absolutes and non absolutes
Slack, for some reason, i suddenly thought about you today re absolutes and non absolutes. I think one objection by liberals (maybe the major one (that has any validity)) to Christianity, is that things are not as absolute as Christians think. And today, i remembered thinking that very thing, myself, even after being born again into Christianity. I thought it absurd to say always this or that, and case by case examination has to be done. I would think of many examples, such as if i'm running a mile race, i will run differently than if i'm running a 100 yard dash. Christians use the term "moral absolutes". Thus, as i see it now (and i change all the time.), it's moral issues that are absolute, but perhaps, other issues are not absolute. Morality consists of many subsets: sexual morality (the one most often thought of), honesty, integrity....., etc. I'll use my pet issue, for now: honesty. If honesty is an absolute, then one should always be honest, regardless of circumstances. And i think this is true. How about you? Do you think sometimes, one should lie? It reminds me of the question: do the ends justify the means? I dont think so. Again, i think the means must be pure (and thus, absolute on a moral basis, but not as to all the detail. A building can be built honestly, in many different ways. The detail can vary (and often should), but the honesty should always be there.
Let's say that a man wants a supervisory position, and that it's appropriate that he have it because of his ability. If he gets it through honest work and labor relations, excellent. But if he kills the guy who now has the position, so he can have it, not at all excellent, and is immoral. So, it's absolute that he should never kill for his end, regardless of whether the end is appropriate, or not.
Perhaps some libs misunderstand what a Christian means when he believes in absolutes. Not everything is absolute. But some things are. If a lib thinks a Christian calls all things absolute, i think either the lib misunderstands, or the Christian is thinking incorrectly about absolutes and non-absolutes. And Christians, being human, are quite capable of making errors, at any time. Christianity doesnt make a Christian perfect, but it should set him on a path of training toward perfection. I dont think permanent perfection is possible in this world. Apostle paul says that when one dies, he "takes off the perishable, and puts on the imperishable." I think after that, the Christian is perfect, and with Christ. ("To be absent from the body, is to be present with the Lord.")
I wrote these things for 2 reasons: 1) since i thought of you today. 2) I just read your introduction. It's the first time i read one of your complete posts, other than what you wrote me. I especially liked your desire for reasonable discussion, whether in disagreement, or not. I also like your exploratory attitude, like, ok, we disagree. So now, let's explore what we believe, and why we disagree. I can discuss with someone, on that reasonable basis. And as you said, it's reasonable to expect that if there is disagreement, then that could make it even more fruitful than when there is agreement. This sounds very mature and egoless to me, the best attitude, i think, for a fruitful discussion. tw
continuance
Thanks for answering, slack. I feel talking with you to be worthwhile (even moreso than with many Christians. You see, being Christian doesnt change personalities, and there are a lot of personalities i dont enjoy, such as those who dwell on trivialities, those who are fearful, etc). I have absolutely no objection that someone thinks differently than i do, but only that the person speak honestly with me about what he thinks. There are a lot of ways to be dishonest: throwing up smoke screens to try to divert logic, etc, etc. I have felt that you speak honestly and logically. The big thing is that we can take a topic, and really consider it. This cant happen when there are various smokescreens in the way, such as intentional lies, intentional diversions, ego protections diverting, etc.
in order to really consider what youve said, ive copied it below, and plan to intersperse comments. I dont know about you, but for me, writing is mostly a spontaneous adventure, which i dont know where it will end up, which adds an element of fun to it. (i do edit, before sending, to clean up any rough spots.):
Truthwanted, you understand me correctly
Though we may still have different conclusions. As I have said "absolutes" are tricky philosophical questions that occupy philosphers and religious appologists for years. (YES)
Ctegories such as moral values are based on "belief systems" or on subjective and personal experience such as being "born again" ***(THIS IS BIBLICAL; JESUS SAID, "YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN." THAT'S THE ONLY REASON I AGREED TO IT. SO I WOULDNT CALL IT SUBJECTIVE, ALTHOUGH IT IS PERSONAL. BUT IT ISNT JUST A CHANCE THING, BUT RATHER A COMMANDED THING FOR ENTERING THE KINGDOM OF GOD (ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE).) and accepting a bible as an authoritative source.
