Relative Truth

Clean Sword · **Joined:** Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:23 am **Posts:** 197

Jedi Mind Trick wrote:

Clean Sword wrote:

Jedi Mind Trick wrote:

What's your point Clean? That there are absolutes? I agree with that. But what you cannot do is tell me how they make any difference. I mean, it is an absolute truth that there either is or is not a God, at least one. But, so what? From there the point of who this God is, if s/he exists, is chock full of uncertainty and speculation. I personally worship Shiva as the Self within all, but you worship Yahweh. Which one is true? I say they are the same being, you would probably say that Shiva is a demon. So, so what?

That is exactly my point. That was the reason for the article. But, when I posted that article, everyone went beserk thinking somehow or another that I was attacking them..(for what, I don't know)..

I was posting an article for discussion..That's it...I know that the majority of the posters on this forum don't believe in the christian God. I wasn't trying to convince anyone otherwise.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion...Even Geisler. His article was originally written for a
christian audience...If someone is offended...then don't go to that site. He didn't
post that article here, I did. To attack Geisler or Ankerberg for stating what they
believe(which you did), and then get agitated when someone does the same to you is
dishonest. Why do people question the motive the article writer instead of the content of the article itself?(which you did). It's standard procedure on this forum to attack
the author of the article when they don't agree with what he has written. Is your belief so fragile that it must be propped up by ridiculing anothers belief?

Many articles are posted on this forum with an anti-God theme. I don't take them
personally, as an attack on me...or what I believe. I read them to determine if I can
make an intelligent response. I find most of them amusing

clean'

That's a bunch of hypersensitive bullshit, Clean. You don't understand a thing I've written or the spirit in which it was written. I thought you were much more debate savvy than that.

You say that Shiva is your god. I have no problem with that. The point of the article wasn't to determine who the real God is. The point was to say that there was absolute truths. You agree with the idea of absolute truth, then we have no disagreement.

What I do find offensive is when I post an article by an author that the majority of the
posters on here don't like, they ignore the points made in the article and blast the author. That has
happened on many occasions. You know that is true.

Why can't someone come on and say...I disagree with that article, and here are the reasons why...Who cares who the author is? Did he/she make some good points,
if not
point out the fallacies. The debate should be about the article, not the author.

I'm not hypersensitive, but it makes me wander why folks would initiate their response
by demeaning the author. Does it make them feel superior? Or, are they so insecure in what they believe that they feel they must attack the author
rather than try to defend
their own position.

clean'

Clean Sword · **Joined:** Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:23 am **Posts:** 197

JFerric wrote:

Clean Sword wrote:

You state that God exist only in one's mind...That's cool...live your life as if that is true.

Clean'

I want to be very clear CS, I never said god "exists" in the human mind, I said the abstraction called god is a "creation" of the human mind. This does not in any fashion imply any form of "existence." Error occurs when the misinformed and misled, sans any understanding of the nature of the human mind, reify the abstraction. Just making sure you understand my position, wouldn't want you to misconstue it.

Ok...you win...

clean'

Jedi Mind Trick · **Joined:** Wed Aug 06, 2008 4:21 am **Posts:** 376

You are being hypersensitive.

JFerric · **Joined:** Mon Aug 04, 2008 11:29 am **Posts:** 100

Clean Sword wrote:

Ok...you win...

clean'

Very interesting remark CS. In other posts you claim to simply be asserting a given point without any ulterior motive. Now perhaps, you reveal your true self by making a dialogue a win/lose situation. But then, I do appreciate your admission that you are a loser. I will always cherish the initial misconceptions I had about you.

Roselyn · **Joined:** Thu Aug 07, 2008 6:57 am **Posts:** 1554

Who wrote the article? What did he say? Who did he accuse of what and why?

Ankerberg's religion determines his "truth" by his perscribed church doctrine. It's truth for him. He hasn't or refuses to consider that others are not required to believe in his religious dogma. He pushes[forces] his god on others through accusations that others are liars, that's the basics of his religion.

"The debate should be about the article, not the author".

