Yeah, it seems to me that one could have “solidarity, love of peace and respect for nature” as an absolute value but not have those values "above Christ."

But then it could depend on the definition of quite a lot of terms here.

---

From a Christian theological perspective, anything that puts itself above Christ is of the spirit of the antichrist.

I don't agree from a logical standpoint -- just as anybody who has shattered an ankle can tell you that "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" is a fallacy (known as the false dichotomy ) -- but you're right, it's not anything new in terms of the traditions of Catholic doctrine.

Unfortunately, it is very easy to shape this relatively neutral doctrinal plank into a club to beat people and/or oneself with. Which is a whole nother joke about how what doesn't kill you is meant to make you stronger.

---

I guess I don't see how love of peace and respect for nature are something separate from goodness. Are they conveniently forgetting that Christ had titles like Prince of Peace and The Lamb of God?

They're not separate from goodness. But in Christian theology, the absolute is God, and all goodness comes from God. It is wrong for a Christian to give something else primacy, no matter what that thing is, and no matter how good it is, because God is the author of the goodness, in the first place. In fact, it's irrational to do so (from a Christian perspective).

---

I don't agree from a logical standpoint -- just as anybody who has shattered an ankle can tell you that "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" is a fallacy (known as the false dichotomy ) -- but you're right, it's not anything new in terms of the traditions of Catholic doctrine.

I don't understand your logical standpoint, Nutty. He's not calling those things bad. He's saying that Christians abandoning the central fact of the faith, and waving around a watered down version of the faith in its place, because its more palatable, is what is wrong. I mean, I don't expect you to share it, because you don't have the same theological perspective, but it's pretty simple, and pretty logical from his perspective.

---

I fail to get the distinction between absolute and relative too. The core of what he's saying makes sense (although I have no dog in that race), but some of the dressing confuses.

---

I fail to get the distinction between absolute and relative too. The core of what he's saying makes sense (although I have no dog in that race), but some of the dressing confuses.

Yeah, the only absolute value Biffi listed that didn't make me scratch my head was the word "truth" and that's because Christ describes himself as the truth, so I can understand making that an equivalent -- that is the absolute is God; Christians believe Jesus is God incarnate; Jesus said, "I am the truth," therefore truth is absolute because God is truth.

I wish there was a transcript.

---

Oh my god. The cute! It kills. Someone's definitely related to Mommy.

---

I think I pretty much get what he is saying. The antichrist isn't necessarily a person but an attitude. If christians feel like being a good person and going to church every Sunday but don't dedicate themselves to Christ, then they are working against Christ in a sense.

---

Yeah, I think the absolute values vs. relative values has a specific meaning. I'm just guessing, but I think part of it is that things either are true or they are not. They are good or they are not. They are beautiful or they are not. (From his point of view, anyway.) "Respect for nature" is kind of murky as values go.

And presumably, since God is the ultimate expression of truth, beauty, love, goodness, etc., those things exist regardless of whether anything else does. They are eternal. The "relative values" he mentioned are about the material world.

...Or I could be totally wrong. But the distinction made sense to me that way, so I'm going with it.

---

Dude, if I were Jennifer Garner and I were lurking here, I'd be rounding up some ninjas to protect my kid from an ita kidnapping-cutepocalypse.

---