In article <Apr.13.00.08.35.1993.28412@athos.rutgers.edu> caralv@caralv.auto-trol.com (Carol Alvin) writes: >vbv@r2d2.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.) writes: >>In article <Apr.10.05.32.29.1993.14388@athos.rutgers.edu> caralv@caralv.auto-trol.com (Carol Alvin) writes: >> > ... >> > >> >Are all truths also absolutes? >> >Is all of scripture truths (and therefore absolutes)? >> > >> >If the answer to either of these questions is no, then perhaps you can  >> >explain to me how you determine which parts of Scripture are truths, and >> >which truths are absolutes.   >>  >> The answer to both questions is yes. > >Perhaps we have different definitions of absolute then.  To me, >an absolute is something that is constant across time, culture, >situations, etc.  True in every instance possible.  Do you agree >with this definition?  I think you do: > >> Similarly, all truth is absolute.  Indeed, a non-absolute truth is a  >> contradiction in terms.  When is something absolute?  When it is always >> true.  Obviously, if a "truth" is not always "true" then we have a >> contradiction in terms.    Yes, I do agree with your definition.  My use of the term "always" is rather deceptive, I admit.     >A simple example: > >In the New Testament (sorry I don't have a Bible at work, and can't >provide a reference), women are instructed to be silent and cover >their heads in church.  Now, this is scripture.  By your definition,  >this is truth and therefore absolute.    Hold it.  I said that all of scripture is true.  However, discerning exactly what Jesus, Paul and company were trying to say is not always so easy.  I don't believe that Paul was trying to say that all women should behave that way.  Rather, he was trying to say that under the circumstances at the time, the women he was speaking to would best avoid volubility and cover their heads.  This has to do with maintaining a proper witness toward others.  Remember that any number of relativistic statements can be derived from absolutes.  For instance, it is absolutely right for Christians to strive for peace.  However, this does not rule out trying to maintain world peace by resorting to violence on occasion.  (Yes, my opinion.)   >Evangelicals are clearly not taking this particular part of scripture  >to be absolute truth.  (And there are plenty of other examples.) >Can you reconcile this?  Sure.  The Bible preaches absolute truths.  However, exactly what those truths are is sometimes a matter of confusion.  As I said, the Bible does preach absolute truths.  Sometimes those fundamental principles are crystal clear (at least to evangelicals).  Sometimes they are not so clear to everyone (e.g. should baptism be by full immersion or not, etc).  That is largely because sometimes, it is not explicitly spelled out whether the writers are speaking to a particular culture or to Christianity as a whole.  This is  where scholarship and the study of Biblical contexts comes in.     >It's very difficult to see how you can claim something which is based  >on your own *interpretation* is absolute.    God revealed his Truths to the world, through His Word.  It is utterly  unavoidable, however, that some people whill come up with alternate  interpretations.  Practically anything can be misinterpreted, especially when it comes to matters of right and wrong.  Care to deny that?