CS, you fail to see that the author has made himself the point of debate as it is his views that are publicized, and stated. His views are his article and he should be challenged by others who disagree with him. Of course this offends you as you see his article as unbiased truth, however, it is not.

Clean Sword · **Joined:** Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:23 am **Posts:** 197

Roselyn wrote:

Who wrote the article? What did he say? Who did he accuse of what and why?

Ankerberg's religion determines his "truth" by his perscribed church doctrine. It's truth for him. He hasn't or refuses to consider that others are not required to believe in his religious dogma. He pushes[forces] his god on others through accusations that others are liars, that's the basics of his religion.

"The debate should be about the article, not the author".

CS, you fail to see that the author has made himself the point of debate as it is his views that are publicized, and stated. His views are his article and he should be challenged by others who disagree with him. Of course this offends you as you see his article as unbiased truth, however, it is not.

It very interesting that you would make that point about another poster or article. You don't have the best record of being objective or unbiased. :mrgreen:

Having said that, of course he is biased. Everyone is biased about what they believe.
Discussion on this and other forums almost always deteriorate from what is right to who is right.

You said "His views are his article and should be challenged by others who disagree with with him." I have no argument with that. His views should be challenged if you don't agree with his views. That was my whole point.

But "his truth" as you said, is not "his truth". No one has a "truth". They only have their
perception of a truth. His perception of a truth is just as valid as your perception of a truth.
You can look at a mountain from one side and see only trees and green grass. I can look at the same mountain from the other side and see only rocks. The same mountain, but
we see it from different viewpoints, and so our perception is different.

just saying...

clean'

Clean Sword · **Joined:** Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:23 am **Posts:** 197

JFerric wrote:

Clean Sword wrote:

Ok...you win...

clean'

Very interesting remark CS. In other posts you claim to simply be asserting a given point without any ulterior motive. Now perhaps, you reveal your true self by making a dialogue a win/lose situation. But then, I do appreciate your admission that you are a loser. I will always cherish the initial misconceptions I had about you.

Or, I could have said, "you don't get it, so, I'm not wasting any more time with you."
But, I didn't. :mrgreen:

clean'

Clean Sword · **Joined:** Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:23 am **Posts:** 197

Jedi Mind Trick wrote:

You are being hypersensitive.

But everyone is picking on poor ol' me.... :cry:

clean'

JFerric · **Joined:** Mon Aug 04, 2008 11:29 am **Posts:** 100

Clean Sword wrote:

Or, I could have said, "you don't get it, so, I'm not wasting any more time with you."
But, I didn't. :mrgreen:

clean'

Oh I see, the old pot calling the kettle black. You of course are the fount of wisdom and knowledge, have it all figured out, and all the answers. But then many have kicked your ass all over this forum. I'm sorry, I keep forgetting I'm the one that doesn't "get it." :roll:

Someday, you'll look back on this, laugh nervously and change the subject.

The Real Logos · **Posted:** Sun May 31, 2009 4:10 pm

Quote:

Someday, you'll look back on this, laugh nervously and change the subject.

Like so many of us.

So it goes.....

Pax!
8-)

Roselyn · **Joined:** Thu Aug 07, 2008 6:57 am **Posts:** 1554

Clean Sword wrote:

Roselyn wrote:

Who wrote the article? What did he say? Who did he accuse of what and why?

Ankerberg's religion determines his "truth" by his perscribed church doctrine. It's truth for him. He hasn't or refuses to consider that others are not required to believe in his religious dogma. He pushes[forces] his god on others through accusations that others are liars, that's the basics of his religion.

"The debate should be about the article, not the author".

CS, you fail to see that the author has made himself the point of debate as it is his views that are publicized, and stated. His views are his article and he should be challenged by others who disagree with him. Of course this offends you as you see his article as unbiased truth, however, it is not.

It very interesting that you would make that point about another poster or article. You don't have the best record of being objective or unbiased. :mrgreen:

Having said that, of course he is biased. Everyone is biased about what they believe.
Discussion on this and other forums almost always deteriorate from what is right to who is right.

You said "His views are his article and should be challenged by others who disagree with with him." I have no argument with that. His views should be challenged if you don't agree with his views. That was my whole point.

But "his truth" as you said, is not "his truth". No one has a "truth". They only have their
perception of a truth. His perception of a truth is just as valid as your perception of a truth.
You can look at a mountain from one side and see only trees and green grass. I can look at the same mountain from the other side and see only rocks. The same mountain, but
we see it from different viewpoints, and so our perception is different.

just saying...

clean'

No, what I said was "Ankerbergs religion determines his truth by his perscribed church doctrine." He's isn't allowed to believe anything else. It's truth for him because he believes it. It's not truth for me because I don't believe it. This is the same nit-picking that Pilate pointed out to Jesus when he said "what is truth"? Everyone didn't believe Jesus way truth and life of Judaism was for everyone. Even back then people recognized the Jews were crazy fanatical loons who were superstitous beyond reason. Judaism was a blood cult. Rome worshiped their own non Hebrew gods and practiced their own constructed religions of which the Jews didn't like. The Jews were arrogant and accusatory in their self-made romanticism. Basically they were in love with themselves, and esteemed themselves as more worthy as humans than any other people or culture. They claimed they were the chosen, the elete, the holy people. Rome showed them what they could do with their self pious asses. But then along came Paul and his goofy gospel of resurrected corpses and ignorant Gentiles began biting at his bait. It was only a matter of time before John Ankerberg came along and wrote an article on "relativism" in his accusatory fashion. It all fits into the mold of Christianity, but that doesn't make it truth for everyone. John believes in an invisible god and god-man. I don't. And when I show why, through the bible itself, that suddenly becomes highly offensive to you. Why? Because John's truth is NOT just as valid as my truth.

Hey, I'll have you know that MY record on this forum is both objective and unbiased. I challenge the ideas, religion, and beliefs of all posters, even though I get my ass kicked in the process sometimes, or maybe oftentimes, or whatever. I'm always evolving and therefore never perfect. I certainly don't take the kicks seriously though, as this is a forum for discussion of lots of things. And I don't pout or run for cover. I'm just the most perfect atheist you'll ever find. :lol:

And another thing you should know is this, what I think about something today I just might change my mind about it tomorrow. So I'm always open for change in seeking a higher form of truth by reason of my natural instinct or whatever.

just saying...

Clean Sword · **Joined:** Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:23 am **Posts:** 197

Roselyn wrote:

Clean Sword wrote:

Roselyn wrote:

Who wrote the article? What did he say? Who did he accuse of what and why?

Ankerberg's religion determines his "truth" by his perscribed church doctrine. It's truth for him. He hasn't or refuses to consider that others are not required to believe in his religious dogma. He pushes[forces] his god on others through accusations that others are liars, that's the basics of his religion.

"The debate should be about the article, not the author".

CS, you fail to see that the author has made himself the point of debate as it is his views that are publicized, and stated. His views are his article and he should be challenged by others who disagree with him. Of course this offends you as you see his article as unbiased truth, however, it is not.

It very interesting that you would make that point about another poster or article. You don't have the best record of being objective or unbiased. :mrgreen:

Having said that, of course he is biased. Everyone is biased about what they believe.
Discussion on this and other forums almost always deteriorate from what is right to who is right.

You said "His views are his article and should be challenged by others who disagree with with him." I have no argument with that. His views should be challenged if you don't agree with his views. That was my whole point.

But "his truth" as you said, is not "his truth". No one has a "truth". They only have their
perception of a truth. His perception of a truth is just as valid as your perception of a truth.
You can look at a mountain from one side and see only trees and green grass. I can look at the same mountain from the other side and see only rocks. The same mountain, but
we see it from different viewpoints, and so our perception is different.

just saying...

clean'

No, what I said was "Ankerbergs religion determines his truth by his perscribed church doctrine." He's isn't allowed to believe anything else. It's truth for him because he believes it. It's not truth for me because I don't believe it. This is the same nit-picking that Pilate pointed out to Jesus when he said "what is truth"? Everyone didn't believe Jesus way truth and life of Judaism was for everyone. Even back then people recognized the Jews were crazy fanatical loons who were superstitous beyond reason. Judaism was a blood cult. Rome worshiped their own non Hebrew gods and practiced their own constructed religions of which the Jews didn't like. The Jews were arrogant and accusatory in their self-made romanticism. Basically they were in love with themselves, and esteemed themselves as more worthy as humans than any other people or culture. They claimed they were the chosen, the elete, the holy people. Rome showed them what they could do with their self pious asses. But then along came Paul and his goofy gospel of resurrected corpses and ignorant Gentiles began biting at his bait. It was only a matter of time before John Ankerberg came along and wrote an article on "relativism" in his accusatory fashion. It all fits into the mold of Christianity, but that doesn't make it truth for everyone. John believes in an invisible god and god-man. I don't. And when I show why, through the bible itself, that suddenly becomes highly offensive to you. Why? Because John's truth is NOT just as valid as my truth.

Hey, I'll have you know that MY record on this forum is both objective and unbiased. I challenge the ideas, religion, and beliefs of all posters, even though I get my ass kicked in the process sometimes, or maybe oftentimes, or whatever. I'm always evolving and therefore never perfect. I certainly don't take the kicks seriously though, as this is a forum for discussion of lots of things. And I don't pout or run for cover. I'm just the most perfect atheist you'll ever find. :lol:

And another thing you should know is this, what I think about something today I just might change my mind about it tomorrow. So I'm always open for change in seeking a higher form of truth by reason of my natural instinct or whatever.

just saying...

My bad, I must have been thinking of someone else..... :mrgreen:

And as a side note, as I have already mentioned to Jedi...John Ankerberg did not author
that article...

Clean'

Clean Sword · **Joined:** Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:23 am **Posts:** 197

JFerric wrote:

Clean Sword wrote:

Or, I could have said, "you don't get it, so, I'm not wasting any more time with you."
But, I didn't. :mrgreen:

clean'

Oh I see, the old pot calling the kettle black. You of course are the fount of wisdom and knowledge, have it all figured out, and all the answers. But then many have kicked your ass all over this forum. I'm sorry, I keep forgetting I'm the one that doesn't "get it." :roll:

Someday, you'll look back on this, laugh nervously and change the subject.

Now that we have gotten that off our chests, why don't we just say our fond farewells?

Perhaps, by chance, we'll meet again.... :mrgreen:

clean'

JFerric · **Joined:** Mon Aug 04, 2008 11:29 am **Posts:** 100

CS, let's not, this is to much fun. I am assuming by your use of the term "we" you are using it in the imperial sense. What is it you have gotten off your chest? In an earlier post you wrote(referring to me) "you don't get it." What is it I don't(didn't) get? I just want to make sure I haven't missed something. I am refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view. And, I certainly do not want to this dance to end; just yet.

Clean Sword · **Joined:** Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:23 am **Posts:** 197

JFerric wrote:

CS, let's not, this is to much fun. I am assuming by your use of the term "we" you are using it in the imperial sense. What is it you have gotten off your chest? In an earlier post you wrote(referring to me) "you don't get it." What is it I don't(didn't) get? I just want to make sure I haven't missed something. I am refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view. And, I certainly do not want to this dance to end; just yet.

Breaking up is hard to do (Neil Sedaka). Let it go Ferric. It's over. You'll find someone else.
Don't make this harder than it already is. (have I said all the right things?)
Oh yeah...one more...This chapter is over..lets just turn the page and move on...

But, to answer you question about what you don't get....
You don't seem to understand the difference between what is absolute truth, and what
is our perception of absolute truth. Absolute truth is verifiable and testable, but only after we become aware of what the absolute truth is.

You said that you do not want this dance to end; just yet.
In other words, you want this dance to end on your terms, not mine.

As Jedi has said on more than one occasion...."How unattractive".. :mrgreen:

clean'

XnForums

Relative Truth

Who is online