[_ Old Earth _] absolute morality

[Asimov]

You do agree that morality, being objective, has actual existance and reality, being uninflueced by emotions or personal prejudices

What I have presented above is basically the definition for the word "objective"

Absolute morality means nearly the same thing. Something that is absolute can be regarded as something that is independent of and unrelated to anything else. In this case, emotions or personal prejudices.

Ok, hold on...

Absolute
# Perfect in quality or nature; complete.
# Not mixed; pure. See Synonyms at pure.
#

1. Not limited by restrictions or exceptions; unconditional: absolute trust.
2. Unqualified in extent or degree; total: absolute silence. See Usage Note at infinite.

# Unconstrained by constitutional or other provisions: an absolute ruler.
# Not to be doubted or questioned; positive: absolute proof.

# Of or having to do with a material object.
# Having actual existence or reality.
#

1. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
2. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.

I see a slight difference between the two. My problem with the absolute moral idea is that it isn't subject to change based on circumstances. Evolution of morals is very important, or we would still own slaves, women would be submissive, and black people wouldn't be considered human.

 

[Blazin Bones]

If Asimov sees Murder as "Moral", he is basing his morals off an incorrect opinion. If Berean sees murder as "immoral" then he is basing his morals off a correct opinion. What many people don't like today is the fact that a correct set of Moral absolutes is found in the Bible, and thus rooted in a God.[/color]

How would you know which opinions is correct, Brutus?

There are many morals found in the bible, many immoral things found in the bible, there are many morals found in many other religious books, and codes.

The truths laid down by God are the truths I live by. All other "truths", I judge with the Holy Spirit which is given to those who accept the salvation of Christ.

 

[Asimov]

The truths laid down by God are the truths I live by. All other "truths", I judge with the Holy Spirit which is given to those who accept the salvation of Christ.

I don't consider them truths. What's your standard for discerning that the bible is true?

 

[Blazin Bones]

The fact that we have a tomb yet no Body. The fact that Jewish and Non Christian sources attesting to the crucifixtion and the events of that day. The fact that God is above you and I. The fact that Jesus told us that More blessed are those who believe and do not see. The fact that archeological evidence supports not only old testament events, but new testament events. The fact that as hard as Science tries to disprove the Bible, it still holds true. I have Faith, asimov. One day you will believe too, but what I fear is that the day you accept Christ as truth, will be the day it's too late. I have Faith.

 

[Asimov]

The fact that we have a tomb yet no Body. The fact that Jewish and Non Christian sources attesting to the crucifixtion and the events of that day.

That's not a fact, and there are no contemporary sources.

The fact that God is above you and I. The fact that Jesus told us that More blessed are those who believe and do not see.

Those aren't facts.

The fact that archeological evidence supports not only old testament events, but new testament events.

Haha...nice try.

The fact that as hard as Science tries to disprove the Bible, it still holds true. I have Faith, asimov. One day you will believe too, but what I fear is that the day you accept Christ as truth, will be the day it's too late. I have Faith.

Science doesn't try to disprove the bible.

 

[Blazin Bones]

If Science does not try to disprove the Bible, then why do we have flawed incomplete theories that are taught as truth?

 

[Veritas]

Asimov wrote:

I see a slight difference between the two. My problem with the absolute moral idea is that it isn't subject to change based on circumstances. Evolution of morals is very important, or we would still own slaves, women would be submissive, and black people wouldn't be considered human.

I believe that the evolution of our view of morals is important as long as we are viewing them (morals) more and more correctly.

I don't think that the institution of slavery was ever ideal. I also think that women and blacks should have always been considered human despite the emotions and personal prejudices of the people in power at that time.

I don't believe the morals changed, but our willingness to realize and accept them did.

 

[Asimov]

If Science does not try to disprove the Bible, then why do we have flawed incomplete theories that are taught as truth?

We don't. We have scientific theories taught in science class as scientific theories.

 

[Asimov]

I don't believe the morals changed, but our willingness to realize and accept them did.

I agree with everything except this. I think morals do change, as we change.

 

[Blazin Bones]

If Science does not try to disprove the Bible, then why do we have flawed incomplete theories that are taught as truth?

We don't. We have scientific theories taught in science class as scientific theories.

That is a lie. I was in the class room just last year where it was taught as fact. They are taught as fact, and creation is ignored even though both are to be taught if one is. Even you claim evolution and the expansion of the universe to be fact when you have no proof. You were not there when God created the Universe, so in your mind there must be a different explaination. When you ignore absolutes, this is bound to happen.

Too many ignore absolute morality, Because to accept it would be to accept that they are sinful. Stop relying on faulty theories that take more faith. God has revealed himself to man in so many ways, yet the sinfulness of man hinders the understanding of God's supremacy.

 

[cubedbee]

[/quote]We argee on absoulute truth, right Bee? Opinions are based on on personal truth, Right? Then your morals extend from your opinions on what is truth, Right?[/quote]Yes, I agree with all this.

[quote:72aec]Here's the deal then, Opinions can be wrong.

Here's where I begin to disagree. Certain kinds of opinions can be wrong. However, I belive that there are some kinds of opinions that cannot be labeled right or wrong. I gave examples in my last post.

A correct opinion will stem from the Absolute truth.

For those which can be assigned a right/wrong value I agree. But the other kind of opinion, while still based on absolute truth, does not have an absolute right/wrong value. It is neither right, nor wrong, but simply an opinion.

There are opinions that are wrong. A correct moral will stem from a person who's opinions are rooted in truth. That's How we get an ultimate Morality.

Is morality based on opnions which can be classified as right/wrong, or opinions which cannot be so classified? I believe they are based on the latter, and that therefore we cannot say there is absolute morality.

If Asimov sees Murder as "Moral", he is basing his morals off an incorrect opinion. If Berean sees murder as "immoral" then he is basing his morals off a correct opinion. What many people don't like today is the fact that a correct set of Moral absolutes is found in the Bible, and thus rooted in a God.[/color]

[/quote:72aec]

I don't disagree that there are some moral absolutes found in the Bible. However, I don't think God has explictly defined all morality for us, and I do think there are grey areas where the moralityof an action can vary according to the individual.

 

[Asimov]

[quote="Brutus/HisCatalyst":7566c]If Science does not try to disprove the Bible, then why do we have flawed incomplete theories that are taught as truth?

We don't. We have scientific theories taught in science class as scientific theories.

That is a lie. I was in the class room just last year where it was taught as fact. They are taught as fact, and creation is ignored even though both are to be taught if one is. Even you claim evolution and the expansion of the universe to be fact when you have no proof. You were not there when God created the Universe, so in your mind there must be a different explaination. When you ignore absolutes, this is bound to happen.[/quote:7566c]

Bait and switch.

They are taught as scientific fact. Teachers want students to use critical thinking, scientists want students to use critical thinking, and challenge their ideas. It's how we learn as a population.

I say that evolution as a mechanism is a fact.

I say that the Theory of Evolution is a theory.

The expansion of the universe is a fact.

The Big Bang is a theory.

Too many ignore absolute morality, Because to accept it would be to accept that they are sinful. Stop relying on faulty theories that take more faith. God has revealed himself to man in so many ways, yet the sinfulness of man hinders the understanding of God's supremacy.

Oh wow, brutus. I'm amazed at how easily your split personality snaps into place. Is that why your name is Brutus/His Catalyst? Is this "His Catalyst", the preacher, speaking now?

It takes absolutely no faith to accept scientific theories. If you're going to revert to Creationist mode who accuses anyone who doesn't accept his interpretations of the bible as sinful, then I'm not going to discuss with you anymore.

 

[Veritas]

I wrote:

I don't believe the morals changed, but our willingness to realize and accept them did.

Asimov wrote:

I agree with everything except this. I think morals do change, as we change.

I see. You must believe the morals are changing for the better right?

 

[Blazin Bones]

Bait and switch.

They are taught as scientific fact. Teachers want students to use critical thinking, scientists want students to use critical thinking, and challenge their ideas. It's how we learn as a population.

I say that evolution as a mechanism is a fact.

I say that the Theory of Evolution is a theory.

The expansion of the universe is a fact.

The Big Bang is a theory.

Bait and switch, or proven wrong?

If teachers truly wanted to encourage a students critical thinking, why do they only address half of the issue? I have an answer, but I'm curious to see your answer.

Expansion is true without science, it's viewable. The theories of how it started are wrong. Evolution is not observable fact. The Idea that evolution exists is as wrong as the theory itself.

Oh wow, brutus. I'm amazed at how easily your split personality snaps into place. Is that why your name is Brutus/His Catalyst? Is this "His Catalyst", the preacher, speaking now?

It takes absolutely no faith to accept scientific theories. If you're going to revert to Creationist mode who accuses anyone who doesn't accept his interpretations of the bible as sinful, then I'm not going to discuss with you anymore.

It takes all a mans faith to believe he or nature is above God. I do not argue from any perspective without my faith. I said that before. I play in the skeptics realm because I hope to show that the World's logic is flawed. I am not two men, as much as I am one man in the world made complete by Christ and his salvation.

As for those who deny the Bible's truth being in sin, that is an absolute truth. To deny the Bible is to ultimately deny the saving power of Christ, and the guidance of the Spirit. This is the one sin that can not and will not be forgiven. I pray that all those who are skeptic or in disbelief of God's reality and truth will one day see that they are at least guilty of this sin, or we will not be enjoying eternity together.

 

[ThinkerMan]

I play in the skeptics realm because I hope to show that the World's logic is flawed.

No offense Brutus....but if you wanna play in the "skeptics realm" you have to play by the scientific and logical rules we use.

You can't "wing it" or strawman the viewpoints and theories of the secular world.

I would be like myself debating your christian beliefs with quotes from the Koran....pointless since we are not discussing apples and apples.

To that point, if the ToE was taught as fact, then that was wrong. The teacher should have explained what a theory is (mine did in high school).

However, that has ZERO to do with the veracity of the theory itself.

 

[Asimov]

Bait and switch, or proven wrong?

You haven't proved anything, you've only provided anecdotal evidence that can't be verified except to state that I've read my sister biology book, and I see nothing about "this is 100% fact, not a theory..."

I've also read my biology book, and taken biology classes, and none of them have ever stated that what I was being taught was fact.

If teachers truly wanted to encourage a students critical thinking, why do they only address half of the issue? I have an answer, but I'm curious to see your answer.

Explain what you mean by half the issue?

Expansion is true without science, it's viewable. The theories of how it started are wrong. Evolution is not observable fact. The Idea that evolution exists is as wrong as the theory itself.

Well, la de da. I assume you are well versed in physics, quantum physics, and biology and biochemistry.

Of course, assuming does nothing.

Prove that the Big Bang is wrong. I'm sure you'll win the Nobel Prize.

Evolution is observable fact, prove that the Evolutionary Theory is wrong, I'm sure you'll win the Nobel Prize again.

It takes all a mans faith to believe he or nature is above God. I do not argue from any perspective without my faith. I said that before. I play in the skeptics realm because I hope to show that the World's logic is flawed. I am not two men, as much as I am one man in the world made complete by Christ and his salvation.

I don't even know how to answer this without saying something rude, so I'll just leave it at that. Your entire paragraph is pretty insulting, I think.

As for those who deny the Bible's truth being in sin, that is an absolute truth. To deny the Bible is to ultimately deny the saving power of Christ, and the guidance of the Spirit. This is the one sin that can not and will not be forgiven. I pray that all those who are skeptic or in disbelief of God's reality and truth will one day see that they are at least guilty of this sin, or we will not be enjoying eternity together.

*cough* opinion *cough* *cough*

 

[dragon]

asimov,

Prove the Big Bang is wrong. I'm sure you'll win the Nobel Prize.

i'm glad you support the big bang so fervently, because it actually supports creationism.

Evolution is an observable fact...

:fadein: no it's not. it is a theory. a very flawed theory with much evidence against it. and it's also not very observable which is why no one can prove it as a fact/certainty.

some cool articles you might enjoy:

http://www.souldevice.org/christian_evolution.html

http://www.eylerz.net/works/creation_bb.html

http://www.jefflindsay.com/BigBang.shtml

 

[Asimov]

i'm glad you support the big bang so fervently, because it actually supports creationism.

I don't support it fervently, I want him to disprove it. I accept it as the best explanation we have for how the Universe began.

no it's not. it is a theory. a very flawed theory with much evidence against it. and it's also not very observable which is why no one can prove it as a fact/certainty.

I made the distinction clear, so what I did is not a bait and switch.

Evolution as a mechanism is a fact, observable fact. The theory of evolution is as greatly supported as the Germ Theory of Disase. The evolutionary mechanism is directly observable, the Origin of Species, which uses the evolutionary mechanism is indirectly observable.

 

[Asimov]

some cool articles you might enjoy:

for pure entertainment value?

http://www.souldevice.org/christian_evolution.html

So amazingly flawed I'm surprised you would bring it up. Start a new thread if you want it critiqued.

http://www.eylerz.net/works/creation_bb.html

flawed...and makes false assumptions.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/BigBang.shtml

Anything that starts out with "The Big Bang theory, in its modern embodiment as popularly taught in the schools, is offered as a refutation of Divine Creation" is total crap, and shouldn't even be considered for a reference link.

 

[dragon]

asimov,

flawed...and makes false assumptions.

blah, blah, blah. are you sure you're not talking about yourself in this last statement, and if not...
prove it, you might win a nobel prize! :-D

the rest of everything you've said, and i'm sure anything you will say in the future is not even worth responding to :