Is This Moral Relativism?

[frankandcathy]

Today, I was sitting in our church service and thinking about the concept of "truth."

I have certainly had my ideas about truth challenged since being here on this site and have learned a great deal about how others perceive truth...or how they don't perceive the need for it...or how they don't think it's all that important...or that it's very important.

Of course, all of this has been hugely upsetting to me. My relationship with God has changed a good deal...and there has been a loss of intimacy for awhile now as I've grappled with the questions, "Who ARE you, Lord" and "How can so many people believe such different things about the SAME ENTITY?"

It's almost like finding out that your spouse has a secret hobby...let's say...dirt bike racing...that you never knew about yet he has a whole culture of friends that know this about him. You feel very unsure of your relationship with him with because you begin to think, "Do I really know you at all?" Of course, the racing doesn't change all the other things that he was to you...husband, father, lover, etc. but it still trips you out.

That's where I'm at right now.

I was asking the Lord about this and His answer to me was, "Follow the path set before you." I, of course, asked Him, but what about all the OTHER people who believe differently? His reply: "What does the path I've set before you tell you to do?" The answer, of course, is to love others and try to "introduce" as many as I can to my Jesus.

At any rate, I began thinking about moral relativism. I know that this is an issue in our culture which it didn't used to be, say, 60 years ago. Then, the statement, "This is truth" would be met with the words, "Prove it." Now, the statement is met with, "There is no absolute truth." My truth is as good as your truth. What makes your truth better than mine? You have no right to force your truth on me.

Honestly, something in me just doesn't jive with that. I think there ARE absolute truths. I think that God DOES want to present himself to all people through his son, Jesus. I do NOT think that "all paths lead to God." I've had to wrestle with this concept because if you believe it, it means that someone has to be WRONG. I don't want to be arrogant enough to say, "You're wrong, I'm right." Ultimately, that's God's call anyway. There is a struggle, however, to believe that you're right and love others anyway without being judgmental or overbearing or just plain mean.

I'm kind of rambling...thanks for hanging in there so far.

Anyway, I am uncomfortable with the idea that I've opened myself up to moral relativism in such a way that it's impacted my relationship with God. I know very well that the Lord wanted me to learn to love others, accept others, see another's point of view, and understand that not everyone thinks the same way. I think I have learned these lessons well. I'm beginning to apply them in other areas and remind others of them. It's made me a more effective relationship person...except in that one relationship, the most vital one of all.

I guess what I'm saying is, what I hear God telling me is to go ahead and believe in absolutes...reject moral relativism. It's dangerous to my personal faith. I'm also pretty idealistic and concrete so it doesn't mesh with my bent or giftings very well.

I wonder, does the view that "we're all on a different path to God" include conservative Christians (even those who are hateful to gay people)? If we are to say, "God deals with each person in the way they need to be dealt with" doesn't that HAVE To include those who believe that everyone else is wrong? Isn't it our job as those who don't believe the same way to walk the path set before us? To try to reach out to "them" in love and acceptance and try to lead them down the path that WE believe to be righteous...that of loving others?

In fact, isn't this what Paul was talking about when he told the Romans that it's none of their business if God chooses to place people on different "paths" (belief, unbelief) to teach the rest of us a lesson? What if God has allowed some to be hateful in order to allow the rest of us to show sacrifical love and servitude (just as He did on the cross)? What if God has allowed some to be morally relative in order to allow me to explore why I believe absolute truth and to try to teach it to others? What if the opposite is true?

I don't like the idea of us being cosmic chess pawns but in some way, it's the way I feel right now. This mutual friction may be what the scripture talks about when it says, "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." If we weren't all so different...what would be the point?

Well, I hope ANY of that made sense.

Oh yes, I've also begun questioning a lot of the theology that the charismatic church, in particular, has fashioned. Great example: I've always heard people say, "The Bible says you will prosper and be in health even as your soul prospers." The connotation: if your spiritually healthy, you'll also be rich and physically healthy.

The problem: well, um...that was an introduction to a guy in a letter...not a principle. That was an author starting a letter saying, "Hey. I've heard you're doing great spiritually. I hope that you are equally blessed in your health and business." It's not GOD saying, "Here's a principle you can count on." It's just a GREETING in a letter. It made me shake my head that I never even looked at the context before but just memorized the scripture, quoting it when applicable.

Anyway,
later.
~C

Overarching theme of this post: introspective, hopeful, and not wanting to offend.;)

[Zerbie]

Of course, all of this has been hugely upsetting to me. My relationship with God has changed a good deal...and there has been a loss of intimacy for awhile now as I've grappled with the questions, "Who ARE you, Lord" and "How can so many people believe such different things about the SAME ENTITY?"

It's almost like finding out that your spouse has a secret hobby...let's say...dirt bike racing...that you never knew about yet he has a whole culture of friends that know this about him. You feel very unsure of your relationship with him with because you begin to think, "Do I really know you at all?"

Yet you DO keep coming back and facing new questions. That takes tremendous courage. It doesn't sound to me like there has been any loss of intimacy there at all. It sounds to me like you trust Him with your questions, confusion, doubt, everything. Sounds like great faith to me.


I was asking the Lord about this and His answer to me was, "Follow the path set before you." I, of course, asked Him, but what about all the OTHER people who believe differently? His reply: "What does the path I've set before you tell you to do?" The answer, of course, is to love others and try to "introduce" as many as I can to my Jesus.



At any rate, I began thinking about moral relativism. I know that this is an issue in our culture which it didn't used to be, say, 60 years ago. Then, the statement, "This is truth" would be met with the words, "Prove it." Now, the statement is met with, "There is no absolute truth." My truth is as good as your truth. What makes your truth better than mine? You have no right to force your truth on me.

Honestly, something in me just doesn't jive with that. I think there ARE absolute truths. I think that God DOES want to present himself to all people through his son, Jesus. I do NOT think that "all paths lead to God." I've had to wrestle with this concept because if you believe it, it means that someone has to be WRONG. I don't want to be arrogant enough to say, "You're wrong, I'm right." Ultimately, that's God's call anyway. There is a struggle, however, to believe that you're right and love others anyway without being judgmental or overbearing or just plain mean.

When I have a definitive answer to all of this, I'll letcha know.;)

Now, in the meantime, if we are dealing with a matter like how one lives one's life, no you don't have the right to force your "truth" (about the right way to live it) on, say, me. Because if you did, then I would have the right to force mine on you, and I know you would object to that. We can share our faith with one another, but we cannot force another to adopt our own. Those other folks have to be free to choose, for better or worse, and succeed or fail on their own merits and demerits, or we've taken away their power to make choices, to learn from their mistakes, and to teach us from their successes which we doubted were possible.


Anyway, I am uncomfortable with the idea that I've opened myself up to moral relativism in such a way that it's impacted my relationship with God. I know very well that the Lord wanted me to learn to love others, accept others, see another's point of view, and understand that not everyone thinks the same way. I think I have learned these lessons well. I'm beginning to apply them in other areas and remind others of them. It's made me a more effective relationship person...except in that one relationship, the most vital one of all.

Why do you feel it has impacted your relationship with God? All questions are, Cathy, is thought. God is more than thought, is He not? He knows all about our minds, our thoughts, our frailties, everything. I might hazard a supposition that maybe you feel like your relationship with Him has been impacted because you may have begun to think about Him differently than you always have. But your faith and desire for Him are obvious to me just reading your words. I am sure your relationship with God is only deepening, and will only become more sure with time.

I guess what I'm saying is, what I hear God telling me is to go ahead and believe in absolutes...reject moral relativism. It's dangerous to my personal faith. I'm also pretty idealistic and concrete so it doesn't mesh with my bent or giftings very well.

The way you wrote above, it seems to me that those may be your thoughts, your fears about losing God if you open up to certain kinds of questions, speaking, not God. Keep looking at it, you are in a position to know better which it is, not me. It also seems to me that you are expanding to include more abstract ideas in your concepts of life and philosophy than you did before. So, perhaps you are concrete by nature, but also becoming abstract by practice?

I wonder, does the view that "we're all on a different path to God" include conservative Christians (even those who are hateful to gay people)? If we are to say, "God deals with each person in the way they need to be dealt with" doesn't that HAVE To include those who believe that everyone else is wrong? Isn't it our job as those who don't believe the same way to walk the path set before us? To try to reach out to "them" in love and acceptance and try to lead them down the path that WE believe to be righteous...that of loving others?

I think, for sure.

Anyway,
later.
~C

Overarching theme of this post: introspective, hopeful, and not wanting to offend.;)


Wow - Cathy I get such a sense of conflict and contradiction reading this! The contradictions you are wrestling with come through loud and clear. I don't see any offense in this.

You keep saying you are not comfortable with opening yourself to questioning any of these matters, but you keep doing it. Healthy. That's where growth comes from. Muscle builders lift heavier and heavier to break muscle fibres down so they can grow back stronger. Perhaps something similar is happening with your philosophy.

Don't be afraid of questions. Questions have a LOT more to teach us than answers do. And I don't think your relationship with God is anyplace NEAR the kind of shaken ground it may look like to you.

[andrewlittle]

I have certainly had my ideas about truth challenged since being here on this site ... Of course, all of this has been hugely upsetting to me. My relationship with God has changed a good deal...and there has been a loss of intimacy for awhile now as I've grappled with the questions, "Who ARE you, Lord" and "How can so many people believe such different things about the SAME ENTITY?"

...His answer to me was, "Follow the path set before you." I, of course, asked Him, but what about all the OTHER people who believe differently? ... The answer, of course, is to love others and try to "introduce" as many as I can to my Jesus.

At any rate, I began thinking about moral relativism. The statement, "This is truth" ... "There is no absolute truth." My truth is as good as your truth. What makes your truth better than mine? You have no right to force your truth on me.

Honestly, something in me just doesn't jive with that.

Overarching theme of this post: introspective, hopeful, and not wanting to offend.;)

No-one can be an absolute "moral relativist" without crossing the line into "moral absolutism". Relativism says that there are no absolute, definable "truths" that are true for all people and cultures. As soon as one states, however, that "no-one should believe in any absolute truths", they seek to make their view universal, which crosses into absolutism.

I think that humility becomes confused with relativism, sometimes accidentally and sometimes by design. (Let's face it, the easiest way for an absolutist, with an audience of absolutists, to dismiss the opinion of someone who disagrees or questions is to label the other as relativist.)

Absent some kind of moral barometer, we would live purely sociopathic lives. What is good for me is good for everyone else - and, because I'm right and the only arbiter of social mores, I will impose my will on everyone else.

If I was a pure relativist, I would have to say that, while I disagree and do not hold to your social mores, you have the perfect right to believe your own truth - therefore, I guess, you can kill me because I'm wearing this rather dapper suit made of linen and wool.

If you hold to certain absolute truths but have humility you would say, "I believe certain things to be true - these truths guide my life and my ethical and moral choices. I will not wear a suit of linen and wool. I will stop short, however, of forcing you and all others to accept my absolute truths as normative."

So, to be humble and hold to moral absolutes you could do the following:

"I think there ARE absolute truths." And I will let them guide my path.

"I think that God DOES want to present himself to all people through his son, Jesus." Therefore, given any opportunity, I shall witness to what I believe. I will stop short, however, of insisting that everyone accept my truths as "the truths". I will not force people to believe as I believe, but continue to HOPE that they will.

"I do NOT think that 'all paths lead to God'." Therefore, I will not take all paths. I will take the one God calls ME to.

I've had to wrestle with this concept because if you believe it, it means that someone has to be WRONG. I don't want to be arrogant enough to say, "You're wrong, I'm right." Ultimately, that's God's call anyway. How about saying, "What I believe is right for me. What you believe is wrong for me, even if you believe it is right for you." Of course, then, I would have to accept that what I believe might be wrong for someone else. I would not be accepting someone else's truth, even though allowing them the room to consider it their own truth. No skin off my nose, is there?

"There is a struggle, however, to believe that {I'm} right and love others anyway without being judgmental or overbearing or just plain mean." That's it - that's humility. It certainly isn't relativist, though.

Absolutism, however, is when we say "I believe it is a sin to wear a suit made of linen and wool. All suits of linen and wool shall be burned. So, while I love the tarsorial sinner and I hate the tarsorial sin, it's too bad the suit will have to burned with you in it."

[frankandcathy]

Zerbie:

Thank you for your response. Good responses and things to think about. It is funny because in the midst of my thinking, "I don't feel close to God right now" who do I always wind up talking to about it? Why God, of course! Who else would have an answer? :p

Andy: I think I can agree with you in all but one point:


How about saying, "What I believe is right for me. What you believe is wrong for me, even if you believe it is right for you." Of course, then, I would have to accept that what I believe might be wrong for someone else. I would not be accepting someone else's truth, even though allowing them the room to consider it their own truth. No skin off my nose, is there?


I think this is the crux of the issue. What I would call absolutism would say, "No, what I believe is RIGHT for you...you just don't know it yet."

So, ultimately, I guess I AM arrogant enough to say, "I know what's best for you." Of course, you're basing that statment on what you believe the Bible to say as ordained by God so....you believe GOD is the one saying, "I know what's best for you" which leads me right back into the part about iron sharpening iron...:D

At any rate, this is good food for thought, good analogies, and I appreciate you listening!

~C

[Zerbie]

Zerbie:

Thank you for your response. Good responses and things to think about. It is funny because in the midst of my thinking, "I don't feel close to God right now" who do I always wind up talking to about it? Why God, of course! Who else would have an answer? :p



So, ultimately, I guess I AM arrogant enough to say, "I know what's best for you." ~C

So am I!!!! :p :rolleyes: :p

And you and I believe (in some cases) diametrically OPPOSITE things. So you see why it would be a problem if either one of us started forcing the other, insisting on capitulation. . . we'd be hitting each other over the head with steel batons. :smashy: :eek: :lol:

Much better to allow that we are each going to follow the path we KNOW we are called to, learning to be friends and love each other along the way. My belief: we ARE traveling to the same place in the end, and will one day greet each other there, and on that day we will understand all of this.:pray: :dove: :dove:

We each agree on an essential: love. Love one another along the way. Part of love involves sharing, witnessing, and another part of love involves standing back and respecting the other's authority to take THEIR spiritual path, even when we believe it might be wrong. If we give them ours, they have missed everything meant for them along the way.

Snowflake thingy. :p :D

[andrewlittle]

Andy: I think I can agree with you in all but one point:
I think this is the crux of the issue. What I would call absolutism would say, "No, what I believe is RIGHT for you...you just don't know it yet."

So, ultimately, I guess I AM arrogant enough to say, "I know what's best for you." Of course, you're basing that statment on what you believe the Bible to say as ordained by God so....you believe GOD is the one saying, "I know what's best for you" which leads me right back into the part about iron sharpening iron...:D

At any rate, this is good food for thought, good analogies, and I appreciate you listening!
~C

Hi again Cathy. Okay, I can even go with that. That's still a long jump, however, to believing so much that you had the right truth that you would legislate to make it the legal truth?

Ultimately each person has a right, and I think a responsibility, to base a personal ethic on something larger than themselves. That may include things that we each maintain are absolute truths. As you state, this may mean "mutual friction may be what the scripture talks about when it says, "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." If we weren't all so different...what would be the point?"

Having our absolutes challenged internally, by God or conscience, is inherently disturbing. Certainty is always more comfortable than uncertainty. But uncertainty leads to growth through learning, while certainty can prevent growth because there's nothing to learn. I think God can take our uncertainty - which does not equate to doubt, but to yearning for truth - and teach us through it.

I once asked a wise old friend of mine if he thought God ever left us. He answered, "God requires that we mature. More than any parent would comprehend, God would know that sometimes we have to apply what we've learned by ourselves. God would step back and let us try, even of we make mistakes. We may feel God has left us alone. But, like any caring parent, God has just taken a few steps back to give us our space to try - God's still there to cradle us if we get hurt."

Back to the other subject of your original post, "Is it moral relativism?" I wonder if isn't just a defense against "relative moralism". Relative moralism justifies the violation of a moral principle on the grounds that it will bring greater good to greater numbers. In other words, it is alright to cling on to deception, or other "immoral" behavior, for a noble cause -- the end justifies the means.

This is the ultimate form of utilitarianism, in which a good is expendable for the greater good. I don't think Christ would go for that, either.

[kara speltz]

all of this has been hugely upsetting to me. My relationship with God has changed a good deal...and there has been a loss of intimacy for awhile now as I've grappled with the questions, "Who ARE you, Lord" and "How can so many people believe such different things about the SAME ENTITY?"

It's almost like finding out that your spouse has a secret hobby...let's say...dirt bike racing...that you never knew about yet he has a whole culture of friends that know this about him. You feel very unsure of your relationship with him with because you begin to think, "Do I really know you at all?" Of course, the racing doesn't change all the other things that he was to you...husband, father, lover, etc. but it still trips you out.

That's where I'm at right now.




Dear Cathy: Two things popped in to my mind as I read your very challenging post.

There is a (either a sufi or buddhist) story about a group of people sitting around arguing over the color of a lamp that was in the center of the ceiling. Some said it was green, some blue, some yellow some red. And they were all right, but kept arguing that the others were wrong - you see the lamp had all the colors of the rainbow, but from where each person sat, they could only see one color. That I believe is the way the different paths are for each of us. Certainly, I know that I do NOT have the same relationship with any two people, not even my two grandchildren. Each person is very unique and so my relationships with them are different. I believe that is true of God - that no two relationships are exactly the same.

Secondly, I also believe that we as human beings are not capable of completely understanding God. God is unknowable on some level, and intimately knowable on another. But I also believe there are all sorts of aspects of God that we can not know at this moment while we are alive.

I also believe that our understanding of God for the most part is that we've created God in our own image instead of our comprehending that God created us in His/Her Image. And so we are constantly putting limitations on God, because we experience limitations.

St. Francis of Assisi is one of my very favorite saints. He told his followers to preach the Gospel at all times and, if necessary, use words. I think the love you have tells so much more about the God in your life than any words will ever express. I am so very grateful that you continue to struggle through these forums raising all sorts of fabulous questions. And I totally agree with Andrew, my guess is your relationship with God is actually stronger now, even if it is filled with all sorts of questions. There is a beautiful prayer about the questioning heart, I'll copy below.

Kara

PRAYER FOR A QUESTIONING HEART
It seems to me God
that we search
much too desperately
for answers
when a good question
holds as much grace
as an answer.

Jesus, Buddha, Mohammad
All you great questioners
Keep our questions alive
that we may always be seekers
rather than settlers.

Guard us well
from the sin of settling in
with our answers
hugged to our breasts.

Make of us
a wondering
far-sighted
questioning
restless people
And give us the feet of pilgrims
on this journey unfinished.
~~Macrina Wiederkehr in Seasons of Your Heart

[novaseeker]

I guess my own reflection on your very interesting post, Cathy, is somewhat similar to Kara's.

To me, the one absolute truth about God is that God is not completely knowable. That is, we have spiritual traditions that encapsulate the experience of living in a relationship with God in human words, human rituals, human ideas -- but these ideas, words, concepts, rituals, none of them encompass God, and none of them, even taken together, represent an absolute truth about God, because God is, by means of God's very nature, not completely knowable.

The Greek theologians of the early church wrote that the most true statements that one could make about God were negative ones, not positive ones -- that is, it is easier to describe what God is not, than what God is, because ultimately God is, in what God is, not humanly knowable in an absolute sense. That is not to say that relationships with God are impossible -- not at all. What it affirms is that human words, human concepts, cannot encapsulate in an absolute sense what and who God is.

I understand well the desire for an "absolute truth". I went down that path many years ago on a trek that took me away from the Catholic Church of my youth and directly into the heart of the Orthodox Church, compelled as I was at the time that it was very important to be in a church whose doctrines/teachings/apprach. etc (I was convicted at the time) were true in an absolute sense. In fact, at the time, this seemed like the important issue, viewed from the perspective of the logic that holds that a body which is in error cannot be in communion with a God who is perfect because such a perfect God would not permit such error to persist in communion with God. And given that logic, it is of course preferable -- or, rather, compelling -- to situate oneself firmly in the position where absolute truth can be found.

What I've come to understand since then is that in thinking this way I was, in a very real sense, putting God in a box. The box was my human conception about God, and my very human need to possess or at least to believe in absolute terms about God -- something which placed my own human needs and priorities relating to absolute truth above the living and ineffable reality that is God. In my specific case, it involved putting my own human ideas about what God would and would not be in communion with above God's ultimately unknowable priorities -- but that was just my case; there are many different ways that people from different spiritual traditions can and do, in fact, do the same thing about different issues, and in different ways. Yes, God has revealed aspects of what God believes is important to us, but when we absolutize these aspects, and foreclose *all* other possibilities, we're behaving in an understandably human manner, but one that ultimately is more human-focused than centered on the reality of God.

We do the same thing, in my view, when we confine the reality of God to one religious tradition. Here I think it is critical to distinguish between two different yet parallel ways of knowing. We *know* God in the context of our own spiritual tradition because that is where the encounter between God and ourselves takes place -- that's a personal, relational and above all an experiential knowledge of God, and has an intrinsic validity as such. It's not an empirical or rational "knowing", it's a relational "knowing". On the relational level, however, we can't really say what the relationship is between God and other people. We certainly can't exclude it, really, without putting God in a box. We can say whole-heartedly based on our own experience of God that "God is here!" -- but we can't really say "God is not there!" unless we put some kind of a human-made fence around God. On the level of empirical and rational knowledge, we can say that we believe or affirm certain truth statements *about* God, but again if we absolutize these then we have put God in a box again by excluding the possibility of other means of expression, of other ways of knowing and relating to God who is in essence beyond human understanding, and of other human formulations of the meaning of this encounter, this experience, this relationship.

It's difficult, because our limited human faculties are, for better or worse, our own main way of thinking about these things, and so it's very, very easy to get caught in a trap of logical syllogisms and the quest for an absolute truth in a human sense, meanwhile losing sight of that which is not totally knowable in a human sense and which is beyond our limited understanding. It's simply behaving like the flawed and limited human beings that we are. But if we give in to this temptation, we've made God smaller and more confined by human ideas than God really is, and we've actually pushed ourselves further away from God rather than closer.

[Daniel]

Back to the other subject of your original post, "Is it moral relativism?" I wonder if isn't just a defense against "relative moralism". Relative moralism justifies the violation of a moral principle on the grounds that it will bring greater good to greater numbers. In other words, it is alright to cling on to deception, or other "immoral" behavior, for a noble cause -- the end justifies the means.

This is the ultimate form of utilitarianism, in which a good is expendable for the greater good. I don't think Christ would go for that, either.

This strikes me as a very astute point. Relative Moralism lead our nation to drop the atomic bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. As such, the ultimate goal is always to destroy, no matter how fine the motivation. One might say the same for capital punishment.

What I hear you saying Andrew is that the free fall that one can find oneself in when mulling over the matter of relative moralism does not mean that one is in danger of it's opposite. The only thing one is really in danger of is thinking for one's self.

[andrewlittle]

Relative Moralism lead our nation to drop the atomic bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. As such, the ultimate goal is always to destroy, no matter how fine the motivation. One might say the same for capital punishment.

What I hear you saying Andrew is that the free fall that one can find oneself in when mulling over the matter of relative moralism does not mean that one is in danger of it's opposite. The only thing one is really in danger of is thinking for one's self.

Relative moralism sets a stage where, for instance, denying biological science and using scriptural misrepresentation is allowable to prevent what you may believe is the "greater" harms of sexual and marriage equality. Taken to the next step, these deceptions are allowable because it furthers the agenda of establishing as normative a particular slant on theology and ethics. That begins to border on sociopathy.

When someone begins to question the ethics of relative moralism, they find themselves in areas that were previously considered "bad", but now may seem just in shades of grey. Ambiguity and uncertainty step in, being very uncomfortable. But that does not automatically propel us to the other extreme of "moral relativism". There are myriad places in between.

I like you summation, Daniel, about it putting us only in danger of thinking for ourselves. That, however, is a very scary place to be for a lot of people.

[andrewlittle]

Isn't Jesus' decision to Glean on the Sabbath a form of Relative moralism as you have defined it? As well as his verbal examples of pulling animals out a ditch etc?

If you consider "no work" on the Sabbath a good then , yes, these would be relative moralism at work. I should have put "greater good" in quotes, because that's where it many times breaks down.

Like any of the ethical philosophies, there are times when relative moralism makes sense. The breaking point comes, generally, with the determination of the "greater good". Relative moralism becomes a tool, sometimes, when it is used to commit an ethical violation for a purported greater good that is really smoke and mirrors.

Using lies to justify a war on Iraq is okay because, after all, it was to save us U.S. citizens from terrorist attacks. But, in reality, the "good" turns out to be protecting corporate and government access to oil and control.

Using lies to justify demonizing GLBT is okay, after all, because they are a threat to the institution of marriage. Load of crappe - but the populace believes it.

The insanity is that the entities that accuse liberal/progressives of moral relativity, justify their strategy by using relative morality.

[marutidas]

Too often, Self-seeking politians and religious learders quote the sacred text of the world's religions to justify harm not healing, contention not compassion and hatred not hope. When the Holy Word are used like whips, it is hard to see their holiness and harder to believe in the healing power of any religion, especially those that usee their text to spread suffering and oppression.....Every great religion demends modesty and humility in the way its followers profess their faith. Deeds of Compassion and Tolerence have always been far more effective tools of conversion than the point of a sword of the barrel of a gun. So when people hurt, subjugate or kill others in the name of God, They're perverting, rather than representing, the true teaching of their faith.

Excerpt from Religion for Dummies
Just thought is was fitting for this topic.

~~~Maruti Das

[frankandcathy]

I don't think I can answer them all. Obviously Andy and nova are very thoughtful as well as David.

Interestingly, only one person sent me a little note about being careful about feeling far from God. To consider if there is any thought process or activity which is worth risking that closeness. I don't think it's a coincidence that this person was female.

This may be very hard for you boys to believe but women actually do have an emotional 6th sense. It's some kind of weird barometer and functions well in a marriage. I know immediately when something is worryng my husband even when he insists there is nothing. I know instinctively when something is up with my girls. It's a mom-ometer. God's gift to girls, I guess.

Anyway, it's that barometer that troubles me. For me, when I feel this way I know it's not good for me. So I am working through it. I don't feel I should stop being here, though. I don't know if I will feel that way or not later on.

David, there was one statement that you made that makes me both laugh and is disturbing. You mentioned that the "voice" I was hearing my not be God's but may be the enemy's or even my own voice.

Herein lies the problem, I suppose, with opening up to those who believe differently from you. I ask you: How would you feel if I said to you, "I think that voice in your head telling you it's okay for folks to be gay is the devil."

It's also slightly disturbing to even hint that at this point in my walk with God, after countless trials and tribulations, that I can't discern whose voice is whose. Of course, I may have hinted at such in another post so I'll let that one go. It's one of those, "I can say this about myself but don't you dare say it" issues.

You see, as liberally-minded as the most liberal of us try to be, there is always a propensity to want others to be like us. To try to get them to come to "our side." To reject the notion that God could be telling them something DIFFERENT than he's telling us!! (Sound like a familiar struggle?) After all, how could God be speaking to me that I am to believe in absolutes if he's telling so many others not to worry about it so much? Ah, there's the original problem. I guess it's good to know that we all struggle with this in some way.

Anyway, good stuff. Kara and maritudas also had great posts.

Good night.
~C

[Daniel]

This may be very hard for you boys to believe but women actually do have an emotional 6th sense. It's some kind of weird barometer and functions well in a marriage.

Not hard at all!

This gay boy knows exactly what you're talking about.

It's not for nothing that straight gals gravitate towards aethestically/psychically/emotionally aware gay men. We pick out their shoes for them, do their hair, sew their dresses and even know what straight guy is the right guy for them. We're full of sixth sense, empathy (legion are the gay men who become priests), and a knack for fixing things up (urban gentrification) so others can benefit. The ability to see what others don't see, can't see, or want to see, being left to Others.

It's not for nothing that in the Ancient Eastern Church, the Holy Spirit is considered a Feminine Aspect of God and is named Sophia- Wisdom.

The other Sophia is a Golden Girl.

[BronzDragon]

My relationship with God has changed a good deal...and there has been a loss of intimacy for awhile now as I've grappled with the questions, "Who ARE you, Lord" and "How can so many people believe such different things about the SAME ENTITY?"
» Thom says: ☛ I understand what you are going through. The path that has brought me to a more Gnostic and Existential perspective has taken me through even stranger territory than you report. That I have, over the last few months, been working on healing the part of my past that was Christian, and reintegrating it into my person is an action I would never have though I would be in.

If I might offer: As children no one expects us to be born able to walk, run, or even creep right away. As our bodies develop and our minds learn to hunger for more than mother’s milk and comfort, we crawl, creep, stand, walk, and run. Often, we take our first steps with mother’s help. Then, one day, we find we are walking toward daddy without any help. Maybe we fall, look around and wonder where mother is, and start to cry in fear and loneliness. She was there all along, giving us permission to grow, and there to care for us if we don’t get it the first time. When we are older, we no longer need her support to walk, we are strong enough physically and emotionally to do it without her. This changes our relationship to her drastically. No, she doesn’t stop being mother, she just stops being a crutch.

It is every parent’s desire that their children grow up and become strong and carry on where they left off. Is this a perfect analogy with regards to the Eternal One? I believe that we are extensions, manifestations of the Eternal One, like waves or ripples on the surface of the ocean. We never become independent of the Eternal One the way we would our mother. Yet, I believe the Eternal One delights in our growth, maturity, because an older mind can enjoy the same tree for all new reasons than a younger mind would.

At any rate, I began thinking about moral relativism.
» Thom says: ☛ “Speak with certainty only that which you know for certain. (Hermes Trismegistus)”

One of the major problems with “knowing” is first the question of what is real, then I might examine the questions themselves. We place so many filters on what we know, thousands of Julian Fried categories, this is good that is not, I like this that I don’t. Then we have physical issues, I see the world differently from my mother because she has lost most of her vision. Then there is experience, I see the world differently at 43 than I did when I was 13, or 3. The world hasn’t changed, only I have (NightWatch, Timur Bekmanbetov)

We can also bring Quantum Reality into the equation. Reality is, itself, relative to the questions being asked. Are Daimons real? Are dreams real? is your body real? And I am not going to bore you with quantum theory because that is a myth still in the workshop. And worst subject of this question is that of the ego. Frankly, the ego is a relative lens on reality, and even the Self is a poor point to ask “Is this what the ego is relative to?”

I am a member of several groups I would call “ParaHumanity.” By that I mean, we feel we have some component to our being that is not usually part of the human condition. Some of us feel there is an animal as part of that construction (Therianthropes), Fairy, Daimon, alien, Dragon, or Vampire. Understand that these labels are simply a best fit for a condition that I really doubt we will ever be able to nail down. Like any other daimon, the more you refine the rational explanation, to more it eludes the effort.

What has really worked for me over the years is to ignore the goal of finding the final solution to all the question. I really don't even know if the gods have such an answer. Is there true knowledge? Or can we just be more sure of the knowledge we have?

Being mindful of the present can be difficult, especially if one has been in the neurotic habit of clinging to the past, or insufferably hopeful of the future. Sometimes, the smallest act, like sweeping or washing the dishes, when done mindfully, can get into a new habit, and lead us to the grander act of total mindfulness.

[marutidas]

Cathy you said,
"My relationship with God has changed a good deal...and there has been a loss of intimacy for awhile now as I've grappled with the questions, "Who ARE you, Lord" and "How can so many people believe such different things about the SAME ENTITY?"

Did he not say I am all things to all people?

[Zerbie]

I

This may be very hard for you boys to believe but women actually do have an emotional 6th sense. It's some kind of weird barometer and functions well in a marriage. I know immediately when something is worryng my husband even when he insists there is nothing. I know instinctively when something is up with my girls. It's a mom-ometer. God's gift to girls, I guess.

My husband has that. :)

Anyway, it's that barometer that troubles me. For me, when I feel this way I know it's not good for me. So I am working through it. I don't feel I should stop being here, though. I don't know if I will feel that way or not later on.

Could it be just that these conversations, and being a little bit uncertain, makes you uncomfortable? Could it just be a questioning thought?

David, there was one statement that you made that makes me both laugh and is disturbing. You mentioned that the "voice" I was hearing my not be God's but may be the enemy's or even my own voice.

I said that too - to look at it again and see if it's possible it might be just a fearful thought. You are going to feel a sense of where it comes from, we aren't. It IS possible, and we don't know to what degree you sat with that particular one in contemplation. Could be days or weeks (months!) for all we know, or it could have been 10 seconds and then - No, God wants me to believe absolutes. Since we don't know, we offered the the scenario as a plausibility.

Herein lies the problem, I suppose, with opening up to those who believe differently from you. I ask you: How would you feel if I said to you, "I think that voice in your head telling you it's okay for folks to be gay is the devil."

:lol: Cathy, most of us have been TOLD so. (without the "I think" tagged on to the beginning either.) Way to end a conversation and a relationship!
As David said, we've spent years, even decades, individually praying and contemplating this - to take the collective wisdom on this forum together you probably have about 1000 years of faithful surrendered passionate prayer, and the collective atmosphere of this forum derives from that.

Also - it's a far cry from suggesting that a feeling, thought, or belief may be merely a human one than it is to suggest it may come from evil incarnate.

And yes, I DO believe it is a great challenge to discern God's intent for our lives from our own desires. . .no matter how old we are or how long we have practiced our faith, because with greater faith and greater understanding come greater and more difficult challenges. We have to sit with things and surrender them to the divine. It is a continual process for all of us.

It's also slightly disturbing to even hint that at this point in my walk with God, after countless trials and tribulations, that I can't discern whose voice is whose.

See my note above. I think it applies to all of us. It is difficult for all of us. I think that is why finding a pre-manufactured answer from someone else is so attractive.

You see, as liberally-minded as the most liberal of us try to be, there is always a propensity to want others to be like us. To try to get them to come to "our side." To reject the notion that God could be telling them something DIFFERENT than he's telling us!!

Yeah, I admit to that pretty easily. It is a human trap to fall into. But we just have to remember that the path will look different to different people. You know, the "all paths. . ." thing, it may not even be more than one path. It could all be one path, looking different to everyone else depending upon where one is standing, walking from. It's going to look a little different. But lead to the same place in the end.

Good night.
~C

Fwiw Cathy, I don't think you have anything to be afraid of.

[frankandcathy]

Good points all.

Maritudas, I am not aware of any place that God said he was all things to all people in the Bible, but of course, I could just be mistaken.

Discernment is obviously crucial and I have certainly often thought I've heard from God and then later thought I was wrong. And then LATER realized that I wasn't wrong at all! :) Life is funny that way, isn't it?

Anywho, this discussion seems to be becoming rather circular to me so I'll say that I am feeling better about my intimacy with God mainly because I believe that He is telling me it's OKAY to believe in absolutes as long as the affect of those beliefs are still loving toward others.

I have to run off to deliver something but you guys are great!
~C

[Zerbie]

GAnywho, this discussion seems to be becoming rather circular to me so I'll say that I am feeling better about my intimacy with God mainly because I believe that He is telling me it's OKAY to believe in absolutes as long as the affect of those beliefs are still loving toward others.


~C

Now, THAT is what it's all about. That's the essential. That our actions be loving. What kind of fruit do our actions bear? That is what's most important.

[Blossom]

Did he not say I am all things to all people?

Thinking perhaps of Paul's statement:

1 Corinthians 9:19 Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible.
20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.
21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law.
22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.
23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

Oops--I used the NIV version above...NRSV says "all things to all people"

[Dash]

Gandhi said, "Truth is God."

I feel that many truisms have been discussed here are but Truth itself has not been mentioned.

The "moral relativist" says, "there is no absolute truth," only because he or she thinks that statement is true. The atheist does not believe in God because he is holding to Truth (yes...even Richard Dawkins kneels to Truth). The Hindu, the Muslim, the Buddhist, the Baptist, the Lutheran, Catholic, the Jew, the Wiccan, the Astrologist, the Shaman are all clinging to and seeking the same thing--Truth. It is not because they are desiring Untruth that they follow their path; it is their devotion to Truth that compels them and guides them forward.

These things that we think are true...should any of them be proven by thundering Divine voice to be untrue...would we not yield? And even if we did not...wouldn't it be because we were still holding onto the quality of Truth...insisting that it was somewhere else, though we were perhaps blind to its presence? So even all our hesitations are a fumbling hymn to Truth.

Truth itself--the quality behind "things true", which gives them their authority and power--Truth itself is the Divine face before which every knee bows. I am tempted to say it would impossible for a human being to not to worship Truth. It frames every debate, every religious construct, and every cry to heaven. It is irresistable to the human spirit, inarguable and inescapable. I say it frames everything and is itself framed by nothing. It grasps all in its holding, and is itself unheld.

Even Gandhi, as a Satayagrahi in "holding to truth", was more bound by It than holding. The sacrifice of humility keeps one open and ready to recognize Truth when it comes to them. The posture of humility is receptive at all times and ready to serve Truth when it calls.

But in regard to the truisms...

In the great house there are many servants, and each has their own tasks. If every one served in the same way, how many duties would go untended?