| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 270.1 | first attempt | TNPUBS::PAINTER | remembering Amber | Fri Sep 17 1993 13:18 | 31 |
|
Re.Mark and others
A start at a reply...more later. Observations on this model are
most welcome in the meantime. Agree or disagree?
----------------------------------------------
| Realm of Absolute |
| |
| - Love |
| - No Sin |
| - Eternity (no time) |
| - Clear vision (omnipotent, |
| omnicient, omnipresent) |
| - Spirit |
| - Heaven |
| - Only Divine Light |
| |
| |
----------------------------------------------
| Realm of Relativity |
| |
| - Sin |
| - Time |
| - Disoriented pilot |
| - Law |
| - Evil |
| - Earthly stuff |
| - Light and Darkness |
| |
----------------------------------------------
|
| 270.2 | observations on the model... | ICTHUS::YUILLE | Thou God seest me | Fri Sep 17 1993 13:54 | 52 |
| Hi Cindy,
Interesting .... some you place in the 'relative' realm
- Sin, Law, Evil, Light and Darkness
Sin is relative if considered in relation to people, because we have
different perceptions and standards. But this is not 'sin' as the Bible
represents it. 'Sin' is not merely where we wrong each other - we are all
so much in debt to God, right / wrong-wise, that the small amounts between
each other are insignificant (even for what seem to us to be horrendous
crimes).
In the Bible, 'sin' is clearly wrong against God. Some people who can't
perceive the perfection, reality and involvement of God express this as
living in discord with their environment, but we are made byu design, to
fir to a plan. It is God Who has offered us the opportunity to become a
perfect part of His plan. The prime example is David, having committed
adultery with Bathsheba, and murdered her husband Uriah, is confronted by
the prophet Nathan in 2 Samuel 12. When David realises the significance
of what he has done, his first reaction is to say "I have sinned against
the LORD" - 2 Samuel 12:13 - also reflected in Psalm 51:4.
'Sin' is anything which takes us further from fellowship with God. As
such, it is an absolute - we should find God in everything we do; be able
to share everything with Him, and if not .... sin! From the spiritual
realm, where (as you point out) there's 'clear vision (...omnicient, ...)',
these things are not confused by personal bias and prejudice.
Similarly, evil falls into the same 'absolute' slot.
'Law' is diffuse when you think in terms of men's laws, the laws of
different countries, how laws change, etc, but God's law is an absolute.
How people understand it isn't! God's law is not a 'rod' to threaten us,
but a guide, to show us how to live comfortably in the way God designed us
to. In Hebrews 10:1, the law is referred to as 'a shadow of the good things
to come'. It's to teach us how to enjoy living; how to have a fulfilled
life; not to prevent us from doing the things we want to. Like telling a
rebellious kid : "Don't cut off your arm" is enough to make them want to,
and think that I'm mean to try to stop them ....
Light and Darkness - well, in terms of physical light, there's all shades
of dusk, but I presume you mean in terms of spiritual illumination (?)
where I would place it with the absolutes of 'Clear vision (omnipotent,
omnicient, omnipresent)' and 'Only Divine Light'. Light and dark are used
as significant pictures in the Bible also, like in John 13:10, and 1 John
1:5-7. That's the light / dark I would consider absolute.
No time for much now, but this is a fascinating subject.
God bless
Andrew
|
| 270.4 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Fri Sep 17 1993 14:49 | 6 |
| I have extracted the note, Cindy, and will give it some consideration.
I did not read all of Andrew's note (in skim mode at the moment while I'm
processing some stuff) but think that there is a point to be made about
what you consider absolute and relative.
MM
|
| 270.5 | My start.... | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Fri Sep 17 1993 17:29 | 69 |
| Agree or disagree?
----------------------------------------------
| Realm of Absolute |
| |
| - Love |
| - No Sin |
| - Eternity (no time) |
| - Clear vision (omnipotent, |
| omnicient, omnipresent) |
| - Spirit |
| - Heaven |
| - Only Divine Light |
| |
| |
----------------------------------------------
| Realm of Relativity |
| |
| - Sin |
| - Time |
| - Disoriented pilot |
| - Law |
| - Evil |
| - Earthly stuff |
| - Light and Darkness |
| |
----------------------------------------------
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Disagree. Surprised?
Let me offer to start with one absolute, to which I think you'll agree on the
face of it, but not by how we each understand it.
God is absolute. He said, "I am that I am."
To paraphrase a little and expand upon it: "I am not like anything except
Myself because there is nothing to which I can be compared. I am not how
you think of me because you cannot comprehend it. There is no opposite
to Me; no comparison. I am unique in nature and being."
Where we separate is who or what makes these claims: I am that I am.
All things have there definition in God. And where the Absolute defines,
it is absolutely defined. The Bible says, "I am the Lord; I do not change."
Absolute.
Sin, evil, and the like are relative only in the authority to make definition.
If the authority is absolute, then definition is absolute. If the absolute
authority, by establishing a principle of nature, or by declaration, says that
"this is evil" then it is evil, it will always be evil, even if someone
declares it otherwise. Definition of good and evil depend upon the power to
define them.
Definition must begin with the Absolute. One cannot define anything without it
because without it, everything is relative and nothing is absolute. Relativism
must have a "frame of reference" in an absolute.
Mark
|
| 270.6 | model correction | TNPUBS::PAINTER | remembering Amber | Fri Sep 17 1993 17:43 | 38 |
|
Re.2
Thanks, Andrew - I'll take that reply along for some reading.
Re.5
Mark,
No. (;^)
Ah...I forgot to draw one large box around the two smaller ones to show
that they really are of the same 'Source.'
Something like: ----------------
| ------------ |
| | Absolute | |
| ------------ | Totality of Everything
| | Relative | |
| ------------ |
________________
In that 'totality' box, the Relative would then have a direct
association with the Absolute.
The 'light' in the Relative box would not be the counterfeit light, but
a glimmer of the Light as portrayed in the Absolute. So while existing
in the Relative, one can have occasional glimpses of the Absolute.
The counterfeit light in this model is really the darkness in the
Relative box - I don't make a distinction.
So about Christ - using this model, Christ came from the Absolute to
the Relative when He was born and lived with us on Earth. He came to
point the way to the Absolute. (My thoughts, of course.)
Cindy
|
| 270.7 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Fri Sep 17 1993 17:47 | 2 |
| extracted. will ponder. Got a roast chicken to devour, absolutely.
Company, how I love company.
|
| 270.8 | confused | SIERAS::MCCLUSKY | | Fri Sep 17 1993 18:27 | 12 |
| I have totally missed what is being discussed. In my definition,
absolute equals "fact" or binary - it is or is not. Relative would
then be everything else. That certainly puts love in the category of
relative, since there are so many definitions of love, degrees of love,
types of love, etc. Clear vision would obviously be relative as would
eternity(how do we know it will last forever, until it lasts forever).
What is "Spirit"?
Would not "Earthly Stuff" be absolute? I can see if an object is here
or if it is not, which is the absolute test?
Please clarify what we are talking about?
|
| 270.9 | Einstein said it's all relative | FRETZ::HEISER | AWANA | Sat Sep 18 1993 01:16 | 1 |
|
|
| 270.10 | reposted for author | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Friend will you be ready? | Sat Sep 18 1993 16:43 | 31 |
|
================================================================================
Note 270.10 Absolute and Relative truth 10 of 10
COMET::DYBEN "Grey area is found by not looking" 25 lines 18-SEP-1993 10:08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-1
Booooooooo :-)
Cindy,
Given your model and defintion would you please tell me wether the
following is either a relative truth or an absolute.
1.) Adultery is wrong?
2.) Lying is wrong?
3.) Murder is wrong?
4.) Abortion is wrong?
thanks,
David
|
| 270.11 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Mon Sep 20 1993 09:25 | 57 |
| > Something like: ----------------
> | ------------ |
> | | Absolute | |
> | ------------ | Totality of Everything
> | | Relative | |
> | ------------ |
> ________________
Well, I ditzed this over the weekend, but on the way to work I began to
puzzle this. Here is where I think you need to rethink your model, Cindy.
If you have a glass of muddy water, you cannot say that it contains
pure water and dry dirt, because even though the components of the
muddy water are these, the water is not pure unless removed from the
dirt and the dirt is not dry unless removed from the water.
Here you have absolute and relative co-existing like muddy water.
A better picture of absolute and relative would be say, students
in art class attempting to paint a model. Considering that the model
is the absolute to which the students must strive, each, with varying
degrees of talent expresses an image on canvas, or in clay, if you wish.
These images never reach the absolute (Truth), for it is separate from
the images and are therefore relative expressions of the Truth.
So, I submit to you that relative truths are based in reference to
absolute truths, such that:
-> relative
-> relative
-> relative
ABSOLUTE -> relative
-> relative
-> relative
The absolute stands outside of the relative, and relative truths are
based in reference to the absolute, even when exhibiting a negative, or
anti-absolute. All relative references have their frames of references
in an absolute for definition.
Your model has absolute and relative coexisting, but absolute could not be
absolute if it, as part of the whole, contained relative truth in it; i.e.
muddy water.
A long time ago, you expressed your concept of God as being the box around
everything; the totality of everything. I asked if this included evil.
Does God possess evil qualities? By your model, He must.
But if God is separate from the creation (a Sustainer but not part of it),
then evil is defined by relative antithesis with its frame of reference
on an absolute, pure, and holy God, and evil is not part of God.
Does your God possess evil qualities, if He is in all things, including
evil things? Or is there no good or evil thing?
Mark
|
| 270.12 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Mon Sep 20 1993 11:35 | 26 |
| Another interesting thing about muddy water. No matter how much pure
water you add to it, it is still polluted and not absolutely pure.
Instead, the other model starts with and absolute purity. Relativism
takes this and adds something to it. Perhaps only misperception, sometimes
worse, imaginations, twists, and maybe even contradictions.
Something that is even virtually pure is not absolutely pure.
Because God is separate from creation, holy, and pure, He can change
something that is impure to something that is pure. How can this be
if he adds pure holiness to impure people? Unlike contamination of the pure
by the impure, the pure cleanses, and *changes* the impure to pure.
In other words, you cannot clean a spoon in dirty water. If you put a
dirty spoon into clean water, both are polluted. But if you pour pure
water over the dirty spoon, soon the spoon will be cleansed of its dirt.
The water from the source is still pure. The refuse is thrown away.
The source of pure water from God is endless and can clean the dirt from
us. We cannot immerse ourselves in its vastness, because we cannot contaminate
it; He is holy. He must pour His purity out upon us; we cannot acheive purity
ourselves.
Absoluteness is the frame of reference for all relative concepts.
Mark
|
| 270.13 | reply | TNPUBS::PAINTER | remembering Amber | Mon Sep 20 1993 13:04 | 47 |
|
Re.10
David,
I believe the realm of 'right and wrong' exists in the realm of
relativity.
The absolute is representative of what you would call 'heaven'. I'm a
bit rusty at my Bible verses (;^), however one that comes to mind is
that Christ said that there are no marriages in heaven. Therefore, the
very concept of adultery is meaningless.
God in infinite wisdom, looked upon the realm of relativity, decided
that some laws needed to be established in the place that such things
as 'marriages' occurred, and put forth the law (form of those tablet
things that Moses received) that adultery is 'wrong'. It's a very
reasonable, practical, and logical law, and if followed, will point one
in the direction of the absolute.
So to answer your question, yes, in the realm of relativity from the
perspective of the absolute, adultery (along with all the other things
you mentioned) is 'wrong'.
A brief comment on the abortion comment - based on the 'thou shalt not
kill' commandment, I feel most strongly that if abortion is deemed
'wrong', then under this same law, capital punishment should also be
'wrong'.
*Legislation* in society re: abortion - that is another topic entirely.
This is where the real difficulty comes in. I do not have a problem in
personally considering abortion to be 'wrong', and yet allowing legalized
abortions (within certain parameters.) In the realm of relativity
which we are in, abortions will always be an issue. In my personal
opinion, I feel that rather than focus in on abortion/no abortion, I
prefer to work in the area of 'preventing unwanted conception', which
is getting at the real root of the problem anyway, and moves us all
closer to the absolute (doing away with abortions completely, because
there would be no need.) It would be wonderful if both 'sides' could
set aside some funds to work at the root of the problem, rather than
continue the arguments and fighting.
Back to the question - in the realm of the absolute though (containing
Eternity), just like marriages, I do not believe that abortions, lying,
and the other one you mentioned, take place either.
Cindy
|
| 270.14 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Mon Sep 20 1993 13:21 | 29 |
| > A brief comment on the abortion comment - based on the 'thou shalt not
> kill' commandment, I feel most strongly that if abortion is deemed
> 'wrong', then under this same law, capital punishment should also be
> 'wrong'.
Makes no sense. Killing one who cannot defend itself is not equal to
killing one who has committed a crime punishable by death and already been
through a defense of him or herself. The deaths of these two individuals
are not equal; they are relative.
One can sensibly hold a pro-life position and a pro-capital punishment position.
> there are no marriages in heaven. Therefore, the
> very concept of adultery is meaningless.
To be clear, some on earth may take this as license for sexual promiscuity.
The whole of the matter is that because there will be no sin in heaven,
there will be no adultery, which is a defined wrong. Definition comes
from the absolute.
And to further the study of the word, we shall all (in a sense) be married
in heaven, for Christ also used imagery that suggested that His Church is
also His bride and committing adultery (in heaven) would be akin to Lucifer's
sin against God attempting to usurp God. So we will be married to God.
The sexual union in adultery on earth may be meaningless in heaven for
reasons other than "marriages in heaven."
Mark
|
| 270.15 | Logic Error | LEDDEV::CAMUSO | alphabits | Mon Sep 20 1993 13:44 | 20 |
| RE: <<< Note 270.13 by TNPUBS::PAINTER "remembering Amber" >>>
>> A brief comment on the abortion comment - based on the 'thou shalt not
>> kill' commandment, I feel most strongly that if abortion is deemed
>> 'wrong', then under this same law, capital punishment should also be
>> 'wrong'.
Killing a child, innocent of any wrongdoing, is murder, unjustufied
killing, gross injustice.
Dispatching a murderer, rapist, etc is justice commanded by the law
of God (see Deuteronomy & xrefs).
A nation that insists on administering injustices like abortion and
refuses to administer justice like capital punishment will see life
increasingly cheapened, as we have seen happening in our contemporary
"civilization."
Tony
|
| 270.16 | | TNPUBS::PAINTER | remembering Amber | Mon Sep 20 1993 13:45 | 6 |
|
Re.15
OK, Tony. It appears we disagree on this point.
Cindy
|
| 270.17 | attempt at clarification | TNPUBS::PAINTER | remembering Amber | Mon Sep 20 1993 13:47 | 8 |
|
Re.8
Divine, unconditional love is absolute.
Conditional love, degrees of love, types of love, etc., is relative.
Cindy
|
| 270.18 | another attempt at clarification.. | CSOA1::LEECH | Wild-eyed southern boy | Mon Sep 20 1993 13:55 | 5 |
| I thought that the commandment was more accurately interpreted as
"Thou shalt not murder". There is a big difference between justified
killing and murder.
-steve
|
| 270.19 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Mon Sep 20 1993 13:57 | 5 |
| Cindy,
When you get the chance, I'd like to return to our discussion that left off
with .11 and .12. Thanks.
Mark
|
| 270.20 | will do | TNPUBS::PAINTER | remembering Amber | Mon Sep 20 1993 14:36 | 7 |
|
I'd like that too, Mark.
Such things take a bit more pondering time though, and I was just
getting through the ones that didn't take much time to reply to.
Cindy
|
| 270.21 | reply | TNPUBS::PAINTER | remembering Amber | Mon Sep 20 1993 14:47 | 15 |
|
Re.18
Steve,
I don't really see any difference between justified killing and murder,
except when a person is defending themselves or others against being
killed (self-defense or the defense of another), so I suspect we will
continue to hold different views on the subject.
To extend this to the animal kingdom, I'm a vegetarian and try also to
avoid products such as leather, etc., partly (but not solely) because
I do not believe I should contribute to the deaths of animals.
Cindy
|
| 270.22 | | TLE::COLLIS::JACKSON | DCU fees? NO!!! | Mon Sep 20 1993 15:06 | 17 |
| >In my personal
>opinion, I feel that rather than focus in on abortion/no abortion, I
>prefer to work in the area of 'preventing unwanted conception', which
>is getting at the real root of the problem anyway, and moves us all
>closer to the absolute (doing away with abortions completely, because
>there would be no need.) It would be wonderful if both 'sides' could
>set aside some funds to work at the root of the problem, rather than
>continue the arguments and fighting.
The root of the problem is sin, not just sexual expression
(which can be sinful or not). Married couples can choose
abortion for all the wrong reasons just as the unmarried can.
The answer to sin is Jesus. Indeed, I do give away a lot of
money to get the answer out. :-)
Collis
|
| 270.23 | staying focused | TNPUBS::PAINTER | remembering Amber | Mon Sep 20 1993 15:41 | 14 |
|
Re.22
Collis,
I'm only going to respond to the basenote and related replies. The
paragraph you took out on abortion is only a tangental topic (in the
full context, the real topic was about 'right vs. wrong', and the
examples of lying, killing, and stealing were also presented.)
I'm sure there's another topic dedicated to abortion that you can
participate in more actively.
Cindy
|
| 270.24 | the Absolute truth | CIM1::FLOYD | "On my way to Heaven" | Mon Sep 20 1993 16:04 | 8 |
| is that God stated he knew several folks in the Bible from the womb. ie life
begins at conception. God also stated that he would avenge the shedding of
innocent blood. God also devoted large sections of the Scripture to laying
down the law on what was an event that held the punishment of death. Some of
those laws are the same ones today that carry the death sentence. I think
your argument may be with God Himself. Good Luck!
Dave
|
| 270.25 | one last shot, please re: note 14 | HOTWT1::JOLMAMA | I'm either the bug or the windshield. | Mon Sep 20 1993 16:17 | 18 |
| regarding note 14
One can logically argue both sides of capital punishment with the
same premise but a different conclusion:
The taking of a life is so heinous that:
A- the guilty must forfit his/her life for a capital offense, as
punishment.
B- the state cannot take the life of one guilty of a capital offense.
No such logic exists with on the issue of pro-choice/pro-life.
As Christians, I believe we can disagree on the issue of capital
punishment. But we cannot put choice above life. Sadly, many of us
take a pro-choice stance.
|
| 270.26 | | JARETH::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Mon Sep 20 1993 16:31 | 7 |
| Thank you.
Please take notes about pro-life and capital punishment to the many
notes we have for those topics. The topic is about absolutes and
relative truths.
MM
|
| 270.27 | last one | TNPUBS::PAINTER | remembering Amber | Tue Sep 21 1993 14:50 | 9 |
|
Mark,
I think it's time I deleted this conference from my notebook, so I'd be
happy to carry on our discussion offline.
God bless,
Cindy
|
| 270.28 | | USAT05::BENSON | | Tue Sep 21 1993 17:12 | 9 |
|
It's funny isn't it? Cindy darts in about semi-annually, contributes
replies, defends her beliefs, realizes she's still terribly
out-of-synch with us bible-believing Christians, then hits the road
again.
I understand! We forget sometimes the futility of many of our efforts.
jeff
|
| 270.29 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Tue Sep 21 1993 17:58 | 7 |
| Cindy and I will continue our discussion about Absolute and Relative offline.
The ball is in her court,and she has asked for time to ponder.
If anyone is interested, and with Cindy's permission, if you want to
be copied on the discussion, perhaps I can arrange a DIST list.
Mark
|
| 270.30 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Tue Sep 21 1993 18:00 | 3 |
| Thanks Mark for offering.
Nancy
|
| 270.31 | | SUBURB::ODONNELLJ | | Tue Sep 21 1993 18:24 | 3 |
| re;.28
Cindy comes back. That's the important thing.
|
| 270.32 | | POWDML::SMCCONNELL | Next year, in JERUSALEM! | Wed Sep 22 1993 14:44 | 5 |
| re: .31
That's great!
Steve
|
| 270.33 | reply | TNPUBS::PAINTER | remembering Amber | Wed Sep 22 1993 17:43 | 16 |
|
Re.31,.32
Thank you for your support. (;^)
I think what I'd like to do is to continue this discussion with Mark
and Andrew only, so I'll do that offline, and they are free to post my
responses here. This will hopefully eliminate the potential for
diversions from the main topic theme.
There will be a time delay in responding due to my schedule, so it won't
exactly be a rapid exchange of notes anyway.
More later on.
Cindy
|