Thanks! Re: Every Ethical System Subject to Relativist Problems

["Ted Moffett" <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>]

Eric and others:

Thanks for your thoughtful reply!

To be brief, there are different kinds of truths, and the truth involved in 
jailing an innocent person, though perhaps complicated at times, is very 
different than claiming to have the absolute ethical system that everyone 
should follow that is derived from God. There are many variables in 
declaring such a truth regarding an ethical system, and reasonable people 
may disagree on the veracity of such a system, in part or in whole.   Of 
course there are truths I believe in!  But this does not make me a 
"fundamentalist."  I recognize that many of the truths I believe in are 
subject to debate and reasonable people disagree on these truths, so I am 
hestitant to declare I will force these truths on everyone!  My truths are 
not derived from an absolute transcendent God who created the universe and 
rules absolutely.  They are derived from human reason and fact finding.

I think you are dodging the issue on the Christian ethical quandry on the 
death penalty, which I believe clearly shows a relativistic ethical debate 
within Christianity.  I can present to you, if you wish, devoted intelligent 
Christians scholars who argue convincingly both ways on the death penalty.  
I will refer you to these documents if you wish to really discuss this 
issue!  For you to simple declare one point of view the true Christian point 
of view, and the other false, is the kind of dogmatism and arrogance of 
fundamentalism that I am objecting to.

Of course I have truths, but my approach allows for more variability and 
reasonable disagreement based on fact and logic, not dogmatism and arrogance 
based on fundamentalist's just blindly following one interpretation of the 
Bible, which in some cases denies the validity of human reason and fact.

Consider the topless female issue, which is a big ethical debate at this 
moment in Moscow.  I do not think the mere appearance of a topless women in 
public is a moral wrong.  Many in our community do, some of them Christian 
fundamentalists. This is a debate were reasonable people may disagree based 
on facts and logic.

I do not think there is any disagreement in Moscow that flat out cold 
blooded murder is wrong.  There is no debate on that issue.  So the topless 
issue is a different kind of moral debate, representing a different kind of 
truth, than some others.

Thanks again for your intelligent and thoughtful reply.

