The real face of relativism

[quatona]

The topic is relativism, and yes his quote does apply.

Ok. If the topic is non-moral relativism the quote applies.
Then again, if the topic is non-moral relativism, a bunch of your own posts were off-topic.

 

[Elioenai26]

Ok. If the topic is non-moral relativism the quote applies.
Then again, if the topic is non-moral relativism, a bunch of your own posts were off-topic.

The topic is relativism quatona, R-E-L-A-T-I-V-I-S-M

What are you not comprehending about RELATIVISM?

Relativism is the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration.[1] The term is often used to refer to the context of moral principle, where in a relativistic mode of thought, principles and ethics are regarded as applicable in only limited context. There are many forms of relativism which vary in their degree of controversy.[2] The term often refers to truth relativism, which is the doctrine that there are no absolute truths, i.e., that truth is always relative to some particular frame of reference, such as a language or a culture (cf. cultural relativism). * Courtesy of Wikipedia.

R-E-L-A-T-I-V-I-S-M is the term given to a broad range of various contexts in which the term itself is used in conjunction with respective designators i.e. moral relativism, truth relativism, cultural relativism etc. etc.

Therefore, since the OP is: The Real Face of Relativism, (notice the absence of a specifier) any form is pertinent here.

Thanks.

 

[quatona]

There are many forms of relativism which vary in their degree of controversy.

Therefore, since the OP is: The Real Face of Relativism, (notice the absence of a specifier) any form is pertinent here.

Cool. The very definition you provided above tells us that relativism has many faces. So your idea of "The Real Face of Relativism" (without the absence of a specifier) is already trashed by the very source you appealed to. Congratulations for hitting your own foot.

My point was that the quote in question didn´t apply to moral relativism. It may apply to other forms of relativism (and if you want to discuss them, that´s alright by me - but a lot of your follow up posts gave me the impression that you were particularly interested in addressing and refuting moral relativism of all forms), but not to moral relativism.

If the quote isn´t meant to address moral relativism feel free to ignore my comments on it. If you think it applies to moral relativism please explain how it does.
If you didn´t intend to address moral relativism in this thread, that´s fine with me, also.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It applies to everyone, whether they were inspired by God to record His words or not.

So you acknowledge that those who were inspired by God to record his words were sincerely wrong about the shape and movement (or there lack of) of the Earth?

At the very least, if you wish to make comments on scripture and their meaning, I would advise you, if you have the means, to take some classes on Hermeneutics which very broadly, is the science of text interpretation.

I have studied hermeneutics. Schleiermacher, Gadamer, Habermas, Barthes, Derrida, Searle, Lewis

 

[Davian]

The topic is relativism quatona, R-E-L-A-T-I-V-I-S-M

What are you not comprehending about RELATIVISM?

Relativism is the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration.[1] The term is often used to refer to the context of moral principle, where in a relativistic mode of thought, principles and ethics are regarded as applicable in only limited context. There are many forms of relativism which vary in their degree of controversy.[2] The term often refers to truth relativism, which is the doctrine that there are no absolute truths, i.e., that truth is always relative to some particular frame of reference, such as a language or a culture (cf. cultural relativism). * Courtesy of Wikipedia.

...

Are you posting this to replace what you wrote in your OP?

 

[Gadarene]

The relativist's reply:

"Hey, if genocide works for you, then do it! After all, there are no absolutes, everything is relative!"

Even if that was an accurate depiction of a relativist's reply (it isn't) that doesn't mean Christians aren't frequently hypocrites in the way I pointed out.

And by dodging this, and by continuing in the condemnation of relativism regardless, you are included in their number

 

[Gadarene]

You aren't the only one who has noted the irony in some apologetics. I think genocide is always wrong. And, it is almost as detestable to make excuses for (presumed(!)) genocides. Although, some people may just not really realize what they are doing.

"Irony" is not the word I'd use.

"Blatant hypocrisy" is a bit more on the money.

 

[Paradoxum]

Relativism can't be hypocritical. Relativism is a concept not a person. The relativist, however is hypocritical. The relativist is a person. Hypocrite is a word reserved for persons.

You know that is pretty much what I meant, I just worded it wrong.

 

[Elioenai26]

So you acknowledge that those who were inspired by God to record his words were sincerely wrong about the shape and movement (or there lack of) of the Earth?

The inspired writers wrote what God revealed to them to write. Since God knows the shape of the earth, then He knew it was not flat. Therefore, the writers did not record that it was flat, even though you want to maintain they did. Therefore I do not acknowledge that they were sincerely wrong.

I have studied hermeneutics. Schleiermacher, Gadamer, Habermas, Barthes, Derrida, Searle, Lewis

If you have, then tell me, what category of literature would Isaiah 40 be correctly labeled as?

 

[Elioenai26]

Even if that was an accurate depiction of a relativist's reply (it isn't)

What then would a relativist's reply to genocidal acts be?

that doesn't mean Christians aren't frequently hypocrites in the way I pointed out.

Every Christian alive could be hypocritical, that does nothing to invalidate their assertion that Jesus Christ is God incarnate. It may cause you to doubt whether or not their confession is true, but it does not necessarily invalidate it. Jesus Christ was who He said He was or either He wasn't. The assertion that His followers are hypocrites simply is not germane. Actually your assertion is patently unsustainable because you haven't met every Christian to know whether or not they are all hypocrites.

 

[Elioenai26]

"Irony" is not the word I'd use.

"Blatant hypocrisy" is a bit more on the money.

God does not endorse genocide so your vituperative remarks are aimed at strawmen of your own construction.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

"Admit"? Not sure where you got that from.

[Snipped Dictionany Entry]
Explanation:

In quotation 1. above you state: "I think genocide is always wrong." This is a statement on morality which is implicitly non-relativistic in nature.

Therefore, you have confessed, or admitted to not being relativistic in your thinking in at least this one area in question.

I know what "to admit" means. I also know you know without looking at a dictionary. I was trying to make you understand that I don't have to "admit" stuff. (And much, much less "confess".) And I don't for one second think that you did not understand that.

(And I also don't think for one second that you can't understand the differences between admitting, confessing, acknowledging etc.)

 

[Elioenai26]

The very definition you provided above tells us that relativism has many faces. So your idea of "The Real Face of Relativism" (without the absence of a specifier) is already trashed by the very source you appealed to. Congratulations for hitting your own foot.

I will address this quotation above and give a response to it to all of those who have been reading and following the development of this thread up until this point.

*Elioenai turns his attention away from quatona for a moment and addresses the audience*

Ladies and gentlemen, as you will have noted, quatona in his response quoted above states that, and I quote: " The very definition you provided above tells us that relativism has many faces." end quote.

As I am sure you all have noticed, my definition, or more correctly, my excerpt from Wikipedia states that: "There are many forms of relativism which vary in their degree of controversy." As you can see, quatona has once again misquoted me, but we can disregard this oversight because in this context the words: "face" and "form" can be interchanged. They essentially mean the same thing when used the way they are in this context.

He then goes on to say: "So your idea of "The Real Face of Relativism" (without the absence of a specifier) is already trashed by the very source you appealed to".

What quatona is saying is that since my title has the word "Face" in it instead of "Faces", then my "idea" of "The Real Face of Relativism" has been trashed by the Wikipedia reference I used.

......*crickets chirping in the silent audience*

Evidently he understand the word "face" to have only one connotation.

What he fails to realize is that in my title, the word "face" is used to denote "significance" or "meaning" and not "form". Therefore, the title could be written as "The Real Significance or Meaning of Relativism". I chose "Face" because it has that special "ring" to it that significance and meaning lack. I shall retain my right to literary license.

Therefore ladies and gentlemen, the premature accusation that I had "hit myself in my own foot" is therefore unwarranted.


**I apologize to you all for the delay, I was speaking with a gentleman from Liberty.**

 

[quatona]

I will address this quotation above and give a response to it to all of those who have been reading and following the development of this thread up until this point.

*Elioenai turns his attention away from quatona for a moment and addresses the audience*

Ladies and gentlemen, as you will have noted, quatona in his response quoted above states that, and I quote: " The very definition you provided above tells us that relativism has many faces." end quote.



My point was that the quote in question didn´t apply to moral relativism. It may apply to other forms of relativism (and if you want to discuss them, that´s alright by me - but a lot of your follow up posts gave me the impression that you were particularly interested in addressing and refuting moral relativism of all forms), but not to moral relativism.

If the quote isn´t meant to address moral relativism feel free to ignore my comments on it. If you think it applies to moral relativism please explain how it does.
If you didn´t intend to address moral relativism in this thread, that´s fine with me, also.

[/quote]
Please fix the quotes.

 

[Elioenai26]

Please fix the quotes.

Originally Posted by quatona

The very definition you provided above tells us that relativism has many faces. So your idea of "The Real Face of Relativism" (without the absence of a specifier) is already trashed by the very source you appealed to. Congratulations for hitting your own foot.
​

I will address this quotation above and give a response to it to all of those who have been reading and following the development of this thread up until this point.

