Truth.

[ChristianEstes]

Christian's say that God is indisputable truth, and truth is truth.

On the other hand, some people follow other belief systems and disagree with the above statement. They would argue that the Christian God is truth, but only to a Christian follower. From their perspective, they would argue that their belief was truth.

When I debated this with my World Literature teacher, whom is a Christian woman, she indicated that God was truth and that all other beliefs were false.
So, let me ask the question.
Are other religions factually false or only false according to her personal beliefs? She argues that God is indisputably truth and there can be no other truth?

She then quotes scripture by saying, “God is the way, the truth and the light”, and therefore according to her divine beliefs, she alienates anyone else’s beliefs accordingly.

Just some data I gathered to prove my point. Please remember, I am a Christian, but I used to be an Atheist so I can see both sides of this. According to the actual definition, saying that God is the truth is only an accepted belief among Christian’s, but isn’t necessarily fact, although a Christian with defend his point of view based on faith, but faith IS NOT fact.

fact
n.

1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
   1. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
   2. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
   3. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.

Real, Belief and truth are words that are not synonymous with each other. Truth is only known through discovery and experience.




Example: Galileo was killed because he said that the earth wasn’t flat and that it was round. According to the beliefs of people during the time period in which he lived, he was convicted of heresy because of his postulation that the world was round, when in fact we know the world IS round and can be proven indisputably and is therefore truth.

During Galileo’s life, it could not be proven or disproven that the earth was flat, but because of the current beliefs (faith in something) his life was taken without the conclusion of factual evidence.

1. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
2. Law. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.

truth
n. pl. truths (tr thz, tr ths)

1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
3. Sincerity; integrity.
4. Fidelity to an original or standard.
   1. Reality; actuality.
   2. often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.

proof
n.

1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
   1. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
   2. A statement or argument used in such a validation.
2. 
   
   1. Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability.
   2. The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.
3. Determination of the quality of something by testing; trial: put one's beliefs to the proof.
4. Law. The result or effect of evidence; the establishment or denial of a fact by evidence.
5. The alcoholic strength of liquor, expressed by a number that is twice the percentage by volume of alcohol present.
6. Printing.
   
   1. A trial sheet of printed material that is made to be checked and corrected. Also called proof sheet.
   2. A trial impression of a plate, stone, or block taken at any of various stages in engraving.
7. 
   
   1. A trial photographic print.
   2. Any of a limited number of newly minted coins or medals struck as specimens and for collectors from a new die on a polished planchet.
8. Archaic. Proven impenetrability: “I was clothed in Armor of proof” (John Bunyan).

be·lief




n.

1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief. (Galileo)
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

So, if I said that God was truth, what is the basis and foundation for that statement?

Is truth truth?

OR

IS truth by definition a statement proven to be or accepted as true.

The above statement contradicts it self since it states that fact must be proven, yet also indicates that fact is accepted as truth merely because of the dominate belief. So, let me ask you this, how do you think Galileo feels?

 

[Joykins]

Example: Galileo was killed because he said that the earth wasn’t flat and that it was round. According to the beliefs of people during the time period in which he lived, he was crucified because of his postulation that the world was round, when in fact we know the world IS round and can be proven indisputably and is therefore truth.

Galileo wasn't killed or crucified for his beliefs. He died after 8 years of house arrest, presumably of natural causes.

He wasn't condemned for saying the earth was round, either. He was tried before the Inquisition for heresy (and convicted of "grave suspicion of heresy") for his support of Copernican heliocentrism. He was forced to recant his support of this theory and his related work.

 

[ChristianEstes]

It was a sad end for so great a man to die condemned of heresy. His will indicated that he wished to be buried beside his father in the family tomb in the Basilica of Santa Croce but his relatives feared, quite rightly, that this would provoke opposition from the Church. His body was concealed and only placed in a fine tomb in the church in 1737 by the civil authorities against the wishes of many in the Church.

On 31 October 1992, 350 years after Galileo's death, Pope John Paul II gave an address on behalf of the Catholic Church in which he admitted that errors had been made by the theological advisors in the case of Galileo. He declared the Galileo case closed, but he did not admit that the Church was wrong to convict Galileo on a charge of heresy because of his belief that the Earth rotates round the sun.

