The Value of Absolute Truth

[hamilrob]

If Absolute Truth exists independent of the diversity that leads to relativism, then of what value is it (Absolute Truth) if we can't know what it is because of that relativism?

If two people define a Truth in two divergent ways, both of which could be right, How do we determine who is correct? Even if the Bible were to be used as a standard and even if it WAS infallible, the diversity of interpretations still prevent it from determining absolutely what is right and what is wrong.

I am on the side of Relativism, BTW, but would like to hear from all angles.

[jerickson314]

If Absolute Truth exists independent of the diversity that leads to relativism, then of what value is it (Absolute Truth) if we can't know what it is because of that relativism?

Much of it is knowable. Even more is knowable for all practical purposes.

If two people define a Truth in two divergent ways, both of which could be right, How do we determine who is correct? Even if the Bible were to be used as a standard and even if it WAS infallible, the diversity of interpretations still prevent it from determining absolutely what is right and what is wrong.

Simple. Critical analysis of both claims.

Also, do realize that knowledge != truth.

By speaking English you are implying that there is knowable absolute truth. Otherwise I would have no reason to accept your claims.

[Bro Dave]

Atheists have to tip-toe around the concept of Absolute Truth. It is, however, "infinitely simple"; The First Source and Center", i.e. God in His unknowable totality.

But that should not discourage us from wanting to know! After all, His creatinion is here, and we have His presents within us to guide us if we choose. His being always just beyond our reach is what makes and keep our infinite association with Him forever facinating! He has invited us along on an adventure that literally lasts forever. He gains the experience of sharing our learning to become like Him, and we eventually become perfect in the same way He is perfect; we reach the absolute limit of our design limit.

Neat, huh?

Bro Dave

[hamilrob]

I think I know what you are saying. If God exists, saying he doesn't does not alter the truth of "God Exists". I just seems that If I really want to know that God exists and can challenge the statement that God exists the the only way I can accept that God exists is not to challenge the statement.

I think that's why I oppose Absolutism. It seems to inhibit freedom of thought. What if God "truly" does NOT exist? What if that's the Absolute Truth? What keeps "God does not Exist" from being an absolute truth?

Jesus Rose from the dead.

Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit and not by Joeseph her husband.

Jesus Walked on the Water.

These statements are either true or false. That's about as absolute a truth as I can state.

[jerickson314]

I think I know what you are saying. If God exists, saying he doesn't does not alter the truth of "God Exists". I just seems that If I really want to know that God exists and can challenge the statement that God exists the the only way I can accept that God exists is not to challenge the statement.

I think that's why I oppose Absolutism. It seems to inhibit freedom of thought. What if God "truly" does NOT exist? What if that's the Absolute Truth? What keeps "God does not Exist" from being an absolute truth?

Jesus Rose from the dead.

Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit and not by Joeseph her husband.

Jesus Walked on the Water.

These statements are either true or false. That's about as absolute a truth as I can state.

Right. Is this what you've been trying to say all along? This makes more sense.

Nonetheless, the evidence for Christianity is fairly strong.

[hamilrob]

Nonetheless, the evidence for Christianity is fairly strong.

OK. So it's a matter of evidence. Well, I have read all the basic evidence positions and I have read a reasonable rebuttal for every one of them. This is why Christians resort to faith. The only way the "truth" of Christianity can be known, accepted, or valued is through Faith. With reason, there are certain things you have to reject. Truth, then remains relative to the condition pertaining to Faith.

If evidence could establish absolute truth, it would have to be more than "fairly" strong. My signature at the bottom may just be another close depiction of absolute truth.

Do you believe in the Absolute truths concerning Jesus because of evidence more than faith, or vice versa?

[hamilrob]

Atheists have to tip-toe around the concept of Absolute Truth. It is, however, "infinitely simple"; The First Source and Center", i.e. God in His unknowable totality.

This couldn't be mistaken for opinion could it?

[Bro Dave]

hamilrob

I think I know what you are saying. If God exists, saying he doesn't does not alter the truth of "God Exists". I just seems that If I really want to know that God exists and can challenge the statement that God exists the the only way I can accept that God exists is not to challenge the statement.

Well, not quite. What I’m saying is that there are two levels of “knowing”. The physical level is the one relied on by science. It serves well within the relativistic material world. However science chooses not to address anything which it cannot “slide under a microscope”. That automatically excludes such “unimportant” things as “what is life?”, and “what is love?” etc. etc. etc….

hamilrob

I think that's why I oppose Absolutism. It seems to inhibit freedom of thought. What if God "truly" does NOT exist? What if that's the Absolute Truth? What keeps "God does not Exist" from being an absolute truth?

