What unites religion?

[80sU2isBest]

you're working from a set of assumptions that do not apply to most understandings of what relativism is, especially in a philosophical context.

Not on a theological level, Irvine. Relativism vs. Absolutism, when referred to in a theological discussion deals with the ideas of "is God an absolute being, or is he different, according to the indiviodual's perceptions of him?" and "is truth an absolute standard, or does it change according to the the individual's perception?" and "are morals an absolute standard, or do they change according to the the individual's perception?" .

In that context, the theological context, which is precisely what this thread is, a theological thread, my arguments are certainly appropriate.

thus, you cannot extrapolate the idea that anyone can do whatever they want so long as it hurts no one from the dictionary meaning of realtivism

Certainly it does, in a theological discussion. If there is no God or absolute truth/moral values, then it's all relative, and the true humanistic standard of "anyone can do whatever they want so long as it hurts no one" is the only common moral value of the day.

 

[melon]

Nothing unites religion.

Everyone think that their religion is the "absolute truth."

Melon

 

[80sU2isBest]

Nothing unites religion.

Everyone think that their religion is the "absolute truth."

Melon

Exactly.

 

[Irvine511]

Not on a theological level, Irvine. Relativism vs. Absolutism, when referred to in a theological discussion deals with the ideas of "is God an absolute being, or is he different, according to the indiviodual's perceptions of him?" and "is truth an absolute standard, or does it change according to the the individual's perception?" and "are morals an absolute standard, or do they change according to the the individual's perception?" .

In that context, the theological context, which is precisely what this thread is, a theological thread, my arguments are certainly appropriate.



Certainly it does, in a theological discussion. If there is no God or absolute truth/moral values, then it's all relative, and the true humanistic standard of "anyone can do whatever they want so long as it hurts no one" is the only common moral value of the day.

you're not even acknowledging the social impact upon the individual's understanding of even the very words "absolute" and "relative."

but you've defined your own terms (rather relative of you) and they contain self-justifying definitions that will lead you to precisely the conclusion you started out to prove. you also haven't defined what you mean by "truth" and "absolute" and even "god." and you're still making a big, big leap from "god is not absolute" to "you can do whatever you want." i also don't see how different perceptions of God are incompatible with God being absolute.

also, if you believe in free will, you *can* do whatever you want. the question you're missing, and that seems most relevant for this discussion, is *should* you do whatever you want.

 

[80sU2isBest]

you're not even acknowledging the social impact upon the individual's understanding of even the very words "absolute" and "relative."

but you've defined your own terms (rather relative of you) and they contain self-justifying definitions that will lead you to precisely the conclusion you started out to prove.

I do not understand what you're talking about, "social impact...understanding" , but I do know that I have participated in many theological discussions about absolutism and relativism, and the terms I am using now were the terms that have always been used in these discussion. I didn't define these terms - absolutism and relativism have been argued on this level and in this way by philosophers/theologians throughout history.

you also haven't defined what you mean by "truth" and "absolute" and even "god."

You are missing my point entirely, Irvine. I don't need to define who God is and which morals are absolute; it's irrelevant for this discussion. The whole theological argument of relativism vs. absolutism doesn't ask that. It simply asks the question "Does an absolute God, no matter who that is, even exist, or does God change according to people's perspectives (in other words, is God different for each person)?"

also, if you believe in free will, you *can* do whatever you want. the question you're missing, and that seems most relevant for this discussion, is *should* you do whatever you want.

No, I'm NOT missing that at all. The "should you do it" question goes right to the heart of the discussion, because if there are no absolute moral values, no absolute truth, then the "should you do it" question is irrelevant, except to ask "should I do it - how will it impact me?". But you can take Free Will completely out of this; this discussion has nothing to do with Free Will. Free will deals with the ability to make choices. Period. It has nothing to do with absolutism or relativism at all.

Look, we're going nowhere with this. Have your last word, if you want, and I will read it, but I'm telling you right now that I'm not going round and around with you on this anymore.

 

[Irvine511]

no, you're right, this isn't going anywhere. you understand your terms of discussion in one way, i understand them in another.

and, of course, this goes to the absolute heart of relativism, thus proving a point, of sorts.