Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Right and Wrong has to be Absolute

1…4567810»

Comments

  • #272
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    crossed wires!


  • #273
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Not really, you just changed the meaning because you didn't like what was being pointed out.

    Like I said to Fanny when you ask an electrician how does your light bulb work you don't get 40,000 different answers depending on the personal faith of the electrician you asked.

    Light bulbs produce what again?


    "For the rest of my life I will reflect on what light is. "A Einstein (1917). Quoted in Sidney Perkowitz, Empire of Light (1999), p. 69.

    Can you explain what a photon is?


  • #274
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Zombrex wrote: »

    And yet morality is always subjective

    Can you prove that? According to any objective test? then it is just a non scientific personal opinion isn't it?


  • #275
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    ISAW wrote: »
    Light bulbs produce what again?

    "For the rest of my life I will reflect on what light is. "A Einstein (1917). Quoted in Sidney Perkowitz, Empire of Light (1999), p. 69.

    Can you explain what a photon is?

    It is a quantized excitation of the electromagnetic field, satisfying the wave equation.


  • #276
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Morbert wrote: »
    It is a quantized excitation of the electromagnetic field, satisfying the wave equation.

    So it is explained as a wave having discreet interval properties of that wave?

    How do you explain Young's slits. It is quite a simple experiment I'm sure you agree?
    so what does us tell us a photon is.

    Are you saying a "a quantized excitation of the electromagnetic field" is a particle of matter?
    If not why does it behave like a particle?

    I'm going off topic. The point is great scientists wondered about the simplest of things and discovered immense complexity and depth in the simple. I think Einstein said "everything should be made as simple as possible. But no simpler."


    What was picking up on is the simple idea that "morality is always subjective" .
    That in itself is a subjective opinion. There is no way to validate it without an objective test ... which kinda makes it a contradictory statement since the fact is a subjective thing can only be shown to be universally true by objective standards.

    Defining something in terms of "it is what I say it is" is really avoiding universality by restricting the definition.


  • Advertisement
  • #277
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    ISAW wrote: »
    So it is explained as a wave having discreet interval properties of that wave?

    How do you explain Young's slits. It is quite a simple experiment I'm sure you agree?
    so what does us tell us a photon is.

    Are you saying a "a quantized excitation of the electromagnetic field" is a particle of matter?
    If not why does it behave like a particle?

    A photon is neither a classical particle nor a wave. It has a very clear, unambiguous description as a quantized excitation of the electromagnetic field, which cannot be intuitively reduced to either a simple particle or a simple wave.
    I'm going off topic. The point is great scientists wondered about the simplest of things and discovered immense complexity and depth in the simple. I think Einstein said "everything should be made as simple as possible. But no simpler."

    What was picking up on is the simple idea that "morality is always subjective" .
    That in itself is a subjective opinion. There is no way to validate it without an objective test ... which kinda makes it a contradictory statement since the fact is a subjective thing can only be shown to be universally true by objective standards.

    Defining something in terms of "it is what I say it is" is really avoiding universality by restricting the definition.

    And from what I can gather from the conversation, the point is scientific census, unlike moral and religious principles, is not a function of region or culture.


  • #278
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Morbert wrote: »
    A photon is neither a classical particle nor a wave. It has a very clear, unambiguous description as a quantized excitation of the electromagnetic field, which cannot be intuitively reduced to either a simple particle or a simple wave.
    This would be a universal field existing everywhere which can be objectively measured would it?

    What "excites" this field? And when a photon actually interacts with matter does it behave as a particle? Is all matter "excitation of a magnetic field"?

    And if it has energy and is moving I assume it has an associated mass. So does it have zero rest mass? If it stopped moving what would this photon be? How woudl the quantized excitation express itself? That is if it has a rest mass of zero. If it had a non zero rest mass
    Im sure you are aware that "belief" might cause other problems.
    Of course I know no way of proving it has a zero rest mass. I guess we just have to believe it and call that "consensus".
    And from what I can gather from the conversation, the point is scientific [con]census, unlike moral and religious principles, is not a function of region or culture.

    I accept that that seems to be what Zombrex was trying to say. i.e. that science has a single answer as to what something is and religion a huge variety of answers. I was only picking up on the iussue that opinions as to what photons really are differ.


    But "absolute morality" has one answer from something being always wrong whereas subjective morality has as many answers as there are subjects/people. Furthermore scientific "consensus" is frequently not as rigidly defines as mathematical or physical concepts. Even mathematical physicists may differ on what they regard as the "real" universe or what a photon "really" is. Of course that can always have belief*** cough cough I mean "consensus" .


  • #279
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    ISAW wrote: »
    This would be a universal field existing everywhere which can be objectively measured would it?

    Yes
    What "excites" this field? And when a photon actually interacts with matter does it behave as a particle? Is all matter "excitation of a magnetic field"?

    The electromagnetic field is coupled to other fields, giving rise to interactions that induce excitations. Photons can behave like particles. Their interactions are described by quantum field theory. Different "particles" are excitations of different fields, or combinations of field excitations.
    And if it has energy and is moving I assume it has an associated mass. So does it have zero rest mass? If it stopped moving what would this photon be? How woudl the quantized excitation express itself? That is if it has a rest mass of zero.

    It has a rest mass of zero. It has energy and momentum. It cannot stop moving.
    If it had a non zero rest mass. Im sure you are aware that "belief" might cause other problems.
    Of course I know no way of proving it has a zero rest mass. I guess we just have to believe it and call that "consensus".

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Experimental_checks_on_photon_mass

    http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=experimental%20test%20for%20the%20mass%20of%20a%20photon&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.princeton.edu%2F~romalis%2FPHYS312%2FCoulomb%2520Ref%2FTuCoulomb.pdf&ei=2bkET6GgGJDmtQaHvomLCA&usg=AFQjCNHs70BoO9JQF_ZvFHzff67uTSxGWA&cad=rja

    I deliberately used the word census to avoid comments like "There's a guy in Nebraska who thinks photons are made of friendship so you can't say there's a consensus". But if you have a reasonable understanding of scientific consensus then that's fine.
    But "absolute morality" has one answer from something being always wrong whereas subjective morality has as many answers as there are subjects/people. Furthermore scientific "consensus" is frequently not as rigidly defines as mathematical or physical concepts. Even mathematical physicists may differ on what they regard as the "real" universe or what a photon "really" is. Of course that can always have belief*** cough cough I mean "consensus" .

    But there are different claims to what the absolute morality says, and these claims tend to follow cultural and religious trends.


  • #280
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Morbert wrote: »


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Experimental_checks_on_photon_mass

    Which only gives upper limits ( zero being a lower limit) and then says
    "Photons inside superconductors do develop a nonzero effective rest mass"

    Footnote 2 leads you to :
    Photons are traditionally said to be massless. This is a figure of speech that physicists use to describe something about how a photon's particle-like properties are described by the language of special relativity.

    Actually this is the very source of my "Im sure you are aware of the obvious problems of a non Zero rest mass?" comment
    If the rest mass of the photon were non-zero, the theory of quantum electrodynamics would be "in trouble" primarily through loss of gauge invariance, which would make it non-renormalisable; also, charge conservation would no longer be absolutely guaranteed, as it is if photons have zero rest mass.

    But rather than supply this source I allowed you to. He follows the abive with
    It is almost certainly impossible to do any experiment that would establish the photon rest mass to be exactly zero. The best we can hope to do is place limits on it.

    Although I like the idea in the following sentence of measuring a small damping factor in the inverse square Coulomb law. Which Is where your next link led me. Thanks!



    http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=experimental%20test%20for%20the%20mass%20of%20a%20photon&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.princeton.edu%2F~romalis%2FPHYS312%2FCoulomb%2520Ref%2FTuCoulomb.pdf&ei=2bkET6GgGJDmtQaHvomLCA&usg=AFQjCNHs70BoO9JQF_ZvFHzff67uTSxGWA&cad=rja

    Which begins:
    now, all the experiments show
    no evidence for a positive value, and the experimental result was
    customarily expressed as an upper limit on the deviation or on the photon
    rest mass.

    Philosophically I donnot want to lead you down a dead end. Because the point is that such a thing can't be proved by the validation principle. Science usually sets up a null hypothesis which can be falsified. In this case we are trying to validate and the best we can do is lower the upper limit of photon mass and get closer and closer to zero without ever getting there. Well maybe even assuming some planck constant level of tiny tiny measurement but then could we invent machines made up of things smaller than the things they were measuring?

    The authors Liang-Cheng Tu and Jun Luo tackle this philosophical problem in their conclusion on page 145
    A question that arises naturally is:
    is it necessary to strive continuously to lower the upper limit
    in order to convince ourselves that the photon rest mass is
    zero or non-zero? Or do we really need to continue to infinity
    the succession of these upper limits if there are no theoretical
    grounds appropriate for specifying the microscopic origin of
    the photon rest mass at present? For experimental physicists
    at least, the answer obviously is yes. But there is an ultimate
    limit for meaningful experimental measurement of the photon
    rest mass, which is dependent on the age and the dimensions
    of the Universe. The limit below this ultimate bound, say
    about 10^−66 g estimated by the uncertainly principle, would be
    thought of as meaningless or just zero. However, there is a
    great gap between the current limits and the ultimate one,     and
    we could not guarantee that future attempts to improve this
    limit will not lead to unexpected results about the photon rest
    mass and the deviation from Coulomb’s inverse square law.

    Basically they are saying ( correct me if I am wrong) there is a limit to which we can measure but if we get to that limit we could assume the rest mass is zero since any smaller measurement is meaningless. But they are also saying we have not got to that level of measurement and it may be that we could in future find a non zero rest mass somewhere between what we are now measuring and that limit of measurement.


    In other words your source says "we have lowered the upper bound and someone could lower this bound to effectively zero but it might also be proved to be non zero in the meantime" But they like you and I seem to believe it is zero


    Anyway suffice it to say I accept it probably has a rest mass of zero and consensus would say so. It is a reasonable unproven belief.

    I deliberately used the word census to avoid comments like "There's a guy in Nebraska who thinks photons are made of friendship so you can't say there's a consensus". But if you have a reasonable understanding of scientific consensus then that's fine.

    Fair enough just as if you have a reasonable understanding of "not proven 100% but reasonable to believe in"
    But there are different claims to what the absolute morality says, and these claims tend to follow cultural and religious trends.

    Quite. There are also different concepts as to what mind and matter are. But in spite of different interpretations you are happy to accept that one of the claims might actually be true?


  • #281
    Enkidu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,005 ✭✭✭Enkidu


    ISAW wrote: »
    Which only gives upper limits ( zero being a lower limit)
    Of course, experimental error, the photon behaves in a way that is consistent with being a massless "quantised excitation of the electromagnetic field" as Morbert said. Of course it still might be massless in which case that picture is wrong, but so far everything is consistent with that picture.


  • Advertisement
  • #282
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Enkidu wrote: »
    Of course, experimental error, the photon behaves in a way that is consistent with being a massless "quantised excitation of the electromagnetic field" as Morbert said. Of course it still might be massless in which case that picture is wrong, but so far everything is consistent with that picture.

    And it is always wrong for an adult to have sex with a six year old. some people might think otherwise but as far as society is concerned it is always wrong and that is consistently applied to society. Of course some societies might one day make Pi=3.


  • #283
    Enkidu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,005 ✭✭✭Enkidu


    ISAW wrote: »
    And it is always wrong for an adult to have sex with a six year old. some people might think otherwise but as far as society is concerned it is always wrong and that is consistently applied to society.
    I don't understand the analogy. I'm saying experimental eivdence is consistent with a given model of a photon. How would this relate to relativist/absolutist moral views? To me it's a seperate issue.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Of course some societies might one day make Pi=3.
    How? The ratio of a circle to its circumference will never be three. Again you seem to be relating three seperate issues:
    (a) The certainty in scientific models
    (b) Absolutist vs. Relativist moral positions
    (c) The nature of mathematical truth
    I'm not sure if they're really analogous in the way you're presenting.


  • #284
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    ISAW wrote: »
    Philosophically I donnot want to lead you down a dead end. Because the point is that such a thing can't be proved by the validation principle. Science usually sets up a null hypothesis which can be falsified. In this case we are trying to validate and the best we can do is lower the upper limit of photon mass and get closer and closer to zero without ever getting there. Well maybe even assuming some planck constant level of tiny tiny measurement but then could we invent machines made up of things smaller than the things they were measuring?

    The authors Liang-Cheng Tu and Jun Luo tackle this philosophical problem in their conclusion on page 145

    Basically they are saying ( correct me if I am wrong) there is a limit to which we can measure but if we get to that limit we could assume the rest mass is zero since any smaller measurement is meaningless. But they are also saying we have not got to that level of measurement and it may be that we could in future find a non zero rest mass somewhere between what we are now measuring and that limit of measurement.

    In other words your source says "we have lowered the upper bound and someone could lower this bound to effectively zero but it might also be proved to be non zero in the meantime" But they like you and I seem to believe it is zero

    Anyway suffice it to say I accept it probably has a rest mass of zero and consensus would say so. It is a reasonable unproven belief

    It is a belief that has been affirmed by experiment. You seem to be saying that it has not been "confirmed" or "proven". That doesn't change the fact that the scientific consensus is based on experimental results, and not culture or tradition.
    Quite. There are also different concepts as to what mind and matter are. But in spite of different interpretations you are happy to accept that one of the claims might actually be true?

    I do not know what you are referring to here. You presumably accept that the scientific consensus is not based on culture or tradition.


  • #285
    Pace2008
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,587 ✭✭✭Pace2008


    ISAW wrote: »
    And it is always wrong for an adult to have sex with a six year old. some people might think otherwise but as far as society is concerned it is always wrong and that is consistently applied to society. Of course some societies might one day make Pi=3.

    1. Experimental results match predictions based on our current understanding of the nature of photons
    2. In most societies, the majority of people believe it is wrong for an adult to have sex with a six-year-old child
    3. Therefore, right and wrong are absolute and human opinion can change the ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumference

    What?
    Enkidu wrote: »
    How? The ratio of a circle to its circumference will never be three. Again you seem to be relating three seperate issues:
    I think the idea is that right and wrong are fixed values like pi. You can say pi=3 but you'd be objectively wrong; you could say having sex with a child is right but you'd be objectively wrong (from a Christian moral absolutists point of view). Seems like a bad analogy to me as the former is easily proven/disproven but there is no objective way to test the latter.


  • #286
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Seems like a bad analogy to me as the former is easily proven/disproven but there is no objective way to test the latter.
    Depends on what you mean by test. To say morals are absolute is to create a point of reference. Sex with 6 year olds is wrong, ok, what about 7 year olds? 8 ,9, 10?
    a mature 6 year old? what if both parties are 6?
    See heres the problem, variables.
    Now your Pi and circles, no problem if it's not Pi then it's not a circle. Binary rule.
    All morality is relative and absolute. it's not binary.
    Thow shalt not kill.*
    *terms and conditions may apply
    So we test morality on it's outcomes, sex with 6 year olds results in damaged 7 year olds, not all of them but enough to justify disallowing it for all. And so on.
    OK it's sociology not physics but thats kinda the point everybody misses, it's not an exact science. Which is why religions do change but slowly, mistakes can be made, and morals are tested with real people.


  • #287
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Depends on what you mean by test. To say morals are absolute is to create a point of reference. Sex with 6 year olds is wrong, ok, what about 7 year olds? 8 ,9, 10?

    Sorry bub. I said six year old. Not 7 or older. This example came about as result of all the fudgers. Well that and the example of Mohammad which I discovered. I brought it up here before and a Muslim mod suggested I post the question in the Islam forum. I did. I got no clear answer. Whether Mohammad had sex with a child and whether that means it is acceptable is still an open question. In fact the thread is still open.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=68565330

    It would be off topic to go into to much detail here but it does delineate a difference between Islamic and Christian teachings on morals. I have also gone into this in relation to the "Faith and Reason" lecture by Ratzinger.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64635023&postcount=51
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054991507

    The point is
    But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.
    a mature 6 year old? what if both parties are 6?



    I already stated the "other party" is an adult in their thirties plus of sound mind.
    See heres the problem, variables.

    See here's your problem : not paying attention to the actual example!

    I sex between a mature sane adult and a six year old child always wrong? Simple question.
    So we test morality on it's outcomes, sex with 6 year olds results in damaged 7 year olds, not all of them but enough to justify disallowing it for all.

    This isn't a question of "is driving at over fifty miles an hour wrong" and coming upi with speed limits because of risk.

    The legal age is eighteen not six! Your example is like questioning whether someone driving at 150 in a fifty zone is breaking the limit!
    And the point is it is wrong whether or not a law is written about it. Suppose you go to a country where sex with a six year old is not illegal. Are you saying it then becomes right? Or is it always wrong?
    And so on.
    OK it's sociology not physics but thats kinda the point everybody misses, it's not an exact science. Which is why religions do change but slowly, mistakes can be made, and morals are tested with real people.

    Is sex with a six year old ever acceptable to you? Whether or not a law exists which makes it criminal?


  • #288
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Is sex with a six year old ever acceptable to you? Whether or not a law exists which makes it criminal?
    I'll have to think about that one ;)
    You are using this as an example aren't you? I mean were talking about morals in general and how this example demonstrates that morals are the result of being in harmony with some ideal absolute? Or not if you take the opposite side. I'de hate to think we were trying to settle all moral conundrums one at a time.


  • #289
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    ISAW wrote: »
    Well than and the example of Mohammad which I discovered. I brought iot up here before and a Muslim mod suggested I post the question in the Islam forum. I did. I got no clear answer and a ban.

    Please remember that we don't discuss the moderation of other fora here.


  • #290
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    PDN wrote: »
    Please remember that we don't discuss the moderation of other fora here.

    Thank for that. I changed the post to reflect the demarcation of Islamic and Christian thoughts with respect to absolutes. . People can go and make up their own minds.


  • #291
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Is sex with a six year old ever acceptable to you? Whether or not a law exists which makes it criminal?
    Right I've thought about it.
    Sex with people who are underage is wrong. How you define underage is a variable.
    The question posed restricted the circumstances to one 6 year old. So wrong,unless its a cat or dog and so are you. Because age of maturity is species dependent. Morals only apply to human interactions, from the off they are relative, relative to humans only.
    To imply from human morals an absolute standard of right and wrong thats universal is taking it to far.
    Equally assuming that because morals are appreciably human then they are a human construct is as false as claiming that talking or creating art are constructs. We didn't decide to talk; we talked. Language is the construction.
    I don't know how this helps decide what morals are useful but it dose show that they are absolute in as much as the need for morals is a human need, not what those morals are or even should be.


  • Advertisement
  • #292
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Right I've thought about it.
    Sex with people who are underage is wrong. How you define underage is a variable.
    The question posed restricted the circumstances to one 6 year old. So wrong,unless its a cat or dog and so are you. Because age of maturity is species dependent. Morals only apply to human interactions, from the off they are relative, relative to humans only.
    To imply from human morals an absolute standard of right and wrong thats universal is taking it to far.
    Equally assuming that because morals are appreciably human then they are a human construct is as false as claiming that talking or creating art are constructs. We didn't decide to talk; we talked. Language is the construction.
    I don't know how this helps decide what morals are useful but it dose show that they are absolute in as much as the need for morals is a human need, not what those morals are or even should be.

