| September
2002
In search of absolute truth - the common denominator thesis
|
|
|
Please read the foreword to grasp the context.
I start with posting no. 511 on page 52 of the homosexuality thread on
the Remaking Singapore cyber forum:
Page 52: Yawning Bread getting back to the point Oh dear, the posts are getting longer and longer. Let me try to reduce the issue to a nugget or two. There appears to be two approaches. They tend to see sexual orientation as
In the case of (1), norms are defined
very narrowly, and the reference authorities are often religious or can
be traced to cultural/religious influences. These suffer a number of
defects, as the gay side has pointed out. There is plenty of evidence that religions are interpretable, and has been drastically reinterpreted over time. This demolishes any claim to the infallibility of the current interpretation. Religion and culture are ultimately personal. Each person can believe what he wants and live his life accordingly. Each person is made by the circumstances of his life experience; he absorbs certain knee-jerk values, e.g. distaste for pork, or embarrassment about crying. There's a big difference between personal values/tastes and well-thought-out issues of morality. Culture/religion is ultimately arbitrary as seen from the fact that in human experience there is so much diversity and contradiction among cultures/religions. Even an individual in one lifetime can remake himself. To posit absolute right and wrong on the basis of such shifting sands is almost foolhardy. Yet some try. At a societal level, it is pointless to look at sexual orientation through such a lens. It is as pointless as to argue whether vegetarians are moral/immoral, whether lefthandedness is right or wrong, whether linguistic duds but math geniuses are virtuous or evil. Get real, such persons exist. What do we do as a society then? Do we marginalize them, cut them off, because they don't fit our idea of normativity? And lose their contribution? By infringing their freedoms, we undermine our own. By discounting their humanity, we debase our own. That's how the issue should be framed: How does Singapore treat differences? Why are we so afraid of differences? Or of change? * * * * * Page 53:
Antigay getting back to the point Yawning Bread The point is - for all the diversity in humanity, there IS also much too much commonality to ignore as evidence of the existence of ABSOLUTE truth. The point is - relativism IS shifting sands. WHO is afraid of change? Truth is IMMUTABLE. On the other hand, relativists cannot tell which way the wind will blow tomorrow. The point is - DEVIATION is abominable. Deviation = departure from absolute truth. Difference is NOT equal to deviation. Difference is to be tolerated. Deviation (perversion) is to be condemned. The point is - NOT about marginalisation, not about prejudices, not about hatred. It is about living within the boundaries of absolute truth. Those who trespass beyond can exclude themselves from the norm. But they can always return if they choose to abide by truth. [truncated] * * * * *
lriws getting back to the point Anti-gay, And I guess the ABSOLUTE truth also happens to be YOUR version of the truth, right? What arrogance! Have you found the ABSOLUTE truth as alleged in your post? If so, pray tell us. And tell us, how you know that's the ABSOLUTE truth and not some figment of your over-imagination. Also, please don't quote from the Bible or Koran or any form of religious text, for they were and are, as always, a work of man, ignorant, fallible and arrogant about their own brand of TRUTH. * * * * * Gary getting back to the point lriws, Your posting just highlight your ignorance and arrogance. * * * * * Singaporean getting back to the point Dear Gary and Antigay What is absolute truth ? Let us consider : Absolute truth #1 : Catholics/Protestants say that Jesus is God who became man. Absolute truth #2 : Muslims say that God has revealed that Jesus is only a Prophet and not God who became man. Absolute Truth #3 : Both Muslims and Catholics believe that God has allowed the killing of animals for food. Absolute Truth #4 : Religious vegetarians believe in non-violence and selfless love towards all creatures. To them, this means that it is immoral to kill animals, even for food. My dear Gary, Antigay and all who are like them : Tell me, if there is absolute truth, how can #1 and #2 contradict , and how can #3 and #4 contradict ? * * * * * Page 54 kelvinw getting back to the point Anti-gay, I am very interested to know what is your ABSOLUTE TRUTH? Who defines those truth and who says that those truth are absolute? You keep talking about the ABSOLUTE TRUTH, but we have not seen any shred of what you are talking about. You said that deviation is departure from absolute truth... but the Buddhists text says that there is no absolute truth, and even if there is absolute truth, deviation from the truth is also the truth. So, already, your definition of ''Deviation'' is neither universal nor absolute nor really correct. Let's hear about your absolute truth... * * * * * kelvinw getting back to the point Gary, It is always very strange how some people will only take 1 or 2 parts out of their scriptures and hold it as the TRUTH (because it agrees with them), but ignore all other so-called truths that are in the scriptures conveniently. Anyway, I think that we are all showing our arrogance and ignorance by writing. As the Tao Te Ching says: ''The wise men is silent, the fool is not''. I guess we are all the fool here. * * * * *
