Truth vs Fact.

[bhsmte]

Read the Bible.

Of course, this is to assume that you are a Christian. If you are not, then you can not enjoy any absolute truth, because it does not exist to you.

Well, I used to be a christian, but when an investigation led me to believe the bible was not reliable, it helped to stimulate me to leave christianity.

 

[juvenissun]

Well, I used to be a christian, but when an investigation led me to believe the bible was not reliable, it helped to stimulate me to leave christianity.

Where did you get stumbled? Was it the 6-Day creation? Or was it the Noah's Flood? Was it anything related to science?

 

[bhsmte]

Where did you get stumbled? Was it the 6-Day creation? Or was it the Noah's Flood? Was it anything related to science?

Nope, I never believed in creation or any flood, even when I was a christian.

 

[juvenissun]

Nope, I never believed in creation or any flood, even when I was a christian.

If so, what was it that drove you away?

 

[bhsmte]

If so, what was it that drove you away?

Part of it was a thorough review of the NT from a scholarly and historical standpoint, you know, reading the works of many different NT scholars and historians.

Lastly, taking this new knowledge and overlaying the basic christian theology, with the realities of the world, just didn't add up any more.

 

[paulm50]

Both of your replies to me are out of the topic.

You opened the door of facts and atheists. Do Christians ever lie?

The bible contradicts itself all the time.

 

[juvenissun]

Part of it was a thorough review of the NT from a scholarly and historical standpoint, you know, reading the works of many different NT scholars and historians.

Lastly, taking this new knowledge and overlaying the basic christian theology, with the realities of the world, just didn't add up any more.

OK. Not to argue with you, I just show my way of looking at your concerns.

I don't care who said what on the history of the NT (and the OT). No body can be sure on anything with these two thousand years old documents. I simply consider the content of the NT/OT. My concern is on the content, not on the origin of these documents.

What the Bible says DO NOT fit the realities of today's world. If it fits, I won't want it.

 

[juvenissun]

You opened the door of facts and atheists. Do Christians ever lie?

The bible contradicts itself all the time.

Of course, every Christian lied and will lie. So what?
Nothing can contradicts itself "all the time". Such thing can not exist.

 

[bhsmte]

OK. Not to argue with you, I just show my way of looking at your concerns.

I don't care who said what on the history of the NT (and the OT). No body can be sure on anything with these two thousand years old documents. I simply consider the content of the NT/OT. My concern is on the content, not on the origin of these documents.

What the Bible says DO NOT fit the realities of today's world. If it fits, I won't want it.

This is where we differ.

Man can write anything in stories and the content existing doesn't make them legit. The historicity of the NT, is what matters, if one is concerned about it's reliability that is.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

In this case, it is the simplest question to answer: Whatever God says IS the truth.

OK; this leads to some interesting philosophical considerations, quite apart from the problem of establishing precisely what God does or doesn't say.

It tells us that truth is arbitrarily dependent on God's word, and so bears no necessary relation to our human experience and perception of reality, nor to logic or maths. Truth is simply the word of God. If God says it is right for Abraham to kill his son, then that is true. If He changes His mind, it is no longer true. You may say that God wouldn't contradict the analytic truths of logic and maths, and that might be the case (maybe you can know the mind of God to this extent, I don't know what the theologians say about this), but the synthetic truths of everyday life, and the broad moral and ethical compasses of culture, society, and individuals, are all susceptible to contradiction by this arbitrary truth-by-fiat.

But the tricky problem is in establishing the word of God, because this too is culturally dependent, and can lead to a confusing contradiction of God-given truths. Even among Christians, there are many different versions of the the word of God, so differing versions of the truth, producing schisms that have develop into different sects.

As I understand it, in principle, the word of God to Christians is a truth of tolerance and compassion (not that you'd always notice in practice, but that's what the monks of St. Benedict taught me). For certain other cultures, the word of God is a very different truth - that of intolerance and lack of compassion for those that don't have their specific beliefs. These we might call fundamentalist groups or cults.

Ask the believers of each of these religions, sects, groups, schools, & cults, "What do you believe?" and they may say, "We believe the truth". Ask them, "What is the truth?" and they'll probably say, "It's the word of God". Ask them what the word of God is, and they'll say, "It is the truth, it is what we believe". Outside this circularity, ask them where they find the word of God, and they'll point to some human artefact, or a human, or their own selves. Often the artefactual sources are the same, or very similar, but the word of God is read differently in them by each group, to a greater or lesser extent.

That's the way it looks from here - so who can explain which word of God really is the truth, without the circular argument that it's what they believe?

 

[juvenissun]

This is where we differ.

Man can write anything in stories and the content existing doesn't make them legit. The historicity of the NT, is what matters, if one is concerned about it's reliability that is.

True. But ...
The way I look at it is like this:
We can not verify the authenticity of the documents no matter how hard we tried. The thing remained to do is to examine the content of the document as careful as we could. I tried to do this to all ancient documents I cared to study, which include Koran and Buddhism scripts.

Yes, man can write anything. But what about something written is beyond the human wisdom? We are educated person and we can approximately evaluate what kind of thing humans are able to make up. In particular, if it is a theology, a systematic idea with a large structure, then it is relatively easier to see if it is something which could be made up, even it might take a few hundreds of years to complete. In fact, the longer the time stretch for the documents, the harder it is to make the whole theological structure coherent and consistent.

To me, the systematic and coherent teachings given by both OT and NT across thousands of years is simply beyond human wisdom and capability. That is why I believe it, no matter how controversial the authenticity of the documents could be.

 

[KCfromNC]

Au contraire, it is my point exactly. We assemble facts to arrive at truth. That is why both terms are used. The "whole" truth means not only certain facts, but all relative facts. Mitigating circumstances are an example of facts the clarify other facts and contribute to the "conclusion of the matter", the truth.

My whole point is that the terms "fact" and "truth", while synonyms, often have different meanings.

Neither are synonyms for "my opinion", though, which is the meaning you've been using.

 

[juvenissun]

OK; this leads to some interesting philosophical considerations, quite apart from the problem of establishing precisely what God does or doesn't say.

It tells us that truth is arbitrarily dependent on God's word, and so bears no necessary relation to our human experience and perception of reality, nor to logic or maths. Truth is simply the word of God. If God says it is right for Abraham to kill his son, then that is true. If He changes His mind, it is no longer true. You may say that God wouldn't contradict the analytic truths of logic and maths, and that might be the case (maybe you can know the mind of God to this extent, I don't know what the theologians say about this), but the synthetic truths of everyday life, and the broad moral and ethical compasses of culture, society, and individuals, are all susceptible to contradiction by this arbitrary truth-by-fiat.

But the tricky problem is in establishing the word of God, because this too is culturally dependent, and can lead to a confusing contradiction of God-given truths. Even among Christians, there are many different versions of the the word of God, so differing versions of the truth, producing schisms that have develop into different sects.

As I understand it, in principle, the word of God to Christians is a truth of tolerance and compassion (not that you'd always notice in practice, but that's what the monks of St. Benedict taught me). For certain other cultures, the word of God is a very different truth - that of intolerance and lack of compassion for those that don't have their specific beliefs. These we might call fundamentalist groups or cults.

Ask the believers of each of these religions, sects, groups, schools, & cults, "What do you believe?" and they may say, "We believe the truth". Ask them, "What is the truth?" and they'll probably say, "It's the word of God". Ask them what the word of God is, and they'll say, "It is the truth, it is what we believe". Outside this circularity, ask them where they find the word of God, and they'll point to some human artefact, or a human, or their own selves. Often the artefactual sources are the same, or very similar, but the word of God is read differently in them by each group, to a greater or lesser extent.

That's the way it looks from here - so who can explain which word of God really is the truth, without the circular argument that it's what they believe?

For one who has faith to God, what you said is exactly what it should be. God tells Abraham to kill his only son. Yes, it has truth in it. God than tells Abraham to save his son, Yes, it also has truth in it. God tells Israeli people to terminate a tribe. Yes, it has truth in it. That is the only way any TRUTH could work. We can reason it, but we can not question it.

Yes, Christians have their truth while Buddhists or Muslims may also have their own truth. That is how an absolute truth is possible. You may sense that the so-called truth among these faithful people may conflict to one another. Yes, it is possible. But in reality, it seldom happen. Instead having conflict, they are simply "different". Have you heard a cult called Unitarian Universalist? They tried to put all these religions together. Instead of resolving the conflicts, the major work is to accommodate, but not compromise. So the united faith could have MORE truth.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Neither are synonyms for "my opinion", though, which is the meaning you've been using.

I take it you don't agree with my examples;

Fact: Illegals come here for a better life (generally speaking).

Truth (sometimes called the greater truth as it relates to the above fact): They should solve the problems in their own country instead of bringing those problems here.

Put another way, while it is a fact that they bring those problems with them the truth is that they should go back to their own country and solve their own problems. See the moral imperative there?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

For one who has faith to God, what you said is exactly what it should be. God tells Abraham to kill his only son. Yes, it has truth in it. God than tells Abraham to save his son, Yes, it also has truth in it. God tells Israeli people to terminate a tribe. Yes, it has truth in it. That is the only way any TRUTH could work. We can reason it, but we can not question it.

As I see it, the problem here is a semantic one - 'Truth' (the word of God) and 'truth' (correspondence with reality or the facts) are homonyms, spelt the same but with radically different (potentially contradictory) meanings. Using them interchangeably is nonsensical.

 

[juvenissun]

As I see it, the problem here is a semantic one - 'Truth' (the word of God) and 'truth' (correspondence with reality or the facts) are homonyms, spelt the same but with radically different (potentially contradictory) meanings. Using them interchangeably is nonsensical.

Unfortunately, God confused our languages and thus many misunderstandings happened everywhere all the time. God did this, it MUST contain some truth in it.

We should worship God not by our mouths, but by our heart. This is a truth Lord Jesus told us. He is absolutely correct.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Another way to put is that one can be a factual person while being untruthful (I have never heard the term 'unfactual') at the same time, by simply omitting certain facts, or, aka 'lying by omission'.

 

[KCfromNC]

I take it you don't agree with my examples;

Fact: Illegals come here for a better life (generally speaking).

Truth (sometimes called the greater truth as it relates to the above fact): They should solve the problems in their own country instead of bringing those problems here.

Put another way, while it is a fact that they bring those problems with them the truth is that they should go back to their own country and solve their own problems. See the moral imperative there?

All I see is someone trying to turn their opinion into something more by slapping the label "truth" on it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

All I see is someone trying to turn their opinion into something more by slapping the label "truth" on it.

Truth isn't for the faint hearted as it does require judgment.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Another way to put is that one can be a factual person while being untruthful (I have never heard the term 'unfactual') at the same time, by simply omitting certain facts, or, aka 'lying by omission'.

This now has the wonderful description of, "being economical with the truth".

The converse of factual is contrafactual or counterfactual.