Moral Relativism
I am continually puzzled by those who always seem to deny objective moral reality. Not being able to define an entity does not mean it doesn’t exist and given that we all acknowledge infinity, we should agree that some things are unknowable for our finite minds and bodies.
There are unknowable things that exist outside of us.
Objective moral truth is one example. It does exist and should be acknowledged.
Moral Relativism is our current cultures attempt to rationalize bad behaviors and poor choices. Moral relativism holds that moral and/or ethical beliefs do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths and are instead based on personal, historical and cultural preferences of the individual or society. This becomes a very slippery slope and one that ultimately leads to chaos.
Moral categories become meaningless if relativism is true and any attempts at moral discussions become an exercise in futility. The only rational course of action truly consistent with moral relativism is complete silence.
When the moral relativist speaks, he/she surrenders his/her relativism.
Complete silence and not speaking up about obvious injustices and evil is inhumane and could be considered “evil by proxy.” This is detrimental for any society or organization.
I believe the picture above says it all. There is evil and it's tiring to see and hear the media rationalizing the behaviors of the radical terrorists in Lebanon and elsewhere.
posted by Anonymous at 6:05 AM
45 Comments:
In your opinion, is Zionism moral?
Before a question like that could be answered, we would have to agree on a definition of Zionism.
What's your definition? I realize there are many interpretations but I'm referring to the general idea that Jewish people have a right to establish and maintain a homeland in the area of Israel.
The reason I ask is that one's definition of and attitude concerning Zionism is usually a significant factor in how one views the many situations involving Israel and what's moral or isn't in relation to them.
I believe that everyone has a right to defend their legally established homeland and property.
I find it morally reprehensible that radicals specifically state their intentions are to irradiate a certain group of people and indiscriminately target innocent victims.
My question to you would be do you see a difference in this? Is there a difference between killing and murder?
I do see a difference between killing and murder, but that's not my point.
Wrongly or rightly, Israel was "legally established" in the very technical sense that forces from outside the region seized property that did not belong to them and gave it to another group. It's essentially eminent domain writ in the largest possible sense.
One of the fundamental questions in the conflict is if that seizure of land was morally justifiable. If one believes it was, then it's easier to state that Israel is just protecting itself. If one doesn't believe that seizure was moral, then the situation is very different as it becomes a matter of people killing to protect "stolen" property.
While both sides use religion to fuel zealotry, many Jews and Arabs with strong feelings on the subject don't actually care much about the religious differences.
The problem becomes even more complicated when one begins to consider issues like the moral justification of collateral damage. Is it moral to kill 30 innocent people in an effort to kill 4 criminals, especially if you know ahead of time that the risk of killing the 25 is substantial? How does one decide what ratio is justified? It's a tough question.
All through history, land has been acquired by war and acquisition. This is no different than that of America. Why is Israel treated differently
Our current governments, the United Nations etc. recognize Israel as an independent state and government.
They therefore have every right to defend themselves.
Collateral damage is regrettable, but not morally in the same category as those intentionally targeting civilians.
Historically speaking, the region we now refer to as the "middle-east," or more specifically, "Palestine," was inhabited by various semitic tribes of polytheistic peoples as they spread out of the Mesopotamian region, some 10,000 years ago. These peoples included the ancestors of those we call "Hebrews," and later "Jews," as well as those we call "Arabs." The term "Arab" was first used in the 800s BC. One such "Arab" group was a people we refer to as "Philistines," the ancestors of modern-day "Palestinians." As for Lebanon specifically, the people there are a mix of these various semitic peoples, along with Asyrians from the north of the region and most importantly, the ancient Phoenicians, perhaps the greatest sea-faring explorers ever known.
So, who belongs in Palestine?
Answer: Historically, those people who are ETHNICALLY semetic, for sure.
Who would that be?
Answer: All the Palestinians and all the MIDDLE-EASTERN Jews.
What about EUROPEAN JEWS?!
Answer: They are NOT indigenous...they arrived by mandate of the U.N.,Britain & the USA, after WWII. Most of them are ethnically Germanic, Slavic, Baltic, Scandanavian and a few are even Celtic...definately NOT Semetic. They are Jewish by RELIGION, but predominantly EUROPEAN by ethnicities and even culture, in some cases.
Now, do I believe the Israelis are leaving? No. No more than I believe the Scots and English are leaving Northern Ireland or that we here in the good ol' USA are ever going to "make it right" with native Americans.
