True of False?
This statement is taken from a hypothetical conversation involving two men, roughly 2,000 years ago, discussing their opinions regarding the shape of the earth. Why is such a statement today seen as a logical statement in the area of religion but yet so clearly false when applied in another area?
2006-11-01 07:03:14 · 22 answers · asked by whitehorse456 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
in the hypothetical situation, there also was no proof....does this fact, make their statement that there could not be a true belief an accurate one?
2006-11-01 07:07:12 · update #1
wyvern131 and triviatm: You seem to be insinuating that the earth is something that is “real” and definable but that God isn’t…and therefore we can shape Him into our own image. Respectfully, I ask you is this accurate?
2006-11-01 07:23:39 · update #2
Lets see, False.
And that doesnt apply anywhere. I use the fact that 1,000 years ago people were arguing over simple scientific facts(like atoms) and when the facts were discovered well then one group was right and the other was wrong. So even if facts arent known today someday they will be and when that day comes then so does a singular truth.
2006-11-01 07:11:42 · answer #1 · answered by Zach 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The answer is false.
Truth is truth, u can't make it that way, it either is or isn't.
Don't think Christianity is like the opinion that all roads go to heaven. Jesus himself stated at John 4
22"(AA)You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for (AB)salvation is from the Jews.
23"But (AC)an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father (AD)in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.
24"God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship (AE)in spirit and truth
Knowing the truth in our faith requires effort, research, and fact just as it applies to everyday life.
2006-11-01 15:15:06 · answer #2 · answered by jaguarboy 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
false--I beleive that the truth does exist. That doesn't mean, however, that we are always able to determine what the real truth IS. Parts of the truth always seem to be hidden. Therefore, life functions a little like a courtroom, where conclusions are reached at the point of "beyond reasonable doubt," at least until some new bit of truth is revealed, at which point beleifs must be revised to fit the new knowledge.
2006-11-01 15:09:55 · answer #3 · answered by explorationredwing 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
False
2006-11-01 15:08:57 · answer #4 · answered by bobm709 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Unless you want to get existentialist, then the above statement is equally nonsense when applied to a 'religious' truth as when it is applied to a question of physics. Faith is by nature 'unprovable' otherwise there is no faith involved. The statement assumes there is no 'truth'. I personally believe that to be wrong.
Let's get more specific: The Christian 'truth' revolves around acceptance of Jesus as being the Son of God (and indeed part of the Holy Trinity Godhead). Christian 'truth' also states that Jesus Christ gave his (perfect) life as a sacrifice for everyones' sin.
On the other hand, Muslim 'truth' states that Jesus is a lesser prophet than Mohammed, that Mohammed is the last and greatest prophet and that the Koran is the word of God as spoken to Mohammed whilst he was in the wilderness.
As I understand it, Sikhism is an amalgamation of Muslim and Hindu 'truths' - Hinduism (as I understand it) in large parts can be based largely on myth, and appears to make little effort to seek 'truth' as in a reality fixed in an earthly frame. (Hinduism is a very varied religion taking a great many forms and encompassing Buddhism which is, I believe largely existentialist)
Most of the Christian 'sects' will differ from the 'mainstream' in that they will believe a different version of the 'truth' about Jesus (either NOT God incarnate, or NOT redeeming sinful man).
The point, I think is that there can only be one truth about Mohammed and one truth about Jesus, seeing as the 'truths' are contradictory. Hence you can believe what you like, but do you want to believe what isn't true??
I sincerely hope I have been even-handed and accurate in my descriptions. I intend to offend no-one - I don't claim to know the ins and outs of all religions and have merely stated (in simple terms) the faiths as I understand them to illustrate the point that personally I believe that 'truth' is what you should seek however elusive. Lets face it, if the truth is out there, you should probably do something about it! (works for 'Is the world flat?' as much as 'Is Jesus who he said he was?')
Hope this helps
2006-11-01 15:45:28 · answer #5 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
You're relating a hypothetical situation involving a physical mass - the Earth - to a hypothetical situation involving a deity, whom I think most people, regardless of their religion, will agree is not the same thing as a physical mass. So you're comparing apples to oranges and your question is pointless.
2006-11-01 15:19:28 · answer #6 · answered by wyvern1313 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
...I disagree. For instance, George Washington was the first US President. Thie is true for me and everyone else - what I believe about it is irrelevant. My belief or disbelief doesn't make it any less true.
...Let's consider Jesus of Nazareth, a man witnessed by the Scriptures, secular historians of His day, and millions of changed lives. He claimed to be God. He leaves you no wiggle room - He is either a liar, a lunatic, or He is Lord, as He said. If He is Lord, then that is true for everyone, and we had better listen to Him; you can choose to ignore Him or deny Him, but that does not make the fact that He is Lord untrue - it means you are rebellious, you deny the truth, and you do not want the truth. Whether or not you believe it is irrelevant - it is true, He is God. And the Bible says you are headed for Hell, if you do not trust in Him.
...I do wish all readers a blessed eternity, and I urge you to trust in Jesus as your savior.
...Whosoever will, may come.
2006-11-01 15:14:59 · answer #7 · answered by carson123 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As long as you don't believe a lie. You can believe that a rickety bridge is safe, but if you fall because it collapses under your weight, your belief was wrong, wouldn't you say?
To think that morality is relative might gain you standing with atheists, but the judgment of a righteous God may make you reconsider such a proposal.
2006-11-01 15:23:05 · answer #8 · answered by Jay Z 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
whitehorse456,
False. To me the question is rather obtuse. It isn't stated very clearly. It also walks on the line of subtlety, in that believe and belief make a common denomenator and cancel eachother out. Maybe something got lost in the translation?
2006-11-01 15:12:49 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because there are to many facets to religion. It is so difficult if not impossible to convert people to someone elses faith, because most are content were they are. Religion along with politics has always been the place for debate. Everyone thinks they are right, and everyone else is wrong.
2006-11-01 15:09:04 · answer #10 · answered by softfuzzyrabbit 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