I disagree - what you are saying is not logical. truth is reality and it is unchangeable ( dictionary) perception is a highly personal thing not truth. do you think a red rose is red because of perception or the wavelength of light reflected? moral credibility has to equate to truth and- if that wasn't true it could not be moral. divine credibility has to equate to truth- if that wasn't true then stone statues could give speeches and answer prayers. all truth is credible or it is not truth- you can't have middle ground with regard to truth. If I perceive there is a God and you perceive there is not a God then all we prove is that the big problem is not truth but perception. Both perceptions can't be right. Reasons to doubt have no bearing on the truth. Let me give you an example of how God establishes truth. He said everyone will die. You will die, I will die, that is truth. Every other perception on earth for all history can reason or doubt or perceive it different but truth won't bend, budge or change. God said death is reality. The only thing in question is timing. It logically follows if that is truth, then everyone dies, and for me God gets the perceived credibility. One of my favorite statistics is 10 out of 10 people die.
for example..in the presbyterian church you might hear a pastor say: "this is not a presbyterian table...this isn't a "name of church" table...this is a table for those who seek to know God." period. the end.
I still don't get it. Catholicism was first, and although communion guidelines have developed there has always been the idea of preparing for communion in Catholicism. That's when there was one Church pretty much. Now that there are many sects and such, everybody wants to come up and get communion without going through the perparation, or even believing what Catholics believe. What do you suggest would be a better response from the Catholic church?
catholocism was before the prebyterian church, that's for sure! but i'm not sure the catholic church, with all its hierarcy and structure was "first" in the sense of being the first church.... i.e. the first century church. i hear what you're saying. i think the best response is to say if you're seeking God, you can eat at this table. while there is certainly a community aspect to it, it's about each person's relationship with God, anyway. so what that the lutheran next to you doesn't believe it's the exact same thing you believe it is...he believes it's the body/blood of christ broken for you and for him, metaphorically. you believe it's the body/blood of christ broken for you and for him, literally. so you can't take communion together??? this is the sort of division that just baffles me. it's resting everything on one thing. pull out one brick and the whole wall falls down. i just find that very limiting of God. the body and the blood are for us...i don't think he's offended with the way i take communion. i think he loves it...as he loves you doing the same at a catholic church down the street. he would unite...but we divide. not because of Him...but because of religion. not because he said, "here's what you have to think when you eat the bread and drink the wine." but because we've said it after the fact.
I was using the word "truth" the way the religious use it (OK, I neglected to double-inverted-comma it as I usually do). The difference is this: I concede - I am positive, in fact - that my perception of the "truth" may very well be wrong. I like to say that truth exists, but the human mind ain't getting anywhere near it. We can't handle it, in the words of Colonel Jessup. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure you believe your perception of the "truth" to be, well, the truth The wavelength of the reflected light and how it interacts with our retinas is constant, yes. You can call that truth. But this is then filtered through perception, like everything else that is truth. We are not qualified to speak of truth, only perception. To a blind man, a rose is red purely because others have told him this is so, and hence he perceives the truth differently 1) I preach morality, and live morally. I have moral credibility. Do I have divine credibility? No. 2) I have moral credibility. I am also divine, but I do not perform divine acts. Do I have divine credibility? Again, no. 3) I am immoral. I do not have moral credibility. I am divine, however, and I perform divine acts. Do I have divine credibility? Yes, certainly. It is truth that everyone dies.. or rather, everyone perceives this to be true. Fine. Did God cause this to be so? Debatable. Did God even say it? Debatable. Many things do remain constant to our perceptions, but they have no further implications, and they most certainly do not provide credibility to one who states that they remain constant
it always comes down to faith in the end, univac. i find truth in the assertions of Jesus Christ. i like my life better with him than without him. i'm not sure there's any need for argument past that, anymore.
I am in agreement with you. But I would frame the questions differently. If there is a God and he said all would die is it a reality and has anything changed (remained constant)? This is where faith enters. (is there God?) Does perception change truth? The only thing I would disagree with is that my perception of the truth is 'truth'. I don't believe that for a second. I believe God is truth and God reveals truth. I believe my perception can be wrong and I don't believe any perception of man can be relied upon. I see my own search for truth in God as a beggar searching for his next meal. Total dependency.- faith
Forgive if this has already been posted, but there is video/ audio of the event from the cop car. MG's lawyers are trying to keep it from being released, but I don't think they are going to have much luck.
