My only problem with that is the problem of us teaching the youth concepts like being, because they are not intrinsic to our nature. Concepts can always have definitions but become circular because of the nature of linguistics. Plato is known for defining being and it is noncircular if articulated correctly.

I think this should be viewed more as a critique of language than conceptual looks. This reminds me of trying to describe color to a blind person, the words we use limit us in some areas and I think this is one of those examples of the imperfect nature of language.

Most people truth it because they do not know what it is, once it's newness dies off people will quit caring.

Spirituality imposes that it isn't the DNA symbols that make us human but a spirit that resides in us. That is why I do not believe A.I can achieve consciousness.

A.I can never have a soul or sentience. No matter what religion a person is, that idea is dumb. A bunch of 1s and 0s cannot be life, that is why transhumanism will never truly become a thing.

It comes more from a religious perspective than a westernized liberal one. Eastern religion is heavily based on change and renewal, which allows themselves to be more open to change. Christian religion is more based on the teachings of Jesus/ the apostles which do not allow for such changes like A.I priest.

They do but their views on tradition are different. They are more open to change.

In eastern religions A.I may have an influence but because of the focus on Tradition from Abrahamic religion would make it difficult to implement A.I into it. The biggest thing we will probably see for Christians is the use of A.I for Sermons.

Sceince 200 years ago believed in "bad blood" and draining this blood from people who were sick. Science is never stable and unmoving. Christianity has been reformed but the core values have never changed.

But they do overlap in some instances, like people claiming the Bible says the earth is flat or that unicorns exist (both are verses out of context or mistranslated). The Bible speaks on a Leviathan but we can’t scientifically prove its existence. So it’s important to understand that religion overlaps on interpretation of science in both the atheist and religious side

If it’s inherently a singular persons search, is it the science that changes from person to person or the religion?

Dude I’m a student with a life, I’m not chronically online waiting to debate people. I like posting essays I’ve already written to help with dialogue and see if I need to make changes. I also like hearing other people’s perspectives but that doesn’t mean I need to respond.

Salvation. The goal is to find out about the afterlife and how to get there.

It is a pretty bad therapy, telling everyone that we suck at being humans, we deserve hell. God saves us even though we suck.

I am an old earth guy but I don’t believe in Speciation.

Religion has not yet provided any vaccines to say viruses via their holy books — simplyG

Because that’s not religions goal . Religion and science coexist, religion isn’t the entirety of science though.

I don't think it is odd to compare things which are similar. Isn't that what a comparison is? — Tom Storm

This is like comparing a green and yellow bannana and asking why they taste different, they have differences but that isn't one of them. I refer to Platonism because Platonic view on Absolute Truth is similar to early Christians' views. I explained previously many times that I see Absolute Truth as Truth that is unchanging and "absolute". The inclusion of Absolute helps distinguish truth from Truth.

What is your demonstration that your version of a particular god is truth incarnate? — Tom Storm

Anathasis wrote a great book called "On the Incarnation" if you wanna know why.

Comparing Islam and Christianity is odd considering they have such similar views on the authority of God. They are correct in their view of God, Islam is not 100% wrong, and neither is any religion. The major difference in Islam and Christianity is obviously its views on Jesus, but the authority of God we agree on.

Where your not understanding is that your taking a univocal position on a analogical way to speak about God. God isn’t Truth because he’s the most truth. He is the measure of Truth, he is the measuring stick not the highest point on the stick. It isn’t nonsense outside of a close minded materialistic viewpoint.

Not necessarily, Hinduism believes Brahama is the true source of Truth, similar to Christianity. The biggest difference comes from Hinduism's belief that this truth is not found in Religion, and that all are wrong in some way. What Hinduism and Atheism share is the belief in cultural relativism in the views of morality.

That is from KJV which is a poor translation. It's more commonly used as "fathered". And God cannot lie, it's not in his nature. Nor has he ever been proven to lie.

I also enjoy the Patristic interpretation that Evil comes from the absence of God, so all things evil are things which are void of God. Anathasis wrote a great piece on this called "On the Incarnation"

So... which? — Vera Mont

both, he is fully God and Fully Man.

Then I guess either God or John was lying. So... which? — Vera Mont

John 3:16 doesn't say, God impregnated Mary and she gave birth to a son. Jesus was Begotten not Made.
God was Truth back in the Old Testament, but he gave the law for the jews, until the time of Jesus could come and fufill it. The Law is a curse which points out how sinful we are. God is Truth.

It isn't obscure, it's Truth in the Platonic sense, which means that it is Truth that does not change, it just is. Since God is Truth, which implies it's tied to his nature. So it never changes.

Jesus was fully human not because he was born from a women, it's different then Greek Mythology where Zeus impregnates people. The old testament law wasn't Absolute, it never claimed to be so.

Mormons are derived from Christianity so they would say that. And Mohammad claimed to deliver truth but he didn’t claim to be Truth. That’s the difference between Mohammad and Jesus.

The implication that the main, or perhaps even the only, alternative to a theistic morality is relativism ignores the history of Ethics back to Aristotle. It's just ignorant. — Banno

The problem is that Plato and Aristotle fought for Truth by using the Gods. So they believing in a theistic morality. If Absolute Truth exists outside of God who determines it?

If Jesus is both God and Man he can’t “come by” his divinity. He is God, from beginning to end.

From my understanding Hindus believe no one religion is true, and Islam believes the only Absolute Truth is the Quran

Absolute Truth comes from Plato, in short there is a Truth out there that isn’t relative. He explains this in his dialogues.

It isn’t circular if you understand religion as a whole. Jesus is the only one who claims to be both God and Truth. Islam nor any other religion claim that, secondly the Holy Spirit is what tells us everything about God. General and Special revelation point to God. The Bible isn’t true because it says it’s true, it’s true because God, through the Holy Ghost and man, wrote the Bible over a few thousand years

It's simple, if God is Truth, then anything of God is true. So then verification comes from deciphering if it is of God or not, we us both the Holy Ghost and Scripture to figure this out.

I didn't lie

Because I am speaking on the desire to not allow a higher power to have any basis over them.

Considering Christianity is mentioned throughout it, yes it is Christ Jesus.

How else would those systems come into place? Most dictators remove religion or change it to fit their agenda. If God does exist he is allowed to do whatever he wants, so why would we then impose our own morals over it?

The platonic definition of Truth.

But it's wrong to decide, " I'm just going to not take this one text because its religious'". Also the only time the bible is quoted is when I was speaking to Christians'. In my defense agianst nonbelievers I never sight scripture.

I didn't believe in Absolute Truth but I was confident in my beliefs.

I only used Christian sources for the Christian, for unbelievers I use nonreligious sources. The first part is defending Absolute Truth for the Christian, the rest was for non believers. The latter part is entirely dedicated to nonchristians and never mentions the bible.