Curiosity Corner

Originally posted by FMF
So one of your supposed "absolute truths" is a subjective thing for which you cannot ~ and seemingly feel no need to ~ provide anything objective to lend it credence, but an ordinary "truth" is, by contrast, subject to or dependent on evidence, proof, argument etc. or the lack thereof, is that what you mean?

An example?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (OP)
Curiosity Corner

1. What are the three most important absolute truths revealed within the Word of God?

2.

2. When does eternity begin?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
An example?

An example of what? I was seeking your acknowledgement that your assertions about "absolute truths" surrounding your religious beliefs are entirely subjective and every bit as much conjecture.as the (different) "absolute truths" asserted by followers of other religions.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
An "absolute truth" revealed within the Word of God stands and abides forever
whether it is "generally accepted" or not.

Hang about. I get the proposition that only God can have the absolute Truth, while for mortals truth will always be provisional - the best we can manage. At least it is coherent but it leaves God in possession of Truth which mortals cannot reach. Not ever.

Then we come to that term "revealed" in connection with Truth. Is that intended to imply that mortals can, after all , have access to absolute Truth? Presumably the idea is that mortals do not arrive at the Truth by reason or experience but that God can tell mortals the Truth and maybe sometimes does.

There are a few barriers to all this.:

What type of absolute Truth can be grasped by mortals, even if it is revealed? Remember the Hithchikers Guide to the Universe? Even when we know what's the meaning of the universe ("42" ) we cannot do very much with the answer.

There are many types of Truth which would only be intelligible in a context of many other Truths. In other words, is it necessary to know everything before we can know anything?

If there are absolute Truths of a sufficiently accessible nature that they can be conveyed to mortals by God, are they trivial (precisely because that is all we can grasp)?

If someone (a self proclaimed prophet, a mystic, a guru...) announces that she has obtained absolute Truth by means of revelation, then how do we evaluate that claim, bearing in mind that as mortals we do not have the ability to identify absolute Truth?

When someone makes the claim to convey revealed absolute Truth, when would it be appropriate to suspend the radical, systematic, never satisfied style of blanket scepticism with which religious fundamentalists like the American Taliban confront (i.e.evade) reasoned argument and scientific evidence and when will it be considered safe to become a wide eyed innocent ready to believe whatever they are told without the slightest critical evalution? What criterion will we use? Or will it just be - 'listen only if the speaker is one of us' or 'not listen if the speaker is not one of us'?

Originally posted by FMF
An example of what? I was seeking your acknowledgement that your assertions about "absolute truths" surrounding your religious beliefs are entirely subjective and every bit as much conjecture.as the (different) "absolute truths" asserted by followers of other religions.

Originally posted by FMF (Page 1)
"So one of your supposed "absolute truths" is a subjective thing for which you cannot ~ and seemingly feel no need to ~ provide anything objective to lend it credence, but an ordinary "truth" is, by contrast, subject to or dependent on evidence, proof, argument etc. or the lack thereof, is that what you mean?"

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
An example?

An example of an appropriate answer to FMF's query is "yes."

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
An example?

You're pretending not to understand, presumably.

Originally posted by finnegan
Hang about. I get the proposition that only God can have the absolute Truth, while for mortals truth will always be provisional - the best we can manage. At least it is coherent but it leaves God in possession of Truth which mortals cannot reach. Not ever.

Then we come to that term "revealed" in connection with Truth. Is that intended to imply that morta ...[text shortened]... just be - 'listen only if the speaker is one of us' or 'not listen if the speaker is not one of us'?

Originally posted by finnegan
"Hang about. I get the proposition that only God can have the absolute Truth, while for mortals truth will always be provisional - the best we can manage. At least it is coherent but it leaves God in possession of Truth which mortals cannot reach. Not ever."
_________________

Why not?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Originally posted by finnegan
"Hang about. I get the proposition that only God can have the absolute Truth, while for mortals truth will always be provisional - the best we can manage. At least it is coherent but it leaves God in possession of Truth which mortals cannot reach. Not ever."
_________________

Why not?

Well by definition since only God has acess to absolute Truth, but I then go further to discuss revelation.

Originally posted by finnegan
Well by definition since only God has acess to absolute Truth, but I then go further to discuss revelation.

Has He not revealed "absolute Truth" within the sixty six books of The Word of God?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Has He not revealed "absolute Truth" within the sixty six books of The Word of God?

He may have, but no two people interpret those books in exactly the same way. The lens of human interpretation makes the truths relative again.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
He may have, but no two people interpret those books in exactly the same way. The lens of human interpretation makes the truths relative again.

"For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Peter 1: 16-21 (KJV)
____________

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

The point is not whether the speaker is making an interpretation, or not; it is that the reader necessarily makes an interpretation. So, even if you've got something completely divinely inspired, true in every detail, a conglomeration of facts polished to perfection like a diamond, it gets passed through the lens of the reader's own eyes. It still gets re-processed by the reader's own imagination. This is inevitable and spiritual progress is made once one realizes it.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Yes.

Yes you want to engage, yes you want a list or yes you are pretending to not understand the question?

Originally posted by divegeester
Yes you want to engage, yes you want a list or yes you are pretending to not understand the question?

What is "the question"?