Truth

That's why I rely on you to provide the appeal to authority!

0 Replies

Quote:

That's not the same thing. Paul was speaking about meat sacrificed to idols. He reasoned that, since the idols were nothing, it would not be wrong for a Christian to eat such meat. But some Christians, especially newly converted ones, might be disturbed by the practice nevertheless. He cautioned his brothers not to stumble such ones by insisting on their right to eat such meat.

Hello Neologist,

It is the same thing. It is subjective truth, as you admit if you would but reread what you said. By the way, you are thinking of Romans 15:20-21 (I looked it up). I was refering to Romans 14:1-8

Romans 14
The Weak and the Strong
1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=14&version=31

0 Replies

echi wrote:

Chumly wrote:
. . . spiritual truth cannot be understood through either circumstantial and/or anecdotal evidence because there is no circumstantial and/or anecdotal evidence for spiritual truth.

I don't follow, Chumly. As I understand, circumstantial and/or anecdotal evidence is the only sort of evidence that does exist for spiritual truth.

Not really.

Simple logic will show that moral absolutes exist.

The denial of the existence of the immoral (i.e. Nothing is immoral) would itself have to be stated as moral absolute, thus an illogical position.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

echi wrote:
Chumly wrote:
. . . spiritual truth cannot be understood through either circumstantial and/or anecdotal evidence because there is no circumstantial and/or anecdotal evidence for spiritual truth.

I don't follow, Chumly. As I understand, circumstantial and/or anecdotal evidence is the only sort of evidence that does exist for spiritual truth.

Not really.

Simple logic will show that moral absolutes exist.

maybe

Quote:

The denial of the existence of the immoral (i.e. Nothing is immoral) would itself have to be stated as moral absolute, thus an illogical position.

The denial of a universal morality is NOT a moral judgment -- it is a claim of fact ABOUT morality -- although it may be an invalid claim.
Regardless, you seriously weaken your position re morality when you relate it to anything "spiritual".

0 Replies

echi wrote:

real life wrote:
echi wrote:
Chumly wrote:
. . . spiritual truth cannot be understood through either circumstantial and/or anecdotal evidence because there is no circumstantial and/or anecdotal evidence for spiritual truth.

I don't follow, Chumly. As I understand, circumstantial and/or anecdotal evidence is the only sort of evidence that does exist for spiritual truth.

Not really.

Simple logic will show that moral absolutes exist.

maybe

Quote:
The denial of the existence of the immoral (i.e. Nothing is immoral) would itself have to be stated as moral absolute, thus an illogical position.
The denial of a universal morality is NOT a moral judgment

Of course it is. It is a judgement about what is and what is not moral.

echi wrote:

Regardless, you seriously weaken your position re morality when you relate it to anything "spiritual".

Nonsense. If there is a universal morality, it must have a source.

------------------

Good to hear from you btw. Hope you are doing well. Cool

0 Replies

real life wrote:

echi wrote:
real life wrote:
The denial of the existence of the immoral (i.e. Nothing is immoral) would itself have to be stated as moral absolute, thus an illogical position.
The denial of a universal morality is NOT a moral judgment

Of course it is. It is a judgement about what is and what is not moral.

Nooooooo... It is a claim about the nature of morality -- not about any specific moral code. Even if we both share the same set of morals we can still disagree about their nature. Neither of us would be making a moral judgment -- we would simply be making a claim as to the reason(s) those morals exist.

Quote:

echi wrote:
Regardless, you seriously weaken your position re morality when you relate it to anything "spiritual".

Nonsense. If there is a universal morality, it must have a source.

I don't know...I suppose even a non-universal morality has a source (certainly there is a reason), but one thing I am sure of is that it's impossible to build a logical argument on "spirituality".

------------------

Quote:

Good to hear from you btw. Hope you are doing well.

thanks. I can't complain. how 'bout yourself -- not getting into any trouble, are you?

0 Replies

If one says, 'Behavior x[/i][/u] is not immoral', all would likely agree that it is a moral judgement.

So, if one says, 'Nothing (i.e. not x y z nor any behavior ) is immoral', how is that not a moral judgement?

0 Replies

still it can be interesting to see how religionists use the
The word "truth" can put people on different wavelengths. A Bible example would be when Pilot was questioning Jesus.

"WHAT is truth?" (John 18:38) That question, by Pontius Pilate, implies that truth is too elusive to be pursued. Many today would agree.

For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone that is on the side of the truth

0 Replies

rl,
I think you're overshooting, here. I agree with you that moral relativism is a weak argument. To say there can be no absolute right and wrong is IMO a rush to judgment -- I think it is an irresistibly attractive notion to some because it appears to be consistent with more substantial aspects of their world view. But, as I understand, moral relativism does not deal with any specific moral judgment -- It just says that moral judgments are always relative. So, if you or I were to say that "Behavior X is immoral", a moral relativist would not necessarily disagree -- but he would argue that it is (more or less) a matter of opinion.

0 Replies

The ultimate challenge raised to moral relativism is does God have the right to set moral absolutes?

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

The ultimate challenge raised to moral relativism is does God have the right to set moral absolutes?

hmmm...That's kind of a loaded question -- don't you think?

0 Replies

It is one of the primary questions raised in Eden. Perhaps the primary question.

0 Replies

yes -- but a moral relativist is probably not likely to share your religious beliefs. Confused

0 Replies

echi wrote:

yes -- but a moral relativist is probably not likely to share your religious beliefs.

Belief is not the touchstone.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

yes -- but a moral relativist is probably not likely to share your religious beliefs.

Define morals !

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

echi wrote:
yes -- but a moral relativist is probably not likely to share your religious beliefs.
Belief is not the touchstone.

Then what is the touchstone?

0 Replies

echi wrote:

neologist wrote:
echi wrote:
yes -- but a moral relativist is probably not likely to share your religious beliefs.
Belief is not the touchstone.
Then what is the touchstone?

God provides the touchstone.

If there is a God.

0 Replies

Quote:

It is one of the primary questions raised in Eden. Perhaps the primary question.

I always thought not eating the apple was just a rule, not a moral.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

The ultimate challenge raised to moral relativism is does God have the right to set moral absolutes?

Until "God provides the touchstone" there is no challenge? I disagree. You have logic on your side on this one -- I think you're just too quick to assume that you don't (force of habit, I guess). =D

0 Replies

HMM! I see where I seem to have created a circle. Let me say what I believe as simply as possible:

Jehovah created humans with a perfect conscience which would have served in any moral situation. By eating the fruit, they declined God's authority over their moral decisions in favor of deciding for themselves what was good and what was bad. That did not change the reality of what was good and what was bad; it just put humans in charge of decisions which history shows have not been within their grasp.

The past 6000 or so years have provided ample evidence of man's failure to direct his own step. The entire bible was written to provide us with the explanation of how God would overcome this rebellion and still give deserving humans the opportunity to regain the promise that Adam and Eve lost. God has not changed his mind over his purpose for the earth and he has not changed his moral standards. This is evident from words given to Jeremiah: "I will put my law within them, and in their heart I shall write it. And I will become their God, and they themselves will become my people." (Jeremiah 31:33, see Hebrews 8:10) Until we once again have perfect conscience, we must continue to search God's word for guidance.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know