or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The New Pope and 'Relativism'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The New Pope and 'Relativism' - Page 2  

post #41 of 193
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Chris, before you start positing specific scenarios that you regard as "stumpers", I'd be interested in your response to the preceding critique.

How can a given moral principle be "absolute" if we can identify large groups of people over long stretches of time that did not subscribe to same?

Are you arguing for some kind of perfect Platonic morality that has always existed in potential and has only recently emerged in practice?

Are you saying that what you, personally, now regard as moral absolutes take precedence over what they, then, believed? Are you therefore arguing that we (or at least you) have achieved moral progress over our forbears?

If so, how are you able to discern that this progress has achieved its pinnacle and that no further revisions are likely?

What I am saying that is I believe there is a "right" and "wrong" that is outside of us, which means that regardless of the fact the some people do some thing (X)...even a lot of people...at any given point in time...there are things that are simply "wrong"...and some that are simply "right". In short, I do not presume that truth or right and wrong emerge from within us, but exist outside of us and that our beliefs and behaviors (however collective they may be) do not determined what truth, right and wrong are.

I will never be able to prove this to someone whose base presupposition differs (in particular that truth, right and wrong are somehow derived from within us or collectively as society). That position is a rather tenuous one in my view, primarily because, if that is so, then "truth", "right" and "wrong" are never fixed, always changing and one cannot possibly know what they are (beyond a "best guess"), and what to do/not do (right/wrong). Society would be effectively paralized and in constant chaos as the new "truths", "rights" and "wrongs" are constantly emerging and competing with existing "truths", "rights" and "wrongs". One could never be certain whether they are believing/adhering to/doing/not doing the right (there we go again), "truths", "rights" and "wrongs" or the wrong ones (there it is again).

To summarize, I do not assume that truth/right/wrong are determined by what most people are believing/doing/not doing at a particular point in time. I also don't believe that a wrong is made to be "right" because of some otehr wrong that someone else is/may be doing (situational ethics).

Now, I also do not assume that I KNOW what all of the absolute truths/rights/wrongs are (though I think I have a pretty reasonable idea of what a base set of them).

As was mentioned earlier, sometimes we get tripped up with word definitions. That is a fair observation, but when we attempt to stretch, twist, water down definitions itno new things, then I guess we are completely incapable of havign any discussion at all, because...frankly...we don't know what the "true"/"right" meanings of those words are any more.

I think the whole "there is know absolute truth, right, wrong" is a clever, cute, fun, intellectual-sounding thing...but, to me, it is implausible and also seems improbable.
post #42 of 193
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I think the whole "there is know absolute truth, right, wrong" is a clever, cute, fun, intellectual-sounding thing...but, to me, it is implausible and also seems improbable.

I agree - it can turn in to that but it doesn't have to. Let's take it to your home-ground (so to speak) if you like and talk theologically....

...where do these absolutes of right and wrong come from iyo ? God ?
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
post #43 of 193
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
I agree - it can turn in to that but it doesn't have to. Let's take it to your home-ground (so to speak) if you like and talk theologically....

...where do these absolutes of right and wrong come from iyo ? God ?

I believe so.
post #44 of 193
I'm being bad again.

Deleted snotty post.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #45 of 193
Chris Cuilla:

Quote:
I believe so.

Ok. So how does this God you believe confers absolute right and wrong manifest himself to you to make these rights and wrongs known?
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #46 of 193
Oh shit! Have I suddenly become too mature for all this? I swear, I was so ready to launch into a killer argument about ontology and epistemology. Then I realized I'm rather comfortable with the distinction between what might be and what we might know, and am only suspicious of the motives of the loudest shouters on either side of this classic debate. What concerns me more than what people believe, is the consequence of their belief. Relativism has consequences. Fundamentalism has consequences. Mind them, and we might be OK. If not, back to your regularly scheduled bickering -- it's entertaining right up to the point where it becomes exhausting.
IBL!
IBL!
post #47 of 193
Pragmatism? Consequentialism?
post #48 of 193
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Chris Cuilla:



Ok. So how does this God you believe confers absolute right and wrong manifest himself to you to make these rights and wrongs known?

