2ndRateMind

Buy the computer, be connected, and use your connection for the common good. For me, it's a no-brainer. People need connection, these days, to pursue their agendas. Your agenda seems entirely virtuous. Pursue it, and don't feel guilty for pursuing it. Best wishes, 2RM

Not just from culture to culture, but within cultures over the course of time as well. Just an obvious example....Jews don't stone disrespectful children anymore. If there is an objective standard, I haven't seen it. From each other...but when dealing with other societies, it's OK to murder (war), steal (plunder), and lie (strategy). These actions are condoned in the Bible, even to the point of being directly ordered by God. Therefore, is the objective standard that killing another human being is immoral? No. It's morality is relative to the circumstances, which is "moral relativism". You're certainly free to believe that, but history strongly suggests otherwise. You are clearly disatisfied with the current state of humanity's standard of ethics, Gerald. Good. So am I. But you cripple yourself by insisting on cultural moral relativism. What right do you have to criticise if ethics are merely the accidents of human nature and history? None at all, it seems to me. Why should your set of ethics be considered any more valid than anyone else's? Than the Jews, who stoned disobedient children? Than the Nazis who started wars and gassed Jews? If you are going to criticise, you need to appeal to some objective reason why you have some better stance than the people you castigate. Also, I think you are confusing situation ethics with moral relativism. Situation ethics suggests that (objectively) correct moral actions depend on the exact circumstances. It doesn't care for rules like 'Thou shalt not kill', seeing as there may be circumstances when killing may be the right thing to do. Moral relativism is the idea that no standard of ethics is any better than any other, which is a position you do not seem to hold, given that you criticise God and the Bible for condoning murder in wartime. And as for history. To you it demonstrates that humanity has yet to find a set of ethics you can subscribe to. Me too. But that doesn't mean that objective 'best' ethics cannot exist. Best wishes, eco Best wishes 2RM

Perhaps that has less to do with an objective moral standard and more to do with how humans have developed over the years. Of course cultures haven't thought it OK to murder, steal, and lie to each other, because a culture that did that would never have survived. We are altruistic because it benefits the species to be alruistic. Well, to an extent. There are people in every society who think murdering, stealing, and lying are perfectly okay, because they have been able to live and breed successfully by doing one or all of those things. And all of us lie to each other to some extent. We lie (or omit the truth) about our stigmatizing illnesses or shameful things we've done in the past to protect ourselves. Or we lie to others to spare feelings and preserve relationships. Indeed, Alyson. I disagree with nothing that you have said. Cultures have developed the way they have because that is a good way for them to be. Individuals have the moral standards they do because they find that these are the set of ethics that work for them. If they don't work for individual or culture, they get swapped for better ideas. None of this negates the idea that objective morals may exist, and that individuals and cultures, to a greater or lesser extent, reflect them. The very fact that we can discuss different ethical codes in terms of 'good' and 'better' implies that there exists a 'best' - an ultimate, objective standard of morality against which all others may be measured. Best wishes, eco.

Sure, but like it or not moral relativism is reality. All one has to do is examine humanity across time and space to see that. Sure, humanity's ethics has varied from culture to culture. But that doesn't mean that there is no such thing as an objective standard. In fact, most human cultures agree more than they disagree about ethics. Very few cultures have thought it OK to murder, steal from or lie to each other. We are perfectly entitled to think there is an objective reality about ethics, to which all societies aspire, and some achieve more closely than others. And I am suggesting that the degree of harm that some standard of ethics allows is a simple measure of extent to which it approaches that objective ideal, that no harm is done to anyone or their best interests, and humanity finds a way to co-inhabit this fragile planet peacefully and harmoniously. Best wishes, eco.

I appreciate your point, Gerald, but cultural relativism doesn't work for me. I find unsatisfactory to say, for example, that the holocaust was a good thing because the fascists thought it was. and that the fact that we now find it to be a bad thing is simply a matter of our culture being different to that of the Nazis. I wan't to say that the holocaust was objectively bad, not just subjectively, relatively bad. And I think the harm test, though not without it's problems, offers us a way to do that. Best wishes, eco.

Well, if you take man as the measure of all things (and I see no reason why not, believer or not) then it is quite simple. Good is what is in our long, medium or short term best interests, and bad is what does us harm. Right and wrong are thoughts, words and deeds that influence our interests for better or worse. Of course, things get more complex when you try to assess the extent and direction of those various influences over different time-scales, and more complex still when you try to adjudicate between the interests, often conflicting, of various individuals, communities, societies and nations, and of humanity as a whole. As for God's Word on the matter - I believe in it precisely so far as it fits in with this picture, and not one jot further. After all, if God loves us as He is alleged to do, He must have our best interests at heart. Best wishes, eco

It's nice to see a thoughtful post on this forum. It's nice to see thoughtful replies. My own take on this is that, come the hereafter, we all end up in the presence of God. The difference between heaven and hell is in how we get on with that. Saints will be vindicated. The rest of us sinners will find ourselves rueing our misspent lives. Cheers, eco.

Some truths are better realised and discovered, rather than baldly stated. But I will oblige, on this occasion. Jesus died as He did because He loved humanity.

Consenting to the cross I walked And as I went the people talked 'There he goes, the king of Jews, Not much the king, not good the news' 'A soldier would be better worth To fetch the Romans down to earth' I do not know, I cannot tell if this act will weave the spell to reach from here to heaven's span and bring forever God to man, but this I know, that I must try and every man must sometime die.

No, I readily admit that I do not understand atonement theory. I understand what makes it attractive, but not what makes it true. Best wishes, eco. Oh dear. Atonement isn't a theory. Atonement is a key theme all throughout Scripture. GE gave a good explanation, I think. ... Honestly, Eco, I fail to understand how you can call yourself by Christ's name, yet not believe the writings that testify of Him and explain who He is from beginning to end. How can you believe life is about humanity and not about Him? Ha. I sense the 'not a proper Christian' tactic. It does you no credit. Now, about atonement. It is fundamentally an offense against justice to allow or enable one person to answer for the sins of another. This is widely recognised in all judicial systems in the world on an individual scale - we simply do not allow mothers to accept the punishment due to their sons, or lovers to swap places in the dock, or any such system. I can only think that atonement theory is injustice at such a cosmic level that it has blinded you to it's obvious inconsistancy with the nature of God - that He is loving, merciful and Just. Jesus has not answered for my sins, and if I was given any choice about the matter, I would not allow Him to do so, and I would insist on answering for my own sins. But, in fact, I was offered no such choice. Rather, as I was born again, I went through a process whereby all my sins were paraded before me, and repenting each and every one of them. I assure you, it was no soft option, but the final result, atonement, at-one-ment with God, which cannot happen through anyone else's good offices, or however much blood is uselessly spilt, was worth every moment of mortification. I think this process is common to all who have been born again. If you do not recognise it, perhaps it is your own relationship with the divine that needs a review. Cheers, eco.

Do you see a difference between His ways and our understanding of His ways? @onelight Oh, most certainly. God is perfect, and sees all through the bright lens of Love. We are imperfect, and see mostly through the tainted, discoloured, distorted lens of self-interest. Yet, I do not think God is irrational. Indeed, were I pushed, I would tend to say that God invented reason, and built us capable of rationality, that we might approach Him. Certainly, the universe seems to be a rational creation, and amenable to rational interrogation. If it was not, the whole scientific project to understand it would be in vain. And yet we know that science works. I think that speaks volumes about the creator. So, I think that philosophy, a specially abstract combination of fearless creativity and ruthless reason, is a useful endeavour. @neb No, I readily admit that I do not understand atonement theory. I understand what makes it attractive, but not what makes it true. Best wishes, eco.

What do you believe God incarnated Himself just to be crucified and then rise from the dead? I don't see that there is any 'just' about it. More even than His teaching, Jesus has set us the loving example of perfect sacrifice. But it is up to us to emulate that way of sacrifice to the best of our abilities, as far as our circumstances allow, and our disposition will let us. If we all allow God to work through us, each of us, I can't get how we can avoid saving the world. cheers, eco.

So, what you are saying is mankind is it's own savior, and we don't need Jesus? No, I mean that Jesus, when He invades our psychologies via the Holy Spirit, turns our lives upside down and inside out. The things that were important to us, such as worldly success and trophy wives and a new SUV every year fade into insignificance. The things that weren't important to us, such as our own misdeeds, and each others well-being, become vital. But having done that for us, I don't see what else Jesus needs to do. He gives us the right attitude - we still need to turn that attitude into good works. But in your web site you do not mention Jesus, your status as a believer, or your Christian motives for collecting money. Indeed I don't. On this side of the Atlantic we tend to be a little suspicious of overt religion. I fear I would lose the interest of many good, but unbelieving, people, were I to state my Christianity openly on the EcoTramp website. Yet, you have set my thoughts running. There is no reason why I shouldn't set up another site expressing my unorthodox melding of philosophy and Christianity. And I would have more space, on such a site, to elaborate, explain and illustrate, than I would here. So I may well do that. It would make an interesting project. cheers, eco.

So, what you are saying is mankind is it's own savior, and we don't need Jesus? No, I mean that Jesus, when He invades our psychologies via the Holy Spirit, turns our lives upside down and inside out. The things that were important to us, such as worldly success and trophy wives and a new SUV every year fade into insignificance. The things that weren't important to us, such as our own misdeeds, and each others well-being, become vital. But having done that for us, I don't see what else Jesus needs to do. He gives us the right attitude - we still need to turn that attitude into good works.

This thought is as ancient as Lucifer. If we could do it, we would not need a Savior! May I suggest Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness; [Matt.6:33] But we have a saviour, so we can do it. We don't have to wait for Him to come again, just get on with it. Perfection is not something that can be obtained on this earth until the return of Christ... No one is asking for perfection. Just that people don't die of hunger, or preventable disease. And this is a counsel of despair. I cannot think that this is the spirit of the faith. You may think that there is nothing to be done, and that God will reward the faithful despite their inaction, but I think you are taking an unnecessary risk. cheers, eco

This thought is as ancient as Lucifer. If we could do it, we would not need a Savior! May I suggest Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness; [Matt.6:33] But we have a saviour, so we can do it. We don't have to wait for Him to come again, just get on with it.

Compassion International looks great. Well done for finding it; well done for supporting it. Is Jesus not the answer? Well, that would take a book to answer. I can only say that each generation has it's challenge. In my country, our great-grandfathers had the Kaiser to beat. Our grand-fathers needed to destroy Nazism. Our fathers faced down communism, and united Europe. Our job is just to end poverty. Our children's mission, maybe, will be to reach for the stars. People need a cause that is bigger than their own self-interest to give context and meaning to their existence. If that is Jesus, that is fine. But I think however corrupt, sinful and selfish the heart of humanity may be, it also has a yearning for the Good, the Right, the True, the Noble, the Just, and the Moral. And I have enough faith in - and love for - humanity to think that social progress is not only possible, but inevitable. Lest you think I am side-tracking Jesus, I am not. He will forever stand as the symbol of perfect Love, and ultimate Sacrifice. And one does not even need to be a Christian to acknowledge that. Best wishes, eco

I can see your point. And I do not intend to prosyletise the idea of salvation through either law or works. I have already alluded to the unfair advantage that a system of works would offer the rich. As regards law; well, I am a rebel at heart, and confess a romantic attachment to other rebel souls. From such as these has human progress happened. I cannot believe God will punish them, only that He will reward them duly. So, not works, nor law, nor credulous belief satisfy me as criteria for salvation. I have an alternative suggestion to make, but this is your site, not mine, and I hesitate to express it.

Do you believe in the Holy Spirit? Indeed I do. But in my experience, the Holy Spirit works through us, not instead of us. I'm not sure what you are thinking with your response. In any event, Paul was led by the Holy Spirit in what he wrote. I am sure he was. I just think that the Holy Spirit, when it guides us, does just that. But it does not replace us. Rather, it takes all that we know, all that we can, all that we are, and melds it into distilled wisdom. But what it does not do is anticipate the moral progress that new generations will make, and add that into the mix. Or so it seems to me. Love, eco.

Are you looking at this then from a world-wide or global perspective? As in the entire human race? Are you wanting to re-distribute wealth from the developed countries (Europe, N. America, etc.) to the developing countries (everyone else)? Do you believe it is possible to resolve the absolute poverty issue globally in this life? Or is this something that only will happen with the return of Jesus Christ? I agree with Nebula that people have to generate their own wealth and not expect hand-outs. Coming from a third world country (developing nation) I know firsthand that aid is not always the best option. I’ll give you an example. In the northern part of Brazil there was a perceived famine due to a drought. The crop didn’t yield much that year for the local farmers. There was aid brought in from a developed nation. The local workers realized they didn’t have to work but would just receive the free food regardless of their work effort. The problem was only made worst as less work was done and the lack of food increased. Not to mention the aid that was brought in was sold to the population by the corrupt local government instead of handed out freely. You've heard the Chinese proverb: “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” From a social-economic standpoint we need to be teaching people how to generate their own income, increase their standard of living, and not depend on aid. These are my thoughts. Yours? God bless, GE Hello Golden, Yes, I take a global perspective on this. No, I don't particularly want to take money from one place and dump it somewhere else. I agree with both you and Neb that enterprise and trade are the way out and up for the developing world. One of the charities I support, Deki, does precisely the kind of educational and micro-finance work you allude to, and that is necessary to encourage budding entrepreneurs into a situation where they can work themselves and their families out of poverty and into dignity. And yes, I firmly believe that it is possible to eradicate absolute poverty not only in this life, but in our lifetimes. Hasn't Jesus done enough for us already? Must we expect Him to solve all our problems for us? I think the guy deserves a holiday. Let us create a world fit for Him to return to, and not shelve issues for Him to sort out when He does return. Best wishes, eco.

Do you believe in the Holy Spirit? Indeed I do. But in my experience, the Holy Spirit works through us, not instead of us.

Do you never ask yourself why the scriptures say what they say? Do you never consider the thought processes that may have led Paul to write as he did?

Dear Joe. Your quotes are always illuminating, and your knowledge of the Bible is obviously exemplary. Nevertheless, it is sometimes difficult to discern your point. Can you, perhaps, humour this neophyte Christian, and make a note to explain what you think your quotations actually mean? Thanks, eco.

I think that this is exactly why Christianity has tended to focus on belief as the criterion for salvation, rather than works. Clearly, the rich can make a bigger impact on society with smaller sacrifice than the poor. Christianity has recognised this from the beginning, and has, not unnaturally, wanted to set a level playing field that is consistent with the notion of a just God. But, as we have seen on another thread, ('moral responsibility for belief' on this forum) this idea of belief being the sole means to salvation has inherent philosophical problems of it's own. My own feeling is that every donated penny will count come judgement day, in precisely the proportion that it constitutes a sacrifice. Meanwhile, in this life, every little helps. Love, eco.

I think we have to ask ourselves whether we want to support jobs creating frivolous luxuries, or fundamental necessities. If the money spent on Rolls-Royces was donated to charities, the jobs would not be gone, just shifted into different sectors, like the manufacture of anti-malaria mosquito nets, or HIV-AIDS medications, or sewerage systems. Less glamorous, perhaps, but essentially more moral. And the thing is, if we do resolve this absolute poverty issue, then the global market-place would be so much bigger, the opportunities for trade so much greater, and the potential for economic well-being for everyone radically transformed. The opportunity is for riches for all, instead of riches confined to a privileged elite. Best wishes, eco.