Are There Any Moral Absolutes?

[Cliffy]

Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life for you. Why is it that allowing others to have their own truth is so threatening to you? When I make statements about Christianity it is usually in response to an absolute statement from one of them. To me, what I am saying is absurd because it is a response to an absurd statement. It is about holding up a mirror to the speaker.

I tell you what I think is the truth but once it leaves my lips or I post it on here, it becomes an opinion to everybody else. I cannot help it if someone is offended by what I hold to be true. I am not usually offended by what others believe but I do think they should understand that what I and everybody else is hearing or reading is just their opinion and not the truth.

You want the right to your opinion, then it is only common sense that you allow others the same freedom. Telling people that they are going to hell for not adhering to your version of the truth is judgmental, and as I have said, frowned upon in your holy book. People have the right to go to heaven or hell as they choose. It is none of your business.

 

[In Between Man]

A wise person once told me that everybody is at the place in their spiritual evolution where they are supposed to be. That includes atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Hindus, Shintos and Aboriginal peoples all over the planet. You have found your path, walk it. Just have the decency to allow others to walk theirs with grace.

Another classic example of your true definition of tolerance. However, beliefs systems contradict each other, so they all can't be true. The set of beliefs that is absolutely true is obviously the superior one, so they're not all equal.

Relativists like you further try to claim that all people wherever located worship the same "God" through different languages and cultures. This idea is absurd on its face. For example, Islam teaches that Christ was a mere prophet, not deity. But if Christ is not God, then he could not have been an exemplary prophet or a great moral teacher, because he claimed to be God. If he was not who he said he was, then he was either a liar or a lunatic, hardly a great moral teacher or prophet.

As another obvious example, are your claims of certain Eastern philosophy that God is in everything and that there is no discrete distinction between the Creator and creation which is utterly irreconcilable with Christianity.

The examples are endless, but the point is that while various religions may share some overlapping values, many of their fundamental beliefs cannot be squared. It may make people feel better to pretend that all religions are essentially the same, but this concept is demonstrably false.

 

[In Between Man]

Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life for you. Why is it that allowing others to have their own truth is so threatening to you?

Its not. Challenge Christianity with everything you can think of. I'll try to defend the best I can.

I am not usually offended by what others believe but I do think they should understand that what I and everybody else is hearing or reading is just their opinion and not the truth.

How do you know you haven't come across the truth? Are you so enlightened that you know it all?

You want the right to your opinion, then it is only common sense that you allow others the same freedom.

No sh it. Nobody's denying this. We should certainly honor the principle that all people are equal in God's sight and entitled to equal protection of the laws as well as fair, courteous, and respectful treatment.

But there is no moral imperative that we adopt the notion that all beliefs systems are equally true. There is a moral imperative that we do NOT.

People have the right to go to heaven or hell as they choose.

Why would anyone want to go to hell?

 

[Cliffy]

Another classic example of your true definition of tolerance. However, beliefs systems contradict each other, so they all can't be true. The set of beliefs that is absolutely true is obviously the superior one, so they're not all equal.

Relativists like you further try to claim that all people wherever located worship the same "God" through different languages and cultures. This idea is absurd on its face. For example, Islam teaches that Christ was a mere prophet, not deity. But if Christ is not God, then he could not have been an exemplary prophet or a great moral teacher, because he claimed to be God. If he was not who he said he was, then he was either a liar or a lunatic, hardly a great moral teacher or prophet.

As another obvious example, are your claims of certain Eastern philosophy that God is in everything and that there is no discrete distinction between the Creator and creation which is utterly irreconcilable with Christianity.

The examples are endless, but the point is that while various religions may share some overlapping values, many of their fundamental beliefs cannot be squared. It may make people feel better to pretend that all religions are essentially the same, but this concept is demonstrably false.

First of all, in the original Greek texts, Jesus said, I am a son of god and that we are all children of god. He never claimed he was The Son of God. That was added three hundred years later as has been pointed out time and time again. If it works for you to believe that lie, who am I to tell you what to believe. Look at the early christian writings and see for yourself; they did not believe in his deity until Constantine made it part of the bible.

There were many christian sects. One made a deal with the Roman Empire and were made the official version. That produced the catholic church and they gave you the bible. The reformation reinterpreted the bible, added some stuff, took out some stuff and you got the King James version. Since then you got dozens of translations and interpretations, all so far removed from the original that it doesn't even resemble anything that existed just after the supposed death of Jesus.

I believe that 90% of the bible and Christian beliefs are fraudulent but that is only my opinion and it has no bearing on what you want to believe unless you choose to take offense to it. You want to believe in absolutes, fine. But your beliefs and arguments are meaningless to me and the great majority of the human population.

 

[Cliffy]

Why would anyone want to go to hell?

Ask Petros. He says he will suffer less from his arthritis in the warmth of hell than sitting on a damp cloud in heaven. I have heard of rapists and serial murderers who have begged to be put out of their misery because they know they are evil, so they know where they will go.

Personally, I don't believe in hell or evil, so I don't worry about them.

As far as discussing the authenticity of the bible, read this and comeback with your arguments. Welcome to Enlightenment! Religion – the Tragedy of Mankind - Articles by Kenneth Humphreys
Proving the bible by using the bible is ludicrous. That web site is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[petros]

Quote: People have the right to go to heaven or hell as they choose.

Why would anyone want to go to hell?

With my arthritis it is a tough decision.

Sit on a damp cloud staring at God or be where it's warm and I can move without aching?

Hmmmmm?

What is the weather like in purgatory? Partly Cloudy?

Both heaven and hell have pros and cons.

As it is above, so it is below.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Alley my friend, it appears to me that you are still simply insisting without evidence that you are right: there are moral absolutes and everybody knows it, god has written them on our hearts whether we acknowledge it or not. I don't think that's true, nor do I think you've adequately made that case. There have been societies for whom robbery and murder were virtues, for instance (look up "thuggee"), and arguing that those societies weren't Christian, or weren't properly enlightened, or something like that, and were therefore wrong by definition, is the logical fallacy called begging the question, you assume the truth of what you're arguing for. Religion itself is very specific to culture, as any student of history knows, they're born, grow, and die, with the cultures that believe in them. One of the reasons you're Christian is because you grew up in a society that was at least nominally Christian and supports, or at least tolerates, that particular view. If you'd grown up in Pakistan you'd almost certainly be Muslim, and just as sure of your beliefs as you are now. Eanassir is just as certain you're wrong as you are that he is. How can those differences be settled?

I don't think you've got a case. If you're going to claim there are moral absolutes rooted in the values of some deity, you must also demonstrate that the deity is real and reveal the source of his values, you'll have to argue that there are also cultural absolutes, and explain the enormous inconsistent diversity of religions on the assumption that there's really only one true deity. I don't believe that can be done. I've seen some heroic efforts to do it, but they all fail on logical inconsistency and lack of evidence for their core claims.

 

[petros]

Dexter Sinister - Your northing and easting of 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W ...modify to 33° 59' N 104° 38' W. It will take you to somewhere very interesting...a place where some say God died. It happen as the crow flies due south mere seconds off on the Easting but spot on on the Northing

 

[petros]

Dexter Sinister - Your northing and easting....modify to 33° 59' N 104° 38' W It will take you to somewhere very interesting...a place where some say God died. It happen as the crow flies due south mere seconds off on the Easting but spot on on the Northing

Head to google maps please. I'd like to show you something. Lets take another little trip, be sure to pack a tin foil hat.


Then head North a little more to 39° 50' N keeping the same Easting. Do you see the well known symbol? Google the location seen and add the word "occult" in the search with the title of the location of the entity operating in the shaded area.

If you know Regina's history you know the Capital of SK location was hotly debated for location. Now you sort of know why. For being the 1880's their alignment incredible.

 

[petros]

YouTube - Strange Murals at Denver Airport

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Yes there is. God either exists or he doesn't. Cliffy woke up today. Either its true or it isn't.

Alley, this is the classic mistake religionists make, they confuse physical fact with religious, philosophical fact.

Whether Cliffy woke up today can be easily established. There is a universally accepted definition of ‘waking up’. If Cliffy sits up in his bed by his own volition, without the help of any outside force, there not a soul in the world who will claim that Cliffy did not wake up, there will be universal agreement that Cliffy woke up.

God on the other hand, is a very amorphous concept, there is general disagreement of the nature of God, there are probably several hundred (or several thousand) different concepts of God in existence.

There is no way of establishing whether God exists or not. In that case, it is meaningless to talk about God exists or she doesn’t exist. God can be said both to exist and not to exist. She exists in the imagination of religious people, does not exist in the imagination of Atheists.

Both are acceptable views, neither view can be disproved. So while it makes sense to talk about whether Cliffy woke up or not, it is nonsense to talk about whether God exists or not. He exists or not according to ones’ imagination.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Moral absolutes exists as well. The problem unbelievers face is they have no real basis for objective right and wrong. This doesn't mean that they are not moral or don't understand right from wrong.

The problem with that alley is who decides what are the moral absolutes? Do Christians decide that, does Pope, do you? Or does Islam, Osama Ben Laden? Is stoning an adulteress to death a moral absolute? Who has the authority to say what is a moral absolute and what isn't?

Is stricture against abortion a moral absolute? Is gay bashing a moral absolute (like religious right and extreme Catholics claim)? Is Creationism a moral absolute? Who decides?

Claiming that moral absolutes exist is a way for a religious minority to impost its views, its narrow morality upon the rest of the society, in the form of ‘moral absolutes’. Those who claim that moral absolutes exists usually are the same ones who want to dictate what constitutes a moral absolute and what doesn’t.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

With my arthritis it is a tough decision.

Sit on a damp cloud staring at God or be where it's warm and I can move without aching?

Check with alley, petros. That may not be a moral absolute.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

A wise person once told me that everybody is at the place in their spiritual evolution where they are supposed to be. That includes atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Hindus, Shintos and Aboriginal peoples all over the planet. You have found your path, walk it. Just have the decency to allow others to walk theirs with grace.

A very wise man indeed. But such wisdom is more likely to come from a woman (what comes out of Osama’s mouth is more typical of a man’s wisdom). Sure it wasn’t a woman?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

even though we all intuitively understand that absolute truth exists, and more importantly, we all conduct our lives with that recognition.

Alley, we understand nothing of the sort. We conduct our lives according to the truth as we see it (and everybody sees it differently).

To you, tolerance doesn't simply involve treating those with different ideas respectfully and civilly. It means affirm their ideas as valid, which Christians can't do without renouncing their own beliefs.

And why not? I regard Christianity and Islam as valid (to Christians and Muslims), that doesn’t’ mean I agree with them. I treat those who I disagree with with respect and civility. You are right there, that indeed is the definition of tolerance. But tolerance also means that all the ideas are valid in the public square, it is up to a person to choose the one he/she agrees with.

If, for example, you subscribe to the biblical prohibition on homosexual behavior as sinful, you cannot at the same time affirm that such behavior is not sinful.

You don’t have to accept such behavior as not sinful, but you must accept such behavior as legal, and you must not discriminate against a gay person (if you are a business owner etc.) simply because you hate gays.

As some politician once said (in reference to discrimination), ‘we cannot change your attitude, but we are going to change your behavior’.

You can just go on your merry way moralizing to everyone about tolerance and never having to explain the intrinsic contradictions in your views.

There is no contradiction, alley. All the views (including yours) are equally valid and must be given equal hearing. Your problem is that your viewpoint isn’t regarded as the only valid viewpoint any more.

 

[Cliffy]

A very wise man indeed. But such wisdom is more likely to come from a woman (what comes out of Osama’s mouth is more typical of a man’s wisdom). Sure it wasn’t a woman?

Very astute of you SJP. It was indeed a woman. Thanks for jarring my memory. Her name was Noweta, a spiritualist minister.

 

[JLM]

Yes there is. God either exists or he doesn't. Cliffy woke up today. Either its true or it isn't.

Alley, this is the classic mistake religionists make, they confuse physical fact with religious, philosophical fact.

Whether Cliffy woke up today can be easily established. There is a universally accepted definition of ‘waking up’. If Cliffy sits up in his bed by his own volition, without the help of any outside force, there not a soul in the world who will claim that Cliffy did not wake up, there will be universal agreement that Cliffy woke up.

God on the other hand, is a very amorphous concept, there is general disagreement of the nature of God, there are probably several hundred (or several thousand) different concepts of God in existence.

There is no way of establishing whether God exists or not. In that case, it is meaningless to talk about God exists or she doesn’t exist. God can be said both to exist and not to exist. She exists in the imagination of religious people, does not exist in the imagination of Atheists.

