Transcendent Truth

[Sunstone]

You're right! How foolish of me! I blame my youthful naivity.

That's what us elders are here for, Standing Alone -- to provide clarity.

So then how come getting everyone to agree that love is the plan a problem?

Unfortunately, many people lack the wisdom to love. This has been a major hindrance to the universal acceptance of oral sex in the West.

 

[lunamoth]

...or what "love" is.

Here's a definition I like.



1If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames,[b] but have not love, I gain nothing. 4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

 

[lunamoth]

I have no idea.
How can one say with anything other than guess work that it is not from reason?

One can accept the axiom that there is a higher truth revealed to us.

Huh?
Perhaps you needs define 'force' for the purposes of this thread.

I dont' really think it needs to be defined. Coercion: making someone do something against their will. Use of violence, threats of violence, deprivation, to make another do what you want them to do.

I have never claimed that religion is free of succcumbing to the temptation to use force and coercion to try to make others accept a truth. However, part of the set up for the discussion was to explain that such use of force actually shows a lack of faith in a transcendent truth. Using force to 'win' is admitting that your truth might not stand without you...so it's not transcendent...it's based on you.

For a group of people who think that God is behind them to hear their 'enemy' throw their Gods philosophy back at them is a rather nice slap in the face?

I do not know why people use logical fallacies.
Perhaps to assist in driving a point home?
Perhaps because they do not know any better?

Or maybe they were building upon the idea that the foundational truth of their declaration is transcendent and can't be subject to the demands of any worldly power. I think they were intelligent and educated men, and not just trying to use superstition to taunt their oppressors.

 

[lunamoth]

So then how come getting everyone to agree that love is the plan a problem?

Because you can't make or force love (or any transcendent truth). Its power is solely in attraction, in being chosen rather than forced.

 

[lunamoth]

That's what us elders are here for, Standing Alone -- to provide clarity.

luna ---> :slap: <---Sun

 

[lunamoth]

BTW, the context of Williams' talk was addressing the idea that having religions convictions is one of the major sources of conflict in society and so the world would be better off if we would just leave all religious expressions out of the public discourse.

The complete talk is here:

Archbishop of Canterbury | Sermons and Speeches

From the introduction:

Lecture given at the Building Bridges Conference in Singapore
Thursday 6th December 2007​

If you believe what some commentators have to say, one of the major factors provoking conflict in our world is the sheer fact of different religious convictions: in our own country, it seems to be assumed by many that if we could only get the relation between &#8216;faith communities&#8217; right, social harmony would inevitably follow. And conversely, any expression of a belief that one&#8217;s own religious loyalty is absolute, any statement of the belief that I, as a Christian or a Muslim or a Buddhist or whatever, am speaking the truth, is regarded as threatening and unacceptable. Surely the problem lies with this contest over the truth; surely, if religious people would stop speaking about truth and acknowledge that they were only expressing opinions and conditional loyalties, we should be spared the risk of continuing social conflict and even violence.​

But what this hopeful fantasy conceals is an assumption that talking about truth is always less important than talking about social harmony; and, since social harmony doesn&#8217;t seem to have any universal self-evident definition, it is bound to be defined by those who happen to hold power at any given time &#8211; which, uncomfortably, implies that power itself is more important than truth. To be concerned about truth is at least to recognise that there are things about humanity and the world that cannot be destroyed by oppression and injustice, that no power can dismantle. The cost of giving up talking of truth is high: it means admitting that power has the last word. And ever since Plato&#8217;s Republic political thinkers have sought to avoid this conclusion, because it means that there is no significance at all in the witness of someone who stands against the powers that prevail at any given time; somehow, political philosophy needs to give an account of suffering for the sake of conscience, and without a notion of truth that is more than simply a list of the various things people prefer to believe, no such account can be given.


So the fact of disagreement between religious communities is in fact crucially important for the health of our common human life. Because these communities will not readily give up their claims to truth in response to the appeal from the powers of the world around to be at one for the sake of social harmony, they testify that power, even when it is apparently working for the good of a majority, cannot guarantee that certain values and visions will remain, whatever may happen. But does this concern for truth mean that there is always going to be damaging conflict wherever there is religious diversity? What about the cost of religious diversity to &#8216;social cohesion&#8217; &#8211; to use the word that is currently popular in British political rhetoric? Does disagreement about truth necessarily mean the violent disruption of social co-operation? I shall be arguing that it does not, and that, on the contrary, a robust view of disagreement and debate between religious communities may (unexpectedly?) play a major role in securing certain kinds of social unity or cohesion.

 

[standing_alone]

Unfortunately, many people lack the wisdom to love.

But why? My God, they have tons books and guides for this sort of thing.

 

[lunamoth]

But why? My God, they have tons books and guides for this sort of thing.

But we prudes avoid the adult section of the bookstore.

 

[standing_alone]

Here's a definition I like.

I like this one:

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
love

(l&#365;v) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.

[emphasis mine]
love - Definitions from Dictionary.com

It's shorter, more to the point, and easier for me to understand.

 

[lunamoth]

I like this one:


[emphasis mine]
love - Definitions from Dictionary.com

It's shorter, more to the point, and easier for me to understand.

The 'sense of underlying oneness' is the heart of it, I think. :yes:

 

[standing_alone]

But looking back on this:

The highest "good" is love. Love, in theory, would be the gatekeeper for peace. The only problem is getting everyone to agree at the same time that's the plan.

Maybe love isn't the "highest 'good'"--at least in what is being discussed here. Maybe something else would suffice. Like, perhaps, mere compassion or consideration...



Or maybe, more honestly, I don't know what I'm talking about.

 

[McBell]

One can accept the axiom that there is a higher truth revealed to us.

I have seen no evidence to support such a claim.

I dont' really think it needs to be defined. Coercion: making someone do something against their will. Use of violence, threats of violence, deprivation, to make another do what you want them to do.

So which word are you defining?
Coercion or force?

I have never claimed that religion is free of succcumbing to the temptation to use force and coercion to try to make others accept a truth. However, part of the set up for the discussion was to explain that such use of force actually shows a lack of faith in a transcendent truth. Using force to 'win' is admitting that your truth might not stand without you...so it's not transcendent...it's based on you.

That is all well and good until it is your "truth" that says to kill others.

Or maybe they were building upon the idea that the foundational truth of their declaration is transcendent and can't be subject to the demands of any worldly power. I think they were intelligent and educated men, and not just trying to use superstition to taunt their oppressors.

Yeah, there is that.
However, I fail to see how this shows anything other than there are more than a handful of people who believe it.

 

[lunamoth]

Maybe love isn't the "highest 'good'"--at least in what is being discussed here. Maybe something else would suffice. Like, perhaps, mere compassion or consideration...

Well, I think love is a higher good, one that does not start and end with us but with God. No matter how I/we fail, love does not.

Compassion, loving kindness, forgiveness, self-lessness, non-violence, healing, listening, feeding, these are all aspects of love.

But, it does not end with what any of us think. The point is to stay in dialogue about Truth.

 

[lunamoth]

So which word are you defining?
Coercion or force?

Again, these words have definitions and they are both related to the idea of making someone comply to your standard of good. I'm sorry but I don't see where you are going with this.

That is all well and good until it is your "truth" that says to kill others.

Yeah, that would be a 'truth' I'd strongly reject. There may be some who think killing is good, but I'd say that's really twisted and wrong.

Yeah, there is that.
However, I fail to see how this shows anything other than there are more than a handful of people who believe it.

It shows that that some people believe there is a reason for conscientious objection to the powers that be.

 

[McBell]

Again, these words have definitions and they are both related to the idea of making someone comply to your standard of good. I'm sorry but I don't see where you are going with this.

I was wondering if you are using a specific definition and ignoring the rest of the definitions or if you are ignoring the fact that everyone uses "force" to get what they want.

Yeah, that would be a 'truth' I'd strongly reject. There may be some who think killing is good, but I'd say that's really twisted and wrong.

So is there only one "absolute truth" or are there perhaps many?

It shows that that some people believe there is a reason for conscientious objection to the powers that be.

Ah.
I understand now.

 

[lunamoth]

I was wondering if you are using a specific definition and ignoring the rest of the definitions or if you are ignoring the fact that everyone uses "force" to get what they want.

Really? We may all (or most all) use force and coercion (if you take an extremely broad use of these to include persuasion and non-violence) to get what we want, but I disagree that we must. And as for governments, yeah, we needs laws and consequences (punishments) to keep civilization. But as individuals we do not need to use force.

So is there only one "absolute truth" or are there perhaps many?

There's one, but none of us have all of it.

 

[McBell]

Really? We may all (or most all) use force and coercion (if you take an extremely broad use of these to include persuasion and non-violence) to get what we want, but I disagree that we must. And as for governments, yeah, we needs laws and consequences (punishments) to keep civilization. But as individuals we do not need to use force.

i never said that we "had" to use force.
I merely mention the fact that we do.
Is not persuasion merely a nice term for manipulating someone into agreement?

There's one, but none of us have all of it.

So it is possible that violence may well be included and justified within this absolute truth?
and that perhaps because the person(s) with the violence part(s) do not have the rest to put it into context they use violence in a manner inconsistent with the whole absolute truth?

 

[lunamoth]

Is not persuasion merely a nice term for manipulating someone into agreement?

Only if you think there is no value at all in reason.

So it is possible that violence may well be included and justified within this absolute truth?
and that perhaps because the person(s) with the violence part(s) do not have the rest to put it into context they use violence in a manner inconsistent with the whole absolute truth?

I don't think so. I don't know how violence can ever be construed to be 'good.'

But I understand your objection (it is an objection, right?). If someone thinks they are carrying out God's will and God tells them to kill then they've used their 'truth' to justify their actions. Yeah, that has happened and will happen, and it is a corruption and, ironically, shows a lack of faith in God.

Our claim to truth can't ever be used to justify killing others, although it may be cause for us to suffer and die upholding it.

 

[McBell]

I don't think so. I don't know how violence can ever be construed to be 'good.'

But I understand your objection (it is an objection, right?). If someone thinks they are carrying out God's will and God tells them to kill then they've used their 'truth' to justify their actions. Yeah, that has happened and will happen, and it is a corruption and, ironically, shows a lack of faith in God.

Our claim to truth can't ever be used to justify killing others, although it may be cause for us to suffer and die upholding it.

So basically you are saying that there is absolutely no possible way that violence can/could/would be justified within the one and only true absolute truth?

 

[lunamoth]

So basically you are saying that there is absolutely no possible way that violence can/could/would be justified within the one and only true absolute truth?

OK, I worded that poorly. No, I'm not saying that and I think I've said in more than one post that people use religion or their idea of 'truth' and many other things to try to justify violence.

One point of the talk is that it is not rational to cut all religious viewpoints out of public discourse, or to suggest that the main problem facing social harmony in the world is conflict between religious ideals. It goes on to suggest that a religiously plural society preserves a diversity that is healthy for social unity. Religious truths, including the truths of non-theistic religions, preserve an important aspect of our search for justice and peace, and that is a holding out against the idea that the highest truth is power, against the idea that might makes right, and uphold the idea that the voice of the conscientious objector is important and meaningful.