How Do We Know What Is True According To God Or Whoever?

By Mike Edwards

Truth is often declared because the Bible says so or because it feels true. It is important what we decide is truth. Laws are often made according to what is right or wrong. Debate or the pursuit of truth is often prohibited because one is labeled a mis-informer, conspiracist, or heretic. Those who censor or label others mis-informers assume they know the truth, but often they are discovered to be wrong later. It is important how we go about the pursuit of truth.

Truth isn’t based on a supposed Divine inspired Book

Ancient literature subject to interpretation cannot be the definitive word on truth. Even if the writers understood their God perfectly, which we can’t prove, we can’t claim our interpretations are perfect. The truth is biblical scholars who have a deep respect for the Bible don’t agree what God thinks about gays, women, hell, and other moral issues. See here. See here. See here. Gays are often condemned and women’s leadership roles are limited, despite their gifts, in God’s name. It is suggested a fiery torturous afterlife awaits infidels. How do we go about determining what is true about God? Surely, perfect Godly and human love must be the same if a Creator’s exist. One’s interpretation (possibly wrong) of a supposed inspired Book isn’t always the Gospel!

Trust isn’t necessarily based on what “experts” claim

It has been declared in the past that the Covid vaccines prevented infection and transmission of the disease. That was the purpose of mandates. Scientists and doctors who declared otherwise were censored, but it turns out that weren’t the mis-informers. Those who claimed masks didn’t prevent the spread of a virus were called mis-informers. Turns out a review that dug into findings of 78 randomized controlled trials discovered wearing masks made little or no difference in stopping the virus. See here. Lots of my friends who wore masks got Covid. Even during a pandemic, we must be open what we can’t be certain about. “Undebated science/censored ” isn’t science.

Truth isn’t based just on feelings as certain truths are obvious to all

One may argue truth isn’t objective. I understand why one may take such a stance. Since their opponent often claims they know the truth and then proceed to lord that opinion over others because they supposedly stand on higher moral (biblical) grounds. But I don’t think we can afford to suggest there aren’t objective truths. If truth is determined just on feelings, a murderer or sexual predator could claim innocence because they felt their actions were justified. Laws aren’t possible if there aren’t differences between good and evil such as rape, physical abuse, etc. Some truth is self-evident.

We must avoid claiming our truth is certain if not universal agreement

There are surely self-evident rights with almost universal agreement, but they aren’t hidden in the Bible or any Book. Some Holy Books condemn or justify the killing of gays based on one’s interpretation being correct because their God inspired words written down. I would argue consensual same-gender sexual relationships are justified because some can’t explain their attraction to the same gender any more than straights can explain their attraction to the opposite gender. Certainty is an enemy when debate is not allowed by censoring the freedom of others to speak their opinions. We may not always know what perfect love is, but we somehow know we ought to love others like we want to be loved. We must allow a debate what perfect love is.

We don’t always know what is truth, so it is important how we openly purse truth

• If only religious leaders didn’t always claim their biblical interpretation is correct and at least acknowledge literature requires interpretation despite supposed divine intervention. What are religious leaders afraid of if they have the truth?
• If we listened to everyone’s opinion civilly and sought to discern together what was the most loving action according to the circumstances
• If we closely guarded one’s freedom to choose when the possibility exist you could be wrong, rather than calling others heretics or conspiracists