Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,584 Year: 4,841/9,624 Month: 189/427 Week: 102/85 Day: 7/2 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Haggard Scandal
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1523 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 226 of 302 (361888)
11-05-2006 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Coragyps
11-05-2006 2:41 PM


Thanks for that link. A truly Christian response from Ted Haggard.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Coragyps, posted 11-05-2006 2:41 PM Coragyps has not replied

AdminOmni
Inactive Member


Message 227 of 302 (361889)
11-05-2006 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by berberry
11-05-2006 2:50 PM


ADMIN CAUTION
As much as I sympathize with your outrage, and find the comparison nemesis-juggernaut used distasteful, he did not direct a personal insult at another member.
His comments remain inside the ballpark of allowable speech, I think.
Please don't outbid him with a personal attack, Berberry. I know you have the eloquence to do better.
Edited by AdminOmni, : No reason given.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures

  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month Forum"

  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
  • See also Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], and [thread=-17,-45]
    Trust me.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 223 by berberry, posted 11-05-2006 2:50 PM berberry has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 229 by berberry, posted 11-05-2006 3:06 PM AdminOmni has replied

    ringo
    Member (Idle past 491 days)
    Posts: 20940
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005


    Message 228 of 302 (361891)
    11-05-2006 3:04 PM
    Reply to: Message 216 by Rob
    11-05-2006 1:55 PM


    Rob writes:
    Well, the point is... that our actions do not make a shred of difference.
    Then why is it that the Ten Commandments refer only to our actions?
    If you are a good and righteous person, then you will not go to heaven.
    You contradict Jesus:
    quote:
    Mat 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
    Mat 25:35 For I was hungry, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
    Mat 25:36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
    Mat 25:37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
    Mat 25:38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
    Mat 25:39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
    Mat 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
    It's pretty clear what Jesus thought morality meant, and it has nothing to do with the "heart".

    Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
    Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 216 by Rob, posted 11-05-2006 1:55 PM Rob has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 243 by Rob, posted 11-05-2006 4:14 PM ringo has replied

    berberry
    Inactive Member


    Message 229 of 302 (361892)
    11-05-2006 3:06 PM
    Reply to: Message 227 by AdminOmni
    11-05-2006 3:00 PM


    Re: ADMIN CAUTION
    AdminOmni writes me:
    quote:
    ...he did not direct a personal insult at another member.
    And I suppose a comparison of African-Americans to certain primates other than humans would also be acceptable since no one particular other member was personally insulted.
    The comment was beyond the pale and you know it.

    W.W.E.D.?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 227 by AdminOmni, posted 11-05-2006 3:00 PM AdminOmni has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 231 by AdminOmni, posted 11-05-2006 3:10 PM berberry has not replied
     Message 235 by Silent H, posted 11-05-2006 3:39 PM berberry has replied

    nwr
    Member
    Posts: 6419
    From: Geneva, Illinois
    Joined: 08-08-2005
    Member Rating: 5.1


    Message 230 of 302 (361894)
    11-05-2006 3:06 PM
    Reply to: Message 219 by Hyroglyphx
    11-05-2006 2:10 PM


    Re: absolute morality is all relative
    If that's true then why do so many relativists object to absolute standards?
    There are no absolute standards.

    Regime change in Washington - midterm elections, Nov 7

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 219 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-05-2006 2:10 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 246 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-05-2006 4:28 PM nwr has replied

    AdminOmni
    Inactive Member


    Message 231 of 302 (361896)
    11-05-2006 3:10 PM
    Reply to: Message 229 by berberry
    11-05-2006 3:06 PM


    Re: ADMIN CAUTION
    Berberry, please take this discussion where it belongs--in either the Moderation thread or a new topic on the question of speech boundaries.
    I'd be happy to discuss my take on it with you in either venue.
    Edited by AdminOmni, : No reason given.

    Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures

  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month Forum"

  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
  • See also Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], and [thread=-17,-45]
    Trust me.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 229 by berberry, posted 11-05-2006 3:06 PM berberry has not replied

    Silent H
    Member (Idle past 5898 days)
    Posts: 7405
    From: satellite of love
    Joined: 12-11-2002


    Message 232 of 302 (361899)
    11-05-2006 3:15 PM
    Reply to: Message 208 by Hyroglyphx
    11-05-2006 12:10 PM


    Re: absolute morality is all relative
    That's just it, nobody can get around it and still be honest with themselves. However, what we often see is that we can't pinpoint any legitimate standard of right and wrong, which offers the relativist countless chances to escape their sense of justice.
    I don't have a sense of right or wrong, and I am honest with myself. I don't have to make up external justifications for saying I like something or I don't, and pretend it holds for everyone else. I am a big boy and realize people might very well like to do things I despise and vice versa.
    The "legitimate standard" for a relativist with a personal (or cultural) code is acceptance of that code, which generally means feeling bad for violating it (or accepting punishment for doing so). The "legitimate standard" for a relativist without a code of right or wrong is doing what comes naturally, which derives from a combination of life experiences.
    The key for these relativists is that the legitimate standard is recognized as not being accepted by everyone, and that others may have a totally different, yet valid, moral code.
    If relativism were true, then everything could contain contradictory conditions. This, of course, is not possible. Opposites cannot both be true as it defies the law of non-contradiction
    If I wear a black shirt because I like black shirts in no way contradicts another person wearing a white shirt because they like white shirts. Moral sensitivity is about choice and feelings regarding a choice. People can and do make separate choices.
    The fact that some people do murder and like it, and some think it is wrong, sort of disproves your concept.
    Murder is always wrong. The only thing we disagree upon is what constitutes murder. Do you see the difference?
    First I would say that essentially makes the concept of murder always being wrong patently not universal. Second I don't believe murder is wrong. I don't like a range of ways people kill each other, but some are considered murder and some are not. Some are considered right and some are not. I have no sense of what "wrong" is in defining one from the other.
    You can claim I am "deadening my senses" but I'm not sure what that means either, other than you are making up an ad hoc proposition to save your theory. Anyone can do that. Given what you just did, someone could equally argue that Xians simply deaden their senses to the true morality (which according to you could be no morality). How is anyone supposed to argue against that?
    That's because killing is lawful, relatively, but murder is always and absolutely wrong, irrespective of personal opinion.
    Whites could kill blacks without provocation in the past. There was no murder in that case. In feudal Europe and Japan many people could be killed at whim. Once we get to that degree of slipperiness for the definition of murder, your universal concept ends. In essence you are arguing that every culture generally has some legal restriction against killing someone, though no inherent commonality between them.
    I could be wrong but I believe the Yanomamo would trip you up even there.
    The child may view all three of those acts as murder
    Who said anything about murder? You said the kid would be horrified. If you told the kid an abortion was not murder that is likely what the child would believe, just as if you showed her images of an enemy soldier being blown to bits (arms and legs scattering) and told her it was not murder. That is generally how the child will come to experience the world and believe it is.
    As it relates to morality, the relativist sees pious views as being intolerant. Interestingly, when expressing views on absolutes, I usually get the chance to some of their ”tolerance’... If morals were really relative then you would have no basis for arguing mine.
    A relativist can still state what is tolerant and intolerant. That is not a judgement of right or wrong. A dishonest relativist will claim that their personal belief system involves no intolerance. A closet absolutist will claim that they are a relativist and then state that another system is WRONG because it is intolerant.
    You are absolutely correct that a relativist has no logically solid basis on which to argue against your moral codes (that they are wrong)... save two things. A relativist can point out inconsistencies within your system, and can attempt an emotional appeal that would make you change your moral system to fit your feelings on some subject.
    Of course they may also challenge any factual claims which revolve around your codes. Such as that it is universal, or that fertilized eggs are babies, or that blacks aren't people, or etc etc.
    "I like vanilla." That's true for me. And you say, "I like chocolate." Both statements are true insofar as it depends on you.
    Now you have a handle on moral relativism.
    The point is, nobody just writes laws onto the books for no apparent reason. There is always an underlying factor.
    I didn't say they had no reason, I said they aren't all based on morals, nor do they ever have to be. You gave an example of the kind of laws that would be made which aren't moral and I pointed out those exact kinds certainly do exist.
    Laws are written to protect the citizens. And yes, if we were not able to feel empathy/sympathy, we would not have the understanding that something is wrong. And by that you just underscored my point. I presume that you've never been hacked to death, and yet, I'm certain you'd be horrified if a fellow human being was hacked before your eyes. Where does that understanding come from?
    Laws are written by the citizens to protect themselves. Empathy for suffering has nothing to do with identifying wrong, and neither does revulsion at witnessing an event. I could be horrified at watching an operation done without anesthesia on a friend to save her life, but that would not make it wrong. I could be nonplussed by a person falling asleep and then dying peacefully because of a poison.
    Further still I could be both horrified and elated at the same time while hacking my foe to pieces on a battlefield, an act for which I receive medals... up until a revolution topples the gov't and I am hung as a horrendous butcher... and then the tables turn and I am posthumously placed as a hero in history books.
    Where is your morality now?
    Ever notice how selfishness is not considered a virtue only until its in context to some Darwinian sense?
    Whoa whoa whoa. Now you are entering MY territory. Who said selfishness was a virtue? That people pass laws for self preservation is not synonymous with selfishness. That laws CAN be made based on selfishness (rather than self preservation) does not make selfishness a virtue.
    And I challenge your statement about selfishness and Darwin. I can think of many examples of selfishness before his time, but not many more large scale and adored than Moses stepping off the mountain to slay men, women, and children because they did not do exactly what he said, then the purges which followed to create the Kingdom of Israel. The feats of Alexander were also quite selfish, yet not so adored as those of Moses and Kind David.
    I might add that your God specifically states that he is angry and jealous. That latter point is impossible without the "virtue" of selfishness.
    This is a no casting stones area.
    The reason to keep order is to minimize accidents. The reason they want to minimize accidents is because people could get hurt. The reason why they don't want people to get hurt is because they can empathize/sympathize with them. The reason they can empathize/sympathize with them is because Almighty God has imparted in man an innate understanding.
    Okay, lets go with tow away zones. How about parking meters. BTW not floundering. Just rolling around laughing at how many connections you have to make to get to your generic heavily watered down universals.
    Then let me ask you if murder is wrong. Is murder wrong? If so, why?
    No. I can tell you that some cases of killing are illegal (and classified as murder). Most kinds of killing I would never want to engage in, but they are not wrong just because I would not want to do them. Thankfully there are some willing to kill in ways I would personally prefer not to. They help protect me against people that might try to kill me and I wouldn't want.
    That said, I will reign such people in based on concepts of civil rights I want applied to myself and so (in agreement) others. If for some reason it is necessary I will kill people in those ways I would rather not have to, if it is necessary to keep myself and those I love alive. I would not do so gladly but I would do so willingly. In no case would it be wrong.
    I can honestly tell you that I've maybe thought of myself being raped maybe one time.
    Heheheh... I could think of a lot of bad jokes to make on that one. But seriously, I did not claim that YOU would not want to make laws based on morals, nor that no one could make laws based on morals. My only claim is that laws are not inherently based on morals. They don't have to be because there are other ways of constructing them.
    I might point out that it is unlikely any of us have had to think about making laws about murder, rape, or theft. Most of them were made long ago which is why we don't have to think about them. I am pointing you back to the founding fathers of our system of gov't and their influence in creating our system. It was based on social contract theory and so rights as one takes for onesself.
    You can do whatever you want, but that is not how anyone else has to do it. I personally think of laws (as they are created) based on rights I would want for myself. That is why Bush's allowance for torture and warrantless wire tapping and pre-emptive wars against people who currently pose no threat are repulsive to me and why I hold they should be illegal (if not already). Not because they are wrong... unless by that one means likely to fail at their mission and against the values agreed to as founding principles for this particular gov't.
    They have a desire to tell the truth because they have an innate sense of it being the 'right' thing to do, even if it is not in their best interests immediately. However, the pride of life comes in and beckons us to lie so that we can fool the other person into believing that we are upstanding.
    Well you are not discussing me, or everyone else. Some cultures have valued lying, or at least not found it morally reprehensible, and found blunt honesty tactless and blundering, perhaps even a sign of weakness.
    I personally just find lying way too hard. I can't do it well and so its not worth the bother. Too much to remember and keep straight. That's not to say I don't lie, but it isn't often. I have a predisposition to keep it simple and straightforward (which is not to be confused with efficiently worded).
    When I lie I will feel guilty if it involved breaking some trust with someone (sometimes including myself), otherwise it means nothing to me. It certainly isn't wrong in either case. Every time I do it, or chose not to, it defines my character. That is all.
    He is saying that what Haggard did was immoral. And interestingly enough, we all are in agreement, and yet, we all share different beliefs. Don't you find that interesting?
    Uhmmm... I'm not sure if he was saying it was immoral or not. In any case I get the humor that a supposed moralist has been hung by the same rope he was trying to lynch others with. I personally don't think what he did was immoral.
    My personal run down on the guy is this: Who cares if he does drugs, pays for sex, or has sex with men? I can see why his wife would be upset because he betrayed her trust. I can see why his congregation would be upset as he betrayed their trust. I can see why he would be upset since he pretended to hate all such things. He has identified his character as dishonest, untrustworthy, and overtly hypocritical.
    Again, have you been hacked to death by way of experience?
    If it helps I have witnessed one, possibly two, murders, as well as an attempted murder. Two were horrendously brutal and just steps from me. If I lacked imagination before that time, I certainly had enough after that. This does not include being personally attacked in situations where I could very well have been killed, or badly injured, but thankfully escaped (in addition to those above).
    But lets pretend I had no such experiences, what on earth prevents me from imagining them? As soon as I know what pain is and what death is and I know I don't want either, it doesn't seem to take a genius to figure out I would not want to be murdered. Likewise when I know I don't like losing something, why would I be incapable of imagining it being "lost" because someone took it?
    Lying is intentional manipulation. Lying is inherently a selfish act.
    No question on the first sentence. I had that within the quote you gave from me so I'm not sure why you mention it. As far as the second sentence goes I am not so sure.
    When your wife/gf asks if she looks good in the new dress she bought, and you know she loves it, but you don't partciularly like the style: Is it selfish to say yes?
    When a bum starts hassling you for money when you are in a hurry, is it really selfish when you say you have no money on you?
    When the honorable senator from Wisconsin grills you about all of your friends being communists, it it really selfish to say you don't remember them ever discussing such concepts?
    Or as you point out, a harlot can lie and become beautiful to members of your faith.
    In that case not only was there no selfishness, but morals became less absolute.

