Discerning truth

[Penumbra]

How does one determine truth or facts about a spiritual, non-physical being or idea?

What methods work?
What methods do not work?

For instance, if two people have two contradicting god concepts, how can a third party determine if either one of them is accurate?

Thanks,

-Lyn

 

[david_x]

How does one determine truth or facts about a spiritual, non-physical being or idea?

What methods work?
What methods do not work?

For instance, if two people have two contradicting god concepts, how can a third party determine if either one of them is accurate?

Thanks,

-Lyn

It is up to the Church to decide. Concepts of God should not be considered independently of the Church.

 

[the sad clown]

It is up to the Church to decide. Concepts of God should not be considered independently of the Church.

Doesn't that just push the question back one level? Which church are we consulting? What if their are two different religious bodies that disagree?

 

[SUM]

For instance, if two people have two contradicting god concepts, how can a third party determine if either one of them is accurate?

If two people have contradicting views of a God a third party should ask each person two prove unequivocally that the others God does not exist and then come back and tell the third person why their God does exist. I would venture to say that this would be close to impossible.

 

[david_x]

Doesn't that just push the question back one level? Which church are we consulting? What if their are two different religious bodies that disagree?

They don't.

 

[the sad clown]

They don't.

Yes they do. Methodists and Presbyterians disagree. Catholics and Protestants disagree. And honestly, Lyn's question was broader than that. Muslims and Christians disagree about the nature of God. How are you going to determine which of these has the truth, if any of them do? Your answer hasn't even made contact with the question.

 

[david_x]

Yes they do. Methodists and Presbyterians disagree. Catholics and Protestants disagree. And honestly, Lyn's question was broader than that. Muslims and Christians disagree about the nature of God. How are you going to determine which of these has the truth, if any of them do? Your answer hasn't even made contact with the question.

Christians do not disagree about the nature of God. We did disagree with the JW and the Mormans, that's why they are not Christians.

 

[Washington]

Christians do not disagree about the nature of God. We did disagree with the JW and the Mormans, that's why they are not Christians.

Ah, a variation of the old, "I get to determine who is and who is not a True American." Granted it's hardly an important issue, but kind of interesting nonetheless.

 

[david_x]

Ah, a variation of the old, "I get to determine who is and who is not a True American." Granted it's hardly an important issue, but kind of interesting nonetheless.

There is no I about it. This was decided hundreds of years before I was ever born. By which I mean the definition of Christian.

 

[Washington]

There is no I about it. This was decided hundreds of years before I was ever born. By which I mean the definition of Christian.

And who got to be the determiners? No doubt those who wielded the biggest cross at the time. But that aside, just what is their definition of a Christian? A link to your source would be nice too, if you would.

 

[Penumbra]

Christians do not disagree about the nature of God. We did disagree with the JW and the Mormans, that's why they are not Christians.

Many Christians disagree about many different things, including things like what is essential for salvation (which, really, one would think would be a rather important issue).

As Sad Clown pointed out, however, my question is wider than that.

Let's say I'm not affiliated with a religion and am looking to discern truth about metaphysics and deities. If a Jew, Christian, Muslim, Hellenic Pagan, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Taoist, Bahai, Scientologist, and Jehova's Witness each tell me a different view of how the world works and the nature of god, how should I discern which, if any of them, is telling me the truth?

Where do you believe is the fundamental starting point to begin with in search of truth of a divine being or idea? What methods work to discern who is telling me the truth, and who doesn't know what he or she is talking about?

-Lyn

 

[david_x]

And who got to be the determiners? No doubt those who wielded the biggest cross at the time. But that aside, just what is their definition of a Christian? A link to your source would be nice too, if you would.

Leaders of the major branches: Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox. They all came together for the definition. Nicene Creed.

The trinity is the central dogma of the Christian faith.

 

[david_x]

Many Christians disagree about many different things, including things like what is essential for salvation (which, really, one would think would be a rather important issue).

As Sad Clown pointed out, however, my question is wider than that.

Let's say I'm not affiliated with a religion and am looking to discern truth about metaphysics and deities. If a Jew, Christian, Muslim, Hellenistic Pagan, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Taoist, Bahai, Scientologist, and Jehova's Witness each tell me a different view of how the world works and the nature of god, how should I discern which, if any of them, is telling me the truth?

Where do you believe is the fundamental starting point to begin with in search of truth of a divine being or idea? What methods work to discern who is telling me the truth, and who doesn't know what he or she is talking about?

-Lyn

This is about the Nature of God, not the things we disagree about.

 

[Penumbra]

This is about the Nature of God, not the things we disagree about.

How does one discern the nature of God?

That is the question; it's a rather straightforward, direct question.

-Lyn

 

[Optimax]

Everyone has "an authority".

That "authority" can be;

1. God = Scripture

2. Another man

3. Self

Who one accepts as their "authority" is the beginning of their "truth"

Some interpret Scripture to mean or say one thing while another interprets it to say something different.

The Power of Scripture though is that everytime one reads it is saying the same thing, regardless of "interpretations".

If one's authority is another man or self the ways of life and truth change according to what has just been "learned".

 

[Penumbra]

Everyone has "an authority".

That "authority" can be;

1. God = Scripture

2. Another man

3. Self

Who one accepts as their "authority" is the beginning of their "truth"

Some interpret Scripture to mean or say one thing while another interprets it to say something different.

The Power of Scripture though is that everytime one reads it is saying the same thing, regardless of "interpretations".

If one's authority is another man or self the ways of life and truth change according to what has just been "learned".

How does one discern which scripture to accept as true?

How does one discern which interpretation of that scripture is true?

-Lyn

 

[Optimax]

How does one discern which scripture to accept as true?

How does one discern which interpretation of that scripture is true?

-Lyn

By diligently reading and studying what it says.

Not what one is taught that it says.

When one hears from another what it says. Check it out for oneself.

Only accept what one can see for themselves.

Even from the most trusted teachers.

As one learns, one draws closer to the truth.

 

[bricklayer]

The only proof I have, of the things I cannot see, the things I hope for, is my faith.
To me, nothing is ever really proven. It's just that all the other ideas I've considered have been des-proven,
and what remains is my faith.
Then, that's tested, and so on.

As for truth, I have yet to find a definition that is not self contradictory, or at least self defeating,
save the corrosponence view.
Truth is that which corrosponds to its predicate.

I would have to employ the idea that all resoning is presuppositional to deny it.
It is literally undenyable.
Therefore, the presuppositions that we bring to the bible account for the differenes we take from the bible.
These are the elements of reason, the first principles of logic:
existence
identity
non-contradiction
exclusion
causality
necessity
contingency
existential causality, necessity and contingency
analogy
the corrospondence of truth

For two or more to take from the bible the same beliefs, they must take to the bible the same beliefs.

As for me, if the object is not reducible to the subject, I don't believe it.

 

[Penumbra]

By reading and studying what it says.

Not what one is taught that it says.

When one hears from another what it says. Check it out for oneself.

Only accept what one can see for themselves.

Even from the most trusted teachers.

As one learns, one draws closer to the truth.

That answers the second question about how to interpret a scripture, but doesn't answer the first question about discerning which scripture is true in the first place.

Let's say I have available to me the Hebrew Bible, New Testament, Pali Canon, Bhagavad Gita, and Qur'an. How would I go about discerning which, if any of them, is/are true?

-Lyn

 

[Penumbra]

The only proof I have, of the things I cannot see, the things I hope for, is my faith.
To me, nothing is ever really proven. It's just that all the other ideas I've considered have been des-proven,
and what remains is my faith.
Then, that's tested, and so on.

As for truth, I have yet to find a definition that is not self contradictory, or at least self defeating,
save the corrosponence view.
Truth is that which corrosponds to its predicate.

Thank you for your reply. I can't say that I understand the last bit there about correspondence.

Can you expand on which ideas you've disproved, and how you've done so?

-Lyn