Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: yendu bwam
But start by considering the 10 commandments. Go on to those provided by Jesus - that we should love all (even our worst enemies), that to judge another is bad (though not to judge a person's actions), that to forgive any who truly repent is good, that to reserve sexuality for marriage (and to consider marriage a true life-long, for better or worse commitment) is good, that to seek humility and shun pride is good, that to turn the other cheek when struck is good, etc. etc. etc. In short, that to shun sin as defined by Christ and the Law & Prophets who preceded him is inherently good. And that to follow the example of Christ is inherently good.

The Ten Commandments were a good start in codifying Mosaic Law. Who carved them is another matter.

Regarding your other "unprovable moral axioms," I'll let others decide on their mystical worth.

Meanwhile, here's what Ayn Rand had to say about leading a rational life in an irrational society -- From Rand's essay "How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society?"

Nothing can corrupt and disintegrate a culture or a man's character as thoroughly as does the precept of moral agnosticism, the idea that one must never pass moral judgement on others, that one must be morally tolerant of anything, that the good consists of never distinguishing good from evil.

... in fact, a man is to be judged by the judgments he pronounces. The things which he condemns or extols exist in objective reality and are open to to independent appraisal of others. It is his own moral character and standards that he reveals, when he blames or praises. If he condemns America and extols soviet Russia -- or if he attacks businessmen and defends juvenile delinquents -- or if he denounces a great work of art and praises trash -- it is the nature of his own soul that he confesses.

And this one ... Think about the multitudes of Christians that voted for Clinton while you read it.

Observe how many people evade, rationalize and drive their minds into a state of blind stupor, in dread of discovering that those those they deal with -- their "loved" ones or friends or business associates or political rulers -- are not merely mistaken, but evil. Observe that this dread leads them to sanction, to help and to spread the very evil whose existence they fear to acknowledge.

And finally ... Something for Clinton voters to think about.

An irrational society is a society of moral cowards -- of men paralyzed by the loss of moral standards, principles and goals.

233 posted on 09/10/2002 9:27:15 PM PDT by thinktwice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies ]


To: thinktwice; Prysson
Regarding your other "unprovable moral axioms," I'll let others decide on their al worth.

Though unprovable (as are Rand's axioms of good and bad), you can see that if God exists, and if he created us with something (good) in mind, then the moral axioms which he has provided us are likely to be those which are best suited for our functioning in life - and for God's purpose. Though many Christian moral precepts are hard to follow (because we are tempted to do otherwise out of selfishness, or lust (a form of selfishness) or pride or greed), it is obvious to a great many (1/3 of humanity) that following such precepts would bring about a vastly better world into which we could bring our children.

235 posted on 09/11/2002 6:22:59 AM PDT by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies ]

To: thinktwice; Prysson
Nothing can corrupt and disintegrate a ure or a man's character as thoroughly as does the precept of moral agnosticism, the idea that one must never pass moral judgement on others, that one must be morally tolerant of anything, that the good consists of never distinguishing good from evil

A good quote! First, Rand is insisting that we distinguish between good and evil. All religious people would agree, for they are called to do so also. Of course, for religious people, God defines good and bad (those pesky axioms), while for Rand, she does it herself (and arbitrarily - and differently from God). On the question of judgment - Christians are certainly called to refuse to condone any sinful or evil act. However, Christ raised the bar on judgment, refusing to let us judge people themselves. That is where, as I'm sure you know, we get the expression: % the sin, love the sinner." Christ recognized that we are all sinners, and that we each struggle in our own way (if we are believers) against that sin. And does it not seem 'good' to you to call to task a person for his sin, while loving that person and trying to get him to turn away from such sin?

236 posted on 09/11/2002 6:31:26 AM PDT by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies ]

To: thinktwice
... in fact, a man is to be judged by the judgments he pronounces. The things which he condemns or extols exist in objective reality and are open to to independent appraisal of others. It is his own moral character and standards that he reveals, when he blames or praises. If he condemns America and extols soviet Russia -- or if he attacks businessmen and defends juvenile delinquents -- or if he denounces a great work of art and praises trash -- it is the nature of his own soul that he confesses

To judge a man, as Rand thinks we should do (and Christians do not), assumes a standard of good and bad. The difference for Christians is that the act of judging a person (not an act) is part of the 'bad' part of the moral axioms.

237 posted on 09/11/2002 6:34:09 AM PDT by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies ]

To: thinktwice; Prysson
And this one ... Think about the multitudes of Christians that voted for Clinton while you read it. Observe how many people evade, rationalize and drive their minds into a state of blind stupor, in dread of discovering that those those they deal with -- their "loved" ones or friends or business associates or political rulers -- are not merely mistaken, but evil. Observe that this dread leads them to sanction, to help and to spread the very evil whose existence they fear to acknowledge. And finally ... Something for Clinton voters to think about. An irrational society is a society of moral cowards -- of men paralyzed by the loss of moral standards, principles and goals.

Agreed, thinktwice! But let's think about Clinton. Most of the objections to his behavior came from Christians (and religious people in general) in this country. Why? Because, for them, he presented a horrendous and sinful role model for their children. But it is not an 'irrational' society paralyzed by the loss of moral standards. It is a selfish and stubborn and sinful society. It's perfectly 'rational' for a man to commit adultery (because it brings intense physical pleasure) - when he thinks that he can get away with it (when nobody will find out). Clinton is a highly 'rational' man. Of course, what he did was (for Christians) immoral. Clinton commits many acts which are extremely selfish.

238 posted on 09/11/2002 6:39:53 AM PDT by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson