pianofrieak2

That's why science cannot be your basis for absolute truth morality. It changes. :roll: That's merely your opinion. Who says that God can't, or won't, interact with us? You're ASSUMING that. Since you can't disprove it, then why are you arguing? I can't prove it with scientific instruments...you can't disprove it with scientific instruments. Stalemate. You're also assuming here, if I get this right, that the nature of the supernatural is to exist and stand back while its creation just moves itself along. Or, in some cases, while its non-created stuff moves along. Let me ask again: Why does the supernatural have to NOT do anything? What makes it so uninterested and non-interactive to make you think so? Isaiah translates to circle. When did science ever say it was flat? Come now...you don't know your history? It was Christopher Columbus' day that contemporary science called the earth flat. It's why so few people were willing to go on his voyage...they thought they would all die. The Mayans actually thought the earth sat on a turtle and created all kinds of fictional stories about it. That was contemporary science at the time, and his example shows how the Bible was true over the contemporary science. History? :wink: Quote: Behind every Art, there is what? An Artist. Behind every building there is what? A builder So then, logicly, what is behind a creation? Its your fictional creation story calling it a "creation".

Precisely? :)

I'm sorry, bear, but I simply do not understand how you can say that statement. For one thing, you are not omniscient. You CAN say, "based on my life so far, I would choose the latter." However, you don't know what it's like to not exist. In that light, I would argue that God, in his sovereignty (as Astra has so wisely pointed out), decided to give them joy and happiness in this life, even if that means that their end result is in hell. You just have to trust his omniscient and just judgement. And then, of course, look at that scripture. (Astra, that's a weird translation. What translation is it?)

I have to agree. I havnt been posting here, but I have been reading most of the posts and that was one of the best posts I have read so far. Cool post Astralinre 8-) Yeah seriously, Astra I have to give you mad props. It made me think a lot. Boy, I have to agree. I had NEVER thought of it that way!! :D

Insane, you are onto something. I haven't really thought about it all that well, but I think you may be right in the APPLICATION part of it. The truth is absolute. Unchanging. The interpretation is unchanging and applicable to everyone at all times. The application changes with the times. As long as the truth and the interpretation remain absolute, I see no reason why the application CAN'T change.

If you think my religions example was about a "totally new topic," then I would like to know what your example of "absolute and unchanging truth" would be. I was dealing with the aspects of truth. HugATree made the comment that science is his/her basis for truth. Because science can't prove God, then God must not be true. That was their point. Your religions example, about Hinduism over Christianity and all that, IS A TOTALLY NEW TOPIC. As of right now, we're debating the nature of truth and how you know something is true. It is somewhat related but that's a religions question. We're doing philosophy right now. If you so desire, I would love to talk to you about Hinduism and why it's flawed. Hinduism=New Age, btw. As for your example with the psychic with two kids: Psychic=God Kid 1=??? Kid 2=Sinners (all of us) Now, I don't know why you brought Kid 1 into this as it seems to me to be irrelevant. Maybe it's Jesus? But then it wouldn't be right because Jesus is fully God and was not created. He CAME into the world but was not created by Mary. Still, your example didn't take into account my whole view. You know, the BIG BOLD FONT that everyone got mad at me for using? Apparently you still missed it. :? God created us for love. God in the Trinity was in perfect harmony and peace. They NEEDED nothing. But, they wanted something more. They wanted love. And so, because they wanted love, they created us humans. They gave us free will because without free will, there is no love. There is no choice to do evil. God is not responsible for evil: we are. He gave us the option in order for love to exist. Because He gave us the option for evil, we have, in our fallen natures, taken it. We have refused to do good=evil. Therefore, because we are tainted with evil, we cannot be in the presence of a perfect, holy God. It makes sense. :) The answer to your example is that child 1 could not love her. If the psychic wanted love, she HAD to have child 2. Of course, there are billions of child 2s. The psychic knew that SOME of her kids would love her and spend eternity with her. She also knew that MOST of them would not. But, she decided that the option for love was greater than the option for separation. Thus, she went for it. That's your riddle.

bear, my view of truth is absolute and unchanging. That is still true. You're merely talking about which religion is truth. That's a totally new topic. :wink: My points are still valid. HugATree, you still don't get it? I'm talking the absolute nature of truth. You say that science is your basis for truth. I have already systematically proven why that is flawed. When you say "science can talk about the universe," I agree. But we're dealing with morality not the universe. Big difference. :o Mr_Hyde, if you don't believe Christ is God, then how in the world can you call yourself a Christian? That's Christianity's most fundamental beliefs! I'm not even going to remark on your last sentence.

