Absolute Truth

[juantoo3]

As you say, mankind can make up any rules and morals they choose. But how can this change the truth? When George Bush said, lets go and bomb Iraq, does that make it right just because a government sanctioned it.

OK, but did you or did you not say "Is the absolute truth, a moral truth? Could the greatest commandments fit the bill?"

I get the sense, please correct me if I'm mistaken, that you are attempting to lead me or anyone into agreeing that YOUR moral truth is absolute, but mine isn't?

That would totally undermine and negate the meaning of absolute.

My truth, as I understand it, is subjective. So is yours, so is everybody's, because none of us can see the totality of Truth.

The lesson of the Blind Men and the Elephant drives this point home to those with understanding.

If we look to God, rather than to man's ideas of morals, Jesus said, two commandments are greatest. To love God, and to love all our neighbours as we love ourselves. Are they really the greatest thing we can do, whether we follow Jesus or not?

That is one way of looking at it, a very important way, but not the ONLY way. If that way works for you, and assists you in establishing a personal relationship with G!d, it is not my place to tell you that you are wrong. Do you live your morals? I don't need to know the answer to that question, but you do.

Romans 2, Paul tells me that others, non-Christians, have G!d's Law "written on their hearts." This is reinforced with the Jewish principles of Noahide Law, even the Jews knew there were other righteous peoples in the eyes of G!d. We are ALL His children. Those two "Greatest Commandments" coincide nicely with all of the major world faiths, they all teach the same essential teaching.

What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. All the rest is commentary. -Hillel

 

[muhammad_isa]

That would totally undermine and negate the meaning of absolute.

My truth, as I understand it, is subjective. So is yours, so is everybody's, because none of us can see the totality of Truth..

The "Absolute Truth" can only be the words of G-d.
..any thing else is subjective, as you say.

..but then we might argue as to what constitutes G-d's word.

..We are ALL His children. Those two "Greatest Commandments" coincide nicely with all of the major world faiths, they all teach the same essential teaching.

What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. All the rest is commentary. -Hillel

Agreed upon .. "Love your neighbour as yourself."

 

[juantoo3]

The "Absolute Truth" can only be the words of G-d.
..any thing else is subjective, as you say.

..but then we might argue as to what constitutes G-d's word.

If by "G!d's Word" you mean speaking the universe into existence, then I would agree. Otherwise, words often develop altered, confused, even changed meanings. Anything symbolic (such as alphabets) cannot be absolute, let alone Absolute.

 

[Modesty]

I was watching a video on YouTube yesterday and the topic of absolute truth came up. It seems I can't get away from this topic haha, it is still one that I'm pondering a lot. The YouTuber was talking about how truth is 'that which corresponds to reality'. Which is of course an obvious definition, but thinking about it in relation to religion is interesting. Another quote I've been thinking about is from Fr. Mike of Ascension Presents on YouTube, which is that 'the only reason to believe something is if it is true' (paraphrasing). It's why I am so so careful about which religion I align myself with next. I don't want to get involved with something if it isn't true, if it doesn't correspond with reality.

 

[EricPH]

The reason is moral constructs vary culturally. Native Americans learned the hard way that horse stealing, a time honored Native tradition, was punishable by hanging in the world of forked tongues.

Cannot be absolute if it varies...by definition.

Truth is truth, no matter what anyone chooses to believe. The creation of the universe is history, and you can't change history. Was the universe and life created by God, or did it happen by natural causes?

If seven billion people believed the wrong truth, numbers won't make wrong beliefs right.

Did God create the universe and life with knowledge, power and a purpose? If, and only if there is a God, there will be; 'One Absolute truth' that God will recognise.

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

I like this, the peace of God, which transcends all understanding.

To this though Baha'u'llah offered this to humanity.

"The Great Peace towards which people of goodwill throughout the centuries have inclined their hearts, of which seers and poets for countless generations have expressed their vision, and for which from age to age the sacred scriptures of mankind have constantly held the promise, is now at long last within the reach of the nations. For the first time in history it is possible for everyone to view the entire planet, with all its myriad diversified peoples, in one perspective. World peace is not only possible but inevitable."

Yet it is up to us to embrace what God has offered.

"The well-being of mankind, its peace and security, are unattainable unless and until its unity is firmly established. This unity can never be achieved so long as the counsels which the Pen of the Most High hath revealed are suffered to pass unheeded..." Bahá’u’lláh

 How Humanity can build that peace has been offered in quite some detail. It is behind a spoiler, if any persons interested

Spoiler: Foundation Actions for Peace

The unity of the human race, as envisaged by Baha’u’llah, implies the establishment of a world commonwealth in which all nations, races, creeds and classes are closely and permanently united, and in which the autonomy of its state members and the personal freedom and initiative of the individuals that compose them are definitely and completely safeguarded.

