|
Post by valentine on Apr 7, 2006 17:25:33 GMT -5
wandertrekker and hopefulheart: Feel free to hunt me down for discussions. I'm quite friendly and have been told that I am fairly interesting to talk to. My AIM screen name is in my profile. I am certain that I could learn from you as well. I believe there's something to learn from everyone, even if it's simply a revelation about who I'm not.
Rev K, I am here to change no minds. I'm here to present facts, so when you reject them, as I know you will, it will be out in the open for everyone to see exactly what you are denying. And, though it may surprise you, I am actually also here to discuss and to learn...though thusfar, I seem to be getting the same decidedly unhelpful message over and over from the administration here. Unlike some members here, I am not afraid of what I do not understand, and am not at all adverse to learning about it.
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 7, 2006 17:56:42 GMT -5
RevK, I apologize for the misunderstanding, but I think valentine said everything that I need to say. I'm sorry to hear that you have closed your mind to all but scripture. To me, that says you think that God has stopped speaking (because he said all he had to say in the Bible). I think you can find the footprints of God everywhere and I must remind you that his image is in ALL of us. I have also discovered over time that regardless of whether anyone is listening, you can gain much insight (about yourself, about the world) just by speaking what needs to be spoken.
As to knowledge of the other men on this message board, I cannot speak, but there are others who might benefit from an open discussion. My motive here is not to convince anyone of absolute truth or to change anyone's mind. My purpose here is to gain greater understanding of other children of God. I suppose by your suggestion that I leave this message board, that its only purpose is to re-enforce the stuff you already believe. There is no room for disagreement. I see no reason to leave. Thanks for the suggestion though, but I don't see this as a waste of my time.
And I don't think we will find out in the end who is wrong, and I don't care. If I live my life in the hopes of validation or the fear of being incorrect, then my life will be marred by fear, my worldview warped. We are called to live a life of compassion, and there is no room in compassion for name calling or hopes of being right at the other person's expense.
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 7, 2006 18:13:04 GMT -5
Thanks ^_^
I didn't read everything posted since my last reply, so I may have missed a comment from someone. Sorry if I did.. I just have a lot of work to do and I can't sit here and read through pages and pages of responses. But I skimmed over it some. I really like some of the things you're both saying Hopeful and WanderingTrekker, and more importantly your attitudes toward those different from you. You seem open-minded and respectful to people's feelings and beliefs, and I appreciate that greatly.
|
|
|
Post by CidGregor on Apr 7, 2006 18:26:47 GMT -5
I'd also like to add something, on behalf of Valentine, whom I know outside this forum.
A few of you have quoted the Bible in your arguments against her, usuing it as evidence for your own views and calling in, quote, "The Word of God."
I'm here to tell you that is not completely true.
You see, the Bible was not written by God. The Bible was written by MEN, men who are themselves sinners, imperfect beings subject to their own personal biases and opinions and interpretations. Thus, the Bible is NOT completely free of bias, it is NOT the direct Word straight from the mouth of God., because it was written by men who harbor their own interpretations and biases regarding what THEY PERSONALLY THOUGHT the Word of God is/was.
This is why I agree with the comments about Bhudda on the previous page. You can't unquestioningly believe everything something or someone tells you, even if it's something as major as the Bible. At the risk of sounding corny.....you have to look within and discover the truth for yourself.
|
|
|
Post by CidGregor on Apr 7, 2006 18:28:57 GMT -5
edits: *using* and "calling *it*," my apologies.
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Apr 7, 2006 18:35:50 GMT -5
I haven't been following this thread, but the apostle Peter spoke about those that wrote the bible and he said that "holy men spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost". In other words, the Spirit of God moved these men to write what they wrote, using the persons own unique style to convey God's direct and perfect message!
The bible is the Word of the Living God. If you doubt that you can't be a Christian, it is fundamental!
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 7, 2006 18:37:03 GMT -5
Just as a college student uses a pen to write an essay, so God used man to write the bible.
The Holy Bible was written by holy men under the influence of the Holy Spirit, to tell us to live a holy life.
If the bible was written by sinful man, it would not condemn to hell-fire every single sin that there is. But because God is holy, He condemns all sin - especially homosexuality and lesbianism.
If you do not presuppose the Word of God, any and all your views are reductio ad absurdium - reduced to absurdity. The only self-attesting presupposition is the Word of God. Everyone has a presupposition, but not everyone has the right one.
Your presupposition is that the bible is not God's word. How do you know that it's not God's word? The real question is, how do you know anything at all? What test do you use, or what standard do you use to judge to determine what is truth and what is false, what is right and what is wrong? How do you know what you know?
|
|
|
Post by CidGregor on Apr 7, 2006 18:50:18 GMT -5
Your presupposition is that the bible is not God's word. How do you know that it's not God's word? How do you know it IS? What sort of test do YOU use? By what standard do YOU judge what's true and false, right and wrong? I'm not saying it's NOT God's Word, I'm saying it's not completely and unquestioningly so, simply because it was written by men, touched by God or not, and men are sinners. If you doubt that you can't be a Christian You assume incorrectly. I'll thank you NOT to assume things about me.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 7, 2006 18:52:57 GMT -5
I test everything by the Word of God. God's Word has more authority then science and history. My ultimate presupposition is God's Word. And it's by His Word that I test and know what I know.
But what about you? What is your epistomology? How do you know what you know?
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Apr 7, 2006 18:57:46 GMT -5
When I said, "If you doubt that you can't be a Christian" the 'you' was in a general sense, not direct. Apologies for coming across the wrong way.
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Apr 7, 2006 19:00:48 GMT -5
Here is an article from my website:
What do we mean ‘The Word of God’?
This does not mean that ALL the words come from God. Some of the words are obviously from men, some from angels and even Satan. What we mean is that the Bible is the Word of God in the sense that God the Holy Spirit divinely directed the writing of it supernaturally and guided its overall construction and message. It is not therefore, the product of human devising or imagination.
1) ITS UNITY
The Bible is a very complex book with many diverse factors and it’s unity is so apparent that it gives strong support to its divine origin. It contains an amazing continuity of message in spite of the fact that in contains many different ingredients. i. It was written over a 1500 year period, covering 60 generations. ii. Over 40 authors were involved in its final composition, each from widely different cultural and occupational backgrounds, including kings, a fisherman, a tax collector, a doctor, a shepherd, etc. iii. It was written in different locations over three continents, (Asia, Africa and Europe). iv. It was written in 3 languages, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Even with all this variation of contributing factors, the Bible has one single, unified theme concerning God’s redemptive plan for man, showing that God was behind it all.
2) ITS INDESTRUCTIBILITY
I am sure that no historical artefact has been attacked as frequently and vehemently as the Bible and yet it has weathered the test of time through it all. Atheistic philosophies, higher criticism, modernists, liberal theologians, rationalists, humanists, communists and every conceivable brand of critic have launched repeated assaults against the Bible to no avail, but instead the Bible has triumphed over them all each time. For example, during the 18th century, Voltaire confidently boasted of the eventual extinction of Christianity and the Bible. However, only fifty years after his death, the Geneva Bible Society used his press and house to produce countless Bibles.
“The Bible is no mere book, but a living creature, with a power that conquers all that oppose it.” - Napoleon
3) ITS CONTINUED POPULARITY
Inspite of all the opposition and persecution, the Bible remains the all-time best seller! Since 1456, when Johannes Gutenburg’s press printed the first Bible, 7 billion copies have been printed. No other book even comes close to that in popularity and circulation. It has been here for around 1900 years and it is still loved, read and studied by millions!
4) THE ACCURACY OF ITS MANUSCRIPTS
There are over 5,400 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, over 10,000 of the Latin Vulgate, and at least 9,300 other early versions. A total of over 24,000 manuscript copies or portions of the N.T. are in existence today
Compared to other ancient writings such as Homer’s Iliad or Ceasar’s Gallic Wars, the Bible has more manuscript evidence supporting its reliability and accuracy of translation than any ten pieces of ancient literature combined! So conclusive is the evidence supporting this fact that one prominent scholar noted, “To be sceptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament.”
The accuracy of manuscript translation, as well as the huge amount of manuscript material in existence, gives strong support to its divine authorship and preservation.
5) ITS SCIENTIFIC ACCURACY
Despite popular belief, the progress of science has not undermined the Bible’s accuracy. Not a single scientific fact or discovery has ever disproved anything in the Bible! In fact, they have repeatedly confirmed the scriptures’ accuracy. E.g. the Bible revealed that the earth was round nearly 2,200 years before the 15th century explorers realised that the world wasn’t flat after all (Isaiah 40:22). The Hebrew word for ‘circle’ in this verse means ‘sphericity’ or ‘roundness’. Before the invention of the telescope, Kepler counted 1,005 stars, Ptolemy counted 1,056 stars and Tycho Brahe 777. But in 600 BC, Jeremiah revealed that the number of stars was innumerable, (Jer 33:22).
6) THE FULFILMENT OF ITS PROPHECIES
Throughout the Bible there are prophecies concerning nations, historic events and individuals. But what lends such overwhelming creditability to the divine origin of these prophecies is the fact that hundreds have been literally fulfilled in the most minute detail. God Himself established the issue of prophetic fulfilment as a legitimate test of divine authorship and authenticity, Isaiah 41:21-23, 26.
E.g. The Old Testament, written over a 1,000 year period, contains several hundred references to the coming Messiah -- all of which were fulfilled exactly in Jesus Christ. The chance that all these predictions could come true exactly as written is beyond most human's comprehension, giving to any honest enquirer undeniable proof that God inspired the writing of the prophecies in the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by CidGregor on Apr 7, 2006 19:09:44 GMT -5
I know what I know through my own personal morals and beliefsn as suggested by the Bhudda quotes earlier. I don't bind myself unerringly to ANY one view. I don't agree completely with everything I read in the Bible or any other religious text, I don't completely agree with Republicans or Democrats or any other political party. I form my own opinions and beliefs, not abide by ones I'm TOLD to have by an outside force. If that makes me a sinner in your eyes, well, that's your right to say that, but I already am well aware of the fact that I'm a sinner just as you and everyone else are sinners, so there's really no point in bringing that up, is there?
|
|
|
Post by CidGregor on Apr 7, 2006 19:12:14 GMT -5
edit: *beliefs*
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 7, 2006 19:23:33 GMT -5
Gregor,
Are you saying that you are autonomous?
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Apr 7, 2006 19:23:49 GMT -5
I wonder why you don't believe in everything the Bible says...it must be real convenient for you. I think John 3:18-21 makes it clear why you REALLY won't believe ALL of the Bible
|
|
|
Post by CidGregor on Apr 7, 2006 20:05:20 GMT -5
Gregor,
Are you saying that you are autonomous? That would be generally correct. I don't belong to any one political party, or own any one game system out of fanboy-ism, and though I think of myself as Christian, I don't call myself any specific denomination of it. I wonder why you don't believe in everything the Bible says...it must be real convenient for you. I think John 3:18-21 makes it clear why you REALLY won't believe ALL of the Bible It's things like this that give Christians a bad name. You don't just attack non-Christians, you attack your own too. Where do you think you get off calling me evil for stating my opinions? I have the right to believe what I believe, just as you do. And now you tell me because I have slightly different beliefs than you, that makes me evil? What the c*** gives you the right to say that?
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Apr 7, 2006 20:20:32 GMT -5
Brother Jesse, or some other admin,
Could you please blank out a couple of words we've seen around recently?? One is c**p as seen above, and another is one that Micah noted, sc***ed.
Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on Apr 7, 2006 20:58:34 GMT -5
If you are not presupposing that God's word is in fact GOD's word, how did YOU determine that you and we are sinners, that sin is bad, and what sin even is?
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Apr 7, 2006 21:01:57 GMT -5
If you are not presupposing that God's word is in fact GOD's word, how did YOU determine that you and we are sinners, that sin is bad, and what sin even is? My sentiments exactly...my guess is that they have a God-given Conscience that God has written His Law upon. I am just glad to see that it isn't TOTALLY seared yet...
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 7, 2006 21:03:31 GMT -5
Gregor,
Since you claim autonomy, how do you know that what you say or think is even true?
Are you the only person that is autonomous or are all people autonomous?
If you say all people are autonomous, all people can make up their own belief, that is relativism. There are serious problems with this outlook on truth. If truth is relative then there is no truth. If everyone can make up their own truth, then no one can tell anyone else that they are wrong. It means even Hitler was autonomous and that Osama is autonomous and we have no grounds to stand upon in which to say that they are wrong.
If truth is relative, then could this truth, that you say is true, that all truth is relative be relative itself and thereby not always be true?
I understand everybody makes up their own belief, but nobody can make up their own truth. Truth is absolute and not relative. Individuals are subjected to truth and not truth being subjected to the individuals. Turth exists outside of the individual and is truth whether anybody believes it or not. Belief does not = truth. Truth is truth no matter what.
The ultimate outcome of your views here is reductio ad absurdium - reduced to absurdity. It means that there is no universal truth or universal morality, which means anything goes! You can't say the KKK is wrong or that wars are wrong. You would have to borrow from the biblical Christian world-view to make such ethical judgments.
Your foundational presupposition in which you are building all your views is that you are autonomous, that you can make up your own truth. My ultimate, foundational presupposition is the Word of God - God says it and I believe it. Sinner, it's rebellion to question God's Word! The only ultimate presupposition that is self-attesting is the Word of God. Because of that, I am able to say Hitler, Osama, the KKK are wrong because God says they are wrong. I have rational ground to condemn such things - God's Word.
Biblical Christianity is the only world-view that makes sense and is not absurd in it's ultimate outcome.
Gregor, you are standing upon sinking sand. Only Jesus Christ is the solid rock. Turn from all your sins and turn to Jesus Christ.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Apr 7, 2006 21:12:49 GMT -5
That's good stuff Jesse...so THIS is the stuff you guys are learning from that guy Bahnsen...good stuff. I think I can learn to use that without even reading his book. Sounds pretty easy, yet pretty effective if you ask me
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 7, 2006 22:32:41 GMT -5
The ability of this board to stay on topic continues to amaze me. And I've noticed that my arguments have yet to be addressed. Either I'm a very boring person or I've already exhausted your capabilities for reasoning--both sadden me greatly.
|
|
|
Post by hopefulheart on Apr 9, 2006 15:36:16 GMT -5
Sorry for the delay in responding. I've been spending a lovely weekend with a friend =)
I haven't been following this thread, but the apostle Peter spoke about those that wrote the bible and he said that "holy men spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost". In other words, the Spirit of God moved these men to write what they wrote, using the persons own unique style to convey God's direct and perfect message!
The bible is the Word of the Living God. If you doubt that you can't be a Christian, it is fundamental!
Mohammad, the father of Islam, was also struck by the Holy Spirit and what he spoke was copied down word for word as he convulsed and prophecied. Since it was first written, not a word has been changed. I say go, read the Muslim holy book and be true to your standpoint.
Valentine, look forward to hearing from me =D Thank you ^ ^
And to Morluna, thank you as well - you're far too kind. I Try to be open-hearted and respectful, but can't say it always happens.
And as far as trying to change someone's mind goes, unh uh. If you like what I have to say and want to adopt it, great. If not, that's fine, too.
*sighs happily* Sorry, but it's too beautiful a day. I'm going to go outside and study in the sunshine. Hope you all have enjoyed your Sunday, too
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 9, 2006 16:18:19 GMT -5
The problem Mohammad has is that he was a self-proclaimed prophet. No one ever prophecied that this man Mohammad would come.
I could myself say, "I am a prophet...yatta yatta yattta." If Mohammad could do it, or Joseph Smith, why couldn't I?
But you are right, he would convulse and prophecy and what he said was written down. However this is what the bible would call demon possession. In fact, the first time an "angel" appeared to him he was praying and fasting in a cave. The "angel" jacked up him by the throat against the wall and a gave him a message. But the angels in the bible would always say "fear not" when they appeared to humans with a message. The New Testament says that demons appear as angels of light, and that is what happened to Mohammad. Even the Muslims recognize the New Testament. Their word for it is the "Injeel".
Another problem with Islam is that they say they recognize the first five books of Moses. However those books state "without the sheading of blood there is no remission of sins". Yet they reject Jesus Christ as the Lamb of God (though they say He was a prophet) and no longer sacrifice goats in their religion. Islam offers no blood shead for the remission of since. This is an internal inconsistency.
They claim the bible has been changed because it's been translated from greek and hebrew into English, however it has been clearly shown that the manuscripts have not been changed as I showed in a previous post:
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Apr 9, 2006 16:28:27 GMT -5
I CHALLENGE ANYONE who thinks that Islam is just as good as Christianity or just as true or whatever, to go here: www.pinpointevangelism.com/23.html and download the audios about two former DEVOUT Muslims and what they say about Islam....
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 9, 2006 16:37:15 GMT -5
I CHALLENGE ANYONE who thinks that Islam is just as good as Christianity or just as true or whatever, to go here: www.pinpointevangelism.com/23.html and download the audios about two former DEVOUT Muslims and what they say about Islam.... I would, but...this is a thread about homosexuality, last time I checked, not about Islam versus Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Apr 9, 2006 18:57:04 GMT -5
I CHALLENGE ANYONE who thinks that Islam is just as good as Christianity or just as true or whatever, to go here: www.pinpointevangelism.com/23.html and download the audios about two former DEVOUT Muslims and what they say about Islam.... I would, but...this is a thread about homosexuality, last time I checked, not about Islam versus Christianity. Well then don't bring it up... ;D
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 9, 2006 22:15:09 GMT -5
Well then don't bring it up... ;D I didn't; I brought up points related to the topic that have yet to be addressed.
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 9, 2006 22:19:07 GMT -5
I would, but...this is a thread about homosexuality, last time I checked, not about Islam versus Christianity. Well then don't bring it up... ;D Um... I'm pretty sure she didn't. *rolls eyes*
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 10, 2006 23:27:35 GMT -5
Since you claim autonomy, how do you know that what you say or think is even true? Are you the only person that is autonomous or are all people autonomous? If you say all people are autonomous, all people can make up their own belief, that is relativism. There are serious problems with this outlook on truth. If truth is relative then there is no truth. If everyone can make up their own truth, then no one can tell anyone else that they are wrong. It means even Hitler was autonomous and that Osama is autonomous and we have no grounds to stand upon in which to say that they are wrong. If truth is relative, then could this truth, that you say is true, that all truth is relative be relative itself and thereby not always be true? I understand everybody makes up their own belief, but nobody can make up their own truth. Truth is absolute and not relative. Individuals are subjected to truth and not truth being subjected to the individuals. Turth exists outside of the individual and is truth whether anybody believes it or not. Belief does not = truth. Truth is truth no matter what. The ultimate outcome of your views here is reductio ad absurdium - reduced to absurdity. It means that there is no universal truth or universal morality, which means anything goes! You can't say the KKK is wrong or that wars are wrong. You would have to borrow from the biblical Christian world-view to make such ethical judgments. Your foundational presupposition in which you are building all your views is that you are autonomous, that you can make up your own truth. My ultimate, foundational presupposition is the Word of God - God says it and I believe it. Sinner, it's rebellion to question God's Word! The only ultimate presupposition that is self-attesting is the Word of God. Because of that, I am able to say Hitler, Osama, the KKK are wrong because God says they are wrong. I have rational ground to condemn such things - God's Word. Biblical Christianity is the only world-view that makes sense and is not absurd in it's ultimate outcome. Gregor, you are standing upon sinking sand. Only Jesus Christ is the solid rock. Turn from all your sins and turn to Jesus Christ. Ok, I apologize for backtracking, but this thread seems to have devolved (or should I say goodvolved, since devolution is the opposite of "evil"olution?) into into a debate over the merits of Islam and Muhammed, peace be upon him, so I went back to the last part of the discussion relating to homosexuality and morality. In addition to Gregor, I also claim autonomy. I should explain, however, what I mean by that statement. I do not exist in isolation, rather I exist as part of a diverse community of other human beings and as part of a fragile, yet beautiful set of ecosystems which belong to not only this generation, but also the generations of the future. Well, if you mean how do I know that I actually exist, then I will have to say that this existence feels real to me and therefore absent evidence to the contrary, I am going to assume that I actually exist. I have a feeling, however, that you were more directing that question to my understanding of morality, yes? How, then, do I know that what I think to be moral is actually moral? I think it's similar to how you define what is tasteful, Jesse. How do you know that the type of art you find tasteful is actually tasteful? Well, that depends on who is doing the tasting, doesn't it? Since I am the observer, I get to decide whether what I see is moral or immoral. (I don't get to decide whether it's legal or illegal.) Of course, I do not live in a vacuum, I live in a community, so I must define my set of morals in a way which will not infringe upon the rights of others. Why is this corolarry important, though? It is important because in our society, the basic unit of citizenship (the unit for which rights are protected by government) in my community is the individual. It has long been established in the United States that the libertarian principle of civil rights applies, that is: the government cannot deprive me of my liberty unless the exercise thereof infringes upon the liberty of another. Therefore, my sense of morals must ask the question, does this hurt someone else? If the answer is yes, then the situation is definitely immoral. My sense of morals also includes the obligation which I feel I have to undertake acts of compassion. I want to do this because I get a sense of self-worth and fulfillment from these acts, not because I have been admonished to do so by a higher power. Oh, and everyone is autonomous, yes. But, they also do not live in isolation, they live in a community of others, and their sense of morals will be grounded in the community and the common good. Yes, that would make me a relativist, but I cannot speak for Gregor. Relativists believe that humans understand and evaluate beliefs and behaviors in terms of their historical and cultural context. Again, we don't live in isolation. I merely claim that using the history of the human race, and the culture in which I was raised, I can determine to some extent what should be considered moral. "If truth is relative then there is no truth." I don't claim that truth is relative. It cannot be, however, we may disagree on what is true. For instance, consider the following analogy: Two people are approaching a traffic signal from perpendicular directions, and both intend on proceeding directly through the light, making no turns. Both believe that their light is green, giving them the ability to proceed through the light legally. Both arrive at the intersection simultaneously and collide. In court, both tell "the truth" which is that they had the green light. Niether is purposefully lying, both believe that they are telling the truth. One last thing: the light was actually functioning correctly, that is: one direction was red. Both drivers are telling the truth, relative to their own understanding of it, but it does not affect the truth of events. "If everyone can make up their own truth, then no one can tell anyone else that they are wrong. It means even Hitler was autonomous and that Osama is autonomous and we have no grounds to stand upon in which to say that they are wrong." That statement is patently false according to relativism. People do not make up truth, they make up their understanding of it. We can claim that people are wrong. We don't claim that Hitler was wrong because he did something that God claimed was wrong, we claim that Hitler was wrong based upon the human understanding of history and culture. Allow me to explain: Hitler authorized the Holocaust. This was wrong because: A) God says that murder is wrong. B) Murder violates the libertarian principle of not impeding someone else's rights. C) Murder has been considered wrong historically. D) Most people consider murder to be wrong. Which of these cases is valid? Well depending on who you ask, all of them are. If you wish to form your opinions based upon what God thinks is right and wrong, I have no problem with that, but you cannot infringe upon my rights if you think I am doing something immoral merely because you think it's immoral, not because we disagree on morality, but because my right to do what I please is protected by the government of the United States until the point at which I do something that harms you. If you feel that your rights have been violated, you can sue the violater in court, but you must establish standing and so on. Truth is not relative, values are. See above. I agree totally. See above. Ok, so there is universal truth, let's just get that out of the way. You are right, there is no universal morality. But it does not mean that anything goes. Morality must be determined by a combination of factors which I attempted to express in the above paragraphs. If I want to say that the KKK is wrong, I can say so without depending upon the Biblical-Christian worldview to do so. Don't believe me? I'll prove it. The KKK is ethically unacceptable because it infringes upon the right of American citizens to exercise their unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Please note, this quoted ethic is a founding element of our government, but was not written by a Christian, it was written by Thomas Jefferson, a Deist. Jefferson did not believe in the deity of Christ, a belief which you would probably claim excludes him from the rolls of the Christian religion. Therefore this ethical judgement is derived from values considered normal and correct in my community, but which were not derived from Christain or Biblical thought. Thus, I have claimed that the KKK is ethically unacceptable according to my moral code and understanding of the human condition. But please note, the next part is the most important part. However, my judgements on morality are not enough to call for the arrest of KKK members or the stoppage of their activities. These actions can only take place if they break the laws of this country which happen to be based on the above Jeffersonian statement. My moral judgements are unenforcable on others. So are yours. [Continued in next post, sorry it was too long for just one.]
|
|