Re: You know you're a Christina when .. (was: OT: Racial superiority / Intelligent design was Re: OT:Thanksgiving

"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Howard Brazee" <howard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Sure. I definitely believe in shades of grey, but that is not the same thing
as vacillating over a moral code.

"Moral relativism" is a philosophy that says moral values are
dependent upon culture and society. For instance, killing is bad
unless society condones it (war). Or bigamy was OK in the Bible but
is sinful now. Or good Christians could be slave owners or bigots
in the past but not now. Beating a spouse used to be good, but now
is bad.

I take it to mean "I follow the law except when it conflicts with a
greater law", or "I am willing to kill for the greater good". Or
even being generous to the needy - except when it's inconvenient.

Certainly authorities have come out to say that it's OK to kill when
the authorities authorize it. God never meant His commandments to
override their authority in such matters. Therefore Thou Shalt Not
Kill meant "Thou Shalt Not Kill unless authorized by those in power".
Those in power have determined this to be True.

Moral absolutists believe that what we believe right now are what God
always intended. Those who came before us were simply wrong. Those
who will come after us will also be wrong. They shall be punished.


Then, given those definitions, I have to divorce myself from both views.

(I assumed the terms were used by Judson to make his argument more succinct; I did not know they had precise meanings as you
describe.)

Please, don't take an atheist's definition of my terms to be what I mean
by them. :-) If I ever knowingly use a word that has a special meaning
for Christians, other than what is generally understood, I always try to
point that out.

As far as legitimate killing vs. murder, the Bible makes it clear that God
judges all acts to be sin or not by what is in the person's heart. I could
list dozens of Scriptures to show this. A person who kills by accident
with no mal-intent is not judged guilty. Further, there are valid reasons
for a person to be put to death, like by a court for certain crimes. Since
there were times that God clearly sanctioned, even prosecuted, certain
wars between the Jews and their enemies, and nowhere does the Bible
say that soldiers are guilty of sin, it is consistent to believe that killing in
war is necessarily a sin. When the Bible does not specifically say, the
principles the Bible does state are to be used; in this case, the guilt or
innocence is based on the heart of the soldier. Similar principles also
apply to law enforcement. If a policeman kills in the line of duty, and
without hate or malice, it can be a righteous act. Hate or malice would
make it murder, even if the act was justifiable in the line of duty. The
case of defense of the innocent, such as a parent killing someone trying
to kidnap a child, is similar, because the parent is the primary authority
God delegates to protect children. Self defense is not quite as clear-cut.
The only Scripture I am aware of that can reasonably be understood to
speak directly against self defense is Jesus command to "turn the other
cheek" in Matthew 5:38-47. However, Jesus did not mention someone
trying to kill you. In my opinion, self defense against mortal threat is
permissible, so long as there is no hate. But I also believe that Jesus'
statements can be reasonably interpreted as forbidding killing in self
defense, even against mortal threat. At any rate, a person who believes
God forbids killing in self defense, yet does so anyway, is definitely
sinning, because in their heart they are being disobedient to God. An
analogous situation is described in 1 Corinthians 8.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."


.

Relevant Pages