This commonwealth must, as far as we can visualize it, consist of a world legislature, whose members will, as the trustees of the whole of mankind, ultimately control the entire resources of all the component nations, and will enact such laws as shall be required to regulate the life, satisfy the needs and adjust the relationships of all races and peoples.

A world executive, backed by an international Force, will carry out the decisions arrived at, and apply the laws enacted by, this world legislature, and will safeguard the organic unity of the whole commonwealth.

A world tribunal will adjudicate and deliver its compulsory and final verdict in all and any disputes that may arise between the various elements constituting this universal system.

A mechanism of world inter-communication will be devised, embracing the whole planet, freed from national hindrances and restrictions, and functioning with marvelous swiftness and perfect regularity.

A world metropolis will act as the nerve center of a world civilization, the focus towards which the unifying forces of life will converge and from which its energizing influences will radiate.

A world language will either be invented or chosen from among the existing languages and will be taught in the schools of all the federated nations as an auxiliary to their mother tongue.

A world script, a world literature, a uniform and universal system of currency, of weights and measures, will simplify and facilitate intercourse and understanding among the nations and races of mankind.

In such a world society, science and religion, the two most potent forces in human life, will be reconciled, will cooperate, and will harmoniously develop.

The press will, under such a system, while giving full scope to the expression of the diversified views and convictions of mankind, cease to be mischievously manipulated by vested interests, whether private or public, and will be liberated from the influence of contending governments and peoples.

The economic resources of the world will be organized, its sources of raw materials will be tapped and fully utilized, its markets will be coordinated and developed, and the distribution of its products will be equitably regulated.

National rivalries, hatreds, and intrigues will cease, and racial animosity and prejudice will be replaced by racial amity, understanding and cooperation.

The causes of religious strife will be permanently removed, economic barriers and restrictions will be completely abolished, and the inordinate distinction between classes will be obliterated.

Destitution on the one hand, and gross accumulation of ownership on the other, will disappear.

The enormous energy dissipated and wasted on war, whether economic or political, will be consecrated to such ends as will extend the range of human inventions and technical development, to the increase of the productivity of mankind, to the extermination of disease, to the extension of scientific research, to the raising of the standard of physical health, to the sharpening and refinement of the human brain, to the exploitation of the unused and unsuspected resources of the planet, to the prolongation of human life, and to the furtherance of any other agency that can stimulate the intellectual, the moral, and spiritual life of the entire human race.

All the best to all people, Regards Tony

 

[juantoo3]

Was the universe and life created by God, or did it happen by natural causes?

Yes

Truth is truth, no matter what anyone chooses to believe.

Reality is, no matter what anyone chooses to believe.

If seven billion people believed the wrong truth, numbers won't make wrong beliefs right.

Did God create the universe and life with knowledge, power and a purpose? If, and only if there is a God, there will be; 'One Absolute truth' that God will recognise.

Which G!d?

The problem is, "truth" is a moving target. I guarantee, whatever you think truth is, your grandfather thought differently, his grandfather thought differently, your grandchild will think differently and your great great grandchild will think differently.

I bet you haven't looked up the story of the blind men and the elephant. The bottom line is that no two people see truth in the same way. Even in a highly structured cult, and I'll pick on JWs for a moment as an example, no two people see the same thing always and at all times - even if they are brainwashed.

Your truth is not my truth, and my truth is not your truth.

Not all that long ago, it was truth that cigarettes were healthy, and smoking was promoted. We see it differently today, but the plain fact is that was truth circa 1960 +/-. At one time it was undeniable - the earth is flat and has 4 corners, the Bible says so! (and authority high in the Vatican argued as much.) At one time it was undeniable, the sun goes around the earth, the earth is the center of the universe - and anyone who disagreed was anathema. I've pointed out other cases, even more recent, where "science" posited undeniable truth - that ultimately was denied.

Lawyers bend truth all the time. Crackpots invent truth, and change it at will. I've even called truth a greased piglet that everyone is trying to catch. Philosophically, "truth" is a minefield.

So I can only disagree with your statement. I know where it is coming from, and I appreciate your resolve. But the truth is; no, that statement is not correct.

The only Absolute is Reality. Everything else, and I do mean everything, is interpretation. G!d is Real, G!d is Absolute - that does not mean that what any one or even group of us thinks about the matter is somehow greater truth, and why I keep coming back to living the experience, the reality, because the words are only symbols. We are so caught up in our menus, we forget to eat the meal. We are so focused on the finger pointing we don't admire the moon it is pointed at.

It doesn't matter what you believe, it matters what you do with what you believe. At the Great White Throne Judgement, we will be asked "what did you do for these my children?" We are all G!d's children. If all you have in your defense is to say, "well G!d, I argued about this and I pointed out how those folks were wrong about that"...and G!d will say, "Did you feed the hungry in your presence? Did you clothe the naked in your presence?" It is your heart that will be judged, not your brain.

Matthew 7:
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

 

[juantoo3]

To be proud of virtue, is to poison yourself with the antidote.
-Benjamin Franklin

 

[Modesty]

"The well-being of mankind, its peace and security, are unattainable unless and until its unity is firmly established. This unity can never be achieved so long as the counsels which the Pen of the Most High hath revealed are suffered to pass unheeded..." Bahá’u’lláh

I've decided to stop replying to your other thread, as I feel bad constantly disagreeing with you, but this is my thread so I feel justified in responding to this haha. In this future world government, what will happen to people who do not wish to become Baha'i? What will happen to ancient religions and non-monotheistic spiritualities that are deeply rooted in local, not universal, tradition? Such as Shinto, the beliefs of indigenous Australians, etc.?

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

I've decided to stop replying to your other thread, as I feel bad constantly disagreeing with you, but this is my thread so I feel justified in responding to this haha. In this future world government, what will happen to people who do not wish to become Baha'i? What will happen to ancient religions and non-monotheistic spiritualities that are deeply rooted in local, not universal, tradition? Such as Shinto, the beliefs of indigenous Australians, etc.?

You are welcome anytime, as are all Modesty, only through the clash of differing opinions can the spark of absolute truth be found.

Firstly the Governments that initiate the Lesser Peace will not be Baha'i, it is a very distance future where the Baha'i Faith will become a majority. When the Baha'i Faith does become a Majority, the Baha'i Wrirings give great importance on the voice of the minority, that voice is to be given greater representation in any parliament.

I see the Bahai Writings have an administrative system that is both for administering the affairs of the Faith and for Judging on Baha'i Law. I do not see it will be the Governing body of any Nation.

Sen Has recently put his thoughts on to this forum, you may wish to pursue what Sen has to offer on this topic.

"Church and State" (200%) as a free PDF file, and the state of play today

I have uploaded my 2005 Master’s dissertation, "Church and State" here: https://senmcglinn.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/church-and-state-2005b.pdf Since 2005, Bahai Studies has moved on. What was once somewhat controversial is now accepted as common sense: the separation of Church and State is...

www.interfaith.org

Regards Tony

 

[Modesty]

You are welcome anytime, as are all Modesty, only through the clash of differing opinions can the spark of absolute truth be found.

I'm glad. Even though we have completely different opinions, I always find what you have to say interesting.

the Baha'i Wrirings give great importance on the voice of the minority, that voice is to be given greater representation in any parliament.

That's good to hear!

Sen Has recently put his thoughts on to this forum, you may wish to pursue what Sen has to offer on this topic.

Thank you, I'll have to give that a read through.

 

[TheLightWithin]

I have started another thread, Injustice, Anger and Forgiveness. We seem to have moved away from searching for an absolute truth

I was going to say "Oh I will look for that thread" but apparently I had found it and replied to it ages ago

 

[EricPH]

I bet you haven't looked up the story of the blind men and the elephant.

It's a very old story. No matter what conclusions the blind men come to, if we saw them, we would know they are touching different parts of an elephant.

Not all that long ago, it was truth that cigarettes were healthy,

Calling something true, can only make it true, if it is true.

Could God love each and every one of us as he loves himself? Can there be any greater reason to create children in the image of God.

That statement is either true or false, regardless as to what people might believe. Can we do anything greater than love God; and love all our neighbours as we love ourselves?

 

[TheLightWithin]

Not all that long ago, it was truth that cigarettes were healthy, and smoking was promoted. We see it differently today, but the plain fact is that was truth circa 1960 +/-.

Was it actually truth? Or just an idea people believed? Some believed?

 

[Faithfulservant]

Was it actually truth? Or just an idea people believed? Some believed?

Considering they pushed them on our military during wartime... nice little packs of Lucky Strikes in the MREs. My grandpa would buy cigarettes for cheap at the commissary up until his death. You can also look at old commercials and see how they were marketed to the people. So they get people hooked on them that never smoked a day in their life because if the government was pushing them then they must be ok right??

They did the same with Oxycontin most recently..

 

[Modesty]

Was it actually truth? Or just an idea people believed? Some believed?

Yeah, exactly, and I think that's the difference between absolute truth and just what people believe. Truth is truth. I mean, people have believed a myriad of things over the history of humanity lol. Cultural concepts are not absolute truths.

 

[Vasu Devan]

Was it actually truth? Or just an idea people believed? Some believed?

Is there a difference between truth and 'a believed idea'? Isn't belief in X the basis on which the truth of that X is taught and spread? We all have an experience and, based on our beliefs, we accept its explanation as true if we believe the source of its explanation or deny much as lie/mistake if we don't. True personal experience is the only truth a mind can know, instead of believe. So much further pondering on some experience may be formed and accepted with information that comes from secondhand and non-personal experience.

Children are taught what science says is true in schools. Depending on the school, the class may be presented the information merely in the form spoken or written forms. Actual experiments of the subjects may not be done. They trust the teachers and the teachers themselves may only know from secondhand sources. It is the physical experiment that proves it as true to us, not the words or lectures on it. Yet how many times have we as individuals actually tested what science claims in true/untrue? Instead of just believed because we trust? Magazines may use the claim of something being true due to it being proven in a study as a way to build trust in the info of an article but commonly use weak studies as a basis for a claim. Even so-called proven studies may actually contain false information by the experimenter(s) if they feel they may gain something by promoting the falsity.

Science teaches us that Man has been to space. While I believe that, I have to admit it is only belief and not knowledge. I have read written text and heard others speak on it. I have seen pictures and watched video related to that subject. All secondhand knowledge. I, myself, have never been to space. Have you?

Pretty much everything is subjective and there is almost nothing I can believe is true for all humans. Maybe stuff like "all living beings need energy to stay alive" or somesuch. Depending on the truth of what "alive" is, and the truth of what a "virus" is, even that is not certain since viruses, I have read, can exist in a non-living state indefinitely until they become active in a host. This is why it is so hard for me to accept that there is any absolute truth.

 

[RJM]

Even so-called proven studies may actually contain false information by the experimenter(s) if they feel they may gain something by promoting the falsity.

But this is subject to checks and balances by peer review -- by others being able to repeat the experiment and get the same results

 

[Vasu Devan]

But this is subject to checks and balances by peer review -- by others being able to repeat the experiment and get the same results

True. But there is no central group for peer review in science really. Any other scientist is free to question or research the results of another's but until it is challenged and proven otherwise, the original study stands as it is presented. There may be no reason for another scientist to further explore another's study, especially if doing so will not put food on the table. Think Big Pharma and the misinformation they created re certain dangerous drugs by hiding study info and paying off doctors and scientists.

Trusting sources is again at work here. If we believe the source, we do not question.

 

[Vasu Devan]

But this is subject to checks and balances by peer review -- by others being able to repeat the experiment and get the same results

Here is a summary of the 'replication crisis' in science:
There is a replication crisis in science. It is an ongoing methodological crisis in which the results of many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to reproduce. Because the reproducibility of empirical results is an essential part of the scientific method, such failures undermine the credibility of theories building on them and potentially call into question substantial parts of scientific knowledge.


The replication crisis has been most widely documented in psychology and medicine, but it has also been observed in other fields, such as biology, economics, and physics. A 2016 survey of over 1500 scientists by the journal Nature found that 70% of researchers reported that they have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments.

There are a number of possible explanations for the replication crisis, including:

• Publication bias: Journals are more likely to publish studies with statistically significant results, even if those results are not real. This can lead to a file-drawer problem, where studies with negative results are not published, which biases the literature towards positive results.
• Small sample sizes: Many studies are conducted with small sample sizes, which can make it difficult to detect real effects.
• HARKing: HARKing stands for "Hypothesizing After the Results are Known." It is a practice in which researchers adjust their hypotheses or statistical methods after seeing the data, in order to make their results more significant. This can lead to false-positive results.
• Lack of transparency: Researchers often do not disclose all of the details of their methods and data, which can make it difficult for other researchers to replicate their findings.

The replication crisis is a serious problem for science, but it is also an opportunity to improve the scientific process. Researchers are working to develop new methods and standards to address the causes of the crisis. For example, there is a growing movement towards open science, which involves making all research data and methods publicly available. This can help to reduce publication bias and make it easier for other researchers to replicate findings.

It is important to note that the replication crisis does not mean that all science is wrong. Many scientific findings have been replicated and are well-established. However, the crisis does mean that we need to be more critical of scientific findings and to be aware of the potential for bias.

Can go in depth at: Wikipedia