Many Christians Lack Responsibility

Stile writes:

quote:

---

Therefore, any claimed "absolute" moral system can only ever be as-"good"-as-or-worse than any claimed relative moral system.

---

As I have long stated, there are no moral absolutists. Everybody is a relativist. Oh, they may say they are, but by their actions you shall know them.Everybody eventually bends the rules.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

As I have long stated, there are moral absolutes and everyone is moral absolutist. That we break and bend the rules we know exist doesn't impact on the fact that we know the rule exists and agree that it is a good rule. It's just that our desire to have our own way in this particular instance and at this particular time outweighs our recognising the absolute morality governing our choice.What we do is suppress our knowledge of the moral absolute in order to have our way. After that, it either floats back to the surface and we recognise we've done wrong (guilt apparent) or we continue to suppress our knowledge and deny and deny and deny - unto quite ludicrous ends. Very true. But the fact that someone steals doesn't alter their acknowledging stealing to be wrong.

Which means, in your moral system, that a starving man stealing bread from a business man who exploits society is immoral and that likewise Robin Hood is immoral. Which is a shame, I think.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

iano responds to me:

quote:

---

As I have long stated, there are moral absolutes and everyone is moral absolutist. That we break and bend the rules we know exist doesn't impact on the fact that we know the rule exists and agree that it is a good rule.

---

You do realize that the second sentence contradicts the first one, yes?If you break and bend the rules, then you are necessarily a relativist. That hardly means that you don't believe in rules or think that the rule is bad. It's that you understand that it doesn't always apply in every single situation.

quote:

---

What we do is suppress our knowledge of the moral absolute in order to have our way.

---

Which necessarily means you are not an absolutist but are a relativist: Morals have to interact with each other and the situation will determine which moral imperative is the one that will be followed. This is how people who claim to be "pro-life" can turn right around and advocate the death penalty. "All life is precious," they'll say, but then claim that a person who has committed a heinous crime doesn't deserve to live anymore, that the ultimate punishment must be meted out. They'll justify it by referring to things like "innocence," but there is a clear contradiction in moral standards: All life cannot be precious if some lives are not worth being allowed to continue.

quote:

---

But the fact that someone steals doesn't alter their acknowledging stealing to be wrong.

---

Always exactly the same way wrong in every single instance, no matter what, and thus every single person who commits theft should receive the exact same punishment? If I know that you're going to shoot somebody and I steal your gun so that you can't, I'm in the wrong? I should be punished as severely as, say, Bernie Madoff?Can you show me anybody, anywhere who has ever followed their complete set of moral standards every single time?Not even Jesus or the god of your holy book managed to do that.If your god can't manage to be absolute regarding morality, why on earth are you complaining that mere mortals don't do it, either?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Sorry for springboarding off of your post.I recently did something. Back when my divorce had hit, I bought a box of condoms at CostCo. Just in case, since I was now suddenly single. Well, come Dec '09, those condoms were due to expire. OK, I'm Scottish, so I hate to see anything wasted. So I Google'd for "free condoms" and my local area. I saw two major Google hits: Planned Parenthood and a gay counselling service. OK, I first looked at Planned Parenthood, but then I realized that the gay counselling service was actually working to save lives. So I donated the condoms to that gay counselling service. While I do not personally have any stake in the gay community, the thought that I might have helped to save lives means more to me than if I had contributed those condoms to Planned Parenthood.I guess that my question is what a Christian would have done. Would a Christian have decided in favor of life? Or would he have chosen against life?The latter, I would think.Sorry for pushing this further. I was taught (by a rabbi teaching rabbinic lit) that Jewish tradition always favors life. If ever the question arose between observing the Law (the Torah) or preserving a life, then preserving the life would take precedence. Unlike the Christians with their fixation on faith healings; I remember one couple on trial for the death of their child who had died through medical neglect and that couple swore in court that they would similarly withhold medical care from any future children they might ever have.So which is more moral? Preserving life regardless of religious law? Or sacrificing life for the sake of religious law?Morally speaking, why does that question even need to be asked? Because Christians persist in confusing adherence to dogma as being morality?Edited by dwise1, : Cleanup the morning after.

The only problem that I have with this belief is that I would expect those people who have accepted Jesus Christ to actually be empowered to live better than those who do not or have not---and this isn't always the case. Many Christians are still very willfully selfish, materialistic, and unwilling to turn the other cheek. What does this say about the influence of the Holy Spirit?

I work at a grocery store and see shoplifting happening all the time. Many shoplifters steal because it is habitually ingrained--they dont necessarily need the money. Others are poor and DO need the money, probably figuring that the wealthy corporation can provide it. I, of course, would object that they are indirectly placing my advancement potential in jeopardy by keeping prices higher.Recently, we identified a very well dressed man who looked like he could work on Wall Street yet who steals a hundred dollars worth of product every week. I thus agree with Iano. Stealing is stealing. Sin is sin.

Phat writes:

quote:

---

I thus agree with Iano. Stealing is stealing. Sin is sin.

---

Same comment to you, then:Always exactly the same way wrong in every single instance, no matter what, and thus every single person who commits theft should receive the exact same punishment? If I know that you're going to shoot somebody and I steal your gun so that you can't, I'm in the wrong? I should be punished as severely as, say, Bernie Madoff?Can you show me anybody, anywhere who has ever followed their complete set of moral standards every single time?Not even Jesus or the god of your holy book managed to do that.If your god can't manage to be absolute regarding morality, why on earth are you complaining that mere mortals don't do it, either?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

quote:

---

I would expect those people who have accepted Jesus Christ to actually be empowered to live better than those who do not or have not

---

Why would this be expected?

So, let's look at an extreme example.A tyrannical communist government. The politicians exist on a diet of big luxurious feasts, which they cannot finish. Everybody else is near starving. A person that works for one these politicians has a sister who is very malnourished. That person steals an orange, knowing that they have vital vitamins, intending to give it to his sister.Are you telling me that that person is immoral?

Because many of us believe that when you accept Jesus Christ you become empowered with the Holy Spirit and it is the Spirit working through you that makes the difference.

quote:

---

Because many of us believe that when you accept Jesus Christ you become empowered with the Holy Spirit and it is the Spirit working through you that makes the difference.

---

So if a person does not show 'the difference', does it mean that the Holy Spirit has failed?

Hi Ochaye,

quote:

---

So if a person does not show 'the difference', does it mean that the Holy Spirit has failed?

---

No, it usually means that they didn't truly accept the Holy Spirit in the first place. It's a win/win scenario! Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

quote:

---

No, it usually means that they didn't truly accept the Holy Spirit in the first place.

---

That option is hardly applicable to the poster concerned, who wrote:'Many Christians are still very willfully selfish, materialistic, and unwilling to turn the other cheek. What does this say about the influence of the Holy Spirit?'

Yes, a fair comment ochaye. I was aiming for humour, but sadly, the attitude I was mocking is a very familiar. So far as Phat is concerned though, I've spoken with him many times and I'm well aware that he knows better than that.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod