I wish people of faith could argue for their ethics in secular terms. Quoting the Bible and using Biblical terms is great for other Christians in discussions. But outside the church the same concepts and understandings can be delivered in secular terms. They would win the day because they are true and just.
Well said.
killing an unborn child is murder. That never wins the day.
Homosexuality is contradictory to the theory of evolution. That would never win the day.
The climate of the earth has been cyclical since the beginning as shown in ice core samples.
That would never win the day.
divorce is bad for the family.
That would never win the day.
You really can’t outlaw morality or the 10 commandments would have worked.
Man will always legalize his sin.
I agree. Christians should be able to defend the faith with logic. However, some people are anti-faith simply because they want to be. They feel, they don’t think. Reasoning won’t sway them.
“I wish people of faith could argue for their ethics in secular terms.”
C. S. Lewis was a master of this.
This is a very good point. I particularly appreciate thinkers who who can explain their principles via Natural Law. That makes moral truths available to anybody who is willing and able to employ reason.
I don't wish to argue with you, but I disagree profoundly with that position. I believe it is this practice that has helped create in the minds of most people the notion that secular rationales for morality are superior to the fact that such laws are Divinely decreed.
One need not just endlessly cite verses, since my belief is that there is an "official" interpretation of the Bible known as Halakhah. The point to make is that the decrees of the Creator and Master of the Universe are valid for that reason alone. They may or may not make sense to us, but they all have the same source.
Secularists have created an absolutely horrifying philosophy. While insisting that the beginning of the universe took place with absolutely no plan or meaning whatsoever, they now act as if current liberal truisms were something other than their own personal hang-ups . . . as if there were a gigantic pillar somewhere out side the universe with all their taboos carved onto it.
In the absence of G-d there is no law and there is no right or wrong. The fact that (theoretically) certain things would still bother us would not make them objectively evil. They would only be evil to certain people; even if they were regarded as evil by most people or by all people, they would still be based on subjective hang-ups and not on anything objective. The fact that most people/all people are repulsed by mass murder would not make mass murder objectively "wrong" or "evil" in a G-dless world.
But as I said, it's not that liberals insist the world is meaningless; they insist this only of origins. Once we get past that they are moral fanatics. Every ten minutes there's a public service ad on TV urging the me to "make a difference" or "impact the world" or dedicate myself to "service." Why? How can anyone possibly "serve" in a meaningless world? Why should human beings worry about "making a difference" any more than cows or mushrooms do?
Why?
I don't know how liberals would explain their insanity, but looking at it from the outside they seem to intuit (even if they don't yet consciously believe it) that some form of "meaning" is forming. It seems to be in a state of upward evolution, since "history" allegedly flows only to the Left and what was once a normal attitude is now a hateful prejudice.
No matter how often liberals proclaim themselves materialists, I find it difficult to believe that their totalitarian moral instincts are rooted in a world utterly devoid of meaning. Do they believe that G-d is actually evolving--that the universe, which began as a coincidence, is in the process of creating Him?
Perhaps this is tied in with the so-called "g*ia hypothesis" in which the earth is actually alive and is allegedly becoming self-aware. This sounds much more like sorcery than science, but both posit that nature is the ultimate reality, though one regards it as metaphysical and the other as merely physical.
G-d deliver us from oxymoronic scourge of secular morality!
Although I don't doubt that there is something to the so-called "natural law" theory (I doubt any human explanation is adequate to describe the reality), I have long believed that (at least at this moment in history) Theonomic positivism is the better approach--though I doubt if any of my fellow FReepers will agree with me. They will claim that to make a Theonomic positivist argument means that G-d is not really good. As I said above, no human explanation is sufficient to describe the whole reality, but the point I would like to make is that all of G-d's laws, whether esoteric or "commonsense," are rooted in G-d Himself. In other words, G-d is not subject to any authority outside Himself.
Jews and other Noachides will of course be able to object to my position that Abraham once argued with G-d in an attempt to save the people of Sodom by asking "shall the G-d of all the earth not do right?" Personally (and I realize that isn't worth a lot), I think the point here is that sometimes G-d wants us to argue with Him (you think I've never argued with Him?). I also realize some will invoke the principal that the Torah does not contain derekh 'eretz (the most basic commonsense rules of conduct) because these are actually prior to and are assumed by the Torah. However, in a (theoretical) universe with no meaning (and I am of the position that if there was no meaning at the beginning that none can possibly develop), even derekh 'eretz would simply be subjective hang-ups, even if shared by the entire human race.
The main problem with Americans adopting Theonomic positivism is rooted in the Protestant value of religious freedom, which is based on the position that the goal of religion is "salvation," and this is only offered and not required (Catholicism is in a bit of a quandary here as it seems to be a mixture of both statutory obligation and gracious salvation, with the uncomfortable result that one is statutorily obligated to be saved). But though elucidated to its greatest extent by Protestants (especially such Protestants as Baptists), this "separation of church and state" has its ultimate roots in the "new testament's" command to "render unto Caesar."
One reason Theonomic positivism appeals to me is that my religious beliefs are not salvational but statutory. G-d is not politely suggesting anything to anyone. Nothing is "up to you." As Pirqey-'Avot says, "against your will you were created, against your will you were formed, against your will you were born, against your will you live, against your will you will die, and against your will you will give an account to the Supreme King over All Kings, HaQadosh Barukh Hu'. There are no "offers" involved in this.
Realizing that my own beliefs are at odds with most FReepers (and even against Protestant-based traditional American beliefs), I offer these thoughts merely for my fellow FReepers' perusal. There are many religions that are more theocratic than Protestantism and if such people were written out of the conservative movement or Free Republic then only Protestants would be left and Protestantism would be a necessary requirement of being a FReeper, and conservative, and an American.
I'm just sharing my thoughts. Disagree or rebuke me all you like, but I hope I will still be welcome here.