vbv@r2d2.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.) writes: > In article <Apr.13.00.08.35.1993.28412@athos.rutgers.edu> caralv@caralv.auto-trol.com (Carol Alvin) writes: > > (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.) writes: > >> (Carol Alvin) writes: > >> > ... > >> >Are all truths also absolutes? > >> >Is all of scripture truths (and therefore absolutes)? > >> > > >> The answer to both questions is yes. > > > > ... > >an absolute is something that is constant across time, culture, > >situations, etc.  True in every instance possible.  Do you agree > >with this definition? ... > > > Yes, I do agree with your definition.  ... >   > > [example of women covering their heads and not speaking] >  > 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.)  I agree that there is truth in scripture.  There are principles to be  learned from it.  Claiming that that truth is absolute, though, seems  to imply a literal reading of the Bible.  If it were absolute truth  (constant across time, culture, etc.) then no interpretation would be  necessary.  It may be that the lessons gleaned from various passages are different  from person to person.  To me, that doesn't mean that one person is  right and the other is wrong.  I believe that God transcends our simple  minds, and that scripture may very well have been crafted with exactly  this intent.  God knows me, and knows that my needs are different  from yours or anyone else's.  By claiming that scripture is absolute, then at least one person in every disputed interpretation must be wrong. I just don't believe that God is that rigid.  > >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).    This is where the arrogance comes in to play.  Since these principles  are crystal clear to evangelicals, maybe the rest of us should just take their word for it?  Maybe it isn't at all crystal clear to *me* that  their fundamental principles are either fundamental *or* principles.  I think we've established that figuring out Biblical truth is a matter  of human interpretation and therefore error-prone.  Yet you can still  claim that some of them may be crystal clear?  Maybe to a certain  segment of Christianity, but to all.  > >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?  Not at all.  I think it supports my position much more effectively  than yours.  :-)  So, I think that your position is: The Bible is absolute truth, but as we are prone to error in our  interpretation, we cannot reliably determine if we have figured out  what that truth is. Did I get that right?  What's the point of spending all this time claiming and defending  absolute truth, when we can never know what those truths are, and we  can never (or at least shouldn't) act upon them?  What practical  difference can this make?