Posted on 03/15/2005 8:29:04 AM PST by Crackingham
If you say so.
Not exactly. Truth is both subjective and objective. You could say that Truth occurs at the moment the individual(subject) recognizes the universal(object).
Thanks for the link (I may read it on a slow day), but I really don't care.
I posted the forward in rebuttal to EA_Man's statement "Brown states in the Forward, I believe, that evrything in the book is true or accurate"
No hard feelings. I was just pointing out that, while Dan Brown may not have stated in his Forward that everything in the book was true and accurate, the Forward states as "fact" untrue statements about the Priory of Sion.
Nice tagline... of course, it runs counter to everything this country was founded on and what has made it great.
Hardly. The country was founded on Christianity, not secularism.
Were the founders Christian? Yes.
Did they interject their beliefs into the making of the Constitution? Yes.
Did they desire the country to be a Christian Theocracy? HELL NO! They designed it to be a SECULAR REPUBLIC! Hence, your tagline frightens me... Christian Theocracys were what the early settlers were ESCAPING from.
Now, if you can demonstrate to me where, in any post I've made here on FR, where I've been hostile to Christianity, please do so... In fact, I posted an article last week on the Mt. Soledad cross and my OUTRAGE that it's being taken down. So next time you feel the need to make a useless, snippy little remark such as "if you say so", stop and ask yourself if you REALLY should.
Have a great evening... I'll let you have the last comment if you wish.
I never claimed that the founders desired a theocracy, although they established a federation of sovereign states, some of which were theocratic in many ways.
Now, if you can demonstrate to me where, in any post I've made here on FR, where I've been hostile to Christianity, please do so... In fact, I posted an article last week on the Mt. Soledad cross and my OUTRAGE that it's being taken down. So next time you feel the need to make a useless, snippy little remark such as "if you say so", stop and ask yourself if you REALLY should.
Well, this thread seems to belie that fact. I read your outraged post regarding the Mt. Soledad cross andcan't figure out why you are upset, this is the inevitable result of secular democracy which you consider "great". As for being terrified by theocracy, calm down. People like me have been sufficiently marginalized by liberals and liberalism and so we won't be allowed to have the form of government we would want. Even if we could I'm sure that conservatives like yourself would send in the troops to bring democracy to such backward minded folks like myself. Liberals love to scream "Taliban" at the very mention of theocracy but really that's the equivalent of shunning democracy because that's how Hitler came to power. The Vatican is a theocracy and they've never sent Roman Catholic terrorists to bomb any buildings that I know of.
You're going to have to explain that. What qualifies as recognition of the universal? The universal what?
you're kidding right? Christianity is gnosticism. Even
contantinian christians in Hebrew sheeps' clothing should know that.
Fair question. A simple universal would be fire is hot. Anyone who recognizes that has come to a universal truth.
I understand how this works with something like fire, everyone can agree that it is hot. How does this work for the concept of God?
Well stated, yet within that statement is a metaphysical/epistemological conundrum. The modern problem is entirely focused on the concept of God as opposed to the reality of God.
St. Thomas Aquinas said that the immutability of God is His strength. God never changes, although man in his finiteness seems capable of only recognizing and emphasizing only a part of God at a time. The failure of some to recognize Him for who He revealed Himself to be, does not alter His real existence or nature, for lack of a better word. That the earth is round is an objective fact and ought to be a universal truth, yet there are flat-earthers even today.
Of course it is a conundrum, always has, always will be. It doesn't appear that you have actually said anything. What do you mean by the modern problem?
I will ask again, what is the universal, with reference to God?
Aquinas was a man, like everyone else, I don't believe he had any better knowledge about God, then anyone else...if he did, please explain to me how.
Granted, the failure of one to recognise God, doesn't mean He does not exist. But how does this address my original reply that 'Then it would appear that the truth is individual, not universal', if, as you said, it is both subjective and objective, and God reveals Himself to each person differently/.
I'm sorry if I seem to be evasive, I'm not trying to be. I am simply trying to make sure that when we use terms we mean the same thing. BTW, I may not have the answer either, at least not the answer you're looking for. Start with your premise that the truth is individual; if that is the case then how can anyone communicate anything? It is like Humpty Dumpty said in Through The Looking Glass,"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean..."
It doesn't appear that you have actually said anything. What do you mean by the modern problem?
By the modern problem, I am refering to what in essence was Descartes' dictum, Cogito ergo sum: I think, therefore I am. This was formally the advent of modernism as it philosophically states that Man, rather than God, is the center of creation and being. The so-called dark ages (which were actually an age of genuine enlightenment in which the arts and sciences flourished and ultimately gave us the Renaissance) was a time when all things were considered from their ultimate source:God.
Now man is the source of all things and we no longer share a common ethos(our ethics,too, find their source only in individuals and that's why we have, abortion, pornography, gay "marriage" and whatever else we can conjure up).
Sorry, I digressed. What I see the modern problem as being in terms of God is the fact that for medeival man, God was the the ultimate reality:He existed as He revealed Himself. For modern man the concept of God is the ultimate reality, but concepts are a product of the human mind, so all things religious(ethics, liturgy, mores, Scripture, marriage, etc.) become subject to whatever human(ist) concepts become de rigeur.
Aquinas was a man, like everyone else, I don't believe he had any better knowledge about God, then anyone else...if he did, please explain to me how.
The assumption is that all minds are equal, is it not? What makes you think that he might not have had more insight? You could be exactly right about Aquinas, but what are you basing your premise on?
I will ask again, what is the universal, with reference to God?
Please explain what you mean by universal, as I am not sure that I understand the question well enough.
BTW, I just checked out your about page, thank you for serving.
People always seem to have problems communicating, but in this case, we are talking about God, not people.
I had originally asked, in #58, about how the word of God is proven....the response was...'God proves his own Word with each individual. Seek him for that answer. I'm sorry but it is humanly impossible for anyone else to do so.'...that brought my response about how it appeared that truth,(about God) is individual, vice universal. You had said, in your #103, 'Truth is both subjective and objective. You could say that Truth occurs at the moment the individual(subject) recognizes the universal(object).'....that prompted my question about what the universal was, and you responded about fire, and I said that was not what we are talking about.
I have to ask how you know that to medieval man, God was the ultimate reality? How do you know this? Also, why do you say that...'Now man is the source of all things and we no longer share a common ethos'? I disagree. If, as you say, that God existed as He revealed Himself...then how is this universal and not individual?...there have always been people of differing beliefs, so it would seem that God's revelation, was/is not the same for all men.
The assumption is that no man can understand the mind of God, not that all minds are equal. Whether a saint or not. Besides, there is no way of proving any of it. The only thing I base my premise on, is that I do not believe that a human mind, can comprehend the God, that is the creator of all...no proof, just belief.
Having read both historical and philosophical works regarding that time, that is what seems to be the case. In fairness, I am refering specifically to Christendom in that period which comprises Europe, northern Africa and the Holy Land.
why do you say that...'Now man is the source of all things and we no longer share a common ethos'? I disagree.
I'm not sure how you can disagree. Some people think divorce and extramarital sex and abortion are okay, others regard this as immoral, the cause of societal breakdown and murder, in regard to abortion. Some think government is the solution, some think it is the problem. Some see Christianity as the embodiment of the best ethos we could hope for, some see Christianity as the worst oppressive evil ever unleashed upon mankind. Please explain your perspective as I do not not understand why you disagree.
If, as you say, that God existed as He revealed Himself...then how is this universal and not individual?
Given that God exists as he reveals himself, Scripture would be considered a universal fact; it exists and everyone can see that it exists. Just as surely as the world is round. People can read and decide their beliefs but you will always have unbelievers and flat earth types running around. Neither changes the universality of the truth, though. More on your post later...
Do you think that these writings really reflect the average medieval man? Weren't most of the writers and philosophers back then nobility, or at least the learned upper class?
The world is a much more complex, and populous place than it was in medieval times, I believe that mans ethos has evolved, along with societies. Of course the ethos have changed, but that is because man has. I believe, though, that men still hold those same things dear to him now, that they did then.
God exists as He reveals Himself, but I believe that He reveals Himself differently to individuals. If God's truth were universal, then why don't all men believe the same? I agree that scripture exists, but that says nothing of it's being a universal truth, just that it exists. I belief the universality of God's truth, is that it is revealed to individuals, resulting in individual beliefs. Beliefs that have no way of being proven or disproven.
I don't know, do today's books and newspapers relect the average man? True that the educated men of the time were either nobility or clergy. But the churches were filled with average men and women who learned from those clergy. Not to mention that the first schools were started by those clergy.
I believe that mans ethos has evolved, along with societies. Of course the ethos have changed, but that is because man has. I believe, though, that men still hold those same things dear to him now, that they did then.
Evolved? If you consider neo-barbarianism evolving then okay. I disagree. During those so-called dark ages the average man held God and Church above state; today, the State holds the position of supremacy.
If God's truth were universal, then why don't all men believe the same?
If facts are universal, why don't all men believe the same? Because man has a fallen nature and has an unfortunate tendency to pursue his own appetites than aknowledge an uncomfortable universal truth.
Again, if truth is not universal then how is communication possible?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.