It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Greatest unanswered Question of all time, What is Truth?

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 01:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
Oh, the previous song is based on:


Hebrews 13:15
15 Through him let us always offer to God a sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of our lips that make public declaration to his name.

Acts 13:48
48 When those of the nations heard this, they began to rejoice and to glorify the word of Jehovah, and all those who were rightly disposed for everlasting life became believers.


The New Testament doesn't ever use Jehovah or Yahweh, not once. Jesus saying I am is the closest thing.

That means you're using a corrupt Bible which is from the JW's, not a very trustworthy organization to say the least.



1 Thessalonians 2:4
4 but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the good news, so we speak to please, not men, but God, who examines our hearts.

1 Timothy 1:11
11 according to the glorious good news of the happy God, with which I was entrusted.

And song 142 is based on (besides the verses I already shared):

Luke 10:6
6 And if a friend of peace is there, your peace will rest upon him. But if there is not, it will return to you.

Isaiah 52:7
7 How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of the one bringing good news, The one proclaiming peace, The one bringing good news of something better, The one proclaiming salvation, The one saying to Zion: “Your God has become King!”


That's an odd translation, I have "Your God reigns" and no mention of become or becoming King because obviously God is eternally King and doesn't have to become anything.

I think your translation is corrupted to make it seem like Isaiah is talking about Jesus but he isn't.



Matthew 28:19, 20
19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.”

Luke 8:1
8 Shortly afterward he traveled from city to city and from village to village, preaching and declaring the good news of the Kingdom of God. And the Twelve were with him,

Romans 10:10
10 For with the heart one exercises faith for righteousness, but with the mouth one makes public declaration for salvation.


Isaiah 30:20, 21

20 Though Jehovah will give you bread in the form of distress and water in the form of oppression,+ your Grand Instructor will no longer hide himself, and you will see your Grand Instructor+ with your own eyes. 21 And your own ears will hear a word behind you saying, “This is the way.+ Walk in it,” in case you should go to the right or in case you should go to the left.+

Psalm 32:8

8 “I will give you insight and instruct you in the way you should go.+

I will give you advice with my eye upon you.+


Psalm 139:24

24 See whether there is in me any harmful way,+

And lead me+ in the way of eternity.


Proverbs 6:23

23 For the commandment is a lamp,+

And the law is a light,+

And the reproofs of discipline are the way to life.+


Regarding some things I said in the thread about knowledge (in the comment about wisdom, if only this thread could be merged with that one...cause there are a lot of overlapping considerations when thinking about: truth, knowledge, facts, wisdom, insight, understanding, thinking abilities, reason, discipline, shrewdness, being inexperienced or naive, reproof and rebuke. Also "an accurate knowledge of truth" as opposed to that which is "falsely called knowledge", in Latin bible translations "scientia").

“Anyone Regarding Reproof Is Shrewd”



Jehovah witness, right?

It's not hard to tell as no correctly tranlated Bible says Jehovah in the NT or records God becoming King, just that He reigns, Israel's/Isaiah's God does.




posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 04:17 AM
link   
a reply to: LucianusXVII




Regarding the Hebrew expression that was translated "has become King":

1 Kings 1:11
HEB: שָׁמַ֔עַתְּ כִּ֥י מָלַ֖ךְ אֲדֹנִיָּ֣הוּ בֶן־
NAS: of Haggith has become king, and David
KJV: of Haggith doth reign, and David

Source: Hebrew Concordance: mā·laḵ -- 105 Occurrences:
Same expression in Hebrew, alternate renderings in English. For some bible translations, consistency, accuracy and honesty in translation is important, cause people are going to make false accusations anyway.

Regarding your mention of John 8:58 (without actually mentioning that verse cause you've probably just heard something inaccurate about it):

edit on 15-9-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 07:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: LucianusXVII




Regarding the Hebrew expression that was translated "has become King":

1 Kings 1:11
HEB: שָׁמַ֔עַתְּ כִּ֥י מָלַ֖ךְ אֲדֹנִיָּ֣הוּ בֶן־
NAS: of Haggith has become king, and David
KJV: of Haggith doth reign, and David

Source: Hebrew Concordance: mā·laḵ -- 105 Occurrences:
Same expression in Hebrew, alternate renderings in English. For some bible translations, consistency, accuracy and honesty in translation is important, cause people are going to make false accusations anyway.


Implying what, that only some Bibles are correctly translated and others aren't?

Did I give an impression that I thought otherwise by saying JW Bibles are corrupted by translation and questioning the Bible you quoted's accuracy?

Because that's the case and what I said, your translation is corrupted and ao is the Watchtower society.


Regarding your mention of John 8:58 (without actually mentioning that verse cause you've probably just heard something inaccurate about it):
:

Aren't we an assuming Andy?

While I usually do go from memory, have read every word of the Bible and most Apocrypha I don't get bogged down chapter and verse often.

How that leads you to the assumption of having just heard not read it and don't understand is your own lack of understanding and not at all mine.

I am not a JW, I think for myself and don't believe in the literal historicity NB of ancient mythology because that make no sense, it was not even written that way.

Jesus to Jupiter a myth is a myth.



posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Who knows what the real truth is! It is impossble to know the real truth! You can say you can learn the real truth through faith in religion or spirituality but you do not know with 100% certianty that religion or spirituality is the truth, and you do not know if faith is the real truth either! Sure your personal experience may have you believing that the experience is the real truth, but even personal experience can be manipulated and controled by our animal brains, and by third parties via mind control, hypnosis, nlp and etc!
edit on 09 10 2016 by MikeS80 because: My grammar sucks



posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: LucianusXVII
The New Testament doesn't ever use Jehovah or Yahweh, not once. ...

That means you're using a corrupt Bible which is from the JW's, not a very trustworthy organization to say the least.

Who's really being corrupt and doing the 'pot calling the kettle black'-routine?



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: LucianusXVII
I didn't assume you didn't read it, I was talking about probably hearing something inaccurate about it. This is what Jesus really said cause you're not going to quote it (waking people up to the bad english syntax and grammar in versions that use "I Am"). John 8:58 (NWT):

Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been.”

Talking about being in existence before Abraham was in existence. No parallel or relation to Exodus 3:14 (where "I Am" is also a misleading translation). "I was" would have been proper english at John 8:58 as well (as the video explains in detail showing you the Greek). "I Am" makes no sense unless you wanna play games and deceptive trinitarian motivated and invented tricks with Exodus 3:14 (using misleading arguments and propaganda, half-truths, warping logic, etc.).

Exodus 3:14,15 (NWT):

So God said to Moses: “I Will Become What I Choose* to Become.”* And he added: “This is what you are to say to the Israelites, ‘I Will Become has sent me to you.’” 15 Then God said once more to Moses: “This is what you are to say to the Israelites, ‘Jehovah the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and this is how I am to be remembered from generation to generation.

* = Or “I Will Prove to Be What I Will Prove to Be.” See App. A4.

The part that has been translated to "I Am" in most translations isn't even his name, Jehovah himself identifies what his name is in verse 15. The whole "I Am" set of arguments is devoid of logic, reason and even a proper understandable use of the english language, much like those misusing the word "nothing" regarding a different subject.
edit on 17-9-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 06:56 PM
link   
The truth is: I am the only God, worship me and have faith in my son and ye will go to heaven. Do not worship me and do not have faith in my son then Satan will make you his bitch and butt rape you with his pitchfork while you burn in hell for all eternity! Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn
"What is Truth?" is far from unanswered.
Actually, bypassing the ego, it's very simple;

1) Everything exists! Existence is ALL inclusive!
2) Since everything exists, everything is Reality/Real (since what is Real is predicated on what exists)! Reality is ALL inclusive!
3) Truth, being predicated on existence and Reality is, also, ALL INCLUSIVE!

There is One Truth, all inclusive, and an 'infinite' variety of unique Perspectives of this Truth/Reality!
To discriminate that one thing is Truth and exists, and another isn't, is merely an expression of ignorance and shortsightedness and ego.

"Every kind of partial and transitory disequilibrium must perforce contribute towards the great equilibrium of the whole.." - Rene' Guenon

It's ALL Truth!



posted on Oct, 6 2016 @ 03:45 AM
link   
a reply to: namelesss
Well if pink unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, fairies, apemen, aquatic apemen a.k.a. mermaids, the mysterious unnamed (no specific name) undiscovered single-celled ancestor of all living organisms, RNA-based lifeforms and the rest of the creatures of La La Land* makes you happy, go for it.

