Truth is not something put to the masses. Truth is not something up for vote. We do not decide what Truth is. We can discover it, yes. But we do not create it. Truth transcends our humanity.

Well put Crazy Anglican

There are many things in this world that are true yet not all people accept it as true, even when proven.

We have seen examples to this on the site. One is that .999999...= 1.

Others try to claim that the Holocaust never happened, which we know is an incorrect claim

It's been proven, yet many refuse to believe it. People reject truth when they cannot understand it because if they don't understand it, they cannot believe it.

Truth isn't based on popular opinion. It's true whether someone wants to believe and understand it or not.

We believe the Word because it was made alive and proven to us. The Bible says that Jesus came to His disciples with "many convincing proofs" and others have perpetuated it in the same manner.

"Since when does people agreeing with something (much less all people agreeing with it) make it truth or not? Everyone suffers from confirmation bias to some degree, otherwise we would all agree on most everything of consequence."

I believe that was since the quote i posted made the claim that old things when believed are true...

Whether there exists some fundamental transcedental Truth is something i'm rather agnostic about. Though there are laws of physics, they are not like theories, they are 100% true; because they are descriptions of what happens (whereas a theory is an attempt to explain why/how)

"We believe the Word because it was made alive and proven to us. The Bible says that Jesus came to His disciples with "many convincing proofs" and others have perpetuated it in the same manner"

Circular reasoning much??

@truninja: the.999 thing is a bad example, and even though the holocaust thing is legitimate, the people were most likely just trolling. Even if the.999 thing is true thiugh, there is a major difference between it and the bible: one does have proof for it, the other does not. It is likely that people like jesus existed, however, that does not mean they were God. Just because someone said something in the past, and a lot of people believed them, it does not make it true. The Bible also has not withstood scrutiny, and has contradicted itself, along with having many other problems, countless times. There is also a lot of evidence to prove that the books in it were not written by people named "Peter, James, and/or John and that they were likely written by people who had never met him. (even if he had followers, they were likely not literate as it would not have been a common thing in that time.) even if the historical events described were true, it would still not prove the Bible is legitimate. I doubt that you are skeptical about the existence of Buddha, as a Christian, you do not believe that his teachings are true, despite believing he lived. This situation is similar if not the same. The Bible also never has been proven. There is absolutely no way to verify that some bi-polar genderless sky God decided to impregnate a virgin girl (who despite being called the Virgin Mary, was not a virgin, jesus's brother John had 3 books in the nt) so that his also all-powerful son could be born for the sole purpose of spreading the gospel, along with changing a lot of it. Even if jesus lived at one time, it does might mean he was telling the truth. The fact is he lied, and science has proven itself many times to be more trustworthy.

Oh, I'm loving this.

I don't participate much in this thread because it seems to be time consuming (all you posts are soooo long), but:

1. There is nothing to "believe" about 0,999...=1 (note that "9" goes to infinity, some countries note this as 0,(9) ). It is mathematical truth, just as 1+1=2 so if anything it's just lack of education.
2. People not "believing" in Holocaust is just an extreme example of ignorance, often combined with antisemitism.
3. Not believing in God, or any other god for that matter has nothing to do with any of the above. It is not a result of lack of education - I've been raised catholic and now Bible much better than most Christians I know. It has nothing to do with ignorance, nor prejudice.

You say people reject the truth they cannot understand. If anything, I think religion is a result of rejecting the world because of not understanding it. Millennia ago people looked at thunders or changing seasons or any of other buffling things in nature. With no scientific knowledge they had to create some explanation. look at the Greek mythology, look how much of it describes the phenomena in nature. And then it all got organized, new beliefs where added, new gods invented. Some gods where forgotten as civilizations perished, some gods made it till today. Of course now we have scientific method, we know that the seasons are not a proof of some mother goddess but axial tilt of the Earth. We know that thunder is a result of accumulation of electric charge.

And still - I get it that people still believe in stuff. There are still big questions that science did not answer definitively, not to mention - it is a hell lot easier to believe, believe that there is purpose, believe that there is afterlife - those things are great! But to believe in any form of organized religion, especially in Christianity is absolute madness! To justify all those terrible things, to hate gay, to tell people what they can or what they cannot do just because your parents passed their delusion onto you... With not a single proof. And sure, you don't need a proof, you believe. And yet you (not personally you, you as believers) are able to argue with other people which belief is the true one, with not a single fucking reasonable argument. Astonishing.

"But to believe in any form of organized religion, especially in Christianity is absolute madness!"

