[Vision2020] Religious Diversity Education

[Ted Moffett]

Luke et. al.

> > Ted answers:
> >  Yet many fundamentalist Christians insist that the
> > commandment against killing is really only meant for those cold blooded
> > murderers who kill senselessly, it is a commandment against "murder," 
>but
>if
> > you kill to punish or gain righteous compensation for a hideous crime
>(let's
> > forget for a moment that flawed and limited human mind which has sent 
>many
> > to death row, death row inmates who were later released from prison by 
>the
> > dozens after they were shown to be innocent), you have God's blessing.
> >
> > You will dodge this very real and controversial division within
>Christianity
> > about the death penalty, which demonstrates with startling clarity the
> > relativistic and flawed interpretations of the Bible which Christian's
>argue
> > over: both interpretations cannot be right, can they?  So there are
>millions
> > of Christians who are wrongly interpreting the Bible on the issue, 
>either
> > the whole Catholic Church, or other groups of Christians who number in 
>the
> > millions who believe staunchly in the death penalty.
>
>I do believe in the death penalty, and I don't dodge the fact that there is
>controversy over this topic throughout our nation. But the death penalty is
>a side issue;

I am talking about the debate within Christianity on the death penalty.  Is 
not one of the Ten Commandments "Thou Shall Not Kill?"  Of course I know 
that this can be interpreted to mean "Do Not Murder" but this just begs the 
question, when the State takes the life of another human being who is locked 
up and not a danger to society, is this murder?  kIlling in self defense is 
not the issue here.
But you think the State killing someone in cold blood is a side issue?  What 
sort of morality do you really represent?

>we would not need it if the ten commandments were followed
>from the beginning.

But God and everyone knows they have not are not and will not be followed.


>It is not the law of God that leads to confusion;

You make my argument stronger, the argument you are most certainly avoiding, 
when avoiding the powerful and difficult debate about the death penalty!  
The biased human mind at work, filtering facts and logic to suit a 
pre-determined belief about how perfect their belief system is.  And the 
millions of Christians, well educated Biblical scholars among them, who 
disagree on this death penalty issue, are ample evidence of the uncertainty 
of knowing all of Gods laws perfectly with the flawed and limited human 
mind.

>it is
>man's sinfulness, and in many cases his refusal to follow God's law that
>bring about the controversies.
>(To briefly address the issue, OT law lays clear principles that Christ
>upheld in His ministry, and though not all OT laws carry through today,
>those principles behind them still do. And one of them is that if you take
>something unlawfully, the same will be required of you. And if I killed 
>your
>wife, or your mother, you would very quickly become a proponent of the
>D penalty, regardless of prior beliefs.)


You are absolutely wrong!  How about that for certainty!  I do not support 
the death penalty, and if you killed someone I loved it is possible I would 
lose my temper and take you apart, but that is entirely different than 
giving the State the power to kill in cold blood in a jail, which is what 
supporting the "death penalty" means.  I try to follow the words of a wise 
man who once advocated turning the other cheek and that those without sin 
can cast the first stone.

>
>     I will agree that man by himself cannot obey God's law. That's why He
>sends the saints the Holy Spirit. There still is debate and argument, but a
>disagreement over the death penalty is not going to put you in hell. 
>Denying
>it does not amount to heresy; you can believe the basic
>gospel and still be wrong about a side issue. I know that there are many
>areas of secondary doctrine that I don't fully understand, but the basic
>gospel is clear, and so are the 10 commandments. Don't get flustered over
>the death penalty; rather, simply don't murder.


If one of the Ten Commandments is "Thou Shall Not Kill" then the 
disagreements over the death penalty can easily be linked to the Ten 
Commandments, again, depending on how they are interpreted.  This is not a 
"secondary doctrine."

>
>     To boil down the rest of your arguments, it seems quite clear that you
>are an empiricist, and you don't believe in anything that you cannot prove
>under the microscope. That doesn't sound very tolerant to me, Mr. Moffet.
>     There are many things which we know exist that you cannot get a
>scientific handle on. Life, for one. When an organism is alive, there is
>energy intake and energy output, but when it dies, for some reason all that
>stops. Why? What is it that keeps you alive? Science cannot answer that
>question.
>     Where does love come from? You cannot chemically analyze kindness; you
>cannot dissect rudeness and attribute it to certain nerves in your body. Or
>what about music? Here you have an ordered structure of things vibrating.
>Things buzzing. Scientifically, empirically, music shouldn't exist. Simple
>sound waves somehow fit into a coherent framework from horsehair rubbing on
>strings, and you get Bach. Things smash into each other in some strange
>consistency called rhythm, and out comes CCR. Why? Science alone cannot
>explain any of these things.
>     My point in all this is somewhat obscure, so let me clarify.
>Empiricism goes nowhere. Science proves nothing, it only gives evidence.
>Humans have to make the conclusions, and these conclusions are based on the
>supposedly flawed and imperfect minds you keep claiming we have. And even
>then, science and empirical evidence cannot conceive many things.
>     And science cannot give us the answer to morality, for science is
>constantly changing. Old theories are ever being replaced by the new. If 
>you
>try to base your religion on the words and claims of the scientists, you're
>building a house without a foundation.

This philosophical ramble is so full of holes I don't know where to start.

Perhaps I can suggest that you are an empiricist of a sort when you assert 
that your absolute code of conduct and morality comes from a book which you 
believe to be divinely revealed.  Therefore the empirical data that are the 
foundation for your belief system are contained in the Bible.  You will only 
accept what you can determine when the Bible is under your microscope.  No 
facts from the Bible, no religion.  Or you accept commands from on high when 
you hear the voice of God talk directly to you?



>     Christiants have a solid foundation, God's word. At the heart of it, 
>the
>10 commandments. And though you might point to semi-relevant rabbit trails,

Again, someone who views the moral debate over the deliberate cold blooded 
killing of another human being by the State as a "semi-relevant rabbit 
trail" has a frightening view of morality.

Ted

_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail