Is Truth Subjective?

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnunningman39
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Starwynd said:
But whose statement is real and why would yours be any more real to anybody else who hasn’t seen you take a walk? And why would your truth be more right than anybody else’s? Just because you know you took a walk? Nobody else knows you took a walk all we have is your claim that you took a walk.
Click to expand...
Are you saying there is no answer to the question?

Answer me this: at what temperature does water boil at sea level
Starwynd said:
So people will come to different conclusions anyway if they did see you take a walk or not. Or they might modify it it and say you did not walk in the lawn you walked in the park. Some would say that you didn’t walk at all but took a drive. Some would say they saw you walking with your mom and others would say they saw you walking with your daughter or even with your dog.
Click to expand...
Are they all correct? If all those staements are correct, they are correct only to a degree. The truth of the matter remains to be discovered!
 
fhansen said:
Given the conditions of the world we live in, it can be objectively wrong to kill a fetus by abortion but objectively right to kill an enemy in self-defense.
Click to expand...
Nope that’s relativism!
 
fhansen said:
But if so, then wouldn’t the Church be espousing moral relativism with her “just war” teaching?
Click to expand...
No because she teaches that murder is always wrong, but if you are forced by another’s sin to protect an innocent person you are right to do so. Your intention is not murder-- it is the protection of an innocent who is being attacked; you are not the aggressor. Does that make sense? It’s the same as the example of stealing I gave in my earlier post.
 
FightingFat said:
No because she teaches that murder is always wrong, but if you are forced by another’s sin to protect an innocent person you are right to do so. Your intention is not murder-- it is the protection of an innocent who is being attacked; you are not the aggressor. Does that make sense? It’s the same as the example of stealing I gave in my earlier post.
Click to expand...
But if we say that it’s right to kill in order to protect an innocent life, then aren’t we saying that, in this case, killing is objectively the right thing to do, i.e. objectively right?
 
Cajetan said:
Says the man who apparently doesn’t know that Thomas Aquinas taught Predestination.

Don’t talk to me about Thomism. I live and breath the philosophy of St. Thomas and the great Dominican commentators.
Click to expand...
I just answered this thing on another thread. Apparently you are confusing predestination as taught St Thomas Aquinas with the predestination as taught by some protestant faiths. They are not the same. One has to do with Causative Knowledge (a Thomistic term) The other has to do with a lack of free will. Read deeper. You might learn something.
Prayers & Blessings
Deacon Ed B
 
fhansen said:
But if we say that it’s right to kill in order to protect an innocent life, then aren’t we saying that, in this case, killing is objectively the right thing to do, i.e. objectively right?
Click to expand...
That’s not what is being said. The aggressor may be killed as a result of your protection of the innocent, but killing is not your intention, it is something that becomes unavoidable due to the intentions of the aggressor- i.e. it is the only way to stop them.

The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm#2263
 
fhansen said:
But if we say that it’s right to kill in order to protect an innocent life, then aren’t we saying that, in this case, killing is objectively the right thing to do, i.e. objectively right?
Click to expand...
Defending and killing or murder are not the same thing. We aren’t all snipers just waiting to protect. We have a right to defend those who want to be defended and are being and or being treated like an object.
 
johnunningman39 said:
I have heard from several people that Truth is subjective. It is based on the our experiences. When I describe a sin (abortion, stealing, adultery, etc.) they mention exceptions e.g. "Killing is immoral but it can be moral (war in defense of an innocent other- CCC and St. Thomas Aquinas). How can I prove that Truth is objective, always being true?
Click to expand...
Truth subjective is just another way of saying relativism.
Study the difference between relativism and absolute truth.
 
dessert said:
Defending and killing or murder are not the same thing. We aren’t all snipers just waiting to protect. We have a right to defend those who want to be defended and are being and or being treated like an object.
Click to expand...
Well, I certainly never said that murder and defense were the same thing but, in any case, I think I understand FightingFats’ point now. Killing, whether intentional or unintentional, is always objectively wrong, even if it occurs while defending oneself or another innocent person.
 
fhansen said:
Well, I certainly never said that murder and defense were the same thing but, in any case, I think I understand FightingFats’ point now. Killing, whether intentional or unintentional, is always objectively wrong, even if it occurs while defending oneself or another innocent person.
Click to expand...
👍

A good way of understanding it is that it is not ever the desireable outcome, even if it is unavoidable!
 
People seem lax to bring this up.
Question:
Is Truth Subjective?
Answer:
“I am Truth and I do not change”-God.
Should be crystal clear.
 
johnunningman39 said:
I have heard from several people that Truth is subjective. It is based on the our experiences. When I describe a sin (abortion, stealing, adultery, etc.) they mention exceptions e.g. "Killing is immoral but it can be moral (war in defense of an innocent other- CCC and St. Thomas Aquinas). How can I prove that Truth is objective, always being true?
Click to expand...
We know is objective truth exists because to deny one cannot deny objective ttruth without using it.

When a persson says “All truth is subjective”, ask him if this is statement is subjective or objective.

If it is subjective, then all he can say is that all truth is subjective FOR HIM. He cannot speak for anyone other that himself.

Or if it is subjective, then he would have to admit that truth being subjective is only in some, not all situations. If if truth is subjective only in some situation, and not all situations, then he has left the door open that there is objective truth in some situations.

But if he should say that truth is subjective, not just for him, but for everybody. And not just in some situations, but in all situations, then he has just laid down what he sees as an objective truth. So he has contradicted himself.
 
Deacon_Ed_B said:
** If something was true 2000 years age, it is true today and will be true 2000 years from now. This is what Holy Mother Church teaches. This is what I believe. This is what I teach.
B**
This sounds good, but I have a difficult time believing it as far as religious beliefs and practices are concerned… With your permission, let me give a few examples which are bothering me:
  1. 1800 years ago the truth was that a woman should keep her head covered in Church. Today it is not true.
  2. 1800 years ago it was taught that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Today it is taught that the Holy Sp;irit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.
  3. Before Vatican II, it was taught that the procreation was the primary purpose of marriage and the the unitive was secondary. Today it is taught that these are coequal.
  4. Before Vatican II it was taught that a marriage could be declared annulled and invalid for only the most serious of reasons. For example, in 1930, in the USA there were only 9 annulments granted per year. Today, it is taught that almost anyone can get his marriage annulled for rather slight reasons, for one (out of many) example, if a couple had contemplated using artificial birth control, or some other reason. to see this just take a look at the statistics of more than 60,000 marriage annulments per year today in some recent years, and compare that with 9 annulments per year in 1930.
  5. The Edgar Mortara case would not happen today.
  6. Slavery was allowed under certain circumstances, whereas today it is not.
  7. In the past a Pope had approved of torture to extract confessions, whereas today the truth is that torture is not allowed.
  8. Today the truth is that clowns, rock music and swinging to and fro, are allowed at Catholic Masses, whereas in the past the truth was that they were not allowed.
  9. Before Vatican II, the truth was that the Blood was shed for many. However, after Vatican II, the Blood was shed for all.
    etc.
Click to expand...
 
bobzills said:
This sounds good, but I have a difficult time believing it as far as religious beliefs and practices are concerned… With your permission, let me give a few examples which are bothering me:
  1. 1800 years ago the truth was that a woman should keep her head covered in Church. Today it is not true.
  2. 1800 years ago it was taught that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Today it is taught that the Holy Sp;irit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.
  3. Before Vatican II, it was taught that the procreation was the primary purpose of marriage and the the unitive was secondary. Today it is taught that these are coequal.
  4. Before Vatican II it was taught that a marriage could be declared annulled and invalid for only the most serious of reasons. For example, in 1930, in the USA there were only 9 annulments granted per year. Today, it is taught that almost anyone can get his marriage annulled for rather slight reasons, for one (out of many) example, if a couple had contemplated using artificial birth control, or some other reason. to see this just take a look at the statistics of more than 60,000 marriage annulments per year today in some recent years, and compare that with 9 annulments per year in 1930.
  5. The Edgar Mortara case would not happen today.
  6. Slavery was allowed under certain circumstances, whereas today it is not.
  7. In the past a Pope had approved of torture to extract confessions, whereas today the truth is that torture is not allowed.
  8. Today the truth is that clowns, rock music and swinging to and fro, are allowed at Catholic Masses, whereas in the past the truth was that they were not allowed.
  9. Before Vatican II, the truth was that the Blood was shed for many. However, after Vatican II, the Blood was shed for all.
    etc.
Click to expand...
I see by the enumeration of the points you have listed, that you have a difficult time distinguishing between discipline and dogma.

1 = discipline,
2 = no difference
3 = same thing believed, but fuller understanding had.
4 = Again, advances in psychology have given a fuller understanding of an individuals ability to make a sacramental commitment.
5 = I am ignorant of this case and am unable to comment
6 = discipline, not dogma
7 = discipline, not dogma
8 = again, certainly not dogma. Also, if you carefully check the rubrics, you will not see where there is not any approved form for this, at least not that I am aware of. But than again, if allowed, it is not dogma, but discipline.
9 = discussing translation. Again, not proclaimed as dogma.

Discipline, under the power of binding and loosing can change. Dogma cannot and does not change.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
 
Starwynd said:
One person’s truth is another person’s lie.

Truth is entirely subjective. Even though God has given clear and explicit truth and instructions to obey him, nobody can agree on how to interpret his instructions. That’s why Christianity is so splintered today.

Even though there may be one body of truth to be revealed, nobody can really agree on how to interpret it and follow it.

That’s why truth is entirely subjective.

One man’s truth is another man’s lie.
Click to expand...
These “facts” don’t make the truth itself subjective, only our “willingness” to assent to truth is subjective. That is, it is based upon our personal choice whether we accept or reject certain “truths.” However, the truth itself is there awaiting our willingness to to assent to it “without reserve.” The fact that we do not fully accept it is our own shortcoming, not the fault of truth.

My experience is that when I am willing to let go of my own “thoughts” on certain issues and be open to the “truth” about them, it becomes obvious and undeniable very quickly.
 
Starwynd said:
Even though there may be one body of truth to be revealed, nobody can really agree on how to interpret it and follow it.

That’s why truth is entirely subjective.

One man’s truth is another man’s lie.
Click to expand...
Are these statements objective or subjective truths. Either way you answer, the response would be, according to your interpretation, an objective statement. ???

Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
 
Deacon_Ed_B said:
I see by the enumeration of the points you have listed, that you have a difficult time distinguishing between discipline and dogma.

1 = discipline,
2 = no difference
3 = same thing believed, but fuller understanding had.
4 = Again, advances in psychology have given a fuller understanding of an individuals ability to make a sacramental commitment.
5 = I am ignorant of this case and am unable to comment
6 = discipline, not dogma
7 = discipline, not dogma
8 = again, certainly not dogma. Also, if you carefully check the rubrics, you will not see where there is not any approved form for this, at least not that I am aware of. But than again, if allowed, it is not dogma, but discipline.
9 = discussing translation. Again, not proclaimed as dogma.

Discipline, under the power of binding and loosing can change. Dogma cannot and does not change.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
Click to expand...
What one person says is no diference another will say it is a rather serious difference. So the truth is subjective in these matters. And a truth in discipline is still a truth about discipline, which has changed.
Now one person says that it is the same thing as to whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father or whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son. However, I do not beleive that this is the Catholic teaching and in fact was one on the reasons that Cardinal Humberto gave when he laid the bull of excommunication on the altar of the Hagia Sop;hia in 1054.
Also it is dificult to beleive that the use of torture is solely a disciplinary thing and is not something more serious than you can sometimes torture people whereas other times torture is not OK? Do you say then that torture is OK in some cases, but not OK in other cases? Or is torture always wrong regardless?
The truth on whether the Blood was shed for many or whether the Blood was shed for all has changed. Before Vatican II, the Blood was shed for many. After Vatican II, the Blood was shed for all.
Before Vatican II there was one primary purpose of marriage. The one primary purpose of marriage was proceation of children. After Vatican II, there were two primary purposes of marriage, the procreative and unitive. The truth is that one does not equal two. I believe that this is a mathematical truth which you are denying. Therefore, it looks like this may be another illustration of how religious truth is subjective.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top