"TOLERANCE" is the virtue of a man without convict

[joecoolfrog]

there is no difference Jay between yourself and the fanatics who attacked the twin towers !

ROFL! It's people like you that concern me.

And why would that be ?
Its a rather glib reply that means nothing except you have no adequate response to my statement.

You are forever making the point that God is supreme and consequently if something is Gods will then it is Absolute,no argument allowed.
The Islamic fanatics who attacked the twin towers did so because they believed it was Gods will and that the USA was a tool of Satan.
Now I would argue that they had commited an evil act,were deluded and had been manipulated by others in the name of God.They would no
doubt reply that I was an Infidel (non believer ) and what happened was
Inshallah (By the grace of god ) and no man can argue with his commands.
So there could be no discussion,no logic applied,they believe in acting solely as God commands and it will lead to an afterlife in Paradise.
So there we are,now tell me that your standard responses are not identical in content, convince me that you and they are not cut from the same cloth !

[Iliad]

I always find it funny when people say "there are no absolutes."

Because that's an absolute right there.

There are no absolute rights or wrongs. If you say there is you are so deluded

[Neutrino]

I always find it funny when people say "there are no absolutes."

Because that's an absolute right there.

"With the exception of this statement, there are no absolutes."

[MeDeFe]

In terms of absolute right and wrong I was moving towards God's spiritual laws. Instead, we humans think in terms of laws needing to change to meet the times, as you stated. Really, if there were no absolutes, there would be no reality on which to base things. You could just say everything is relative. People have no problem saying there are absolutes when it comes to mathematics or scientific laws, but as soon as you mention morality (right & wrong) then people through up the flag. It's uncomfortable for mankind to admit there's going to be a day of reckoning for the breaking of God's spiritual laws. Instead, he tries (in vain) to proclaim that he knows better and that he can decide what's right and wrong for himself.

Define "reality", do you mean the physical existence of matter and all kinds of force fields?

I can argue that even mathematics are not absolute ("not controlled by anything or anyone else"), the numbers only make sense in relation to each other. Which brings us to relativity again. You will never be able to prove that 1+1 equals 2, it just IS that way because it's defined like that.

Anyway, an initial, very rough idea of what "tolerance" means for me... you don't have to do it yourself, you don't have to like it or agree with it, but as long as it doesn't harm anyone you should let other people get on with it.

Ok, then why do you draw the line at not harming someone else?

Several reasons I guess, my parents told me not to hit other kids, throw in that part about doing to others what you would like them to do to you a few times as a fatherly quote, fast forward a few years of social norms, add the categorical imperative at university and you've got the gist of it.

[mr. incrediball]

To the issue of absolute right and wrong...


There is either absolute right and wrong. (as defined by God)

or


NOTHING is right and wrong. If you take out the moral standard.... you don't have a standard to fall back on.
What says stealing old ladies purses is wrong? (Some of the guys I work with do not see ANYTHING wrong with this)...if it serves a purpose....providing for them!

So you either have to say, "Nothing is right or wrong" or establish who or what MAKES things right or wrong.


In short, if God exists, so does absolute right and wrong.

wait, Jay, so you're saying that if absolute proof that god didn't exist was discovered tomorrow, you would turn into a murderous, raving lunatic?

[luns101]

I can argue that even mathematics are not absolute ("not controlled by anything or anyone else"), the numbers only make sense in relation to each other. Which brings us to relativity again. You will never be able to prove that 1+1 equals 2, it just IS that way because it's defined like that.

So do you see how far you have had to stretch the argument in order to avoid absolute right and wrong. You are now saying that 1 + 1 doesn't equal 2! It just IS that way. Perhaps we are at more of an impasse than I thought.

MeDeFe, you are free to believe (or not believe) in absolute right and wrong. But in order to do so, one would have to redefine language into terms which would suit themselves. One would also have to deny the reality of absolutes within other fields (science, mathematics, etc.). When you're not willing to allow the absolutes of God's spiritual laws into your worldview, then you have created a quite fantasical alternative reality in order to justify the unbelief.

[vtmarik]

There is no absolute moral compass, simply due to the fact that there are 6 billion people on this planet. This means 6 billion different sets of life experiences. 6 billion different definitions of good and evil.

To paraphrase DeGaulle, it is impossible to unify one moral system out of a world that has 6 billion different mindsets.

[mr. incrediball]

There is no absolute moral compass, simply due to the fact that there are 300 billion people on this planet. This means 300 billion different sets of life experiences. 300 billion different definitions of good and evil.

To paraphrase DeGaulle, it is impossible to unify one moral system out of a world that has 300 billion different mindsets.

there are only 6 billion humans on this planet.

[spurgistan]

Where are the other 294 billion people? Is the world unknowingly under the throes of a pandemic schizophrenia? Or are the unknown simply your secret cyborg army? If so, dammit, vtmarik, not again.

[vtmarik]

Where are the other 294 billion people? Is the world unknowingly under the throes of a pandemic schizophrenia? Or are the unknown simply your secret cyborg army? If so, dammit, vtmarik, not again.

Unintentional hyperbole, i'll fix it.

[The1exile]

They have a point, I think it more likely vtmarik was referring to the number of humans who have supposedly lived since creation. or he could be confused with the 300 million americans.

edit: population figures

[vtmarik]

They have a point, I think it more likely vtmarik was referring to the number of humans who have supposedly lived since creation. or he could be confused with the 300 million americans.

Yes.

[spurgistan]

I assumed he just conflated rough American (300 million) and world (6 billion) population estimates. Excusable, I just figured it merited a bad joke.

[jay_a2j]

To the issue of absolute right and wrong...


There is either absolute right and wrong. (as defined by God)

or


NOTHING is right and wrong. If you take out the moral standard.... you don't have a standard to fall back on.
What says stealing old ladies purses is wrong? (Some of the guys I work with do not see ANYTHING wrong with this)...if it serves a purpose....providing for them!

So you either have to say, "Nothing is right or wrong" or establish who or what MAKES things right or wrong.


In short, if God exists, so does absolute right and wrong.

wait, Jay, so you're saying that if absolute proof that god didn't exist was discovered tomorrow, you would turn into a murderous, raving lunatic?

No, but I'd probably be more inclined to do things I don't do now. Are you kidding me? No consequences?! Not caring about how I treat others? I wouldn't become a murderer, but I'd definitely let myself fall to the desires of "self" more.

[mr. incrediball]

To the issue of absolute right and wrong...


There is either absolute right and wrong. (as defined by God)

or


NOTHING is right and wrong. If you take out the moral standard.... you don't have a standard to fall back on.
What says stealing old ladies purses is wrong? (Some of the guys I work with do not see ANYTHING wrong with this)...if it serves a purpose....providing for them!

So you either have to say, "Nothing is right or wrong" or establish who or what MAKES things right or wrong.


In short, if God exists, so does absolute right and wrong.

wait, Jay, so you're saying that if absolute proof that god didn't exist was discovered tomorrow, you would turn into a murderous, raving lunatic?

No, but I'd probably be more inclined to do things I don't do now. Are you kidding me? No consequences?! Not caring about how I treat others? I wouldn't become a murderer, but I'd definitely let myself fall to the desires of "self" more.

i firmly believe there are no consequences, yet i am more tight-assed than a lot of the "christians" at my school...

then again, that could just be my complete wet-blanketness

[jay_a2j]

"There is no one righteous, no not one." Salvation is not based on the amount of sin one commits. Any sin separates us from God.

[mr. incrediball]

"There is no one righteous, no not one." Salvation is not based on the amount of sin one commits. Any sin separates us from God.

i really don't like god

[unriggable]

"There is no one righteous, no not one." Salvation is not based on the amount of sin one commits. Any sin separates us from God.

No it separates you from your god. Besides you pretty much decide what is sin: you reject the seven sins but homosexuality, for some reason, is highly dangerous.

[vtmarik]

No, but I'd probably be more inclined to do things I don't do now. Are you kidding me? No consequences?! Not caring about how I treat others? I wouldn't become a murderer, but I'd definitely let myself fall to the desires of "self" more.

It's sad that you wouldn't be able to remain the person that you are right now without the influence of another entity in your life.

Perhaps your reliance on a deity has weakened you.


If God was disproven in an instant to my eyes I would continue to live my life as I have in the past.

EDIT: I don't believe that God created Man in order to use Him as a crutch rather than as an inspiration.

[joecoolfrog]

Jay
Im still waiting for a response to my last post !

[jay_a2j]

there is no difference Jay between yourself and the fanatics who attacked the twin towers !

ROFL! It's people like you that concern me.

And why would that be ?
Its a rather glib reply that means nothing except you have no adequate response to my statement.

You are forever making the point that God is supreme and consequently if something is Gods will then it is Absolute,no argument allowed.
The Islamic fanatics who attacked the twin towers did so because they believed it was Gods will and that the USA was a tool of Satan.
Now I would argue that they had commited an evil act,were deluded and had been manipulated by others in the name of God.They would no
doubt reply that I was an Infidel (non believer ) and what happened was
Inshallah (By the grace of god ) and no man can argue with his commands.
So there could be no discussion,no logic applied,they believe in acting solely as God commands and it will lead to an afterlife in Paradise.
So there we are,now tell me that your standard responses are not identical in content, convince me that you and they are not cut from the same cloth !

Wow, must have missed this post.


Mathew 7:21-23


21. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23. And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


Just because someone says they are doing God's will does not always make it true. Obviously, the Christian God would not command anyone to fly planes into buildings...breaking the "Thou shall not kill" commandment, the "love thy neighbor" commandment and "if you stand firm to the end, you will be saved" (scripture condemning suicide as sin)


Where in the Koran does it command its followers to "kill infidels"? And if it is in the Koran then both faiths cannot be correct......meaning at least one of them is false.


I don't believe I can earn eternal life, it is a gift. A gift given to me, and anyone else, that repents of their sin and follows Christ. We don't get this gift by doing good deeds.

[MeDeFe]

I can argue that even mathematics are not absolute ("not controlled by anything or anyone else"), the numbers only make sense in relation to each other. Which brings us to relativity again. You will never be able to prove that 1+1 equals 2, it just IS that way because it's defined like that.

So do you see how far you have had to stretch the argument in order to avoid absolute right and wrong. You are now saying that 1 + 1 doesn't equal 2! It just IS that way. Perhaps we are at more of an impasse than I thought.

I'm not saying that at all, I'm saying you will never be able to prove it. Mathematics is a huge system which only makes sense when the pieces are seen in relation to each other. Pay some attention and don't misread half of all I say.
Furthermore, what do mathematics have to do with moral 'right' and 'wrong'? That's another thing that's puzzling me.

MeDeFe, you are free to believe (or not believe) in absolute right and wrong. But in order to do so, one would have to redefine language into terms which would suit themselves. One would also have to deny the reality of absolutes within other fields (science, mathematics, etc.). When you're not willing to allow the absolutes of God's spiritual laws into your worldview, then you have created a quite fantasical alternative reality in order to justify the unbelief.

Once again, I have not redefined anything, what you have studiously avoided doing though is offer a definition for your use of the word 'absolute' (noun). In fact you have implied that I as a non-native speaker somehow don't have the right to clearly define what I want to say and that you as a native speaker somehow don't need to define the terms you use, no matter how ambiguous they might be because other native speakers would know what you mean in an everyday conversation, if I recall one of your earlier posts correctly.
Well, I don't know about you, but I would not include philosophy and lexicology in the term "everyday conversation".
And then we have these "spiritual laws" you go on about. You somehow seem to take for granted that everyone knows what you mean by this term, well, I don't. Please elaborate.


EDIT: And how come you didn't reply to the rest of my last post? You know, about tolerance and why I would draw the line where I said.

[luns101]

I'm not saying that at all, I'm saying you will never be able to prove it. Mathematics is a huge system which only makes sense when the pieces are seen in relation to each other. Pay some attention and don't misread half of all I say.
Furthermore, what do mathematics have to do with moral 'right' and 'wrong'? That's another thing that's puzzling me.

I'm paying attention, believe me. I just talked to a friend of mine who teaches mathematics at the local high school here, and she said that if she couldn't prove that 1 + 1 = 2 then she would be asked to resign her position.

The point I'm trying to make here is that there are absolutes within math and science. I do believe that these make up reality. I believe I actually exist. I believe you actually exist. I believe that we are actually having a discussion and that this is all really happening within the space/time continuum (sp?). How else could we validate our own reality if there were no absolutes. There are also absolute spiritual laws by the same reasoning.

Once again, I have not redefined anything, what you have studiously avoided doing though is offer a definition for your use of the word 'absolute' (noun).

I just simply disagree with you on this. There's no other way to put it. I've talked to some other people who teach grammar since we've begun our conversation just to make sure I'm not being stubborn. They told me that the word 'absolute' is used interchangeably and there's no real confusion when it is used in everyday conversation. I checked out some websites that address grammatical rules as well because I don't want you to think I'm avoiding your statement. They also verified the interchangeable relationship of 'absolute' with 'complete'.

In fact you have implied that I as a non-native speaker somehow don't have the right to clearly define what I want to say and that you as a native speaker somehow don't need to define the terms you use, no matter how ambiguous they might be because other native speakers would know what you mean in an everyday conversation, if I recall one of your earlier posts correctly.

I didn't know you were a non-native speaker. Your fluency is outstanding. The point I'm making is that when a person uses the word 'absolute' they are not demanded by the other person to dissect & define it. I asked one teacher in particular about this from the local community college. He told me that you are correct in your assertion of its use as a noun, but that has no real bearing on changing the understood meaning as an adjective or adverb.

And then we have these "spiritual laws" you go on about. You somehow seem to take for granted that everyone knows what you mean by this term, well, I don't. Please elaborate.

I believe that there is a God and that He has put these absolute morals into our consciences. I believe mankind tries to explain away doing moral wrong by redefining terms. (i.e - it's not "adultery"....it's an "affair"). Explaining it away doesn't take away the fact that, deep down, we know it's wrong. We just don't like the idea of being accountable for it.

EDIT: And how come you didn't reply to the rest of my last post? You know, about tolerance and why I would draw the line where I said.

Because we couldn't agree on how to define 'absolute'. We also couldn't agree on the truthfulness that there are absolutes within the fields of mathematics or science. I thought it would be pointless to try and make the leap from those fields to spiritual laws if we couldn't even agree on those previous definitions. I also didn't want you to think I was a jerk by hounding you with endless questions.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Alright, I made a sarcastic remark a bit earlier, but I'll actually make a real post now, this is a topic that's always interested me

The question of "absolute truth" boils down to the very question on which we have disagreed for so long: whether or not there is a God. Why does it come to that? Well, consider-

We all know of the distinction between "universal truth" and "individual truth". Individual truth is what is perceived as true by an individual. There are as many individual truths as there are individuals that have ever lived, because everyone has perceived the world in a different way because of differences in the senses and what said senses have actually sensed.

Absolute truth is a little more sketchy, because one can easily argue that it does not exist. If perception will be different for every single human being, and presuming that there can be an infinite amount of human beings, each with their own perception of "truth", then there are an infinite amount of different truths, and no single one. That is, of course, if you are an atheist.

If there is a God, then absolute truth certainly exists. Why? Because there is an omnipotent, omniscient being which knows everything the way it truly is. Therefore, absolute truth is the perception of this omnipotent omniscient being.

Which once again leads us back to a basic question- does God exist? And that's another thread.

[vtmarik]

Assuming that God does indeed exist (which I believe that He/She/It does), that doesn't change the fact that everyone has a different connotation given to the words "good" and "evil."

Sure, they have a template to work off of (God and the Bible) but they will still have personal variations on the minutae, therefore the morals will not be universal. They'll be damn close, but not exact and therefore not absolute.

EDIT: While God's compass is absolute, no one knows what that compass is because no one has direct access to it, merely the fallible interpretations by Man of holy scripture.