Evidence for God from Science

"Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few. ...21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' 23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'"

God doesn't need contacts...no grey...you must be hearing a different message.

I see 'Moral Relativism' (presuming my definition is the same as others) as being the best (and even the only) way of finding solutions. My belief is that life and situations have great diversity; and that making morals as relative as possible allows for this diversity as much as possible.

You are either insane...or we're using different definitions. And if you're insane, then you can't really get upset with me...grey area, you know how it is. Are you trying to say that one action can be morally right in one situation, and morally wrong in another? Do you believe that murder is always wrong, or do you believe it can be OK if the dude "had it coming"? Or can stealing be right in one situation, and wrong in another?

Hello!
As to whether or not I am insane: I may be. -insanely happy!!!! (I'm just fooling around here)

...ok, you asked the question: is murder justifiable in certain situations: YES. Since in the case of self-defence: you bet it can be justifiable if it has come down to you or the other person surviving. ....interestingly enough, living according to "relative values" will eliminate the need to kill to survive, since by not needing things to be a certain way a person can maintain a degree of flexibility towards others. Even when others may be selfish and 'wrong' ...I figure God punishes people -and I'd rather let God do that through others. I can spare what I don't need if it means hanging-on to a strong sense of who I am.

Also, stealing is of course wrong. But I would certainly have much greater sympathy for a person who stole in order to eat than a person who stole for the fun of it. ....that's moral relativism.

Hello Elisa. I just want to prompt you as to why or how you think that is moral relativism?

Kurieuo

O.K., you may be right there: since I should have actually checked the meaning of the term. I invent my own terms, and one is that God is a God of relative values (so perhaps I have confused this with your definition).

Could you supply a definition of the term 'Moral Relativism' and I will answer your question...

Earlier on in this thread I laid out two definitions (see http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... c&start=23). It might be beneficial to read the few posts before that, but let me know your thoughts.

Kurieuo

O.K. Kurieuo,
I think that I get the gist of what you said. The 'second' kind of Moral Relativism (if I have understood you well) describes when people have the attitude: 'anything goes' and because flexibility is required (situations being complicated as they often can be) people give-up of maintaining any integrity.

But if a person truly lived according to 'relative values' they would be making themselves relative to who others are. This means that they do not agress against others but they do not give-in either. It's like keeping one's cool. ...It is perhaps best described by stating that the person trusts the strength and validity of their own opinion and makes it as basic as possible and then they have resilience now, as well as the strength that comes with having a different point of view.

...hopefully I've explained my view clearly (I can elaborate if needed)

if a boxer never learns how to take a punch, how is he a good boxer?-how could he last long?
If Mohammed Ali had not built-up his resilience, in the Rumble in the Jungle George Foreman would have destroyed him in the first few rounds. Instead, Ali built his resilience, letting-go of a strict definition of who he was (he did not have to be physically/superficially stronger to be sure of his strength). George Foreman was knocked-out like "a sick old man hearing very bad news". ...that's how little difference exists between the strongest and the weakest.

...in fact, God is the definition of the strongest, the Almighty etc.
And yet, God, in Christian doctrine is The Alpha and The Omega: the Stongest and the Weakest together.

George Foreman was quoted as having said (years later):
"A man who is not sure of his limitations is not sure of his strength."

I still can't see where you're at...

OK ...is it possible to be resolute in your values and sense of self, whilst all the while being flexible, tolerant and patient-?

...that's something along the lines of what I am thinking of.