Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable?

Thu, 16 Mar 2006 04:25:28 -0800

Very good point, Judy.  Paul is all about us knowing the truth, but he also cautions us not to think we know the whole story.  I think many times when people encounter those who have a confidence in a particular truth, they feel some kind of threat and want to knock down the confidence of that person.  Have you ever noticed that?
 
David Miller
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 3:02 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable?

The thing Paul is against is being a know it all and proud along with causing younger believers to stumble; however neither God or his servants condone ignorance ... they teach that we should not be children in understanding; in malice be children but in understanding be men. (1 Cor 14:20)
 
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 01:57:08 +0000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I suggest that Lance's De Lima as framed by DM is the very reason we seek the counsel of others in discussion groups such as this.   Further, it may the reason Paul cautions concerning "knowing"  (I Cor 8:1ff.)  jd
I hear something else from Judy (and Izzy too), and that is that Lance seems to have no basis by which we can know whether or not our interpretation of the truth is accurate.  This creates a problem in discussing truth, because then we all just have opinions and nobody knows the truth.  Lance, do you understand this dilemma?  (By the way, I'm with Izzy & Judy in this concern, so please try to address it if you can.)   DM
 
 
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I'm going to try and weigh in a bit here.
 
I hear from Lance that sometimes truth and one's interpretation of truth does not coincide.
 
I hear from Judy that sometimes one's interpretation of truth does coincide.
 
I agree with these two statements.  Do both of you?  I think you both do, but if not, please speak up.
 
I hear something else from Judy (and Izzy too), and that is that Lance seems to have no basis by which we can know whether or not our interpretation of the truth is accurate.  This creates a problem in discussing truth, because then we all just have opinions and nobody knows the truth.  Lance, do you understand this dilemma?  (By the way, I'm with Izzy & Judy in this concern, so please try to address it if you can.)
 
What standards of truth do we have, Lance?  How can we know the truth?  How can we know that we do know the truth?
 
1.  The Bible?
 
2.  The Spirit?
 
3.  Logic?
 
4.  Emotions?
 
What role do each of these play in knowing truth?
 
David Miller
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 7:59 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The dearly departed

So what you are saying Lance is that there is no "objective truth?"  That in fact if I say dog, you could be  hearing cat? which means there is no such thing as a dog because this is just my interpretation?   And if I write exactly what is written in scripture - because IYO truth changes generationally and according to culture then it really isn't truth because they could be saying dog and I might be hearing cat.  Is this what you are saying Lance?
 
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 07:47:08 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I've no problem acknowledging the 'fixity and eternality' of truth. I do, however, have a problem with some persons interpretations. I'd say to you that which I said to Kevin: Once you (Judy) are convinced that your statements concerning the truth (Scriptural quotations on any subject) are themselves the truth then, even the possibility of conversation is over. 
 
I am saying that I don't understand your question Lance - so it looks like you have excused yourself again.
Why are you so full of conditions - is it really that difficult to say what you mean?
 
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 07:31:49 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
When you answer my question then, I'll 'give it a shot' as it were.
 
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 07:02:02 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Would you be so kind Judy, as to restate 'apprehend and apply' so as to demonstrate to me that therein lies the meaning 'truth is NOT fixed and eternal..'?
 
I say that truth IS fixed and eternal so would you please explain what you mean by the above  ...
 
Further Judy, should we actually be attempting to exhibit a 'new and improved' TT, was the last 'shot' necessary? ('dancing around a calf').  
 
I think so Lance, and BTW it is not a "shot"  We all come into this world with hearts full of idolatry, I examine my own daily. Remember, we are all "by nature" children of wrath. That is unless we walk after the "new nature"
 
 
Not so Lance; Truth is fixed and eternal in every generation. God does not change and neither does His Word
which is forever sealed in heaven.  As Dean warns - better be sure you are not dancing around a calf.
 
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 05:42:17 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Each generation must apprehend then apply the truth in a manner appropriate to its time. This is but one reason IFO favour newer translations of all sacred texts, including the text of scripture. Some recent christian teaching/writing is an asset to the believing community. FWIW, I'd dance to that tune.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dean Moore
Sent: March 14, 2006 15:46
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The dearly departed

cd: No, it was not honest. But then again since when did this dancing brotherhood ever worry about honesty-or truth-or The Truth? They are a fine testimony for their group thinking religion-which they claim is ongoing revelation given by the decision of the majority of the group. They claim to decide if God is Male / Female or whatever- I asked them : What if the majority decided that God is a calf and to date have gotten no reply to this question..
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 3/14/2006 11:58:47 AM
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The dearly departed

 

So why did jd inquire of you about them? Was that honest??? iz 

 

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 20:22:45 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

cd; They have been in contact with Miller - Blain, DH ,John, Gary- and believe it or not Glen tabor.All in one group e-Mail-of which I seem to be the topic.

 

 

 

Why dont you contact them directly? You have their email addresses, as do the rest of us. iz

 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]

By the way  --  are we allowed to ask as to the status of Gary and DH?   They are missed on this forum by some.  

 

jd

 

 
 
 
 
 

Reply via email to