Dear Pericles
now we are getting somewhere .. good.
Actually.. the translation "shall not KILL' is not as good as it could be. I draw your attention to Jesus statement "If you eye sins, gouge it out" "If anyone would be my disciple, he must HATE his mother, father etc etc" Hebrew Idiom speaks in stark contrasts. It does not mean 'KILL' in the total sense of the word, if it did, then the punishment for various infringements of the Law (where death is prescribed) could not be true. "You shall not MURDER" is a more accurate translation of the intended meaning there.
Now. before we go down the path of possibly thinking that I am saying, (or the bible) that moral limits are prescribed in such detail that "a" is ok but "a+ or - .001" is not (to use your little friends :) I'm not suggesting this. The Jews had actually worked out something like 613 or so further sub commands (which fleshed out the 10 major ones) which they felt every Israelite must comply with to be fulfilling the Law (they STILL believe this today)
Jesus summed up the WHOLE law in 2 phrases "Love God" "Love your neighbour" .. or.. "do for your neighbour that which you would want him to do for you" The areas of life you mentioned can be addressed by the 2nd. The first is what gives 'absolute' authority to it.

U know, I just noticed that last little catchy phrase "how relatively absolute this is" ... I suppose now the crunch is, "its absolute for those who are in covenant relationship with God" in simple terms. 'true" for them.

My whole point is summed up in a standard illustration I use, about 2 guys on an Island with limited resources. That is the sum total of their world. They know of nothing else. One (a democrat) says to himself, "I'll call so and so, and discuss with him the careful sharing of resources which will maximize both our lives and enhance our lifestyle." The other, (probably a redneck) says "Hey.. this guy is in my way, I'll just kill him and have it all". Now, which one is 'right' well in a Godless world neither, nor are they wrong. Our sentimental sensibilities will immediately say "The democrat was right" but ulitmately... is it not possible that in view of how other cultures view such acts, our sensibilities may have been more shaped by our Judao Christian sense of fair play rather than an instinctive human quality of 'niceness' ? You see, given my belief in God, there is just no other place I can go in terms of morality than this. There is no way shape or form where I could suggest otherwise for how I should treat people.I dont want to be someones slave.. so I wont make someone my slave. etc etc. Although sometimes I wonder if I'm in fact a slave to the Commonwealth bankm -it owns more of me than I do.

I hope this helps in understanding my view. Keep going, I dont mind being criticized.

Boaz, I'm sorry if you see this as criticism. I posed the question because I think it is an important one.

But your reaction to my question has left me in even more befuddled than before.

What you have described surely invalidates for all time the concept of an absolute truth - or perhaps more precisely, the concept of an absolute truth that can be expressed accurately in the English language.

If the translation is imprecise, then it can only be an approximate truth, which you have chosen to interpret in a particular way, e.g. it's ok to kill someone if you have a good reason. (Sorry, I paraphrased just a little; you were more specific about the circumstances i.e. the guy who was about to rape your sister. But the underlying reality - a rule has been interpreted - remains).

Frankly, you'd be a lot better off with the Lacan faction, where context is all-important to meaning, and altogether subjective to our own preconditioning and experiences. That way, you could happily see your way to interpret all ten Commandments, in a fashion and shape that meets your own requirements..

Pericles, I wasn't saying ur comments were criticism, I was simply putting u at ease if u felt like I needed a verbal biff :)

What u say takes the discussion to a deeper level again. The subjective side of the use of language ..exactly. I dont dispute this. Context is ALWAYS crucial in obtaining meaning.
But acts like "murder" are pretty easy to define. "Adultery" is not difficult to comprehend. Using Gods name in a disrespectful way is not hard to detect.

So, I'm learning in all this how best to put my thoughts about the subject, and your incisive analysis is most helpful. The concept of how we even define words, which is itself a dynamic process is crucial also for this discussion.

Having said that. The concept of 'absolute' perhaps is better attached to the 'idea' than its specific expression ? "Love God" ..ok..'how' ? that was defined in the Old testament in terms of obedience to the Law and happy and cheerful obedience to certain rituals and the ceremonial and social life of the Israelites. It also included rejecting the pagan deities and the associated practices.

Ultimately it will boil down to the existence of a culture, a place and a time. With an available language of the day, into which God spoke/revealed Himself. I guess I'm driving at the fact of God's self revelation as being the 'absolute' aspect.

Moses encounters a burning bush, he goes to Mount Sinai, receives the commandments etc . He hears God. Abraham is called to "Leave your country and go where I tell you, you will be the father of many nations" When u look at the actual covenants between God and Abraham (Genesis 12 and following) Its all about the establishment of the Nation which was to be the vehicle of blessing to the world.

Just as a bit of trivia, most people find the reading of the old genealogies "And so and so was the father of whosiwhatsit, who was the father of..etc etc.. pretttty boring. But a study of these, the name types relative to the historical time when they were supposed to have lived, is an extremely interesting exercise. Sometimes in the middle of a list of 20 names u find "...who was left handed" !!! :) but all the rest were just names. Then later u can see many of these names have developed into tribes..and then peoples.

Are we closer now with 'absolute' truth ? Can u think of a better term ? "Revealed" ?

Truth as belief

We are in physical existence to learn and understand that our energy translated into feelings, thoughts and emotions, causes all experience. There are no exceptions. Once this is understood, we must learn to examine our beliefs as this will automatically cause you to feel and think in certain fashions. Our emotions follow our beliefs and not the other way around.

You must realise that any idea you accept as truth is a belief that you hold. You must, then, take the next step and say,

“It is not necessarily true, even though I believe it”.

The most hampering belief of all is the idea that the clues to current behaviour are buried and inaccessible. The answers are always there in our conscious minds

Examine your invincible and core beliefs – strong ideas about your existence; the way you build your life. Examples,” human nature is inherently evil”, “my life is worthless”; “relationships are pointless”. The first example at its worst will make a person not trust a mate, family, friends, colleagues, country or the world in general.

Once understood to be false, the other subsidiary and offshoots will fall away. Distinguish between the facts of life and the beliefs of life - a daunting task for many.

We must learn to disregard all beliefs that imply basic limitations, as there is no limitations to the self. Some originated in childhood, but you are not at their mercy unless you believe you are. Because your imaginations follow your beliefs, you can find yourself in viscous circles in which you constantly paint pictures in your mind that reinforce “negative” aspects in your life

Imaginative events generate appropriate emotions and the resulting hormonal changes in the body affect your behaviour with others or cause you to interpret events always in the light of your beliefs. And so will daily experience will seem to justify what you believe more and more.

The only way out is to become aware of your beliefs and your own conscious thoughts and to change the your beliefs so that you can bring them more in line with the kind of reality you want to experience

Imaginations and emotions are your great allies and will automatically come into play to reinforce the new beliefs.

Boaz, I'm not sure about the deeper level, but it sure is getting a little weird.

"The concept of 'absolute' perhaps is better attached to the 'idea' than its specific expression ?"

Absolute ideas, Boaz? Are you sure about this?

This is surely the type of justification used by " morons like Hitler, Stalin and his clone Sadaam ", whom you introduced into the discussion a little while back. I'm sure that the Final Solution was a pretty absolute idea, which was expressed in a number of specific ways.

Pericles
I don't think u read my post well.
You alluded to the limitations of language. I responded with attaching the absoluteness (divine validation) to the 'idea' ONLY in the sense of for example 'God called MOses from a burning bush' was an event reported. If u had four people report the incident they might give it slightly different emphasis. Do u get it now ?
If u want to describe every event in langauge which encompasses that event in all totality.. to the exclusion of all other possibilities, it would not work real well.
So, the 'idea' here was "God called MOses from the bush" I'm sure there is more than one way that can be reported where we totally 'get' the idea.
Example 2 "a hydrogen atom consists of one proton and one electron"
example 3 "a hydrogen atom consists of one electron and one proton"

If my mention of the 'idea' as absolute troubles you .. ignore it or, replace 'idea' with 'event' or 'speech' or some other tangable thing.