Theological Opinions , PART II

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

To a degree, yes. Somethings we can objectively say are right and wrong, for example, murder is wrong. All humanity agrees on that, by which I mean all societies that make up humanity all agree murder is wrong.

Good you make that distinction, because it's plain that many murderers don't agree with you . But isn't there something rather flawed in the logic that, "everyone thinks so, so it is so." And how does everyone thinking it is true (assuming for a moment that they do, though I disagree) make it objective? Doesn't that still leave it in the realm of subjectivity?

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

We don't agree on what constitutes murder, and how a murderer should be punished, but we do agree that it is wrong.

I think a lot of people living in Darfur right now would disagree. And a lot of people living in France at the time of the French Revolution. Murder has sometimes been completely acceptable in certain parts of society, like poverty-stricken areas, places with gangs and such.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

The subjective aspects would be the aspects that one group or individual believes to be wrong for logical reasons, for example, because it's against their religion, but other groups do not believe to be wrong (also for good reason).

This is strange, to me. I would think that these would be the least subjective parts of morality. If people have reasons, perhaps evidence, and logic as to what is right or wrong, then isn't that objective rather than subjective?

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Obviously my own definition falls into the subjective category, but that's the gist of what I believe about rightness and wrongness.

Thanks for sharing it .

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

What could possibly be worse than slavery? Equally evil, yes, but worse? I can't imagine anything more horrible than slavery.

I'd say death. People who are enslaved can commit suicide (if they think it's ethical), so they have a choice. People who are killed have no choice.

Torture might also be worse.

But the question is kind of relative, for it partly depends on how horrible the slavery conditions are.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

That really damages my faith in the Bible. Well, I have plenty of faith in the Bible, but not that much in the people translating it. I have very little confidence that we didn't screw it up somehow.

I don't know what you and Gwaimir were just talking about which drew this response from you, but this response of yours relates strongly to the problem I have with religious liberalism. That problem is this:

Hold it, before I go into the problem, I have one other little comment. There are translations of the New Testament that date from the third and fourth centuries AD. There is a massive number of books of the Bible that date from very close to the time it was written. Those books have only miniscule variations between them. Modern Bible translations can be checked back against these ancient Greek texts. Also, the New Testament is one of the most solidly backed ancient historical records. So there is a lot of evidence that the Bible is handed down to us currently in about its original form. There are going to be a few small translation differences, but no big ones at all.

Now about my problem with religious liberalism:

Your response to Gwaimir's point indicates that you have your own personal standards of morality which for you supersede the Bible's standard of morality. In other words, you trust yourself more than you trust the Bible, and if you and the Bible conflict on something, your views trump the scripture.

Yet human views of morality are very relative. They change from culture to culture and person to person. How are we to know that we personally are correct? It could just as well be some atheist who says morality is a purely human construct, humans are without intrinsic value, everything is meaningless and there is no good or bad, right or wrong, righteousness or wickedness. So if the values we are to rely on come from humans, anyone might be right-Stalin might have been right in starving millions of his people to death for the sake of getting his economy industrialized-who's to say?

If morality is from humanity, it is purely relative. Amorality is the natural result of this, for if morality is relative, all value systems are equal, and as Rana puts it, equally invalid. A verrry scary and dark world is all that's left as the natural consequence of relativism and liberalism, and in it, the only rational conclusion is despair.

So think twice before putting faith in your own judgment higher than faith in the Bible . In doing so, you sever the only lifeline that is left to us.

For right and wrong are not human ideas, and all is not relative. If it comes from humans, or if it comes from God but the Word of God is partly doubtable and hence our views still come down to having their final basis in our own judgment, all moral ideas are equally (in)valid and thus life on Planet Earth is a twisted horror story.

We have to rely on God's Word before we believe ourselves, or all is meaningless. And when he can, God makes clear to us what is right when we won't accept it initially because our own beliefs and biases differ. He makes the true interpretation of his Word clear to his followers through the Counselor he gave us, the Holy Spirit, who gives us true interpretation of God's Word. And listening to the Spirit give us interpretation is not about belief, but about a definite and sometimes astoundingly powerful experience that one knows is real. Just as real as things in the physical.