truth, and a load of red herrings.

 

Your truth is someone else's red herring, and vice versa.

 

yet the right way isn't merely one way. it IS however, one way of thinking. and that way of thinking is that there isn't only one way of thinking.

 

There is no 'right way'. There is only 'your way', or 'my way', or someone else's way.

 

you don't know how right you are. but you think you're right because you think there is no truth. *i* think you're right because there IS a truth, and yes, it's personal for every person on the planet. personal in the way you mean it implies 'unprovable' and therefore, worthless. right?

 

No. A belief has worth for the individual. It has no worth as a fundamental universal statement of truth, because that cannot be determined.

 

however, i look at it differently. let's examine a nice easy example. you and i share an apple. you look at the apple and think it's greeny red. i think it's more greeny pink. you think your bite tastes bitter. i think my bite tastes sweet. does that mean there is no apple?

 

You are asking the wrong question at the end, and that invalidates the example. An appropriate question would be "so what does the apple look and taste like."

 

The answer to that question, of course, is rhetorical, as the "truth" relies on the individual looking at and tasting the apple. And yes, it's entirely possible that the apple doesn't exist.

 

it's the same with truth. people failing to agree on its look and taste doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

My rebuttal above invalidates this statement.

 

and of course, by your own argument, if you think truth doesn't exist, you must conceed that it only doesn't exist for you personally.

 

Very well spotted indeed!

 

and either my argument that truth exists is a valid as yours, or your argument that nothing exists renders this whole conversation obsolete.

 

It's a rather s***ty paradox, I concur.

 

oh come on. this has no logical basis whatsoever. you're not even trying! you're assuming that the search is fruitless until a conclusion is reached. being good enough, finally, at maths after 14 years in school to get a degree in the subject doesn't make the maths you learned at the age of 6 wrong because you superseded it along the way.

 

No, your knowledge of maths evolves. But getting the degree does not imply that you know all there is to know about methematics. I'm not saying that the search is fruitless, I'm saying that you cannot decide on what the truth is considering you current level of knowledge. Having followed a path, it implies that you might still be on the path.

 

And besides, you chose a poor example. Human mathematics is fundamentally incomplete because it relies on a discrete, finite collection of monikers, and a fundamental set of axioms. That implies that everything about it can be known, seeing as it is an artificial, man-made symbology.

 

it is necessary to learn gradually, in small bites, according to your level of growth and understanding, to come to a point where you are ready to sit really hard papers. you imply that a 6 year old maths student SHOULD have been able to look at university papers and immediately recognised the truth in them if they were ever true. an extraordinary opinion. and quite wrong.

 

Not neccessarily. It's certainly possible, however unlikely, for a child prodigy to grasp university-level mathematics upon first glance. There is not neccessarily a journey required. What muddies the water here is your choice of example, however. Maths is discrete and finite, personal truths aren't. The implication of your viewpoint is that a journey is required in order to reach 'truth'. It isn't logically neccessary, if ultimate truth happens to exist. And if it doesn't exist, the search is pointless because every step along the 'journey' results in a new 'ultimate' (read: 'personal') truth....

 

what are you saying, that memory and consciousness are necessary for truth, therefore truth can't exist without them?

 

Ultimate truth doesn't exist, whether memory or consciousness exists or not. Personal truth, on the other hand, is a function of consciousness/memory.

 

see my previous comments. also try explaining consciousness. i'll start a new thread if you like.

 

Consciousness is a more complex version of excitation/response found in "lower" animals. It's all the same. But yes, that's a different discussion.

 

no. this is bit like taking advice from a vegetarian about whether the search for the perfect burger exists. the vegetarian doesn't care. it stopped eating burgers a long time ago. it's happy without them.

 

My opinion isn't important. You have your own personal truth, and it has value for you.

 

you have described yourself as a devout atheist. that tells me you think you have found the truth that there is no god. you are therefore not a searcher of the truth because why would you need to be? you either don't believe it exists or you believe you have already found it.

 

My own (limited) personal truth is based upon collected experiences and data which exclude the belief in a "classical" god. That said, it's indeed possible that I may be mistaken. But I have no indications of that possibility's likelihood. There cannot be a hypothesis without phenomena to back them up. "Gods" were invented as explanations for perceived phenomena, then somehow the perceived phenomena turned into "proof" for the explanation. The explanation turned into an axiom, while really the only phenomenon which exists to support religion, is the religion's existence itself. This is fundamentally circular, and thus suspect in terms of 'truth'.

 

Besides, the "knowledge" that I currently adhere to, more than invalidates the religious concept, so much so that religion is mere background noise.

 

any search you make now for god would first need to recognise that you are not always right.

 

The cornerstone of my mindset is that I cannot be, right in the first place. So agree with me now and nobody gets hurt

 

i''m graciously betting that it's a close call as to whether hell will freeze over first.

 

Perhaps hell has already frozen over. You certainly have no way of knowing....

[bluetuesday]

well, this has been such fun. or perhaps that's just an illusion.

 

i would go through quote for quote but i'll stick to saying this.

 

you're incorrect to say that science isn't driven by what isn't known. einstein's theory of relativity was formulated after he tried to imagine what it would be like to sit on a beam of light. this is well documented. he didn't know, so he sat thinking about it for months and months on end, and what he ultimately discovered and proved sprang from those imaginings.

 

a scientist worth his or her salt would never say 'this is truth' or 'god doesn't exist'. he or she would say 'current thinking is..' or 'i can find no evidence at this time that god exists'. if science through the ages has proved anything, it's that what it believes today to be true, could and probably will be disproved tomorrow. science is the search for understanding. it is NOT understanding, it is ONLY current understanding. there is a big difference.

 

i never mentioned faith. i don't have faith. i have experience.

 

if you don't mind another badly thought out tale, here's one i made earlier.

 

my mum tells a story about a man who used to live in stoke on trent (in england) when she was a little girl, who didn't believe the sea existed.

 

"i've walked miles in that direction, and miles in that direction, and i've never seen it," he used to say.

 

to those who'd been to the sea, his view was nonsensical. it may have been logically consistent within his experience, and i'm sure that no amount of pictures of the sea or tales of the seaside would convince him if he'd made up his mind that everyone was trying to trick him into believing something that to him, was plainly untrue.

 

so try telling someone who's swam in the sea that it doesn't exist. i have swam in the sea of ultimate truth. just because you haven't yet, it doesn't mean that our views, while having equal validity for us, are equally true.

 

you are someone i would describe as having a great brain and a closed mind. of course you cannot 'see' when your entire belief system makes you believe that there is nothing to see.

 

i appreciate you have no personal proof for ultimate truth and that's fine. but what we're talking about doesn't have an explanation you will accept as being logical so it's not good asking me to explain it to you logically.

 

the details i currently know are wrong - or at least incomplete - but i'm getting close. i know ultimate truth exists and if it exists for me it must exist for everyone. i know it with a knowledge that is beyond your understanding, because you have never experienced it.

 

once you have, we will talk again.

[Nollipap]

I'm highly interested in knowing what your axioms are.

 

Do not be fooled by my fundamentally nihilistic viewpoint. This "experience", this "reality, this "personal consciousness" of mine does exist, if only in terms of my personal mindspace, and I do enjoy it...

 

You might possibly be a figment of my imagination, but you're no less "real" and interesting despite that possiblity.

 

I'll sum up my viewpoint succinctly: In terms of personal experience and consciousness, there cannot be an ultimate truth that cannot be transcended, because you'd have no way of knowing if you've reached an ultimate truth. So the search is destined to carry on until your consciousness ends.

 

My own way of dealing with this aspect is to simply accept the reality you are experiencing as an ultimate (personal) truth in itself, and letting it morph my consciousness as it happens, while savouring the experience as I go along.

 

Why fill yourself with self-doubt and possible unhappiness by constantly reinforcing your own lack of conviction of your personal truths, which in turn is based upon a set of axioms that you DO have "faith" in...? It just seems counterintuitive to me.