Thank you for the response, but I do not like the tone.
First of all, these words are basically philosophical as I said. Second, I was responding initially not to you, but @RLBailey who was clearly using them in a philosophical context. Therefore you are the one wrenching these words out of context.
Thank you for the information about the spreadsheets, but I really do not think that most people, including myself, are that familiar with spreadsheet software to be aware of that usage. Must be my “ivory tower” blindness. I do not reside in a ivory tower and have never resided in an ivory tower.
Philosophy has been relegated to the ivory tower, which is one of our main problems, and we must reclaim it and bring it down to earth. But that means we must understand it and reformulate it.
Let us talk about Einstein. What he demonstrated was not that there is no absolute rest, but that there was no absolute time and absolute space. The evidence for this is time and space are related in the equation E = mc squared. The speed of light is based on the speed of light/years. Motion changes time and space, because they are related. The equation also refuted Newton’s dictum that matter cannot be created or destroyed since matter can be turned into energy and vice versa. So his equation demonstrates that matter and energy are relational (interdependent,) as are time and space. These discoveries are basic to our understanding the beginning of the universe by God through the Big Bang.
New let us look at the spreadsheet. The absolute address is as you say relative to the entire sheet or universe, but since the spreadsheet, unlike the real universe, does not change, then its position can be said to be absolute or independent, because of this artificial context.
It still seems to me though as if you are imagining that you alone are advancing Trinitarian concepts while everyone else is allegedly rejecting those in favor of “dualisms” that you would love to see done away with. I just don’t see that competition, or that the Trinity can be a universally applied panacea the universal panacea you want it to be to eradicate these dualisms. But I do agree that out dualistic mind-body understandings may well be problematic.
I do not imagine that I alone am arguing that the Trinity that others are rejecting. My experience is that no one else is arguing this position and no one else seems to want to explore and give some good reasons why this cannot work. Nothing is a panacea, not even Jesus, but that does not mean that Jesus the Logos is not the Source of Love, Truth, and Life.
What is frustrating is when people say they agree with my analysis of the problem of dualism, but not the solution without giving a reason. I agree that this is a very difficult problem and appreciate you humility an solving it, but if we have faith in Jesus we need to try. Our faith is Based on Jesus and not on ourselves.
So tell me … are these claims absolute truths? Or are they only relative truths? i.e. only true for Roger or other specific contexts?
One cannot discuss facts out of context. An important truth claim for me is “God is Love.” I hope that you will agree that this is an eternal or universal objective truth, which is objectively true for me and everyone else, even if they are not believers. It is not absolute because it is relational. Absolute does not change. God’s Love changes to meet the real needs of God’s People. Our faith changes because humans change or evolve.