Friday, December 29, 2006

The Absurdity of Absolute Relativity (12.27.08)

There are some things that human beings may know with metaphysical certitude. In fact, our access to absolute truth is one of the principle things that defines us as human. Obviously, no other animal can know truth, much less absolute truth. The moment you realize this -- assuming you really and truly do -- you will understand that the human state is not a Darwinian "extension" of the animal state, but something fundamentally inexplicable on any materialistic grounds. It is, in fact, a gate of exit out of mere animality -- indeed, out of the relative cosmos itself. Humans are a "hole" in creation that allows them to know the whole of creation.

For in knowing absolute truth, human beings may participate in eternity on this side of manifestation -- in the relative world. The trick is to, so to speak, "prolong" eternity on this plane. We do this by 1) aligning ourselves with truth, and 2) assimilating truth. By "assimilating," I mean that we must metabolize truth so that it is "interiorized" and becomes entwined with our very psychic substance. We must "eat and breathe" absolute truth in order to become it and live it.

Authentic religion is the vehicle of absolute truth. You might say that absolute truth, the Godhead, the Ain Sof, the Supermind, Nirguna Brahman, or the God beyond being, are analogous to white light, whereas each authentic revelation is analogous to a color in the rainbow. This is why religions cannot be mixed "from below," lest you produce a manmade blending of colors that eventually ends up black, not white. However, this hardly means that one religion cannot illuminate this or that obscure or underemphasized doctrine of another.

Christianity, for example, is a obviously a complete religion. Nor will I argue with someone who believes it is the "best" religion. Nevertheless, it is obviously the case that the greatest Christian thinkers -- true theologians such as Meister Eckhart, Origen, or Denys the Areopagite -- exist only at the margins of contemporary Christianity, which is often sadly atheological -- either that, or couched in a ridiculous theology that makes religion itself look ridiculous -- a terrible sin by the way, for it amounts to taking the name of the Lord in vain. At the moment I am thinking of a genial dolt named "Osteen" that I caught on Larry King for a few moments, but it could be anyone.

Once you immerse yourself in, say, the genius of Meister Eckhart, you immediately see the parallels with, say, the greatest Jewish theologian, Moses Maimonides. Then you cannot help seeing certain unavoidable parallels with perhaps the greatest pagan mystic, Plotinus, then it's hard to distinguish him from the immortal Vedantin, Shankara. You needn't "blend" any of these truly celestial beings to appreciate how they are reflected in one another, each a particular color that carries and transmits real light. Most of us cannot know the white light, but each color is in the end nothing other than light, just as rain or snow are nothing other than water. I am as comfortable in a Catholic or Orthodox service as I am in a Vedanta or Jewish temple, so long as they radiate the sacred. However, I am definitely not "eclectic." I do not believe in "cafeteria style" spirituality. It is more like being able to appreciate, say, Arvo Part, Dexter Gordon, Merle Haggard, and James Brown. Each is a musical "avatar" who conveys real musical light, but I wouldn't want to blend them.

Apparently, it is difficult for most rank and file human beings to conceive of the Absolute on its own absolute terms, so they create a human substitute to stand for the Absolute. In short, they intuit the Absolute and believe in the Absolute, but the only way they can "think" about it is to elevate something on the relative plane to the status of Absolute. This is fine as far as it goes, and it does help those who are not metaphysically gifted to think about ultimate things. Nevertheless, it places sharp limits on one's own ability to transcend name and form, and can end up being K-->O, except on a grandiose scale. There is a way to "dwell" in religion to use it as a launching pad into O -- which is the actual purpose of religion in its highest sense. But let's not kid ourselves. Most people must be satisfied to align themselves with an exoteric religion in order to gain what might be called a "second hand" sense of the Absolute -- which is fine, by the way, and certainly preferable to disbelief or to belief in frank nonsense such as atheism or materialism. It is a way of salvation. It is just not our way.

In an article entitled Are You Certain About That?, Jonah Goldberg discusses one of the latest leftist memes. However, it is not so much a meme as the central core of leftism, which in the end embodies an assault on truth and a rejection of the Absolute -- which is impossible both in principle and in fact, which is why leftism is fundamentally and irretrievably incoherent.

Goldberg writes, "Have you heard the news? Belief is bad. Pick up an eggheady book review, an essay in Time magazine, or listen to a thumb-suck session on National Public Radio for very long and you’ll soon hear someone explain that real conviction -- dogmatism! -- is dangerous."

For example, "Andrew Sullivan, in his new book The Conservative Soul, declares a jihad on certainty, by which he means the certainty of fundamentalist 'Christianists' -- the allusion to Islamists is deliberate. The New Republic’s Jonathan Chait proclaims that liberalism is the anti-dogmatic ideology. Sam Harris, a leading proselytizer for atheism, has declared a one-man crusade on religious certainty. Intellectual historian J.P. Diggins writes in the latest issue of The American Interest that there’s a war afoot for 'the soul of the American Republic' between the forces of skepticism and infallibility. And so on."

Superficially, this leftist meme reflects their concern about the alleged “messianic certainty” of President Bush, which "is dangerous and evil in the eyes of supposedly meek and nuanced liberals." Goldberg notes that the meme has naturally trickled down from the laughty mountains of academia, where the nonsensical air is rarified, polluting the rivers, streams, and crocks below, including Hollywood. For example, in Star Wars III, "a young Obi-Wan Kenobi proclaim[s] 'Only a Sith lord deals in absolutes!' Translation: Only evil people see the world as black-and-white." Which is ironic, "since it was Lucas himself who originally explained that the entire universe is divided into light and dark sides." Goldberg also cites retired New York Times moonbat columnist Anthony Lewis, who famously wrote in his last column that the one thing he had learned in his long and tedious career was that "certainty is the enemy of decency and humanity in people who are sure they are right, like Osama bin Laden and John Ashcroft.” As if there is anything more beligerently certain than the idiotorial pages of the New York Times.

But absolute relativism is the sine qua non of metaphysical nonsense. It is one thing thing we can know with certainty that cannot be true, for if the relativist’s belief is true, then he has left relativism behind. Then the question becomes “which Absolute is true?” But there can be only one Absolute, so the question is absurd. However, as Schuon points out, although there can be no absolutely relative, there can obviously be a "relative absolute," which is what I regard as the realm of O-->k. This is where a Meister Eckhart or Jakob Boehme lived, which is a far cry from the space occupied by genial dolts who appear on Larry King.

This does not just apply to contemplatives but to men of action whose shield is Truth, for Goldberg writes that most of the truly heroic figures in human history have been animated “by certainty, by the courage of their convictions” -- by O-->k on the plane of action. Our founders knew with metaphysical certitude that human liberty could only have come from a creator, and that a creator cannot be other than the Creator. For truth is one and liberty is a condition of knowing it: no liberty, no truth, no truth, no liberty; and there can be neither truth nor liberty unless it is principially absolute, like the Creator from which they flow.

Again, the leftist rejection of absolute truth cannot avoid being incoherent. As Goldberg writes, “Martin Luther King Jr. -- to pick liberalism’s most iconic hero -- was hardly plagued with doubt about the rightness of his cause. A Rosa Parks charged with today’s reigning moral imperative not to be too sure of herself might not have sat at the front of the bus. An FDR certain that certainty is the enemy of decency and humanity might have declined to declare total war on Nazism for fear of becoming as bad as his enemy.”

Thus, the rejection of absolutes -- which flow from the Absolute -- is steeped in hypocrisy, since leftists “aren’t offended by conviction per se, but by convictions they do not hold.” “Certainty” has simply “become code among the intellectual priesthood for people and ideas that can be dismissed out of hand. That’s what is so offensive about this fashionable nonsense: It breeds the very closed-mindedness it pretends to fight.”

Imagine if this country were actually founded upon a wimpy rejection of metaphysical certainty and the leftist embrace of relativism?

We hold these preliminary findings to be more or less accurate, at least for now, that all cultures have equal validity, and that each culture has its own ideas about rights and duties and so forth and so on and blah blah blah. In our case, we have hit upon this idea -- no offense, but we have this tentative idea -- subject to further studies, of course -- that we would like the government -- that would be your government -- to cut us some slack so that we can do what we want to do -- basically acquire property and be happy, but not limiting ourselves to that. Anyhoo, it is our culturally conditioned idea that Governments -- not all of them, of course, but ours -- should actually derive their power from the people, although we have respect and tolerance for the contrary view that you folks hold. Nevertheless, some of our more headstrong citizens think that we should be able to form a government based upon these vague hunches of ours, which, after all, are as good as your hunches. No, that was rude -- let's just say that our hunches are different than yours, and leave it at that.... No one can presume to be a judge of whose hunches are best.... At any rate, since, as the saying goes, "different strokes for different folks"....

98 Comments:

Blogger River Cocytus said...

By the way, Bob. I think in some ways, you can see that 'division' of Esoteric and Exoteric even among the writers of the Gospel.

I think perhaps the answer is that (this is going to sound like a common answer for me) Christianity ought to be both simultaneously. - Both deeply theological and directly physically active.

By the way- Do you mean 'Olstein'? as in, Joel Olstein?

12/29/2006 08:44:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Bob,

Thanks for acknowledging the existence of Sam Harris. I wasn't sure if you knew about him or not.

I'd love it if you'd single him out for some "analysis", but if you haven't already read his stuff then...well...I wouldn't wish the pain of doing that on anyone.

Eric

12/29/2006 09:19:00 AM  
Blogger NoMo said...

RC – Absolutely (I love that word). How could vital Truth not be both exo and esoteric? Doesn’t belief in Christ that results in regeneration (new birth) and transformation (spiritual growth) involve both? To me, that is what lends it such validity / credibility in the face of REALITY (which also involves both).

12/29/2006 09:37:00 AM  
Anonymous hoarhey said...

Bob,

Excellent post describing the absolutism of the people who show their hipocrisy with the statement "there are no absolutes". (none besides the ones that they are absolutely sure of).

It seems that with the recent political shift in power back to the nuanced suicidalists, Bush has fallen into a shame vortex reminicent of his hard drinking days, as evidenced by his demeanor lately. Hopefully he will be able to separate those things he should be ashamed of from those where he needs to find a pair and stand up for. The chips falling where they may.

12/29/2006 09:41:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

"Our founders knew with metaphysical certitude that human liberty could only have come from a creator, and that a creator cannot be other than the Creator. For truth is one and liberty is a condition of knowing it: no liberty, no truth, no truth, no liberty; and there can be neither truth nor liberty unless it is principially absolute, like the Creator from which they flow. "

ooohhh... Iiii LiKE THAT! I turn towards the west and bobble my head towards the thee.

(By the way, the title of my last post "The Falsehood of Absolute Truth" was in the context of those who use it only to then put across pairing it with 'relative truth' and so disembowel and discard the concept of truth altogether.)

12/29/2006 10:02:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

"I turn towards the west and bobble my head towards thee."

hmmm something a little disturbing about the sound of that...

12/29/2006 10:06:00 AM  
Anonymous cousin dupree said...

Yes, conjurs some disturbing imagery....

12/29/2006 10:32:00 AM  
Blogger LukeBlogWalker said...

Bob,

As always, UDAMAN!

Good post. I am always interested in how liberals and lefties -or relativists -insist on their absolute relativism.

Or the absoluteness of their undefined wishy-washy positions in the middle of the road.

I think this is why we have the PC movement -since the English language is rather object oriented.

If we say, "Bob ran to the store", we can talk about how fast Bob may have run, or what kind of store, but we typically don't ask, "Whats a Bob?" or "Whats a store?" The two objects are hard linked by the juxtaposition of the sentence.

So this kind of concept forcing, means we have to redefine things in order to not reach an obvious conclusion about the relationship between Bob and the store.

Other languages are different. Some would have a different word for store -although it is a noun, it would have a relationship shift when someone is related to it, and may have a different word for if someone is running towards it. Nouns and verbs changing dynamically to convey meaning.

I suspect this is why some have problems understanding truth. They misapprehend the objects in their relationships. This is something we can teach somewhat with critical thinking, to parse the information and seek meaning.

I think the reason Jesus taught in parables so much, was to convey meanings -he that has an ear, let him hear. Whereas those who look at the words, and try to become mystical, have a problem -as they usually use the mystery to lead the non-critical thinking process.

In John Eadie's Greek Commentaries on the book of Collosians, there is an excellent passage regarding these things. (He is breaking out what Paul wrote -so is of Paul and not John Eadie)

I believe it is around the 2nd chapter -where he is discussing the not to permit people to trap you by the moon, what you eat or the Sabbath. It is part of a whole envelope of thought Paul is discussing -the human penchant for wanting mystery where there is none. Read: Stick to the truth.

I can post it on my blog, provided I have time to type it all in, and someone is interested.

In the meantime, coffee round II is about to commence!

-Luke

PS -a good friend of mine's younger brother is the main designer of bobble heads in Southern California. Perhaps I can locate him and we can have him make one of Bob? Just think Bob -you can sell them on the web with your book! ;)

Then we can branch out - "Daddy, I want a Bobble Head USS Ben for Christmas!" "I want a Joan of Arrrgh!" -collect the whole set!

-hee hee

12/29/2006 10:35:00 AM  
Anonymous cousin dupree said...

A coonskin cap wearin' head-Bobbin' Bobblehead for desk or dashboard! I love it! I'll run it by Bob at once. Now that the infamous 100 books are almost gone, I need to find a way to generate some revenue anyway, or Bob's gonna let me go, I just know it.

12/29/2006 10:38:00 AM  
Blogger LukeBlogWalker said...

On a more serious note..

Bob, don't you think part of the relativity question has to do with the injection into western cultures of the eastern idealism?

As I recall in the west we tend to be realists and see objects in relationships with one another, whereas the easterns see not objects, but all relationships.

This is difficult to convey to an object oriented frame of reference.

So at least on the philosophy angle, it is interesting. On the definitions of reality as posed by leftists -its nonsense!

-And now, back to the afore mentioned caffiene

-Luke

12/29/2006 10:39:00 AM  
Blogger robinstarfish said...

the word was made flesh
no man sees god's face and lives
walk between the lines

12/29/2006 10:43:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

"Bob, don't you think part of the relativity question has to do with the injection into western cultures of the eastern idealism."

It could be that, or it could also be its opposite (which ends up the same), which is an overemphasis on the immament to the exclusion of the transcendent. Leftists notoriously "immamentize the eschaton," when in reality, being is logoistic, neither earthly nor ethereal, but earthereal, as Petey likes to say. The Absolute is radically immament and transcendent at the same time -- which is not really a paradox but, when you think about it, a metaphysical necessity that cannot not be, given the nature of God.

12/29/2006 10:49:00 AM  
Blogger HV said...

Today’s topic is difficult for me since I am neither a leftist relativist nor a faith-based Christian. I see the esoteric thingy as radically different from the exoteric thingy. The Gospel writers may have had both esoteric and exoteric tendencies, but this just confuses me. Yes, I see the commonality in Plotinus, Shankara, and Jesus too, but to admit that is to entertain heresy according to Christians. Bob manages to integrate these things, but I don’t know how. I also notice how difficult it is for the regular commenters, who seem to be mostly Bible-believing Christians, to integrate it as well, since they tend to try to steer the conversation back to their familiar faith-in-Jesus territory. The almost-discussion yesterday, in which commenters resisted Bob’s Eckhart-ian interpretation of “I am” is an example. I hope the non-Christians of a mystical bent will comment and shed some light on this, since unfortunately I don’t have much time to participate in the dialog.

12/29/2006 10:49:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

Well, to me it is the difference between 'natural' mysticism and religion, and 'revealed' mysticism and religion.

As for the commonalities, I think many bible-believers see them too. For Jesus was not just I AM but also a great teacher. And so as I see it there ought to be a great similarity between great and true teachings.

However, because I see it as both Exo and Eso-teric, I cannot willingly consider each person the I AM for while through God we are to be transformed and inhabited by the I AM, and thus in a sense part of the I AM, on the other hand only Christ of all men actually WAS the I AM.

But, because of my background in scripture it may make a lot more sense to me.

12/29/2006 11:03:00 AM  
Blogger NoMo said...

"The absurdity of absolute relativity". In other words, he who does not believe in anything, believes in everything. (Maybe I've heard Bob say this before?)

12/29/2006 11:05:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

HV--

There is nothing remotely heretical in what I wrote, Christian fundamentalism -- a modern deviation from tradition -- notwithstanding. To quote Augustine, "that which is called the Christian religion existed among the ancients, and never did not exist from the beginning of the human race until Christ came in the flesh, at which time the true religion, which already existed, began to be called Christianity."

12/29/2006 11:07:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

The absolutely relative is absurd because it would not be capable of being known. It would exist completely detached and separate from the rest of creation. Knowledge is only possible in the light of the Absolute that subtends knower and known.

12/29/2006 11:11:00 AM  
Anonymous will said...

River -

I think the division between the exo and esoteric goes far beyond the difference between the "deeply theological and directly physically active." In some ways, the "deeply theological" is the "physically active"; it's just a mental form of it.

As Bob was getting at in his post, the difference is between mere "belief" (exo) and gnosis (eso).

Actually, I don't merely think this, I can state it with certainty.

12/29/2006 11:14:00 AM  
Anonymous will said...

A rumination, of no paticular salience -

>>you will understand that the human state is not a Darwinian "extension" of the animal state, but something fundamentally inexplicable on any materialistic grounds. It is, in fact, a gate of exit out of mere animality -- indeed, out of the relative cosmos itself. Humans are a "hole" in creation that allows them to know the whole of creation<<

I think that the eco-fascists, who in some ways I regard as the most wild-eyed, hate-filled, vengeance-minded of leftist groups, actually do acknowledge that humans are indeed the "hole" in creation, something far beyond the extension of the Darwinian state. Of course, they place a hideous reverse spin on the concept, claiming that we humans are essentially unnatural creatures who the earth would do much better without. In some ways, I find this the most open of all declarations of war on the left's part - it is an acknowledgment that humans are indeed "something other than purely material creatures" while averring at the same time that this "something other" is something to be destroyed all together or at least limited to veg/mineral existence.

For what it's worth, the remnants of the Manson family, those who the cops didn't have enough on to indict, all became rabid eco-fascists.

12/29/2006 11:22:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Yes, there is the exoteric left, beneath which is the esoterrorist left!

12/29/2006 11:39:00 AM  
Anonymous Petey said...

Or the law of reverse analogy, "as below, so belower."

12/29/2006 11:40:00 AM  
Blogger HV said...

