Catholic conservatism on the rise as priest refuses funeral for 'sinner'

[AlanFromWichita]

Ani Ibi:

Give it a break Penny. Your point is that God says 1 + 1 = 1. Alan was comparing number systems with Magisterial teaching. They are not comparable. It was a false analogy.

She was trying to give me a break. I’m glad you agree with her approach toward me.

What is not comparable about it? Then again, I don’t have any problem comparing apples and oranges.

In one case, you have a teacher who lies to students by telling people that what we already know of math is all there is, ensuring that when we are finally asked to venture outside the box the children will be terrified and confused. In the other case, you have teacher wannabes lying to students by insisting that things are absolute when in fact they aren’t. This does not serve them well, and instead of being able to think clearly they form emotional reactions that anything that “sounds like” relativism must be schizmatic, rebellious, and just plain bad.

So far I have not found a self-described “absolutist” who simultaneously considers me a problem for the Church and makes a rational case for their own decision.

Now for the case in point, you are making a snide comment to Penny for offering me a bit of refreshment after I’ve been nearly the only one against many who consider me and my kind trolls, divisive, schismatic, etc. While you have been civil, why do you get on her case when she sees a friend in trouble and offers refreshment? I guess if you still don’t understand the point I’m trying to make, preferring to hide behind sayings like “the magesterium cannot be compared with math” as reasons that someone should not express empathy for me, then I’m not sure what to say next.

Now a little offense to go with my defense. Do you remember who it was who asked whether 1+2=2 in all cases, and whom I was answering? Yes, it was fix. If you don’t think I should compare teaching theory in math against teaching theory in religion, then you had better go correct fix, too, because he bought into the analogy. By the way, I did not take offense at all when fix asked that, because his challenge to find that 1+1=2 is not absolute was worded with respect, and I do not consider intellectual challenges on par with put-downs and condescention.

Oh and by the way don’t go trying to whoop up on my pal Penny for offering me a drink when nobody else in this thread has and I obviously was highly outnumbered. I might just have to lay some words of love on you!

Overall, thank you for being a good sport and hanging in there through these discussions which I think are probably valuable for all involved. I may not acknowledge it very often, but if nothing else I have noticed an overall improvement in the quality and attitude of the dialog on this forum by orthodox. That is why I don’t give up on my points; I believe there are good people here who honestly wish to not only know the truth, but enjoy the fruits of the spirit, so I do not question the intent of anybody here but I do applaud the progress I think we’ve all made at having discussion like this without getting so negative that we shut the thread down like we used to.

Alan

 

[felra]

AlanFromWichita:

I love that quote. It’s one of the best examples of relativism I can think of.

Paul was sneaky. He didn’t adhere to a fixed, absolute code of behavior, but adjusted it for the situation at hand, so he would blend in better and not let them see how free true Catholicism is of behavioral restrictions because they couldn’t handle it.

Alan

Let’s keep the definitions and intended meaning or “relativism” clear here. (I am recalling my previous post observation that those who subscribe to moral relativism often obfuscate and confuse to promote their unfounded beliefs). St. Paul is not promoting or modeling “relativism” as you state and the moral/philosophical meaning there of on this thread discussion. He is promoting the strategy to effectively reach others with the truth of the Gospel (as you correctly point out). St. Paul is modeling how to not judge others with the truth of the Gospel, but to respect and meet folks where they are at and to present the absolute truth of Jesus Christ in a relevent and effective manner. It is the work of the Holy Spirit to convict a sinner of false notions and sinful choices.

rel·a·tiv·ism, n., defn;** **A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition*
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company*

 

[fix]

AlanFromWichita:

Fruitful and multiplying?

Well in the case of my wife and me, 1+1=2, then 2 became 1 so 1+1+1=1 (God of course is the first 1 in the marriage) and now we are one parental set plus six, so I’d guess that leaves 1+1=7. That is a good example. Thanks.

