absolute truth?

Latest Forums Religion absolute truth?

This topic contains 90 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of  Anonymous 3 years, 2 months ago.

Viewing 25 posts - 26 through 50 (of 91 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #350446
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous
    • Posts: 7768

    what about energy? It cannot be destroyed or created, only transformed. Sounds permanent and absolute yet relative (in that it changes forms).

    [i]Originally posted by hanzze[/i]
    [b]anicca[/b] – Impermanence is not relative. There is not one phenomena which is permanent or lasting. Everything decays. Everything that arises also decays. There is nothing that is lasting. All composed phenomena (thing, mental or physical) are anicca.

    [b]dukkha[/b] – As there is not a single lasting thing, all composed things are unsatisfactory, subject to dissolving and therefor stressful without satisfaction

    [b]anatta[/b] – All mental and physical phenomena are impersonal, with out any inherent self, do not exist out of them self.

    [Message last modified 10-07-2011 12:25am by hanzze]

    #350455
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous
    • Posts: 799

    Good question. :-) So if it is lasting, can you keep it? Can you store it?

    Impermanent does not mean, there is nothing. For example, your body does not disappear after your physical death, but change into different forms. No lasting does not mean that it will disappear into nothing. Impermanence means never ending change. So nothing is permanent, energy is impermanent. It does not stay, it arises and decays. Kinetic energy comes to electric energy, electrical maybe to thermal energy and so on. But it is never lasting, maybe it is lasting for a long period, but always changing and does not last.

    #350465
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous
    • Posts: 7768

    oh I see, theoretically energy is ‘stored’ in this reality because it can’t be created or destroyed…but at the same time it’s never (as far as I know) in its ‘original’ form. It’s either KE, PE, heat forms, etc. so it is more ‘impermanent’ than permanent if you look at say potential energy ‘decaying’ into kinetic energy or/and ‘wasted’ heat from friction, ie it’s always changing.

    [i]Originally posted by hanzze[/i]
    Good question. :-) So if it is lasting, can you keep it? Can you store it?

    Impermanent does not mean, there is nothing. For example, your body does not disappear after your physical death, but change into different forms. No lasting does not mean that it will disappear into nothing. Impermanence means never ending change. So nothing is permanent, energy is impermanent. It does not stay, it arises and decays. Kinetic energy comes to electric energy, electrical maybe to thermal energy and so on. But it is never lasting, maybe it is lasting for a long period, but always changing and does not last.

    [Message last modified 10-07-2011 05:55am by agent0o5]

    #350474
    Profile photo of rasy
    rasy
    Participant
    • Posts: 1935

    [i]Originally posted by Kadin[/i]
    no. because there’s no absolute truth.

    [quote]
    [i]Originally posted by rasy[/i]
    by arguing there is no such thing as absolute truth, is that in itself considered absolute truth?

    [/quote]

    saying there is no absolute truth would be your(kadin) absolute truth.

    #350485
    Profile photo of rasy
    rasy
    Participant
    • Posts: 1935

    [i]Originally posted by Fuddyduddy[/i]

    [quote]
    [i]Originally posted by rasy[/i]

    [quote]
    [i]Originally posted by Fuddyduddy[/i]

    Well any form could have something to do with a moral dilemma for example the Form “GOOD”.

    you mention the shadows are copies of a form, the form being objects and illusions being shadows. absolute truth here are the objects causing the shadows. but not all absolute truth are in abstract realm. the truth here are the objects, they are at your grasp. remove the objects and u will remove the shadows, place the objects and the shadows will appear. it does not have to be that abstract.

    but in regards to your response what would be a copy of this form “good” be? what would an illusion of this form “good” be?
    [/quote]

    You cannot take the allegory of the cave literally, an allegory is suppose to convey a message with symbolic figures. But, I’m not going to judge how you are interpreting what The cave means, but if you are going to understand what I’m trying to explain to you, then you are going to have to understand my interpretation of the symbolism.
    The chained man is his condition, mentally chained to a perspective.

    The light of the blazer is the light of knowledge.

    Again, the Objects are the forms, and the shadows are copies.

    The cave itself is the abstract realm, while the wall is the physical realm.

    Just because you move the objects doesn’t mean they won’t exist, they are permanent, that is why they represent a form and absolute truth, they are not destroyed, changed, or decayed. Just because the Atom wasn’t proven or discovered until the 19th century doesn’t mean it never existed. So, if there is no shadow cast by the object, then obviously the light hasn’t reached it yet.

    Please provide an absolute truth that is not abstract and exist in physical realm.

    A copy of the form Good would be anything that has a characteristics of Goodness.
    [/quote]

    i will provide a absolute truth that exist in physical realm. The earth is round and the slight degree tilt of the earth helps balance our seasons and help create an earth that is habitable for humans to sustain life. This does not have to be abstract in order to grasp this truth.

    #350494
    Profile photo of Fuddyduddy
    Fuddyduddy
    Participant
    • Posts: 388

    [i]Originally posted by rasy[/i]

    [quote]
    [i]Originally posted by Fuddyduddy[/i]

    [quote]
    [i]Originally posted by rasy[/i]

    [quote]
    [i]Originally posted by Fuddyduddy[/i]

    Well any form could have something to do with a moral dilemma for example the Form “GOOD”.

    you mention the shadows are copies of a form, the form being objects and illusions being shadows. absolute truth here are the objects causing the shadows. but not all absolute truth are in abstract realm. the truth here are the objects, they are at your grasp. remove the objects and u will remove the shadows, place the objects and the shadows will appear. it does not have to be that abstract.

    but in regards to your response what would be a copy of this form “good” be? what would an illusion of this form “good” be?
    [/quote]

    You cannot take the allegory of the cave literally, an allegory is suppose to convey a message with symbolic figures. But, I’m not going to judge how you are interpreting what The cave means, but if you are going to understand what I’m trying to explain to you, then you are going to have to understand my interpretation of the symbolism.
    The chained man is his condition, mentally chained to a perspective.

    The light of the blazer is the light of knowledge.

    Again, the Objects are the forms, and the shadows are copies.

    The cave itself is the abstract realm, while the wall is the physical realm.

    Just because you move the objects doesn’t mean they won’t exist, they are permanent, that is why they represent a form and absolute truth, they are not destroyed, changed, or decayed. Just because the Atom wasn’t proven or discovered until the 19th century doesn’t mean it never existed. So, if there is no shadow cast by the object, then obviously the light hasn’t reached it yet.

    Please provide an absolute truth that is not abstract and exist in physical realm.

    A copy of the form Good would be anything that has a characteristics of Goodness.
    [/quote]

    i will provide a absolute truth that exist in physical realm. The earth is round and the slight degree tilt of the earth helps balance our seasons and help create an earth that is habitable for humans to sustain life. This does not have to be abstract in order to grasp this truth.
    [/quote]

    So, you are saying it is absolute truth, it’s more of a theory. You’re going to have to go back to my post on the first page in regards of scientific discoveries and it being true enough to the knowledge that we already have.

    Is it absolute truth that when you sit on a chair you actually touch the chair? No, you are hovering over it, you are never actually touching it. The atoms aren’t even touching each other either, so in regards to what we already know, there is no touching going on. So, you may have or may have not known that, and if you didn’t know, now you do, so your truth has changed because of that knowledge.

    Also, from our perspective it is true that when I sit on the chair I touch it, but from the quantum perspective it isn’t.

    [Message last modified 10-07-2011 07:52am by Fuddyduddy]

    #350504
    Profile photo of rasy
    rasy
    Participant
    • Posts: 1935

    so what happens when u sit on a knife? do u still hover over it then? no, the knife will puncture u and u will bleed.

    if my earth is round example is confusing then let me use another one in the physical realm:
    kidnapping, the absolute truth about kidnapping is that it is wrong…i have not seen a culture where it is acceptable to take another parent’s child without their parents knowing. kidnapping is wrong in any group or culture.

    list how kidnapping can be relative or subjective here

    #350512
    Profile photo of Fuddyduddy
    Fuddyduddy
    Participant
    • Posts: 388

    Well your first answer has to do with science. It’s called force. If there was no force, there is no puncture, you know like electromagnetic repulsion.

    You are seriously confusing yourself. Is that really considered absolute truth. /facepalm.

    Is kidnapping wrong if to save the child from abusive parents?

    Love thy neighbor, even if he is about to kill my family?

    The problem with these “Absolute truths” is that they have ethical and moral dilemmas based on conditions.

    Now, if you were to say that alone the “idea” “kidnapping” is bad, well that is abstract, that idea only exist abstractly as absolute. The act of it exist physically, and depending on conditions (relative or subjective) the outcome can be good or bad and has no absolute truth.

    You’re trying to find something absolute in a evolving and changing universe that you stand relative to. You can’t step into the same river twice. Technically you can, but you get the meaning.

    If a raccoon spoke to you about knowing the absolute truth how would you take that. Now a bunch of monkeys who can’t even solve their own social, economical, energy problems knows the absolute truth be it morally or physically. I find that hard to swallow and pretty comical.

    I don’t deny absolute truth, I only deny that there are people who can claim that they know what the absolute truth is. It is beyond our understanding. But hey, maybe there were people who did know, IE Jesus. I don’t “absolutely” know, however this is my stand on it, and it’s true enough for me.

    I don’t take Plato’s theories of forms as an absolute truth, but it is true enough that it logically make sense to what I already know, and through my own experience with the mushroom goddess. But, the truth can change.

    [i]Originally posted by rasy[/i]
    so what happens when u sit on a knife? do u still hover over it then? no, the knife will puncture u and u will bleed.

    if my earth is round example is confusing then let me use another one in the physical realm:
    kidnapping, the absolute truth about kidnapping is that it is wrong…i have not seen a culture where it is acceptable to take another parent’s child without their parents knowing. kidnapping is wrong in any group or culture.

    list how kidnapping can be relative or subjective here

    [Message last modified 10-07-2011 09:28am by Fuddyduddy]

    #350522
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous
    • Posts: 799

    Things are not that complicated. Good or bad is measured by the intention (if one likes to do that, which is difficult to do regarding others as you would normally not know the intention). If the intention is free of defilement (greed, anger, delusion and all its sub forms) the act will be a kusal (good).
    As for the reactions of others about the act and after the act, its there own problem, they may see it differently and react maybe in another way.

    As for kidnapping, there would be never a intention without defilement (what ever the reason for attachments are). Its results will be relatively good or bad, so one opinion against the other and a never ending story of discussion and reasoning.

    There is no act without intention, if the intention is without defilement the act will be a good one. That’s it.

    Here the Fourteen unwholesome mental factors that influence the mind:

    1. Moha (delusion)
    2. Ahirika (shameless)
    3. Anottappa (utter recklessness, not having normal dread)
    4. Uddhacca (distraction, restlessness)
    5. Lobha (greed)
    6. Ditthi (wrong view)
    7. Mana (conceit)
    8. Dosa (hatred, anger)
    9. Issa (envy)
    10. Macchariya (jealousy, selfishness)
    11. Kukkucca (worry)
    12. Thina (sloth)
    13. Middha (torpor)
    14. Vicikiccha (skeptical doubt)

    Intentions with one or more of those defilement will cause akusal (bad) actions. That’s it.

    #350532
    Profile photo of rasy
    rasy
    Participant
    • Posts: 1935

    [i]Originally posted by Fuddyduddy[/i]
    Well your first answer has to do with science. It’s called force. If there was no force, there is no puncture, you know like electromagnetic repulsion.

    You are seriously confusing yourself. Is that really considered absolute truth. /facepalm.

    Is kidnapping wrong if to save the child from abusive parents?

    Love thy neighbor, even if he is about to kill my family?

    The problem with these “Absolute truths” is that they have ethical and moral dilemmas based on conditions.

    Now, if you were to say that alone the “idea” “kidnapping” is bad, well that is abstract, that idea only exist abstractly as absolute. The act of it exist physically, and depending on conditions (relative or subjective) the outcome can be good or bad and has no absolute truth.

    You’re trying to find something absolute in a evolving and changing universe that you stand relative to. You can’t step into the same river twice. Technically you can, but you get the meaning.

    If a raccoon spoke to you about knowing the absolute truth how would you take that. Now a bunch of monkeys who can’t even solve their own social, economical, energy problems knows the absolute truth be it morally or physically. I find that hard to swallow and pretty comical.

    I don’t deny absolute truth, I only deny that there are people who can claim that they know what the absolute truth is. It is beyond our understanding. But hey, maybe there were people who did know, IE Jesus. I don’t “absolutely” know, however this is my stand on it, and it’s true enough for me.

    I don’t take Plato’s theories of forms as an absolute truth, but it is true enough that it logically make sense to what I already know, and through my own experience with the mushroom goddess. But, the truth can change.

    [quote]
    [i]Originally posted by rasy[/i]
    so what happens when u sit on a knife? do u still hover over it then? no, the knife will puncture u and u will bleed.

    if my earth is round example is confusing then let me use another one in the physical realm:
    kidnapping, the absolute truth about kidnapping is that it is wrong…i have not seen a culture where it is acceptable to take another parent’s child without their parents knowing. kidnapping is wrong in any group or culture.

    list how kidnapping can be relative or subjective here

    [Message last modified 10-07-2011 09:28am by Fuddyduddy][/quote]

    every time u take a knife and stab it in your body, the truth is it will puncture u…i dont know how much more true i can be about this…if u dont get this then facepalm myself…science and absolute truth can also work together as well.

    and kidnapping would be wrong. and yes people do to take children from abusive parents is called protective custody. protective custody is not the same as kidnapping.

    love they neighbor but also protect your family. if u love your neighbor u must naturally already love your family. failing to protect your family from harm is not loving them.

    i respect your statement in believing there is an absolute truth but its not able to be grasp. at least u admit there is absolute truth. Christians claim that Jesus is that truth and invite all people to investigate this claim and give it a fair trail.

    #350541
    Profile photo of Fuddyduddy
    Fuddyduddy
    Participant
    • Posts: 388

    [i]Originally posted by rasy[/i]

    [quote]
    [i]Originally posted by Fuddyduddy[/i]
    Well your first answer has to do with science. It’s called force. If there was no force, there is no puncture, you know like electromagnetic repulsion.

    You are seriously confusing yourself. Is that really considered absolute truth. /facepalm.

    Is kidnapping wrong if to save the child from abusive parents?

    Love thy neighbor, even if he is about to kill my family?

    The problem with these “Absolute truths” is that they have ethical and moral dilemmas based on conditions.

    Now, if you were to say that alone the “idea” “kidnapping” is bad, well that is abstract, that idea only exist abstractly as absolute. The act of it exist physically, and depending on conditions (relative or subjective) the outcome can be good or bad and has no absolute truth.

    You’re trying to find something absolute in a evolving and changing universe that you stand relative to. You can’t step into the same river twice. Technically you can, but you get the meaning.

    If a raccoon spoke to you about knowing the absolute truth how would you take that. Now a bunch of monkeys who can’t even solve their own social, economical, energy problems knows the absolute truth be it morally or physically. I find that hard to swallow and pretty comical.

    I don’t deny absolute truth, I only deny that there are people who can claim that they know what the absolute truth is. It is beyond our understanding. But hey, maybe there were people who did know, IE Jesus. I don’t “absolutely” know, however this is my stand on it, and it’s true enough for me.

    I don’t take Plato’s theories of forms as an absolute truth, but it is true enough that it logically make sense to what I already know, and through my own experience with the mushroom goddess. But, the truth can change.

    [quote]
    [i]Originally posted by rasy[/i]
    so what happens when u sit on a knife? do u still hover over it then? no, the knife will puncture u and u will bleed.

    if my earth is round example is confusing then let me use another one in the physical realm:
    kidnapping, the absolute truth about kidnapping is that it is wrong…i have not seen a culture where it is acceptable to take another parent’s child without their parents knowing. kidnapping is wrong in any group or culture.

    list how kidnapping can be relative or subjective here

    [Message last modified 10-07-2011 09:28am by Fuddyduddy][/quote]

    every time u take a knife and stab it in your body, the truth is it will puncture u…i dont know how much more true i can be about this…if u dont get this then facepalm myself…science and absolute truth can also work together as well.

    and kidnapping would be wrong. and yes people do to take children from abusive parents is called protective custody. protective custody is not the same as kidnapping.

    love they neighbor but also protect your family. if u love your neighbor u must naturally already love your family. failing to protect your family from harm is not loving them.

    i respect your statement in believing there is an absolute truth but its not able to be grasp. at least u admit there is absolute truth. Christians claim that Jesus is that truth and invite all people to investigate this claim and give it a fair trail. [/quote]

    That is an objective truth and not absolute truth. Absolute truth is true for every possible circumstance, if there is any possible circumstance where this truth isn’t true then it’s possibly false, therefor not absolute, if you do not know or can fathom all possible circumstances that this truth is true, then you cannot claim it as absolute, however it certainly is objective.

