Who do people say I am?

@kellyjay said
How can there be more than one all being true at the same time?

Are questions like this intended to make BigDoggProblem convert to your religion?

If you asked, "How can there be more than one true spiritual path at the same time?" Would you expect that to be an argument in favour of adopting your spiritual path?

@kellyjay said
How can there be more than one all being true at the same time? Looking at the three largest monotheistic religions, one holds Jesus died and stayed dead, one holds Jesus didn't die only looked like He did, and one holds He died and rose from the dead. These can not all be true at the same time! If you add beliefs about multiple gods, all of them can not be right at the same ...[text shortened]... st, we have to look at what fits the universe as is.

We all have opinions, but what fits reality?

One possible explanation: the main religions have some things right, but other things wrong. Parts of each are true.

@bigdoggproblem said
One possible explanation: the main religions have some things right, but other things wrong. Parts of each are true.

For me, they could ALL be right about the world being created but I am profoundly sceptical - to the point of a complete lack of belief - when it comes to their claims about their religions being "revealed" and about their narratives and mythologies and supposed instructions from the creator being etc.

@bigdoggproblem said
One possible explanation: the main religions have some things right, but other things wrong. Parts of each are true.

Well, my point to you is the truth is a person, the personification of God in the flesh. Christianity depending on who is representing it, can be as evil as Nazi Germany. It's Christ, not a philosophy or a church doctrine that matters. Any religion can have truth and errors; you are correct.

@kellyjay said
Well, my point to you is the truth is a person, the personification of God in the flesh.

What is this supposed to mean to someone who doesn't find it credible? And how does it relate to the abject, narcissistic nonsense you were trotting out earlier about people whose spiritual paths are different than yours having "nothing"?

@kellyjay said
It's Christ, not a philosophy or a church doctrine that matters.

"It's Christ, not a philosophy or a church doctrine that matters" is just another philosophy/church doctrine.

@kellyjay said
Well, my point to you is the truth is a person, the personification of God in the flesh. Christianity depending on who is representing it, can be as evil as Nazi Germany. It's Christ, not a philosophy or a church doctrine that matters. Any religion can have truth and errors; you are correct.

"The truth is a person" --- I'm not so sure what that even means, the well known quote from Jesus ["I am the way, the truth, and the life"] notwithstanding.

Truth, to me, is something like, "a proposition that matches reality". It applies to concepts, not people.

@fmf said
For me, they could ALL be right about the world being created but I am profoundly sceptical - to the point of a complete lack of belief - when it comes to their claims about their religions being "revealed" and about their narratives and mythologies and supposed instructions from the creator being etc.

What's interesting is, if you allow for a creator-being in the first place, then the possible methods of revelation must be far more broad than all of the ones listed in the most common "holy" books.

Such a being could guide people to truths by highly subtle means. They would not need to actually SPEAK to people unless they felt like it.

@bigdoggproblem said
What's interesting is, if you allow for a creator-being in the first place, then the possible methods of revelation must be far more broad than all of the ones listed in the most common "holy" books.

As I suggested, very reasonably and modestly methinks, here Thread 180183 I think my idea would have been better than what the ancient Hebrews came up with.

@fmf said
As I suggested, very reasonably and modestly methinks, here Thread 180183 I think my idea would have been better than what the ancient Hebrews came up with.

I think there is absolutely no way any of them thought that people would still be talking about it 2000 years later.

@bigdoggproblem said
"The truth is a person" --- I'm not so sure what that even means, the well known quote from Jesus ["I am the way, the truth, and the life"] notwithstanding.

Truth, to me, is something like, "a proposition that matches reality". It applies to concepts, not people.

Something done to or by someone identifies evil, why should truth be any different? God the truth about all reasons for all that is around us, our reason for being. The explanation of the reality of the universe hinges on why, as much as everything else! That takes science out of that particular quest for that knowledge; science only speaks to how things are done or what. Much like the examples others have used, why is the water boiling, science can tell you about the reasons the molecules are behaving the way they are due to heat, what it cannot show you is someone turned the heat up to makes some tea. Another example science can explain why your computer screen displays markings that are in the shapes of letters that make up words, but it cannot tell you about the reason why the words were written, or address the information in the message, it is no different with the universe, science can talk about the material world, but cannot tell you why. Reality has both mechanisms and agencies that drive it, what caused it all in the first place!

@kellyjay said
Something done to or by someone identifies evil, why should truth be any different? God the truth about all reasons for all that is around us, our reason for being. The explanation of the reality of the universe hinges on why, as much as everything else! That takes science out of that particular quest for that knowledge; science only speaks to how things are done or what. Mu ...[text shortened]... why. Reality has both mechanisms and agencies that drive it, what caused it all in the first place!

Well, an "evil person" is generally someone who commits many morally despicable acts, but there is no comparable phrase such as "truth person". This comparison does not seem to help.

Science absolutely can show you that someone turned up the heat to make some tea, and can address the information in computer messages, since those are all actions involving the physical world. Even human actions are largely dictated by cause and effect - "it was cold outside, so I put on a jacket", or, "I avoided contact with person X because they were so mean to me last time". Social, biological, anthropological, evolutionary and physical science all combine to explain many human decisions.

I'll grant that science is not well-suited for tackling philosophical questions.