Is there such a thing as absolute Truth?

@debrakcarey (19924)
United States
March 12, 2013 1:36pm CST
Man is a moral being and has long attempted to devise codes to define what is right and what is wrong. Can man ever arrive at what is truly right, and what is always wrong? Or is it all relative to each individual's choice. Should we place a sign saying...you may do this, but proceed no further? Should we have absolutes, and if so why. If not, why not?
4 people like this
16 responses
@CODYMAC (1357)
• San Diego, California
12 Mar 13
Hello, Debra. The 613 Jewish laws tell all humankind what is right and what is wrong. Thinking about these laws have made Godly men out of cowards, and the humble and upright to pray harder for their flaws as humans. They will show us our sin but not cleanse it, so we have to turn to the "law made flesh", Yashua. YAHVAH, (GOD) and Yashua, (Jesus) are the only absolutes we need...:D Have a great day Debra!!
2 people like this
@debrakcarey (19924)
• United States
13 Mar 13
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?
@CODYMAC (1357)
• San Diego, California
19 Mar 13
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!
@debrakcarey (19924)
• United States
21 Mar 13
Hi Codymac, I haven't heard or read about the Jews judging the nations. Can you give me a reference?
@peavey (16856)
• United States
12 Mar 13
Of course there is absolute truth. Where else do morals come from? We teach our children, but they know right from wrong. We discipline ourselves because we know right from wrong. On a cloudless, sunny summer day, one person cannot truly claim that he feels a cold rain. Not to say that someone won't say they feel a cold rain, but there is absolute truth in the fact that a cloudless, sunny day will not produce rain, much less a cold rain. Absolute Truth has a name and will not be fooled, no matter how we frail humans try to twist things to suit ourselves.
1 person likes this
• United States
13 Mar 13
Very well said, Peavey!!
@debrakcarey (19924)
• United States
13 Mar 13
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)
@debrakcarey (19924)
• United States
13 Mar 13
And while we're at it here...where did the concept 'true' and 'untrue' come from?
@iuliuxd (4453)
• Romania
12 Mar 13
No it`s not ! There was a guy who came and claimed he is the absolute truth but we got rid of him because we didn`t liked what he told us.
1 person likes this
@debrakcarey (19924)
• United States
13 Mar 13
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?
@debrakcarey (19924)
• United States
13 Mar 13
And is THAT even possible?
@iuliuxd (4453)
• Romania
18 Mar 13
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.
@samar54 (2456)
• Egypt
13 Mar 13
The human know right and wrong , when he make sin , he know that he doing something wrong , but he do that . Muhammad peace be upon him said " “All the sons of Adam are sinners, but the best of sinners are those who repent often.” What human do or not do , that is what religion shown to him
1 person likes this
@debrakcarey (19924)
• United States
13 Mar 13
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'?
@samar54 (2456)
• Egypt
15 Mar 13
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?
@debrakcarey (19924)
• United States
16 Mar 13
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?
• United States
14 Mar 13
There are some absolutes. Like its never right to abuse a child in any fashion. Killing can be relative. In times of war blood must be shed. It's never right to kill without cause, humans, that is. But if one human is trying to kill you, you have a right to kill in self defense. We can't say all killing is wrong, it we would not use mouse traps or flyaway tees or use exterminators to kill household pests. Most right and wrongs are relative to cultures and belief systems.
@debrakcarey (19924)
• United States
16 Mar 13
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.
1 person likes this
• United States
16 Mar 13
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.
• United States
16 Mar 13
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.
@Pose123 (21667)
• Canada
12 Mar 13
Hi debrakcarey, There is really no such thing as right and wrong except in the way each of us see it. In the same way people are not good and bad but just different. We also have to remember that the idea of right and wrong has changed much over the centuries and still continues to change today. There are still a few people in the world who think it's OK to have slaves - three hundred years ago, most people saw nothing wrong with it.In the story of Abraham in the Bible, the people that he lived among thought the very best thing that they could do was offer their eldest son as a sacrifice to their Gods. Eventually, it even got to Abraham himself and he began to think that his God wanted the same thing! It is good to know that we have laws to stop such things from happening today. Blessings.
• United States
13 Mar 13
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!
@debrakcarey (19924)
• United States
13 Mar 13
I would ask; why then do we have laws. And if someone thought murder is 'right' is he correct, is THAT true?
@debrakcarey (19924)
• United States
16 Mar 13
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?
@Latrivia (2889)
• United States
22 Mar 13
Is man a moral being? I would say man is an animal attempting to maintain some level of order, thus "morality" - a concept of behavioral rules and regulations to influence how man interacts with itself and the rest of the world. Moral absolutes aren't possible. Even if there were a god, and that god laid down a specific set of behavioral rules where any deviation from them was considered "immoral", it would only be that god's opinion on what is acceptable and what isn't. It's still subjective morality. The fact that behavior, or opinions on that behavior, could deviate from those rules invalidates absolutism. Absolute truth by it's very nature is certain and consistent. If it isn't universally consistent then it isn't absolute. There's no reason to tackle the prospect of "should" when we can't even ascertain the possibility of "could".
@debrakcarey (19924)
• United States
26 Mar 13
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?
• United States
28 Mar 13
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.
1 person likes this
@debrakcarey (19924)
• United States
4 Apr 13
@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.
@barehugs (8986)
• Canada
14 Mar 13
Not that long ago it was a sin for a Catholic to eat meat on Friday. Now catholic Fridays are no longer meatless! So what changed in the Catholic faith? Truth is, and has been Flexible. Black and white are exactly the same in the dark, as are sin and religion, and Pope Francis won't change anything!
@debrakcarey (19924)
• United States
16 Mar 13
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'.
@barehugs (8986)
• Canada
16 Mar 13
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!
@debrakcarey (19924)
• United States
21 Mar 13
Mandkind's worst punishments in this life is regret, that is true.
• Sweden
12 Mar 13
Everyone have their own thoughts of what is right and wrong. We learn those things mostly from our parents, then later on from life itself. And you are right, it's all relative to each individual's choice. I don't think there should be absolutes, because some others people out there might think that that is wrong according to some of their teachings or believes. Absolutes mean that there will be only few absolute choices of what is wrong and right. Thinking about it, if we do everything right, then why shall we worry if we make a mistake, like do something wrong? Having more optional choices which can be wrong and right, we as people do make mistakes in our everyday life so we learn more from our mistakes to not get repeated again and again. And so we identify what is wrong and right in life, or more like i could say like an adventure book for children where they discover the world, full of colors, which won't be only black and white. If someone makes mistakes and they think that it's right according to them, my thoughts are that there will be allwasy someone who will correct us and we correct them also. Parents do tell their children what is wrong and write, but later on, the decidion is up for them to be made throughout their life. It's a good idea to have what is wrong and right, but we should say what's wrong and right till some point where you don't have to tell them, because learning by themself and truly acknowledge what is true, right and what is false and wrong is better I think :)
@debrakcarey (19924)
• United States
13 Mar 13
Then why have laws?
• Sweden
13 Mar 13
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?
@debrakcarey (19924)
• United States
14 Mar 13
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?
@cherigucchi (4866)
• Philippines
13 Mar 13
Man is basically stubborn being. He creates codes and breaks them. he creates laws and breaks them. He invents computer and sets virus to destroy it. Man is really a hard to imagine being.
@debrakcarey (19924)
• United States
16 Mar 13
Yes, I agree. And yet I find mankind fascinating, don't you?
• Philippines
17 Mar 13
That's what makes us separate from other species. Nevertheless, we really are fascinating!
@mermac (14)
• Philippines
21 Mar 13
there is one absolute truth, there is but one God, and you should love him with all your soul and with all your might , as such you are only human and can make mistakes and sin, there are certain laws that governs that but one thing that is always right is that there is one God and that is an absolute truth
@debrakcarey (19924)
• United States
21 Mar 13
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.
• India
16 Mar 13
Well, in my idea the absolute truth is just God, we all do mistake, we choose right and wrong according to what is our opinion on that matter, how much we feel and believe things are right or wrong on our experience.
@debrakcarey (19924)
• United States
16 Mar 13
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?
@artemeis (4070)
• China
16 Mar 13
I personally believe there is but it is also a fact that there are people who refuse to believe that there is. The very fact that we are being civilized and living together harmoniously is the proof we need that there is an existence of truth which everyone believes is for the good of everyone and the surroundings. On the other side, there are even some that will twist it to become their own agenda and gain bring every known evil harm to the innocents and destroy everything that is meant to be good and for the good.
@debrakcarey (19924)
• United States
16 Mar 13
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?
@bird123 (10518)
• United States
16 Mar 13
Yes, there is absolute truth. Each will discover this once they experience all sides. Intelligence will make the right choices every single time. That is what Understanding does. Why does mankind need laws?? Mankind creates laws in an attempt to protect society. Punishment is their attempt at control. Why does mankind have laws? They are not advanced enough or have the wisdom enough to do it any other way. Mankind needs to work at solving the problem instead of trying to influence people through fear of punishment. Indeed, mankind has a long way to go.
@flowerchilde (12518)
• United States
13 Mar 13
To my way of thinking there has to be ultimate truth, or actually just plain truth.. what is true and what isn't. anything else to me is just plain illogical. Of course in this world, or life as we presently know it, there appears to be much that some say is truth, but is it? As a Christian I believe we are all God's children and not only did He create the world and universe but we live and breathe only because of Him. As a matter of fact I believe He is Life itself (and also Perfection). It's only because we have the ability to make choices, an offshoot of thinking ability, that the world and life is as it is. I truly think the world is covered with lies and u truth like a heavy wet quilt set low in the atmosphere. But I believe all untruth can only crash.. that all imperfecdtion (opposite of life) can only ever end in a self destructive puff of smoke and what will be left and always will be left is truth, ultimate reality. Which of course, will be perfection. Paradise restored. "The lion will" once more "eat straw like the ox, the bear will graze with the cow" Isaiah 11:7. Man's popular idea that what is truth to one, or only evil to one is ridiculous in my opinion. If somone comes after me and stabs me with a knife they may well think it is not evil, but I'm sure I would beg to differ!
@robspeakman (1705)
12 Mar 13
I would think Absolute truth is unachieveable, whatever ones view.
@debrakcarey (19924)
• United States
13 Mar 13
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.