    If I say, “its absolute truth that if you shoot your hand you’re going to get a bullet through your palm” – It’s obviously the truth, objectively. However I cannot claim it is the absolute, why? Because I’ve seen a man load a rifle with a bullet and shoot himself in the hand, and the bullet did not pierce his hand. So, if there was that sort of possibility I can’t claim that my previous statement is absolute, though it is objective and is true in most cases.

    Though shall not kill, should we send all murderers to death? Should we put young mothers who abort their unborn child to death, or the soldiers who defend the country to death. Moral, and ethical truth is not easily black and white, and to claim that it’s absolute is dangerous.

    [Message last modified 10-08-2011 10:34am by Fuddyduddy]

    #350551
    Profile photo of rasy
    rasy
    Participant
    • Posts: 1935

    i dont know where u got thou shall not kill from (if ur referring to the bible)…it’s thou shall not murder. murder and kill are two different things.

    if u actually saw a man load a rifle and shot his own hand without the bullets hurting him then that is definitely not most case, that would be defying laws of science. (was this an example? or this u actually witness?)

    when we deal with moral, ethics theres got to be a standard to measure things by. but when we deal with faith, belief and religion it involves the supernatural and the supernatural doesn’t always function within our laws of physics or science.

    when it comes to moral and ethics u state it is dangerous that we have a standard, or have an absolute. i think it is even more dangerous if we dont have a standard or dont define what is moral or ethical is.

    #350560
    Profile photo of Fuddyduddy
    Fuddyduddy
    Participant
    • Posts: 388

    [i]Originally posted by rasy[/i]
    i dont know where u got thou shall not kill from (if ur referring to the bible)…it’s thou shall not murder. murder and kill are two different things.

    if u actually saw a man load a rifle and shot his own hand without the bullets hurting him then that is definitely not most case, that would be defying laws of science. (was this an example? or this u actually witness?)

    when we deal with moral, ethics theres got to be a standard to measure things by. but when we deal with faith, belief and religion it involves the supernatural and the supernatural doesn’t always function within our laws of physics or science.

    when it comes to moral and ethics u state it is dangerous that we have a standard, or have an absolute. i think it is even more dangerous if we dont have a standard or dont define what is moral or ethical is.

    Though shall not kill is from the old kings James bible, but it is translated as Thou shall not murder in the new Kings James translation of the Hebrew word.

    It was an actual witness during my travels through Burmay when I was younger.

    I never stated that it is dangerous to have a standard, I stated it was dangerous to claim to know the absolute truth concerning moral truths. All murderers are bad, and shall be sentence to death, and this is absolute. Of course it is agreed upon that murdering is bad, but the intention and result isn’t always the case, there are many possibilities and conditions and if you send an innocent person to death, wouldn’t that be wrong? Is it also morally wrong to steal to feed your family, or to save someones life? The absolute truth is that stealing is wrong and that result of that action is death. Do you see how it can be dangerous, if that were absolute there could be chaos in that society.

    Again, this can go back to Plato’s theories of forms, there is some sort of absolute truth or absolute standard for something, but we cannot claim we know it, we can only interpret it our way and set it for ourselves, you don’t need an absolute truth to survive, you only need cooperation within the species. Do you think that when Man was sleeping in caves and wearing sheep skin, and without moral concepts and ideas, do you think they needed an absolute truth to follow by to prevent chaos? All they need is cooperation.

    [Message last modified 10-08-2011 07:33pm by Fuddyduddy]

    #350570
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous
    • Posts: 799

    Murdering has something to do with a more or less personal rating so it is never something real, it is very subjective. While not killing is very simple and does not leave backdoor or a basis of making excuses.

    Therefore it is a good leading tool within every consciousness or awareness. It also does not have the possibility for hypocritical arguments. One just needs to look at his own intention and acts. Do I have the intention to kill or to hurt? That’s it. Just being aware if aversion arises or greed arises which causes harm. *smile*

    #350580
    Profile photo of rasy
    rasy
    Participant
    • Posts: 1935

    [i]Originally posted by Fuddyduddy[/i]
    [quote]
    [i]Originally posted by rasy[/i]
    .

    Though shall not kill is from the old kings James bible, but it is translated as Thou shall not murder in the new Kings James translation of the Hebrew word.

    It was an actual witness during my travels through Burmay when I was younger.