(PRIOR TO THE NEW MILLENIUM, I HAD SOME LINGERING DOUBTS ABOUT THE BIBLE, EVEN THOUGH I WAS BORN AGAIN IN 1985. AS BAD AS THE NEW MILLENIUM HAS BEEN, IVE FELT THAT THAT BADNESS HAS HAD THE GOOD SIDE OF FULLY CONVINCING ME THAT THE BIBLE HAS BEEN HANDED DOWN FROM GOD, AS HE DIRECTED HUMANS TO WRITE IT.)
That does not mean that for many "values" such as do not lie or kill there is not near universal adoption across religions and even among people like me who don't subscribe to any particular religion.
(RIGHT. I LIKE THIS POINT. RELIGION IS NOT NEEDED TO HAVE VALUES. THE BIBLE SAYS THAT GOD HAS WRITTEN VALUES ON THE HUMAN HEART. (CONSCIENCE). I HAVE HEARD THAT SOME HAVE THE IDEA OF DRUGS TO ERASE THE CONSCIENCE, SO THEY CAN SIN WITHOUT FEELING GUILT. (THAT SOUNDS LIKE A LIBERAL IDEA, I THINK. AS ALWAYS, FEEL FREE TO DISAGREE, IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE.). YOU MIGHT BE SURPRISED THAT SOME (WHO I AGREE WITH) SAY THAT CHRISTIANITY ISNT A RELIGION. IT'S A RELATIONSHIP. A RELATIONSHIP WITH JESUS CHRIST, AS LORD AND SAVIOR. I THINK THAT RELIGION IMPLIES RITUAL, WHICH I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO INTEREST IN. THE MUSLIMS CAN KISS THE GROUND, KISS THE WALLS, TRAMPLE EACH OTHER IN THEIR RITUALS, ETC, ETC, ETC. IT'S ALL BALONEY TO ME. AND OBVIOUSLY DESTRUCTIVE. IT ISNT AT ALL SURPRISING THAT AGNOSTICS AND ATHEISTS SAY BETTER NO RELIGION THAN SO MUCH NONSENSE THAT GOES ON IN THE NAME OF RELIGION. (WHICH LEADS ME TO THIS THOUGHT, THE FIRST TIME IVE EVER THOUGHT IT, AND HAVE NEVER HEARD IT: I THINK IT WOULD BE CORRECT TO SAY THAT RELIGIOUS RITUAL IS A PERVERSION OF THE RELATIONSHIP THAT GOD MEANT US TO HAVE WITH HIM. IF ATHEISTS AND AGNOSTICS ("UNBELIEVERS") SAW MORE RELATIONSHIP AND LESS RITUAL AND NONSENSE, THEY (YOU) MIGHT BE MORE INTERESTED.))
Lets take your example of "lying". Yes I agree in most cases one should not lie. One should either tell the truth or say nothing at all. However, in some circumstances it may be more harmful to tell the truth than to lie or say nothing.
Suppose a person I know to be evil asks me a question. If I answer the question truthfully I know he will use the information to carry out some horrible crime. If I refuse to answer, he claims he will kill my wife and I believe him. I know an artful lie he cannot detect is a lie but will result in him not being able to commit the crime. Or if he uses it to commit the crime will probably lead to his eventual capture.
In that case I will tell the lie.
One could shade the circumstances in many ways to be less extreme.*****(THIS IS WHY I'M HERE TALKING WITH YOU. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF YOUR HONESTY IN DISCUSSION. WHEN LIBERALS (OR ANYONE ELSE) TAKES THE MOST EXTREME CASES, IGNORING THE MAJORITY CASES, WHAT GOOD IS THAT? ARE WE GOING TO LIVE BY VALUES BASED ON A FEW CASES. WHY NOT HAVE VALUES THAT FIT REALITY THE BEST. I DONT MEAN THAT YOUR EXTREME EXAMPLE WAS AN ATTEMPT TO ARGUE DISHONESTLY, (OR I WOULDNT BE HERE), BUT I THINK MANY PEOPLE DO PRESENT THINGS, TRYING TO ARGUE DISHONESTLY. THEY DECIDE WHAT OUTCOME THEY WANT, AND THEN WILL SAY ANYTHING (NO MATTER HOW FOOLISH) TO TRY TO JUSTIFY (RATIONALIZE) THE OUTCOME THEY WANT. THESE DISHONEST TYPES ARE A TOTAL WASTE OF TIME, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED. (NOT TO MENTION THAT THEYRE VERY HARMFUL TO SOCIETY.)
Rather than life or death it could be a situation in which someone asks you a question that if you give a completely truthful answer will embarrass them or cause another person great trouble for no good reason. If possible one would avoid answering the question but in some cases a "white lie" may be more appropriate.
(YOUR DISCUSSION IS INTERESTING, AND IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING BORN AGAIN, OR NOT. IF ONE LIVES OUT BEING BORN AGAIN (WHICH DOESNT ALWAYS HAPPEN BY THOSE BORN AGAIN, INCLUDING ME), HE WILL HAVE FAITH THAT LIVING OUT A MORAL ABSOLUTE WILL ALWAYS BE BEST. ON THE OTHER HAND, YOURE LOOKING ALL THE WAY THROUGH A SITUATION, AND THINKING YOU CAN KNOW WHAT WILL BE BEST, AND ACCORDINGLY, SAY THAT, "NO, THIS TIME THE MORAL ABSOLUTE WONT BE BEST." I KNOW FROM EXPERIENCE. I DID THE SAME MYSELF, BEFORE BEING BORN AGAIN. NOW, IN A TOUGH CIRCUMSTANCE, AS YOU DESCRIBE, MY RESPONSE IS MORE LIKE, "GOD, I CANT SEE HOW TELLING THE TRUTH THIS TIME WILL CAUSE GOOD, BUT I TRUST YOU THAT IT, SOMEHOW, WILL.", AND THEN GO AHEAD AND TELL THE TRUTH. IRONICALLY, I'M SO USED TO SIMPLY TELLING TRUTH, THAT I HAVENT EVEN HAD A TOUGH CIRCUMSTANCE IN MANY, MANY YEARS, WHERE IT SEEMED MAYBE I SHOULD LIE. IN GENERAL, AS YOU SAID, IT ISNT HARD TO LIVE AS A TRUTHFUL PERSON. AND IN GENERAL, IT'S MUCH HARDER TO LIVE AS A LIAR, HAVING TO COVER YOUR TRACKS ALWAYS, ETC. IN SUMMARY, IT APPEARS THAT BELIEVING IN MORAL ABSOLUTES REQUIRES A MEASURE OF FAITH. WHEN WE COME UP TO UNCERTAIN POINTS (AS HAPPENS FOR EVERYONE IN THIS LIFE FULL OF UNCERTAINTY), FOR SOMEONE BORN AGAIN, IT'S TIME TO TRUST GOD, AND STICK WITH THE MORAL ABSOLUTE. FOR THE PERSON NOT BORN AGAIN, HE USES HIS OWN REASONING, INSTEAD OF TRUSTING GOD AND GOD'S MORAL ABSOLUTE. E.G., IVE DONE MUCH INVESTING IN THE STOCK MARKET. IT'S BEEN A NIGHTMARE, BUT WOULDVE BEEN EVEN WORSE IF I DIDNT USE MORAL ABSOLUTES, AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. HAVING MORAL ABSOLUTES, MAKES DECISION MAKING EASIER, BECAUSE I CAN RULE OUT A LOT OF JUNK THAT VIOLATES MORAL ABSOLUTES.)
If one believes in god all kinds of speculation is possible on how god would look at these situations and whether he would "punish" the liar or agree that the situation warranted "shading the truth". However, this would be just that, speculation in this life time.
(ALTHOUGH THE BIBLE DOES PRETTY WELL AT CONVERTING FROM SPECULATION TO MORE CLARITY ABOUT CRIME AND PUNISHMENT. I AGREE THAT WITHOUT THE BIBLE, IT'S ALL JUST SPECULATION.)
If one belives in a god that punishes and rewards behavior in this life,
(A FEELING THAT THERE SHOULD SOME DAY BE JUSTICE, IS A REASON FOR BELIEVING IN GOD. OBVIOUSLY, HUMANS ARE QUITE POOR AT ADMINISTERING JUSTICE, AND GETTING WORSE ALL THE TIME.)
one would hope that god would take the "situation" into account and that would make things "relative" to some degree rather than absolute.
(A POINT WORTHY OF CONSIDERATION, FOR SURE. THE MORAL ABSOLUTES PERTAIN TO WHAT I BELIEVE I SHOULD LIVE BY. YOUR GOOD POINT HERE, SEEMS TO BE MORE A MATTER OF DEGREE OF PUNISHMENT FOR WRONG DOING, RATHER THAN A MATTER OF WHETHER TO LIVE BY MORAL ABSOLUTES, OR NOT. BUT I DONT MIND SWITCHING TO THE PUNISHMENT/REWARD ISSUE, AT THIS POINT: I THINK PROBABLY YOU'RE RIGHT THAT GOD DOES TAKE CIRCUMSTANCES INTO ACCOUNT, WHEN REWARDING OR PUNISHING. IN FACT, I RECALL NOW, THAT HE ALSO TAKES INTO ACCOUNT A PERSON'S LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE AND RESPONSIBILITY. ("TO WHOM MUCH IS GIVEN, MUCH IS REQUIRED.")
There is also the concept of "forgiveness" of sins, which underlies christianity. However, I view that as making the whole question moot in a way, since it seems to say, I can do anything as long as I sincerely ask for forgiveness. But that's a whole different topic of discussion.
(IT'S UNDERSTANDABLE THAT PEOPLE THINK OF A CHRISTIAN AS A PHONY, IN REGARD TO FORGIVENESS, AND I THINK THAT FORGIVENESS DOES NOT MEAN ESCAPING CONSEQUENCES. RATHER, IT MEANS BEING ABLE TO GET OVER THE SIN, AND CONTINUING ON. THE BIBLE INDICATES TO ASK GOD FOR FORGIVENESS, IN ORDER TO GET OVER IT, AND CONTINUE ON. IMAGINE HOW MUCH WORSE, AND USELESS IT WOULD BE, TO BE STUCK FOREVER IN ONE PLACE, BECAUSE OF A SIN, AND NEVER BEING ABLE TO FUNCTION, AGAIN. I THINK FORGIVENESS IS JUST ABOUT MOVING ON. BUT IF ONE GOT AIDS FROM A SEXUAL SIN, HE WILL STILL PROBABLY HAVE TO CONTINUE HAVING AIDS (NOT ESCAPING THE CONSEQUENCES). BUT BY REPENTING TO GOD, AND BEING FORGIVEN, HE CAN MAKE THE MOST OF WHATEVER POSSIBILITIES ARE LEFT. THIS WILL BE BETTER FOR HIM AND EVERYONE ELSE THAN IF HE CONTINUES IN THE SAME SIN, DOESNT REPENT, AND ISNT FORGIVEN. (SOMETIMES THERE SEEMS TO BE AN ESCAPING OF CONSEQUENCES, BUT I BELIEVE IN JUSTICE, EVEN THOUGH IT GETS HARDER AND HARDER TO SEE IT HAPPENING IN THE WORLD. I BELIEVE THAT IF SOMEONE ESCAPES ONE PLACE, HE WILL NOT ESCAPE IN SOME OTHER WAY, MAKING UP FOR HIS WRONGFUL ESCAPE. HE MIGHT NOT HAVE TO PAY IN THE PRESENT LIFE, AND IN THAT CASE, HE MAKES FULL PAYMENT BY ETERNALLY BURNING IN THE NEXT LIFE. OR IF HE'S BORN AGAIN, HE PAYS SOME OTHER WAY THAN ETERNALLY BURNING. (THIS SOUNDS NASTY, BUT IT'S BIBLICAL. MAYBE THIS WOULDNT BE YOUR DESIGN, IF YOU WERE GOD, BUT MAYBE WE AGREE THAT SOMEHOW, THERE SHOULD BE JUSTICE, SOONER OR LATER, AND IN THE END, I CAN PICTURE EVERYTHING BEING PERFECTLY JUST. I DONT THINK IT'S LOGICAL TO HAVE A CONDITION OF INJUSTICE, FOREVER. SO I THINK IT WILL BE CHANGED. AND AS YOU SAID, THAT LEADS TO A NEW SUBJECT.) tw
continuance
Thanks for answering, slack. I feel talking with you to be worthwhile (even moreso than with many Christians. You see, being Christian doesnt change personalities, and there are a lot of personalities i dont enjoy, such as those who dwell on trivialities, those who are fearful, etc). I have absolutely no objection that someone thinks differently than i do, but only that the person speak honestly with me about what he thinks. There are a lot of ways to be dishonest: throwing up smoke screens to try to divert logic, etc, etc. I have felt that you speak honestly and logically. The big thing is that we can take a topic, and really consider it. This cant happen when there are various smokescreens in the way, such as intentional lies, intentional diversions, ego protections diverting, etc.
in order to really consider what youve said, ive copied it below, and plan to intersperse comments. I dont know about you, but for me, writing is mostly a spontaneous adventure, which i dont know where it will end up, which adds an element of fun to it. (i do edit, before sending, to clean up any rough spots.):
Truthwanted, you understand me correctly
Though we may still have different conclusions. As I have said "absolutes" are tricky philosophical questions that occupy philosphers and religious appologists for years. (YES)
Ctegories such as moral values are based on "belief systems" or on subjective and personal experience such as being "born again" ***(THIS IS BIBLICAL; JESUS SAID, "YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN." THAT'S THE ONLY REASON I AGREED TO IT. SO I WOULDNT CALL IT SUBJECTIVE, ALTHOUGH IT IS PERSONAL. BUT IT ISNT JUST A CHANCE THING, BUT RATHER A COMMANDED THING FOR ENTERING THE KINGDOM OF GOD (ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE).) and accepting a bible as an authoritative source.
(PRIOR TO THE NEW MILLENIUM, I HAD SOME LINGERING DOUBTS ABOUT THE BIBLE, EVEN THOUGH I WAS BORN AGAIN IN 1985. AS BAD AS THE NEW MILLENIUM HAS BEEN, IVE FELT THAT THAT BADNESS HAS HAD THE GOOD SIDE OF FULLY CONVINCING ME THAT THE BIBLE HAS BEEN HANDED DOWN FROM GOD, AS HE DIRECTED HUMANS TO WRITE IT.)
That does not mean that for many "values" such as do not lie or kill there is not near universal adoption across religions and even among people like me who don't subscribe to any particular religion.
(RIGHT. I LIKE THIS POINT. RELIGION IS NOT NEEDED TO HAVE VALUES. THE BIBLE SAYS THAT GOD HAS WRITTEN VALUES ON THE HUMAN HEART. (CONSCIENCE). I HAVE HEARD THAT SOME HAVE THE IDEA OF DRUGS TO ERASE THE CONSCIENCE, SO THEY CAN SIN WITHOUT FEELING GUILT. (THAT SOUNDS LIKE A LIBERAL IDEA, I THINK. AS ALWAYS, FEEL FREE TO DISAGREE, IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE.). YOU MIGHT BE SURPRISED THAT SOME (WHO I AGREE WITH) SAY THAT CHRISTIANITY ISNT A RELIGION. IT'S A RELATIONSHIP. A RELATIONSHIP WITH JESUS CHRIST, AS LORD AND SAVIOR. I THINK THAT RELIGION IMPLIES RITUAL, WHICH I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO INTEREST IN. THE MUSLIMS CAN KISS THE GROUND, KISS THE WALLS, TRAMPLE EACH OTHER IN THEIR RITUALS, ETC, ETC, ETC. IT'S ALL BALONEY TO ME. AND OBVIOUSLY DESTRUCTIVE. IT ISNT AT ALL SURPRISING THAT AGNOSTICS AND ATHEISTS SAY BETTER NO RELIGION THAN SO MUCH NONSENSE THAT GOES ON IN THE NAME OF RELIGION. (WHICH LEADS ME TO THIS THOUGHT, THE FIRST TIME IVE EVER THOUGHT IT, AND HAVE NEVER HEARD IT: I THINK IT WOULD BE CORRECT TO SAY THAT RELIGIOUS RITUAL IS A PERVERSION OF THE RELATIONSHIP THAT GOD MEANT US TO HAVE WITH HIM. IF ATHEISTS AND AGNOSTICS ("UNBELIEVERS") SAW MORE RELATIONSHIP AND LESS RITUAL AND NONSENSE, THEY (YOU) MIGHT BE MORE INTERESTED.))
Lets take your example of "lying". Yes I agree in most cases one should not lie. One should either tell the truth or say nothing at all. However, in some circumstances it may be more harmful to tell the truth than to lie or say nothing.
Suppose a person I know to be evil asks me a question. If I answer the question truthfully I know he will use the information to carry out some horrible crime. If I refuse to answer, he claims he will kill my wife and I believe him. I know an artful lie he cannot detect is a lie but will result in him not being able to commit the crime. Or if he uses it to commit the crime will probably lead to his eventual capture.
In that case I will tell the lie.
One could shade the circumstances in many ways to be less extreme.*****(THIS IS WHY I'M HERE TALKING WITH YOU. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF YOUR HONESTY IN DISCUSSION. WHEN LIBERALS (OR ANYONE ELSE) TAKES THE MOST EXTREME CASES, IGNORING THE MAJORITY CASES, WHAT GOOD IS THAT? ARE WE GOING TO LIVE BY VALUES BASED ON A FEW CASES. WHY NOT HAVE VALUES THAT FIT REALITY THE BEST. I DONT MEAN THAT YOUR EXTREME EXAMPLE WAS AN ATTEMPT TO ARGUE DISHONESTLY, (OR I WOULDNT BE HERE), BUT I THINK MANY PEOPLE DO PRESENT THINGS, TRYING TO ARGUE DISHONESTLY. THEY DECIDE WHAT OUTCOME THEY WANT, AND THEN WILL SAY ANYTHING (NO MATTER HOW FOOLISH) TO TRY TO JUSTIFY (RATIONALIZE) THE OUTCOME THEY WANT. THESE DISHONEST TYPES ARE A TOTAL WASTE OF TIME, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED. (NOT TO MENTION THAT THEYRE VERY HARMFUL TO SOCIETY.)
Rather than life or death it could be a situation in which someone asks you a question that if you give a completely truthful answer will embarrass them or cause another person great trouble for no good reason. If possible one would avoid answering the question but in some cases a "white lie" may be more appropriate.
