L
larkin31
Guest
We’ll never know FOR CERTAIN.
But, thus far, there is no empirical evidence of an absolute moral truth. But maybe some day!
- Status
But, thus far, there is no empirical evidence of an absolute moral truth. But maybe some day!
D
davidv
Guest
Is there evidence that is not empirical? How does one account for the spiritual?
D
davidv
Guest
What “things” are you speaking about?
That there is matter to be observed is not subject to your observation. Whether you observe it or not, it still exists.
How did the material change states due to it being examined under a microscope? Is it no longer a “solid”?
If morality is based on an absolute, how can it be relative?
J
jonfawkes
Guest
Matter exists but not as we perceive it - we can perceive a solid but it actually consists of mostly empty space. It is only “solid” from our perspective. So something that we call an absolute, ex “a solid”, isn’t absolute, it is relative to our perspective.
D
davidv
Guest
How is morality similar to, and different from, matter? Can these similarities and difference support applying your statement above allegorically to morality?
P
PRmerger
Guest
LOL! You don’t have to? You decided on your own authority that Matthew is theopneustos? And that Mark is, too?
Can you tell us, on your own authority, whether this verse is part of God’s revelation?
“Thou causest to err thereby whomever Thou pleasest and guidest whomever Thou pleasest…”
Or do you need something else, like google, or perhaps the Catholic Church, to tell you such things?
Don’t you see that each and every time you quote Scripture you are giving tacit approval to the authority of the Catholic Church telling you, infallibly, that what you are quoting is God’s Word?
J
jonfawkes
Guest
It is similar in that, what we may perceive as an absolute is only so relative to our perspective.
Like our color perception (leaving color blindness out of it) - we may see red, or blue, or green etc. That is “true” from our ability to see, but other animals, and some equipment we’ve developed tell us that there are other parts of the spectrum that are present that we don’t see. So the color we perceive as absolute isn’t. There are other parts of the light spectrum present.
Like our color perception (leaving color blindness out of it) - we may see red, or blue, or green etc. That is “true” from our ability to see, but other animals, and some equipment we’ve developed tell us that there are other parts of the spectrum that are present that we don’t see. So the color we perceive as absolute isn’t. There are other parts of the light spectrum present.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes, indeed, in your paradigm it is relative. :sad_yes: You have no authority based on your position to profess that a Hindu’s belief in many gods is not true. Any type of evangelization effort you make to a Hindu will have as much logic as your telling him, “No, purple is the best color!”
See above. Any effort you might make to provide a Jew with the truth of Christ’s divinity will have as much “pow” as your statement, “Chocolate is the best sauce!”
Quite. I never professed that it’s an absolute truth that Kolbe’s death was greater than the valorous soldier’s. While I believe it to be true, it’s most definitely not an absolute truth. Good Catholics can disagree with me on this and we’d both be still good Catholics.PS: I enjoyed the discussion of Kolbe v soldier, but at the end of the day all it proved is that hit parades depend on who gets most sales/votes, which is about as relative as things get.
F
fhansen
Guest
So, OK, all truth is relative, not only moral truths, so we can’t depend on truths we perceive to determine how to our lives- to move out of the way of a speeding car because, after all it’s just space? A house should be considered space just because it consists of more space than structure? I’m not sure why that should be taken seriously. Why should we think that the microscope, itself, is anything other than space, let alone use it to determine that substances are mainly space?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Indeed. And let’s say I perceive that I am invisible and can walk into a bank and help myself to the vault contents 'cause no one can see me…do you think I’ll get away with that?
J
jonfawkes
Guest
The car - If there is a collision It’s still from a human perspective at an atomic level nothing really happened. Energy is neither created or destroyed. It does suck at a human level but it’s not the “absolute” picture of the event.
We call a house or an apt. a living space. It is the space that makes it useful. You can’t live in a solid block.
You don’t have to take anything seriously if you don’t wish to.
F
fhansen
Guest
Well, you’re right, no one would be able to take anything seriously, much less sacrifice their life for another if they thought that they and the other amounted to little more than space. Even the perception that solids contain a ton of space is a human perception, BTW. In any case we all know that all substances consist of matter. I really don’t see how the matter to space ratio has any significance.
J
jonfawkes
Guest
No, it’s very serious from one perspective, just not every perspective.
