Pristine Grace
Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: 'Christian' Liberalism

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    3
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    'Christian' Liberalism

    I have been involved in a continuing debate on another forum with two women who happen to hold some very liberal beliefs and use them to justify their gay lifestyle. They always begin their rebuttals with derogatory comments or sarcasm in an attempt to put their opponents on the defensive. Here is a sample post from the forum that details some of their positions (one of them goes by the nickname of She's The One 74 or STO74 for short) I apologize in advance for its length:

    Let's ask 'She's The One 74' just what she does believe so we can get a better understanding of where she is coming from, shall we?

    STO74... would you mind responding to the following questions for us and then sharing your personal testimony about how you came to an intimate personal relationship with Jesus Christ?

    STO74:Keep in mind you, and the program that owns this board, represents one segment only of Christianity, which I would call Evangelical or Fundamentalist, for lack of better terms. I was born in a Roman Catholic family, and belong to a Mainline liberal Protestant church now. Being from another religious tradition much of your questions are Greek to me. We do not interpret the Bible literally. As an example, at my first visit to my spouse's parents, I asked her Dad, a minister in our denomination, if he believes in evolution, and he said, "Sure, don't you?"

    So the answers to 1.1, 1.2, 4.2, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 8.1 are generally no. The Adam and Eve story, for example, is a mythical tale not to be taken at face value, a legend created by primitive people to explain their place in the universe with the limited knowledge they had.


    1.1 Do you believe that the Bible, consisting of the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments, is the infallible Word of God, verbally inspired by God, and without error in the original manuscripts?

    1.2 Do you believe that God's intentions, revealed in the Bible, are the supreme and final authority in testing all claims about what is true and what is right?

    2.1 Do you believe in one living, sovereign, and all-glorious God, eternally existing in three infinitely excellent and admirable Persons: God the Father, fountain of all being; God the Son, eternally begotten, not made, without beginning, being of one essence with the Father; and God the Holy Spirit, proceeding in the full, divine essence, as a Person, eternally from the Father and the Son?

    STO74: I am actually disposed to Unitarianism which believes in one God alone as opposed to the Trinity. The Trinity itself is not Biblical but instead an interpretation of later church councils. I believe God the Father as we call the demiurge in Christian tradition is eternal but the name is deceptive because God most assuredly is not a male nor a female. I believe Jesus Christ is a representative of the Godhead in human form. I believe the Holy Ghost is a symbol and not necessarily a corporeal entity.

    3.1 Do you believe that God, from all eternity, did freely and unchangeably ordain and foreknow whatever comes to pass.

    3.2 Do you believe that God never sins, nor ever condemns a person unjustly; but that His ordaining and governing all things is compatible with the moral accountability of all persons created in His image?

    STO74: As to 3.1, 3.2, I am not sure, generally yes, but without the absolutist language. The same is my answers for 4.1, 6.3, 6.4, 7.1, 7.2, 9.1, 10.1, 11.1, 11.2, 11.3, 12.1, 12.2, 14.1, and 14.3.

    4.1 Do you believe that God created the universe, and everything in it, out of nothing, by the Word of His power?

    4.2 Do you believe that God directly created Adam from the dust of the ground and Eve from his side and that Adam and Eve were the historical parents of the entire human race; that they were created male and female equally in the image of God, without sin; that they were created to glorify their Maker, Ruler, Provider, and Friend by trusting His all-sufficient goodness, admiring His infinite beauty, enjoying His personal fellowship, and obeying His all-wise counsel; and that, in God's love and wisdom, they were appointed differing and complementary roles in marriage as a type of Christ and the church?

    5.1 Do you believe that, although God created man morally upright, he was led astray from God's Word and wisdom by the subtlety of Satan's deceit, and chose to take what was forbidden, and thus declare his independence from, distrust for, and disobedience toward his all-good and gracious Creator. Thus, our first parents, by this sin, fell from their original innocence and communion with God?

    5.2 Do you believe that, as the head of the human race, Adam's fall became the fall of all his posterity, in such a way that corruption, guilt, death, and condemnation belong properly to every person. All persons are thus corrupt by nature, enslaved to sin, and morally unable to delight in God and overcome their own proud preference for the fleeting pleasures of self-rule?

    5.3 Do you believe God has subjected the creation to futility, and the entire human family is made justly liable to untold miseries of sickness, decay, calamity, and loss? Do you believe that all the adversity and suffering in the world is an echo and a witness of the exceedingly great evil of moral depravity in the heart of mankind; and every new day of life is a God-given, merciful reprieve from imminent judgment, pointing to repentance?

    6.1 Do you believe that in the fullness of time God sent forth His eternal Son as Jesus the Messiah, conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary and that, when the eternal Son became flesh, He took on a fully human nature, so that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures were inseparably joined together in one Person, without confusion or mixture? Thus the Person, Jesus Christ, was and is truly God and truly man, yet one Christ and the only Mediator between God and man?

    STO74: Generally, but I most certainly do not believe Non-Christians are condemned. If such was so, Christianty would be worthless. It takes little exertion to be an evangelical Christian in this country. It takes challenging all tempral authority to become one in Iran or China. A just God would not place such a burden on them while you have it so easy. If it were so, God would not be good.

    6.2 Do you believe that Jesus Christ lived without sin, though He endured the common infirmities and temptations of human life, that He preached and taught with truth and authority unparalleled in human history, that He worked miracles, demonstrating His divine right and power over all creation?

    STO74: Yes, but I believe actual tales of miracles are symbolic.

    6.3 Do you believe that His life was governed by His Father's providence with a view to fulfilling all Old Testament prophecies concerning the One who was to come, such as the Seed of the woman, the Prophet like Moses, the Priest after the order of Melchizedek, the Son of David, and the Suffering Servant?

    6.4 Do you believe that Jesus Christ suffered voluntarily in fulfillment of God's redemptive plan, that He was crucified under Pontius Pilate, that He died, was buried and on the third day rose from the dead to vindicate the saving work of His life and death and to take His place as the invincible, everlasting Lord of glory, and that during forty days after His resurrection, He gave many compelling evidences of His bodily resurrection and then ascended bodily into heaven, where He is seated at the right hand of the Father, interceding for His people on the basis of His all-sufficient sacrifice for sin, and reigning until He puts all His enemies under His feet?

    7.1 Do you believe that by His perfect obedience to God and by His suffering and death as the immaculate Lamb of God, Jesus Christ obtained forgiveness of sins and the gift of perfect righteousness for all who trusted in God prior to the cross and all who would trust in Christ thereafter? That through living a perfect life and dying in our place, the just for the unjust, Christ absorbed our punishment, appeased the wrath of God against us, vindicated the righteousness of God in our justification, and removed the condemnation of the law against us?

    7.2 Do you believe that the atonement of Christ for sin warrants and impels a universal offering of the gospel to all persons, so that to every person it may be truly said, "God gave His only begotten Son so that whoever believes in Him might not perish but have eternal life?" And do you believe that whosoever will may come for cleansing at this fountain, and whoever does come, Jesus will not cast out?

    8.1 Do you believe that the Holy Spirit has always been at work in the world, sharing in the work of creation, awakening faith in the remnant of God's people, performing signs and wonders, giving triumphs in battle, empowering the preaching of prophets and inspiring the writing of Scripture? And do you believe that when Christ had made atonement for sin, and ascended to the right hand of the Father, He inaugurated a new era of the Spirit by pouring out the promise of the Father on His Church?

    8.2 Do you believe that the newness of this era is marked by the unprecedented mission of the Spirit to glorify the crucified and risen Christ by giving the disciples of Jesus greater power to preach the gospel of the glory of Christ, by opening the hearts of hearers that they might see Christ and believe, by revealing the beauty of Christ in His Word and transforming His people from glory to glory, by manifesting Himself in spiritual gifts for the upbuilding of the body of Christ and the confirmation of His Word, by calling all the nations into the sway of the gospel of Christ?

    STO74: Yes and no. I believe humanity is on a threshhold. I do not believe that necessarily "Christianizing" the rest of the world is the optimun result. I regard many instances, such as the forced Catholicization of my own Native American and Mestizo ancestors under Spanish conquest of Mesoamerica, as well as much modern missionary work, as evil cultural imperialism. I think I would say yes in general but expect different results than you probably do.

    8.3 Do you believe that, apart from the effectual work of the Spirit, no one would come to faith, because all are dead in trespasses and sins; that they are hostile to God, and morally unable to submit to God or please Him, because the pleasures of sin appear greater than the pleasures of God and that for God's elect, the Spirit triumphs over all resistance, wakens the dead, removes blindness, and manifests Christ in such a compellingly beautiful way through the Gospel that He becomes irresistibly attractive to the regenerate heart?

    STO74: Yes, but again, that would have a different result for me than it probably would for you. It would not, for instance, mean no more Mardi Gras, no more divorce, or anything like that for me.

