sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Katzpur said:Since I'm sure you will agree that God is the source of all truth, why do you believe that He would not be rigid in defining it? Where you use the word "rigid," I would use the word "constant." It would be hard for me to worship a God who could be swayed to suit the whims of any soul naive enough to insist that all opinions and beliefs are equally valid.
I don't think God is rigid. I think we are rigid (in ourviewpoints, mind sets and beliefs). I would agree that God is constant. However, our human perception of God, and truth, are not constant. "Constant" and "rigid" are two different things.
The Mississippi River is constant, but it certainly is not rigid. Likewise, truth is constant (as God is constant), but not rigid. We see the Mississippi River from one vantage point. The fish see it from an entrely different vantage point. We see it as transportation, as barrier, as landmark. The fish see it as home, as world, as life. Which viewpoint is "truth?" They both are -- even though they appear (from one viewpoint) to be contrdictory to each other. Our viewpoint is valid. So is the fish's.
God does not depend upon our vision of truth. Truth does not depend upon our perspective. But our understanding depends upon our perspective. The granting of latitude and a desire to see the larger picture does not constitute naivete -- rather, it acknowledges that one's own perspective is not the universal constant. That kind of thinking leads us to humanism.