If truth is absoluute then why are therre so many different religions?

[Rocmonkey]

I'm not watching that. There is only so much time in a day and I'd rather spend the time playing Metal Gear Solid 5 than be annoyed by alien stuff.

That episode is only about dinos and man living together. I don't think there is much alien to that one- except, maybe, to say the aliens killed off (intentionally) the dinos. It really is interesting, tho- from a Dino and man living together perspective. Makes ya wonder.

 

[Rocmonkey]

You are getting all of your "facts" from creationist sources, right?

http://m.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

I don't think there is any evidence that dinosaurs existed at the same time the Crusades were going on.

Yeah. Since I am one I didn't think the other guys would confirm my beliefs. But I also think the other guys would lie to justify their views AND to get more free money for more research that, to me, is spent living the high-life and lying, mostly, to the world. I've seen some lies the evolutionist scientists have said. And I know my side has stretched some things, too.

 

[Rocmonkey]

You are getting all of your "facts" from creationist sources, right?

http://m.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

I don't think there is any evidence that dinosaurs existed at the same time the Crusades were going on.

Maybe in dense jungles, forests and, possibly, deserts- killed off everywhere else. I did say 'maybe'.

 

[LoAmmi]

Yeah. Since I am one I didn't think the other guys would confirm my beliefs. But I also think the other guys would lie to justify their views AND to get more free money for more research that, to me, is spent living the high-life and lying, mostly, to the world. I've seen some lies the evolutionist scientists have said. And I know my side has stretched some things, too.

You will notice that article doesn't contain the words you dislike.

 

[gord44]

I'd rather spend the time playing Metal Gear Solid 5 than be annoyed by alien stuff.

That game has consumed my evenings for the last week.

 

[cloudyday2]

Aliens... But what they show in some are real objects and animals. They simply add an alien connection. I know but they are interesting. And since I've seen a UFO I find them informative and interesting. Now I'm black-listed for sure, huh? hahaha

I saw a UFO once too, so that's o.k. with me.

 

[Cearbhall]

Ancient aliens? What kind of show is this?

A good show to watch when one is drunk. I've watched it.

 

[cloudyday2]

@Rocmonkey , FWIW those UFO documentaries are not very good sources of information. They are not interested in educating people; they are sloppy and sometimes dishonest in their presentation of the facts. Often they present UFO cases that have been explained as though there is no explanation. Most of the UFO books are lousy too.

 

[cloudyday2]

A good show to watch when one is drunk. I've watched it.

I'm proud to say I have never watched Ancient Aliens One of my coworkers tells me about all the episodes though. LOL.

 

[Cearbhall]

Check out the link I just posted or look up the series 'Ancient Aliens and Dinosaurs'. The footprints are perfect- both the man's and the dinosaur's. That is proof they both existed at the same time as the Bible states in Job.

This was disproven decades ago.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

http://www.nytimes.com/1986/06/17/science/fossils-of-man-tracks-shown-to-be-dinosaurian.html

Fantastical TV programs can say whatever they want to get viewers.

 

[Chicken Little]

If truth is absolute then why are there so many different religions?

well original and oral truth both is only a true as the last crooked mind it passed through. some culture pride themselves in being able to keep oral history pure .. and that is kind of true if you can thus use that to find true history.
but so many times you can't do it with someone else culture. using oral history as clues, and recorded eye witnessed history on tombs and monuments and Stele and rock faces and such I found the truth and our history fairly quickly
now for written history is only understood as well as the last crooked mind that reads it and decides to use what he thinks he reads.
as far as religions well they all take on life of their own only as pure as the last crooked mind it passed through..
all other things such a science and any kind of philosophy there are only as pure as the last rebellion and only as true as the last crooked mind it passes through,

so it works out in the end .
because they all will do what they are going to do. just like Akiana , God only needed to make sure she had two trees in her garden also. so she has the same chance as everyone else to make her choices.
REV 22
Let the one who does wrong continue to do wrong; let the vile person continue to be vile; let the one who does right continue to do right; and let the holy person continue to be holy."

 

[Rocmonkey]

@Rocmonkey , FWIW those UFO documentaries are not very good sources of information. They are not interested in educating people; they are sloppy and sometimes dishonest in their presentation of the facts. Often they present UFO cases that have been explained as though there is no explanation. Most of the UFO books are lousy too.

I realize that- that's why I said 'I know but'. But they didn't invent, create or make up the etched images from over a thousand years ago. My point was there are real footprints of both Dinos and man together and a clearly etched Stegosaurus- with skin and hard body parts (scales/bony structures) protruding from head to tail- that could not have been known IF Dinos had really died out 75,800,000 years before man came upon earth. How would one describe to a perfect 'T' what they had never seen or heard about?

 

[cloudyday2]

I realize that- that's why I said 'I know but'. But they didn't invent, create or make up the etched images from over a thousand years ago. My point was there are real footprints of both Dinos and man together and a clearly etched Stegosaurus- with skin and hard body parts (scales/bony structures) protruding from head to tail- that could not have been known IF Dinos had really died out 75,800,000 years before man came upon earth. How would one describe to a perfect 'T' what they had never seen or heard about?

The problem is that facts are not helpful if they are not a "scientific/random sample" (sorry I can't remember the right phrase - hopefully you know what I mean). The History Channel only presents facts that make their TV show more titillating. Sometimes they present the facts wrong. For example, I have a History Channel documentary about the USN Enterprise in WWII, but I have noticed a lot of mistakes and missing facts. Whenever I buy a book, I read about the author first. If the author is not an academic or is on the fringes of the academic world, then I don't buy the book.

 

[Rocmonkey]

The New Testament, however, does not line up with the Tanakh in my opinion so I don't believe it.

Yes, but can you disprove it? I approach everything with the attitude that it can
1. Be proved
or
2. Disproved.
If it is true then it always was (*absolute truth- I'll explain this better below) and always will be. And if it isn't true then it never was and never will be.

*Absolute truth is accepted and adhered to by every person on earth, especially those in modern or literate cultures. For example, let's say you worked forty (40) hours one week but your boss said you worked only 20. How do you prove you did/he prove you didn't? Simple, get the truth- you clocked in/time card, your computer was signed on by you, work cameras (video) showing you there, your specific job (if in factory) was performed, etc. You'd be quick to produce absolute truth, right?

Or, You decide to travel to (say) Denver from the east coast. The freeway sign says 'Denver next left'. You take it and end up in Arkansas some 500 miles from Denver. Are you going to be confused and upset with that state that put up a wrong sign? Or, are you going to say 'well, there isn't any absolute truth so I can't complain bcuz they really don't have any idea where Denver is'.
The same can be used for a lot of issues, personal and public. There is actually a book on this subject. But all of us believe in absolute truth we simply don't see it bcuz we live it daily.

 

[cloudyday2]

^ @Rocmonkey , you should read some books about fossils. Oxford books has a series called "a very short introduction to..." that I find helpful. One of the books I read discussed fossils. Some of these facts used by creationists are simply misinterpretations of fossil data by people who aren't experts. The "Baghdad battery" is another example of a "mystery" that isn't a mystery to experts. History Channel is awful about propagating this trash history.

 

[Rocmonkey]

If you are going to bring up Isaiah 53, don't. I can't tell you how many times I've argued this with Christians. Jews say it's Israel, Christians say it's Jesus/Messiah. It spins round and round and round.

I don't believe that the story of Jesus lines up with the Messianic prophecies. The thread is closed but you can see lots of arguments here: http://www.christianforums.com/threads/why-do-jews-reject-jesus.7814706/

Read the linked post (not all of it). And I'm not trying to bring it up again but... I went and read Isaiah 49-54. What I found was what you said, mostly- it's speaking of Israel. However, I found 53 to be confusing and strange if I read it the way you said it meant. There are things don't fit your narrative. And that's enough of that- unless you want to see those things.

 

[LoAmmi]

Yes, but can you disprove it? I approach everything with the attitude that it can
1. Be proved
or
2. Disproved.
If it is true then it always was (*absolute truth- I'll explain this better below) and always will be. And if it isn't true then it never was and never will be.

*Absolute truth is accepted and adhered to by every person on earth, especially those in modern or literate cultures. For example, let's say you worked forty (40) hours one week but your boss said you worked only 20. How do you prove you did/he prove you didn't? Simple, get the truth- you clocked in/time card, your computer was signed on by you, work cameras (video) showing you there, your specific job (if in factory) was performed, etc. You'd be quick to produce absolute truth, right? Or, You decide to travel to (say) Denver from the east coast. The freeway sign says 'Denver next left'. You take it and end up in Arkansas some 500 miles from Denver. Are you going to be confused and upset with that state that put up a wrong sign? Or, are you going to say 'well, there isn't any absolute truth so I can't complain cuz they didn't really had no idea where Denver is on I-70. The same can be used for a lot of issues, personal and public. There is actually a book on this subject. But all of us believe in absolute truth we simply don't see it bcuz we live it daily.

I believe I can disprove it. But I don't expect Christians to agree with me. We're left at interpretation of things which people disagree on.

Take for example the entire structure of the new covenant Christians claim. Where is that from?

Jeremiah 31
31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord.

Ok, so that's where the concept comes from. But what comes after?

33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Well, that makes it seem like any concept of the Jewish people not following HaShem is foreign to the text. We will have the Torah written on our hearts and we will be His people. What next?

34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

Now I look at that and go "Oh, well that clearly hasn't happened, so there can't be this new covenant yet." Christians will either tell me that it is happening slowly over time or tell me that it will happen.

Here we are at interpretation. Who's correct? Who has the absolute truth? In my opinion, this right here disproves that a new covenant exists at this time. To a Christian, the New Testament (which means new covenant) states that it exists so it does.

 

[LoAmmi]

Read the linked post (not all of it). And I'm not trying to bring it up again but... I went and read Isaiah 49-54. What I found was what you said, mostly- it's speaking of Israel. However, I found 53 to be confusing and strange if I read it the way you said it meant. There are things don't fit your narrative. And that's enough of that- unless you want to see those things.

What about Isaiah, say, 48 up to 53? The entire context needs to be taken into account both what comes before and what comes after.

This is probably my favorite write up on Isaiah 53 and it goes though the context of it:
http://www.thehebrewcafe.com/articles/isaiah_52-54.pdf

 

[Rocmonkey]

^ @Rocmonkey , you should read some books about fossils. Oxford books has a series called "a very short introduction to..." that I find helpful. One of the books I read discussed fossils. Some of these facts used by creationists are simply misinterpretations of fossil data by people who aren't experts. The "Baghdad battery" is another example of a "mystery" that isn't a mystery to experts. History Channel is awful about propagating this trash history.

Yes but, all of us, I'm sure, have seen the blatant lies told by evolutionists over the decades. Once creationists started fact-checking they were found. I know you have seen them if you've studied the issue at all. Yes, there are/have been some over zealous creationists. But most creationists expose the frauds. We (Christians, creationists) stand on truth. Everyone makes mistakes but the tryly honest ones will admit it when they do. Sad fact is the evolutionists never admitted on their own that they had made mistakes- they just went quiet and let everyone think what they said was true when it wasn't. So I'll take any creationist's word over any evolutionist's- if for no other reason than that glaring one. If a person/group lies, even once, and doesn't correct itself or others from that same mind-set don't then you can't trust anything they say until you prove it for yourself- unless one is a blind follower of that thought. And there are a lot of people who do just that, follow blindly whatever they are told. Most do it bcuz we are a trusting lot (humans are). But there are many who do so out of brainwashing or delusion. These are the saddest of all.

 

[LoAmmi]

Yes but, all of us, I'm sure, have seen the blatant lies told by evolutionists over the decades. Once creationists started fact-checking they were found. I know you have seen them if you've studied the issue at all. Yes, there are/have been some over zealous creationists. But most creationists expose the frauds. We (Christians, creationists) stand on truth. Everyone makes mistakes but the tryly honest ones will admit it when they do. Sad fact is the evolutionists never admitted on their own that they had made mistakes- they just went quiet and let everyone think what they said was true when it wasn't. So I'll take any creationist's word over any evolutionist's- if for no other reason than that glaring one. If a person/group lies, even once, and doesn't correct itself or others from that same mind-set don't then you can't trust anything they say until you prove it for yourself- unless one is a blind follower of that thought. And there are a lot of people who do just that, follow blindly whatever they are told. Most do it bcuz we are a trusting lot (humans are). But there are many who do so out of brainwashing or delusion. These are the saddest of all.

A lot of times when the things the big creationist leaders say something that's wrong, just completely factually wrong, their statements are never corrected and anything said against them is dismissed. Kent Hovind says some really wrong things scientifically speaking, but since creationism isn't a science it isn't self correcting. It isn't observable, it isn't testable, it isn't falsifiable. People just keep repeating what him and others have said even though they have been debunked for years and years.

Thus, we have people like you who are sincerely interested in the truth falling victim to what I consider to be professional liars that will say anything to get people to believe what they say. I used to be a creationist and then I started reading actual science instead of creationist stuff. It was eye opening.