Relativism VS. Absoulte

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by Anduril
I'm still trying to figure out what absoulte is.

Perhaps we have been discussing the wrong thing this whole time

[Wayfarer]

I'll apologize in advance, but since I'm here, I may as well...


Anduril, you overloork a critical detail in your argument: God causes all death. Christian theology makes it clear that we have life only because He gives it to us. And that we have only a limited time in this life before making the transition to eternity.

Your ragument fails due to your metaphysical assumptions. I.,E. death is a bad thing, and so god causing or allowing humans to die is bad, etc, etc. That's fine for you, a materialist, to say, but it's completely off base when we're discussing Christian Metaphysics. Because, as I stated briefly above, christianity tells you that this life isn't all there is. In fact, it tells you that this life is only a shadow compared to what eternity can be...

Now... you say that "Except that when God gets angry, and exercises his wrath, people die." Let's think abou this for a moment... Don't all people die? In fact I can think of at least two examples offhand where men are singled out for special attention by the fact that they don't die. Interesting.

Now. Infant death in particular. I have not answered you because-let's be honest- I didn't have an answer. I have done what research I can on the subject, and the I am tempted to reply with the judaic stance-that children too young to tell right from wrong aren't condemned. But, alas, 'those who do not have the law will perish apart from the law'. I am still unsure of hte answer.

Now, your hypothetical scenerio. I have two comments: First, X was a fool, who either had no idea what repentance and salvation involve, or else had no real intention of becoming saved. Secondly, you (though I'll not call you a fool) have an equally poor understanding of christian theology to say such a thing. But I've already answered you:

one never knows how long one will live, and that is why Christians emphasize that one needs to make the choice now while there is still time for choosing, because one never knows how much time there is left...

Some people aren't given the same amount of time as others.

Indeed. And it is idle to say it. Perhaps, if given an eternity to make the choice, all would make it. But such speculation is useless. The amount of time is not nearly so important as the fact that the choice itself is given. Those who forgo salvation are in no less perilous a position than those that reject it outright.

Now... Christian suffering. I thank you for pointing out a slight error on my part. Suffering does not occcur unless something is wrong, but it is not in all cases merely a deterrent or an indicator. Christ suffered so that what was wrong could be made right. And (in language you'll love, but i'm ready for you) we are told that he was 'made perfect in his suffering'. So it can also be that suffering is what corrects the things that are wrong. Or that the correction hurts. Both of which, I think, can be true.

God loved those 10,000 Moabites, didn't he? He wanted their good, didn't he? Nope. He had them destroyed.

Yes. He wanted their good. He would have given anything to see them saved. And indeed he did, he gave everything. He sumitted his son, who was also himself, to death-for the good of sinful people...

And indeed, he says that he has 'waited for their wickedness to reach it's full measure' before destroying them, but when 'their hearts were filled with evil all the time' there was no reason to prolong their existance. If they face the same eternal destiny whether they live or die, and there is no chance of them repenting, it is better that they should die than continue on content in their corruption.

why is the state of affairs the same? Unfortunately for Wayfarer, his omnipotent deity cannot "fix" it.

But of course, things have always been the same. God has sent prophets, wise men, great moral teachers, who one after another try and convince humanity to turn from their sinful ways. He allows this world that he made to fall slowly into ruin, so that humanity might turn to him and be saved. Some do. But the rest do not, and nothing can be done to make them.


Aye! There's the rub. Because, as I hope you'll see, the fact that God created beings with free will is a great miracle it itself. In effect, God has created a boulder which he cannot move. I have said before, and shall say again, He wants to bring you into into communion with himself, but you, and only you, must make that choice. It is yours to accept or reject. In a grand irony, the all powerful, self existant creator of everything submits to defeat by his own handiwork. You.

[emplynx]

Dude, Wayfarer you're brilliant.

[Wayfarer]

Addendum: On relativism.

I had an interesting thought earlier, which I forgot to include in my last post.

Relativists say that there is no absolute standard, that everything is based on culture and company, etc. But doesn't general relativity, from which cultural relativism derived much of it's initial power, have one constant-namely, the speed of light?

I was reminded of something Xandre said earlier-that christianity is relativistic. And i guess that in some ways it is. We have an absolute standard of goodness-but everything else is relative.

On the other hand, it's explicitly said that comparing yourself to other people is wrong.

Oh, and emplynx, some reading for you:

Luke 12:1-12 (How I deal with things like this)
James 1:5 (The origin for my intelligience)
Jeremiah 1:17-19 (The exact reason why I am insuffurable)
2 Corinthians 5:13 (why I have no problem beeing seen as a lunatic)

[Rána Eressëa]

I'm just waiting for the concrete . . . solid . . . physical proof that there are any absolutes.

And words/books which derived from human thought cannot count as proof since they are just paper, ink, etc.

[BeardofPants]

Emplynx, you are such a "suck-butt."

RE: Darned tootin'. Two things: human fallacy, and the problems of subjectivity. CAN humans study humans objectively? Taking this further: can humans study ANYTHING objectively? Even our process of observation is problematic. Having said that; is there anything that comes close to being absolutely absolute?

[Arathorn]

Not for us humans, BoP. I get what you're saying.

As for your last question, my existence as observed by me looks like it. But then again, I might be just a piece of memory playing in someone else's mind, archive player, etc...

I can't be too sure but I have faith in some of the things I was brought up on and which I chose to believe. That keeps me sane.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
[B]Addendum: On relativism.

Relativists say that there is no absolute standard, that everything is based on culture and company, etc. But doesn't general relativity, from which cultural relativism derived much of it's initial power, have one constant-namely, the speed of light?

Err- no. The speed of light isn't constant, nor absolute. It changes, relative to what medium it is moving through. There are also quantum scale fluctuations in the speed... very small, negligible even, but they are there.

I was reminded of something Xandre said earlier-that christianity is relativistic. And i guess that in some ways it is. We have an absolute standard of goodness-but everything else is relative.

On the other hand, it's explicitly said that comparing yourself to other people is wrong.

Which is one of the reasons Cristianity is relative.... You don't compare yourself to other people, but you are judged as an individual. Which falls well in the range of reletivism in my opinion.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Emplynx, you are such a "suck-butt."

RE: Darned tootin'. Two things: human fallacy, and the problems of subjectivity. CAN humans study humans objectively? Taking this further: can humans study ANYTHING objectively? Even our process of observation is problematic. Having said that; is there anything that comes close to being absolutely absolute?

Certain mathematical entities do. There are absolutes... they just aren't concerned or involved in human affairs you know?

Zero and infinity, alpha and omega, intersect with your existence nly on a very limited, negligible, smidgin of a slice.

[emplynx]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Addendum: On relativism.

I had an interesting thought earlier, which I forgot to include in my last post.

Relativists say that there is no absolute standard, that everything is based on culture and company, etc. But doesn't general relativity, from which cultural relativism derived much of it's initial power, have one constant-namely, the speed of light?

I was reminded of something Xandre said earlier-that christianity is relativistic. And i guess that in some ways it is. We have an absolute standard of goodness-but everything else is relative.

On the other hand, it's explicitly said that comparing yourself to other people is wrong.

Oh, and emplynx, some reading for you:

Luke 12:1-12 (How I deal with things like this)
James 1:5 (The origin for my intelligience)
Jeremiah 1:17-19 (The exact reason why I am insuffurable)
2 Corinthians 5:13 (why I have no problem beeing seen as a lunatic)

You keep thy loins girded up wayfarer! Those are good verses, but you are brilliant none-the-less. I was going to mention as Blackheart said, the speed of light really isn't absolute anymore (but morals are still!)

[BeardofPants]

Morals are NOT absolute. In the first sense, because different people have different codes of morals. In the second sense, not everyone has conformed to the western ideal.

And you HAD to say loins didn't you? Now I HAVE to point and laugh.

*Points, and laughs*

[Wayfarer]

Confound it all! you're right, of course, and I should have remembered that. I have problems with my supercharged memory sometimes.

Which is one of the reasons Cristianity is relative.... You don't compare yourself to other people, but you are judged as an individual. Which falls well in the range of reletivism in my opinion.

I cannot make heads or tails of that.
In my book relativism involves judging different people by different standards... the idea that different cultures, races, classes, or sexes are subject to different standards of right and wrong, and even within larger groups different people can have different morals and all be equally right.

Christians hold that everyone is judged by an absolute goodness, not in comparison to the people around them. True, God is pleased with any attempt whatsoever to improve, but he ultimately won't be satisfied with anything less then perfection.

You keep thy loins girded up wayfarer!

What are you trying to say?

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
[B]
I cannot make heads or tails of that.
In my book relativism involves judging different people by different standards...

now you've done it. define different.

Christians hold that everyone is judged by an absolute goodness, not in comparison to the people around them. True, God is pleased with any attempt whatsoever to improve, but he ultimately won't be satisfied with anything less then perfection

Actually, there's plenty of text to support the idea that people are judged as individuals. And no one is judged by perfection any more. The standard was lowered, I suppose because no one was getting in.

[emplynx]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
What are you trying to say?

I was just wise cracking on one of the verses you gave me. No offence.

[Andúril]

Me:
Wayfarer needs to show why his god will necessarily "not let evil go unpunished" if "he is good".

Wayfarer has not yet done this. His argument needs to (roughly) comply with the following format:

1) God is good.
2) ?
3) Therefore, God will not let evil go unpunished

If he cannot fill in (2), which is a co-dependant supporting premise with (1) for (3), then his argument is non-sequitur.

Additionally, even if he can provide the supporting premise, he still needs to convince us that premise (1) is true. This entails providing a definition for "good", and showing that God indeed satisfies the requirements to be labeled "good". The same criteria is needed for the conclusion (3): a definition for "evil", and what it means (in context) for God to "punish" someone.

Wayfarer:
God causes all death.

For the benefit of Wayfarer and perhaps others, I have posited an argument to show his illogic:

Let there be persons X and Y.

1) Y has free will.
2) X is shot dead by Y.
3) Therefore, Y caused the death of X [from 1 & 2].
4) God causes all death.
5) Therefore, God caused the death of X [from 4].
6) Therefore, God caused the death of X, and Y caused the death of X.

Looking at (2), we see no sign of God's part in the death of X. The only way that God could have a part, or be a cause (i.e primary or secondary), would be that he caused Y to kill X. This is impossible, because (1) - free will is independant of God's will. That is not to say that the results of free will are necessarily different to the results of God's will, just that the results of free will are not caused by God's will. If events are caused by God's intentions, then those events were not caused by free will agents, independantly of God. Therefore, if the death of X was caused by God (because God causes all deaths), then the death of X was not caused by Y (a free will agent), independantly of God.

Additionally, if we ponder the primary/secondary cause defense, we should see that if God causes someone to do something, then that person is not liable for what has been done. Since God causes all death, no death is caused by human free will. It follows that if no death is caused by human free will, then humans are not responsible for deaths that (seemingly) are caused by them. The intermediate conclusion then is that the causation of death by humans is not a sin, because it is not against God's will, but it is actually a result of God's will. The final conclusion is that those who kill are no more sinful then those who don't (all things considered).

Thou shalt not kill.

Perhaps Wayfarer can explain how this commandment works. Because as I see it, if one does kill, one has become (temporarily) an agent of God's will.

On the other hand, perhaps Wayfarer will admit that between the two propositions, either God causes all death is false, or all humans have uninterrupted free will is false. In any case, we would like to see Wayfarer's textual evidence that "God causes all death".

More:
Your ragument[sic] fails due to your metaphysical assumptions. I.,E. death is a bad thing, and so god causing or allowing humans to die is bad, etc, etc.

I'm suprised that Wayfarer hasn't seen it yet. But let me try again. I will quote Wayfarer from his previous posts.

God wishes that humans should be made right, whatever the cost to us, whatever the cost to himself.

[snip]

Now, God vehemently wants us to have what is best for us. That is to say, he desires our good (because he loves us). In fact, he wishes to make each of us perfect, he wants us to be in right relationship with hin[sic] and each other.

[snip]

Make no mistake-he wants you to be made right whatever the cost to himself or to you.

[snip]

What God does is allow us to live so that A. we might come to know him and be made right and B. That we may help others do the same.

[snip]

I said before that God wanted to fix everything that's wrong with us

[snip]

On the upside, I know that He wants each of us to make that choice.

Now, let me quote myself.

Here is a small list of the God's "reactions", i.e. those murdered indirectly (divine orders) or directly:

All of these people were killed. They suffered death. Implied by the above quotes from Wayfarer, death suffered by non-believers prematurely (i.e. by God's specific intervention), is bad, because:

1) God wishes that humans should be made right, whatever the cost to us, whatever the cost to himself.
But since he has now killed these humans, the ability to be made right no longer exists for them.

2) God vehemently wants us to have what is best for us. That is to say, he desires our good (because he loves us). In fact, he wishes to make each of us perfect, he wants us to be in right relationship with hin[sic] and each other.
But since he has now killed these humans, they cannot have what is best for them, nor can they be made perfect, and they cannot be in the right relationship with him and each other.

3) he wants you to be made right whatever the cost to himself or to you.
But since he has now killed these humans, they cannot be made right.

4) What God does is allow us to live so that A. we might come to know him and be made right and B. That we may help others do the same.
But since he has now killed these humans, they cannot live so that they might come to know him, nor can they help others do the same.

5) I said before that God wanted to fix everything that's wrong with us.
But since he has now killed these humans, they cannot be fixed.

6) [i]On the upside, I know that He wants each of us to make that choice.[/i
But since he has now killed these humans, they cannot make that choice.

In all of these examples, we see that God's intentions - to make humans right, to have what is best for them, to desire their good, to make them perfect, etc, cannot be fulfilled by killing them. And if killing people stops God from doing what he wants to do, then killing people is bad.

Not only is it bad, it is foolish.

[Andúril]

More:
Because, as I stated briefly above, christianity tells you that this life isn't all there is.

Except that according to Christianity, the time of "this life" is the only time we have to make decisions pertaining to our continued spiritual existence. Cutting it short because he doesn't like what you've done up to now is foolish. In fact, creating someone who eventually suffers this fate is foolish.

More:
In fact I can think of at least two examples offhand where men are singled out for special attention by the fact that they don't die. Interesting.

Perhaps Wayfarer would supply these examples.

More:
...X was a fool...

Matthew 5:22 Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Luckily it was just a hypothetical character, but if a real example of X existed, would Wayfarer still call him a fool?

More:
...I'll not call you a fool...

But is he certain that he isn't thinking it? Hopefully Wayfarer knows that God sees his (Wayfarer's) thoughts....

How about this: say that X was generally happy with his sinful life, but deep down he had a feeling of guilt, and that he knew that one day, his guilt would be so great that he would turn to the religion of his society (Christianity). But before this could happen, God killed him (if we accept Wayfarer's claim that "God causes all death"). God, in effect, stopped X from possibly joining the flock at a later stage. It seems that God wanted X to experience hell for eternity more than he wanted X to experience heaven for eternity.

More:
The amount of time is not nearly so important as the fact that the choice itself is given.

I disagree. If one person becomes a Christian at the age of 60, why shouldn't all people be allowed to live that long? Say that person was born in 1940. His twin, like him, was an atheist, but died at the age of 60 as an atheist. If God causes all death, then why did God cause the death of the twin when it was possible that the twin become a Christian at a later stage? Indeed, why kill anyone at any age when it is possible to become a Christian later on? Moreover, why "allow" people to die as non-Christians if that is not what you want? If you want the best for people, for God's sake kill them when they ARE Christians!

More:
Suffering does not occcur[sic] unless something is wrong...

The following is from a newsletter from Back to the Bible:

I have walked all three of my daughters down the aisle when they were married, but that's a privilege my dear friend Frank Suttle will never have. I have some very sad news to share with you.

Frank has been a dynamo for God. He is Back to the Bible's director for South Asia and heads up our ministry in India and Nepal. But on Thursday of this last week, tragedy struck.

Dr. Frank Suttle was being driven from Hyderabad, where Back to the Bible's office is located, to Bangalore to attend meetings for Gospel Recordings, another fine ministry in India. Frank is a board member of Gospel Recordings. About 120 miles outside of Bangalore their car hit a large rock in the center of the road. The vehicle flipped over and rolled three times, fracturing Frank's vertebrae 12 and 13. As serious as that is, there is worse news. Frank's spinal cord was severed in the accident and he will never walk again.

What does that tell me? That I don't want to follow in Frank Suttle's footsteps.

More:
Yes. He wanted their good. He would have given anything to see them saved. And indeed he did, he gave everything. He sumitted his son, who was also himself, to death-for the good of sinful people...

He wanted their good? He killed them, and they are now in Hell. Is that what Wayfarer means by good? He would give anything to see them saved? He killed them, and they are not saved. If he had wanted them saved, he certainly would not have killed them. He gave up his son for their good? They are in hell. But wait, I forgot, eternal punishment is "good" according to Wayfarer...

More:
And indeed, he says that he has 'waited for their wickedness to reach it's full measure' before destroying them, but when 'their hearts were filled with evil all the time' there was no reason to prolong their existance.

Who is Wayfarer talking about? The worlds population just before the flood? Does that apply to all cases where God kills people, or only to that case?

More:If they face the same eternal destiny whether they live or die, and there is no chance of them repenting, it is better that they should die than continue on content in their corruption.

Actually, it is better that they were not created at all. If God is benevolent, he would not want any being to suffer eternal torment. Would a loving deity even create a place like Hell? I would like Wayfarer to complete the following argument:

1) God is benevolent [by definition]
2) A benevolent deity wants the best for each of us.
3) ?
4) Therefore, God created Hell, so that some of us would suffer for eternity [from 2 & 3].

Wayfarer must show why it follows from (2) that a benevolent deity created a place that provides eternal torment.

Additionally, I would like to see Wayfarer's explanation as to why humans that end up in Hell are created at all, if God is benevolent.

More:
But of course, things have always been the same. God has sent prophets, wise men, great moral teachers, who one after another try and convince humanity to turn from their sinful ways. He allows this world that he made to fall slowly into ruin, so that humanity might turn to him and be saved. Some do. But the rest do not, and nothing can be done to make them.

If God wanted, he could "click his fingers" and his creation would be not only just the way he wants it, but the way that he wants it forever. That is within the capabilities of an all-powerful creator, is it not? But the Christian deity, is he that powerful? Unfortunately, he tried once, and failed, so he wiped out mankind (except for a few), then started again, and look where we are? Is this the state of affairs that God wants? Wayfarer says that "nothing can be done to make them". Is he serious? Is his deity that impotent?

More:
Aye! There's the rub. Because, as I hope you'll see, the fact that God created beings with free will is a great miracle it itself.

Wayfarer thinks it is a miracle. I think it is an example of incredible evil - creating beings that you know are destined to "eternal hellfire".

More:
I have said before, and shall say again, He wants to bring you into into communion with himself, but you, and only you, must make that choice.

I have said before, and shall say again, if God kills someone before they can make that choice, then he does not really want to bring all of us, every created being, into communion with himself. He would rather have "sinners" spend eternity in hell than have them spend eternity in heaven. Can Wayfarer really call his god a "loving" god?

[emplynx]

What they told us at Summit on God and Evil:
1) God is all-good so he must destroy evil
2) God has not yet destroyed evil
3) God will destroy evil in the future.

[markedel]

There is a simple answer-don't be Christian and sidestep Hell. As for why bad things happen to Good people, while there are several stock answers to that.

A) Good people are never free of any evil inclination so they're punished for those

B) Bad people who are rewarded in life, are punished much worse after death, the reverse is true for the Good

C) People who are good do not view such things are divine punishment, and furthermore suffer less from such things because of their belief.

As for the punsihemtn of the flood-God worked as per usual, they had a set time to repent and din't bother.

[afro-elf]

As you put it:

while there are several stock answers to that.

Simply stock answers. ( Not said in a condesending manner)

[Andúril]

Emplynx:
What they told us at Summit on God and Evil:
1) God is all-good so he must destroy evil
2) God has not yet destroyed evil
3) God will destroy evil in the future.

1) Lo! non-sequitur.
2) If he created evil, why would he want to destroy it?
3) Why?

I urge Emplynx to read my rebuttal to Wayfarer, where I address a very similar point.