If you take the stance that men are capable of deciding what is absolutely moral and immoral, then your objections might carry some weight. What is unfortunate to your point of view, is that men often develop quite different standards of morality. Not entirely foreign mind you, only stricter or less "confining".
Now when you examine the reasons why some moral standards are looser than others, what you find is that the people who went with the looser standards had a vested interest in doing so. They themselves participated in activities that the stricter standard denounced, and so rejected the parts that might have condemned their actions. Their "actions" I say, not themselves. So can you really believe that men can be trusted to objectively form their own moral standards? Does any thinking person who reads this seriously entertain that notion? All the great despots think themselves basically moral people. So do criminals. So do politicians. What we need is someone who is just like us, but has demonstrated an absolute mastery of real morality to make the call for us. Someone who has been tempted like us, but without sin. But who could that be? And would we really want him to judge us if we met him? Really? Thankfully I know such a person, and luckily for all of us, He demonstrated not only moral mastery, but also the purest kind of mercy and grace towards those who fell at His feet and asked for it. I think you know who I am talking about. No greater love has any man than that he lay down his life for his friend. So when you talk about those holding the "moral high ground", please try to see that you may be forming the notion of some bogey man in your head, and then eviscerating that image. All a good Christian is doing is repeating what that one Man and the one He called "His Father in heaven" has said. If you disagree with them, you have a much bigger problem than putting up with the messengers. Bob On Feb 22, 2010, at 9:59 AM, Richmond Mathewson wrote: > That makes me fed up. Almost everything you do, I do, and anybody else does > is bound to offend someone. Personally I am offended by any religious group > that thinks it holds the moral high ground. I am also offended by those who > think they have some sort of licence to stick their noses in other people's > business and pass judgement. > > There are things that are morally wrong, such as murder; and it is morally > wrong because it impinges on another's freedom of action (as does > slavery). Actions or thoughts that are held to be morally wrong are > rather hard to justify empirically and, as such, are probably held to be > morally wrong because of either religious beliefs or religiously determined > cultural beliefs (to explain that we should consider many atheists who hold > that homosexuality is wrong - but when you try to pin them down you > find that their set of values is normally based on the religion they make such > a noise about despising). > > I really wish people could begin to see past the "wrappings" of gender, > sexuality, race and so on, to the individuals within. All religions make it > clear that God looks on us all with equal favour - and that should suffice. _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
