A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
(continued)
Relativism to me is when the truth depends on the circumstances. Moral relativism, as I understand you to say, is an attempt to coerce the truth to fit a certain prescription.
If that’s what you mean, I agree that it needs to be squelched, but please don’t blame it on relativism, as this is only a characature of relative thinking. It would be like saying “Catholicism is evil” because I see Catholics doing evil.
I can be just as evil using absolute thinking than relative. Satan can probably attest to that, I’m relatively certain.
The next time someone tries to excuse their behavior to you, please consider this exercise.
Christ became sin to save us, so just because somebody is a sinner (which is just sin with legs) doesn’t mean they will not play a redemptive role in our own salvation. This is a test, from which we will see how pure we really are in our faith. We see somebody breaking the rules to which we “pride” ourselves on being obedient. We have been trained to believe that we are supposed to be “offended” by this.
Being offended, in my estimation, is not Christlike. What is being offended? Perhaps it is an expression of the despair one feels when one is scared another may hurt them because we don’t understand their thinking? The despair one feels when one cannot convince another to stop being a sinner?
Sure Christ became indignant but it seemed pretty much a one-time deal, and against a specific instance of evil.
Anyway here’s the experiment. When someone tries to justify his own sin, try believing the Holy Spirit is using that poor ignorant soul’s sorry estate, for your own edification. At this point, I assume we have verbally accused the sinner, and one might guess that at some level, no matter how hard we try to hide it, we are angry and frustrated at the sinner and think they need to be punished in the Name of God because of our being offended. We see their sin, and especially their attempt to justify it, as a direct attack on God, who needs us to become angry and indignant to protect Him from sinners. Sorry I got sarcastic there a second.
How is this possible?
Let’s give you a command. Thou shalt not judge.
Let’s add a few more. Love thy neighbor as thyself. Get the plank out of your own eye. Bless your enemy. Do not rely on human understanding. Turn the other cheek. Do not say to another, “I don’t need you.” I could give hundreds more examples, but they’re already listed in a popular Book so you can get the book and have all of them.
OK, then we all take tests, and prove that not only can we regurgitate these lessons, we can identify in hypothetical examples how they apply in terms of sinfulness.
Then we are faced with a real test. A sinner, right before our eyes. Now is our chance to prove that we can walk our talk. We are certified in theology, but are we capable of living it?
How we measure up to these lessons in an absolute sense, determines how well we pass this test. It’s easy to sit there and say that we love a person but do we really believe the lessons we espouse to the point that we do not condemn them in our hearts?
Alan
Then it isn’t relativism that makes them evil, especially if they are “rigid” or might I suggest “absolutist” in their insistence on making their own rules.
Relativism to me is when the truth depends on the circumstances. Moral relativism, as I understand you to say, is an attempt to coerce the truth to fit a certain prescription.
If that’s what you mean, I agree that it needs to be squelched, but please don’t blame it on relativism, as this is only a characature of relative thinking. It would be like saying “Catholicism is evil” because I see Catholics doing evil.
I can be just as evil using absolute thinking than relative. Satan can probably attest to that, I’m relatively certain.
Yes, the good ones are quite agile.
The next time someone tries to excuse their behavior to you, please consider this exercise.
Christ became sin to save us, so just because somebody is a sinner (which is just sin with legs) doesn’t mean they will not play a redemptive role in our own salvation. This is a test, from which we will see how pure we really are in our faith. We see somebody breaking the rules to which we “pride” ourselves on being obedient. We have been trained to believe that we are supposed to be “offended” by this.
Being offended, in my estimation, is not Christlike. What is being offended? Perhaps it is an expression of the despair one feels when one is scared another may hurt them because we don’t understand their thinking? The despair one feels when one cannot convince another to stop being a sinner?
Sure Christ became indignant but it seemed pretty much a one-time deal, and against a specific instance of evil.
Anyway here’s the experiment. When someone tries to justify his own sin, try believing the Holy Spirit is using that poor ignorant soul’s sorry estate, for your own edification. At this point, I assume we have verbally accused the sinner, and one might guess that at some level, no matter how hard we try to hide it, we are angry and frustrated at the sinner and think they need to be punished in the Name of God because of our being offended. We see their sin, and especially their attempt to justify it, as a direct attack on God, who needs us to become angry and indignant to protect Him from sinners. Sorry I got sarcastic there a second.
How is this possible?
Let’s give you a command. Thou shalt not judge.
Let’s add a few more. Love thy neighbor as thyself. Get the plank out of your own eye. Bless your enemy. Do not rely on human understanding. Turn the other cheek. Do not say to another, “I don’t need you.” I could give hundreds more examples, but they’re already listed in a popular Book so you can get the book and have all of them.
OK, then we all take tests, and prove that not only can we regurgitate these lessons, we can identify in hypothetical examples how they apply in terms of sinfulness.
Then we are faced with a real test. A sinner, right before our eyes. Now is our chance to prove that we can walk our talk. We are certified in theology, but are we capable of living it?
How we measure up to these lessons in an absolute sense, determines how well we pass this test. It’s easy to sit there and say that we love a person but do we really believe the lessons we espouse to the point that we do not condemn them in our hearts?
Alan