Exactly. And this goes for DMZ, as well. Because even if you want to divide the world into the god conscious and the self willed, you then have to account for a number of faith systems with varying takes on right and wrong.

At which point you no longer get to say, "My morality comes from God", but rather, "My morality comes from my God, who I believe to be the one true God."

Which is a very different argument from "people of faith acknowledge moral absolutes that materialists refuse to, on account of their blindness"
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
post #49 of 193
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Ok. So how does this God you believe confers absolute right and wrong manifest himself to you to make these rights and wrongs known?

Email. Fax. IM. Revelation. SMS.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #50 of 193
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Because even if you want to divide the world into the god conscious and the self willed, you then have to account for a number of faith systems with varying takes on right and wrong.

At which point you no longer get to say, "My morality comes from God", but rather, "My morality comes from my God, who I believe to be the one true God."

Which is a very different argument from "people of faith acknowledge moral absolutes that materialists refuse to, on account of their blindness"

You asked earlier what I was for, but I was too busy being a prick to answer....sorry... I need to cut that crap out.

BUT, to actuallly answer your question, As Sir John Polkinghorn has said:
---
A lot of my scientific friends think that what is important in religous belief is simply the unquestioning submission to some uncontestable authority. 'The Bible says here's the literal interpretation of this verse, it's not for you to question what's it's all about'. 'Just take it or leave it'. I think that scripture doesn't function that way, it's not a sort of divinely dictated textbook that has all the answers written on it's pages. It's a record of the Human encounter with the reality of God, first of all in the History of Israel, then of course, above all, in the life, death, and ressurection of Jesus Christ. It has an evidential role in that respect, it's a sort of...it's like a loboratory notebook if you like, of the spirtual life.
---

-- I think that Polkinghorn's statement is right on the money and it ties directly into the James Russel Lowell that I keep quoting. There is a certain general relativity that Christians continue to encounter in the development and expression of their faith, and I think when we look at Slavery, Indulgences and Calvin burning Servetus at the stake, you can tell that it has, and will take some time, for the expression of that Faith to be led into ALL truth. (Not that I think it's going to turn into the oppisite of itself -- incestous lesbian priestesses holding Mass at a foam party, notwithstanding)

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #51 of 193
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Chris Cuilla:

Ok. So how does this God you believe confers absolute right and wrong manifest himself to you to make these rights and wrongs known?

We have to back up a bit.

First we start with God as the creator.

This is a fundamental presupposition. Here is why...the creator of a system (we can think about the universe, planet, nature, mankind, etc...as one big...very complex...system.)...the creator of a system establishes the rules by which the system operates. The components of the system do not establish the rules...they merely conform (or not) to the rules.

In fact we observe this quite readily in everyday life. Nowhere do we observe systems that take on (really) a life of their own. The components of the systems we design and build as humans...always conform to the rules of the system...or they break...they certainly don't alter the rules.

This is all important because any other source (than the creator) would be unable to establish the rules...merely discover them (that's where we are...participants in the system.)

So, begining with a creating God, we have a couple of reasonably logical conclusions about him and his creation. He has:

1. Absolute power over it (omnipotence)
2. Complete knowledge of it (omniscience)
3. He knows the rules (the absolute "truths", "rights" and "wrongs" of his creation)

On to your question...how does he reveal them.

If you asking about the mechanics...To that there are many answers...in the Bible there are burning bushes, dreams, invisible hands writing on walls, etc. As an omnipotent creator of the system he has whatever means he wishes at his disposal...from a purely "mechanical" (how) perspective.

The more important question ought to be how can we know if a message is from the creator? The Bible addresses this rather directly itself:

http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?...onomy+18:21-22

Basically, if God is omniscient and omnipotent (as I have established as pre-conditions above) then he would be able to authenticate himself by sharing information that we (as participants in the system) would be unable to discover ourselves. The best approach would be to "predict" the future. This isn't necessarily how he would reveal the rules (truth/right/wrong)...but it would be the manner in which he could authenticate himself as the creator (and thus the source of the rules). At this point (going back to the linked passage)...as God reveals himself through human intermediaries...and authenticates himself...we could trust other revelations conveyed through the same intermediary.

"But wait!" you say. "What if the 'intermediary' wants to fool us...use his trust to mislead us?" Good question. At this point we need to trust that God (creator) could easily find a way to reveal that as well.

Of course there is faith involved in this. But it is a reasonable faith.
post #52 of 193
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I believe so.

In that case I ask you another question:

Can God do anything He wishes, change anything He wishes, do anything whatsoever ?

If the answer to that is yes, then there are no absolutes - if right and wrong come from Him and He has the power to change them, they cannot be absolutes.

The best they can be (in your terms) is 'God's will for the moment'.

If, oth, the answer to the question is 'no, then God is not God in the traditional terms of reference and whether or not morality comes from Him is irrelevant.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
post #53 of 193
dmz:

So relativism is just fine, so long as you are applying relativistic thought to the Bible?

Has your view on a Biblical teaching ever changed? And if it has, how do you know another wont change?

Even in the statement where you claim to advocate what you are for, the first thing in the quote is a swipe at non-believers. Its telling.


Chris Cuilla:

Quote:
This is a fundamental presupposition.

Well you are right about that. Its also a logical circle.

But heres a question to throw into your logical circle, see how it spins out:
Since you say that God created every part of our system, did God then do wrong by creating wrong (and, by extension, programming us to do wrong)? And if so, does that change anything -or- do Gods rules apply to God?

Quote:
The more important question ought to be how can we know if a message is from the creator? The Bible addresses this rather directly itself:

Ah, so the Bible is the assurance that the Bible is true.

Circles within circles.

Also, your Biblical passage has man determining what is right and what is wrong with regard to whether or not earthly prophets are right or wrong (to determine whether or not they should be followed).
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #54 of 193
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Basically, if God is omniscient and omnipotent (as I have established as pre-conditions above) then he would be able to authenticate himself by sharing information that we (as participants in the system) would be unable to discover ourselves.

The best approach would be to "predict" the future.

No it wouldn't (and even if it was attempted it has failed), the best approach would be to describe his creation perfectly in ways that were unknown to man at the time of the revelation. Ie:

The earth is round

The sun is the centre of the solar system

The circulation of the blood etc etc...

None of this is implicit in the Bible - which is why the Church could believe erroneous facts for centuries (and kill the people who pointed to the truth).

In fact, none of the scientific discoveries of the west owe anything to the Bible at all - man had to discover them himself and when he did, he found they were the opposite of what the Church taught in the vast majority of cases.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
post #55 of 193
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
In fact, none of the scientific discoveries of the west owe anything to the Bible at all - man had to discover them himself and when he did, he found they were the opposite of what the Church taught in the vast majority of cases.

You are right to say that none came from the Bible (the book), but many scientific discoveries came from clergy. After all, in many cases only clergy and nobility were allowed to be educated, so it had to come from somewhere.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #56 of 193
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
dmz:

So relativism is just fine, so long as you are applying relativistic thought to the Bible?

Has your view on a Biblical teaching ever changed? And if it has, how do you know another wont change?

Even in the statement where you claim to advocate what you are for, the first thing in the quote is a swipe at non-believers. Its telling.

It's only telling in that there is no neutrality -- any flippant use of hyperbole is going to catch someone in the crossfire.

And yes, I know Christian expression WILL change over time, there is still a great many questions that have yet to be collectively answered. BUT it cannot turn into the opposite of itself; there are issues of "derived order", 'Lordship', etc. that can't change, since this is not simply a shift in preceptions, but a return to an original theism.

There is another thread on wives -- a good example of how this "change" in Christianity can be done right, and how it can be done wrong.

If you ignore the Victorian-rich-enough-to-have-servants paradigm, women have always worked, in fact, they have ususually worked harder than men. If you look at various agrarian cultures, even in Amercia into the early 20th century, this has been true.

But today, there is some conflict on the husband/wife arrangement -- should women be baby factories and follow the Dr. Laura paradigm -- waiting for Thar' Maaaan with a drink and dinner on the table? Is that fullfilling? Of course not. Is a child raised in day care that sees it's mother or father basically on the weekends good? No, that's not good either.

What to do? The concept of family existence has been impacted by industry, city planning [read: the commute], and labor saving technology that have taken the time to keep a house in order to minutes, not hours.

So, if you are looking to the past as the source of social norms, you'll go with Dr. Laura. But when you examine that position closely, you find that Man=Paycheck and nothing more -- myself I'd like to be more than a paycheck.

could there be a God-revealed paradigm of the man/woman working together?

Yes.

But it's not going to look anything like the book of Deuteronomy -- maybe tangentially like the virtuous woman in Proverbs -- but it will have to be something that Christians are led into by the Spirit, and done in Faith. It will be new, it will have it's roots in the concept of the family -- man as head of the wife as Christ is head of the Church, etc., but will adapt -- depending on the maturity of the husband/wife, in theory (and probably only in theory) the man could stay home (after breastfeeding) if he was providing the (spiritual) leadership.

Because, in the end, the root of family life is not selfishness, or nihilism, but the God-ordered paradigm of two people working together as a family, not to buy toys [cars, vacations, time shares, etc.].

I think that is as good an example as I can give without resorting to Quoting This Present Crisis

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #57 of 193
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Can God do anything He wishes, change anything He wishes, do anything whatsoever ?

Yes.

Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
If the answer to that is yes, then there are no absolutes - if right and wrong come from Him and He has the power to change them, they cannot be absolutes.

The best they can be (in your terms) is 'God's will for the moment'.

Fair enough. But you presume that he does.
post #58 of 193
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Well you are right about that. Its also a logical circle.

How is saying that God is creator a logical circle?

Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Since you say that God created every part of our system, did God then do wrong by creating wrong (and, by extension, programming us to do wrong)? And if so, does that change anything -or- do Gods rules apply to God?

God created a free choice/free will..allowing us to make our own choices. When we do these in violation of God's will is creates what is "wrong"...and BTW...what do you mean by "wrong"?

Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Ah, so the Bible is the assurance that the Bible is true.

No...the validation comes from checking what is said against reality. Someone says X will happen at Y point in time (the future). Does it? Did it? If so...where did that come from? Lucky guess?

Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Also, your Biblical passage has man determining what is right and what is wrong with regard to whether or not earthly prophets are right or wrong (to determine whether or not they should be followed).

It provides a clear test to determine if something is from an omnipotent, omniscient God.
post #59 of 193
dmz:

Quote:
And yes, I know Christian expression WILL change over time, there is still a great many questions that have yet to be collectively answered.

It's not just about Christian "expression", it's about actual beliefs that translate to actions. What you seem to end up with logically is that Christians can do literally anything at all and it is right so long as they can come up with an "expression" of the action in the Bible.
If the Bible is nothing more than something one attempts to justify retroactively (i.e. - experience truth in life then search for an explanation in the Bible) how does that justify, in any way, a belief that the Bible is the source of absolute truth?

So, as I asked earlier, it's ok to be relativistic so long as one accepts the Bible's primacy; one can be relativistic, but only if they use the Bible as their source of authority?

Are you arguing that there is an absolute we just have no real idea as to what it is?

What am I to make of Christendom? Fractured and splintered into myriad sects, all bitterly arguing over not just trifling matters but seemingly large matters of faith. What absolute truth is there?

I really don't see how I am supposed to take it seriously on a level past "well I believe it so be nice to me."


CC:

Quote:
But you presume that he does.

What on earth does that mean?
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #60 of 193
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
No it wouldn't (and even if it was attempted it has failed), the best approach would be to describe his creation perfectly in ways that were unknown to man at the time of the revelation.

Actually this is only partly true...but the things you list are discoverable by man. The future is not...at least until it arrives.

Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
The earth is round

The sun is the centre of the solar system

The circulation of the blood etc etc...

None of this is implicit in the Bible

But none contradict what the Bible says either. Just because the Bible is not a complete, detailed, science text doesn't mean it is invalid.

Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
In fact, none of the scientific discoveries of the west owe anything to the Bible at all - man had to discover them himself and when he did, he found they were the opposite of what the Church taught in the vast majority of cases.

I am not talking about "the church".
post #61 of 193
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
What on earth does that mean?

You presume that because God can change anything, that he does.

( why on earth am I even engaging with groverat )
post #62 of 193
CC:

Quote:
How is saying that God is creator a logical circle?

How can it be anything else? It's the ultimate logical circle.

God is right because he made "right".

Quote:
God created a free choice/free will..allowing us to make our own choices. When we do these in violation of God's will is creates what is "wrong"...and BTW...what do you mean by "wrong"?

So God didn't create everything?

Quote:
No...the validation comes from checking what is said against reality. Someone says X will happen at Y point in time (the future). Does it? Did it? If so...where did that come from? Lucky guess?

How often does the Bible or do Christians try and predict the future?

The only real instances I can think of are massive failures; like Paul's teachings on the second coming. And innumerable millenialists have bumped around for the longest time, ends of days always coming, it's always Real Soon Now.

And when the Bible is flat out wrong, well I guess it's time to change our "interpretation" of what the Bible says so we can keep it going along.

Quote:
It provides a clear test to determine if something is from an omnipotent, omniscient God.

How is it clear if it is man determining what is right and what is wrong? That's relativism. Just admit it already.

Quote:
You presume that because God can change anything, that he does.

So, as has been asked repeatedly, it's all right to be relativistic, so long as one accepts God (Biblical god, of course)?

Quote:
But none contradict what the Bible says either. Just because the Bible is not a complete, detailed, science text doesn't mean it is invalid.

None of those do, but there is plenty in the Bible that contradicts our basic understandings of science.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #63 of 193
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
dmz:
It's not just about Christian "expression", it's about actual beliefs that translate to actions. What you seem to end up with logically is that Christians can do literally anything at all and it is right so long as they can come up with an "expression" of the action in the Bible.
If the Bible is nothing more than something one attempts to justify retroactively (i.e. - experience truth in life then search for an explanation in the Bible) how does that justify, in any way, a belief that the Bible is the source of absolute truth?

So, as I asked earlier, it's ok to be relativistic so long as one accepts the Bible's primacy; one can be relativistic, but only if they use the Bible as their source of authority?

Are you arguing that there is an absolute we just have no real idea as to what it is?

What am I to make of Christendom? Fractured and splintered into myriad sects, all bitterly arguing over not just trifling matters but seemingly large matters of faith. What absolute truth is there?

It's more of a spritual thing in some respects, with that Polkinghorn quote, and the idea of derived order at it's center. There is a passage [Isaiah?] that states "He will write his laws on their hearts" -- but this won't somehow nullify the Ten Commandments, either. We are all slowly growing into the people we were truly meant to be.

At any rate you're not starting from a drived order premise, you're starting with God under the true scrutiny of man, so it's not going to mean the same thing for you as this does for me.

But as the guy over on Slashdot said this morning "Hey! Idle processes are eating 100% of my CPU activity!"

Bye.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #64 of 193
Quote:
At any rate you're not starting from a drived order premise, you're starting with God under the true scrutiny of man, so it's not going to mean the same thing for you as this does for me.

So the answer to my question (relativism is proper so long as one believes in the primacy of the Bible; whatever that would mean for this minute in history) is "yes".

Fantastic.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #65 of 193
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Yes.

Fair enough. But you presume that he does.

The Bible is full of examples where He does. It even states that 'God repents of the evil He intended to do' which is interesting food for thought.

In fact, the sending of Jesus as an atonement is the classic example of God changing absolutes: before Christ there was the Mosaic law of 'an eye for an eye' (the absolute of that time) and God repealed this with the New Covenant of forgiveness.

This is clearly and explicitly stated.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
post #66 of 193
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
How can it be anything else? It's the ultimate logical circle.

God is right because he made "right".

Okay...you want to be right...so you are.

Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
So God didn't create everything?

Nope. That's not what I said. But then you're not paying attention, so I shouldn't expect you to see that.

Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
How often does the Bible or do Christians try and predict the future?

Depending on who is counting, there are hundreds of prophecies in the Bible. More than 300 prophecies were fulfilled by Christ Himself at His first coming. The mathematical odds of this are astronomical in fact.

Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
The only real instances I can think of are massive failures; like Paul's teachings on the second coming. And innumerable millenialists have bumped around for the longest time, ends of days always coming, it's always Real Soon Now.

You are saying that someone's interpretation of the prediction is wrong...not the prediction itself.

Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
And when the Bible is flat out wrong, well I guess it's time to change our "interpretation" of what the Bible says so we can keep it going along.

For example?

Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
How is it clear if it is man determining what is right and what is wrong? That's relativism. Just admit it already.

Okay...you want to be right...so you are.

Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
None of those do, but there is plenty in the Bible that contradicts our basic understandings of science.

Then you'll have no trouble enumerating them.
post #67 of 193
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
So the answer to my question (relativism is proper so long as one believes in the primacy of the Bible; whatever that would mean for this minute in history) is "yes".

Fantastic.

Dangerously oversimplifed, but yes.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #68 of 193
CC:

Quote:
You are saying that someone's interpretation of the prediction is wrong...not the prediction itself.

The Bible doesn't have anything except a series of "interpretations". The Bible is nothing without someone to read it and interpret it.

Since Paul we have had countless doom-sayers using the Bible, saying it proves X and Y, and ALL have been dead wrong.

Is it possible for there to ever be a point when the Bible characters' myriad predictions about the end times can be considered false?

Quote:
For example?

Matthew 24:34
Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

That's not Paul, that's Jesus Christ.

If any other book said something like this it would be dismissed, by you, outright. It would fail the test. Only because it has been predetermined by certain humans that the Bible is right no matter what it says is such an astounding logical hypocrisy justifiable.

Only because the Bible is right in advance is this obviously wrong statement made right. So it's right because it's right. It's a logical circle.

You can have a logical circle, that's fine, just don't try and introduce it as anything useful to anyone except yourself.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #69 of 193
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Matthew 24:34
Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

That's not Paul, that's Jesus Christ.

If any other book said something like this......[/B]

That's an interesting passage, but it has to do with the destruction of Jerusalem, and the coming of the kingdom, i.e. the conflagration with and shaking of the Roman empire -- both of which very much came true -- remember the persecutions basically started with Nero -- 60ish A.D. Other than some Danielesque imagery there isn't too much to get worked up over.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #70 of 193
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
That's an interesting passage, but it has to do with the destruction of Jerusalem, and the coming of the kingdom, i.e. the conflagration with and shaking of the Roman empire -- both of which very much came true -- remember the persecutions basically started with Nero -- 60ish A.D. Other than some Danielesque imagery there isn't too much to get worked up over.

Try this:

And he said to them, "Most certainly I tell you, there are some standing here who will in no way taste death until they see the Kingdom of God come with power"

Mark 1:9
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
post #71 of 193
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Try this:

And he said to them, "Most certainly I tell you, there are some standing here who will in no way taste death until they see the Kingdom of God come with power"

Mark 1:9

Yes, that's exactly my point -- the overtaking of Rome -- basically foretold in Daniel -- was well on it's way before (John at least) died.

[chopped the rest]

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #72 of 193
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Yes, that's exactly my point -- the overtaking of Rome -- basically foretold in Daniel -- was well on it's way before (John at least) died.

(Not that this will sit well with a premill adherent, but it's really the only take on this that makes sense. I can't see either Daniel or Christ missing the showdown between Rome and Christianity)

I think the other way of seeing "until they see the Kingdom of God come with power" is seeing the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. That is certainly the "Kingdom of God coming with power".
post #73 of 193
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I think the other way of seeing "until they see the Kingdom of God come with power" is seeing the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. That is certainly the "Kingdom of God coming with power".

Ah, you beat me to an edit -- I just slapped my forehead!

That's true -- the implications of 'now shall the prince of this world be cast out', conquering sin and death, have to be there, too.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #74 of 193
Thread Starter 
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
post #75 of 193
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
That's an interesting passage, but it has to do with the destruction of Jerusalem, and the coming of the kingdom, i.e. the conflagration with and shaking of the Roman empire -- both of which very much came true -- remember the persecutions basically started with Nero -- 60ish A.D. Other than some Danielesque imagery there isn't too much to get worked up over.

CC presents the second coming as the "other" interpretation, but if you read Matthew 24, it is actually the only interpretation. It is not unclear at all.

I'll flesh it out with a little more context for those who haven't read the Bible too many times:
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:

33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.

34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.


It's not just about one of the signs (destruction of Jerusalem); Jesus Christ said "'till all these things be fulfilled."

All.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #76 of 193
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius

c'mon, sergovious, what about all of the "kingdom of Heaven" is like unto this or that....the mustard seed or leaven, it starts small but eventually becomes predominant.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #77 of 193
On the science front, interesting note... "and the moon shall not give her light".

Here we have the son of god claiming the moon as an actual light source.

proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #78 of 193
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
CC presents the second coming as the "other" interpretation, but if you read Matthew 24, it is actually the only interpretation. It is not unclear at all.

I'll flesh it out with a little more context for those who haven't read the Bible too many times:
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:

33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.

34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

It's not just about one of the signs (destruction of Jerusalem); Jesus Christ said "'till all these things be fulfilled."

All.


The sun/moon/cloud stuff is echoed in Daniel, Isaiah, and Revelation, and is an alegorical reference, and the standard way of referencing those sorts of things in Biblical imagery. The same for the 'sign' in the heavens. The gathering of the elect from one end of the Earth to the other is ongoing as well. The trumpet, yes, has been associated with the second coming, but it was also associated with the Jewish Jubilee.

(Don't forget, He told the High Priest essentially the same thing)

Edit: also don't forget the budding of the fig tree means the beginning of summer, not winter

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #79 of 193
Quote:
The sun/moon/cloud stuff is echoed in Daniel, Isaiah, and Revelation, and is an alegorical reference, and the standard way of referencing those sorts of things in Biblical imagery. The same for the 'sign' in the heavens. The gathering of the elect from one end of the Earth to the other is ongoing as well. The trumpet, yes, has been associated with the second coming, but it was also associated with the Jewish Jubilee.

You ignore: "and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."

Quote:
Edit: also don't forget the budding of the fig tree means the beginning of summer, not winter

When did I say otherwise?
The second coming will bring the earthly reign of Christ; surely a summer to Christians.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #80 of 193
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
You ignore: "and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."



When did I say otherwise?
The second coming will bring the earthly reign of Christ; surely a summer to Christians.

Well, don't forget, it's the sign of the son of man, so even at face value it's not the second coming. Also, There's a passage in Isiah, that states "...the Lord rideth on a swift cloud and cometh into Egypt...", the cloud imagery is pretty standard fare.

Don't forget this whole passage was in response the the Disciples asking about the end of the world, after Christ had told them that the temple would be destroyed. And the passage -- even at face value -- stops just short of describing the second coming and resurection.

Also, you've got to understand the scale of the destruction of Jerusalem, 1,000,000 people crucified -- can you imagine? What would that look like? smell like?, 2,000,000 sold into slavery, the temple destroyed, and then on top of that at the same time Rome begins the persecutions because of the scale at which people were abandoning Emporer worship and all that that entails for Rome's social order. An uprooting of Earthly power for the Jews, their temple destroyed, etc., the power of Rome beginning to wane.

Why wouldn't that look like the end of the world?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The New Pope and 'Relativism'