An object lesson

I suppose that if "agree" or "disagree" are my only options, I will go with agree.( I am just starting to read this thread, and am way back on yellow/red ) [This message has been edited by Phatboy, 01-03-2004]

Sweet Home Alabama is a better song, IMO.

In general, steak is better prepared and thus tastier than most fast food chicken.(I am all the way up to post 28) I am still a bit dense as to seeing where the post is heading, except to say that it appears that absolute vs relative is being applied here. As in the statement that "Creation is better than evolution." What nonsense! Both concepts are valid, yet I agree with the premise that science makes more sense than so called creation science and I am a Believer! How I opt out of this one is by using my handy scripture....note:
1 Cor 1:18-21 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." 20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?===BTW you all are probably exclaiming "why is he bringing up a scripture from that dang book of fables to answer a yellow/red question or a California/Alabama preference? In response, I say...I dunno. I just thought of it. Hold up...I am still making my way through this post...I am still up on 28.

I am a pro choice theist. It is up to the individual to wrestle with their own morality. I would rather disagree with Gods book or Gods people..if either can be defined...than be a lemming.
=============================================================
"As I expected, many of you anticipated my point in this thread quite easily. My intent with this exercise was to demonstrate that the truth of moral statements is subjective in the same way that the truth of other aesthetic statements is. It was primarily intended as an example to those that insist that moral statements have objective and absolute truth values. What we have have seen is that the pretty-ness of yellow or red does not have a single absolute value, nor does the tastiness of chicken or steak, nor does the sonic enjoyability of a song, nor does the rightness or wrongness of abortion."
================================================================
Good thread! A stimulating discussion! Are peoples preferences determined by absolute values? As an example, if I were a Christian who was attracted to guys rather than girls and I modified my lifestyle according to a common Christian biblical argument that states that same sex preference is akin to idolatry, am I limiting my right to enjoy life on relative terms? Another example: If I were an Orthodox Jew who was told not to eat non kosher food, would I be compromising my preferences if I were a secret fast food indulger?
(unlikely scenario, I must admit! )[This message has been edited by Phatboy, 01-03-2004]

Shadowdragon says that: There can be no absolutes when you deal with human beings. We have differing viewpoints based on personal experience, societal customs, outside influence, etc... Ad nauseum. The human being can not be simplified to fit any mold due to our inestimable reactions because of our own individuality.
To further impose that we have only one absolute truth in the shadow of all the religious beliefs of the world is a folly I would not attempt. There are many and all have their own validity when examined as that they are based on Faith and Belief.
------------------------------------------------------------
I say: Gravity is an absolute. A man may go on a roof and try to fly because it is his opinion that he can. He will hit the ground every time. It may be true that all religions have a different conception of who or what God is, but I would argue that God exists outside of human definition. To prove this is another matter, however.How can I prove something that exists outside of my frame of reference? I will agree that it is within a persons right to define reality as they see it. All of us can define reality differntly. If 5 guys out of a hundred see pink polka dotted bunnies, we could assume that they have a unique sense of reality. If over a billion people worldwide claim that Jesus is Gods Son and that He lives, we may still claim that they see it their own way. 1 out of 6 is better than 1 out of 20, however. And it may be true that most Christians would waver if faced with refuting arguments. How strong is my Faith? So strong that, even if the entire Bible were proven to be false, I still would believe in Jesus. I can say that He is an absolute, but I cannot make anyone believe this as a truth.
Crashfrog astutely points out that:" there may very well be ( God,) but since he rather refuses to actually tell us what he thinks, then we can't count on moral absolutes)
So the Bible is too weird to be a valid source,eh? For example...why does God allow genocide in OT? Because the people who are getting wiped out have already chosen their destiny and are unable/unwilling to change. Thus, the mutation must be eliminated!
This is not mean. It is actually preserving the "chosen". So who chooses whom? Tell me. Do we choose our Diety, or does He choose us?
If our Diety is relative to our Belief, we choose Him. Or Not.
But if our Diety is Absolute, He chooses us. Or Not. He has given us the ability to make Him dissappear in our own minds! Or Not. [This message has been edited by Phatboy, 01-06-2004]