Aslan, stop grabbing at semantic straws, stand up straight, look at yourself in the mirror and say "I was wrong. I must stop prolonging this silly game and admit it, on this - very rare - occasion, I was wrong."

You have no idea how therapeutic it will be.

And as far as your mendacious form of argumentation goes, Aslan, it is unlikely that I will ever run out of criticisms, either spontaneous or manufactured. Particularly when you warp the rules of logic to support your preaching.

"Your view is so obviously wrong - just on logical grounds! The proposition "everything is relative", is an absolute claim. If the proposition is right then the proposition is wrong."

Do you have any idea what arrant nonsense this is? How on earth can "everything is relative" possibly be a statement of an absolute? The only person who could even attempt such a categorization is one who is so rigid and uncompromising in his thinking that they believe themselves always to be right. Which brings us back to my earlier recommendation.

Go find a mirror. There are bound to be a few around the place.

Aslan,

Please note, I did not opt for a new category between relativism and absolutism. Instead, I claimed the contraposition to absolutism needed not to be a chaotic system. In the West, much of the progress in the past three hundred years has been the result of relativism.

Why must a creator be absolutely moral? Could not an immoral divine being create the Universe? Herein, the divine power, capable of creating of matter, energy and physics is all that is basically required. Moreover, law is a mere subset of morality. Further, God’s laws might be held moral or immoral in the view of humanity; e.g., cruelty in the insect world. Several contributors to this Forum make the last point.

By “original autographies”, I trust you are not saying that God actually scribed first manuscripts, which other writers transcribed. In Christianity, to the best of my knowledge, some claim the earliest NT documents appear about generation after the Crucifixion. Reference is made the Quelle writings from which the gospels are said to be derived, but I am unsure of the broad acceptance of Q.

If the “Founding Fathers were NOT infallible”, that is, they were fallible, how can the Bible that we read today be infallible? Or, are you saying that in antiquity there was an infallible Bible, but today the 26+ versions of the Bible are fallible? Alternatively, if these Bibles are infallible, that is odd given these books disagree with each other. Or, do we have back in Fourth Century, the 3 Fs, Fallible Founding Fathers, creating an infallible compilation?

My comment about the historical development of Christian theism related to you seemingly not recognising Yahweh as a member of the Canaanite evolving from an animist volcano spirit. The aforesaid evolution from "spirit in" to "God of" is also found in other religions. So, there is a pattern here.

Oliver,
Quote, "My comment about the historical development of Christian theism related to you seemingly not recognising Yahweh as a member of the Canaanite evolving from an animist volcano spirit."

Reply: The fact is that monotheism had to accept that all events formerly attributed to many gods were actually attributed to one God. From early times monotheism believed nothing that happened in the universe was in conflict with the ultimate purpose but all things were predetermined by one single mind - except for man who out of selfishness or personal opinion or defiance operates in opposition to the designed unity. Man was given his own mind intended to operate in moral purity but preferred rebellion.

Quote, "If the “Founding Fathers were NOT infallible”, that is, they were fallible, how can the Bible that we read today be infallible?

Reply: All men are fallible people, with shortcomings, but emerging out of this global darkness is a moral purity where perfect justice, love and acceptance of the frail human spirit is revealed - it is God who created man to express his perfect moral image. We understand that perfection of character has a blessing we would all love to partake. An environment where we understand others perfectly and we are perfectly understood and totally accepted. The message emerging is: that our Creator can accept imperfect people, and impute perfection to them as if they are without sin (violation of the perfect law), if they desire him. That is the basic message of Christianity, we are sons of God not because we tried to be perfect, but because we recognised our shortcoming and sought forgiveness and believed imputed rightness clothed our imperfection.

Quote, "Or, are you saying that in antiquity there was an infallible Bible, but today the 26+ versions of the Bible are fallible?"

Reply: Versions of the Bible may only be trying to communicate a message in relative terms, not changing the message. Whenever men document ideas they are not totally absolute, but that does not mean they have not authority.

Pericles,

For someone who values logic, you seem to have very little grasp of it! You constantly make flat out assertions with no supportings arguments and then demand that I admit my error merely because you say so. And then you have the audacity to accuse me of claiming infallibility! And of course, when I reject your unsubstantiated assertions, you resort to ad hominem.

But the one that takes the cake is this:
"How on earth can 'everything is relative' possibly be a statement of an absolute?"

Pericles, if you cannot see that "everything is relative" is an absolute truth claim then I will not bother wasting time responding to you - you have gone beyond the pale and crossed into total irrationality.

Oliver,

You said: "contraposition to absolutism needed not to be a chaotic system."

I never said that relativism is chaotic (although it could be). A relativistic society will tend toward "might makes right". ie. the strongest group/person will dominate and impose their view of morality on everyone else. In that sense, a relativistic society gets transformed into a totalitarian one. Relativism can never build a society - it will just destroy an existing one.

You said: "In the West, much of the progress in the past three hundred years has been the result of relativism."

What planet are you living on? The progress made in the past 300 years is the result of Christianity. Relativism has only caused regression. The massive increase in STDs and the HIV/AIDS pandemic is a good example of the destruction caused by relativism.

You said: "the historical development of Christian theism related to you seemingly not recognising Yahweh as a member of the Canaanite evolving from an animist volcano spirit"

Yeah - there are lots of ideas like this. They are baseless assertions based on some pseudohistorian's wet-dream. Boring.

Like Pericles, you seem to think that a claim = an argument = the truth.

Aslan, pointless as it may be, I have to take issue with you on this.

"Like Pericles, you seem to think that a claim = an argument = the truth"

This is totally , diametrically opposite to what I have been saying. I have put my position forward on many occasions, that an opinion is merely an opinion, a belief is simply a belief, and that there is nothing absolute about either. This statement you have made is therefore pure invention, akin to claiming black is white.

If you genuinely believe your observation to be accurate, I can only feel pity for your lack of awareness. On the other hand of course, this being the Internet, you could just as easily be a grubby little teenager, chortling away at his keyboard as he makes the next ridiculous assertion in the face of clear evidence to the contrary. In fact, in order to be charitable, this is how I will envisage you in future.

The OT law was given by Moses who related it to the culture they were familiar with. He tried to demonstrate principles of a higher moral code than they were familiar with under Egyptian gods. Gods individually attributed to controlling the plagues that came upon the land and the people Moses attributed to only one, and He would rescue them from slavery through the waters. Of itself the Mosaic law was not absolute, Jesus pointed this out (enunciated in John 1: 17), he referred to a higher law - the perfect law of God. Jesus taught the only way to fulfil the law in any real capacity as falable people is based in love and forgiveness.

Take justice for instance, we all would prefer perfect (absolute) moral justice, so that offence does not go unpunished or the innocent be found guilty. This principle is set in the hearts of those who seek God; the absolute of that perfection is dependent upon the perfect understanding of, 'has an offense occurred?'. We being imperfect fallable people may through ignorance believe an offense has occurred, good justice should satisfy the offended: conversley the person unnaware their behaviour has offended another should be made aware of their cause of violation, and their reconciliation will satisfy them. In both cases forgiveness, love and understanding can heal while litigated pursuit will not - though the offender may seem to escape some penalty. We really desire a better society - that is the pursuit. Ultimately Christ is about that, and not about enforcement of absolute justice upon fallabe people, casting them into an eternal torment. Ultimately people will cast themselves into such a place having never found peace and reconciliation with God.