Huntard writes:
If you mean free will, that's a whole new discussion which I might get into later. For now let me say that every person will make choices dependant on different things than another person.
I'd like it if you'd point it out to me, and how the reason everyone seems to act differently, when this law is so absolute.
Well, yes, basically. For if morals shift, they cannot be absolute, or there is no way to tell.
Often times when instructing people I am very quick to point out that it may not be ones ability to NOT understand a certain thing verses the fact that what is being said makes absolutely no sense. People will assume they cannot understand what is being said, especially when contradictory statements are present in a SOMEWHAT reasonable format. The above is a classical example of contradictory nonsense.
The mnd works as we all know on a conscious and subconscious level all the time. While trying to interpret at face value contradictory in formation the conscious mind ignores the contradictory information assuming what is being said it correct, while the subconscious mind is rejecting the information as invalid, so confusion is set up to present alternatives to the solution.
A simple illustration will suffice. While driving down the road and speaking on the phone your eyes are constantly observing information by the subconscious and taking information that you are not presently aware of. At a later date someone may ask you were a certain store or place is and you subconscious will retrieve that information that you all but ignored while it was storing that information. Whats the point. Dont assume because you intially dont understand a point being made, that its your fault, it may be that what is being said is a conflict of reason and reality.
To put it simply it is ridiculous to assume that free will is separate from ones ability to make a different decision than someone else. Further, it is simply silly to assume that free will is a different discussion from the one at present.
To assume that morals could be absolute from the frame work of the human perspective, or a finite perspective, then say they cant be absolute because they change in that perspective is absurd, to say the least. You do understand that the determination of the question of an absolute standard cannot be determined from this perspective, correct?
Any LAW or easily definable standard can exist, without everyone agreeing on its interpretation, or deciding to follow that precept. A stop sign means stop, not slow down. Now anyone can ignore that standard even though it is absolute in its content. Conscience and right and wrong from a persons perspective is not what determines whether morals are absolute, you are trying to mistakenly connect the two, when reality and reason are what actually determine its existence.
Reason would ofcourse suggest that if there is no absolute standard, then there is no standard at all and one is simply playing at morality and ethics, in assuming that there can be one. All attempts to establish any degrees or variances in morality are semantics and exercise in futility.
Simply put, to try and have discussion between two people on a topic that is secondary and not preliminary to common frame of reference is ludicrous. The primary or preliminary discussion ofcourse being the existence of God. If one can not agree that a being of such absolute morals exists, then the rest of the discussion between the two individuals is doomed to the worst of logical empasses.
Indeed, how do you proceed past this point, when at every turn you view any action of the God of the bible as vile and evil. What platform will allow you to proceed to make this determination, that will not be understood both from your limited finite understanding and his omnipotent, eternal perspective. Even Jaywills very capable exegesis of scripture is simply dismissed as ridiculous or invalid, only to be judged by a set of morals that is so limited in character and perspective.
So the above statements that I quoted from yourself seem to be incongrous witheach other, they seem to ignore even simple facts of reason. Example, "What the reason is everyone seems to act differently when the law is so absolute". Maybe I am missing what you are getting at here but it seems you dont understand that while there can be some concreteness in even human declarations and laws, like a stop sign, why it is that people can still ignore mans laws, not to mention Gods. Why is this simple principle such a sticky wicket. People act differently because they have the ability to decide for themselves to obey the law, mans or Gods. Certainly this is no great mystery to you. Im not seeing how it applies in the dismissing of the possibility of an absolute standard in reality.
D Bertot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
