Posted on 11/30/2002 7:42:38 AM PST by A. Pole
Could you expand on this? Why are morals and ethics part of our evolution? Don't they go directly against survival of the fittest?
explains why those with only partly defective consciences must justify their evil deeds by invoking their faith in god
Who did Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao Zedong use to justify their evil deeds?
Possibly, but it's easier to be good with Him than without Him.
What man thinks is good will change to whatever is politically correct at the time. That is why abortion and homosexuality is in the headlines today. There are the same multitude of sins there has always been, but these 2 have many people in a position they cannot and will not conform to. 5 years ago I could have condemned homoexuality in any venue you could name, but very soon, I will be guilty of a hate crime, because my values are dictated by God, not by the New York Times. Divorce used to be a bad thing, now almost everyone is divorced, even clergy. I asked once if murder would ever be "less" of a sin. The person said, well, they may not have had a good life as a child and couldn't know right from wrong. Maybe the "system" failed them and it's not their fault. I said, does the mother not know when she is killing her baby? No, she knows, she just doesn't care anymore. Remember adultry? Oh yeah, everybody does it. Remember lieing? What would you do if caught in adultry? If it were up to man, nothing our twisted minds could think of would be "wrong". We tend to ignore sin because there is NONE GOOD, NO NOT ONE!
by Ravi Zacharias from his book "Can Man Live Without God"
The following is from the questions and answers taken from the Veritas lectures at Harvard University, upon which parts of the book are based.
Let me narrate an interaction I had with a student at the University of Nottingham in England. As soon as I finished one of my lectures, he shot up from his seat and blurted out rather angrily, "There is to much evil in this world; therefore, there cannot be a God." I asked him to remain standing and answer a few questions for me. I said, "If there is such a thing as evil, aren't you assuming there is such a thing as good?" He paused, reflected, and said, "I guess so." "If there is such a thing as good," I countered, you must affirm a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil."
I reminded him of the debate between the philosopher Frederick Copleston and the atheist Bertrand Russell. At one point in the debate, Copleston said, "Mr. Russell, you do believe in good and bad, don't you?" Russell answered, "Yes I do." "How do you differentiate between them?" challenged Copleston. Russell shrugged his shoulders as he was wont to do in philosophical dead ends for him and said, "The same way I differentiate between yellow and blue." Copleston graciously responded and said, "But Mr. Russell, you differentiate between yellow and blue by seeing, don't you? How do you differentiate between good and bad?" Russell, with all of his genius still within reach, gave the most vapid answer he could have given: "On the basis of feeling-what else?" I must confess, Mr. Copleston was a kindlier gentleman than many others. The appropriate "logical kill" for the moment would have been, Mr. Russell, in some cultures they love their neighbors; in others they eat them, both on the basis of feeling. Do you have any preference?"
So I returned to my questioning student in Nottingham: "When you say there is evil, aren't you admitting there is good? When you accept the existence of goodness, you must affirm a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But when admit to a moral law, you must posit a moral lawgiver. That, however, is who you are trying to disprove and not prove. For if there is no moral lawgiver, there is no moral law. If there is no moral law, there is no good. If there is no good, there is no evil. What then is your question?"
There was a conspicuous pause that was broken when he said rather sheepishly, "What, then, am I asking you?" There's the rub, I might add.
Now, I do not doubt for a moment that philosophers have tried to arrive at a moral law apart from the positing of God, but their efforts are either contradictory in their assumption or conclusions. I might say this is particularly true of David Hume. More on that later. I have gone to great lengths to use this illustration from the Copleston-Russell debate because your question, sir, was an echo of Russell's philosophical attack upon theism. When someone said to him, "What will you do, Mr. Russell, if after you die you find out there is a God? What will you say to Him?" Russell said, "I will tell Him He just did not give me enough evidence." Russell, in stating that, took a position diametrically opposed to scriptural teaching. The Scriptures teach that the problem with human unbelief is not the absence of evidence; rather, it is the suppression of it. "Nothing good can come," said Professor Richard Weaver, "if the will is wrong. If the disposition is wrong, reason increases maleficence." George MacDonald rightly argued that "to explain truth to him who loves it not is to give more plentiful material for misinterpretation."
Let me summarize:
1. To justify the question, God must remain in the paradigm; without God, the question self-destructs.
2. God has created us in His image. Part of that image is the privilege of self-determination.
3. The greatest of all virtues is love.
4. God, in His love, has created us, and in response, love from us has to be a choice. Where there is no choice, it is coercion, which means it is not love. In the Christian message alone, love precedes life; in every other world-view, life precedes love. Therefore, in the Christian framework, love has a point of reference, God Himself.
5. God communicates to mankind in a variety of ways:
a. Reason (philosophical),
b. Experience (existential),
c. History (empirical),
d. Emotions (relational),
e. The Scriptures (propositional), and
f. Incarnation (personal).
Take these six areas that are open to serious critical thinking, and you will find that the problem is not the absence of evidence; rather it's the suppression of it. May I add that it was in this very school that Simon Greenleaf, professor of jurisprudence, said of the documents of the New Testament, "You may choose to say I do not believe it all, but you may not say there is not enough evidence."
"Can Man Live Without God" by Ravi Zacharias can be found in Christian book stores.
The 1st paragraph continues that God of the Old Testament also created all things. It might be noted that in regards to personage, there is substantial doctrine indicating the Son was the Creator, but whereas the Son is one with the Father, the statement that God created all things is true.
But discernment is in order, because the query is made, Can we be good without God?
Sin is rebellion from God's will. Evil is any system independent of His plan. Human good, if indepedent of God's plan is evil. If man remains in Him through Christ as Christ remained in Him, then we may have righteousness and indeed may be involved in proper good. On the contrary, the world and many counterfeit systems emphasize human good because such a system supports an Adversarial point of view that a counterfeit system of good may replace God's plan and succeed, thereby giving cause for an appeal to God's judgment upon the fallen angels.
Human good and crusaderism independent of His plan merely reinforces evil. In His plan, evil frequently is allowed to conquer evil. Although human good might appear noble, it tends to breed arrogance and gravitates towards emotional rebllion from God.
Second paragraph, 1st sentance is invalid. An attribute of a subject doesn't imply the subject as an attribute of the attribute. No rule of logic implies the converse is true. The author confuses a quality as an identity.
The second paragraph is imbedded with multiple presumptions and unstated premises which beg the question for the article's title. Plato is hardly a first root for Christianity or for political constructs, although 'On Politics' is frequently studid in Western philosophy of Politics.
Perhaps the author need study the topic of 'volition' with respect to dignity and equality and discern volition from worldly attributes.
If the former, then God could will that murder and dishonesty are moral, since His willing it makes it so. This is absurd.
If the latter, then God Himself is relying upon an external standard to determine right from wrong. This too is absurd.
Socrates raised this question, demonstrating that morality can't possibly be based on supernatural edict. I have yet to see a satisfactory answer to it.
Switch "If the former" with "If the latter" to render the above post comprehensible.
I'd say the author pretty well tips his hand here in his support for antichristian belief. In other words, he not only just doesn't get it,....he actually understands it and rebels from it publicly.
I agree that your intention in your argument is valid, although the explicit words you have chosen might need some review. An element of evil doesn't necessarily exist in everything. Although every man other than Christ has sinned or broken from the will of God.
Christ's death on the cross provided unlimited sacrificial atonement for sin,.....not for evil. Sin may be eliminated in a moment, by repentance, confession, acceptance of Christ. Evil is a longer lasting situation which must be opposed over time.
Consider the Scriptural dream of a cloth being picked up with evry created thing and many unclean things wich were not to be eaten by Mosaic Law, yet as the dream was interpretted by the angel from God, every created thing created by Him is good. Evil is a consequence of volition acting outside of God's will.
Some have argued that the entirety of human history is merely one set of arguments in the judgment of good and evil in the angelic realm. We provide substantial evidence in that appeal.
I never have really gleaned this as the meaning from Scripture. I understand we need to be careful and treat judgment with high value, but by no means do I find an admonishment to never judge. Judge not lest ye be judged, merely states the obvious. If I judge a man as violating the law for speeding 100 mph in a slow school zone adjacent to a hospital crossing where a crippled child is nearly run over, then I merely cast myself in a position that if I speed a car 100mph in a school zone and nearly injure a crip, that I too will be judged. Of course, if I remain obedient and resist the temptation to speed 100 mph in the school zone, there isn't any consequence to me for have judged the criminal. This is a consistent, just system.
Accordingly, the author's premise regarding 'Christianity' not being realistic, is flawed.
Why do I get the feeling that we are reading closing arguments in Satan's appeal by the Adversary himself?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.