If you read the documentation that Galileo submitted to the church, you will see that he was convicted of heresy because his beliefs (based on factual evidence) conflicted with that if the Catholic church and their beliefs.

Get your facts straight!!

Do you even know what Copernican heliocentrism was/is? Either way, I think you missed the point of the exercise, he was tried and convicted because his beliefs contradicted that of the catholic faith.

Try to stay on topic here. We are talking about what defines truth. This is not about Galileo specifically, but about the literal and spirtual definition of truth. Truth is based on FACT and FACT is based on PROOF. Remember though, faith is based o personal belief not FACT.

Just because 10 million Christian's believe that Jesus Christ was their lord and savior (i do) doesn't mean that his was/is.

Let's talk PIZZA.

Let's say you have 10 million people that love PIZZA. That doesn't mean that PIZZA is truth.

Sure, it's true that 10 million people love pizza, but true and truth are used in a completely different contexts, therefore if a Christian person says, "God is truth."

Is he truth to the Christian or truth to all of man/woman kind?

Remember we are talking about literal definitions, not beliefs, we are talking about a teacher that says, "God is truth and that is FACT."

Hmmm... I just don't thinks so.

FUNNY HYPATHETICAL:

Just imagine this, ET lands on our planet 10 years from know and says that all of human kind was created from an inferior strand of DNA, therefore we age quicker, aren;t as immune to doiseases, etc. (use your imagination) I wonder what the Catholic Church would say then...

That would be one hell of an apology. (Just trying to be funny.)

 

[Biarien]

A fact is not based on proof.

For example, assume that I have a banana on my desk. This is a fact. Can you, from your computer chair, prove this? No. But that doesn't change that it is true.

Proof allows us to know (well, more or less) what is true, but we cannot say that simply because there is a lack of proof that something must not be true.

 

[Brownsy]

What do you define "proof" as ? Does it have to scientific, empirical proof ? Or do you, as a Christian believe that the prompting of the Holy Spirit and the word of God constitutes sufficient proof?

My point here being that even proof differs for person to person, so to say that absolute truth is based on proof doesn't really prove anything (pardon the pun).

Also, why would you be a Christian if you didn't belive God was fact? Why do you belive that Jesus was your lord and saviour, when you yourself claim that there is no proof? Are we talking about some kind of new age relativism where God can exist for me but not for someone else?

Thirdly, truth doesn't cease to be truth in the absence of proof, nor does a fallacy become truth in the presence of apparent proof.

Finally, with reference to your pizza scenario, what do you mean? How can pizza be truth? Are you saying that because 10 million people love pizza, then pizza does not necassarily exist? Or are you saying that just because 10 million people love pizza it isnt' necassarily a good food? Sorry, just dont quite get what you are getting at.

Blessingd to you all

 

[wrldstrman]

TRUTH is you can choose to follow God which he says the only way to him is through the son or you can choose not to..

 

[artybloke]

Also, why would you be a Christian if you didn't belive God was fact?

Hmmm, deep philosophical musings coming up to do with neccessity & contingency.

A "fact" in science is something that can be observed using scientific methods or using the senses in some way. If it both can be observed, and is observed, it is a fact. A fact is not something that has been "proven", though, as only mathematics and alcohol have proofs: my sense and my observations could be wrong even if all the evidence points to them not being wrong. A fact is therefore something that is highly likely to be the case, not absolutely the case.

Can God be observed by the senses, or in any other way by scientific method? If yes, then God's existence is factual. If not, then God's existence is not, by this definition, factual.

I contend that God's existence cannot be observed or measured using purely sensory data, or scientific method. QED, "God does not exist."

But hold on, hold your horses: when I say "God does not exist" I merely mean that "God does not exist as an object in and because of the world." That is: God's existence is not contingent. Objects in this universe exist because other objects exist in this universe: water exists because Hydrogen & Oxygen exist. But God's existence is not dependent on the existence of anything in the universe; God just is.

Paul Tillich called God "the ground of our being": I used to not understand that phrase, but now I think I begin to know. I used to think it meant that the idea of God was necessary for out mental well-being (a sort of wish-fullfillment), but now I think it means that God's existence is not contingent but necessary: that is, that everything that exists exists because of God, rather than that God exists because everything else exists.

I don't think this is something that is susceptible to scientific observation, or to rational thought entirely, but is only possible by the revelation of the Spirit in an I-Thou relationship.

 

[intricatic]

God is truth. Alone. Other religions, besides Christianity, seek to approach that same truth from a different perspective, but only one religion holds Christ as the atonement for all our sins, and as the Son of God.

 

[ChristianEstes]

A fact is not based on proof.

For example, assume that I have a banana on my desk. This is a fact.

No, this is not fact unless it can be verified. We as humans have no way to know whether you are being truthful. While it is actually fact, only you know it to be fact.

Why it is undisputable fact to you? Is is indisputable fact since you can see it, smell it, taste it and touch it, therefore it is in fact, fact.
(but only to you)

Can you, from your computer chair, prove this? No. But that doesn't change that it is true.

Nope, I can’t prove it, but if I jump on a plane and fly to you, the opportunity for proof exists. Remember it is all about the context in which you are speaking. Again, remember that true and truth are personal perceptions of relaity. I did like the way you argued that though, it was very well written.

Proof allows us to know (well, more or less) what is true, but we cannot say that simply because there is a lack of proof that something must not be true.

Remember “young grasshopper”, true and truth are different based on the context in which they are used. You use (well, more or less) as a line. So what is it, More or Less?

If you have a banana on your desk, the only way for me to know whether that may be true is of multiple people attest to the banana being there, again remember true and truth are different based on the context in which they are used. If I had 5 people tell you that I had a banana on my desk, there is an excellent chance that you would believe in that. We call that faith.

What IF: I asked 5 people to lie to you about the banana. Is is still true or fact that the banana is sitting on my desk? Hmm… interesting isn’t it?

A Christian that believes in God or Jesus Christ as his or her Lord and Savior has faith in something that cannot be proven, therefore is not indisputability true to all peoples, therefore it cannot be fact or truth.

If a person never has had the opportunity to know Jesus Christ, then they would not know what to or not believe in that regard. Remember belief (faith)and fact are different.

In order for it to be a fact, it must be proven.

Unfortunately, proof is sometimes defined as what a majority believes, “when in fact the Greek definition of proof was something that could be proven undisiputably to all people.”

Over the years, people have adapted to definitions and rewritten them towards a preferred or personal theology, rather than words that were derived from the original ancestral definitions.

Sure, the Banana is sitting on your desk, but in order for me to believe that, I must have faith without proof.

Can it be proven?

Sure, I could fly to your house and see it for myself.

Remember, fact is mostly a matter of personal perception, but the original and ancestral definition of fact is something that can be proven undisputably. Unfortunately, the existence of God and Jesus Christ is in dispute by millions and is therefore NOT truth, or fact because of the lack of proof. While it may be fact to you and I, it is not an uddisputable fact.



If we were in a legal case, and we stood before a jury of our peers. Some may be Christian's and some may not be Christian. Regardless, in order to receive a conviction, you must alleviate any reasonable doubt from their minds. The only way to do that is by presenting undisputable evidence that leads to a factual conclusion.

 

[ChristianEstes]

God is truth. Alone. Other religions, besides Christianity, seek to approach that same truth from a different perspective, but only one religion holds Christ as the atonement for all our sins, and as the Son of God.

Wow, very well written, but that was just weird... go back to school.

 

[ChristianEstes]

What do you define "proof" as ? Does it have to scientific, empirical proof ? Or do you, as a Christian believe that the prompting of the Holy Spirit and the word of God constitutes sufficient proof?

My point here being that even proof differs for person to person, so to say that absolute truth is based on proof doesn't really prove anything (pardon the pun).

Also, why would you be a Christian if you didn't belive God was fact? Why do you belive that Jesus was your lord and saviour, when you yourself claim that there is no proof? Are we talking about some kind of new age relativism where God can exist for me but not for someone else?

Thirdly, truth doesn't cease to be truth in the absence of proof, nor does a fallacy become truth in the presence of apparent proof.

Finally, with reference to your pizza scenario, what do you mean? How can pizza be truth? Are you saying that because 10 million people love pizza, then pizza does not necassarily exist? Or are you saying that just because 10 million people love pizza it isnt' necassarily a good food? Sorry, just dont quite get what you are getting at.

Blessingd to you all

My faith in Christ is personal to me. My relationship with Christ is between myself and him. I believe that the bible (for the most part) is the work of God, but I do not discount that it was written according to the perception of man.

Just for the record, I am not a liberial Christian... but I neither feel the need to defend my faith to any man (or woman). God will judge me when the time comes... I am ready are you? (Rhetorical; to all who read this.)

 

[ChristianEstes]

TRUTH is you can choose to follow God which he says the only way to him is through the son or you can choose not to..

Very well written and quoted from scripture, excellent!!

 

[Biarien]

Estes, your "arguments" make no sense. Something is true if it is true. Simple as that. Proof and understanding help us ascertain what is true, but truth does not depend on our understanding. Truth is not subjective. I hope you will come to see this.

 

[Joykins]

It was a sad end for so great a man to die condemned of heresy. His will indicated that he wished to be buried beside his father in the family tomb in the Basilica of Santa Croce but his relatives feared, quite rightly, that this would provoke opposition from the Church. His body was concealed and only placed in a fine tomb in the church in 1737 by the civil authorities against the wishes of many in the Church.

On 31 October 1992, 350 years after Galileo's death, Pope John Paul II gave an address on behalf of the Catholic Church in which he admitted that errors had been made by the theological advisors in the case of Galileo. He declared the Galileo case closed, but he did not admit that the Church was wrong to convict Galileo on a charge of heresy because of his belief that the Earth rotates round the sun.

If you read the documentation that Galileo submitted to the church, you will see that he was convicted of heresy because his beliefs (based on factual evidence) conflicted with that if the Catholic church and their beliefs.

Get your facts straight!!

Do you even know what Copernican heliocentrism was/is? Either way, I think you missed the point of the exercise, he was tried and convicted because his beliefs contradicted that of the catholic faith.

Sure. But he wasn't killed. He died in imprisonment at home. You stated that he was crucified. You also stated that he was condemned for believing the earth was round. He wasn't. He was condemned for supporting Copernicus's theory that the Earth revolves around the sun (heliocentrism) whereas the position of the Catholic Church supported geocentrism (the hypothesis that the sun revolves around the earth). This position seemed to be bolstered by a passage from the book of Joshua which said that God made the sun stand still. Perhaps more importantly, Galileo actually had friends within the church which probably mitigated his sentence somewhat (he could have been executed, after all. He just wasn't. As a matter of fact).

I thought it was more than ironic that your post on truth was riddled with errors about Galileo.

Try to stay on topic here. We are talking about what defines truth. This is not about Galileo specifically, but about the literal and spirtual definition of truth. Truth is based on FACT and FACT is based on PROOF. Remember though, faith is based o personal belief not FACT.

Just because 10 million Christian's believe that Jesus Christ was their lord and savior (i do) doesn't mean that his was/is.

Nonsense. I get to determine who has Lordship over me. Savior--also for me to determine. Because these are things which guide me, they exist (if only in my mind) as guiding and saving principles.

I read your PIZZA stuff and I don't understand it.

 

[ChristianEstes]

Estes, your "arguments" make no sense. Something is true if it is true.

Please use quotes, I am uncertain as to what part of my debate you are referring to. While your banana analogy was interesting, it was not a difinitive representation of truth.



In order to interpret Scripture, we commonly follow these guidelines. The same applies to how the law is written. Remember RULE # 3


Eight Rules of Interpretation
"...the Eight Rules of Interpretation used by legal experts for more than 2500 years.

1. Rule of Definition.
Define the term or words being considered and then adhere to the defined meanings.

2. Rule of Usage.
Don't add meaning to established words and terms. What was the common usage in the cultural and time period when the passage was written?

3. Rule of Context.
Avoid using words out of context. Context must define terms and how words are used.

4. Rule of Historical background.
Don't separate interpretation and historical investigation.

5. Rule of Logic.
Be certain that words as interpreted agree with the overall premise.

6. Rule of Precedent.
Use the known and commonly accepted meanings of words, not obscure meanings for which their is no precedent.

7. Rule of Unity.
Even though many documents may be used there must be a general unity among them.

8. Rule of Inference.
Base conclusions on what is already known and proven or can be reasonably implied from all known facts.


"It will be worth your time to acquaint yourself with these rules and commit them to memory or jot them in the flyleaf of your Bible. Using them will keep you free from cultism and false teachings. All the early Church Fathers used them. Irenaeus used them when he wrote Against Heresies, which dealt with Gnosticism and other untruths. Every law court religiously follows them and honest theologians dare not violate them. Much false teaching is the result of violating one or more of these universal rules of interpretation."

 

[woobadooba]

A fact is not based on proof.

For example, assume that I have a banana on my desk. This is a fact. Can you, from your computer chair, prove this? No. But that doesn't change that it is true.

Proof allows us to know (well, more or less) what is true, but we cannot say that simply because there is a lack of proof that something must not be true.

Excellent point!

 

[ChristianEstes]

I thought it was more than ironic that your post on truth was riddled with errors about Galileo.

This is nothing but Symantics. I wasn't trying to place emphasis on the actual events that occured in Galileo's life. I was trying to create an anology so the majority would understand.

Nonsense. I get to determine who has Lordship over me. Savior--also for me to determine. Because these are things which guide me, they exist (if only in my mind) as guiding and saving principles.

Oh, I most certainly agree. You have every right to your own faith. That is what I have been trying to say. Truth is a matter of perception, a personal preference, nothing more by definition. If we were meant to understand or define God, he wouldn't be God


I had an instructor that quoted John, "Jesus said to him, `I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”

She then attempted to argue using semantics that God was truth, and that it is impossible for any other truth to exist. While I understand her perspective, it is based solely on her own “personal” faith. According to definition, than “TRUTH” is nothing more than personal perception or choice based on faith. Do you follow me?

I read your PIZZA stuff and I don't understand it.

Let's talk PIZZA.

Let's say you have 10 million people that love PIZZA. (PIZZA = GOD) That doesn't mean that PIZZA is truth.

Sure, it's true that 10 million people love pizza (GOD), but just because it is true that 10 million people love him (PIZZA) doesn't make God TRUTH.

TRUE and TRUTH are used in a completely different contexts, therefore if a Christian person says, "God is truth." Is he difinitively truth or simply truth to the Christian believing in him?

Remember we are talking about literal definitions, not beliefs. Doesn; everyone understand the PIZZA analogy now.

BTW,

This was not meant to insult anyone, I am sure that God doesn't mind that I associate him with PIZZA. He could be so lucky.

 

[ChristianEstes]

Excellent point!

NO, NOT AN EXCELLENT POINT, BUT WELL WRITTEN...



Your soul is in your keeping alone… when you stand before God, you cannot say, "But I was told by others to do thus."

Or that, "Virtue was not convenient at the time."

This will not suffice.

You must always do what is right according to scripture and live the life that was given to you according to God’s word.

“Holiness in the action of doing right…“

If telling the truth means that you will be punished, then tell that truth and accept punishment for “Only the truth will set you free.”

Repent for your sins, and remember that repentance is not the act of asking for forgiveness, but the feeling of remorse, contrition, or self-reproach for what one has done or failed to do. Only God will know whether your repentance was sincere.

Jesus said, “I tell you the truth”, so in his name, and for his glory, I tell you this;

“Wisdom is the application of knowledge, those that are knowledgeable, are not necessarily wise”

Nobility is the state or quality of being exalted in character.

If you are truly of good character, establish and build your relationship with God. At your end, that is all that will matter to God.


-- Wisdom, but not my own.