From: jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reply to Gregg Skinner -- Christians and the Law
Date: 20 Aug 92 15:36:59 MST

X-NEWS: doc alt.atheism: 8468
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reply to Gregg Skinner -- Christians and the Law
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 01:00:54 GMT

jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
In article <Aug.14.00.44.18.1992.19112@athos.rutgers.edu>, 
>hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
>> But despite these differences in where to draw the line, I think just
>> about all Christians agree that there is a line:
>> 
>>  - that large portions of Leviticus are not binding on Christians
>>  - that there are some principles that are binding on Christians,
>> 	even if they are not described as being part of the Law
>>  - that the NT is basic to finding out where the line lies
>>  - that the Ten Commandments summarize much of what is binding on
>> 	Christians, particularly when they are interpreted in the
>> 	way that Jesus did in the Sermon on the Mount
>....
>I also agree with this summary and conclusion.
>Good post, Charles
>Regards,
>Jim B.

In Message-ID: <graham.714099654@galois>,
graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:

Why is it that this sounds like 'selective morality' - chosing those
parts of the Bible which you agree with and discarding those you
don't.

    Perhaps you haven't studied Christianity in its historical and
    theological context?

How can you be sure that your choices are correct?

    100% sure I'm not.  But I'm pretty sure (99.99%)  :)

How do you
know that by your choices you are not straying from God's intent?

    Part of the idea of grace is that one follows God's Word to the
    best of their understanding (and assuming one endeavors to learn
    the Word) and God forgives us for our mistakes.


By chosing like this and claiming some force behind your morality (eh: Jim
is a moral absolutist), are you not guilty of intellectual dishonesty?

graham
--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au

    No, I don't think I'm guilty of "intellectual dishonesty".  Yes, I'm
    a moral absolutist, but that doesn't mean that I think *my* morals
    are the absolute standard; the Bible is the absolute standard, or
    actually, the teachings of God contained in the Bible.

    My *interpretation* of that moral standard (which I happen to believe
    is correct else I'd change it) is a close *parallel* to the absolute
    moral standard contained in the Bible.

    Does this mean I have "moral relativism"?  Certainly not.  For moral
    relativism recognizes no standard at all apart from that determined
    by each individual.  The adherent of moral relativism is adrift in
    a sea of moral possibilities.

    The moral standard taught in the Bible is like a solid pier that
    one can tie one's "boat" (life) to.  With a "short rope"(careful
    interpretation of the standard) tied to the "pier" (moral standard),
    one will not drift (in a moral sense) very far from the standard.

    Having an absolute moral standard, even if imperfectly interpreted,
    is better than having no absolute standard at all, and being adrift in
    a sea of humanistic moral choices.

    Regards,

    Jim