Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Dictatorship of Relativism
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 113 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 4 of 17 (463513)
04-17-2008 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Grizz
04-17-2008 7:43 PM


Grizz have you ever thought of taking up politics yourself, you sound just like one in all of your post. You never seem to take a position on anything, just kinda middle of the road on everything on and every topic.
The problem is this absolute code has never been completely defined in such a way that two parties will always apply it consistently.
And ofcourse this would make an absolute code and an supreme being and impossibility, because people cannot agree on things.
Most Christians will read the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" as "Thou shalt not murder".
People will then start asking more complex questions such as, "is it ok if innocent people die while trying to get at the guy that has it coming? When is it acceptable and when is it not?"
And ofcourse absolute right and wrong cannot exist because people will have different opinions. Tell me Grizz, is it wrong to cut off a mans hand when he steals something. Remembering that you are the absolute standard of right and wrong.
"Thou shalt not steal" - Is it morally acceptable to steal food if one is starving and has no recourse to any other option?
Well ofcourse it is if you are going to set yourself or someone else up as the standard.
The problem with a divine moral code such as the Ten Commandments is not its content or universality, as anyone can proclaim any arbitrary universal moral code. The problem is such a code will never include a specific universal blueprint detailing how it should be applied in various situations. We are never given any information as to what conditions, if any, will negate its absolute context and make it morally(?) acceptable for the code to be broken.
The blueprint you request is contained in the same book that gives the commandments themselves. Are there not details in the levitical law that distinquish between accidental death and murder, etc. Further, Why would there be conditions to break an absolute law given to man by God?
grizz rewrites the fifth commandment.
"Taking innocent life is wrong, but it is sometimes OK to kill people as long as they have it coming, or if they are in the way of the guy that has it coming. I will let you be the judge on this. Try to do your best and its not your fault if you make the wrong choice."
Except for a couple of things here, you pretty much set out what is already in the scriptures, explained in the rest of the texts.
grizz, you remind me of Dathan in the Bible. No matter what he saw, no matter what God did through Moses he was always complaining, always the NAY SAYER.
See ya,
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Grizz, posted 04-17-2008 7:43 PM Grizz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Grizz, posted 04-17-2008 9:12 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 7 by Blue Jay, posted 04-17-2008 9:38 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 113 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 6 of 17 (463523)
04-17-2008 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Grizz
04-17-2008 9:12 PM


Then it would never be morally acceptable to steal food, even when the option would be starvation and death? When dealing with absolutes, either stealing is always wrong or it is always right. If it is conditional, then it is not absolute.
You are ABSOLUTLEY correct here. But God does not judge us anymore on the Law that condemes, because no one could be justified by it because no one except Christ kept it fully. We are under Grace now, while still trying to keep Gods laws. Its Gods absolute law buffered by the grace of Christ.
Thanks
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Grizz, posted 04-17-2008 9:12 PM Grizz has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 113 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 9 of 17 (463609)
04-18-2008 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Blue Jay
04-17-2008 9:38 PM


Bluejay writes
Because, for example, God said "thou shalt not kill" in Exodus, then later, in Leviticus, felt it necessary to distinguish between cases when killing was wrong and when it wasn't, as you just said the sentence before.
Bluejay, respectfully, I think it is ironic you accuse me of mutilating some point of Grizz, when it appears you understood most to nothing of what I was saying. I am busy on another thread, but I will get back to this.
Thanks
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Blue Jay, posted 04-17-2008 9:38 PM Blue Jay 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