Originally posted by cirisme
Let me answer my own question. it is quite obvious, with comments like the following, that you more know more about me than I do...
So I guess you expect me to know more about you and what you believe than you know?
Well, either Jesus is God or he isn't. If God is the standard for absolute morality, and Jesus isn't God, then Jesus cannot be the standard for absolute morality -- he would simply be a standard for morality, not for "absolute" morality. If Jesus is not God, but both Jesus and God are standards for absolute morality, then it is not absolute. Absolute morality, by its very nature, could have one and only one standard. If there are two standards for absolute morality, as you seem to be suggesting, then that means the standard is different from one situation to the next, which makes it relative only.Originally posted by cirisme
Better arguement for what? You simply stated your opinion that Jesus would have to be God to be a moral standard with no proof for that, other than a few assertions. Am I supposed to argue that you don't believe that?
Well, can you imagine how irritating it is to hear over and over again, "Morality is absolute, you're absolutely wrong if you do this, you're going to burn in hell if you don't agree with me," when the speakers have not one shred of proof of any of those things?Originally posted by cirisme
You read way too much into things! I was merely indicating how irritating it is to hear the same thing over and over again.
The statement was made with general intent. I simply get sick and tired of absolutists constantly saying that what they believe is the only way to believe, yet when asked to provide proof they get indignant. Absolutists love to put what they believe forward as fact, but they get insulted when they are asked to actually support it as fact with proof or evidence. I find that common of Christians in general, not just absolutists. You all tend to get indignant when it is actually suggested that you should be able to provide some measure of proof for those things that you claim are absolutely so. If you know that a thing is they way you purport it to be, then you should be able to prove it, because knowing it means you have proof of it. Otherwise, all you have is faith and belief. But absolutists aren't satisfied to leave it at belief. They want us all to accept it as inviolable fact. Well ... where's the proof?Originally posted by cirisme
Yes, now where did I say any of that?
PS:I don't believe in a literal fiery hell.
All too often, participants in a discussion don't want to allow their "opponents" to have equal footing or to give equal ground. When it comes to matters of faith, we're all on even turf, none of us having proof that our matters of faith are fact. If they were provable facts, they wouldn't be matters of faith, they'd be matters of fact. And you're right, usually that unwillingness to view someone else's position as equal to your own stems from insecurity.
(just kidding) incorrect manner and could have done much better. Something of a key in the debate against absolute morality is to acknowledge Godels (umlaut over the o...) theorem and what it implies about reality in general. Zakath wasn't challenging Knights basic conception of reality enough and since he didn't he did a rather poor job of defense against Knights bandying about of the murder/kidnap/rape situation. You have to realize that Language is a system, and as a system it operates off of absolute rules, that are only absolute within the system (relatively absolute, as it were, ). Words aren't reality, they describe reality, and when you take a term like murder or rape which is *defined* as absolutely wrong within its own system you can't scrounge about for situations where murder isn't murder because of someone's perspective or whatever, you can't succeed, and Zakath didn't. Anyways, that was my main gripe about how the debate went.