Jump to content

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

Hi Blood Bought,

Hey no worries and apology accepted. I was also a little harsh so I apologise for that too.

In terms of apologetics arguing toward "a god": the goal there isn't really to promote "a god" as much it is to show that if there is "a god" then "atheism" must be false. For some people I think that middle step is necessary, because people are at different places in their life and some may be more open to the gospel than others. 

We see this in the Bible too. Jesus said to Peter and his brother Andrew, "Follow me" and they left their fishing gear right there and followed Him. Thomas took a great deal more convincing, and Paul persecuted the church for some time before He was ready.

So, I guess the two approaches needn't be exclusive. Some gardens are ready for planting, and others have a lot of weeds and intruder plants that need to be cleared out first.

Anyway, God bless

 

Perhaps the most important thing is that somebody,somewhere will get something out of our debate. I know I did.......God bless you and the LuftWaffle.....lol

  • This is Worthy 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 10:13 AM, LuftWaffle said:

If you think about it carefully you'll find that most people agree on most moral issues, what they disagree about aren't the moral values, but about epistemic issues. Let me give you an example:

In some tribes when a person reaches a certain age, they tribesmen will kill that person. On the face of it, it seems then that they have the opposite morality to us, right? We believe that we ought to be nice to our elderly and take care of them, and they kill their elderly. 

The thing is that both groups actually believe that they ought to take care of elderly, but the the difference is that the tribesmen believe that when you die, you have to "find your way" to the promised afterlife, through a series of trials and challenges. If you're very old the trials will be too hard which means you'll be stuck in some spiritual intermediate place. Because of this they kill their older men before they get too old, so that they can still be fit enough to do the challenge. This idea is called cultural relativism because it appears that the morality is relative, but at the core, both groups have the same moral values which is, "We ought to make sure our elderly are cared for".

Both those Christians who support homosexuality and those opposed to it, believe that one ought to keep the word of God and that one ought to love your neighbour. The former believes the word of God is opposed to a certain kind of homosexuality (related to idol worship) whereas the latter believes the word of God is opposed to all homosexuality. Likewise the former believes that a saved homosexual is better than an angry unsaved one so they act in brotherly love by embracing their homosexuality. The latter believes that love cannot be separated from truth so the most loving thing to do is to love the sinner but condemn the sin. 

So morally speaking both Christian groups agree, what they disagree on is the epistemic side of things, "What does the bible teach on the issue", and "how does one best demonstrate neighbourly love".

The same goes for most disagreement around morality. People don't actually disagree about the moral law, they disagree about information around the moral law.
Take another example, abortion:

Pro-life believe it's wrong to murder, and since abortion is the murder of an innocent human being, it's wrong.
What does pro-choice believe? Do they believe murder is fine? No, they also believe murder is wrong, but they believe the unborn isn't a human being and thus the law against murder doesn't apply.

As such pointing out epistemic differences in peoples beliefs around morality doesn't disprove objective morality.

Likewise pointing out that some people believed in a flat earth and some people believe in a spherical earth doesn't necessitate the conclusion that the earth doesn't have a real (objective) shape, but instead that the earth's shape is mind dependent (subjective).

There can be no such thing as a saved Homosexual. If a thief gets saved he must give up being a thief. A homosexual can be saved but must give up being a practicing homosexual. Believers who believe they can embrace homosexuality have lost their way and need to repent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mike Mclees said:

There can be no such thing as a saved Homosexual. If a thief gets saved he must give up being a thief. A homosexual can be saved but must give up being a practicing homosexual. Believers who believe they can embrace homosexuality have lost their way and need to repent.

I'm not arguing for- or against homosexuality, I'm simply making the point that both sides of the debate are actually attempting to adhere to the same moral principles. The disagreement therefore isn't about the ethical values but about scripture interpretation etc. 
In short the fact that people may disagree about something like that, doesn't make morality any less objective. 

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LuftWaffle said:

I'm not arguing for- or against homosexuality, I'm simply making the point that both sides of the debate are actually attempting to adhere to the same moral principles. The disagreement therefore isn't about the ethical values but about scripture interpretation etc. 
In short the fact that people may disagree about something like that, doesn't make morality any less objective. 

understood. My statement was only for the record

God bless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×