King Rat

I had to teach my best friend how to daydream, seriously. He was a life guard and had to watch the pool for hours at a time. I commented jokingly "thank goodness for daydreaming, with a job like that." He said "daydreaming, what is that?"

I laughed, he had to be joking right? He wasn't. He had no imagination whatsoever and had never daydreamed in his life (he was 19 at the time).

I asked what he thought about for hours at a time when watching the pool, "nothing," he replied.

I spent the rest of the summer teaching him how to daydream. It was simultaneously fun and disconcerting.

Before then, I'd have said that imagination is an integral component of "mind" but I know different. Some components of "mind" must be learned, and do not come fullbown from anywhere. Unless god decided not to include imagination with my best friend's tour package.

Chaupoline

http://www.absolute--truth.com

There are two ways that I stated my beliefs, through speculations and declarations. Speculations are what I consider may be, but I don't really know if I believe them. Declarations are the core of what I believe. I made the declaration that God was the initial action and creator and the philosophy of Absolute Truth. I also stated:

1. People cause their own problems.

2. We learn about the world from Science. God did not give us a cheat book.

BadBadBad, replied that this would state that the Bible is a cheat book and therefore should not be believed. The cheat book statement applies to science, the Bible focused on morality, and the existance of God. Anything having to do with science in the Bible is speculation on the part of the writer. The basis of the Abrahamic religions has always been on issues of morality. The closest thing to science cheats may be the dietary laws given to Moses. That was a attempt to keep them healthy though. They were also dated to the moment that they were needed.

Another argument that was stated was in regards to natural disasters and disease. I stated that they cause us suffering, and we will be able to prevent it by understanding the world better. This coincides with what I stated about people forging their own paradise. Polio used to be a problem until Jonas Saulk came up with a vaccine.

Anything that I state in regards to miracles, mental states and death would be pure speculation. I hope this clarifies things better for you. I have already stated that I am not a spiritual leader. I am not inventing the wheel. I am not looking for donations.

charis

Tuvar Ane Ingolenen,
You can not apply images of parables or let's say, faretales literarry.
That is a very weak argument to accuse Jesus in calling for violence. I just mentioned other His calling for loving enemies, not retaliating, ....in my previous post. Please, could you be objective.
Success!
By the way, I lived in the Netherland for 3 years. I liked your country very much, nice people.

JPD

Surely the interpretation of what is a parable, what is a direct command, what is a blah-de-blah, is personal and subjective? If so, misinterpretations abound with no overall decision taken and adapted as to the correct understanding. Therefore the text renders itself impotent.

Sven

This link is quite insulting. Let me quote a bit:

The last phrase ("Humanists believe ...") is a huge non sequitur and strawman of the actual humanist position.

This entirely depends on how you define "absolute truth". I, for my part, disagree with Dewey (I wonder if the quote above is really accurate) that "there's no room for fixed, natural law" - but I agree that there are no moral absolutes. As does Christianity, BTW. Humans are not allowed to kill, god is. So not-killing is obviously no moral absolute.

OK. And I declare that god is an invisible pink unicorn. There you have it.

And ignored the answer that many problems are not caused by people.

Yes. It clearly shows that morals are not absolute.

Oh, that's why Jesus (supposedly) said that he won't change a bit of the law?

Oh, you think you will be able to prevent a super nova occuring in the near future, killing all life on Earth by deadly radiation?

Chaupoline

I used the website to explain what Absolute Truth was. I do not think that they clarified the humanist position very well though. I think that it was rather insulting. I am glad that we at least agree in fixed natural law.

So now you believe in God and to you God is a invisible pink unicorn. OK gotcha.

Man vs. Man, check. Man vs. Nature, check. Which one did I miss? Man vs. Shoddy Craftsmanship?

Or perhaps that we do not know what they are yet.

He never changed the law, he stated that they did not understand the law.

Yep, in the future we will figure out how to take care of the situation. You are not the only one Pinkie that believes that mankind can't solve their own problems on their own. But then again maybe you feel that your invisible pink unicorn will make everything better for you and you do not have to take responsibility for anything? Humanity needs to accept accountability for the problems of the world and try to fix them. We may not have caused the tsunami but we should learn how to prevent the destruction of the next one. Man vs. Nature remember.

If there are no Moral Absolutes and morality is relative, then how can anybody be held accountable for anything. Morality is the system that society is based upon.

morality

n 1: concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct [ant: immorality] 2: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong [syn: ethical motive, ethics, morals]

Good and Evil, right and wrong are subjective terms. They are judged on the basis of what effect it has upon the group. Abhorring murder but condoning war is to many a source of extreme moral confusion. Murder obviously adds to chaos within the community, while engaging in warfare against a rival group maintains order for the community. People killing other people results in both cases, however murder is evil or wrong, while killing others in war or by the police is acceptable.

Sven

I hope you understand my point: That declarations of faith a not even worth the time you need to write them.

You forgot that there are natural desasters which we will (very likely) never be able to prevent. Such as a supernova nearby.

What is difficult to understand about that not-killing is obviously not absolute since it's different for humans and god(s)?

As do you apparently. You just stated that the dietary laws are no longer necessary.

I never said that. On the contrary, I think that humans can solve many if not most of their problems on their own. But (I believe) there will always be problems which humans can not solve - such as the example above. Apart from this, until we will be able to solve them, they will result in countless death. Why does your god not provide us with a solution for these problems instead of so much suffering?

Humor noted.

I wholeheartedly agree. Problem is, there are many theists out there who really think that the world is going to end soon and thus there's no need for taking "accountability for the problems of the world and try to fix them."

Perhaps you should read up on this. Moral relativity does not mean what you think it means. Or just take a look in the Moral Foundations & Principles forum.

See, here the disagreement already stars. I don't think that this is accepabtle in principle - it really depends on the circumstances. In other words, it's relative.

BadBadBad

So I can disregard your statements on God as unreliable? Alright, so this looks like we'll have to follow a chain of men back to the original source. Your parents, your church, the Catholic church, the councils that cannonized the Bible, etc, etc. You don't have to look real hard charis, and you'll realize that's already a pretty corrupt chain of people already. At best, you make it back to "four" anonymous "authors" of the Gospels. You do realize that three of the four accounts of Jesus words are virtually copied word for word. So in my mind, we have one maybe two accounts of Jesus' words from over 2000 years ago. We don't have Jesus, and we don't have words from those who saw him directly. We have words from anonymous authors transmitted to us through perhaps the most corrupted set of human hands ever to have existed in human history, and you're not even asking that I have faith in you that these words are true? Let me ask you Charis, would you accept the truth of any other concept that was brought to you through this set of hands?

Chaupoline

I was responding to another request about what I believed. This was to state what the diffrences are between declarations and speculations.


Man vs. Nature

I don't think it is.


Laws aren't continual if there was no longer a need for them. In San Diego it is illegal to drive a car in your bathrobe. At the time that this piece of legislation came to pass there must have been a epidemic of white trash driving their cars in their bathrobes and causing traffic accidents. Today I would think that it doesn't matter because GM solved the safety issues involved with wearing bathrobes in automobiles.

We need to solve our own problems. It isn't a issue of being too busy. If God wipes our asses every time we take a shit then we will never learn to wipe our own asses. But it is even bigger than just this. Everyone needs to work together to keep the communal ass clean or else there will be a rash, and then humanity will have to figure out how fix the rash and keep the ass clean.

Then those theists are wrong.

I'll argue this over there. Whatever I state is the ideal morality is just speculation anyways.

Then this would be a matter for further speculation.

BadBadBad

My point was that Chaupoline's pre-suppositions necessarily take him where sensibility won't go. Godless Wonder's example of the child locked up in a closet is perfect. The soul and consciousness should be unaffected by that according to Christianity. The soul as the essence of man should come out none the worst for wear after an ordeal like that. Basically the ordeal leads to brain injury just like brain damage from a head injury. Chaupoline's original assertion is a valid extrapolation of his theology. It just doesn't match up with reality, and I think Chaupoline knows there is no way to align the two.