rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (04/05/85)
> Occasionally, someone (usually not a religious person, but there are > exceptions) will make the claim that there is no such thing as an > absolute morality (I use the term "moral relativist" to refer to one > who so believes). Then, someone else (usually a religious person, > but again there are exceptions) will say that the lack of an absolute > morality would mean there is no rational reason to condemn what > Hitler did. The moral relativist will usually disagree with this > conclusion. Now, will all the moral relativists explain why Muffy's > conclusion is incorrect, or admit that moral relativism allows Nazism > to be considered moral? Muffy's conclusion is absolutely correct. Because "right" and "wrong" are determined by the controlling societal forces at all times. In a world in which all human life is valued, Hitler's acts and philosophies were and are heinous. In a world ruled by Nazis, all human life would not be valued, there would be exceptions, those who did not serve the best interests (in their eyes) of society. Of course, if indoctrinated in that way of thinking, that would of course be right. I happen to value all human life. And I think the generally accepted version of what our society is SUPPOSED to adhere to says the same thing, though in practice we have seen exceptions often on grand scales. (Yes, love all people equally. The only way we can have a world in which we love all people equally is to kill off all of the Schmengenites, because I could never love those bastards!) > And if moral relativism, consistently followed, would consider Nazism > to be moral, if only Hitler had won the war, then I submit that > moral relativsim is a dangerous philosophy. Note the pretzelization of the original statements by Samuelson. Nazism is not considered moral because of the precept above regarding the valuing of all human life. There are rational reasons for holding such a precept in society. What's extremely humorous is that some Christians are so appalled by notions of "moral relativism" (tied to so-called situational ethics), perhaps believing that theirs IS the absolute morality that Gary referred to above, when in reality it is in itself an example of moral relativism. > (Of course, unless all the moral relativists on the net denounce Muffy, > immediately if not sooner, then the moral absolutists will justly > conclude that they in fact agree with Muffy's reasoning, and by > extension condone Hitler's actions.) That tactic doesn't work coming from your side, Gary. You see, when faced with questions like that and with remarks about how the asker may expect silence, who is it that turns tail and remains silent? Not I. > Apologies to Muffy; I do not mean this to be a personal attack. She has as much right to see this as a personal attack as you did in seeing my articles as personal attacks... -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (04/06/85)
The trick is that Gary Samuelson thought that Muffy might see his posting as a personal attack, and tried to combat that belief with his closing paragraph. Assuming that Gary Samuelson is candid, then he is looking for a way to condemn moral relativism without condeming moral relativists. I don't know how successful a paragraph can be in being such a way. We will see how Muffy takes it... Are you trying to condemn Christianity without condemning Christians? So far, the only evidence I have seems to indicate that you are trying to condemn Christianity through condemning Christians. Note that this is rather different from what Gary Samuelson is professing to do. The concept of ``hating the sin but loving the sinner'' is good for deep thoughts. Personally, I don't think that I have ever done this. I hate the sin, hate the sinner -- but when the sin goes away (or I realise that I was wrong in thinking that what someone else way doing was wrong) so does the hatred. Of course, my list of things that I will hate anybody for is rather short. I am curious as to whether anybody (still alive now) has actually managed to hate the sin but love the sinner. I can regret the sin but love the sinner, but when I turn on hatred it seems to be consistently both or neither. So this makes my list of ``things I think Christianity demands of you that are not humanly possible''. But maybe I just don't know how. Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) (04/08/85)
> The concept of ``hating the sin but loving the sinner'' is good for deep > thoughts. Personally, I don't think that I have ever done this. I hate > the sin, hate the sinner -- but when the sin goes away (or I realise that > I was wrong in thinking that what someone else way doing was wrong) so > does the hatred. For me that depends on who the sinner is. If I have a deep love for this individual then I CAN love them REGARDLESS of the sin (and I do mean unconditionally). When you know someone well enough and, indeed have such an all-encompassing love for them, then you can understand where this "sin" (I hate that word) stands in their lives. The "person" is more important than the ancillary "sin." If that person is mired in sin through and through, of course, I wouldn't have had anything to do with them in the first place. It's a question of degree. > Of course, my list of things that I will hate anybody > for is rather short. I am curious as to whether anybody (still alive > now) has actually managed to hate the sin but love the sinner. I can > regret the sin but love the sinner, but when I turn on hatred it seems > to be consistently both or neither. Yes, when someone accepts sin whole-heartedly then you say to yourself, "that filth-bag.... he's accepting sin whole-heartedly... well *I* won't have anything to do with him!" Depends on the individual again. Even in this case there are those that I will pine away for regardless of what they have consiously accepted. Not that I can be oblivious to the sin either... I simply won't throw the baby out with the dirty bathwater. > So this makes my list of ``things I think Christianity demands of you > that are not humanly possible''. But maybe I just don't know how. Sorry to say it Laura... YOU DON'T KNOW THE TRUE NATURE OF THE FORCE... oopppsss, sorry. Seriously, I think in this case perhaps you don't know how. Love is not the sort of thing you can create intellectually, but it CAN be understood intellectually. That's how I can articulate my experiences. This is all very similar to God's treatment of man. He does NOT love just everyone unconditionally. He would like everyone to enter into eternal life and live with him... but not if you don't measure up to his style of being. I also get the impression that he doesn't favor just everyone equally. Perhaps God finds that he can love some more than others, and treats them as such. This wouldn't be surprising. Those you love, you favor. But does God hate the sinner and the sin at the same time? What if they become one in the same? Can man REALLY sink so low that his very being becomes pure sin? Seems unlikely. -- UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO "And he made the stars, too, and the world is one of the stars"
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (04/09/85)
> The trick is that Gary Samuelson thought that Muffy might see his posting > as a personal attack, and tried to combat that belief with his closing > paragraph. Assuming that Gary Samuelson is candid, then he is looking > for a way to condemn moral relativism without condeming moral relativists. > I don't know how successful a paragraph can be in being such a way. We > will see how Muffy takes it... > Are you trying to condemn Christianity without condemning Christians? So > far, the only evidence I have seems to indicate that you are trying to > condemn Christianity through condemning Christians. Note that this is > rather different from what Gary Samuelson is professing to do. Professing is the key word. Reading the nine-part epic (soon to be a major motion picture) Gary's Blast of the Past showed (at least me, and also some others) that it's just a word from Gary. Now that I've been duly chastised by you for what you see as my sin, can we discuss the actual topic of the article? Frankly, I haven't seen you do that in quite a while, Laura. And I still love you even though you've sinned. :-) -- "It's a lot like life..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr