Re: [asa] Creationists for genocide

From: Christine Smith <christine_mb_smith@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun Aug 26 2007 - 01:08:26 EDT

Pim writes:
"That we may
disagree with Luther merely shows how Heard and Avalos
may have a
strong argument that individuals get to define what is
moral and
immoral or just and unjust. If religion lacks a way to
distinguish
between to two then how can a biblical foundation for
morality be
justified. Unless perhaps such a morality is inherent
in us all, based
on a foundation linked with evolutionary history.
Absolute morality
may very well exist, but I doubt that we as Christians
will ever be
exposed to its full extent during our life time. At
best we can try,
based on often confusing examples, to do our best."

I think we need to be clear about what is meant by
"relativistic morality" in this context--the term
could be used to describe that 1) there is no real
"right or wrong" in life, and that therefore, "right
or wrong" is whatever we as individuals define it to
be or 2) that what is moral depends upon (is relative
to) the situation/question being addressed. I believe
that #1 runs counter to Biblical teachings, but that
#2 does not--moreover, I think perhaps the reason
people become confused about morality while reading
the Bible is precisely because #2 is true--expecting
the Bible to teach "X is wrong and Y is right", they
are instead confronted with and perplexed by "well, X
was right when the Israelites were faced with this
situation, but not right when they were faced with
that one." and "well, X was given as a law previously,
but really, X is not the ideal--it was just a stepping
stone to bring us to this greater ideal of Y". Indeed,
I think this complexity testifies not against the
Bible, but for it, because it is an accurate
reflection of the fact that we do not live in a black
& white world, and that what is "right" in God's eyes
will not be black & white either. Moreover, this
complexity also makes the Bible a "living document" in
the same sense that the Constitution is said to be a
living document, in that it provides a framework
(combined with your own reason & interpretation) for
making judgments in the future about specific
situations never faced by the original authors.

In the sense that God is the ONLY One who knows THE
truth (IOW: what REALLY is right and wrong), then I
concur with Pim that Christians (or anyone else) will
never know it in its entirety. Yet, I also believe
(and I hope everyone else would as well) that
Bible-based truths bring us closer to the truth then
other systems of ethics, whether they be Greek
philosophy, Buddism, or evolutionary-based ethics,
because the Bible points towards and reveals God
through history, particularly in the incarnation of
Jesus Christ. This is not to say that these other
systems of ethics have no value or do not contain a
portion of God's truth in the world; instead, these
other systems simply do not reveal God's truth as well
or to as great an extent as Christianity.

In Christ,
Christine

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Aug 26 01:09:17 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Aug 26 2007 - 01:09:17 EDT