Is the world really searching for truth?

[th1b.taylor]

I don't think acknowledging that our truth, as Christians, is not the "truth" of unbelievers is dabbling in relativism. I think its just stating the obvious.

It's a strange thing, truth! Truth is the one single faceted thing that must not and, indeed, it will not ever change. Jesus is the truth and that truth does not rely on human belief. Humans rely on Him if they hope to avoid Hell, Judgment, and the Abyss/Lake of Fire.

If you believe someone's disbelief in God is their truth, you have listened to the Left for to long. What they believe and teach is Relativity and the truth about Relativity is that it is a lie and there is no truth in it as far as Spiritual Matters are concerned.

 

[Free]

It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that there is some confusion here. OzSpen is asking for a definition of truth, not what people believe to be true. If something is true, it is true for everyone, but not everyone may believe that it is true.

At the most basic level, I think that truth is that which corresponds with reality. So it isn't a matter of we have truth as Christians but it isn't the truth of unbelievers. It's just truth and unbelievers don't believe that to be the case. There is no 'my truth' and 'his truth'.

 

[Christ_empowered]

It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that there is some confusion here. OzSpen is asking for a definition of truth, not what people believe to be true. If something is true, it is true for everyone, but not everyone may believe that it is true.

At the most basic level, I think that truth is that which corresponds with reality. So it isn't a matter of we have truth as Christians but it isn't the truth of unbelievers. It's just truth and unbelievers don't believe that to be the case. There is no 'my truth' and 'his truth'.

Indeed. Thanks for this.

 

[OzSpen]

It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that there is some confusion here. OzSpen is asking for a definition of truth, not what people believe to be true. If something is true, it is true for everyone, but not everyone may believe that it is true.

At the most basic level, I think that truth is that which corresponds with reality. So it isn't a matter of we have truth as Christians but it isn't the truth of unbelievers. It's just truth and unbelievers don't believe that to be the case. There is no 'my truth' and 'his truth'.

​

Free,

Thanks for helping us pursue a definition of truth. Oxford dictionaries (online) give these definitions of truth:

1. 
   truth
   noun
   • 1[mass noun] The quality or state of being true:
     ‘he had to accept the truth of her accusation’
   1. 1 also the truth That which is true or in accordance with fact or reality:
      ‘tell me the truth’
      ‘she found out the truth about him’

1. 2 A fact or belief that is accepted as true:
   ‘the emergence of scientific truths’
   ‘the fundamental truths about mankind’

What I have picked up through this thread is an emphasis on, (a) Truth is the opposite of a lie, and (b) Jesus is the Truth.

I accept your definition of truth as 'that which corresponds with reality'. It is telling it like it is or calling a spade a spade. Take the example of Pilate at the trial of Jesus. He asked Jesus, '"What is truth?" retorted Pilate. With this he went out again to the Jews gathered there and said, "I find no basis for a charge against him"' (John 18:38).

That was 2 centuries ago and please note what the record in John states. He didn't wait for a response from Jesus. Pilate's decision was based on his knowledge of some truth about Jesus, 'I find no basis for a charge against him'. by acquiting Jesus, Pilate was telling what corresponds with reality, telling it like it is.

Truth also can be defined as that which corresponds to its object or that which describes an actual state of affairs. Pilate's judgment about Jesus was a description of the truth that it conformed with an actual state of affairs.

When I push the glass over the table edge and it shatters on the tiles below instead of flying to the ceiling, I know the truth of gravity is downward pressure. I also know the truth that gravity can be overcome with enough power as with a jet plane's engine. So, truth describes an actual state of affairs with gravity, as it does with the earth orbitting the sun or planting seeds to produce plants.

As for Jesus as the Truth (John 14:1-7 ESV), we know what that means if we look at the context:

“Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. 2 In my Father's house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also. 4 And you know the way to where I am going.” 5 Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” 6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”​

In context, Jesus was dealing with the truth of:

a) how to get into the Father's house with its many rooms;
(b) How to know the truth about getting to where Jesus is going;
(c) Nobody can come to the heavenly Father except through Jesus; and
(d) If these disciples had known Jesus, they would have known the Father.​

I would never denigrate the truth of how to get to the Father's house through Jesus, but truth has a broader application than John 14:6. How do we know? The Bible teaches us that truth describes an actual state of affairs:

1. The heavens and the earth were created and this includes the first human beings;
2. There was a great flood in Noah's time that has left deposits around the world;
3. Abraham, Moses, Joshua and Daniel were real human beings;
4. Jesus performed miracles;
5. Jesus died by crucifixion and was resurrected;
6. The church began from that point and spread as the apostles and all believers proclaimed the Gospel;
7. Nero persecuted Christians;
8. These points can be historically or scientifically verified.

Thanks, Free, for opening up this discussion to deal with a more comprehensive understanding of the meaning of truth.

Oz

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Have you listened to 'Richard Dawkins on the truth'? He says he's interested in truth as a leading scientist and atheist/agnostic. So here's one eminent public person on science who claims he's interested in the truth, but not Christian truth.

His view is that religion should not be exempt from criticism. This is one point on which I can agree with him.

Oz

I do not like Richard Dawkins one bit. I've heard his screaming and ranting, and it removes any respect I have for him as some kind of authority on the truthfulness of spiritual matters (besides the simple fact that he's an unbeliever). To me, he's too emotionally biased against religion for him to have a respectable or credible or truthful view on the subject.

His view is that religion should not be exempt from criticism.

Well, he definitely has not protected religion from being criticized. That's for sure.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I see a distinct difference between 'truth' and something that is 'true'. It is certainly true that you can succeed in life if you kill all your enemies. But that is hardly truth. Jesus would not proclaim that as the truth, even though it is true. Truth carries with it the connotation of 'that which is true according to the righteousness of God'. While 'that which is true' is merely referring to anything that is factually correct.

The hungry, searching, longing, grasping world is not really looking for truth. They are looking for what is true, as if that is what will calm the turbulence of the soul. That's why the world can not find the truth. They are searching for what is true. Rare is the person who is really searching for the truth. That is the work of God in a person. Dawkins, for example, is not looking for truth. He is simply grasping for that which is true (ironically, in order to discredit the truth). That's what scientists do. Theologians, on the other hand, search for what is truth.

 

[OzSpen]

I do not like Richard Dawkins one bit. I've heard his screaming and ranting, and it removes any respect I have for him as some kind of authority on the truthfulness of spiritual matters (besides the simple fact that he's an unbeliever). To me, he's too emotionally biased against religion for him to have a respectable or credible or truthful view on the subject.

Well, he definitely has not protected religion from being criticized. That's for sure.

It should not matter whether we like the person or not. His emotional approach does blunt the edge of his statements for me also. However, there is many a preacher who I find just as brazen in their approaches as Dawkins.

The issue is: Is Dawkins raising issues about truth that need to be addressed by the Christian community. At times I think he is.

I did note that you did not raise one point from Dawkins comments in the YouTube video: 'Richard Dawkins on the truth'.

Dawkins is one secularist who is interested in truth. Why didn't you address what he said about his view of truth?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I see a distinct difference between 'truth' and something that is 'true'. It is certainly true that you can succeed in life if you kill all your enemies. But that is hardly truth. Jesus would not proclaim that as the truth, even though it is true. Truth carries with it the connotation of 'that which is true according to the righteousness of God'. While 'that which is true' is merely referring to anything that is factually correct.

The hungry, searching, longing, grasping world is not really looking for truth. They are looking for what is true, as if that is what will calm the turbulence of the soul. That's why the world can not find the truth. They are searching for what is true. Rare is the person who is really searching for the truth. That is the work of God in a person. Dawkins, for example, is not looking for truth. He is simply grasping for that which is true (ironically, in order to discredit the truth). That's what scientists do. Theologians, on the other hand, search for what is truth.

You seem to have ignored my detailed response at #144 where I provided definitions and examples of truth.

Truth is that which corresponds with reality. Truth also can be defined as that which corresponds to its object or that which describes an actual state of affairs.

You say: 'It is certainly true that you can succeed in life if you kill all your enemies. But that is hardly truth'. To the contrary, success by killing enemies describes an actual state of affairs. Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Mao, Stalin, and Hitler all demonstrated that truth is an actual state of affairs.

You say, "I see a distinct difference between 'truth' and something that is 'true'". I'm wondering which planet you are on when you are trying to convince us that that which is true is not the truth. That's an oxymoron.

Is it true and the truth that the Tropic of Capricorn crosses the Queensland coast near the city of Rockhampton?

Oz

 

[Jethro Bodine]

It should not matter whether we like the person or not. His emotional approach does blunt the edge of his statements for me also. However, there is many a preacher who I find just as brazen in their approaches as Dawkins.

Perhaps you're confusing passion with anger.
The last person I listen to is an angry unbeliever.

I did note that you did not raise one point from Dawkins comments in the YouTube video: 'Richard Dawkins on the truth'.

I thought I said in my other post I don't listen to him. If I failed to do so I'm saying it now. I don't listen to what he has to say. It's the same ol' unbelievers angry rhetoric. Yuck! I've had enough of it. My witnessing days where I had to listen to that garbage are behind me. I've done my share.

Truth is that which corresponds with reality. Truth also can be defined as that which corresponds to its object or that which describes an actual state of affairs.

And that's a wonderful worldly definition.
But if you'll notice I was addressing the spiritual aspect of 'truth' vs. 'what is true'.
Truth corresponds to God's reality. In regard to man, 'what is true' is simply man's present reality.

You say: 'It is certainly true that you can succeed in life if you kill all your enemies. But that is hardly truth'. To the contrary, success by killing enemies describes an actual state of affairs. Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Mao, Stalin, and Hitler all demonstrated that truth is an actual state of affairs.

You say, "I see a distinct difference between 'truth' and something that is 'true'". I'm wondering which planet you are on when you are trying to convince us that that which is true is not the truth. That's an oxymoron.

By you categorically equating truth with that which is true, you can not acknowledge that Jesus would NEVER say, "Hitler's plan for a white supremacist state is truth". We all know the plan was indeed very true-he really did want that-but God would never qualify that as truth. His truth is for a kingdom and nation for all nations and races and tongues--that's truth. See the difference? That's what I was addressing. Not all that is 'true' is 'truth' in regard to the spiritual connotation that God puts on truth.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I'm wondering which planet you are on when you are trying to convince us that that which is true is not the truth. That's an oxymoron.

The 'planet' where 'if you give what you have you will have more' is truth/ true.

See, that's 'truth', and it is very true. But not to a Dawkins, or any other unbeliever.
See, they try to quantify truth according to what they know to be true. To them truth is 'you have less when you give what you have'. So they reject anything that doesn't line up with that. That's why Dawkins will never find truth by simply trying to learn what is true. For they are not categorically equivalent. Doing that instantly nullifies the truth, as I have just shown you by example.

 

[th1b.taylor]

You seem to have ignored my detailed response at #144 where I provided definitions and examples of truth.

Truth is that which corresponds with reality. Truth also can be defined as that which corresponds to its object or that which describes an actual state of affairs.

You say: 'It is certainly true that you can succeed in life if you kill all your enemies. But that is hardly truth'. To the contrary, success by killing enemies describes an actual state of affairs. Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Mao, Stalin, and Hitler all demonstrated that truth is an actual state of affairs.

You say, "I see a distinct difference between 'truth' and something that is 'true'". I'm wondering which planet you are on when you are trying to convince us that that which is true is not the truth. That's an oxymoron.

Is it true and the truth that the Tropic of Capricorn crosses the Queensland coast near the city of Rockhampton?