    9.1 Do you believe that in a free act of righteous grace God justifies the ungodly by faith alone apart from works, pardoning their sins, and reckoning them as righteous and acceptable in His presence and that faith is thus the sole instrument by which we, as sinners, are united to Christ?

    10.1 Do you believe that the sanctification, which comes by the Spirit through faith, is imperfect and incomplete in this life and that although slavery to sin is broken, and sinful desires are progressively weakened by the power of a superior satisfaction in the glory of Christ, yet there remain remnants of corruption in every heart that give rise to irreconcilable war, and call for vigilance in the lifelong fight of faith?

    11.1 Do you believe that faith is awakened and sustained by God's Spirit through His Word and prayer?

    11.2 Do you believe that the promises of God recorded in the Scriptures are suited to save us from the deception of sin?

    11.3 Do you believe that God has ordained to bless and use His people for His glory through the means of prayer, offered in Jesus' name by faith?

    12.1 Do you believe in the one universal Church, composed of all those, in every time and place, who are chosen in Christ and united to Him through faith by the Spirit in one Body, with Christ Himself as the all-authoritative Head?

    12.2 Do you believe it is God's will that the universal Church find expression in local churches in which believers covenant together to hear the Word of God proclaimed, to engage in corporate worship, to practice the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper, to build each other's faith through the manifold ministries of love, to hold each other accountable in the obedience of faith through Biblical discipline, and to engage in local and world evangelization?

    13.1 Do you believe that the commission given by the Lord Jesus to make disciples of all nations is binding on His Church to the end of the age and that this task is to proclaim the Gospel to every tribe and tongue and people and nation, baptizing them, teaching them the words and ways of the Lord?

    STO74: I most certainly do not believe in any missionary program demanding people abandon their own cultural and religious heritage to accept yours. I think, as in Korea, people often become Christian when they achieve middle class status. You cannot sell Jesus to the huddled masses with a bowl of rice and a cup of tea. I believe in outreach services to people but not in the traditional sense.

    14.1 Do you believe that when Christians die they are made perfect in holiness, are received into paradise, and are taken consciously into the presence of Christ, which is more glorious and more satisfying than any experience on earth?

    14.2 Do you believe in the blessed hope that at the end of the age Jesus Christ will return to this earth personally, visibly, physically, and suddenly in power and great glory; and that He will gather His elect, raise the dead, judge the nations, and establish His kingdom. We believe that the righteous will enter into the everlasting joy of their Master, and those who suppressed the truth in unrighteousness will be consigned to everlasting conscious misery?

    STO74: Revelation? No. do you believe in Odysseus' Battling the Cyclops, Hercules vs. the Hydra, and Theseus vs. the Minotaur? These are myths and legends. So is Revealation. Symbolic poetry. Like tales of the brave heroes of Greece, it's an epic account of one person's vision for the end of time, but not to be taken as literal truth.
    Any suggestions on how I might be more effective in countering their positions when they refuse to accept the scriptures as the measuring rod?
    What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us... (Mark 7:21-23)

  2. #2
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,819
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    137
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    76
    Thanked in
    50 Posts
    Daftac, I don't know how familiar you are with presuppositional apologetics, but when dealing with cases where people refuse to accept what the Bible says, you need to get to the root cause of their rejection. They think they are independent, and can independently determine things without God. You need to show them the folly of their ways, and then maybe God might point them in the right direction....

    A good book that might help you out is Every Thought Captive : A Study Manual for the Defense of Christian Truth by Richard L., Jr. Pratt.

    This person has rejected the Bible as the ultimate authority because they started with the presupposition that they are independent of it. Thus, they are committed to their autonomy, and living in rebellion. The end result is confusion, and you need to point that out to them. A good study on apologetics could be really helpful. If you aren't already familiar with Van Tillian or Presuppositional apologetics, I highly suggest you check that book out.
    This is my signature.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    3
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Kermie

    Thanks Much! I will certainly check out the book. I haven't done much study in presuppositional apologetics... sounds like I need to.

    The exchanges I have had with these two have been so frustrating. They are both slippery... impossible to pin down because they refuse to accept the truth of God's word. I have been amazed at the clever way they have reasoned their way out of any kind of belief.... in anything other than what is acceptable to support their desires.