Ted

>From: Eric Engerbretson <votive@earthlink.net>
>To: <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>
>Subject: Re: Every Ethical System Subject to Relativist Problems
>Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 06:00:38 -0700
>
>Dear Ted,
>
>I've been reading much of your thought-provoking input on the list. Thanks
>for being there.
>
>But, just for your future reference-- I want to clear something up for you.
>
>In regards to:
>
> >Consider the issue of the death penalty.  There is major disagreement 
>within
> >the range of views expressed by Christians on this issue.  Some 
>Christians
> >are nearly pacifists in applying the teachings of Christ and the 
>Commandment
> >"Thou Shall Not Kill" to the death penalty!  They ABSOLUTELY regard it as
> >wrong.  Other Christians support the death penalty and will quote other
> >principles of ethics from the Christian tradition to support the death
> >penalty.  They ABSOLUTELY regard it as right.  WHAT IS YOUR STANDARD?  
>Prove
> >to me that you have the ultimate answer to the quandary Christians find
> >themselves in regarding the death penalty, and why YOUR STANDARD SHOULD 
>BE
> >BINDING?  If you pick the wrong ethical action and it is against God's 
>will
> >your standard will be false and is not therefore not binding, according 
>to
> >your assumptions.
>
>Usually, confusion between Christians taking different viewpoints on
>interpretation of a certain scripture verse simply boils down to weak,
>uneducateded interpretation. Just so you'll know in the future-- The 
>command
>"thou shalt not kill" has been misunderstood for centuries. The translation
>into English in the King James version was simply wrong. The original 
>Hebrew
>says "You shall not MURDER".  That is a completely different story.  The
>most surface reading of scripture will tell you this was God's intent,
>without knowing  any Hebrew at all. All through the Old Testament God
>commanded the Israelites to go out and fight and kill. He couldn't have
>commanded them to never kill and then in the next breath send them out to
>kill!  In Luke 3:14 it says "And soldiers also asked Him [Christ], saying,
>'And we, what must we do?' And he said unto them, Extort from no man by
>violence, neither accuse any one wrongfully; and be content with your
>wages.". If killing was always wrong, Jesus would have told them to
>immediately resign from the army (or volunteer for permanent KP).
>Ecclesiastes  3:3 says "there is a time to kill".  Most often, one of the
>battling Christians doesn't read or take into account the ENTIRE 
>scripture--
>just the verses that support the position that his emotions dictate.
>
>Almost every single "quandary" or apparent contradiction in scripture can 
>be
>traced to these sorts of errors.  It is exactly the same in the world of
>science-- some scientists have the correct interpretation of data, and some
>have the wrong one. Just because two sets of sincere scientists have
>absolute feelings about the data doesn't mean that there ISN'T a true
>interpretation and that no one can ever know it, so we should just give up
>looking for the truth and be careful never to imply that somebody could
>actually be right.  There never was such a thing as a Brontosaurus.
>Scientists mistakenly put the head of an Apatasaurus on a Brachiasaurus'
>body.  You can bet there were some that believed wholeheartedly in the
>Brontosaurus. But they were wrong.  No one in their right mind would try to
>say that both the Bronto-believers and the Bronto-disbelievers were both
>simultaneously right. Yet, that is what most Americans want to believe 
>about
>the world's religions. However, it is God's command that those in the right
>treat all others with complete respect and love, and the Church throughout
>the ages has consistently disobeyed that command.
>
>The absolute Truth is most often far more simple, reasonable, logical,
>rational and knowable than most people think-- they just have a hard time
>looking at anything without being too jaded by their preconceptions and
>emotions. I believe that if anyone can read the Bible with a truly,
>completely open mind and an objective heart that is willing to see the 
>truth
>no matter how unpolitically correct  or hard to swallow it is, they will
>soon be amazed at how clear things become and how many misunderstandings 
>are
>quickly reconciled.  The problem is there are so many wacky Christians
>running around saying and doing wacky things (and people who say and think
>they are Christians but aren't) that there are very few non-Christians who
>can examine the claims of Christ with an open heart free from biases and
>prejudices. The main problem that steals objectivity from seekers is that
>few Christians who know they are in the right act, speak and write with the
>selflessness, humility, and love that God commanded.
>
>Ted, you can't even make your argument that absolutes are relative, without
>using all sorts of absolutes to do it!  So, there is such a thing as 
>Truth--
>the sad part of that is, that some people will be right and some will be
>wrong. I hate it that it has to be that way, but it does, just as really as
>in a math sum.
>
>The quickest way to get a person who believes in relative truth to face
>reality is to throw him in jail for something he didn't do.  All of a 
>sudden
>he becomes a believer in absolute Truth. "I didn't do it!", he screams, 
>"and
>that's the Truth!!".  Now if the judge was a proponent of the modern
>American religion of "everybody's-faith-is-true-for-them", to be consistent
>he would have to rule: "The bench's truth says you did it and your truth
>says you didn't-- and since both are 'true'--  you will serve 20 years for
>our truth and then be free for 20 years for your truth."    But no, the man
>has recently converted to absolute Truth and he demands justice.  There can
>be no justice unless something is True.  And if something is True, then 
>some
>will know it and some won't.  And you can bet that those who don't know it,
>or think it can't be known, will greatly resent, and hate, those who say
>they do know it.  They will rant about the incredible presumption of those
>brain-washed idiots. But just because there are nasty consequences doesn't
>mean that Truth doesn't really exist and no one should presume to say
>they've found it.  Following the Truth is simply examining all the 
>available
>evidence and then, excuse my brashness, making a "bet" based on one's
>intellect, instinct, emotion and interpretive skills. The unavoidable fact
>is, some will win their bet and some will lose.  A horrible fact, but true
>nonetheless.
>
>Your saying that no one should presume to be "right" and impose that
>presumption on others, is simply you, Ted, presuming a higher "rightness"
>and imposing that presumption on others.  How presumptuous of you. It's 
>nice
>you've found you're Truth, but please don't pretend that you're not 
>claiming
>to be Right.  It makes you come off as some sort of brain-washed
>fundamentalist.
>
>Most sincerely,
>
>Eric Engerbretson






_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com