<!--QuoteBegin-Swiftspear+Jul 8 2004, 06:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Jul 8 2004, 06:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-version91x+Jul 8 2004, 12:57 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (version91x @ Jul 8 2004, 12:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm sorry to say but most of those rebuttles have one thing in common, they say that the authors used literal (parts of speech?) techniques to make the bible more interesting. When I last checked, the authors were taking down the word of the creator, the shaper of the universe etc, why in the world would they want to make it more interesting? This is the word of god people, it doesn't come much more interesting than that. If your best friend had one last request on his death bed, you would not scribble metaphors or alliterations, you would write it word for word. This all leads me to believe that these disciples in todays society would be more interested in getting on the top-10 list at a leading bookstore than spreading truth and the word of the creator. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The new testamate wasn't written by any disciples, with the possible expetion of the book of John, which may have been written by the guy known as the 'disciple that jesus loved', and his book wasn't meant to be a historical recounting of fact, but rather a look at the emotional and method of Jesus' teachings. All the other books are secondary sourse and were most likely based on sourses such as word of mouth and interviews, possibly on a rough text that is today lost. Keep in mind that for the most part, none of these guys were trying to write for continuity with eachother, rather for the best representation of whatever read they were trying to produce.
As for the rest of the bible, the only conclusive parts you can argue as the word of God are the ten commandments and the parables and teachings of Jesus, which are remarkably continuitous in thier presentation. Keep in mind, the writers of the bible didn't ussually know they were writing the bible, they were just creating history documents.
Your third argument is ludicrous, there were no top-10's in the bible era, the writers were simply writing in whatever genre they were writing in with little or no thought as to who thier intended audience is. Much of the bible is unarguably poetry, much of it is story/myth, and a fair bit of it is historical document, it wasn't compiled until long after the writers were dead. There is no historical document in history predating the bible that comes close to matching the accuracy of claims, as far as historians are concerned, the jewish people may have been the first civilization on earth to acctually develop a sence of value for reasonably accurate historical records. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The new testamate wasn't written by any disciples<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wrote 'authors'; also by writing 'that these disciples in todays society would be more interested in getting on the top-10 list' I meant it in a biographical way, people who would write what the deciples said. The deciple with the most interesting book wins.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Keep in mind, the writers of the bible didn't ussually know they were writing the bible, they were just creating history documents<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly proving my point, if they were writing history why would they not just write it point for point:
<!--QuoteBegin-http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_AALOBC.html+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_AALOBC.html)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->However, this does not mean that the Bible - which is, after all, a composition of literature - cannot make use of literary techniques such as metaphor.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Your third argument is ludicrous, there were no top-10's in the bible era<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->Re-read that, I haven't done english as a subject in high school for half a year now, but i'm quite sure I was referring to a theoretical modern day jesus.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Saying something is "revealed truth" is different than saying something is "perfect." The latter truth is forced to explain everything without exception and once done, cannot be disputed. You may consider that more semantics and I would agree it rests on a fine point but the results are more important. The Bible very clearly does not claim to contain all knowledge (at least I hope) nor does it claim to be historically accurate and grounded for all I know.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is no greater slap in the face to any man or woman of faith then to tell him/her that their creed that they would themselves be martyred for, then to tell them that their faith has as much relevance as any other. It is an inflammatory issue, but one that I have no problem discussing.
The Bible does not claim to be the source of all knowledge. Obviously, it doesn't talk about chemistry, or contain english lessons. However, the Bible claims itself to be the inspired word of God. 2 Timothy 3:16 : All scripture is God-breathed, and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
And as such, defines itself to be everything that the Creator God of the universe sees fit to communicate to His creations. In short, it isn't all knowledge, it is all the knowledge that matters.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Thus if you don't bother to claim it's perfect you can go ahead and realize that it may be revealed truth but it doesn't have to be the only truth.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
John 18:37 "You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."
Revelations 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
If it is revealed truth, it is a revelation of THE only truth. And, of course, since we believe Jesus is in fact the Son of God himself, why would we listen to anyone else? Even if another messenger could come that could add more to the story, who could have the most complete story, the Son of God, who has been with and seen God, or a prophet that God may or may not be who they say they are?
Even if other religions didn't directly contradict biblical teaching, they still wouldn't have the kind of perspective the Son of God could bring to the table.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Saying something is "revealed truth" is different than saying something is "perfect." The latter truth is forced to explain everything without exception and once done, cannot be disputed. You may consider that more semantics and I would agree it rests on a fine point but the results are more important. The Bible very clearly does not claim to contain all knowledge (at least I hope) nor does it claim to be historically accurate and grounded for all I know.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is no greater slap in the face to any man or woman of faith then to tell him/her that their creed that they would themselves be martyred for, then to tell them that their faith has as much relevance as any other.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all, I would never make that claim about any person's beliefs whether or not they are religious. I always assume that what we are discussing is the most relevant thing at hand. Of course, even if that wasn't the case, that argument would pass no judgement on the relevence or irrelevence of whatever its subject was. Assuming that the Bible is true (which I hope you've already done) you don't need to reject, for example, scientific knowledge, as long as that knowledge doesn't contradict the book. And even then, when the body of evidence lies against you, you can doubt yourself before you need to doubt the veracity of even one of the words in the Bible. That is, you can assume that the fault lies entirely in your flawed interpretation of those (100% correct) words.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2 Timothy 3:16 : All scripture is God-breathed, and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
And as such, defines itself to be everything that the Creator God of the universe sees fit to communicate to His creations. In short, it isn't all knowledge, it is all the knowledge that matters.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This particular quote doesn't conclude that the Bible is <i>every</i> instruction needed to be a good Christian but rather <i>enough</i> "that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If it is revealed truth, it is a revelation of THE only truth. And, of course, since we believe Jesus is in fact the Son of God himself, why would we listen to anyone else?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because, perhaps, we would like to understand why the planets revolve in a particular pattern, why the Earth has 365 days, why electrons flow differently through different mediums, why water is blue, why all human languages have similarly recognizable patterns, what earthquakes consist of, why crystals form, how the brain works.
