Do you like the rule do unto others?

The truth is Reletive. No one can know the truth from every perspective, but can geninuinely beleive what they saw, although due to myriad factors be misinformed, not remember entirely correctly, misread somehting etc etc etc.

They can tell the truth as they percive it, but that only is them not lying.

The Absolute truth is not an abstract because it is, it is the basis of all things, however nobody in the world can actually understand the absolute truth because without seeing it from all possible human angles and an extra external unconnected point of view it is impossible to attain

The bible says unless God builds the house, it is built in vain.

This is not talking natural but spiritual, meaning God likes the impossible challenges in peoples lives.


The do unto others as you would have done unto you is absolute, but it can be hard if not impossible to do without God.

I have togo but I'll explain this more into detail later.

god has no control over what a person does or how they live, it's up to the person...

I don't specifically care what the bible says though.

By my faith I am not a chrisitian.

One thing I find with the justification of religion is that it usually comes from a holy text in which I place no stock.

If I said that my actions for killing those of other faiths was found within the 3rd book of some obscure text, why should anyone else put stock in that. As such to me and to most people of non or alternate faiths would say it's rubbish and not justification at all and they'd be right

As such the Bible, Torah, Qu'ran and many other books are bent around this concept. They fail because they are self perpetuating myths. They can't all be right therefore are any of them the truth?

Neon

Your point has nothing really to do with the topic at hand..... Morals are Relative..... which means that what is right to you may be wrong to another..... for example.... and PLEASE understand the context of an example or do not bother replying....

You believe that being Gay is wrong whereas I believe that it is thier freedom of choice and right to be Gay.... I believe there is nothing wrong at all with it....

Now that was an example of Relative Truth.....
PLEASE do not start an argument about being gay in this thread and also ATTEMPT to stick with the topic at hand

You avoided my question entirely as well.... as such i will ask it once more...

DO you understand the difference between Esoteric Truth and Scientific Truth or knowledge if you will....????

No it is not..... now I can understand that you do not understand the nature of Relativity at all.... please re-read my beginning posts until you do....
to you that may be a Truth..... to others it may not be.... that is what is considered Relative... NOT Absolute.... an Absolute Truth is one which is Valid beyond a doubt and exists in the natural World as a Scientific Fact......

I answered your last question, I said "Yeah" I looked up the word when I read that post.

Now relative truth is still truth, but there are alot of what if's involved. Which I will explain as best as I can.


To me and for everyone in the world, there is an absolute truth of do unto others as you would like done unto you. This is considered the "Golden Rule" by many, but not by me or Jesus.

Now I can prove it, lets say you are walking down the street and for no reason a group of kids jump out and begin to beat you down and steal your money.
Would anyone like this to be done? If you do then you are lying.
I know from first hand what it is like to be chased by a gang, and let me say it is not fun.

Now this is an extreme example, but it has the same principle in even the small examples.

Most everything concerning right and wrong is a grey issue.
Grey meaning it is an absolute truth of which way to go depending on the situation and facts of the matter.

Is it ok to kill? sometimes
Is it ok to steal? sometimes, but only if you plan to pay it back.
Is it ok to punch someone? sometimes
Is it ok to murder? No.

I can steal food if I need it to survive, but I must pay it back, so as to right the wrong.But other than that I don't think there is a time to steal something and be justified, I could be wrong, but that depends on the situation.

Its ok to kill someone in selfdefense, but you should never murder.

But without the first rule of Love the Lord with all your heart, you can't help but be lost in this area.
Because God is the one who sets up the standard for which everyone should go by.

See that is a Truth evident to only those that believe in the Christian religion..... or what I like to call an Esoteric Truth.... it is not Absolute because it is relative to what you believe.... I do not believe in God hence that statement is false as far as I am concerned.....

Yet if I were to state that H2O is comprised of two parts Hydrogen and one part Oxygen i would be stating an Absolute Truth.... a Truth that is uncontested no matter your personal beliefs....

Do you understand???

I understand what you are saying and you are right.
But you are only right with the information that you have.
People know about water now, but for how long have they had this info?
I think that elements before were considered earth,wind,fire, and water.That is just an educated guess from videogames.
But what if thoses elements were found to be untrue, meaning there was a way to break them down to another material that we haven't discovered yet. Then H2O wouldn't be the standard anymore.

Same way with God, just because you don't believe he is there, doesn't mean he isn't.
Did Newton discover the law of gravity or was it always there?

Now your own belief of reletive truth is based on your belief that God doesn't exist.
But take another look at the gang example that I wrote.
Would you want this to happen to you?

Absolute or Scientific Knowledge or Truth is exactly that unless further evidence is found to prove that it is untrue and than that Truth is put away for the evidence at hand..... Scientific advances are made in this way..... through study and deduction.... where as Faith, or as i like to call it Esoteric Truth is based solely on what one feels or believes..... for example....

if I felt that Mickey Mouse invented the Universe using his magic Wand 2,000 years ago and I stated that this was Truth there is really no way for you to disprove this nor for me to prove it as well... this would be a Relative Truth.... or once again as I like to call it....(I really should trademark the term because i made it up all on my lonesome) Esoteric Truth.....

Science can be tricky at times, but you have to stick with the fact that, we don't know what the largest thing is, and we don't know what the smallest thing is. So how can we really say we know the whole truth without those two facts, scientificly speaking.

But I am still sticking with the truth of morals.
Would you like to be beaten down, and robbed by a gang?

Thoughts regarding Relativism:

Relativism is a most interesting subject and I will add my thoughts as well. Some lay claims that Christian values are “outdated morals” and no longer relevant concluding that there are no absolute truths and all truth is relative to all individuals.

Relativism could be defined as the philosophical position that all points of view are equally valid and that all truth is relative to the individual. So all moral positions, all religious systems, all art forms, all political movements, etc., are truths that are relative to the individual. Under the umbrella of relativism whole groups of perspectives are categorized including:

Cognitive relativism (truth) which notes that all truth is relative. This would mean that no system of truth is more valid than another one and that there is no objective standard of truth. It would, naturally, deny that there is a God of absolute truth.
Moral/ethical relativism - all morals are relative to the social group within which they are constructed.

Situational relativism - that ethics (right and wrong) are dependent upon the situation.

This discussion is important and requires a logical address because our pluralistic society avoids the notion that there is a right and a wrong. This is evidenced in our deteriorating judicial system with its ever increasing difficulty in punishing criminals, our entertainment media which pushes the envelope of decency, pornography on TV and a host of other "sins" that were once considered wrong, but are now being accepted and even promoted in society. Yet, question moral relativism and its "anything goes" philosophy, you're labeled as an intolerant bigot. Of course, this is incredibly hypocritical of those who profess that all points of view are true. Thus, it seems that what is really meant by the moral relativists is that all points of view are true except for the views that teach moral absolutes, an absolute God, or absolute right and wrong.

I will assert that our culture becomes weak, fragmented and unable to flourish/survive in a culture where everybody does what is right in his own eyes. Without a common foundation of truth and absolutes, the situation determines actions and if the situation changes, lying or cheating is acceptable -- as long as you're not caught. The consequences are obvious.

In fairness though, there is some validity to relativism. What one society considers right, another considers wrong. There are customs where “right and wrong” are attached. But they are purely relativistic and not universal because they are culturally based. For example child rearing practices, burial practices and wedding cerimonies have “right and wrong” practices but they are not cosmically set in stone nor derived from some absolute rule of conduct by some unknown god. They are relative and properly asserted as such.

Likewise, there are experiences that are valid only for individuals. If I were irritated by a certain sound and another person were not, then the statement “What is true for me is not true for you” would apply. It is not an absolute truth. But, is it valid to say that because there is a type of personal relativism that we can then apply that principle to all areas of experience and knowledge and state they too are also relative? No, that is not valid.

First of all, to do so would be an absolute assessment, which contradicts relativism. If all things be relative, there can be nothing absolutely true between individuals. If everything is relative to the individual how can there be a common ground to judge right or wrong or truth? It would seem there cannot.

Again the issue is absolute truths. For the sake of discussion, assuming there are absolute truths can there be different kinds of absolute truths? We might question:

Is it always wrong to tell a lie?
Does 1+1 always = 2?
Is it always true that something cannot bring itself into existence if it first does not exist?

If yes can be answered to any of these, then at least to some degree relativism is refuted.

To further question, if all moral views are valid, have we the right to punish anyone? To say that some action is wrong, then we must have a standard to judge right and wrong correct? Society changes as well correct? If standards be based on relativism then right and wrong change correct? If right and wrong change then can we rightly judge one for something he did wrong if that right might become wrong in the future?

I will assert that relativity is self-refuting. First: relativists state that all truths are relative. If all truth is relative, then the statement "All truth is relative" would be absolutely true. If it is absolutely true, then not all things are relative and the statement that "All truth is relative" is false.

Can we apply logic to relativism? I do not see why not. To convince me that logic is not required to examine relativism he must use logic which is self defeating. If he uses the subjective view of ones own opinions to validate his position, he is using relativism to establish relativism which is circular reasoning. Hence, can we conclude that the argument is lost either way? Yes.

SO! if relativism is true and all points of view are true, then is my view that relativism is false, true?

Does Truth contradict itself? No, it does not.

And I will post more ideas on Relativism and what "truth" is later.
















,

the only thing I see wrong with your post is the fact that you are not taking into consideration the difference between what i have stated is Esoteric Truth and Scientific Truth.....

esoteric Truth being that which has a foundation of faith and Scientific truth being that which has its foundation in Scientific Fact....

Faith is to each his own.... whereas Science is factual evidence of the physical laws of the universe.....

Science is constantly evolving..... based upon deduction....
Faith is also constantly evolving.... usually though this evolution is based on premises other than deduction....

1+1=2 is an Absolute
whereas belief in god+living under his laws=heaven is merely Esoteric

to attempt to conjoin the two does not work in determining Truth.... because they are two different truths altogether.....

This question is not really relative to the conversation at hand....

I have a Moral compass, I am not chrisitian and have lost the christian moral compass as I found it flawed, I find that my own created Moral compass is far more important. It allows me to judge on a case to case basis. It allows me to decide what is right and wrong based on opinion and fact not on pre-ordained rules

As a legal analogy to the truth. there are 2 techniques in English Law for interpreting the written law mischeif and literal

Literal states that the law says this, irrespective of what the facts of the case are this law stands.

Mischief states that Justice must prevail.

Which of these is the absolute truth? that which judges the case for the purposes of what is right, or that which has prejudged every case and does not look at facts.

Neon

I think that the question hits the nail on the head.

It would be an absolute truth that noone wants to be beaten down, and robbed.
But if you change the situation, there are those who like to get spanked like in sexual games of some sort, but that is there free will to allow it.
But if you change the situation agian and have the person use a sharp edge of the sword to do it, then we go back to the beaten down and robbed thing.

There is a verse in the bible that states that all elements will melt, and scientists said that the bible was wrong(back in the 40's) because elements could not be broken down any farther.
Untill someone split a uranium adom.

You see science is always changeing as new light comes in to show more facts, so how could you say its absolute?
You have faith in science, so do I on many points.I heard this week that faith isn't against science, but that science is argueing against science.
Did you know that the speed of light is not constant?
Did you know that you can slow light down on purpose?

On the other hand morals only change with situations, but still have the same principle of "do unto others as you would like done unto you". Thus it never changes, but just seems like it does on the surface.