RC,
I think you have put your finger on a key distinguishing feature of Christianity - the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. Vedantists would not see Jesus as unique. This is one of the things I have a hard time reconciling.

12/29/2006 12:20:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

It is not only Vedantins. With regard to anything that takes place in the relative, the metaphysician from any tradition -- including Christianity (e.g., Meister Eckhart) -- will always ask, "by virtue of what principle?"

12/29/2006 12:28:00 PM  
Blogger HV said...

Gagdad,
I don't think anything you wrote is heretical either. But would any of the churches, Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, or non-denominational, accept a vedantist, let's say Ramana to use a contemporary example, as an officially sanctioned theologian? In practice it becomes even more difficult to reconcile these things, since the things vedantist teachers say are important in practice are different from the things Christian teachers say are important. A vedantist teacher would not say that receiving Holy Communion is necessary for eternal life, for example, or that belief in Jesus Christ as your personal savior is necessary for salvation.

12/29/2006 12:37:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

It is not the task of dogma to reconcile these things, which can only be reconciled "from above," not below. Dogma is critical, but it is not all.

12/29/2006 12:53:00 PM  
Blogger Lisa said...

I AM = OM

12/29/2006 01:12:00 PM  
Anonymous petey said...

I AM OM ALLONE

12/29/2006 01:24:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Will said "...I think that the eco-fascists, who in some ways I regard as the most wild-eyed, hate-filled, vengeance-minded of leftist groups..."

Absolutely True

12/29/2006 01:25:00 PM  
Blogger NoMo said...

According to Bob, "It is not the task of dogma to reconcile these things, which can only be reconciled "from above," not below. Dogma is critical, but it is not all." I don't understand what Bob is saying here, but this is where his statement took me:

Could God have inspired the writers of the Bible to record exactly what He wanted them to record -- and then preserve the Truth through the translations that followed? Obviously He could. But did He? If He did, then His Truth is available to everyone -- people can always take it or leave it. The book of Acts describes how God’s Spirit made it possible for the apostles to speak in a number of different languages that they had never learned, in order to convey the Truth to the many who were gathered there from different lands (it lists the languages). Some of those who heard it were amazed and believed; while others explained it away saying that the apostles were drunk. Today, many believe the Bible to be the Truth – and many explain it away for a million reasons.

For what it's worth.

12/29/2006 01:48:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Nomo said "... inspired the writers of the Bible to record exactly what He wanted them to record -- and then preserve the Truth through the translations that followed?..."

That depends on what words are for... I will post this weekend,I will post this weekend,I will post this...

12/29/2006 02:22:00 PM  
Blogger Lisa said...

Petey, didn't your mom ever tell you not to let strangers know that? It can be dangerous!

12/29/2006 02:22:00 PM  
Blogger ximeze said...

Musing here....

Could the confusion be linguistic?

Logos translates "Word" in English, thereby easing the object switch to Word=Bible(words)?

The "Inerrent word of God" crowd seem to target "The Book" aspect, the written page, elevating that, in error IMHO, to the place of the Logos. To them, The Bible Is ALL.

I guess it's heresy to say different. I've had them go bananas when I say "don't care much for James, too Works oriented, seems to be missing the Core Message." Paul tagged him on it, and as I recall, so did Luther.

A.W. Tozer has written very clearly on this object-switch.
I have it around here someplace, in a "collected works", and can locate the essay, if anyone is interested.

I've done enough translation, from one contemporary language to another, to understand what happens & the difficulties that arise in trying to convey meaning, in context, where available words or grammer differ so much between the two.

I've also played the child's game "telephone" enough to know what happens when phrases are passed along.

I have no problem with "the Inerrent Logos of God", certainly it is contained in the Book, but also elsewhere. Framing it this way releases me from being "tied" to just That Book & some of the over-engineered, logically convoluted arguments necessary to make the "paper words" work as a unit.

12/29/2006 02:56:00 PM  
Blogger GeorgeD said...

RC, I think he means Osteen as in a famous young handsome and vacuous Texas feel-good preacher.

12/29/2006 02:59:00 PM  
Blogger GeorgeD said...

Bob, I am happily stuck on Jesus Christ who said "No man cometh to the Father except by me" and "I am the way the truth and the life". The rest of those fellas were thoughtful folks but they have no propitiation power in them so I can't hook my wagon to their engine.

12/29/2006 03:03:00 PM  
Anonymous integralist said...

"No man cometh to the Father except by me."

This is a good example of the importance of interpretation. If we take it literally then it means that everyone should be a Christian, which basically invalidates literal interpretation, imo. If we take it metaphorically it could mean a few different things, which depends upon what is meant by "Christ." Is it the historical personage? Or is it a spiritual consciousness that is accessible to all?

I take the latter view: "Christ consciousness" is possible for anyone and related to the Buddhist ideal of the Bodhisattva. This doesn't mean that the historical personage was not a remarkable being, even an avatar. But I tend to jive with the teachings of Rudolf Steiner on this, who talks about the "Mystery of Golgotha" as being a cosmic event of the utmost importance which allowed Christ to be accessible to all, but within--not through submission to a specific religion, Church, dogma or doctrine.

12/29/2006 03:20:00 PM  
Anonymous Integralist said...

I agree, Bob, "absolute relativity" is absurd, as evidenced by the performative contradiction of "everything is relative."

On the other hand the opposite is perhaps just as absurd: that there is a static set of Absolute truths.

The problem is in either/or thinking: either relativism or Absolutism is true, rather than a synthesis where it is understand that Absolute truth can only be known in relative, finite terms.

I do agree that we can "know" Absolute truth, but we should be very careful not to equate this to a set of laws or finite truths, which leads to, ah, dogma. Absolute truth is trans-verbal--as soon as you bring it "down" into words it becomes relative, perspectival.

Thus it becomes not a matter of Truth vs. Falsehood, but of perspectives that hold varying degrees of truth, that sometimes hold truth within different domains (and contexts).

p.s. I've been wondering: Is Joel Osteen made of plastic? On the other hand, I was channel surfing the other day and I ran across him talking about the importance of eating organic foods; I appreciated that he was bringing this to a demographic that normally might not know about organic foods.

12/29/2006 03:28:00 PM  
Blogger ximeze said...

Integralist said:
"I've been wondering: Is Joel Osteen made of plastic?"

The late, great, Dr Gene Scott referred to this type as: Rufus Glitterteeth.

12/29/2006 03:42:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

ximeze said... "Could the confusion be linguistic?...I've had them go bananas when I say "don't care much for James, too Works oriented, seems to be missing the Core Message." Paul tagged him on it, and as I recall, so did Luther."

YES! and (Oh so!)True and True.

"A.W. Tozer has written very clearly on this ... can locate the essay..."
Is there an online link?

"... the difficulties that arise in trying to convey meaning, in context, where available words or grammer differ so much between the two."
Absolutely True (Hi Integralist) as well.

I have no problem with "the Inerrent Logos of God", certainly it is contained in the Book, but also elsewhere. Framing it this way releases me from being "tied" to just That Book & some of the over-engineered, logically convoluted arguments necessary to make the "paper words" work as a unit.

I think it comes down to what words do, and don't do, and what the 'story', or parable, or... does and doesn't do.

I will get to this this weekend. I will, I will, I wi....[SHUT UP AND DO IT ALREADY!]
(i will)

12/29/2006 03:46:00 PM  
Blogger LukeBlogWalker said...

Well, in not too long from now, Saddam will assume room temperature for the duration.

Gee, thats too bad.

Hows that for reality?

-Luke

12/29/2006 04:12:00 PM  
Blogger Chris said...

"Christ consciousness" is possible for anyone and related to the Buddhist ideal of the Bodhisattva. This doesn't mean that the historical personage was not a remarkable being, even an avatar. But I tend to jive with the teachings of Rudolf Steiner on this, who talks about the "Mystery of Golgotha" as being a cosmic event of the utmost importance which allowed Christ to be accessible to all, but within--not through submission to a specific religion, Church, dogma or doctrine."

I think that one of the main things that most Christians find heretical is the idea that Christ is "no different" from anybody else, that Ghandi and Jesus and Buddha and all the rest are all somehow essentially the same. The old axim "when everybody's special, no one is" rings fairly true here, I think. I think that to be a Christian is to believe that Jesus IS special, WAS special. He claimed to BE GOD, which I think is something to set him apart from all of those other thinkers, especially if we're to take his claim seriously. If Jesus is in fact God (part of God, whatever), then we must take his words much more seriously than anybody else's. While Eckhart or Augustine or whoever may get a lot of truth into their writings, they are still men, and as such subject to fallability. Jesus - as God - embodies truth ("I am the way, the truth, the light"), and so his words and actions are things we should pay close attention to, strive to imitate.

12/29/2006 04:13:00 PM  
Blogger NoMo said...

My point is, you can read what a thousand others have said about the Bible, or you can read the Bible and see what it says for itself. Start at the source and work outward -- that's my recommendation.

Strangely, the time I spend here with Bob and all has only further whetted my appetite for God's Word. Why is that? I'm not sure, but it's a very good thing.

12/29/2006 04:16:00 PM  
Anonymous Joan of Argghh! said...

If you study the Scriptures in a language other than your native tongue, you come to see the tenuous grip on meaning that is conveyed by mere words. A long-favored passage is rendered almost ridiculous when it has been filtered down a different "family tree". Each language goes back to the scholars of the Bible, but translate according to the sense of their own "logos".

Wycliffe Bible Translators found the the folks in Papua New Guinea had no word for the idea of "receiving Christ into your heart", since there was no concept of "heart" or "soul" for that matter. The primitives could only understand their stomach, and so scripts were translated accodingly. Yeah, go ahead and preach that one from the pulpit!

Those who would fasten a bit too tightly to the phantom of the written logos may just miss the still, small voice in the whirlwind.

I like that we never are allowed to know what that Voice said. It was obviously beyond words. That glorious and unspeakable, inutterable Truth of Presence.

I've always thought and expressed to others that speak of Heaven, that when I get there, I won't have any questions for God. I can't explain it any better than just the idea that one glimpse of that Face, and I would know.

12/29/2006 04:21:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Yes, the Truth speaks through the words -- it is not the words. That is the magic of dwelling in scripture. To borrow a metaphor from Polanyi, it is like a probe extended into the dark -- like the cane of a blind person -- that conveys real information about what is beyond the immediate senses.

12/29/2006 04:32:00 PM  
Blogger ximeze said...

Van:

Found it online. It's from "The Pursuit of God", Chapter 6: The Speaking Voice. Here ya go:


http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/tozer8.htm

12/29/2006 04:49:00 PM  
Blogger LukeBlogWalker said...

Ximese you clever girl you..

For those that love to argue the Bible was translated so many times it must have great error -go read the first portion of the first volume of Josh McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" -he adresses this and puts it to rest.

Now, as for people objectifying the book and worshipping it in place of God -thats all over the place. ewww. And they don't even get it.

But this is mainly in Western US Christianity -where obviously God gave Moses the KJV on Mount Sinai and they all spoke English -except Jesus in "The Passion of the Christ" who spoke Aramaic occasionally. ("King James, good enough for Paul, good enough for me.")

However, the problem is deeper than that. As I said before, we seem to have a predisposition for mystical things. When things are not mystical, we want to reengineer them into the mystical.

This is rather unevolved phobic behavior as far as Luke (me not the Doctor) is concerned.

And speaking of dogma, I really can't stand all the present day "dogma" (hmm, blogma?) which is all based on a bad idea about what the English says. Thats right, says, not means. As it seems to be a symptom of those who don't think much -but want to dig in and entrench on literal interpretations of what they know little of to begin with.

Now, as for the idea of Christ worshipping. I find this to be rather odd as well in a way.

That is to say, Jesus was the propitiation -the price paid, and the propitiatory -the place where it was paid. He is the mercy seat on the arc -protecting us like a holy sheild from the righteousness of God -represented by the law inside the arc.

Because of what Jesus did -recall, the veil in the temple was torn in two -top to bottom (how cool is that) breaking through the veil between God and man. Christ's payment gave access to God.

He gave us access to the source directly.

Why then do some of us seem to leave out the obvious object of our communication -known in scriptures as "the Father" -by only saying we talk to Jesus -and well he is God -so thats okay.

In a sense, this is how some Catholics treat Mary. To place Jesus in that role is insufficient to what he is/did and provided.

To place Mary in the middle, is well, a long story!

The whole symbolism of the OT points right at gaining access directly to God due to what Christ did for us. (No thank you, not time for a trinity discussion).

The point is -the objectification of Jesus or the book, in lieu of the big picture, seems to me to be a bit narrow in viewpoint.

But this is not surprising, as people tend towards scalp hunting for Jesus -getting people "saved" and not teaching them a whit about what is really going on in the Bible or in their lives.

The feel good types have taken over much of the Church -followed by the endless parade of pop psychological self-help spiritual books.

Ole AWT's remark, "The same business on the other side of the street." is dead on.

Rather than get off our collective spiritual butts -we prefer to have it be like something familiar.

This is forgetting that God is real, and is a person / individual in how he deals with us -and not just an idea, or philosophy.

Far too easy to go down the warped path of "goodness" and call it Christianity.

That Church occurs on "stage" also does not assist some. This creates what we call in peforming arts "the fourth wall" -so Christianity can become a spectator sport.

One is a good Christian if their Church is growing -even if they do not participate. It is okay, because they are there to watch the "show".

Another mistaking of symbols for referents.

Regarding James:

Yes, James had some good things to say. For example, "Submit to God, resist the Devil and he will flee from you." But as far as the Grace instead of Works message -James dropped the ball and got it ass backwards.

My only thought on this is since Paul was so well educated, he was able to slice and dice the message into usable parts. James, being a bit more down to earth, looked laterally and tried a basic definition -that if you have faith you must have works, and he truncated it into "show me your works and I'll show you faith" (Luke paraphrase) but I think I am being generous to him.

Recall though, James was of the group that thought Christians should be an adjunct to Judaism. So getting circumcised to show you were a Christian was on his list.

James was not included in the Canon of scripture until around the fifth century as I recall. This was also a time (historically) when doing "good works" was useful to the institutionalised Church.

All the better to have the "Bible" back this up for you, huh?

(Bible test approaching) An example of a mis-apprehended remark in English is when James says, "..remember the poor.."

Most think this is in reference to homeless guys and such. It is not.

The group he belonged to (still in existence today) was known as "the poor" -and so James was saying to remember his group / his bretheren -in prayers and offerings.

Betcha lots of people are out "remembering the poor" in some kind of street ministry due to that scripture. Not that this is a bad thing, but in terms of what was said / meant at the time -it is not what it meant.

I think the hardest thing about Christianity is that it is so simple.

You get in by grace and faith, and you stay in the same way.

Hard part: It is up to you, you are center stage with Christ as his hands and feet and eyes to the world -his human interface to the rest of us.

It is then NEVER "what would Jesus do?" -but always, "What do you want me to do, God?"

And as Paul says, "He who judges me is the Lord" -we are on the hotseat for our decisions.

The relationship to/with God then is everything. The gnosticism or the overthinking, or as Jesus said to Peter, "doublethinking" is all crap.

What most Christians and people don't want to face is individual responsibility before God -just as real and every day / every moment as the Grace which keeps your tail out of the flames.

Okay, enough for now!

-Luke

12/29/2006 05:17:00 PM  
Anonymous Petulant Moonbat said...

Well, Luke Blogwalker seems to have the religion thing dialed in the best, as far as I can judge.

There's not much I can pick a fight over in this post or in the comments; I'll have to wait and see what comes up tommorrow.

I like to think that all Bobbleheads (and I do want to buy the dashboard version to throw darts at)are comforted in knowing that hostile eyes are reading everything that is written here.

I am verrrry patient.

12/29/2006 06:19:00 PM  
Blogger ximeze said...

PM:

Oooooh I'm scared!

12/29/2006 06:29:00 PM  
Blogger Lisa said...

I really think you should get out a bit more petmoonbat. Life is really too short to hang out with people/things that you think are wrong and stupid only to wait around and "prove" it to them. What happens if some of it starts rubbing off on you? Egads! (or should I say Egagdads!)

12/29/2006 06:32:00 PM  
Anonymous cousin dupree said...

PM, please stop bringing this weak sh** into Dupree's jungle and grab a freaking vine.

12/29/2006 06:41:00 PM  
Anonymous hoarhey said...

"I am verrrry patient."
Lucifer; 36 BC

Moonbutt, you forgot to credit the quote.
Heh, what a loser.

12/29/2006 06:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Ken Wilber said...

"integralist" said,

"I appreciated that he was bringing this to a demographic that normally might not know about organic foods."

Yeah, right.

Talk about a clueless stereotype.

Perhaps a little dogma in your diet might help get your head out of the clouds and your feet back on on dry pavement. The least it could do would be to firm up some of these loose stools you drop all around the internet.

Man I hate chasing these poseur wannabes around the frikin' net!

12/29/2006 06:59:00 PM  
Anonymous cousin dupree said...

Kenny Boy! So glad to see you in the Cosmos! You express my sentiments exactly! I must confess that I am a tad surprised to see you here, as I can't help wondering if... if... if you had entirely given yourself over to the new age forces of commercial spirituality aimed at addle brained college kids and aging hippies. Glad to see you're on board with the grown-ups!

12/29/2006 07:07:00 PM  
Anonymous ken wilber said...

Hey,
How come this software won't capatalize my name?

12/29/2006 07:33:00 PM  
Anonymous ken Wilber said...

Man, this egalitarianist crap just frosts me.

12/29/2006 07:34:00 PM  
Blogger geckofeeder said...

Cousin Dupree, you've got me ROFLMBHO !

12/29/2006 07:39:00 PM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

Thanks, Luke.

People forget that one of the profoundly unique things about Judaism was that more or less, you could question God. Remember Abraham trying to get Big Daddy-O to save S&G? Got him down to ten people. -- Which I think was less people than Abraham THOUGHT were good in there-- which turned out to be wrong!

So in this sense, we're free to disagree with the Bible Authors -- point one -- the Bible is inspired by the Spirit, but written down by men. So if you can even question God, then you can certainly question the guys who inspired him. Of course, it might just be better to Question God about it-- ask the Source what's up.

Point Two- wholistic scripturation- things which are repeated in scripture in many forms have the most pull -- in other words, usually what is repeated by different people at different times means there's some kind of pattern. Secondly, though disparate in origin, the Logos which inspired the scripture is one.

Or, if you hold point one, and then point two, try to read ALL wisdom literature.

That's one of my methods. Works pretty good, I think.

