my apologies for poor wording. I should have put "the reality is that truth is relative to the observer." This means that to the observer of that "truth", it is true but the valdity may not extend beyond that observer. I am not saying their truth is not valid to them, as I am sure they will tell you it is valid to them (why else would they hold it?).

where we get into trouble is when we assume that this truth we hold IS what others hold. In a completely rational world, we could work from the premise that what one rational mind concludes, another given the same data will also conclude. This is far from a rational world though, so errors in calculating the scope of our conclusions occur.

Maybe we need to redefine tolerance. Because I'm confused. You have used this word in the past to describe people and you SEEM to be using it in a complementary way? Did you not mean it that way? Did you mean that they were "just about tolerating people?"



I think that tolerance has changed from what it used to mean. Somewhere along the way tolerance changed from respect to keeping ones mouth shut around people you can't stand. LOL

First off, I did a search of my posts and I did not find where I have said non-believers are self-deluded (if you have a link to a post where I have said that, please port it or PM me with it), so I'm not sure where that came from, Shadow.

As to how my conviction that I know the truth can exist alongside my respect for someone who has different beliefs, I think I explained that in my previous post to you and I also touched on it in my very first post on this thread. I have many friends here in UM and in real life who are not Christians. I could not really call these people "friend" if I did not respect them because that would be hypocritical. I can respect that what you believe, you firmly believe to be true-- especially if your actions reflect that conviction to your beliefs--and yet completely disagree with your conviction, and engage in friendly, constructive debates with you about the differences in what we believe.

If we couldn't treat people that we thought had faults with respect, no one would have any respect for anyone. This is what my kids' grandma does. She (and most people, really) treat people with respect as long as they are agreeing about something. As soon as there is a disagreement, it's "Well I don't know what is wrong with you. You don't do things right. I'm a good person because I believe in/do *lists all things that "make them a good person"* but you are stupid and do things wrong because I say so, and I say so now because you are not doing things the way I think they should be done."

If each of us only treated the other with respect as long as we agreed, there would be very little respect.

This is actually the essence of Jesus' "tolerance" message that is so widely misunderstood, misrepresented, and misapplied. The message it to treat those that you disagree with, with respect and love, even in the disagreement. This message is in direct conflict with human nature. Human nature is self-righteous, and declares that all people who are in disagreement with you are stupid and should be treated with disdain. Once someone deviates from what we practice personally, we feel justified to behave hatefully and call them things like evil, ignorant, etc... The words evil and ignorant have their place, when they are correctly used, as in someone is ignorant on a particular subject if they are not knowledgeable about it; they are not ignorant simply for disagreeing with you. That is how I most commonly see the word used here and it's a personal peeve of mine.

Ex. My kids' grandma believes that it is safe to let kids run around an amusement park on their own. I don't. We butt heads about this everytime we go to the fair, etc... She says when she gets really mad at me for disagreeing with her, that I am ignorant and evil. ??... I am ignorant because I am knowledgeable of the fact that kids are stolen all the time and that it is possible in almost any setting? No I am "ignorant" because I disagree with her.

It is human nature to call people who do things differently than you, stupid, and insinuate that they are hateful, etc etc... That is why practicing Christians can communicate with people without agreeing with them. Jesus gives a spirit of love. He also tells us to go out into the world and not change His message, but keep it true. However! As soon as most (not all) NB's see that we don't change the message and neither do we accept what we know to not be true, they are angry at our "intolerance" and create problems and fights. When we try to talk about it at all, it's seen as argument, which further inflames the NB. I am often left wondering, "What just happened? And.. why did it get to this point just because I didn't agree with their beliefs?"


We may think someone is *insert undesirable trait* but we all have undesirable traits, so it only creates chaos and discord when we withdraw our respect based on seeing something undesirable in the other person.

BTW IMO this is also why most marriages fail. <off-topic>

did tolerance ever mean respect? we have the two words for a reason.

the dictionary states (Mac dic):

tolerate |?täl??r?t| verb [ trans. ] allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference : a regime unwilling to tolerate dissent. • accept or endure (someone or something unpleasant or disliked) with forbearance : how was it that she could tolerate such noise?

respect |ri?spekt| noun 1 a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements : the director had a lot of respect for Douglas as an actor. • the state of being admired in such a way : his first chance in over fifteen years to regain respect in the business. • due regard for the feelings, wishes, rights, or traditions of others : respect for human rights. • ( respects) a person's polite greetings : give my respects to your parents.

But isn't that whole statement your view on the "reality" of the world. I don't necessarily disagree with the way you look at things but I can think of a hell of a lot of people who would.

In these people's opinions the reason the world is such a mess is because people keep pretending there is no "right or wrong"

I mean we've all met people like this, you know the type who say they see a story like Virginia Tech and they start talking in absolutes like "Well that's what we get for putting money ahead of our kids" or things like racial profiling. These people thing that the "tolerant" crowd is just ignoring the reality that black people commit a disproportionately high number of crimes so its not "racial profiling" its reality?

Some people believe that most people are the same when you get down to it, and all our ideologies and dreams are really so much window dressing which we use to entertain ourselves and avoid facing reality.

So who are you to say that person isn't seeing reality? Who are you to say that this ISN'T the truth.

Because I think this goes beyond God in a lot of ways and right up into what you brought up which is reality and truth.

Some people think there is a truth. Some people absolutely believe there is a universal truth. You absolutely believe that there is NOT a universal truth.

Both of you are believing in your absolutes. The only difference is that you seem to be deluding yourself into thinking that you are the "realist" who recognizes the "real" truth?

Do you see what I mean? I come from a position that everyone IS right.

You seem to come from a position like "Snowball in animal farm" "Everyone IS right, only some people are more right than others."

LOL

The current New Age fad is to be "open-minded, tolerant, and know that there is no truth, and whatever truth one creates for theirself is valid."

By the current connotation of the word, I would have to say I am not what you or what most non-Christians would consider, open-minded.

That being said, I am open to changing my beliefs AS THE BIBLE PROVES TO ME THAT I NEED TO. IOW, I am not open to accepting, say.. paganism or deism as my own belief. I am currently privately rethinking my position on what Hell is, but it is because of Biblical teaching that I think I may not have studied enough, not because I left my mind open to the influence of the world and decided that Hell is mean and I shouldn't believe in it.

Well we've already talked about what tolerant means, and now we've touched on this, and God knows we went over the whole, there is no truth thing on other threads.

So I'm not into the New Age-ey thing of accepting whatever comes along that sounds nice, because I know the truth.

Hope that answers your question.

interesting assessment but the error is that I don't absolutely hold that there is no "universal truth", I just submit I have not seen any evidence for such beast.

As for some all people are right, but some are more right - this sounds like the phrasing for the corollary to "there is wrong, and then there is not even wrong". It holds in objective studies but not in subjective experiences. Your personal truth is as true (relative to you) as Iams personal truth is to him. When we start to apply group dynamics to these personal truths we create "some truths being more true than others", but it comes from fallicious arguments (eg - more people believe this, so it must be the truth).

Seems like these two pretty much are saying the same thing.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp...7&dict=CALD

Or there's this, which is the way that I think of respect in THIS MANNER. Respect is one of those words that has more than one application.

IOW, I can have respect for the person in an affection/admiration/esteem kind of way, without having to hold their beliefs in deep admiration, but while still in manner treating them honorably.

You know, "Well we are friends and I disagree with that belief for this reason, x and y." I don't have to stop being friends with anyone but I don't have to agree with them.

Can you provide an example of how truth is relative? Because the definition of truth in the dictionary does not seem to allow for relativity:

truth

noun

1. Correspondence with fact or truth: accuracy, correctness, exactitude, exactness, fidelity, veraciousness, veracity, veridicality, verity. See true/false.
2. Freedom from deceit or falseness: truthfulness, veracity. See true/false.
3. The quality of being actual or factual: actuality, fact, factuality, factualness, reality. See real/imaginary.

In philosophy, the property of statements, thoughts, or propositions that are said, in ordinary discourse, to agree with the facts or to state what is the case. At least four major types of truth theory have been proposed: correspondence theories (see realism), coherence theories (see coherentism, idealism), pragmatic theories (see pragmatism), and deflationary theories. The latter group encompasses a wide variety of views, including the redundancy theory, the disquotation theory, and the prosentential theory.

How then can truth be relative?

At best I can see that two witnesses could view the same event and focus on different portions of it, but their perception of the event would not be the actual truth, it would only be perception of truth. I can also see how one person could be convinced that they know the truth, but the strength of their conviction would not make what they believe actually become truth (and yes, I can see how this can be used against me, but I am being truthful in my assessment of this issue and I have to say it this way despite how it can or cannot be used against me). There is only one truth for everyone, not a truth for everyone. This is what makes these discussions so important. If there is only one truth and yet, there are so many differing opinions of what the truth is, then many of us are wrong and only one or a few are right, and despite my conviction, I want to make sure I do know the truth, and if what I hold as the truth is the only truth, then I want to share it with as many as I possibly can.

perhaps we are splitting hairs, but i see a difference between merely allowing something and showing regard for it.

Ok to your first point lets go back to my very first post. Because this is EXACTLY what I am talking about.

Take the ghost scenario.

So lets take the term "universal truth" and lets call it a ghost.

Now Tommy tells me he saw a ghost. And he asks me if I believe him. And I say "Well I just submit that I have not seen any evidence for such beast."

And then Tommy says "But I have!"


So what do we do now? Do I believe there is a ghost? No. But do I believe that Tommy thinks he has seen a ghost. Yes of course.

So going to the point. If I treated Tommy with respect I would not care if he planned his life around seeing the ghost. I would not mind if he talked to others about seeing the ghost.

At what point would I care that Tommy had seen the ghost? Only if I felt that I was somehow "lacking" would I need to assert my point that I had not seen the ghost.

So when people go around thrusting on others that there is no "TRUTH" what they are really saying is that "I submit that I have not seen any evidence for such a beast and so I reject your claim that you have"

Again its all about ego. Because you haven't experienced it you reject others claim to it.

(Not you personally btw but you in general)

Its very interesting.



As for the "group dynamics" well that's a whole different argument. Because the group has nothing to do with personal beliefs so I'd like to just stay on topic since this is developing into such an interesting discussion.

simple, relative to the knowledge and thoughts of the respective times, it was true that the earth was flat, that the world was made of 4 elements, that bloodletting was a valid medical treatment, etc.

Ah that explains a lot Heather...thank you so much for responding to my post

Just for that, i'll send ye my luv for the day on Bebo lol ...when I'm done post pics to IAMS lol...

Those things were never "truths" they were simply what people believed to be true.

That's such a good example of what I was talking about in the post before.

A Christian would argue, just as people believed and had scientific evidence that the world was flat, in truth it was not flat. Just as people say and have Scientific evidence to say that there is no God, in truth there is a God.

Wouldn't they.

Believes are not "truths" "perceptions are not "truths"

Sorry, that was not truth, that was perception. If it had been truth, then the Earth would be flat and the world would be made of 4 elements.

In fact if you go back to my earlier statement some people would argue that these truths are actually evidence of people's delusion that their personal truth is the same as reality.

yet all we have is perception, and our perception can not be trusted, so how do you reach a conclusion of there being "a truth"?

this is an age old, well almost age old, conundrum. We can not trust our senses, so how can we really know anything?


"What our minds are for (if anything) is not the production of true beliefs, but the production of adaptive behavior: that our species has survived and evolved at most guarantees that our behavior is adaptive; it does not guarantee or even make it likely that our belief-producing processes are for the most part reliable, or that our beliefs are for the most part true. That is because our behavior could perfectly well be adaptive, but our beliefs false as often as true." - Alvin Plantinga (2007)

Oh wow that's such a good point hyper. Very Good point.

How can we know what we see is the truth or just our flawed perspective of the truth?

But some people would argue "That's why I rely on God, only God knows what the real truth is!"

I on the other hand would say that only in accepting "all" truths do we stand a chance of including the real truth.

That's why respecting each other is so important.

One of the arguments John Stuart Mills made is that we should always listen to all points of view with respect.

And btw I keep forgetting to mention that he also took issue with what you call "majority rule"

According to Mills and moi! LOL The majority rule is the surest sign of injustice. Read up on tyranny of the majority (or tyranny of the masses) for some fun.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

Gotta run. Will check back in later to see more

All I meant was that in the real world I only ever use the word when I'm refering to my mother-in-law... and I'm refering to the definition: the capacity to endure hardship or pain. I can just about endure her company. A poor attempt at humour, which failed.

No it didn't ! LOL I was just making sure for the thread because we started debating tolerance.


I know Milt too !


MILT (mother in law tolerance)

My mistake... it was "self-deceived"... I was close.

Oh my, the next time I see her I am going to ask if she wants milt and two sugars with her tea. If she says "yes" I will have to be nice to her.

MILT lol good one


*takes notes*

Sorry, hyper, but your argument violates the first principle of logic, the Law of Non Contradiction, which states, in the words of Aristotle, that "one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time". By stating that all we have is perception you are saying that the truth is that there is no truth, which is obviously a fallacy. The only age old conundrum is illogical thought.

And yet, isn't there such a thing as Dominant Perception? Maybe it isn't called that...but what we know, we do indeed know. We know that our planet for instance is composed of certain elements, that it is somewhat of a spherical shape, things of that nature. As I understand it, there is Universal Truth...which would be whether we were here to perceive it or not. Universal Truth would not hold the same definition as 'personal truth' but rather something that just is. We cannot invent Universal Truth...we cannot create Universal Truth...it just is.