By the transitive property, we also have 2=7, which some absolutists don’t like to admit. The size of the family matters less than its unity. Therefore the whole family starts with two who become one, then multiply from there. Trying to put math to the miracle of life can be challenging.

Summary: we have another counterexample against 1+1=2 being universally true, so yes we do need to revise the score sheet. I’m sorry for taking so long to attend to that:

Absolutists: 0
Relativists: 2

Yay team! Go team! :dancing:

Alan

Relativists:0
Convoluted thinking: priceless

 

[fix]

AlanFromWichita:

Now a little offense to go with my defense. Do you remember who it was who asked whether 1+2=2 in all cases, and whom I was answering? Yes, it was fix. If you don’t think I should compare teaching theory in math against teaching theory in religion, then you had better go correct fix, too, because he bought into the analogy. By the way, I did not take offense at all when fix asked that, because his challenge to find that 1+1=2 is not absolute was worded with respect, and I do not consider intellectual challenges on par with put-downs and condescention.Alan

Perhaps we are dealing with some type of existential debate? If I pick up two apples and place them on a table where no other objects are, how many apples are on the table? Can there ever be more than two apples present given the information?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

fix:

Perhaps we are dealing with some type of existential debate? If I pick up two apples and place them on a table where no other objects are, how many apples are on the table? Can there ever be more than two apples present given the information?

Yes. It may boggle our human reasoning. In our limited minds we often think something “cannot” be other than it appears to us.

In cases like this, I do not rely on my own understanding but ask Christ. I’ll pray real quick, “Jesus, we have a question for you. It seems humanly impossible for there to be more than two apples on this table. This seems to be so obvious that I’m tempted to claim as an absolute fact that there cannot be anything other than what it appears in this case.”

Oh, hey. Jesus already answered my question by directing me toward where He has already documented the answer in advance:
Matt 19:26:

Jesus looked at them and said, “For human beings this is impossible, but for God all things are possible.”

But wait a minute. I’m looking right at these apples and I don’t see any more than two. How is this possible?

Thoughts of Christ: “oh, you faithless and perverse generation, how much longer must I put up with you? What is written of this?”

Hmmm. Can’t seem to get anything past that guy. Well, let me check a few references:

“Do not be afraid,” Elisha answered. “Our side outnumbers theirs.” Then he prayed, “O LORD, open his eyes, that he may see.” And the LORD opened the eyes of the servant, so that he saw the mountainside filled with horses and fiery chariots around Elisha.

Oh, I guess maybe there are other apples we just don’t see.

How can I expand my mind to believe that is possible (since “all things” are possible)?

How about this: the seeds in the apple have died so they might live again and produce fruit 100 fold. If you destroy one of those apples, you could be destroying hundreds of apples in the future. Therefore, you may only see two apples but an attack against either one of them is an attack against hundreds of others like it.

Sure I’m just reaching, and maybe it sounds foolish, but that doesn’t necessarily make me ungodly:
1 Cor 1:25-28:

For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. Consider your own calling, brothers. Not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. Rather, God chose the foolish of the world to shame the wise, and God chose the weak of the world to shame the strong, and God chose the lowly and despised of the world, those who count for nothing, to reduce to nothing those who are something.

Wow. This actually gives me a sense of purpose here. Many here are wise, and I appear foolish. Clearly I am lowly and despised for my thoughts. It’s all making sense. God sent me here to shame you wise and strong people and to tear you down to nothing, so that when you come down to my lowly level you will understand exalting and humbling. Wait, is it I who is wise in my own eyes and you foolish who are shaming me? Ah, well, I guess we can work it both ways.

But, we all protest, how can we deal with following rules about things I cannot see, when those rules don’t make sense at all based on what I can see?
2 Cor 5:7:

for we walk by faith, not by sight.

Alan

 

[fix]

AlanFromWichita:

Yes. It may boggle our human reasoning. In our limited minds we often think something “cannot” be other than it appears to us.

In cases like this, I do not rely on my own understanding but ask Christ. I’ll pray real quick, “Jesus, we have a question for you. It seems humanly impossible for there to be more than two apples on this table. This seems to be so obvious that I’m tempted to claim as an absolute fact that there cannot be anything other than what it appears in this case.”

Oh, hey. Jesus already answered my question by directing me toward where He has already documented the answer in advance:

But wait a minute. I’m looking right at these apples and I don’t see any more than two. How is this possible?

Thoughts of Christ: “oh, you faithless and perverse generation, how much longer must I put up with you? What is written of this?”

Hmmm. Can’t seem to get anything past that guy. Well, let me check a few references:

Oh, I guess maybe there are other apples we just don’t see.

How can I expand my mind to believe that is possible (since “all things” are possible)?

How about this: the seeds in the apple have died so they might live again and produce fruit 100 fold. If you destroy one of those apples, you could be destroying hundreds of apples in the future. Therefore, you may only see two apples but an attack against either one of them is an attack against hundreds of others like it.

Sure I’m just reaching, and maybe it sounds foolish, but that doesn’t necessarily make me ungodly:
Wow. This actually gives me a sense of purpose here. Many here are wise, and I appear foolish. Clearly I am lowly and despised for my thoughts. It’s all making sense. God sent me here to shame you wise and strong people and to tear you down to nothing, so that when you come down to my lowly level you will understand exalting and humbling. Wait, is it I who is wise in my own eyes and you foolish who are shaming me? Ah, well, I guess we can work it both ways.

But, we all protest, how can we deal with following rules about things I cannot see, when those rules don’t make sense at all based on what I can see?

Alan

So, you agree there are only two apples present?

If God wanted to add, or subtract, one He could do so, but that does not negate the fact that there are only two apples present.

Also, is it your position that relativism *absolutely *exists?

 

[buffalo]

AlanFromWichita:

Why do you deny the teachings of Christ? Let’s consider the words of Christ – for a refreshing change, I’ll use the Douay-Rheims version:

In this case, two becomes one. To insist that two always remains two is to deny the existence of the sacrament of marriage.

The offensive party rests.

Absolutists: 0
Relativists: 1

Alan

Not if they merge. Then they are one. You have missed the point completely.

 

[buffalo]

fix:

So, you agree there are only two apples present?

If God wanted to add, or subtract, one He could do so, but that does not negate the fact that there are only two apples present.

Also, is it your position that relativism *absolutely *exists?

The laws of nature can be supeceded by a miracle if you will. Until the supernatural comes into play the absolutist sees and knows there are only two apples.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Look, maybe I can bring this closer to a point.

My point is that it is perfectly OK for one human being to say to another:

I don’t understand that. I don’t know. Are you sure about that because I was taught differently? I’m concerned you might be at risk for that.

What isn’t OK is:

You are wrong. I am right and you are wrong because I agree with the pope and you don’t. If you think I am wrong, then your mind is too small. You are just being obstinate; I’ve explained this five times so any second grader could understand.

Never ASSUME you are right and the other person is wrong. If course, that is “never” in a relativistic sense.

The minutes you think you know something better than somebody else, then you might consider Paul’s words that gave me an attitude adjustment once when I had been hanging around non-Catholics and started thinking I was too good to fully participate in Mass because I knew more than they did:
1 Cor 8:2:

If anyone supposes he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know.

 I'm not asking for people to be perfect, or to refrain from talking to me unless they are, just for them to get off the attitude that they are right and I am wrong simply by virtue of the label "absolutist" or "relativist" that have been applied.

I’m also asking for people to understand that there is almost always a higher truth than what they thought of in a particular situation. When one does not see that higher truth, one risks claiming absolutism when one doesn’t even realize he is in a limited box of thinking by asserting so. Often I think this is the case when absolutists hold that we stick to the written letter of some rule when Christ clearly found higher meaning to allow that letter to be routinely broken. I’m asking my brothers to believe more in the spirit of the law than of the letter, and I’ve asked the church via email to pope Benedict if they would please hear my cry for more teachings on mysticism without which our theology means little to nothing. (I didn’t use those exact words)

Also I’m asking my brothers to reconsider using terms like “relativism” as if they were a dirty word, when their own minds are relativistic in ways that I already can see beyond. Why should I believe an opinion of matters of faith when I can see that in matters of mathematics these people don’t hold a candle to my ability to see their own relativism. I’m supposed to believe that when they cannot see that 1+1=10 may be true or false unless you admit to limitations on your universe, that they have some insight into spiritual matters beyond mine? Possible, and that’s why I continue to listen to them. I seek truth wherever I can get it, whether it be from the pope of from a homeless man named “Joe” or for that matter a homeless man named “jesus.”

Does anybody think I’m being unfair to ask these things of my “absolutist” brothers?

If Christ said that His father has revealed to little ones mysteries he has hidden from the wise, and we think the pope is wise, then maybe we should start listening to both the wise and the little ones when forming our opinions and not making the limited assumption that if one is good the other must be bad.

Alan

 

[Ani_Ibi]

fix:

Perhaps we are dealing with some type of existential debate? If I pick up two apples and place them on a table where no other objects are, how many apples are on the table? Can there ever be more than two apples present given the information?

Maybe two apples is a metaphor for 2 billion apples. It would have to a metaphor, because how else could you get 2 billion apples on a table?

 

[fix]

Ani Ibi:

Maybe two apples is a metaphor for 2 billion apples. It would have to a metaphor, because how else could you get 2 billion apples on a table?

Maybe I really do not exist…

 

[fix]

AlanFromWichita:

Look, maybe I can bring this closer to a point.

My point is that it is perfectly OK for one human being to say to another:

I don’t understand that. I don’t know. Are you sure about that because I was taught differently? I’m concerned you might be at risk for that.

What isn’t OK is:

You are wrong. I am right and you are wrong because I agree with the pope and you don’t. If you think I am wrong, then your mind is too small. You are just being obstinate; I’ve explained this five times so any second grader could understand.

Never ASSUME you are right and the other person is wrong. If course, that is “never” in a relativistic sense.

The minutes you think you know something better than somebody else, then you might consider Paul’s words that gave me an attitude adjustment once when I had been hanging around non-Catholics and started thinking I was too good to fully participate in Mass because I knew more than they did:
I’m not asking for people to be perfect, or to refrain from talking to me unless they are, just for them to get off the attitude that they are right and I am wrong simply by virtue of the label “absolutist” or “relativist” that have been applied.

I’m also asking for people to understand that there is almost always a higher truth than what they thought of in a particular situation. When one does not see that higher truth, one risks claiming absolutism when one doesn’t even realize he is in a limited box of thinking by asserting so. Often I think this is the case when absolutists hold that we stick to the written letter of some rule when Christ clearly found higher meaning to allow that letter to be routinely broken. I’m asking my brothers to believe more in the spirit of the law than of the letter, and I’ve asked the church via email to pope Benedict if they would please hear my cry for more teachings on mysticism without which our theology means little to nothing. (I didn’t use those exact words)

Also I’m asking my brothers to reconsider using terms like “relativism” as if they were a dirty word, when their own minds are relativistic in ways that I already can see beyond. Why should I believe an opinion of matters of faith when I can see that in matters of mathematics these people don’t hold a candle to my ability to see their own relativism. I’m supposed to believe that when they cannot see that 1+1=10 may be true or false unless you admit to limitations on your universe, that they have some insight into spiritual matters beyond mine? Possible, and that’s why I continue to listen to them. I seek truth wherever I can get it, whether it be from the pope of from a homeless man named “Joe” or for that matter a homeless man named “jesus.”

Does anybody think I’m being unfair to ask these things of my “absolutist” brothers?

If Christ said that His father has revealed to little ones mysteries he has hidden from the wise, and we think the pope is wise, then maybe we should start listening to both the wise and the little ones when forming our opinions and not making the limited assumption that if one is good the other must be bad.

Alan

Alan,

Do you know that all that reminds me of? Often I find in this culture if one claims to be seeking out the truth they are respected and patted on the back by the “educated” folks. However, if one actually finds the truth and binds himself to it, one is called intolerant, unChristian, absolutist and close minded.

It is a bit perplexing until one understands that standing with Christ means taking up the cross.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

fix:

So, you agree there are only two apples present?

I’m saying it looks like there are two apples to our limited way of understanding.

Others might look at those apples and see an unborn orchard.

Consider I’m a stereotypical skeptical engineer in light of the joke I heard once:

An engineer and a farmer were riding in a car. The farmer was going bonkers trying to get the engineer to make any absolute statement at all. Finally the farmer pointed toward a cow they were passing and “well can you at least admit that’s a cow?” The engineer looked at it and admitted, “well, it does look like a cow – from this side.”

Of course, I could say that my anal-retentiveness about not making assumptions has served me well. As the person who designed the test equipment they use to see if the computer and analog circuits work properly so that a conventional or nuclear bomb is released when commanded and not otherwise, from a B-52. It pays me to be extremely skeptical of anything that might go wrong. You can be assured that the same zeal with which I try to pick apart your faults, I also put into looking for all the strange ways that equipment might fail and how my tester can test for it. For that matter, you also have to know when the tester is broken or ill-designed so that it misses an important flaw in the flight equipment.

I guess my efforts are holding so far. I didn’t hear of any B-52’s “accidentally” dropping any bombs during the wars.

If God wanted to add, or subtract, one He could do so, but that does not negate the fact that there are only two apples present.

The word “are” is limiting to God. He is beyond time. Why do you think God cannot see the other apples that are inside of the two? There are two apples present, if you limit is to conventional human perception and disregard any spiritual aspect of the situation.

This argument is particularly apropos because it is exactly the same assertion I make against absolutists/literalists who try to deny things of faith when interpreting written teachings, as if the Church were ruled by human law.

Also, is it your position that relativism *absolutely *exists?

That is a fascinating question.

Let me get back to you on that. I need to log off for a while, and I’ll be thinking about it.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

fix:

Alan,

Do you know that all that reminds me of? Often I find in this culture if one claims to be seeking out the truth they are respected and patted on the back by the “educated” folks. However, if one actually finds the truth and binds himself to it, one is called intolerant, unChristian, absolutist and close minded.

It is a bit perplexing until one understands that standing with Christ means taking up the cross.

You are right. You and I aren’t all that different I suppose, in that regard.

With all the fun I have, I do eagerly seek absolute truths. One of the best books I’ve read on the matter is “My Search for Absolutes” by Paul Tillich. Warning: he is not Catholic so if you are offended by the term “protestantism” used as if it were a Good Thing then be warned, but it is still a great book.

It supported my previous thinking that certain things typically held to be absolute, aren’t.

It also showed me that there are certain ways that absolutism does definitely exist.

[edit] “Definitely!” When I reread this post I had to crack up at how “cute” I must look to God going around making such presumtuous “definite” statements. As if my belief something is true makes it objectively so. Gosh false absolutism is so sneaky I don’t even recognize it in myself. Ah, well. Thought I’d throw that out to let you know I try to watch myself as I watch others.

That was reassuring to me, because once I’ve been lied to for enough years by enough people who don’t know what they are talking about, it’s nice to see such an intelligent, clear case made that there are in fact absolutes and that the concept of absolutism itself is not flawed even if its meaning is hijacked and diluted by well-meaning but limited thinking humans.

Alan

 

[felra]

AlanFromWichita:

My point is that it is perfectly OK for one human being to say to another:

I don’t understand that. I don’t know. Are you sure about that because I was taught differently? I’m concerned you might be at risk for that.

What isn’t OK is:

You are wrong. I am right and you are wrong because I agree with the pope and you don’t. If you think I am wrong, then your mind is too small. You are just being obstinate; I’ve explained this five times so any second grader could understand.

Never ASSUME you are right and the other person is wrong. If course, that is “never” in a relativistic sense.

I’m also asking for people to understand that there is almost always a higher truth than what they thought of in a particular situation. When one does not see that higher truth, one risks claiming absolutism when one doesn’t even realize he is in a limited box of thinking by asserting so. Often I think this is the case when absolutists hold that we stick to the written letter of some rule when Christ clearly found higher meaning to allow that letter to be routinely broken. I’m asking my brothers to believe more in the spirit of the law than of the letter, and I’ve asked the church via email to pope Benedict if they would please hear my cry for more teachings on mysticism without which our theology means little to nothing. (I didn’t use those exact words)

I seek truth wherever I can get it, whether it be from the pope of from a homeless man named “Joe” or for that matter a homeless man named “jesus.”

Alan

This sounds like a recipe for moral despair. How does one then know that they have arrived at the “highest/final” truth?

 

[fix]

AlanFromWichita:

I’m saying it looks like there are two apples to our limited way of understanding.

Are you claiming humans cannot know and understand the the physical law?

Others might look at those apples and see an unborn orchard.

That would be a metaphor, but speaking rationally one would see two apples.

The word “are” is limiting to God.

How does the truth limit God? God created these physical laws.

He is beyond time.

Yes, He is outside time.

Why do you think God cannot see the other apples that are inside of the two?

How God sees the apples does not contradict the truth He created.

There are two apples present, if you limit is to conventional human perception and disregard any spiritual aspect of the situation.

What spiritual side? Two apples exist and can be seen by all with eyes to see.

This argument is particularly apropos because it is exactly the same assertion I make against absolutists/literalists who try to deny things of faith when interpreting written teachings, as if the Church were ruled by human law.

I have no idea what you are talking about?

That is a fascinating question.

Indeed, because you are an absolutist.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

felra:

This sounds like a recipe for moral despair. How does one then know that they have arrived at the “highest/final” truth?

It can be very troubling, as it involves reform of the mind and heart. I suspect that’s one of the reasons that mysticism has traditionally been relegated to cloisters where there is strict behavior discipline. That way no matter how weird things get, they still know how to behave and have little communication so that their demons don’t get such a chance to collude.

When spiritual purification begins to take place and the Holy Spirit shines light on those parts of our soul which have been dark, often it creates quite an ugly picture. This can be troubling to some, especially when they find out they really don’t know their own deepest darkest spiritual secrets. People can go nuts during training.

Now that Vatican II has affirmed that holiness is for everyone, though, I’d really like to see better formation in these areas brought out into the mainstream – and I admit it needs to be done cautiously. To me, dogmatic theology without mystical theology gives a one-sided view of Church teachings and is like taking pilot ground school with no formal training in the air. It just doesn’t really fit together unless you study theory and practice together.

Trying to be “perfect” is quite a goal, and if your happiness depends on achieving goals, this one is not likely to be a good one. It can seem desperate because there is always a Cloud of Unknowing whereby God transcends any knowledge we have no matter how firmly we are convicted in it. If we continue to seek God, we will learn to enjoy plunging into the Cloud. We will learn to enjoy being wrong when we thought we were right because it convinces us in how great God is.

It doesn’t have to cause despair, as long as you have faith. Faith in this sense not as mental assent necessarily, but in the confidence that if you honestly strive to do what you believe is right, God will take it from there.

Knowing things is overrated. I used to think I would succeed because of what I know. Now I believe that I succeed because I honestly seek truth. Although I look forward to spiritual perfection, the journey itself has become a life worth living. I’m not even reticent about purgatory, as I’ve already gone through a great deal of it here on earth and once I got used to it, it was kind of fun.

Some time maybe I’ll tell you about the home version “exorcism” I had – it was way scary but at the same time beautiful in an astounding way – but maybe this isn’t the best time. I do NOT recommend other Catholics to Try That At Home. All I can say right now is, I finally realized how valuable it is to have a wife who is very devoted Catholic, and who has read about spiritual warfare so that she recognizes it and acts instinctively when timing is critical.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

fix:

Are you claiming humans cannot know and understand the the physical law?

Pretty much, yes. Humans cannot know the physical law. Just when they think they do, other humans come mess it up, showing that our previous undertanding was incomplete if not just plain wrong.

For example, Newtonian mechanics seemed like the Gospel until relativity. Then there was quantum mechanics. Now there is string theory which is trying to reconcile quantum mechanics with relativity as from what I see it looks like a big mathematical circle jerk but then what do I know?

That would be a metaphor, but speaking rationally one would see two apples.

Yes, speaking rationally and from a worldly point of view, for all intents and purposes there are two apples.

Here’s how my acceptance of that fact figures in. If a person asks me under normal circumstances, “hey are there two apples on that table,” I’d say yes. If they had asked, “how many apples are there on that table” then I’d say “two.”

If they had said, “there are exactly two apples there whether you like it or not, and if you don’t believe it then you’re an obstinate ignoramus and are going to hell and you should get out of here before I get really mad” then I reach for “higher truths” to defend myself, or if I had greater faith I’d turn the other cheek.

The objective truth of a statement in human language is based on the mutual agreement of the ideas the words are trying to portray. Verbal machinations cannot change the reality of those apples as you said, but neither is the reality of the apples defined or in conformance to a human observation of them. The apples are how they are. Whether there are “two” of them depends on many factors that involve human agreement so in a way there is no “absolute” answer to whether there are two apples that transcend human mathematics. We are using human mathematics to model a creation of God which can work for our purposes but we should not presume the mathematics, once used to model reality, does so infallibly.

How does the truth limit God? God created these physical laws.

Right. The limitation is in our mind. God created physical laws, but did not create the linguistic conventions of “time” per se. When we use the word “are” we presuppose that we are looking at the table and apples in some limited time frame. For example, if there “are” objectively two apples on the table, then what happens in the future if one rolls off? The use of the word “are” implies a possible transient condition for men, but does it for God? I don’t know.

How God sees the apples does not contradict the truth He created.

No, but if He sees them differently than we do, then it contradicts our assertion that our perceptions equate to reality.

What spiritual side? Two apples exist and can be seen by all with eyes to see.

Wait a minute. I just realized that one of the apples has a worm in it.

There really aren’t two apples at all, because a worm has eaten part of one. I didn’t realize it until I picked up the apple and cut it open. On the outside it looked like two apples. Could have fooled me. I guess there never really were two apples on that table.

Oh, back to your question, the spiritual side for this argument can be anything that involves faith because we cannot observe directly. That would be the Cloud of the Unknowing.

I have no idea what you are talking about?

It’s just a defensive way of saying that when people get out the rule books to judge and condescend toward each other under the assumption that they can discover God’s love through arguments over the rules, then they are mistaken. To tell me that I have absolutely and objective sinned because the rule book says so, denies the spiritual “fine print” which Jesus put there to warn against the presumptuousness and divisiveness of such an act.

Indeed, because you are an absolutist.

Ouch.

You seem to have uncovered my secret.
You caught me by surprise. I didn’t see it coming. :bowdown:

If you didn’t plan the one-two punch, then you sure made it good when you had the chance. Bravo! :clapping:

I am really an absolutist at heart, and one of the things I am absolutely passionate about is by showing that I am a Better Absolutist Than You. I use the guise of relativism to build up your pride so that in frustration you may accuse me of all sorts of things and then I can launch a counterattack to show that you are not only relativistic, but a hypocrite. You have stayed the course so far and not fallen for this strategy, so maybe that means that my efforts are lost on you, or that they weren’t necessary (or that they were effective) gee I don’t know. It is what is it, whether I call it is lost effort of the will of God.

Alan

 

[Brad]

AlanFromWichita:

I don’t understand your analogy. Are you trying to say Jesus was an absolutist? He was about love, but not about the written documents which consist of ink on paper and have no intrinsic life. Using written rules to justify condemning one another in Jesus’ name, is about like, I don’t know – probably like confusing an exercise bike for a car. If absolutism means you pick and choose which of Jesus’ teachings to apply in any given situation, then I don’t need any of them; I can be a sociopath without hiding behind flowery explanations as to why I threw the first stone at my brother for whom Christ died. I just say I don’t like his looks, and beg mercy for my pathetic state.

I’m not sure what your point is here. You were defending relativism and using Jesus to do so. Jesus is Truth personified. Relativism is the idea that any person can make up his or her own truth. Jesus is indeed absolute truth. Pointing out His teachings and the teachings of His Church is not throwing stones, and most definitelty is not condemnation. The Bible is clear that we must work diligently to help our brothers and sisters stay away from the physical and spiritual harm of sin. The opposite of love is NOT truth. Charity(love) and Truth are one, in combination, and are personified by Jesus.

AlanFromWichita:

What they did was destructive. I think it was a terrible wrong, but I’m not going to pray that they will burn in hell for it because Jesus taught us better than that. God if it means anything, I pray that Hitler and Stalin will have opened their eyes by the time they died and saw they had been deceived into working for the enemy. Please bless them and have mercy on their souls if it be Your will. Please bless us and help us heal from our own fears and bad associations with these people. I ask these things in Jesus’ name, amen.

Who is suggesting that we pray they burn in hell? Why do you project what you think “conservatives” are thinking overtop of what they are really thinking? Why do you judge their hearts and what is in their minds? Who is proposing that anyone pray that anyone burn in hell?

How can you assess that they were working for the enemy on one hand but someone who is in sexual sin is not working for the enemy on the other hand? What is your lighthouse?

AlanFromWichita:

Also, Lord, I pray in thanksgiving that good people sacrificed everything they had including their lives, so that they were defeat these people and put their regimes out of business. Like Christ, their deaths have gone in a way to set us free. Amen! Alleluia!

Amen to that but you are refuting relativism by your prayer. Good work.

AlanFromWichita:

There. Maybe that’ll give you a better idea what I think of these guys. I prayed to do the prayers, but to challenge myself to draft a “Christian” response to those evildoers.

A good prayerful response. What would you have said to them if you had a chance to meet them prior to their death while they were still doing their evil deeds? Would you not condemn their actions and their sin?

AlanFromWichita:

Called what a dictatorship of relatism?

The prevailing worldview that you appear to support.

AlanFromWichita:

How is killing everybody who doesn’t fit a certain racial profile relative? That sounds pretty absolute to me.

Hitler decided that killing Jews and Christians was right and gave many reasons that millions of people supported. God said this was wrong. This is relativism. Absolutism says that murder is always wrong. And Adultery. And fornication. And stealing. Etc.

AlanFromWichita:

When I am trying to figure culpability for a sin, relativism is good. When I am trying to figure how to kill everybody of a certain race or religious belief, absolutism is bad.

Murder is absolutely and always wrong and sinful. Culpability is between the actor and God. An observer (you and I) have no place here to be relative. We can choose to forgive.

I’ve already demonstrated that Hitler’s mentality was not absolutism but relativism. Further evidence is that he strongly believed that Darwinian Evolutionary Theory gave creedence to killing whom he considered weak. Htiler had no absolute definitions of right and wrong. He made them up as he went along. He did not turn to the absolute rock of the Church. He turned to himself. You cannot compare the leadership of Christ’s Church to the leadership of a corrupt despot.

continued…

 

[Brad]

AlanFromWichita:

Why is it we have to take perfectly useful words like “relativism” and attach emotional significance to them as if the words themselves have hurt us?

Alan

We are not talking about words here. This isn’t English class. We are talking about philosophical worldviews.

The worldview of relativism says that there is no absolute right and wrong. The worldview of Christianity says that there is absolute right and wrong.