Actually it’s quite the opposite in that stupidity is not intentional but inherent and subjective. Sin must have a master reference that is Absolute or there is no such thing as Sin.
The root to all sin is selfishness as this is an requirement to make the intent bad in any deed that causes unnecessary pain to others and is the opposite of Love. It is impossible to Sin in a vacuum, you must affect others with bad intent to commit a sin and the Golden Rule is the built in moral code that lets us know when we have committed a Sin. If I don’t like it done to me then it is bad and I have feelings of guilt to support that if I’m a healthy normal human.
Now willful ignorance could be a Sin, but again this is rooted in self.
I probably think of selfishness is the root of all sin. This is why Jesus “golden rule” focuses outwards to God and to others…
Matthew 22:38-40
37Jesus replied: " ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
[EDIT: I didn’t read Kingdaddy before I posted, sorry for the duplication. Great minds think alike eh?]
That’s your skewed opinion. The mind predicates morality first, as all value judgements issue forth from thought. Stupidity comes from seeing the consequences of a negative action, knowingly, and doing nothing to rectify such, in present or future tense. Humanity is ineffably stupid, without comparison.
Why automatically assume my opinion is skewed? What evidence do you base this on other then it contradicts your own unsupported idea?
Explain how all humans have this notion of the Golden rule in their mind at some point early in development. Explain why we feel bad when we do wrong to others. Your method answers nothing, but instead brings up an infinite amount of unanswerable questions, is this a logical thought?
So why is this? Why do we willfully do that which has negative consequences and how can there be a notion or Negative when there is no Absolute. See, you didn’t go far enough as there is a source for all things and willful ignorance has its source, but I’m not surprised you can’t see it.
Maybe in this purely relative world you have constructed this person is doing something that gets a negative response from your POV, but from his, it could be a positive response and therefore not Stupid. See how you can’t argue anything with this purely relative position, strange you couldn’t see this before you made this illogical statement.
Say it as much as you want but you cant will it to be true, death is an absolute end for your body, let me know when you figure out a way around it and then I will consider your position supported with some fact, until then its just wishful thinking and fear of consequences on your part.
I never understand that statement. Why do people insist on saying there are no absolutes? It’s like saying I can’t speak a word of english. How can you posit and absolute and deny that they exist.
According to jesus the only sin He will not forgive is blasphemy against the holy spirit.
there are numerous debates running among scholars what kind of an act this law condemns.
Spirit: wind, breath. There is a holy kind, which those who have lived fulfillingly know as ‘Life’. This breath can be violated, but it is not adviseable. When one is entranced in the act of living the the breath, heartbeat and brainwaveactivity synchronize. This is being ‘in the moment’ - ‘time flies when you’re having fun’. Effortlessly the energy is released and regained in strongly active senses. An abrupt violation of continuity of this active pulse modus can result in death, and will always result in loss of energy in to reemingly random effects. Dealing with this mentally is difficult, as all identification is scattered with the energy. Hence:
There is no forgiveness, because there is no life when a man who has given his will to the reckless art of becoming forsakes the holy spirit, he steps out of the domain of divine justice - into the domain of divine error. At east a couple of the deadly sins are dear to most, but many dread the moments they broke off their flight.
1 a : slow of mind : OBTUSE b : given to unintelligent decisions or acts : acting in an unintelligent or careless manner c : lacking intelligence or reason : BRUTISH
2 : dulled in feeling or sensation : TORPID
3 : marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting : SENSELESS
Club, this is a common misunderstanding - it’s all over these boards.
There is a difference between making a statement in absolute terms and making a statement about something, some entity of some kind, that is to be itself taken as “absolute”.
The former is a definitive statement - regardless of it’s subject matter; the latter is always an epistemic statement, or a meta-epistemic statement (Yes, Virginia, meta-epistemic statements really do exist).
