absolute truth?

Home Forums Religion absolute truth?

This topic contains 90 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by Avatar of  Anonymous 2 years, 10 months ago.

Viewing 35 posts - 36 through 70 (of 91 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #350541
    Avatar of Fuddyduddy
    Fuddyduddy
    Participant

    [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
    Avatar of rasy
    rasy
    Participant

    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
    Avatar of Fuddyduddy
    Fuddyduddy
    Participant

    [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
    Avatar of
    Anonymous

    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
    Avatar of rasy
    rasy
    Participant

    [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
    Avatar of rasy
    rasy
    Participant

    [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
    Avatar of Fuddyduddy
    Fuddyduddy
    Participant

    [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
    Avatar of
    Anonymous

    Who decides what is good for one self and others?

    #350619
    Avatar of
    Anonymous

    [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
    Avatar of
    Anonymous

    @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
    Avatar of
    Anonymous

    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
    Avatar of rasy
    rasy
    Participant

    [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

    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
    Avatar of rasy
    rasy
    Participant

    [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
    Avatar of rasy
    rasy
    Participant

    [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?

    #350697
    Avatar of
    Anonymous

    1) So is it right then if the evidence is not false? I’m assuming yes, so that makes it relative to whether the evidence is true or false when you’re making a testimony.

    2) But let’s say the evidence is false. What if you’re trying to get rid of someone evil through the use of false testimonies, try to get the followers from being brainwashed by someone like Hitler or Pol Pot?

    Is that also wrong?

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

    [Message last modified 10-11-2011 01:07am by agent0o5]

    #350688
    Avatar of Fuddyduddy
    Fuddyduddy
    Participant

    [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]
    [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? [/quote]

    That is why I said that believing we have a grasp on absolute truth concerning morality would be dangerous, because no matter what standard we claim to know we only see at certain perspective. I actually like Legend response to you thread, and that is exactly what I’m trying to imply to you. I’m not going change your mind regarding your beliefs, and that is why I don’t care if you believe in an absolute truth, or not as long as you have the better judgment on how that truth effects yourself and mankind.

    [Message last modified 10-11-2011 01:07am by Fuddyduddy]

    #350708
    Avatar of
    Anonymous

    haha.it get wild doesnt it…..lol

    Even are parent that doesn’t want their kid to succeed but they are passing down their failure..but the children failure would come success so on on if not it continue..it also a chain of karma’s..in buddhism levels will need to accomplish to break that cycle..

    In regard to my uncle it supernatural miracle..but it doesn’t make him the supreme god…he share his stories to his family just like a christian would to their family so on so on to prove mircale exist..but how can it exist in both. that is the question..is both wrong or one is wrong? According to the buddha neither is wrong. according to christ it is wrong becuase he is not clense or a born again..am I right about this one?

    Scientist cannot fine all answers. America does not agree to coined when sick is healthy..but for thousand of years it work better then any fever medicine..Why havent the west agree this method work better. Instead they will not allow this to happen in any practice…They praise only their work and discovery..

    an buddhist amulet is faith for buddhist as a cross or image of jesus faith to christians..

    [i]Originally posted by rasy[/i]

    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]

    #350717
    Avatar of
    Anonymous

    @rasy

    Do you think having an absolute morals, morally correct? And who decides which morals are absolute? Who gets to decide how to punish those who break these rules? What degree of punishment? is the punishment levels relative or absolute? You lie, you die kind of thing? Who decides……..

    Having absolute morals is dangerous really, because as you can tell by my question it is relative to who or (what group).

    #350727
    Avatar of
    Anonymous

    Is not, but not easy to archive *smile*

    Moral and punishment are two pairs of shoes. For judge others is really a dangerous thing.

    Highest moral is quite simple: Not causing harm. That’s it. Nothing else to keep in mind. Develop it step by step.

    [Message last modified 10-11-2011 05:06am by hanzze]

    #350735
    Avatar of rasy
    rasy
    Participant

    [i]Originally posted by agent0o5[/i]
    1) So is it right then if the evidence is not false? I’m assuming yes, so that makes it relative to whether the evidence is true or false when you’re making a testimony.

    2) But let’s say the evidence is false. What if you’re trying to get rid of someone evil through the use of false testimonies, try to get the followers from being brainwashed by someone like Hitler or Pol Pot?

    Is that also wrong?

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

    [Message last modified 10-11-2011 01:07am by agent0o5][/quote]

    1.) false evidence is false evidence no matter how we look at it, has nothing to do with religion. If i’m saying something untrue about you, then I would be guilty of slander.

    2.) If your trying to send a person to jail for a crime, the moment the court finds out there was false evidence immediately the judge will lift the sentence and will presume the person innocent until proven guilty again. The court will only accept true evidence or witness, it is an oath people take. If the judge ultimately does not find him guilty, even though he truly is, the criminal will ultimately answer to the supereme judge, God.

    In regards to trying to get rid of someone evil through false testimony. Why resort to the false testimonies? why not use the true ones…true testimonies are more likely to stick better, because they are true. We did not need false testimonies to prove Hitler and Pol Pot were evil. We have more than enough of true ones.

    People use right methods to get desired results and people use wrong methods to get desired results. But the results in itself should not be the standard to measure what is right method or wrong method.

    #350745
    Avatar of Kadin
    Kadin
    Moderator

    That’s right. it’s just my truth.
    for it to be absolute truth, everyone has to AGREE.

    A reason why there’s no absolute truth is that WE can’t come to ONE truth.

    [i]Originally posted by rasy[/i]

    [quote]
    [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.
    [/quote]

    បានចូលសាលា មានសញ្ញាប្រ័ត មិន ប្រាកដថាមានសមត្ថភាពក្នុងកិច្ចការ នោះទេ
    #350754
    Avatar of rasy
    rasy
    Participant

    [i]Originally posted by Kadin[/i]
    That’s right. it’s just my truth.
    for it to be absolute truth, everyone has to AGREE.

    A reason why there’s no absolute truth is that WE can’t come to ONE truth.

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

    [quote]
    [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.
    [/quote]
    [/quote]

    can we all come to one truth that the earth is round? yes we can
    can we all come to one truth that there is absolute moral and ethic? no we cant, but that doesnt’ automatically mean there isn’t

    if our current science prevented us from going to outter space and knowing the truth about our round earth, some may still think it’s flat…our earth does not need humans full agreement or approval to know she is round. She is round regardless and that is the truth.

    #350764
    Avatar of
    Anonymous

    earth is round.by a name given..we.don’t know earth is really round but we.gave it a name.anyways…it can be a triangle, square..etc..it just a name..

    Another race could just.call earth triangle..but we all.came.to agree let.call it.round…

    Same thing with truth..or absoulte truth. We all agree to not.agree..

    If truth is abosulute then there no reason we all debating right?

    [i]Originally posted by rasy[/i]

    [quote]
    [i]Originally posted by Kadin[/i]
    That’s right. it’s just my truth.
    for it to be absolute truth, everyone has to AGREE.

    A reason why there’s no absolute truth is that WE can’t come to ONE truth.

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

    [quote]
    [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.
    [/quote]
    [/quote]

    can we all come to one truth that the earth is round? yes we can
    can we all come to one truth that there is absolute moral and ethic? no we cant, but that doesnt’ automatically mean there isn’t

    if our current science prevented us from going to outter space and knowing the truth about our round earth, some may still think it’s flat…our earth does not need humans full agreement or approval to know she is round. She is round regardless and that is the truth.
    [/quote]

    #350774
    Avatar of
    Anonymous

    Actually you are right, there is really no real reason. Just a will to keep it going on *smile* That is a very true you said.

    This true is called the first noble truth, seeing that there is a problem.

    [Message last modified 10-12-2011 05:09am by hanzze]

    #350784
    Avatar of
    Anonymous

    What if you’re using false testimony to catch a criminal who is trying to lie to you & won’t tell you the truth?

    Like how cops try to make a criminal confess to a crime? You do know police officers have the rights to lie to you about having witnesses who saw you committing a crime even though they don’t. Sometimes they’ll use it on friends/relatives of the suspect so they will help catch the criminal as well because they might hold back.

    Is it wrong when you’re using a lie or false information about this suspect to catch the real criminal?

    [i]Originally posted by rasy[/i]

    1.) false evidence is false evidence no matter how we look at it, has nothing to do with religion. If i’m saying something untrue about you, then I would be guilty of slander.

    2.) If your trying to send a person to jail for a crime, the moment the court finds out there was false evidence immediately the judge will lift the sentence and will presume the person innocent until proven guilty again. The court will only accept true evidence or witness, it is an oath people take. If the judge ultimately does not find him guilty, even though he truly is, the criminal will ultimately answer to the supereme judge, God.

    In regards to trying to get rid of someone evil through false testimony. Why resort to the false testimonies? why not use the true ones…true testimonies are more likely to stick better, because they are true. We did not need false testimonies to prove Hitler and Pol Pot were evil. We have more than enough of true ones.

    People use right methods to get desired results and people use wrong methods to get desired results. But the results in itself should not be the standard to measure what is right method or wrong method.

    [Message last modified 10-12-2011 07:02am by agent0o5]

    #350793
    Avatar of
    Anonymous

    A lie is always wrong. Just let it simple, there would not much to think of and we can stay in the present and not waving around in “if” and ideas and thoughts and speculations…

    #350802
    Avatar of rasy
    rasy
    Participant

    [i]Originally posted by PhnomKlarSar[/i]
    earth is round.by a name given..we.don’t know earth is really round but we.gave it a name.anyways…it can be a triangle, square..etc..it just a name..

    Another race could just.call earth triangle..but we all.came.to agree let.call it.round…

    Same thing with truth..or absoulte truth. We all agree to not.agree..

    If truth is abosulute then there no reason we all debating right?
    [quote]
    [i]Originally posted by rasy[/i]

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

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

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

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

    [/quote]

    [/quote]
    [/quote]

    [/quote]
    [/quote]

    it is also the true humans have the capacity to agree or disagree. we have the ability to debate. we have capacity to choose.
    I know it’s wrong to run a red light, but it doesnt take away my ability or capacity to run it. My capacity to choose is still there. I can run it or not run it.
    people run red lights all the time, people stop at red lights all the time. this doesnt change the fact that running a red light is wrong.

    you debate because you think your view is right, I debate because I think my views are right. the reason why u are debating with me is because u think my views are flawed. Otherwise u would not take time out of your day to spend this dialoge with me.
    You are saying I need to measure my view to your standards and I must accept your view and allow your view also be my view. It is only then will u view me as being in the right.

    But if I do not accept your view as truth, then I will always be labled wrong. Is it possible for someone here to be wrong and someone where to be right? or are we all wrong?

    I know one thing for sure…we can’t be all right but neither one of us is willing to say we are wrong. (that is why we are debating)

    [Message last modified 10-12-2011 06:00pm by rasy]

    #350812
    Avatar of
    Anonymous

    You just answer that absolute truth isnt true until it flawless…

    Now we are on the same page..lol..

    A red light is a system..telling us to stop..green tell us to go..orange tell us to.decide..each one has a choice and a consequnece..

    [i]Originally posted by rasy[/i]
    [quote]
    [i]Originally posted by PhnomKlarSar[/i]
    earth is round.by a name given..we.don’t know earth is really round but we.gave it a name.anyways…it cae a triangle, square..etc..it just a name..

    Another race could just.call earth triangle..but we all.came.to agree let.call it.round…

    Same thing with truth..or absoulte truth. We all agree to not.agree..

    If truth is abosulute then there no reason we all debating right?
    [quote]
    [i]Originally posted by rasy[/i]

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

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

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

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

    [/quote]

    [/quote]
    [/quote]

    [/quote]
    [/quote]

    it is also the true humans have the capacity to agree or disagree. we have the ability to debate. we have capacity to choose.
    I know it’s wrong to run a red light, but it doesnt take away my ability or capacity to run it. My capacity to choose is still there. I can run it or not run it.
    people run red lights all the time, people stop at red lights all the time. this doesnt change the fact that running a red light is wrong.

    you debate because you think your view is right, I debate because I think my views are right. the reason why u are debating with me is because u think my views are flawed. Otherwise u would not take time out of your day to spend this dialoge with me.
    You are saying I need to measure my view to your standards and I must accept your view and allow your view also be my view. It is only then will u view me as being in the right.

    But if I do not accept your view as truth, then I will always be labled wrong. Is it possible for someone here to be wrong and someone where to be right? or are we all wrong?

    I know one thing for sure…we can’t be all right but neither one of us is willing to say we are wrong. (that is why we are debating)

    [Message last modified 10-12-2011 06:00pm by rasy][/quote]

    [Message last modified 10-12-2011 07:25pm by PhnomKlarSar]

    #350822
    Avatar of
    Anonymous

    No, sometimes lying is the right thing to do. Some people can’t handle the truth, they have to lie to themselves and have blind faith that whatever they believe is true will magically become true despite the facts.

    [i]Originally posted by hanzze[/i]
    A lie is always wrong. Just let it simple, there would not much to think of and we can stay in the present and not waving around in “if” and ideas and thoughts and speculations…

    #350832
    Avatar of Kadin
    Kadin
    Moderator

    that’s right. Earth just “looks” round.
    also, some people believe it is flat.
    see…”the earth is round”…. this is NOT absolute truth.

    [i]Originally posted by PhnomKlarSar[/i]
    [b]earth is round.by a name given..we.don’t know earth is really round but we.gave it a name.[/b]anyways…it can be a triangle, square..etc..it just a name..

    Another race could just.call earth triangle..but we all.came.to agree let.call it.round…

    Same thing with truth..or absoulte truth. We all agree to not.agree..

    If truth is abosulute then there no reason we all debating right?
    [quote]
    [i]Originally posted by rasy[/i]

    [quote]
    [i]Originally posted by Kadin[/i]
    That’s right. it’s just my truth.
    for it to be absolute truth, everyone has to AGREE.

    A reason why there’s no absolute truth is that WE can’t come to ONE truth.

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

    [quote]
    [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.
    [/quote]
    [/quote]

    can we all come to one truth that the earth is round? yes we can
    can we all come to one truth that there is absolute moral and ethic? no we cant, but that doesnt’ automatically mean there isn’t

    if our current science prevented us from going to outter space and knowing the truth about our round earth, some may still think it’s flat…our earth does not need humans full agreement or approval to know she is round. She is round regardless and that is the truth.
    [/quote]
    [/quote]

    [Message last modified 10-13-2011 01:38am by Kadin]

    បានចូលសាលា មានសញ្ញាប្រ័ត មិន ប្រាកដថាមានសមត្ថភាពក្នុងកិច្ចការ នោះទេ
    #350841
    Avatar of rasy
    rasy
    Participant

    [i]Originally posted by Kadin[/i]
    that’s right. Earth just “looks” round.
    also, some people believe it is flat.
    see…”the earth is round”…. this is NOT absolute truth.

    [quote]
    [i]Originally posted by PhnomKlarSar[/i]
    [b]earth is round.by a name given..we.don’t know earth is really round but we.gave it a name.[/b]anyways…it can be a triangle, [quote]
    [i]Originally posted by rasy[/i]

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

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

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

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

    [/quote]

    [/quote]
    [/quote]

    [/quote]
    [/quote]

    [Message last modified 10-13-2011 01:38am by Kadin][/quote]

    what ever word, sound or adjective u use, it’s describing the shape. If u use the verbal sound “Round” in English or “Moul” in Khmer both languages agree the earth takes this similar discription. If “blah blah” is what a baby says to describe a the shape of the earth and adults happen to say “round” the baby and the adult are still communicating and desribing the same thing. the baby and the adult is not describing flat

    #350850
    Avatar of
    Anonymous

    how would you describe if we in the world have 5000 Rasy…would they are be the same..see my point..

    [i]Originally posted by rasy[/i]

    [quote]
    [i]Originally posted by Kadin[/i]
    that’s right. Earth just “looks” round.
    also, some people believe it is flat.
    see…”the earth is round”…. this is NOT absolute truth.

    [quote]
    [i]Originally posted by PhnomKlarSar[/i]
    [b]earth is round.by a name given..we.don’t know earth is really round but we.gave it a name.[/b]anyways…it can be a triangle, [quote]
    [i]Originally posted by rasy[/i]

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

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

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

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

    [/quote]

    [/quote]
    [/quote]

    [/quote]
    [/quote]

    [Message last modified 10-13-2011 01:38am by Kadin][/quote]

    what ever word, sound or adjective u use, it’s describing the shape. If u use the verbal sound “Round” in English or “Moul” in Khmer both languages agree the earth takes this similar discription. If “blah blah” is what a baby says to describe a the shape of the earth and adults happen to say “round” the baby and the adult are still communicating and desribing the same thing. the baby and the adult is not describing flat[/quote]

    #350859
    Avatar of
    Anonymous

    There is nothing in the universe that is straight and flat, everything is round. You would not find a singe corner if you look very exact and not just from far away.

    Straight and corners are just mind made and do not exist. *smile*

    #350870
    Avatar of rasy
    rasy
    Participant

    [i]Originally posted by PhnomKlarSar[/i]
    how would you describe if we in the world have 5000 Rasy…would they are be the same..see my point..
    [quote]
    [i]Originally posted by rasy[/i]

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

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

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

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

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

    [/quote]

    [/quote]
    [/quote]

    [/quote]
    [/quote]

    [Message last modified 10-13-2011 01:38am by Kadin][/quote]

    [/quote]
    [/quote]

    i’m confused on this reponse

    even a deaf person who is unable to verbally communicate sound, they will use their means to communicate to us the earth is round and not flat. Even if a blind person can not see the earth is round, it doesn’t change the fact it’s round.

Viewing 35 posts - 36 through 70 (of 91 total)