Absolute Truth

[Valke2]

God is Absolute! Jesus Christ is Absolute! The Holy Spirit is Absolute!

…

But don’t think that these are contradictions. They are not. This is a Paradox.

okay, if you want to put me in the insane asylum… :whacky:



But seriously folks… The Truth is Jesus Christ.

To paraphrase Nachmanides, the fact that my ancestors, living in the first century, rejected the claim made on Jesus’ behalf is enough for me. They knew Jesus. They knew Paul. They knew what the prophets had to say. And they knew what the rabbinic traditions indicatred. Knowing all this, they concluded that Jesus was not the Messiah. It would be arrogance on my part, living 2,000 years later, to contradict them!

Please do not consture my failure to use bold or all caps in my posts to be an indication of doubt or weakness. .

 

[Valke2]

Yes, I can agree on an ultimate authority, but you used the word God,which, in my culture is the term used when people are discussing the Judeo/Christian God.

In my parts “God” capital G, refers to a specific deity, not just a generic word for Ultimate Authority.

ok.

Further, your post indicated that the said God had a will and purpose for us, and that there is right and wrong. That sounds like you are speaking specifically of a deity, not merely an ultimate authority. There are other concepts of ultimate authority that don’t automatically include will, purpose, and accountability. Are those being included in this discussion, or are they not to be considered?

If there is no Will, purpose or accountability, how does such an ultimate authority differ from chance?

 

[AlegreFe]

Please do not consture my failure to use bold or all caps in my posts to be an indication of doubt or weakness. .

My posts were mostly bolds, and only ONE caps.
And No, I don’t consider you weak, just misguided. And I’m sure you’re sure of yourself too, therefore no doubt on your part either, just misguided.

 

[Valke2]

My posts were mostly bolds, and only ONE caps.
And No, I don’t consider you weak, just misguided. And I’m sure you’re sure of yourself too, therefore no doubt on your part either, just misguided.

We should do a new thread sometime entitled “disputation”

Do you think it would be worth it or would it just invoke bad feelings (in others)?

 

[cheddarsox]

ok.

If there is no Will, purpose or accountability, how does such an ultimate authority differ from chance?

It may be our use of understanding of the words, I’m not sure…

I believe there is a Divine, that which is the cause, source and totality of all that is.

I do not assign human traits to this Divine,because I do not see any evidence that it has such traits as a whole, outside of the places it manifests as human.

To assign human traits might make it easier for me or some to “grasp” it, but would not be an accurate description of the whole of it. Out of respect for that which I accept as Absolute Truth, I do not attempt to “bring it to my level”.

In my understanding “will”, “purpose” and “accountability” are human traits. Useful for mortal organisms living in social groups, not necessary for something that is not thus limited.

Something that has ultimate control of all, because it is all, created all, and created all the rules by which everything contained within it operates, has no need for accountability, it is impossible for anything to act outside of the Divine laws.

I do not claim to know whether or not it has will and purpose. It may, but if so, I believe that will and purpose to be beyond my ability to understand or determine.

To me, that does not amount to chance…which I understand to be random. The universe is not random, there is clearly order in it, but that order does not appear to me to have human like traits, needs, desires, etc.

I understand that some people think that the natural laws amount to chance, but I feel that is an incorrect and disrespectful way to think of them. It may just be due to our difference in faiths that we use or understand these terms in different ways.

cheddar

 

[mercygate]

To paraphrase Nachmanides, the fact that my ancestors, living in the first century, rejected the claim made on Jesus’ behalf is enough for me. They knew Jesus. They knew Paul. They knew what the prophets had to say. And they knew what the rabbinic traditions indicatred. Knowing all this, they concluded that Jesus was not the Messiah. It would be arrogance on my part, living 2,000 years later, to contradict them!

Please do not consture my failure to use bold or all caps in my posts to be an indication of doubt or weakness. .

I don’t want to take this thread down the “Jesus” trail. But it is certainly true that although Jesus’ teachings were deeply embedded in the Rabbinic tradition (most closely resembling the teachings of Rabbil HIllel), he certainly did take the train onto another track; he went way beyond the most open minded of the Rabbis. Although many of the Scribes and Pharisees and even the Priests did follow Jesus – there were Jewish and gentile congregations – most remained faithful to what they had received and did not budge.

For a well-taught Jew, accepting Jesus as the Messiah must hinge upon something other than whether he fulfilled the expectations of the doctors of the law. I think that is why Paul did not start preaching the Gospel on the day after his crisis on the Damascus Road. He spent 3 years alone in Arabia – poring over the Scriptures, perhaps as if de novo. His unique vision was based on a complete paradigm shift forced by the undeniable experience of that moment on the way to Damascus, as affirmed by the witness of such as Stephen the martyr and the members of “the Way” in Damascus.

 

[Darrel]

I believe there is a Divine, that which is the cause, source and totality of all that is.

I do not assign human traits to this Divine,because I do not see any evidence that it has such traits as a whole, outside of the places it manifests as human.

To assign human traits might make it easier for me or some to “grasp” it, but would not be an accurate description of the whole of it. Out of respect for that which I accept as Absolute Truth, I do not attempt to “bring it to my level”.

cheddar

You do not assign human traits to the divine? Of course not, he assigns the traits. The universe was not created by some detached sociopathic scientific “entity”. God is love and this trait is assigned to us. Ever notice that science takes the essence of what God is and calls it an emotion? God is love and that is an absolute truth.

-D

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

cheddarsox

My understanding of Absolute Truth, is that it is truth that does not change, such things as location are subject to change and would not fall under the catagory of Absolute Truth, even if they are, at a given point in time and space…true.

Would there be such things as moral absolutes under your definition above? … That is, would there be acts that are always and everywhere** right** or wrong?

If so, please give us an example.

 

[cheddarsox]

You do not assign human traits to the divine? Of course not, he assigns the traits. The universe was not created by some detached sociopathic scientific “entity”. God is love and this trait is assigned to us. Ever notice that science takes the essence of what God is and calls it an emotion? God is love and that is an absolute truth.

-D

The Divine is not a “he”.

Nor is it detached, sociopathic, scientific or an entity.

The Divine is Love, no doubt, but not “human love” not “Hallmark card love”, but Divine Love. I agree, that is an absolute truth.

I don’t understand your statement “science takes the essence of what God is and calls it an emotion” If it is important to the discussion could you flesh it out a bit more, maybe I could understand it phrased another way.

I think the Divine is much, much more than an emotion, and that Divine Love is much much more than an emotion. It is an absolute reality, and one which governs everything that is or takes place.

cheddar

 

[cheddarsox]

cheddarsox

My understanding of Absolute Truth, is that it is truth that does not change, such things as location are subject to change and would not fall under the catagory of Absolute Truth, even if they are, at a given point in time and space…true.

Would there be such things as moral absolutes under your definition above? … That is, would there be acts that are always and everywhere** right** or wrong?

If so, please give us an example.

No, there would not be moral absolutes.

cheddar

 

[setter]

The Divine is not a “he”.

Nor is it detached, sociopathic, scientific or an entity.

The Divine is Love, no doubt, but not “human love” not “Hallmark card love”, but Divine Love. I agree, that is an absolute truth.

I don’t understand your statement “science takes the essence of what God is and calls it an emotion” If it is important to the discussion could you flesh it out a bit more, maybe I could understand it phrased another way.

I think the Divine is much, much more than an emotion, and that Divine Love is much much more than an emotion. It is an absolute reality, and one which governs everything that is or takes place.

cheddar

Divine Love is fully contained, manifested and expressed in the person of Jesus Christ, and he is a “he”.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

cheddar

No, there would not be moral absolutes.

So in what place and at what time would it be morally acceptable to wipe out the human race with nuclear weapons?

 

[JimO]

Does it exist. If yes, do we know what it is? What are the criteria for determining absolute truth?

I’ve tried to read through most of the thread, but I still might repeat something someone else has said - forgive my laziness, but this topic interests me greatly.

I’ve had this debate with atheists who either claim that no absolute truth exists or who claim that there is an absolute truth in the absence of a higher authority - God, for example. First, in answer to your question, I do believe there is absolute truth and I believe that its source is God, the Judeo-Christian God. Because I believe this, I must admit that it is difficult for me to be totally objective, but that doesn’t mean that I have arrived at that belief by throwing out reason.

I like to come at it by assuming for a moment that God doesn’t exist. Thus, what we call “meaning” in life is simply a function of our own desire to transend what you call “chance” and give us a hope that there is more than a miserable existence, followed by non-existence. In this case, there is no absolute truth because “truth” is defined by humans and it can evolve or change as society changes. That is the position of most atheists, and, frankly, the only position they can reasonably defend. To claim that there is absolute truth in the absence of God is to ignore human history and philosophical reasoning. Human history has clearly shown that in the absence of a belief in a higher authority from which the notion of right and wrong are given, we humans, both individually and as society, have changed the definitions of right and wrong. Some societies have accepted cannibalism as being acceptable. Others have (and still do) considered racism or slavery as acceptable. The West considers these to be criminal and have enacted laws to reflect this belief. One cannot put forth a reason-based argument for absolute truth that is human based. It simply does not make sense.

Thus, your question is intimately linked with whether one believes in God or not and cannot be answered in the absence of God’s existence and omnipotence.

To put it simply, what is, is. If God does not exist and there is no absolute truth, then my belief in Him and in truth won’t create them. Conversely, if God does exist and absolute truth is, then our ignoring Him or the truth won’t make them go away and will not negate the consequences of ignoring them when we die.

 

[Valke2]

cheddar

No, there would not be moral absolutes.

So in what place and at what time would it be morally acceptable to wipe out the human race with nuclear weapons?

Time of Noah?

 

[cheddarsox]

cheddar

No, there would not be moral absolutes.

So in what place and at what time would it be morally acceptable to wipe out the human race with nuclear weapons?

Since morals are created by humans to govern ourselves that we might live in society…I would say it would never be morally acceptablt to wipe out the human race with nuclear weapons. That would be completely contrary to the purpose of morality.

 

[cheddarsox]

Divine Love is fully contained, manifested and expressed in the person of Jesus Christ, and he is a “he”.

I understand that is your faith. In my faith it is impossible for a human to contain, manifest and express the whole of Divine Love.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

cheddar

I asked:

So in what place and at what time would it be morally acceptable to wipe out the human race with nuclear weapons?

You answered:

Since morals are created by humans to govern ourselves that we might live in society…I would say it would never be morally acceptablt to wipe out the human race with nuclear weapons. That would be completely contrary to the purpose of morality.

So is it absolutely immoral to wipe out the human race with nuclear weapons, or is it only contrary to the purpose of morality?*

 

[cheddarsox]

cheddar

I asked:

So in what place and at what time would it be morally acceptable to wipe out the human race with nuclear weapons?

You answered:

Since morals are created by humans to govern ourselves that we might live in society…I would say it would never be morally acceptablt to wipe out the human race with nuclear weapons. That would be completely contrary to the purpose of morality.

So is it absolutely immoral to wipe out the human race with nuclear weapons, or is it only contrary to the purpose of morality?

In my opinion, it would be immoral to wipe out humanity, but it would not be absolutely immoral, because “absolute” describes something that is true without human reference, and morals do not exist outside of human reference.

 

[cheddarsox]

cheddar

I asked:

So in what place and at what time would it be morally acceptable to wipe out the human race with nuclear weapons?

You answered:

Since morals are created by humans to govern ourselves that we might live in society…I would say it would never be morally acceptablt to wipe out the human race with nuclear weapons. That would be completely contrary to the purpose of morality.

So is it absolutely immoral to wipe out the human race with nuclear weapons, or is it only contrary to the purpose of morality?

In my opinion, it would be immoral to wipe out humanity, but it would not be absolutely immoral, because “absolute” describes something that is so without human reference, and morals do not exist outside of human reference.

At least that is the use of “absolute” that I am operating under. Absolute, as in, what is, not changing, not subject to opinion.

It is possible that your question falls into the category of a logics argument, and if so, I hope someone more schooled in that will chime in.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

cheddar

In my opinion, it would be immoral to wipe out humanity, but it would not be absolutely immoral, because “absolute” describes something that is so without human reference, and morals do not exist outside of human reference.

I don’t know about that. When we are debating objectivist morality, as Ayn Rand would have debated it (she was an atheist) she obviously wouldn’t rely on God to substantiate any objectivist (absolutist) moral point of view. Rand abhorred subjectivism (relativism). So I think there is possible an atheist human (rather than divine) base for moral absolutes (objective realities) among which it would be absolutely wrong in all places and at all times and for any reason to annihilate the human race.

Surely a Christian and an atheist can agree on this as an absolutely wrong thing to do.`