Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
truth: that which is in accordance with fact or reality.
reality: the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
Is this in response to my OP or to one of the other posters here in this thread, Steve?
For anyone who cares to address it, lurkers included.
Ok. But my thread here as to do with dealing with diabolical ploys, so I find that the interjection [just out of the blue] of your brief attempts to define 'truth' and 'reality' to be a kind of sideline or sidetrack. Are you presenting these here in connection with my OP, or in a disconnected fashion from the OP?
No, but I can assert that your choice in selecting "2+2=4" as some kind of 'truth structure' that blows away or exhausts the human meaning of the English word 'truth' is fallacious and fairly arbitrary. Haven't we already gone in circles about all of this over the past few years, or is there something you feel we still haven't covered? Perhaps we need to cover just where you think Lewis' ideas about the ways in which we could be demonically deceived go wrong?
Ok. I see. Yeah, I disagree with this, and as I've said before to others here, when we try to conceptually uncover the essence of truth, I'm going to stand beside Pontius Pilate on this one, because discerning the so-called 'truth' as we humans like to call it is fraught with underlying and/or internal conceptual complications.truth: that which is in accordance with fact or reality.
reality: the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
Are you referring to a computer chip being implanted into either the right hand or forehead as the mark of the beast?
Why does belief or faith need to be maintained? True things tend to handle themselves.
lurkers included.
I'm going to stand beside Pontius Pilate on this one, because discerning the so-called 'truth' as we humans like to call it is fraught with underlying and/or internal conceptual complications.
Hence, the reason we have epistemic relativity, and for any one Christian or even non-Christian to think that 'truth' or really human truth(S) are readily discernible is a mass folly, especially when it comes to evaluating the essence of the possible reality to which the Bible points, such as that which involves God and the Devil.
I wonder how carefully you examined Pilot's role in the crucifixion of Jesus, to repeatedly align yourself with him. Pilot wasn't confused about the truth; he knew Jesus was innocent and actively sought to free him (for a time). Even his wife, who hadn't been involved at all up to that point, explained to him a dream she'd had which coincided with exactly what was happening with Jesus at that moment.
Pilot's rhetorical question asking what is truth was a cynical deflection from what he did not want to face; that freeing Jesus would mean the end of his political career and quite possibly his life, as the record shows there was much political unrest under his jurisdiction which the higher-ups were becoming increasingly more frustrated with. Going against the Jewish leaders and the crowd (who was being whipped into a frenzy by those same leaders) at that moment would have resulted in a riot, which would ,in turn, have reflected poorly on him. In his mind, he had too much to lose and so he dismissed his culpability with a rather glib comment about not knowing the truth and proceeded to kill an innocent man for political expediency.
No, my friend; do not so casually align your self with this example, mistakenly thinking that Pilot had taken some great, philosophical stance.
Remember Screwtape's strategy from the video? Keep people focused on their feelings about the concept of truth rather than getting down to the nitty gritty of discerning what actually is or is not true; that appears to be what you're doing now. You've taken a rather lofty position that humans just can't discern what truth is, though in reality you only have your own personal experience to go on; how can you possibly say that others are foolish for trying to discern truth just because you've decided Pilot, a politician trying to save his own neck, is the best example there is?
Jesus' teachings are the tools we can use to discern what is true or what is not. For example, consider the golden rule; it is golden precisely because, in order to properly apply it, you must consider the thoughts and feelings of the other person. If someone breaks into your home to steal your stuff, you know you'd feel bad about that. Thus, you can recognize that if you were to break into another person's home to steak his stuff, he'd probably feel bad about that. There is some truth there in recognizing that, while we have free will as individuals and will be held accountable as individuals before God, we still share the same basic morality with all humanity.
Most of us will require several lifetimes to really explore what is truth, but so what? That just makes the exploration so much more exciting. Yes, we'll have struggles along the way but you don't stop searching for gold just because there are so many worthless rocks in the ground.
Just be sure that, on the spiritual front, I don't side with Jesus: rather, I bow before His Lordship.
It's just that I'm more postmodern-ish in my view of it than are some of my fellow Christians; more specifically, I associate myself with an existentially laden, philosophically hermeneutical approach to faith
I think Lewis hits on a pretty important point when Screwtape tells wormwood to keep his patient focused on the way they he feels about some particular idea rather than questioning whether the issue in contention is true or not true.
Yes, 2+2 is 4. Very good. That truth has been established. Now, on the the next truth, and the next, and then the next after that, etc...
What does this even mean practically? You're not on his side but you bow before him? If you're loyal to him why even bother declaring that you're not on his side? This kind of watery sentence is probably why Jesus said to his would-be followers, "Why do you call me Lord, but do not obey me"?
Go back to the Lewis video you posted at 3:02. That's basically what's happening with this sentence; it is jargon. You say you bow to Jesus; okay what does that mean in a real sense? What do you think about his teachings? Should we obey them? Or do you think we should discuss them as some kind of philosophical set of ideas which may or may not have any existential, hermeneutical value which we may, or may not someday ever get around to thinking are worth giving more thought to?
If you'll notice, John, I actually edited what I wrote above to read more accurately as to what I want to say.
I think that in the case of Screwtape and Womrwood, in Lewis' satire of satanic influence, they're attempting to make their victims focus not only upon their feelings for some man-made phenomena, but also upon their ingenuity to label those phenomena euphemistically.
I would probably say that it's also important to realize that being made in the Image of God doesn't, and shouldn't, displace the feelings we each may have in our own person as we engage the world (or the spiritual world) around us.
why have you suddenly decided to 'land into me'? You do realize that this section isn't the place to take other, fellow Christians to task, right?
Yes, I did clarify with my edit above. Did you not bother to look at the edit I made? Maybe look at that first before we commence any further dialogue here, brother John. Hermeneutics, John. Hermeneutical circles. Keep going. Keep going.Okay, but you've still not clarified what it means to bow to Jesus, but to not be on his side.
Yes, I did clarify with my edit above.
As if those kinds of labels exonerate any further axiological questioning we should do about our creative thoughts and inventions.
Yes. All I had to do was add the adverb "merely," and viola, the intended meaning is changed.I don't see any clarification there about what it means to bow to Jesus but to not be on his side. I'm guessing you believe you've offered a clarification
Nope. That's not what I was referring to.Is this the clarification? It looks like jargon.
Yes. All I had to do was add the adverb "merely," and viola, the intended meaning is changed.
Also, at this point, I'd suggest you stop attempting to 'take me down,' brother John.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?