All truths are gods truth

[_Z_]

God is All Truth, man knows some truth


ah i see what you mean about mans fallibility. But if someone does know a truth even a simple truth then it is equally true as when god knows it.
e.g.

seek and yee shall find [christian]
or
seek it and you cannot find it [buddhist]

both are true in their own context, the christian truth is that if you look in the new testament you will find the truth according to jesus. The buddhist truth is that e.g. Say you lost an item, then you keep looking for it, the more you look then the more it seams to evade you, then if you stop looking altogether it suddenly becomes apparent. Both then are gods truth!


what makes god-truths true and other truths untrue – if there are other truths?
Nothing. What we could say is that if something is true, then it is part of 'the truth' which is a premise i am coming from. In the end we either have no truth [which is absurd, as all of existence would be a lie and it is clearly not, at least in being apparent and real by simply being there even if it is a 'true illusion'] or the truth, [at least ultimately] as if we only have splintered and scattered truths then they have no overall basis upon which to call themselves truth.


All truth is completely different to all truths
to have all truth then surely there must be completion and the results of thing be found. Thence we would need an absolute end to all things which i think is impossible, indeed in this sense gods lifespan itself would need to come to an end for its truth to be known yet he is immortal and never ends?
To know all truth of existence god would have to know the result of all future events – but what if there is no end! We may assume that there could be an end to the universe yet eternity and all its natures would remain. So god can know all truths but not all truth – a subtle difference, but an important one i feel.


Forgive me if you feel i am insulting your religion as i assure you i am not nor have ever purposefully meant to, i am a seer and i make observations that ask questions or answer them 'tis all.


Thank you... _Z_

[Dondi]

I can agree that some truth can be found in most every religions and that the Truth has been shattered into a million pieces and that some pieces reflect more truth that others, but that also the refractions of pieces tend to distort certain truths (through a glass darkly).

The task in our journey is to fit the pieces back together as best as we can, with what pieces we do find, and formulate the Truth as best as we can understand it.

[_Z_]

Dondi,


do you believe in 'truth' then? In my journey i find truths [in the context stated in my last post] but i find that truth itself is like the stilled wind, as soon as there is movement then it becomes part of the world of partiality where there is no actual truth only philosophical truths and falseness all blended in the winds. This is where people like Jesus and the Buddha are most beneficial in that they can find a place of stillness in their mind and see through the glass more clearly, so as thomas said; it is a matter of translation. More than that, many people have moments of clarity it is what we all seek is it not, and in those moments it is as if we are linked to a stream of conciousness that helps to bring us to a given truth.


So there seams to be a guider out there, perhaps some are more closely linked than others yet surely the god of love would give wisdoms freely!!!!


it may be so that people like Jesus are an extension of this.

.

[Dondi]

I believe there is one actual Truth.

As I said, we see through the glass darkly. But I think that Truth in our own understanding can become clearer as we journey to seek It. There are paths that allow the Truth to get lighter and their are paths that make the Truth darker. The question is therefore one of discernment. How to know which path to follow?

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Z,

interesting thread.

i would, naturally, disagree

by the by.. you have mischaracterized my traditions teachings.. we don't teach "seek and it cannot be found" per se, the "it" is something very specific and it could be "god" or "soul" or "beginning". that said, we also teach "seek and you shall find" with regards to the Truth of the Dharma and the Truth of Liberation.

metta,

~v

[_Z_]

Dondi,


only one truth hmm yes, and it's naked i.e. Nothing in existence is absolute, thence one cannot say a truth without it being affected by other things.


Vaj,


namaste


i know that both meanings are stated in your tradition, it was simply an example of seamingly opposite truths. If i had used both cases from the same religion it would not have had the desired effect. i am trying to show how there are truths to all traditions, and of course fallabilities.

i presume that you disagree with the idea that there is only one truth.

.

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by _Z_

Dondi,


only one truth hmm yes, and it's naked i.e. Nothing in existence is absolute, thence one cannot say a truth without it being affected by other things.


Vaj,


namaste


i know that both meanings are stated in your tradition, it was simply an example of seamingly opposite truths. If i had used both cases from the same religion it would not have had the desired effect. i am trying to show how there are truths to all traditions, and of course fallabilities.

i presume that you disagree with the idea that there is only one truth.

.

I guess I look in linear terms;

2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 5

These two expressions cannot both be right. One of them is wrong. Now if you can demonstrate that somehow they can both be right, then I might be inclined to believe it.

[Matt Langley]

Originally Posted by wil

Is this true? In February are the hottest days says the South African. No in the winter it is cold, says Canadian, you are wrong...no you are wrong....

Man cannot fly, G-d parted the waters and put one above us..., going to the moon is impossible....G-d put a light in the night sky...

All of it appears to be conjecture, perspective based on current understandings, our society...

Why do we think G-d couldn't have talked to Buddha, Mohamed, Moses, Lao Tzu, Ezekial, Jesus? Why couldn't they all be right at their level of understanding, for the people they spoke to, for the people that thier words and thoughts speak to today?

I would agree that your statement of:

All of it appears to be conjecture

Is true to many things... however Jesus said:

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

To me this seems pretty clear that if you beleive Jesus was a prophet (and not the messiah) then you still are not in agreeance with his teachings. He said he is the only way to the Father, the only way to heaven.


In this specific case I would have to agree with Dondi:

One of them has to be wrong. Or perhaps they are both wrong. But they cannot both be right.

They seem to contradict. I strongly beleive that no contradictions can exist, either one is wrong, both are wrong, or they are misunderstood. As far is it goes on the Jesus side I think his statement is pretty blunt and hard to misunderstand.

So someone who says they are a Muslim and a Christian and only regard Jesus as a prophet would not in fact be a "Christian", at least in my classification of the word.

Now someone who claims to be a Muslim and a Christian that beleives jesus is in fact the messiah, though beleives in Muslim teachings also may be possible, I'm not familiar enough with Muslim teachings to know if something completely contradicts Jesus being the messiah.



Just some of my thoughts

[wil]

Originally Posted by Matt Langley

I would agree that your statement of:

Quote:
All of it appears to be conjecture
Is true to many things... however Jesus said:

Quote:
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
To me this seems pretty clear that if you beleive Jesus was a prophet (and not the messiah) then you still are not in agreeance with his teachings. He said he is the only way to the Father, the only way to heaven.

Namaste Matt,

Now to be totally correct and not interject conjecture, must we not say...

"Between 30-50 years after his death, Jesus was purported to say, by someone who didn't know him in life..'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.' "

Now the question still could very well be...He starts out with I AM, so is he talking as Jesus the Messiah, son of G-d, or from his I and the father are one self? As we all know I AM is the way the truth and the life...and in the next verses he goes on to say that seeing him is seeing the father, knowing him is knowing the father.

If we were taking it as gospel that those were his words..the KJV and other older versions have by me, instead of through me...now I don't know why the switch, I don't translate Greek, Coptic or Aramaic so all leave this to others...but we also know that a reference to oneself as a Jew is also referencing ones nature. He was asked how will we know where to go, and how to get there. And the answer is I am the way, the truth and the life...could he be indicating to follow his nature, follow his works in his footsteps?

I still say it is conjecture, my understanding is suitable for me, and your understanding is suitable for you and they may or may not be suitable for each other....

Therin lies the glory.

[Matt Langley]

Your point about Bible versions is definately valid... Here is the same verse from "Young's Literal Translation" which is a version of the translation of the bible attempting to do a "literal" translation as it's name says.

Jesus saith to him, `I am the way, and the truth, and the life, no one doth come unto the Father, if not through me;

"no one doth come unto the Father, if not through me;" Is the part that sounds out fairly obvious to me, though I do value your assessment of the context of the time. There are many other scriptures that take on a different meaning when in true context of the time (such as the turn the other cheek scripture).

