How Much Does Truth Matter?

[Richard Aberdeen]

Around 2000 years ago Jesus, apparently for the first time in human history, equated truth and freedom saying, "you will know the truth and the truth will make you free." This also implies the negative; if we don't know what is true, we have no hope of being free. And, this short idea is more profound than it may appear at first glance. It provides both the correct goal of education, to know what is true and, the correct purpose of education, so we can be free.

Today, far too many influential voices play fast and loose with the truth, weaving deceptive agendas around ideas carefully blended with false and true. Such dishonesty can be far worse than lies that are plainly lies.

Our education systems don't hold up searching for the truth as the primary goal. Rather, students are discouraged from challenging what a teacher or textbook claims. We are essentially taught the truth is whatever our educators and textbooks say it is, rather than encouraged to be unafraid to challenge what are often at best, biased assumptions.

In American classrooms we are taught from an early age to study hard so we will get good grades, so we can earn a scholarship, so we can attend a top university, so we can earn more money. The goal is to earn more money, rather than to understand what is true so we can be free, both as individuals and as a collective society.

The rise of Fox News and right-wing radio eventually produced a president telling over 30,000 documented lies, before just his first term ended, while his second term appears to be worse. A once somewhat coherent nation is now divided into two warring sides, with media disinformation machines continuing to drive us further and further apart. We are constantly reminded we are red states and blue states, rather than the United States.

If the blind lead the blind, they will likely both end up in a ditch of division, deception and confusion. And unsurprisingly, our system of money over truth and freedom has produced a president bent on overthrowing our democracy, if he can't otherwise hold onto power.

There is a fine line between freedom of speech and freedom itself and, creating policies to reign in voices of violence and overt deception. Perhaps we should have allowed the teachings of Jesus be heard in our classrooms, rather than carelessly branding them as "religion", deceiving the simple while appeasing priests, preachers and the ACLU alike.

Apparently they prefer our children remain chained to the darkness of unbridled religious and secular confusion. The longer we insist Jesus is a religion and, refuse to accept him as the key historical influence on human rights and human behavior he obviously is, the more divided and confused our nation is likely to become.

Dividing education up into various categories as "science", "history", "literature" and "religion", is a great disservice to our nation's youth. It teaches unsuspecting children that history, science and God are separate, rather than part of the whole reality of human experience, as if our Creator somehow needs a religion and, doesn't understand how his own universe works.

Unfortunately, never learning from the one who taught us the truth for free, there remains a horrendous boatload of profit to made in both education and religion. And, trying to separate the real truth from fiction in America is likely to remain a seemingly impossible row to hoe.

This in particular is difficult today, when too many conservatives believe truth is a lie and a lie is the truth, while too many liberals talk about "your truth" and "my truth", as if there is no real truth. There is no such thing as my truth or your truth. Rather, there is only "the" truth and, then there are lies.

Prior to Copernicus, most scientists and other people believed the sun revolved around the earth. This was "science" at the time, just as much as anything called "science" today. American students are not taught the truth, that human science invariably changes its mind over time, even about the most basic realities of the universe and our own planet.

Whether we claim the earth is flat, square or spherical in shape, none of these claims change the actual shape of the earth. Regardless of what we believe or disbelieve and, regardless of how much we lie and are lied to, what is true remains the same. And, only the truth will make us free.

[Clownboat]

The Quran is garbage. The Bible contains the words and teaching of God, who is the God of righteousness and judgment, as well as the God of mercy, love, peace and freedom.

This kind of speech belongs on a street corner, shouted from a soap box. Here in a debate setting, well... it's just silly. You might as well be shouting Allahu Akbar at us. The affect would be the same.

Do you really think God would be righteous, just and fair if Rosa Parks and Adolph Hitler received the same reward?

I do not and will continue to not make the argument that any of our available god concepts are righteous.

Not even the worst kind of human judge would consider such a thing to be fair.

I agree.

There is great reward for asking Jesus to forgive us and to save us from our sins.

This doesn't appear to be the case, but I hear you saying it.

Then our sins are covered and we will never see judgment or death.

Rom 2:12 All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who
have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.

On the other hand, if we don't want Jesus to forgive us and save us from our sins, we will never know what love is.

A non sequitur is the logical fallacy where the conclusion does not follow from the premises or the statements that came before it.
Readers, ask yourselves if love is only available to Christians. Does such an odd claim hold water?