    What has been so disappointing is the reaction from other Christians at my attempts to witness to these two. It's almost like "who are you to judge?". Is the church so steeped in relativism and "tolerance"? It's bad enough that there are so many WITHIN the church who know nothing about the true gospel, but it grieves my heart to come face to face with so many others who profess to believe the true gospel but refuse to engage... chastising and silencing those who confront error because they see such attempts as "unloving" and judgemental.
    What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us... (Mark 7:21-23)

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    194
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: 'Christian' Liberalism

    Originally posted by daftac
    ...

    Any suggestions on how I might be more effective in countering their positions when they refuse to accept the scriptures as the measuring rod?
    This is easy. You just have to establish the perfection of your interpretation of scripture. You could cast Mt. Rainier into the Pacific to prove your superiority and these people would have to listen to you.

    Of course, if you can't move the mountain into the sea (as in Matthew 17:20), then maybe your faith isn't perfect either -- which leaves you in a bit of a lurch when trying to correct others.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    3
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Re: 'Christian' Liberalism

    Originally posted by smugg


    This is easy. You just have to establish the perfection of your interpretation of scripture. You could cast Mt. Rainier into the Pacific to prove your superiority and these people would have to listen to you.

    Of course, if you can't move the mountain into the sea (as in Matthew 17:20), then maybe your faith isn't perfect either -- which leaves you in a bit of a lurch when trying to correct others.
    Thanks for such an edifying post.

    By your standards, there has never been anyone, including all of the apostles, who qualified for correcting others. I sure don't remember reading that any of them "moved a mountain into the sea". Funny... it didn't stop them from taking on false doctrine and heresy where they ran into it.

    Get real... we are called to use the discernment that God gives us when it comes to His Word and to use that Word to divide truth from error.... doing so in love.
    What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us... (Mark 7:21-23)

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    75
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Re: 'Christian' Liberalism

    Originally posted by smugg
    Of course, if you can't move the mountain into the sea (as in Matthew 17:20), then maybe your faith isn't perfect either -- which leaves you in a bit of a lurch when trying to correct others.
    Just a bit of faulty logic there. Although I do understand what you're trying to say.

    Knowing and doing are two different things. Take it from any smoker these days. They KNOW smoking is bad for them and means they'll probably die quicker, but they still choose to smoke.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    194
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Re: Re: 'Christian' Liberalism

    Originally posted by Twonky


    Just a bit of faulty logic there. Although I do understand what you're trying to say.

    Knowing and doing are two different things. Take it from any smoker these days. They KNOW smoking is bad for them and means they'll probably die quicker, but they still choose to smoke.
    I'll buy that, but I think the difference lies in the quality of information. Smokers have been presented for years with reams of data and empirical evidence that there are dire side effects to their habits. Armed with this knowledge, they are free to make an informed decision for their own life one way or another.

    The data on the properties of God is sketchy at best. Most of it is unverifiable: you have to die to find out if many of the promises in the Bible are true. And there are conflicting accounts. What it comes down to is what you choose to believe and how you choose to live. My position is that neither daftac nor any other human being can speak authoritatively as to which interpretation of scripture (and which scripture at that) is most correct -- they can only impart their opinions.

    I think this thread is indicative of the un-Christian trend in Christianity of an absolute lack of humility in the face of the divine and a failure to recognize that the human beings who wrote the scriptures -- as well as the human beings who interpret the scriptures -- are approximately equal in their fallibility and susceptibility to error.

    What do you think Jesus would say on hearing so-called 'Christians' lament too much tolerance?!? What would he have to say about all those more worried about the way other people live than they are about their own lives?

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    75
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Christian' Liberalism

    Originally posted by smugg
    What do you think Jesus would say on hearing so-called 'Christians' lament too much tolerance?!? What would he have to say about all those more worried about the way other people live than they are about their own lives?
    But where can you draw the line? When are you allowed to NOT be tolerant?

    Can I be intolerant of an adult molesting an 8 year old boy who 'wanted' to have sex? What about a 14 year old? 18 year old?

    Where do you draw the line? The problem these days is, nobody is tolerant of everyone's different tolerances.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    194
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    I think the leap from 'liberal Christian' to child molester is a bit of a stretch.

    But I'll play along. A behavior of anyone which forces another person to do a thing -- especially a thing with consequences as great as those presented by sexual intercourse -- without that person's informed consent should not be tolerated. I think this holds true universally wether we're talking about forcing someone into having sex, forcing someone to relinquish property, or forcing someone to vote your way (which is not to say these examples are equivalent in severity...).

