Humm ... Circle - flat like pancake. Globe -  round like a ball. Sorry Lula, I do see signifigance between the two.

Not me ...

MyfistO,

I agree "circle" is the modern translation.

Your #90, I see you've taken it from circle to plane to flat surface and got BT all excited. But that's Ok becasue a globe is in the form of a circle and a circle is the form of a globe.

As I said I'm convinced the original Hebrew was "globe" and that's why the Douay Rheims has it as such and the Dead Sea Scrolls confirm it.

But you know what else confirms globe was the original word?  Context...

The Douay Rheims Isaias 40:21-22 has "globe".

Douay Rheims version states, "Do you not know? Hath it not been heard? Hath it not been told you from the beginning? Hath you not understood the foundations of the Earth? It is he that sits upon the globe of the earth....." [/quote]

"Globe" makes more sense and fits better than "circle" when you put it in context with the previous passage.   

Also Job 26:7 fits better with Isaias 40: 21-22 "globe" more than it would "circle" 

Job 26:7 is about the power of God. "He stretched the north over the empty space and hangeth the earth upon nothing."

Using globe, "He stretched the north over the empty space and hangeth the (globe of the ) earth upon nothing."

Using circle, "He stretched the north over the empty space and hangeth the (circle of the ) earth upon nothing."

.......................

Thank you both, this has been interesting and fun, however, either way you want to read it, Isaias 40:21-22, refutes BT's "flat earth" comment.

 

 

 

Truth is they didn't think the earth was flat. The "flat earth" is a myth that was established in the early 1800s.  

Lula, we are trying to talk proof and that does not allow for statements like this, is all.

Humm ... since you have decided that one for us, can we move on to other circles then, hehehe.

Man oh man there is no talking with some people.

I show you THE ORIGINALS, Hebrew and Latin and all you have is 1 bible translation from some guy who fits what you want to hear. How convenient for you.

Anyone that reads this thread and does a little research will see that every bible (save the DRV translated long after the world was known to be a globe 1749-1752 A.D.- How Handy) states CIRCLE which is NOT a globe.

if your looking through eyes full of pixie dust.

The paradigm of a spherical Earth was developed in Greek astronomy, beginning with Pythagoras (6th century BC), although most Pre-Socratics retained the flat Earth model. Aristotle accepted the spherical shape of the Earth on empirical grounds around 330 BC, and knowledge of the spherical Earth gradually began to spread beyond the Hellenistic world from then on.

I understand your point and it's well taken however, just so you know, when a discussion comes up about Scriputral passages, context, context, context is as important as location, location, location is in real estate.

..............

Sure. Let's do.

......................

Here is a good one for both sides, please read to the end and give it a chance.

Religion vs Science

 

"Let me explain the problem science has with Jesus Christ." The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand. "You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"

"Yes, sir."

"So you believe in God?"

"Absolutely."

"Is God good?"

"Sure! God's good."

"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"

"Yes."

"Are you good or evil?"

"The Bible says I'm evil."

The professor grins knowingly. "Ahh! THE BIBLE!" He considers for a moment. "Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help them? Would you try?"

"Yes sir, I would."

"So you're good...!"

"I wouldn't say that."

"Why not say that? You would help a sick and maimed person if you could... in fact most of us would if we could... God doesn't.

[No answer.]

"He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?"

[No answer]

The elderly man is sympathetic. "No, you can't, can you?" He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. In philosophy, you have to go easy with the new ones. "Let's start again, young fella."

"Is God good?"

"Er... Yes."

"Is Satan good?"

"No."

"Where does Satan come from?" The student falters.

"From... God..."

"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he?" The elderly man runs his bony fingers through his thinning hair and turns to the smirking, student audience."I think we're going to have a lot of fun this semester, ladies and gentlemen." He turns back to the Christian.

"Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"

"Yes, sir."

"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? Did God make everything?"

"Yes."

"Who created evil?

[No answer]

"Is there sickness in this world? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness. All the terrible things - do they exist in this world? "

The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."

"Who created them? "

[No answer] The professor suddenly shouts at his student. "WHO CREATED THEM? TELL ME, PLEASE!" The professor closes in for the kill and climbs into the Christian's face. In a still small voice: "God created all evil, didn't He, son?"

[No answer]

The student tries to hold the steady, experienced gaze and fails.

Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace the front of the classroom like an aging panther. The class is mesmerized. "Tell me," he continues, "How is it that this God is good if He created all evil throughout all time?" The professor swishes his arms around to encompass the wickedness of the world. "All the hatred, the brutality, all the pain, all the torture, all the death and ugliness and all the suffering created by this good God is all over the world, isn't it, young man?"

[No answer]

"Don't you see it all over the place? Huh?"

Pause.

"Don't you?" The professor leans into the student's face again and whispers, "Is God good?"

[No answer]

"Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?"

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor. I do."

The old man shakes his head sadly. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen him? "

"No, sir. I've never seen Him."

"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"

"No, sir. I have not."

"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus...in fact, do you have any sensory perception of your God whatsoever?"

[No answer]

"Answer me, please."

"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."

"You're AFRAID... you haven't?"

"No, sir."

"Yet you still believe in him?"

"...yes..."

"That takes FAITH!" The professor smiles sagely at the underling."According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son? Where is your God now?"

[The student doesn't answer]

"Sit down, please."

The Christian sits...Defeated.

Another Christian raises his hand. "Professor, may I address the class?"

The professor turns and smiles. "Ah, another Christian in the vanguard! Come, come, young man. Speak some proper wisdom to the gathering."

The Christian looks around the room. "Some interesting points you are making, sir. Now I've got a question for you. Is there such thing as heat?"

"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."

"Is there such a thing as cold?"

"Yes, son, there's cold too."

"No, sir, there isn't."

The professor's grin freezes. The room suddenly goes very cold.

The second Christian continues. "You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super- heat, mega-heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold, otherwise we would be able to go colder than -458.

You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. "Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."

Silence. A pin drops somewhere in the classroom.

"Is there such a thing as darkness, professor?"

"That's a dumb question, son. What is night if it isn't darkness? What are you getting at...?"

"So you say there is such a thing as darkness?"

"Yes..."

"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something, it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, Darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker and give me a jar of it. Can you...give me a jar of darker darkness, professor?"

Despite himself, the professor smiles at the young effrontery before him. This will indeed be a good semester. "Would you mind telling us what your point is, young man?"

"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with and so your conclusion must be in error...."

The professor goes toxic. "Flawed...? How dare you...!""

"Sir, may I explain what I mean?"

The class is all ears.

"Explain... oh, explain..." The professor makes an admirable effort to regain control. Suddenly he is affability itself. He waves his hand to silence the class, for the student to continue.

"You are working on the premise of duality," the Christian explains. "That for example there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science cannot even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism but has never seen, much less fully understood them. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, merely the absence of it."

The young man holds up a newspaper he takes from the desk of a neighbor who has been reading it. "Here is one of the most disgusting tabloids this country hosts, professor. Is there such a thing as immorality?"

"Of course there is, now look..."

"Wrong again, sir. You see, immorality is merely the absence of morality.

Is there such thing as injustice? No. Injustice is the absence of justice. Is there such a thing as evil?" The Christian pauses. "Isn't evil the absence of good?"

The professor's face has turned an alarming color. He is so angry he is temporarily speechless.

The Christian continues. "If there is evil in the world, professor, and we all agree there is, then God, if he exists, must be accomplishing a work through the agency of evil. What is that work, God is accomplishing? The Bible tells us it is to see if each one of us will, of our own free will, choose good over evil."

The professor bridles. "As a philosophical scientist, I don't view this matter as having anything to do with any choice; as a realist, I absolutely do not recognize the concept of God or any other theological factor as being part of the world equation because God is not observable."

"I would have thought that the absence of God's moral code in this world is probably one of the most observable phenomena going," the Christian replies.

"Newspapers make billions of dollars reporting it every week! Tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"

"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do."

"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"

The professor makes a sucking sound with his teeth and gives his student a silent, stony stare.

"Professor. Since no-one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a priest?"

"I'll overlook your impudence in the light of our philosophical discussion. Now, have you quite finished?" the professor hisses.

"So you don't accept God's moral code to do what is righteous?"

"I believe in what is - that's science!"

"Ahh! SCIENCE!" the student's face splits into a grin. "Sir, you rightly state that science is the study of observed phenomena. Science too is a premise which is flawed..."

"SCIENCE IS FLAWED?" the professor splutters.

The class is in uproar.

The Christian remains standing until the commotion has subsided. "To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, may I give you an example of what I mean?" The professor wisely keeps silent.

The Christian looks around the room. "Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?" The class breaks out in laughter.

The Christian points towards his elderly, crumbling tutor. "Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain... felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain?" No one appears to have done so.

The Christian shakes his head sadly. "It appears no-one here has had any sensory perception of the professor's brain whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science, I DECLARE that the professor has no brain."

The class is in chaos.

The Christian sits down.

 

BTW, I am agnostic. Raised as a catholic.

It is amazing how we can play with words. Goes to show how the same set of words or data can almost always be used to support an argument, pro or con. It is therefore up to us to try and filter out the double talk and the unspoken and sometimes spoken suppositions... That was a great example of why we need to tread carefully and wisely. Not emotionally or in an irrational manor. A very good lesson for all of us, thanks for sharing it.

It could very well be that I have mislabeled myself an atheist ... because I sure cannot prove this one way or the other, humm... I just don't like labels and such and especially general ones that encompass many different individuals with all the differences expected. And yet, because of one aspect of a person's being, we are labeled and treated accordingly. I was wrong to press the issue that God doesn't exist, but that still doesn't mean I have to believe he does ... agnostic does seem to fit better though. Have to think on this a bit more...

Lula, I just happened to have some documents open and this popped out. In the Early Middle Ages, Isidore of Seville's widely read encyclopedia presented the term "antipodes" as referring to antichthones (people who lived on the opposite side of the Earth), as well as to a geographical place; these people came to play a role in medieval discussions about the shape of the Earth. In 748, Pope Zachary declared belief in the antipodes, as apparently held by Vergilius of Salzburg, to be heretical. The antipodes being an attribute of a spherical Earth, some authors used their perceived absurdity as an argument for a flat Earth. However, knowledge of the spherical Earth was widespread during the Middle Ages, only occasionally disputed on theological grounds. OK, just kidding, you still win …

So why so many religions?

I believe the man is fallible.

I believe man created religion therefore religion is inherently flawed.

What one man sees as perfection, another sees as flawed and strives to make it better. Some say that the pursuit of God is the pursuit of perfection. If thats the case no religion will ever be the perfect religion.

I believe no religion has it right or wrong but any religion that puts there faith above the rest of humanity is more flawed and detrimental to the global society. As any mammals with a societal structure we have to establish basic rules or the structure collapses to chaos. Can man live Christ like without believing in the existence of God? Sure we can. Does the pursuit of science mean there is no room for God? Of coarse not. Religion can morally guide humanity while we ask the great questions.

If I had to be the one to write about the existence of God, this God would not close the doors to any living creature that did not follow a curtain set of rules but would open the doors to all who believed that there was more to life than the rights of the just the individual, rather the individual is only a small portion of a global or universal community that includes all living life on this planet and anywhere in the universe. To realize that there actions are a drop in the great pond that ripples through time and life forever. To me this is immortality. Knowing that my actions can have a profound effect on the world that will last forever in the consciousness of humanity and beyond.

To me a man of God does not kill animals, plants or even insects out of the notion that we are greater than or more deserving than other forms of life. My God would hold the life of a human with the same value of the life of an ant as we are all part of the same system and dependent on everything one might call mother nature. Small groups of aboriginals have been living in harmony with themselves and nature for thousands of years and to tell me that these people are not allowed the grace of God because they have not been saved has turned me away from what I know to be religion. We brought more evil and corruption then these peoples could ever comprehend under the guise of salvation. Only after Religion stops trying to control or take over and learns to live with and embrace other cultures and religions will I take part and even then will still look up and ask "are you there?".

Mark Twain, Very moving

 

 

Part 2

 

Myfist0 #76

You bring up Truth. I've been told "Your truth is not my truth".

And my response was truth is neither yours nor mine. It is independent of either of us. We hold things becasue they are true. They aren't true becasue we happen to believe them. Truth is consistent.  If you have the truth on a given subject and my ideas conflict with yours, then I do not possess the truth. If I am right, you haven't got the truth.

One priest writing about the needs of the human community and the Church put it this way.

"Without Truth, freedom yields to totalitarianism, justice gives way to exploitation, charity recedes into ruthlessness, peace dissolves into rivalry and hostility.

Without the judgment of the enduring values of the Gospel of Jesus Christ: freedom, justice, peace, charity, compassion, and reconciliation won't stand. The human community needs Truth which proclaims without compromise the dignity and worth of every person, lest he be swallowed up in whatever tickles society's ears."

 

 

Truth http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/

It would be impossible to survey all there is to say about truth in any coherent way. Instead, this essay will concentrate on the main themes in the study of truth in the contemporary philosophical literature. It will attempt to survey the key problems and theories of current interest, and show how they relate to one-another. A number of other entries investigate many of these topics in greater depth. Generally, discussion of the principal arguments is left to them. The goal of this essay is only to provide an overview of the current theories.

The problem of truth is in a way easy to state: what truths are, and what (if anything) makes them true. But this simple statement masks a great deal of controversy. Whether there is a metaphysical problem of truth at all, and if there is, what kind of theory might address it, are all standing issues in the theory of truth. We will see a number of distinct ways of answering these questions.

• 1. The neo-classical theories of truth
  • 1.1 The correspondence theory
  • 1.1.1 The origins of the correspondence theory
  • 1.1.2 The neo-classical correspondence theory
  • 1.2 The coherence theory
  • 1.3 Pragmatist theories
• 2. Tarski's theory of truth
  • 2.1 Sentences as truth-bearers
  • 2.2 Convention T
  • 2.3 Recursive definition of truth
  • 2.4 Reference and satisfaction
• 3. Correspondence revisited
  • 3.1 Correspondence without facts
  • 3.2 Facts again
  • 3.3. Truthmakers
• 4. Realism and anti-realism
  • 4.1 Realism and truth
  • 4.2 Anti-realism and truth
  • 4.3 Anti-realism and pragmatism
• 5. Deflationism
  • 5.1 The redundancy theory
  • 5.2 Minimalist theories
  • 5.3 Other aspects of deflationism
• 6. Truth and language
  • 6.1 Truth-bearers
  • 6.2 Truth and truth conditions
  • 6.3 Truth conditions and deflationism
  • 6.4 Truth and the theory of meaning
  • 6.5 The coherence theory and meaning
  • 6.6 Truth and assertion
• Bibliography
• Other Internet Resources
• Related Entries

 

But I guess the bible believes the truth is flat as well. Your giving me a truth ache. 

Sorry Lula, but there is no such thing as "The Truth" outside your circle of knowledge. The problem with the 'truth' is that it is relative to peoples and locations and much irrationality. You want your cake and you want to eat it also. Once you step out of your theological circle of utopia (?) and enter the world of man ... where reality reigns and things are different, 'truth' it is for the most part subjective. Philosophically, this existing is only in the mind and not independently of it. This applies to morality as well (quite subjective). Now if you are talking about probity issues as you are want to do … that is entirely a different matter.

 

What is truth?

 

What is truth? Truth is in possession.

If by my "circle of knowledge" you mean Catholic theology then I take it that "The Truth" you're describing here is supernatural (Divine) Truth or Absolute Truth which is God.

There is only one truth, however there are distinctions to be made. We start with the most foundational meaning of truth---actual existence. Ontological truth is the truth of the actual existence of things. To be ontologically true means to be an indisputable matter of fact.

But something can be ontologically true without anyone being the least bit aware of its existence. Thus another distinction...logical truth. When a human mind becomes aware of the existence of something (X), and when it knows X as it really is as opposed to having a distorted idea of the reality of X, then it can be said that the mind is in possession of the truth with regard to X. 

Logical truth corresponds between ideas in the mind and things in the world.  The truth which is in the mind is made public through language either written or oral..it's also called a proposition. True propositions correspond with facts and faithfully reflect what is actually the case in the world. It's false if it fails in that respect.

Ontological truth is related to logical truth is related to moral truth.

Yes ma'am and that's what I was getting at when I first responded to Myfist) saying I've been told, "Your truth is not my truth". 

Relativism.

Yes and yes. The truth is under seige and the dictatorship of relativism proclaims that there are many as truths as there are individuals who want to invent it. This is becasue people aren't concerned with what is true but rather with what will work for them..you think?

Truth for the relativist loses its critical objective status and becomes entirely subjective. I think it true that abortion is wrong, but the person next to me thinks it true that abortion is right.

Pluralism.

In a pluralistic society, everyone can be right and nobody has to be wrong for it is up to each individual to decide for himself his own truth and his own false...his own right and his own wrong..his own good and his own evil. We are living under the dictatorship of relativism and in a pluralistic society. And I've got to ask...how's that working out for us?

I'd say, disaster?  

Which takes me back to what the priest said:

 

 

 

  

 

Got any more definitions of the truth, I thought these would have been sufficient???

Lula, the truth is very relative to people, you must know that. You believe that suicide is a mortal sin and ensures one hell bound (I think?). And yet within the Age of Christendom (and well before), there are those peoples who believe that suicide is the only way to atone for ‘whatever’ to ensure a path to the afterlife. Both of these cannot be true, but what do you think each side will argue with besides ‘their own truth’ of course? And religions are just like governments, they do not take kindly to the word NO, either; they only preach justice and humanitarianism before they send out the swordsmen to decide “The Truth”. Sort of like in Iraq … and Jerusalem to name a couple places where the “TRUTH” was under contention in the real world … where we live and play…
 
Somewhere (???) in JU, I made a comment that went something like this. The movie was “Blood Diamond” I think??? It was bloody and cruel to say the least. There was this black man, of peasant descent, one of the real people who are honest because they do not understand why someone would need to tell a lie. Honesty, without theology to explain it all to him, go figure. A photographer or reporter pairs up with this gentleman (and I mean that in the truest sense) and through necessity they must gain access further into the war zone (not an option). So the white guy hands the black man his camera and tells him that he is his “new” camera man, hum… The ignorant aborigine stops the white man and says he cannot tell them he is a camera man … because he is not one??? The white guy educated in the ‘real’ ways of the world explained, you have to lie to those guards or they will not let either of us get bye. They resume approaching the bus… They stop again and he said that it was not right to lie and he couldn’t do it. Perplexed, the white man basically and stringently told him to man up and on they went. This was a life and death situation, they had to get by. So they got to the bus, the white guy showed his credentials and when asked, the black man held up the camera and said “I am camera man” and they walked on bye. Lie, or no lie, or it doesn’t mean anything under the right conditions … in the real world of course … where I reside … here on earth, is all.

Why you want to pretend everyone is attacking your church on every front is beyond me. In your minds (somehow?), you have convinced yourselves that every word spoken or even any thought others may have contrary to your church or any of its dictates (theology, bible)… are ALL enemies of the church. And when the enemy lists are drawn up … you go reforming and recruiting and you do this by going on the attack. Do not ask to be my PR manager, geeze.