As for terrorism, it's always wrong, no matter who's doing it, but make no mistake, the Arabic people of Palestine DO have some legitimate complaints, and that's an understatement, if I've ever made one.
Also, they are not all terrorists. I have met many and they were very warm, intelligent and friendly people. When you see 10-15,000 of them chanting in the streets, keep in mind that they are only a small segment of TENS OF MILLIONS of people who live in the region, most of whom just want to live life as anyone else does.
Having said all of that, I have 2 questions:
1. Are the governments of Syria and Iran legitimate problems?
Answer: YES!!!And they have been since 1979, and it's WELL DOCUMENTED!!!
2. Given the above answer, and the fact that Sadam Hussein had NOTHING to do with 911 and possessed NO WMDs since 1991, WHY DID WE INVADE IRAQ?!!!
ANSWER: ????????????????
Roz,
I am certainly not calling ALL arabs or muslims terrorists. I have very good friends who are both.
But we do have terrorists as well and many of these are radical Arab/muslims by majority.
The rest of your comments are accurate until your last paragraph. We will continue to disagree and the facts do not support your statements. But we will blog that another day
Medrep,
Your statement is the exact circular reasoning that I describe.
Just because different people,or different cultures have moral differences, it doesn't mean that none is correct and morals are relative.
Christianity is either true or it is not. There is no eqivocation.
The choice of faith now lies with you.
Doc,
With MUCH due respect, I have spent the last 12 years of my life studying the world in which we live, including leaders, regimes, political systems and socio-economic issues,religions, movements, policies, etc...spanning many centuries until the present time, and the facts absolutely support my last paragraph.
With our military needlessly tied up in Iraq, however, we were/are unable to deal with the true sponsors of international terrorists in the mid-east, Syria and Iran (birthplace of Hezbollah).
Also, just as a side note, let's not forget the incredibly 2-faced House of Saud in Saudi Arabia.
As for faith, well, let's just say I don't have it in Don Rumsfeld.
Is WWIII happening now or is it still in the future?????? I recently watched a piece on the highly respected history channel. The Mayans predicted the end of the world in 2012. This is getting very close.
Roz,
I know you are much more knowledgeable regarding history and have studied extensively. But your comment:
“Given the above answer, and the fact that Sadam Hussein had NOTHING to do with 911 and possessed NO WMDs since 1991, WHY DID WE INVADE IRAQ?!!!
ANSWER: ????????”
This statement still leads me to believe that you do not accept some aspects of reality.
This administration attacked Afghanistan in response to 911. The media bias has continually led the average poorly informed individuals to believe that Iraq was behind 911.
Iraq was invaded for a multitude of reasons relating to the war on terror. Saddam did have ties to Al-quaeda, he was a brutal, murdering dictator, he had a history of using WMD’s and continually remained non-compliant with a multitude of UN resolutions. In addition, he had invaded another country previously, and was continually openly defiant and verbal about wanting his neighboring countries taken over.
At the time of the invasion, this administration was the 3rd consecutive administration whose intelligence sources along with foreign sources still believed his WMD’s were present and a serious risk for ongoing terror.
This administration also felt that Iraq would be the easiest to convert to a democratic government because of the numerous factions within. The thought was and continues to be that getting the first major country away from dictatorship would help stabilize the Middle East.
Are there other countries that are credibly a larger terror threat; yes
Were there other countries at the time thought to have and believed to be willing to use WMD’s in the near future; no
Did we find the amount of WMD’s everyone believed to be there; no, but hindsight is easy to judge.
Was Saddam behind 911; no, but the media and poor education has led to this belief
Did we uncover a huge oil for food scandal and find thousands of supporting documents linking Saddam to ongoing terror threats; yes
Are the Iraqi people and the world better off without Saddam; YES
Was Saddam a terror threat; Yes
The reactive stance made by Clinton’s 8 years was far different than the proactive stance of Bush’s. But I believe the United States and the world is safer because of his proactive approach. We will probably probably always disagree on this.
People compare these radical Muslim groups to evangelical Christians too often. There is a major difference in philosophy.
Christians want every individual to “hear the Word” and by doing so, we know that many people will believe. These evangelicals know that not all will believe because of free-will and they accept and believe that some of these very good people will not enter Heaven for eternity because of their personal choice.
