• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Are we wasting our lives?

ecco

Veteran Member
When are you going to present some evidence to support your assertion "that Truth is all of God"?
I can use that statement as good evidence to say it is not from man.

Man always demands proof, when the entire creation they exist in, is proof enough of intelligence.

I would suggest that you re4ad more carefully, but reading comprehension is not your problem. Your problem is that when in a corner, you try to wiggle out. One of your methods is to misrepresent what someone has said.

I did not demand proof as you asserted. I asked when you were going to present some evidence to support your assertion "that Truth is all of God"?
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Thank you for the question. I see truth itself is the greatest test we can use. Consider that Truth takes many forms and in this thread we are exploring the way to the ultimate Truth and what it may be.

One example is we use courts of law to determine what is the truth. We question, use Logic and reason to determine with Justice as to what is the Truth. To do that we start at the very foundation of truth which is trustworthiness. If we trust the truth is being told, then we can determine the Truth has been found and the case is determined.

So as for the Truth about a Messenger of God and I use Baha'u'llah as an example. He was in his mid 30's when he accepted the Bab and became a Bab'i, before he received and gave His own Message. Thus he had a life before giving the Message as did all other Messengers like Jesus and Muhammad. Baha'u'llah asked us to, "Ask of the city wherein I dwelt, that thou mayest be well assured that I am not of them who speak falsely."

If we choose to do this and find that a person is Truthful, then we can trust what they tell us is also the truth. From there we can listen to what they tell us and again in justice and reason determine if what is given is plausible.

Regards Tony
Thanks for that.

I'm looking for what you think is the quality that truth has which identifies it as truth. For me that quality is correspondence with objective reality, the world external to the self, the place where facts are found ─ which means truth is held to an objective standard. That's why in most cases the video evidence will be preferred to witness recollection, as our traffic courts daily show.

Is that your view too? Or do you use some other test to determine whether something is true or not?
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Movies like Avatar contain some deep spiritual meaning, even if the writer and producer are not aware of what it is.
Ooh. Woo...

Jack and Jill
Went up the hill
To fetch a pail of water
Jack fell down
And broke his crown,
And Jill came tumbling after.​

...contains some deep spiritual meaning, even if the author was not aware of what it is.

Ditto...
Three blind mice. Three blind mice.
See how they run. See how they run.
They all ran after the farmer's wife,
Who cut off their tails with a carving knife,
Did you ever see such a sight in your life,
As three blind mice?​



This post contains some deep spiritual meaning, even if I am not aware of what it is.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Thus I attempt to put forward the Truth to you and it is what this thread is about. Are we wasting our lives pursuing follies, all the while thinking we are on the path to finding truth?
I don't believe I am on the path to "finding truth." When I hear something, or I am delivered some bit of what is perceived to be knowledge, I pursue finding out whether or not that piece of knowledge has its due course of evidence and logical/rational/real support at its base. I am in the business of finding out whether knowledge I can acquire in this world is useful and properly whole. And by "whole" I again mean that its sources have been vetted, and it withstands scrutiny and falsification. Information that does not meet sufficient criteria is either discarded, or filed for further examination as more evidence is awaited. This method of thinking helps me avoid all sorts of what you might call "sin", believe it or not. For example, "gossip" - I simply don't do it. And this is precisely because any information I hear from a source must be properly vetted before I accept it, and I will not spread any information I do not feel has properly met my standards of vetting. And so, when I am told some "juicy" bit of information about someone, that information is merely filed away, as if it were not true, to await further solidifying evidence. And that is just one, simple example.

From my position in this debate as mentioned in the OP, I have found the Messengers to tell only the Truth and now know it is not a lie that they have told us. In this age we are informed that Science is a gift from God to explore the reality of this creation.
And I cannot help but to hold the opinion that this is a very foolish perspective. To my mind, a simple question destroys this "science is a gift" idea immediately. And that is: why did God wait so very long to deliver this "gift?" It seems very much more like man stumbled upon the thing called "science" himself. That is very much what the evidence we have actually indicates. And there is no evidence you will ever find or can ever point to that will indicate that science is a gift from God. None. Not one iota. And the evidence that man stumbled onto the modes of thinking and acting that comprise "science" is all too easy to point out. Humble beginnings, needing to be spread via like-minded individuals coming together and hashing out the "rules" for this line of thinking they kept using to discover things around them. If it was a gift, then it was certainly one marked "some assembly required," no?

In saying that, I am not saying what everyone thinks they said is necessarily the Truth. that would be up to each individual to decide upon.
Then you are decidedly describing fictions and imaginings that are labeled "Truth." Because when I talk about something being "true", it is because it is something that no person (in their right mind) can deny. For instance, that gravity works upon us is true. It is as true for me as it is for you, and we share this notion, regardless whether we want to share it or not. Do you see the difference? If what you are calling "Truth" is malleable enough that anyone can decide for themselves what it is, then I honestly don't even believe it qualifies to be called "truth," does it? Look up any standard definition of the word "truth," and you will never see any mention of it being a thing "up for interpretation." Which is why I insist we are using different definitions of the word "truth," because the definition I rely on matches very well to what one could normally expect that word to mean - and yours does not.

Religion for thousands of years told us we would come to a day where knowledge will be increased, that God would gift us all knowledge, all that after a time where the meaning of the religious scriptures would be sealed and hard to understand.
Here another problem - "gift us all knowledge." We certainly are nowhere near having acquired "all knowledge." How long does the "unwrapping" of this gift go on, do you think? It is like a slow burn kind of gift? And you mention the "religious scriptures" being sealed and hard to understand - almost as if you believe that the acquisition of scientific knowledge of our reality is somehow tied to strange and incoherent passages within scripture that will become clear once we have enough scientific understanding. "Science" does not care about scripture. It can't, by definition. Do you understand that? This is not something up for debate - unless you are using an entirely different definition of the word "science" also. Are you?

Example that scripture has sealed meaning;

Daniel 12:4 4 "But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased."
This is not an "example," I'm afraid. This is a naked, unsupported assertion. A claim. One with no supporting evidence whatsoever. An actual example would be something that didn't make sense before we discovered something about the world, and once it was discovered, the passage became so clear as to leave NO ROOM FOR AMBIGUITY OR INTERPRETATION after that point. I know that you do not have such an example. You can't - because the texts you speak of were crafted by men, and science was utilized and solidified by men of an entirely different color. The two things have absolutely nothing to do with one another, and I believe it a fool's errand to attempt to force them so like the edges of puzzle pieces from two separate puzzles.


John 16:"13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."
Once again, not an example. Just some words. And this quoting you are doing, when it does not, at all, actually support your case is how I can know that your understanding is definitely not something I want any part of. And I can assess further that your worldview apparently offers you no worthwhile knowledge if these are the types of things that are on the "cutting edge" of the things your religion's adherents discuss amongst themselves.

It is up to you to pursue or not to pursue what is the Truth in those passages.
Again - the passages offer NOTHING TO PURSUE. Can you not see that? All they do is make simple claims. They offer no way to match the statements up with reality and verify their truth content. None. And so they should rightfully be ignored. They are nothing but the meanderings of some people who thought they sounded wise. There is truly nothing there - and you help to prove this to me also with your "whatever it means to you" attitude. If it can truly mean whatever it means to me - then I tell you - it means nothing, and, ironically, you MUST accept my assessment as being "the truth" for myself. You must... in accordance with your own twisted "logic."
 
Last edited:

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle. Without recapping the entire conversation, you essentially claimed that you believed something because it was recorded. Are you now backing down from that assertion?

You have read what you wanted to see in the comment.

I believe in the recorded word, as it was written with 100% Truth, by a 100% trustworthy source.

That is what I have found.

Regards Tony
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
I seem to attract quite a few warnings for trying to convert people to my faith, even when I say repeatedly that I can not, do not have the ability to convert any person and do not want to convert any person.

My stance is that I acknowledge a higher power that gifts knowledge to any heart that power chooses to give knowledge to. My part is to share the knowledge given to my heart.
Perhaps you should consider whether sharing unsolicited knowledge from your heart might also be called proselytizing.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Ooh. Woo...

Jack and Jill
Went up the hill
To fetch a pail of water
Jack fell down
And broke his crown,
And Jill came tumbling after.​

...contains some deep spiritual meaning, even if the author was not aware of what it is.

Ditto...
Three blind mice. Three blind mice.
See how they run. See how they run.
They all ran after the farmer's wife,
Who cut off their tails with a carving knife,
Did you ever see such a sight in your life,
As three blind mice?​

This post contains some deep spiritual meaning, even if I am not aware of what it is.

Yes, I see it does.

Regards Tony
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Perhaps you should consider whether sharing unsolicited knowledge from your heart might also be called proselytizing.

I see Jesus was first crucified for that, all the while Jesus was just giving a Message that G_d appointed Him to do.

The same happened to many that accepted that Message.

Regards Tony
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
I see Jesus was first crucified for that, all the while Jesus was just giving a Message that G_d appointed Him to do.

The same happened to many that accepted that Message.

Regards Tony
It sounds like you are saying that you are theologically driven to share the unsolicited knowledge of your heart. So if you consider that whatever the driving force, when you share unsolicited information about your religious beliefs, other term that proselytizing. Coming to terms with that possibility may help you understand why you may have received warnings.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It sounds like you are saying that you are theologically driven to share the unsolicited knowledge of your heart. So if you consider that whatever the driving force, when you share unsolicited information about your religious beliefs, other term that proselytizing. Coming to terms with that possibility may help you understand why you may have received warnings.

Then there is other ways to look at it. It ties into this thread about are we wasting our time. If the heart can not offer the Truth about Faith, where will we find it? No faith driven by worldly senses lasts, or can be proven to be of G-d.

Thus I ask why did you comment on this thread? You were invited to this thread to talk about the ultimate truth, your post says you accepted that invitation and thus I ask why have you have chosen to concentrate on another topic, why waste time? If we want to talk about the truth in faith, then it must come from the heart and things will be said that other have not considered and that others may reject. That is how a public open forum works.

From a faith side and in line with this OP, if Jesus the Christ was a source of Truth from G_d, then a lot of people have a lot to answer for and that is just a plain and logical truth of how the history of faith has unfolded.

Thus if you do wish to talk about how faith and Science may indeed lead to the same source, or offer thoughts why they do not, please continue. It may be, we can then not waste time on perceived subjective issues.

Regards Tony
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Thanks for your post, good to see you offer some thoughts.

Now the tricky bit :) Maybe this is where I have to say IMHO this is the evidence first. But really it is not my opinion, as it is the evidence or it is not.

I put the evidence forward for this age. It is Baha'u'llah.

There is a post above how Baha'u'llah can be the evidence, it is about being trustworthy and truthful.

Regards Tony

You put a middle man as evidence? The existence of middle-men is actually counter-evidence. Just because of simple logic.

Ciao

- viole
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You put a middle man as evidence? The existence of middle-men is actually counter-evidence. Just because of simple logic.

Ciao - viole

One my see them as man, but they are the appointed 'Self of God' amongst us. They are born of a different Spirit, the Holy Spirit.

But that is an entire Truth one must pursue for themselves, only if they choose to.

If you wish to pursue, there is 5 levels of Spirit that maintains this creation.

Regards Tony
 
Top