“It is not true that relativity applies to morality” can be stated as “there is no such thing as moral relativism”. This is an “absolute” statement about a non-absolute entity. Lest this confuse (for to some it will be confusing) I will also include "We can only look to the Absolute (God, Truth, the Real, etc.) for morality. This is, in effect, an absolute statement about (what we are claiming is) an absolute value. “The rain in Spain falls mainly in the plain” is an absolute statement about a relative value (yes, it is always the case that the rain falls mainly on the plain - I aver that it is true that more rain falls on the plain than in other parts of Spain.) Every truth-value-assignable statement is taken to be an absolute one in one sense - either absolutely true, or absolutely false. But such a statement need not be about an absolute entity.
Another way of looking at this is that “absolute” entities, real or merely linguistic, are not temporal, but statements can be either temporal or absolute in their meaning.
The difference between how a statement is made, and what the statement is about. Between, that is, the means of expression and the content of that expression.
Well I think I understand you… lol. Let me see if I did. You’re saying a person can say, “No Truth Exist”, and they will be making an absolute that could be true or false, and since it could be true or false it’s not necessarily fully absolute? I’m still not sure if I understand what you mean.
Like for instance, someone says. All Truth is relative. If that sentence includes itself that sentence is also relative and therefore not always true, it could be false. But if that Statement Excludes itself it’s positing an absolute but at the same time denying that they exist.
That’s how I see it but maybe you can correct me if I’m wrong.
Well, at the risk of sidetracking the discussion (since this is not one of the “seven deadly sins”), I’m going to take issue with the passage from your link.
See, I think the last paragraph comes close, but fails because it insists the error is only made with respect to Jesus. Confusing the Holy Spirit with the Devil, in general, and rejecting It as evil (or in any other sense bad), is the sin here. It has nothing necessarily to do with Jesus, except that it did in this specific instance.
Just for grins, let’s take a look at those two passages. I’m going to take the Matthew passage back a bit for context.
Now, look at the first part of that quote. The Pharisees are saying that Jesus can do all this amazing shit ‘cause the Devil is giving him powers. Look at Jesus’ response: it takes the form of a logical puzzle. He doesn’t straight-up deny that his powers come from Beelzebub. Instead he says, in effect, either they do or they don’t. Either I’m doing it with diabolical power, or with the power of God.
If it’s the Nasty Dude, then Hell is divided against itself and will fall.
If it’s God, then you have seen the power of God in your midst.
And either way, the Kingdom of God is at hand.
Now, in this context, look at the rest of the quote from Matthew. Look at that last sentence. I can paraphrase it as follows: “Say what you like about me, say I’m in league with the Bad Guy if you want, but when good things are done, call them good, don’t call them evil.” The spirit of God has been in your midst, and you’re so blind you’re calling It evil, and trying to silence it.
Now let’s look at the passage from Mark.
Here we don’t have the same logical puzzle or win-win argument, but instead Jesus is saying that his power can’t come from Satan because it’s working against Satan.
Again, he’s not asserting any special status for himself here. He’s stating a universal principle, one that goes along with a tree being known by its fruits. To call the power of God diabolical when it shows up (usually within yourself, but in this case in external manifestation) is what he means by the blasphemy against the Spirit.
The Pharisees were the religious authority of their time and place. Jesus was someone from outside their conception of true religion who showed power. They tried to deal with this by calling his power diabolical instead of divine.
Can we think of anyone in our own time who follows a similar pattern?
I don’t see how you guys are missing the logical fact that you cannot have any form of absolute without a master reference that is set in stone. Without this what are you to compare it to as to make the assessment that it is absolute in any form? There must be an Absolute in order for any form or idea of absolute to exist. The word is a human construct to describe an idea that many can see and prove with the reality of this world and the majority do in fact believe in Absolute and for good reason. Absolutes boil down to the conundrum of something coming from nothing which is illogical, if something was always here without beginning or end then it is the master Absolute that all other forms of human absolute are referenced from.
Please show me the logical flaws to this line of thinking if there is any.
The silly notion that Death is not Absolute for the body is just that, silly. The life force that makes the flesh alive can be eternal but this does not affect the statement that the body ceases to exist after death and will never exist again and is Absolutely dead, all the cells are dead and immediately decompose into non living matter forever according to all known evidence. Yes, Death and the laws of Nature and Physics are Absolute and our poultry misunderstanding of these laws do not supercede the reality of cause and affect for the sake of logical provable statements.
So I challenge anyone to show more proof that there is no Absolute to outweigh the existing proof of reality that there is, the side with the most proof is considered true by the mass majority of humans so even in a relative world of thought you cannot win this argument without showing this majority proof.
Patently erroneous, for the second time. Logic is predicated upon linguistic construct. From such, an “absolute” proposition or argument can be constructed with the use of language, as a representation, in microform, of greater reality. This does not make “absolute” actual, it makes it little more than argumentative construct, independent of reality.
Ask any philosopher or quantum physician, there is no proof that anything knowable is infinite, including the Universe. If it is finite, it is automatically disqualified for meeting the requisite definition of “Absolute”.
Death is not “Absolute” for anything. If your supposition was true, then for everything that expired, the Universe overall would be diminished, eventually falling into collapse. This is not the case. The universe is in a state of balance, and that which leaves form, transitions to another. The body may leave a state that you can appreciate, but it is added back again to the system, and the process continues.
What the “mass majority of humans” consider true, has nothing to do with actuality.
yopele said it best, “All facts are just opinions from authorities upon whose opinion we rely”.
Luck is for the weak and frightened, there is no need of it personally.
SO why did we even invent the word Absolute? Why is it that the mass majority of the human population for all of known history feel and believe in an Absolute? Are you pretending to change reality with your will?
BTW, are you making the mistake of implying that all Philosophers and Quantum Physicians do not believe in Absolute, if so, that by default is Absolutely incorrect. Once again you ignore the reality of the world and the people in it all around you.
The BODY, not the Life in the body, why do you insist on mauling this simple idea. When the Body dies it is dead, never to return, absolutely, it will never live again, is that plain enough.
Laws of physics are Absolute and these laws cannot be broken not even by God. When you can break one of these laws or show evidence that it can be broken then get back to me.
I have no idea how you could misinterpret such a simple idea and reconstruct it into something completely different then what I plainly wrote. What the hell are you talking about with all the wack star trek science about the Universe falling into collapse? How could anyone ever prove such a thing? Is it even logical or can you show some connected thoughts to support this statement? What makes you think that if the death of a physical body is Absolute that it would somehow affect the entire universe, where do you get this?
Normally I would agree with this statement but you contradict yourself here once again. If everything is purely relative as you claim, then the majority does in fact determine what is true or right or wrong. You keep falling into your own traps.
Truly clueless. That you or I “believe” something, does not make it true, outside of our mind, or linguistic construct. Period. No amount of mind changes reality, will is another presumption predicated upon human idiocy and misunderstanding.
From my statement:
Are you dyslexic, illiterate or just stupid? I said there is no “proof”, with respect to empiricism, for Absolute.
The body expires, it is devoured by microbes, arthropods, mammalian scavengers, thus, it is immediately returned to life, lives again, set to recede once more, and begin the process anew. Death is not Absolute.
No, they are not. Empiricism, as previously explained elsewhere, employs strategy to turn theory to law, which is in part disregard for “anomalies” which do not fit into their data findings, thusly, discarded. Ergo, they are far from Absolute. Add to this the fact that any “Law” created by man made means only applies to very specific instance/occurence in a very narrow field of view, for a very particular function … which to any discerning individual says, “limited and finite”.
Go to a library, if you actually are literate, and find out about entropy in a closed system.
Again your use of “relativism” is your own creation, and has nothing to do with anything that I have posited. There are no traps, except for the ones you set for yourself with baseless ad hominem, which I willingly decided to meet you back at equally.
I reiterate, humanity is naught but a mass of fools, what they believe to be true or True or absolute or Absolute, is trivial and of no consequence.