Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room TROLLS

I equate moral relativism with the situational ethics as espoused by Bonhoeffer.

It's a slippery slope, when you can't tell right from wrong, without a frame of reference.

As the song goes, "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything." What Harlan Howard said about country music in general, certainly appiles to that song, "Country music is four chords, and the truth".

People are confusing taking a stand on right and wrong with "judging one another." We are under no obligation to not differentiate between right and wrong. In fact, we are admonished to do just that. Therefore, for example, we should support the idea of an internet filter on unmonitored computers in public libraries. When my daughter (17 y.o.) was sick with flu-like symptoms earlier this year the physician would not even take her temperature without my permission (I had to call them from work for her to be seen). Yet according to the news last night a 14 year old girl can have an abortion without her parents even knowing about it. This is wrong.

Or so it seems to me.

Jesus had a heck of a lot more to see about bankers than he did about gay folks.

Of course, banking is not a sin. It is the "practice of banking."

Hey Gryphon!

I've made exactly one post, non-related to the subject being discussed, about the thread "spining off into the wild blue yonder".

How 'bout leaving me out of the "moral relativism, liberal ideology" stereotyping? :p

bcarey, sorry if I am ascribing positions to you you don't subscribe to. I didn't realize you thought abortion is wrong, sex change operations are wrong, and the practice of homosexuality is wrong. I have edited your name out of my post. Mea culpa.

And when we're judged at the end of our lives -- which may be sooner than we think...will we be judged for where we stood on some of these issues?

Or will God say, Gee Ken you owned a wonderful piano, how did you reconcile that with caring for those folks less fortunate than yourself? Didn't you realize that your life was just an opportunity for you to earn eternal salvation -- and not to savor pleasures at every turn? Was music an idol that was worshipped? A lifetime is short compared to eternity.

Finally, liberal folks can play the same cards, why do tax cuts for the wealthiest take precidence over care for the sick and crippled? Is this something Christ would advocate?

Ken

I didn't say that either.

Kluurs stated: Yes, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Is not sin an abomination to the Lord? And is not so as a man thinks, the same as he does?

Me, too. Bonhoeffer had great respect for the Roman Catholic church. Actually, many tried to discredit him for his close ties to Catholicism.

Yes, gryphon, 14 year old girls should not be having abortions. No one should. But, that same 14 year old girl has the right to be graced with forgiveness.
BTW, I'm very pro-life even in cases of incest and rape. I find it comical you find me liberal. I guess I'm changing.
I find it admirable that you have such moral integrity. And even more admirable that from your posts that you do your best to practice it. I'm not being facetious when I say this.
sincerely,
justme

justme, again I apologize. It appears I am lumping people into the LP category unfairly, and you are all being offended. Entirely understandable. I thought bcarey was a liberal and from some of your previous posts, you were, too.

But don't you know you're supposed to be going up? Have you ever been confronted with a moral dilema where it was difficult to not immediately determine what was right and what was wrong? There are many examples I'm sure, but how often do they actually occur?

Jesus and his desciples were walking through a wheat field on the Sabbath. Under the law, it was wrong to harvest on the Sabbath and this was strictly interpreted to mean even the most minute type of harvesting.

His desciples were hungry and took some of the grain from the stalks and ate it. Those who saw the letter of the law as the most important part of morality condemned Jesus and His deciples for having broken the Sabbath.

Jesus answered with some questions of his own. Suppose you had a sheep fall in a deep hole on the Sabboth. The law says that anything other than the slightest care for animals was work. But is it not proper to work in order to bring the sheep out? He gave a couple of other such examples. He ended by saying that the Sabbath as made for man, not man for the Sabbath. In other words, the legitimate needs of people is more important than the law.

Later, when he was on trial, one of the accusations against Jesus was that he broke the Sabbath. This incident was used as evidence. He did not adhere to the letter of the law. It is part of the reason they found him guilty.

Jesus, of course, made no answer to this charge during His trial seeing no reason to defend His actions because He knew they were right and correct and moral.

If the law is the ultimate arbiter (i.e. an action is sinful because Scripture says it is so) then Jesus is a moral relativist.

If however, compassion and understanding and other considerations are part of moral judgements, then Jesus adhered to the spirit of the law even as he broke the letter of it.

Jesus therefore was either a moral relativst or he understood the higher nature of morality that extends beyond blind adherence to the law.

Either way, Christians who see beyond the letter of the law seem to be in very good company.

It's okay... I wonder what I said tho' to give you that impression. It may have to do with my son, and as you know I have to walk on eggshells with that issue. It's a cross I'll have to bear. Pray for us.
justme

He's too busy to answer today. According to CNN, he's busy trying to decide between and SUV an a fuel-efficient hybrid.

Obeying "the law?" Show me where God says you can only walk a certain amount of steps on the Sabbath, or where your Hebrew sand cruisers can only have a minimum amount of nails in them or else walking in them is considered doing work, or some of the examples you gave. I don't believe God defined those things, man did. Jesus disagreed with the Pharisee's interpretation of the scriptures, He didn't disagree with the scriptures. Jesus never disagreed with the scriptures. Jesus wasn't a moral relativist and didn't sin when he felt like it because of some higher purpose that condoned sin if the ends "justified" it.

Morals come from a standard of right and wrong, God's standard, not man's.

I don't know. Did you ever say disparaging things about Bush 43?

You cannot earn salvation. That is the whole point. No matter how good you are, no matter what good things you do, no matter how perfectly you have led your life, you cannot earn your own salvation. It is a free gift. You simply have to accept it. In John 14:6, Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except by me". A man's attempt to save himself through doing good is in vain.

Thank you, Gryphon. You have just answered your own objection.

It is possible to interpret Scripture differently and neither sin or be condemned for it.

The standards are what are important -- not the letter of the law. It is not so important how one verse or another is interpreted by fallible humans about a specific action.

As you say, it is far more important to learn the standards -- the overriding moral principles God wants to teach -- then it is to find a verse supposedly establishing a rule here or there and see that verse as the ultimate determinant of what is right or wrong.

I don't disagree that not all Christians see everything exactly the same, but these are usually, for lack of a better term, small things, not large matters of faith. And clearly one cannot blindly assert something that the scriptures clearly doesn't say and justify it by saying, "That's the way I read it." Think of some egregious example such as child molestation. Now as for not being held accountable, I cannot agree with that. We will still be held accountable for everything we do. However, we are not condemned if what God sees is Jesus' blood. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. Romans 3:20

I fail to see how anything you've stated justifies legal abortions and some of the other things which, by previous posts, you seem to agree with.

I fail to see how the legality of abortion is a moral issue at all. It is simply a legal issue. Making abortion legal or illegal does not confer a moral basis on abortion at all.

The morality comes in the act of abortion itself. And as you said, specific Scriptural admonitions can be broken if there is a higher standard involved.

Since neither you nor I can see into someone's heart, much less their soul, it is not possible for either of us to know if a person has acted morally or not if they have had or participate in an abortion.

But since God can see into that person's heart, it is best to leave the judgement about the right or wrong of a person's personal moral decisions to God.