Radical Muslims, on the other hand, believe and teach that everyone will convert to Islam’s teaching or they will be destroyed. It is their mission and part of their religious belief and teaching.
Christians want everyone to have all the information and make their personal choice; radical Muslims demand conversion and are willing to murder for it. The world will never be able to live peacefully with radical Muslims and we will therefore always be battling this terror threat somewhere. Better the Middle East than the United States.
You wrote:
"Christians want everyone to have all the information and make their personal choice"
That pretty much ignores the efforts of the 'Christian Right" to codify into law their own view of morality and proper behavior. Anti-abortion efforts, demands for praying in schools and other public places, placement of the ten commandments on government property (not Koran passages or any other religion's dictates)are all attempts to force the larger public into accepting their position on religion. Those efforts may not include the severing of limbs or stoning, but it seems to me to be a relative differnce rather than a real one.
Getting back to the original post, anonymous comments are exactly why moral relativism will destroy societies.
Utilizing the governmental systems that are established to assist in establishing some of the basic moral truths is worthwhile.
How far to go is the question. Violence is not the answer.
If the radical left can use the government for their agendas, it is only fair that the right also has the opportunity within the law
As a Christian I want others to have the personal choice to believe or not believe in Jesus Christ. I do not want people to have a choice to take an innocent life.
As for prayer in school and other public places, why shouldn't we have that right? Who is that hurting? Should our rights be taken away to please others?
The Ten Commandments are a part of our American history. How far I we going to take this? Should we rewrite our history, so we don't offend anyone who disagrees with our beliefs?
"The Ten Commandments are a part of our American history."
So is slavery, lack of voting rights for women and non-land holding white males and forced sterilization. So what?
There are churches on every corner, of every possible flavor you could want. Why is it a "right" to impose your particular brand of superstition on other people in a public venue?
Christianity is either true or it is not. There is no eqivocation.
Indeed, but the desire to believe leads most Christians to substitute a far less rigorous method (i.e., "faith") for determining empirical truth, and one that would not be applied to questions like, "If I dive from this hundred-foot high cliff, will I be crushed on the rocks below?"
Students are free to pray, and always have prayed.
Problem is, Christians wish to make prayer a public spectacle for evangelical purposes.
Perhaps if the writer were in the minority, he or she would grasp the implications.
As long as there are quizzes and tests, there will always be prayer in school...
NAC,
your example can be proven by the scientific method and verified by repeat trials. It therefore requires no faith but simply observation and repeated testing.
For questions that cannot be explained with our current limited and finite knowledge, faith is what is utilized.
Everyone has faith in something based on their viewpoint and beliefs.
"There are churches on every corner, of every possible flavor you could want. Why is it a "right" to impose your particular brand of superstition on other people in a public venue?"
I do believe our country was founded with the belief of freedom of religion. I have the right to choose were I want to go to church and were I pray. If it is superstition, why do you care?
There are plenty of times I have listened to a speaker I disagreed with. I did not have the right to shut them up. I had the choice to turn off the TV, walk out of the room, or listen. That is called freedom of speech.
Dan,
My statements and observations regarding Sadam Hussein having no conections to 911 are not born of the media. After the invasion of Afghanistan, which was indeed justified and supported by the international community, the Bush administration THEMSELVES, time after time (and yes, it's on film, which is the one connection to the media I'll give you, but Rice and Cheyney made the statements, clear as day) stated that such a connection existed. Colin Powell being the exception. Dick Cheney and Condi Rice included it it evry speech they made for MONTHS! Cheney stated it on Meet the Press, with no prompting!
" Saddam did have ties to Al-quaeda,"
There was/is NO connection between Hussein, probably the most secular jack-muslim in the Arab world and Bin Laden, one of the most ultra-religious extremists in the Islamic world. The so-called "training camps" in remote Iraq, near the Iranian border consisted of a few shacks and some rocks and was probably unknown to Hussein, who viewed ANY such organizing, even on a small scale, as a threat to his power/sovereignty (and killed many Shiites to prove it).
"...he had invaded another country previously, and was continually openly defiant and verbal about wanting his neighboring countries taken over."
And in 1991 he and his army were crushed and rendered incapable of doing much in the way of "taking over" anything. He was a loudmouth, but confined to central Iraq with a greatly diminished military capability.
As for WMD, the "intelligence" given to Powell was exactly what Cheney and Rumsfeld ASKED for, and Tennant delivered. Tennant was ousted as a "public" scapegoat and then rewarded for his "team play"...disgusting.
"he (Saddam)was a brutal, murdering dictator, he had a history of using WMD’s"
Was Hussein a threat to anyone? Yes. To his own people. He was, however, in Powell's own words, "very well contained."
Was Hussein a murderous loudmouth?
Yes! But that was an internal Iraqi problem. It was no reason to use the might of the U.S. military as the Bush Administration's personal enforcers. I hate Robert Mugabe, but I wouldn't call up our military to go after him.
On the WMDs and the "Yellow Cake" debacle, we were just flat out wrong, so were others, but that doesn't make us any more correct.
As for the statement, "This administration also felt that Iraq would be the easiest to convert to a democratic government because of the numerous factions within. The thought was and continues to be that getting the first major country away from dictatorship would help stabilize the Middle East."
If that's true, then the vast ignorance of the American public is now reflected in our administration. The real (not the given)reason George Bush the elder didn't chase Hussein's army to the capitol in the first Gulf War, was/is simple: To remove a leader in Iraq, is to remove authority and to create a power vacuum and, thus, to create chaos and instability in the region. That's not a "hindsight" view, that's a foresight view which Cheney and Rummy chose to disregard.
Was Saddam a terror threat? Not to mainland USA. Not even close. Powell, Blix (who has been vindicated by...), Kay and Dulfer (SP?)have proven it, over and over again. He DID have PLANS for a nuclear program. So does Botswana. That's all he had and all 3 men concurred that he was 10-12 years away from anything that constituted a threat to us here, AND ONLY THEN IF SANCTIONS WERE REMOVED (which they weren't going to be...Powell suggested tightening them up).
As for the question, "Were there other countries at the time thought to have and believed to be willing to use WMD’s in the near future;" YES...I give you North Korea.
As for Clinton, he and his administration were asleep at the wheel when it comes to Al Quieda, Bin Laden, et al...and there is no doubt about that. He gets no free pass from me.
Also, I am not opposed to preemptive strikes against true threats, but they have to be the right ones, for the right reasons.
As a side note, since religion has been called up here: The word "Christian" means to follow Christ, to be Christ-like, or like Christ, if you prefer. Christ abhored war and violence of any kind, including self defense.
Just something to think about.
I do not claim to know if he was the son of God or not, but he was a better man than I, for sure.
bluegill states,
"one's definition of and attitude concerning Zionism is usually a significant factor in how one views the many situations involving Israel and what's moral or isn't in relation to them."
The logic of this statement is important. It is logical that if one believes in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob supports Zionism, that one would therefore support Zionism, also.
In contrast, if one bases the source and validity of truth claims from the opinion of mankind, then Zionism is just another of many opinions of man.
For the Western Civilization that relies heavily on empirical science for valid truth, this creates a bias against available supernatural truth claims.
The New Albanian said,
"the desire to believe leads most Christians to substitute a far less rigorous method (i.e., "faith") for determining empirical truth, and one that would not be applied to questions like, "If I dive from this hundred-foot high cliff, will I be crushed on the rocks below?"
First, empirical science may seem more rigourous than faith, if matter is all that exists. But matter is not ALL that exists. Non-matter exists. If one denies the idea of reality that non-matter exists, then one might see faith (in others) as a sort of "taking the easy way out".
Non-matter exists, like conscious mental states for example. Matter can not explain conscious mental states. Also, matter cannot explain our human awareness of moral/immoral conscious mental states.
Secondly, Those of faith use empirical science to determine empirical science truth claims, they just don't use empirical science EXCLUSIVELY .
Those of faith base what they know on what exists.
Those of faith do not base that which exists--on ONLY what THEY know--from empirical science.
Roz said,
"Historically speaking, the region we now refer to as the "middle-east," or more specifically, "Palestine," was inhabited by various semitic tribes of polytheistic peoples as they spread out of the Mesopotamian region, some 10,000 years ago."
Here's a thought...
The question of original ownership is important. Can we go back further than a mere 10,000 years? 10,000 years is just a drop-in-the-bucket for those who embrace evolutionary ideas of reality and the time needed to explain everything through natural causes. For a culture that relies heavily (even exclusively) on empirical science 10,000 years is not logically helpful.
Anonymous said,
"There are plenty of times I have listened to a speaker I disagreed with. I did not have the right to shut them up. I had the choice to turn off the TV, walk out of the room, or listen. That is called freedom of speech."
