Originally posted by sad_n_lonely:
perhaps a semantic difference, I don't see where the words moral superiority have anything to do with good or bad, two entirely different concepts, one is prideful (superiority) the other is action oriented (good and bad). And yes I am a Christian fundamentalist.<p>ML: Morals are based on the concept of good and bad so, of course, they are related. <p>snl...Each of us should do that yes, but it gets a little more murky when we judge others, and God seems to reserve that right to Himself.<p>ML: God reserves the right to judge one's SOUL on Judgment Day. He commands us to judge right from wrong, however. God judges one's soul ultimately, but we are commanded to judge behavior. "Judge with righteous judgement." The Bible in no way pushes a stance of moral neutrality, just the opposite. <p>snl..Do you pay "homage" to medicine, engineering, science, etc. etc.? Or do you just kinda wing it and reinvent the wheel as you go (in your image I assume)?<p>ML: Let's please not put "psychology" in the same category as science, medicine and engineering. It's better suited to the same category as philosophy and maybe even astrology with it's highly subjective nature. It is not a science. I began as a psychology major in college and dropped it when I found it was mush for mushminds. I wasn't impressed. Much smoke, no fire. <p>snl:
The Bible makes it clear, there is no moral difference between a child molester and anyone else. We are all the same in Gods eyes, no sinner better or worse than another, and all are sinners. However, we do have the right to protect and govern ourselves, so a child molester will suffer consequences arising from those behavioural choices, I (the body politic) may even execute him, but I do not consider myself morally superior, nor would the execution be based on the moral inferiority of the molester.<p>ML:As a saved Christian we are no better than EACH OTHER, however, you are misconstruing the Bible's meaning when you say there is no moral difference between a redeemed Christian and an unsaved PRACTICING child molestor. Or no moral implications in an evil act. There is an enormous difference that is emphasized throughout the Bible. Do you think God saw no difference when He inspired passages like 1Cor 6 9-10 or Prov 19:28, Psa 97:10? C'mon. <p>snl...I am saying the moment we start assigning I am better than you we travel the road to the final solution (gotta love those nazi comparisons). I think morality should remain in the realm of teaching (primarily as part of child-rearing) and leading by example.<p>ML: I don't understand your last statement here. It should "remain in the realm of teaching" - versus WHAT? Not extend beyond? What? I hope you don't meant that. How frightening to think that society should not embrace a foundation of morality in theory and practice - and that we should compartmentalize morality to a specific segment. Then we can be quite ASSURED that people cannot rule themselves or be free because they do not know right from wrong. This is exactly WHY Russian society is having such a hard time living with democracy and many citizens long for the old slavery of the communist regime. It is because for 80 years they were not taught MORALS and do not know any moral higher than 'might makes right.' An immoral or ammoral people simply cannot handle freedom because morals work as a self control mechanism - a society devoid of morals has no control mechanism.<p>That is exactly WHAT LED to the final solution, when German citizens [millions], lacking a solid moral foundation, particated in the extermination of millions of Jews and Poles. SO, I find it astonishing that you would claim that morals led to the "final solution." It was just the opposite. And it was a stance of moral cowardice -or neutrality [that you are proposing here]- that allowed millions of Germans to sit silently by and watch the action. They probably didn't want to be "judgmental" either, huh?