truthfulness

[DrFree]

Hi, mee,

Originally Posted by mee

Consider what is involved when we are called upon to decide whether to speak the truth or not.

The hypothesis that truth is somehow natural and that untruth is man's perversion of the natural, is based on what I think is a mistaken assumption that the function of language is accurate communication.

I think instead that Mr. Keaton (in Dead Poets Society) was closer to the truth when he said, "The purpose of language is to woo women!", though we might generalize this somewhat to "the purpose of language is to get others to do what we want".

This hypothesis not only explains humanity's penchant for untruth, it also explains our desire for truth, since when we act on faulty descriptions of the world, the results are rarely satisfactory.

The ethical question we should ask then is not "Why be truthful?" but "Why not be untruthful?" One approach to an answer is that untruthfulness breaks down the bonds of community. (Oddly, the opposite hypothesis, that truthfulness builds the bonds of community, seems much more difficult to establish.)

This is a corollary of the more general claim that immoral behavior harms community. There is even some evidence, in the form of computer simulations, that abstract communities gradually reject and eliminate such behavior in the course of community evolution.

Of course there is the ultimate ethical question: why should I choose a stronger community when it conflicts from my personal interests? The idealist's answer is that such a community is better to live in. The pragmatist's answer is "what goes around comes around".

Namiste

[mee]

We live in an era in which religious untruth abounds.

many people in these "last days" have a form of godly devotion but prove false to its power. 2 timothy 3;

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by mee

We live in an era in which religious untruth abounds.

many people in these "last days" have a form of godly devotion but prove false to its power. 2 timothy 3;

I'll give you a truth.....for free too!!

You quote Timothy 3 as tho it were an authentic and genuine source yet it is not. Scholarly analysis of the text of it clearly demonstrate 2/3rds it to be of a writing style not contemporaneous with Paul but absolutely typical of the style used 2 centuries later. So it would be entirely fair to consider it a political insertion of the establishment of the time. Have you considered that? Maybe not but let me guess what you will say... erm....how about.."We live in an era in which religious untruth abounds." We do indeed... and none more so than from the JW cult!!

Tao

[mee]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I'll give you a truth.....for free too!!

You quote Timothy 3 as tho it were an authentic and genuine source yet it is not.

Tao

many reject the word of God as you mentioned, but many do not


It was recognized and used by early writers and commentators, including Polycarp in the second century C.E.



The two letters to Timothy have been accepted from the earliest times as written by Paul and as being part of the inspired Scriptures.


The early Christian writers, including Polycarp, Ignatius, and Clement of Rome, all agree on this, and the letters are included in the catalogs of the first few centuries as Paul’s writings.


One authority writes: "There are few N[ew] T[estament] writings which have stronger attestation . . . Objections to authenticity must therefore be regarded as modern innovations contrary to the strong evidence from the early church."


New Bible Dictionary, second edition, 1986, edited by J. D. Douglas, page 1203.

[mee]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I'll give you a truth.....for free too!!

You quote Timothy 3 as tho it were an authentic and genuine source yet it is not.

Tao

This is just as the Bible foretold. It says: "In the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, . . . lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power." (2 Timothy 3:1-5) Living among such people day in and day out, true Christians are under constant pressure to conform to this kind of mentality and lifestyle.


yes its all happening just as the inspired book of timothy tells us.

[Alex P]

Originally Posted by gp1628

People think they are truthful. But they also think they are eating well, sleeping well, get along with everyone, and are above average drivers. Actually making an effort to track yourself thru the day would surprise most people more than they would want to be.

That is where diary or blog or something comes in great! lol.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by mee

New Bible Dictionary

New!! That just means re-hashed to include a few more ways of it "being in the good book".

Timothy 3 includes the following :

1. Instructions on Public Worship (2:1-15) a. Concerning Prayer (2:1-7) b. Concerning the Role of Men and Women (2:8-15) 1) Men: Pray in a Holy Manner (2:8) 2) Women: Quiet Conduct (2:9-15) 2. Instructions on Church Leadership (3:1-13) a. Qualifications of Overseers (3:1-7) b. Qualifications of Deacons (3:8-13) 3. Summary (3:14-16) a. Conduct of the Church (3:14-15) b. Hymn to Christ (3:16) B. Guarding the Truth in the Church (4:1-16) 1. In the Face of Apostasy (4:1-5) 2. Timothy’s Personal Responsibilities (4:6-16) 3. Spiritual Exercises (4:7-9) C. Dealing with Groups in the Church (5:1–6:10) 1. Men and Women, Young and Old (5:1-2) 2. Widows (5:3-16) a. Older Widows (5:3-10) b. Younger Widows (5:11-16) 3. Elders (5:17-25) a. The Reward of Elders (5:17-18) b. The Reputation of Elders (5:19-20) 1) The Reputation of Elders Protected (5:19) 2) The Sins of Elders Publicly Rebuked (5:20) c. The Recognition of Prospective Elders (5:21-25) 4. Slaves (6:1-2) 5. False Teachers (6:3-10)
If you just read through the "agenda" and ask yourself is this the words of Jesus or is it the work of some control freak churchmen/politicians, (the two were indistinguishable back then), then its plain and simple. But Mee, oh Mee, OH Mee!! As long as the watchtower says its good, you aint about to see.

Tao

[mee]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

New!! That just means re-hashed to include a few more ways of it "being in the good book".

Timothy 3 includes the following :

1. Instructions on Public Worship (2:1-15) a. Concerning Prayer (2:1-7) b. Concerning the Role of Men and Women (2:8-15) 1) Men: Pray in a Holy Manner (2:8) 2) Women: Quiet Conduct (2:9-15) 2. Instructions on Church Leadership (3:1-13) a. Qualifications of Overseers (3:1-7) b. Qualifications of Deacons (3:8-13) 3. Summary (3:14-16) a. Conduct of the Church (3:14-15) b. Hymn to Christ (3:16) B. Guarding the Truth in the Church (4:1-16) 1. In the Face of Apostasy (4:1-5) 2. Timothy’s Personal Responsibilities (4:6-16) 3. Spiritual Exercises (4:7-9) C. Dealing with Groups in the Church (5:1–6:10) 1. Men and Women, Young and Old (5:1-2) 2. Widows (5:3-16) a. Older Widows (5:3-10) b. Younger Widows (5:11-16) 3. Elders (5:17-25) a. The Reward of Elders (5:17-18) b. The Reputation of Elders (5:19-20) 1) The Reputation of Elders Protected (5:19) 2) The Sins of Elders Publicly Rebuked (5:20) c. The Recognition of Prospective Elders (5:21-25) 4. Slaves (6:1-2) 5. False Teachers (6:3-10)
If you just read through the "agenda" and ask yourself is this the words of Jesus or is it the work of some control freak churchmen/politicians, (the two were indistinguishable back then), then its plain and simple. But Mee, oh Mee, OH Mee!! As long as the watchtower says its good, you aint about to see.

Tao

Paul’s letter shows that Timothy himself was a fine example of what a young Christian should be.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by mee

Paul’s letter shows that Timothy himself was a fine example of what a young Christian should be.

How can it be Pauline when linguistic scholars have demonstrated that it was written in a gramatic style that did not arise for two centuries afterwards?

[mee]

Authenticity.

The authenticity of First and Second Timothy is well established.

All outstanding ancient catalogs, starting with the Muratorian Fragment of the second century C.E., list both letters as canonical.

Most important, these letters are in complete agreement with the rest of the Scriptures and quote from them.

They contain quotations from or allusions to Numbers (16:5; 2Ti 2:19), Deuteronomy (19:15; 25:4; 1Ti 5:18, 19), Isaiah (26:13; 2Ti 2:19), and the words of Jesus Christ (Mt 10:10; Lu 10:7; 1Ti 5:18).

Noteworthy are the frequent references to faith (1Ti 1:2, 4, 5, 14, 19; 2:7, 15; 3:9, 13; 4:1, 6, 12; 5:8, 12; 6:10, 11, 12, 21; 2Ti 1:5, 13; 2:18, 22; 3:8, 10, 15; 4:7),

as well as the emphasis on right doctrine (1Ti 1:3, 4; 4:1-3, 6, 7; 6:3, 4, 20, 21; 2Ti 1:13; 3:14, 15; 4:3, 5),

conduct (1Ti 2:8-11, 15; 3:2-13; 4:12; 5:1-21; 6:1, 2, 11-14; 2Ti 2:22),
prayer (1Ti 2:1, 2, 8; 4:5; 5:5; 2Ti 1:3),
and faithful endurance through suffering (2Ti 1:8, 12; 2:3, 8-13).

[Dream]

Tao_Equus, I'm not sure what to make of redaction theories based upon writing style. I've read one book on it Who Wrote the Bible. It was buggy reading but fast moving. I was challenged that redaction theory is a serious subject, however I felt that the author misread some easy to read passages. That was annoying, but it underscores the problem I've had with this whole thing: Often its guesswork. I'm told you have to guess when trying to decide which redactors to read, since there is disagreement between them. They also have scholarly clicks, high-fiving, and every other thing you find in Academia. Anyway, there is an enormous pile of material to read about redaction theories.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Dream

Tao_Equus, I'm not sure what to make of redaction theories based upon writing style. I've read one book on it Who Wrote the Bible. It was buggy reading but fast moving. I was challenged that redaction theory is a serious subject, however I felt that the author misread some easy to read passages. That was annoying, but it underscores the problem I've had with this whole thing: Often its guesswork. I'm told you have to guess when trying to decide which redactors to read, since there is disagreement between them. They also have scholarly clicks, high-fiving, and every other thing you find in Academia. Anyway, there is an enormous pile of material to read about redaction theories.

I understand your point. And as this is all written in Latin or Greek we cannot for ourselves reach value judgements. But if you cannot trust the scholars to some extent where are we left? Are they any less trustworthy than the early Roman Church? Who truly had an agenda in writing such a 'controlling' piece of work?

Tao

[Dream]

The Wikipedia seems to do a good job of summarizing the contentions over Pauline authorship among the various scholars. Its got a bibliography, etc.

Authorship of the Pauline epistles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Dream

The Wikipedia seems to do a good job of summarizing the contentions over Pauline authorship among the various scholars. Its got a bibliography, etc.

Authorship of the Pauline epistles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nice piece but to me it calls into question whether anything attributed to Pauline authorship can be trusted. And it is the same whenever you scrutinize the bible, always you find this meddling by politicians in Rome. None of it is trustworthy.

Tao

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by DrFree

The ethical question we should ask then is not "Why be truthful?" but "Why not be untruthful?" One approach to an answer is that untruthfulness breaks down the bonds of community. (Oddly, the opposite hypothesis, that truthfulness builds the bonds of community, seems much more difficult to establish.)

This is a corollary of the more general claim that immoral behavior harms community. There is even some evidence, in the form of computer simulations, that abstract communities gradually reject and eliminate such behavior in the course of community evolution.

Lies facilitate normal social interactions. It is sometimes unclear at what point it is more ethical to be rude and honest than it is to be compassionate and dishonest.

But what about being truthful with oneself? More problems in the world arise from the actions of persons who are either chronically inauthentic or simply deluded about who they are and what they want out of life.