Evangelizing through--linear rational discourse--can support free speech.
Those who claim to hold Christian ideas of reality and, yet, practice the principles poorly, do not prove or make it necessarily true that the principles, themselves are in fact, poor.
Forty-five words that changed the world:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I participated in the Courier-Journal's request that readers share how First Amendment protection impacts their life. My response follows:
The first amendment impacts my life because I am an evangelical Christian American citizen. As a Christian, I strive for peaceful existence with those who claim Christianity as their worldview, as well as those with competing truth claims. The first amendment’s freedoms allow free discussion about ideas of reality based upon historical, rational and logical evidence. It is not my emotions, my conviction, the raising of my voice, or the formal validation from the government that determines the truth of Christian claims. Some critics who enjoy first amendment freedoms would claim that my practice of evangelism infringes upon their rights. This is not the case. Critics mistakenly understand Christian teachings as saying that one’s eternal fate is determined by the choice to not believe in Jesus and therefore become irritated by evangelicals. But in the Judeo-Christian teachings, it has always been taught that one’s sin determines one’s eternal fate. Sin and evil are unpopular topics, but they are real problems. God gave us free will therefore making good and bad choices possible. It is mankind and its government that choose to make good and bad choices real. Sin and evil cannot be addressed by science in a test tube and are best managed on the battlefield of ideas. Because of American first amendment freedoms, the American battlefield of ideas is protected. Ideas regarding emotionally charged topics surrounding the human predicament, like sin, evil and death can be examined with one’s heart and mind.
I welcome your comments for discussion--rational, linear discussion.
Unless I am mistaken, Apolo-ener-getic would be Mrs. Healthblogger. I can’t tell for sure through all these ramblings, but could there be theological dissension in the Healthblogger household?
Apolo-ener-getic (Mrs. Healthblogger) wrote:
“Critics mistakenly understand Christian teachings as saying that one’s eternal fate is determined by the choice to not believe in Jesus and therefore become irritated by evangelicals. But in the Judeo-Christian teachings, it has always been taught that one’s sin determines one’s eternal fate.”
In a separate posting, Mr. Healthblogger wrote:
“Christians want every individual to “hear the Word” and by doing so, we know that many people will believe. These evangelicals know that not all will believe because of free-will and they accept and believe that some of these very good people will not enter Heaven for eternity because of their personal choice.”
So just how does a Healthblogger seek salvation? Through faith alone or through one’s behavior? It is just so hard to know which "absoute truth" to believe.
Anonymous said,
"So just how does a Healthblogger seek salvation? Through faith alone or through one’s behavior? It is just so hard to know which "absolute truth" to believe."
First, I want to clarify your question of “which absolute truth”. Absolute truth has to do with the source of the truth, not numerically—one--truth. It refers to non-subjective truth of divine origin.
Admittedly, my statements could be understood to contradict the most familiar evangelical verbiage. As the late respected C.S. Lewis said, “If Christianity was something we were making up; of course we could make it easier. But it is not. We cannot compete, in simplicity, with people who are inventing religions. How could we? We are dealing with fact. Of course anyone can be simple if he has no facts to bother about.”
Sin is a fact most won’t or don’t bother about.
It is not the case that lack of faith in Christ is the original or REAL reason one would spend eternity apart from God. God gave mankind free-will. God made evil possible--God did not necessarily create sin and evil, although he is often held responsible for the presence of both. Sin and evil became real, after mankind’s fall from the Garden of Eden.
Healthblogger and I agree there is a solution to the cause of eternal separation from the Creator. The solution is salvation from/of God through faith in the calories (work) of Christ. Salvation is DIVINELY simple, but HUMANLY complicated.
The state of separation comes before the person hears the name of Jesus, because sin comes first. Salvation is from/of God. Sinners need salvation from/of God. If one does not acknowledge sin, then one does not acknowledge a solution for sin—the calories of Jesus.
As evangelicals, it is both Healthblogger's and my passion to engage in rational linear discourse, and perhaps be used by God, in his affecting his plan of salvation. We are just messengers—not the source of the message.
So, for the empirically-minded, if faith could be shown to take--calories--then perhaps faith could be considered a sort of "work", Some would accuse those who profess having faith in Christ, as choosing to be sort of like “intellectual couch-potatoes” in the real world of empirical science. This is explained by a materialistic bias and the subsequent denial of a supernatural realm and non-material substances, like conscious mental states. This denial makes discussing issues of faith cumbersome.
Fascinating! I never knew that someone could write in "tongues."
Practice your faith. Preach, if you must. Do not force your faith on others.
I am not naive enough to believe that simple thought can solve every religous vs. secular situation but it can solve many.
Medrep says,
"I think you guys are hearing the wrong message."
Could you clarify if you mean hearing empirically with our ears and processing it in our brain, or are you including intuitive hearing also--like a sort of hearing with the heart and head unseparated by reliance on empirical science methodology?
Also, I would be interested in what you have to offer as the right message?
Anonymous says,
"Fascinating! I never knew that someone could write in "tongues."
Ahhhh comic relief. In topics like these, it is good to laugh together. :)
Laughing "together"? Might want to work on your intuitive listening.
Anonymous said...
Laughing "together"? Might want to work on your intuitive listening.
You are correct, I did read a good-willed spirit in your comment. My mistake. Here's a warning, I might make the mistake again, but just you keep redirecting me as you need to. :)
My Dearest Apolo-ener-getic,
Firstly, that is a very cool blog-name!
"Historically speaking, the region we now refer to as the "middle-east," or more specifically, "Palestine," was inhabited by various semitic tribes of polytheistic peoples as they spread out of the Mesopotamian region, some 10,000 years ago."
The above statement is accurate based on the archaeological and anthropological evidence that we have.
More importantly, however, was/is the historical (written) evidence that first began to appear in ancient Mesopotamia. Prior to that (c.10,000-8000 BC), man did not "write," as we know it. That is why I picked 10,000 BC to begin. It is from that time that we KNOW what ethnic groups began to inhabit the mid-east region.
Other than that, take from it what you will.
Medrep said,
"I think the Christian message of forgiveness and helping others that are less fortunate is being compromised by evangelical Christianity and the Republican party. As Rev. Gregory A. Boyd stated so well in last Sunday CJ, The Church needs to steer away from politics, glorification of the military, sexual moralizing and American nationalism. To me the wrong message to hear in church is one that is more political than spiritual."
In the article I wrote to the C-J my intent was to show appreciation for first amendment freedoms, not to associate the above topics too closely with God's plan of salvation through his church.
Could you tell me why evangelical Christians and the Republican party are compromising the message of forgiveness and helping others? I am not sure exactly what you are referring to.
I have read and enjoyed one of Rev. Boyd's books called "Letters from a Skeptic". I read the article in the C-J and understood the main point he was making just as you explain it above.
One reason I would not support Boyd's stance is because adopting it would mean I would have to live an inconsistent and compartmentalized life. My life would not be lived in truth and love--just love. Please don't misunderstand me as though I am denying "love". I want to love others and be loved by others. Yet, truth matters. I don't plan to "check my brain at the door of life". My ideas of reality determine what I value. What I value determines my behavior. It is illogical to separate truth, values, and behavior if one wants to live a consistent life.
In the C-J article regarding Boyd, the last paragraph quotes Boyd as saying, "I don't think there's a particular angle we have on society that others lack. All good, decent people want good and order and justice, Just don't slap the label 'Christian' on it."
I can agree with Boyd's statement in the sense that the angle we have should not be explained or understood as from those who claim to be Christian.
Roz said,
"that is a very cool blog-name!"
Thanks Roz,
And please know that I never questioned the integrity of your facts. My response was generated from an interest in epistemology and issues that affect how one knows and receives truth claims. May I call on you, if I have some history questions this semester for a class I am taking?
Wow! Great Comments! Apolo-ener-getic is spicing things up. She adds fun and intellectual discussion to the blog.
I will admit, I have to read some of her comments twice to determine what she means.
I liked the comment about writing in "tongues." Apolo-ener-getic, I agree with you on the comic relief. I thought it was funny.:)
To Apolo-ener-getic,
Of course you can call on me...what course are you taking & who's teaching it?
To Med Rep and All:
I have taken no offense from any comments made on this blog, and I enjoy the Med Rep's partipation.
Dr Dan, his family and I have been friends for many years now and I count myself lucky for that. They are people of integrity and even though we don't agree on everything (as you have seen) our friendship will outlast this thread, this blog and our earthly lives, I'm sure.
No offense meant from me either...just discussion. I think blogging is great...it gets us all thinking!
Medrep,
Respectfully, I need time to understand how you relate patriotic expression as compromising the message of forgiveness and helping others. I honestly don't get it, but will spend some time considering your case.
I regret that you view HB and I as arrogant. I would agree you are on a different side of the issue as bluegill pointed out early in the discussion, but disaggreement is not necessarily, arrogance.
One reason I fear for the integrity of the Western Culture is it's resistance towards both holding a conviction and those that hold a conviction. The earliest Christians' didn't go to their death because they thought that MAYBE Christ rose from the dead. They went to their death because they KNEW Christ rose from the dead.
I'll let HB answer your response related to the moon controversy, I am challenged enough with the many forces and motions on the earth :)
Have a great weekend, I'll try to catch up later.
It has certainly been an above average intellectual thread and it is a shame that it had to end with name calling by the anonymous medrep.
Knowledge, intelligence, challenging ideas seem to ruffle some feathers as we have seen here. It also occured in the Board Room at Floyd and threatened the status quo of the ever-controlling administration.
It's healthy and helps everyone improve. I have no regrets.
I concur with roz tate. We have been friends since high school and he has probably forgotten more history than I'll ever know. There is no disrespect in my comments and I will always value his friendship. We are both mature enough to be able to disagree, yet remain friends.
medrep's conclusions based on narrow and poorly informed viewpoints are one reason we continue to see bitterness when certain ideas are challenged. Reminds me more and more of my years on the Board and trying to work with the CEO.
Thanks Roz,
It is called Historical Theology Survey. The objective of the class is to provide a basic introduction to the development of the Christian church from its founding at Pentecost to the present day.
The coordinating Professor is Clay Jones, D.Min and the Lecturing Professor is Garth M. Rosell, Ph.D.
I know Dr. Jones, but am not familiar with Dr. Rosell. It is one of two classes that will complete my earning a masters degree in Christian apologetics. Hence, my choice of blog name. I have spent the past three years working towards improving my ability to participate in rational linear discourse regarding the Christian worldview and many competing worldviews.
I am not offended by medrep. I appreciate the time & energy given by those that are opposed to my views. Christian apologetics is NOT about winning arguments, it is aimed at having a place in intellectual discussions.
Have a great weekend.
HB: If you want to know why you strike people as arrogant, I can't think of a better example than your last posting which included:
"medrep's conclusions based on narrow and poorly informed viewpoints."
The idea that anyone who disagrees with you must be "narrow and poorly informed" is a continuing theme in your postings. Of course, when you consider yourself an instrument of God, I guess you have trouble seeing seeing value in other points of view.
anonymous,
Thomas Jefferson once wrote:
"A coward is much more exposed to quarrels than a man of spirit."
I've continually allowed anonymous comments as well as anonymous attacks on my character. I welcome differing opinions and have always been willing to work through compromises. Others would rather hide and make blind attacks.
George Bernard Shaw said:
"Hatred is the coward's revenge for being intimidated."
You may not like me, but the readers should at least have the opportunity to know who you are and how you come to your conclusions or would the identity of the anonymous attackers validate much of what is written.
OK...All you Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buhdists, Pagans, Druids, Deists, Athiests, Circle-Worshipers and all other bloggers her with us today:
Give me an "AMEN" if this is the longest/wildest thread you've seen in a while!
Medrep says,
"As strongly as you believe in Jesus, I believe in the separation of church and state...If I would have stooped to name calling, I would have used, kook...Isn't it cool, to use medical terms to make us seem intelligent and superior."
Believing in the life,work, teaching and power of Jesus is empirically easier than believing in an unintended spin-off of the first amendment referred to as separation of church and state to the degree it is used to mean--one shouldn't think that truth can be found, and if the truth is found to ACT upon it.
This is a distortion of the definition of church to mean no more than a building or gathering of persons void of specifically related and embraced ideas of reality, including supernatural reality.
What merits the label "kook"? HB's conviction and stand for available supernatural truth claims in historically reliable scripture? Truth claims that if compared side-by-side with the competition are superior--Divine?
I think it is more cool to use medical terms to seem, as you would say, "superior", than it is cool to deny the existence of a personal and loving God who has acted in history and God's actions having consequent implications upon one's life, to be--superior.
So, respectfully, you are correct, I will never understand that definition of church and state.
AMEN, Zionism has spurred some very moral issues--it must be, therefore, moral.
Post a Comment
<< Home