You might be taking my user name a bit too literally ;-)

Seems like we have highjacked a thread on censorship that had reached a satisfactory conclusion, when this same discussion was happening over on this thread?

http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?viewthread=1250191#1250191

the censorship bot was boring.... I make no apologies for the highjacking!

Well, this thread is hardly the first thing that's been high-jacked for religious reasons...

or anti-religious ones for that matter ;-)

@ora and tvrocks and yassem"

One error I see made quite frequently by people that make claims that logical thought is tied to science and that religion is the absence of a sound mind. Such claims act as if science is the birth of logical thought and is a recent savior--that enough science will eradicate religion because religion is illogical.

To say that there is no truth to Christianity is to simply ignore the evidences of it that people since the dawn of time have seen. Drawing conclusions with logical thought has been around since man has walked the earth. We have always explored the world around us, and each and every civilization has come to similar conclusions, and one of those is that man is not alone. There exists the supernatural--one or more beings that were instrumental in the creation of life.

Later, people come along and state that there have to be rules to logical thought--that something cannot be true unless it is observed by our 5 senses. If humans cannot see, touch, taste, feel or hear something, it cannot exist. It also states that unless a conclusion can be drawn based on these rules, then the method isn't logical and must be dismissed.

The problem is that this line of thinking assumes that the world around us consists only of things that are accessible by our 5 senses--that man has everything he needs to know everything.

There's a reason civilizations have come to the belief of the supernatural--and a world not accessible by our physical senses. We see these evidences in the world around us. If I see a watch, or car, or computer, we assume that there is a maker. When we find fragments of pottery, the ancient pyramids and other things of antiquity, we assume there is a maker. We do not ever draw the conclusion that these things formed themselves over millions of years.

For millennia, people have looked at the natural world around them and saw the intricate way that life operates and have come to the same conclusion: that there must be a maker. An eye is more complex than a watch, an animal more complex than a car, and the brain of an ant is more complex than any computer, yet we draw the conclusion that because we cannot see a maker, that it must have formed by accident.

However, we have explored the human body countless times over. The only difference between a person that is alive and one that is dead is the spark of life. Atoms are lifeless things. When we take two lifeless things and combine them, they sometimes make chemical reactions, but the effect is still a lifeless outcome. Somehow, though, when we mix enough atoms of the right combination, it creates life. What is further unexplainable is that within living things, lifeless chemical reactions can produce thought, emotion, the ability to decide, dream, explore a world around them.

However, these lifeless atoms that make all of this is not enough to explain why they produce these amazing outcomes, because the only difference between a living being and a dead one is the spark of life--something that can absolutely be created by a brilliant Creator. If such a Creator exists, then it must exist beyond our limited senses.

This thinking is not beyond the realm of rational thought--it is an example of it. Now, if there is a being that exists beyond our 5 senses, then there must be a way for us to interact with It and vice-versa.

We Christians have an answer to these questions that your version of science has chosen to ignore, and, in turn, make audacious claims that Christianity is irrational madness and ill-founded.

Now, I'm not saying that you have to believe Christianity--the Bible is true when it says that most people won't because they cannot understand it--"the wisdom of God is foolishness to men", however it cannot be said that there is no evidence for God or Christianity. It's just evidence that others refuse to accept.

"however it cannot be said that there is no evidence for God or Christianity. It's just evidence that others refuse to accept."

There may in fact be evidence, but it could also be evidence of other things. Christianity is not the only answer which fits the evidence.

'To say that there is no truth to Christianity is to simply ignore the evidences of it that people since the dawn of time have seen.'

Without even arguing with you about what the dawn of time is; Your position is a very strange one, considering how much 'Christianity' has changed since the dawn of time.

I mean, first there was no Christ... And above where we discussed rape there were explainations based on the context of the society in question - which leads to a relativistic morality, not anything absolute.

I mean if Christianty doesn't argue for an absolute morality, that might actually make for a more sensible - less internally inconsistant - line of thinking.

Also, even assuming all you say is true, and the evidence points towards Christianity. Which branch is the right one? Should i be a Roman Catholic? Or follow a Protestant faith? Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation? Eternal life through hard works or just prayer? Eastern Orthodox or Coptic Church? Whose teachings should I listen to, and why do they all disagree if there is some supernatural truth that you can't see with your senses guiding you??

Seriously, listen to your own bullshit for a second.

Catholic all the way :)

tvrocks writes, "The Bible also has not withstood scrutiny, and has contradicted itself, along with having many other problems, countless times."


TV, and I suppose this as well as the other things you say about the Bible are fully supported by your own opinion?

Ora, no need to be rude. If this discussion gets under your skin that much, you could always sit it out--or meditate--or something other than your comment to Christians to "listen to your own bullshit for a second." Has it ever crossed your mind that you might be the one who is mistaken here? And on a very important topic.

But in reply to some of your many objections put in the form of questions in your last post: 1. You don't need to be Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox at all to come to Christ and be saved, although fellowship is important afterwards. 2. "Eternal life through hard works" is the antithesis of the Christian message, because you just can't be good enough to earn that reward from a God who expects perfection. 3. Whether communion (which some groups call the Eucharist) is transubstantiation or consubstantiation, or purely symbolic for that matter, is a long-standing debate. The important thing there is that Jesus, at his last Passover supper, passed around the cup that represented the blood of the Passover lamb and deliverance from 4 exiles, and said "Take, eat; this is my blood that was shed for you for the remission of sin." And the bread that Jesus broke at the Passover supper was the afikomen, the last piece of bread eaten at Passover, which is always broken. Jesus said that this was his body "broken for you." So whatever we believe in terms of what actually happens to the bread and wine, we are symbolically sharing Jesus' last supper with him and recognizing that both the Passover lamb and the one broken piece of Passover bread both pointed to Him as the true savior who makes it possible for the Angel of Death to pass over us so that even though our physical bodies die, we will live forever with Jesus.

oops. He said "Take, drink...." for the cup. Apparently my own writing is not without errors. ;-)

@mujus: read through this site, it is just one example of the times in which the Bible contradicts itself, and is also one of the sites that points out the problems with the Bible. (it did not withstand the scrutiny.)

@truninja: I looked through your post and found no example of actual evidences that you mentioned. Could you please give some instead of just saying we would not understand them? In general the people on this site are smart, and would very easily be able to understand it. I personally am still active in my religion (against my will), and I know much of the gospel lingo. All the "proofs" that you presented are complete bs though. Your statement, "For millennia, people have looked at the natural world around them and saw the intricate way that life operates and have come to the same conclusion: that there must be a maker." to be honest makes me laugh. Have you ever heard of daoism, shintoism, or Buddhism? These are three extremely common churches. Correct me if I'm wrong, but none of these churches are based on the idea that there is a creator. They have seen nature, the house do not believe that means there was a creator thiugh. Even though many people do belive there was a creator, most people came to different conclusions on who/ what he/ she is. There are the greek/ roman gods, the Egyptian gods, and Gods of almost all other old cultures. Even in the modern day, even though all, or almost all Christian denominations are based on the same basic idea (that there is a god), there are over 40,000 Christian denominations, and there are also many other churches such as Islam, Hinduism, and Judaism. Even if they came to the same conclusion thiugh, that would not make it true. That is a fallacy called ad populum, if I remember correctly, and states that just because a large group of people believe in something, it doesn't make it true. For example, just because a large group of people believed that 2+2=3, it does not make it true.

@mujus: sorry, forgot the site. Here it is, http://infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html
If you want others, just Google it, they are easy to find.

@ora:

Bear in mind, that I see the evidence of things pointing to the God of the Bible. Call it Christianity, Judaism, Protestantism, or what you wish, that's where I view the evidence pointing strongly.

Second, to your statement that at first there was no Christ, you are mistaken.

Since the time of Abraham, the first Jew, the Jews sought the coming of the Messiah, and I have no doubt that others sought Him prior to this.

God first gave prophecy of Christ to Adam when he plunged men into sin saying
"...And I will put enmity between you and the woman (speaking to the serpent, who we know as Satan) and between your seed and her seed. He (Christ) shall bruise you on the head and you shall bruise him on the heel.

This prophecy speaks that Satan's victory over Christ would be short-lived, and not dealing the killing blow, while Christ would one day defeat Satan forever.

That is the first prophecy of Christ, which came directly after the fall of man. The first mention of Christ is found in Genesis 1:1 when it speaks of "God [hebrew: Elohim being the plural form of God] created [a singular form of the verb indicating the God head is one] the heavens and the earth..."

John 1:1 verifies this "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God"
where the Word is Christ as explained in the passage.

Christ Himself said "Before Abraham was, I AM" -- John 8:58

And again Colossians 1:16 "For by Him [Christ] were all things created..."

Therefore Christ is as eternal as God.

Now I answered statements about absolute morality before, stating that there is absolute morality--just not everyone chooses to accept it in the same way that people in every country try to define morality to suit their own desires. Those who will steal will justify it as right in their own minds inasmuch as someone would kill or any other sin. When we justify our wrongs, we create for ourselves our own morality of good and evil, right and wrong, however we have laws that supercede these. God's Law is above our own, but we reject it and justify our doing so. We pass it off as "those rules are out-dated" or "why follow a 2000 year old book" or "there is no God".


You will have to (and I suspect you have and I bear you no ill will) draw your own conclusions about what I'm saying. It's not my job to convince you. I am merely called to speak the truth whether one can accept it or not. It is the Spirit of God that draws men and not all men will come to Christ. If men rejected Christ while He was here, and He is greater than me, how much more will they reject me.

I do hope you consider my words. I'm not trying to offend you, but simply make you aware that there is more out there than what is at face value.

@tvr: I'd be more than happy to!

Here are some of the compelling arguments that made me take notice, although I didn't come to Christ as a result of these, but rather when I recognized my own need for a Savior:

Lee Strobel wrote a wonderful work called "A Case For Christ" that was one of the greatest books written in argument for logical faith in Christ. In it, he divulged that he spent years trying to disprove the Bible. As a journalist he had the luxury of travelling and speaking with many people, so on his journeys, he took time to talk to "leading experts" in a large number of fields to try to find evidence that Christ was a sham. Here are a few:

Many argue that much of the writings came well after the death of Christ, yet compared to many works that we call historical documents, the first books of the Bible were written a mere 30 years after Christ's death, which by comparison, is no time. They were written by contemporaries of Christ. There is no dispute among scholars that Paul the Apostle wrote the books he did, or Peter, or Luke or even Mark.

Here's some info on that: http://www.everystudent.com/features/bible.html

Second, his disciples witnessed the events in Scripture, including Christ's resurrection. If they claim this, then they are either lying or speaking truth. Since Christ's death, His disciples were hunted, tortured and killed for their faith. You'd be hard-pressed to find someone that will die for a lie, especially the way they died. They were improsoned, beaten, stoned, impaled, hung on crosses, burned, whipped, starved, for what, a lie? Shortly after Christ's death, they had the opportunity to return to their former lives and did, until they encountered the resurrected Christ.

I'll get to others, and there are many more. I would offer you the opportunity to read "A Case for Christ" it answers all of these questions.

TV, I looked at the list of objections you referenced, and many of them have been debated in the Bible Reading thread on this very site. But this list of possible objections just looks substantial because it is so long--If you look at each objection carefully and in context, they don't stand up to the harsh light of reason.

@mujus, thank you for your responce. My point wasn't that you can't answer those questions, but that the multitude of 'true' answers from different people points to the fact that the bible itself doesn't spell out one truth.

It is vague at best.

To take just one example ""...And I will put enmity between you and the woman (speaking to the serpent, who we know as Satan) and between your seed and her seed. He (Christ) shall bruise you on the head and you shall bruise him on the heel."

This is the only time i've heard that the He here in genesis is refering to Christ and not to the descendants of Eve.

And i just read genesis 3 to get the context.

Nothing in it suggests god was promising a messiah. Is this supposed to be some kind of subtle fore-shadowing? What was the authorial intent? Or is this a biased revisionist re-reading by Tru-ninja?

Regardless, my point wasn't that no Messiah was ever prophecised. It was that the law changed, the truth derived from the bible has changed over time and culture. It is now seen as acceptable to mix linen and cotton. Or fuck men in the ass.

I thus question both the universality of any Truth you might derive, the the truthiness of it.

That said, there are universal ideas, which can be found in Buddhims, Humanism, and Christianity ( to name just three unrelated philosophies) I would go so far as to claim we have found similar ideas of fairness/justice in monkeys. And that these are not human truths but evolutionary successful strategies.

Similar to how one would go and explain 'free will' as an evolutionary advantage. To answer your question, no i don't think for a second that i might be wrong; i'm not re-evaluating my world view here. Like those Christians here, we are all just re-affirming our own views.

In Genesis 2, it is a fore-shadowing, one that requires a lot of explaining. It was originally held using Jewish tradition that this was a reference to the Messiah before the time of Christ, but now that we have the NT, it becomes a bit more clear (I know you probably won't like that as an answer, but it's the best I can do without paragraphs).

In terms of law changing over time, this is only true when you look at the world as a whole. The Law of God hasn't changed, but rather it has been fulfilled. I will explain this in detail below because it's explanation is much shorter.

Again, the OT Law and Prophets point to Christ. Therefore, when we read the OT laws, we should do so looking for Christ--that is to say that the law/Prophets will either point to what Christ would physically do on earth (so we could identify Him when He came), it would point to who He was (as to His nature or attributes), or it would point to His work (namely His mission and the way His mission applies to believers).

Here are some examples:
--I mentioned the sacrifices, but this goes very in-depth. The Law required that for the sin sacrifice, an animal would be an unblemished male--meaning not one that was sickly, diseased or had any defect including broken bones, etc. This points to Christ's perfection--His deity. The animal would be then taken outside of the camp (reflective of the way Christ was killed outside of the city of Jerusalem--apart from His people), and taken to the tabbernacle (meaning the transfer of sin was to sinner would place his hand on the animal as a symbolic transferring of his sin to Christ in the presence of God--a clear depiction of Christ's work on the cross. The animal would then be slaughtered and its blood placed on the altar of the LORD--the altar represents judgement. The law says the animal would be a propitiation (some translation translate it more loosely as 'scapegoat') for the sinner.

--Another example is in the division of clean and unclean foods. I've heard some try to say that this is because God wanted healthy eating, but this interpretation is incorrect because, as mentioned, the OT points to Christ. The division of clean and unclean foods is the division between those that are holy and dedicated to God and those that are not. The Israelites, and we Christians, are not to behave, speak, act, or do things like the world. We are to be different, holy and set apart. This speaks of the cleansing work of Christ when we accept Him as Savior. He sets us apart--calling us out of the things that are unclean, and sinful into holiness. The Law wasn't there to condemn people because of what they ate, but rather it was symbolic of things to come.

--A third thing, one in which you mentioned--the sewing together of two different materials, or the sowing of two different plants into one field is similar to the eating of unclean foods. We are called out of the world--not to be mixed with the world, but to be apart and different. Therefore, the Law could care less about the action, but rather the symbolism behind it.

--Another, and one of my favorites, is the Year of Jubilee. If a man was poor and could not afford to feed or care for his family financially, he could sell himself or his children into service (similar to slavery but without the harsh treatments that come with the connotations of slavery--it more closely matches indentured servitude). Again, if a man could not afford to care for his family, he could sell his possessions--house, land, other properties, etc to pay for debts or raise money to care for his family during his time of need. Once every 50 years, the Israelites were to proclaim a Year of Jubilee at which time slaves would be set free if their debts had not been worked off already, property sold during times of need would be returned to their original owners, and the land would enjoy rest from service. This was to point to Christ's redeeming work of His death on the cross--how He would redeem us from slavery to sin and set us free.

God commanded the Israelites to live in such a way so that their every day living would be symbolic to the work of Christ--that is, it would be a constant reminder of the heart of the issues instead of the letter of the Law. That is why, when Christ came, He fulfilled the Law because He did everything that the Law and Prophets declared He would do. He was a propitiation for our sin, He is what cleanses us from unrighteousness, He is what sets us apart from the world and dedicated to God--bought with a price.

Therefore, much of the Law wasn't there for the purpose of listing strange rules and regulations, but to cause the people to physically live and work out the reminder of what their promised Messiah would one day do.


A vast majority of the Laws were of this type--pointers to Christ. There were some that were set in place to protect people, ensure that people were cared for, and ensure God was honored and glorified. For the rest, they are merely there to depict Christ.

So to sumbolically represent christ, i take it you continue to live a life without mixed fabrics?

"This is the only time i've heard that the He here in genesis is refering to Christ and not to the descendants of Eve. "

Really? That's a pretty standard interpretation among Christians of many stripes. Of course I agree that it's not something that would have been obvious at the time (and so it's not among the set of prophecies whose fulfillment is strong *evidence* per se on its own), but that double entendre is widely believed in, and does contribute to an overall coherency.

@ora: you completely missed my point which leads me to believe you read a very limited portion of my post. No I do not live a life concerned with fabrics. The law was a pointer to Christ. The Jews (and only jews) were to live out symbolic meaning in a physical way, much in the same way when we say "knock on wood", we actually knock on wood. The Law is was physical manifestation of a spiritual truth that spoke of Christ. When Christ came, He fulfilled the Law.

The law said "Christ your redeemer is coming. Live this way to remind generations to come." When Christ came, the Law identified who He was, saying "Look, your redeemer is here, the Law is made complete"

It has nothing to do with fabric, it has to do with Christ. It has nothing to do service, it has to do with Christ. It has nothing to do with the sacrifice of animals, it has all to do with Christ. What the law could not do, and not designed to do--that is make men sinless, Christ did on the cross.

Hi Ora,

You write, "This is the only time i've heard that the He here in genesis is refering to Christ and not to the descendants of Eve." But... Christ IS a descendant of Eve. And it does say "seed" and not "seeds." So if you know what to look for, a savior descended from Eve was foretold even from the beginning of man's fall from grace, when the first man and woman chose to sin.

TruNinja, what a great explanation of the reason for the law. You put it as clearly as I've ever seen it.