Both are acceptable views, neither view can be disproved. So while it makes sense to talk about whether Cliffy woke up or not, it is nonsense to talk about whether God exists or not. He exists or not according to ones’ imagination.

Well that's right, I'm not particularly religious but I think the existance of some form of "God" has been more or less proven to me. I think what's more the point is the definition rather than the existance of God. I would say that "self fulfilling prophecy" is a form of God, as in a lot of cases if you want things to happen you can make them happen. Hey, it's too early in the morning to get this deep.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

You are absolutely unwilling to tolerate the Christian premise the Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. For you to acknowledge this would neccessarily refute your concept of tolerance, which holds that all ideas are of equal merit. In your infinite resourcefulness, you carve out an exception to your own demand for universal tolerance when it comes to your treatment of Christians.

That is nonsense. I tolerate Christian premise the Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. But only for Christians. Your problem is that you want everybody to accept the premise, accept Jesus as the only way to salvation, and that ain’t going to happen. Tolerance means accepting a particular viewpoint, but tolerance does NOT mean everybody adopting the same particular viewpoint.

There is no exception when it comes to Christians; they are treated with tolerance as everybody else. The problem comes with a small number of Christians (like religious right); those who want to impose their morality on everybody else.

Thus when Fundamentalists say that abortion is murder, I consider that a valid viewpoint, in that I can see how one could reasonably come to that conclusion. That is tolerance. However, then that person wants me to accept the premise that abortion is murder, and then wants to ban all abortions, I am adamantly opposed to that. There is nothing intolerant or wrong with that.

To you and the other relativists, Christianity's exclusive truth claim are simply beyond the pale - so bad as to disqualify Christians from receiving tolerance from others.

By George, now you have got it. We tolerate all viewpoints except those who claim to have the only truth, and who insist that everybody must accept that one version of truth, and that one version of truth must be codified into law. I have no patience or tolerance for such a viewpoint.

Thus do you hate gays? If you do, that is your right, you do have place in public square. However, do you want to criminalize homosexuality, lock up gays in prison for ten years or more (as they used to do in the Bible Belt and want to do once again, as soon as the Supreme Court permits them to do it)? There is no tolerance for such a view point, same as there is no tolerance for Nazism or Fascism.

In short, we tolerate everything except hate towards small (or large) sections of the society.

The "enlightened" elite at universities often disqualify Christian viewpoints because "We cannot tolerate the intolerable!”

Close, alley. It should be ‘we cannot tolerate the intolerant’.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Another classic example of your true definition of tolerance. However, beliefs systems contradict each other, so they all can't be true.

Alley, that is the nonsense, gobbledygook that many religionists spout. They all can’t be true? Why not? If the ultimate truth (the truth as to whether God exists and which one is the true God) is unknowable, what is wrong in regarding all the viewpoints as true (in the eyes of the believers), as being equally valid?

The set of beliefs that is absolutely true is obviously the superior one, so they're not all equal.

That would be true if we can establish which set of beliefs is absolutely true. But since we cannot, it is meaningless talk about any set of beliefs being absolutely true. No set of beliefs is absolutely true, they are all equally valid.

But if Christ is not God, then he could not have been an exemplary prophet or a great moral teacher, because he claimed to be God. If he was not who he said he was, then he was either a liar or a lunatic, hardly a great moral teacher or prophet.

Not necessarily. He may have been a wise man who took a short cut, a quick way to get people to accept his teachings. After all, people are more likely to accept his teachings if he were the Son of God. So why not tell that to the people and get them to accept his teachings?

That is really no different from the Republican party claiming to be the party of God. In USA, their message is more likely to be accepted if people perceive them to be the party of God. Then why not say so? It does not make Jesus (or Republicans) a liar, it makes him a politician.

I think it was the same with Joan of Arc. She told people she had visions from God, but my guess is that she was probably lying. There was no way people were going to accept leadership of a woman in those days, except if they became convinced that she speaks for God. So it was a reasonable way to get people to accept her leadership. That doesn’t make Joan of Arc a liar; it makes her an astute statesman, a skilled politician.

 

[Cliffy]

Close, alley. It should be ‘we cannot tolerate the intolerant’.

SJP,
But that is intolerant. Bit of a conundrum, what! I can accept that everyone's beliefs can be different. But if they insist on imposing their beliefs on myselfor others, I will fight them on it. Defending yourself and others from the intolerant is not intolerance.