Well, you always did seem different than most people I debate. You have the knowledge of Christianity, see the inconsistency and hypocritical actions of "Christians," and aren't too hostile. Good job for putting forth your points. I would argue that the way the church is going will become more relativistic, more accepting of all religions and lifestyles (to get more people to attend their church), and more unitarian in nature. The days of the church holding power over people is gone, so the only option left (besides having the people WANT to go to church) is to make them feel so good about going that they'll come back. And maybe put $5 in the offering plates. I disagree. I agree with every sentence except the last one, which is your conclusion. You say that everybody in the church "feels that they know what God or Christ desires of them." True. I believe that God's will is knowable and that God speaks. God speaks to me. I hear His voice, which is subtle impressions on my heart. He actively works in today's world, for I have seen healings and even had one done through me by Him. Christ is alive and well. He is working through the world to accomplish His purposes. He wants me to love Him and to be sold-out for Him. IN fact, that is His plan for every Christian. However, your last statement that beliefs change SHOULD NOT be the case. The Bible is clear on what is right and not right. The absolute morality is for all people at all times. Of course, the Bible described the world around them and even wrote about certain pressing issues of that time period, but its laws are applicable to everyone every time. No offense, but knowing morality is hardly even close to being omniscient. You can see that. Besides, why would God NOT want you to know morality? Just to guess at it for different generations? How do you judge what is right and wrong? True. What is wrong with my statement? I agree with that. Free will allows true love to have its work. Which comes back to my own upbringing and beliefs, which I have intentionally left out of this argument until now. I, for the moment, am undecided to exactly what it is I believe. I do hold to the belief, however, that organized religion, in which someone or some organization claims to hold a piece of that universal knowlege of what should be or what ought to be done, is not something I wish to be part of. I understand where you're coming from, but, again, I would disagree. Organized religion has done much pain in the past, but it has brought about much more good. You just never hear about it because that would be too politically incorrect. You can respect it, but don't expect it to be mutual. Jesus said in His Word: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." In that one statement, Jesus knocked out every other religion and every other way to get to heaven, including good works. BTW, how can you have a "personal relationship" with a God you don't believe in? That doesn't seem feasible to me. I'm familiar with the area. What school would that be?

It's actually quite obvious. Everyone is intolerant of others' beliefs. Christians are intolerant of atheists' viewpoints and atheists are intolerant of Christians' viewpoints. Now why you're so offended, I don't know. I merely pointed out your inconsistency and all of a sudden you make random posts slamming me. If it's because you don't like being proven to be hypocritical, then change your belief systems, don't talk, or grow up and accept it.

bear, I find your viewpoint very interesting. However, it's a little off-base. Here's why: Jesus never said, "Slavery is okay." Slavery is included in the Bible to associate yourself with the terms, the setting, and to describe the culture of the time. The Old Testament is very ritualistic and organized. Very specific laws. The New Testament is about the heart issues. Slaves should obey their masters because God wants us to submit ourselves to authority. Thus, the principles found in Scripture are all applicable to everywhere. And many of the principles are stated directly, not just indirectly like my example. You are correct that cultural relativism (major viewpoint in universities and public schools) is extremely dangerous. Few people know about cultural relativism. I'm impressed! I agree. In fact, they out to be 100%-0%. However, I would argue that Christianity in today's world is dead and decaying. Because we live in a relativistic, selfish society, few people have strong relationships with God. Most Christians I know are complete hypocrites. They SHOULD. Unfortunately, they don't. Good point, though. Your entire point hinges upon the premise that all Christians believe Christ's teachings 100% every time. You should assume that but not expect it, by any means. Most atheists should have no hope for a future, and yet they don't think about that, so their life seems to be ok for the moment. That doesn't make any sense, but it is just one example from the opposing viewpoint. True. What do you mean by that statement? If you're an agnostic or an atheist, I would argue that you have no idea what it means to walk with Jesus in your heart. Where do you get this information?

Excuse me, but I already proved how that was hypocritical. Please explain why I'm lacking "meaningful quotes and ellaborating" Thank you. hazard, I've already answered your questions. Even MyPurpleCrayon agreed that I did and that your points were flawed. If you continue to think so, then restate them BUT GO BACK AND READ THE RESPONSES. Maybe you missed it the first time. BTW, Astra and MyPurpleCrayon, I did big bold font because I had said the exact same thing 4 times. The fourth time I was tired of repeating it, so I put in BIG BOLD FONT to really give the point across. I'll try to use it more "sparingly" from now on. We're talking about the basis for truth. I agree completely with your statements, but when SCIENCE is your basis for truth, then you run into trouble. Your interpretation of truth should not keep changing because then your PERCEPTIONS of truth, as you said, keep changing resulting in different APPLICATIONS of the unchanging truth. Get it? I agree, for you can't force your belief on others. But I WILL say that parents play a vital role in setting the foundation for morality to their children. Mostly through their actions as compared to their words, though. That's more of utilitarianism than of a straight morality.

oh, gosh. triple post.

double post. :oops:

And evilperson, you're wrong. You are imposing your view, that I should leave others' theological views alone, on me by saying I should shut up. You are being intolerant of my intolerant beliefs. See the natural conclusion of your statement? It's hypocritical. bearofthunder, Man, you're close. Really close. But you're just not there yet. Let me point this out to you and then I'm finished. Hopefully you'll understand this time. Just read it slowly. :P I'll put forth one hypothetical question and then give you my argument. "How do you know the Vedas was first?" Now, you may have this wonderful source and all that, but how do you know that the Vedas is truth? You're ASSUMING that the Vedas is truth simply because it came first. Perhaps the Vedas took the truth found in God and perverted it before the Bible came along to write down God's truth. Hmm? :wink: God is omnipotent. I agree. He knew the universe would have evil in it in the future. I agree. But the biggest question is: Why would God leave evil out? If He left evil out, there would be no choice for good. We would all do good because we were forced. We would have no other option. Because we have no other option, there is no love. God didn't have to create us. He in the Trinity form was in perfect peace, but He wanted something else. He wanted love, true love. And true love requires choice, so that is why He created us with the option to do evil. So that we would do good and LOVE GOD. Do you finally get it? Exactly! He did it for love. :D

And so we are at the point where I make the point I've been waiting to make again from the beginning of the argument. Utilitarianism can't intstantly make the best possible choice apparent. You have to go on your sleeve and make those decisions that are time-sensitive. Your last piece of your argument falls in line with this. Your truth of what Jesus wishes may not ever change, but your discovery of it is predicated by what society deems responsible. This is why women can vote, slavery is illegal in the United States, it is legal for a Christian person to loan money and charge interest on it, and why evolution is taught as a tentative theory in schools. When you look at that, you must concede that our snapshots of that univeral truth at any given point in time are just as relative as what you claim any atheist philosophy to be. In that sense, the closest you'll get to absolute in your doctrine is your own absolutely relative view of it. This is to say that not everybody that believes that they know what Jesus wants can be right at the same time. Someone's got to be wrong. Say, someone believes that * marriage would be endorsed by Jesus and you don't. Well, you can say they are just twisting Jesus' will. That's fair, but their argument is the same for you. Which one is truly endowed with the correct slice of the universal truth? Is either of you? So you're a relativist? Hmm...should be very interesting lol. But before I start arguing relativism, let me show you why your examples are all messed up. 1. Women can vote. Where in the Bible does it say women can't vote? Actually, Jesus was a strong supporter of women's rights. During that time period, women could do nothing, but Jesus came along and started talking about grace (instead of good works) and loving people (not just men, the leaders of the family). He frequently talked about loving the widows and the orphans, those most-frowned upon by society. 2. Slavery is illegal in the US. Slavery in the Bible is more like servanthood in today's world. Slaves were paid, slaves were treated well and lived in or close to the master's house, and had the option of leaving after their debt was paid. All were released before then on the Year of Jubilee. In fact, *gasp* some wanted to stay because they were treated so well. Please check your history book before you make a comment like that. 3. Christians can loan money and receive interest. When Jesus talked about giving to the poor without asking something back, he was talking about the heart issue. You shouldn't WANT something back when you give. Dont' think you're such a great person if you loan out money. That was His whole point. Now that I've addressed your examples, let me address your relativistic ways. Society may change, but the laws of God never change. Society says abortion is ok. God says murdering is wrong. Since life begins at conception, it is clear that the fetus is really a human baby and should be protected. Stem-Cell Research: Society says it is ok and should be paid for by the government. God says that embryos are living babies, and killing them for research is wrong. Thus, though the Bible does not mention cloning or abortion, it mentions laws that transcend all boundaries. I'll debate relativism later. If you still desire to.

Wow, lol, I'm surprised. You're being VERY hostile for a needed comment. In case you haven't debated very much, it is NECESSARY for the person you're debating to define their terms. If they don't define their terms, you can't get to the heart of the matter. If you can't get to the heart of the matter, you're wasting your time and aren't even answering the question. Unless you have actually have something important and relevant to say, then be quiet. Bear, I have no idea where you get your idea that I say truth is what came first. Just because a person from World War II is older than me doesn't mean he's more right and I'm more wrong. And that's exactly what you're saying. Truth is UNCHANGING. The chart will suffice. God made the entire universe, yes. God made good AND evil, no. In fact, when God created the world, He made it all good. There was no evil. There was simply the OPTION to sin and commit evil. When Adam and Eve sinned for the very first time, evil entered the world. :wink: God is purely good. But because love requires choice, he had to leave the option for bad. Thus, God did not create the bad but He left it open as an option in order for love to exist and eventually triumph over hate. I could swear I've said this many times before.

I believe that Snow White was looked after by 7 dwarves and it offends me when people call that a fairy tale too :( OK, now you're just being stupid. The reason we can't put theological quotes (of any kind) in our sigs is because atheists or whomever gets offended. It's not like the person with the signature actually SAID anything or even forced them to read it. Atheists can bash the Christians but Christians can't point out the inconsistency? :roll:

I am offended that you would call my belief system a fairy tale. On topic, I don't think it's going to be any special day. People make up all this hype about nothing. The Bible clearly states that NOBODY knows the time or the hour. Maybe the rapture is in twenty years. Maybe it's in the next ten minutes. Clearly nobody knows.

Let me clarify for you. An atheist bases their beliefs on a good/bad/productive/unproductive spectrum, as you said. I competely agree. However, there are always exceptions to those rules. There are always ways to go around it, to change them. Utilitarianism, as you can see, has its faults. As does Kantianism and all other ways of discovering morality. BECAUSE OF THAT, it is simple to see that atheists must, in order to make common sense decisions, pick and choose which belief system at different times. My pick-and-choose philosophy for atheists is quite true. I see what you're saying, so that clarified it. Would you agree? Oh, and by the way, when you say blithely choosing dogma based on your religion is bad, I would counter by saying that truth (when it is found in Jesus) is never changing. Therefore, if I have found truth that applies in all situations in all cases with no exceptions, then I can "blithely" accept it as truth.

For one thing, you're so angry that you're not even thinking straight. You're calling me names, lol, and didn't even address my response. In one post, you've violated two laws of debating: A. You call me names to try to make people think you're right and I'm wrong. You never do that because it makes you look foolish and ignorant, AND you start losing track of what you're saying to say. Both of which happened. B. You didn't even address the topic. In fact, you put up a smoke screen by restating what you already said without addressing my rebuttal. In case those reading missed my point, let me restate it: Science changes. Truth does not change. Thus, science can, at best, POINT the way to the truth but cannot be your basis for truth. Now, because science is your basis for truth, your basis of truth is flawed which results in you being blind to the TRUE reality. If you're not going to make any points and just resort to calling me names in order to make you feel better, then I'm through with you. Moving on to bearofthunder... Not quite. The Bible was COLLECTED way before that but it was written over thousands of years. Ironically it all coincides with each other. *shock* You, also, did not address my question. I asked you what the NATURE of good is. What is the NATURE of evil? How do you know what is evil and what is good? Not just what they are as it is relevant to this topic. Because you didn't even answer my question, I won't respond to your statements. Later, when I know where you're coming from, I'll answer. Hear, hear. Your point? You've merely fallen for Anesthesia's smokescreen and name-calling tactic to debunk my ARGUMENTS? Nice job. You look great.

That's precisely the reason it is wonderful; because 'facts' are only there on their merits and are subject to constant review. That is how it is the most accurate view. Likewise... Do you not see what you're saying? You're abandoning the nature of truth. Science, I agree, is supposed to change, but it should not be your basis for truth. Like I said before, truth does not change. If truth changed, it wouldn't be truth. Thus, you cannot have your basis for truth be science. Truth must be objective, outside of the observer. Its rules must apply to all people at all times. It must depend upon anyone or anything for its proof or existence. You two both argue so strongly for science, which is fine, but when you cross over into the realm of truth, you have no backing. Because truth is truth, it cannot change. Because science changes, it cannot be your basis for truth. At best it can point you in the right direction, but no more. The only problem with that statement is that your basis for truth has collapsed. And since it's collapsed, you have no basis for reality.

Except for the obvious fact that it is not fit for transferrence to all other people. What exactly do you mean by that? Exactly? The notion that all other people cannot (and should not?) blithely accept the dogma that comes with the acceptance of the standards of the religious individual, or any other of the sort, in question. I mean to say that unless each person has miraculously (pun intended) tapped into that knowledge base, declaring it fit for use by all is laughable at best. This would be the case with any arbitrary doctrinal standards set forth by any mortal or immortal. Hehe, you've never read C.S. Lewis! (Or if you have, you've forgotten the first chapter.) Lewis addresses this topic in the first two chapters. First off, let me deal with your "blithely accept the dogma that comes with the acceptance of the standards of the religious individual" statement. First off, if you choose to follow a religion, you are agreeing that the religion's basic tenets are true. You obey the leader's teachings. And you accept the results of following those teachings. Christian-follow Christ's teachings Islam-follow Muhammed's teachings Atheist-follow your own teachings Accept the consequences of all of them. However, you are either forgetting or being blithely igornant when you say that everyone cannot apply their truths to others. Everyone does that without thinking! You think lying's wrong? Well, you apply that truth (that lying's wrong) to everyone. Therefore, you get mad when others lie and get away with it. Because you've applied that truth to others universally. Murder? You think murder's wrong and you apply that truth to everybody. Anyone who murders is wrong, basically. It's impossible to go around that.

Thank you, MyPurpleCrayon. I HAVE answered all of his questions, at least to the best of my knowledge. Trebor, if science is so wonderful, why does it keep changing? Science continually adapts itself to coincide with truth. Truth does not have to adapt itself because of its nature: it IS truth. bear, since you didn't answer my last question, what is good? What is evil?

Right. I'm confused as to how that differs from my definition. It seems like you more added to mine than disagreed with it. :? I think he just gave a clearer picture of the Categorical Imperative. I'm by condition a Utilitarian, but I don't follow it to its logical extremes (the hospital organ donation is a good example). I, for one, work backwards from a goal that I assume others to want, a stable and prosperous society in which a great many people benefit. Then when it comes to a serious action that requires a good deal of forethought, I ask what action would best advance that cause. A true utilitarian would have difficulty weighting the value of different individuals- feeding their sister v. feeding a person in Africa comes into play... There just doesn't seem to be any practical/common sense philosophies, but that's primarily because there is no such thing as common sense. What seems logical and fair to one may seem completely different to others. The categorical imperative states that people apply their sense of morality to other people naturally. You think lying is wrong? Well, lying is wrong for all people. The problem with all of those philosophies is that there are always exceptions. However, when Jesus is your standard of truth and good, there are none.

Considering how I love debating, no. Apparently so do GhostRanger, MyPurpleCrayon, and bearofthunder. :wink: