THE Universal Truth

[bluewater2]

Is there one? Is there one primary and universally accepted truth that can be embraced by all faiths, agnostics and atheists? Is there one belief, one rule to live by, that is more important than any other? Is there one "rule" to live by that no one would argue over?

[termin8d]

Bluewater : The gospel is the truth, and it can be accepted by anyone. It is open for atheists,gnostics, and non-christian religionists, the whole nine yards.

The truth will not bend itself to accommodate other people's preferences, but if people are willing to bend to the truth, then that's another story http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

Ultimately the truth is God Himself.

[yaakov2]

I think the Golden rule stated negatively, suffices for all people. It gives a workable standard for all people to be left in peace.

<font size="+2">Do not do unto others, that which you would not want done unto yourself.</font>

[ba2]

yaakov, I don't think I ever saw it put that way before, but that works for me. And it really means the same thing.

[bluewater2]

I have always believed that "Love thy neighbor" was the one that people of all faith, no faith and wavering faith would accept as a universal truth that no one would argue over. I think that Yaakov is saying the same thing. I do, however, enjoy termin8's response. Can anyone spell "brainwashed?"

[frankenchrist]

"Can anyone spell "brainwashed?""

R-O-B-O-T

[fatherofaking]

"Love thy neighbor"

let's see how many differnet answers i get when i ask the question:
what does it mean to love thy neighbor?

yaakov,
i hate to think it but your statment carries as many questions.

the person who shoots a police officer because he wants to die, is one example of how that statement needs more clarification.

i think if this question of a universal truth had a clear answer we would know what it was.

the general concenus seems to be that the reality that we have created for ourselves is no reality at all.

this is taken from an article by sam harris in the washington post.
it is the first and only thing i have read by this guy but so far he has me interested.




There are, in fact, several points of convergence between the modern sciences of the mind—psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science, etc.—and some of our contemplative traditions. Both lines of inquiry, for instance, give us good reasons to believe that the conventional sense of self is a kind of cognitive illusion.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sam_harris/2007/01/consciousness_without_faith_1.html#more


science says there is no self.
religion says be selfless.

that is a curious comparison don't you think?

the universal truth then would be simple.
in whatever circumstance you are in, no that there is someone else more needy than yourself and search out a way to improve their life, and everyone's life will improve.

this embraces the concept that we are all one (no self) and need one another to survive and be happy.

acting on this will bring us in touch with this understanding.
once this is experienced it is rarely forgoten.

it may not be understood but that is only because there is often no point of reference for understanding what happened and how it can be sustained or even repeated.
religion can be useful in this if used properly.

i guess that rules out killing someone for my faith.

[trainedobserver]

The one UNIVERSAL truth?

"Our knowledge is limited."

I don't know ... maybe not. My knowledge is limited.

[yaakov2]

fatherofking

<font color="0000ff">yaakov, i hate to think it but your statment carries as many questions.</font>

Don't ever be afraid of thinking.

[fatherofaking]

My knowledge is limited.

i think that is a sign of wisdom, or at least the first step in learning.

[bluewater2]

"Is there one belief, one rule to live by, that is more important than any other?" I don't think that the certain truth of our knowledge being limited is what I was looking for here. I am looking for something that all faiths and people could agree on, of course excluding the criminal minds that FatherOFaking has in mind for which there are no moral rules that would guide them. If "Do not do unto others" or "Love thy neighbor" is a rule that all could agree on, across all faiths or non-faiths, it would be a good foundation block to keep in mind. It would trump pushing one's beliefs on others as well.

FOF, what makes you say that science says there is no self?

[fatherofaking]

what makes you say that science says there is no self?


there are those in the field of neuroscience that say that they have found a place in the brain that lights up on every human being when confronted with questions of morality.

i am not sure this study can be seen as conclusive since we know that not everyone's brain functions the same in every circumstance.

for instance: we know that people have been known to effectivly rewire their brain after experiencing brain trauma of somekind.
they use different parts of their brain to do the same things that they once did using other parts of their brain.

this study also does not say much about the idea of self.

we would normally say that the idea that there is no self is hogwash because our experience seems to tell us otherwise.
what we really know to be true is that selfishness has no place in the pursuit of happiness.


we don't need science to tell us that holding on to this idea of self will never make us happy.

there is an obvious paradox in this thinking.

we have to take care of "ourselves".
what if we changed the way we think about that.
what if we got up everyday thinking that everything i do should somehow be of benefit to my fellow human beings with whom i am indellibly connected.
our whole perspective would change.

i know that if i do not take care of myself it has an effect on everyone that i come into contact with, it may even effect those that i do not directly contact.

so i am really showing my concern for others by taking care of my "self".
i am in a sense taking care of others.
i am experiencing that connection, that oneness.
this is the true reality.

since this experience is such a mystery, in that it cannot be explained easily or sometimes not at all with language, many of us choose to call what we experience the working of god.

i cannot say it is "me" that i experience since my experience seems to tell me otherwise.
that just would not make sense to my little pea brain.

(Message edited by fatherofaking on February 15, 2007)

[bluewater2]

I think that there is very little doubt or controversy about the idea the the "self" is a word used to describe this bag of bones. Our thoughts are part of that since they eminate from our brain which is also in that bag.

What do you think is the one universal truth that all of these bags can share that might trump the dogmatic teachings of individual belief systems?

[fatherofaking]

What do you think is the one universal truth that all of these bags can share that might trump the dogmatic teachings of individual belief systems?

any thought process that causes seperation from other human beings is a lie.

how is that?

[fatherofaking]

kinda weak huh?

[bluewater2]

Would "The only way to the father is but through me" be one of those things that you speak of the separates human beings of verying beliefs?

[fatherofaking]

Would "The only way to the father is but through me" be one of those things that you speak of the separates human beings of verying beliefs?

it depends on how you interpret it.

is it possible to misunderstand the truth?
is it possible to manipulate people by twisting the truth?

there are several reasons why religion is no longer able to deliver on it's promises.
christianity in particular has twisted the truth for it's own gain for many centuries.
it worked for many for a long time but in this age of increasing knowledge it has little power.

that is not to say that a belief in the message found in the story of christ is unable to produce the desired results.

[bluewater2]

"it depends on how you interpret it." If it is interpreted in anyway as a reference to god, would it be safe to say that it would not be accepted as a universal truth by atheists or agnostics?

[fatherofaking]

If it is interpreted in anyway as a reference to god, would it be safe to say that it would not be accepted as a universal truth by atheists or agnostics?

i am not sure why an atheist or an agnostic would be terribly concerned about someone describing the same experience differently.

i know if i was trying to help someone i would approach it from the frame of reference that the individual would understand.

what happens to someone when they have this experience is that they do the same thing they do with every experience, they interpret it from their own frame of reference.

those that do not have one are the most susceptable to lies.
i think that is why so many young people get sucked into destructive behavior, they don't have the tools they need to interpret the experience of life.

[bluewater2]

An atheist or agnostic would repel any statement that claimed that the only way to "god" or "the father" or "happiness" is through someone. I think that you are over thinking this thing. Read the first post. Im just looking for some rule in the bible that all people could agree on.

[fatherofaking]

looking for some rule in the bible

you never said anything about the bible.

is this just another attempt to discredit the bible?

[bluewater2]

I have never had a desire to discredit the bible, just different religions interpretation or use of it. No, I did not say bible in the first post, and the universal truth does not have to be from the bible. However, "the" universal truth is likely re-iterated in it and all other holy books in one way or another I am sure. I am just looking for some common ground between those of all beliefs.

[fatherofaking]

If I were a Christian, I would undoubtedly interpret this experience in Christian terms. I might believe that I had glimpsed the oneness of God, or felt the descent of the Holy Spirit.But I am not a Christian.

If I were a Hindu, I might talk about “Brahman,” the eternal Self, of which all individual minds are thought to be a mere modification. But I am not a Hindu. If I were a Buddhist, I might talk about the "dharmakaya of emptiness" in which all apparent things manifest. But I am not a Buddhist.

have you read this article?
you might find it interesting.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sam_harris/2007/01/consciousness_without_faith_1.html#more

[bluewater2]

Can't you think of anything that I, say as a muslim, might say to you, a believer in christ who is not a christian, that we could agree on as a universal truth?

[fatherofaking]

Can't you think of anything that I, say as a muslim, might say to you, a believer in christ who is not a christian, that we could agree on as a universal truth?

i really don't know a lot about islam.

a quick overview of the five pillars of islam would lead me to think that i would not be able to come up with one.

i guess i am not qualified to answer that question.

[fatherofaking]

the only thing that comes to mind that is the same with them all is the concept of belief.

believing that we are all one and acting appropriately is the closest i can get to a universal truth.

intellectual assent is not enough.
you have to practice or act on your belief or you really don't believe it.

[bluewater2]

I find it interesting how easy it is for some to come up with a universal truth that all could agree on, and how you, Father, no offense, have such a tough time with it. Is there anyone that could argue that "Love they neighbor as thyself", or in Yaakov's interesting way, "do not do unto others that which you would not have them do unto you"? I as an atheist/agnostic could certainly agree with that, as could a muslim, hindu or christian. Don't ya think?

[fatherofaking]

Don't ya think?

yes blue i do think so.

i also think that this is one of the reasons that religions get created.

those statments have to be interpreted for every circumstance of every human beings life.

[fatherofaking]

loving your neighbor to some may be interpreted in such a way as to harm another.

the moral complexities that arise in trying to come up with something like this are many.

what really needs to happen is that people need practical advice on what they can do to be happy.


i would tell someone that is not happy to change the way they think.
in order to help someone do that you have to find out what frame of reference is being used to interpret their experiences.

[daikon]

Perhaps the simplest phrase that could answer your question is...

I am

[bluewater2]

"i would tell someone that is not happy to change the way they think" Would this be someone who came to your for help, saying they were not happy, or just someone who you thought was not happy without them telling you so?

[fatherofaking]

or just someone who you thought was not happy without them telling you so?

who am i to judge somone's happiness?

i may not understand how someone can claim to be happy who is often angry or depressed but it not for me to judge.

[termin8d]

Bluewater2: You think I'm brainwashed? Well, yes my mind has been cleansed and renewed by the Holy Spirit. Praise the Lord.

I see people bringing up this "love thy neighbour as yourself" truth.

I admit that I also gave this some thought, however I do believe that Satanism is against such mentality. As far as I'm aware, the essence of their belief is do whatever will benefit yourself.

Benevolence toward others is not necessary in Satanism.

Not only so, but I don't think one needs to be a Satanist to also have this kind of mindset.

Quoting you in part : Is there one belief, one rule to live by, that is more important than any other?

You will have no agreement between theists and atheists because theists believe that loving God above all persons, matters, and things is the most important rule to live by than any other.

By the way, what happened to Bluewater1 ?

[bluewater2]

God is not a rule to live by. And yes, I think you are brainwashed because you are unable to think outside of the narrow way in which you see the world. What does satanism have to do with my question? Read my first post and see if you can do better. "Is there one belief, one rule to live by, that is more important than any other?" What would your god say is the most important rule that would be accepted by the most people of varying beliefs? Try to keep it simple.

Bluewater was killed a year or so ago when this site crashed.

[fatherofaking]

the essence of their belief is do whatever will benefit yourself.

where are you getting that from?

i don't see anywhere anyone has advocated doing what benefits themselves.

you have concluded that we are satanists.

do you see what your belief has lead you too?

maybe i completely misunderstood you?

[fatherofaking]

Bluewater was killed a year or so ago when this site crashed.

i believe he was crushed to death was he not?

lol

[termin8d]

Fatherofaking: I never called anybody here a satanist. I was stating what Satanists themselves believe. As such I was trying to make a point that their belief in self-benefit as the number one rule would square against what theists believe. Note, I'm not calling all atheists "Satanists" I am simply pointing out one category of Non-Theists who would argue that "love thy neighbour as thyself" is not the most important rule to live by.

Bluewater2: I will keep it simple now. But please do acknowledge that your original question did not address a belief that "most people" would agree with. To quote you : <font color="ff0000">" Is there one "rule" to live by that no one would argue over?"</font> Hence, please understand why I responded the way I did.

Now, to answer your new question about a rule that most people would agree with: I'll give a list of possible candidates in no particular order...

1. Love and worship God above all things.
2. Love thy neighbour as thyself.
3. Honesty is the best policy.

I know #1 excludes atheists but i'm trying to find the most popular ones.

[bluewater2]

Termin8 seems to have a really tight brain. I am not sure how he made the jump from love thy neighbor to satanism. Maybe he will explains some more.

[fatherofaking]

i think i understand now.

he was simply using them as an example of a religion that would not agree with some of our ideas of what is a universal truth.

[bluewater2]

Termin8d, do you think that number 1 is more important than number 2?

[fatherofaking]

hey blue,

considering #1

the idea of god is simply a way of interpreting and understanding a very common spiritual experience.

one that is often had through a religion of somekind.
thus the reference to god.

the interesting part of that is the term has been used for millinia.

why was that term chosen?
what meaning were they trying to convey?

[termin8d]

Bluewater2: Please stop being ignorant of what I write. The next time you're about to type something, please make sure you actually have a good reason for doing so, because at the moment you are being really sloppy and it's hard to maintain interest in a thread with someone who doesn't bother to read things properly.

[fatherofaking]

it's hard to maintain interest in a thread with someone who...


is it possible to have a discussion without the little digs?

it only leads to argument and then the interest in the thread gets lost.

i don't want to hear any crap about who started it either.

it is amazing to me how this happens given the subject matter.

i went through all of this for a while myself.
i finally came to my senses and stopped.

the testament to the change i made is right here on this thread.

i haven't had a converstion like this with blue in a long time.

i just don't understand how people can say they believe the things they do and post the total opposite attitude.

[termin8d]

When I get <font color="ff0000">"you have concluded that we are satanists."</font> from you Fatherofaking and <font color="ff0000">"Termin8 seems to have a really tight brain. I am not sure how he made the jump from love thy neighbor to satanism. Maybe he will explains some more."</font> from Bluewater2, I'm not going to take it lightly. Both of you, do yourselves a favor and read the content of the thread carefully instead of rushing through it and thinking you know what is being said. I just want to have a normal discussion without unwarranted assumptions being made.

[fatherofaking]

if yo uwill remember correctly i allowed for the possibility that i misunderstood you.

When I get... from you Fatherofaking and from Bluewater2 I'm not going to take it lightly.

what does that mean?
are you threatening retaliation?

are you saying it is ok to respond in like manner when you are spoken ill of?

what is it that you believe.

this is definately not love thy neighbor as thy self behavior.

i am used to blue doing things like this but he doesn't claim to be a saint.

without unwarranted assumptions being made.

you should look at that post you made it is confusing as hell.

you are correct that i made an assumption but i also thought i could be wrong and made that clear.

I just want to have a normal discussion...

then act like it.

[ba2]

Because of differences in experiences, it probably is impossible to come up with a universal truth that works for every individual. But it should not be too difficult to come up with societal universal truth. The “golden rule” says it all. Treat others as you wish to be treated.

Paul really hits it home in Galatians 5:14 <font color="119911">“For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”</font>

Maybe this old Arabian Proverb is a universal truth.
<font color="0000ff">"You won't gain knowledge by drinking ink."
</font>

[yaakov2]

termin8d

<font color="0000ff">1. Love and worship God above all things.
2. Love thy neighbour as thyself.
3. Honesty is the best policy.</font>

These just aren’t universal for all peoples to live by. Your first one is followed by many religions and we can see the violent confrontations between them as their stated worship practices become an imposition on other persons. In addition, the large group of non-theists will find no practical application of it.

The second one is narrow. It teaches tolerance and affection just for those that live near you. No mention is made of tolerance for the stranger.

The third one doesn’t cover any actions. It teaches that lying is not tolerated, but makes no mention of rules to live by.

[yaakov2]

Bluewater

<font color="0000ff">Is there one "rule" to live by that no one would argue over?</font>

That absolute “no one” killed it. People will always find something to argue over.

<font color="0000ff">Is there anyone that could argue that "Love they neighbor as thyself", or in Yaakov's interesting way, "do not do unto others that which you would not have them do unto you"? I as an atheist/agnostic could certainly agree with that, as could a muslim, hindu or christian. Don't ya think?</font>

The Golden Rule can be stated positively or negatively. http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm Judaism states it negatively What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary; while Christianity And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise; and Islam None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself; state it positively.

When stated positively, it disregards every individual’s sense of privacy. Any individual following it can state “Since I like this thing, I should impose this thing on everyone else”.

When stated negatively, it respects each person’s beliefs. It teaches us to forbear actions to another, since every person has different preferences.

[bluewater2]

I agree, Yaakov. Treating others with respect, whether that entails helping them or leaving them to their privacy, seems to be the most universally accepted behavior. I am wondering how many feel that it is important to put god first to behave in this way, or if it is a normal human emotion and that it is a natural behavior available to all, godly or not.

On another note, Yaakov, I went to a Jewish funeral the other day and found it interesting that they use a pine casket so that encourages becoming worm food. When I think of all the times that "Spanklin" called me wormfood, I smile even more broadly now.

[trainedobserver]

Don't you folks think that none of these things (love thy neighbor, etc.) can be accomplished without first recognizing that "other" human beings that you meet are "just like you" in their basic desires for security, love, and happiness? Without empathy for other human beings you cannot accomplish any of those other Universal Truths. Also, in the act of recognizing that the other human being hurts, feels, and desires to have a sense of well-being as you do many destructive things fall by the way-side. You know that you do not wish to feel pain, embarrassment or loss therefore this person in front of you doesn't either.

Any religion that identifies other people as "dogs and pigs" or "unclean" has nothing of value to offer and deserves to thrown into the heap with the worship of Zeus and the like. Would you not agree?

[bluewater2]

"Don't you folks think that none of these things (love thy neighbor, etc.) can be accomplished without first recognizing that "other" human beings that you meet are "just like you" in their basic desires for security, love, and happiness?" I absolutely agree, which is why I posed the following: "I am wondering how many feel that it is important to put god first to behave in this way, or if it is a normal human emotion and that it is a natural behavior available to all, godly or not." From where does this empathy emenate? I feel it is a normal human emotion, that unfortunately, is credited by many to putting god first, which immediately drives a wedge between the "godly" and the "atheist/agnostic" group that has empathy for others as well.

[trainedobserver]

"From where does this empathy emanate?"

Empathy simply comes from recognizing the fact that "you are not special" that "other human beings" feel pain and emotions "just as you" yourself do. It is nothing magical and not all that complicated. It does however require some degree of honesty, sanity, and common sense.

"...is credited by many to putting god first"

Such a notion is simply absurd. The only way religion can "be special" is to attempt to strip the true "humanity" from us and claim we can only get it from their god. It's all a scam and lie. We are not broken. We are not possessed. We are not in need of some magical mystical fix. What we do need to do is to take responsibility for ourselves and adopt a realistic and reasonable view of ourselves and others.

(Message edited by trainedobserver on February 16, 2007)

[fatherofaking]

Php 4:8 For the rest, my brothers, whatever things are true, whatever things have honour, whatever things are upright, whatever things are holy, whatever things are beautiful, whatever things are of value, if there is any virtue and if there is any praise, give thought to these things.

(Message edited by fatherofaking on February 16, 2007)

[fatherofaking]

i think that verse will work for anyone.

this is taken from the amplified version.

8For the rest, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is worthy of reverence and is honorable and seemly, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely and lovable, whatever is kind and winsome and gracious, if there is any virtue and excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think on and weigh and take account of these things [fix your minds on them].

[dream_truth]

I think the one universal law that all could agree on is to practice the act of love.

If I could take some liberty with the english language, as inadequate as it is, I mean love in the sense of unconditional love, not of a romantic nature.

A non-theist, such as myself, could understand a theist who says "love God above all things" if I understand that god is a concept, and to me simply means all life.

I think even satanists could identify with this concept, as their belief system is based around loyalty and love of a specific system. Satanism is really a branch of christianity, anyways.