If you go though life with your eyes shut, you may not believe that light really exists. After all, it is just something others claim to experience. Likewise, if we choose to ignore our spiritual side, we may miss the God who is “closer than our breath”.

hamilrob

Jesus Rose from the dead.

Jesus did “rise”, but he no longer used his physical body. Instead, he chose to appear in the kind of spirit-body which can be made visible to mortals.

hamilrob

Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit and not by Joeseph her husband.

Jesus’ birth, including conception, was entirely natural. His divinity was on his spiritual side, not his physical side.

hamilrob

Jesus Walked on the Water.

He could have, but he didn’t. It was part of a dream which an exhausted Peter experienced while they were returning from fishing.
Actually, Jesus did all in he could not to put on flashy public magic shows. There were a few exception where he was forced to feed the 5 thousand, and where he was manipulated into turning water into wine, but these and his healing of the sick as he passed by were not meant to WOW anyone. In fact, after each healing, the person was admonished to “tell no one”.

hamilrob

These statements are either true or false. That's about as absolute a truth as I can state.

As you can see, even these statements are only relatively true…

Bro Dave

[Bro Dave]

Atheists have to tip-toe around the concept of Absolute Truth. It is, however, "infinitely simple"; The First Source and Center", i.e. God in His unknowable totality.

This couldn't be mistaken for opinion could it?

ABSOLUTELY! And it took considerable effort to discover the truth in it.

Bro Dave

[hamilrob]

hamilrob

I think I know what you are saying. If God exists, saying he doesn't does not alter the truth of "God Exists". I just seems that If I really want to know that God exists and can challenge the statement that God exists the the only way I can accept that God exists is not to challenge the statement.

Well, not quite. What I’m saying is that there are two levels of “knowing”. The physical level is the one relied on by science. It serves well within the relativistic material world. However science chooses not to address anything which it cannot “slide under a microscope”. That automatically excludes such “unimportant” things as “what is life?”, and “what is love?” etc. etc. etc….

hamilrob

I think that's why I oppose Absolutism. It seems to inhibit freedom of thought. What if God "truly" does NOT exist? What if that's the Absolute Truth? What keeps "God does not Exist" from being an absolute truth?

If you go though life with your eyes shut, you may not believe that light really exists. After all, it is just something others claim to experience. Likewise, if we choose to ignore our spiritual side, we may miss the God who is “closer than our breath”.

hamilrob

Jesus Rose from the dead.

Jesus did “rise”, but he no longer used his physical body. Instead, he chose to appear in the kind of spirit-body which can be made visible to mortals.

hamilrob

Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit and not by Joeseph her husband.

Jesus’ birth, including conception, was entirely natural. His divinity was on his spiritual side, not his physical side.

hamilrob

Jesus Walked on the Water.

He could have, but he didn’t. It was part of a dream which an exhausted Peter experienced while they were returning from fishing.
Actually, Jesus did all in he could not to put on flashy public magic shows. There were a few exception where he was forced to feed the 5 thousand, and where he was manipulated into turning water into wine, but these and his healing of the sick as he passed by were not meant to WOW anyone. In fact, after each healing, the person was admonished to “tell no one”.

hamilrob

These statements are either true or false. That's about as absolute a truth as I can state.

As you can see, even these statements are only relatively true…

Bro Dave

Jesus’ birth, including conception, was entirely natural. His divinity was on his spiritual side, not his physical side.

At least I can agree with THIS opinion! There many who don't, and that's ok too. What is Absolute about this, and why does the bible, which is supposed to be inerrant, try to make us think that He was born of a virgin, concieved by the Holy Spirit? Again, Don't answer. I know why. It had to do with religious thinking of the day and its effect on literature.

The point is, you say it was natural, some say not. Which is it, and what again, is Absolute about that truth? It appears you have demonstrated relativism quite efficiently, and for that, I thank you.

There were a few exception where he was forced to feed the 5 thousand, and where he was manipulated into turning water into wine, but these and his healing of the sick as he passed by were not meant to WOW anyone. In fact, after each healing, the person was admonished to “tell no one”.

I have two authors, J.S. Spong, and Barbara Theiring who went to great lengths to relate these "miracles" to symbolism more than to literal meaning. Since 5,000 people can't be fed from 5 loaves of bread and a two fishes, then there must be a deeper meaning to the story which saves it from being branded a lie.

I like the symbolism approach to all the miracle stories because it makes far more sense and rescues us from having to believe that these stories are literally true. If you take them literally, you miss the deeper meaning.

If Symbolism could be validated as the main theme of the Gospel narratives, along with rewriting OT stories, and legend/myth craft, then the Bible begins to move toward a truth that may approach absolutism in a far more profound manner than is provided with literalism.

I'll probably get asked to describe the symbolism more in detail, so i better get out my notes!