Absolute Truth

[Helen]

I think you and I must be talking about two different things when we say truth.

I mean-
He is The Truth. There is no truth outside of Him.
We each have a measure of The Truth ....but we do not yet possess Him in all of His fullness.

What is Truth...the full revelation of God in all of His glory.

Until then, we know ‘in part’ and we see ‘in part’......but when He is come...we will indeed see and know .....all things ....

 

[reformed1689]

I mean-
He is The Truth. There is no truth outside of Him.
We each have a measure of The Truth ....but we do not yet possess Him in all of His fullness.

What is Truth...the full revelation of God in all of His glory.

Until then, we know ‘in part’ and we see ‘in part’......but when He is come...we will indeed see and know .....all things ....

Ok, I believe that as well. That's what I mean though, when we were talking about truth in this thread we are using the word truth in different ways.

 

[bbyrd009]

You talk to us and we will listen; but dont let Him talk to us again, or we will die!
anyone who tells you that they know the truth is lying to you, according to Scripture

Absolute Truth (general) is easy to see. Does God exist? YES. This is absolute truth. The answer to this question is never no, not maybe, it is yes.

wadr this is how private interpretations are defined i guess, as Yah most certainly does not exist, ergo that cannot be an AT;

ex·ist
/iɡˈzist/
verb

1. 1.
   have objective reality or being.
   
   would be the closest definition that one might attempt; however "objective" would pretty much negate any chance i guess. I understand why we need Yah to "exist"--basically for the same reasons we need our beliefs to be Absolute Truths now, in the West anyway--but unfortunately that does not amount to truth, which is after all established by witnesses right

 

[reformed1689]

You talk to us and we will listen; but dont let Him talk to us again, or we will die!
anyone who tells you that they know the truth is lying to you, according to Scripture
wadr this is how private interpretations are defined i guess, as Yah most certainly does not exist, ergo that cannot be an AT;

ex·ist
/iɡˈzist/
verb

1. 1.
   have objective reality or being.
   
   would be the closest definition that one might attempt; however "objective" would pretty much negate any chance i guess. I understand why we need Yah to "exist"--basically for the same reasons we need our beliefs to be Absolute Truths now, in the West anyway--but unfortunately that does not amount to truth, which is after all established by witnesses right

So are you denying there is a God?

 

[bbyrd009]

So are you denying there is a God?

not at all. And i do get the cognitive dissonance, as i was raised with the same beliefs, surely. Christ died for our sins, imo, to maybe put some minds at ease. But a point here is that we take things waaay too literally, and thereby miss many points along the way, in our insistence.

so, i guess if Yah "existed" He would be made of wood, like all the other gods

 

[reformed1689]

not at all. And i do get the cognitive dissonance, as i was raised with the same beliefs, surely. Christ died for our sins, imo, to maybe put some minds at ease. But a point here is that we take things waaay too literally, and thereby miss many points along the way, in our insistence.

so, i guess if Yah "existed" He would be made of wood, like all the other gods

I literally have no idea what you are trying to say here.

 

[bbyrd009]

I literally have no idea what you are trying to say here.

well, regardless it seems you have no objective evidence of Yah existing, right?
Does something have to exist for it to be real? I guess in the West at least we tend to believe that it does

 

[reformed1689]

well, regardless it seems you have no objective evidence of Yah existing, right?
Does something have to exist for it to be real? I guess in the West at least we tend to believe that it does

The fact that you and I are here is objective evidence to the existence of God.

 

[bbyrd009]

The fact that you and I are here is objective evidence to the existence of God.

i happen to agree with you dt, but i guess that does not make it objective unfortunately;
the fact that you and i are here might also be objective evidence to the existence of RNA precursors in meteorites? Which btw i doubt, but also find no reason that Yah could not use meteorites if He wanted anyway

But i do suspect that is close, after all we cannot explain how order comes from chaos, when all we can witness is entropy. So a good Q might be "If all we witness is entropy, then what force manifested the order from which we arose?" or something along those lines.

 

[reformed1689]

i happen to agree with you dt, but i guess that does not make it objective unfortunately;
the fact that you and i are here might also be objective evidence to the existence of RNA precursors in meteorites? Which btw i doubt, but also find no reason that Yah could not use meteorites if He wanted anyway

But i do suspect that is close, after all we cannot explain how order comes from chaos, when all we can witness is entropy. So a good Q might be "If all we witness is entropy, then what force manifested the order from which we arose?" or something along those lines.

Metorites, where did they come form, it came from x, where did x come from, it came from y, where did y come from? etc. You eventually always logically get back to the fact there is a God.

 

[bbyrd009]

Metorites, where did they come form, it came from x, where did x come from, it came from y, where did y come from? etc. You eventually always logically get back to the fact there is a God.

right? Although imo the religious pursuit clouds the um creative one, maybe? We envision an Old White Guy with a Beard, instead of a more like a Force or a Conscious Unknown. Old White Guy maybe good for analogy, to encourage an understanding of the relationship, but then taken too far maybe.

Hence to why most declared agnostics/atheists, maybe, this
women speaking in church

 

[bbyrd009]

by which i mean this attempting to prove objectively the existence of Yah, i wouldnt get sucked in, there is no definitve proof good enough for a literal enough thinker? imo our kids at a certain stage even demo that to us, taking stuff too literally?

 

[amadeus]

not at all. And i do get the cognitive dissonance, as i was raised with the same beliefs, surely. Christ died for our sins, imo, to maybe put some minds at ease. But a point here is that we take things waaay too literally, and thereby miss many points along the way, in our insistence.

so, i guess if Yah "existed" He would be made of wood, like all the other gods

Sometimes my friend you seem to be completely out of sight. Need eyes to see to see you!

 

[bbyrd009]

Sometimes my friend you seem to be completely out of sight. Need eyes to see to see you!

it îs kind of like saying one knows Yah, rather than knows of Him?

 

[amadeus]

it îs kind of like saying one knows Yah, rather than knows of Him?

Even so!

 

[Mike Waters]

To put the proverbial 'cat amongst the pigeons' I believe that the majority of 'truth' is personally relevant, rather than universally absolute. Reformation Protestantism is strait-jacketed by the early (almost 'pre') age of enlightenment Statements of Faith re "all scripture being God breathed and verbally inerrant", in line with the 2 Timothy 3:16 claim, which was made with regard to the Old Testament.
For my part the Bible is NOT the third person of the Godhead; rendering the work of the Holy Spirit virtually obsolete in fourth place.

 

[reformed1689]

For my part the Bible is NOT the third person of the Godhead; rendering the work of the Holy Spirit virtually obsolete in fourth place.

I don't know of a single person who does that.

 

[Mike Waters]

I don't know of a single person who does that.

In effect that's often what happens whenever someone claims "thus saith the Word of God" with bigoted dogma (often via cherry picked scriptures that disregard other scriptures that can be taken conversely ....and indeed often are, across the denominational and theological spectrum).

 

[reformed1689]

In effect that's often what happens whenever someone claims "thus saith the Word of God" with bigoted dogma (often via cherry picked scriptures that disregard other scriptures that can be taken conversely ....and indeed often are, across the denominational and theological spectrum).

That is not the same thing as replacing the Spirit as the third member of the Trinity.

 

[Enoch111]

...in line with the 2 Timothy 3:16 claim, which was made with regard to the Old Testament.

Since Peter called all of Paul's epistles Scripture, what makes you think that 2 Tim 3:16 applies only to the OT? All Scripture means all Scripture from Genesis to Revelation (since Paul anticipated Revelation prophetically).

Here is what applies only to the Tanakh (OT) since Timothy's mother and grandmother taught him from the Hebrew Bible: And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.