Right beliefs, thoughts, morals, truth is relative to who is speakingThere are probably many things we’d agree on when answering that question. It’s natural for man to love pleasure, to work and find enjoyment in it (well, we might disagree on that one), to enjoy friendship, be attracted to members of the opposite gender, care about their appearance, experience shame, fall in love, feel angst and sorrow, appreciate the beauty of art, music, nature, enjoy some form of recreation/hobby, have the ability-and at least to some extent, a love- to learn in at least one area or another.
While we’d agree on most of these general similarities, if we were to try to explain them, say, to a hypothetical alien who’s observing and attempting to understand human nature for his own research, many of these qualities would be quite difficult to convey-because he wouldn’t necessarily be able to identify with them-they’re parts of *our *nature. And since we’re undeniably similar in many areas, wouldn’t we expect to be similar in other aspects of our lives as well-say in our morality?
Did the ancient cultures of the world think it was natural for them to sacrifice human flesh to the gods? Yes.Perhaps because we cherish our freedom to be self-determining as individuals, we may have a tendency to deny the existence of an objective morality that would pertain to us all, but wouldn’t you think that we’re probably ultimately similar in that area as well? Most of us are innately averse to murder-but while we’re aware that any of us could commit this act we’re unsure if the people who actually do so are acting in an unnatural manner or not. The Law-Gods commandments-constitute a proclamation that murder, for one (not mentioning other things like adultery, theft, lying, etc), is unnatural for man, i.e. it goes against our nature. Either this law is an arbitrary command to inhibit us from committing an act that might truly be consonant with our nature or it’s a command that does align with the true nature of man- indirectly pointing out the fact that man, for some reason, must be uncertain *himself *about the “program” designed for his own nature-or if there even is a program, i.e., “natural law” for him in this particular area.
What history shows is that people can commit acts so atrocious as to be beyond any kind of rational explanation. Evil is unnatural- its worst expressions are irrational, unnecessary, malice for the sake of malice. Non-human creatures wouldn’t stoop to some of the inhumane acts humans do. This, in itself, lends strong support to the doctrine of original sin because OS claims that the way things are is not how they were meant to be or have to be.Did the ancient cultures of the world think it was natural for them to sacrifice human flesh to the gods? Yes.
The argument is weather or not there is a set of universal morals that we all have. History however has shown that there probably isn’t.
Also this argument is assuming that all people want to live in peace/ order, what about those who just want chaos.
What history shows is that people can commit acts so atrocious as to be beyond any kind of rational explanation. Evil is unnatural- its worst expressions are irrational, unnecessary, malice for the sake of malice. Non-human creatures wouldn’t stoop to some of the inhumane acts humans do. This, in itself, lends strong support to the doctrine of original sin because OS claims that the way things are is not how they were meant to be or have to be.
Um, animals masturbate, animals are gay, animals have sex with more than one, animal lust for others, animals murder for position, animals kill, animals eat there young, animals steal, ect. I don’t think you want to go down that road.
What history shows is that people believe truth to be relative to* their* particular take on things, sometimes in direct opposition to another persons take on things. This in no way implies that truth is relative-only that we don’t necessarily know what it is.
People disagree on the meaning of written works such as scripture, for example, but that doesn’t mean the original author had no intended meaning for his words.
If not peoples reality what is truth?
I think it was Ghandi who said that one difference between humans and animals is that humans are capable of self-restraint. It’s that free will thing. By the same token we’re capable of mass genocide, torture, etc., practically any evil we can conceive of, in fact. When an animal does something that does us great harm-kills a child, for example- we perceive that to be evil to a point but, intuitively we know the animal only followed its nature. When a human does something similar, there’s a huge difference in our perception of the act because we know it didn’t have to happen, except perhaps in the case of mental illness, etc. Evil is truly present to the extent it’s committed for the* sake *of evil, which means knowingly and willfully. There’s a choice involved which means the perpetrator could’ve *not *carried out the act.Um, animals masturbate, animals are gay, animals have sex with more than one, animal lust for others, animals murder for position, animals kill, animals eat there young, animals steal, ect. I don’t think you want to go down that road.
People determining truth-in terms of morality-for themselves is equivalent to human self-righteousness. God is truth. To the degree we focus on Him for our righteousness, rather than ourselves, we are led into truth. Otherwise, we’re bound to miss the mark.If not peoples reality what is truth?