The death of Jesus on the cross cost God his only son, greater pain and sorrow than we can possibly imagine and, there is great punishment for rejecting his free salvation.

You should leave scare tactics to the terrorists. A person speaking for a true God would do better. You cannot do better than a terrorist in this regard and should look inward. I hear the threats you level at your fellow man and reject such judgement.

[Richard Aberdeen]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #11]

I have no doubt that Jesus is God and Messiah. His teaching alone far surpass the rest of human knowledge and education combined. You will never convince me otherwise, so your "non-sequitur" baloney is a waste of yours and my time. Non-sequitur is an excuse atheists use because their foolishness isn't based on reason, science or evidence.

This is some of what I've written about Jesus here:
https://freedomtracks.com/revolution.html

[Clownboat]

I have no doubt that Jesus is God and Messiah.

You are still just telling is stuff you believe. Stuff we already know. I wish you understood how meaningless and silly this is to continue to do in a debate setting.

His teaching alone far surpass the rest of human knowledge and education combined.

I hear this empty claim and offer the following rebuttal in order to show its folly.
Matthew 19:21 Jesus told him, “If you want to be perfect, go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
This teaching does not surpass human knowledge nor education. This is why virtually all Christians ignore it.

You will never convince me otherwise, so your "non-sequitur" baloney is a waste of yours and my time.

I debate for the readers sake and to sharpen my own thinking. I care not about convincing you of anything. You are not the main character and I don't think that you can reason a person out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.
I think it is important to point out your logical fallacies though. This is a debate after all and demonstrating the weakness of the counter arguments should be expected.

Non-sequitur is an excuse atheists use because their foolishness isn't based on reason, science or evidence.

Actually, a non sequitur is a logical fallacy, not an excuse.
In reality, you are an atheists towards all gods, except one. It's comical to me to hear you pretend to not be one when you are more atheist then not as an atheist just takes it one god further then you do.

This is some of what I've written about Jesus here:
https://freedomtracks.com/revolution.html

Is there a reason that we here at this debate site should care about the beliefs you hold about Jesus?
Main character syndrome is an informal pop-psychology and social media term that describes a person who views and behaves as though they are the protagonist of a story, treating everyone else like a supporting character or extra.
You should see what I have to say!

[Richard Aberdeen]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #13]

You are ignoring the context. Jesus said that to a specific rich man, who placed his wealth ahead of what God wants. All people have a problem with "the love of wealth", which "is the root of all evil."

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #13]

You are ignoring the context. Jesus said that to a specific rich man, who placed his wealth ahead of what God wants. All people have a problem with "the love of wealth", which "is the root of all evil."

Jesus's advice in that verse is folly. This is demonstrated by the fact that not even Christians take this advice seriously, much less the rest of human knowledge and education combined.
Furthermore, if it were meant for one specific rich man, it wouldn't be needed to be in the Bible that is claimed to be for all of mankind.

Does it ever give you pause to believe in an ultimate, all powerful and all knowing creator of the entire universe, that is very concerned with what we do with our private parts and our money? Why did the gods of old, yours included, have a propensity for virgin girls?
Don't touch your privates!
I need your money!
Mmmmmm.... virgins!

What context would make it ok to commit genocide and then reward the soldiers with virgin girls as spoils of war?
What context would make it ok to reward someone a victory in battle, at the cost of sacrificing their virgin daughter?

Consider this:
“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.”
― Seneca the Younger (is thought to have possibly said this).

Now imagine rulers that are looking to defeat their enemies. Would it be useful if your populace believed that a God wanted them to destroy their neighboring peoples? Would the offer of spoils of war (virgin girls included) be further motivation for the now justified genocide?
How would you ever get your peoples to kill the infidel without the gods?
I would argue that it would be much more difficult for rulers to convinced their populaces to commit atrocities like genocide without the backing of the gods. Making the gods very useful to said rulers. Perhaps Seneca was on to something?

[Richard Aberdeen]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #15]

You have no clue what you are talking about. Paul and his companions were among the poorest of the poor, often homeless. And so was Mother Teresa, who went to India on her own originally, with no support from anyone.

And Jesus was among the poorest of the poor. He was so poor, he had to borrow a coin to make a point. You have no idea what dedication to helping our fellow humans means.

[Clownboat]

You have no clue what you are talking about.

Not the greatest way to debate, but I assume you are putting your best arguments forth, so you do you.

