A-context is a mix of definition and connotation- so yes the context does change, thus meaning changes. My point on A was that a conceptual morale absolute gives us a working platform to try to achieve with our everchanging subjective moral values.
B-I agree society doesn't operate under absolutes, and that we're adapting to our enviornment. Our enviornment moves towards entropy ( a constant) as does our operandi. Is it that hard to see that processes work from a variable to an ideal. Science tries to eliminate/control all variables for a sound solution that is consistantly constant. I'm just applying the same principles to moral development as a society.
C-If you can't see the breaking of probability in the RL events depicted then I don't think even God smacking you in the face, would convince you that he existed, and that is the definition of stubborn, closed-minded, unquestioning belief in your self-beliefs.
1-I don't
2-There were no people in line without food. If there were it would be evidenced that God allows some to suffer or perhaps allows them different avenues to fufill their needs.
D-Since his existence would rest outside our possible perspective it is a gray area.
E-And after humans are gone the concept of God will cease to be, and if he objectively exists and I can share his perspective after my death, I'd like to. The practicality of the now is that religion, morality and science all have avalue if used wisely. God creates, science creates, man uses the best he knows how both of theese things. There have been far more abuses of science than of nature against our fellow man.
B-I agree society doesn't operate under absolutes, and that we're adapting to our enviornment. Our enviornment moves towards entropy ( a constant) as does our operandi. Is it that hard to see that processes work from a variable to an ideal. Science tries to eliminate/control all variables for a sound solution that is consistantly constant. I'm just applying the same principles to moral development as a society.
C-If you can't see the breaking of probability in the RL events depicted then I don't think even God smacking you in the face, would convince you that he existed, and that is the definition of stubborn, closed-minded, unquestioning belief in your self-beliefs.
1-I don't
2-There were no people in line without food. If there were it would be evidenced that God allows some to suffer or perhaps allows them different avenues to fufill their needs.
D-Since his existence would rest outside our possible perspective it is a gray area.
E-And after humans are gone the concept of God will cease to be, and if he objectively exists and I can share his perspective after my death, I'd like to. The practicality of the now is that religion, morality and science all have avalue if used wisely. God creates, science creates, man uses the best he knows how both of theese things. There have been far more abuses of science than of nature against our fellow man.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
