From: locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (SCOTT C LOCKLIN)
Subject: Re: Moral Relativism, again!
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 03:48:47 GMT
X-Posted-From: titan.ucc.umass.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

>    If the Bible were obscure on major moral points, I admit I'd have
>    a serious problem trying to base a system of ethics on it.	But
>    luckily (you'd say), or by Divine Providence (I'd say), the Bible
>    is crystal clear on major moral values that it says that God considers
>    important.
>
>    Teachings on murder, adultery/fornication, theft, gossip, false
>    witness/lying, jealousy/envy/covetousness, cheating/extortion,
>    love, and hate, to name a few, are quite clear.  On these matters
>    a straight forward reading of the text will tie your boat right
>    next to the dock.  [Remember the Boat at the Dock analogy?	I
>    hope so; it's relevant to this discussion.]
>
>    On minor moral issues, not surprisingly, the Bible is less clear.
>    Presumably because God wishes us to have a certain amount of
>    discretion in what we choose to do.
>
>    Some of these minor issues are:  drinking alchohol, "soft" drug
>    use, dancing, smoking, going to bars, having a lot of money,
>    giving to (which) charities, getting married or staying single,
>    etc.

These are not necessarily minor issues. You have arbitrarily decided that they
are, probobly because you & xtian friends are guilty of one or more of
these. Many equally relavant religions would strongly disagree with you

>    On these issues the prudent Christian uses a general understanding
>    of the "moral sense" taught in the Bible on other similar subjects
>    to decide what is right for him/her.  The "general moral sense"
>    of the Bible is a fairly short rope that ties one's boat to the
>    dock, but there is room to float around a bit.
>
>    One Christian might decide that taking an occasional drink of
>    alchohol, or occasionally using a "soft" drug like marijuana
>    is OK for him.  Another might decide it's not right for her.
>    Both are legitimate positions before God as long as the one
>    does not use his freedom to cause another to stumble, as the
>    scripture says, and the other resists the temptation to use
>    her beliefs as a measure of judging the freedom of other
>    believers, and becoming legalistic.

How do you know these are legitimate positions? Divine inspiration again?

>    I know that my interpretation of morality as taught in the Bible
>    is *close* to God's intent because I'm led by the Holy Spirit.  I

Must be nice to be so close to god. Must give you a real self-righteous
feeling. Another danger of christianity. Old Adolph Hitler thought he
was divinely inspired as well. Kindof gives you latitude to do whatever you 
like doesn't it?

>    don't apologize for this, because even though one can get a pretty
>    good straightforward sense of the text, the Holy Spirit is essential
>    to clearly understanding what God want for *you* in your life.

>    The fact that you deleted the rest of my post as you said, indicates
>    that you *a priori* decided that I could not give you a valid answer
>    to your question and thus the rest of my post was invalid.	The

I wish you would give a valid answer, and hold out hope that you do. A
valid answer would consist of something not entirely based on your
divine inspirations and shallow knowledge of the bible.

>    answer above is extremely valid, and is not a type of "moral
>    relativism" in the sense that it is used of humanist philosophies.

I've seen birds use words without understanding as you do here. You are
NOT being relative

>    You may not want to accept my reasoning as being valid, but that's
>    your problem (lack of objectivity), not mine.  No offense intended.

Hilarious isn't it? A fundie accusing someone of not having objectivity...:)


>>    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.

Exactly, I don't see you adrift in a sea of moral possibilities.

>
>    Yes, "so to speak".  In other words, in one restricted sense of
>    the term.  Surely you see the difference between the "relativism"
>    of a boat tied to a dock versus one floating free in the ocean?

Actually there is no difference, this is the definition of relativism. See
Einstien's theories for more

>    True moral relativism has no dock to tie up to.  We have a dock,
>    and although our boats may bob around the dock, they don't drift
>    out to sea.

Your metaphor is meaningless in the context of relativism. You attempt to 
cloud the issue, moral relativism.

>there is no way that a "follower of the bible" can avoid being a moral 
>relativist.
>
>    You can "go" as far as you want, but it doesn't mean that you've
>    (logically) gotten anywhere.
>
>    I will say simply that you're wrong, as I've demonstrated above,
>    and that you simply refuse to admit it.

I suppose a follower of the bible could be a moral relativist for a limited
period of time. You seem to lack this ability, or know what moral relativism
means; though it was nicely defined for you before...

>    The point you miss is that there is a very limited number of
>    possible *logical* interpretations to a certain text.  Take

And you fail to look at the original writings therefore you miss many
possible interpretations. You also fail to see (and this is where you fail
as a moral relativist) that this thing might not be immoral

>    Only insofar as *minor* (non-critical) moral issues are concerned.
>    But there is very little interpretational leeway for the major
>    issues listed in part above.

How do you know this? 

>    No, not at all.  Imperfect in this sense means "not complete" and
>    not "lacking moral direction".  I can say with 100% certainty that
>    God never condones lusting after another person's spouse, for
>    example.

What an image!

I will use this in my .plan :)

-Scott
Newsgroups: alt.atheism