So I stirred the theological stink pot today

I was attempting to get some traffic and discussion on here by posting an excerpt from my last blog post onto a few different CL discussion boards.

Atheism Forum Debate

Religion Forum Debate

Looks as though I ruffled a few feathers today. Again reaffirms my belief that truth is only relative in regards to faith or lack thereof. Perhaps its fair to say that truth should have some sort of adjective before it to describe which truth is the question at hand. The relative truth or the absolute truth.

My take on Truth

First let me begin by thanking everyone for their input thus far. I've received a lot of insightful information on the topic of truth. And while I never imagined that this would be such a debatable topic, it is interesting to learn how many completely opposite views there are in regards what truth is.

I've thought much on the topic in the past couple of days, trying my best to wrap my mind around the idea that truth may in fact be absolute. Despite my efforts I still have to reject that opinion and by doing so I have only reaffirmed my own truth in this matter.

Hegel's dialectic theory comes to mind. And while this theory is in regards to historical data the same concept can be applied to defining and understanding truth. The term dialectic can be translated as "argument." The basic structure of an argument is that one person takes a position, called the thesis. Someone else takes an opposite stance, called the antithesis. Most often the "truth" lies somewhere in between. This comprises the third position which is the synthesis, taking points from both positions. At the risk of contradicting myself (and I know I haven't fully explained my point of view but I'll get to that later) consider a jury trial. Yes there is an absolute truth in that actual events did take place. It's up to the jury to determine to the best of their understanding of the accounts from both sides of the issue which is truth. But what if there are other issues such as moral and ethics involved aside from the actual legal issues? How can a conclusion be absolutely correct when there are differing points of view in regards to abstract notions?

That is, of course, where the judge comes in. It is he who determines the fate of the convicted. Now this is the point at which our human world and the realm of the creator end. We are the only species on the planet that has a need for a written code of law. The written code of law comes in many forms. Depending on your belief, your culture, your society, and your legal systems what is truth for you is often a fallacy in someone else's mind. For instance in our country it is a symbol of good luck to cross your fingers whereas in Vietnamese cultures it is obscene. Judges and other authoritative figures are necessary components of our society. This need is based on human behavior. Human beings need some basic construct in which to organize the complex web of emotions, logic, and reasoning that make them human.

The spiritual world, on the other hand, does not have a necessity for a judge. Everything that makes us human will fade away when we have left this life. Guilt, remorse, pain, sorrow, all these are human emotions which may be felt if judged. However, if there is no brain matter to process these feelings then the whole concept of judgment becomes obsolete.

Now, I do understand that, yes, there are some truths that are absolute, but then they can be classified as facts also. Events such as birth, life, and death are all truths that are verifiable with facts. However, truth in regards to human beliefs and worldviews are relative in that it is truth to the believer. What is important is that one’s own truth provides answers to the basic fundamental questions of life and gives hope for the future.

An afternoon debate on truth...

The following is a debate that a good friend of mine and I had yesterday. Turns out the main topic of our discussion related to what truth is. It was interesting to find that what I consider to be truth, which is that truth in and of itself is a relative term in regards to faith and religion, was completely opposite of what his definition of truth is. This post will be a precursor to the first topic of study on my blog and one that I think is important to define early on. The term truth is very far reaching in it's definition and is obviously a prime candidate for debate. I would like to hear others opinions on this topic.

M: everyone's truth is different
Him: no
M: yes
Him: truth is not relative
M: yes it is
Him: truth is truth…only because it is an absolute
Him: in a relative world…we cling on to the truth …ONLY because it is an absolute
Him: the sun illuminates …is a truth
M: that's a fact
Him: the sun is present at night, only hidden from the view
M: that too is a fact
Him: then what is a truth?
M: truth is something one believes to be true; everyone's belief systems are different
M: and none of them are absolute
M: nor is a belief system provable
M: that why you have to have faith in what you believe
Him: so…having faith in what i believe makes it a truth
M: if everything that was believed could be backed up with evidence there would be no need for faith
M: a truth in your own mind, yes
M: and in your own heart
Him: if something is verified…it is TRUE
M: no a fact is indisputable
M: a truth is something that one believes as being true
Him: and THAT is why we all search for truth
M: and each person come to a different conclusion
Him: faith is the absolute OPPOSITE of truth
M: no, they fall hand in hand
Him: so you are saying that Faith is a CONFIDENT belief in the truth
Him: but I disagree with your position that truth is something that one believes as being true
Him: I think that you are talking about faith
Him: faith is something that one believes to be true
M: it requires faith to believe that something that is not verifiable is truth
Him: it does not make it the truth
Him: truth is absolute
Him: undeniable
Him: agreed upon
M: it is truth for the believer
Him: Faith!.. Again that is faith
Him: you search for truth with your faith
Him: you don’t invent your truth with faith
Him: it is a tool to find truth
Him: not truth itself
M: sure, you invent your truth with faith

A New Beginning

What initially began as a simple art blog is about to evolve into something completely different. Before I go any further I want to thank a certain someone for inspiring me to start a blog (you know who you are.)

When I was in college, as many are required to do, I took a religious studies course as my humanities elective. During the course of the class I began putting aside my "inherent" belief systems and began a quest for truth, knowledge, and understanding about the world. I have since then adopted a rather complex system of beliefs. Due to life circumstances I put aside my studies. With the start of this blog (and a thorough going over of my old sketch books and notes) I have decided to once again begin my quest. This time however I plan to share my ideas in hopes of beginning some intelligent and open-minded discussion about our origins, our purpose, and our future. From hence forth I will use this blog to share my ideas concerning religion, evolution, and the human condition. I gladly welcome any feedback, suggestions, or comments.

What if...

Fruit on Counter Study

I'm of course about to apply my usual technique (marker) to this but I want to show in it's unadulterated form. That and I may need copies for screw ups.

This particular subject relates to what I do to pay the bills.

How Far Will it Fall?

Salt On an Open Wound

Group Sex

Yeah, this was just a fun one.

Ripe for the Picking

"Creation" study

Again, something I did some years ago in college. Maybe I'll play around with it a bit more.

Harvest of Men

This was a drawing that I did back in 2000, thought I'd tweak it a bit.

Consumed