What if you owned your own country...?

[Mari]

Perhaps instead of creating our own countries, it would be an interesting experiment to just dump people from everywhere and nowhere on the island with all the materials and knowledge they wanted and just see what they make of it.
Just see what religion and what type of governing would prevail.
(Wouldn't want to be one of those people though, because it may turn out to become an anarchy)

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Mari

(Wouldn't want to be one of those people though, because it may turn out to become an anarchy)

Exactly. An interesting social experiment, but also a terrifying one from my perspective!

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I guess it would.


True. Managing traffic doesn't have much to do with religion. But matters that do involve issues of morality do. Abortion, homosexual marriage, euthenasia, stem cell research, all of those kinds of issues are closely tied up with morality and thus with religion. It would be very helpful to know what God's perspective on those matters is and to have his will done in the government.
.......
But the understanding that exists in a moral system outside of religion is limited by our own human knowledge and ideas. Contentment with that doesn't take into account the possibility of how much better a government might be that listens to God and does his will, and has the authority to enact God's will in law. The consequences are bound to be so much more lovely, provided of course that God really does exist and wants to make his will known to humans. But we needn't assume that- he can and does prove his reality to humans. We would be so very much more blessed if our governments listened to God.

Again, the problem is that while you know what God's will is, and are perfectly willing to tell us and have us all follow that, the guy next to you is saying, "No, no, no, you've got it all wrong. What God wants us to do is ..." And the guy next to him is saying "Don't listen to those infidels, here's what the Lord really commands...."

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Again, the problem is that while you know what God's will is, and are perfectly willing to tell us and have us all follow that, the guy next to you is saying, "No, no, no, you've got it all wrong. What God wants us to do is ..." And the guy next to him is saying "Don't listen to those infidels, here's what the Lord really commands...."

That's why you have to ban heresies. To prevent lies from contaminating people's knowledge of God. I know that this could lead to violence, but the alternative is to allow violence to the soul to spread, and that kind of false belief leads in all kinds of horrible directions that heavily impact people's physical lives because of the impact to their spiritual lives. We have seen horrible physical manifestations of the spiritual disease ever since the religious wars in the various and numerous sins of these centuries that could not get far when false religious beliefs were prohibited. That's why the Catholic Church's position makes a great deal of sense, in my view. If Christ instituted one church capable of infallibly interpreting doctrine, then it becomes far easier to see what God's truth is and it isn't a situation of everyone's opinion being equally valid.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

If Christ instituted one church capable of infallibly interpreting doctrine, then it becomes far easier to see what God's truth is and it isn't a situation of everyone's opinion being equally valid.

So, are you Catholic now? If they're the One True Church?

[trolls' bane]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

So, are you Catholic now? If they're the One True Church?

I doubt they are. Not to insult any of you Catholics (the Hobbit sisters in particular, 'cause you two are awesome), but in a way, Catholicism is hypocritical. I believe that they pray not only to the virgin Mary, but to certain saints as well. Now, although these people are in the service of God and were great people, I seem to remember reading on a big stone tablet from the top of a mountain somewhere that said that you cannot worship anybody but God (basically). However, praying even to those in close service to God violates this.

Even if the Roman Catholic version of the ten commandments (which in most cases, is probably the most accurate) has that particular commandment as "Thou shalt put no other god before me," or something like that, it then shows a hint of self-contradiction, denying that other gods exist, yet hinting at their existence.

I'm not sure, however, about any of this, because I am not, after all, Catholic.

One thing I must thank the Catholic Church for is accepting Big Bang theory as "moderately consistent" with Biblical teachings, even if it means stretching (or contracting, rather) the time scales several hundredfold.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

So, are you Catholic now? If they're the One True Church?

I'm investigating Catholicism.

Originally Posted by trolls' bane

I doubt they are. Not to insult any of you Catholics (the Hobbit sisters in particular, 'cause you two are awesome), but in a way, Catholicism is hypocritical. I believe that they pray not only to the virgin Mary, but to certain saints as well. Now, although these people are in the service of God and were great people, I seem to remember reading on a big stone tablet from the top of a mountain somewhere that said that you cannot worship anybody but God (basically). However, praying even to those in close service to God violates this.

I agree with you if people actually worship saints that that's entirely out of line and is setting up a false god. Praying to saints, on the other hand, may not be a bad thing. In the books of Daniel and Revelation, the saints are described as seated on thrones with Christ with great power and authority. Many people have seen visions of saints and experienced miracles involving them. It is quite possible to me that this is because they are enthroned and have great power and authority in heaven.

Originally Posted by trolls' bane

Even if the Roman Catholic version of the ten commandments (which in most cases, is probably the most accurate) has that particular commandment as "Thou shalt put no other god before me," or something like that, it then shows a hint of self-contradiction, denying that other gods exist, yet hinting at their existence.

That's not only in the Catholic version of the Commandments- it's also in the Protestant Bible. People referred to idols as gods, so that's what I expect the Old Testament is doing here.

[Mari]

I really enjoy this whole religion discussion, but I do start to think you're getting a bit scary Lief.
I might have misinterpreted you, but are you really saying that your truth about God and religion is the only right one?
But truth is personal, don't you think? Even the institutionalized Catholic church has known different headings and different points of importance and even different stances on things like the use of condom, depending on the time, place and pope. So how can anyone think their truth is the right one?

I do have to agree with GrayMouser on this one, not one religious person holds the same view as another and therefore you can only point to one more or less general view of religion as being the right one.

Just on the side: the ideas people hold of their religion change throughout their lives. Sometimes radical, sometimes only minimal. Since you can't know wether your faith will change radically or not, it might be safer not to limit religion too much.

(I have more (coherent) things to say, but my mother is saying she'll pull the plug out of I don't turn of the computer myself now...)

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Mari

I really enjoy this whole religion discussion, but I do start to think you're getting a bit scary Lief.
I might have misinterpreted you, but are you really saying that your truth about God and religion is the only right one?

I don't claim that I know all of the truth. I do believe that there is only one truth though, and that it is the only right one.

For instance, there are atoms or there are not atoms. I own a computer or I do not. Humans need food to survive or they do not. God exists or he does not. Jesus is God or he is not. The Bible is entirely true or it is partly true or it is not true. All three statements about the Bible are not true, though one person may feel that the Bible is wrong for him and another that the Bible is right for him. Those opinions about the Bible have nothing to do with whether or not the Bible itself is true outside of personal opinion.

I am convinced that there is only one truth and I also strongly believe that Christianity is it, but God is so big that it would be absurd for someone as small as me to think that I know it all .

Originally Posted by Mari

But truth is personal, don't you think? Even the institutionalized Catholic church has known different headings and different points of importance and even different stances on things like the use of condom, depending on the time, place and pope. So how can anyone think their truth is the right one?

That just shows that they don't know everything. I know that that's true. But they may be right on doctrinal matters.

Originally Posted by Mari

IJust on the side: the ideas people hold of their religion change throughout their lives. Sometimes radical, sometimes only minimal. Since you can't know wether your faith will change radically or not, it might be safer not to limit religion too much.

It might change radically for the worse or for the better, I agree. Change is not necessarily a good thing, though it can be.

[Mari]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I don't claim that I know all of the truth. I do believe that there is only one truth though, and that it is the only right one.

For instance, there are atoms or there are not atoms. I own a computer or I do not. Humans need food to survive or they do not. God exists or he does not. Jesus is God or he is not. The Bible is entirely true or it is partly true or it is not true. All three statements about the Bible are not true, though one person may feel that the Bible is wrong for him and another that the Bible is right for him. Those opinions about the Bible have nothing to do with whether or not the Bible itself is true outside of personal opinion.

I am convinced that there is only one truth and I also strongly believe that Christianity is it, but God is so big that it would be absurd for someone as small as me to think that I know it all .

Then how do you feel about all the different groups of Christianity? Baptists, Catholics, Protestants, etc.

I'm glad to hear you're more open to differences in truth towards religion than I started to fear you were
I gave up on finding "THE truth" a few years ago. I have my faith and that is good enough for me. I'm an ecclectic person.
The big problem for me is not in the stating that MY truth is THE truth, but that the truth of everyone else is wrong. That's also why I gave up on studying law.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Mari

Then how do you feel about all the different groups of Christianity? Baptists, Catholics, Protestants, etc.

Where there are real contradictions between the beliefs of these groups as opposed to apparent contradictions that don't actually exist, there are bound to be errors. There probably are a number of those, and those may be damaging to the religious experience of those that have them. That's one reason why I'm investigating the Catholic Church at present. It makes sense for Jesus to institute a church that has an infallible ability from God to interpret doctrine. That would eliminate a huge number of errors, enable people to know the truth about the Bible and God's way, and thus walk with God in a way that does not involve wriggling around a lot of human errors. So if God really did institute the Catholic Church with this divinely given ability to interpret scripture, then we have an enormous blessing and don't have to worry about struggling through conflicting human opinion.

That's where I'm presently at. People from a lot of real Christian denominations, probably from all of them, can know God. Their relationship with him might not be what it should be though, because of doctrinal errors that come from fallible human understanding.

Originally Posted by Mari

I'm glad to hear you're more open to differences in truth towards religion than I started to fear you were
I gave up on finding "THE truth" a few years ago. I have my faith and that is good enough for me. I'm an ecclectic person.
The big problem for me is not in the stating that MY truth is THE truth, but that the truth of everyone else is wrong. That's also why I gave up on studying law.

Well, I'm afraid that I believe "the truth" of a huge number of other people around the world is wrong. I don't think that that's a "big problem" though. You know, if I were to say, "I have two sisters and two brothers," I'd be telling "the truth," not "my truth" because it happens to be true whether I believe it or not. If someone else came around and said "no, you have no brothers and no sisters!", I'd know from personal experience that the "truth" of that person is WRONG . The fact that that person's "truth" is wrong shows that it's not true either. It might feel true to that person, but that does not make it true. In fact, it's just that person's belief, and an incorrect one too.

It's the same way with religion. I have personal experiences with God, as do millions of other people, and plus there are vast quantities of evidences for God's existence aside from personal encounters with him, so I feel certain that he exists. If an atheist comes up to me and says, "no, God does not exist," then I'll know that his truth is wrong. Because we can't both be right. Either God exists or he doesn't. If he just exists for those who believe in him and doesn't exist in a fashion that is independent of human belief, he doesn't have any life of his own but only lives in our minds, so he doesn't actually exist as an independent entity, which is how we believe in him. If he's just my truth or the truth of those who believe in him, he's actually just my belief and the belief of those who believe in him. He has to exist in a manner that is independent of our opinions to be true.

Truth has to exist independent of human opinion to be truth. People can be right or wrong about the truth. They can't all be right, because they contradict one another.

[Mari]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

It makes sense for Jesus to institute a church that has an infallible ability from God to interpret doctrine. That would eliminate a huge number of errors, enable people to know the truth about the Bible and God's way, and thus walk with God in a way that does not involve wriggling around a lot of human errors. So if God really did institute the Catholic Church with this divinely given ability to interpret scripture, then we have an enormous blessing and don't have to worry about struggling through conflicting human opinion.

That's where I'm presently at. People from a lot of real Christian denominations, probably from all of them, can know God. Their relationship with him might not be what it should be though, because of doctrinal errors that come from fallible human understanding.

If you know and love God and share His love with others, I think you are doing your job better than most Christians.
I was taught though that Jesus didn't institute the Catholic Church, but that it was founded long after he died. All Jesus gave us where the Ten Commandments and advice. I have heard this once:
Christianity is the best idea, but the worst institution.
I can't say I agree with it completely, but it does hold some truth.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Well, I'm afraid that I believe "the truth" of a huge number of other people around the world is wrong. I don't think that that's a "big problem" though. You know, if I were to say, "I have two sisters and two brothers," I'd be telling "the truth," not "my truth" because it happens to be true whether I believe it or not. If someone else came around and said "no, you have no brothers and no sisters!", I'd know from personal experience that the "truth" of that person is WRONG . The fact that that person's "truth" is wrong shows that it's not true either. It might feel true to that person, but that does not make it true. In fact, it's just that person's belief, and an incorrect one too.

It's the same way with religion. I have personal experiences with God, as do millions of other people, and plus there are vast quantities of evidences for God's existence aside from personal encounters with him, so I feel certain that he exists. If an atheist comes up to me and says, "no, God does not exist," then I'll know that his truth is wrong. Because we can't both be right. Either God exists or he doesn't. If he just exists for those who believe in him and doesn't exist in a fashion that is independent of human belief, he doesn't have any life of his own but only lives in our minds, so he doesn't actually exist as an independent entity, which is how we believe in him. If he's just my truth or the truth of those who believe in him, he's actually just my belief and the belief of those who believe in him. He has to exist in a manner that is independent of our opinions to be true.

Truth has to exist independent of human opinion to be truth. People can be right or wrong about the truth. They can't all be right, because they contradict one another.

Can you have absolute truth about things like religion? I believe in God and for me he is true as for many other people, but I know I experience Him in a different way than my mother. My true God is different from hers. Some people experience something they call Buddha or Allah. Who am I to deny their truths? Who am I to say that because I experience Him as God that he actually is God and all the others experience it wrong?
Personally, I always feel that it doesn't matter how you call Him as long as you acknowledge him and let his influence show in your life and share it with others.
To get back on-topic, I would allow people from all religions and believes though I would want to have a quota on the number of members of one religion in the beginning, just to prevent extremism.
Don't you think it's funny though, that Buddhism and the sorts, which are more a philosophy, can go hand in hand with other religions whereas the major religions start killing eachother off in the name of God or whatever?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Where there are real contradictions between the beliefs of these groups as opposed to apparent contradictions that don't actually exist, there are bound to be errors. There probably are a number of those, and those may be damaging to the religious experience of those that have them. That's one reason why I'm investigating the Catholic Church at present. It makes sense for Jesus to institute a church that has an infallible ability from God to interpret doctrine. That would eliminate a huge number of errors, enable people to know the truth about the Bible and God's way, and thus walk with God in a way that does not involve wriggling around a lot of human errors. So if God really did institute the Catholic Church with this divinely given ability to interpret scripture, then we have an enormous blessing and don't have to worry about struggling through conflicting human opinion.

That's where I'm presently at. People from a lot of real Christian denominations, probably from all of them, can know God. Their relationship with him might not be what it should be though, because of doctrinal errors that come from fallible human understanding.

Well, I'm afraid that I believe "the truth" of a huge number of other people around the world is wrong. I don't think that that's a "big problem" though.

It becomes a big problem when you kill people for heresy.

You know, if I were to say, "I have two sisters and two brothers," I'd be telling "the truth," not "my truth" because it happens to be true whether I believe it or not.

Great example.
But if one of those sisters was adopted, it might be both true for you (she's your sister) and not true (she's not related to you by blood).

Similarly, if your mother had had other children who were adopted out, you might count two MORE sisters.

If your father had had children with someone else (which he might not even know, much less tell you about) you would have 3 more "brothers" and another "sister" to count.

So here we are, with an ordinary daily issue, "How many sibs Lief has" and a "true" number that ranges from 3 to 4 (your true number) to 6 to 10. And that's before anyone gets into fetus counts. All with no alteration in GOD'S truth, but just in human understanding.

That's what makes the sharing of religious certainty such a tricky business. At root, it's the sharing of personal understanding, because most people have cups too small and weak to retain much of the actual material of direct revelation.

If someone else came around and said "no, you have no brothers and no sisters!", I'd know from personal experience that the "truth" of that person is WRONG . The fact that that person's "truth" is wrong shows that it's not true either. It might feel true to that person, but that does not make it true. In fact, it's just that person's belief, and an incorrect one too.

It's the same way with religion. I have personal experiences with God, as do millions of other people, and plus there are vast quantities of evidences for God's existence aside from personal encounters with him, so I feel certain that he exists. If an atheist comes up to me and says, "no, God does not exist," then I'll know that his truth is wrong. Because we can't both be right. Either God exists or he doesn't. If he just exists for those who believe in him and doesn't exist in a fashion that is independent of human belief, he doesn't have any life of his own but only lives in our minds, so he doesn't actually exist as an independent entity, which is how we believe in him. If he's just my truth or the truth of those who believe in him, he's actually just my belief and the belief of those who believe in him. He has to exist in a manner that is independent of our opinions to be true.

Truth has to exist independent of human opinion to be truth. People can be right or wrong about the truth. They can't all be right, because they contradict one another.

Or they seem to contradict each other because they don't have the terminology to describe actual truth, and do it mostly by analogy.

Another great text for this is "Thou shalt not kill." Most people see this as negotiable, based on what "thou" means, and on what "kill" means. So, It's okay for governments or communities to kill, because they aren't "thou". That gives us war and the death penalty. Or it's okay to kill mousquitos and beef cattle, because it's not really "killing" because God meant "don't kill your human neighbors without some form of trial."

I feel sure there will be a time when each of us knows how close our guesses to actual truth are, and I expect Heaven rings with laughter when we assert we have it down. Until we try to impose it on others, when the mood becomes more somber.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Mari

All Jesus gave us where the Ten Commandments and advice

My book has the 10 commandments coming from that guy called "Moses" and it was many generations before Jesus chose to be made flesh, but...

[Mari]

Well, you know what I mean.
At least... I think you do?

[Mari]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

It becomes a big problem when you kill people for heresy. Great example.
But if one of those sisters was adopted, it might be both true for you (she's your sister) and not true (she's not related to you by blood).

Similarly, if your mother had had other children who were adopted out, you might count two MORE sisters.

If your father had had children with someone else (which he might not even know, much less tell you about) you would have 3 more "brothers" and another "sister" to count.

So here we are, with an ordinary daily issue, "How many sibs Lief has" and a "true" number that ranges from 3 to 4 (your true number) to 6 to 10. And that's before anyone gets into fetus counts. All with no alteration in GOD'S truth, but just in human understanding.

That's what makes the sharing of religious certainty such a tricky business. At root, it's the sharing of personal understanding, because most people have cups too small and weak to retain much of the actual material of direct revelation.

Or they seem to contradict each other because they don't have the terminology to describe actual truth, and do it mostly by analogy.

Another great text for this is "Thou shalt not kill." Most people see this as negotiable, based on what "thou" means, and on what "kill" means. So, It's okay for governments or communities to kill, because they aren't "thou". That gives us war and the death penalty. Or it's okay to kill mousquitos and beef cattle, because it's not really "killing" because God meant "don't kill your human neighbors without some form of trial."

I feel sure there will be a time when each of us knows how close our guesses to actual truth are, and I expect Heaven rings with laughter when we assert we have it down. Until we try to impose it on others, when the mood becomes more somber.

Amen

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

My book has the 10 commandments coming from that guy called "Moses" and it was many generations before Jesus chose to be made flesh, but...

Mari is right though that Jesus also told people to obey the 10 Commandments.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Mari

If you know and love God and share His love with others, I think you are doing your job better than most Christians.
I was taught though that Jesus didn't institute the Catholic Church, but that it was founded long after he died. All Jesus gave us where the Ten Commandments and advice. I have heard this once:
Christianity is the best idea, but the worst institution.
I can't say I agree with it completely, but it does hold some truth.

I know that that view is very line line with modern culture, but I don't agree with it.

The Catholic Church's origin is a rather debatable point, perhaps. They believe that they were founded when Jesus told Peter, "You will be called Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my church." Catholics interpret that as the founding of the papacy, and a number of the Early Church Fathers said the same. http://www.catholic.com/library/Orig...er_as_Pope.asp

I don't know that the papacy did a very bad job as an institution, either. I know that that's a modern consensus to a large extent, but I don't trust the modern consensus in the least, and I strongly distrust the effort to eliminate the ecclesiastical heirarchy from the church, for that heirarchy provides oversight essential to keep out heresy. Though a number of denominations outside of Catholicism are drifting into heresy now anyway . That fact is causing further free thinking on doctrine on the part of the break-away movement, such as KINGDOM NOW and other such groups. That concerns me.

Originally Posted by Mari

Can you have absolute truth about things like religion?

If reality is not independent of the human mind, it is not reality but imagination.

Originally Posted by Mari

I believe in God and for me he is true as for many other people, but I know I experience Him in a different way than my mother. My true God is different from hers. Some people experience something they call Buddha or Allah. Who am I to deny their truths? Who am I to say that because I experience Him as God that he actually is God and all the others experience it wrong?

I'd compare the evidence for their view with the evidence for my own and see which one stands up better. And if there isn't any evidence either way, then maybe I'd look for one that does have some evidence supporting his existence and explaining his nature.

Originally Posted by Mari

Personally, I always feel that it doesn't matter how you call Him as long as you acknowledge him and let his influence show in your life and share it with others.

My feeling has always been that we humans are very good at getting things wrong on our own, so we should try to work out what's right about religion not so much through our own intuition but rather through prayer for God's guidance as well as perhaps research into the available evidence that exists. And then, I think after we find out what's right by seeking God on it, God will take us the rest of the way to the place he wants us to be and the understanding he wants us to have.

Originally Posted by Mari

To get back on-topic, I would allow people from all religions and believes though I would want to have a quota on the number of members of one religion in the beginning, just to prevent extremism.
Don't you think it's funny though, that Buddhism and the sorts, which are more a philosophy, can go hand in hand with other religions whereas the major religions start killing eachother off in the name of God or whatever?

In Sri Lanka there are plenty of Buddhists killing each other and persecuting Christians.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

But if one of those sisters was adopted, it might be both true for you (she's your sister) and not true (she's not related to you by blood).

The two truths you have mentioned are not actually contradictory. That just gets into playing with the definition of "sister," not the definition of "truth."

This goes for the rest of your family questioning about truths, as well. Those also are non-contradictory cases, and so aren't actually questions that hack into absolute truth but rather they hack into what is meant by sister or family member. You've succeeded in showing that the human language can be pretty vague, but not in showing that truth itself is vague.

This is one reason why we have the Holy Spirit as our Counselor, to help us to see what is meant in cases where we don't understand God's will. Thankfully, major doctrines are repeated in multiple places in the Bible too, so that also helps.

By the way, I'd appreciate it if you'd not make examples such as "If your father had had children with someone else . . ." if you please. There are far better ways of making the point you were trying to make, at least one of which you utilized in a good way, without using this kind of analogy. I'd appreciate it if you edited it out of your post.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Or they seem to contradict each other because they don't have the terminology to describe actual truth, and do it mostly by analogy.

I think that it is true that God can't always communicate heavenly things in ways that we can understand, so sometimes he does use symbols or analogies. However, I don't believe that this hinders his ability to communicate actual intelligable messages to humans about earthly things that are within their realm of experience.

In many cases, the contradictions between religions are clear and blatant. It takes a lot of twisting of words and messages to try to force them into harmony. If basic statements of fact in religious texts and whole passages that are contradictory are actually analogies of various kinds, then I think religion itself would be essentially worthless. For if that's the case, then we could not understand a thing God's talking about and would be forming all of our decisions and ideas about religion on our own without any assistance from any religion. Then it would be subjective, in the human mind, and comes down to being imagination. We'd be believing in our imaginings.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Another great text for this is "Thou shalt not kill." Most people see this as negotiable, based on what "thou" means, and on what "kill" means. So, It's okay for governments or communities to kill, because they aren't "thou". That gives us war and the death penalty. Or it's okay to kill mousquitos and beef cattle, because it's not really "killing" because God meant "don't kill your human neighbors without some form of trial."

This does not show that there are many truths but rather shows that there are many opinions about the truth.

That's another reason why it may help to have a divinely inspired Catholic Church capable of accurately interpreting doctrine.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I feel sure there will be a time when each of us knows how close our guesses to actual truth are, and I expect Heaven rings with laughter when we assert we have it down. Until we try to impose it on others, when the mood becomes more somber.

Everyone attempts to impose their beliefs about actual truth on others. Martin Luther King Jr. believed that it was actual truth rather that segregation was wrong, so he acted to impose that view upon society rather than letting the states make up their own minds or letting individual communities decide for themselves. Praise the Lord!

We believe that laws should exist against stealing. That's imposing our view about actual truth that stealing is harmful upon other people.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The two truths you have mentioned are not actually contradictory. That just gets into playing with the definition of "sister," not the definition of "truth."

As I explained. When human definitions are involved (as they always are) error is inevitable.Therefore, the "truth" you wish to embody in law is flawed, because the only way you have to embody it is in flawed language, and not in the direct apprehension of God.

I think that it is true that God can't always communicate heavenly things in ways that we can understand, so sometimes he does use symbols or analogies.

Interesting, but not relevant. I wasn't saying God used analogies, I said that men did, in trying to explain their slice of direct perception.

This does not show that there are many truths but rather shows that there are many opinions about the truth.

No. Opinions about the truth is not the same as perceptions of the truth. I think there is one truth, like one elephant for the blind men. Their inability to perceive it in total doesn't mean it's not an elephant, but it doesn't mean they weren't perceiving something true, either.