Paul and his companions were among the poorest of the poor, often homeless.

And yet with their titles came food and places to stay. Paul created a religion for the Gentiles. That many Gentiles were grateful and receptive to be like the Jews is to be expected. Paul was not as poor and homeless as you would like to believe.

And so was Mother Teresa, who went to India on her own originally, with no support from anyone.

I'll acknowledge this. What should I take from it?

And Jesus was among the poorest of the poor. He was so poor, he had to borrow a coin to make a point. You have no idea what dedication to helping our fellow humans means.

Do you mean Jesus, who the ultimate all powerful being in the universe, or a different Jesus? I wonder if a poor person would agree with your assessment? How poor can an immortal all powerful being really be?

God: I am the ultimate power and created the entire universe. Now stop touching your privates! Oh, also.... I need your money!
The math is not mathing.

[Richard Aberdeen]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #17]

You seem to be confusing Jesus and Paul with modern Christianity, who are not remotely the same. Jesus was among the poorest of all people who ever lived. Of course God can do anything and Jesus at least twice turned a few loaves of bread into food for thousands of people. But Jesus didn't do miracles to show off or feed himself. Rather, he cared about people who are blind, lame, have diseases and similar.

This is what Jesus says about himself, who often spent the night in the surrounding hills. Jesus sometimes stayed with friends, but he had no home himself. Jesus and his followers traveled on foot many miles; there were no cars or modern types of travel:

"Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the son of man has nowhere to lay his head."

And this is what Paul says about himself. Paul was among the bravest of all people and your criticism of him only serves to display ignorance of what it means to be dedicated to the right cause that matters in life. Paul believed in God; he didn't espouse any religion, especially not Christianity, which doesn't exist in the New Testament.

" From the Jews five times I received forty stripes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods; once I was stoned; three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been in the deep; in journeys often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils of my own countrymen, in perils of the Gentiles, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; in weariness and toil, in sleeplessness often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness— besides the other things, what comes upon me daily: my deep concern for all the assemblies."

Elsewhere, he says he was often homeless. Paul often traveled on foot for many, many miles.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #17]

You seem to be confusing Jesus and Paul with modern Christianity, who are not remotely the same. Jesus was among the poorest of all people who ever lived. Of course God can do anything and Jesus at least twice turned a few loaves of bread into food for thousands of people. But Jesus didn't do miracles to show off or feed himself. Rather, he cared about people who are blind, lame, have diseases and similar.

I would argue that this analogy is a slap in the face to actual poor people. You know, the type that are not gods and cannot conjure up food and drink. If actual poor people could do these things, then the comparison would be acceptable.

This is what Jesus says about himself, who often spent the night in the surrounding hills. Jesus sometimes stayed with friends, but he had no home himself. Jesus and his followers traveled on foot many miles; there were no cars or modern types of travel:

The traveling on foot you allude to is because of the fact there were no cars or modern types of travel that you also alluded to. Therefore, pointing to Jesus walking a lot is to be expected and doesn't suggest being poor.

"Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the son of man has nowhere to lay his head."

I wonder why Jesus said this? Was he not aware of Nighthawks, Nightjars, Killdeer or Atlantic Puffins?

Paul was among the bravest of all people and your criticism of him only serves to display ignorance of what it means to be dedicated to the right cause that matters in life.

The logic doesn't follow. Paul being brave doesn't display any ignorance.

Paul believed in God; he didn't espouse any religion, especially not Christianity, which doesn't exist in the New Testament.

Paul created a religion for the Gentiles and desperately wanted to build a church community. This is likely why Paul and Jesus seem to have very different teachings at times (assuming we can believe the words credited to Jesus by unknown peoples of course).

" From the Jews five times I received forty stripes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods; once I was stoned; three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been in the deep; in journeys often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils of my own countrymen, in perils of the Gentiles, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; in weariness and toil, in sleeplessness often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness— besides the other things, what comes upon me daily: my deep concern for all the assemblies."

I acknowledge these claimed perils that Jesus had to overcome according to the Bible.
If I supplied a definition for 'poor', do you think it would include being beaten, stoned or shipwrecked? How does a poor person get passage on a ship and why would robbers target the poor? I don't understand the reason for you including these tails.

[Richard Aberdeen]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #19]

You are very much in error, comparing the extremely poor and extremely persecuted Paul with modern day preachers.