What can you say about the following claims?

[rossum]

You claim that responsibilities do not have to come from God, they are themselves part of reality. I ask how is it reasonable for a material universe to make a moral law with moral obligations?

From the point of view of the universe it is not a moral law, it is a law of cause and effect: if you act in such a manner then these consequences will result. It is us who interpret it as a moral law.

If your original universe has a spiritual component, how does a finite spiritual component of creation give objective meaning and objective purpose to itself once it exists that it did not have before it came into being for no reason?

The universe is driven by cause and effect; there is nothing that does not come into existence without a cause. Objective meaning and purpose can be obtained from outside oneself, that is the meaning of ‘objective’ as opposed to ‘subjective’ which comes from inside oneself.

Do you reject my point that if creation, “just happened” then there is nothing that gives creation, or you or me, objective meaning or objective purpose?

Yes. However the universe originated, it exists outside ourselves here and now. Since it exists we can draw objective reasons from it. While the universe itself may not be able to draw objective reasons for itself, that is not my problem. I am me, I am not the universe. I can draw objective reasons from the universe external to myself.

Is it possible that Buddhism does not address the exact mechanisms that ‘karma uses’ because Buddhisms solution has inherent problems? Is it possible?

Buddhism is a practical religion. If you want to avoid the hells then do not do these things. If you want to go to the heavens then do these things. If you want to attain nirvana then do these other things. As long as the mechanisms work that is all I need to know. I can tell that the mechanisms work because of the results I see in the world around me. Remember that nirvana is attainable in this life – the Buddha attained nirvana at age 35 and he died at age 80. That is 45 years on Earth while also in nirvana.

My problem is that it appears you want to have ‘karma’ punish and reward like gravity; yet karma has no consciousness, no intelligence, does not have a personality and therefore karma could not judge according to the intent of a person.

Karma does not “judge”; it is cause and effect. A person’s intent is part of the (name removed by moderator)ut to karma. Look again at the first two verses of the Dhammapada, which I have quoted before:Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with an evil mind then suffering will follow you,
as the wheel follows the draught ox.

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with a pure mind then happiness will follow you,
as a shadow that never leaves.

Dhammapada 1:1-2
Notice the words in the third line of each verse: “with an evil mind”, “with a pure mind”. Intent is built into karma from the start.

To create means to bring something into existence from nothing. For God to bring into existence all creation absolutely requires that He bring into existence time also because if He does not bring into existence time, if time existed with God but not as part of God, then God is not the creator of all things that are not Him.

If there is no time then I have no way of telling whether God existed before creation or if creation existed before God. Without time the word “before” is a meaningless jumble of letters like ‘fobree’.

You make the unsupported claim that " “changeless”, “eternal” and “the present tense” cannot be defined without the concept of time", and I understand it differently.

In order to understand the word “changeless” we need to understand the word “change”. An object, O, changes if it is different at two different points in time, T1 and T2. O(T1) =/= O(T2). Building on this an object is changeless if for all possible pairs of points in time T1, T2 then O(T1) == O(T2).

I have shown my definition of ‘changeless’, now you please show your definition which does not involve time.

I asked, “In your understanding of Buddism, is there any objective purpose or objective meaning to all of existence”

Buddhism aims to enlighten all living beings. It does not aim to enlighten all of existence because there are parts of existence that are not living beings. Living beings obtain objective purpose from outside themselves. There is no requirement for an objective purpose for the non-living part of existence.

Again I ask,“In your understanding of Buddhism, is there any objective purpose or objective meaning to all of existence”?

No.

If you do not believe there is objective meaning or objective purpose to life, just say so. But back to my first paragraph above, what gives objective responsibilities if there is nothing to give objective meaning to life?

Your previous question was about “all of existence”, this question is about “life”. Different questions with different answers. Life does have an objective purpose which can be derived from a careful observation of the workings of the universe. This is what the Buddha did; he rediscovered the Path to enlightenment. The rest of us are just following that Path.

rossum

 

[alitaptap]

I was able to post so will try again. Would you please explain what absolute truth, non-absolute truth, objective truth and subjective truth actually are so we are on the same page. Even if absolute truth is impossible to apprehend, I would like to know what it is. Is it universal or unchangeable, etc.

Those words subjective and objective caused so much trouble on the first threads I attempted that the wounds are still raw. Not literaly and not as bad as I sounded.
The strange thing is that I told my daughter about them. She will be getting her degree in physical therapy. She knew exactly the difference between the two words – I was impressed.
Let’s deal with this later in the week.

Blessings,
granny

Good night and sweet dreams.

With all the contradicting versions of Christianity and other religious groups how do I know which one is proclaiming the real absolute objective truth directly from God? I think this is why the son of God established an invincible visible church that would never cease to exist; to proclaim His truth without any error and to be His speaker here on earth…

 

[Douglas_Kraeger]

From the point of view of the universe it is not a moral law, it is a law of cause and effect: if you act in such a manner then these consequences will result. It is us who interpret it as a moral law.
Are you saying that from the point of view of the universe, in the understanding of Buddhism, that there is not a moral law, that there is nothing absolutely, objectively, morally wrong and evil done if someone brutally tortures and eventually kills your hypothetical wife and daughters? Would you tell that to your hypothetical daughters or to a future wife, that no matter what you do to her, it is not absolutely, objectively, morally wrong or evil, no matter what??
Then are you saying that in my hypothetical police officer killing his wife, if he did it deliberately, intentionally (not accidentally); that it would not be absolutely, objectively, morally wrong and evil according to Buddhism?

The universe is driven by cause and effect; there is nothing that does not come into existence without a cause.
I do not understand you here. When you say, “there is nothing that does not come into existence without a cause.” did you not mean to say, “there is nothing that comes into existence without a cause.”?
What is the cause of existence? What is the cause that caused something (everything) to come into existence from nothing?
The universe is driven by cause and effect, but there was no cause to cause the universe to exist from nothing? If there was no reason for existence to come into being from nothing, would there be any reason for existence to cease to exist?

If there was a cause to bring existence into being from nothing, would it have to have a consciousness, an intelligence, so as to will existence to that which did not exist?

You say
Objective meaning and purpose can be obtained from outside oneself, that is the meaning of ‘objective’ as opposed to ‘subjective’ which comes from inside oneself.

     I agree, objective meaning and objective purpose can be obtained from outside oneself, IF THERE IS OBJECTIVE MEANING AND OBJECTIVE PURPOSE TO CREATION in the first place. How can I obtain objective meaning and objective purpose from creation if creation itself has no objective meaning or objective purpose?  Would that not be subjective meaning and subjective purpose because it was not in creation of itself, I would be trying to give it something it did not have from some other source that could give it objective meaning?

Yes. However the universe originated, it exists outside ourselves here and now. Since it exists we can draw objective reasons from it.
Objective reasons? How can we draw objective MEANING from something that does not have objective MEANING?

While the universe itself may not be able to draw objective reasons for itself, that is not my problem. I am me, I am not the universe. I can draw objective reasons from the universe external to myself.

Again I ask how?

 If there is no reason for existence, how do you draw objective reasons for anything?If there is a reason for existence, what is it's cause?

 

[rossum]

Are you saying that from the point of view of the universe, in the understanding of Buddhism, that there is not a moral law, that there is nothing absolutely, objectively, morally wrong and evil done if someone brutally tortures and eventually kills your hypothetical wife and daughters? Would you tell that to your hypothetical daughters or to a future wife, that no matter what you do to her, it is not absolutely, objectively, morally wrong or evil, no matter what??

You use the word “absolutely”. There is no absolute moral law. You use the word “objectively”, there is an objective moral law. From the point of view of the universes there is just cause and effect: actions have their consequences. We see this as a moral law because it is us who suffer the consequences, either good or bad. The universe is not a living being so it does not need a moral law – all it has is cause and effect. We are living beings and we have an objective moral law – karma.

I do not understand you here. When you say, “there is nothing that does not come into existence without a cause.” did you not mean to say, “there is nothing that comes into existence without a cause.”?

Yes, I expressed myself very poorly. Thank you for the correction. Everything has a cause.

What is the cause of existence? What is the cause that caused something (everything) to come into existence from nothing? The universe is driven by cause and effect, but there was no cause to cause the universe to exist from nothing? If there was no reason for existence to come into being from nothing, would there be any reason for existence to cease to exist?

The Buddhist universe comprises material and immaterial parts. At some points in time there are only immaterial parts; at other points in time, such as now, there are both material and immaterial parts. A cause may be material or immaterial. An effect may be material or immaterial. The Buddha said that no start to this process of cause and effect could be seen.

I agree, objective meaning and objective purpose can be obtained from outside oneself, IF THERE IS OBJECTIVE MEANING AND OBJECTIVE PURPOSE TO CREATION in the first place. How can I obtain objective meaning and objective purpose from creation if creation itself has no objective meaning or objective purpose? Would that not be subjective meaning and subjective purpose because it was not in creation of itself, I would be trying to give it something it did not have from some other source that could give it objective meaning?

Everyone can agree that murder is wrong. Because it is agreed by other people outside myself then it is objective and not subjective. That is all I need for an objective, externally sourced morality. I do not need to consult the dust clouds of the Andromeda galaxy to determine their (name removed by moderator)ut on the question. Vast parts of the universe have no (name removed by moderator)ut at all into my objective morality. I obtain my objective morality from those around me and by observing the results of my actions. That is sufficient.

How can we draw objective MEANING from something that does not have objective MEANING?

We both agree that the symbol ‘7’ means the number of days in a week. Arabs use a different symbol that looks like ‘V’ for that number. Japanese has a different symbol again, somewhat like a ‘t’. There is no meaning inherent in any of those symbols, yet we can both draw the same meaning from the symbol ‘7’. We have an objective meaning for that symbol where there is no inherent meaning for that symbol; none of the shapes ‘7’, ‘V’ or ‘t’ have any inherent meaning. There is no meaning inherent in the particular shape, we impute the meaning to it from outside.

rossum

 

[jmcrae]

1. There’s no such thing as absolute truth. What’s true for you may not be true for me.

I have now decided that gravity isn’t true for me. I have decided that if I throw you off the ledge, you will float in mid-air, and you will be able to float safely back to the ledge. Come here, and let me demonstrate … what, you have to leave so soon?

1. Christianity is no better than any other faith. All religions lead to God.

And are you planning to follow any of them, then?

1. I don’t need to go to Church. As long as I’m a good person, that’s all that really matters.

You can be a “nice” person without going to Church; however, it is perfectly possible to be “nice” without being “good.” Since one of the Commandments is that we are to worship God, and since it is the following of the Commandments that makes us “good”, it is therefore not possible to be a “good” person, without going to Church.

1. You don’t need to confess your sins to a priest. You can go straight to God.

True - but will God come straight to me? So far, I have never heard His voice telling me that I am forgiven of my sins, and that’s why I need the priest - in order to be able to hear with my ears that God has forgiven my sins.

1. Dissent is actually a positive thing, since we should all keep our minds open to new ideas.

Here’s a new idea. I’ve decided that 2+2=5, which means that for every two sets of two dollars that I have, I can say that i have five dollars - hey, presto, I just made 20% on my investments. Here, watch me do it again …

(HEY, watch it with those handcuffs, that’s a brand new manicure … )

 

[grannymh]

With all the contradicting versions of Christianity and other religious groups how do I know which one is proclaiming the real absolute objective truth directly from God? I think this is why the son of God established an invincible visible church that would never cease to exist; to proclaim His truth without any error and to be His speaker here on earth…

I agree. The Catholic Church is a true gift to all people.

Blessings,
granny

John 3: 16 & 17

 

[grannymh]

Absolute truth is universal, unchangeable, not contingent. Non-absolute truths lack one or more of these.

Objective truths are ascertainable, at least in principle, by anyone. They are not merely arbitrary decisions by a single being, no matter how powerful. “Because I say so,” is not a satisfactory philosophical basis for truth. The Euthyphro dilemma is relevant here.

In Buddhism there are no absolute truths because they are logically incoherent and would be unascertainable anyway. There are objective truths which can be ascertained through study or meditation.

Have fun (?) with the painting.

rossum

New colors for my walls are definitely not absolute. Unless you count them being on the wall for three months.

Shall I count the ways I have been formulating the objective truth regarding human life according to your definition above? Let’s just say that I have come to an understanding of a non-permanent soul and reincarnation. At least I believe I have.

That being so, the objective truth would be –
The human person is worthy of profound respect.

Blessings,
granny

Spring is a message of faith in the future.

 

[Douglas_Kraeger]

QUOTE=rossum;6531277]You use the word “absolutely”. There is no absolute moral law. I do not understand how you can say there is an objective moral law and yet, no absolute moral law. How can there be one without the other?
You say, “Everyone can agree that murder is wrong. Because it is agreed by other people outside myself then it is objective and not subjective”. Just because a lot of people can agree, each with a subjective opinion, HOW does that make anything objectively wrong or right? If there is nothing, no one, that gives existence objective, true meaning, what can there be that establishes an objective moral law? Is itjustthe perceived opinionof the many around you? Or is it more? If all you go by is the opinions of the majority of people around you, how is that more than the sum total of subjective opinions?
Also, Not everyone agrees that murder is wrong. There are people who say that deliberate killing of some (sick, old, instigators, unproductive, unborn, mentally or intellectually deficient, etc) is justifiable. If they become the majority, does that change the objective moral law? If not, why not?

You use the word “objectively”, there is an objective moral law. From the point of view of the universes there is just cause and effect:
This appears to be an unfounded, unsupported claim. What do you claim as the supportive evidence to show “just” cause and effect? Physical cause and effect is different than just cause and effect. Again to my hypothetical police officer. Do you agree that the “just” consequences from his killing of his wife should be different depending on whether or not he killed her deliberately or as a true accident? How is it reasonable for your karma, that has no intelligence, no consciousness, no awareness of itself; how is it reasonable for karma to be able to bring about different consequences depending on the officer’s intent, intent that only he can know?
That it is just for there to be different consequences, is just another way of saying that, people of good will, know their should be different consequences and that is evidence that people know there is an objective moral law, and most people understand that for there to be an objective moral law, there must be something that established it, willed, created, and revealed it, other wise it is just subjective.
You say,"
We see this as a moral law because it is us who suffer the consequences, either good or bad. The universe is not a living being so it does not need a moral law – all it has is cause and effect. We are living beings and we have an objective moral law – karma. To make the claim that "we are living beings and we have an objective moral law " does not do anything more than make the claim. If Buddhism does not have an explanation on how karma would give the correct consequences to my hypothetical police officer depending on his intent, just admit it.
Do you see where our God, who is creator of all space and time and is outside it with one single, infinite thought, doing everything He is doing all at once in existence as He is without change; Do you see where people can understand how He can reward according to our intent because He has an infinite mind, an infinite consciousness and is an infinite being who wills good for everyone and therefore is the source , reason why, it is right and good to care about people?

I obtain my objective morality from those around me and by observing the results of my actions. That is sufficient.
Again, if you obtain your objective morallity from those around you; If all the men are raping all girls whenever the men want to, wouldthat be your “objective morallity”? If not, why not?

There is no meaning inherent in the particular shape, we impute the meaning to it from outside.
From inside of ourselves? Does that not make it subjective? Please try to explain the fundamental source of objective morallity and how it is conveyed by karma which has no consciousness, no intelligence, does not, can not, care about an individual?

rossum

 

[rossum]

I do not understand how you can say there is an objective moral law and yet, no absolute moral law. How can there be one without the other?

We may possibly be using different definitions. I see an absolute moral law as not being contingent on anything else, hence it applies at all times and in all circumstances – it is rigid and unchanging. I do not accept the existence of such a thing. I see an objective moral law as not being based on subjective opinion but being based on objective things external to oneself. Since those external things can change then objective moral law can change, unlike absolute moral law.

I have previously quoted the example of the adulteress. Before Jesus the Law said that she was to be stoned, after Jesus the Law said that she was not to be stoned but to be admonished not to sin again. That is objective law but it is not absolute law because it has changed.

Just because a lot of people can agree, each with a subjective opinion, HOW does that make anything objectively wrong or right?

Buddhist moral law is built into the universe. We can see it in operation and we can see the effects that different actions have. We can also listen to the advice other people give. The Buddha summed it up as:
“Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,’ abandon them. … Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,’ enter on and abide in them.”

• Kalama sutta, Anguttara Nikaya, 3.65

rossum: “From the point of view of the universes there is just cause and effect:”
DK: This appears to be an unfounded, unsupported claim. What do you claim as the supportive evidence to show “just” cause and effect?

My apologies for not expressing myself more clearly. I was using “just” in the sense of “merely”, not in the sense of “justice”.

Again to my hypothetical police officer. Do you agree that the “just” consequences from his killing of his wife should be different depending on whether or not he killed her deliberately or as a true accident? How is it reasonable for your karma, that has no intelligence, no consciousness, no awareness of itself; how is it reasonable for karma to be able to bring about different consequences depending on the officer’s intent, intent that only he can know?

As I have already pointed out, intent is part of the (name removed by moderator)ut to karma. Just as gravity is ‘aware’ of the relative positions of every piece of matter in the universe, so karma is ‘aware’ of the intentions and actions of all living beings in the universe.

for there to be an objective moral law, there must be something that established it, willed, created, and revealed it, other wise it is just subjective.

You left out “discovered it” which is closer to the Buddhist position. Again, I will use the analogy of gravity – moral law is built into the universe and it can be discovered by correct observation.

If Buddhism does not have an explanation on how karma would give the correct consequences to my hypothetical police officer depending on his intent, just admit it.

Currently science lacks knowledge of the mechanism of gravity. We know that Newton’s mechanism is not correct. We know that Einstein’s mechanism is not correct. We are working on a theory of quantum gravity, but that is far from complete. Despite not knowing the actual mechanism of gravity we can predict how gravity will affect things in a very large range of situations.

I do not need to know how karma works, I merely need to know what results my actions will have. As with a TV set, I can operate it without a degree in electronics. Long before Newton men were able to use gravity to do things, for example a Medieval Trebuchet. They had no idea of the mechanism of gravity yet they were able to utilise gravity to throw large rocks at castle walls.

Again, if you obtain your objective morallity from those around you; If all the men are raping all girls whenever the men want to, wouldthat be your “objective morallity”? If not, why not?

Look at the quote from the Kalama sutta. Such actions would lead to harm and ill for the raped girls and so would be objectively wrong. Such actions would be condemned by the wise and so be objectively wrong.

Please try to explain the fundamental source of objective morallity and how it is conveyed by karma which has no consciousness, no intelligence, does not, can not, care about an individual?

Karma, like gravity is part of the universe. By observation and by “standing on the shoulders of giants” men have worked out quite a lot about gravity, though there is still more to discover. By observation and by “standing on the shoulders of giants” men have worked out quite a lot about karma, though there is still more to discover.

You seem to be stuck on a monarchical vision of moral law, the law is laid down by the Monarch who promulgates it and enforces it. That is not the Buddhist vision. Buddhist law effectively enforces itself. It does not say “Thou shalt not …” it says “If you do this then …” You are not punished for your actions, you are affected by their results. Good actions bring pleasant results; wrong actions bring unpleasant results. Buddhism has a very different approach from Christianity on this question. In Christianity God could in theory add an eleventh commandment: “Thou shalt not eat butter on a Wednesday”. That cannot happen in Buddhism.

rossum

 

[Douglas_Kraeger]

We may possibly be using different definitions. I see an absolute moral law as not being contingent on anything else, hence it applies at all times and in all circumstances – it is rigid and unchanging. I do not accept the existence of such a thing. I see an objective moral law as not being based on subjective opinion but being based on objective things external to oneself. Since those external things can change then objective moral law can change, unlike absolute moral law.
I have made the point before that under my understanding of Christianity, God holds different peoples more or less culpable for their actions or inactions, depending on how much of God’s law has been revealed to them and on the specific circumstances. I agree that this could be seen by humans as not absolute, but does the appearence of different rules for different people under apparently the same circumstances prove that God could not see it eternally as consistant because He sees all the details?
You see your ‘objective’ moral law as being based on things external to oneself and therefore since those things can change, then your objective moral law can change. Is it alwayswrong for a man to brutally rape and kill a little girl? If it is always wrong, then is that not an unchanging, absolute moral law?

I have previously quoted the example of the adulteress. Before Jesus the Law said that she was to be stoned, after Jesus the Law said that she was not to be stoned but to be admonished not to sin again. That is objective law but it is not absolute law because it has changed.

Buddhist moral law is built into the universe. We can see it in operation and we can see the effects that different actions have. We can also listen to the advice other people give. The Buddha summed it up as:
“Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,’ abandon them. … Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,’ enter on and abide in them.”

• Kalama sutta, Anguttara Nikaya, 3.65

My apologies for not expressing myself more clearly. I was using “just” in the sense of “merely”, not in the sense of “justice”.

As I have already pointed out, intent is part of the (name removed by moderator)ut to karma. Just as gravity is ‘aware’ of the relative positions of every piece of matter in the universe, so karma is ‘aware’ of the intentions and actions of all living beings in the universe.

You left out “discovered it” which is closer to the Buddhist position. Again, I will use the analogy of gravity – moral law is built into the universe and it can be discovered by correct observation.

Currently science lacks knowledge of the mechanism of gravity. We know that Newton’s mechanism is not correct. We know that Einstein’s mechanism is not correct. We are working on a theory of quantum gravity, but that is far from complete. Despite not knowing the actual mechanism of gravity we can predict how gravity will affect things in a very large range of situations.

I do not need to know how karma works, I merely need to know what results my actions will have. As with a TV set, I can operate it without a degree in electronics. Long before Newton men were able to use gravity to do things, for example a Medieval Trebuchet. They had no idea of the mechanism of gravity yet they were able to utilise gravity to throw large rocks at castle walls.

Look at the quote from the Kalama sutta. Such actions would lead to harm and ill for the raped girls and so would be objectively wrong. Such actions would be condemned by the wise and so be objectively wrong.

Karma, like gravity is part of the universe. By observation and by “standing on the shoulders of giants” men have worked out quite a lot about gravity, though there is still more to discover. By observation and by “standing on the shoulders of giants” men have worked out quite a lot about karma, though there is still more to discover.

You seem to be stuck on a monarchical vision of moral law, the law is laid down by the Monarch who promulgates it and enforces it. That is not the Buddhist vision. Buddhist law effectively enforces itself. It does not say “Thou shalt not …” it says “If you do this then …” You are not punished for your actions, you are affected by their results. Good actions bring pleasant results; wrong actions bring unpleasant results. Buddhism has a very different approach from Christianity on this question. In Christianity God could in theory add an eleventh commandment: “Thou shalt not eat butter on a Wednesday”. That cannot happen in Buddhism.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I have made the point before that under my understanding of Christianity, God holds different peoples more or less culpable for their actions or inactions, depending on how much of God’s law has been revealed to them and on the specific circumstances. I agree that this could be seen by humans as not absolute, but does the appearence of different rules for different people under apparently the same circumstances prove that God could not see it eternally as consistant because He sees all the details?

I am not God. I cannot know what God sees, all I can know is what I see. What I see is a non-absolute moral law which I do my imperfect best to act in accordance with.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

We may possibly be using different definitions. I see an absolute moral law as not being contingent on anything else, hence it applies at all times and in all circumstances – it is rigid and unchanging. I do not accept the existence of such a thing. I see an objective moral law as not being based on subjective opinion but being based on objective things external to oneself. Since those external things can change then objective moral law can change, unlike absolute moral law.

I have previously quoted the example of the adulteress. Before Jesus the Law said that she was to be stoned, after Jesus the Law said that she was not to be stoned but to be admonished not to sin again. That is objective law but it is not absolute law because it has changed.

rossum

Regarding definitions.

Morality, morals, moral law objective or relative are in reality applications of a basic, fundamental truth.

This truth is absolute because it applies at all times and in all circumstances. Whether this truth is considered as being contingent on anything else depends on one’s worldview. Contingency or no contingency does not affect the fact that the basic, fundamental truth is absolute.

This absolute truth is – The human person is worthy of profound respect.

This truth is seen as objective because it exists external to oneself and does not depend on subjective opinions. It exists independently in time; for example, it existed before we were born and will continue to exist after we die. How the truth the human person is worthy of profound respect is applied to human actions is called morality or moral law.

In the example of the adulteress, Old Testament teaching was that the reason the human person is worthy of profound respect is because human life is a gift from God. Thus life, procreation, and the family were sacred. Adultery was a serious violation of this sacredness. Jesus did not change the concept of sacredness. He brought mercy to the sinner.

Jesus saved the human life of the adulteress. In doing so, He also taught us that serious sins can cause the death of our spiritual life especially when we scorn our Creator. This is why He admonished her not to sin again. He was saving her spiritual soul.

Did the absolute truth that the human person is worthy of profound respect change? No. Through His loving mercy, Jesus treated the adulteress with profound respect. In fact. he went beyond. He treated her spiritual soul with profound respect with His admonishment not to sin again.

So what external things were different? The difference is between the external stoning of the woman and the external forgiveness and mercy shown by Jesus. The absolute truth that the human person is worthy of profound respect remains.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[Douglas_Kraeger]

My post yesterday was an initial version. So this goes back to an earlier post of yours. Thank you. DK

I am not God. I cannot know what God sees, all I can know is what I see. What I see is a non-absolute moral law which I do my imperfect best to act in accordance with.

rossum

 It is interesting that you say, "I cannot know what God sees." You could almost be seen as admitting that you really believe that God does exist but are focusing on the fact that nobody can know ALL of what God sees.  Perhaps the way you expressed yourself should have included a conditionalphrase such as, " If God did exist, then I could..."    
  Your choice of the word "imperfect" also isinteresting to me. If there is meaning to "imperfect", does that not require a meaning to "perfect"? How can "perfect" have meaning if "perfect" does not exist? If "perfect" exists, does it not have to be infinitely perfect? Does not "perfect", or "being perfect" require somestandard that isunchanging and absolute?  How can there be an infinitely perfect if there is no infinite God?

Now back to my earlier, more complete post. A question: If we are using different definitions of “objective”, then would that require one of our definitions to be in error?

QUOTE=rossum;6537237]We may possibly be using different definitions. I see an absolute moral law as not being contingent on anything else, hence it applies at all times and in all circumstances – it is rigid and unchanging. I do not accept the existence of such a thing. I see an objective moral law as not being based on subjective opinion but being based on objective things external to oneself. Since those external things can change then objective moral law can change, unlike absolute moral law.

I have made the point before that under my understanding of Christianity, God holds different peoples more or less culpable for their actions or inactions, depending on how much of God's law has been revealed to them and on the specific circumstances. I agree that this could be seen by humans as not absolute, but does the appearence of different rules for different people under apparently the same circumstances prove that God could not see it eternally as consistant because He sees all the details and He knows who knows what and when they know it? 
 You say, " hence it applies at all times and all circumstances." What if there are different circumstances? Does that allow for different "right choices"? If part of the different circumstances is the knowledge or intent of the people involved, is it possible that what we see as the "same circumstances", God sees as different circumstanses?  You do not have to be God to say, "yes, it is possible", to this question.

You see your ‘objective’ moral law as being based on things external to oneself and therefore since those things can change, then your objective moral law can change. Is it always absolutely wrong for a man to brutally rape and kill a little girl? If it is always absolutely wrong, then is that not an unchanging, absolute moral law?

I have previously quoted the example of the adulteress. Before Jesus the Law said that she was to be stoned, after Jesus the Law said that she was not to be stoned but to be admonished not to sin again. That is objective law but it is not absolute law because it has changed.
I have tried to show how under the old incomplete law, God shows man His hared of the sin and under the new complete Law of Jesus, God shows by His death how much He loves the sinner and how much mercy He has. Even if you do not accept this explanation; my question for you is: do you see an inconsistancy in my explanation that shows you that God is revealing His law to us and we are held accountable for our actions depending on how much we have been shown, even if we have deliberately tried to close our eyes to the revelation? Do you see how as man sees more of God’s law, we can conclude that the law has never changed, only the fact that more has been revealed has changed?
I believe you have said that Buddhism does not discuss the concept of mercy. I believe that the reason for this might be that for there to be mercy, in the end there must be a mind that chooses mercy over mere consequences according to an impersonnal cause and effect. If it is ever right to be merciful, does that prove that mercy is then right and good? If a father tells his young son many times that the son must not do something because itis dangerous, and threatens him with dire punishment (death) should he disobey, and the son does it for some (unthinking) reason; are there circumstances where the father should be merciful?

The above sounds like there may be things (actions) that are always, absolutely, objectively, wrong and evil and should never be done. Do you agree that a man brutally raping and killing a little girl is always, absolutely, objectively, wrong and evil and should never be done? Is this then not an exampleof an absolute, objective moral law?

 

[Douglas_Kraeger]

To continue:

I am not God. I cannot know what God sees, all I can know is what I see. What I see is a non-absolute moral law which I do my imperfect best to act in accordance with.

rossum

As I have already pointed out, intent is part of the (name removed by moderator)ut to karma. Just as gravity is ‘aware’ of the relative positions of every piece of matter in the universe, so karma is ‘aware’ of the intentions and actions of all living beings in the universe.

You left out “discovered it” which is closer to the Buddhist position. Again, I will use the analogy of gravity – moral law is built into the universe and it can be discovered by correct observation.

I believe in order for something to be discovered, it must be revealed first by God, and therefore I think that discovered is a neccessary consequence of revealed and should be seen as implied, and, also, that if God reveals something to someone, even if they close their eyes and refuse to think about it, they had to see it first for an instant before they could close their eyes to it. Therefore, discovered is built into revelation, in my opinion.

I do not need to know how karma works, I merely need to know what results my actions will have.

Look at the quote from the Kalama sutta. Such actions would lead to harm and ill for the raped girls and so would be objectively wrong. Such actions would be condemned by the wise and so be objectively wrong.
Again I ask, "If many wise men agree, in their subjective opinions, HOW does that make it an objective opinion. If it is the mere sum of many subjective opinions that determine an "objective " moral order, If those subjective opinions do not have to be in agreement with some absolute LAW, then what is to prevent many men getting together and seeing “some benefit” for the girl if all men rape little girls when the men want to? Do you want to say that there are no men who could “come up with” some “gain” for the girl in order to justify their desires?
You say you do not need to know how karma works in order to see the cause and effect. But I say that if you care about people, then you should want to be able to make it as easy as possible for them to come to the correct understnding of reality. Your explanation of buddhism seems to say that, in my example, the police officer should receive a different consequence depending on his intent in the killing of his wife, and in order for karma to do this, something in karma must be able to know his intent, and this must me an intelligence of some form because only an intelligence can know anything. therefore there karma must be a mind, somewhere deciding on intent and giving rewards accordingly. Do you reject this? How can something other than a mind, know anyone’s intent? If there is no evidence in our world of anything being able to “know” otherthan a mind, withan intelligence, why shouldit be reasonable for anyonrto believe karma can decide justly the right consequences for the hypothetical police officer ??

rossum

 

[rossum]

This absolute truth is – The human person is worthy of profound respect.

This cannot be absolute because it includes a time-dependent term: “human person”. There was a time when there was no such thing as a “human person”. There will be a time in the future when there will also be no such thing.

Is “The forglebling is worthy of profound respect.” an absolute truth? We cannot know unless we also know what a forglebling is. Since there will not be any forgleblings until 2.7 billion years after the last human has died we are never going to be able to know.

You propose an excellent truth, but I do not see it as absolute.

rossum

 

[rossum]

My post yesterday was an initial version. So this goes back to an earlier post of yours. Thank you. DK

Those “Submit” and “Preview” buttons are much too close together.

It is interesting that you say, “I cannot know what God sees.” You could almost be seen as admitting that you really believe that God does exist but are focusing on the fact that nobody can know ALL of what God sees. Perhaps the way you expressed yourself should have included a conditionalphrase such as, " If God did exist, then I could…"

I would have phrased it as “I cannot know what God, as defined by Christianity, sees.”

Your choice of the word “imperfect” also isinteresting to me. If there is meaning to “imperfect”, does that not require a meaning to “perfect”?

The two are mutually conditioning: we cannot have “imperfect” without having “perfect” and vice versa. Each requires the other.

If “perfect” exists,

No, it does not have to exist, it merely has to have an agreed meaning. “Unicorn” has an agreed meaning yet it has no real referent.

I agree that this could be seen by humans as not absolute, but does the appearence of different rules for different people under apparently the same circumstances prove that God could not see it eternally as consistant because He sees all the details and He knows who knows what and when they know it?

I am human and I can only act and know as a human. What I see is a changing and hence not absolute moral law. The law that I must follow, and that your God seems to expect me to follow, changes as we both agree. Why do I need to hypothesise about irrelevant details that may or may not exist and that have no actual effect on the rules I am required to follow here and now? Such hypotheses are just distractions from what I should be doing.

You see your ‘objective’ moral law as being based on things external to oneself and therefore since those things can change, then your objective moral law can change. Is it always absolutely wrong for a man to brutally rape and kill a little girl? If it is always absolutely wrong, then is that not an unchanging, absolute moral law?

I can see no circumstances in which such an act would be moral. Old Testament Israelites were ordered by YHWH to kill little girls, though without the rape part. Would you see the actions of those Israelites as moral or immoral?

I believe you have said that Buddhism does not discuss the concept of mercy.

Human mercy is good and is encouraged. Karma does not have any mercy because it is not alive. Gravity does not have any mercy either. If you do not act with due regard to either gravity or karma then the outcomes are down to you.

The above sounds like there may be things (actions) that are always, absolutely, objectively, wrong and evil and should never be done. Do you agree that a man brutally raping and killing a little girl is always, absolutely, objectively, wrong and evil and should never be done? Is this then not an exampleof an absolute, objective moral law?

YHWH ordered the killing of all the little girls in many Canaanite cities and among the Amalekites. Were the actions of those who killed those little girls moral or not?

to be continued …

rossum

 

[rossum]

I believe in order for something to be discovered, it must be revealed first by God

Here I disagree with you. The gods know less than the Buddha; it is the Buddha who teaches the gods, not vice versa.

I do not need to know how karma works, I merely need to know what results my actions will have.

Again I ask, "If many wise men agree, in their subjective opinions, HOW does that make it an objective opinion. If it is the mere sum of many subjective opinions that determine an "objective " moral order, If those subjective opinions do not have to be in agreement with some absolute LAW, then what is to prevent many men getting together and seeing “some benefit” for the girl if all men rape little girls when the men want to? Do you want to say that there are no men who could “come up with” some “gain” for the girl in order to justify their desires?

What of those wise men who say “YHWH has told us that you are to kill all the little girls in that city.” Your claimed absolute morality is just as open to misuse as my objective morality.

But I say that if you care about people, then you should want to be able to make it as easy as possible for them to come to the correct understnding of reality.

A correct understanding of reality includes a lot of useless information. Reality includes all the dust clouds in the Andromeda galaxy. All I need to tell people is “This is the TV remote. Here is the On/Off button. There are the Channel buttons and this is where you change the Volume.” I do not need to give them a three year course in electronics and the manufacture of flat screens. Buddhism explicitly concentrates on relevant details and not on irrelevant and unanswerable questions. Hence my lack of interest in any absolute that might or might not underlie the changing morality I actually follow from day to day. The parable of the Man Shot with the Arrow is relevant here:[The Buddha said:] 'It is as if, Malunkyaputta, a man is shot with an arrow thickly smeared with poison, … and the wounded man were to say “I will not have the arrow taken out until I know the caste of the man who shot it, … his tribe … his clan … his village … his height etc.” [many questions omitted here] That man would die Malunkyaputta, before he learned all that he wanted to know.

'In exactly the same way, Malunkyaputta, any one who says “I will not lead the religious life under the Blessed One until the Blessed One explains to me whether the universe is eternal, whether the universe is not eternal, whether the universe is finite, whether the universe is infinite etc.” [many questions omitted here] That person would die Malunkyaputta, before I had ever explained all this to that person.

‘The religious life, Malunkyaputta, does not depend on the dogma that the universe is eternal, nor does it depend on the dogma that the universe is not eternal etc. [many dogmas omitted here] Whatever dogma obtains there is still birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, misery, grief and despair, of which I declare the extinction in the present life.’

• Cula-Malunkyovada sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 63

rossum

 

[Holly3278]

1. There’s no such thing as absolute truth. What’s true for you may not be true for me.

Wrong! There is a such thing as absolute truth and that absolute truth is contained within the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church alone!

(John 14:6 RSV) Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.

(John 8:31 RSV) Jesus then said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples,
(John 8:32 RSV) and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”

1. Christianity is no better than any other faith. All religions lead to God.

Again, wrong!

(John 14:6 RSV) Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.

1. I don’t need to go to Church. As long as I’m a good person, that’s all that really matters.

Wrong!

(Hebrews 10:25 NAB-A) We should not stay away from our assembly, as is the custom of some, but encourage one another, and this all the more as you see the day drawing near.

1. You don’t need to confess your sins to a priest. You can go straight to God.

Wrong again!

(John 20:22 RSV) And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
(John 20:23 RSV) If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

(James 5:16 RSV) Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.

(1 John 1:9 RSV) If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

1. Dissent is actually a positive thing, since we should all keep our minds open to new ideas.

(Galatians 5:19 RSV) Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness,
(Galatians 5:20 RSV) idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit,
(Galatians 5:21 RSV) envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

(1 Corinthians 14:33 DRB) For God is not the God of dissension, but of peace: as also I teach in all the churches of the saints.

(1 Corinthians 1:10 RSV) I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.

So yeah, alitaptap, your post has been thoroughly refuted using only Sacred Scripture.

 

[grannymh]

This cannot be absolute because it includes a time-dependent term: “human person”. There was a time when there was no such thing as a “human person”. There will be a time in the future when there will also be no such thing.

Is “The forglebling is worthy of profound respect.” an absolute truth? We cannot know unless we also know what a forglebling is. Since there will not be any forgleblings until 2.7 billion years after the last human has died we are never going to be able to know.

You propose an excellent truth, but I do not see it as absolute.

rossum

Would time-dependent term be a contingency?

Since a forglebling would not appear until 2.7 billion years after the last human has died, it is in a separate category from the human person. I am having enough trouble with the category of human person without adding another.

Blessings,
granny

Spring is the answer to the question --Is there a future?

 

[rossum]

Would time-dependent term be a contingency?

Yes. An absolute truth cannot depend on time. At the moment it has no meaning because ‘forglebling’ has no meaning. In future it will have a meaning so its meaning is time dependent.

I am having enough trouble with the category of human person without adding another.

Forgleblings are very like Bandersnatchii but lack the 12th tentacle from the right and have a second fribulum in its place.

rossum