"TOLERANCE" is the virtue of a man without convict

[radiojake]

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.

You have just outed yourself as a self serving, God fearing pathetic excuse for a human being! If it was not for God's wraith and the fear of Hell you would be less inclined to do the good things you do now? This is exactly what I always assumed alot of Christians think (not all). So where do you get off saying you have moral superiority over us because your faith tells you what is right and wrong?? You just said you only follow these guidelines because you're scared of what will happen to you if you don't, not out of your own will.

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)

I knew the Bible quotes would come out soon. Stop them, they are irrelevant to this world.

The Christian God would not command anyone to fly planes into buildings?? But it certainly seems he commands the 'Commander and Chief' to fly planes to the middle east and drop bombs onto buildings, breaking the 'Thou shall not kill' and the 'love thy neighbour' commandments.


I think you should bite the bullet here Jay, the original thread about tolerance and no conviction is a load of bull. Your 'conviction' is just the re-emphasis of Christian dogma. It is none of your own thoughts. You have no room for tolerance because if something doesn't fit into the Bible you dismiss it.

It's ironic, you probably have LESS conviction than a lot of the people here. At least myself (for example) has the conviction to follow my own set of ethical standards, do good onto others and to be accepting and non judgemental of other people's life choices, (and yes, even though we're having a debate about it now, and I don't really like it, people's right to follow a faith) - and not because I'm scared of 'going to hell' (Hell doesn't exist, you see)

You, on the other-hand, are just another of the churches mouthpieces. Why don't you tell us your own convictions, Jay? Not the church.

[Iliad]

[quote="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.[/quote]
Jay your points are flawed. Just because there is no absolute right or wrong does not mean there is no right or wrong. Only an idiot would believe that. Everything is a shade of grey. Some things are more evil then others. There is no absolute evil or good.

[OnlyAmbrose]

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.

Firstly, I always thought you were an atheist vt?

Secondly, in answer to your thread:

If it is presumed that a higher being exists, and it is also presumed that man knows of such a higher being, then clearly, that God put the ability to know of him/her/it into man in some manner. This indicates that said being wishes to be known, or else why would he/she/it make it possible for us to know of him/her/it?

That being said, if such a being (this "absolute" we are referring to) wishes to be known, then it follows that it would maintain our knowledge of it in some pure form. Hence Christian belief in sacred scripture.

[joecoolfrog]

Jay you really are a carricature of a free thinking person

To sum up your views ;

You pronounce mightily that you must follow a certain path because you have no choice,it is Gods will.

But anything that is done or said by others, that contradicts your view , is irrelevent because it is not Gods will.

So what you are saying in reality is that you have the capacity to understand Gods will but other men of religion,oddly enough those that you disagree with,do not have this extraordinary insight.

So what makes you so special,are you related to God,should we hail you as the new Messiah and start a new religion

Islamic terrorists make a mockery of their faith ,fundamentalists like yourself do the same !

[vtmarik]

Firstly, I always thought you were an atheist vt?

I get that a lot.

Secondly, in answer to your thread:

If it is presumed that a higher being exists, and it is also presumed that man knows of such a higher being, then clearly, that God put the ability to know of him/her/it into man in some manner. This indicates that said being wishes to be known, or else why would he/she/it make it possible for us to know of him/her/it?

That being said, if such a being (this "absolute" we are referring to) wishes to be known, then it follows that it would maintain our knowledge of it in some pure form. Hence Christian belief in sacred scripture.

True, however sacred scripture does not give us a wholly unmistakable picture of the One Moral Compass (so to speak). It is left to Man to interpret any hidden meanings that may be in the text, and Man is fallible. Want proof? How many different denominations are there of Christianity? You got Catholics, Greek Orthodox, and Protestant, and beyond those you've got tons and tons of different paths within each denomination.

Sure, this is due to the failings of Man, but these are the same failings that prevent our moral compasses from every truly being the mirror of God's. So there may be an Absolute standard for good and evil, but Man will inevitably screw it up somehow.

So maybe my argument isn't that there isn't a universal sense of good and evil due to the failings of limited beings like us, not that there isn't a higher standard that we should aspire to.

[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.

Jay your points are flawed. Just because there is no absolute right or wrong does not mean there is no right or wrong. Only an idiot would believe that. Everything is a shade of grey. Some things are more evil then others. There is no absolute evil or good.

If there is no absolute wrong then there is no such thing as "wrong". Its the [b]absolute that makes it wrong.


I can not say incest is wrong if, in some cultures, it is accepted as "the norm". So for a person to be able to say anything is wrong, there must be an absolute reason why it is wrong. Far too many people are trying to live in the "shades of gray" when God is constantly encouraging us to "come into the light".

[Iliad]

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.

Jay your points are flawed. Just because there is no absolute right or wrong does not mean there is no right or wrong. Only an idiot would believe that. Everything is a shade of grey. Some things are more evil then others. There is no absolute evil or good.

If there is no absolute wrong then there is no such thing as "wrong". Its the [b]absolute that makes it wrong.


I can not say incest is wrong if, in some cultures, it is accepted as "the norm". So for a person to be able to say anything is wrong, there must be an absolute reason why it is wrong. Far too many people are trying to live in the "shades of gray" when God is constantly encouraging us to "come into the light".

Oh god.

Look jay.There is no absolutes. Take incest for example. That's not absolute. For example if a guy had sex with a chick but then found out that she was his sister is that absolutely wrong?

If you think there is only black and white you are deluded.

[joecoolfrog]

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.

Jay your points are flawed. Just because there is no absolute right or wrong does not mean there is no right or wrong. Only an idiot would believe that. Everything is a shade of grey. Some things are more evil then others. There is no absolute evil or good.

If there is no absolute wrong then there is no such thing as "wrong". Its the [b]absolute that makes it wrong.


I can not say incest is wrong if, in some cultures, it is accepted as "the norm". So for a person to be able to say anything is wrong, there must be an absolute reason why it is wrong. Far too many people are trying to live in the "shades of gray" when God is constantly encouraging us to "come into the light".

Oh god.

Look jay.There is no absolutes. Take incest for example. That's not absolute. For example if a guy had sex with a chick but then found out that she was his sister is that absolutely wrong?

If you think there is only black and white you are deluded.

I think a perfect example of this is religion. The huge majority of believers are good,moral,tolerant people who go to church or the mosque,say their prayers and are in general a credit to society. Then there are the fundamentalists who allow religion to utterly dictate their lives and are scathing of disbelievers,these are the people who are intolerant of other views and see everything in terms of black and white or heaven and hell. The fundamentalist will excuse the most evil acts as the will of god and tries to live modern life based on the strict interpretation,or misinterpretation of thousand year old documents that were designed to control the uneducated masses of long ago.
Consequently religion is both a good and bad thing,a force that is capable of condeming yet also condoning appalling misjustice and evil,how on earth is that an absolute ?

[satanspaladin]

all men quote god when thay wish to do evil and close there eyes to sin
of predigest and intolerances

[joecoolfrog]

Jay
You still haven't explained why people like me concern you !
So glad that you brought up the subject of incest though as I have always
found the Adam and Eve story to rather fall down on that very point - I assume you are a creationist rather than a supporter of evolution yes ?
I say this because only a rank hypocrite would quote the bible when it suited him and ignore any inconvenient passages

[jay_a2j]

Jay
You still haven't explained why people like me concern you !
So glad that you brought up the subject of incest though as I have always
found the Adam and Eve story to rather fall down on that very point - I assume you are a creationist rather than a supporter of evolution yes ?
I say this because only a rank hypocrite would quote the bible when it suited him and ignore any inconvenient passages

Isn't it obvious?



















Putting both Christians and Islamic radicals in the same bag.

[Iliad]

Jay
You still haven't explained why people like me concern you !
So glad that you brought up the subject of incest though as I have always
found the Adam and Eve story to rather fall down on that very point - I assume you are a creationist rather than a supporter of evolution yes ?
I say this because only a rank hypocrite would quote the bible when it suited him and ignore any inconvenient passages

Isn't it obvious?



















Putting both Christians and Islamic radicals in the same bag.

So? Are you saying there are no Christian radicals?

[joecoolfrog]

Jay
You are now being dishonest which does you little credit. I made it quite clear that I was putting Fundamentalists of all religions in the same bag, I also said the vast majority of Christians were good people who were a credit to society. Now would you care to appologise and have another stab at explaining why I am of concern to you ?

[jay_a2j]

Jay
You still haven't explained why people like me concern you !
So glad that you brought up the subject of incest though as I have always
found the Adam and Eve story to rather fall down on that very point - I assume you are a creationist rather than a supporter of evolution yes ?
I say this because only a rank hypocrite would quote the bible when it suited him and ignore any inconvenient passages

Isn't it obvious?



















Putting both Christians and Islamic radicals in the same bag.

So? Are you saying there are no Christian radicals?

And Muslim radicals, Hindu radicals, atheist radicals, pro-choice radicals, pro-life radicals, Pokeman radicals.......(hey maybe you should start a thread of what exactly makes a person a "radical"?)

[Neutrino]

So? Are you saying there are no Christian radicals?

And Muslim radicals, Hindu radicals, atheist radicals, pro-choice radicals, pro-life radicals, Pokeman radicals.......(hey maybe you should start a thread of what exactly makes a person a "radical"?)

Did I interpret this correctly? Are you denying the existance of any kind of radical?
If so, it is clear my estimate of the level of your sanity was way off.
I should have probably been thinking in imaginary numbers.

[joecoolfrog]

Jay
Waiting on that appology
Or are we to accept that you consider untruthes to be absolutely fine when they suit you !

[MeDeFe]

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/timecontinuum (sp?). How else could we validate our own reality if there were no absolutes. There are also absolute spiritual laws by the same reasoning.

Then I would very much like to see that proof.

And what if there is a physical world? It's just another huge network, consisting of matter and force fields in a vast number of combinations that can all influence each other.

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'.

You're still talking about everyday language, while this is at heart a philosophical-theological topic bordering on the metaphysical.

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.

You're talking about everyday conversations again, I maintain that this is not one of those.

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.

And why is adultery wrong? Because at one point you promised not to do it, and the most wide-held view is that promises need to be kept. The alternative could easily be the breakdown of all society, which is not something that most people would think desireable. If our norms were different and sexual intercourse was not to be limited to one partner at a time in traditional marriage, say marriage was only there for economical benefits, noone would care if people sleep with whoever they like, whether they're married to someone or not.

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.

That depends on how you phrase the questions, "do you agree with X, yes/no" is usually not a good way to go, though.

[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.

You have just outed yourself as a self serving, God fearing pathetic excuse for a human being! If it was not for God's wraith and the fear of Hell you would be less inclined to do the good things you do now? This is exactly what I always assumed alot of Christians think (not all). So where do you get off saying you have moral superiority over us because your faith tells you what is right and wrong?? You just said you only follow these guidelines because you're scared of what will happen to you if you don't, not out of your own will.

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)

I knew the Bible quotes would come out soon. Stop them, they are irrelevant to this world.

The Christian God would not command anyone to fly planes into buildings?? But it certainly seems he commands the 'Commander and Chief' to fly planes to the middle east and drop bombs onto buildings, breaking the 'Thou shall not kill' and the 'love thy neighbour' commandments.


I think you should bite the bullet here Jay, the original thread about tolerance and no conviction is a load of bull. Your 'conviction' is just the re-emphasis of Christian dogma. It is none of your own thoughts. You have no room for tolerance because if something doesn't fit into the Bible you dismiss it.

It's ironic, you probably have LESS conviction than a lot of the people here. At least myself (for example) has the conviction to follow my own set of ethical standards, do good onto others and to be accepting and non judgemental of other people's life choices, (and yes, even though we're having a debate about it now, and I don't really like it, people's right to follow a faith) - and not because I'm scared of 'going to hell' (Hell doesn't exist, you see)

You, on the other-hand, are just another of the churches mouthpieces. Why don't you tell us your own convictions, Jay? Not the church.

The BOLD is what I said.

The RED is a contradiction of the BOLD.

The BLUE is you putting words in my mouth.

The UNDERLINED is more of you putting words in my mouth, radical unsubstantiated opinion, you talk as if you know me and don't forget the BOLD part in here where you are judging "most Christians".



Apology not forthcoming...

[radiojake]

You're not even trying anymore, Jay.

[joecoolfrog]

You're not even trying anymore, Jay.

Shown to be both a hypocrite and a liar which hardly helped his cause,think I would have given up as well


Dont mean a jot to us really what he says but you got to feel sorry for his kids

[OnlyAmbrose]

Firstly, I always thought you were an atheist vt?

I get that a lot.

Secondly, in answer to your thread:

If it is presumed that a higher being exists, and it is also presumed that man knows of such a higher being, then clearly, that God put the ability to know of him/her/it into man in some manner. This indicates that said being wishes to be known, or else why would he/she/it make it possible for us to know of him/her/it?

That being said, if such a being (this "absolute" we are referring to) wishes to be known, then it follows that it would maintain our knowledge of it in some pure form. Hence Christian belief in sacred scripture.

True, however sacred scripture does not give us a wholly unmistakable picture of the One Moral Compass (so to speak). It is left to Man to interpret any hidden meanings that may be in the text, and Man is fallible. Want proof? How many different denominations are there of Christianity? You got Catholics, Greek Orthodox, and Protestant, and beyond those you've got tons and tons of different paths within each denomination.

Sure, this is due to the failings of Man, but these are the same failings that prevent our moral compasses from every truly being the mirror of God's. So there may be an Absolute standard for good and evil, but Man will inevitably screw it up somehow.

This is a point I always use to argue the case of the Catholic Church to Protestants, and we are in essence in agreement. Where we differ minutely, however, is that I believe the Catholic Church is the vessel through which God conveys His moral compass. Scripture alone, as I have said many times, is NOT enough, a fact that the amount of Christian denominations in existence bears witness to.

[MeDeFe]

And why the catholic church and not one of the others?

[OnlyAmbrose]

I could go into scripture, history, etc., but it would only derail the thread and beat a dead horse. This is a commonly brought up topic in the JF private forum.

[jay_a2j]

You're not even trying anymore, Jay.

Shown to be both a hypocrite and a liar which hardly helped his cause,think I would have given up as well


Dont mean a jot to us really what he says but you got to feel sorry for his kids

Wow, sending up the white flag so soon? You might have a better chance at debate if next time you leave out the name calling and stick to the substance of the topic at hand.


carry on....

[luns101]

Then I would very much like to see that proof.

If your own existence doesn't prove it to you then I doubt anything I could say to you would satisfy your demand.

And what if there is a physical world? It's just another huge network, consisting of matter and force fields in a vast number of combinations that can all influence each other.

So if I'm understanding this correctly, you are questioning the existence of a physical world? If this is so then how do you even verify that we are having this discussion?

You're still talking about everyday language, while this is at heart a philosophical-theological topic bordering on the metaphysical.

You're talking about everyday conversations again, I maintain that this is not one of those.

Of course I am. I speak English this way without people trying to dissect the words I'm using. I allow other people to speak this way as well without demanding that they define them further. It's how conversation takes place. Grammar is important, but not as terms are interchangeably understood.

Earlier you said:

for everyday language and when used as an adverb I'll grant that you're right, however, 'absolute' (whether as an adjective or a noun) and 'complete' are not synonymous

So I went back again to see if I had really made that much of a leap.

Thesaurus.com - as an adjective complete is a synonym of absolute.

MSN Encarta - as an adjective complete is a synonym of absolute.

Wordsmyth.com - as an adjective complete is listed as a synonym of absolute.

Merriam-Webster Online - as an adjective in the 2nd use as in "having no exceptions or restrictions", complete is used as a synonym of absolute.

Free Dictionary.com - as an adjective complete is listed as the first definition of absolute.

WordNet Online - when used as an adjective complete is used as a synonymous definition of absolute.

So I'm not just playing free and fancy with the word. I've now taken the time to check and see if I used it correctly and I have. I've taken the time to talk to people who are more knowledgeable than myself in this field and they have confirmed to me that it has been used correctly.

Syzygy's original statement was:

There is no such thing as absolute right or wrong.

It was used as an adjective. What kind of right and wrong?....absolute right and wrong. In order for his statement to be correct it relies on itself to be absolutely/completely correct. That is a fallacy.

If the statement is correct and there is no absolute right or wrong, then on what basis would you or anyone else have the right to correct my use of the word 'absolute'? I would be just as correct as anyone else in using it however I wished.

If there is no right and wrong, then on what moral basis could you and I (and everyone else here on CC) condemn racism, sexism, and mass murder?

And why is adultery wrong?

Because God said it is and revealed this through His written word, the Bible. Mankind tries to explain it away.

Because at one point you promised not to do it, and the most wide-held view is that promises need to be kept. The alternative could easily be the breakdown of all society, which is not something that most people would think desireable. If our norms were different and sexual intercourse was not to be limited to one partner at a time in traditional marriage, say marriage was only there for economical benefits, noone would care if people sleep with whoever they like, whether they're married to someone or not.

Yeah, I used to believe this almost word for word. It is very articulate and intelligently put forth. However, it is justifying that which God says is absolutely wrong. This is the point that I've been trying to ultimately arrive at. Now please don't get me wrong. I am not saying that you have to believe in God or absolutes, but rather that I do. I've chosen for myself to stop justifying my own wrong behavior. I can't worry about how other people will perceive me (bigot, homophobe, self-righteous). All I can do is put forth why I personally will not continue justifying it.

That depends on how you phrase the questions, "do you agree with X, yes/no" is usually not a good way to go, though.

Well, I'm telling you that I believe 'X' is 'X'. It cannot be both 'X' and 'not X' at the same time.