    Your dilemma asks the question: when do we deem a person mature enough to call their consent informed? Our society considers the age eighteen. I think in the U.S.. we raise particularly immature young people so that might be a bit young. Physiologically the age is probably much younger.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    75
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Originally posted by smugg
    I think the leap from 'liberal Christian' to child molester is a bit of a stretch.
    But others would have the opinion that 'liberal christian to homosexual' or 'liberal christian to sex before marriage' is a stretch. Which is right? The point is, it's different for everybody.

    But I'll play along.
    Oh goody. Smugg is going to play!

    A behavior of anyone which forces another person to do a thing ...yada yada yada... <very good argument for what is wrong and right deleted>
    I don't have a problem with your view of where the line is drawn. But why cry foul when someone doesn't agree with you? There are actually people in this world that are trying to make it OK for adult men to have sex with children 10years old and younger. You would obviously have to agree that they have their own ideas of where the line is drawn. There are people trying to push legislation to make homosexuality against the law.

    Do we just go with the lowest common denominator? Up until a few years ago, everyone agreed that homosexuality was a psychological problem. It's now not considered that and we've lowered the bar a bit more. Do you think science will find that pedophilia is a normal lifestyle choice? (Whatever your response is, the same thing was being said about homosexuality in the 60's and 70's and look what's happened since then!)

    Your dilemma asks the question: when do we deem a person mature enough to call their consent informed?
    No. My dilemma asks simply, is there a moral absolute? Is it determined individually, as a society, or globally?

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    194
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Originally posted by Twonky


    But others would have the opinion that 'liberal christian to homosexual' or 'liberal christian to sex before marriage' is a stretch. Which is right? The point is, it's different for everybody.
    But it can be and is determined by society. We have a say in our society's values by exercising our right to vote.

    I don't have a problem with your view of where the line is drawn. But why cry foul when someone doesn't agree with you? There are actually people in this world that are trying to make it OK for adult men to have sex with children 10years old and younger. You would obviously have to agree that they have their own ideas of where the line is drawn. There are people trying to push legislation to make homosexuality against the law.

    Do we just go with the lowest common denominator? Up until a few years ago, everyone agreed that homosexuality was a psychological problem. It's now not considered that and we've lowered the bar a bit more. Do you think science will find that pedophilia is a normal lifestyle choice? (Whatever your response is, the same thing was being said about homosexuality in the 60's and 70's and look what's happened since then!)
    I think your comparison between pedophilia and homosexuality is uninformed. On the one hand you have sex between two adults who are assumed to be able to make informed decisions about their life regardless of their sex. On the other hand you have an adult preying on the most vulnerable section of our population in some kind of power-trip. Pedophilia is rape -- homosexual sex is not necessarily rape. I guess I don't understand why these two things are so alike to you. In the 60's and 70's people started to recognize that what consenting adults want to do is really none of their business as long as no one gets hurt. I don't care what kind of lobby they have (and I think you might be overestimating their importance -- though NAMBLA's existence is shocking enough), rape is not going to gain acceptance in the U.S. in the foreseeable future.

    Speaking of the 'changing social climate' angle: up until a few years ago it wasn't against the law to lynch a black person in Mississippi, either. There are plenty of newspaper photos of people proudly standing next to their victim and they never saw a day of jail. In their day they were considered upstanding citizens.

    Things have changed today and are still changing. It's a good thing. The socially vulnerable are being protected, whether it's child-welfare laws or simply equal treatment by the courts.

    No. My dilemma asks simply, is there a moral absolute? Is it determined individually, as a society, or globally?
    There are moral absolutes, but only on a species-wide level. Most morality is determined individually or by society, depending on the issue at hand. You don't have to look too hard in the Bible to see that the moral message of the Old Testament books was different than that of the New Testament books. Society had changed! I don't know if it's always good or always bad, but I suspect it's inevitable.

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    75
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Originally posted by smugg
    There are moral absolutes, but only on a species-wide level.
    (Now that I've hijacked this thread on a huge tangent)

    What are they and how did you determine them? By absolute, you mean they apply to ALL humans, right? Not just our society.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    75
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Originally posted by Twonky


    (Now that I've hijacked this thread on a huge tangent)

    What are they and how did you determine them? By absolute, you mean they apply to ALL humans, right? Not just our society (assuming that you and I live in the same 'society.')

