Martin, I rarely read your posts any longer, because they seem to be just a tiny bit repetitive, but this caught my eye..

>>First post argued relativism was true. I refuted it, its internally contradictory, nonsense.<<

Couldn't quite figure it, so I tracked back and found...

>>If you think truth is relative to the individual, and everyone ought to believe this to be true. You have found one absolute truth. But hold on, a relativist doesn’t believe something can be true independent of a person’s wishes, desires and will. [ergo] Relativism contradicts itself.<<

This is known in the trade as a dishonest enthymeme.

The thing about "relativists" (your shorthand for non-christians) is that they specifically do not believe they have discerned an "absolute truth".

That is in fact almost the entire difference between you, a dyed-in-the-wool godbotherer, and the rest of us.

What you are confused about, and attempt to make mileage from, is the articulation of non-belief as a belief in itself.

This is of course a contradiction in terms, but this does not stop you from pretending it is the credo of the relativist, and expressing delight when your conclusion doesn't hold water.

What a surprise. A false premise actually leading to a false conclusion, who'd a thunk it?

The opposite of someone who believes, Martin, is someone who does not.

In your argument, the opposite of someone who believes, is someone who believes [something else].

Am I making things a little clearer for you?

>>What you would have us do is reject Christ, the religious tradition of our culture ... and put in its place a silly doctrine held by a small fraction of pseudo intellectuals...<<

Has it not been made clear to you that we have absolutely no interest in your rejecting anything. Just stop pretending that a) you, and you alone have the right answer and b) anyone who doesn't share your beliefs can only be, at best, a "pseudo intellectual".

Pericles: Not sure where point of disagreement lies. I have argued that government policy CAN influence the housing market. Negative gearing and relatively low CGT are clearly policies that are keeping investors in the market and these policies are therefore policies that influence the property market and the price of residences, and, I would argue, in an important way. Other government policies increase the supply of affordable housing for lower income renters and this also has some effect on the real estate market and also tends to reduce homelessness. Can we call it quits now?

“Relativism is self-contradictory. Every human assertion is said to be time-bound and culture-bound, but the assertion that "all is relative" is taken to be universal and necessary. Total relativism absolutely denies any absolutes, and it absolutizes relativity.”

Pericles you realise that the real dishonest enthymeme occurs in the articulation of relativism. What genuinely is hidden is the logical conclusion of the doctrine. That is that relativism must apply to relativism itself. Relativism is sneaky in that it tries to relativise all beliefs except the doctrine of relativism itself.

Denying the existence of universal truth would mean you wouldn’t be able to criticise Christians who absolutised their relative interpretations of scripture.

Relativism is not my shorthand for non-christians, the doctrine inhibits criticism of any kind including where it is necessary against religious belief. And this is what disappoints me so much. It’s a heavy weight on our civilization and I sincerely hope it is lifted soon. We ought to be able to talk intelligently about religion for everyone’s sake, not trot out popular prejudices and pretend we advance debate.

The worst thing we can do is claim that it is every other claim except religious ones point to real things. The same rules can be applied to whatever kind of belief we choose and we get nowhere.

In Pope Benedict XVI’s first speech he said relativism is the biggest problem facing the world today.

“Its not prejudiced to think another person wrong. It is prejudiced to not see where they think they’re right”

Calling people god botherer, devil dodgers, painting the Church and history as black and white missing all nuance is what holds us all back.

If we can defeat relativism, if we can defeat popular prejudices we can argue and achieve something.

We must argue at the level of true or false not do what PK did and pretend all religious claims are invalidated because they all claim to be true. I’m sure PK thinks what he says is true but I don’t dismiss him as an ‘anti-god botherer’ just because people hold different kinds of a-theisms

Hi David (Perthwestern)
a goodly reply, and I must apologise for inadvertantly adding a scurilous 'c' to you tradition "Quacker" :) sorry about that.. let me prove I can type properly here "Quaker" ! got it..

Yes.. disagreement is part of life. I'm a literalist in the sense of where it is required by the context. I don't take literally some of the poetic aspects like God's "nostrils" or the 'Pillars' on which the earth is supposed to sit and so on.

I don't even take some of Jesus words "literally" such as "If your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out" etc..

I believe strongly in sound principles of interpretation which we would apply to any document.

This morning I was at "Maroondah Festival 2006" a local event. Present was a stall from a local 'Reconciliation' group.
There was ONE Aboriginal bloke there, a Sth African lady, and an Anglican lady, plus others. The Aboriginal bloke spoke to me about 'culture, connection with the land' the whites spoke about 'funding, equality and healthcare' ... interesting eh :) Reconciliation is different things to different people.

So, Im quite with you on the political aspects. Justice should be our goal for all, and this is entirely Biblical.

Job ? yes.. probably one of the greatest pieces of literature of all time.

When Jesus drove out the merchants from the temple, there is a sober lesson in that for us. Let the church NEVER become polluted by the love of money.

and..at the same time, let it speak with a powerful prophetic voice, calling the nation and its leaders to account, calling them to righteousness, justice and the glorification of all that is good.

From me to you:

Hebrews 10:23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.

Hello BOAZ_David,

Thanks for that little vignette of life at the 'reconciliation table'. Still a long journey there ahead of us all.

As for your comment "Justice should be our goal for all, and this is entirely Biblical" ... I would add that it is biblical BECAUSE it is universal.

One little saying that always challenges me on the subject of justice is:
"A God ALL merciful is a God unjust!"

I was also interested in your comment about " ... calling the nation and its leaders to account, calling them to righteousness, justice and the glorification of all that is good."

At our Quaker MFW (Meeting For Worship) yesterday, we were reminded of George Fox's words to:
"be patterns, be examples in all countries, places, islands, nations wherever you come; that your carriage and life may preach among all sorts of people, and to them; then you will come to walk cheerfully over the world, answering that of God in everyone".

I was moved to speak about how I could thank God that we did not live in a Theocracy where the community spirit (and in particular those in power) leant towards the idea that there could only be ONE "pattern" or "example" of how to live one's life!

Of course, exactly WHAT is "righteousness, justice and ... good" is also ETERNALLY up for discussion, debate and deliberation ... which is why 'democracy' remains my one true faith!

Now, if we could only bring in annual general elections so that we could more properly celebrate and inculcate the democratic principles and world-view with our fellow citizens and (in particular) our children!

In peace,
David (from Perth, Western Australia)

Martin, the chances of lifting what you describe as the "heavy weight on our civilization" that you perceive relativism to be are unfortunately very slim.

The problem that you face is that you are yourself a relativist in your thinking.

If we look more closely at your position, we find that you are obliged to work within a specific frame of reference - Christianity - which guides your thoughts, ideas and the logic you employ. Everything you present here is in relation to those beliefs.

And in a very real sense, this is inevitable. Even within your frame of reference, there remain a large number of unknowns. To paper over those, you have constructed a form of reality that relies upon adherence to a set of beliefs. Other religions have constructed their own realities to work with, and have their own means of addressing the embarrassment that they, too, cannot explain everything.

The key is that you - and they - "believe". Once you have cleared the hurdle of belief, absolutism beckons. All the inherent contradictions, anomalies and just plain gaps magically disappear.

But the truth remains, that you have constructed for yourself a reality in exactly the same way that I have. We both have relativistic positions, the only difference is that you have defined your relativism as absolute.

Which of course it is, but only relative to the framework you have adopted.

As for:

>>painting the Church and history as black and white missing all nuance is what holds us all back.<<

This is a strange assertion, given that it tends to be "the Church" that paints life as black and white... it is me who normally receives the accusation of living in a world full of shades of grey.