Oz

Not of necessity because of the differences between the Natural and the Spiritual. I believe that is where he is on this.

 

[OzSpen]

I thought I said in my other post I don't listen to him [Richard Dawkins]. If I failed to do so I'm saying it now. I don't listen to what he has to say. It's the same ol' unbelievers angry rhetoric. Yuck! I've had enough of it. My witnessing days where I had to listen to that garbage are behind me. I've done my share.

Jethro,

What's the title of your OP? You started this thread with the theme, 'Is the world really searching for truth?' I gave you an example of a worldly one who is interested in truth, Richard Dawkins, 'Richard Dawkins on the truth'. But you are not interested in listening to what this person from the world thinks. Then don't bother asking if the world is searching for truth when I give you one example and you refuse to listen to what he says because of the way he delivers it.

I hope you understand that you are demonstrating a similar kind of resistance to me.

And that's a wonderful worldly definition.
But if you'll notice I was addressing the spiritual aspect of 'truth' vs. 'what is true'.
Truth corresponds to God's reality. In regard to man, 'what is true' is simply man's present reality.

I have provided you with actual, factual definitions of truth. You brush that aside as 'a wonderful worldly definition' when you are confirming what those definitions say in your response to me. Gravity corresponds with scientific, practical reality. Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton correspond to the truth of facts that happened. They are not worldly definitions. They are factual definitions of truth.

By you categorically equating truth with that which is true, you can not acknowledge that Jesus would NEVER say, "Hitler's plan for a white supremacist state is truth". We all know the plan was indeed very true-he really did want that-but God would never qualify that as truth. His truth is for a kingdom and nation for all nations and races and tongues--that's truth. See the difference? That's what I was addressing. Not all that is 'true' is 'truth' in regard to the spiritual connotation that God puts on truth.

Jesus and Hitler are examples you have imposed on what I wrote, so you have committed a straw man fallacy. I stated: Truth also can be defined as that which corresponds to its object or that which describes an actual state of affairs. Jesus confirmed that view of truth when he affirmed the actual state of affairs of all sinful human beings by dying on the cross and rising again for their justification Rom 4:25 NIV).

You don't seem to like the evidence I provide for definitions of truth that are outside your realm of comfort.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Not of necessity because of the differences between the Natural and the Spiritual. I believe that is where he is on this.

Bill,

What was the OP that Jethro started here? 'Is the world really searching for truth?' His question was not, 'Is the world really searching for spiritual truth rather than natural truth?'

His OP asked:

Is this your experience?
I wonder sometimes given the ever increasing resistance to truth.
If they are looking for truth it seems to be their own version of truth they are pursuing.
Maybe I'm just not bumping into people searching for the real truth.
How 'bout you?​

My conclusion is that his understanding of truth is so limited that it is not comprehensive enough to embrace all definitions of truth that both Christians and non-Christians affirm.

Do you agree with truth as that which corresponds with reality? For example,

What about truth that also can be defined as that which corresponds to its object or that which describes an actual state of affairs? Do you agree with or deny this understanding of truth?

The desire to try to split natural from spiritual truth fractures reality because the supposed 'natural' truth is that which you and I practise or are exposed to daily. It is telling it like it is or in Aussie lingo, it's calling a spade a spade. Is gravity a factual truth that you must live with whether you are Christian or non-Christian? What about what happens to you if you swallowed cyanide or were exposed to large doses of Agent Orange in Vietnam? Is it a factual truth that Agent Orange can be a deadly chemical when human beings are exposed to it? So these examples fit into the definition of truth as telling it like it is, describing an actual state of affairs.

And have a guess what? The truth of an actual state of affairs is that right now I'm typing at my Lenovo keyboard, connected to my Lenovo PC, Samsung monitor and iinet Internet connection. All of that is the truth.

The world will continue to resist truth unless we are prepared to engage with people on broad explanations of the nature of truth. Then we add: Could you be missing one definition of truth? It seems to me that you are. Then we move into a discussion about the Truth of salvation through Christ alone.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

The 'planet' where 'if you give what you have you will have more' is truth/ true.

See, that's 'truth', and it is very true. But not to a Dawkins, or any other unbeliever.
See, they try to quantify truth according to what they know to be true. To them truth is 'you have less when you give what you have'. So they reject anything that doesn't line up with that. That's why Dawkins will never find truth by simply trying to learn what is true. For they are not categorically equivalent. Doing that instantly nullifies the truth, as I have just shown you by example.

The truth is that you omit giving broad definitions of truth that match reality. I've attempted to explain what you have missed but you are very resistant to the idea that your view could be inadequate.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Bill,

What was the OP that Jethro started here? 'Is the world really searching for truth?' His question was not, 'Is the world really searching for spiritual truth rather than natural truth?'

His OP asked:

Is this your experience?
I wonder sometimes given the ever increasing resistance to truth.
If they are looking for truth it seems to be their own version of truth they are pursuing.
Maybe I'm just not bumping into people searching for the real truth.
How 'bout you?​

My conclusion is that his understanding of truth is so limited that it is not comprehensive enough to embrace all definitions of truth that both Christians and non-Christians affirm.

Do you agree with truth as that which corresponds with reality? For example,

What about truth that also can be defined as that which corresponds to its object or that which describes an actual state of affairs? Do you agree with or deny this understanding of truth?

The desire to try to split natural from spiritual truth fractures reality because the supposed 'natural' truth is that which you and I practise or are exposed to daily. It is telling it like it is or in Aussie lingo, it's calling a spade a spade. Is gravity a factual truth that you must live with whether you are Christian or non-Christian? What about what happens to you if you swallowed cyanide or were exposed to large doses of Agent Orange in Vietnam? Is it a factual truth that Agent Orange can be a deadly chemical when human beings are exposed to it? So these examples fit into the definition of truth as telling it like it is, describing an actual state of affairs.

And have a guess what? The truth of an actual state of affairs is that right now I'm typing at my Lenovo keyboard, connected to my Lenovo PC, Samsung monitor and iinet Internet connection. All of that is the truth.

The world will continue to resist truth unless we are prepared to engage with people on broad explanations of the nature of truth. Then we add: Could you be missing one definition of truth? It seems to me that you are. Then we move into a discussion about the Truth of salvation through Christ alone.

Oz

Okay, no argument! But there is such a problem with what I understand abut Mr. Dawkins. He has been a main stream idol for some time now because he denies the supernatural and no matter how much he disbelieves God is, God still is and for me, like Jethro, his opinions matter not because he will not open his scope to truth that matters.

 

[Edward]

My Truth's better than your truth...
My truths better than yours...

Cause my dog eats obamaration burgers...da da daaaaaa

 

[Jethro Bodine]

My Truth's better than your truth...
My truths better than yours...

Cause my dog eats obamaration burgers...da da daaaaaa

My truth can beat up your truth.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The truth is that you omit giving broad definitions of truth that match reality. I've attempted to explain what you have missed but you are very resistant to the idea that your view could be inadequate.

Would Jesus say Hilter's plan for a thousand year reign of white supremacy was truth? Yes, or no?
It was true, but it is truth?

 

[Wrg1405]

My truth can beat up your truth.

If your truth could beat my truth up does that make it true that your truth is stronger than mine?
Does that mean it's ok for your truth to beat my truth up because my truth is weak?

Apparently so.

 

[Wrg1405]

I've already given my definition of truth, beginning with #102 and extending to 107, 109, 115 and 125.

Oz

CE,

I was hoping to draw out some understanding of the nature of truth as understood by Christians. There seem to be some restrictive views here of what Christian truth is.

What then is Christian truth? I recommend a read of Norman Geisler, The Nature of Truth, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.

Why don't the folks on this forum take a read of this exposition by a leading apologist and tell us what he is saying about truth?

Oz

Sorry can't see you having given a definition of truth. Just a link to a website to someone who else who gives a definition of truth.

Wrg,

I'm not saying it is something you endorse personally, but with your relativistic worldview of what's true for you may be a lie for me, there is no way you could stop those extreme examples (logical conclusions) from happening.

Why? Relativism does not uphold God's absolutes. Is something is true for you but not true for me, that is relativism in action. It is contrary to Scripture.

Oz

Once again I can't see your definition of truth. All I see here is some sort of acknowledgement that I don't endorse the possible extreme consequences you have quoted me in other posts but I still have a relativistic viewpoint.
You are right there is no way I could stop those extreme examples but neither could you with your views of truth, even if you explained it. Which I've yet to see.

Wrg,

The two examples I gave of your worldview in action were to push you to the logical conclusions of your worldview of relativism. There is no way you could object to the perpetrators of the 2 examples I gave if your relativism were practised in society.

You say, 'What I was trying to convey is that what I consider truth for me may be a lie to others'. That's exactly what I was dealing with and the logical conclusions of such a philosophy. If we don't have absolute values against murder, theft, lying, rape, etc, then chaos will come to your nation and mine. But it will come closer to home - into our personal lives, families and cities.

What makes burglary wrong in all countries and NOT wrong for one person and right for me?

Oz

Once again I can't see your definition of truth. Once again a pop at me.

Wrg,

So your version of truth is: 'One persons truth is another persons lie'. Let's tease out a couple applications of this.

1. Bill just robbed a convenience store by taking a machete, jumping over the counter, and demanding cash from the till - all of the cash. Bill's truth is that it is legitimate and truth for him to rob stores. For me, he has broken God's law by being a thief. Robbing people is truth for Bill; robbing people is breaking God's truth for me. Do you want to live in a world where it is OK for the many Bills out there to steal all they want because that is their truth?
2. John considers it is his truth to rape children as a paedophile. He gets a great deal of truthful pleasure out of it. My truth is that Scripture says sexual immorality is wrong and his paedophilia should be punished. Your view of truth would lead to a nation in chaos where anyone could do anything because 'it is their truth'. There would be no laws to protect against home invasion, murder, lying, etc.

'That's true for you, but not true for me' (Paul Copan) is called relativism. That is what you are advocating and it is contrary to the 10 Commandments (Ex 20 ESV) and the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7 ESV). It is contrary to God's law for a just society.

You say it's your own philosophy. It's not. It has been around a long time and brings disaster to personal, family, and national life. It makes nothing wrong.

Oz

Just another link to a website, I can't see your definition of truth. Just a slur on me.

Once again no definition of what you believe to be truth.

I have never said that. You mention paedophilia. As a person who who suffered at the hands of such a person, I would never ever ever say that is the truth to them. It's immoral and should be punished.

Quite frankly as a result of my life's experiences I felt it was my fault, I was dirty and unlovable. Is that the truth? To me it was. What is the truth please tell me?

You could have taken the opportunity to answer my question about how I felt it was my fault, that I was dirty and unlovable and that was my truth. You could have said "Bill that's not true, you are not dirty, God loves you, that's the truth, it wasn't your fault and that's the truth, the guy who did this was in the wrong not you. But alas you didn't. How did you respond?

Wrg,

The two examples I gave of your worldview in action were to push you to the logical conclusions of your worldview of relativism. There is no way you could object to the perpetrators of the 2 examples I gave if your relativism were practised in society.

You say, 'What I was trying to convey is that what I consider truth for me may be a lie to others'. That's exactly what I was dealing with and the logical conclusions of such a philosophy. If we don't have absolute values against murder, theft, lying, rape, etc, then chaos will come to your nation and mine. But it will come closer to home - into our personal lives, families and cities.

What makes burglary wrong in all countries and NOT wrong for one person and right for me?

Oz

Yes my friend it did come closer to home, for me anyway.