(YOUR DISCUSSION IS INTERESTING, AND IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING BORN AGAIN, OR NOT. IF ONE LIVES OUT BEING BORN AGAIN (WHICH DOESNT ALWAYS HAPPEN BY THOSE BORN AGAIN, INCLUDING ME), HE WILL HAVE FAITH THAT LIVING OUT A MORAL ABSOLUTE WILL ALWAYS BE BEST. ON THE OTHER HAND, YOURE LOOKING ALL THE WAY THROUGH A SITUATION, AND THINKING YOU CAN KNOW WHAT WILL BE BEST, AND ACCORDINGLY, SAY THAT, "NO, THIS TIME THE MORAL ABSOLUTE WONT BE BEST." I KNOW FROM EXPERIENCE. I DID THE SAME MYSELF, BEFORE BEING BORN AGAIN. NOW, IN A TOUGH CIRCUMSTANCE, AS YOU DESCRIBE, MY RESPONSE IS MORE LIKE, "GOD, I CANT SEE HOW TELLING THE TRUTH THIS TIME WILL CAUSE GOOD, BUT I TRUST YOU THAT IT, SOMEHOW, WILL.", AND THEN GO AHEAD AND TELL THE TRUTH. IRONICALLY, I'M SO USED TO SIMPLY TELLING TRUTH, THAT I HAVENT EVEN HAD A TOUGH CIRCUMSTANCE IN MANY, MANY YEARS, WHERE IT SEEMED MAYBE I SHOULD LIE. IN GENERAL, AS YOU SAID, IT ISNT HARD TO LIVE AS A TRUTHFUL PERSON. AND IN GENERAL, IT'S MUCH HARDER TO LIVE AS A LIAR, HAVING TO COVER YOUR TRACKS ALWAYS, ETC. IN SUMMARY, IT APPEARS THAT BELIEVING IN MORAL ABSOLUTES REQUIRES A MEASURE OF FAITH. WHEN WE COME UP TO UNCERTAIN POINTS (AS HAPPENS FOR EVERYONE IN THIS LIFE FULL OF UNCERTAINTY), FOR SOMEONE BORN AGAIN, IT'S TIME TO TRUST GOD, AND STICK WITH THE MORAL ABSOLUTE. FOR THE PERSON NOT BORN AGAIN, HE USES HIS OWN REASONING, INSTEAD OF TRUSTING GOD AND GOD'S MORAL ABSOLUTE. E.G., IVE DONE MUCH INVESTING IN THE STOCK MARKET. IT'S BEEN A NIGHTMARE, BUT WOULDVE BEEN EVEN WORSE IF I DIDNT USE MORAL ABSOLUTES, AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. HAVING MORAL ABSOLUTES, MAKES DECISION MAKING EASIER, BECAUSE I CAN RULE OUT A LOT OF JUNK THAT VIOLATES MORAL ABSOLUTES.)
If one believes in god all kinds of speculation is possible on how god would look at these situations and whether he would "punish" the liar or agree that the situation warranted "shading the truth". However, this would be just that, speculation in this life time.
(ALTHOUGH THE BIBLE DOES PRETTY WELL AT CONVERTING FROM SPECULATION TO MORE CLARITY ABOUT CRIME AND PUNISHMENT. I AGREE THAT WITHOUT THE BIBLE, IT'S ALL JUST SPECULATION.)
If one belives in a god that punishes and rewards behavior in this life,
(A FEELING THAT THERE SHOULD SOME DAY BE JUSTICE, IS A REASON FOR BELIEVING IN GOD. OBVIOUSLY, HUMANS ARE QUITE POOR AT ADMINISTERING JUSTICE, AND GETTING WORSE ALL THE TIME.)
one would hope that god would take the "situation" into account and that would make things "relative" to some degree rather than absolute.
(A POINT WORTHY OF CONSIDERATION, FOR SURE. THE MORAL ABSOLUTES PERTAIN TO WHAT I BELIEVE I SHOULD LIVE BY. YOUR GOOD POINT HERE, SEEMS TO BE MORE A MATTER OF DEGREE OF PUNISHMENT FOR WRONG DOING, RATHER THAN A MATTER OF WHETHER TO LIVE BY MORAL ABSOLUTES, OR NOT. BUT I DONT MIND SWITCHING TO THE PUNISHMENT/REWARD ISSUE, AT THIS POINT: I THINK PROBABLY YOU'RE RIGHT THAT GOD DOES TAKE CIRCUMSTANCES INTO ACCOUNT, WHEN REWARDING OR PUNISHING. IN FACT, I RECALL NOW, THAT HE ALSO TAKES INTO ACCOUNT A PERSON'S LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE AND RESPONSIBILITY. ("TO WHOM MUCH IS GIVEN, MUCH IS REQUIRED.")
There is also the concept of "forgiveness" of sins, which underlies christianity. However, I view that as making the whole question moot in a way, since it seems to say, I can do anything as long as I sincerely ask for forgiveness. But that's a whole different topic of discussion.
(IT'S UNDERSTANDABLE THAT PEOPLE THINK OF A CHRISTIAN AS A PHONY, IN REGARD TO FORGIVENESS, AND I THINK THAT FORGIVENESS DOES NOT MEAN ESCAPING CONSEQUENCES. RATHER, IT MEANS BEING ABLE TO GET OVER THE SIN, AND CONTINUING ON. THE BIBLE INDICATES TO ASK GOD FOR FORGIVENESS, IN ORDER TO GET OVER IT, AND CONTINUE ON. IMAGINE HOW MUCH WORSE, AND USELESS IT WOULD BE, TO BE STUCK FOREVER IN ONE PLACE, BECAUSE OF A SIN, AND NEVER BEING ABLE TO FUNCTION, AGAIN. I THINK FORGIVENESS IS JUST ABOUT MOVING ON. BUT IF ONE GOT AIDS FROM A SEXUAL SIN, HE WILL STILL PROBABLY HAVE TO CONTINUE HAVING AIDS (NOT ESCAPING THE CONSEQUENCES). BUT BY REPENTING TO GOD, AND BEING FORGIVEN, HE CAN MAKE THE MOST OF WHATEVER POSSIBILITIES ARE LEFT. THIS WILL BE BETTER FOR HIM AND EVERYONE ELSE THAN IF HE CONTINUES IN THE SAME SIN, DOESNT REPENT, AND ISNT FORGIVEN. (SOMETIMES THERE SEEMS TO BE AN ESCAPING OF CONSEQUENCES, BUT I BELIEVE IN JUSTICE, EVEN THOUGH IT GETS HARDER AND HARDER TO SEE IT HAPPENING IN THE WORLD. I BELIEVE THAT IF SOMEONE ESCAPES ONE PLACE, HE WILL NOT ESCAPE IN SOME OTHER WAY, MAKING UP FOR HIS WRONGFUL ESCAPE. HE MIGHT NOT HAVE TO PAY IN THE PRESENT LIFE, AND IN THAT CASE, HE MAKES FULL PAYMENT BY ETERNALLY BURNING IN THE NEXT LIFE. OR IF HE'S BORN AGAIN, HE PAYS SOME OTHER WAY THAN ETERNALLY BURNING. (THIS SOUNDS NASTY, BUT IT'S BIBLICAL. MAYBE THIS WOULDNT BE YOUR DESIGN, IF YOU WERE GOD, BUT MAYBE WE AGREE THAT SOMEHOW, THERE SHOULD BE JUSTICE, SOONER OR LATER, AND IN THE END, I CAN PICTURE EVERYTHING BEING PERFECTLY JUST. I DONT THINK IT'S LOGICAL TO HAVE A CONDITION OF INJUSTICE, FOREVER. SO I THINK IT WILL BE CHANGED. AND AS YOU SAID, THAT LEADS TO A NEW SUBJECT.) tw