In this way, I don't buy anyone's 'Delivered by an angel' crap -- mostly because it is just an excuse to 'take it all 100% literally or you have to reject it!'

(Which in some cases, the latter is a good option.)

As for the difference in words-- the meanings are what is important, not the words. Use whatever translation gets the meanings to you most clearly. But be warned that none are equal, all different, and each has its flaws.

I do adore the KJV, but there are some places in scripture where it is just whack. Also, people try to imitate its 'mystic english' too much for my taste. The 'thee's and 'thou's are just ways to convey the meaning, not anything other than pretty beside it.

Sadly, the possible prevalence of misunderstandings about the Bible (like what languages were spoken, that it is the inerrant words of God, etc.) is a failing of the institutional Church. We screwed the pooch on that one.

I believe that one can Know Christ & Be Known without explicit knowledge of Jesus. However, I feel that it is like struggling in the dark while you're carrying a flashlight. Because if you know the essence of the Logos you will have come to what Christ is, and like the Prince of the Calormenes in The Last Battle, you end up Serving Him without knowing that you really are.

Because truth permeates like that. Its just how it rolls.

But again, in some I always see a struggle to work around the literal Christ, as if he is in the way.

Whereas, He would say, "I am the way".

And as Bob demonstrates, those who follow Christ's lead create a way for others too-- though oft as through a mirror darkly, it is a path that would not have been otherwise.

Petulant Moonbat: Which mask for today?

12/29/2006 07:45:00 PM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

Correction: ugh. Okay, when I said 'inspired him' I meant 'inspired by him'. IF you.. go.. back and read through all that crap.

12/29/2006 07:46:00 PM  
Blogger Smoov said...

This guy is some sort of "anti-Gagdad":

http://www.meaninginmylife.com/

The Existenchilada from the atheist perspective. I honestly can't be bothered looking into this stuff, but others might be amused for a spell.

12/29/2006 08:07:00 PM  
Anonymous hoarhey said...

I have a question that's been bothering me for several days now.

Did Colonel Beaglehole and Dame Edith ever hookup?

12/29/2006 08:08:00 PM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

Dude, no idea. That was totally weird, though.

I mean, it was like something out of a novel.

Some kinda cliffhanger, I tells ya.

12/29/2006 08:28:00 PM  
Anonymous Col. J.C. Beaglehole said...

It depends on the meaning of "did," my dear boy.

12/29/2006 08:29:00 PM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

Hot.

12/29/2006 08:37:00 PM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

You know, Wilber, I just noticed that. Google, you subversives! Give me back my Proper Name!

12/29/2006 08:39:00 PM  
Blogger LukeBlogWalker said...

Moonbrat,

There exist eyes far more hostile than yours and your pals. These belong, as pointed out, to Satan and his cohorts.

It would seem, you are ignorant of your possible pawn status in the role you pretend to take.

Bob,

With regard to coonskin caps -is there a philosophic significance that Fess Parker was both Davey Crockett and Daniel Boone on TV? And both wore these hats? ;)

Also the variation on the classic relativistic nonsense, "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, is there a sound?" -my favorite variation:

"If a man says something in the wildnerness and there is no woman around to hear him, is he still wrong?"

Integralist:

To answer the "..No man comes to the Father but by me.." we have to place it in context. Text without context is error.

We also know from scripture that, "No man comes to the Father, save the Spirit draw him."

As ole Gene Scott used to say, "You have to have sight to see light."

So at some point in the process, God turns his gaze into your life, in a noticeable way (to you) and a convergeance occurs.

I've mentioned it before, but "the way" is what part of Judiasm calls the walk with God. So for Jesus to say, "I'm the way" was quite startling to most of the hearers.

Moreover, as ever, the layers are manifold. From the Gospel of John we know that, "In the beginning was the word (Logos) and the word was with (the) God (definate article in the Greek) and the word (Logos) was God" -no definate article the 2nd time.

So we encounter Christ as spoken and written words, that have also been there as God in some way we can't quite grasp. We also know from scripture, "..forever, oh Lord, thy word is settled in heaven.."

So it is mysterious (I suspect) by design, in order to attract you to the layer which communicates to you the best. It is not mystical in the "oh wow man" sense, but is in the vastness and our complete inability to see it all.

Also, "..we see through a glass darkly.." is actually using a word we have in English, so I don't know why it was not used. It is, "..we see through a glass enigmatically.." -which I kinda like better.

It more handily implies the relationship between our curiousity, his knowability, and our ability to understand. It also reflects the puzzle like nature of the solution which we encounter at times.

There is SO MUCH to know, just in the Bible, let alone a tie out to history as shown in other sources.

This is why I am always amazed when people treat the Bible as though we believe in God by reading a comic book. It shows they've never looked at all.

If you can snag a copy, just to look over the intro pages, of George Lamsa's English translation of the Aramaic Peshitta (its out in paperback) it is very cool.

Bible versions came up tonight. I had a friend on the internet a couple years back, and she had encountered a "King James Only!" type. So he had sent her a long list of verses "removed" from the NIV translation. I had some time, so I looked them all up in my vast library of stuff and Bibles.

What I found was that, in every case except 1 or 2, the verses "removed" were those listed in only one of the following manuscripts: The Alexandrian Codex, the Vaticanus Codex, and the Sinai Codex.

So if the verse was in two -it was kept, if in only one, it was "removed". As I said, from the list I was given, only 1 or 2 exceptions to that rule occurred.

Early versions of the NIV had footnotes telling you these things, in later versions the footnotes were dropped.

Of course, most "King James Only!" types would never pick up, say a Tischendorf NT, and read the footnotes.

Tischendorf compared the KJV to these three codices, and noted where and from which codex the differences occur. The differences are small, but it is interesting to see them.. if you are nerdy like me!

Bear in mind, these three codices were not discovered when the KJV was translated.

The other one that is fun to read, is the Sonnini Manuscript. As he travelled through Europe, he found a rare manuscript (only one) of the book of Acts that contains an extra chapter. (Am I the only one that thinks the book ends rather in mid-stream?) -it is an interesting read, regardless of your thoughts about the authenticity or inclusion.

Jude quotes the Book of Enoch, and this was in the original KJV and was excised by the British and American Bible societies as being a bit out there. It was somewhat of a war over which "end times" document had more salt -John's Revealation or Enoch. Rather than keep both, they dropped Enoch.

Yet Jude's quote shows it was considered scripture at least in his day.

My favorite though is the Septuagint, and my various Greek / English NTs. (for those looking for one -get the McReynold's -its a good starter)

And I've rambled far too much..

Break time!

-Luke

12/29/2006 09:18:00 PM  
Blogger LukeBlogWalker said...

Oh I just remembered something amusing..

Once in a Political Science class, the professor was waxing relativistic. (Being a lefty, this was a rather predictable occurrance).

So he made some proud relativistic point, that there is no absolute truth, and are no absolutes.

So I raised my hand.

He called on me, and I asked him, "Then how does your overhead projector keep working?" "Wouldn't it suddenly turn into a potted plant or something?" "How is it that your glasses work, if we can't understand anything in a more absolute sense?"

"THATS DIFFERENT" he growled.

Yeah, sure it is. :)

-Luke

12/29/2006 09:21:00 PM  
Anonymous col. J. C. Beaglehole said...

River Coytus--

"Hot" you say?

Yes, perhaps with the pool man. And perhaps when she forgot her lithium. And perhaps when I was away conducting business -- yes, business -- at the race track.

You are dredging up memories I would prefer to forget.

Good night.

(By the way, surely you are joking with that name? Sounds like a place I'd like to visit.)

12/29/2006 09:21:00 PM  
Blogger LukeBlogWalker said...

Oh Lord, now you've got my mind going. I'll try to keep it short.

With regard to the word, "Gospel" it is like saying "God's Spell" (not in a magical sense) or "God's Spiel"

In Rome, only the Caeser could issue a "Gospel" -a God message or God Word proclimation (sp?).

This was something that came "from God" -in this case, the Caeser.

So for Paul and the preachers of Christ to say, in effect, "No, we have a Gospel from GOD, not from that guy" -was daring and startling.

-Luke

12/29/2006 09:26:00 PM  
Anonymous cosanostradamus said...

luke said...

"He gave us access to the source directly."

"I think the hardest thing about Christianity is that it is so simple."

Two absolutes that indeed separate Christianity from all other religions. In fact it's so simple and profound that it's not like a religion at all.

I constantly have to keep reminding myself of that, however, as the purpose of most of the churches I've attended seems to be to shovel dogma on top of us until the real light is fully extinguished, only to be replaced by allegiance to the denomination. That's religion, or churchianity as someone called it.

I find the mere reading of and meditation on the Bible, in whatever version, to be the most worthy antidote to the church's best (and worst) intentions. It never fails to amaze me with some uncanny impact I've never noticed in a dozen previous readings. It may not be alive, but the Life sure pours through it.

12/29/2006 09:30:00 PM  
Anonymous Integralist said...

think that one of the main things that most Christians find heretical is the idea that Christ is "no different" from anybody else, that Ghandi and Jesus and Buddha and all the rest are all somehow essentially the same. The old axim "when everybody's special, no one is" rings fairly true here, I think. I think that to be a Christian is to believe that Jesus IS special, WAS special. He claimed to BE GOD, which I think is something to set him apart from all of those other thinkers, especially if we're to take his claim seriously. If Jesus is in fact God (part of God, whatever), then we must take his words much more seriously than anybody else's. While Eckhart or Augustine or whoever may get a lot of truth into their writings, they are still men, and as such subject to fallability. Jesus - as God - embodies truth ("I am the way, the truth, the light"), and so his words and actions are things we should pay close attention to, strive to imitate.

Well Chris, that is one of the things that non-Christians find so repugnant about (fundamentalist) Christianity: "Our prophet is better than your prophet."

Not to mention that comparing JC with Krishna, Buddha and Gandhi is hardly an insult--and still makes him rather special. In other words, I think one can still be a devout Christian and allow JC to share his pedestal with other great human beings.

Now I am not saying that I think JC was in the same category as those other "sages"--I honestly don't know. Yet even if he was "special" I think a major aspect of his raison d'etre was to show everyone after him that we are ALL special, it just depends upon the degree that we deeply realize it.

Thus the Second Coming is not of an individual messiah being born, but of "Christ consciousness" emerging within all of us--or at least some of us.

12/29/2006 09:48:00 PM  
Anonymous integralist said...

Whoops, that long first sentence is a quote from Chris.

12/29/2006 09:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now isn't he special?

12/29/2006 10:35:00 PM  
Blogger ximeze said...

Aaaah, this is more like it! Have missed adult discussion of things that really matter.

RC said: "People forget that one of the profoundly unique things about Judaism was that more or less, you could question God."

I fail to understand why some "Christians" are so afraid to explore their theology in a rigorous "scientific" way, subject to "tests" & "proofs".

What, they think the Creator of the Universe is going to fall off His Throne because of their paltry questions?

A complete case of "get over yourselfs". Real seekers have been doing that very thing for 2000 years, and more.

Sounds more like:"I have to be good, or Daddy won't love me anymore" don't question, don't question!

JB Phillips did great work on this very subject in "Your God Is Too Small". Several variants of the erroneous ways in which we try to box God in.

It's very short, clear & accessible.

Which leads me to one of my favorite quotes:

"Multiplication of entities is the hallmark of a theory that is not working: a deteriorating paradigm theory gets more & more complex to account for its lack of success"

"Politically Incorrect Guide to Science" by Tom Bethell


http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/452

12/29/2006 10:44:00 PM  
Blogger NoMo said...

Christianity is actually a relationship, not a religion. But, like all mortals down through the ages, we generally prefer religion -- relationships are just so up close and personal.

12/29/2006 11:01:00 PM  
Blogger LukeBlogWalker said...

I must point this out -again-

Jesus is different from all other "religious leaders". He is unique.

He did not preach an ethic apart from himself, he preached himself.

He made himself the center of the universe, at center stage.

He was both God and man at the same time.

When asked why his disciples could be permitted to work on the sabbath, he once said, "I am the Lord of the Sabbath"

When asked about it on another instance, he replied, "I work, and my Father works."

He spoke of Heaven and eternity in the first person -as though he had been there and had first hand, personal knowledge. And said he was going there again, and would return.

He said, "I am the way" and "I am the truth" and "I am the life" - "no man comes to the Father but by me".

These are not nice good ideas or feelings -as those who grab various quotes of Jesus out of context would have you believe. (Usually from the sermon on the mount)

This is not some smorgasbord choice of potential Gods and leaders you approve of.

Nor is the search for truth governed by your likes or dislikes.

If it is, you are not seeking truth, you seek self validation and a cloak to cover yourself with in the guise of being a truth seeker. This is mere ego chow.

Bhudda left a way that worked for him, and suggests we attempt it ourselves. His later diefication is comparable to that of Mary.

Mohammed, stated he was only a prophet to Allah -which is just the word for God in his language (the Syriac translation of the new testament uses the same word for the Christian God -fyi).

Confucious, when asked about the next life, said he had enough trouble solving the problems in this life.

You don't want my opinions of Ghandi.

We often miss the boat, because we argue about the oars. Or are dumb enough to rhetorically ask, "What IS an oar anyway?"

-Luke

12/29/2006 11:28:00 PM  
Blogger LukeBlogWalker said...

Oh, and speaking of the Syriac, to shed a bit of lampage onto Paul versus James -or faith versus works.

Paul speaks of righteousness here, and frequently in English the verb form of this here is translated as "justification" -as we have no "righteousification" word. The Greek is the same basic word having to do with righteousness -ours versus God's, or how God implants and imparts his to us.

Rom 3:21

"But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;"

This does not have giant impact on most Christians. Let me give it to you in the Syriac, transliterated into English.

"But now the righteousness of God without the Shariah is manifested,"

So to the Judaism crowd it would read:

"But now the righteousness of God without the Torah is manifested,"

-for the same impact.

The righteousness of God in Christ is different. As Paul says in Romans -a chasm exists between the two examples -law and faith in Grace.

The issue is then the same as we've been discussing. The propensity for mysticism, for law keeping.

If we make grace like the law, we make it of no effect. This is because we take what is freedom, and constrain it with a new fabrication pretending to give rightouesness.

I hope this clears up the absolute hammer blow that Paul is in God's hands.

-Luke

PS -after talking with some friends here, I am going to try to take the time to get Eadie's discussion out of Collosians typed up. If it is too long for here, I will just put it on my blog and refer you to it when completed.

12/29/2006 11:41:00 PM  
Blogger LukeBlogWalker said...

Petey,

You reminded me of this ole remark:

Bigger bugs have little bugs
on their backs that bite ‘em
And little bugs have littler bugs
And so ad infinitum.

-Luke

12/29/2006 11:46:00 PM  
Blogger PrincessSpirit said...

LUKE BW: Few Bible Qs for You:

1. ENOCH: Can you provide a link where I can find a "literal" translation of the Book of Enoch?

Am looking for an Enoch Interlinear / Transliteration into English from Hebrew/Aramaic, etc. Been reading McReynolds-Greek NT so reading Enoch same style is no biggie now I've become familiar w/the style. Should be even more "fun" to read translit. Hebrew than McReynolds-Greek. So long as its left-->right, not true to Hebrew style.

2. OT: OT Inter/Trans. Same deal, but for OT only.

3. Tanakh: Which version: Koren, from the Masoretic (or) BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensis? Found DL site for BHS, but dont know actual diffs between both & wondered which you recommend since you're familiar with Tanakh.

4. Any Theologian's Commentaries on OT in the style of Eadie (funneling & contrasting as he does)? Feels lopsided to have Eadies GreekNT & nuthin for the OT side other than my Strongs Hebrew-Greek Conc.

If you can help me muddle thru the myriad choices, it would be an immense help w/my Hebrew studies. Thanks if you can provide some links / recommendations. (Am still grievin the fact Eadie didnt do more than he did; but Overjoyed for what he did write.)

- PsychoPrincess -

12/30/2006 01:22:00 AM  
Blogger PrincessSpirit said...

LUKE BW Said..."The Syriac translation of the New Testament used the same word for God."

So are you meaning, then, the God of Islam is the same as the Christian God? Many Apologists say "their God is not God" becuz they dont worship the Trinitarian God of the Bible. But then again, the Jews didnt either but were still Chosen of God (before Christ).

Are both of their concepts of God valid or invalid, if not based on Trinitarian concept inclusive of Christ & HolySpirit?

Maybe Dr. Scott investigated this?

- PsychoPrincess -

12/30/2006 01:36:00 AM  
Blogger PrincessSpirit said...

LUKE: Or is it valid for Jews becuz they included the concept of Messiah?

Islamic Eschatology includes "Mahdi-Mehdi" as Messiah-figure as well.

Why then is YHWH/Y'shua of the Jews (before Christ) "valid" but the Muslims Mahdi/Allah concept (after Christ) "not valid?"

a) Allah => YHWH <= Greek-Syriac-Hebrew
b) If Allah is the word for YHWH, does it carry the same MEANING, then (as Hebrews defined YHWH/God) to the Muslim?
c) If it doesnt mean same, then end of story. But if it does, what are the implications?

Found your point about Allah being the same word for God in Greek-Syriac very interesting to chew the philological roots & applications.

Still, Faith-Belief in the Trinitarian God (God/Christ/HS, not His Name in any language, is what counts unto Salvation.

- P^2 -

12/30/2006 02:03:00 AM  
Anonymous dame edith waterfowl said...

My dear "Hoarhey", and my, but that cute variation of a name is so very Yank of you:

With respect to your query about the "hook up" - which I take it is a fishing colloquialism - Colonel Beaglehole and I did once attempt to "land a few" on Lake Waterfowl, which, as you might gather, is adjacent to Waterfowl Manor. This was at a time when the Colonel - to whom I am NOT speaking - was wholly enamored of the American "back to nature" ethos. As he expressed it at the time, it was "just between me and the fish and the hell with the contaminating middlemen". Of course, the fact that the Colonel was financially bereft at the time and was no doubt trying to establish his manhood after having sponged off my charity for months is quite germane, I'm sure you agree.

In summation, Col. Beaglehole, after consuming a substance that he claimed would aid him in "communing with the fish", managed to hook nothing but a pre-War pipe and tobacco catalogue, as well as my bodice. To his minor credit, Jerome suggested that I not wear a bodice while on our nautical adventure. However, a lady of the manor must dress properly in all circumstances.

I recall this episode quite clearly for the following reason. After rowing back to shore sans the Colonel, he who had tumbled into the water and was quite frantically dog-paddling in an attempt to remain buoyant, I entered Waterfowl Manor where I was confronted by a horrible sight: a corpse stretched out on the pink divan in the drawing room! As it turned out, the "corpse" was, unbeknownst to me, a Colonel invitee to the manor, a Mr. Richards, Keith, who I believe is a rock and roll musician. At the time, my only thought was, my God, in his financial desperation, Beaglehole has resorted to grave-robbing. I cannot tell you the sheer horror that I experienced when the "corpse" opened its bloodshot eyes and favored me with an unspeakable oath, as well as with a very unpalatable suggestion.

Since I am not speaking with Col Beaglehole, I would ask you, dear "Hoarhey", to remind him of our "back to nature fishing day" whenever he begins his unseemly rumor-mongering with respect to Dame Edith.

12/30/2006 02:39:00 AM  
Anonymous dame edith waterfowl said...

It did occur to me, dear "Hoarhey", that perhaps that is your real name, in which case I am so very terribly sorry for you, dear.

Rarely have I attended a seance in which the spirits have not reminded those present that we do, in fact, choose our parents. If that be your actual name, be stout then, and bear up under the karmic duress of having been named in so ungainly a manner.

Of course, you are free to commiserate with Col Beaglehole -to whom I am NOT speaking - over the karmic weight of burdensome names.

12/30/2006 03:25:00 AM  
Anonymous col. J. C. Beaglehole said...

Edith--

One wants to say "Edith, you dingbat," in the rustic expression of a certain proletarian colonist of my aquaintance. I can see that your compulsive -- or is it impulsive? -- logorrhea continues to know no bounds of decency or discretion. Is there a name for it yet? Bipolar nymphoholic senility, perhaps?

You will note that when the suggestively named "river of coytus" asked me about same, I mildy demurred, deftly deflecting the inappropriate curiosity of my interlocutor. Why? Because, despite what you say, I retain a modicum of affable transpersanal gallantry -- chivalry, if you want to know the truth -- that would protect a nominal lady whose initials are DAME EDITH WATERFOWL, someone who has far surpassed the age of propriety without ever coming as close as a cricket field away from its proximity.

I won't again be drawn into the mud with you, Edith. If you cannot refrain from relating these tales out of school -- which are wholly fantastic, by the way, as Dr. Godwin's highly evolved readers no doubt intuit, what with their finely honed coon vision -- please do not expect me to hew to my customary sense of discretion -- yes, that unfamiliar word again -- to protect your reputation -- tawdry though it may be.

Good day, Edith. I'm off to conduct business at a nearby native American reservation.

12/30/2006 06:25:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Now there's something you don't see everyday.

12/30/2006 06:55:00 AM  
Anonymous col. J. C. Beaglehole said...

No, but if you're the pool man, you get to see it every Thursday afternoon.

I really must go. I am late for my meeting with Big Chief Baccarat.

12/30/2006 07:04:00 AM  
Blogger GeorgeD said...

Integralist

Christians don't do the other philosphers because they have taken upon themselves the name of Christ (as in Christian). Now many of us believe that God gave men everywhere some form of revelation of the Christ but utimately for us it is Matthew 28:19

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

12/30/2006 07:05:00 AM  
Anonymous Joan of Argghh! said...

Ximeze said, "JB Phillips did great work on this very subject in "Your God Is Too Small". Several variants of the erroneous ways in which we try to box God in."

A wonderful book. Just the title is enough to meditate on for a lifetime. Between that book and C.S. Lewis, I found my way into the liberty of thought about Truth.

But if you've heard Truth just once, you'll find yourself hard-pressed to find an institution that can hold onto it consistently.

It's just human nature to say to the Lord, "this is a good place. Let us build three tents here..." as though we could ever arrive at the end of knowing.

12/30/2006 08:20:00 AM  
Blogger HV said...

To some of the Christian commenters: You are preaching to the choir. At least for me that is the case. How about sharing something we know a lot less about, like what happens in kenosis?

12/30/2006 09:12:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

Colenel, now, it may not be the place to ask, but seeing as you somewhat desired visitation rights to a particular river from which I get my name, I might ask you--

Would you happen to be familiar with a man of your own rank, whose surname was 'Angus'?

I hear he is all the rage at parties and gatherings.

Its hard to imagine how he keeps his rank, but as not being a military man, such things are probably beyond me.

12/30/2006 09:21:00 AM  
Blogger LukeBlogWalker said...

Group, apologies for length.

Princess,

[1. ENOCH: Can you provide a link where I can find a "literal" translation of the Book of Enoch?
Am looking for an Enoch Interlinear / Transliteration into English from Hebrew/Aramaic, etc.]

I am unaware of any interlinear version of Enoch. I do have an English translation, of which there are many.

-See http://www.capstonebooks.com

Additionally, all the Hebrew / English copies I have of the Tanakh and other things are in right to left format,with one exception, where you have to read the Hebrew "backwards" on the page.

Thats not the trick, the trick is to find one where the english transliterations are easy to read.

[2. OT: OT Inter/Trans. Same deal, but for OT only.]

Well, thats going to be a problem. Portions of the OT are in Aramaic and Chaldee, and typically you will find only a Hebrew / English version.

I have a tome somewhere in my library that is Hebrew / English for the OT and Greek / English for the NT. The English is not a wonderful translation, but it is nice to have it all in one package.

I just looked, and it must be in storage, or I would give up the Publisher. I will look in the boxen I have left to move over there and see if it is around.

The followers of Judiasm have a great OT set, which is around 200 dollars, give or take a few 10's of dollars.

It is an interlinear (exhaustive) -the title of which also escapes me, but is in old email on my desktop server, so is locatable if you are interested.

Also the Arch Scroll Tanakh Series of Jewish History is good.

[3. Tanakh: Which version: Koren, from the Masoretic (or) BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensis? Found DL site for BHS, but dont know actual diffs between both & wondered which you recommend since you're familiar with Tanakh.]

The Msoretic text was a translation from the Septuagint Greek wasn't it? Or did I not remember correctly. I know it was checked against the Septuagint, as I recall, and found not wanting
much, so I recall that is the general version which is in print.

Some Germans have done excellent work in breaking out the Stuttgard manuscripts, but mostly the commentaries are in German!

If you dig, you can probably find what I did find for Greek, which is a translation using the best of the three with footnotes. I've never gone into Hebrew studies that much. But they must exist in scholar-land.

The Septuagint is also a favorite, as it is a translation of older manuscripts than we presently have. It will sometimes have a bit more "color" in what it reveals.

[4. Any Theologian's Commentaries on OT in the style of Eadie (funneling & contrasting as he does)? Feels lopsided to have Eadies GreekNT & nuthin for the OT side other than my Strongs Hebrew-Greek Conc.]

Well, I've not ploughed across the realm of commentaries. I have only browsed them. What upsets me is the current crop of "commentaries" which are only dogma couched in a study guide format.

Rather than let the scripture reveal itself, they seem to want to tell you what it "means" (in support of their viewpoint) and why first. -yawn-

I'd check with the reference librarians at several good Christian universities and see
what they turn up. Also, include Oxford with that. They do have some good minds still there. ;)

[So are you meaning, then, the God of Islam is the same as the Christian God? ]

No, I am not saying this at all. This would more be like if an English speaking Islamic person used the word "God" in English as an ordinal referent, and so did we in conversation with this person.

The word, "God", is the same, but the meaning is not the same. (As with various cults as well -which I won't go into as this is
a huge and long discussion).

We also should not be fooled by the idea that since the Arab nations are also Abraham's children, that this gives any weight to Mohammed.

[Many Apologists say "their God is not God" becuz they dont worship the Trinitarian God of the Bible. But then again, the Jews didnt either but were still Chosen of God (before Christ).]

That sounds like bible thumping excuses in a way to me. It is rather a thin line to draw.

Bear in mind, the plural form of God was used in the Hebrew texts in various places.

Also a reference to God in a feminine way, that is a motherly, care-taking way also exists in the OT.

This is not to say that God is female, or even male, and it
is definately not to coexist with the Babylonian she-gods.

But you can see that the notion of God as more than one has been there for centuries, even though "the Jews" don't seem to worship "the trinity" -which makes sense, as they reject Jesus as Masheoch (Messiah / Christ) -they are missing therefore one of the three!

I don't think the Muslims see God aright. And in a way, this is an equivocation of Mohammed to Jesus -of which, there can be no comparison, other than a simple one.

Mohammed had mostly anecdotal knowledge of Judiasm and Christianity. He certainly was
no scholar, and not any kind of priestly line person to know all the facets.

Yet, due to his subsequent diefication by his followers, we are supposed to grant him the same authoritative ground as a
"religious leader" -and by weight of numbers of his followers, we are to believe his viewpoint is somehow as absolute as the authority and source of God we find in Christ.

This is not rational, to say the least.

[Islamic Eschatology includes "Mahdi-Mehdi" as Messiah-figure as well.

Why then is YHWH/Y'shua of the Jews (before Christ) "valid" but the Muslims Mahdi/Allah concept (after Christ) "not valid?"]

The obvious face value answer, is that the God of Abraham was around before Mohammed and his followers.

YHWH -or what is Jehovah -when using (as they did) the vowels for
Adonai (Lord) in place of the ones for YHWH) is a revealatory name of God.

You will find God using it in conjunction with what he wishes to reveal. (See "Titles of the Triune God")

[a) Allah => YHWH <= Greek-Syriac-Hebrew]

This is loosely true. Allah is a cognate of "El" or "Elohim" in Arabic.

Jehovah is actually not "El" -as in the Bible, "Before you have known me as Elohim, but now you will know me as Jehovah" -Luke off the top of my head translation.

This was because he chained concepts with Jehovah. Jesus is just the Greek for Jehovah-Ashwah -the Lord is my helper. As is Joshua in Hebrew.

The Greek uses "Theo" or "Theos" -which is a borrowed word for "God". When Paul speaks
of righteousness in Greek, he uses (quite naturally and properly in that language's context) the Greek words which come from Dicae. Dicae was the daughter of Zeus (as I remember it) involved in righteousness and the enforcement or handing out of same.

This was an ordinal referent that was obvious to his hearers as meaning righteousness that was from God, or that was in a legal sense as well. (But God forbid we mention "other Gods" like Zeus and
his daughter in any Church!)

(See "Eternity in Their Hearts" for further examples of cultures with words for God which work out to the Gospel message)

So now we are back to words and meanings which words attempt to convey.

[b) If Allah is the word for YHWH, does it carry the same MEANING,
then (as Hebrews defined YHWH/God) to the Muslim?]

Allah is not the same as Jehovah, but is the same root as Elohim.

And now, time for more coffee!

-Luke

PS -was talking with some friends last night, and we have no idea of Islam's notions of any kind of a new body after death.

We were wondering, if Saddam had been castrated before they stretched his neck last night, would he be unable for eternity to service his virgins?

This could be useful in the war on terror! ;)

12/30/2006 10:14:00 AM  
Anonymous PsychoPrincess said...

LUKE: Wow, thanks so much for all the info. I copied it to my 'puter. Very Helpful ! :D

Whatta classic case for the necessity of knowing the roots & origins of word meanings in a language so it helps us interpret well. I agree w/your observs about Mo, he couldn't even write & was no serious scholar. Never heard of the Dicae story before, very Interesting. I can imagine it would not be welcome at Churchianityville.

The Masoretic-based Tanakh is the one from the Septuagint, having the vowels & dots-dashes included for "easier" reading. The Stuttgart one I've not really seen yet, but if you want to download it free I'll give you the site link I found so you can DL it & compare both. I believe its in Hebrew font & English, not German, but not sure. You need to download the Hebrew font or sumfink first for it, you'll see the link..

Maybe when you see the Heb-Eng-OT/Grk-Eng-NT packed away you mentioned as you're moving about, just let me know the ISBN & publisher/year & I'll try to find a copy. You're right, I find I'd like to have it in the English, even if its poor. Cant afford the Jewish one! Anything besides my Concordance since its chopped-up piecemeal. Right->left is ok.

Enoch looks easy enuf to find if there are no actual transliteration. I look for translit first of course. Will have to hoof it on Commentaries then and do some calling 'round. Just wondered if anything compared to Eadie in Bible-land (of course not!)

Now sumfink for you:

http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com

This is Punditarians blog. He posts the play-by-play on Saddam (in his skivvies, his relatives, etc.) I posted it elsewhere but here it is just for you. I dont wanna touch that Q you posed...none of my beeswax! :D

- Princess -

12/30/2006 12:20:00 PM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

As I recall, Allah is a shortening of 'El/Al' and 'Ilah' or 'Illah' (Which I can't recall ATM.) The literal translation to English is the same, like Luke said, as 'Elohim', but the meaning of 'Al Ilah' comes apparently down the ages from the God of the Moon that was worshiped by the Chaldeans in Biblical times and by others as well.

I'll try to find the reference link for it.

Also, some practices were clearly borrowed from their worship. I don't recall precisely, but I think the black rock itself comes from there as well.

Basically, in Judaism/Christianity you would never see a phrase like 'Allahu Akhbar' which means 'God is Greatest'. The explanation given was that Mohammed 'absorbed' the pagan religions and eventually eliminated their gods by proclaiming that Allah was greatest, (and then, only.) But the curiosity of the phrase is that it suggests that there are other Gods, whereas in Christianity/Judaism something is either God, or it isn't-- and anything that is God (for there are 'aspects to the Godhead', I would say) does not have a relationship of 'Greatest' or 'Least'.

So what stands out to me is that it tacitly acknowledges the existence of the other gods AS Gods.

I might be wrong on that, as some translate Allahu Ahkbar as 'God is Great', which is far more generic.

The reason I find that Islam is counterfeit (other than finding that its practices are borrowed in name/form but deprived of meaning) is that reading the story of Mohammed and the Koran, it appears to me that it is a form of a State which masquerades as all six spheres; Self, Family, Community, Labor, Religion and State.

In other words, it is a kind of self-contained, entire political movement.

And that to me stinks of corruption.

12/30/2006 12:41:00 PM  
Blogger PrincessSpirit said...

RIVER-C: Thats a really great observation, about it counterfeiting into the 6 spheres, I've never thought or saw it that way before.

Had a very interesting class in Judaism, Christianity & Islam - it was the most popular if not controversial at Uni, and my, it did get "lively" at times. We looked at all 3 religs and their structures from individ to family to cities to state, but even the Prof didnt cover what you've just outlined. (Was blessed to learn he was a Christian.)

I disagree with nothing you've pointed out. Excellent food for thought. Thanks so much for you and Luke's inputs.

Abraham himself came out of the Moon cult of Chaldea - all of his family members previous names were changed after "turning" to God's way. Before that point, they all had names reflecting the Moon cult they belonged to, I found a list of the names somewhere in my studies, but its not that important, just trivia FYI.

- PsychoPrincess -

12/31/2006 05:38:00 AM  
Blogger PrincessSpirit said...

HV: If you'd like to talk about Kenosis, I'm up for it. Its a great topic to discuss and know.

- PsychoPrincess -

12/31/2006 05:41:00 AM  
Blogger PrincessSpirit said...

RIVER-C: Would love to see that link if you can find it.

A Professor-friend reading here says he'd like to study that concept you point out of Moon=>Islam->Ishmael->Present Islamofascism.

He saw your post & wryly commented: "Now we see the actual outcome of the original divisions between Judaism, Christianity & Islam - Moon vs. Son, Holy vs Unholy, the Divide now comes out instead of remaining hidden. Integralism, if it is Absolute Truth, should not go about incorporating the unholy into itself; but by transforming Out of unholiness, one literally becomes 'holy' as Scriptures describe and attest as sanctificational process. One only does THAT in real relationship with God-as-your-Parent. Without Him as Your Parent, advanced Sanctification and advanced real Integralism won't actually occur in a person. They'll be limited in what level they achieve by their own efforts outside of God."

"Integralism and sanctification SEEM to Share similar if not a same process, so it seems worth investigating." So we are researching the history of Integralism now.

He's one of the "old guard" of True Scholarship (like Lewis & Tolkien.) Am blessed, he's a Diamond of our Faith & firmly holds his ground amongst the PseudoIntellectualists & Anti-Intellectualists who pummel him daily. All 6 of his brothers died due to genetic heart conditions...but he survives & remains a strong bulwark of Courage, Faith & Truth despite all. He sends Blessings to You & says: "We definitely need more who are able to Discern well & show the Maturity this young man does." He remarked that you show Integralism, therefore he's interested to read what you write. I'll send him the link when you post it.

"Happy New Year, RC!"

- PrincessSpirit -

12/31/2006 08:13:00 AM  
Blogger LukeBlogWalker said...

A good reference for some of the ancient names of God in various cultures and how they fit in:

"The Two Babylons" By Alexander Hislop.

(It is the book the lesser writers "borrow" from)

One of my favorite citations is "The Numberer is numbered" -hand writing on the wall, which was something like "Mene mene tekal upharsim" -but thats off the top of my head.

The Numberer was a reference to their God -and the God of Abraham showed him up -by saying he was numbered. -Too cool.

Make sure to examine the footnotes and sources, and you can dodge his assertions regarding the Cathlolics if you like -the history stuff is still very interesting to read and source out.

-Luke

12/31/2006 09:55:00 PM  
Blogger LukeBlogWalker said...

-followon...

The late great Dr. EuGene Scott did some great comparisons of the Syriac, Aramaic, Ethopic and Greek texts regarding these ideas just before he died.

He also discussed the three primary words for faith and how they interlock across the manuscripts.

They are still in rerun on his network. Typically at 1 am Pacific time (for sure) but I guess you could check the website at www.drgenescott.com -if that does not work -try the same as a .org

Also an intersting site is:

www.peshitta.org

-get out your coffee!

-Luke

12/31/2006 09:59:00 PM  
Blogger Steve said...

Hi Bob .. I wasn't able to discern from your post what you actually mean by absolute truth nor could I discern what you think absolute truth is. Being a supporter of absolute relativity or relative absolutivity, I think that what you will find that even your definition of absolute truth is relative to something, whether that be your mind, your intuition or some other relative feature of our cosmos. I tend to feel there is a misunderstanding of absolute relativism or relative absolutism in that either absolute or relative are taken as singular entities but this is not the correct way to understand this paradoxical concept. Simply put it describes the inter-connectedness of Everything and how that inter-connected is multi-dimensional and ever-changing. In this respect what is absolute is the diversity of the cosmos and what is relative is the unity of the cosmos.

4/28/2011 02:11:00 AM  
Blogger Eep² said...

The last part is funny. A visual to perhaps aid in understanding the concept of "absolute relativity".

10/04/2012 11:59:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home