Your Color Red Really Could Be My Blue

[VIBE]

If one sees a red apple and one might see a blue apple, the FACT doesn't change that it's an apple; they can test that as well, they can touch it, smell it, eat it, cut it, etc (a blind person could do this as well)

But with religion, there's only ONE exact similarity; god. Other than that, you cannot see god, touch god, smell god, taste god (nh)...

So what's the point? Color doesn't matter, they both can physically see it and test it, a blind person can do the same. I don't see the parallel you're trying to make.

 

[Bodhi]

Anyone that sees a red apple as blue is rare.

Everyone agreeing that a god exists and can corroborate his/its traits and or personality is also rare

 

[Bodhi]

I'll use an example. Let's say everyone in this forum were together in a large room. Everyone is visually impaired but can somewhat see to a certain degree. Only two doors lead to possible exits. One door is red with a sign that says DANGER: ALL WHO ENTER WILL BE VIOLENTLY MURDERED. The other door is blue and says ENTER: ALL VISITORS PEACEFULLY WELCOMED. The majority of the room sees clearly that the blue door is the best bet, given that the signs are true to the nature of what lies behind both doors. However, there are a few people who say that, "No, the blue door is obviously to be avoided. The red door is where we want to go." The majority is going to go through the blue door due to corroboration.

Now, let's say that atheists and theists in the world are gathered and counted. For argument's sake, we'll say that theists outnumber atheists (I don't know if that's true in reality but I'm guessing it is). By reason, we would say that a god exists strictly because most people can observe this god. ..BUT and a large BUT, in reality, this wouldn't do only because all theists do not agree on what god is, who god is, what god does, how god acts, what god thinks, how god thinks, if god thinks, if god is intervening, if god is not intervening, where god is, etc. etc., which divides the number of theists into X number of catergories based on personal belief. All atheists, becoming the majority, agree that no gods exist. Either the god of classical theism has a personality disorder, there are many strict personal gods (polytheism), or the best bet is that god doesn't exist.

Let's take this forum for another example. Judahxulu, GOINGTOHEAVEN, Dro, young_king, alissowack, solid analysis, waterproof, and disciplined insight all read from the same fuckin book but can't agree on god's qualities. If god existed, and all posters experience god's existence as they claim, the logical assumption would be that all posters agree on who god is, thus it would be a great chance that god exists. This is not the case. And that is a microcosm of the world.

The majority of the world sees the apple as red. You may see it as blue. That's fine, but hey, we don't.

Back to the drawing board for you, solid analysis : )

 

[Rock_Well]

Im saying, soooo does this mean that Truth (spiritually speaking) give off different messages to diff ppl?

Not sure if there is a parallel or not

 

[Rock_Well]

Or perhaps it can some what explain why so many reading the same Bible still come away with diff teaching.

or is that too far a stretch?

 

[Rock_Well]

@Jaded - I'll respond to that next post

 

[Bodhi]

Im saying, soooo does this mean that Truth (spiritually speaking) give off different messages to diff ppl?

Not sure if there is a parallel or not

If God is one way and not the other, and this "truth" tells one person one thing and another a different thing, then one is truth and the other is a lie or in this case both may be lies.

If I describe myself to you as black (or some quality like "nice" and I describe myself as red (or something like "not nice") to someone else, I may be the same entity, only expressing myself differently to different people. But if I describe in detail to you who I am, what I am and how I am in relation to humanity and the universe and how you and everyone else should act or think in accordance to my master plan; and I describe that differently to someone else, perhaps explicitly contradicting what I originally told you, then I am either lying to you, the second person, or both of you. There is a difference when you bring the entire universe in addition to just yourself into the equation. This ceases the idea that the god is solely personal and now this "Truth" has to work the exact same way for everyone and everything. If god is personal, it has to be a strict kind of personal. When I say strict, I mean only applying to you and not the universe.

 

[Bodhi]

Or perhaps it can some what explain why so many reading the same Bible still come away with diff teaching.

or is that too far a stretch?

The Bible is subject to translations and interpretations and the contradictions in the Bible don't help, but Christianity teaches that god acts in the lives of human beings therefore the Bible supposedly is not the only evidence of god's existence. If interpretations are wrong, then personal experience has to match up. Not only within Christianity, but if there is one god who is the sole creator of the universe, then all religions have to agree. If not, then Christianity is now up against not only atheists but every religion that doesn't agree with Christianity and then the majority still rules Christianity out. That works the same way with any theistic religion; Christianity being an example.

 

[Rock_Well]

well it seems we agree that truth is still truth no matter the 'color' we see it in.

ok so what am i getting at now?

i think one the implication of these findings here and what it goes to show is that people have the ability to think objectively regardless degree in which the 'lenses' they have on color things. ex. when it comes to morality, people might see in 'grays'. But because everyone at some point can learn to think objectively, God is fair in holding everyone to the same, one, objective standard as taught in the Bible,which teaches there are no 'grays' in God's judgement. Especially considering the same one, objective standard is observed in some way by everyone. So that would mean, everyone is rightly held responsible in their efforts to live up to said standard, whether standing long or falling short.

 

[alissowack]

I'll use an example. Let's say everyone in this forum were together in a large room. Everyone is visually impaired but can somewhat see to a certain degree. Only two doors lead to possible exits. One door is red with a sign that says DANGER: ALL WHO ENTER WILL BE VIOLENTLY MURDERED. The other door is blue and says ENTER: ALL VISITORS PEACEFULLY WELCOMED. The majority of the room sees clearly that the blue door is the best bet, given that the signs are true to the nature of what lies behind both doors. However, there are a few people who say that, "No, the blue door is obviously to be avoided. The red door is where we want to go." The majority is going to go through the blue door due to corroboration.

Now, let's say that atheists and theists in the world are gathered and counted. For argument's sake, we'll say that theists outnumber atheists (I don't know if that's true in reality but I'm guessing it is). By reason, we would say that a god exists strictly because most people can observe this god. ..BUT and a large BUT, in reality, this wouldn't do only because all theists do not agree on what god is, who god is, what god does, how god acts, what god thinks, how god thinks, if god thinks, if god is intervening, if god is not intervening, where god is, etc. etc., which divides the number of theists into X number of catergories based on personal belief. All atheists, becoming the majority, agree that no gods exist. Either the god of classical theism has a personality disorder, there are many strict personal gods (polytheism), or the best bet is that god doesn't exist.

Let's take this forum for another example. Judahxulu, GOINGTOHEAVEN, Dro, young_king, alissowack, solid analysis, waterproof, and disciplined insight all read from the same fuckin book but can't agree on god's qualities. If god existed, and all posters experience god's existence as they claim, the logical assumption would be that all posters agree on who god is, thus it would be a great chance that god exists. This is not the case. And that is a microcosm of the world.

The majority of the world sees the apple as red. You may see it as blue. That's fine, but hey, we don't.

Back to the drawing board for you, solid analysis : )

But...can we trust the one who made the signs? You draw up this example assuming that the sign maker knows the truth about these two doors...the absolute truth about what to expect when going through them. There is no other way for the forum to know what is behind those doors unless we open and go through them. We are putting our trust in whether or not the signs mean what they say. And you are also involving something that is the difference between life and death. Right or wrong means nothing to a dead person...but it does to someone who is alive.

 

[alissowack]

I don't think the issue is so much whether the Bible is wrongly translated or interpreted. It has to do with how we perceive it. What worldviews, perspectives, and presuppositions are we bringing into our understanding of the Bible? When our perceptions are involved, we tend to "select" what we want the Bible to say instead of what it says through and through. If we think the Bible is about morals, then we read it looking for them. If we think it is a book of miracles, then we look for that. If we think it's apocalyptic, then we look for that. Then, it becomes very conflicting because the argument becomes not about the Bible and more about our world views.

 

[loch121]

Who looks in the sky and see's red?This is dumb to me

 

[Bodhi]

well it seems we agree that truth is still truth no matter the 'color' we see it in.

ok so what am i getting at now?

i think one the implication of these findings here and what it goes to show is that people have the ability to think objectively regardless degree in which the 'lenses' they have on color things. ex. when it comes to morality, people might see in 'grays'. But because everyone at some point can learn to think objectively, God is fair in holding everyone to the same, one, objective standard as taught in the Bible,which teaches there are no 'grays' in God's judgement. Especially considering the same one, objective standard is observed in some way by everyone. So that would mean, everyone is rightly held responsible in their efforts to live up to said standard, whether standing long or falling short.

Your religion and Islam have different views on what God wants and says or even does and morality is subjective. Subjective thinking is religion.

 

[Bodhi]

I'll use an example. Let's say everyone in this forum were together in a large room. Everyone is visually impaired but can somewhat see to a certain degree. Only two doors lead to possible exits. One door is red with a sign that says DANGER: ALL WHO ENTER WILL BE VIOLENTLY MURDERED. The other door is blue and says ENTER: ALL VISITORS PEACEFULLY WELCOMED. The majority of the room sees clearly that the blue door is the best bet, given that the signs are true to the nature of what lies behind both doors. However, there are a few people who say that, "No, the blue door is obviously to be avoided. The red door is where we want to go." The majority is going to go through the blue door due to corroboration.

Now, let's say that atheists and theists in the world are gathered and counted. For argument's sake, we'll say that theists outnumber atheists (I don't know if that's true in reality but I'm guessing it is). By reason, we would say that a god exists strictly because most people can observe this god. ..BUT and a large BUT, in reality, this wouldn't do only because all theists do not agree on what god is, who god is, what god does, how god acts, what god thinks, how god thinks, if god thinks, if god is intervening, if god is not intervening, where god is, etc. etc., which divides the number of theists into X number of catergories based on personal belief. All atheists, becoming the majority, agree that no gods exist. Either the god of classical theism has a personality disorder, there are many strict personal gods (polytheism), or the best bet is that god doesn't exist.

Let's take this forum for another example. Judahxulu, GOINGTOHEAVEN, Dro, young_king, alissowack, solid analysis, waterproof, and disciplined insight all read from the same fuckin book but can't agree on god's qualities. If god existed, and all posters experience god's existence as they claim, the logical assumption would be that all posters agree on who god is, thus it would be a great chance that god exists. This is not the case. And that is a microcosm of the world.

The majority of the world sees the apple as red. You may see it as blue. That's fine, but hey, we don't.

Back to the drawing board for you, solid analysis : )

But...can we trust the one who made the signs? You draw up this example assuming that the sign maker knows the truth about these two doors...the absolute truth about what to expect when going through them. There is no other way for the forum to know what is behind those doors unless we open and go through them. We are putting our trust in whether or not the signs mean what they say. And you are also involving something that is the difference between life and death. Right or wrong means nothing to a dead person...but it does to someone who is alive.

Read the bolded

I'll use an example. Let's say everyone in this forum were together in a large room. Everyone is visually impaired but can somewhat see to a certain degree. Only two doors lead to possible exits. One door is red with a sign that says DANGER: ALL WHO ENTER WILL BE VIOLENTLY MURDERED. The other door is blue and says ENTER: ALL VISITORS PEACEFULLY WELCOMED. The majority of the room sees clearly that the blue door is the best bet, given that the signs are true to the nature of what lies behind both doors. However, there are a few people who say that, "No, the blue door is obviously to be avoided. The red door is where we want to go." The majority is going to go through the blue door due to corroboration.

 

[Bodhi]

Who looks in the sky and see's red?

Depends.

 

[Rock_Well]

Loch - I'm not sure if its even possible to prove someone sees reds in blues anyway. How can we rly verify that? Though I think its interesting studies were done, I cant rly say im sold on what they say the findings suggest.

 

[Rock_Well]

@ jaded - interesting so this is it that all morality is subjective or only some parts? Isnt it true that to claim all morality is subjective is to contradict what Gods word of truth teaches? What sense does it make that truth will self ether itself like that?

 

[Bodhi]

I don't believe in god's word of truth or a god for that matter

 

[alissowack]

I'll use an example. Let's say everyone in this forum were together in a large room. Everyone is visually impaired but can somewhat see to a certain degree. Only two doors lead to possible exits. One door is red with a sign that says DANGER: ALL WHO ENTER WILL BE VIOLENTLY MURDERED. The other door is blue and says ENTER: ALL VISITORS PEACEFULLY WELCOMED. The majority of the room sees clearly that the blue door is the best bet, given that the signs are true to the nature of what lies behind both doors. However, there are a few people who say that, "No, the blue door is obviously to be avoided. The red door is where we want to go." The majority is going to go through the blue door due to corroboration.

Now, let's say that atheists and theists in the world are gathered and counted. For argument's sake, we'll say that theists outnumber atheists (I don't know if that's true in reality but I'm guessing it is). By reason, we would say that a god exists strictly because most people can observe this god. ..BUT and a large BUT, in reality, this wouldn't do only because all theists do not agree on what god is, who god is, what god does, how god acts, what god thinks, how god thinks, if god thinks, if god is intervening, if god is not intervening, where god is, etc. etc., which divides the number of theists into X number of catergories based on personal belief. All atheists, becoming the majority, agree that no gods exist. Either the god of classical theism has a personality disorder, there are many strict personal gods (polytheism), or the best bet is that god doesn't exist.

Let's take this forum for another example. Judahxulu, GOINGTOHEAVEN, Dro, young_king, alissowack, solid analysis, waterproof, and disciplined insight all read from the same fuckin book but can't agree on god's qualities. If god existed, and all posters experience god's existence as they claim, the logical assumption would be that all posters agree on who god is, thus it would be a great chance that god exists. This is not the case. And that is a microcosm of the world.

The majority of the world sees the apple as red. You may see it as blue. That's fine, but hey, we don't.

Back to the drawing board for you, solid analysis : )

But...can we trust the one who made the signs? You draw up this example assuming that the sign maker knows the truth about these two doors...the absolute truth about what to expect when going through them. There is no other way for the forum to know what is behind those doors unless we open and go through them. We are putting our trust in whether or not the signs mean what they say. And you are also involving something that is the difference between life and death. Right or wrong means nothing to a dead person...but it does to someone who is alive.

Read the bolded

I'll use an example. Let's say everyone in this forum were together in a large room. Everyone is visually impaired but can somewhat see to a certain degree. Only two doors lead to possible exits. One door is red with a sign that says DANGER: ALL WHO ENTER WILL BE VIOLENTLY MURDERED. The other door is blue and says ENTER: ALL VISITORS PEACEFULLY WELCOMED. The majority of the room sees clearly that the blue door is the best bet, given that the signs are true to the nature of what lies behind both doors. However, there are a few people who say that, "No, the blue door is obviously to be avoided. The red door is where we want to go." The majority is going to go through the blue door due to corroboration.

But, what is absolute truth in a world that doesn't believe there is such? Why trust in "the nature" of these two doors when truth, in relative terms, can be to be whatever we want them to be?

 

[ChromaStoned]

a color aint tellin me im going to hell