You haven't convinced me of your fantasies and blurring the lines between fact and fiction for the purpose of promotion of human philosophy and so-called wisdom and insight though. You'll have to do better than that to convince or even impress me.

* = see the questionmarks and consider the numerous variations that should be included in that questionmark in the video below for the story to be completed:

edit on 6-10-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 05:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: namelesss
Well if pink unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, fairies, apemen, aquatic apemen a.k.a. mermaids, the mysterious unnamed (no specific name) undiscovered single-celled ancestor of all living organisms, RNA-based lifeforms and the rest of the creatures of La La Land* makes you happy, go for it.

You haven't convinced me of your fantasies and blurring the lines between fact and fiction for the purpose of promotion of human philosophy and so-called wisdom and insight though. You'll have to do better than that to convince or even impress me.

First, the last thing that interests me is convincing or impressing you. You flatter yourself.
I'll clarify, for you, slowly;
You are going to have to try, just a bit;
"Pink unicorns exist!"
"Oh yeah, show me one!"
Thought/imagination exists (or are you ready to argue that 'thought' does not exist?), thus the 'content' of thought/imagination exists.
The pink unicorn that you see in your mind exists.
The one that I see exists.
Also the "pink unicorn" in this sentence exists!
Also pink unicorns exist in literature and art, sculpture, etc...
Enough?, or would you like more instances of all that you can possibly name, existing!
Everything exists!
If you can name it, define it, perceive it, it exists!
Not anything exists that cannot be named, perceived.

Before pouring on the sarcasm and derision, you might first seek clarification (just ask), perhaps preventing yourself from looking like a fool.


edit on 7-10-2016 by namelesss because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: namelesss
Well if pink unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, fairies, apemen, aquatic apemen a.k.a. mermaids, the mysterious unnamed (no specific name) undiscovered single-celled ancestor of all living organisms, RNA-based lifeforms and the rest of the creatures of La La Land* makes you happy, go for it.

You haven't convinced me of your fantasies and blurring the lines between fact and fiction for the purpose of promotion of human philosophy and so-called wisdom and insight though. You'll have to do better than that to convince or even impress me.

First, the last thing that interests me is convincing or impressing you. You flatter yourself.

When I made my comment I was wondering if I should make it clear that I never implied or expected that you were interested in that, but since I never implied such a thing in my comment or my comment could not logically and reasonably be interpreted that way, I figured, why bother. It's all so predictable...who cares what someone actually says, just respond to whatever you want to hear even when it's not even said (just like on the origins and creationism forum). I knew ahead of time that my refusal to point that out or phrase that 1 little remark in my commentary that way was going to lead to you saying something about that line (cherry-picking something to nitpick about and attach a little blow below the belt to it with the "You flatter yourself", hinting at something involving pride and ego for other readers and for yourself in the dismissal game).

But since I have little else to do right now, I'll respond to one of your arguments. You said:

2) Since everything exists, everything is Reality/Real

Definition "fictitious":

not real or true, being imaginary or having been fabricated.

Source: google
Definition "figment":

something that seems real but is not:

Source: Cambridge dictionary
"a figment of your imagination":

something imagined or created by your mind:

Source: Cambridge dictionary

Figments of the imagination are things (regardless of whether or not they exist) so included in the term "everything". They are however "not real" according to the definition for "figment". Therefore, not everything is real (according to a proper understandable honest use of the english language, an agreed upon meaning for words and rules of rational communication or conversations, not a mudslinging contest to make someone else look foolish and yourself sophisticated and enlightened). The same counts for things that are fictional/fictitious.

1 Corinthians 1:20 (ISV):

Where is the wise person? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? God has turned the wisdom of the world into nonsense, hasn't he?

Yep. I first noticed it when I heard Dawkins, Krauss and Hawking talk about the word "nothing" when referring to "something".
edit on 8-10-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
Definition "figment":

something that seems real but is not:

Source: Cambridge dictionary
"a figment of your imagination":

something imagined or created by your mind:

Source: Cambridge dictionary

I have nothing to discuss with someone who attempts to refute irrefutable logic by mining 'dictionary definitions'.
Stick with your bible, logic will never again distract and disturb you.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 06:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: namelesss
It's ALL Truth!