Johnston Absolute truth When the anti-gay camp started using religion to make its point, I already foresaw that it would develop till what it is today on this forum. The spewing out of the absolute truth. Let me show you how weird this thing called absolute truth is to me, a free-thinker. Protestants tell me that Roman Catholics worship some wrong things, eg. Mary. Some even tell me that they are cult-ish. Roman Catholics then tell me that Protestants are wrong too. What about the Charismatics, 7th day adventists, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Mormons, etc? Not forgetting Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, etc. If all of them start to walk in my path along Orchard Road one after another and shove pamphlets in my face and bark at me ''follow me to see the absolute truth'', who should I believe? Since I know nothing about the absolute truth, can I just rely on blind faith? (By the way, Christians discourage blind faith vehemently) Or should I just follow the majority -- the most scientific way of doing things? Again, everyone will tell me following the majority is an absolute no-no. Talking about science, shall I just believe in say, Christianity and condemn the theory of evolution, one of the most important theory on this planet? Something so many scientists in the world believe in? What about all the Christian scientists working to produce documentaries like ''Walking With Beasts/Dinosaurs''? Are they bad/wrong Christians? What is absolute truth to them? So what's the deal here? People on this forum must bear in mind that they are involved because they want the authorities to hear their grievances. And what will the authorities do when they hear people spewing absolute truths? Or for that matter, what CAN they do? MANY people have stressed once and again that the Singapore government is a secular one and so there is no absolute truth in their eyes. There is only absolute law. If the anti-gay camp uses the Penal Code to judge and condemn us, at least they will be standing on firmer grounds. But using the absolute truth? [truncated] * * * * *
Antigay getting back to the point Q: What is truth? For the purpose of our discussion here on this particular subject, it does not matter whether you are a Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, etc As someone posted there is enough evidence from the scriptures of all these religions to show a COMMON ground concerning morality and sexuality - and more specifically homosexuality. * * * * * Singaporean getting back to the point Dear Antigay You have not answered my question. There are differences between the ''absolute truths'' (dogmas) of the different religions around the world. This being the case, an appeal to only what is held in common between them is a very weak argument that cannot be accepted. Dogmas (absolute truths) are such that you either accept all of them within a religion or you reject all of them within a religion. What you have done is to reduce conflicting dogmas (absolute truths) to the level of prejudices, a relative position held at a private/personal level between religions. See ? Absolute truths that conflict between religions become relative and secondary ! Religion in such a case ceases to have any credible authority. [truncated] ===== Boring getting back to the point Cant you christians choose your stand on the issue, with facts other than ''The Truth'', morally standards from facts other than your whole so DIVINE BIBLE. for info: i'm not a gay or a christian. So dont try to bull me in all the bible stuff. What ppl want to do with their life and their perspective of love is their own issue!!! If you ppl can't accept the true love of other ppl be it straight or gay, i really question the teaching of the bible which my christian friends were telling me abt!!!!!!!!!!! * * * * * Antigay getting back to the point This is NOT a religious forum. Neither is this a platform to discuss which religion is right/wrong. And it is certainly NOT in Singapore's interest to destroy the multi-cultural, multi-religious harmony that now exists. All I will say is ''The Truth is Out There.'' So says, the X-Files - now that's religiously neutral enough for you all I hope!!! The one who desires and seeks the Truth will find it. Whatever differences religions have concerning dogmas, there is ONE area that MOST religions agree - the standard of MORALITY. Figure out how this commonality came about in spite of the vast diversity that resulted through evolution - if you believe that! Absolute Truth exists. ''Thy word is truth''. * * * * * Page 55 Singaporean getting back to the point Dear Antigay You have now resorted to the X-Files to support your position ? How sad ! By the way, by making references to X-Files, I do hope that you do not go the way of ''Straight Guy'' and ''Observer'' earlier on this thread (both anti-gay), in that both of them made references to conspiracies. They were simply suffering from a form of paranoia. What's next ? That all the pro-gays here are aliens from Mars ??? I am so sad that you have yet to refute my arguments in my last post to you. You seem to have made an artificial separation between dogmas (absolute truths) and morality. Since this is the case, morality need not contain absolutes, right ? Let me give you ANOTHER example : Absolute truth (dogma) #1 : Islam teaches that God currently permits polygamy under certain conditions. Absolute truth (dogma) #2 : Catholicism and Protestantism teach that God currently forbids polygamy under any condition. Why cry and say that this forum is not on religious issues, when certain anti-gay characters have been using verses from the Holy Bible to push their lost case against gays, and why did YOU bring up religion in the first place ? In fact, by referring to what is common between religion and ignoring what is different, you are merely being pragmatic and utilitarian. I do not believe any believer would want his religion to be merely useful for some end, other than what his religion teaches it is for. Before I end this letter, I must note that your constant references to ''truth'', the ''divine word'', ''thy word is truth'', ''truth exists'' is sickeningly AMBIGUOUS and smacks of loony PSEUDO-MYSTICISM. This and your reference to X-File proves how shallow is your position. Go and think of some other better way to refute my last post to you, OK ? * * * * * kelvinw getting back to the point Anti-gay, Again, you are being elusive. Time and time again, most of us have given proof to you that the absolute truth you are talking about is relative. But time and time again, you only reply by generalization without true understanding, basing only on your religious truth. Anti-gay said: So what IS the Divine word, pray tell? My ignorance does not allow me to understand this. As a Buddhist, I don't understand it, because it's written in Buddhist texts, that there are no Divine words. So can you actually state what you mean by the Divine word? Also the Divine word is God's word, but as a Buddhist, we don't believe in a creator God, but ourselves... so where did that word come from? Or is that all you can come up with? Anti-gay said: ''Whatever differences religions have concerning dogmas, there is ONE area that MOST religions agree - the standard of MORALITY. Figure out how this commonality came about in spite of the vast diversity that resulted through evolution - if you believe that!'' Here again, you are being elusive. Which someone gave evidence? I am afraid I must have missed that posting. And I believe that it was probably demolished as fast as it was being built. You are trying generalise all religions, please don't, Buddhism does not sanction acts of violent, torture, hatred, intolerance, aversion nor absoluteness of the relative world. I implore you to show me statements from each and every religion that shows the common ground on morality and sexuality. And please don't pretend that we are all mind-readers and ''should know'' what you are talking about. The standard of morality used by the religions of the book is to facilitate the followers to go to Heaven, its a must do or go to hell kind of morality. Whereas in Buddhism, there is no standard of morality, rather it has guidelines or precepts based on the principle of developing wisdom, love, compassion and avoiding harm to others. To apply them, one has to develop proper wisdom, instead of just blind following without questioning. Whereas some religions sanctions killing and acts of violence to animals and humans and it is in their books, Buddhism advises its followers to refrain from killing all sentient beings, insects, animals, humans, non-humans, etc. In fact throughout his 40 odd years of propagating Buddhism in his times, Buddha never killed anything, nor cursed anything and practiced religious tolerance (unlike some others). Given these beginnings, how can you say that the standard of morality between your religion and Buddhism is common? In Buddhism, in the Kalama Sutra, it is said:
Tell me which other wise teachers ever said that to his followers? In fact, you will probably get loads of curses hurled onto you and your family if you even advocate such an enquiring spirit. Pray, then, tell me, what is the common morality grounds? * * * * *
Science Park Gay getting back to the point Our Dear Anti-gay has finally uttered some words on what is morality. Can Anti-gay explain and elaborate more clearly what is morality? I have posted this question to him long ago but get no answer from him, there are many more questions all posted to him but he couldn't answer, please refer to previous postings in this same thread. His position is getting weaker and weaker now. Now, he even attempt to cling onto the leg of a single person called ''ming''. This ''ming'' guy claimed that his sexuality was healed by his church, but when challenged to give real concrete details of his identity, he is not confident at all for confrontation (see thread ''An insider account of homosexuality and homosexual activism'', page 4) Now, the credibility is questionable. So Anti-gay goes back to his ''Absolute Truth'' ''argument'' again which was already refuted long ago in previous postings in an attempt to win this debate based on luck. How shameless! So why not ''get back to the point'', go back this thread and read the postings there. Oh! But that does not mean that Anti-gay can escape all the questions that we have posted him. * * * * * Kai getting back to the point Kelvin please don't quote Buddhism here, I don't wish to see people making use of this chance to start' new religious debates'. Anyway, I don't the point of condemning gays, for goodness sake, they are human beings too, even though, their sexual behaviour is quite unusual(and quite disgusting to me)and I certainly don't encourage. I don't see the reasons why there are quite a number of so-called 'self-righteous' crusaders now bent on getting rid of them in our society, it do sound idiotic to most people including me. Since even our 'dear' PAP government don't really care about gays (there is no anti-gay campaigns) as they are only a minority and harmless, why should we (non-gays) the majority attack them, at least it sounds senseless to me for now. * * * * *' dan getting back to the point Anti-gay, At the moment, am I correct to say your point rests on the following arguments? 1. There IS absolute morality I have the following response: On what do you base your belief that there is an absolute morality? To my mind, we could take one of two broad approaches to the issue of morality: Either: [a] Morality is based on the instructions and wishes of a supernatural being. These are usually in the form of ancient religious texts (as in the case of most major world religions). This approach CAN be used to support (but does not always NEED to) the Absolute Morality position. This morality may or may not be in place as enforceable laws, but individual believers should follow them regardless of this. Or: [b] Morality is a set of social norms that human societies devise to regulate individual & group behaviour for the betterment of both individuals and the larger society. Today, this is usually done by means of legislatures enacting laws. This approach rarely supports the Absolute Morality position, EXCEPT in theocratic societies based on [a], where laws are enacted based on interpretations of religious texts, instead of only on the needs of contemporary societies. If you subscribe to [b] and advocate a secular democratic approach to the formulation of social norms as laws, then I have no quarrel with you. If you subscribe to [a], then the question becomes WHICH religion / interpretation / text / god should we follow? Your position seems to be [a] ? and you reply to the problem of which religion to believe by saying that ALL major world religions condemn homosexuality (i.e. point 2 & 3 above). There are two large problems with this: [1] Even assuming that there is substantial overlap of moral teachings among all major religions: why should we consider this to be a basis for moral decisions? It's a case of rule by majority rather than rule by reason, personal conscience or some other guide. Frankly, although you may not want to admit it, I think you personally agree with me on this. I think many literal Christians realise how much of a minority you constitute when it comes to many of your conservative views on many social and personal issues. You yourselves reject the mainstream, debased and degenerate practices of the majority, preferring instead to steadfastly maintain your commitment to what you perceive as the true path. In a way, I do respect this ability to hold a minority and unpopular view. Therefore, it surprises me to see you using the majority-opinion-is-right argument here, since your views hardly constitute the majority position on many issues. For example, I think that it is fair to say a very large percentage of Singaporeans teens and young adults engage in pre-marital sex. There is every chance that they form a majority of their peer group. If this is the case, does it mean that it is ok to have pre-marital sex? From your perspective, it shouldn't matter how many people disagree with you. Confess it please: your morality is not based on the common views held by the majority. They are instead based on your literal interpretation of the bible. Likewise, a person who subscribes to an agnostic or atheistic scientific & rational approach to life would not agree with certain irrational and arbitrary theological injunctions, if these had no basis in reason and science (e.g. condemnation of homosexuality). [2] You keep claiming to speak for all major world religions. Yet, as I have asked you many times, can you show me how your views are advocated by religions like Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Sikhism, etc? These form a massive proportion of the world's people, and 55% of people in Singapore. And what about the large numbers and percentages of people who are free-thinkers, humanists, atheists, agnostics, etc? Are they all immoral outcasts of society? These various groups form 15% of Singapore society. You MUST address these points. Finally: a question for Christians & Muslims: do the religions injunctions in your holy texts apply only to the faithful or to all people? As relatively younger religions, these two faiths were born into multi-religious societies where they constituted a minority. So there must be some perspective on living with non-believers. E.g. I think in Kelantan, the Islamic theocratic government there wants to impose more and more Islamic / Sharia / Hudud laws on local Muslims, but it always assures non-Muslims that these laws will not impinge on them. E.g. Khalwat laws against close proximity of an unmarried man and woman does not apply to non-Muslims. * * * * * Anti-gay getting back to the point a. Religions MUST be considered in human and social issues. Those who adhere to religions and keep their religious beliefs in separate compartments of their lives ought to discard it if it has no relevance to the issues in life. So those who insist that religions must be kept out of this discussion probably do so because they do not wish to be confronted with truths that they have no answers to. b. I did not say that the majority positions of all religions constitute the Absolute Truth. I've already stated what Truth is - the Divine word. And as I wrote, I will not be drawn into debates here as to which religion is right/wrong. There are Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus here on this thread who are just as firm in their beliefs that homosexuality is a perversion that must never be permitted to be promoted openly in our Singapore society. c. I made the observation that for certain matters eg morality, sexuality there is an amazing degree of commonality across religions. Must be there for good reason because a society will decay and perish in double quick time without a moral standard. And it is not coincidental that the moral code is universal across cultures and races and religions. Whoever used the example of polygamy missed the point - religions that permit polygamy do NOT condone immorality. PS: My reference to the X-Files was a light-hearted comment. Those who took that seriously, my apologies. * * * * * Page 56 Singaporean getting back to the point Dear Antigay You have missed my point again. 1. Regarding the example I gave earlier : Polygamy of any form IS immoral to Catholics and Protestants under the New Dispensation (the New Testament). Polygamy under certain conditions is NOT immoral to the Muslims. (a) these are two conflicting absolutes. If any one of them is true, the other must be false. (b) How can you deny that morality is involved ??? 2. To appeal to what's common between religions betrays what is NOT common among religions. To any believer, what is NOT common is just as important. Consider the example of polygamy just given. A believer in dogmas has no choice but to accept all the dogmas of his religion as absolutes, or reject all of them. There can be no compromise in this matter. That's the real nature of dogmatism. The fact that the local government RIGHTFULLY keeps a check on religion in Singapore shows that there are fundamental differences between religions in Singapore that can destroy Singapore, as there have been many acts of bloody violence in the name of religion in history. YOU MUST SEE THE WHOLE PICTURE, THAT IS, NOT ONLY WHAT IS COMMON BETWEEN RELIGIONS, BUT ALSO WHAT IS NOT COMMON BETWEEN RELIGIONS. How can religions in general be considered a reliable authority when (1) they have to agree not to disagree, and thus reduce the status of conflicting dogmas between themselves and (2) religions in general cannot be trusted to observe religious harmony and require the intervention of the local government to maintain religious harmony ? * * * * * kelvinw getting back to the point Kai, ''Kelvin please don't quote Buddhism here, I don't wish to see people making use of this chance to start' new religious debates'.'' Really, I am not and do not wish to. The only reason why I am quoting from my Buddhist text is to prove to Anti-gay that there are no commonality of morality within all the religions, which till now, he has not shown evidence and facts for. * * * * *
kelvinw getting back to the point Anti-gay, Again you are being elusive by not even once showing any shred of evidence and facts to prove your point, resorting to nothing but generalisation. ''I've already stated what Truth is - the Divine word.'' But, we have already demolished the fact that your TRUTH does not hold water. It is a subjective truth, yet you did nothing to counter this, which means you agree with us. ''There are Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus here on this thread who are just as firm in their beliefs that homosexuality is a perversion that must never be permitted to be promoted openly in our Singapore society.'' Are you saying that just because a few lay Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Christians states that they hate homosexuals, it is a generalised truth? You mean it takes only 1 bad Buddhist to convince you that it is true for all Buddhists? Please, I don't think you are as naive as that! Neither are the readers. The URL below, posts at least 2 statements by
prominent Buddhist monks in Singapore on their view about homosexuality: Are you going to reject their wisdom, because of what 1 lay Buddhist says agrees with you? ''Whoever used the example of polygamy missed the point - religions that permit polygamy do NOT condone immorality.'' I think you have missed the point again. Your
statements seems to suggest that you know fair well and is very knowledgeable
about the morality code of different religions. Yet, you did not have any
evidence or facts to prove your point. Pray tell us, what is immorality and for
each religion how did they define immorality? © Yawning Bread
|
|
|
|
Footnotes None Addenda None
|
|