Why would you limit yourself to one story when you can hear them all? "Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." But they don't have to listen exclusively to Him because He's not claiming to speak the whole truth.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Bible does not claim to be the source of all knowledge. If it is revealed truth, it is a revelation of THE only truth.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How can you say that the bible is perfect truth, when such things simply cannot be? If you can PROVE that everything in that book (yes, it's just a book) occured, I'll believe it. However, from my standpoint, there are some very, very unlikely things in that book. Simply said, time as it is stated in that book does not agree with the science to which I hold. Other 'acts of god' also do not. Perhaps it is based on truth, perhaps it is based on myth. Perhaps it is nothing more than a collection of stories taken too far. Or maybe it is Truth. However, I tend to believe that it is -based- on some truth at parts, based on some myths at parts, and -not- The Truth as you seem to hold it. It would not be the first time that truth has been lost in obscurity of time, and become legend.
Until such time as you can prove some...'questionable' happenings occured, I will continue to doubt how you can claim that your view is the 'most correct'.
<!--QuoteBegin-(e)kent+Jul 10 2004, 07:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ((e)kent @ Jul 10 2004, 07:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Saying something is "revealed truth" is different than saying something is "perfect." The latter truth is forced to explain everything without exception and once done, cannot be disputed. You may consider that more semantics and I would agree it rests on a fine point but the results are more important. The Bible very clearly does not claim to contain all knowledge (at least I hope) nor does it claim to be historically accurate and grounded for all I know.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is no greater slap in the face to any man or woman of faith then to tell him/her that their creed that they would themselves be martyred for, then to tell them that their faith has as much relevance as any other.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all, I would never make that claim about any person's beliefs whether or not they are religious. I always assume that what we are discussing is the most relevant thing at hand. Of course, even if that wasn't the case, that argument would pass no judgement on the relevence or irrelevence of whatever its subject was. Assuming that the Bible is true (which I hope you've already done) you don't need to reject, for example, scientific knowledge, as long as that knowledge doesn't contradict the book. And even then, when the body of evidence lies against you, you can doubt yourself before you need to doubt the veracity of even one of the words in the Bible. That is, you can assume that the fault lies entirely in your flawed interpretation of those (100% correct) words.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2 Timothy 3:16 : All scripture is God-breathed, and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
And as such, defines itself to be everything that the Creator God of the universe sees fit to communicate to His creations. In short, it isn't all knowledge, it is all the knowledge that matters.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If it is revealed truth, it is a revelation of THE only truth. And, of course, since we believe Jesus is in fact the Son of God himself, why would we listen to anyone else?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because, perhaps, we would like to understand why the planets revolve in a particular pattern, why the Earth has 365 days, why electrons flow differently through different mediums, why water is blue, why all human languages have similarly recognizable patterns, what earthquakes consist of, why crystals form, how the brain works.
Why would you limit yourself to one story when you can hear them all? "Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." But they don't have to listen exclusively to Him because He's not claiming to speak the whole truth.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Bible does not claim to be the source of all knowledge. If it is revealed truth, it is a revelation of THE only truth.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
These are contradictory statements. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> First of all, I would never make that claim about any person's beliefs whether or not they are religious. I always assume that what we are discussing is the most relevant thing at hand. Of course, even if that wasn't the case, that argument would pass no judgement on the relevence or irrelevence of whatever its subject was. Assuming that the Bible is true (which I hope you've already done) you don't need to reject, for example, scientific knowledge, as long as that knowledge doesn't contradict the book. And even then, when the body of evidence lies against you, you can doubt yourself before you need to doubt the veracity of even one of the words in the Bible. That is, you can assume that the fault lies entirely in your flawed interpretation of those (100% correct) words.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed. Right on kent.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This particular quote doesn't conclude that the Bible is <i>every</i> instruction needed to be a good Christian but rather <i>enough</i> "that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The context of that verse, particularly 15, speaks of living the Christian lifestyle, of embracing righteousness, and of having faith in Christ. Faith is what brings salvation, and good deeds are what shows that faith to others, (James 2:18) which is what Christ's commission for all believers was (Matthew 28:19). These things are, given an eternal perspective, the only things that really matter. What good is a knowledge of Chemistry, when you live in heaven?
I'm not saying don't bother to learn those things, that's ignorant. Luke was a physician, Paul a learned man that debated philosophy and his religion with those of the time. None of the apostles, though, ever bothered to pay much attention to those who said they had other perspectives, of the truth. Paul even calls the gnostics of the time "false teachers" in Galatians, and that same terminology and harsh judgement follows in the rest of the New Testament.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Bible does not claim to be the source of all knowledge. If it is revealed truth, it is a revelation of THE only truth.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
These are contradictory statements.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Bible does not claim to be the source of all knowledge, as we thing of textbook knowledge. There is no information on thermal chemistry, or computer science, or kinetics. These things don't contradict with God's truth.
However, the Bible is quite clear, that Yahweh is the only true god, that Christ is his son, and that He is the only way to Heaven. Off the top of my head, "I am the way, the truth and the light, noone comes to the father, except through me." (John 14:6) Either it is wrong, or nobody claiming to have an alternate perspective on God and salvation can be right.
<!--QuoteBegin-Asal The Unforgiving+Jul 10 2004, 09:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Asal The Unforgiving @ Jul 10 2004, 09:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> How can you say that the bible is perfect truth, when such things simply cannot be? If you can PROVE that everything in that book (yes, it's just a book) occured, I'll believe it. However, from my standpoint, there are some very, very unlikely things in that book. Simply said, time as it is stated in that book does not agree with the science to which I hold. Other 'acts of god' also do not. Perhaps it is based on truth, perhaps it is based on myth. Perhaps it is nothing more than a collection of stories taken too far. Or maybe it is Truth. However, I tend to believe that it is -based- on some truth at parts, based on some myths at parts, and -not- The Truth as you seem to hold it. It would not be the first time that truth has been lost in obscurity of time, and become legend.
Until such time as you can prove some...'questionable' happenings occured, I will continue to doubt how you can claim that your view is the 'most correct'. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> This is a very tough argument for us Christian types to go up against - it is an argument that flaunts "Science" over "Religeon".
How is this for science. Did you know that the moon is the perfect size, so when viewed from earth it is the same size as the sun - made evidence by solar eclipses. Did you know that the moon/earth ratio (size) has not been found in any other planetary system (all others have much smaller moons in comparison to planet size). Did you know that it is this size ratio which gives us tides affects other weather patterns that we take for granted? - and the balance there of is so perfect that it looks "designed". Did you know that when Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, he found only a small layer of "dust" - evidence of a "young" moon. Perhaps one that had been floating for millions of years would have had feet of dust, instead of mere inches.
This is one example that "Science" has to chalk up to chance. However, belief in a Creator God makes it much more believable to me.
As for how this plays into cultural relativism - there are things that people do that are wicked and wrong - and I can say that because I know what is "Perfect" and "right". It is that perfection, as revealed in the words of Scripture, which gives us the right to devine between good and evil.
This is the creed I have written on behalf of all us. We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin We believe everything is OK as long as you don't hurt anyone, to the best of your definition of hurt, and to the best of your knowledge.
We believe in sex before, during, and after marriage. We believe in the therapy of sin. We believe that adultery is fun. We believe that sodomy is OK. We believe that taboos are taboo.
We believe that everything is getting better despite evidence to the contrary. The evidence must be investigated And you can prove anything with evidence.
We believe there's something in horoscopes, UFO's and bent spoons; Jesus was a good man just like Buddha, Mohammed, and ourselves. He was a good moral teacher although we think His good morals were bad.
We believe that all religions are basically the same-- at least the one that we read was. They all believe in love and goodness. They only differ on matters of creation, sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.
We believe that after death comes the Nothing Because when you ask the dead what happens they say nothing. If death is not the end, if the dead have lied, then it's compulsory heaven for all excepting perhaps Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Khan.
We believe in Masters and Johnson. What's selected is average. What's average is normal. What's normal is good.
We believe in total disarmament. We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed. Americans should beat their guns into tractors and the Russians would be sure to follow.
We believe that man is essentially good. It's only his behavior that lets him down. This is the fault of society. Society is the fault of conditions. Conditions are the fault of society.
We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him. Reality will adapt accordingly. The universe will readjust. History will alter. We believe that there is no absolute truth excepting the truth that there is no absolute truth.
We believe in the rejection of creeds, and the flowering of individual thought.
"Chance" a post-script
If chance be the Father of all flesh, disaster is his rainbow in the sky, and when you hear
State of Emergency! Sniper Kills Ten! Troops on Rampage! Whites go Looting! Bomb Blasts School!
If given a brief moment with God, I would spit in His face, and if asked why, the reply would be thus, "because you are God."
There is a God everybody, but that God is foreign as the white wall you pray to everyday, or the dish hanging in the washer.
Stop being a product of a thousand years gone. Countless numbers of people died to have the individuality that we as humans possess today. Through many trials of tribulations in forms of violent revolutions did humans actually realize the potential within, that they could be gods in the living flesh. Why restrict yourselves to being slaves of someone who doesn't care about you? Why become slaves to slave owners, or living sacrifices, and not realize what America stands for? Stop being weak-alltruistic humans, jeez.
Admins note: I'm going to remove any further post trying to derail this into a science vs. religion or secularism vs. christianity debate. Not only have both little to do with the issue of cultural relativism, both have also been re-iterated so often that I think I'm speaking for a big portion of this forum when I say that I'm just tired of it.
To get this back on track, my personal thoughts on cultural relativism:
My basic assumption when comparing different cultures is that, all said and done, we all suck. Don't get me wrong, I'm convinced of the ideals of the Enlightenment and the western democracy, yet, I, being an inhabitant of the historically most warlike continent on Earth, can't claim my culture any more infallible than, say, the inhabitants of the biggest slab of land ever robbed from its owners by the means of genocide (I'm talking of our American users here). To re-iterate, no matter how glorious the intentions of our cultures initiators, we who are posting in here share the heritage of more killed people than any other culture on Earth, and if we are going to point at other societies dark aspects, such as the Islamic 'family honor' Leg mentioned in the first post, we've got to acknowledge that our cultures are not devoid of such, either. In other words, even if we were 'better' than another culture, and determining that would be a difficult process, we are not <i>good</i>. If you want to argue that our cultures have shed such dark aspects, that we've left them behind and have thus today arrived at being 'good' although we weren't always - don't make me quote Chomsky. It's basic and trite leftist trivia, but our cultures sustain their current positions of high wealth on the backs of a large numbers of the people whoms customs we are quick to consider inferior. Again, <i>we are not good.</i> "But", you will venture, "<i>I</i> killed no Indians. <i>I</i> did not invade Poland. <i>I</i> do not support the KKKs racist actions. <i>I</i> do my best to get away from the darker parts of my heritage." <i>Now</i> we are talking. We forget at our peril that cultures are, by definition, carried out by a large number of individuals. The actions of a select group of them can not render the whole of a culture, can not render the actions of the whole rest, valid or invalid. I can thus not judge a culture - any culture, including my own - based on the actions of insignificantly few of its representatives. This is the basis of my peronal cultural relativism. I can - and will - still disagree with a certain practice - but this must not lead me to disregard the whole of the culture, and it does not entitle me to demand changes to these practices unless I understand the reasons behind them and strive to rectify the darker aspects of my own culture. In short, cultural relativism does, in my opinion, thus not amount in an ignorant laisser-faire, but merely in the requirement of a predominantly respectful approach towards any culture and its customs.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
I don't have much to add, except this <!--QuoteBegin-MATTHEW 7:1-5+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MATTHEW 7:1-5)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull the mote out of thine eye; and behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brother's eye."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> and to say this:
However, Nemesis, is it not true that within each culture there are many, many smaller cultures that guide the course of the culture as a whole, and also that the overall culture of a country, people, or ethnic group changes over time? Perhaps it truly depends on which cultures you speak of, as each and every one changes on a very basic level over time, and in the end, that often makes all the difference.
(However, I'm inclined to agree with you, Nem. I'm just playing Devil's advocate because I feel that I need to post something useful here, after my earlier performance. <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
I agree, and looking back on it, think I missed a few points (In your face, Carl Sagan!). I wholeheartedly agree with your last point, "In short, cultural relativism does, in my opinion, thus not amount in an ignorant laisser-faire, but merely in the requirement of a predominantly respectful approach towards any culture and its customs."
I still do think, however, that a culture as a whole, if possible, maybe be swayed in one direction or another if in the interest of the people living there.
And moult, saying that an act is evil based on what the God of the universe says, isn't judging. It's a warning.
<!--QuoteBegin- Ezekiel 33+ NASB Translation--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ( Ezekiel 33 @ NASB Translation)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->33:1 And the word of the LORD came to me saying, 2 "Son of man, speak to the sons of your people, and say to them, 'If I bring a sword upon a land, and the people of the land take one man from among them and make him their watchman; 3 and he sees the sword coming upon the land, and he blows on the trumpet and warns the people, 4 then he who hears the sound of the trumpet and does not take warning, and a sword comes and takes him away, his blood will be on his own head. 5 'He heard the sound of the trumpet, but did not take warning; his blood will be on himself. But had he taken warning, he would have delivered his life. 6 'But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, and the people are not warned, and a sword comes and takes a person from them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require from the watchman's hand.' 7 "Now as for you, son of man, I have appointed you a watchman for the house of Israel; so you will hear a message from My mouth, and give them warning from Me. 8 "When I say to the wicked, 'O wicked man, you shall surely die,' and you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require from your hand. 9 "But if you on your part warn a wicked man to turn from his way, and he does not turn from his way, he will die in his iniquity; but you have delivered your life. 10 "Now as for you, son of man, say to the house of Israel, 'Thus you have spoken, saying, "Surely our transgressions and our sins are upon us, and we are rotting away in them; how then can we survive?"' 11 "Say to them, 'As I live!' declares the Lord GOD, 'I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel?' 12 "And you, son of man, say to your fellow citizens, 'The righteousness of a righteous man will not deliver him in the day of his transgression, and as for the wickedness of the wicked, he will not stumble because of it in the day when he turns from his wickedness; whereas a righteous man will not be able to live by his righteousness on the day when he commits sin.' 13 "When I say to the righteous he will surely live, and he so trusts in his righteousness that he commits iniquity, none of his righteous deeds will be remembered; but in that same iniquity of his which he has committed he will die. 14 "But when I say to the wicked, 'You will surely die,' and he turns from his sin and practices justice and righteousness, 15 if a wicked man restores a pledge, pays back what he has taken by robbery, walks by the statutes which ensure life without committing iniquity, he will surely live; he shall not die. 16 "None of his sins that he has committed will be remembered against him. He has practiced justice and righteousness; he will surely live. 17 "Yet your fellow citizens say, 'The way of the Lord is not right,' when it is their own way that is not right. 18 "When the righteous turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, then he shall die in it. 19 "But when the wicked turns from his wickedness and practices justice and righteousness, he will live by them. 20 "Yet you say, 'The way of the Lord is not right.' O house of Israel, I will judge each of you according to his ways." (...) 33 "So when it comes to pass-- as surely it will-- then they will know that a prophet has been in their midst." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Leg, I think what moultano was getting at was no point about divine fallability, but the human inability to pass a truly objective judgement, independently from the basis the judgement is formulated on.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I still do think, however, that a culture as a whole, if possible, maybe be swayed in one direction or another if in the interest of the people living there.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Of course; this is the basic mechanism that creates differentiable cultures. But even if something has become 'common practice' among a culture, you'll soon find a dozen different approaches to it, and if it's a controversial issue, you'll find that not all of them will include the aspect that makes it so. What this means, again, is that it's difficult to be judgemental towards a cultural practice, and even more so, culture, on the whole. To (clumsily) extend the example you offered at the beginning: If Hindu faith forbids the killing of rats and thus leads to apathy towards the spoiled crops, I won't agree with it. If it leads to the introduction of air-tight storage methods that keep the rats from the crops, I don't see the harm.
--
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->However, Nemesis, is it not true that within each culture there are many, many smaller cultures that guide the course of the culture as a whole, and also that the overall culture of a country, people, or ethnic group changes over time? Perhaps it truly depends on which cultures you speak of, as each and every one changes on a very basic level over time, and in the end, that often makes all the difference.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's of course true that a generalization becomes easier the smaller the observed group becomes, but you'll nonetheless seldomly find a group big enough to deserve the label 'culture', even with a 'sub' in front of it, unanimous in anything. Thus, I feel that my point still stands.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Admins note: I'm going to remove any further post trying to derail this into a science vs. religion or secularism vs. christianity debate. Not only have both little to do with the issue of cultural relativism, both have also been re-iterated so often that I think I'm speaking for a big portion of this forum when I say that I'm just tired of it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--></span>
Erm... Please elaborate. I honestly can't say what you are getting at <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Comments
The new testamate wasn't written by any disciples, with the possible expetion of the book of John, which may have been written by the guy known as the 'disciple that jesus loved', and his book wasn't meant to be a historical recounting of fact, but rather a look at the emotional and method of Jesus' teachings. All the other books are secondary sourse and were most likely based on sourses such as word of mouth and interviews, possibly on a rough text that is today lost. Keep in mind that for the most part, none of these guys were trying to write for continuity with eachother, rather for the best representation of whatever read they were trying to produce.
As for the rest of the bible, the only conclusive parts you can argue as the word of God are the ten commandments and the parables and teachings of Jesus, which are remarkably continuitous in thier presentation. Keep in mind, the writers of the bible didn't ussually know they were writing the bible, they were just creating history documents.
Your third argument is ludicrous, there were no top-10's in the bible era, the writers were simply writing in whatever genre they were writing in with little or no thought as to who thier intended audience is. Much of the bible is unarguably poetry, much of it is story/myth, and a fair bit of it is historical document, it wasn't compiled until long after the writers were dead. There is no historical document in history predating the bible that comes close to matching the accuracy of claims, as far as historians are concerned, the jewish people may have been the first civilization on earth to acctually develop a sence of value for reasonably accurate historical records. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The new testamate wasn't written by any disciples<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wrote 'authors'; also by writing 'that these disciples in todays society would be more interested in getting on the top-10 list' I meant it in a biographical way, people who would write what the deciples said. The deciple with the most interesting book wins.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Keep in mind, the writers of the bible didn't ussually know they were writing the bible, they were just creating history documents<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly proving my point, if they were writing history why would they not just write it point for point:
<!--QuoteBegin-http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_AALOBC.html+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_AALOBC.html)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->However, this does not mean that the Bible - which is, after all, a composition of literature - cannot make use of literary techniques such as metaphor.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Your third argument is ludicrous, there were no top-10's in the bible era<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->Re-read that, I haven't done english as a subject in high school for half a year now, but i'm quite sure I was referring to a theoretical modern day jesus.
There is no greater slap in the face to any man or woman of faith then to tell him/her that their creed that they would themselves be martyred for, then to tell them that their faith has as much relevance as any other. It is an inflammatory issue, but one that I have no problem discussing.
The Bible does not claim to be the source of all knowledge. Obviously, it doesn't talk about chemistry, or contain english lessons. However, the Bible claims itself to be the inspired word of God. 2 Timothy 3:16 : All scripture is God-breathed, and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
And as such, defines itself to be everything that the Creator God of the universe sees fit to communicate to His creations. In short, it isn't all knowledge, it is all the knowledge that matters.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Thus if you don't bother to claim it's perfect you can go ahead and realize that it may be revealed truth but it doesn't have to be the only truth.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
John 18:37 "You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."
Revelations 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
If it is revealed truth, it is a revelation of THE only truth. And, of course, since we believe Jesus is in fact the Son of God himself, why would we listen to anyone else? Even if another messenger could come that could add more to the story, who could have the most complete story, the Son of God, who has been with and seen God, or a prophet that God may or may not be who they say they are?
Even if other religions didn't directly contradict biblical teaching, they still wouldn't have the kind of perspective the Son of God could bring to the table.
There is no greater slap in the face to any man or woman of faith then to tell him/her that their creed that they would themselves be martyred for, then to tell them that their faith has as much relevance as any other.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all, I would never make that claim about any person's beliefs whether or not they are religious. I always assume that what we are discussing is the most relevant thing at hand. Of course, even if that wasn't the case, that argument would pass no judgement on the relevence or irrelevence of whatever its subject was. Assuming that the Bible is true (which I hope you've already done) you don't need to reject, for example, scientific knowledge, as long as that knowledge doesn't contradict the book. And even then, when the body of evidence lies against you, you can doubt yourself before you need to doubt the veracity of even one of the words in the Bible. That is, you can assume that the fault lies entirely in your flawed interpretation of those (100% correct) words.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2 Timothy 3:16 : All scripture is God-breathed, and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
And as such, defines itself to be everything that the Creator God of the universe sees fit to communicate to His creations. In short, it isn't all knowledge, it is all the knowledge that matters.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This particular quote doesn't conclude that the Bible is <i>every</i> instruction needed to be a good Christian but rather <i>enough</i> "that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If it is revealed truth, it is a revelation of THE only truth. And, of course, since we believe Jesus is in fact the Son of God himself, why would we listen to anyone else?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because, perhaps, we would like to understand why the planets revolve in a particular pattern, why the Earth has 365 days, why electrons flow differently through different mediums, why water is blue, why all human languages have similarly recognizable patterns, what earthquakes consist of, why crystals form, how the brain works.
Why would you limit yourself to one story when you can hear them all? "Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." But they don't have to listen exclusively to Him because He's not claiming to speak the whole truth.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Bible does not claim to be the source of all knowledge. If it is revealed truth, it is a revelation of THE only truth.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
These are contradictory statements.
Until such time as you can prove some...'questionable' happenings occured, I will continue to doubt how you can claim that your view is the 'most correct'.
There is no greater slap in the face to any man or woman of faith then to tell him/her that their creed that they would themselves be martyred for, then to tell them that their faith has as much relevance as any other.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all, I would never make that claim about any person's beliefs whether or not they are religious. I always assume that what we are discussing is the most relevant thing at hand. Of course, even if that wasn't the case, that argument would pass no judgement on the relevence or irrelevence of whatever its subject was. Assuming that the Bible is true (which I hope you've already done) you don't need to reject, for example, scientific knowledge, as long as that knowledge doesn't contradict the book. And even then, when the body of evidence lies against you, you can doubt yourself before you need to doubt the veracity of even one of the words in the Bible. That is, you can assume that the fault lies entirely in your flawed interpretation of those (100% correct) words.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2 Timothy 3:16 : All scripture is God-breathed, and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
And as such, defines itself to be everything that the Creator God of the universe sees fit to communicate to His creations. In short, it isn't all knowledge, it is all the knowledge that matters.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If it is revealed truth, it is a revelation of THE only truth. And, of course, since we believe Jesus is in fact the Son of God himself, why would we listen to anyone else?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because, perhaps, we would like to understand why the planets revolve in a particular pattern, why the Earth has 365 days, why electrons flow differently through different mediums, why water is blue, why all human languages have similarly recognizable patterns, what earthquakes consist of, why crystals form, how the brain works.
Why would you limit yourself to one story when you can hear them all? "Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." But they don't have to listen exclusively to Him because He's not claiming to speak the whole truth.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Bible does not claim to be the source of all knowledge. If it is revealed truth, it is a revelation of THE only truth.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
These are contradictory statements. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
First of all, I would never make that claim about any person's beliefs whether or not they are religious. I always assume that what we are discussing is the most relevant thing at hand. Of course, even if that wasn't the case, that argument would pass no judgement on the relevence or irrelevence of whatever its subject was. Assuming that the Bible is true (which I hope you've already done) you don't need to reject, for example, scientific knowledge, as long as that knowledge doesn't contradict the book. And even then, when the body of evidence lies against you, you can doubt yourself before you need to doubt the veracity of even one of the words in the Bible. That is, you can assume that the fault lies entirely in your flawed interpretation of those (100% correct) words.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed. Right on kent.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This particular quote doesn't conclude that the Bible is <i>every</i> instruction needed to be a good Christian but rather <i>enough</i> "that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The context of that verse, particularly 15, speaks of living the Christian lifestyle, of embracing righteousness, and of having faith in Christ. Faith is what brings salvation, and good deeds are what shows that faith to others, (James 2:18) which is what Christ's commission for all believers was (Matthew 28:19). These things are, given an eternal perspective, the only things that really matter. What good is a knowledge of Chemistry, when you live in heaven?
I'm not saying don't bother to learn those things, that's ignorant. Luke was a physician, Paul a learned man that debated philosophy and his religion with those of the time. None of the apostles, though, ever bothered to pay much attention to those who said they had other perspectives, of the truth. Paul even calls the gnostics of the time "false teachers" in Galatians, and that same terminology and harsh judgement follows in the rest of the New Testament.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Bible does not claim to be the source of all knowledge. If it is revealed truth, it is a revelation of THE only truth.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
These are contradictory statements.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Bible does not claim to be the source of all knowledge, as we thing of textbook knowledge. There is no information on thermal chemistry, or computer science, or kinetics. These things don't contradict with God's truth.
However, the Bible is quite clear, that Yahweh is the only true god, that Christ is his son, and that He is the only way to Heaven. Off the top of my head, "I am the way, the truth and the light, noone comes to the father, except through me." (John 14:6) Either it is wrong, or nobody claiming to have an alternate perspective on God and salvation can be right.
Until such time as you can prove some...'questionable' happenings occured, I will continue to doubt how you can claim that your view is the 'most correct'. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a very tough argument for us Christian types to go up against - it is an argument that flaunts "Science" over "Religeon".
How is this for science. Did you know that the moon is the perfect size, so when viewed from earth it is the same size as the sun - made evidence by solar eclipses.
Did you know that the moon/earth ratio (size) has not been found in any other planetary system (all others have much smaller moons in comparison to planet size). Did you know that it is this size ratio which gives us tides affects other weather patterns that we take for granted? - and the balance there of is so perfect that it looks "designed". Did you know that when Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, he found only a small layer of "dust" - evidence of a "young" moon. Perhaps one that had been floating for millions of years would have had feet of dust, instead of mere inches.
This is one example that "Science" has to chalk up to chance. However, belief in a Creator God makes it much more believable to me.
As for how this plays into cultural relativism - there are things that people do that are wicked and wrong - and I can say that because I know what is "Perfect" and "right". It is that perfection, as revealed in the words of Scripture, which gives us the right to devine between good and evil.
Here is a Creed I found one day a few years back:
Creed
by Steve Turner
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the creed I have written on behalf of all us.
We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin
We believe everything is OK
as long as you don't hurt anyone,
to the best of your definition of hurt,
and to the best of your knowledge.
We believe in sex before, during, and after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that sodomy is OK.
We believe that taboos are taboo.
We believe that everything is getting better
despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated
And you can prove anything with evidence.
We believe there's something in
horoscopes, UFO's and bent spoons;
Jesus was a good man
just like Buddha, Mohammed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher
although we think His good morals were bad.
We believe that all religions are basically the same--
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of
creation, sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.
We believe that after death comes the Nothing
Because when you ask the dead what happens they say nothing.
If death is not the end, if the dead have lied,
then it's compulsory heaven for all
excepting perhaps Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Khan.
We believe in Masters and Johnson.
What's selected is average.
What's average is normal.
What's normal is good.
We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed.
Americans should beat their guns into tractors
and the Russians would be sure to follow.
We believe that man is essentially good.
It's only his behavior that lets him down.
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.
We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust.
History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth
excepting the truth that there is no absolute truth.
We believe in the rejection of creeds,
and the flowering of individual thought.
"Chance" a post-script
If chance be the Father of all flesh,
disaster is his rainbow in the sky,
and when you hear
State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!
It is but the sound of man worshiping his maker.
There is a God everybody, but that God is foreign as the white wall you pray to everyday, or the dish hanging in the washer.
Stop being a product of a thousand years gone. Countless numbers of people died to have the individuality that we as humans possess today. Through many trials of tribulations in forms of violent revolutions did humans actually realize the potential within, that they could be gods in the living flesh. Why restrict yourselves to being slaves of someone who doesn't care about you? Why become slaves to slave owners, or living sacrifices, and not realize what America stands for? Stop being weak-alltruistic humans, jeez.
This whole time I was being lied to. Good God.
Religion is a waste of time.
To get this back on track, my personal thoughts on cultural relativism:
My basic assumption when comparing different cultures is that, all said and done, we all suck.
Don't get me wrong, I'm convinced of the ideals of the Enlightenment and the western democracy, yet, I, being an inhabitant of the historically most warlike continent on Earth, can't claim my culture any more infallible than, say, the inhabitants of the biggest slab of land ever robbed from its owners by the means of genocide (I'm talking of our American users here). To re-iterate, no matter how glorious the intentions of our cultures initiators, we who are posting in here share the heritage of more killed people than any other culture on Earth, and if we are going to point at other societies dark aspects, such as the Islamic 'family honor' Leg mentioned in the first post, we've got to acknowledge that our cultures are not devoid of such, either. In other words, even if we were 'better' than another culture, and determining that would be a difficult process, we are not <i>good</i>.
If you want to argue that our cultures have shed such dark aspects, that we've left them behind and have thus today arrived at being 'good' although we weren't always - don't make me quote Chomsky. It's basic and trite leftist trivia, but our cultures sustain their current positions of high wealth on the backs of a large numbers of the people whoms customs we are quick to consider inferior. Again, <i>we are not good.</i>
"But", you will venture, "<i>I</i> killed no Indians. <i>I</i> did not invade Poland. <i>I</i> do not support the KKKs racist actions. <i>I</i> do my best to get away from the darker parts of my heritage." <i>Now</i> we are talking.
We forget at our peril that cultures are, by definition, carried out by a large number of individuals. The actions of a select group of them can not render the whole of a culture, can not render the actions of the whole rest, valid or invalid.
I can thus not judge a culture - any culture, including my own - based on the actions of insignificantly few of its representatives. This is the basis of my peronal cultural relativism. I can - and will - still disagree with a certain practice - but this must not lead me to disregard the whole of the culture, and it does not entitle me to demand changes to these practices unless I understand the reasons behind them and strive to rectify the darker aspects of my own culture.
In short, cultural relativism does, in my opinion, thus not amount in an ignorant laisser-faire, but merely in the requirement of a predominantly respectful approach towards any culture and its customs.
<!--QuoteBegin-MATTHEW 7:1-5+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MATTHEW 7:1-5)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull the mote out of thine eye; and behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brother's eye."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and to say this:
Nemesis Zero, you rock.
(However, I'm inclined to agree with you, Nem. I'm just playing Devil's advocate because I feel that I need to post something useful here, after my earlier performance. <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
Nem.Awesomeness ++
I agree, and looking back on it, think I missed a few points (In your face, Carl Sagan!). I wholeheartedly agree with your last point, "In short, cultural relativism does, in my opinion, thus not amount in an ignorant laisser-faire, but merely in the requirement of a predominantly respectful approach towards any culture and its customs."
I still do think, however, that a culture as a whole, if possible, maybe be swayed in one direction or another if in the interest of the people living there.
And moult, saying that an act is evil based on what the God of the universe says, isn't judging. It's a warning.
<!--QuoteBegin- Ezekiel 33+ NASB Translation--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ( Ezekiel 33 @ NASB Translation)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->33:1 And the word of the LORD came to me saying,
2 "Son of man, speak to the sons of your people, and say to them, 'If I bring a sword upon a land, and the people of the land take one man from among them and make him their watchman;
3 and he sees the sword coming upon the land, and he blows on the trumpet and warns the people,
4 then he who hears the sound of the trumpet and does not take warning, and a sword comes and takes him away, his blood will be on his own head.
5 'He heard the sound of the trumpet, but did not take warning; his blood will be on himself. But had he taken warning, he would have delivered his life.
6 'But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, and the people are not warned, and a sword comes and takes a person from them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require from the watchman's hand.'
7 "Now as for you, son of man, I have appointed you a watchman for the house of Israel; so you will hear a message from My mouth, and give them warning from Me.
8 "When I say to the wicked, 'O wicked man, you shall surely die,' and you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require from your hand.
9 "But if you on your part warn a wicked man to turn from his way, and he does not turn from his way, he will die in his iniquity; but you have delivered your life.
10 "Now as for you, son of man, say to the house of Israel, 'Thus you have spoken, saying, "Surely our transgressions and our sins are upon us, and we are rotting away in them; how then can we survive?"'
11 "Say to them, 'As I live!' declares the Lord GOD, 'I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel?'
12 "And you, son of man, say to your fellow citizens, 'The righteousness of a righteous man will not deliver him in the day of his transgression, and as for the wickedness of the wicked, he will not stumble because of it in the day when he turns from his wickedness; whereas a righteous man will not be able to live by his righteousness on the day when he commits sin.'
13 "When I say to the righteous he will surely live, and he so trusts in his righteousness that he commits iniquity, none of his righteous deeds will be remembered; but in that same iniquity of his which he has committed he will die.
14 "But when I say to the wicked, 'You will surely die,' and he turns from his sin and practices justice and righteousness,
15 if a wicked man restores a pledge, pays back what he has taken by robbery, walks by the statutes which ensure life without committing iniquity, he will surely live; he shall not die.
16 "None of his sins that he has committed will be remembered against him. He has practiced justice and righteousness; he will surely live.
17 "Yet your fellow citizens say, 'The way of the Lord is not right,' when it is their own way that is not right.
18 "When the righteous turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, then he shall die in it.
19 "But when the wicked turns from his wickedness and practices justice and righteousness, he will live by them.
20 "Yet you say, 'The way of the Lord is not right.' O house of Israel, I will judge each of you according to his ways."
(...)
33 "So when it comes to pass-- as surely it will-- then they will know that a prophet has been in their midst."
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I still do think, however, that a culture as a whole, if possible, maybe be swayed in one direction or another if in the interest of the people living there.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course; this is the basic mechanism that creates differentiable cultures. But even if something has become 'common practice' among a culture, you'll soon find a dozen different approaches to it, and if it's a controversial issue, you'll find that not all of them will include the aspect that makes it so. What this means, again, is that it's difficult to be judgemental towards a cultural practice, and even more so, culture, on the whole.
To (clumsily) extend the example you offered at the beginning: If Hindu faith forbids the killing of rats and thus leads to apathy towards the spoiled crops, I won't agree with it. If it leads to the introduction of air-tight storage methods that keep the rats from the crops, I don't see the harm.
--
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->However, Nemesis, is it not true that within each culture there are many, many smaller cultures that guide the course of the culture as a whole, and also that the overall culture of a country, people, or ethnic group changes over time? Perhaps it truly depends on which cultures you speak of, as each and every one changes on a very basic level over time, and in the end, that often makes all the difference.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's of course true that a generalization becomes easier the smaller the observed group becomes, but you'll nonetheless seldomly find a group big enough to deserve the label 'culture', even with a 'sub' in front of it, unanimous in anything. Thus, I feel that my point still stands.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Admins note: I'm going to remove any further post trying to derail this into a science vs. religion or secularism vs. christianity debate. Not only have both little to do with the issue of cultural relativism, both have also been re-iterated so often that I think I'm speaking for a big portion of this forum when I say that I'm just tired of it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--></span>
I know I can't stand those sassy teenagers.