Don't Dodge the Issues on Relativism and Logic and Revelation

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

Visionaries:

You dodge the issue, Mr. Wilson.  I was talking about DOMESTIC USA LAW not 
under suspension of civil liberties such as can happen in war.  Anyways, the 
bombing of Dresden was done in war in a foreign country.  What does this 
have to do with the varying laws on nudity that allow legal nudist colonies 
in the USA, compared to the unvarying laws that render murder illegal 
(though of course there are varying penalties, etc. for murder) all over the 
USA?  My point was that nudity is not regarded as the same kind of moral 
wrong as murder by the legal codes in the USA.  And in fact that by allowing 
nudist colonies an implied statement is being made that nudity with children 
and families in the outdoors socially, is not the moral horror some think.

Again, on another point, you do not address the issue I was raising: Is 
there any war you have supported or would support where innocent children 
have died?  If so, how can you justify this given your absolute rule that 
killing innocent children is immoral?  Or do I misunderstand your absolute 
about killing innocent children?  Are there cases where you would sanction 
killing innocent children?  Anyways, you must tell me what WAR YOU HAVE 
SUPPORTED, or address the exact point, or we are talking past each other, 
not to each other.

Regarding logic "the best results" are those that use the universal rules of 
logic.  I am puzzled by your response.  Let me be specific.  The syllogism

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.

is an example of a logical rule everyone can agree on, regardless of their 
ethics or theology, correct?  Or do you take issue with the basic laws of 
logic as they are taught in any University?  Are you going to claim the 
above logical rule is "relativistic," is sometimes true and sometimes not?  
If so, we have no rules to debate by.  These logical rules have nothing to 
do with MY PERSONAL OPINION.  These kind of rules are why mathematics and 
logic are called the universal languages, because people across all cultures 
around the world can talk in mathematics and logic and understand each 
other.

You have not given a single proof that relativism DOES NOT eat your ethical 
system like a "universal acid," to use your phrase, and this is why:  1.) 
You must have proof of revelation from God to prop up your claims that your 
ethical system is absolute and not just a matter of your personal 
interpretation of the Bible.  2.) And also answer why your claims of having 
the true statements of revelation from God should be obeyed instead of the 
DIFFERING statements from other spiritual traditions, and even from within 
Christianity, that insist THEY have the true statements of ethical truth 
revealed from God.

I have asked the above two questions several times on vision2020, and have 
yet to get a good answer from those who are claiming to have particular 
absolute God given Christian ethical rules (which are sometimes THEIR 
interpretation of Christian ethics, and are not all universally agreed upon 
within Christianity) that must be followed, or those who do not are lost in 
chaos and relativism.

Till you provide the evidence and proofs to answer the above problems I 
conclude you are living the life "not worth living" with an "unexamined 
epistemology,"  according to your statement I am quoting from.  Actually, I 
think many people lead good lives without exhaustive thinking about 
epistemology.  Thank goodness!

Ted



>From: Douglas <dougwils@moscow.com>
>To: vision2020@moscow.com
>Subject: I'll be brief, promise
>Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 08:53:29 -0700
>




_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com