What Matters ~ Truth

For an introduction to the 'Perspectives:' series, visit ~

"Perspectives: An Introduction"


What Matters ~ Truth

It's an interesting circumstance to be writing a piece titled 'Truth' as part of a series titled 'Perspectives:'. My initial interest to enlist this group of writers for an experiment in offering different perspectives on a common theme, was specifically to remind us all that there is a difference between what we think and feel about something and what that 'something' actually is . . . the very fact that we each own our own perspective demonstrates that there is truth, we couldn't have an apprehension, an understanding, a feeling about something if there wasn't a thing to have an apprehension, an understanding, a feeling about. Our perspective of a thing or an event, etc, is our view of it - the thing or event itself, is truth . . . we have subjective perspectives - there is an objective truth.

Now, the trick is, how do we recognize truth for the truth that it is when we necessarily and exclusively receive information through the means of our own sensory instruments (eyes, ears, touch, etc) and then process that information with our own cognitive instrument (brain)? Our eyes and ears, etc, can be easily deceived and our mind is affected by our experiences, our fears, our appetites, etc.

This is the underlying premise of the 'Perspectives:' series - everyone is the individual that they are because they perceive everything with their own eyes and ears and understand everything they see and hear with their own mind, from their own upbringing and relationships and hardships and desires, etc, etc. None of us see things as they actually are - we see things as our own private eyes and ears, etc, inform us of them and as our own minds process that information . . . everything we're confronted with is processed through our own particular set of instruments (eyes, ears, touch, etc) and is understood by our own capacity to utilize our experience and knowledge. Now, toss into that system, or procedure, each individual's emotional state (their fears and pride and doubts and wants, etc) and the truth, the real objective reality truth, is not so apparent or attainable as we all prefer to think. Nonetheless . . .

We wouldn't each have our own subjective perceptions of a thing if there wasn't a thing, an objective truth (reality) to perceive - there is an objective, real truth. So, how do we come out from under or behind our own perception to recognize truth? How do we minimize what is instantly apparent to us and consider and examine possible truth with as little contamination by our own senses and intellectual and emotional impediments? How do we hurdle over our own personal obstacles to see truth as the real truth that it is?

It seems to me that we must start at the beginning, the very beginning, with as little of 'us' (our sense of things) as possible. We need to strip away everything, all history and 'known' information, and consider our reality at it's most core, essential circumstance. To get there however, I think we need to first start directly with 'us' and with here and now. To get to the core and essential reality, we have recognize what we know about the complex, detailed reality we find ourselves in.

So, here's what we know; we exist, we are here right now considering these ideas (the 'I think therefore I am' equation). We have either always existed or we began to exist at some point in time - we have have not always existed but began at some point in time. We either created ourselves or were were created by someone else - we could not create ourselves before we existed but were created by someone else. We are either a unique and singular creation or we are one of many, part of a race or species - we come from a long line of beings like ourselves. That line of beings has either always existed or began at some point in time - just as we individually have not always existed, the line of beings I am part of had a beginning. This race or species of beings I belong to must have either created themselves or was created by another - just as we individually cannot create ourselves before we exist, so the line of beings like myself that I come form did not create themselves. Therefore, the reality that I exist in has not always existed but was created at some point in time . . . by someone.

Now, admittedly, asserting a 'someone' creator assumes that material reality does not generate itself out of nothing - however, this seems a abundantly sound assumption . . . we observe no matter spontaneously coming into existence in our reality, both reason and experience assure us that things just don't 'pop' into existence, such a circumstance is contrary to the nature of the reality we exist in. So, the exercise now, to consider truth with as minimal distraction and misinformation from ourselves (our sense of things - our senses and our experience and our emotions), is to consider our reality at it's most stripped down, at it's core, at it's beginning.

So, with no preconceptions, based on no suppositions formulated over centuries, what are we and where do we find ourselves? We are conscious, cognitive beings who have not always been here and did not create ourselves, we are members of a long line of beings like ourselves who, like us, have not always been here and did not create themselves . . . and where 'here' is is a sphere of rock, dirt, and vegetation hung in the middle of nothing. We exist on the surface of this large (compared to ourselves) ball in the midst of nothing. There are indeed other planets around us, and they are not nothing, they are something - but space, in which these planets, including our own, exist is by definition nothing. When we talk about space, the 'outer space' the universe exists in, I think we tend to count the whole thing (space and all the planets) as a thing - but in fact the planets are things and they all exist in the midst of nothing . . . space is the absence of material, a matter-less condition or circumstance. Space has matter in it, the planets, starts, comets, etc, but the actual space itself that these things exist in is the opposite of matter - it is exactly what no material being present is, it's empty void, it's space.