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    194
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Originally posted by Twonky


    (Now that I've hijacked this thread on a huge tangent)

    What are they and how did you determine them? By absolute, you mean they apply to ALL humans, right? Not just our society.
    It seems that there are absolutes which have been revered universally by all human societies throughout time:

    One is that you should never take the life of another human being without good cause. Of course, many societies have had to struggle with not only what is a good cause, but just what constitutes another human being! The Romans didn't think of the Christians as deserving the label human, and the Nazis didn't think the Jews did. The list goes on, but if you had asked anyone from these different societies, they would have told you that killing a person for no reason was unquestionably wrong.

    Another universal more is the idea of taking what belongs to another person (although I guess this kind of covers murder and everything else in a broad sense). Respect for the property of others has (to my knowledge) always been considered a virtue. Again, the Nazis, not seeing the Jews as quite human, felt no reason to respect their property, and white slave owners wouldn't allow their slaves to own property.

    I guess what I'm saying is that there are these most basic ideas of how people ought to treat one another, and then there's the actual application of these principles which we humans have a horrible track record with.

    It all comes back to the so-called 'Golden Rule' -- every society has had one form of it or another since at least the middle of the first millennium B.C.E..

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    75
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    So basically, you're saying the one absolute moral law is, don't hurt another person without reason.

    It's up to each society in to determine what the reasons are.

    So, in one society it could be OK to chop off someones hand for stealing a piece of bread, where in another society it would be ok to kill that person. And of course here in the states, even locking them up may be too much!

    Too much gray area for me. I wish there was some list of absolute moral laws. Everything would be easy then.

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    194
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Originally posted by Twonky
    ...

    Too much gray area for me. I wish there was some list of absolute moral laws. Everything would be easy then.
    Of course you do -- we all do! That's why people came up with gods and devils and 'higher' moral principles. The ancients made two powerful observations: 1) sometimes people who exhibited outstanding morals and ethical behavior suffered greatly in their lives, and 2) sometimes people who demonstrated nothing but contempt for their fellow humans prospered with wealth and comfort in their lives. Because of this, many came up with the idea that the true consequences for how we live our lives comes after we die.

    It's a comforting thought, but now that we know more about how the brain's chemistry works it seems more unlikely than ever...

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    OKC, OK
    Posts
    2
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Do you think that ancient humans have that much to do with common culture? For instance, ancients believed many things that we know more about now and don't believe.

    Skepticism does not keep us from common sense. It is good to accept a being which can help us, if that being is sensed and confirmed.

    people need to understand that they should try to talk to God instead of trying to test Him so much. There is no logical, certifiable proof for Him.
    mikeepoo

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    194
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Originally posted by Forgiven
    Do you think that ancient humans have that much to do with common culture? For instance, ancients believed many things that we know more about now and don't believe.
    They were human just as we are. It's okay to reject their mythology but I think their views, since their experience being human was so similar to ours, shouldn't be dismissed so quickly.

    Skepticism does not keep us from common sense.
    Sometimes skepticism is common sense.

    It is good to accept a being which can help us, if that being is sensed and confirmed.
    Define 'sensed and confirmed.'

    people need to understand that they should try to talk to God instead of trying to test Him so much. There is no logical, certifiable proof for Him.
    Why stop at your favorite god, though? Why not talk to Shiva, Mithras, or Apollo? There's no certifiable proof for them either.

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    The West
    Posts
    151
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Liberalism is a core value within the Western Democratic Tradition.
    It is only reasonable to see aspects of liberalism working into the more Dogmatic and authoritarian traditions of religion.

    Liberalism

    Kermie’s presupposition argument fails because we are not inherently aware of the bible. Otherwise, other cultures would have biblical like traditions, they do not. Therefore, we can only assume we start out with “only” our senses in an independent way.

    Logically, Liberalism should be important in the religious context to responsibility. If we are not “independent” to make our choices, how then, should we be judged? Is free will an illusion? How do you judge a person who doesn’t choose the bible? By what means do they chose to follow biblical teachings? Should we not allow independent choices? It would be illogical to say that man is not an independent entity, which would suggest we do not have free will.

    When you ask for Moral absolutes, Liberalism is a moral absolute. If our first perception of your selves is one of a person who is free and able to generate intention and action, then we must value the liberty to choose our actions.

    If those lesbians choose to be lesbians, then you should welcome and honor that freedom.

    If someone chooses to take away someone else’s freedoms (pedophilia) you should take action to maximize freedoms, by preventing such crimes.

    Obviously there are gray areas, which is why we have Common and Statutory Law. There are different types of liberties, and one is not always superior to the next.

    Stabby------------


    here

Similar Threads

  1. Update your Profile
    By Brandan in forum News & Announcements Archive
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-19-05, 07:44 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •