Everyone can see it in all of creation. You were made in God’s image and likeness. And more transparently science shows us more that there is an eternal Creator.
What i mean by truth is never changing, evident to all, inescapable reality, always existing.
Here’s the real answer. “Truth is the property of being in accord with fact or reality .”
Now you take it from there.
Looking at your other answers you now have to marshall facts to demonstrate that your “jesus” (whatever that is) fits in the parameters you asked for, i.e. does your “jesus definition” comport with being a fact or reality. If you affirm that it does then you will have to demonstrate that beyond reasonable doubt.
Have you ever said, done or thought anything to anyone else that you knew was not what you would have wanted to have said of you, done to you or thought of you? Or have you ever passed judgment on anyone for wronging you or someone else regardless if that someone else was close to you or not?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, I know. Why you gotta go being all sorts of pendated… uh, pandeemic… (shit)… er, pindictive… peedancive(?)… OH, pedantic! Why so damn pedantic, you mangy ape? I used Everest simply because it is the most commonly known. Besides, question still works, regardless… (sort of… kind of… in a way…).
(Edit for technical fowls.)
This is a non-sensical facile assertion, followed by a declaration sans facts.
Ahhh, there it is… (people are beginning to shuffle in and take a seat in the pews) Dear friends, the service will begin shortly… Organ Leroy is at his organ again …din is getting louder…)
I doubt your sincerity regarding the sincereness of the question in question, given your proclivity for definitional avoidance and obfuscation.
Edit to wash behind my ears
Seriously - What is your POINT?
Have you ever said, done or thought, anything of anyone else that you knew was exactly what you hoped was thought, said, or done of you? Or, have you ever not passed judgment on anyone for a wrong you or someone else had done?
Where in the hell are you going with this? It is a vapid line of inquiry. It’s as fallacious as Comfort’s ‘Have you ever told a lie.’ To which the response is, ‘Have you ever told the truth?’ What possible conclusion do you imagine you can draw from such nonsense?
To whom is this addressed? Or is it a random unconnected post unconnected to any reply elicited by your first post?
BINGO! (AW ***** now I have to write out 20 letters.)
Did I make the wrong decision?
“What i mean by truth is never changing, evident to all, inescapable reality, always existing.”
I don’t know of and/or believe in an absolute truth in the way you describe it.
As an example, the Bible (and Christian theology in general) states that there are only men and women.
Well . . . this is true most of the time, but there are people whom are born intersex. Also, while an X and Y chromosome determine a male gender, what of men with Kleinfelter Syndrome, with an XXY arrangement, or even XXXY?
The European supermodel Tula was a “James Bond girl” after a sex change operation, and became very famous on the model runway in places like Milan, Paris, New York, and Rio. She has an XXXY arrangement in her chromosomes, which is at least as relevant to gender as being born with a penis and testicles.
My point in using Tula as an example is that her (and people like her) show us that we need latitude in what we perceive as “absolute truth.”
As another example, consider a 19th century doctor named Ignaz Semmelweis.
Giving birth in the 19th century was dangerous. As many as 12% of all mothers died from infection, and Dr. Semmelweis discovered that if an obstetrician or midwife washed his or her hands in a solution of bleach water before attending a woman in labor, that they could cut the death rate (of both mother and infant) by more than 90%.
My point in bringing him up is that he was denounced by ministers and priests, as God decreed that “I will greatly multiply your pains in childbirth” or some such.
So, Semmelweis was interfering with the “natural order” that was commanded by God.
Yet another example is the lightning rod. Lightning was considered to be an act of God, so it was sacreligious to put them on church steeples, as the steeple (often the highest point in town) was frequently hit. A lightning rod shows a lack of faith in God.
These facts teach us that it is very important to challenge sacred truths, because if nobody ever challenged sacred truths . . . we would still be living with a very high infant mortality, and we’d be dying in our 40s and 50s.
So, I suppose that the only sacred truth is that there are no sacred truths.
Below, see images of Tula:
If we want to look at the issue of gender (a sacred truth) in another way, then please consider the drug thalidomide.
Thalidomide can cause birth defects like extra appendages in strange places.
So, if a girl is born with a penis growing out of her shoulder, then nobody would bat an eyelash if it was surgically removed.
What’s the difference with Tula, if she has an XXXY chromosome arrangement and decides to surgically become a woman?
We always need to challenge sacred truths.
Truth is that which is in accordance with fact or reality.
Well that’s just a subjective belief some people hold, objectively the claim is meaningless.
Well again the first claim has no objective meaning, it is as meaningless to me as a platitude about Thor would be to you. The second claim is almost trivially correct, though ironically our perception demonstrably can be wrong about beliefs we hold strongly to. Only the amount of objective evidence has been demonstrated to justify confidence in the truth of an assertion.
Oh dear, another text book circular reasoning fallacy citation linked for you. I don’t know this at all, in fact I am not aware of a single shred of objective evidence for this claim, and more problematic for your belief is that I am aware that all the overwhelming objective evidence from over 162 years of global scientific scrutiny contradicts this claim, and demonstrates as an irrefutable fact that like all living things humans evolved slowly over time, only appearing in our current form a mere 200k (approx) years ago.
That is simply a circular reasoning fallacy, you are assuming your conclusion in your initial premise, can you demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, or that any deity has created anything? Simply pointing to things, and then claiming they are divinely created, is no different to claiming it is self evident Thor causes lightning, or that Poseidon causes storms at sea, and like your claim we already have objectively evidenced scientific explanations for those phenomena.
That’s not objective evidence, all you have done is repeat your original unevidenced claim? It is the very definition of a circular reasoning fallacy.
Nor is there any scientific evidence for anything supernatural, indeed they would seem to be mutually exclusive, if the definition of science is at all accurate. However please do cite this “scientific” evidence, as I will bet my house it does not remotely evidence any deity, and is simply being misrepresented with hyperbole.
Except our perception of what is true changes all the time, it would have to as apart from starting from a position of almost complete ignorance, we are fallible evolved mammals, and even science which is not infallible, is only now helping understand how wrong many of the previous “truths” we held about the world really were. So whilst things may be true or false independently of how we perceive them, no truth we hold can be an absolute, even irrefutable facts must remain tentative in the event new evidence demands they change, though scientific facts as well established as species evolution are as likely now to be substantively reversed as is the shape of the earth, we still cannot pretend it is an absolute.
Ironically you are claiming your beliefs are absolutes, without even the pretence of a shred of any objective evidence to support them?
So I ask again, what objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity? You obviously don’t understand what objective means, if you think presenting a bare subjective claim will do.
Every one of them is
I don’t see it. But perhaps that just means I’m not in the club of everyone.
My invisible garage unicorn tells me you are wrong. And my invisible garage unicorn always tells the Truth. Prove me wrong.
She would be a Humerosexual and she should keep her penis.
Humerosexual? What is that?
Someone who gets off on thinking they’re funny
Sexual attraction to humour?
Someone with a penis on their shoulder.
Humero is Latin for ‘shoulder.’ It’s just a coincidence that it is also funny as hell.