Friday, 14 September 2007
-
Absolutes
Life is full of questions and equally full of many different answers.
Is there truth... and if there is, how does one know that it is? Who determines truth?
Are there absolutes?
The reason for these questions is an overwhelming confusion and delusion concerning truth.
It is my contention, that most people believe that all things are relative, and truth is what
you believe it to be. In other words, there are no absolutes, and what is right for you
may not be right for someone else.
Are there absolutes? Is it possible to know truth?
Let me start of by making a few simple, but true, statements.
*Consider this: Love is the opposite of hate. These are two opposing forces.
*Here is another observable fact: Only humans can conceive humans.
In other words, humans cannot have a kittens and cats cannot have human babies.
*Blue and yellow make green.
*All living things die.
It is obvious that from just a few observable facts, that there are absolutes.
There are some things that are set in stone and cannot be changed.
As we have concluded from the above, Love is the opposite of Hate. Love also covers or eliminates hate.
Is love observable around the globe? Where does love come from and why is it so powerful?
Why do we long to be loved and why do we want to fall in love?
Without love... what is left?
I know this may seem to be a strange place to begin... but it is one that
will show that LOVE bears TRUTH and HATE brings forth LIES.
What is truth?
Let's begin by laying a solid foundation...Every position starts with a presupposition, meaning, we have a belief or bias before we even know the facts, which dictates how we interpret those facts. What I mean is, if one believes in God, they will see things with a Biblical world view, and that belief will reflect in the interpretation of the facts. If one believes that there is no God, and we are here by random chance, they too will view the facts in a different way than those with a Biblical world view. Everyone is bias. So... who's bias is right?
You may say... "they are all right", I would submit to you, that is not a well thought out answer. If you mean they are all right in their beliefs because all things are relative, you in fact are stating there are no absolutes. We have just proven that there are absolutes. The fact you say that there are no absolutes, reveals that there are.
You may be screaming, "truth can't be known, it's what you believe it to be", well... again, we have shown that truth exists and can be observed. If in fact truth is only what one deems it to be, then who sets the boundaries? Example: If I were to believe that it is OK to have sexual relations with a five year old child, and you do not, who's right? Why would it be wrong? Another example: Why would it be wrong to take a bunch of kittens and throw them in a creek? Remember it's what I think is truth, and I don't think that it is wrong. What we start to see happen without absolute truth is chaos and life with no boundaries.
I would like to break it all down to:
*Evolutionary Truth:
*Other Religious Truth:
*Biblical Truth:
Let's take a look at the truth that evolution presents:
I'm sorry, there is none. Leaves you feeling a little empty, doesn't it? Seriously, evolution is just another religion with no facts, a lot of lies, and NO truth. It's foundation is built upon the idea that there is no creator and we are left to our own desires and interpretation of truth. Someone once said something that would sum up this view, his name was Alister Crowley,a notorious Satanist. He is not the first nor the last to say this, but most probable, he is the most remembered. What he said was this: " Do what thou wilt ".
You see... with no God, there is no right or wrong, only selfish desires. We are no more than animals.
Is there scientific evidence to support evolution?
Below is what evolution teaches and is still published in
school text books even though it has been proven to be
wrong. So why do they still publish this lie?
Click image to visit site:
The media is heavily involved in promoting evolution.
The Discovery Channel spends millions of dollars on
many high tech miniseries to try and present the
religion of evolution as a fact.
The well known National Geographic could be
considered a ministry for evolution. They are still
making statements (that have been proven wrong)
that "Lucy" is a major link in the chain of evolution.
Click image to visit site:
*Search Evolution*
Below is a very brief explanation of the above, it shows the errors
in the ape to man theory.
Click on image for more information.
There is NO missing link... the whole chain is nonexistent.
When we were in school, most of us were taught that we evolved.
We were lied to! Now, these lies are being taught to our children.
I don't get it, why don't people see what's going on?
It's like we are in Nazi, Germany.
"What Do States Require of Biology Textbooks?
Although state requirements vary, the majority require that
biology curricula must include extensive coverage of evolution.
The few states where standards or curriculum guidelines
do not mention evolution by name nonetheless
require the coverage of evolutionary topics. If we omitted
proper coverage of evolutionary facts and theories, we
would not be in compliance with these and other curricula
that require complete, accurate, up-to-date,
and conceptually-based educational materials." -NCSE
Click image to visit site:
Evolution in Textbooks: Teaching Lies
The Controversy: Evolution in Textbooks
Listen to some REAL science...
Dr. Terry Mortenson
To view more videos or purchase DVDs
click here: Absolute TRUTH
More to come...
-
recommend
- recs 0
-
share
-
email
- sent 0
Post a Comment
- Back to AgapeCreations's Xanga Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in AgapeCreations's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
Comments (18)
ABSOLUTELY!!!! And God said........
That is ALL the absolute I need.
Thank you for visiting!
I too believe that there are absolute truths, and there are absolute lies. All defined by God. Men (and women) make truth relative, because it is conveneient, and it removes personal responsibility from them to be accountable for anything that they do not want to face up to, adhere to, even if they have fallen short in an attempt to accomplish something.
Have a great day,
God Bless!
Robert
Second, I wanted to point out that the first video by Terry Mortenson was full of what we in the field like to call "quote mining". He took one paragraph from a book to make a claim about that author's entire view.
I'm currently making a few posts about the Great Deluge, and I invite you to stop by over the next week, as I should be posting a new essay on this topic once every day or two for about a week.
But I'd like to leave you with one question: If you did not have the Bible as a guideline, would looking at the evidence (completely out of a Biblical context) still point to a six thousand year old world in which 4400 years ago a flood a mile deep killed off all life except for a pair of each species/kind which then managed to get back to their respective stomping grounds?
Did you ever consider that love and hate can often go hand in hand?
I’ll give you an example from the Bible: “Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil and cling to what is good” (Rom 12:9). Here, love and hate go hand in hand.
Loving wisdom may lead some to hate ignorance at the same time. You wrote, “LOVE bears TRUTH and HATE brings forth LIES,” but I think that it is important not to be overly simplistic, and we should point out that hatred can bear truth also! People can serve truth by hating falsehood. And love can bring forth lies. People can love a lie, whether they realize it or not, and they can also lie trying to protect something they love.
Someone might even argue that hate can come from love, whether for better or for worse: one loves something in such a way that he hates whatever hurts what he loves.
Do you see what I mean?
It’s good to look at something from as many perspectives as is reasonably possible before claiming to know “the truth” about it.
Opposites can be tricky. A room that is 75 degrees Fahrenheit may feel hot to me coming in from the snow, or cold to me coming in from 99 degree weather.
..
This is not always true. Sometimes blue and yellow make blue and yellow and do not synthesize, or one color can completely absorb or dissolve the other; it depends on the substances involved.
Also, blue, yellow, and green are words/ concepts/ perceptions existing to/for things that can perceive them. A color-blind creature may have no reason to believe that blue and yellow and green even exist.
Also, is a yellow butterfly still yellow if you turn off the lights? Since, “yellow” is relative to lighting and perception, one may say that it does not exist in the dark, even if the object retains its chemical composition.
..
What does it mean to be “alive,” and what does it mean to “die”? That is the question, and its answer is caught up in perspective.
In 1 Cor. 15:31 Paul says, “I die daily.” The Jesus character in John 11:26 says, “Whoever lives and believes in me will never die.” Yet they are not contradicting each other, are they? Jn 11:25 “He who believes in me will live, even though he dies.” Even the writers of the New Testament loved to play with perspective.
Perspective!
Are genes alive? Is DNA alive? Do all genes die? Does all DNA die? IF someone wished, they might have a decent basis for arguing that their current DNA is an organism that has been alive for an amazing amount of time, propagating itself through body after body, growing and changing all the while.
What is the difference between a human and a rock? Complexity. Both are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons, but one is far more complex than the other.
Some people think that the whole universe is alive. I think it’s a matter of perspective; I see their point, but whether I agree is just a question of how we define the word.
If I am made of atoms, and if the atoms do not die, then in some sense I do not die, I merely change forms. If atoms are made of subtler energy which never dies, then in some sense the atoms never die, they merely change forms.
Conversely, if to “die” is to change, then I am constantly dying, as I am never the same from moment to moment. And to live is to be constantly dying.
..
It is an important fact that human children are hardly ever exactly the same as either parent. That’s how sexual reproduction works -- roughly half the DNA from one parent, half from the other. Because of that and because of mutations arising from one factor or another, there seems to be change in almost every generation. Offspring usually resemble parents yet still differ. Over one generation, this doesn’t seem to make much of a difference, but over long periods of time, it would not be illogical to expect that descendants could turn out to be quite different from ancestors. If differences accumulate in varied isolated groups of descendants, it may be easily justifiable to expect the possibility of multiple species having descended from common ancestors. It is not illogical to expect that humans have descended from other species. At least it is a conclusion that doesn’t stem merely from beliefs inherited from ancient storytellers.
Humans can already manipulate reproduction in their own and other species at will. It is not unreasonable to suppose that humans might eventually be able to produce other humans and non-humans with specific traits, at will, through artificial means, or even that humans should be able to create non-human sentient beings that could reproduce themselves or humans or other things at will.
..
That is not necessarily true at all. There are lots of people around the world who believe in a God but do not see things with a Biblical world view. The Biblical world view has many problems. The Bible contains plenty of lies. If you are interested in learning more about the Bible, I refer you to my web site
www.geocities.com/investigatingchristianity
I grew up Christian and was taught many things about the Bible that turned out to be false. It was very difficult for me to realize that I had been lied to, yet I know that my parents and teachers and those preachers usually did not lie on purpose. I’m guessing you have been told many false things as well. Lots of people run around quoting the Bible but do not even know how the Bible came to be written. I hope you will check out my site as I have responded to yours.
I think it is important that people remember that “absolute” and “relative” are WORDS. It would also be nice if people would look them up in dictionaries and ponder all the possible meanings of these words.
“Absolute” and “relative” are not even necessarily always contradictory.
In your attempts to show that there are absolutes, I think that it is important to note that the same phenomenon can be seen as “absolute” from one perspective and “relative” from another perspective. For example, even if you were to discover a pattern in nature and describe it in words, and everyone were to acknowledge your description as valid, it is still important to note that your ‘truth’ would be relative to your experiences, observations, perceptions, language, and the circumstances. It could still be called “absolute” in the sense that you never experience(d) anything to the contrary, yet at the same time it is “relative” to you and others who perceive it.
It is very important to note that “truth” is a human concept, so far as we know and typically discuss it. We do not typically hear of ants, bugs, birds, trees, rocks, air, or water discussing it. Some animals may experience situations in which other animals give false communication, and it may even be important that they sometimes be able to discern a ‘true’ signal from a ‘deceptive’ one, but we do not expect that they have “truth” as a concept, if they are not human. What this means is that “truth” as a concept is “relative” to humans. However, some people act as if the relativity of (a) truth somehow makes it untrue or less true.
Most people above a certain age who can recognize the symbols will agree that 1 + 1 = 2. Yet, notice that I just used Arabic numerals. Notice that I had to qualify my statement by acknowledging its perceived value as limited to “people,” and people “above a certain age,” and people “who can recognize the symbols.” People may consider this mathematical expression to be “absolutely” true, in the sense that they have never experienced anything to the contrary as far as they remember; yet at the same time one can acknowledge that it is “relative” to our human experience and language.
GodLessliberal: You pose an interesting question. My answer to your question is yes. The flood did happen. Very few people dispute that fact. Part of your question presupposes that the waters had to be very deep. It is very possible and plausible that the pre-flood world was very different. The high mountain ranges very likely came from the tremendous forces of the flood waters acting upon the earth. There are some very interesting facts that must be answered if you propose there was no flood. There are coal seems which have upright trees running through them. There are even upright petrified trees running through different coal seems. That had to happen very quickly. There are human artifacts found in coal seems. There are way too many limiting factors which show scientifically that the earth could not be billions of years old. They point to thousands. There are so many factors which cannot be listed in a simple comment on this site. So yes, I could look at the evidence and say the earth is only thousands of years old.
Oh, the ark only had KINDS of animals on it. There probably were only about 8000 different kinds of animals on the ark. There were no insects and no sea dwelling creatures. Only animals which breathed through their nostrils. For example there were not every kind of dog, only 2 dogs. The different breeds came from these 2. You are supposing that millions of animals had to be on the ark. That is simply not the case.
Let me pose a question to you though. You want me to throw out my Bible as a basis for beliefs. Can you explain everything if you throw out Darwin's theory and evolution? Darwin's theory only came about in the 1800's. Before that time it was accepted that the earth was young. So if you do not want me to use the Bible, you should not use evolution or Darwin's theories.
I do not think you paid close attention to what I said. I NEVER said there are no bases on which to measure truth. Of course there are bases. Everyone must measure truth-claims against experiences and evidence. The more perspectives you can examine and consider carefully, the less likely you are to generate a false conclusion based on insufficient data. You and I are both humans; we share similar physical sense perceptions, and we basically share the English language. Because humans share similar brains, means of perception, and language-ability, we can communicate our experiences and whatever evidence we find for a particular belief. We make decisions on whether something is true by examining data, experiences, and perceptions. We reason. As I said, the fact that knowledge is relative to experiences, perceptions, and reasoning does NOT make it UNTRUE. The relativity of a claim does not somehow negate its truth, as you imagine. Look again at my statement about the mathematical expression 1 + 1 = 2. Just because math is relative to our experiences doesn’t make it untrue, Daniel. In fact, that's what makes us think it IS true: we have experienced/perceived it, reasoned it out. If we agree on the names “one” and “two” and “plus” and “equal,” then we can demonstrate over and over that 1 + 1 = 2. Does a tree think 1 + 1 = 2? Maybe not, but that does not make it untrue to you and me, does it, Daniel? The relativity of our knowledge to our perceptions does not negate our knowledge.
So of course there are bases for making truth claims.
Have you read any of the info on my site?
http://www.geocities.com/investigatingchristianity/
If you look at my site, you will see that I address issues point by point with evidence. I give bases for what I think. I wish you would address my statements point by point, instead of making generalizations that misrepresent what I am saying.
Do you disagree with any of the other specific comments I made?
Good Stuff.
Good Stuff.
[For example there were not every kind of dog, only 2 dogs. The different breeds came from these 2.]
This would suppose a rate of evolution and speciation that even modern evolutionary biologists wouldn't presume. Ironic, neh?
[You want me to throw out my Bible as a basis for beliefs. Can you explain everything if you throw out Darwin's theory and evolution? Darwin's theory only came about in the 1800's. Before that time it was accepted that the earth was young. So if you do not want me to use the Bible, you should not use evolution or Darwin's theories.]
Actually, before Darwin's theories there were still many who believed in an old earth (see Lyell, Hutton, etc). Also, when comparing Darwin and the Bible, you're comparing apples and orangutans. Darwin's theory wasn't any sort of revealed fact, it was a deduced fact. Darwin looked at the world and the evidence around him, and came up with an idea that seemed to fit. The Bible, on the other hand, proclaims to be "revealed," meaning that someone just told the author "this is how it is." Without Darwin, we'd still have Alfred Russel Wallace, who independently came to the same conclusions as Darwin at the same time.
I have a new post up, if you feel like it would be worth your while, please stop by and leave your two cents on the subject at hand.
Peace, Love, Krisko