Between 30-50 years after his death, Jesus was purported to say, by someone who didn't know him in life

Fair statement... however in history and science books we don't always append "Between 300-2000 years after the event, these people were purported to say". Instead we challenge the historical accuracy of the author and the writing, there are many tests and these tests have been applied to the gospel books of the bible. From what I have studied it is very possible to assume the statements from these books as valid and accurate, though I would highly recommend you or anyone else to research the validity of these books on your own. There are many resources and many studies done challenging whether or not those books are a valid and I have seen more than s ufficient proof (for myself) to beleive in their accuracy. Just as I would read a certain history book and deem it valid enough of a representation.

I still say it is conjecture, my understanding is suitable for me, and your understanding is suitable for you and they may or may not be suitable for each other....

Therin lies the glory.

Not to mean anything offensively but therin lies the glory for you. Your statements are very subjective. On the contrary I beleive in things as being objective. To me saying that if a beleif is good enough for the person then it must be valid and true is false. To me that is very subjective and I beleive subjectivity has it's place in evaluating situations, though I don't beleive in reality being subjective.

For example, say we had a friend that we both valued. Say that friend went off into a land and we never heard from them for years. Finally we get word back that our friend is dead. Now lets say we both heard two different reports of them, one says they did good deeds and helped many people. Lets say the other said they did horrible deads and killed and hurt many people (this often is the same view of military or political leaders from different perspectives).

Lets say you chose to beleive that they were good and did good things and conversely I chose to beleive they were bad and did bad things. Now if reality and beleifs are subjective then whatever we each beleived would be true and accurate... but it isn't. Now the words "bad" or "good" attached to the deeds are relative and that indeed is subjective; however, what the person did was not subjective, their actions and results were not subjective even if people's views on them are. Those are there even if we choose not to seek them.

Not disauding your view, if anything I value that you have your view and stick with it, just relating that not everyone beleives in things being subjective.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Z,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by _Z_

i know that both meanings are stated in your tradition, it was simply an example of seamingly opposite truths. If i had used both cases from the same religion it would not have had the desired effect.

it would, however, be correct Then again, i often have the impression that preciseness isn't as desireable a quality as effect in the venue of public discourse.

i presume that you disagree with the idea that there is only one truth.

.

Naturally

of course, such a thing is quite dependent upon ones point of view.

metta,

~v

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by Dondi

I guess I look in linear terms;

2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 5

These two expressions cannot both be right. One of them is wrong. Now if you can demonstrate that somehow they can both be right, then I might be inclined to believe it.

Namaste Dondi,

I can show you how both of these are incorrect.. would that be sufficent?

your question is based on the presumtion of a Base10 maths system.. however, there are other systems that are used... such as Binary. in the Binary system, both of your equations are False, thus, they are the same in that regard

metta,

~v

[Matt Langley]

your question is based on the presumtion of a Base10 maths system.. however, there are other systems that are used... such as Binary. in the Binary system, both of your equations are False, thus, they are the same in that regard

However those are not binary numbers so this wouldn't be a binary system. That would be like trying to translate egyptian with english characters.

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by Matt Langley

However those are not binary numbers so this wouldn't be a binary system. That would be like trying to translate egyptian with english characters.

Namaste Matt,

that is correct. The issue is the assumptions upon which are deductions rest and how these very things are, often, not accurate representations of the ontological reality we experience.

the idea of 2+2=4 is only consistent and accurate within its own frame of reference and it only makes sense from within this framework as well.

metta,

~v

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste Dondi,

I can show you how both of these are incorrect.. would that be sufficent?

your question is based on the presumtion of a Base10 maths system.. however, there are other systems that are used... such as Binary. in the Binary system, both of your equations are False, thus, they are the same in that regard

metta,

~v

You've made my point, regardless of what base system is used. I did say that there was a possibility that both could be wrong. If we use binary, octal, or even hexidecimal, they would both be wrong.

It is true that both would be false, if that is the kind of truth you are looking for. But they are not the same. They do not equate. They are empty set.

My original premise still stands.