Translating that for a moment to a more modern common use of the english language and assuming that you mean:

"It's all true!"

Perhaps there may be some people here that are interested in testing their ability to use logic to determin the difference between what is true and what is false. For that purpose, I'll borrow some questions from an online IQ-test:

If all Bloops are Razzies and all Razzies are Lazzies, all Bloops are definitely Lazzies?

True False
1. The word, "mineral," can be spelled using only the letters found in the word, "parliament."

True False
2. This sequence of four words, "triangle, glove, clock, bicycle," corresponds to this sequence of numbers "3, 5, 12, 2."

True False
3. 27 minutes before 7 o'clock is 33 minutes past 5 o'clock.

True False
4. The word, "slackers," is spelled by using the first letters of the words in the following sentence: "Silent large anteaters calmly kiss each roasted snack."

True False
5. If written backwards, the number, "one thousand, one hundred twenty-five," would be written "five thousand, two hundred eleven."

True False
6. Gary has only forty-eight dollars, but he can buy a bicycle that costs one hundred twenty dollars, (disregarding tax) if he borrows fifty-seven dollars from Jane and fifteen dollars from Jill.

True False
7. A round wall clock that has been rotated until it is hanging upside down will have a minute hand that points to your right when it is two forty-five.

True False
8. If the word, "quane," is understood to mean the same as the word, "den," then the following sentence is grammatically correct: "Looking out from my quane, I could see a wolf enter quane."

True False
9. If Richard looks into a mirror and touches his left ear with his right hand, Richard's image seems to touch its right ear with its left hand.

True False
10. If you leave the letters in the same order, but rearrange the spaces in the phrase, "Them eats on," it can be read as, "Theme at son."

True False

Source: IQTest.com

Too bad I already know certain people won't apply their philosophies regarding logic and truth (that which is true) consistently if they were to take the test above seriously. Then suddenly they can answer the questions rationally if they wanted. Nice switch.

I'm just hoping for everyone who is willing to answer the questions above honestly and rationally that they aren't viewed as described by you:

To discriminate that one thing is Truth and exists, and another isn't, is merely an expression of ignorance and shortsightedness and ego.

You certainly won't be viewed by me as such when answering those questions. Again assuming you mean "true" by "Truth" and considering that existence is a secondary concern or question, subject (not conflating these things). And thus the latter part of the sentence becomes "another isn't" true, i.e. false. And "discriminate" would then apparently stand for acknowledging something to be true or false. It's all in the spin, right?
edit on 10-10-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Mother Earth and/or Mother Nature ... By Any Name... Does Not Love You!
She Is A Witch! Yet... Its Ironic That She Has Everything To Offer That You May Live.

Truth It Seems Is To Confront Her. When She Appears... She Instructs You To:
Tear It Apart And Build Your Country... Work, Work, Work, Work, Work, Work, etc...
Then Fight, Fight, Fight, Fight, etc...

Then Work, Work, Work, Work, etc...

And Then Retire...



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 01:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: namelesss
It's ALL Truth!


Translating that for a moment to a more modern common use of the english language and assuming that you mean:

"It's all true!"

It will always be in error to grab some dictionary to 'refute' what I offer.
Dictionaries are always updated because of people like me who question the 'common street understandings', and find wealth so much deeper!
I'll elucidate what I mean by 'Truth';
Reality is predicated on that which exists.
As existence is ALL inclusive, so is Reality!
As 'Truth' is predicated on existence/Reality, then Truth is ALL inclusive!
There is no 'opposite' of the Universe!
The Universe/Reality/Truth is NOT 'falsifiable'.
Within the Universe, amongst all that exists, mental 'thought' duality gives us all sorts if true/false, everything in thought is presented as a duality. Like glasses for the blind, 'duality brings the Universe into 'focus/view'.
Just because we use that tool to see what is, doesn't mean that that is the basic nature of the Universe.
We have to stain some microscope slides to be able to observe them, we do not assume that what we are now seeing is the color that we are observing.
Yet we make that error, and a huge error it is, in our thoughts about what we observe.

As I have repeated;
"Every kind of partial and transitory disequilibrium must perforce contribute towards the great equilibrium of the whole.." - Rene' Guenon

Translate your local passing 'true/falses' (or any other duality; 'life/death'...) as the "apparent" 'equilibrium/disequilibrium' that resolves in the Perfect Balance of the One Reality/Truth; "equilibrium of the whole"!


Perhaps there may be some people here that are interested in testing their ability to use logic to determine the difference between what is true and what is false.

Logic/thought/duality must create completely rule-bound parameters for something to be 'true' or 'false'. Those parameters are completely arbitrary and local, far from Universal!
For 2+2 to = 4, the first arbitrary parameter is that they all be in the base 10 system. A very important rule to get the 'true answer' that you seek!
And, further re; logic, quantum mechanics have completely eviscerated every one of Aristotle's 'laws of logic', making it untrustworthy of describing ultimate, Universal Reality!




I'm just hoping for everyone who is willing to answer the questions above honestly and rationally that they aren't viewed as described by you:

To discriminate that one thing is Truth and exists, and another isn't, is merely an expression of ignorance and shortsightedness and ego.

That would be too bad, as what I offered is irrefutable, despite your kindergarten class.


And "discriminate" would then apparently stand for acknowledging something to be true or false. It's all in the spin, right?

It's all in the Perspective, as I have explained.
Anything that you can present as 'true', I can demonstrate that it is also 'false', and vice versa.
Which illustrates that if you only hold one Perspective and support something as 'true', it means that you do not have the vision to see how the flip side is also 'true'!
I can state that "Everything is True!" And it is a rational, meaningful statement.
Now, try "Everything is false!"
Under analysis, that statement must revert to Everything is True, since if everything is false, then the statement, itself, must be false, thus validating my original statement.
Only supporting a particular Perspective is evidence that you are ignorant of the validity of the "equal and opposite Perspective!"



posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: ChesterJohn

What is Truth?

That question was cynically posed to Jesus by the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate. He was not interested in an answer, and Jesus did not give him one. Perhaps Pilate viewed truth as too elusive to grasp.—John 18:38.

See context below. Topic: Pontius Pilatus' version of agnosticism and the philosophy of vagueness: that you can't figure out what is true/certain/absolute/correct, without error/conclusive/unambiguous about anything anyway, or regarding specific subjects such as the bible and God, so just stay in darkness and ignorance, much more useful to some people and dishonest spirits, cause then they can make* or invent* their own version of so-called "truth" that doesn't have to be based on reason, logic and proper evidence. *: and spread that way of thinking and attitude and behaviour towards well established and proven truths/facts/certainties/realities (these are all synonyms) about things that are true/factual/certain/correct, without error/absolute/conclusive (again synonyms, but this time for the adjective rather than the noun). Pardon the redundancy for clarity to lift the veil that has been put in front of human society by cunning philosophers teaching bad logic and improper dishonest use of language to promote agnostic philosophies; motivated by a desire for agnosticism regarding specific subjects, the 'logic', or better said, way of thinking in this philosophy is often not used consistently regarding all subjects, especially by Philosophical Naturalists, but I've also seen Trinitarians and others do this. It is pervasive throughout society whenever someone is confronted with facts/certainties/truths/realities that they want to deny and need an excuse for if they have no proper logical reason for their denial, it's used as a cop-out as well when out of other arguments, self-deception also comes into play here, justifying things to yourself: 'oh well, it isn''t clear, certain, so I'm just going to stick with what I've got and nothing anyone points out will sway me, cause you can't prove it with certainty anyway, it's just your opinion or interpretation of the facts' (the cursive part not noticed or admitted to in any self-analysis or mentioned or admitted to in argumentation, public discourse, avoided); 'dead language' is also a favourite phrase when it comes to ascertaining what is true regarding bible translations and the true words of God. *: Perhaps some people are familiar with the phrase,slogan, mantra and/or philosophy: "everyone makes their own truth". That is usually not a good approach to determining what is actually true about a matter. Of course it depends on how this phrase is used or thought about by a person. If you take it as nonsense (or too vague and dependent on* or open to interpretation) than it's not going to have much effect obviously. *: when determining its value for discussion in relation to what is true/factual about the matter, or what the rational and honest way of thinking about this subject is (also being honest with oneself, not deluding yourself because one wants to believe something to be true because it's sounds so pleasing, positive or agreeable to you).

“What Is Truth?”

THAT question was cynically posed to Jesus by the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate. He was not interested in an answer, and Jesus did not give him one. Perhaps Pilate viewed truth as too elusive to grasp.—John 18:38.

This disdainful attitude toward truth is shared by many today, including religious leaders, educators, and politicians. They hold that truth—especially moral and spiritual truth—is not absolute but relative and ever changing. This, of course, implies that people can determine for themselves what is right and what is wrong. (Isaiah 5:20, 21) It also allows people to reject as out-of-date the values and moral standards held by past generations.

The statement that prompted Pilate’s question is worth noting. Jesus had said: “For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth.” (John 18:37) Truth to Jesus was no vague, incomprehensible concept. He promised his disciples: “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”—John 8:32.

Where can such truth be found? On one occasion, Jesus said in prayer to God: “Your word is truth.” (John 17:17) The Bible, written under divine inspiration, reveals truth that provides both reliable guidance and a sure hope for the future—everlasting life.—2 Timothy 3:15-17.

Pilate indifferently rejected the opportunity to learn such truth. What about you? Why not ask Jehovah’s Witnesses what “the truth” that Jesus taught is all about? They will be glad to share that truth with you.

It's not a catchphrase like those who like to obscure whether or not we can be certain that 1+1=2 is true use it. And then go on and use the terminology "absolute truth" in their denials as they overlook that "absolute" is a synonym for "true" (like certain/correct, without error/conclusive/factual).

Vague/unclear are antonyms for true (the opposite). At this point I'm hoping people will think about logical contradictions in their thinking regarding the subject "truth" and the terminology they're so fond of in their denials using "absolute truth" and "subjective or relative truth". As if regarding that aspect there are 2 kinds.

That's why I sometimes don't answer someone's question, see example given by Jesus at the start of this comment. With some people there is no point in discussing the truth/reality of a particular matter (there are multiple signs), especially when they think like Pontius Pilatus (the biggest sign). That's one of the reasons why Pontius Pilatus' way of thinking about "truth" (that which is true) as well as logically (by extention, follow through) falsehoods, things that are not true (see IQ-test earlier), is popularized so much by "the system of things" (the way things go in human society, societal structure; think about the snowball-effect), "the spirit of the world" (conditioned attitude; the snowball-effect and societal pressures are involved; think about how you feel when hearing the terminology "someone who thinks in black and white", do you want to be someone "who thinks in black and white?" Where did that feeling regarding that description come from?*) and "the ruler of this system of things" or "ruler of this world" or "ruler of this darkness" (all biblical terms with too long a story to get into again, see my other commentary spread across various threads). I also mentioned something before about how conducive it is to condition humanity with myths present in evolutionary philosophies, Trinitarianism, Polytheism and Pantheism (overlapping with evolutionary philosophies, Eastern Philosophy, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.), the human philosophies of which most can be traced back to Babylon (when allowing for considering that modifications happened as these philosophies spread).

*:

Who really is the openminded person? The person willing to acknowledge when something is true (right) or false (wrong) when that can be determined with certainty (IQ-test) and in that sense is thinking in black and white, or the one who ridicules or looks down upon such thinking (persons).
edit on 9-1-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 02:32 PM
link   
annoying, video gone (out of space and time in editing), DO NOT READ the final sentence of the previous comment before watching this video (you may also want to read back to where I put that * ):

...or considers such thinking (persons) to be narrowminded or closed minded (including notions of brainwashing and conditioning, stubborness, gullibility, etc.; not someone you want to be like or viewed as, having a strong desire to avoid gaining the stigma of someone who 'thinks in black and white' especially in conjunction with the topic of God and the bible, or even more so when the latter 2 topics are involved).

The above is the end of my sentence in my previous comment cause I couldn't finish my sentence there.

Ah whatever, I'm being too longwinded again, maybe this guy has a better way of putting some of what I alluded to regarding conditoned behaviour and attitudes (present or shared in so many, if not almost all of humanity if allowing for some variations again on the core ways of thinking):

Keypoints at 3:00 - 6:14 (especially the terminology "natural aversion" at 5:15 which you can reinterpret to my "conditioned aversion" and reinterpret "them" to my suggested influences on that aversion involving the ruler of this system of things). See my commentary in the thread "God is blameless" regarding Ephesians 4:14 if you want to experience deeper thoughts concerning what is mentioned in the first 3 minutes (his list of topics and teachings taught by those who claim to be in the so-called "Truth Movement"; there's a list of names and list of teachings which includes myths and twisted misinformation about what's really 'up and down', going on in this world. Or just distractions away from what's important to understand). Note that my comment there is involving false religion in the consideration regarding Ephesians 4:14 but that is not what Ephesians 4:14 is limited to or something that would be appropiate to mention regarding the topic he's talking about in that list.

Signing off,

Proud* 'Black and White' thinker (only in the sense of determining fact from fiction and dealing with realities even when they are hard to deal with or unpleasant to my ears, way of life or outlook on life and obligations, including those to preserve my life). As Harrison Ford said: "Not Black and White, right and wrong." Or true or false. *: just in opposition to what I've said about aversion regarding this way of thinking, not talking about being prideful, it was 'with tongue in cheek' anyway regarding that ('don't be afraid to think like that, I'm not' is the concept I'm trying to relate).
edit on 9-1-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: John333

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
A world leader once asked this very question of one of the simplest men that every lived all because that man said, "To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice."

What Sayest ye of ATS?

What is Truth?


truth is that which does not change.

but to avoid becoming technical with that statement. i will provide 2

1st truth - a bicycle has 2 wheels.
this truth does not change, as a bicycle will always have 2 wheels. if it has 3 it becomes a tricycle.

2nd truth - a caterpillar starts off as a caterpillar but then transforms into a butterfly
this truth incorporates a transformation. as in, the transformation or change is part of the full process. yes a caterpillar is a caterpillar, but it changes over time into something else. if i dont include the change then i have not produced the complete truth. so truth is also completeness.

example of an untruth

a man drives his car to work at 60kmph every day.
this is not true, since noone drives at exactly any speed but speeds up and slows down a little in the course of the journey. slowing down to take corners and speeding up to overtake. so ud have to detail such things to provide the truth.

static items can easily be defined as truth. changing items need to have their process fully observed before truth can be claimed through completeness. its just difficult for the individual when some changes can take 100s of yrs to reach a full cycle thereby allowing truth to be defined and associated. when man only lives 100.

individuals can have their own perceptive truths, but real truth is all pervasive truth. truth which cannot change by the actions of man. truth which exists with or without your input or sway.

if a door is open. then it is true. nothing can change the fact that it is already open. this is an all pervasive truth. saying it will be speaking complete truth. noone can deny the door is open. once everyone understands and has the same meaning for the word 'open'.
Truth, in terms of statements...great examples.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

I'm sure its already been said but:

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way,the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

The statement that prompted Pilate’s question is worth noting. Jesus had said: “For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth.” (John 18:37) Truth to Jesus was no vague, incomprehensible concept. He promised his disciples: “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”—John 8:32.

Where can such truth be found? On one occasion, Jesus said in prayer to God: “Your word is truth.” (John 17:17) The Bible, written under divine inspiration, reveals truth that provides both reliable guidance and a sure hope for the future—everlasting life.—2 Timothy 3:15-17.

‘I Am the Way, the Truth, and the Life’ (John 14) | Life of Jesus:

CHAPTER 119
Jesus—The Way, the Truth, the Life

JOHN 14:1-31

JESUS IS GOING AWAY TO PREPARE A PLACE

HE PROMISES HIS FOLLOWERS A HELPER

THE FATHER IS GREATER THAN JESUS

Still in the upper room with the apostles after the memorial meal, Jesus encourages them: “Do not let your hearts be troubled. Exercise faith in God; exercise faith also in me.”—John 13:36; 14:1.

Jesus gives the faithful apostles reason not to be troubled over his departure: “In the house of my Father are many dwelling places. . . . If I go my way and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will receive you home to myself, so that where I am you also may be.” The apostles, however, do not grasp that he is speaking about going to heaven. Thomas asks: “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?”—John 14:2-5.

“I am the way and the truth and the life,” Jesus answers. Only by accepting him and his teachings and imitating his life course can one enter the heavenly house of his Father. Jesus says: “No one comes to the Father except through me.”—John 14:6.

Philip, listening intently, requests: “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Philip seems to want some manifestation of God, like the visions that Moses, Elijah, and Isaiah received. However, the apostles have something better than such visions. Jesus highlights that, replying: “Even after I have been with you men for such a long time, Philip, have you not come to know me? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father also.” Jesus perfectly reflects the Father’s personality; hence, living with and observing Jesus is like seeing the Father. Of course, the Father is superior to the Son, for Jesus points out: “The things I say to you I do not speak of my own originality.” (John 14:8-10) The apostles can see that Jesus is giving all credit for his teachings to his Father.

Jesus’ apostles have seen him do wonderful works and have heard him proclaim the good news about the Kingdom of God. Now he tells them: “Whoever exercises faith in me will also do the works that I do; and he will do works greater than these.” (John 14:12) Jesus is not saying that they will perform greater miracles than he did. They will, though, carry out their ministry for a much longer time, over a much greater area, and to far more people.

Jesus’ departure will not leave them abandoned, for he promises: “If you ask anything in my name, I will do it.” Moreover, he says: “I will ask the Father and he will give you another helper to be with you forever, the spirit of the truth.” (John 14:14, 16, 17) He guarantees them that they will receive the holy spirit, this other helper. That happens on the day of Pentecost.

“In a little while,” Jesus says, “the world will see me no more, but you will see me, because I live and you will live.” (John 14:19) Not only will Jesus appear to them in bodily form after his resurrection but he will, in time, resurrect them to be with him in heaven as spirit creatures.

Now Jesus states a simple truth: “Whoever has my commandments and observes them is the one who loves me. In turn, whoever loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will clearly show myself to him.” At this the apostle Judas, who is also called Thaddaeus, asks: “Lord, what has happened that you intend to show yourself clearly to us and not to the world?” Jesus replies: “If anyone loves me, he will observe my word, and my Father will love him . . . Whoever does not love me does not observe my words.” (John 14:21-24) Unlike his followers, the world does not recognize Jesus as the way, the truth, and the life.

Jesus is going away, so how will his disciples be able to recall all that he taught them? Jesus explains: “The helper, the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name, that one will teach you all things and bring back to your minds all the things I told you.” The apostles have seen how powerfully the holy spirit can work, so this assurance is comforting. Jesus adds: “I leave you peace; I give you my peace. . . . Do not let your hearts be troubled nor let them shrink out of fear.” (John 14:26, 27) The disciples have reason, then, not to be troubled—they will have direction and protection from Jesus’ Father.

Evidence of God’s protection will soon be seen. Jesus says: “The ruler of the world is coming, and he has no hold on me.” (John 14:30) The Devil was able to enter into Judas and get a hold on him. But there is no sinful weakness in Jesus that Satan can play on to turn him against God. Nor will the Devil be able to restrain Jesus in death. Why not? Jesus states: “I am doing just as the Father has commanded me to do.” He is certain that his Father will resurrect him.—John 14:31.

Where is Jesus going, and what assurance does Thomas receive regarding the way there?

What does Philip apparently want Jesus to provide?

How will Jesus’ followers do greater works than he is doing?

Why is it reassuring that the Father is greater than Jesus?

Learn More
Why Pray in Jesus’ Name?

Consider how praying in Jesus’ name honors God, and how it shows respect for Jesus.

CHAPTER 118: A Dispute Over Greatness
CHAPTER 120: Bearing Fruit as Branches and Being Jesus’ Friends

Note how the bolded parts nicely match up with Matthew 7:21 (the same chapter I often refer to verses 13 and 14 that also relate to the bolded part below, but the whole chapter is interesting):

“Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is*** in the heavens will.

***: "is" in the heavens, the God of Jesus whose name alone is Jehovah, "is in the heavens" at the time Jesus is saying that ON EARTH. The mental switch from Trinitarianism to 'Modalism in the closet' posing as Trinitarianism be gone!
My wishful thinking.
edit on 24-1-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join