|
Post by evanschaible on Aug 13, 2006 11:04:16 GMT -5
I thought we could ressurect this interesting and thought provoking debate.
1) There is universal absolute truth. The Bible. 2) There is absolute morality. The moral standards of God.
This is what I affirm, now let the debate begin.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Aug 14, 2006 11:59:32 GMT -5
good. i agree that the universal, absolute truth is the bible....to you. good. i agree that there is absolute morality by the standards of god....to you. good. you affirm it, therefore it is true....to you.
the answer is relativism. now, the debate ends.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Aug 14, 2006 14:52:30 GMT -5
1) You are right it is true for me, but it is also true for you, even though you dont beleive it. Beliefs and truth are two vastly different things. A belief is held by someone as a personal value or principle; a truth is trancedant to belief and for a belief to be in any way authoritative, concrete, or credible it must fall in line with truth.
2) The truth is God's infallible word. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the Life, NO MAN COMES TO THE FATHER BUT BY ME" This is the truth! Therefore bhuddism, islam, shintoism, taoism, roman catholicism (they are not christian, they hold that mary is co-redemptive which violates the scriptural basis of Christianity), zaroastronianism (sp?), and every religion that is not fundemental Christianity is WRONG. The adherents are decieved, and will go to hell.
1) Well with the above comments in mind, this is a rediculous objection.
2) You know it is wrong to steal, you know it is wrong to lie, you know it is wrong to lust, because you have a conscience.
Allow me to offer you a simple syllogism:
P1) You have based you worldview upon reletavism.
p2) Reletavism is self refuting.
Con.) Your entire worlview is self-refuting.
This does not beg the question; nor is it affirming the consequent. It is the truth, you have built your intellectual framework upon the sinking sand of human speculation and therefore you have no grounds of truth.
"On Christ the solid rock I stand, all other ground is sinking sand"
Now tell me what you believe and why.
|
|
|
Post by anodomini on Aug 14, 2006 15:58:42 GMT -5
I'm sorry, I have to side with the unsaved on this one.
You evan, are wrong, but you think you are right, therefore you relatively are saved. But in truth, you are an unsaved heathen as well, and will burn for it.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Aug 14, 2006 16:18:18 GMT -5
1) You dont HAVE to side with the unsaved, you are already on that side. That is a new approach, the heathen calling the Chrsitians heathen?
Show me how reletavism is NOT self refuting.
|
|
luvofchrist
Full Member
"Gibson" the wonder pup
Posts: 233
|
Post by luvofchrist on Aug 14, 2006 20:01:53 GMT -5
A professor of ethics at an Indiana university gave his students an essay assignment. The assignment was to write an essay about their morals, ethics etc. The professor gave no restrictions but the only requirement was that the paper had to be documented.
When the papers were turned in, the professor got one from one student that said "there are no absolute morals or rules. There is no absolute standard for fairness, justice or what is right. It is up to each individual to decide." The paper was well written, articulate, documented and presented in an attractive blue binder. The professor wrote on it: "F- I don't like blue."
When the student received his paper back he went to the professor and protested angrily, asking how could the professor give him a failing grade when he did the work exactly as asked?The professor calmly replied that the paper was well written but that he didn't like blue binders, therefore that was the student's grade.
The student exploded using phrases like" That's not fair! You can't do that! It's not right! etc." The professor stopped the student and asked him: "Aren't you the one who said there are no absolutes. There is no objective fairness or justice?" The student sheepily replied "Yes." Once again the professor said: "Well, it's my reality that a failing grade is right because I don't like blue."
Fortunately, this student was smart enough to get the point.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Aug 15, 2006 9:57:00 GMT -5
i love christian stories. this never happened, unless luvofchrist can give me the name of the student and professor and prove that they were once active in the university. anyway...
evan, this is the same argument that you caused to go circular. after all, christians are the masters of circular argumentation. however, let me inject something in your points on morality. we may agree on certain morals, but this does not mean that your aspect of it is right. this simply means that we share something in common as humans.
this also means that human laws prevent me from stealing, etc. this does not mean that i wouldnt...
[it] is not wrong unless you get caught.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Aug 15, 2006 13:21:18 GMT -5
1) I have been thinking more about this issue, morality and the standards that dictate morality are trancendant. The LAW does not reside in the individual, but the KOWLEDGE of the law does. You have a conscience do you not? This inner knowledge of right and wrong is one proof that morality is not decided by the individual, if it were, your conscience would follow YOUR dictates not the dictates of a resolute moral law.
For example, If you steal something your consicence will tell you that you have done wrong. Obviously you felt it were right to steal whatever it was, but despite that, your conscience convicts you and you feel guilty (Rom. 2:15).
One day you will realize that you have been caught. You have never, EVER gotten away with anything. You will stand before a holy, righteous, perfect and just judge. The law you will face is a direct reflection of HIS holiness. Repent and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ.
|
|
luvofchrist
Full Member
"Gibson" the wonder pup
Posts: 233
|
Post by luvofchrist on Aug 15, 2006 21:26:18 GMT -5
You know this to be true because...... Once again, the "squirmy, wormy" attempt to dodge the real issue of relativism by attacking the person. Why don't you deal with the real issue raised in the "story" or are you afraid to? The real issue is relativists stop being relativists when it comes home to roost. Then their "philosophy" is shot full of holes. Steal a relativists stereo and then see how "relative" their ideas of right and wrong are.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Aug 16, 2006 11:58:13 GMT -5
no, i simply want evidence. i hear stories like that all the time and they remind me of stories surrounding the events of real men. they were heavily exaggerated, or the events never existed in the first place. examples of myths are tom thumb, paul bunyan and his ox named blue...etc.
i simply want proof. there is no squirming here, but thanks for resulting to such low measures by calling me a coward. i do not expect much more out of people like yourself.
|
|
luvofchrist
Full Member
"Gibson" the wonder pup
Posts: 233
|
Post by luvofchrist on Aug 19, 2006 13:02:46 GMT -5
no, i simply want evidence. i hear stories like that all the time and they remind me of stories surrounding the events of real men. they were heavily exaggerated, or the events never existed in the first place. examples of myths are tom thumb, paul bunyan and his ox named blue...etc. i simply want proof. there is no squirming here,but thanks for resulting to such low measures by calling me a coward. i do not expect much more out of people like yourself. Ok, let's take this one at a time: 1) Let's just say for a moment that the example of the university student and professor is just a story. Let's be honest with ourselves neither you nor I can say for sure whether it is true or false. It was related to me by a reliable source, however, I do not have a name for you. However, even if it is just a story it isn't in the same category as Paul Bunyan, Babe: his blue ox or Tom Thumb. Why? Because it isn't meant or intended to be a fairy story for entertainment using fanciful, unusual characteristics (exceeding large and strong man, blue oxes or really tiny people). Instead it used normal people in an everyday setting. In essence you are comparing apples to oranges. Rather, it is an allegory. Here is the Cambridge Dictionary definition: Allegory: noun [C or U] a story, play, poem, picture or other work in which the characters and events represent particular qualities or ideas, related to morality, religion or politics:Wow, a story to represent and idea related to morality or religion. Hmmm, what a concept! So, if even if we play it your way as just a story, it still has characters and events to represent the fallacy of relativism which you did not address. Rather you chose to side step the issue by attacking a minor point. Bottom line: will you address the issue presented in the "allegory" or not? That being, that even relativists don't live according to their own beliefs. When push comes to shove, even they believe there are absolutes in this world, whether they like it or not. 2) I never called you a coward. I merely asked if you were afraid to tackle the real issue brought up in the "allegory." I never stated you were. Should you choose to make that leap from question to accusation, that's your issue. But, then you "resulted" to the same low measures you accuse me of resorting to when you said: "I do not expect much more out of people like you." What would you call a person who makes the same accusations about people that he accuses others of doing to him? Blind, bigoted, prejudiced, hypocrite? So, why don't we just agree to deal with the issue at hand: that being whether or not the philosophy of relativism is self-refuting, deal?
|
|