Gov. Shutdown?

[sanantone]

The seat belt laws are similar to the insurance mandate. If you don't purchase a policy, you're charged a fine. If you're caught without a seat belt, you're fined. You can't even get the required state inspection and registration for your vehicle in Texas without liability insurance. The only difference between this and health insurance is that you can choose not to drive.

[ncpenn]

I have been pondering this idea of absolute truth, and I find it a bit puzzling. You see, in my 30s I made a major change in my religious beliefs and became a Mennonite. Most of my protestant friends accused me of taking the Bible too literally. Here are just a few examples of the lack of absolutes in the beliefs of most Christians....

Good point. I could have been clearer in my post. While I believe that there is absolute truth, I do not believe that all Biblical directives are absolute. Many are not, and the Bible makes this clear. In this vein, many Christians want to make the Bible seem more absolute than it is in some points. For example, the Bible never says do not lie.

The Bible does speak against lying as a a common practice (e.g. Revelation 21:8). And it forbids lying under oath to tell the truth (e.g. the ninth commandment). But at the same time, the Bible praises Rahab for lying to protect the two spies James 2:25.

Also, another point that the Bible makes very clear isn't unversal. Joel 3:10 vs. Isaiah 2:3-4. And how do those two verses make sense in context of each other? Well, read Ecclesiastes 3, and there's the answer.

Do not resist an evil person - Unless they are going to rob or harm you or your family
Don't get divorced - Unless you just can't get along
Feed the hungry - Unless they are that way because of bad decisions
Don't lie - Unless the consequences of telling the truth are worse than not. (Nazi asks if you are hiding Jews)
The love of money is evil, but rich people deserve what they have

Again, just because a Christian isn't consistent or totally inline with Biblical teaching doesn't invalidate Christianity or the Bible. That is a common rebuttal, but it's illogical. Becoming a Christian doesn't transform you into some kind of non-human perfect being.

You are still the same person with all the same human feelings, emotions, etc. Granted, you (as a Christian) are to be becoming more Christ-like over time due to sanctification. However, this doesn't always happen as it should. Hebrews 5:12

Is it ever right to kill someone out of spite, anger, (insert other selfish, negative emotion here)? Is what Cain did to Abel ever okay? I believe you'd have to answer that it is always wrong. If that is the case, then you have an absolute truth.

No absolute truth can ever come from any human or collection of humans. This is due to the fact that a particular entity cannot yield anything universal. (Look at the list of valid syllogisms. Try to find one that has a particular premise and universal conclusion. It simply doesn't exist because it cannot be done. Syllogism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

To say that you do not believe in any form of absolute truth is to deny logic. To deny logic is to deny science, language, reason, and ultimately humanity.

To say that there is an absolute truth (no matter what it is), if you say there is an absolute truth, then there must be an absolute (universal) being. In other words, there must be a deity.

Logic cannot prove that the deity is the God of the Judeo-Christian faith, but it can show that there must be a supreme being. Once you come to that point, it does become a matter of choice/faith in whichever supreme being, but history does give credence to the Judeo-Christian God (and I'm already too long in this post so that will have to be another time).

[ncpenn]

Should government should limit the civil rights of others based on what what you deem to be okay?

On whether marriage is a civil right, try to imagine the right to marry denied to any demographic group of female-male couples who have it today.

On what I deem to be okay? Of course not, but that's not what I said. I cannot make any truth universal. God can as he is a universal being.

[ncpenn]

When someone can't consent, that person is having someone else's will imposed upon them.

And why is forcing your will on someone who cannot consent wrong?

Because you said so?
Because society said so?
Because certain (man-made) laws say so?

Why is it wrong for me to walk into my neighbor's house and shoot him just because?

If you give any reason that doesn't ultimately point to a universal truth, you have a non-universal reason. You have a reason, in that case, that isn't necessarily true for everyone. If it's not true for everyone, then how do you know it's true for the person you want to apply it to?

You can't. And that's the problem.

[UptonSinclair]

Good point. I could have been clearer in my post. While I believe that there is absolute truth, I do not believe that all Biblical directives are absolute. Many are not, and the Bible makes this clear. In this vein, many Christians want to make the Bible seem more absolute than it is in some points. For example, the Bible never says do not lie.

The Bible does speak against lying as a a common practice (e.g. Revelation 21:8). And it forbids lying under oath to tell the truth (e.g. the ninth commandment). But at the same time, the Bible praises Rahab for lying to protect the two spies James 2:25.

Also, another point that the Bible makes very clear isn't unversal. Joel 3:10 vs. Isaiah 2:3-4. And how do those two verses make sense in context of each other? Well, read Ecclesiastes 3, and there's the answer.

In my opinion, the Bible is far from clear on which directives are absolute and which directions relative. Take for instance the lying. The verse you quote in Revelations says

8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

Notice how it says "all liars." Also, Jesus told those listening to let their yes be yes and their no be no in the context of not taking oaths (Math 5:37).

Again, just because a Christian isn't consistent or totally inline with Biblical teaching doesn't invalidate Christianity or the Bible. That is a common rebuttal, but it's illogical. Becoming a Christian doesn't transform you into some kind of non-human perfect being.

I was not trying to invalidate Christianity. Honestly, after a decades of following Christianity I have come to the point where I don't claim to know the truth. The more I learn about world history, the more I view the Hebrews in the context of their surroundings. This leads to questions about the "truth" of Judaism and therefore Christianity.

I was simply pointing out that while many Christians like to claim absolute truth with dealing with other people's actions, they like to cling to relative truth when viewing their own actions.

Is it ever right to kill someone out of spite, anger, (insert other selfish, negative emotion here)? Is what Cain did to Abel ever okay? I believe you'd have to answer that it is always wrong. If that is the case, then you have an absolute truth.

What if the anger is in reaction to something like genocide?

To say that you do not believe in any form of absolute truth is to deny logic. To deny logic is to deny science, language, reason, and ultimately humanity.

To say that there is an absolute truth (no matter what it is), if you say there is an absolute truth, then there must be an absolute (universal) being. In other words, there must be a deity.

Logic cannot prove that the deity is the God of the Judeo-Christian faith, but it can show that there must be a supreme being. Once you come to that point, it does become a matter of choice/faith in whichever supreme being, but history does give credence to the Judeo-Christian God (and I'm already too long in this post so that will have to be another time).

Ironically, you argue logic using definition.

Does absolute truth exist? I have no idea. I know that many will use the claim of absolute truth to control the actions of others. When they are unable to argue from a utilitarian perspective, they use the existence of God or Natural Law to prove their claims. Though I don't claim the golden rule as absolute truth, I do believe it is a good way to live one's life.

[sanantone]

And why is forcing your will on someone who cannot consent wrong?

Because you said so?
Because society said so?
Because certain (man-made) laws say so?

Why is it wrong for me to walk into my neighbor's house and shoot him just because?

If you give any reason that doesn't ultimately point to a universal truth, you have a non-universal reason. You have a reason, in that case, that isn't necessarily true for everyone. If it's not true for everyone, then how do you know it's true for the person you want to apply it to?

You can't. And that's the problem.

It's wrong because it's the law and laws normally follow societal norms. That's not to say that all laws are moral, but sane people around the world can agree that it's wrong to steal, murder, etc. It doesn't take religion for someone to know that hurting others is wrong. If someone doesn't feel bad after hurting others for no reason, then that person is either a psychopath, sociopath, or mentally ill. Do you really think that atheists think it's okay to murder people for no reason? It is anti-social behavior and humans are social creatures. It is in our best interests to maintain order. Many of the laws we have now have been around long before Judaism even existed. There are also many things in religious texts that people now view as immoral such as slavery, death by stoning, and polygamy.

The societal norm now is that homosexuality is acceptable because it occurs naturally. This not the first time in history this has happened. A lot of past civilizations saw homosexuality as a natural condition. Your concept of absolute truth is based on the premise that a deity even exists. You have no absolute proof that one exists. If one does exist, you don't even know which religious texts, if any, are from this deity. Most of the religious wars have been between people who believe in the same god. They can't even agree on what's His word. At some point, people have to rely on the big brains we have. We have them for a reason.

Do you know what Mormons used to believe was an absolute truth directly from God? They used to believe that black people couldn't go to heaven and were barred from the priesthood. That somehow became unfashionable by 1978. All of the sudden God changed his mind even though the LDS texts still say horrible things about dark-skinned peoples.

[ncpenn]

I don't think this debate is getting us anywhere, but let's continue anyway (it's fun :p).

It's wrong because it's the law and laws normally follow societal norms.

That only makes it wrong because people have defined it that way. But you point this out further down in your post. Let's continue . . .

sane people around the world can agree that it's wrong to steal, murder, etc

Frankly, this is an assumption and not provable. Let me demonstrate.

Grant for a moment that there is a God. Grant that He's created things a certain way, that he's created people in His own image. If that were true, then people would agree that murder, stealing, etc. were wrong. In a fallen, sinful state, they may not know why they tend to hold to these truths. They may even say that "sane people around the world can agree..." without fully grasping why they feel that way.

In other words, it's plausible that there's more to it than just "sane people" agreeing to something without a deeper reason why.

It doesn't take religion for someone to know that hurting others is wrong.

How can you prove that? (Hint: you can't.) And you're ignoring (conveniently) the fact that in a world without absolute truth, hurting someone is okay if "my truth" says its okay. Why is societies truth to be accepted over mine (because they are all relative)?

If someone doesn't feel bad after hurting others for no reason, then that person is either a psychopath, sociopath, or mentally ill.

So? If it isn't absolutely wrong, then so what? It must be okay for them. Truth is relative, correct?

Do you really think that atheists think it's okay to murder people for no reason?

Not at all. Most atheists are conveniently inconsistent at this point. They want the benefits of absolute truth (reason and order), with out the responsibility (answering to God and following what He way).

before Judaism even existed.

Perhaps before Judaism was "formalized." I was thinking of it more back to the time of Abraham.

There are also many things in religious texts that people now view as immoral such as slavery, death by stoning, and polygamy.

Let's play a mental exercise here . . .

Slavery (max 7 years for debt) in a Biblical sense is not so bad, if you really think about it. We do far worse now with 30 mortgages, bankruptcies that can haunt you for a long time, etc. In the Old Testament system, everything was returned to everyone at set intervals. You couldn't ever lose it all permanently. In that way, the Old Testament system was more compassionate than what we have now.

Also, think of stoning . . . to do that, you had to have two witnesses that could recount the same story. There was no putting someone on death row because of DNA evidence or fingerprints, or any of that. Again, we in modern times are more likely to find someone guilty today than they would have been.

And, with stoning itself . . . it was a group activity. It wasn't easy and simple like lethal injection where it happens by one person in the middle of the night. This was up front, personal, and made you think. Again, it could be a safe-guard against being too quick to judgement. You didn't get to wash your hands of the thing if you handed down a guilty verdict in a capital case. You had to be part of the execution.

Polygamy isn't Biblically condoned (doesn't mean it didn't happen, but the precedent of Adam and Eve set the standard for man and woman)

Your concept of absolute truth is based on the premise that a deity even exists. You have no absolute proof that one exists.

You cannot prove one doesn't. And no, that is not a weaker argument. Furthermore, as I've said many times now, you cannot have logic as we know it, without absolutes. Using this line of thought, you want "sane people to agree" to form an absolute. That's like saying, Some A is B and Some more A is B. Therefore all A is B. It doesn't work like that.

To say it does, means you have to throw out all logic as we know it (and that means disposing of science, which is built off of logical reasoning). Do you really want to do that?

If something is consistently wrong, it cannot be because any group of people have said so. It must have come from a universal source. This is undeniable (or you must throw away all reason).

If one does exist, you don't even know which religious texts, if any, are from this deity.

Here you are correct. Logic cannot tell me that Jesus is Christ. Logic can show me that a God must exist. That is all it can do. To see that God is who he is requires faith and belief.

Do you know what Mormons used to believe was an absolute truth directly from God? They used to believe that black people couldn't go to heaven and were barred from the priesthood. That somehow became unfashionable by 1978. All of the sudden God changed his mind even though the LDS texts still say horrible things about dark-skinned peoples.

Straw man argument.

[ncpenn]

In my opinion, the Bible is far from clear on which directives are absolute and which directions relative. Take for instance the lying. The verse you quote in Revelations says

8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

Notice how it says "all liars." Also, Jesus told those listening to let their yes be yes and their no be no in the context of not taking oaths (Math 5:37).

I understand what you are saying. Please understand I do not mean this as a put-down at all, but unfortunately, I think the answer is found in Isaiah 6:9. "And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not."

I was not trying to invalidate Christianity. Honestly, after a decades of following Christianity I have come to the point where I don't claim to know the truth.

I can respect that (I feel saddened for you, but I do respect your position).

Ironically, you argue logic using definition.

No. I'm not trying to validate logic. I'm putting it out there as an axiom. What I'm saying is, if it is true (and absolutes are an integral, necessary part of formal logic), and if you hold any one thing (or more than one) to be true consistently (like randomly killing your friend), then logic says there is a universal, absolute source.

Of course, if logic isn't true, then . . .

[sanantone]

My computers are in for repair right now, so my quoting capabilities are limited. I will respond in a couple days. It takes too long for me to type on my phone.

[EI2HCB]

Ok, I'm confused, how has the government shutdown come to be about what I believe about the bible or God Isn't this a separate topic?