Unconditional love to me means that I will treat others with respect, which may or may may not be how I would want to be treated. It does not mean that I should tell them everything with brutal honesty, if revealing information to that person could be harmful to them. Although honesty is always best, it is not always necessary to offer unneeded or harmful information.

Unconditional Love for myself keeps me healthy and makes me a better person who is more useful to others.

Unconditional love helps me to view all situations rationally, and make decisions based on the greater good for all.

Unconditional Love guides me to respect the earth, which is our home, and all life in it and in the universe.

Unconditional Love teaches me to respect those who have differing beliefs than mine where those beliefs do not interfere with the well-being of life.

It is very nice to read such a lovely discussion taking place!

~DT

(Message edited by dream_truth on February 16, 2007)

[fatherofaking]

hey DT,

don't be such a stranger your viewpoint is valuable in a discussion like this.

i don't really belong over where you are so i just come and say hi once in a while.

[termin8d]

Fatherofaking and Bluewater2 : I'll try to make this as simple as possible so as to clear any confusion from my prior posts.

Originally I was addressing the question of a universal truth and way of living that noone would argue over.

Yaakov hit the nail on the head here:

<font color="0000ff">Is there one "rule" to live by that no one would argue over? </font>

<font color="ff0000">That absolute no one; killed it. People will always find something to argue over.</font>

Hence I was trying to point out one example of people who would not agree on "Love thy neighbour as thyself" which was Satanists (and I stated that one need not be a Satanist to also disagree with that rule). Satanists have a belief whereby they
consider themselves to be of most importance and only to help others if it will benefit themselves. I was in no way calling anybody in this message board a Satanist. I do not think either of you are such or even remotely close to being such.

Later, Bluewater2 asked me to discuss a universal truth which the majority of beliefs can accept. By that stage I posted the possible candidates of

1. Love and worship God above all things.
2. Love thy neighbour as thyself.
3. Honesty is the best policy.

I hope this clears up things for you both.

(Message edited by termin8d on February 16, 2007)

[termin8d]

Yaakov:

<font color="0000ff">1. Love and worship God above all things.
2. Love thy neighbour as thyself.
3. Honesty is the best policy.
</font><font color="ff0000">
These just aren't universal for all peoples to live by. Your first one is followed by many religions and we can see the violent confrontations between them as their stated worship practices become an imposition on other persons. In addition, the large group of non-theists will find no practical application of it.

The second one is narrow. It teaches tolerance and affection just for those that live near you. No mention is made of tolerance for the stranger.

The third one doesn't cover any actions. It teaches that lying is not tolerated, but makes no mention of rules to live by.</font>

You said that these aren't universal rules for all people to live by. I agree. In my previous posts, I was in fact trying to explain this to Bluewater2. After doing so, Bluewater suggested that I keep things simple and come up with rules that a majority of people of varying beliefs could agree with. And it is my understanding that theists outnumber atheists significantly, hence a marjority is established. Moreover, you said that it is impractical. Well we are not talking about being practical, it's just about a rule that a marjority would agree by, and I do believe that all theists would agree that we should love and worship God above everything else.

2. Maybe I should have just said "others" instead of neighbour, because that was what I had in mind. Sorry for a poor choice of words there.

3. You said <font color="0000ff">The third one doesn't cover any actions. It teaches that lying is not tolerated, but makes no mention of rules to live by.</font> I disagree, it covers all manner of actions in people's lives. Honesty toward oneself and toward others determines how we will speak to them and what actions we will engage in that will impact on others. Honesty is very practical.

[bluewater2]

Term, do you put number 1 ahead of number 2?

[termin8d]

Bluewater2: I rank it above 2 yes, but subjectively more often than not fail to do so.

[dream_truth]

I find that as a non-theist living in a predominantly theist society, it is helpful if I can find a way to percieve the theist viewpoint through my own understanding. When I replace the word God with the word Life it tends to make sense.

Hence, "Love and worship Life above all things" would be how I see number one as a viable universal truth.

Number two and number three pretty much fall into place after that.

fatherofking, it's nice to have you pop in and say hi over there...thanks for the hello http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[fatherofaking]

the general consensus is that if one dedicates themselves to these principles they will experience a sense of well being.
that some choose to interpret this in religious terms and others do not, i don't see as a problem.

this does not make one interpretation better than the other just more or less useful depending upon the individual.

i think the world can now be defined by it's own culture.

we a need new paradigm for a world culture.
the religions of the world have been by and large a cultural phenomanon.

the cultures of the world are no longer seperated like they once were.

i am not advocating that one should give up religon.
i am suggestung that any religion that seperates itself from any of their fellow human beings has it all wrong and need to reconsider the reality that they are creating.

although i choose to interpret my experience when i apply these general principles to my life in religious terms, i do not think god is concerned about language.

what we really believe is seen in how we live our life.

(Message edited by fatherofaking on February 16, 2007)

[termin8d]

Bluewater2: I'm intrigued to know why you began this thread. Do you feel that it is important for everyone to agree on something?

I would just make a few points here:

1. If a minority holds the truth, then I see no reason for them to discard it for the sake of compromise with an unenlightened majority.

2. Development of society occurs through conflict. I am not talking about negative conflict but positive conflict. When differing views can be brought head to head, I think it helps the furthering of one's perspective personally and corporately.

3. If people agreed all the time for the sake of peace, it would not necessarily be indicative of their correctness.

[dream_truth]

termin8d,
"If a minority holds the truth, then I see no reason for them to discard it for the sake of compromise with an unenlightened majority."

I would propose that you consider the option that they not be asked to discard thier truth, but merely to respect that others perception of truth is just as valid, and to find comonality instead of focusing on discrepancies. Also, if you truely believe in loving god above all else, then you could see that worship of a book or one specific view of god is worship of that book and idea and not worship of your deity.

[bluewater2]

"Do you feel that it is important for everyone to agree on something?" Absolutely. Notice, I did not say everything. But certainly the most important thing. " If a minority holds the truth," I don't suppose you would consider exchanging the word "the" with the word "a"? I also think there are times that peace should outweigh the need to be right. But I only see that as a possible scenario if two different religious groups, each with their own truth, try to impose their truth on the other with violence.

FOF says, "i am suggestung that any religion that seperates itself from any of their fellow human beings has it all wrong and need to reconsider the reality that they are creating." I would agree with that. Do you feel that the christian dogma that "No one gets to the father but through me" is one of those "separators"? What would you think of the idea that someone puts that dogma as their #1 truth?

[fatherofaking]

What would you think of the idea that someone puts that dogma as their #1 truth?

no one gets to the father but through me is not dogma.

the interpretation that some people have of this teaching is what is called dogma.

dogma:

1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets <pedagogical> c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church
meriam webster

dividing is no way to make peace.

it is amazing to me how a message designed to bring understanding and peace of mind can so easily be used to manipulate, control and harm.

[bluewater2]

How is that sentence not dogma, even by your own definition?

[dream_truth]

dogma:

1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets <pedagogical> c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds

"no one gets to the father but through me"

Does seem to fall into the definition no matter how interpreted, because of the words "no one....but through me"

I would be interested as well to hear how this could be interpreted not to fit the definition of dogma?

I also am curious why no one has any reply to my posts regarding what I think could be accepted as a universal truth...which is to practice unconditional love. Is this because people agree with this? And if you do agree, perhaps people are more interested in discussion disagreements than agreements? Just wondering....hope everyone has a lovely day

[fatherofaking]

the idea that has grown out of this verse,
Joh 14:6
Jesus said to him, I am the true and living way: no one comes to the Father but by me.

is this, if you do not accept our way of thinking then you are a heathen and will end up in hell.

what happpened as a result of that thinking we are all well briefed on.

from history to what is happening as we speak.

there is only one way to interpret that kind of mentality.
that is why we are here on factnet.

it is impossible for me to believe that the person who wrote the words in that verse ever intended for it to be interpreted in that way.

just because christendom rose to power through this idea does not make it right.

the fruit of this thinking is rotten.

these things were written to be metaphors for life.

[fatherofaking]

there is no real concept of hell in jesus message.

where did that idea of exclusivity come from?

did jesus really think that the people that never heard his message were going to burn in a lake of fire for eternity?

i would challenge that message with anyone wishing to try and defend it.

so i would propose that he was saying something else entirely.
something that those who were there understood but has since been obscured from view by those who desire to manipulate and control.

love thy enemy and eternal punishment.
that is a "funny" kind of love.

[fatherofaking]

"Love and worship Life above all things"

love and worship ... above all things.

add any one of the names from anyone one of the religions of the world and the result will still be the same.

(Message edited by fatherofaking on February 17, 2007)

[fatherofaking]

Do not do unto others, that which you would not want done unto yourself.

i believe that the things that we hate in others is what we truely dislike about ourself.

if we could see that, we would have much more compassion for the one who seems to offend.

(Message edited by fatherofaking on February 17, 2007)

[termin8d]

Fatherofaking : How would you interpret John 14:6?

[bluewater2]

If I might interject. IF this is one of the things that Jesus actually said, as many of the things attributed to Jesus were actually not said by him at all, or were poorly interpreted as much of what was written was written 60 to 100 years after his death, he likely meant, "Be as I am, tolerant and humble, and you will find happiness".

[fatherofaking]

How would you interpret John 14:6?

it would have to be looked at from another perspective other than the christian perspective.

christians have to have it wrong.
there is no way that the billions of people that have not heard his message will suffer for eternity.

there is no justice in that.
even i know that.
i would hope that god would.


i believe the message coming from the first signs of religion from our ancestors is, or should be, the same now as it was then.

love one another.
or if you prefer yaakov's suggestion,
do not unto others that which you would not want done unto youself.

so my interpretation of jn. 14:6 would be not to interperet it in the present text.
understand that it was written that way so it would be personal to that culture.

if jesus message teaches anything at all it teaches that we should love one another.

now if you want to use his message as your guide for your life i think by all means you should.

just don't try and fit it into every culture on the planet it doesn't work.
some really awful things have happened from trying to do that.

you think we would learn.
whole cultures have been wiped out in the name of christ.


the lessons of our ancestors are written down for our benefit.
they teach us the wisdom of the ages if we would listen.
it seems kind of foolish to me not to listen to people that have already done what i am trying to do.

these things can be a road map for life if they were understood properly and stopped being used to hurt people.

there are many warnings as well from many religions not just christianity as to where our greed and selfishness will take us.

if we take a look around us i think it is evident the place is not good.


belief is a powerful thing.
it can transform lives if understood and used properly.

[inkorrekt]

Jesus Said," I am the way, the truth and the life, No man comes to the father, but by me"

He also claimed to be God Himself. Either he was a lunatic or a real God.This is the universal truth.

[inkorrekt]

Jesus Said," I am the way, the truth and the life, No man comes to the father, but by me"

He also claimed to be God Himself. Either he was a lunatic or a real God.No one else claimed this with so much of authority. This is the universal truth.

[inkorrekt]

Jesus Said," I am the way, the truth and the life, No man comes to the father, but by me"

He also claimed to be God Himself. Either he was a lunatic or a real God.No one else claimed this with so much of authority. This is the universal truth.

[fatherofaking]

he also said that we are gods.

here is your explination of his claims.

Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
Joh 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Joh 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?


anyone that the word of god comes to is a god.

[bluewater2]

I am the way, the truth and the life, No man comes to the father, but by me"That could hardly be called a universal truth that all people of all faiths could agree on if 2/3rds of the world disagree with that. Saying that to a muslim is hardly the way to start a friendly relationship, or with a Jew, or a Hindu, or an atheist.

[ba2]

fatherofaking
You had an excellent post.
You said, <font color="0000ff">“christians have to have it wrong. there is no way that the billions of people that have not heard his message will suffer for eternity.”</font> How true. But try not to stick all Christians into that box. I am Christian and I absolutely don’t see how any Christian can come to the conclusion that good non-Christian people who follow the “golden rule” will go straight to hell, even if they never heard of the gospel. That would be a very cruel god, and I don’t believe God is cruel. Many Christian feel just like I do, but they normally don’t visit factnet.

You also said, <font color="0000ff">“belief is a powerful thing.
it can transform lives if understood and used properly.”</font> It can also transform lives if used IMproperly. Jim Jones, for example. And I would add that anyone with a legalistic approach to their religion, no matter what religion it is, has the potential to be dangerous.

[fatherofaking]

I am the way, the truth and the life, No man comes to the father, but by me"

this was written to provoke belief.
if you believe what he is saying and do what he says you will find what you have always had.

the kingdom of heaven is within you.

Lu 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

this is the reason that we cannot follow a man.
we have to do it ourselves.

we have to bear our own cross.


to take the message of christ and turn it into a tool for hate, is unconscienable.

christians need to wake up.
there being fed a lie that seperates them from most of the human race, not to mention in some cases from their own families.

the only thing that really seperates people is greed and selfishness.

the true message of christ was lost when the church became a political power.
maybe even before that.

there have always been many willing to exploit others for their own selfish gain.

the real message of christ keeps us from falling into that trap.

[fatherofaking]

Many Christian feel just like I do,

if that is true then i have to ask you if you are supporting some guy who says he has a corner on the truth.

do you "go to church"?

[bluewater2]

Good posts, FOF. I have said many times here that my problem has never been with the Jesus I believed lived, but with those that have taken his words and used them to promote an exclusionary agenda. He was, no doubt in my mind, one of many good and wise people who relayed the universal truths that are already "within you", as he said. Those same universal truths are available in all of the religious books of the major religions of the world. Unfortunately, each religion has also been perverted by those that think they have "the one true way".

[ba2]

fatherofaking
I said, <font color="119911">“Many Christian feel just like I do,”</font> you asked, <font color="0000ff">“if that is true then i have to ask you if you are supporting some guy who says he has a corner on the truth. do you "go to church"?”</font>
I don’t follow anyone who claims to have the one way or a corner on truth. In fact, I believe the fundamentalist have it very wrong. I know exactly where they are coming from because I attend a fundamentalist church, often it is much to my chagrin. I do this to try to draw my wife out of this cult like thinking, but I don’t think I am capable of doing that. I really only hope she can become a little less legalistic and judgmental in her thinking.

blue, yes, I agree, promote an exclusionary agenda is one of the problems.

[yaakov2]

It looks like many are saying that a "Universal Truth" can only come from within a religion. I disagree with that. I still like mine that I posted at the start. It can be applicable to any believer or to any non-believer.

Though I could go for that Unconditional Love truth. It just needs a little polishing to give it some better marketability.

[fatherofaking]

i think your idea yaakov is just as good as any.
it certainly adresses the issue of how to treat one another.

i also do not think that the message of christ is any different than the message of the torah.

[termin8d]

I think it depends on how one defines universal truth.

You could define it as the truth that everyone agrees with. This to me is not truth but opinion and preference.

I would define it as the truth that transcends all human principles, opinions, preferences and concepts. This is why I believe God Himself is the universal truth. I believe His ways are far higher than our ways.

[bluewater2]

I think that the universal truth first posted by Yaakov works well. As an atheist, of course I believe that this universal truth comes from the mind of man, not inspired by god, but the truth is valid, either way. My point of view has always been that in an attempt to "harness" man, religion has hijacked these universal truths and promotes the idea that it is only through belief in god that these truths are known. I feel that if you do good works, etc. etc., who cares if you believe in god or not?

[termin8d]

God does for a start http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[bluewater2]

I doubt it. God would have no ego and would be content if you are performing good works.

[franklin]

Like a father who doesn't care if he is recognized as being their father by his children?

Preposterous!

[bluewater2]

I know that my father feels recognized and like he has been listened to if I do well in my life and am loving and carry his values into the future. That is what he cares about.

[yaakov2]

termin8d

<font color="0000ff">I think it depends on how one defines universal truth. You could define it as the truth that everyone agrees with. This to me is not truth but opinion and preference.

I would define it as the truth that transcends all human principles, opinions, preferences and concepts.</font>

I disagree with the first part of your definition. If ALL people agree with a statement, then it is beyond a mere opinion or preference. By definition, something that EVERYONE agrees with transcends all human principles, opinions, preferences and concepts and becomes a universal truth.

[still_small_voice]

"I feel that if you do good works, etc. etc., who cares if you believe in god or not?"

If there is no God, what is the point in doing "good works" and who is to define what is "good" or "moral"? Society? For at many points in history, society believes as a majority some things are good and many centuries later the same thing is considered barbaric.

To some people at the time, Hitler did "good works" if there is no God what harm did he do?

What is the benefit of being selfless if there is no God? Let each look to themselves and by whatever means they stand to gain the most, in this brief life of meaninglessness, let them reach out and lay hold of it...

What is the harm, if there is no God, in seeking pleasure in all things and living to be happy even at the cost of another's happiness... survival of the fittest and all that.

If there is no God, there is no conscience, for how can one claim a conscience is anything "moral"? Surely just a delusional voice of the subconscience.

Apparently, if you believe in God, it is manifested pretty early on that God cares if you believe in him. Why? I don't know, maybe because it is so obvious that 'something' created everything and it is not all some "accident" (Rom 1:20) to me it takes some kind of willful blindness to deny any intelligent design to nature or the universe. That is my opinion.

Maybe God desires us to have faith that he is because he wants to bless us and have fellowship with us but it is a little difficult if one party does not believe the other one exists.

And, sin is just a myth if there is no God, and to such a one, in sin do they remain which they ignore as even existing. Sin is painful, sin is empty, a howling wasteland, a void, it is death.

So, if one relies on good works that is certainly one's right to believe what they choose. When face to face with death will the works be enough?

What hopelessness, if there is no God there is nothing after death, and this discussion is a waste of time, as living is.

And as Paul said: If the dead do not rise, then, of all men, are we most miserable.

[termin8d]

yaakov2 <font color="ff0000"> By definition, something that EVERYONE agrees with transcends all human principles, opinions, preferences and concepts and becomes a universal truth.</font>

Just because everyone agrees with something does not make it a universal truth. As a weak example, suppose we lived in a time when everyone in the world believed in a flat earth. Does that make it a universal truth? Surely not. Truth is independant of what anybody believes or thinks, and stands by itself.

[bluewater2]

"If there is no God, what is the point in doing "good works" and who is to define what is "good" or "moral"?" I am always amazed at this concept.

[fatherofaking]

By definition, something that EVERYONE agrees with transcends all human principles, opinions, preferences and concepts and becomes a universal truth.

the popular definition of that would be god.

although not every one would use the word god, anyone who has experienced the mystery of life
that comes from living the truth will describe this experience in very similar ways.

[still_small_voice]

"I am always amazed at this concept."

Did you not get the point? Morality to a great extent is subjective when based on society or a majority. Burning a heretic at the stake or a witch was once considered the good and moral thing to do... now not so much.

Society used to find nothing wrong with going to watch the gladiators kill each other or to see the christians get thrown to the lions and laugh and applaud.

Slavery was considered moral and right for thousands of years as was many other things. So if anything, we possibly see morality evolving, which again testifies, to me, of the existence of both God and a good or truth that is transcendent to which humanity has not yet and is unable to fully acheive.

Even love, when you look at it is not logical and goes against instinct and the principles of natural selection. Yet people love, is this based on chemicals in the body? So the body produces an emotion or feeling, state of being, that leads to said body willingly giving up it's own life or sacrificing at one's own loss?

How odd... maybe love itself, that it even exists and is experienced to some degree by all people is another small piece of 'evidence' that points to the existence of a 'higher power' or God.

Along with the wonder and beauty of both the universe, nature, and the human mind and heart.

[still_small_voice]

"something that EVERYONE agrees with"

Is there a thing or concept that exists that 'everyone' agrees with? I cannot think of one.

[termin8d]

Nor can I, and yet even if everyone agreed upon something, it wouldn't make it the truth. It is what they perceive to be the truth, but truth itself does not depend upon others' perception.

[fatherofaking]

the truth is know when it is acted on.

many people live their lives believing lies.

this holds them back from experiencing all that life has to offer.

when you act on the truth you know it is the truth because it improves the quality of your life.}

[dream_truth]

fatherofaking said, "christians need to wake up.
there being fed a lie that seperates them from most of the human race, not to mention in some cases from their own families.

the only thing that really seperates people is greed and selfishness."

