Tom,

>Doug;
>
>We should all thank God that there is disagreement on any given topic. Without disagreement there would not be so many different Protestant Churches. You can take any passage of the Bible and have an argument as to its meaning. Such arguments have resulted in the establishment of the many different flavors of Protestantism. This is also true of all aspects of human knowledge. You will find there is no one truth – truth exists in the mind of God and the individual.

Just admit it.. I was right. <g>

As far as accepting the notion that "there is no one truth" I strongly disagree. Conceptually there must be. Why? Well, if we take your position that "there is no one truth" that also applies to your statement, but that can't be because your statement/assertion is an assertion or statement of a truth. IOW, your statement self-contradicts. Ergo: it cannot be itself a relaiable statement of truth (fact). Perhaps you could assert, "There may not be any one truth but I cannot know because I've taken the position that there "is no one truth" and a statement asserting a truth is in itself a contradiction to my position."

Does that make sense re:existentialist thought (me based) as opposed to some other form of thought (outside of me based)? IOW.. I cannot on one hand assert that there is no truth and yet claim to know so much as be able to say, "I know the truth of this matter." Truth must exist in order to make a statement that something is false ('there is no one truth').

IOW, there MUST be truth. We can then argue as to its content, shape or whatever but the assertion that "there is no one truth", is IMO utterly false. But I can say that because I believe in truth - and the corrolary - non-truth. <g>

Now, am I always right? No way Jose! <g> Is God? Yep. Absolutely, all the time. Am I able to discern 'truths'? Sure, with care and the understanding that my own thought process can, at any time, be fatally flawed. But God? All the time 100% - no exceptions. 'God' in this case being not completely yet defined but in this case having as a part of the definition "the end point of truth" or "the summation of truths". There's the whole issue of a personal god v an impersonal god and once -that- is resolved you need to then begin to discover and define his nature. Is he capricious (Islam) or distant or impersonal (budhism) and so forth.

The logical "end point" here is that God must interven in the affairs of man for man to completely and fully understand God. IOW, He must come to us and educate us about Himself as opposed to we going to him and discovering him.

Why? Because truth can reveal itself intrinsically and it's the nature of truth to reveal and disclose. That's why it's called 'truth'. <s> as in "self evident"; except for the 9th in your neck of the woods. <g>

>
>Now God does not talk to the majority so not everyone knows what He is thinking.

This is an assertion of a 'truth'. This cannot be! <g>

Paul the apostle refuted this in Romans. His assertion was that all of mankind did know as evidenced by their consciences and their attempt to assuage (my words) their consciences via often silly religious practices. Mankind has a universal sense of responsibility (call it guilt if you will) and a desperate need to resolve it. Surely you're familiar with general anthropological issues?? Let me make this point by asking you to identify any culture whatsoever that doesn't worshipo anything at all. The mind , sex (astarte), some definition of a "higher power"; doesn't matter, they all worship. It's built in to mankind - the need to worship.

>Each individual may have his/her own truth and be in disagreement with everyone else.

They may or they may not. How do we determine, judge or evaluate? I say we take what we DO know and build on that.

>Truth has to do with acceptance, power, position, ability to argue and ones “reality”.

Only if you start from an existentialist-based thought process. I'd be willing to bet that you may not even be aware of the fundamental manner that existentialist thought has influenced your thinking. "Do your own thing" is a classic example of self-defined 'truth'. ie. existentialism.

>
>So what is truth?

That's what Pilate said.. And it was standing right in front of him. He (Pilate) didn't want to know; not that he couldn't know. For him it was a political expediancy to remain willfully ignorant of something that was standing right there.

Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life."

If you don't agree with this, don't argue with me. Take it up with He who uttered the words directly. <g>

> Philosophers have attempted to define it while businessmen, attorneys and politicians have forgotten its meaning and significance. :)

Indeed. And most people don't want to really face it, preferring willful ignorance. Still, one cannot force others to change their thinking (Communism failed remember? <g>) but one can persude those who are at least willing to listen and allow themselves to be challenged.