Posted by: Diehl ®
03/10/2002, 17:45:41
Author Profile Mail author
|
Well the TRUTH is objective. Morals are sujective, the observer determins the morality of something. Morals are not fixed, or set; they change from person to person. The truth is immutable, and requies no observer, and thus objective (eg: gravity, speed of light, heat). What makes rape, murder, lying, and stealing wrong? Why are they frowned upon? Because they hurt society, a society works better in thier absence, they are deemed wrong merely becasue they don't help us. Morals are not true, the truth is not moral. The truth doesn't feel, dosen't care, dosen't want; it is. Morals are the result of human desires hopes and goals, they are made by man.
|
Posted by: Bubbles ®
03/10/2002, 19:46:20
Author Profile Mail author
|
That is unsatisfactory. You can't logically say that their is truth, but it doesn't apply to everything (such as ethics). ither there is truth in everything, or there's not. There's no logical inbetween. I will give you an inch though. Morality comes from the word "mores" which means shifting behavioral patterns--what society does. Morals are cultural things. Ethics, on the other hand, comes from the word "ethos" which means "stall;" it is stable and unmoveable. What is wrong in 1000 B.C. is wrong in 1000 A.D. That's the law of truth and of ethics. All sins are self-destructive things. That's exactly why God uses the Bible and our consciences to tell us not to sin! Even white lies do have profound impacts on our lives in negative ways. So why do some people get the idea that it's okay for people to do whatever they feel like? People are depraved. We all feel like sinning. Truth is not moral? Are you suggesting that truth is a corrupt thing?
|
Posted by: Çhâñgelîñg ®
03/10/2002, 20:16:28
Author Profile Mail author
|
If you look up 'truth' in the Oxford English dictionary you find = 'Gods Truth' 'Half truth' and 'Home Truth' seems appropriate for this rather ambiguous question by the originator? Truth for the individual can vary, and most certainly for the church.
|
Posted by: Diehl ®
03/10/2002, 21:08:22
Author Profile Mail author
|
The truth is AMORAL, it is not soemthing contously chosen; it exists. Thats like sayign 2+2=4 is somehow good and just, and that 3+4=9 is immoral and unjust. How does one deem that moral or immoral? What is variable is ones perception of the truth. It's like saying that water is moral... it just is, it's niether good nor evil (which in and of themselves are human craetions). The only "truth" to morals is that humans made them, and we decided what they are/were; morals are the end result of out desire to improve ourselves. Well what if humans were selfdestructive w/o limits? Well we'd be dead, so it is safe to assume that any living thing thats is self-destrucive would have been lost, therefor a "conscience" would make sense, it is a natral inhibtion aginst self-destrutive actions. No divine punisher nessicary, if you do soemthing thats hurts you, you get hurt... and thus you "punish" yourself. Why do people do the things they do? You got me, i don't plan to murder, or to rape someone. Why do they do it? I dunno... If humans were 100% logical beings completly deviod of petty things like preconceptions, emotions, and superstations then we wouldn't have any murders, rapist, liars and thiefs. Why kill someone? What does it get you? Nothing, at least i don't see the benifits in it, but some kill becasue they hate the person, or maybe they want to feel powerful? Finally here's the diffrence between the truth and morals: The truth existed before humaity and after humaity is long gone, it will still be there; morals on the other hand are purely human artifice, gone the moment humatity is gone.
EDIT: oh another point... if someone or something sat down and determiend what the truth is, then guess what, it is subjective. No one decided what the truth is.
Modified by Diehl at Sun, Mar 10, 2002, 21:14:49
|
Posted by: Martin ®
03/10/2002, 23:33:40
Author Profile Mail author
|
Bubbles, Diehl's post below is largely correct. Let me put this simply (if also crudely)... In layman's terms, small "t" truth is best seen as a general absence of falsity; that is, a claim is true to the degree and extent to which it excludes misunderstandings, errors, falsehoods, and deceptions. That is not to say truth is relative, but rather to say that there is a sort of "spectrum" of truth that runs from being better than completely false through to being free of all known errors. In other words, a proposition is true to the extent that it can be objectively demonstrated to be free of known falsehoods. Absolute Truth, on the other hand, is not knowable, for such is non-demonstrable to or by anyone in this universe. As a result, morals and ethics are not absolute and must remain a matter of subjective human opinions.
