Absolute Truth

That is the hope. That is the essence of "teaching" and "learning."

However...your mileage may vary.

My favorite lesson from the movie Good Will Hunting: "What does it smell like inside the Sistine Chapel?" Language cannot convey that experience in any meaningful way, it can only hint in the general direction.
Eastern religion is all about the direct experience of the divine. I believe that western religion was based on verbal inner teachings, and then diluted in the same way as Confucianism from Taoism -- to become a set of social and family values, but the true inner meaning comes through for 'he that hath ears to hear'
 
Last edited:
But by that argument out goes the sacra doctrina of the Daoist, the Hindu, the Jew – and yet generations of saints and sages have found spiritual insight, luminosity and wisdom – indeed a sense of the sacred – permeates the words.
The Daoist and the Hindu speak strongly to me. Not the stuff about gods really but more for perspectives on life. I think some of Tao Te Ching is confusing but much of it relates to concepts of non-aggression and non-forcing to be happy in life which I can relate to. The main Hindu texts for me are the Advaitha teachings of Adi Shankaracharya. They are more for the spiritual and less about daily living.

To be honest, I look more to my inner thoughts and feelings as well. God is found within, not outside. The stuff regarding actual commands I generally ignore for the most part because any way to live for me should not be forced. I don't respect any higher spiritual being that would command me to do X and threaten me with Y if I didn't. That's sounds much like a protection racket. More likely to be created by men to control and profit from other men by using fear.
Ah, a common claim, but one no-one has been able to make stick. You're not the first. Marcion of Sinope (85-160AD) thought the same.
So you would say the killing, vengeful angry punishing Yahweh is the same as the loving forgiving Yeshua? I can't but, if you are able to, more power to you.
If you don't trust the Bible, how can you know anything about Jesus?
Jesus doesn't just appear in the Bible. To learn more about him, look to Islam. Next to Mohammed, Issa(Jesus) is the most important prophet in the Kuran. Personally, I found Allah to be pretty dark and couldn't finish the book but Jesus is still a big part of it.

In the end, while living on the Earth, it doesn't matter what one believes. Another can only be judged by their actions. This world that I was born into was one I did not willing come into. My mother had me by C-Section. I find this world pretty dark with strong tendencies to stroke the ego. I believe however I can be content in it, even despite my depression now. I dislike my low states but I am able to bear them.

Since my Oneness, it is hard to divide stuff into right and wrong. Being and non-being works better.

Things come. Things go. Enjoy what you can, materially or spiritually, if you wish while it's there. If it's not, then try to get it again if possible. I just try not to get so attached to something that I must have it. We have many desires but few needs.

Acceptance and surrender have been good guidelines for me but I realize they may not be for everyone. I try not to react with hateful actions when someone acts that way to me. Physical actions are easier to control than mental ones.

Suffering is an inescapable part of life for all. But also a necessary thing. If the world was always being what you wanted, then joy would lose all meaning. It is the loss and gain of life that keeps life meaningful. A reality with no uncertainty and no challenges would be truly boring and pointless. We can avoid becoming slaves to the emotions of our brain by facing the negative ones instead of trying to ignore or escape them. Facing the inner darkness when my brain/ego tried to apply fight/flight instead was what completely changed the nature of my mental illness radically.
 
The Daoist and the Hindu speak strongly to me.
But they, too, place obligations upon the individual?

The stuff regarding actual commands I generally ignore for the most part because any way to live for me should not be forced. I don't respect any higher spiritual being that would command me to do X and threaten me with Y if I didn't. That's sounds much like a protection racket. More likely to be created by men to control and profit from other men by using fear.
I think every sacra doctrina does not, more or less explicitly.

So you would say the killing, vengeful angry punishing Yahweh is the same as the loving forgiving Yeshua? I can't but, if you are able to, more power to you.
I would rather say one needs to understand the nature of the text – the genre, etc. There are ample commentaries to this end.
 
I've been pondering the concept of absolute truth in regards to religion recently and I'm curious about other people's understanding of this.
The source of all truth from God to us are the Manifestations of God, who are the Prophets / Messengers.

They, One and All, are annointed of the Holy Spirit, and It is from them and the Word they offer, that all our reality and truth becomes manifested.

Regards Tony
 
Thanks for all the insightful responses guys, they're really making me think about this topic in new ways. Since my deconversion, my favourite verse of the Bible is Pilate's "what is truth?" (John 18:38) which I think fits this topic nicely.
 
I don't like being "steamrollered" .. faith is between a person and G-d.

I totally get this! However this is one thing I've been contemplating since leaving Catholicism that poses a bit of a problem for me. If faith is between God and a person, how do we know what's true? Different religions say that their God or gods proclaim different truths that are totally conflicting. I think its noble when people try and unite practitioners of different faiths/promote interfaith peace by saying things like 'oh, well we all love God, we're just following him in our own unique ways" but that doesn't seem compatible with what many religions teach.

Like, in Catholicism Jesus is God and it's not okay to say that the Catholic God is the same as, say, the Baha'i God. Another complication is that how do I know what's the 'real' truth about a subject if my faith is completely personal and not mediated by an organized religion? For example, wine is super important to Catholicism but banned in Mormonism. Who's right, and if I don't have some authority to give me that truth, how could I ever figure it out?

That's why I think the issue of who has the real, absolute truth is so complicated when it comes to religion, because there are some black and white issues; for example, either alcohol is evil or its not.
 