    I never stated that it is dangerous to have a standard, I stated it was dangerous to claim to know the absolute truth concerning moral truths. All murderers are bad, and shall be sentence to death, and this is absolute. Of course it is agreed upon that murdering is bad, but the intention and result isn’t always the case, there are many possibilities and conditions and if you send an innocent person to death, wouldn’t that be wrong? Is it also morally wrong to steal to feed your family, or to save someones life? The absolute truth is that stealing is wrong and that result of that action is death. Do you see how it can be dangerous, if that were absolute there could be chaos in that society.

    Again, this can go back to Plato’s theories of forms, there is some sort of absolute truth or absolute standard for something, but we cannot claim we know it, we can only interpret it our way and set it for ourselves, you don’t need an absolute truth to survive, you only need cooperation within the species. Do you think that when Man was sleeping in caves and wearing sheep skin, and without moral concepts and ideas, do you think they needed an absolute truth to follow by to prevent chaos? All they need is cooperation.

    [Message last modified 10-08-2011 07:33pm by Fuddyduddy][/quote]

    yes sending an innocent person to punishment is wrong (sounds like what Jesus experienced). but if the convicted murderer is truly guilty then the punishment is just, if he is truly innocent then the punishment is unjust. all human legal systems are imperfect.

    in regards to stealing, yes stealing would be wrong. but obviously one who steals to feed his family when caught will be assessed differently than one who steals to gratify his greed. but stealing is still wrong. Not all wrong acts have the same consequences, they are assessed accordingly.

    for example, it is wrong to speed or run a stop sign. But sometimes officers give a warning or let u go with a citation instead of ticket. You speed trying to get your pregnant wife in labor to the hospital to give birth. Just because u have an emergency doesn’t make the speeding law relative or acceptable. (basically just because every time a mans wife is in labor doesnt mean he has the ”ok pass” to speed on the street) it is still wrong to speed regardless. But because of the circumstance the officer will judge the speeder accordingly.
    if the officer doesnt give a ticket it would be understandable, but if the officer still issues the ticket it is still acceptable.

    #350590
    Profile photo of rasy
    rasy
    Participant
    • Posts: 1935

    [i]Originally posted by hanzze[/i]
    Murdering has something to do with a more or less personal rating so it is never something real, it is very subjective. While not killing is very simple and does not leave backdoor or a basis of making excuses.

    Therefore it is a good leading tool within every consciousness or awareness. It also does not have the possibility for hypocritical arguments. One just needs to look at his own intention and acts. Do I have the intention to kill or to hurt? That’s it. Just being aware if aversion arises or greed arises which causes harm. *smile*

    nothing against u or personal, but i have no idea what you are trying to say

    #350600
    Profile photo of Fuddyduddy
    Fuddyduddy
    Participant
    • Posts: 388

    [i]Originally posted by rasy[/i]

    [quote]
    [i]Originally posted by Fuddyduddy[/i]
    [quote]
    [i]Originally posted by rasy[/i]
    .

    Though shall not kill is from the old kings James bible, but it is translated as Thou shall not murder in the new Kings James translation of the Hebrew word.

    It was an actual witness during my travels through Burmay when I was younger.

    I never stated that it is dangerous to have a standard, I stated it was dangerous to claim to know the absolute truth concerning moral truths. All murderers are bad, and shall be sentence to death, and this is absolute. Of course it is agreed upon that murdering is bad, but the intention and result isn’t always the case, there are many possibilities and conditions and if you send an innocent person to death, wouldn’t that be wrong? Is it also morally wrong to steal to feed your family, or to save someones life? The absolute truth is that stealing is wrong and that result of that action is death. Do you see how it can be dangerous, if that were absolute there could be chaos in that society.

    Again, this can go back to Plato’s theories of forms, there is some sort of absolute truth or absolute standard for something, but we cannot claim we know it, we can only interpret it our way and set it for ourselves, you don’t need an absolute truth to survive, you only need cooperation within the species. Do you think that when Man was sleeping in caves and wearing sheep skin, and without moral concepts and ideas, do you think they needed an absolute truth to follow by to prevent chaos? All they need is cooperation.

    [Message last modified 10-08-2011 07:33pm by Fuddyduddy][/quote]

    yes sending an innocent person to punishment is wrong (sounds like what Jesus experienced). but if the convicted murderer is truly guilty then the punishment is just, if he is truly innocent then the punishment is unjust. all human legal systems are imperfect.

    in regards to stealing, yes stealing would be wrong. but obviously one who steals to feed his family when caught will be assessed differently than one who steals to gratify his greed. but stealing is still wrong. Not all wrong acts have the same consequences, they are assessed accordingly.

    for example, it is wrong to speed or run a stop sign. But sometimes officers give a warning or let u go with a citation instead of ticket. You speed trying to get your pregnant wife in labor to the hospital to give birth. Just because u have an emergency doesn’t make the speeding law relative or acceptable. (basically just because every time a mans wife is in labor doesnt mean he has the ”ok pass” to speed on the street) it is still wrong to speed regardless. But because of the circumstance the officer will judge the speeder accordingly.
    if the officer doesnt give a ticket it would be understandable, but if the officer still issues the ticket it is still acceptable.
    [/quote]

    I think our differences is that you believe in absoluteness, however I don’t believe in grasping it, but I feel it does exist somewhere. There is absolute truth somewhere, and if you believe that a good truth is absolute then I don’t deny that, either way it doesn’t harm anyone if perecieved and judge upon correctly. As long as that truth is for the good and betterment of mankind and our world then it being absolute or not doesn’t matter.

    [Message last modified 10-10-2011 05:48am by Fuddyduddy]

    #350610
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous
    • Posts: 799

    Who decides what is good for one self and others?

    #350619
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous
    • Posts: 799

    [i]Originally posted by rasy[/i]

    [quote]
    [i]Originally posted by hanzze[/i]
    Murdering has something to do with a more or less personal rating so it is never something real, it is very subjective. While not killing is very simple and does not leave backdoor or a basis of making excuses.

    Therefore it is a good leading tool within every consciousness or awareness. It also does not have the possibility for hypocritical arguments. One just needs to look at his own intention and acts. Do I have the intention to kill or to hurt? That’s it. Just being aware if aversion arises or greed arises which causes harm. *smile*

    nothing against u or personal, but i have no idea what you are trying to say[/quote]

    I just tried to explain that the meaning between killing and murdering is just that killing is an absolute act (taking live) while murdering is something subjective and therefor not useable as guideline. What is murdering and what not is very individual, cultural, philosophical, but nothing touchable.

    There have been (or there are) places and times when killing his child is not murdering while here we would call it 100% murdering (“unrighteous” taking live). But here or there, before and also later it will be always killing (taking live).

    Thanks for your patient *smile*

    #350629
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous
    • Posts: 7768

    @rasy,

    so let me get this straight, you believe that there are morals that are absolute? Can you explain a moral that is absolute?

    I can agree with you that absolute truths exist physically, like you said about getting stab (or sitting on a knife), there’s no way around that, if you’re stabbed, you’re stabbed, you can travel in hyperspace all you want, you better get that stab wound fix or you’re going to die.

    But morals is very relative in that it depends on the person or group whether it is true or not.

    #350638
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous
    • Posts: 1889

    Absoulte define a perfection

    Truth define real non false

    So we are.debating if it exist?

    Buddha say you wasting time to fine truth that may or may not.exist..in that time you are.dying.from.everything.around.you. and.when that happen are you ready for it?

    Parent say all they want is.for.you to succeed. They can’t.offer.you much but guide.you in the right.direction..could also be a.brother, sister, teacher, etc..

    This is the absolute truth..

    Even a person that choose the wrong path will find his way to the right path from those surround him.

    Also I want to add since.you guys talking about stabbing..lol

    My uncle was a soldier was shot, stab and buried alive during the killing field..he got out of the grave alive no wounds, marks, or any harm..how do we explain that? My elders seen with their own eyes.. but I do know he was wearing an Buddhist amulet…they could not shot him from 20 yards away.

    Would that be example of abosulte. He bypass

    #350648
    Profile photo of rasy
    rasy
    Participant
    • Posts: 1935

    [i]Originally posted by agent0o5[/i]
    @rasy,

    so let me get this straight, you believe that there are morals that are absolute? Can you explain a moral that is absolute?

    I can agree with you that absolute truths exist physically, like you said about getting stab (or sitting on a knife), there’s no way around that, if you’re stabbed, you’re stabbed, you can travel in hyperspace all you want, you better get that stab wound fix or you’re going to die.

    But morals is very relative in that it depends on the person or group whether it is true or not.

    just like objects are subjected to the law of gravity in our world, i believe humans are also subjected to a law of morality.
    u ask can i explain a moral that is absolute? the fact that u acknowledge there is a moral at all implies that is already a standard to measure things by.

    but i’ll give an example of a moral absolute. I believe it is always wrong to give false testimony against other people. Making false allegations against someone, damaging their reputation, hurting their credibility based on false evidence, gossip etc… is wrong.

    #350657

    Legends
    Participant
    • Posts: 611

    There’s no universal /absolute reference for truth. But, It doesn’t mean that there isn’t an absolute truth only means that there is no absolute truth that we can refer to at a particular point of energy or consciousness as the correct representation of that truth. So, for an example, as far as we know, it’s probably an absolute truth that two masses will attract each other with there gravitational pull. However, there is no reference frame that we can point to as the exclusive reference for that truth. That truth is independent of the reference frame of observation of that truth. Also, if two independent reference frames do not agree to what is the truth on a particular item, either one or both wrong? Then which is wrong or how do you know both aren’t wrong. Though the truth is everywhere, it’s not always seen for what it is.

    Math is a good example, if you think about math it’s pretty absolute. 1+1=2. However when we apply it to physical reality, 1 tree + 1 tree doesn’t equal 2 of the same tree, only equaling an abstract unit.

    #350677
    Profile photo of rasy
    rasy
    Participant
    • Posts: 1935

    [i]Originally posted by PhnomKlarSar[/i]

    Parent say all they want is.for.you to succeed. They can’t.offer.you much but guide.you in the right.direction..could also be a.brother, sister, teacher, etc..

    This is the absolute truth..

    Even a person that choose the wrong path will find his way to the right path from those surround him.

    Also I want to add since.you guys talking about stabbing..lol

    My uncle was a soldier was shot, stab and buried alive during the killing field..he got out of the grave alive no wounds, marks, or any harm..how do we explain that? My elders seen with their own eyes.. but I do know he was wearing an Buddhist amulet…they could not shot him from 20 yards away.

    Would that be example of abosulte. He bypass

    lol yeah i dont know how we started talkimg about stabbing either…but sometimes i think tension due to debates here in KC R&P forum are so thick u have to cut it with a knife.

    i agree that parents want us to succeed and u call this absolute. how would u respond to someone who believes not all parents want their children to suceed. would u say they are wrong in believing that? naturally u would, so there is a standard, a universal one. that is the point i’m trying to make, humans have an universal standard when we deal with what is moral and what is good.

    in regards to your uncle soldier. there are many things that happen in our human world that defies logic and science and biology and even evolution can not explain. evolution can not explain how ur uncle got shot, stabbed and buried and still alive, or how bullets miraculously dodge him ( assuming that all this was true).

    our world have moral law that i see as absolute truth…but also it is true i believe in the supernatural. so for ur uncle who survived all of this u admit there was a belief in supernatural (buddhist amulet) can millions years of evolution mutated cells and amoeba explain why this buddhist amulet seem to work for him? the supernatural defies our physical science and defies the laws of science. but the law of science still exist and we all here on earth are subjected to it.

    basically i’m saying i would not recommend doing a scientific test on this same buddhist amulet ur uncle had on people in a lab shooting them with a bullet and expect 20 out of 20 subjects to not be harmed. why i suggest not to do this test? because we still are subjected to the law of physics and science.

    [Message last modified 10-11-2011 12:26am by rasy]

    #350667
    Profile photo of rasy
    rasy
    Participant
    • Posts: 1935

    [i]Originally posted by Fuddyduddy[/i]
    [quote]
    [i]Originally posted by rasy[/i]

    [quote]
    [i]Originally posted by Fuddyduddy[/i]
    [quote]
    [i]Originally posted by rasy[/i]
    .

    [Message last modified 10-08-2011 07:33pm by Fuddyduddy][/quote]

    [/quote]

    As long as that truth is for the good and betterment of mankind and our world then it being absolute or not doesn’t matter.

    [Message last modified 10-10-2011 05:48am by Fuddyduddy][/quote]

    illustration:

    a community in a village with everyone with blue eyes gets along and agree on laws for the betterment of mankind, this seems to work. But then another group with black eyes comes along and takes over that 1st group of villagers and changes the prior laws to another law claiming it is real goodness. the number of black eyed people outnumber blue eyed people 3 to 1 ratio. this new law imposed results in less access to food, water etc towards the 1st group blue eyed group…would this still be acceptable? or would there still be a standard that this new 2nd black eyed group has to uphold by?

Viewing 25 posts - 26 through 50 (of 91 total)