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.

So then Hindus are no different than atheists when it comes to the Truth?

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.

I think claims about the Bible being a record of absolute truth fall into pretty immediate problems. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Indeed. According to academic and theologian David Bentley Hart, literal interpretations of the Bible as records of absolute truth are a more recent approach. The Bible was generally seen as allegorical tales to teach people larger truths. While I am unclear what a larger truth might be, I know growing up in the Baptist tradition we were taught the Bible stories were just stories, many of which did not take place.

We can probably see the Bible as a kind of fan fiction to god. I always found that left us with a problem of what bits to take seriously and why? And why not Hindu texts instead of Christian texts?

It's not just atheists who hold Bible accounts to be a flawed and limited. Christian writer and Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong put the matter succinctly:-

This point must be heard: the Gospels are first-century narrations based on first-century interpretations. Therefore they are a first-century filtering of the experience of Jesus. They have never been other than that. We must read them today not to discover the literal truth about Jesus, but rather to be led into the Jesus experience they were seeking to convey. That experience always lies behind the distortions, which are inevitable since words are limited.

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. — Isaiasb

:zip:

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. — Isaiasb

You know this makes no sense? At best, it is a hand-wave at the mysterious.

It's propositions that are true or false. Not gods.

Maybe the set of all truths? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Interesting.

That's not dissimilar to logical atomism, as found in Russell and the early Wittgenstein, and brings with it most of the problems thereof. It has the singular advantage of admitting the point that it is propositions that are true or false, rather than gods.

So

God is Truth — Isaiasb

would be interpreted as "God is the conjunction of all true propositions"

But that is not what Christians worship on Sunday.

So it remains that "God is truth" and such aphorisms do not convey factual information. Theology, taken literally, is nonsense.

So it remains that "God is truth" and such aphorisms do not convey factual information. Theology, taken literally, is nonsense. — Banno

It's hard to see how this is not the case. Perhaps at best we can call it a form of poetry that hints at human hopes and wishes.

Well, yep. And that bit about whereof one cannot speak...

All this is not to say that there is nothing profound, or transcendent, or whatever misnomer one might use; but to point out that no sooner do you put god into words than he ceases to be divine.

:up:

So it remains that "God is truth" and such aphorisms do not convey factual information. Theology, taken literally, is nonsense. — Banno

Worse than nonsense, I think, if it results in not being able to make a distinction between God and truth.

;) perhaps. There is so much of this sort of waffle that it must have some purpose.

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.

It isn’t nonsense outside of a close minded materialistic viewpoint. — Isaiasb

I think there might be many spiritually inclined, even theistic individuals who would find this reasoning muddy and the conclusions unwarranted. It's not about materialism.

He is the measure of Truth, he is the measuring stick not the highest point on the stick. — Isaiasb

This is basic presuppositionalist apologetics wherein a little game is played appointing whichever god you hold exists as the foundational guarantor of all things - the necessary condition of coherence and goodness. Interestingly these identical arguments are used by Muslim apologists too. Apparently their god is also the measure of truth. So many gods, so much truth...

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.

Comparing Islam and Christianity is odd considering they have such similar views on the authority of God. — Isaiasb

I don't think it is odd to compare things which are similar. Isn't that what a comparison is? But you're missing my point by focusing on that. My point is that apologists from both make the same appeals, inferences and arguments towards exclusivity and truth. In other words they rely on the same foundations even if their 'truths' are divergent.

Note however, also we've been talking about Christ - a man who wasn't crucified, according to Islam, the resurrected god, according to many Christians. That's different enough, right?

Given your post is about Absolute Truth - your choice here - I find it curious that you are unable to say what absolute truth is (and what 'absolute' adds to the idea of truth) apart from a reference to Platonism. And your truth relies on the same inferences that other truths rely upon, making it less 'absolute' and more interpretive.

I would need something more than just claims being made. What is your demonstration that your version of a particular god is truth incarnate? And you can't just 'it says in the Bible'. We've already dealt with that one.

The major difference in Islam and Christianity is obviously its views on Jesus, but the authority of God we agree on. — Isaiasb

I think we need to recognize that Christianity itself is diverse and holds very different often incompatible accounts of Jesus. There is no single interpretation although it is clear that many groups believe every one else is wrong and only they have the truth. Is that how you see things?

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.

Sounds like we are not getting anywhere and from my perspective you seem to avoid answering the tough questions.

I explained previously many times that I see Absolute Truth as Truth that is unchanging and "absolute". — Isaiasb

That's like saying that a liberal democracy is a democracy that is 'liberal'. Doesn't really answer the question.

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. — Isaiasb

As I said, this is a distraction from the actual point. Which was:

apologists from both (Islam and Christianity) make the same appeals, inferences and arguments towards exclusivity and truth. In other words they rely on the same foundations even if their 'truths' are divergent. — Tom Storm

What you seem to have is a justification for an exclusive truth which shares the same reasoning as many other claims for such exclusivity. In other words, there needs to be something better or the claim isn't justified. The arguments you employ can be used to support any number of religious beliefs, not solely the idea of an 'absolute' Christianity.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion, you have been very civil. :wink:

Where your not understanding is that your taking a univocal position on a analogical way to speak about God. — Isaiasb

I'm saying that there is a clear enough use of "true" that applies to propositions; and that if you want to invent a different way of using the word, then admit that it is different and set out how it is to be used. I'm happy for you to use "truth" in an alternative way, just so long as you do not confuse or compound it with our usual use.

Further, if you are saying that your use is an analogy, then you are agreeing with me that your use differes from how we usually use "truth". Analogies are used to show how things are, but it remains unclear what it is you are attempting to show by "god is truth".

God isn’t Truth because he’s the most truth. — Isaiasb

Make up your mind. Is he truth or not? And how does truth admit of degrees? Is the pope almost truth, the bishop mostly truth and the priest a little bit truth? See how you misuse words here?

He is the measure of Truth, he is the measuring stick not the highest point on the stick. — Isaiasb

Hmm. So back to the Euthyphro. Is something true because god says, or does god say it is true because it is?

It isn’t nonsense outside of a close minded materialistic viewpoint. — Isaiasb

Wait on - are you now claiming that the notion that it is propositions that are true of false is part of materialism? Twaddle.

I explained previously many times that I see Absolute Truth as Truth that is unchanging and "absolute". — Isaiasb

Laughable. Absolute truth is "absolute". How profound. Yet you want to be taken seriously. Your religion appears, from what you say, parochial and bigoted. You are not offering anything that hasn't been said and rejected a thousand times on this forum alone.

Yawn.

He is the measure of Truth, he is the measuring stick not the highest point on the stick.
— Isaiasb
Hmm. So back to the Euthyphro. Is something true because god says, or does god say it is true because it is? — Banno

This argument seems to be similar to the presuppositionalist position and some forms of classical theism. God is the ultimate source and standard of goodness. In this view, goodness is not something external to god that god adheres to, but is inherent to god's nature. God is not merely good; god is goodness itself. This view seems to align with classical theism's concept of divine simplicity, where all of god's attributes are unified in his essence.

To get out of the Euthyphro dilemma it might be argued that if goodness is grounded in god's unchanging nature, moral truths are objective and founded on divine essence - not based solely on 'divine commands'.

I think this is generally how Christian thinking constructs its response.

The substantive problem of course is that we have yet to demonstrate there is a god from which anything can emanate and even if there is a god or several gods, how can we tell that goodness emanates from this deity? All we have are claims - even if some of them are old and venerable.

yep. The Euthyphro originally considered justice, and is often also applied to The Good(?), but why not apply it, if truth is mooted as here? Is it that god decides what is true and what is false, or is it that god is obliged to only implement truths? There will be odd ramifications, not dissimilar to the question of whether god can contradict himself, and if not, is that a limit on his omnipotence? Enough to keep theologians entertained for an eternity.

For others, it's yet another example of god's incoherence.

What would you say about the events in Second Chronicals where Jehoshaphat, King of Judah, does evil in the sight of the LORD and walks in the ways of Jeroboam, causing God to send his prophets false dreams and visions to make him think he will win a battle against the Assyrians by allying himself with the wicked King Ahab of Israel?

Micaiah recalls a vision of the angels sitting around God while God asks how he can get Jehoshaphat to attack the Assyrians so that he might have him die in battle. One angel suggests going to Jehoshaphat's prophets as a "lying/deceiving spirit," to send them false visions. God tells them to go do that.

Then all the prophets recommend that Jehoshaphat go up to war, except for Micaiah.

Perhaps this is not a lie, because the message is that "the Assyrians will be given into your hand," not "you will not die in battle," but it is clearly meant to mislead.