Last edited:

In my view religions started with what they saw, heard, or understood to be true, from their perspective. And over time as allegiance to their order increased it moved from their perspective to their objective.

When new info comes to light folks have a choice, embrace the new or stay with the family and friends and community and tradition they have become used to. There is also those communjties.and families who take it as a personal affront if someone turns "traitor".to the cause and some reprecussions are in order to satisfy their need to hold their group together.

So sometimes even if one can see the whole picture...they refuse to give up the benefits of collective belief and encourage others to do the same (banning books, movies, discussion or research into other "truths" I mean heretical notions)

It all started out innocently it appears...but man turned them into criminal enterprises.
 
If life is the goal and not merely existence then there are virtues which are qualities of character vs. vices which undermine life and rob life of it's worth and quality. Humanity struggles with these things there is no doubt. If there is an absolute truth it's found in virtues that promote civilization and trust.

I'm not sure that nature and survival promote the best values for humanity. Existence is full of pitfalls. From my perspective what a person loves the most that he/she becomes. People are going to be what they want to be. I think relativity is a way of justifying anything to suit one's desires whereas the ends justify the means.

That to me is the absolute truth. If you want friendliness show yourself to be friendly. If you don't want trouble don't invite trouble. I think what a person is willing to live and die for that is what they will become. There's no guarantees of good results in life as far as I'm concerned. Everyone has to do their best to make peace or there is worse.
 
I believe that western religion was based on verbal inner teachings,
I want to say yes, but I'm not understanding what you mean by "verbal inner teachings."

Do you mean like, Jungian Cave psychology?: https://carljungdepthpsychologysite...ung-on-the-symbolism-of-the-underground-cave/

Which takes us back to the painted caves...

Or perhaps some form of guided meditation? I would think monasticism would have a form of this.

Otherwise, I'm not sure I'm seeing what you are trying to explain.
 
I would rather say one needs to understand the nature of the text – the genre, etc. There are ample commentaries to this end.
Understand is a loaded word. Especially when relying too much on second-hand information to find what is true for us. Personally, I found my god within. For the most part, he does not match Xtian, Islamic or Judaic concepts of God. There is closer matching with Eastern concepts and even that is not too perfect.

We all seek truth to be certain, but in this universe, where we know changing form is always being, and uncertain future is always being, what truth can really be understood as certain?
Maybe, "I know the sun will rise tomorrow" ? That is a belief, not knowledge. Unless we see its light tomorrow with the senses of our eyes, we cannot know. We try to predict the future based on past knowledge and imagining the future. Between now and then, an alien ship could teleport in and destroy the Sun! Or, if you wish a less exaggerated explanation, physical reactions inside the Sun that went undetected by our empirical devices and unpredicted by our spiritual diviners, could destroy the Sun.

Even something as simple as "I am" which I think we all can safely agree while relying on the present instead of future, comes with the difficulty of understanding this changing "I". Every single self-conscious being has a different view of what they are based on beliefs formed by life experiences that created or changed their beliefs. They also have a sense of what they believe this world we all share is. But, at the same time, each one, myself included, has an ideal of what that world should be. Should can be a dirty s-word particularly when we try to apply it forcefully on others.

Our unhappiness stems from the amount of difference created by changes in the mental and physical between "what is being" and "what should be". When we can learn to adapt to or accept that mostly uncontrolled change, we can improve the odds of finding more peace, if not happiness. Adaptation may not always be possible due to our mental and physical limitations. When it fails, we always have acceptance as a harder but also more reliable option.
 
If life is the goal and not merely existence then there are virtues which are qualities of character vs. vices which undermine life and rob life of it's worth and quality. Humanity struggles with these things there is no doubt. If there is an absolute truth it's found in virtues that promote civilization and trust.
I politely disagree. Not with the concept, I object to the name / classification / definition. ALL religions have only partial Truth, therefor all of them are only little truths. That includes science. They all *point* to (absolute) Truth, but at best they are all only little truths.
I'm not sure that nature and survival promote the best values for humanity. Existence is full of pitfalls. From my perspective what a person loves the most that he/she becomes. People are going to be what they want to be. I think relativity is a way of justifying anything to suit one's desires whereas the ends justify the means.
There are folks who guide themselves in such manner. Typically, the thoughtful, well intended ones, tend to be local managers - usually a good thing but can lead to some -not smart- decisions in certain situations. But these folks are caught up in bureaucratese, and that's where that philosophy takes you.
That to me is the absolute truth. If you want friendliness show yourself to be friendly. If you don't want trouble don't invite trouble. I think what a person is willing to live and die for that is what they will become. There's no guarantees of good results in life as far as I'm concerned. Everyone has to do their best to make peace or there is worse.
Apart from the verbiage, I agree. Reads a lot to me like the Golden Rule.
 
So you would say the killing, vengeful angry punishing Yahweh is the same as the loving forgiving Yeshua? I can't but, if you are able to, more power to you.
I would say demolition is so very much easier than building up.

What purpose does such demolition serve? Self aggrandizement, perhaps?

I'd rather weigh a person by what they do with what they know, rather than by what they lay claim to. That seems to me more in line with judging people by their character, not the color of their skin.
 
I'd rather weigh a person by what they do with what they know, rather than by what they lay claim to. That seems to me more in line with judging people by their character, not the color of their skin.
Yes. I don't believe promises have much value, beyond offering false hope, until they are actually fulfilled. The daily speeches of many politicians seeking favor seem to support that belief.
 
Back
Top