Truth

Imagine this:
Two men are walking in an almost-empty parking lot. By this I mean there are approximately 60 car slots, and 7 cars. There is few enough cars to be at any point in the lot and be able to see every car. Suddenly, one man stops the other.

"There is the car," he says.

"I see no car," says the second man.

So we find ourselves in a predicament. Much like the question "does the tree make any sound?", I ask you: is the car really there? Which man is sane, and which is insane? This is a microcosm of the definition of truth. Because, isn't truth nothing more than popular acceptance? It is true that cells are the smallest unit of an organism. It is true that Columbus set foot on North America in 1492. Isn't it? What if there was another man there? A third party who says, let's say, the car really isn't there. Then the lone man is crazy and it is truth that that the car isn't there. But does that make the car's existence any more true or untrue? More probable, maybe, but truer... I don't think so. Now lets expand this microcosm into the real world, and perhaps the ratio of "crazy men" to "sane men" (who know the truth). Let's say one man claims that Christopher Columbus set foot on North America last year. All would say that he is insane. But what prevents it from being true? Or better yet, let's say all people agree on one thing, like Christopher Columbus landing in 1492. Does that make it true?

The answer is no. Truth cannot be defined as popular acceptance. Just as easily as something can be "true", it can be "untrue". These ideas form the basis of the theory known as Skepticism. That theory states that nothing can be for certain. However, I've come to realize that one thing can be for certain. That is love. Love between two people, or love between a man and God, is eternally true. That is because love is not something that can be known. That is, it is not something that can be explained. It is something that can only be felt. Knowledge is not truth. Only love is truth.

Afterlife, among other things, is the relief of ignorance and fulfillment of knowledge, as in most cultures. These cultures believe that when in the afterlife, a man knows all and his soul can rest. This is true. But people have come to regard this "fulfillment of knowledge" as knowing things, such as all aspects of Science, including the human mind, or more abstract, religious things like "what is God's plan?". The afterlife is nothing more than complete love. Love is the only truth and holding it completely will be complete truth. All aspects of the Universe are contained by love. They were created by love and are controlled by love. I'm not quite sure whether Jesus of Nazareth is indeed El Christo, but he certainly did carry the right message: God is Love. God is the ultimate, omnipresent power in the Universe. Love is that power, that we know exists, we know its power, yet is intangible.

Most importantly, you cannot know love. You can only feel it. It is truth, and all the power of the universe lies within it. Perhaps one of the greatest accomplishments of man is to not "know" love, but to know it exists.

>>34
There is certainly nothing stopping anyone from believing both in God and in evolution. Scientists are not mostly athiests, they are just regular people who conduct experiments are write papers for a living.

That being said, there is something rediculous to me about someone who tries to make his religious beliefs fit with current science. As more answers are being provided by science and experimentations, many of the mysteries of the world, once under the sole authority of religious leaders, are being exposed and understood. When new truths are discovered that conflict with the idea of God, particularly an active christian God, then the nature of that God has to change to accomodate the new truth.

How much can you change the idea of God before he becomes something completely different?

There was a time, and there are places today, where only a literal interpretation of the bible was acceptable. Now that our understanding of the natural world, and our place in it has expanded to make the stories in the bible obviously untrue, we are forced to look at them as metaphores and fables meant only to deliver a moral message.

This is very different from religious thought a hundred years ago, or a thousand years ago, and may well be totally agaisnt the intentions of the bible's many authors. We have no choice however but to accept this change, because realities and truths have been discovered that cannot allow us to believe that God created all there is in 7 days, that the world is flat and supported by magical pillars, or that the sun can be stopped in the sky.

These revelations force us to react in one of 3 ways: throw out our religious convictions, deny the truths discovered by science, or change our religion just enough to put us back into our comfort zone.

People in north america today do not worship the same God as ancient Isrealites did. They don't worship the God of Jesus Christ and his contemporaries. They don't worship the Allah of Mohammed.

God has been changed by the progress we have made in our understanding, and will likely continue to change until he can no longer change, then he will die.