*Elioenai turns his attention away from quatona for a moment and addresses the audience*

Ladies and gentlemen, as you will have noted, quatona in his response quoted above states that, and I quote: " The very definition you provided above tells us that relativism has many faces." end quote.

As I am sure you all have noticed, my definition, or more correctly, my excerpt from Wikipedia states that: "There are many forms of relativism which vary in their degree of controversy." As you can see, quatona has once again misquoted me, but we can disregard this oversight because in this context the words: "face" and "form" can be interchanged. They essentially mean the same thing when used the way they are in this context.

He then goes on to say: "So your idea of "The Real Face of Relativism" (without the absence of a specifier) is already trashed by the very source you appealed to".

What quatona is saying is that since my title has the word "Face" in it instead of "Faces", then my "idea" of "The Real Face of Relativism" has been trashed by the Wikipedia reference I used.

......*crickets chirping in the silent audience*

Evidently he understand the word "face" to have only one connotation.

What he fails to realize is that in my title, the word "face" is used to denote "significance" or "meaning" and not "form". Therefore, the title could be written as "The Real Significance or Meaning of Relativism". I chose "Face" because it has that special "ring" to it that significance and meaning lack. I shall retain my right to literary license.

Therefore ladies and gentlemen, the premature accusation that I had "hit myself in my own foot" is therefore unwarranted.


**I apologize to you all for the delay, I was speaking with a gentleman from Liberty.**

 

[quatona]

*Elioenai turns his attention away from quatona for a moment and addresses the audience*

I wasn´t aware that you and I were on a podium in front of your audience.
I´m glad you chose to talk to your audience instead of me, so it´s up to them to address the desperate points you are making.

 

[Elioenai26]

I wasn´t aware that you and I were on a podium in front of your audience.
I´m glad you chose to talk to your audience instead of me, so it´s up to them to address the desperate points you are making.

I would like to extend you an invitation to a formal debate on the topic of your choosing, in accordance with the format of your choosing. I feel that both of us, as well as the people reading would be greatly edified and mutually enlightened.

I look forward to your response.

 

[quatona]

I would like to extend you an invitation to a formal debate on the topic of your choosing, in accordance with the format of your choosing. I feel that both of us, as well as the people reading would be greatly edified and mutually enlightened.

I look forward to your response.

I am afraid your invitation is based on a fundamental misunderstanding. You are a debater for sure, but I am not. I´m more into thought exchange.
I find debates horrible. They are about winning, and certain strategies and tactics that I personally find despicable, abhorrent and disingenious are considered virtues in a debate.
So thanks for the invitation, but no thanks. I´m sure you´ll find yourself someone for that task who enjoys using these tactics and stragegies just like you do. I´m sure you guys will have fun, and I am sure the part of the audience who is into debate will have a great time, as well. I am equally sure, though, that there will be nothing enlightening or edifying in it.

 

[Elioenai26]

I am afraid your invitation is based on a fundamental misunderstanding. You are a debater for sure, but I am not. I´m more into thought exchange.
I find debates horrible. They are about winning, and certain strategies and tactics that I personally find despicable, abhorrent and disingenious are considered virtues in a debate.
So thanks for the invitation, but no thanks. I´m sure you´ll find yourself someone for that task who enjoys using these tactics and stragegies just like you do. I´m sure you guys will have fun, and I am sure the part of the audience who is into debate will have a great time, as well. I am equally sure, though, that there will be nothing enlightening or edifying in it.

The invitation will remain open. Thank you for your swift reply.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The inspired writers wrote what God revealed to them to write. Since God knows the shape of the earth, then He knew it was not flat. Therefore, the writers did not record that it was flat, even though you want to maintain they did. Therefore I do not acknowledge that they were sincerely wrong.

If they did not sincerely believe that the Earth was flat, then why did you bring them up when I asked you which people believed in a flat Earth? Again, you either did not understand the question, or else you are now backtracking and making excuses.

According to The Anchor Bible Dictionary (I posted an excerpt earlier), the Bible's authors "shared the world view of the ancient Near East. The earth was perceived as a flat expanse, seen either in the image of a disk or circle upon the primeval waters."

So you would have us believe that the ancient Israelites were surrounded by other cultures that really did believe in a flat Earth, but they themselves did not share such a belief, even though they wrote about it?

If you have, then tell me, what category of literature would Isaiah 40 be correctly labeled as?

Hermeneutics, as you yourself pointed out, is the study of text interpretation. It is not exclusively the study of Scriptural texts.