    holmes
    "What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 208 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-05-2006 12:10 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 282 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-06-2006 12:40 AM Silent H has replied

    nwr
    Member
    Posts: 6419
    From: Geneva, Illinois
    Joined: 08-08-2005
    Member Rating: 5.1


    Message 233 of 302 (361902)
    11-05-2006 3:19 PM
    Reply to: Message 224 by Omnivorous
    11-05-2006 2:50 PM


    Re: Haggard's accuser failed a polygraph test
    I did notice that some evangelicals have begun to blame Haggard's wife for his transgressions:
    Perhaps that is an example of following what fundamentalist Christians take to be absolute moral standards

    Regime change in Washington - midterm elections, Nov 7

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 224 by Omnivorous, posted 11-05-2006 2:50 PM Omnivorous has not replied

    tudwell
    Member (Idle past 6058 days)
    Posts: 172
    From: KCMO
    Joined: 08-20-2006


    Message 234 of 302 (361907)
    11-05-2006 3:23 PM
    Reply to: Message 212 by Hyroglyphx
    11-05-2006 12:57 PM


    Re: Drugs
    Well, if you must know, I didn't vote for Bush the first time. The second time I didn't want to vote for Bush, per say, but anyone else would have been a wasted vote. Similarly, here in Oregon I'm voting for someone I view as the lessor of two evils. I want to vote for someone else, but he's not going to win. If I voted for him I'd be throwing away my vote and giving it the greater of two evils.
    No wonder Bush won a second term. "Well, I'm sure everyone else is voting for him, so if I vote for the guy I really like, it'll be a waste."

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 212 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-05-2006 12:57 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

    Silent H
    Member (Idle past 5898 days)
    Posts: 7405
    From: satellite of love
    Joined: 12-11-2002


    Message 235 of 302 (361912)
    11-05-2006 3:39 PM
    Reply to: Message 229 by berberry
    11-05-2006 3:06 PM


    Re: ADMIN CAUTION
    The comment was beyond the pale and you know it.
    I don't want you getting mad at me, but I would like to calm you down as it would be interesting to have you in the debate rather than kicked out.
    I think you are taking NJ's comments incorrectly. Calm yourself, read what I have to say and think about things for a bit. The overall topic has slid toward moral relativism. He is not equating gays or anyone else with children or animals. He is addressing relativism.
    The fact is that there are people who want to have plural marriages (what the poster he was responding to mentioned), as well as marry kids, as well as animals. While you can point to characteristics which define any group from another, the request for such rights is fundamentally the same. If relativism is true then NJ has a valid point in discussing all those cases equally.
    That is made more so if NJ finds the behavior in each equally errant, which relativists would not be able to question, if they are in fact relativists. He certainly does not have to use the same criteria you do to judge all of those situations.
    If you find that offensive, his likely (and valid) response would be to ask why that should matter to him or to you. He has his system and you have yours. Who are you to judge his? You can say you don't agree and don't like it, but that's it.
    That is relativism.
    On the flipside, as soon as you demand that he should take your feelings of how relationships should be judged, he has every right to ask why you shouldn't take his criteria seriously? Or why is he not able to find your position offensive, morally connecting the interaction of two members of the same sex as equal to members of the opposite sex acting as they agreeably (to his mind) should?
    If you are feeling your hackles rising, take some moments to cool down and think it through. And please don't get mad at me. I'm just trying to show you how this fits in the context of the debate.
    If anything you are proving his point so far about the general behavior of relativists. Frankly I want you on my side, not his.
    Edited by holmes, : things for a bit
    Edited by holmes, : fundamentally

    holmes
    "What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 229 by berberry, posted 11-05-2006 3:06 PM berberry has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 238 by berberry, posted 11-05-2006 3:44 PM Silent H has replied

    tudwell
    Member (Idle past 6058 days)
    Posts: 172
    From: KCMO
    Joined: 08-20-2006


    Message 236 of 302 (361915)
    11-05-2006 3:39 PM
    Reply to: Message 216 by Rob
    11-05-2006 1:55 PM


    But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." (Matthew 9:13)
    If you are a good and righteous person, then you will not go to heaven. If you cannot understand why, then you have missed the most important point that you can ever come to understand.
    That's not at all what that verse means. Jesus is saying the righteous are already saved, he wants to save the sinners. He's come not to call the ones that are already going to heaven, but the ones that might end up going to hell. Your ability to quotemine the Bible (and C.S. Lewis, and countless others) amazes me.
    Just as Christopher Columbus did not have to prove that the world was round. It was always round.
    Christopher Columbus didn't prove that the world was round. Everybody already knew that. So much for that self-glorifying analogy.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 216 by Rob, posted 11-05-2006 1:55 PM Rob has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 245 by Rob, posted 11-05-2006 4:27 PM tudwell has replied

    alacrity fitzhugh
    Member (Idle past 4367 days)
    Posts: 194
    Joined: 02-10-2004


    Message 237 of 302 (361916)
    11-05-2006 3:39 PM


    fundamentalist weight lose
    The comments have spilled over to the book review of the Jerusalem Diet: The "One Day" Approach to Reach Your Ideal Weight--and Stay There by Ted Haggard
    amazon
    This one is priceless
    quote:
    I wish the author would have included passages about how crystal meth may be useful in a Christian's diet.
    Should one use it daily? Or monthly? Or only when recieving a real good massage?
    Edited by alacrity fitzhugh, : No reason given.

    Look to this day, For yesterday is already a dream. And tomorrow only a vision. But today We lived, makes every Yesterday a dream of Happiness and every tomorrow A vision of hope. Look well there to This day.

    berberry
    Inactive Member


    Message 238 of 302 (361918)
    11-05-2006 3:44 PM
    Reply to: Message 235 by Silent H
    11-05-2006 3:39 PM


    Re: ADMIN CAUTION
    holmes, I'll respond in the moderator's thread. It might be a few minutes cuz I'm trying to do this while I'm watching the Saints kick hell out of Tampa Bay, without Joe Horn, even!

    W.W.E.D.?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 235 by Silent H, posted 11-05-2006 3:39 PM Silent H has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 241 by Silent H, posted 11-05-2006 4:01 PM berberry has not replied

    Chiroptera
    Inactive Member


    Message 239 of 302 (361920)
    11-05-2006 3:49 PM
    Reply to: Message 219 by Hyroglyphx
    11-05-2006 2:10 PM


    Re: absolute morality is all relative
    quote:
    If that's true then why do so many relativists object to absolute standards?
    I don't understand the question. Relativists object to absolute standards because they don't believe that absolute standards exist. That is what makes them relativists. If they accepted absolute standards, then they would no longer be relativists.
    -
    quote:
    How can they claim that its 'morally wrong' for someone to subject someone else to their morals if morals are tantamount to opinions?
    Because the relativist in question does have personal, subjective standards that are so important to her she feels that they need to imposed on others in certain situations. A person can feel that something is right or wrong and feel it so strongly that she is obligated to take action, but still recognize that there is nothing special about her particular standards.
    -
    quote:
    You are saying that it isn't rue because you are appealing to me to follow some sort of standard. If there is no standard, there is total chaos and meaning becomes meaningless.
    Of course we need standards. Just like, to avoid chaos, we have the standard in North America that AC electical current shall be 110 V and 60 Hz. We impose those standards to avoid chaos; however, that standard is arbitrary -- Europe, I believe, uses 120 V and 50 Hz for their standard for AC electrical transmission. But we all recognize that the standard is arbitrary.
    -
    quote:
    You cannot occupy Nepal and Zimbabwe, simultaneously.
    Actually, according to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics I do occupy Nepal and Zimbabwe simultaneously -- I just occupy Oklahoma more.
    But, at any rate, the analogy is not apt. One culture considering an aristocrat killing a peasant wrong and another considering it right is not like occupying Nepal and Zimbabwe simultaneously. It is like, rather, one person thinking that 5'10" is tall and another thinking that it is short.

    Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 219 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-05-2006 2:10 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

    Hyroglyphx
    Inactive Member


    Message 240 of 302 (361925)
    11-05-2006 4:01 PM
    Reply to: Message 221 by iceage
    11-05-2006 2:25 PM


    Re: absolute morality is all relative
    Actually I have found Christians when pressed resort to situational ethics.
    Most people, when pressed, resort to situational ethics. That doesn't negate the existence of moral absolutes, nor would a self-critique absolve anyone of wrongdoing provided they do exist.
    For example try to rationalize "Love your Neighbor" and "Turn the Other Check" with supposed godly commands rape, pillage and genocide in the OT.
    That's easy. The answer is that you love even your enemies. Loving your enemy means praying for their conversion. It doesn't mean let people do whatever they want becuase we're supposed to be pacifists. That's probably the single greatest misconception about Christianity. We are supposed to be at peace with as many people as we can. And we are supposed to avoid wars and conflict because they are worldly. However, the Bible is replete with instances, to include future wars. Revelation even uses terms of warfare. If we are at war and you do capture the enemy, treat your enemy well.
    "Bless those who persecute you, bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Have the same regard for one another; do not be haughty but associate with the lowly; do not be wise in your own estimation. Do not repay anyone evil for evil; be concerned for what is noble in the sight of all.
    If possible, on your part, live at peace with all. Beloved, do not look for revenge but leave room for the wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." Rather, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head. Do not be conquered by evil but conquer evil with good."
    -Romans 12:14-21
    Likewise, when someone offends you or belittles you, either by physically striking you or heaping insults on you, we are supposed to take it in stride. If we lash out we lose all our credibility and make ourselves like them. That doesn't mean that if someone is trying to kill us that we have to let them do it.
    And when Jesus in the same verse says 'if your enemy compels you to go a mile, go with him two miles,' it doesn't mean if he challenges you to a race. This verse is a bit cryptic to us because it has meanings rooted in that timeframe. During the Roman occupation of Judea, Roman law required that at any time, a Centurian could request the assistance of a Jew to help carry their weaponry or other items. Roman law stated that they could carry the items only up to a mile before they were required to let the Jew go back about his buisness. Jesus then is saying, after you have carried it a mile, go ahead and offer to carry it another mile. The Centurian will likely feel guilty for having treated you poorly to begin with and it may change his entire outlook on the matter. Because of your act, he may treat others with much more respect.
    And this is along the lines of what Paul was quoting from the OT. In doing so, its like you heap burning coals on his head. Its killing your enemy with kindness to the point where he may no longer be your enemy. That's the moral of the story. Not that Christians have to be complete pacifists. That is a distortion.
    Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typos

    "The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2nd Corinthians 10:4-5

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 221 by iceage, posted 11-05-2006 2:25 PM iceage has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 278 by iceage, posted 11-05-2006 8:23 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024