***** wish, hope, lie...

+Catholic Dood because we've agreed that it's not conducive to life, or progress.... Did god choose for murder to be wrong, could he have made murder right?

Guess what theDarkNight!.. Although you disagree and even you do not believe, GOD NEVER STOP LOVING YOU!!! ISN'T WONDERFUL!!! Hope you are doing well, blessings!

I. THE DESIRE FOR GOD 27 The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will he find the truth and happiness he never stops searching for: The dignity of man rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God. This invitation to converse with God is addressed to man as soon as he comes into being. For if man exists it is because God has created him through love, and through love continues to hold him in existence. He cannot live fully according to truth unless he freely acknowledges that love and entrusts himself to his creator.

IV. HOW CAN WE SPEAK ABOUT GOD? 39 In defending the ability of human reason to know God, the Church is expressing her confidence in the possibility of speaking about him to all men and with all men, and therefore of dialogue with other religions, with philosophy and science, as well as with unbelievers and atheists. 40 Since our knowledge of God is limited, our language about him is equally so. We can name God only by taking creatures as our starting point, and in accordance with our limited human ways of knowing and thinking. 41 All creatures bear a certain resemblance to God, most especially man, created in the image and likeness of God. The manifold perfections of creatures - their truth, their goodness, their beauty all reflect the infinite perfection of God. Consequently we can name God by taking his creatures" perfections as our starting point, "for from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator".15 42 God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, image-bound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God--"the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable"--with our human representations.16 Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God. 43 Admittedly, in speaking about God like this, our language is using human modes of expression; nevertheless it really does attain to God himself, though unable to express him in his infinite simplicity. Likewise, we must recall that "between Creator and creature no similitude can be expressed without implying an even greater dissimilitude";17 and that "concerning God, we cannot grasp what he is, but only what he is not, and how other beings stand in relation to him."18

www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c1.htm#38

Tambourine Man, if everything is relative, then not even one's opinion matters-even to himself. It all is nebulous. Then, what I say now is relative and means nothing and holds no water. Neither would anyone's disagreement with me.

+Vicky P Strawman argument. Totally missed the point... Also, anyone who uses Chris' line of reasoning is being fairly disingenuous... Bertrand Russell's theory of types is a good rebuttal to Chris... There's a difference between properties of an individual number or claim and then properties of the set in which the number or claim is found or grouped within

+M GK incoherent argument. But, then again it's all relative. You have your truth and I have mine.

Vicky P No one in the history of humanity has ever held that view with seriousness

Allows what exactly -- skepticism of traditional values and customs? I'm going to go ahead and refrain from political commentary, mostly, but I'll touch on some of the points you made. The main one being something like, 'relativism allows for moral depravity on large scale.' I think it helps to view relativism as an epistemic question, one to be addressed theoretically, rather than as a axiom in our judicial courts as you seem to be inferring. I tend to believe that our lawyers and judges don't use moral relativism as a tool to further whatever (insert upsetting law here) you might have a problem with. Profound rulings such as Roe v Wade and what not speak to the fairly new ways in which we as a society constitute ourselves-- not something to be taken lightly. Sure, you can justify literally any action in theory by appealing to moral relativism, but I doubt our judicial figures are doing so

Don't spread lies!