Try scientific fact, rational, logical, thoughtful argument (rather than gross stupidity or total denial of reality).
Are There Any Moral Absolutes?
- Thread starter SirJosephPorter
- Start date
Try scientific fact, rational, logical, thoughtful argument (rather than gross stupidity or total denial of reality).
The key word in my sentence is as, as in "You imply that it is as bad to (covet) as (murder)". You are not really even trying to understand me, are you?
What do you mean you don't know which six they are? You said you thought six were rock solid, that in no way implies uncertainty, so why flip flop now?
Adultery is a completely personal thing, there are plenty of relationships where swinging is perfectly acceptable. It is still adultery. Adultery is not an issue of morality, it is an issue of interpersonal fidelity.
Perjury is simple, take a situation like the person who kept Anne Frank. I do not think many people will claim that her perjury was morally repugnant. Similarly, it is trivial to construct examples where murder and theft are acceptable.
Morality is that which defines right from wrong. The question of absolutes is whether it is possible to make a true sentence such as, "It is always wrong to <verb>," or "It is always right to <verb>," without inserting adjectives which make it vague or vague/circular verbs.
Murder is just unlawful killing, so it is sort of circular. Similarly, rape is "nonconsensual sex" and defining consent is terribly hard and not absolute. In fact there is much ongoing debate these days as to just what constitutes rape.
''That is only the conservative (and religious conservative at that) opinion, JLM, we don't know that for a fact." Sorry, but that is also my opinion, so it is very presumptuous to say it only belongs to a specific faction.
This is a response to the utterly dishonest and manipulative piece of garbage by a totally discredited distributor of garbage, recorded here as post #81.
Quoting YukonJack "There is no evidence that it is a live, human baby that is destroyed in an abortion."
The above are NOT my words. Those are the words of a baby-killing sympathizer.
===That sentence should be quoted in all classes, everywhere as the typical example of either gross stupidity or total denial of reality.===
The above, and only those ARE my words.
Try scientific fact, rational, logical, thoughtful argument (rather than gross stupidity or total denial of reality).
The above are NOT my words. Those care the words of a reality denier.
THAT IS NOT QUOTING YUKON JACK!!!!
The sentence in quotes is what I allegedly said: those are the words of someone else.
My words in the above "QUOTE" are enclosed in '===' ONLY!!
Is there no boundary and limit to your dishonesty? How much further are you going to go being a manipulator and a crook?
Or is is just plain stupidity to use the options of the forum????
Last edited:
Your comment is fair, however, I'll add this.
Morals/ethics are a function of a society at a specific point in time. Further, the moral/ethical code can vary significantly on a cultural basis. With this in mind, there is an opportunity of observing similarities in certain practices (ie murder or rape). We may refer to these as absolutes, however, that in itself does not forever qualify that act (ie murder) as an absolute that will permanently withstand the test of time.
certainly, as we've seen in this thread, certain 'conditional excuses' have been offered to justify something like murder (Hitler). That in itself contravenes the notion of an absolute. Obviously, if it is 'absolute' there can be no exceptions.
You better go back and read it again Bub, you're blowing smoke. I never mentioned either "coveting" or "murder" specifically. As far as the Ten Commandments go I am a little hazy as to the exact wording but I said "six" because I'm not too concerned about "having other Gods before me", "using the Lord's name in vain", "honouring thy father and mother" and "working on the Sabbath", so that leaves six that I have no argument with. Is that simple enough for you to understand.
Is there any point to this rant, Yukon (I assume you are steamed up about my post #81, for whatever reason).
I quoted your post and responded to it. What exactly are you so steamed up about? You seem incoherent with rage, you are not making any sense.
Suppose you take a deep breath (take several deep breaths), cool down and tell me what the problem is.
I quoted your post and responded with what I think is a very reasonable, logical, rational comment. What caused this outburst of rage, anger, petulance? You must watch your blood pressure (especially at your age).
One absolute moral that one would be foolish to disagree with:
Everyone has the ABSOLUTE right to believe what ever they choose to believe. That includes rejecting the truth.
Everyone has the ABSOLUTE right to believe what ever they choose to believe. That includes rejecting the truth.
Last edited:
So why do you reject it? Of all the beliefs in the world, you chose to believe in one of the most ludicrous, unsubstantiated one of them all.
I'm glad to see you acknowledge that there is at least one absolute, that being our right to think whatever.
As for Christianity being unsubstantiated, when I compare it to any other belief system it only confirms how unique and perfect Christianity is.
You tell me: What does Islam or Buddism have over my faith? What about wicca? Or paganism?
As for Christianity being unsubstantiated, when I compare it to any other belief system it only confirms how unique and perfect Christianity is.
Even if we assume that to be true, that does not make Christianity true.
You tell me: What does Islam or Buddism have over my faith? What about wicca? Or paganism?
I don’t know. But suppose they have nothing over your faith. That still does not mean that your faith is true.
Even if we assume that to be true, that does not make Christianity true.
You tell me: What does Islam or Buddism have over my faith? What about wicca? Or paganism?
I don’t know. But suppose they have nothing over your faith. That still does not mean that your faith is true.
Alley, you still don't get it. I was calling you out because you insinuate that anybody who does not believe the same as you is rejecting the truth. It really doesn't matter what you believe or what anybody else believes. As JLM said "It takes all kinds". Just think how boring it would be if everybody believed as you do. What would you talk about. It would be boring as hell. Your god would get bored to death.
Just because you have found a truth that works for you does not mean that everyone else is wrong. When it comes to beliefs there are no absolutes, just personal preferences. Until you get that, you will forever run around trying to convince people you are right. Only a person who is insecure in his beliefs would think that getting people to agree with him would somehow validate him. There is no need to run around proselytizing. It is just a distraction from doing what you really need to be doing in your life.
Just because you have found a truth that works for you does not mean that everyone else is wrong. When it comes to beliefs there are no absolutes, just personal preferences. Until you get that, you will forever run around trying to convince people you are right. Only a person who is insecure in his beliefs would think that getting people to agree with him would somehow validate him. There is no need to run around proselytizing. It is just a distraction from doing what you really need to be doing in your life.
I'm not insinuating anything. Because I know that truth is absolute, and since it's my opinion that Jesus saves, then I am stating that Jesus is the truth, and anything that contradicts it is false. What you still don't get is that ALL statements are affirmations. When you say "the truth is relative" your trying to affirm that as an absolute truth. You defeat yourself with your own logic.
Yes there is. God either exists or he doesn't. Cliffy woke up today. Either its true or it isn't.
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. On the contrary, they can and do understand right from wrong because the same moral law is written on their heart just as it is on every other heart. But while they may believe in a objective right and wrong, they have no way to justify such a belief(unless they admit a Moral Law Giver).
Please tell me what I should be doing with my life. I'm all ears.
Last edited:
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?
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?
The you go with absolutes, Black & White. You speak your truth as if it is the truth for everybody. I speak my truth as my truth. Everybody is entitled to their own truth. It is called tolerance. Intolerance is bigotry. My logic works for me, but not for someone who believes in absolutes.
There is a creative force. I call it the All That Is, the Universe. You refer to a specific god that is outside the universe, separate from it, so I have to say that I do not believe in your god. It does not exist in my reality.
Like I said on the other thread, the journey is yours. No one can tell you how to live your life. If you want to spend your life believing and acting as you do and believe it will get you where you want to go, why would that bother me. All I have ever tried to say is let others find their own way.
Trust in the words "Seek and ye shall find." The truth is available to everyone, in a manner they can relate to, in the time they are ready to hear it. Just because it doesn't sound like what you believe does not make it wrong, just for you. If you really trusted that what you believe is true, you would not have to convince others that you are right. If I were you I would question why you need to try to convince others.
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.
All your doing is trying to link tolerance with truth. Unfortunately, our postmodern culture has done a number on truth. People like you teach that truth and morality are relative, and to the intellectual elite dominating our universities and the mainstream media, these ideas are considered enlightened and progressive, even though we all intuitively understand that absolute truth exists, and more importantly, we all conduct our lives with that recognition.
Relativists like you Cliffy insist that tolerance is the highest virtue. But you don't tell us exactly what you mean by "tolerance." 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. 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, and the other relativists don't have to confront these questions because you reject the idea of absolute truth and the Law of Noncontradictions. You can just go on your merry way moralizing to everyone about tolerance and never having to explain the intrinsic contradictions in your views.
And I can further expose you as a fraud when we can consider that you don't practice what you preach - at least towards those annoyingly stubborn Christians. 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.
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. The "enlightened" elite at universities often disqualify Christian viewpoints because "We cannot tolerate the intolerable!". You see, it's fairly easy for types like you to extricate themselves from their indefensible positions.
You simply move the goalposts. And that's called defining truth through power!