From: jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Moral Relativism, again!
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:20:53 MST

X-NEWS: doc alt.atheism: 8663
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reply to Gregg Skinner -- Christians and the Law
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 10:19:42 GMT

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

jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>    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.
 
I deleted the rest of the post because my point is perfectly illustrated 
by this quote of yours Jim. How do you know that your interpretation 
of the bible is "close" to God's intent?

What yardstick do you use to
measure closeness? I asked this same question of a Muslim reader and 
the Quran recently and did not get much mileage so perhaps you Jim 
may be able to answer this question satisfactorily. 

    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.

    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.

    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
    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.

    I do not claim to have 100% truth -- God has that.	I just claim that
    I have a large portion of truth to the extent that the Holy Spirit
    has led me in my study of the Bible.  For those places where my
    understanding is still lacking, and for those places where my
    understanding is still human-based and therefore in error, I
    have the assurance that God's grace is sufficient to forgive me
    for my shortcomings.  In short, the Bible teaches for us to live
    up to God's moral teachings to the best of our understanding, and
    His grace takes care of the rest.

    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
    answer above is extremely valid, and is not a type of "moral
    relativism" in the sense that it is used of humanist philosophies.
    You may not want to accept my reasoning as being valid, but that's
    your problem (lack of objectivity), not mine.  No offense intended.

    I would appreciate it though, if you'd go back and respond to
    the rest of the post, since I've answered your question above.


jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>    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.

My contention Jim is that you are in fact a moral relativist.

    And my contention is that I am not.

That
when you chose your particular interpretation of the bible you become 
a moral relativist so to speak.

    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?

    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 individual standard is your
interpretation of the bible (you judge things *relative* to your
*interpretation* of the bible). In fact I will go further and say that
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.

All followers must chose what they think the bible means
and at this point they become a moral relativist. 

    The point you miss is that there is a very limited number of
    possible *logical* interpretations to a certain text.  Take
    the proscriptions against adultery, for example.  It seems
    pretty clear cut.  If you have sex or desire to have sex with
    another person's spouse, or if you break your vow of fidelity
    to your own spouse by thought or action, you have committed
    adultery.  There aren't any other valid ways to interpret the
    relevant passages of the Bible concerning this issue.

    It is the same way for every other *major* moral issue.  Where
    God wanted us to be absolutely clear on a moral issue, He was.
    Where an issue is not that critical overall, He leaves us a
    certain amount of discretion.

jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>    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.

Given that you have some error in your interpretation of the bible
(something you admit to) and that you do not have access to the actual 
meaning of the bible (you only have your interpretation of it), there is 
no way you can discern how far you have drifted from the standard.

    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.


jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>    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.

But what is an imperfect interpretation of a moral standard? An
interpretation is quite simply a "humanistic moral choice" (to use your 
words).

    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.

    I can say with far less certainty that God doesn't condone smoking.
    Not because it is "inherently sinful", but because God loves us
    and He doesn't wish to see us suffer the resulting health problems.

    There is a clear moral direction or sense in the Bible such that
    I could tell someone that it is best for them not to smoke if they
    feel that they can quit.  The Biblical reason?  The body is the
    temple of the Holy Spirit, and anything that harms the body is
    not good.  But the decision to smoke or not smoke remains with
    that person, not me.

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


    Regards,

    Jim B.	Jim_Brown@oz.bmd.trw.com    Please e-mail me a copy of your
		    reply since I am not able to read this group regularly.
    =======================================================================
    Best Quote of the Month:  (Pres. Bush to Saddam Hussein)  "Look Saddam,
    either you're going to let our inspectors into your ministry buildings,
    or we're going to drop ACLU lawyers over Baghdad...WITH PARACHUTES!!"
    =======================================================================