Appreciating Enaj's post of Wed 11 May..... Respectful and one to respect.

Enaj,

You ask: "absolutes may exist, but how do you know the ones that do are the ones you think they are?"

ie. how do you know who's right and who's wrong? How about the person with the best arguments!?!?

You said: "Human beings can, in my view, only be relativist, because the assumption that one set of human beings knows the truth and the other lot doesn't, is really just an opinion. It may be true, but, equally likely, it may not be."

Let me ask you - do you think your view is right and mine is wrong?

Answer is clearly "yes" otherwise you wouldn't be arguing against my view. As a relativist, you can't say that something is right or wrong because those concepts assume absolute standards. You can only say that *for you* my view is not right.

But this is just *your opinion*. If this is just your personal opinion about the nature of truth and reality, then why are you telling me and everyone else? Why should we care if this is merely what you believe, or feel, is the truth?

You said: "Give me a relativist, a doubter any time (it may be called humility) over an absolutist."

Consider a person who believes that because your car is much nicer than their own, this is, to them, unjust because you clearer got that car by exploiting others and you have another car anyway. Would you object if they feel justified in themselves about stealing your car? You cant say its wrong. It may be wrong, but it may not be.

You said: "[relativism] leaves me room to be me, the other wants me to be just like him/ her. One remains open to new ideas, to growth, the other has decided they already know everything, absolutely."

As a relativist who, by definition, thinks that all points of view are equal, why is it that when I think I am right, I am, by implication, a restrictive, narrow-minded, arrogant know-all, but when you think you are right, you are humble, liberated, and open-minded?

enaj, fiona, garra - respecting all your posts. Thank you for having breadth of thought.

I notice also that you don't insist that others believe as you do, nor do you question the right of others to post their opinions, which is what this forum is all about.

Oliver,

The text of the Bible is not reliable simply because we have many copies. It is reliable because we have many copies that were produced over the centuries dating back to the early 2nd century, and these copies overwhelmingly agree. All differences are either obvious minor copying mistakes or can be resolved by cross-checking them against different families of manuscripts or by quotations and commentary by early church fathers.

Reliability of content can be confirmed by the masses of archaeological discoveries verifying Biblical people, places and events, by references in the Jewish Talmud and by historian Josephus who was a contemporary of Jesus.

BTW, your church history needs some work. The Council of Nicea was in 325 (not 321) and the discussions were about Arius' teachings regarding the divinity of Christ. The Council overwhelmingly rejected Arius' teachings. Neither the text of Scripture nor the Canon was an issue.

You said: "To understand what happened, we should not just cite numerous biased, concentrated sources. We must evaluate multiple divergent accounts, testing our position(s) against other findings to better understand history."

Agreed. This is what textual critics do. Their work is used as the basis for all modern Bible translations.

You said: "What must be appreciated is, there are “multiple interpretations” of the reasons for The Crucifixion"

There may well be "multiple interpretations" but that does not mean that they are all equally valid, coherent, and supported by evidence.

This debate has really lost its way. Now its turning into a "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" diatribe. Yaaawn. This is why I find the more dogmatic posters very dismaying indeed.

However, one thing this forum has shown very clearly is just how open to interpretation the bible really is. There are as many definitions as there are people.

I hope John McKinnon contributes another article to this forum. Although I am an atheist I love a well reasoned and respectful POV.

LOL

http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/testimonium.htm
every whatch the movie Titanic Aslan?