I think sometimes we stumble upon the truth and when we do, we embrace the truth and take the truth and claim it to be 'our own personal' truth...and as we perceive that truth it then does become 'our own personal' truth. But Personal Truth is just a perception of Universal Truth. How can one really be intolerant or tolerant of Universal Truth...it just IS whether we perceive it or not. It seems to me that intolerance of Personal Truths is what is at issue. My Own Personal Truth vs. Your Own Personal Truth...really they are just individual perceptions of Universal Truth. I think.

OK, but notice, I didn't say non-believers are self-deceived, I stated what the Bible says, which is different. It's not something I came up with because I don't respect non-believers, it's something I believe because I understand and agree with the logic of the writer of Romans.

Other than that, I stand by the answer I gave in a previous post to you:

good one I hadn't heard that one before... gosh if that doesn't say it all...

LOL!!!!! That's the funniest thing I've ever seen you say. That was great. Not that you don't have humor but it's very low-key and dry, enjoyable in it's own way; however, this comment was outright hilarious and made me giggle. The next time she gets cocky and says something stupid about you not being her religion or not having kids or anything else you're in disagreement about, just quietly say, "hmm.. that's an interesting discussion point, I'm going to have to mention that to my friend Milt, we've been having a conversation about the same thing, and I had been meaning to explore that point. More tea?"

(I know it was yours, originally, true, but she just used it in such a funny way)

You see something, your brain processes it and places a definition on it. The definitions come from things we are taught that we accept as true, we interpret experience in terms of this framework of things we accept. We call this proof. With enough proof we begin to consider things true. Because "truth" is based on interpreted experience, it is also relative to that experience.

We often forget that we don't have the benefit of another person's experience. You see things differently than I and vice versa. We can't truly call each other wrong simply because that is just interpreting your experience in terms of our own.

See?

I don't actually see how that makes a difference... however you came to believe it, it is still something you believe. So how can you respect me if I'm deceiving myself?

My mother-in-law is deceiving herself. She still believes that my husband will wake up one day and realise he's sleeping next to a demon in sheep pyjamas. I do not respect my mother-in-law.

I can't envisage saying to someone "you're deceiving yourself, but I respect you for it."

Son,
science has concluded that nothing which is observed is unaffected by the observer, spirituality told us this moons ago .In human understanding son all things are considered within the context of what you THINK you already understand, you can't help but do this, you know no other way to proceed... just to clarify you are looking at the illusion from within the tu:illusion .....

It's not about respecting someone FOR their blunder, it's about respecting them in spite of it.

If God disowned me every time I was not worthy of His respect.. I'd be quite alone and without Him.

I guess I'm trying to describe unconditional respect. People don't always deserve it. There are some that I have more respect for than others. But should we treat disrespectfully those that we think are not deserving of it? I am not talking about advancing their cause or agreeing with them. For instance, I do not believe that abortion should be practiced. Period. I would jump off a bridge before I would further an abortion provider's assets, property, or help them in any way to continue this act. If an abortion provider joined UM and proudly stated his deal, I could engage in respectful if not approving communication. Now if the guy started using little backhanded insults and getting stupid with me we would have a problem, but even in that case civility could be restored and considerate communication also, if it were rectified. So, I have zero respect for what he does, but there are things about me that are deserving of zero respect also; and if I (for no reason other than disagreeing with him) do not treat him with respect I am guilty of something else against me.

There's a difference between being disrespectful in manner and tone, and someone thinking they are being disrespected because they were disagreed with.

Also, I believe that since God created all of us, we are all His and if I am puposely disrespectful in manner because I differ with someone, I am guilty of an offense against Him, as well as the other person.

It's kind of like saying there is a basic respect that all people are due, and if someone earns more of your respect then you give it to them, but those are two different things.

I'm sorry you can't understand, Shadow. I guess I will be unable to explain myself to you and you will just have to accept that I am able to respect someone despite the fact that I believe they are, either consciously or unconsciously, deceiving themselves. Of course, you also have the option of not accepting.

See what?? i don't see anything my brain is telling me your post makes sense, but I'm not sure, if it's real or not lol

ha ha lol just joking..yes i do see..and I thank you for explaining it lol

i think lol

I'm going to ask everyone else then... does your understanding of the word "respect" lead you to believe that you can respect a person whilst believing they are deceiving themselves? And if you can, can you explain it to me, because I can't conceive of the two things existing together harmoniously.

then your point is moot heather, this may be difficult to hear but there is perfection in everything one strives to see it....... in every thing there is value its in seeing this we understand tolerance and respect....

its a oxymoron the exact statement. IMO peace of mind has no preference in another's journey ..LOL

i am not saying there is no truth, but that we can not determine what is the truth because we can not trust our only means of interacting with the universe.

If she really feels that way about you, I can certainly see why you feel as you do! That is horrible. She has taken her personal beliefs and is attacking you personally, judging you using those very beliefs as the excuse. That is not respectful in the least- it is being judgmental, and ignorant. What she has done with you is exactly what shouldn't be done! It does, it boils down to a simple respect...
She is deceiving herself because she is justifying hate or intolerance by using her own truths to do so. That is when deception becomes a part of the equation, imo..
If this woman was to have those same beliefs and respected you for your own without judgment (in spite of the differences) then no one is deceiving anyone. It's much easier to find respect for each other this way, respect starts to disappear when the attacks begin..

This argument is still in violation of the Law of Non Contradiction. You're saying the truth is we can't know the truth.

No Son, he's saying his opinion is we can't know the truth.

Truth cannot be spoken, when we try it becomes just an educated guess.

Isn't it just simpler to believe in what i like to call "simplicity"? The truth is what we know as true. For something to be true it must be proven. 1+1 is always equal to 2. No need to insert "magic" so it equal 3...

If you have one pen, and get a another one. You have 2 pens. So why complicate life just because we humans have a need for so many things phsycologically.

Welcome captain... to UM.. I'd add that because some thing is simple doesn't mean it isn't profound because behind the greatest of simplicity lies the greatest complexity one only needs to look to a sunset to observe this.....

Sorry, but I don't see where he is saying this is his opinion. From what I see he is making a statement.


So, then, since the truth cannot be spoken--or in this case written--what you just wrote is not the truth, right? And if your statement cannot be the truth, then it is false. Therefore, truth can be spoken/written. Can you see that your statement commits the same fallacy as the one hyper made?

Hmm.... well what I said isn't exactly a huge theory. Far from it, but from a certain perspective it makes sense. I find that the world simple is misleading though.... because the Universe isn't so simple. Unless you understand everything. Like if you are learning something new. At first it seems very very difficult. Very hard to remember and understand. But after you master it, you are amazed that other people think of it as difficult.
I think a better word is "logical". Not like our good old friends the Vulcans though I hope you understand what I am trying to get at.

I am seeing this correctly. You are saying that is impossible for you to respect someone while you believe they are deceiving themselves.

And it kinda goes along with the things you post. I mean if someone tells you they believe Jesus is their personal savior and they are promised a place in heaven when they die YOU believe they are deceiving themselves and so you have no respect for them right?

See this is the kind of thinking I want to turn around.

Iams are Ya listening

Iams I think that you believe in a mythology. I don't think God really exists the way you think it does.

Guess what? I love you anyway. I have a lot of respect for the way you believe because I believe it comes from a place of compassion and beauty.

And guess what! I know you think I am deceiving myself. I know you think that deep down inside somewhere there is a place for God in me. And you know what? I know you love and respect me as well.


So. See Shadow...that's how it works. I think you might be projecting your judgments onto others. And I think you might be deceiving yourself about that as well.

But you know what. I think you are admirable. I think you fight the good fight and I think there is a beauty in you of someone who reaches beyond their reach in this mystery called life.

See that?

Its called respect even though you stole my MILT line and impressed heather more....grumble grumble grumble.

Great post Captain welcome to the Wrath of "Khan I be Right if you aren't wrong?"

Reminds me for some reason of a line from Steven King

Everything's Eventual

Yes to the first part... I don't respect people and believe they are deceiving themselves at the same time.

But I don't believe that Son is deceiving himself. I think that for him his beliefs are very much as real as mine are for me. None of us know what is really out there, or if there is anything at all aside from our own desire for there to be. We go with what feels right. What I believe is what's right for me. What Son believes is what's right for him. I don't believe that my way is right, and that Son just hasn't figured that out yet and is deceiving himself. I believe only that what I believe is right for me, at this moment in time.

Maybe this is affected by the fact that I believe fundamentally what we believe is of no consequence to our Creator, and therefore what human beings have faith in or don't have faith in is really only their own business.

I love YMO. I don't expect everyone to love YMO. If you don't love YMO I will still go on loving them and you can go on loving... Duran Duran (wow, that's going back a bit ). I respect your choice because I believe your taste in music is as good as mine... not in spite of the fact that your taste isn't as good as mine.

Did that make sense?