Theological Opinions

[Nurvingiel]

Truthiness? Where have I heard that before... is it from a book?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

make sense to whom? The majority?

basically

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

ahh, but you don't like majority rules (unless you agree with that particular issue...)

there are many things i like and don't like, and i'm not afraid to express my opinions... but i also support the rules of the majority in the end... it's the basis for democracy... are you implying that you can not both respect and disagree with certain laws at the same time?

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

The enlightened? But how do we determine who is enlightened if truth is relative?

who are these enlightened you speak of?

all i'm saying is that it is my impression that most people don't take the bible as literally as they may have 1000 years ago... they pick and choose and interpret for themselves, as opposed to letting preachers do it for them

is this a scientific observation? no... but i think it is an accurate one, at least in the united states

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Everything is absolutely relative, eh, BJ?

I disagree, but then you knew that. However, if I were to accept your view for argument's sake, kill you because you annoy me with your views, and then revert to absolute relativism, should I have to do penance or get the Congressional Medal?

no... everything is relative... it is the absolute you must free yourself from

any of our personal morality is tempered by the fact that we live in a society with other human beings... our own personal existance and survival depends upon this very society and functioning within it in a peaceful manor... that is why you would just be hurting yourself if you choose to hurt others

[inked]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

no... everything is relative... it is the absolute you must free yourself from

any of our personal morality is tempered by the fact that we live in a society with other human beings... our own personal existance and survival depends upon this very society and functioning within it in a peaceful manor... that is why you would just be hurting yourself if you choose to hurt others

Avoidance, avoidance, BJ!

I think I would get the Congressional Medal. And, relatively, it's only what I think that counts. Your attention to society is merely sneaking in the absolute by another route and asserting its applicability because of the (now) absolute role of society.

Gotcha!

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

And, relatively, it's only what I think that counts.

no, it's what you think and the society you live in thinks... you are not an island... but if you don't believe me, you can try an experiment i guess

Originally Posted by inked

Your attention to society is merely sneaking in the absolute by another route and asserting its applicability because of the (now) absolute role of society.

Gotcha!

society is not absolute at all, it is actually very fluid... at any slice in location an time there are certain moralities basically held as "good for society" by the majority... but these moralities are often very different, and sometimes contradictory from place to place and time to time

you see this in humanity's past, and will see it in our future, not matter what supposed "absolutes" were penned in antiquity

[inked]

Yes, BJ, but you are no less absolute because you profess 'fluidity'. You merely assert the absolutism of societies current judgment. How is that less absolute in function than my professed acknowledgment of absolute truth? It is not. I submit to the Tao because it is universal. You make the present which you happen to agree with universal.

A rose by any other name is yet a rose, old man!

And, by the by, you dis the majority where you disagree and assert it where you agree. Notice a non-sequiter there by any chance?

[brownjenkins]

absolute
noun
1 absolute

something that is conceived to be absolute; something that does not depends on anything else and is beyond human control; "no mortal being can influence the absolute"

it is different because society can change... your "absolute truths" can not... barring a "second coming"

and i'll refer to what i said to RÃ*an:

there are many things i like and don't like, and i'm not afraid to express my opinions... but i also support the rules of the majority in the end... it's the basis for democracy... are you implying that you can not both respect and disagree with certain laws at the same time?

expressing one's opinion is not the same as disregarding the will of the majority... but one who views the world as absolutes has a hard time making that distinction... which brings us back to obi-wan's statement to annakin

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

no... everything is relative... it is the absolute you must free yourself from

Is that statement absolutely true or relatively true?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Is that statement absolutely true or relatively true?

relatively true as far as humanity is concerned... if there are any absolutes in this universe they are far beyond our ability to perceive

[Rían]

if there are any absolutes in this universe they are far beyond our ability to perceive

Are you absolutely sure about this?
(you relative guys keep making absolute statements!)

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

relatively true as far as humanity is concerned... if there are any absolutes in this universe they are far beyond our ability to perceive

That's a contradiction in terms, though saying what you were saying was absolutely true likewise would have been self-contradictory. Either way, it's self-contradictory.

If the statement that "everything is relative" is relatively true (or fairly true), then it's also relatively untrue, and if it's relatively untrue, then it cannot be "everything" that you're talking about, but only those parts of reality about which what you're saying is true. Therefore you're no longer talking about "everything" but about "some things," saying, "some things are relative," rather than "everything is relative."

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Are you absolutely sure about this?
(you relative guys keep making absolute statements!)

of course i'm not absolutely sure... at least not i the way you imply... if you mean "am i convinced that i'm right"... yes... if you mean "do i hold this as some universal truth"... no

there are no universal truths... whether you can see it or not

i'm just trying to answer lief's question... any opinion i hold, any opinion you hold, and any opinion lief holds, is relative to personal experience and personal interpretation of that experience

even something as "set in stone" as the bible can be interpreted quite differently by two different people... why, because perception is relative

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

That's a contradiction in terms, though saying what you were saying was absolutely true likewise would have been self-contradictory. Either way, it's self-contradictory.

If the statement that "everything is relative" is relatively true (or fairly true), then it's also relatively untrue, and if it's relatively untrue, then it cannot be "everything" that you're talking about, but only those parts of reality about which what you're saying is true. Therefore you're no longer talking about "everything" but about "some things," saying, "some things are relative," rather than "everything is relative."

now you are arguing semantics

let's say "everything that humans know about the universe around us is relative to our ability to perceive that very universe"

[Spock]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

... any opinion i hold, any opinion you hold, and any opinion lief holds, is relative to personal experience and personal interpretation of that experience

even something as "set in stone" as the bible can be interpreted quite differently by two different people... why, because perception is relative

Excellent point.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

now you are arguing semantics

let's say "everything that humans know about the universe around us is relative to our ability to perceive that very universe"

MOST Excellent.

Let us try to read and digest what a member has posted before we get upset about it.

[Rían]

I just don't buy this wholesale perception problem thingy. If it's true, then I shouldn't be graded down in math class if I perceive that 1 + 1 is 3.

[inked]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

relatively true as far as humanity is concerned... if there are any absolutes in this universe they are far beyond our ability to perceive

There you go again, BJ, making an absolute statement.

or

Ereht uoy og niaga, JB, gnikam na etulosba tnemetats.

or

Tnemetats etulosba na making, JB, niaga og ouy ereht.

There is in fact a moral grammar of the universe to which you constantly appeal in favor of your argumentation - which if it exists belies your argument.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I just don't buy this wholesale perception problem thingy. If it's true, then I shouldn't be graded down in math class if I perceive that 1 + 1 is 3.

You get problems like that in math class!!!

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

now you are arguing semantics

I'm pointing out that things can't be all relative, for if they are all relative, that still leaves the absolute truth that they are all relative. If one says that there is no absolute truth that they are all relative, then that means absolutes exist. So all things can't be relative. Explain to me how that doesn't make sense.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

let's say "everything that humans know about the universe around us is relative to our ability to perceive that very universe"

This seems to make sense. I can't very quickly think of a counter-example. By "perceive," I'm assuming that you mean through any of a broad range of ways, including logic, deduction, observation, faith or other. There also can be a significant amount of error in the knowledge we gain from those different sources. However, this is not relativity in the state of things that you're pointing out, but rather an error factor in human understanding.

[rohirrim TR]

kudos everyone, quite an amusing debate.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

now you are arguing semantics

Words are important; they mean things: they convey ideas and information.

let's say "everything that humans know about the universe around us is relative to our ability to perceive that very universe"

Yes, but if you aren't willing to grant the basic reliability of the senses, on which all of science is founded, then why bother to talk?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

There you go again, BJ, making an absolute statement.

it's only absolute if you define it as such... you are giving me far too much credit