''what is truth''

[stuartd]

I hoped to address the verses that have come up here, but unfortunately I don’t really have the time to make particularly good posts - you seem to have the time to address other issues

• this thread is moving much too quickly for me to catch up. I do intend to discuss the Isaianic verse stuartd raised and the “lying spirit” though, because I think there are reasonable explanations for both of these verses. And I guess as a bit of a “shotgun approach”: peculiar descriptions in the Hebrew scriptures do not equate to prescriptions for Christians today.

Yahweh has a self-limited omnipotence and is foremost the meek servant of Man, not out of fancy, inferiority or inadequacy, but because anything else contradicts his very being.

Biblically - only the man/God was meek and lowly of heart and that lambishness was only for a short season until He returns to smash the nations into bits.
revelation teaches a range of things [waab] but lets just say he won’t be showing up to ask politely and meekly for the ‘‘keys to the city’’ so to speak

I was taught this for eighteen dark years of my life (and continue to hear it today). I am told that love is violent. That love is coercive. That the ways of empire are ordained. That Yeshua suffered a lambish life purely to satiate a cosmic bully’‘purely’’ I don’t believe that , until He returns to wreak destruction upon the world.

But the Bible, not any soppy sensitivities of mine, teaches very differently.as you understand it The Bible teaches that Yeshua (as He lived and taught) reflects the very essence of Yahweh. The Bible teaches that Yeshua (as He lived and taught) is our only example and Lord. The Bible teaches that it is by “the blood of the lamb and by the word of our testimony” that we overcome the wicked (Revelation 12:11). If we ever run to the Book of Revelation to find justification for a wrathful, violent, curb-stomping god we completely miss the point of war metaphors, both there and in Early Church literature, and we or yourselfcannot remain faithful to the book’s genre or our Lord Yeshua the Christ.depending on the theory one holds to The whole purpose of the Book of Revelation is to vindicate God’s sacrificial “lambish” way of conquering evil. and ultimately finalising said evil by force Men might be skeptical now, but one day all will see that it triumphs in the end.once they have been subdued

I do appreciate that you don’t exactly hold this view and that one can “reasonably” [exactly] misconstrue scripture to teach ‘‘a violent theology’’. using force and violence aren’t necessarily the same thing sometimes force isn’t violent

if someone’s life was in danger and the only way to protect them was to lie what would you do ?

The problem with all of your dilemmas is that you create a tragic and emotionally-intense situation where the only option is sinful. the problem is highlighted by some respondents who don’t have an answer because all they can offer is an ideology rather than a solution Your premises are entirely faulty and do not prove anything.what they ‘‘prove’’ is the inherent weakness and moral bankruptness of said theories You imply that we are forsaken by Yahweh and only have one option.you are assuming that is the case when there is zero implication intended But the truth is it’s not just you having to face these decisions. Yahweh is with us, weeping with us, but He is bigger than all of us and He does move providentially throughout our lives. I know that if I am given the control and strength to act as I believe in these situations (by not lying) Yahweh will be with me; guiding me and working in the heart of a lost brother who is willing harm. If we remain faithful to Yeshua’s teachings we can move mountains. Have faith brother.
I most assuredly DO have ‘‘faith’’ , having ‘‘faith’’ does not in any way negate the moral dilemma one may find oneself in

points taken yet

[Melchizedek]

The Hebrew word Ra

encompasses a concept that is something other than simply moral lack. A better definition is: that which is destructive. But as we have seen, destruction can be used in the hands of God for an ultimately benevolent purpose.

Evil isn’t lack of morality. It’s lack of God. If God’s presence is creation and life, his absence will be destruction and death.

That’s what I said! Evil is not moral lack, it’s the agent of destruction, not the lack of God. It’s merely one of the tools that he created to accomplish his purposes. I’ll choose to take the word of scripture that says God created evil.

[Paidion]

I think the major point is that situational ethics do apply here, and that it is a mistake to rigidly define certain actions as sin.It seems fairly obvious from the biblical examples that it is not always ok to lie, but that sometimes it clearly is.

No, situational ethics should never be condoned. This moral theory has often been used to justify adultery (“under the circumstances, it was okay”). Morality is not subjective. It is objective. Moral principles apply to all people, not just to some.

As I see it, moral principles can be arranged in a hierarchy. For example, the principle that one ought to save a life if possible, takes precedence over the principle to always tell the truth. Therefore it is always right to lie in order to save a life (not merely in some situations).

So moral hierarchalism is quite different from situational ethics. In the former, if one carries it out consistently, then no moral imperatives are ever broken. In the latter, they always are whenever “circumstances require it.”

[stuartd]

I think the major point is that situational ethics do apply here, and that it is a mistake to rigidly define certain actions as sin.It seems fairly obvious from the biblical examples that it is not always ok to lie, but that sometimes it clearly is.

No, situational ethics should never be condoned. This moral theory has often been used to justify adultery (“under the circumstances, it was okay”).

Morality is not subjective. It is objective. Moral principles apply to all people, not just to some.

agreed but I think you are splitting hairs with situational ethics and moral hierarchalism , I believe in the principle of moral hierarchy but that can sometimes depend on the situation
As I see it, moral principles can be arranged in a hierarchy. For example, the principle that one ought to save a life if possible, takes precedence over the principle to always tell the truth. Therefore it is always right to lie in order to save a life (not merely in some situations).

but back to the topic at hand everyone ? , what is truth ?

[AUniversalist]

Moral ethics is subjective, it is never objective and has changed through the ages to accommodate the society or civilization in order to provide equality, safety and ability to live a long life.

In the days of Moses:
It was morally wrong to wear different fibers in your clothing in the Days of Moses.

Today:
It is not morally wrong but a standard of efficient cost efficient clothing for everyone and not just the privileged.

In the days of Moses:
It was not morally wrong to sell your daughter into slavery as a servant to another house.

Today:
Today, slavery is abolished, and child labor laws prevent a parent from profiting from their child’s labor and anyone who does this, is condemned.

[stuartd]

Moral ethics is subjective, it is never objective and has changed through the ages to accommodate the society or civilization in order to provide equality, safety and ability to live a long life.

In the days of Moses:
It was morally wrong to wear different fibers in your clothing in the Days of Moses.

Today:
It is not morally wrong but a standard of efficient cost efficient clothing for everyone and not just the privileged.

In the days of Moses:
It was not morally wrong to sell your daughter into slavery as a servant to another house.

Today:
Today, slavery is abolished, and child labor laws prevent a parent from profiting from their child’s labor and anyone who does this, is condemned.

I think your point is quiet valid, morals tend to be quiet fluid and to some extent this is understandable but I don’t think its entirely correct either , just because a thing is morally ok hundreds of years ago *doesn’t make it right * forever
therefore morals are largely objective

[firstborn888]

just because a thing is morally ok hundreds of years ago *doesn’t make it right * forever
therefore morals are largely objective

Your post shows the opposite is true. Look - almost all theists believe an objective moral standard exists - yet they will also disregard whatever they want and easily explain it away. For example, Jesus is recorded as saying: “Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.”

I have met zero (read: 0) people who take this at face value. They subject it to their perceptions of what is right. For example one may say “I can’t give my car away because Paul said ‘But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel’ and if I give away my car I can’t get to work and provide for my own and so it CAN’T be God’s will to give my car away”.

Apologists go to work explaining what this REALLY means then everyone nods and says “of COURSE - that’s it!”. So it’s very easy to side step what many see as the objective moral standard and essentially ignore (ie: reinterpret) anything one feels is unreasonable.

[AUniversalist]

I think your point is quiet valid, morals tend to be quiet fluid and to some extent this is understandable but I don’t think its entirely correct either , just because a thing is morally ok hundreds of years ago *doesn’t make it right * forever
therefore morals are largely objective

Largely subjective you mean.

[stuartd]

I think your point is quiet valid, morals tend to be quiet fluid and to some extent this is understandable but I don’t think its entirely correct either , just because a thing is morally ok hundreds of years ago *doesn’t make it right *

forever
therefore morals are largely objective

Largely subjective you mean.

NO I mean that your point is valid e.g. morals are affected by the culture of the day ect [correct] I don’t believe all morals are set in stone, I think a degree of variation is not just understandable given our ‘‘condition’’ and all the variables in any given situation but also allows some freedom shall we say but my point of morals being objective is also valid and indeed truthful in that if you are too fluid you could rightly argue that its ok to murder everyone called Stuart because it is suddenly the culture of the day in other words there must be some degree of solidity in morals
or the society we find ourselves in would end in moral chaos

[stuartd]

just because a thing is morally ok hundreds of years ago *doesn’t make it right *

forever
therefore morals are largely objective Your post shows the opposite is true. how so Look - almost all theists believe an objective moral standard exists - yet they will also disregard whatever they want and easily explain it away. For example, Jesus is recorded as saying: “Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.”

I have met zero (read: 0) people who take this at face value. They subject it to their perceptions of what is right. For example one may say “I can’t give my car away because Paul said ‘But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel’ and if I give away my car I can’t get to work and provide for my own and so it CAN’T be God’s will to give my car away”.

Apologists go to work explaining what this REALLY means correct yet by you saying ‘‘just take it at face value’’
you are in effect doing the very same thing point taken

then everyone nods and says “of COURSE - that’s it!”. So it’s very easy to side step what many see as the objective moral standard and essentially ignore (ie: reinterpret) anything one feels is unreasonable.

I’m not so sure those who interpret it in such a way are doing so based on how one ‘‘feels’’

[stuartd]

the moral direction of this post is also related to ‘‘what is truth’’ in that morals should also be based on the concept of
‘‘what is true’’

[stuartd]

putting it another way if you don’t believe in any form of solidity in truth and or morals then it is true to say , anything goes

[firstborn888]

putting it another way if you don’t believe in any form of solidity in truth and or morals then it is true to say , anything goes

Again - I believe there is an absolute truth and absolute morals, but I (and no other human) knows what that means, exactly. We (our understanding) is the fluid part. What difference does it make if moral rules are etched in diamond forever? It changes nothing. In spite of many believing that the bible is absolute morality “anything goes” pretty much describes some phases of historical Christian inhuman behavior.

Empathy and conscience are the basis for what I consider “high morals”. Try and adhere to whatever eternal moral creed you wish - without those two things it’s all worthless.

[firstborn888]

I’m not so sure those who interpret it in such a way are doing so based on how one ‘‘feels’’

One definition of “feel” is: “to believe, think, or be of the opinion”. Another example of how even a written word can be very fluid.

[AUniversalist]

putting it another way if you don’t believe in any form of solidity in truth and or morals then it is true to say , anything goes

Again - I believe there is an absolute truth and absolute morals, but I (and no other human) knows what that means, exactly. We (our understanding) is the fluid part. What difference does it make if moral rules are etched in diamond forever? It changes nothing. In spite of many believing that the bible is absolute morality “anything goes” pretty much describes some phases of historical Christian inhuman behavior.

Empathy and conscience are the basis for what I consider “high morals”. Try and adhere to whatever eternal moral creed you wish - without those two things it’s all worthless.

Indeed. Let us look at the Law which was the ‘etched’ morals of society, and how Jesus and the disciples spoke of it. Jesus never preached the Law, He did not espouse the ‘Do Not, Do Not, Do Not’, He said, “Love the Lord God, Love your neighbor, Love as I love.”

He absolutely was telling us an absolute truth there.

[Cindy_Skillman]

We love as Jesus loves by following His lead. That is to say, walking right at His side, listening to Him as we go along, and doing as He says. We don’t always know what to do from scripture, since it is limited and doesn’t address every situation in which we may find ourselves. We need the Living Word in the person of the Paraclete. It’s the only way to find and remain in the way that leads to life.

Scripture, as is being demonstrated here, can be variously interpreted. It can be rightly interpreted only with the direction of the HS – not by individual interpretation, but the interpretation of God, given to us through His approved channel; the Holy Spirit of Truth.

[stuartd]

We love as Jesus loves by following His lead. That is to say, walking right at His side, listening to Him as we go along, and doing as He says. We don’t always know what to do from scripture, since it is limited and doesn’t address every situation in which we may find ourselves. We need the Living Word in the person of the Paraclete. It’s the only way to find and remain in the way that leads to life.

Scripture, as is being demonstrated here, can be variously interpreted. It can be rightly interpreted only with the direction of the HS – not by individual interpretation, but the interpretation of God, given to us through His approved channel; the Holy Spirit of Truth.

again I don’t disagree with the general gist of this point , but again I see a potential problem in fact historically speaking this very
approach has lead to some of the worst spiritual abuses . and that is the point - that you can take 100 Christians in a room
giving them the same scenario [ALL claiming to be ‘‘being lead of the Holy Spirit’’] yet pretty much all of them arriving at different conclusions ? lets say ‘‘for the sake of the argument’’ you are giving them a scenario that isn’t addressed in scripture
I can understand how and why GOD may ‘‘lead’’ some to a slightly different position given for example differences in personality ! but that is vastly different from a scenario where everyone is ‘‘authoritatively’’ arriving at completely different conclusions , how exactly is that being lead by the spirit of truth ?

[stuartd]

I’m not so sure those who interpret it in such a way are doing so based on how one ‘‘feels’’

One definition of “feel” is: “to believe, think, or be of the opinion”. Another example of how even a written word can be very fluid.

point taken and while I don’t disagree with the idea that there are a range of variables that affect the ‘‘way we see it’’ the gist of what I am trying to get across with truth is also applicable to morals , there must be some flexibility
but there also must be [or should be] some consensus

[Cindy_Skillman]

again I don’t disagree with the general gist of this point , but again I see a potential problem in fact historically speaking this very
approach has lead to some of the worst spiritual abuses . and that is the point - that you can take 100 Christians in a room
giving them the same scenario [ALL claiming to be ‘‘being lead of the Holy Spirit’’] yet pretty much all of them arriving at different conclusions ?

Yes, Stuart, but as evidenced by this thread, you can say precisely the same thing about 100 Christians each advancing their own favorite interpretation of a scripture. And what are these spiritual abuses of which you speak? The witch burnings (and burnings of pretty much anyone else whom the authorities found troublesome) were scripturally mandated, after all.

When we are each diligently attempting to hear from God (understanding that anything we hear must agree with the words and spirit of scripture), and when we respect and love one another and each of us admits to our own weakness and ability to be misled, and when we come to a consensus in a spirit of love and brotherhood in all humility, then yes, I think Jesus is capable of being our Good Shepherd.

Perhaps you’ll say that this is an impossible situation to achieve, but I have seen God achieve it. Nothing is too difficult for Him, after all. No wonder Jesus prayed that we would be one so that the world would know that the Father had sent Him. Nothing short of a miracle can MAKE us one, but God’s up for that. (And interestingly, we almost never arrive at different conclusions.)

[firstborn888]

there must be some flexibility
but there also must be [or should be] some consensus

Human rights activists of all stripes have done a great job establishing a moral consensus. Starting with William Wilberforce (my hero) it really did start to universally sink in that all conscious living creatures should be treated fairly and without cruelty. Even though we have far to go - I’m an optimist and see how far we’ve come. For some who may not be aware of William’s work : amazinggracemovie.com/