|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 121 responses total. |
kingjon
|
|
response 75 of 121:
| 
Feb 16 01:54 UTC 2006 |
A relativist believes either that there is no such thing as a universal (i.e.,
applying-to-everyone) truth or that there is no such thing as a universal
religious truth. Believing in absolute truth does not mean that one believes
that every truth is universal. And I don't know where you jumped from
"religious belief" to actions.
I am against slavery *as practiced in the "modern" era*, human-designed
genocide, human [burnt-offering] sacrifice [because God doesn't want it], and a
whole host of other practices, some of which I think are henious enough for
governments to punish harshly, and some of which are on the order of suicide by
some gradual means -- that is, it's their choice, and if I can't talk them out
of it, they may receive a worse punishment for it than any human government
could devise.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 76 of 121:
|
Feb 16 05:36 UTC 2006 |
>I am against slavery *as practiced in the "modern" era*
...but a restoration of medieval or ancient slavery practices is
OK with you? I'm not sure I follow.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 77 of 121:
|
Feb 16 06:33 UTC 2006 |
Re #70: Jon says "I would say that "God exists" is an absolute truth", but
an "absolute truth" would have to be acknowledged by all rational persons.
"God exists" is at best a hypothesis held by some people, such as Jon. No
matter how fervently he "believes" this, it remains soley a hypothesis
without foundation, based solely in what I think he would call "faith", a
personal feeling.
Jon, please answer my question, "Could you name some other "absolute
truths" that are not definitions that we make up, and how you determine
that they are "absolute truths"?, without citing your personal hypotheses.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 78 of 121:
|
Feb 16 20:33 UTC 2006 |
Re #76: I'm not sure I could condemn slavery as it was practiced in some parts
of the world in ancient times -- especially when some people chose to sell
themselves, and slaves were treated merely as slightly socially lower than
others, not as nonpesons. Slavery was merely considered the lowest rung on the
social ladder, but it was highly climbable. Like I said -- I'm not *sure* which
side I'm on.
Re #77: An absolute truth is *not* one that has been or will be acknowledged by
all rational persons! A truth could still be absolute if every rational person
denied it. I highly doubt that I could name any absolute truth that you would
believe to be truth at all, but your -- or my -- acceptance of them has nothing
to do with their truth value or with their universality.
|
tod
|
|
response 79 of 121:
|
Feb 16 21:30 UTC 2006 |
re #78
"slightly socially lower"?
Did you miss the part where humans were put in last will and testaments
alongside butterknives and quilt collections cuz they were ONLY property?
Slavery was not a lowest rung. It was a dehumanization. Your Jesus guy was
a decendent of such abuse. You're missing the whole point of Exodus, d00d.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 80 of 121:
|
Feb 16 21:35 UTC 2006 |
A recent "Frontline" episode details the sex slave trade in the Black Sea.
Apparently even today, many women voluntarily do what effectively amounts
to selling themselves into slavery (although many are also tricked to
it) because given the other economic options available they feel it's
their best choice. I don't think this makes it morally acceptable.
|
tod
|
|
response 81 of 121:
|
Feb 16 21:38 UTC 2006 |
It was the gross national product of the Phillipinnes for decades and more
than half the times it were the parents selling off their own teenage
daughters. You couldn't find a better example of a completely desperate
society.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 82 of 121:
|
Feb 16 23:45 UTC 2006 |
Re #78: that's a pretty feable claim. How can anything be "absolutely
true" without being demonstrable, verifiable, and logically defensible?
None of your religious beliefs meet those standards.
The way you describe them these "absolute truths" are figments of
someone's imagination. Who says they are "absolute truth" and why should
anyone believe them? It sounds like something snake oil salesmen tried to
flog.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 83 of 121:
|
Feb 17 01:47 UTC 2006 |
Define "feable".
Like I said, something can be true in all circumstances even if everyone
believed it to be false. Truth does not depend on human belief, verification,
demonstration, or logical support -- and all of those can be found in abundance
for falsehoods, too.
By the way, what does "feable" mean?
Absolute truths are not figments of *anyone's* imagination; they are truths
whether anyone believes them or not. Whether any particular statement is
absolutely true or not is open to debate, of course, but if a statement is
absolutely true it should be believed because it is true.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 84 of 121:
|
Feb 17 02:25 UTC 2006 |
Rane no doubt means "feeble" (weak).
|
rcurl
|
|
response 85 of 121:
|
Feb 17 08:03 UTC 2006 |
Right, feable = feeble misspelled.
Re #83: so, lets have an example of an "absolute truth" that is NOT just
a belief, and how you establish the absolutness of said "truth".
|
mcnally
|
|
response 86 of 121:
|
Feb 17 08:14 UTC 2006 |
I get the impression that "absolute truth" might mean "I am never, ever,
going to ask myself whether this is true. I just know it is, I'm not going
to listen to you try to make me think otherwise.."
|
kingjon
|
|
response 87 of 121:
|
Feb 17 12:06 UTC 2006 |
Re #85: I highly doubt that I could name anything that is an absolute truth
that you would admit to even being true -- but *that has nothing to do* with
its truth value or the absoluteness of that value.
Re #86: No. I only mentioned my belief in absolute truth to forestall the
objection of "that may be true for you, but how can you say it's true for
people who don't believe that?" The status of any particular proposition may be
debated.
|
remmers
|
|
response 88 of 121:
|
Feb 17 13:26 UTC 2006 |
Re #38: I rather doubt that klg claims to "follow Christ".
|
happyboy
|
|
response 89 of 121:
|
Feb 17 17:01 UTC 2006 |
is that right, klg?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 90 of 121:
|
Feb 17 19:10 UTC 2006 |
Jon says "I highly doubt that I could name anything that is an absolute
truth that you would admit to even being true -- but *that has nothing to
do* with its truth value or the absoluteness of that value."
I translate that to mean "Don't confuse me with facts."
If "absolute truth" is only in the mind of the believer, as Jon appears to
admit it is for him, then it is hardly externally absolute.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 91 of 121:
|
Feb 17 20:08 UTC 2006 |
Re #90:
Your translation is wrong. Whether any one particular statement is
absolutely true, sometimes true and sometimes false, or absolutely false
is a debatable topic. In fact, the existence of any absolute truth at all
is a possible subject for debate. However, my first framing statement for
my answer to "why do I believe Christianity to be true and all other
religions to be false" must be that I believe there to be truth (and more
specifically religious truth) outside of humanity rather than each human
being "making his or her own [religious] truth."
|
keesan
|
|
response 92 of 121:
|
Feb 17 22:32 UTC 2006 |
Do you think it strange that only a small fraction of the world's population
happens to have found the correct truth?
|
tod
|
|
response 93 of 121:
|
Feb 17 22:36 UTC 2006 |
re #92
You mean about Peak Oil and the end of industrial nation superpowers? Yes,
its very sad. Its like talking to a person in hospice that is making plans
like they're leaving the next day or something. "When I got out of here
{insert task or fantasy}.."
A good friend of mine sent me a response from Feinstein regarding his concerns
of the level 3 depletion in major countries and her response was dilluted with
typical biodiesel rhetoric. Folks don't look at all the items oil is used
to create beyond just gasoline.
|
bru
|
|
response 94 of 121:
|
Feb 18 00:04 UTC 2006 |
no more palstic? No more Melamine?
|
tod
|
|
response 95 of 121:
|
Feb 18 00:17 UTC 2006 |
Sure, keep going...pesticides, drugs, machine lubricants, etc
|
rcurl
|
|
response 96 of 121:
|
Feb 18 07:24 UTC 2006 |
When Jon says "However, my first framing statement for my answer to "why
do I believe Christianity to be true and all other religions to be false"
must be that I believe there to be truth (and more specifically religious
truth) outside of humanity rather than each human being "making his or her
own [religious] truth."
just shows that he lives in a tower of Babel. Every religonist can say the
same thing about their (and other) religions. There is absolutely (!) no
way to distinguish one from another.
I conclude just from that that all of them are fantasies.
|
crimson
|
|
response 97 of 121:
|
Feb 20 21:49 UTC 2006 |
Re #96: resp:agora,101,90 Do you conclude that Cross's constitutional
theory is also a fantasy?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 98 of 121:
|
Feb 21 06:25 UTC 2006 |
Please quote that so I don't have to look it up. However I'm guessing that
anyone's "constitutional theory" is not among religions, to which "all of
them" referred.
|
crimson
|
|
response 99 of 121:
|
Feb 21 14:01 UTC 2006 |
"A law is either constitutional or not. A court may decide
later, but that doesn't change the constitutionality or lack thereof. Think
about it."
You conclude from the fact that all religions say that there are some
statements that are either true or false, irrespective of whether anyone
believes them or not, that all religions are false. Cross, in that response,
made the analogous claim about laws in the United States.
|