Perceptions of Reality

And since you are the one who claims that "some truth is absolute", the onus is on you - not me - to produce some. (This might not be the proper thread to do that.)

Rob writes:Let's look at Justice, Mercy, and Forgiveness as absolutes.If we do not simply accept that all of the above are absolute by mere assumption, then we lose all basis for denouncing anything.

That's no basis for the "dialog" that you claim you want. You can't demand that I accept your examples of "absolutes" with no backup whatsoever.

Rob writes:That's just it Ringo... on what basis do you deny it?

That is your implication, and I agree that you are correct in insisting upon justice.

Your entire thinking process is rooted in the Christian worldview.

If you take it away, with what will you judge a statement to be true or false?

I'm asking you to show me why I shouldn't deny absolutes

As the OP suggests, everybody has his own perception of reality, his own "worldview". Dialog depends on the ability to subordinate one's own worldview and see the "big picture".

"But the new rebel is a Skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be a real revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything, really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind, and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but also the doctrine by which he denounces it.Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book (about the sex problem) in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity and then curses Mrs. Grundy when they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is a waste of time. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland and Ireland because they take away that bauble.The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything."

Rob writes:To deny one thing implies something else.

You see, one of the tests for truth is undeniability....

Not at all. Denying (or questioning) the "truth" of something doesn't necessarily imply falsity. Sometimes it just means uncertainty.

Rob writes:Then you are not denying. You used the word deny not me.

demonstrate why you think justice is an absolute

Rob writes:Because if it isn't, then all of us are wasting our time....

Non sequitur.

Rob writes:If justice is not absolute, then a non sequitor is meaningless.

Without inffering justice, we have no premise.

Logic is the link we have with other people's reality. If there is any logic to your reality, then lay it out plainly, step by step. All you've done so far is assume your conclusions.

Rob writes:Other people's reality? People don't have other realities. They have illusions of such.

But I have an actual anchor for that belief. I believe it is actually real.

Where is your ontic referent to legitimize your questions?

What makes one person's reality/illusion "more valid" than another person's?The greater the consensus about an aspect of reality, the more "objective" it is.