So, amidst this vast empty void, here-and-there in the nothingness of space, there are these various balls of rock, dirt, whatever, and we exist on the surface of one of them. Now, like ourselves on this planet, we can only reasonably surmise that this planet (and the variety of planets hanging in the nothingness of space) has either always been here or had a beginning . . . and, like ourselves, it is reasonable to deduce that it has not always been here and did not create itself, etc. It's only reasonable to conclude that, like ourselves, the planets that hang in the midst of the nothingness of space were created. The only alternative (if the planets and ourselves have not always been here and did not self-create) is that the planets and ourselves spontaneously 'popped' into being out of nothing or that we developed from something that 'popped' into being out of nothing - and again, both reason and experience inform us that this is an absurd assertion.

So, what matters, as in, what really matters as we walk around on the surface of this rock hung amidst the nothingness of space? To me, it seems that what really matters, at the onset, is the truth about who we are and why we are here? Why has this planet been placed in the midst of nothing and why have we been put on it? Of course, this is why religions and philosophies, and science, etc, exist and what they have all addressed and offered 'answers' to. Popular contemporary science tries to explain how we are here apart from any creator, it offers scenarios that, basically, assert that some manner of material (an amino acid, a hydrogen atom or it's rudiments, etc) did in fact just 'pop' into existence amidst nothing. And philosophies deal more with the 'who are we' than the 'what are we and how did we come to be'. Religions, of course, offer a stunningly wide range of assertions; from the notion that we're not hung amidst nothing but are resting on the back of a massive turtle that is resting on the back of an even more massive camel that is resting on an even much more massive elephant, etc, etc, to the idea that the earth itself is the creator or that there is a team of creators who themselves were actually created, etc. When we ask, still, 'so what is the truth?' it's interesting to consider this . . .

During the time of the most durable empire men had ever constructed on this ball of rock and dirt hung amidst the nothing of space, an uneducated carpenter from the outskirts of nowhere was brought before one of this empire's leading officials, and this Roman ruler asked Him this question that has come down to us through the centuries - "What is truth?". Why was he asking this man such a question, who was this man and what had transpired that this seeming no-account and forgettable person was set before this leader of Rome and asked "What is truth"?

This man, this carpenter, Jesus of Nazareth, had been going around announcing to everyone that He was in fact the creator, that it was Him who made this planet and hung it in space and put us all on it. The nation He was born to, eager for a hero to come and rally then against their Roman oppressors, had misunderstood His claim, they imagined He was announcing Himself the leader of a revolt they long hoped for, they imagined He had come to be their new king. When it became clear to them that this was not Jesus' message, that He spoke of deliverance from corruption and death itself and not from Rome, they arrested Him and demanded His execution - they accused Him of their own interests and false assumptions, telling Rome that He claimed to be the new king, and so, was guilty of treason against Rome and Caesar. An so Jesus was brought before Roman the governor, Pilate, who asked Him "What Is truth" . . . and, why would he ask Jesus this? Because when asked about the accusation against Him, when Pilate asked Him "Are you the king of the Jews?" Jesus answered him "You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world — to bear witness to the truth."and Pilate said to him, “What is truth?”

Now again, leaving all assumptions and experience and 'knowledge' aside, not considering what you think of the Christian religion or specific Christians you have known, etc - it's a compelling thing to consider that, on this ball hanging in space where we have built empire upon empire, that at one point one man asserted that He was the creator of all that exists and that He came here, to His creation, to reveal to us THE truth, and that because of that we killed Him . . . and then to consider that within a few short generations the empire that executed Him, the Roman Empire, became the Holy Roman Empire, and as the generations proceeded nearly all of the Middle east, Northern Africa, Asia Minor, and Europe began to assert this man was God, and then into darkest Africa, Asia, and the new world, and that today, Zeus is a cartoon character and Jesus is counted by millions upon millions as the creator of all that is.

What happened? What is it about this man and His message? Regardless what you believe about who we are and how we came to be on this planet, regardless of what you think about Jesus or Muhammad or Buddha, etc, it's a staggering thing, if looked at objectively, that this man Jesus of Nazareth asserted that He was the creator of all that exists and that He came here, to His creation, to reveal to us THE truth, and that because of that we killed Him, yet His message continues on centuries later. It kind of doesn't add-up.

Early on in this piece I said "we necessarily and exclusively receive information through the means of our own sensory instruments (eyes, ears, touch, etc) and then process that information with our own cognitive instrument (brain)?" . . . that is not accurate.When Pilate asked Jesus if He was the king of the Jews and Jesus answered "You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world — to bear witness to the truth.", Jesus then continued "Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice”. A central teaching of the Bible, a concept that is behind the fact that so many can assert that it contradicts itself and makes no sense, etc, while so many others say there are no contradictions and it makes perfect sense, is that there is another why, another process by which we can receive information - studying history and science and ancient religions, etc, all supply me with ample and convincing evidence that historic Biblical Christianity is the truth, but beyond that, there is a spiritual reality wherein God reveals truth, it's not figured-out, it's not the fruit of intellect or research, it is simply imparted.

I know it offends some, seems silly to some, is patently anti-intellectual to some, etc, etc, but I know the truth because God has revealed it to me, as He has with all come to Him through Jesus the only mediator between God and man. What really matters as we find ourselves walking around the surface of this ball hanging in the midst of nothing, is truth . . . who we are and why we are here.


Please do visit my fellow 'Perspectives:' teammates' take on 'What Matters" ~


The Team - Vickiw

Sleep On It - marcoujor

Life Matters By All Odds - MartieCoetser

The Tao of Matter - Docmo

enjoy your break bravewarrior . . . see you next month.


As it is my birth month, the theme for June is of course, 'Beauty' . . . if you would like to be a guest contributor in June and share your "perspective:' on 'Beauty', please contact MickeySr.


More by this Author


Comments 25 comments

marcoujor profile image

marcoujor 3 years ago from Jeffersonville PA

Dear Mickey,

I just read Martie's perspective and now yours...the two of you put the "respect in the dissect" for me...I am agog at how you broke this issue down and presented the truth in your view.

I am even more agog that I actually followed your reasoning.

Another 'heart and soul' installment from you.

PS-- Momma always taught me that 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'. I hereby vow to be nice to you for your birthday month, cutie!


Deborah Brooks profile image

Deborah Brooks 3 years ago from Brownsville,TX

My dearest wonderful friend that writes these wonderful hubs on truth.. this is not silly it should not offend anyone.... I think it is wonderful.. to me a very simple person that holds on to my faith of Jesus with all my heart to me this simple person ......Jesus is the truth the way and the light.. HE IS THE GREAT I AM..You have explained it so well so wonderful.. I held my breath with every word.. God Bless you for writing this.. I love it

sharing

Debbie


bravewarrior profile image

bravewarrior 3 years ago from Central Florida

Mickey, I was taught in Catholic school that Jesus was the Son of God, not the Creator. In fact, Earth and its inhabitants existed before Christ was born, so how can he be the Creator? One thing I used to ask the nuns (and it infuriated them!) was, "If God created Earth and Man, who created God?" How did God get here? Did He just 'pop' in? Don't get me wrong - I believe in God with all my might, but what is the Truth about the absolute very beginning of Life?

BTW, pretty cool trick with the links to music that's NOT. It's all in perception, right?


MartieCoetser profile image

MartieCoetser 3 years ago from South Africa

Very interesting hub about the truth, Mickey, and so true: Each and every person perceives Truth through their own senses.

I like Seneca’s quote: "Truth is a matter of opinion. What is considered to be the truth today could be prove as fraud tomorrow." We see this so clearly in the theory that Earth was standing on four pillars, orbited by the sun. Biblical references - Psalm 93:1, 96:10, 1 Chronicles 16:30 etcetera, etcetera - stated THIS as the holy truth. When Galileo tried to prove that the sun was in fact orbited by the planets, he was put under house arrest by the Church.

I’ve learned the hard way that what I consider as Truth is not regarded as Truth by many. There was a time I have spent a lot of energy and brain power trying to convince ‘them’ that what I saw as Truth was the only truth. Eventually I came to the conclusion that the truth is indeed only personal interpretation of personal perspectives.

One of many indisputable truths: We humans had not created this awesome Universe.


Docmo profile image

Docmo 3 years ago from UK

Dear Mickey, another wonderful perspective from your vast, wise, erudite soul. You have once again outlined the tricks of perception and the facets of perspectives... The truth is indeed, out there.


Vickiw 3 years ago

Wow, Mickey, this is about a week's worth of reading over and over again, and thinking. You know how to get the little grey cells working, dear friend. Deep, Deep stuff. I realize to my amazement that Bravewarrior actually wrote MY comment! Dang it! Now I will have to do some more thinking on this, and get back to you with some more informed thoughts. Going to see my pastor today, it can't wait. As they say in the classics - a very thought- provoking Hub!


MickeySr profile image

MickeySr 3 years ago from Hershey, Pa. Author

Maria ~ "I am agog"

I guess on a piece of this nature, "agog" is a pretty good. Thanks.

"Another 'heart and soul' installment from you"

This I love and appreciate - I always have some manner of concern that my stuff is too dry and conceptual, inside I feel the 'heart and soul' kind of disposition, but I know my approach, my tone, can easily be seen as severe or even austere - so, it delights me if (somehow) the 'heart and soul' sensibility is recognized. Thank you.


MickeySr profile image

MickeySr 3 years ago from Hershey, Pa. Author

Deborah ~ thank you always . . . you are an perpetual delight for me.


Nellieanna profile image

Nellieanna 3 years ago from TEXAS

Mickey -I so love and respect your view! It is full of clarity and value!

There is great truth in acknowledging one's own subjective apprehension of 'what it IS'. That is a step to reaching out of that subjectivity toward a more objective truth. However, even trying to reason how to go about accomplishing that is an exercise in subjectivity, as well. There comes a point at which we must acknowledge that we are forever bound by our subjective perspectives, so long as our apparatuses for receiving 'other' into our own consciousness are those very wonderful senses your mention & the mind you mention; and our general - what I call, "wisdom of the body", which somewhat understands more than all the other senses, and I somewhat consider the mind as a highly developed sense. All these abilities - subjective as they are - are truly miraculous & wonderful tools for dealing with our existence on this planet.

We think we get accurate information - - but where/what is the test or criteria? Someone else's agreement with our conclusions? A 'consensus'? Those are simply subjectivities in unison. For me, I think it is a pinnacle of understanding simply to know that "I KNOW nothing", while still being able to apply what one supposes effectively, on this plane/planet by full use of my senses and all, which are no slight tools. But as for registering pure 'objective' truth - one wouldn't know it if it walked up and hit one over the head!

The value in examining the subjectivity of perspectives is in recognizing the inevitable subjectivity of perspectives, I believe. Certainty is foreign to this ball of rock. Those who have given us examples of faith didn't attempt to rely on 'knowing'. If one has experienced a personal revelation, that is valuable and real - to him/her. It should be. It is all so much more than our senses and minds could assimilate, so we are indeed blessed to get glimpses.


MickeySr profile image

MickeySr 3 years ago from Hershey, Pa. Author

bravewarrior ~

"I was taught in Catholic school that Jesus was the Son of God, not the Creator. In fact, Earth and its inhabitants existed before Christ was born"

Very bluntly, Roman Catholicism taught you wrong on this . . . I should qualify; if what they wanted to teach was the truth revealed by God in His word then they taught you wrong - if they wanted to teach you Roman Catholic religion then they taught you right. Perhaps. I say 'perhaps' because I'm not certain what exactly you are taking issue with here . . . Roman Catholicism certainly asserts that Jesus is God, I'm not certain they assert Him to have been active in the creation.

The trouble here is that, here, in America, the belief in freedom of religion and free speech, I think, confuses many into imagining that these freedoms mean that anyone can believe whatever they want, and assert it to be whatever they want. Now, anyone can certainly believe whatever they prefer to believe - but it's not reasonable to call your belief, say, 'capitalism' if what you believe is that the state should administer all manufacturing and retail operations of business . . . that's simply not factually capitalism. You can, I suppose, call your version of socialism 'capitalism' if you want to, but it's not reasonable. Today, many seem to think that if what we're talking about is religion, then, because everyone is free to believe as they chose, if anyone else asserts that what someone believes is not what they say it is then that person is out-of-line because we enjoy freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

But Christianity is a real thing, it has a history, it is based on a very specific set of ideas recorded in a very specific book, etc . . . someone can believe that if you eat one loaf of bread everyday, because Jesus said He is 'the bread of life' that they will go to heaven and enjoy eternal life, they can believe that if they want, they have every right - but they can't reasonably call that 'Christianity' because it simply is not.

So, when I say that your Roman Catholic teachers taught you wrong (assuming what they were asserting to teach you was Christianity, what the Bible presents as the truth) I'm not being rude or mean or out-of-line, I'm simply saying that what the Bible presents and what the historic Christian church has always believed is that Jesus is God and is the Creator of all that exists.

When the angel announced to Mary she would have a son he told her what to name Him and added "which is translated, 'God with us'.” The Gospel of John tells us "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God . . . and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us". This is in fact why Jesus was arrested and executed, because He announced that He was God . . . one passage reads "Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him", and why . . ? . . just before this verse Jesus asserted “I and My Father are one.”

As I say, anyone can believe whatever they prefer to believe, I'm not (here) arguing that people should believe that Jesus is God, they can believe what they want - but you (whoever) can't reasonable advance that Christian belief does not teach that Jesus is God, because both the Bible and historic Christianity observably assert that Jesus is God.

"How did God get here? Did He just 'pop' in? Don't get me wrong - I believe in God with all my might, but what is the Truth about the absolute very beginning of Life?"

Shauna, this is why God is the only rational answer . . . I believe in God (the God of Abraham, the God of the Bible) because He has revealed Himself to me, in a dramatic conversion and continually in His word - but rationally speaking, He is the only thing that makes sense. Nothing can just 'pop' into existence out of nothing. There was a time when there was no earth, no sun, etc, and then they came to be . . . they were not always here, they did not create themselves, and they did not just 'pop' into being - they were created. However, there was never a time when God was not, He didn't need to be created or to 'pop' into being because He always was . . . in fact, 'always' doesn't even really express it because God created time itself, so, before time, before there was a before there was God.

God is the only answer; in time and space, in our reality, something can't always exist and so the concept of an eternal God doesn't add-up to us (like the Trinity, 3 in 1 idea, doesn't add-up), but God is outside of, above and beyond the limits of our reality, He is in eternity where there is no time and space . . . God made time to put space into so He could make all that we know - He stepped out (so-to-speak) of eternity to create the material universe, He is eternal Spirit we are mortal creatures, we can't possibly grasp it, but we can register that nothing else can possibly make any sense. This universe was not always here, no one needed to create God, God is eternal and He made this universe with all it's rules and order of how matter works (it can't create itself or just 'pop' into being, etc) and we cannot them turn around and assert that He Himself doesn't make sense because He doesn't function properly under the way we (here in time and space) understand things to work. Everything had to be created - except the one thing that exists outside of the bounds of this universe's natural laws . . . that's God, the eternal Spirit without beginning or end who created all that exists - Jesus.


MickeySr profile image

MickeySr 3 years ago from Hershey, Pa. Author

Martie ~ "I like Seneca’s quote: 'Truth is a matter of opinion. What is considered to be the truth today could be prove as fraud tomorrow'."

. . . but to me, that confuses the terms that make sense of the matter - what is considered truth changes all the time, but what actually is the factual truth, reality, is exactly that which never changes, regardless what our consideration of it is. What we consider truth can be (and is) proved to be a fraud tomorrow - but truth itself cannot be proved a fraud exactly because it is truth.

"We see this so clearly in the theory that Earth was standing on four pillars, orbited by the sun. Biblical references - Psalm 93:1, 96:10, 1 Chronicles 16:30 etcetera, etcetera - stated THIS as the holy truth."

I must ask what translation you are referencing . . . I checked several and I find none that, in those passages, say anything about the Earth standing on pillars or being orbited by the sun . . ? I think every version I investigated said "the world is established", and nothing about pillars or the sun. Now, Psalms in particular, but a good portion of the OT is either poetry or song, and there may well be, as a literary device, talk of Earth resting on pillars or being the center of God's attention, etc - but the Bible doesn't advance that the factual reality is the there are material pillars the hold-up our world or that the sun factually orbits the Earth. In fact, the Bible talks about "the circle of the earth", well before any civilization or philosophy or science imagined this world as round rather than flat.

"When Galileo tried to prove that the sun was in fact orbited by the planets, he was put under house arrest by the Church."

. . . by the Roman Catholic church - I don't mean to assert that in a sense like 'Catholics are bad but the Methodists are the good ones' or anything like that . . . there are more good and less good, and more accurate and less accurate, etc, in all denominations. But there is a point in addressing this; because Galileo was talking about astronomy and we know now that his assertions were/are correct, and because 'the church' stood in opposition to him and advanced a notion that we now know to be false, this whole circumstance is commonly cast as fearful & ill-informed religion against bold & well-informed science - the problem is, Roman Catholicism was not 'the church' and was not practicing authentic Christianity, and even more significantly, Galileo was a Christian who was researching astronomy and other sciences specifically because he was a Christian and believed God intelligently designed His creation and so believed there was an order to the universe (laws of nature) to uncover. Galileo said "God is known by nature in his works, and by doctrine in his revealed word." . . . so, it actually wasn't at all that science wanted to go one way and Christianity resisted - it's that one particular organization, the Roman Catholic Church, wanted to maintain it's authority over all aspects of culture.

"Eventually I came to the conclusion that the truth is indeed only personal interpretation of personal perspectives."

But, I'm too literal and analytical to make sense of that - unless you are asserting that in fact there is no real, objective truth, that 'truth' is whatever we want it to be . . . but even that then, would be what the truth is. If truth is our personal interpretation of personal perspectives, then the real truth isn't our personal interpretation of personal perspectives but rather the truth is that what each person's personal interpretation of their own personal perspective is, that is the real truth . . . so, your

personal interpretation of your personal perspective has no reference or consequence to me because I have my own personal interpretation of my personal perspective that is my truth - so the real truth would be that each of us makes our own truth no matter how inconsistent with anyone else's personal truth . . . so, your 'truth' isn't THE truth it's only your truth, THE truth would be that we each have our own personal 'truth'. And that can't be true, that's like no truth at all . . . which might be right where we start, I mean right where you and I start to see things differently; I believe there is and can only be, some actual real truth out there that is above and superintending everything . . . it sounds to me, and I could be fully misreading you, that you do not like the idea of a real, single, truth for everything and everybody . . ?


bravewarrior profile image

bravewarrior 3 years ago from Central Florida

Mickey, I was also taught about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as being one entity. Your defining the birth of Christ and the revelation made to Mary explains a lot. I guess I didn't pay attention to that in religion class. I do believe in God, in fact He has spoken to me also - I mean I actually heard his voice - twice! And I believe in Jesus, I just view them as separate beings. God being God - the One we can't see but only in Faith and Jesus being the human being put on Earth that people believe in because he actually exisited in a recognizable, tangible form. To be honest, when I talk to God, I talk to God - not Jesus. I think in my spirituality I prefer the unseen entity over a man who walked the earth. I hope this isn't coming across as disrespectful; I'm having a hard time verbalizing my thoughts. Just know I do believe in God and I consider myself spiritual, not religious. I think that's why I was always questioning the nuns and their teachings.


Eiddwen profile image

Eiddwen 3 years ago from Wales

Interesting and voted up. Here's to so many more to folow.

Enjoy your day.

Eddy.


Faith Reaper profile image

Faith Reaper 3 years ago from southern USA

I love your perspective here and this stunning hub of His truths. He is the Way, the Truth and The Life no doubt. What matters is my personal and intimate relationship with my Lord, without whom I do not believe I could survive one day on this earth. I praise Him for you!

There is nothing silly in believing in His truth. The Word of God is living and active, and sharper than any double-edged sword, and will cut through the lies of the enemy no doubt!

Voted up ++++ and sharing

God bless you. In His Love Always, Faith Reaper


MickeySr profile image

MickeySr 3 years ago from Hershey, Pa. Author

Shauna ~ "I was also taught about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as being one entity"

It is observably a concept we are not equipped to understand or articulate. In the documents of the early church the language goes back and forth as they tried to find the most appropriate way to declare this idea . . . the idea, of a 3 in 1 God, is definitely in the Bible, but in this manner; there are places that state there is one God, and there are places that state that the one true God is the God of Abraham and creator of all, the Father. There are places that state that Jesus is God, and that He and the Father are one. There are places that state that the Holy Spirit is God and is one with the Father and the Son, etc, etc. The Bible doesn't explain to us how God can be one God, one being, yet be three identities - but it is clear to one who studies it that the Bible is asserting exactly that to be the truth.

The early Christians finally settled on the language that, God is one being consisting of three persons . . . 'person' representing the idea of having a specific identity, purpose, role, etc, so the Father is God in the person of the provider and sustainer of all that is, the Son, Jesus, is God in the person of the redeemer and mediator between God and man, and the Spirit is God in the person of the sanctifier and life giver, etc. So that, for instance, when God created man He is described in the text of Scripture in a plural form saying "Let us make man in our own image', and then the Father forms man in the image of Jesus and when the text says He "breathed into man the breath of life" that word translated "breathed" and "breath" is the same word translated "Spirit". Then, When the Father sends His Son to redeem man, the work of redemption (being 'saved') is that we are conformed to the image of Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit.

We can't figure-out how God can be one being yet three persons, but that is just how the Bible presents Him. Think of it this way; as we stand before God He is our judge and we are all found guilty before Him, and He rightly condemns as all to death - but, He then announces that He will provide someone to die in our place, that because of the sacrifice of another we are forgiven . . . then, He Himself comes down from the bench and offers Himself as that one to die in our place, and He then transmits or communicates His own life into us that we might live forever. The judge is God the Father, the judge sacrificing Himself is God the Son, and the means by which He communicates His own life into us is by His Spirit . . . it's all the same God, the same being, but He works in three very specific ways, as three very specific identities, or persons.

"To be honest, when I talk to God, I talk to God - not Jesus"

I pray, and think, of God as God . . . but I recognize that I have this capacity only because of Jesus of Nazareth. The Bible talks very particularly about praying to God, but praying to God in Jesus' name . . . it's because Jesus is that person of the Godhead who mediates between God and man, there is no other way we can approach God except through Jesus, simply because that is the way God has established for us to know Him and be united to Him. That's why Jesus said things like "No one comes to the Father except through the Son" . . . it's not at all about Christianity being a better religion than Islam or Buddhism or anything else - it's simply a matter of how God has established things to be, the way to God is Jesus, the God/man and only mediator between God and man.

"I consider myself spiritual, not religious"

As do I, in fact, I count religion to be the most evil thing man has ever concocted. But I further explain that, I think many say this meaning that they have disdain for church or any kind of structured spiritual order - to me, fellowshipping with other Christians, worshiping together on Sundays, believing certain ideas and not believing certain other ideas, etc, is not the same thing as religion and is not contrary to being spiritual. 'Spiritual', to me, means not of human or worldly design but of eternal truth - 'religion' means a scheme concocted by us that fits our own preferences about what we desire God to be like . . . so that, for me, many folks who might not be comfortable with my going to church or studying theology, etc, but who contrive their own personal notion about God and what He is like, etc, are far more religious than I and I am far more spiritual than they. Again, I say that as I use my already stated definitions of 'religion' and 'spiritual' . . . and please be assured, I don't say this at all in reference to you (saying you are more spiritual than religious), I don't know what you believe or how you've come to believe it - I am speaking of ideas here, not individuals, I am no man's judge.


MartieCoetser profile image

MartieCoetser 3 years ago from South Africa

Hi, Mickey, I find your reply very interesting and worthy to debate. Not because I disagree with you - I am in full agreement. My comment simply emphasizes other truths, whether subjective or objective. I often refer to God as Truth - and the Bible says Jesus, as part of the Trinity, is the only way and the truth - Keep in mind, however, that somewhere in the OT we read that no-one (alive) will ever see God - the one who does will surely die. So this could be why we are always searching for the truth in everything without ever finding it.

Butter was proved to be unhealthy and margarine was promoted, and now we hear the opposite is 'in fact' true.

Interesting topic! But someone else might think that this is not true :)


Gypsy Rose Lee profile image

Gypsy Rose Lee 3 years ago from Riga, Latvia

Voted up and interesting. I think that everyone in some way or another has their own perception of what is the truth and what isn't. I believe that as we go along in this life we pick up a lot of knowledge along the way and our perspectives change yet again. Fascinating read as always. Passing this on.


MickeySr profile image

MickeySr 3 years ago from Hershey, Pa. Author

Docmo ~ you are always too generous with me, thank you.


Vickiw 3 years ago

Dear Mickey, I cannot tell you enough how impressive I find your writing. Impressive, yes - but whether it is the truth is something else. You see, the only truthful thing is that no one really knows what the truth is, because all writing is concocted by all who believe they know the truth. There is only one truth really - you live, and then you die. Everything around that is faith and belief. These can vary tremendously, in intensity, passion and hope. We see this on a daily basis - everything around us, plants, trees, people, any living organism with cells, from one cell up to us with so many cells, dies. The man-made things, books, equipment, materials, perish. Isn't that the truth? And isn't that all that matters?


tillsontitan profile image

tillsontitan 3 years ago from New York

Oh dear, after reading your hub I was so ready to comment, then I read the comments before me. Where to begin? "...what are we and where do we find ourselves..."a question for the ages and one that man may never truly be able to answer, TRUTH! As for Jesus, God, etc. The Trinity is what we were taught. The Trinity is three distinct persons who are one God. Three persons in one God, making Jesus God along with the Holy Spirit and God...one God. The problem is in the term "persons" perhaps it should be "entities" to better understand. Difficult to understand? God is difficult to understand so it goes without saying the Trinity is difficult to understand. Just as a point to ponder, Jesus told the Pharisees, "I Am", just as God told Moses.

This is a great hub and truth, all truth, and our truth guides us through our life.

Voted up, useful, and interesting.


MickeySr profile image

MickeySr 3 years ago from Hershey, Pa. Author

Gypsy Rose Lee ~ thank you . . . you're one I always look forward to hearing from regarding my efforts here, thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.


MickeySr profile image

MickeySr 3 years ago from Hershey, Pa. Author

Vickiw ~ "the only truthful thing is that no one really knows what the truth is, because all writing is concocted by all who believe they know the truth. There is only one truth really - you live, and then you die"

I understand your point, and agree with it, but I would qualify that; there is only one truth that is apparent (observable) to us, as you say, that we live and we die - but that this is not the only truth, merely the only truth we can assert with any real surety . . . there is a bigger, more rudimentary truth out there, it's simply beyond our capacity to discover and know. Here and now, we all start at the same place, both atheist & theist, the brilliant & the dimwitted, those investigating & those just trying to get by, etc, etc . . . we all stand on the same ground; we all take our first steps fully by faith & belief. The atheist, the scientist, just as much as the devout religionist, starts first with the universal assumption, the necessarily 'faith' step of believing that his senses are providing him a reliable report of the reality he exists in. We are non-functional otherwise, we are pointless if we do not open our eyes and count our cognitive deductions in some manner of sound operation.

So, in that sense, none of us really know, as in really know, anything at all . . . we are all starting every thought, every observation, every surmising with the giant assumption that we are accurately seeing and hearing and feeling, etc, what is actually there. But again, we need to make this assumption or else no next step is possible, we have to work on that assumption that our sense are rightly informing us of the reality we find ourselves in. So, taking that giant and universal first (assumptive) step into account, I introduce my piece on searching for the objective truth that is out there ~

"we see things as our own private eyes and ears, etc, inform us of them and as our own minds process that information . . . How do we minimize what is instantly apparent to us and consider and examine possible truth with as little contamination by our own senses and intellectual and emotional impediments?"

. . . not asserting some of us know, as in really know, the truth and some don't - but talking instead about minimizing those circumstances that hinder our consideration of objective truth.


Vickiw 3 years ago

Glad you agree with my basic premise, Freckles . . . Can't add too much more to this discussion!


MickeySr profile image

MickeySr 3 years ago from Hershey, Pa. Author

tillsontitan ~ "The problem is in the term "persons" perhaps it should be "entities" to better understand"

Mary, exactly what terms are used to set forth the Biblical idea of God, the Trinity, has been struggled over from the very beginning. Not the idea itself, but how to precisely express the idea, the terms used, has been no small matter for the church and her creeds and confessions.

Very early on church documents used the Greek word 'ηομοουσιος', transliterated 'homoousios', meaning 'of the same substance' to assert Jesus' relationship to the Father and thereby advancing the Bible's setting-forth of the Trinity . . . but then some false teachers used the fact that 'homoousios' was used to assert that there was no Trinity, that Jesus simply was the Father and the Father was Jesus, etc, that they were the same. So the early Christians then changed their terms and used the Greek 'ηομοιουσιος', transliterated 'homoiousios', meaning 'like or similar in substance' to distinguish the Son from the Father, asserting that Jesus' divinity was just like the Father's divinity, they were both equally God, but that they were distinct in some manner. But of course, other false teachers then used the fact that 'homoiousios' was used to assert that Jesus was not really God at all but was merely 'like God'.

Finally, at the Nicene Council, Christians went back to using 'homoousios' (of the same substance), recognizing that, there will always be some who twist anything, but that 'of the same substance' is more accurate than 'of similar substance' at representing the truth revealed in Scripture. They also then put in the Nicene Creed, describing Jesus, "begotten, not made", asserting that Jesus was not created, He had no start or beginning, but was 'of the Father'. The Greek word there translated 'begotten' refers to something that is not created but is another form of something already existing . . . like, you would say that a vine creates grapes but that wine is begotten of those grapes. The Greeks had a word for 'create' or 'make' and they would use that word for, say, a goat creating or making milk - but when that milk produced cheese, they would use the word we translate 'begotten' . . . it's not something altogether different, just the same thing in another form.

So, many have gone over this, again and again, since ancient times . . . 'persons' is used because it speaks to the idea of one with specific characteristics and with particular capacities and responsibilities, etc - if 'entities' were used, that suggests a full self-containedness, an independent being . . . 'persons' suggest relationship, distinction but not necessarily separateness. The trouble is, the concept is beyond our experience and so is beyond our capacity to articulate . . . the Father and Son and Spirit are all equally God, all the same entity or being, but each with His specific characteristics and particular capacities and responsibilities, etc - the Son sacrifices Himself and the Father accepts that sacrifice and the Spirit then communicates the benefits of that sacrifice to us, etc, distinct but equally God.

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Regular-No...


tillsontitan profile image

tillsontitan 3 years ago from New York

I think you nailed it with "The trouble is, the concept is beyond our experience and so is beyond our capacity to articulate..." Therefore, I might add, without Faith it is impossible to imagine or believe. Many will not believe what they do not see and yet, though we cannot see thought we still believe we think.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working