- Martin
Modified by Martin at Sun, Mar 10, 2002, 23:34:48
|
Posted by: shooter ®
03/10/2002, 22:06:05
Author Profile Mail author
|
Truth comes from the barrel of a gun. Or, from the guy who has the brass sword & the brass balls to use it because "it is better than one man perish than a nation dwindles in unbelief".
Odd isn't it that the nation perished in unbelief anyway?
|
Posted by: Martin ®
03/11/2002, 00:55:06
Author Profile Mail author
|
shooter (a member of the NRA fan club?) writes: "Truth comes from the barrel of a gun. Or, from the guy who has the brass sword & the brass balls to use it because "it is better than one man perish than a nation dwindles in unbelief". Odd isn't it that the nation perished in unbelief anyway? Can I say, huh?? and ask for clarification?
- Martin
Modified by Martin at Mon, Mar 11, 2002, 00:55:20
|
Posted by: Alf Omega ®
03/12/2002, 00:56:01
Author Profile Mail author
|
It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief. (1 Nephi 4:13) Shooter refers to the story of Nephi killing Laban with his own sword (made of steel, by the way) in order to acquire the brass plates, which had the Hebrew scriptures engraven on them. It was so important that the family of Nephi have the scriptures to carry with them to the New World that it was apparently worth killing someone. The irony, as Shooter points out, is that the descendants of this immigrant family, the Lamanite and Nephite nations, both dwindled in unbelief before the former annihilated the latter.
|
Posted by: Martin ®
03/12/2002, 01:23:06
Author Profile Mail author
|
Thanks, Alf, for cluing in never-Mormons like myself. I appreciate your explication of that part of shooter's post! I still don't quite understand the rest of his post, but by searching on his email address, at least I now know Dan (shooter) took his handle from photography and not gun enthusiasm...
- Martin
|
Posted by: laurie ®
03/12/2002, 19:46:41
Author Profile Mail author
|
If Nephi was a prophet and followed GOD's command then while didn't GOD command that rather than killing his brother he just rewrite the scriptures, this would have given Laban time to repent and follow GOD also rather than the Death sentance. Wouldn't the lost lamb be valueable also? something else why doesn't the bible refer to the people of Ether in it's teachings and that they left the Holy lands and traveled West ward? The book of mormon tells of some building boats and traveling west ward but to lands not known.
|
Posted by: Alf Omega ®
03/12/2002, 23:36:03
Author Profile Mail author
|
You should probably ask a believing Mormon. While you're at it, here are some other puzzlers: Why would God have the Israelites slaughter the Canaanites rather than send in missionaries to convert them? Why did David kill Goliath, when it was obvious that all he needed was a friend who wouldn't make fun of his extra two cubits and a span? Why did Elisha call the bears on forty-two children who were making fun of his bald head? Why did God himself kill the firstborn of every household in Egypt that forgot to splash a little sheep's blood on their doorway? Oh yeah, and what's up with that whole worldwide flood business?
Modified by Alf Omega at Tue, Mar 12, 2002, 23:46:09
|
Posted by: Jerome ®
03/11/2002, 21:16:25
Author Profile Mail author
|
What do you think?
Is truth objective, or subjective?
Do you still beat your spouse? Answer yes or no.
Yes. So you beat your spouse.
No. So when did you stop beating your spouse.
You are putting a condition in the question that doesn't equate to the subject. Objective and subjective are relative to the temporal, which will be relative to our EGO point of view. Truth is Spirit, NOW.TRUTH is in constant change and constant expression.
So to label or define anything as truth stagnates that relative defined experience in EGO to the Bottomless Pit (Past), for that held definition/ belief/ temporal “will constantly be receding from NOW – TRUTH”, carrying its believer with it.
NOW is always NOW. There is only NOW and eternity. Never run TO OR FROM that which is the finite of our very existence here. This is TRUTH IN REALITY to embrace for all time.
UNREALITY is when a person “feels the necessity to confirm” what he sees or thinks or feels (these are all “Past”).
Jerome #>
|
|
.gif)
