How does one decide right vs wrong?

[PitbullMidwest]

<font color=blue>... If God also decreed moral absolutes then why create man with free will? </font color=blue>

Man's free will to accept or deny them doesn't make them any less absolute.

 

[wroughtn_harv]

<font color=blue>Man's free will to accept or deny them doesn't make them any less absolute.</font color=blue>

The problem I'm having here is having someone give me an example of an absolute law and a some kind of supporting article, link, or rationale for it.

There's no way a logical person coulld reasonably discount the sincerity of those claiming some laws are absolute. It would be easier for the ones on the outside looking in to understand when they're talking about their assumptions of absolute law if they could give us some examples and explanations.

 

[knucklehead]

You probably won't get examples because it is recognized that you only want them to disagree with them. If you don't believe in very many absolutes, as you have stated, why do you continue to demand them? Framing the argument again? /w3tcompact/icons/grin.gif

Here's three:

God is

Man is sacred

Life is service

 

[wroughtn_harv]

<font color=blue>You probably won't get examples because it is recognized that you only want them to disagree with them.</font color=blue>

Evening Mark,

I guess I'm just pure t transparent, huh?

Actually I figure since they're absolute it's my duty to question them. My nature, way I am, etc.

<font color=blue>If you don't believe in very many absolutes, as you have stated, why do you continue to demand them?</font color=blue>

It guess the absolute question wouldn't matter to me but it seems every time I admit to being a non believer in dieties I get they old statement about how I can't be good or moral because without a god there is no absolute laws to go by. And those with a god are morally superior because they have absolute laws that govern their behavior.

So me being me I always have to ask which laws are absolute. And of course the same ones come up every time. And after the first time I researched those laws and have found them anything but absolute.

So I keep asking. Maybe some day someone will give me an example of an absolute law that I can agree with and my search will be over.

Yours <font color=blue>

God is

Man is sacred

Life is service</font color=blue>

sound nice. But you have given no supporting statements or qualifiers. Which means that your absolutes are subject to your interpretation and mine.

I'm not saying your suggestions don't sound good and make some kind of sense in a theoretical way. They are subject to interpretation by the individual. Not really what I think you would agree as qualifying as absolute, right?

 

[knucklehead]

<font color=blue>But you have given no supporting statements or qualifiers. Which means that your absolutes are subject to your interpretation and mine.</font color=blue>

Uh, well, but, true absolutes don't need qualifiers. Unless you're a relativist.

Truth, fact, absolutes - all of the things I have seen debated here - apparently hinge on the belief of the beholder, in the eyes of those who question them. But they don't or they wouldn't be absolute. Do we need another dictionary trip, here?

What makes a man think that something doesn't exist, or isn't true, or can't be defined, unless it can be proven to him in terms he accepts and understands? Isn't that the ultimate in closed mindedness - the very charge leveled at others by relativists? Hence the tangled web I earlier referred to, my ironworking friend.

This is a game; we can have a little fun with it. But let's not confuse it for thinking. And let's not let it get the better of us, to our eternal regret.

 

[WVBill]

<font color=blue>"What makes a man think that something doesn't exist, or isn't true, or can't be defined, unless it can be proven to him in terms he accepts and understands?"</font color=blue>

His free will?

 

[wroughtn_harv]

Morning Mark,

<font color=blue>Uh, well, but, true absolutes don't need qualifiers. Unless you're a relativist.</font color=blue>

<font color=red>Main Entry: rel·a·tiv·ism
Pronunciation: 're-l&-ti-"vi-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1865
1 a : a theory that knowledge is relative to the limited nature of the mind and the conditions of knowing b : a view that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them</font color=red>

I have to thank you. Here all this time I thought I was a uniquey but about the time of the end of the Civil War some great minds got together and plowed the field I'm toiling. /w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

Seriously, surely someone has an absolute law that they believe in so much they can explain it in such a manner as to make it understandable for the doubter like myself.

I have no doubts about faith. That's perfectly understandable and logical. Paul probably described it better than anyone before or since. He caught not only the factual aspects of faith but the essence also. "<font color=red>Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen</font color=red>".

We know faith itself and unto itself is an absolute. Jesus was willing to die for his faith. So have many others for faith in a completely different god or gods.

As a parent and grandparent I see the ultimate example of faith in the sacrifice of one's child.

We know Abraham was willing to kill his son because of his faith. Of course his just and all knowing god was just testing him and when he was sure that Abraham would really slay his son for his god then the god was satisfied.

We can look at Jesus maybe understanding this level of committment as being universally accepted as absolute. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif That describing christianity as being an example of a father's love being so great and committed that the sacrifice of the son was natural if required.

That's one of the things that scare me about being involved in a war on their terms with the Islamic countries of the middle east. They have that level of faith and committment to their cause. They are so sure of the absoluteness of their holy laws that they will not just risk but actually sacrifice their children in the pursuit of a better world where their god will reign.

One has to wonder if one should enter into such a conflict, again on the terms of the opponet, unless one also has such faith and committment.

So if you think I'm wrong to question absolutes consider your committment to your absolute to the committment to the absolute of those willing not just to die themselves for their cause but to sacrifice their children for it against us.

After all they have just as much if not more faith than you do. And they have just as much if not more tangible evidence of their position being the right one as what you have for yours.

So why am I wrong to question yours while you question theirs and all things being equal the real absolute?

 

[PitbullMidwest]

Harv,

Lets look at the law of gravity, I know its not an example of moral or ethical law but the parallel is good.

The absolute law of gravity tells me that if I fling myself off a cliff no amount of reasoning or rationalizing is going to prevent the inevitable fall to earth. I can reject the law of gravity but that still doesn't change the absolute of the law.

 

[knucklehead]

Exactly. No contest there and proof of our Creators' love IMHO, to risk losing us rather than making us sheep.

 

[knucklehead]

Hey Harv - after we get done here let's go over to CBN and debate tractors intensely in the off topic forum /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

<font color=blue>Seriously, surely someone has an absolute law that they believe in so much they can explain it in such a manner as to make it understandable for the doubter like myself.</font color=blue>

I think Pit is addressing this with gravity, which can be easily explained by the Cabinetmaker's Law: Old cabinetmakers' chests always fall into their drawers. I was thinking about magnetism, the nature of the sun's rays (part particles, part waves - wavicles), etc., etc.. But there is the physical world and the spiritual world. Jesus used a good analogy in comparing the spirit to the wind, and I think I would just point to that, since I think God in the form of man can do a better job than simply Mark in the form of man. We cannot grasp the wind. Even though we understand more about molecules and the behaviour of gases now than 2000 years ago we still cannot grasp the wind. What I believe he was saying is that we may not be able to prove absolutes to skeptics.

Even though we talk about faith, right n' wrong, etc., I believe the stance that something has to be proven to our intellect before we believe is too limiting. You can question my faith all you want - it isn't the absolute, but the result of those I recognize. Heck, I question my faith, or am amazed by it's weakness, much as Paul was in Romans.

I think that's important enough to restate - the faith isn't the absolute, but a reaction to the recognition of one. BTW, I'm glad you've retained, or maybe review, your knowledge of scripture - that explanation of faith Paul offers is excellent, and supports faith as a reaction to an absolute, not the absolute itself. You keep whacking us (and yourself) with the Word, and don't let yourself or anyone else get sloppy. Take another cruise through Romans sometime. Just be warned that the word is alive - Heb 4:12.

And that childlike faith thing, also an example used by Jesus, holds a little key to a big door - faith is childlike acceptance of Godly truth. Sounds weak, humble, even poor in intellect; but it's the little key. Hard as it is to swallow, we sometimes have to let go of our selves. That's the hardest part - ego kills.

BTW, I do not believe most of the extreme Muslim followers of Islam do so out of faith, but fear and ignorance. I know I am opening a can of worms with respect to my attitude toward others' faith, but think about it: do you think your preacher friend's faith equates to one of those slimy hucksters on TV? I actually think that my pointing this out is more respectful of Islam than insulting. So I do not equate the extremists' actions with faith in Islam. In fact, our nation's leaders are keeping that distinction squarely in view. And I think and hope we will find out that regardless of rhetoric, when we fight, we will find that we do not face all Muslims as enemies, but only the radical element that has hijacked Islam for criminal reasons. I think that as important enough to wander off topic for a moment.