tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post5886246492869381971..comments2024-03-28T09:52:15.415-04:00Comments on Common Denominator: Ethics 2: Absolutes and RelativesKen Schenckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09745548537303356655noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-77806681638556384052008-09-25T10:25:00.000-04:002008-09-25T10:25:00.000-04:00You had so much information in this entry, that I'...You had so much information in this entry, that I've been continuing to think on it...I have learned more about parenting than when we first had kids. If I thought that what I was doing at the time, was right, but now, understand that there was a better way of doing my parenting, then how can we value the absolute? Is it relative to our understanding at the time, such as Wesley thought about sin and ignorance? If lying would bring about a better good, because of what I thought would help another, then, what happens if I realize that what I'd thought was not, in effect, the best? How does anyone justify being paternalistic to another human being...Americans believe that their form of government is the best because it allow for freedom of choice for the individual..and doesn't oppress. Some believe that this is paternalistic...but how can we even gauge when we are bound within our cultural frames...?Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-23640474774450170972008-09-24T10:36:00.000-04:002008-09-24T10:36:00.000-04:00Banner, I do not at all mean to malign the apostle...Banner, I do not at all mean to malign the apostle Paul by saying his position on this particular issue may be relativist. I am arguing that to be relativist on some issues is the right position, God's position, that Paul is right to take a relativist position on the issue of Sabbath observance.<BR/><BR/>I also am not in any way arguing against a Christian appropriation of the Jewish Sabbath in relation to Sunday as a day of worship. What I am pointing out--and I don't see how this conclusion is really debatable--is<BR/><BR/>1. That the New Testament <I>never</I> equates Sunday, the Lord's Day, with the Old Testament Sabbath. The Sabbath in the NT remains a reference to Saturday when Jews did not work.<BR/><BR/>2. That Romans 14:5 and Colossians 2:16ff clearly do not consider the Jewish Sabbath binding on Gentile Christians. Gentile believers are nowhere obligated in the NT to observe the Jewish Sabbath on Saturday.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, if Paul thought Jewish believers should continue to observe the Jewish Sabbath, while Gentile believers were not so obligated, then by definition his position on the Sabbath is relativist.Ken Schenckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09745548537303356655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-50992857769730336752008-09-24T10:28:00.000-04:002008-09-24T10:28:00.000-04:00What is the main issue, I think is what are social...What is the main issue, I think is what are social structures for in this post-structuralist frame today....The absolute of our dependency on social structures in regards to children, but then, we should not be dependent, we should come to a point of self-identity, where the social structures are useful for the next generation. Unhealthy social structures do much damage, whether in family, church, or societies.<BR/>The individual should be able to grow beyond their complete identification to the social structure. That does not mean that they cease to be social animals, but their needs are different.<BR/>Anthropoligists are outraged that the social structures of certain tribal societies are being destroyed because of development or "evangelization". Identification factors are culturally bound. But, we shouldn't be so bound in our cultrual identification that we can't identify with being "human". Religious traditions are sll cultural products, even Scriptures are bound within a cultural framework. <BR/>What Paul was trying to do was set the culturally bound "free", with identification to Christ. His was not an exclusivistic religion where one must seek salvation...and all that follows relgion...<BR/>Relgion is good in sofar as it gives us a transcendental realm, where there is an acknowledgment that we are not the end all of everything...that means that man's reason is limited...but it also means that man's reason is an aspect of God's image in man...Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-12681182726149885122008-09-24T08:15:00.000-04:002008-09-24T08:15:00.000-04:00Sir, you said, "[Note 2: As we will see below, Pau...Sir, you said, "[Note 2: As we will see below, Paul in the New Testament is actually best classifed as a "relativist" when it comes to the Old Testament Sabbath law, because he does not consider the Sabbath law binding on all people in all times and all places.]"<BR/><BR/>I encourage you to take another look at what you are teaching. You malign the apostle Paul. Maybe it's because you teach the NT out of context with the Hebrew Scriptures, but Paul did not hold the relative view you accuse him of. You can't show that from the pure text of anything he says, in context with all of what he says, let alone the context of Scripture as a whole. I encourage you to look again. The Sabbath is absolutely the same as it has been from the garden and moving forward. Isaiah 56 says it is for all people who join themselves to Yahweh. The traditions of men still do what they have been for all time; the same thing that Jesus (Yeshua) came against the Pharisees for, making the commandments of God of no effect. Man has set aside the pure commandments of God, making them of no effect, in favor of pagan tradition and humanistic philosophy.Banner Kiddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00578111747056637435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-79869111359200958362008-09-23T22:25:00.000-04:002008-09-23T22:25:00.000-04:00I think the universality of human rights that was ...I think the universality of human rights that was argued recently by the Center for Inquiry before the U.N. is something every American would want to see be affirmed. Unfortunately, cultural relativity is winning out as far as Islam law is concerned. The ironic thing is that the universal human rights is undermined by an absolutist Sharia law...because Shaira law is intolerant to the individuals under its "reign". Whenever there is a collectivity, there is bound to be tyranny, because the individual's conscience is where the categories are..and in collective societies, the individual ceases to count because of the "common good" or "God's will".<BR/><BR/>I find it interesting that I read where the Hebrew word for law is custom. If this is so, then, just as I'd understood when I first came to faith is true...that the "stepfather" is the image of one "under law"...custom/tradition, etc. Those in Christ are in a place where these differences (male, female, Jew, or Greek) are irrelevant.So, the custom, or law, is not the significant point, it is faith in Christ.<BR/><BR/>It is not a matter of salvation, but a matter of human rights. The best way to advance that cause is through governmental instruments, such as diplomacy, the U.N., etc.Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.com