1

The fact that scaryvangelicals can find "live and let live" objectionable worries a lot of the rest of us.

Do you have no doubts about any of your moral beliefs? Can you accept the possibility that you, a falible mere moral, might be wrong on a moral issue from time to time?

I believe there are moral absolutes, but don't consider myself absolutely right and incapable of error.

2

This analysis shows why Catholics and Evangelicals must unite in support of Mel Gibson's film, The Passion of Christ. We need to evangelize throught their medium when possible.

3

You bet it worries you Scott...that's a "lefty" thing. Lot easier to worrey and be concerned than it is to actually THINK about an issue.

4

No conservative ever worries? That's news.

5

Hey Scott,

With your doubts about the ability to possesses knowledge about truth or morality it’s a wonder that you can believe anything at all.

6

Sorry if accepting my own limitations bothers you.

7

Scott,

Actually, I'm serious. I'm rather curious on how you determine what can be known and what can't. How do you keep from falling into the regress of radical skepticism?

8

Scott,

We "scaryvangelicals" do indeed realize our own limitations--and that's what's really scary. We realize that left on our own, we will ultimately fail--and take others with us in our failure. That's why "live and let live" inevitably morphs into "live and let die."

Sure enough, we are fallible and may indeed be wrong, but this shouldn't preclude us from recognizing and setting moral standards--unless you want barbarians ransacking and pillaging your home just because they thought it was right to do so.

9

Scott,
I *DO* have doubts and worry that I may be wrong. That's why I look to God's word on these things, because I know and beleive in His perfection. I am fallible, God is not. If His word says such and such is right or wrong, then so it must be, whether I like the answer or not. To beleive in no absolute is to be without anchor or appeal. If I don't beleive in anything then, by default, everything must be equally valid. If there is no ultimate authority then all views are correct. As a human being I cannot be the ultimate authority for myself or anyone else for the very reason that I might be wrong. God, however, is the Creator. He *IS* the ultimate authority. If I follow and teach His word then I can be confident. Not in myself, but in Him. God alone is perfect.

10

I *DO* have doubts and worry that I may be wrong. That's why I look to God's word on these things, because I know and beleive in His perfection.

Its not a given that you are interpreting every verse correctly, or that every verse is equally applicable (i.e. I eat bacon despite the dietary laws in the OT). Do you take "slaves obey your masters" as a literal defense of slavery? Do you take the conquest of Canaan as a literal defense of genocide being OK sometimes?

Sure enough, we are fallible and may indeed be wrong, but this shouldn't preclude us from recognizing and setting moral standards--unless you want barbarians ransacking and pillaging your home just because they thought it was right to do so.

I also don't want the DEA ransacking and pillaging people's homes (ever hear of asset forfeiture?) because of the moral certanity of some evangelicals that some drugs are bad enough to call the cops, but others (like, say, beer) aren't. I don't know where you stand on that issue (and don't intend to put words in your mouth), but many in the Religious Right support the War on Some Drugs. There's enough moral consensus on pillaging someone else's home for that to already be illegal.

11

Scott,

Of course, not every verse is equally applicable, as shown in your example that OT dietary laws are no longer applicable (I, too, love bacon, so I'm glad theyre' not!). And yes, I certainly might make mistakes in my interpretation, so I am always open to re-examining issues in light of other's arguments (I ask only that they extend the same curtesy to my arguments).

That being said, most of God's word is pretty straight forward. The command for slaves to obey their masters is nuetral on whether slavery is moral or not, it is not nuetral on the subject of submission to authority as long as that authority does not conflict with God's law. I do not believe that a owning a slave is an example of Christ's desire for his disciples to love their neighbor as themselves. On the other hand, any Christian who is made a slave is under obligation to submit and obey their master. As for the conquest of Canaan, does this justify genocide under certain circumstances? Absolutely, as long as those circumstances are "God commands it". (I hear the screams and howls already!) I'm sorry, but that flows naturally from my belief in God as the ultimate authority in all things. I am much comforted by the fact that my God is a God of both justice *AND* mercy. The bible tells us that the genocide was not a result of the Israelites need for land, but rather a punishment for the conquered nations ungodliness.

These are, of course, extreme examples which flow from my beliefs. Far more common are the simple ones which are explicitly stated in scripture; murder is wrong (not all killing is murder), adultery is wrong, worshipping something other than God is wrong (idols, bank balances, etc.), lying- wrong, stealing - wrong. These things are wrong, not because I have judged them wrong but because God has said they are wrong. Always. Everywhere.

Your argument on drugs and property seizures is a straw man. I can certainly agree that the use of property forfeiture is stupid and wrong in most cases. That does not mean that crack should be sold at the local supermarket. Decide which you want to argue, drugs or property seizure. Don't try to argue one and transfer the results to the other.

As a Christian, however, I am required to submit to my government in all areas that don't conflict with God. If the government says that certain drugs are illegal, then I should not take them. If the govenment says pay taxes, I should pay them. I don't have to like it, but I do have to submit and do it.

12

The command for slaves to obey their masters is nuetral on whether slavery is moral or not,

So slavery doesn't violate your Bible-based moral absolutes?

Absolutely, as long as those circumstances are "God commands it".

Which humans do you trust to say whether God commands it in the future?

adultery is wrong

I agree, but do you want that enforced by criminal law, or do you think that, while its immoral, maybe that's something that falible humans shouldn't enforce w/ threats of prison?

Your argument on drugs and property seizures is a straw man.

No, it isn't. Its what some people's "absolute morality" leads to. Property seizure is part of the drug laws.

13

Forgive me for not making myself understood. Let me try again.

1. Is slavery morally wrong? I don't know. On the one hand, God certainly made provisions for it in the OT and did not condem it in the NT (even though there was plenty of opportunity to do so). On the other hand, I personally find slavery morally repugnant. So faced with slavery what would I do? I would certainly work to abolish it, although I could not teach that God condemned it and that it was wrong in the eyes of God. Again, God is the final authority, I am not. (And I could be wrong about slavery, convince me!).

2. I don't trust anyone to tell me what God says in His word, although I am willing to listen and weigh what others have to say. I believe that scripture (the bible) is complete and that the next direct revelation from God to man will be the second coming of Christ. I am, therefore, not too concerned about someone telling me they have a revelation from God that we should kill all Canadians (not picking on anyone, it just came to mind). Such a revelation would be counter to what the bible says of itself.

3. Civil enforcement of moral laws? Tough one. As an American I shout runnning and screaming from the idea. As a Christian, God hold's nations as well as individuals accountable to Him. I don't know (or maybe I don't want to admit the obvious conclusion to myself) what to do with this one. I need thought, discussion and prayer. I'm not perfect, the things I know could fill a small thimble; the things I don't know an ocean. I'm still growing.

4. If its the law of the land and not contrary to God's law, then we must submit, even if we don't like it or think its a really stupid law. I thank God that we live in a land where we can change those laws through a democratic process.

And finally, as a Christian I'm not going to force my beliefs on anyone, although I won't be quiet about them either. Because we live in a democracy, Christians can and do vote to enact certain laws, laws they tend to believe are in line with God's word. I ask you how this is any different than non-christian groups doing the same thing to promote their cause or agenda.

Finally, why can a group be allowed to tell me that I cannot voluntarily lead a prayer and others voluntarily listen and still others decide not to attend (voluntarily) just because it happens to be on public school property? Certainly evengelical Christians have some who try to force their absolutist views down others through through legal versus, well, evangelistic, means. Don't try to tell me that other groups don't do the same thing. Doesn't make it right, but it happens.

14

Scott:

It's good to know that I'm not alone here. Just greatly outnumbered. Keep the (lack of) faith. :)

15

tgirsch, you haven't proven your assertion that you're not alone here. :-) :-)

16

Scott:

:))

All:

For the record: What color are my morals? Gray. And I submit that's the same "color" as everyone else's morals.

Frankly, I find the statistics cited to be less than convincing. Social Conservatives (defined here as people with "absolute" moral values) tend to vote conservative. Duh!

For one thing, I think the study approaches these questions from exactly the wrong side. As an example, rather than saying "what percentage of voters in blue states are single," the better question might be "what percentage of single people vote blue/red?"

The gaping flaw in the study is that it talks about the demographics people in "red states" versus people in "blue states," while ignoring the fact that those states are not uniformly blue or red. Example: Oregon is listed as a "blue state." Have you been to Oregon? Virtually everyone in the state outside of Portland is in the process of forming a militia! OK, that's not entirely fair, but you get my point. Meanwhile, Ohio is listed as a "red state," but Cleveland sure as hell isn't "red" by any stretch.

Lumping such people together by what state they live in is a remarkably poor comparison. As it is, you don't even know how those demographics actually voted! A gun owner in a blue state is probably a red voter, but in this study, he gets lumped under "blue."

Sorry for the rant, but you'll find that bogus use of statistics is one of my biggest pet peeves. You can't just throw up a bunch of numbers and say that they're somehow related. You have to be able to mount a more convincing argument than that. And always bear in mind that correlation does not necessarily imply causation.

17

Anyone who seeks to understand any verse on slavery in the Bible from simply the pre-Civil War American version is making a mistake.

I recommend the following:

1) Study the role of slavery in the Roman Empire in which the entire New Testament was written and initially circulated

2) Study the institution of slavery worldwide (to the present day in some nations) and keep in mind the Bible was written for all people in all lands.

3) Remind yourself that America DID eliminate slavery, in large part due to the efforts of many Christians. In fact, look for any slavery today in a country that has experienced a strong Biblical Christian presence.

And then think that maybe God knew what He was doing. In other words, slavery (the pre-Civil War kind) is incompatible with the gospel. If the message was "slaves, murder your masters while they sleep and gain your freedom" ask yourself how far the gospel would have developed and advanced.

The gospel message is ALWAYS about service and submission in this life. Hence verses like the freeman is actually the Lord's slave..(and the earthly slave is actually free in the Lord).

18

1) Study the role of slavery in the Roman Empire in which the entire New Testament was written and initially circulated

2) Study the institution of slavery worldwide (to the present day in some nations) and keep in mind the Bible was written for all people in all lands.

Give it up, evangelical. You make it sound like Christians were the only evil slaveowners and the others did it the 'moral' way (i.e. the pagan Roman slaveowners evidently weren't so bad).

Christians eliminated slavery because they didn't take their 'absolute' morality directly from the text of the New Testament, which was neutral on the subject.

19

Give it up, evangelical. You make it sound like Christians were the only evil slaveowners and the others did it the 'moral' way (i.e. the pagan Roman slaveowners evidently weren't so bad).

Christians eliminated slavery because they didn't take their 'absolute' morality directly from the text of the New Testament, which was neutral on the subject.