Haggard Scandal

Says you. Its the great dichotomy. We have to follow God's Law, and yet, we are incapable of keeping it entirely which is our need for Jesus. It happens so that God always gets the glory no matter what we do. At the same time, how could a consensus come about concerning laws if there was not first a universal understanding of right and wrong? Truth becomes some obscure concept, rather than Truth®? What meaning does it serve if not in an absolute sense? One must first have an absolute concept to even come to a relative understanding about anything.

quote:

---

Aside from which, if we all march to our drummer, then none of us have the right to criticize anyone else's moral standard.

---

But if morals were truly relative, what compels to care about other people's version of morality? Why do we try to get people to conform to our standards? If it were really relative, we should care less about anything. Oh dear, this thread is starting to degenerate before our eyes. Somebody else has said something similar in another thread some time ago while we were arguing morals. He said that laws bear no reflection to morals. That's absolutely absurd. Human law is directly attributed to our concept of right and wrong. And yet, if morals are really relative, some people's relativity is more absolute than mine being that I had no say in the formation of laws. "Because he wants to".... Why does he want to be honest? What does honesty even mean without something to be True® to begin with!? Being honest means you tell the truth. There must have been some standard to begin with in order to understand if something is true, right? A profound question of epistemic proportion. Its like Pilate asked, "what is Truth?" Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : add italics

---

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2^nd Corinthians 10:4-5

Brilliantly written... I couldn't have articulated it so well.

---

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2^nd Corinthians 10:4-5

Absolutes exist. That's enough to capsize your entire argument. Rob is right. If there is no absolute standard of morality, then that is an absolute phenomenon which, in itself, destroys the whole argument of moral relativism.

---

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2^nd Corinthians 10:4-5

I'm not even sure what that means. I understand "absolute" as an adjective, but what does it refer to when used as a noun.I'll point out that the golden rule asserts a relative standard. Shall I assume that you are condemning Jesus?

---

Show me a moral absolutist, and I will show you a moral relativist who absolutely wants to impose his relative morals on everybody else

No, says moral relativism. Whether that concept is right or it is wrong, you don't get to choose what it says and tell people that are relativists what they think. All it takes for a consensus is for people to agree on something within a shared environment. There does not need to be universal understanding of anything except that a situation exists and that people are going to deal with it. Many laws, as one can see if one watches CNN are compromises. Same goes for moral codes. So which is universally better: chocolate, vanilla, or butterscotch? True relativists shouldn't besides prefering to interact with others of the same code, seeing potential negative reactions from another system (ie avoiding practical conflict), or spotting internal logical conflicts during arguments of theory. Laws may be based on morals if people choose to make them so, but there is no inherent connection between the two.For example there is nothing moral about which side of the road we choose to have people drive on, nor which side goes first at a an intersection. As far as laws against violations of people's rights, such as murder and theft, that can be derived simply by people demanding laws to protect themselves from what they do not want to happen to themselves. Why does a person like Butterscotch? There can be many answers, none of which have to do with any universal truths. In the case of honesty it can come from laziness and it being easier to simply stick with the truth, or the enjoyment of consistency which honesty provides.I might point out with your Pilate commentary, that it was a relativist that tried to save Jesus, and it was the absolutists following the moral truth of god that had him killed while saving a murderer.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Okay, point it out for me.

Rob can follow the argument from here, rather than my replying in both placesto both of you. I'm not sure how that works. The absence of absolute morality, does not demand any absolute phenomena, at best it is simply a desciptor, and there is no logical reason a descriptor must describe everything.Absolute morality requires being an absolute phenomena, as soon as it is not, and a lack of absolute can be seen with respect to morality (even the smallest gap)... absolute morality falls on its own.But even if I wanted to accept your argument, I could simply change my point to be that no absolute morality has been identified or can be known by humans at this time.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

At least so far not one of those who say there are moral absolutes has been able to provide an example of such a critter.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

It proposes your own person preferences as to how you want to be treated, as your standard for treating others.If you don't see that as relative, then you do not understand "moral relativism".

Good post, holmes, and I think I agree with almost everything you said there.

My apologies for any confusion. I did not mean morality applies to the laws of physics, I only meant that all interactions, be it between a planet and it's moon, or a social animal and it's neighbor, are goverened by laws.If that is not the case, then with what would you disagree?

He could be talking about an explosion he figures WILL happen for some reason or other without in any way implying he plans to have a part in it.Or he could be making fun of somebody's literalminded reading of "spiritual warfare" even, which it sounds like you have. Good grief, that's SPIRITUAL warfare, as in "the weapons of our warfare are not carnal..." meaning not physical, not of the flesh, but of the spirit, of things like prayer and preaching and Bible reading and maybe even exorcism, but not physical explosions. Sure sounded like that to me.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Thank You NJ! Compliments are pretty rare around here. But you know well that I cannot take credit for such wisdom. It was imparted to me not because I am deserving, but because He is merciful to the sinner.

---

"God must know, better than anyone, how unfulfilling it is to be right, until it can be shared, with a community willing to accept it, and enjoy the glory of it."(Rob Lockett)

Uhhhh.... Huh? How did they come to some agreement if there was not some pang in their heart persuading them this or that is wrong? In other words, is it odd that virtually everyone would view murder as abhorrent rather than picking dandelions? No one needs 'training' on morals. When people are trained in their morals, that's when true morality becomes skewed, IMO. Its like I tell my pro-abort buddies. Take a little child who has formal understanding of right or wrong, or even death, down to the clinic and let them watch it. Would they not be horrified?I've asked that question to a few people, some of them responded, "You're sick for wanting to take a little kid to watch an abortion." LOL! Oh, but wait, I thought there was nothing wrong with it! For the record, I wouldn't subject any child to that, but thanks for admitting that its wrong.Bottom line: Morals aren't some fly-by-night thing. They are real. And they have benefits and consequences. I would whole-heartedly agree that it would be exceedingly difficult for me to prove to you that I have some sort of special insight on 'what' those absolute morals are. I'm not arguing to support that my beliefs mirror the absolute laws. I'm simply making a philosophical argument for they exist.

quote:

---

One must first have an absolute concept to even come to a relative understanding about anything.

---

Nobody has a universal consensus on ice cream because flavors have nothing to do with absolutes. Most of life deals in relativity. I wouldn't deny that for a second. That should be obvious. But let me ask a broader question: Is anything absolute or is everything really subject to relativity? Of course they are connected to morality. If they weren't we would outlaw arbitrary things like, sitting in rocking chairs during the hours of 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM. Laws, all laws, come from our ability to sympathize with a victim. We have laws against fraud because its 'wrong' to steal or take advantage of someone. We have laws against rape because its 'wrong' to molest a person against their will. The law was established to keep order. If you are caught driving in the wrong lane, why would you get a ticket? The reason: Endangering the lives of others, not just because we're supposed to drive on the left or right side of the road. Who thinks of themselves as being the victims? I don't. I have no idea, but I could very well be murdered in the near future. But that thought is so rare. I don't disagree with murder because I might be murdered. What would I care if justice is served if I'm dead? I would care if justice were served if my family was murdered.

quote:

---

Why does he want to be honest?.... There must have been some standard to begin with in order to understand if something is true, right? A profound question of epistemic proportion. Its like Pilate asked, "what is Truth?"

---

Holmes, you aren't understanding. You asserted that people are honest for inexplicable reasons. How can anyone be honest without the measure of Truth first being established? How can anyone be liars in a world of relativism? Do you understand what I mean? These are axioms-- self-evident maxims, not arbitrary chaos. That's apart of the profundity of the story. That's apart of the dichotomy I was talking about a few posts back. We have an absolute law that we absolutely can't keep, yet we have a Savior who saves us from ourselves. If we don't submit to Him then we will have to face that Law on the merit of our own conduct. If we trust in Him, we can be absolved as far as it depends on us. Final assessment: God has a stacked deck.

---

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2^nd Corinthians 10:4-5

There is a fundamental difference between physical laws and social laws:Physical laws describe how the universe does work. Social laws prescribe how people should behave.(It's largely coincidence that the same word "law" is applied in English to two very different concepts.)Since this topic appears to be about morality, it is only the social aspects that apply.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC