Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - God exists or not

In response to Absolutely--Absolutes Exist. posted by pink101:

Pink, I think Wendell gets it. He's just as cooperative as you'd like in responding to your specific questions. In this case, I think I understand where YOU are coming from. Still, this latest question of his is worthy of an answer, methinks.

The reality of God is an either/or truth proposition, it seems. One with tremendous ramifications.

» Brian Tubbs - Morality is Cultural

In response to Are there MORAL absolutes? posted by pink101:

Okay, believe it or not, I partly agree with you. Wendell may even be surprised to read that from me.

Cultures and societies DO, in the course of their development, establish certain mores. This is very true, and I think the Apostle Paul teaches us (Romans 13:7) that we should respect the culture of the society within which we live.

However, are there MORAL ABSOLUTES that can and should cut across cultural lines?

If we LIMIT morality to simply a matter of cultural evolution, then we are basically buying into a worldview of moral relativism - not INDIVIDUAL relativism but group relativism.

It seems to me that, if there is a Creator-God, He might have something to say about that, and His authority WOULD extend across cultural lines.

» pink101 - God exists or not

In response to God exists or not posted by BrianTubbs:

.
Naw, Wendell is wrong. That's all there is to that.
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - Morality is Cultural

In response to Morality is Cultural posted by BrianTubbs:

.
Well, now you get to understand the value of secularism in society.
.
If you believe as you say you do, it would be interesting to see how you would react had you been born into and brought up in a Muslim dominated culture.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Morality is Cultural

In response to Morality is Cultural posted by pink101:

Were I born into a Muslim culture, I probably would have been raised a Muslim. This doesn't speak to the possibility of objective truth, however, when it comes to religion. Either Christianity is true or it is not. Same with Islam.

And, keep in mind, that I'm only in partial agreement with you. I believe cultures influence morality and that each society does - to a great extent - determine its mores. That, however, can't be the end of it. If we're going to leave the concepts of Right and Wrong, Truth and Falsehood simply up to cultural relativism, then we are in serious trouble.

» _Boanerges_ - Morality is Cultural

However, are there MORAL ABSOLUTES that can and should cut across cultural lines?

yes!... 3 are: Rape, Theft and Murder.....

The rapist does not want to be raped.... There is no honor among thieves.. pretty much solves that one... No one wants to be murdered.....

The bible has much to say about law, what is moral, and how it is written... It was written in the Mosaic law, in tablets of stone.. Then.. with the advent of the New Covenant, it was written upon the hearts of man......

Romans 2:15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» pink101 - Morality is Cultural

In response to Morality is Cultural posted by _Boanerges_:
.
Sorry, Wendell, you are a know nothing.
.
But, I still like ya.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Romans 2:15

In response to Morality is Cultural posted by pink101:

Wendell references a very appropriate verse. Romans 2:15 does bear on this discussion.

» pink101 - Romans 2:15

In response to Romans 2:15 posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Wendell's reference is not relative to the idea that Absolutes Must Exist. As usual he is irrelevant. His posts are generally nothing but nonsense.
.

.
Does this kind of retort sound familiar?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Natural Law

In response to Morality is Cultural posted by pink101:
.
I thought you might like this article, if you haven't read it before:
.
The Non-Absurdity of Natural Law
From The Freeman, February 1998, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp.108-111
by Wendy McElroy
http://www.wendymcelroy.com/natlaw.htm
.
Snippets:
.
..."This more flexible version of Natural Law does not extend its theory to include animals other than human beings. It makes no comment on "the many species [that] cannot preserve their own life except by killing others."(3) It comments only on human nature, and its commentary assumes that as human beings interact some concept of right and wrong inevitably evolves.
.
"This contention is based partly on history. Even the most primitive of human cultures evolve[d] some standard of right and wrong behavior. Although "Thou shalt not kill" may not be writ in Nature, prohibitions against murder seem to be included within every society. In other words, one of the few points on which all societies agree is that the killing of another human being is presumed to be wrong unless somehow justified, e.g. as an act of self defense, as an act of patriotism in wartime, as a racist measure to preserve the purity of the blood. Equally, some concept of right and wrong seems to evolve naturally within the psychology of individuals. Even when you are a child, if someone comes up and hits you for no reason, one of your automatic reactions is to think 'he shouldn't have done that.' You feel wronged. This childlike response may be crude and perhaps merely an emotional one. But it shows that considering the right and wrong of actions is, on some level, a human response to circumstances.
.
"In its simplest statement, then, the more flexible form of Natural Law sketched above is an attempt to ground human values in the facts of reality and of human nature. In other words, given what we know about reality and what we know about human nature is it possible to reason out a code of behavior that maximizes man's well being?...
.
"Return to the issue of whether a peaceful society promotes human happiness more than a Hobbesian one. Answering this question requires you to have a theory of how society relates to human happiness, thus making a social life preferable to dwelling alone on a desert island. After all, a desert island offers absolutely unbridled individual freedom. In society, there is always the threat of violence. Why associate with people and run such a risk?
.
"The answer is clear: because association offers tremendous benefits, including friendship, expanded knowledge, a division of labor, and romantic love. Society can maximize your choices if only because many of your decisions, and some of the most important ones, require the presence of other people, e.g. the decision to have a child. Yet you can imagine a society from which you would gladly flee into solitude -- for example, a plantation community in which you were a field slave. To the extent that a society relies on force, to that extent it minimizes choices and becomes a disadvantage. Seen through this lens, rights set a peaceful context which maximizes choice and, thus, maximizes the chances of individuals attaining happiness within society.
.
"The political significance of grounding values in fact is immense. For one thing, it allows people to use Natural Law as a standard by which to judge the justice of the law of the land (positive law), or of the ruler, or of God..." (end)

-- posted by Migisi