Yes, I agree. And this is not just material greed and selfishness. It is selfishness which stems from fear of needing to be secured a place in an imaginary world after death that causes many religious followers to disregard the needs of their children and neglect teaching them how to LIVE, not DIE.

Yakkov, I like your universal truth of "Do not do unto others what you would not have done unto you." I think anyone of any belief or non belief can understand that concept.

still small voice, I think there is all the more reason to do good things and be a good person if there is no god and no after life. All the more reason to make this life count and not waste it worrying about death.

(Message edited by dream_truth on February 20, 2007)

[bluewater2]

"Burning a heretic at the stake or a witch was once considered the good and moral thing to do... now not so much.
Society used to find nothing wrong with going to watch the gladiators kill each other or to see the christians get thrown to the lions and laugh and applaud." You say "society" like the whole world was doing it. The world is a lot larger that a small segment of society who feels it is ok to burn witches, or "gladiate." The fact that segments of society do not embrace a universal truth, like "Do unto others" does not make that universal truth less truthful.
"So if anything, we possibly see morality evolving, which again testifies, to me, of the existence of both God and a good or truth that is transcendent to which humanity has not yet and is unable to fully acheive." I do not see the relationship between an evolving society and god, but more as a direct result negotiation. Certainly not all societies evolve in a positive direction.

"How odd... maybe love itself, that it even exists and is experienced to some degree by all people is another small piece of 'evidence' that points to the existence of a 'higher power' or God." You are certainly welcome to attribute the emotion of love to whatever you want, I am unable to see what god would have to do with it. I would certainly be more inclined to believe in god's ability to "make things happen" if he or it was not so inclined to sit back and let injustice happen to those that do not deserve it.

"Along with the wonder and beauty of both the universe, nature, and the human mind and heart." I am open to any verifiable evidence that god was involved in any of it.

The fact of the matter is, history has shown us that a belief in god and doing right are not related. There are those that claim to be believers in god, but do lousy things, as with those that do not claim to believe in god. And there are those that do not believe in god that do wonderful things and those that do not believe in god that do terrible things as well. My point is that it is not the belief or lack of belief in god that makes the person, but the person themselves. For those that claim that they are good because they believe in god, I say they are not giving themselves enough credit.

It is possible to do the right thing without a belief in god. A belief system where god is the focus of ones energy is but one method that people use to find structure and improve their lives, yet even then, from my point of view, it is the decision to focus on improving ones life that is the key, not that god is the focus.

[fatherofaking]

god by definition encapsulates all truth.

when a person lives the truth they begin to come into contact with a mystery that many choose to call god.

if a person has not experienced this then there is no explaining it to them.
it is like expecting a child to understand adult behavior.

all one can do is insist on the need to live what they know to be true.

truth can never really be known by just intellectual ascent.

i can say i know the truth and not live by the truth i say i know.

this happens all the time.
this is why you have bad people preaching good things or visa-versa.

they aren't living the things they preach.

wisdom should be the goal not just understanding.
wisdom comes from experience.

[bluewater2]

"wisdom should be the goal not just understanding.
wisdom comes from experience." Agreed. Whether godly or not, experience interpreted wisely is the key to personal growth. I think that is a capability inherant in us all.

[still_small_voice]

"You say "society" like the whole world was doing it."

It was a limited example at best. Yet, if we dig deeper can it be agreed that what is
considered "moral" changes according to when and where you are? For example, take the Native American tribes. There might be one tribe that eats their prisoners and sees nothing wrong with it... the tribe down the road derides them for it. Some of the most immoral acts have been commited by religious people of whatever faith, this has nothing to do with God. Nor should God or even whether he exists or not, be judged or determined by the acts of those who claim to know him, but by actions deny that he is.


""Do unto others" does not make that universal truth less truthful."

What makes this a universal truth? The basic question stands, who defines what is moral? In order for a 'do unto others' or any other moral guideline to be effectual it must be believed by those who act upon it. So faith is necessary. How does 'do unto others' operate within an immoral group or individual. For example when one is operating within a corrupted belief system, one is treating others as they would expect to be treated, like in organized crime for example, yet it is still not moral.

"Certainly not all societies evolve in a positive direction."

Excellent point. What makes the difference?

"if he or it was not so inclined to sit back and let injustice happen to those that do not deserve it."

Very honest point, how could a loving God with all power sit back and not act to prevent 'injustice' from happening. Yet, in order to make this point you must be able to define what is justice, prove that God is unjust, and explain how God sees things and upon what he bases his decisions to act or not act, also to prove and show, that the final outcome and end of both mankind and the universe is unjust.

" I am open to any verifiable evidence that god was involved in any of it."

Verifiable evidence is a high standard. I don't know, things came into existence somehow and it sures seems to all operate in a wonderous synchronicity. Even in the realm of, like, quantum physics, scientists are embracing "intelligent design" in droves.

"The fact of the matter is, history has shown us that a belief in god and doing right are not related."

I would say that religion and a belief in God are not interdependent. Also, belief in gods and God are not the same thing, as also professing God outwardly and actually believing are not the same thing. Morality and truth in the most transcendent form is separate from and not dependent upon an imperfect belief <u>system</u>. What is right and good is right and good. Yet, I do not say that such a belief, in and of itself makes a person right and good. I would say that what a person believes, to a great extent, determines what they believe to be right and good, so a moral belief system will induce moral acts or at least should.

Have you conceded that what is right and good is often determined by the conscience?

'Love thy neighbor as thyself', is this moral? What makes it so?

'Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart' is this moral? what makes it immoral?

I would say believing in God is right and good. Yet, some call this immoral.

(Message edited by still_small_voice on February 21, 2007)

[still_small_voice]

"It is possible to do the right thing without a belief in god."

I would say, often, according to what manner of god a person believes in, determines what they consider right and good. To Baal worshipers it was considered right and good to sacrifice their children into flames. Many other 'gods' were worshipped by human sacrifice. To one whose god is money, making money at all costs is right and good. Seems like most people have some form of a 'god' or another. Something that they love and worship. Their 'morality' or what passes for it, stems from what type of 'god' they know or believe in. It would appear that humans have an innate and preprogrammed desire and nature to worship something.

According to this argument, if morality is agreed upon as good or what is agreed on by most as to what is good, the more moral the belief system and the good that comes from it, would determine which is the better belief, all things being equal.

Radical Isalm is not very moral.

Some extremist fundamentalist sects of Christianity are not very moral.

Cults are not usually moral and often exist at the heart in order to make money and/or exercise power.

A simple belief in the bible and/or God is certainly not immoral, and if it leads to a better, more thoughtful, more enriched and fulfilled life, according to the judgement of the individual himself, and not what others think, what is wrong with it? Is there any harm?

If a murderer or bank robber converts while in prison to Christianity and ceases to kill or rob is this a bad thing? Due to the fact that good results and morality 'increases' it can be determined as both good and right in this instance, at least for society, and if the individual is content, there is certainly no harm.

It has been proven statistically that recidivism rates are lowest among those who convert to a belief system, the most common is Christianity.

[ba2]

<font color="0000ff">"It has been proven statistically that recidivism rates are lowest among those who convert to a belief system, the most common is Christianity."</font> I wonder where that statistic came from. The studies I found supported the notion that the only thing that reduced recidivism was a good education program with job placement and follow-up after they are released back into society. Some of those educational programs were operated by Christian gropus which might skew the results of the studies.

[still_small_voice]

Right you are Ba, 'proven' was not the best choice of words... as all statistics depend usually on who is doing the research.

Yet all these things you mention are important. Still, the fact remains that two of the most common types of crimes commited by reoffenders are violent crimes and drugs.

No matter how good a job or skill a violent person has, they are still a violent person, they lack a moral 'code' or even self control.

A person who has a good job and education can become hooked on drugs and lose everything, addiction is a monster. Rehab often fails. I do believe conversion is often successful in the area of drug use.

As with anything much research can be done and statictics can reveal different things.

[still_small_voice]

In regard to the question that opened this thread... there might be universal truth, which I believe to be true, but there is no truth that is or will be agreed upon universally.

I could say: "If it harms no one do what you choose to" is a good one but it is problematic.

Satanists, as termin8ted point out reject morality and say "do whatever you want"

Hedonists say: "whatever feels good, do it".

Now, in regard to not harming, upon this we see most religions drawing lines as to just what 'harm' consists of.

To a non-meat eater I am immoral for harming an animal to eat.

I see no harm in eating meat as I believe God created animals for me to eat.

To some, squishing a bug is harming and induces a karmic result.

I step on spiders without hesitation.

I do not see a 'universal' moral code or precept, that all will or can agree on as possible, given that morality and belief are both subjective and people are so diverse.

Thou shall not murder is close though.

[fatherofaking]

truth itself is universal

it is by definition absolute.

it cannot be denied.

it is the same for everyone.

we do not know all that is true but we know there must be more than what we know to be true.

that is evident in two ways.
1: we are always learning more.
2: truth by definition is absolute but it seems we cannot agree on basic morality.
this can only mean that we really do not know what the truth is.

[dream_truth]

ssv: "To Baal worshipers it was considered right and good to sacrifice their children into flames. Many other 'gods' were worshipped by human sacrifice."

The God of the christian bible condones human sacrifice and acts of infanticide, genocide and rape many times, as well. What makes it more moral for this God?

"I do believe conversion is often successful in the area of drug use."

I agree, that frequently replacing one addiction with another does tend to have the appearance of being successful, but in my opinion the problem has simply been masked and transferred, not addressed, and can lead to even worse issues, such as cult followers. I would even go so far as to say that most cult followers are religious addicts of some sort or another, in my humble opinion.



(Message edited by dream_truth on February 21, 2007)

[rachelengland]

DT(Hi btw)

Really rape? Rape is a new one to me- could you show me where in the "Christian" Bible God condones raping a woman..I have seen some of the other things you have spoken about that were written in the Old Testament but the rape part now that one baffles me..

When it comes to God none of us have all the answers... we never will but we certainly know that no matter what we believe treating others with respect will always lead to happiness and peace...R

(Message edited by rachelengland on February 21, 2007)

[fatherofaking]

hey DT,

i think the reason for these things being written down are often misunderstood.

who could believe in a god that hates his own creation?

there must be an adequate explanation for these things.

those that wrote these things would never say that their god hates his creation.
in fact they said just the opposite.

so rather than just think that god is immoral or the people that wrote these things are crazy why not look for an explanation that makes sense.

[dream_truth]

Hi Rachel, sure I'll go look it up and get back to you before i head off to school..

Hi father, I agree with what you are saying, I think a lot of the problem has to do with people worshiping words and books and other peoples ideas. You have had some very inspiring posts lately.

[still_small_voice]

"what is truth?" Pontius Pilate

"I am the way, the truth, and the life" Jesus

Truth first must be defined. What is truth? The laws of physics or what can be observed is easy to declare universally true.

If this then therefore that.

Yet, when observed from the point of view of faith are the laws of both physics and nature able to be superceded? Walking on water? Impossible, therefore untrue. Not according to faith though.

Life after death? Unprovable therefore untrue?

Well, we will all find out eventually won't we.

"2: truth by definition is absolute but it seems we cannot agree on basic morality.
this can only mean that we really do not know what the truth is."

Do not know maybe, but cannot know, or will never know is not the same thing.

If taken hold of by faith I could say that I hope to know, but at this time it is by faith.

Heb 11
1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

And:

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. (Rom 1:20)

Now I believe both of these passages to be true. Can I prove it? How? Yet in my heart and mind and conscience I believe it to be so, and in regard to Romans 1:20, as a child even though raised in an atheistic home I believed at an early age in God based on what I saw in nature. Can't prove it scientifically though.

In regard to absolutes I find Plato to be very persuasive. I don't worship him though.

[dream_truth]

Rachel, here are some instances of rape being condoned in the bible:

Judges 5:30 They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil.

Judges 21:10-24 excerpt:"..and they gave them the women whom they had saved alive ..and yet they had not found enough for them....they instructed the children of Benjamin saying, "Go, lie in wait in the vinyards, and watch; and just when the daughters of Shiloh come out....every man catch a wife for himself"

Exodus 21:7-11 When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are....

Deuteronomy 20:10-18 states that the punishment for rape is the man has to pay the father 50 coins and he has to marry the girl he raped. Imagine that! If you get raped by someone, you end up having to be with your rapist for the rest of your life!

Zechariah 14:1-2 Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile

Numbers 31:7-18 in this story Moses says, "Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."

2 Samuel 12:11-14 Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. "

[ba2]

dream, this is exactly why I can't accept much of what is written as being literally true and accurate. For example, the stories where Moses tells his army that God gave the orders to kill and rape and keep the virgins for themselves was really nothing more than a military motivational tool. Did Moses say these things? Yes, I believe he did. Did God say these things? No, I don’t believe that he did. It was common for armies to rape and to capture booty, and acquire slaves. Convincing your army that it was God’s command gives more authority to the command and they will fight with a greater vengeance. Just like the jihad. Many of the stories of Moses make perfect sense if looked at in a military point of view.

[rachelengland]

Thank you DT for posting that..I appreciate it when people can back up their claims!

I agree with Ba2 as many times I do..these are mens action and not Gods..they are the criminals not Him...Take care R

[dream_truth]

I agree with both of you and this is why I dont believe in religion...because they generally end up using tactics like this and saying it is the words of god, when, in fact, it is the words of men.

Both of you take care and have a lovely evening!