Here’s How We Should Understand Truth
Greg responds to a question about how to respond to someone who says truth, like length, is abstract, not concrete.
Listen to the full podcast: https://www.str.org/w/what-is-truth-and-is-it-knowable-
#StandtoReason #Apologetics #Christianity #Truth #Philosophy
————— CALL IN TO THE SHOW —————
Have a question or comment? Call Greg Koukl, live Tuesdays 4-6pm Pacific Time, at (855) 243-9975.
————— SUBMIT YOUR QUESTION —————
If you’d like to submit your question ahead of time for the broadcast, or if you’d like to submit a question for the #STRask podcast, fill out our form at https://www.str.org/training/broadcast.
————— FIND MORE FREE TRAINING —————
Website: https://www.str.org/
Stand to Reason University: https://training.str.org
Stand to Reason Apps: https://www.str.org/apps
————— CONNECT —————
Twitter: https://twitter.com/STRtweets
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/standtoreason93
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/standtoreason
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/stand-to-reason
————— GIVE —————
Support the work of Stand to Reason: https://www.str.org/donate
source
Jesus said that "God's word is truth." Jesus said, "I am the truth, the way and the life." Jesus is the truth manifested in a human life. As such Jesus is the representation of God's truth which
we are called to follow if we desire to live a life that is acceptable to and approved by God.
Greg hello,
Naturalists nowadays claim you can choose your own sex or gender. How should Christians argue that this is not so?
I myself arrived at these conclusions: The Naturalists' false premise, which leads them to conclude that you can choose your own gender or sex is Anti-Realism – the ideology which assumes that the subject does not discover but creates or "constructs" the object (identity).
And this in turn in based on the Anti-Realists' prior premise about the status of the relation (aka Distinction, Difference, Border) between subject and object. The Anti-Realists argue that because the status of the relation is of specific nature that goes to "show" that the object (or identity) is constructed rather than observed, reported or discovered, as existing independently of the subject – as being objective, in and of itself, as being first, final, fundamental and absolute.
Their whole argument that gender is constructed is thus based on the status of the relation. The Naturalists in their Anti-Realists clothing claim that because the relation between the subject and the object is "unequal" or "non-categorizable" or incapable of being brought under concept, principle, law or definition, therefore it isn't part of reality but outside it, and therefore it is an element of ideology. Another words, because a concept or idea cannot be formed of that Relation therefore the relation is not real. (They assume ideology is primal reality!) Essentially they are saying that because reality cannot be turned into idea or ideology therefore it is not a real reality, as if that was condition of reality, as if being divided against oneself was precondition of being real.
So their whole quest was to find a category or common denominator for that Relation (“Assignment,” as in: ‘Assignment of gender’). And so they concluded that since we cannot find the "requisite" concept for the relation, the relation must be not objective and not independent of the subject. If the relation between the subject and the object isn't real to them, then neither are subject and the object themselves. And so you hear them invoke "evolution" so as to under-mine, I think, the distinctness of the subject, the object and the relation between them. Sight, speech and the Connection between them.
My answer is that the Assignment (of gender at birth by parents in response to perception of a body) is Truth reporting, and Truth does not need to be equal to, or have something in common with, anything, in order to be Truth: real, accurate, objective testimony of the child’s identity. Just because direct observational report does not include anything else, that does make it “unequal” or “incomplete” or “partial”. Just as light is not “inequality” or “not a real light” simply because it does not include darkness. The Assignment, or simply, sight in speech expressed is objective identity. Ps. I think the relation between sight and speech is the Spirit of Truth which is why they failed to find a concept for Him. Truth is above the law!
ps. I belive, the connection (Relation) between sight and mind is sight. What is the connection between light and darkness? Naturalists answer: Something light and darkness must have in common, some kinda of "Equality". I should answer: What connects them ("unequals") is DIFFERENTIATION, the opposite of equation! What objectively "unites" light with darkness is light, – by shining…thru it. Shining (of light of Truth) is Spirit, not "supremacy" just because it takes place without concepts or "equalities"
Truth is the standard for reality
Wow. First comment
Anyway
This reminds of of what I heard from.a TV show
That reality and appearances are the same but also like two sides of a coin .or like a mirror. (I'll have to go see what was said to be for sure on that last part)
But we in this world think Reality is what we see, feel touch and experience , etc.
And that appearances can be DECEITFUL.. That what we see may not what is is..we have to look beneath the surface.. This is where the saying dont jugdge a book by its cover comes from.
To not judge just what you see..till you understand and have more wisdom of that person.
But that way the world is Not it seems like what is real is subjective.. And appearances are not as DECEITFUL as they used to be..
Its like the flipped just like what is good and evil has flipped..
And reality is tied to truth ..right? Or is appearances that its tied too..
Does this make sense?
But I'll Check to see what that show said..about reality and appearances.