Yes, exactly but it shows that our day to day experience isn’t the whole truth. It isn’t absolute. That’s why it is significant. Matter as solid isn’t the whole truth, atoms aren’t the whole truth, quarks aren’t the whole truth, etc.
F
fhansen
Guest
Well, from a Christian perspective, of course, there’s only one absolute and that’s God. But if I don’t trust my human perspective that a speeding car is absolutely a potentially dangerous solid then I could be in potentially dangerous water. And, by the same token, why could there not be absolutes, as far as human life is concerned, in the area of morality?:
J
jonfawkes
Guest
Right, From one perspective, albeit the Christian one. It doesn’t make it an universal absolute.
G
grannymh
Guest
My apology.
But I cannot continue reading this post because the opening sentences are very far from
the truth of Catholicism.
Most likely the truth of Catholicism regarding the reason God created the human person
is off topic.
The thread’s topic of relativism allows any old reason for humans living on earth so apparently my observation would not be allowed since it points to a definite Catholic reason in my humble opinion.
I
inocente
Guest
Is that from the Holy Quran? I prefer a more modern translation.
Couple of years back we were driving around Morocco and, as usual, got invited into someone’s home. The kids showed us their math homework (calculus and matrix multiplication) then dad showed me what was obviously a holy book. I can’t read Arabic, so given the high probability he was a Muslim I said Quran and the whole family beamed at me for even knowing the word. Lot of nice Muslims in the world. They could be wrong of course, just like you or I could be wrong.
Long time ago, some folk collected some books together. They didn’t write them, they collected them. They missed out a few Gnostic works I’m keen on and kept a few books I’d have left out (never been too eager on Daniel for some reason).
But then again God may not be in books. The Sikh mantra Ra ma da sa, sa say so hung – I am One with you (God lives within me). Cf. from the Sarum Primer: God be in my head, and in my understanding / God be in mine eyes, and in my looking / God be in my mouth, and in my speaking / God be in my heart, and in my thinking / God be at mine end, and at my departing. Different strokes for different folks.
And based purely on your personal beliefs you do have absolute authority? Forsooth, how doth thou come to that conclusion O wise dude?Yes, indeed, in your paradigm it is relative. :sad_yes: You have no authority based on your position to profess that a Hindu’s belief in many gods is not true. Any type of evangelization effort you make to a Hindu will have as much logic as your telling him, “No, purple is the best color!”
P
PRmerger
Guest
Indeed, it is.
But you didn’t answer my question. Is it theopneustos? If so, how do you know. If not, who decided this for you?
This was an interesting story. Thanks for sharing! But relevancy?
Um…you missed a big point. These folks were Catholic folks. Catholic bishop folks.
So, inocente, do you believe the Gnostic works are theopneustos?
I don’t believe God is in a book either.
Indeed. This occurs when we receive the Most Holy Eucharist.
Beautiful, indeed. And quite Catholic.
You don’t really believe this, inocente. I am certain of that.
This is a peculiar question, coming from our discussion. Clearly you know that I believe that my authority is not my own, but that it comes from Jesus Christ and his Church.
F
fhansen
Guest
Granny, maybe you could explain what you mean. Do you agree with the statement in my post, a statement regarding man’s free will, or do you have a different objection?
I
inocente
Guest
No idea, I’ve not read much of the Quran. Suggest you ask a Muslim.Indeed, it is.
But you didn’t answer my question. Is it theopneustos? If so, how do you know. If not, who decided this for you?
Twas that if people in other cultures to your own can lead peaceful, good lives, who’s to say, absolutely, which folk are or are not divinely inspired?This was an interesting story. Thanks for sharing! But relevancy?
Did you notice yet that I’m not a Catholic? But anyway, by that logic all bishops are automatically more authoritative about stamps than other stamp collectors
.Some more than others. Relatively. Some are just “all who have eyes to see” mystical stuff.
And how, O wise dude, are you certain of what I believe?
Which was kind of my point. A Sikh, Hindu, etc. has precisely the same kind of authority from their personal belief and their tradition. Can you give me an absolute proof that you’re right and they’re wrong? Obviously without referring back to our scriptures or traditions since the Sikh or Hindu can do exactly the same with theirs, and without appealing to numbers of believers unless you’d like to have a bash at proving that might is right.
- Status