Is there such a thing as absolute Truth?

A Rabbi told me in a chat conversation online, that the Jewish law was for Jews, to set them apart from the nations around them. The dietary law, the law of the Temple and sacrifice etc. He said, mankind ouside of Judaism was given the Noahic law. http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/noahide.html Have you studied any one this?

Hi Codymac, I haven't heard or read about the Jews judging the nations. Can you give me a reference?

Right. And I found that the Jews will judge the nations based on these laws. It is interesting to see this because we as "the nations" will need to observe some of the very things that are repeated in Acts 15 verses 28 and 29. So I guess we are good-to-go!

Very well said, Peavey!!

And she's shy about sharing in the 'religion' topic! I agree, but don't people often call evil, good and good, evil? (with evil being untruth and good being truth)

And while we're at it here...where did the concept 'true' and 'untrue' come from?

I think one's perception of what's right and what's wrong can depend upon which side of abuse one is on. Some/many things, surely, are just "wrong" with no "right" to them at all. But man seeks to be the higher power/authority, which too, imho, is just wrong!

I would ask; why then do we have laws. And if someone thought murder is 'right' is he correct, is THAT true?

Thank you for putting what you said into perspective. Is there, and can we know if there is, an absolute? For all cultures, for all peoples?

Now that I can agree with. But, just for the sake of 'argument', who defines what abuse is? Is abuse sending your child to bed without supper cause he disobeyed you? Is abuse spanking him for telling a lie? You see, this is where we humans are failing. WE think WE know what is right from wrong, but then run up against someone who thinks differently, who thinks THEIR standards are the measure of right and wrong. Which, in my thinking, makes it imperative we use the same standard for everyone. How do we do that though? Because we can see, not everyone will agree...and never will we find a STANDARD we all agree on.

You are right. Who defines what abuse is? There are some vague guidelines about spanking beach state had their own standard, but I look at it like this: Would you out your hands on your boss and 'spank' your boss for doing something or saying something you don't like? NO. Would you smack your neighbor's kid for or ring on your lawn? NO. You would probably sit in jail awhile for that one. To me, (spanking?) hitting your kid is assault. If it is assault to hit your boss, your neighbor, or neighbor's kid, then it is also assault to hit your own kid. Just because our parents hit us doesn't mean it's right to hit our kids. I don't take the 'spare the rod' in the bible literally. The rod could be a stick it a belt or your own hand to hit your child. (I remember a preacher going to jail for getting parents to let him beat their kids.). I do interpret sparing the rod (rod meaning discipline) can mean other forms if discipline, like grounding, writing 500 sentences or whatever. I believe the rod can be nonviolent. I was severely punished as a kid. The rod was his foot kicking me. His rod was his hands throwing me to the floor. No one said this was abuse, yet when my tailbone broke I was to lie and go along with the story that was given to the doctor. The rod was my father punching my 14 year old brother in his left eye. His glasses broke and stabbed into his lower eyelid. He still has that scar. My brother and I managed to raise our kids (his 5 and my 1) without hitting them. I did lose control once and hit her and I was so ashamed of myself for being no better than my father. I believe when we learn better ways to deal with kids we should do better. That's just me. If other parents think hitting their kids make them better, that's on them. I think hitting kids just makes kids scared of their parents. I used to hide in my closet as a kid. I do much the same thing now, but I just seclude myself in my room away from everyone. It's my safe place. Now, what has worked for me and what I think is right and wrong us just relevant to me and my own conscience. Everyone else must choose according to their own.

Edit: this iPhone makes mistakes. I was trying to write would you smack your neighbor's kid for peeing on your lawn. There are a few other typos too. Hope you can read past them. I just believe the rod does not have to imply hitting.

I AM the way (to God), the Truth (Word of God), and the life (source of life) Yes, I know Him and believe him. But what about those who don't believe He is even real. Or they've chosen to ignore what He taught? Should man accept that there are absolutes apart from belief in God?

And is THAT even possible?

I wrote about this a long time ago, it`s one of the questions where you can`t answer no so the answer is there is absolute truth. Because if you say there is no absolute truth, that is an absolute statement and it can`t be true.

Yes, I agree. Men are moral creatures and know right from wrong. But why then do some try to rationalize things like murder...trying to make it 'right' when it is so obviously 'wrong'?

Is there a 'reason' to murder. Notice I did not say 'kill'. I guess we must define 'murder'. The taking of human life for 'no reason', and then we open the discussion up to; who gets to define the 'reasons' it would be acceptable. We are back at the idea of absolute again. For one man's judgment will not be the same as another's, will it?

No one has the right to kill another without reason makes it worth it, God has forbidden killing oneself, and proceeded for the punishment of the murderer, so as not to get lost rights among the people ? and we will be in a jungle . Do you know that the spread of murder of the signs of time?

Something I think makes the last paragraph there extremely plausible is the fact that a "god" always seems to carry the traits of the individual carrying the god, and that god is subject to change as the individual changes. It seems it would be the other way around if any god were there with the powers people attribute to it. Ask 10 people about religion and gods and which rules to follow and what "god" is, get 50 different answers. But each religious person is pretty set in stone, so to speak, about how their god operates, what their god wants, and even as far as how the rest of us should behave to show reverence to this god. It really seems to be all about ego. Even if something does exist, it's wholly described and carried and perpetuated by the leanings of people. Wouldn't it stand to reason that a being so powerful to imprint on us what "morality" is would show as universal amongst all people? Even with the free will to disobey any supreme code, there would still be the inherent pull to "good" -- to a being's preferred will. Any desire to do "good" or even to acknowledge what it is is noticeably absent amongst large percentages of the human population. And while I won't use a troll session to use this as an argument against a "god," even though it's one on a list of many, it does tend to fly in the face of religious wisdom which states a god gifted our morality in our hearts and that we sometimes stray from a righteous path. I also want a god to be real, and I REALLY want to know which it is and which rules to follow! lol I have a strong ego in this regard, but not so strong that I feel I'm different than anyone else in this regard. I just assume that others who also want it make it fit and turn their own conscience and personality into a god.

@Matersfish, sadly you are correct. So many do project themselves into 'god'. I wish this wasn't so. All I can say is God is Truth. Humans don't like 'truth'. When a person commits to finding truth, they have to be willing to find it, even if it means admitting their own failings. That means adjusting the ego, not an easy thing to do. I believe that mankind does instinctively know what 'moral' is. But it is so easy, like water flowing in the path of least resistance, to convince ourselves that we're truly moral when all we are is looking out for number one. Why do I trust the Bible to be authoritive on morals? Because the stories in it show the WARTS of each of the featured players. lol And it gets to the heart of the problem, the HEART (spirit) of man, and gives a solution to the problem of ego driven acts and beliefs. And the answer (solution) is not an easy one.

IF there was a 'god' that was powerful enough to have created all things, We'd have to also admit that we should probably listen to the recommendations that god made as to how to operate within the created order. The fact is, we do not, as a society, all agree that said god exists. Because IF we did admit, as a society, that that god existed, that that god was powerful enough to create us, we'd be obligated (if we were wise) to obey that god and follow the recommendations. Man does not want to admit any being higher than himself. It's called EGO. Not that I think EGO is a bad thing, mind you. I see the rejection of absolute right and wrong as man's attempt to wiggle out from under the responsibility and accountability for choosing wrongly. All we need do to salve our egos is say, well to ME it was right. How does society make laws that dictate to a free human being what he may or may not do without absolutes?

The only ultimate law, is that which each soul applies to self with acuity of judgment, and none could be more painful or more just! This is the absolute that cannot, and can never be avoided!

Mandkind's worst punishments in this life is regret, that is true.

You are describing man's laws (Catholic sins). Meatless Fridays were invented by man. They did not apply, or were not recognized as applying, to protestants, or to those who didn't believe in God at all. Is there a LAW that applies to ALL mankind? A law that somewhere down the road we will all be judged by? In my thinking, that would be an absolute that could not be avoided, like we all are subject to the 'law of gravity'.

Which is what I tried to explain in the thread above this one. And I do agree, that the very fact that mankind tries to figure out what is good/evil is proof, in my thinking, that there IS a standard of true/false. Why else would we look for it, try to find it? Why is it do you think, that mankind rejects an absolute anything? Like saying absolute truth does not exist, or that man cannot know it, why does man have such a hard time with that?

Then why have laws?

Because there are common things of what is wrong, right and true and false. If there are no guidance from the start, then how can we get into the right path?

If as you said above, everyone has their own idea on what is right and wrong, meaning...there is no absolute right or wrong, just opinions on what is right and wrong; so how do we arrive at those 'common things'? Can we agree, that somethings are always wrong, always right? No grey areas, without an absolute standard? You mention guidance is needed to arrive at those 'common things', and a right path. Who's ideas or who's opinions should be accepted as right and wrong? And can we trust that they are the correct opinions, the most beneficial opinions?

I agree, GOD is the absolute truth. Can man find Him without His help? lol For instance, if God is the standard, will our 'intelligence' find the way to Him as bird suggested up in his thread?

Yes, I agree. And yet I find mankind fascinating, don't you?

That's what makes us separate from other species. Nevertheless, we really are fascinating!

I agree with you on that! If we know this we are held accountable for knowing what the Creator says is right and wrong. And the ultimate sin would be ignoring His word.

I'm not sure 'achieve' is the objective. I would think it would be 'accept'. If absolute truth does exist, we as imperfect beings could not 'achieve' it, and our not accepting it would matter little to us achieving it or not achieving it, no? So in a sense perhaps you're partially correct, I guess. Here we are again, trying to define what our thoughts are and searching for words to do so. We either discover it and accept it, or we reject it and move on.