True

[mfbukowski]

I'm not talking about teachings which, I perceive to be, different than Christ's claim that he was truth. Does that help?

Well kind of I guess. I am not really sure what you are saying I guess. I don't think we disagree at all -it's just that I am trying to show that certain ways of talking about truth get people confused and this is a perfect example.

Proposition: The cat is on the mat.

Let us assume that is indeed the case- the cat really IS on the mat. Does the cat being on the mat somehow manifest Christ because it is a true statement?

See how we get confused? That is not what Jesus meant when he said "I am the Truth" any more than "I am the way" means he is a road, except figuratively. He is not made of concrete and you don't drive on him. I am even a little uncomfortable saying that.

So we know that "I am the way" is figurative, but I guess we don't know that "I am the truth" is also figurative, I guess.

[Rob Osborn]

Uhhhh.... Sorry, I've got nothin'.

How does one argue with that? It's brilliant. Next time someone brings up a logical contradiction, I'm just gonna say, "you are getting too philosophical." Poof! Problem gone.

Oh, nonsense. I've been reading philosophy for years and have yet to observe this "digression." And how does one think too much into something? Is this attitude the anti-intellectualism I sometimes hear about?

Let's see... begging the question, begging the question, and tautology.

Honestly, I'm surprised at you. With an outlook like that, what's the point of having a discussion on a board like this one? I mean, I don't mind that people think this way, and I'm quite happy if they do (see my original comment, for example....), but such things can't be argued. You have created a reality by fiat, and there's really no point in talking about it or investigating it.

I have studied quite a bit on philosophy and some of it is truly genuine stuff but a lot of it is purely nonsense that should be dealt with in more of a semantic approach. We are debating more about how words are being used and defined. I have found that a lot of times we put too much into it and then it gets philisophical and people end up in a state of cunfusion when its all said and done. Its sad that you have philosophers that have melted their brains into obscurity over words like "truth". I mean- really? Words are not difficult. Truth is an easy word. I can go to court and tell the "truth" and it stands always on its own. It doesnt work though when people use the word wrong though.

[Gervin]

Well kind of I guess. I am not really sure what you are saying I guess. I don't think we disagree at all -it's just that I am trying to show that certain ways of talking about truth get people confused and this is a perfect example.

Proposition: The cat is on the mat.

Let us assume that is indeed the case- the cat really IS on the mat. Does the cat being on the mat somehow manifest Christ because it is a true statement?

If the cat and the mat are real (this isn't a Dr. Seuss trick question) then they glorify the creator by their creation.

See how we get confused? That is not what Jesus meant when he said "I am the Truth" any more than "I am the way" means he is a road, except figuratively. He is not made of concrete and you don't drive on him. I am even a little uncomfortable saying that.

So we know that "I am the way" is figurative, but I guess we don't know that "I am the truth" is also figurative, I guess.

I don't feel confused ... maybe that's a symptom. I'm too lazy to look up the greek but when someone says "I am" and doesn't follow that up with the preposition "like," then some certainty is a-comin'. I appreciate your uncomfortableness and need to recognize that more often myself, in myself. But in this instance, I take it literality, free from exaggeration.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Gervin

[Stroopwafel]

What does true mean with regards to religion?

What I understand this to ask is pretty much "what does it mean to say that a religion is true?" In the believer's mind (because only a believer could affirm a religion as being true), my opinion is that he/she is affirming that the particular religion he/she is referring to is the one that is approved by God and in accord with His divine will. This is made manifest as we consider the opposite proposition that the believer may hold towards other religions, saying something like "such and such religion is false", by which is meant that said religion is not approved by God and not in accord with His will.

Could one hold that one particular religion is "true" while holding at the same time that another one is "true" as well? Of course it would depend on how you want to understand the word true, but as it was shown above, with regards to religion and as it is generally understood by the faithful, it seems that one could not.

Does it matter and why?

It seems to matter a lot for some, and not so much for others. However, if you think about it, ultimately it would matter very much if there would be something that we absolutely need to do in this life. Why does it matter? Because if we don't do these particular things, then we are put at a disadvantage for all eternity, be it eternal hell, eternal torment, limbo, stop of progression, not being with your family forever, etc. And we don't want that, right? So in order to avoid these consequences in the afterlife, we better know exactly what needs to be done now.

Is there only one truth?

There is not only one truth such that upon knowing it everything would be explained and made sense of. Yet, there is only one truth for each particular state of things, although how this truth is experienced/perceived may vary. Taste is subjective, but you can't deny there is taste. You may be deveiced by your eyes, but you see. You feel pain or you are numb when being touched, but you cannot deny being touched, or having the feeling. There is always something causing the experience, and this cause cannot be denied. However, we can be fooled as to what exactly is the cause of our perception. And to be able to know what is that source is the whole issue.

Your brain can be tempered with to make you swear that you've tasted Doritos without actually even having any in the room. Some drugs cause hallucinations, making you see things that are not there. So in that case, the cause of what you see resides solely in your own brain and is nothing material outside of it, though you could swear that there was a mosquito pancake beating up Nicolas Cage which fought back by throwing rainbow lasers from his elbows.

One last thing, I think part of the problem with this whole discussion on "true, truth" is that we apply a XXIst century understanding of those words in the context of a work dating back a few hundreds/thousands of years, which has for effect to bring foreign notions into play, further blurring the picture.

[Gervin]

If the cat and the mat are real (this isn't a Dr. Seuss trick question) then they glorify the creator by their creation.

cats like david crowder...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81dK2Vu1IUs

 

The day is brighter here with You

The night is lighter than it's hue

Would lead me to believe

Which leads me to believe

You make everything glorious

You make everything glorious

You make everything glorious

And I am Yours

What does that make me?

My eyes are small but they have seen

The beauty of enormous things

Which leads me to believe

There's light enough to see that

You make everything glorious

You make everything glorious

You make everything glorious

And I am Yours

From glory to glory

You are glorious You are glorious

From glory to glory

You are glorious. You are glorious

Which leads me to believe

Why I can believe that

 

[mfbukowski]

cats like david crowder...

I am also a cat who likes him.  That's Old English from a previous generation.