    It has helped but ther seems to be an inherent problem of the six year old example being always wrong and then saying something being always absolutely wrong is "taking it to far"

    You last sentence seems like "If God didn't exist we would have to invent God because we need God"


  • #293
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    You last sentence seems like "If God didn't exist we would have to invent God because we need God"
    "The Gods are always present, bidden or unbidden"
    Carl Jung had that as a moto over his house door.
    If God didn't exist we would invent God because thats how we are. Need wouldn't come into it.
    However as I do know God exists ;) I don't have that problem.


  • #294
    Hoof Hearted
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 96 ✭✭Hoof Hearted


    I think you will generally find that those that are Hedonistic in their life goals will generally subscribe to premise that morals are relative, as the goal is the short-term gratification of themselves without regard for the long term consequences to current and future generations and themselves. This is the Relativist (who is essentially a Practical Atheist)

    On the other hand those that believe that the Judeo-Christian teachings are the true way to live life, and believe that morals are absolute, will understand that making sacrifices now will reap long term dividends for current and future generations and themselves. This is the Absolutist (who appreciates the wisdom in God's teachings)

    The Relativist will typically see nothing wrong with materialism, pre-marital sex, gay relationships, contraception, physician assisted suicide, masturbation, pornography, laziness, eating for pleasure and many other teachings that God tells us are wrong. The consequences for all this (although often suppressed by the secular media), is abortion (40,000,000 unborn babies killed per year), depression, much higher marriage break up rate amongst those that have had pre-marital relationships , higher suicide rate amongst gays even in accepting countries like Netherlands, imminent collapse of economies in Europe, Japan where there are insufficient children to support the aging population. You see when a significant portion of the society subscribes to the above philosophies and say "it's OK as long as it doesn't hurt anyone", it actually does hurt in the end, themselves, the current generation and future generations even more. It must be the most terrible experience imaginable, being a Relativist on your death bed, having no children, probably broken up with your spouse, was materialistic all their life, anti-immigrant, knowing the philosophies you promoted were at the expense of the following generations, and thought that God was a fairy tale in the sky. Everyone is hurt in the end by the behaviours that were labelled "as long as it doesn't hurt anyone"

    The Believer, on the other hand, who believes the wisdom of God, and is humble enough to admit that God's teachings (Absolute Right and Wrong) are always shown to be repeatedly correct throughout history, and are the true way to not hurt anyone, begins to see the logic of it all when they see the fruits of following the teachings of God. A person who does right, with the sacrifice this often entails, will always reap the benefit in the end. They will reap the benefit in ways that may not be obvious to those with a secular/relativist world view. They will reap the benefit of Heaven. On Earth, there will be a peace and joy in them knowing they did the right thing. Pope John Paul II and Mother Teresa had peace and joy in them despite their suffering. I see it in Pope Francis.

    The teaching of God is always proven to be right in the end, and for every generation of human that believed they knew better than God about right and wrong (that right and wrong are Relative), history is littered with the consequences of those that subscribed to or were misled by the philosophy of Relativism.

    You, yes you reading this right now, ask yourself, are you being misled?

    Brian K.


  • #295
    homer911
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,069 ✭✭✭homer911


    I think this thread is absolutely past its sell by date given that today is a relative 34 months since the last post..


  • #296
    Hoof Hearted
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 96 ✭✭Hoof Hearted


    Why create a new thread about the same topic, just because 29 months elapsed?


  • #297
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    Hoof Hearted wrote: »
    Why create a new thread about the same topic, just because 29 months elapsed?

    Mod: Well, it's going to confuse people, particularly if they reply to posts made by users who have long since closed their accounts. Also, I'm not seeing an attempt to initiate discussion here, it reads more like a long statement.

    If you want to open a discussion, please do so in a new thread.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement