An effortful search for something implies an objective existence. An effortful creation is something else. No one can ever create a value. They are as objective as the laws of physics.

Throughout history many have predicted the destruction of Christianity. The rise of religion around the world is clear evidence of the ossification of the Enlightenment project Snout.

Interpreting Scripture requires putting the events in historical and social context of course, The world changes and we should do the work of interpreting it for each generation. Its the most widely read and loved book in history. Maybe the fetish is yours Snout.

Our responsibility as people with free will is to take seriously the question of the identity of Jesus. To not do this is the true escapism.

I feel for those who don't know Jesus, who haven't experienced his loving presence in their lives and the joy of coming home (atheist previously). I feel too for the world when it dabbles in attempts to divorce itself from its Creator, and to reconcile nihilism with a meaningful human life.

My prediction regarding Islam and the West is the same as Spengler's http://www.atimes.com/atimes/others/spengler.html

Cont'd

Snout,
Principles of best human behaviour that best builds lives and communities has always been present. Humanity discovering and applying them has not always been evident. We happen to believe these best principles are universal and their wisdom inherit in the design of man in best community. We as believers in design and a Designer of man to live in community place best practise of attitudes, character, and actions as the intention of the designer. That humans choose deliberately to violate these principles are not the intention of the designer.

If you come up with a better principle than love, forgive and give yourself out of care for even your enemies then please let me know. This we believe is demonstrated in living the character of God.

Martin

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I’ve held off answering because I wasn’t sure if you had more to say from the end of your second post.

The link to the article about the Inquisition was interesting. Of course it needs to be interpreted in terms of a “mediaeval mindset and worldview”, not to mention the social and political context of the times. But isn’t that a relativist way of looking at things? At the same time, nowadays we would take the view that torturing and burning people for their beliefs is universally wrong – and correctly, too, I believe.

We clearly have a number of points of agreement. I feel there is a fundamental basket of values that can be said to be universally, or almost universally true. The Golden Rule is one of these, and figures prominently in all major religions and systems of ethics. Where we differ is in the ground each would cede to moral relativism, and that has as its base our differing beliefs about the origins of our moral sense.

I am a strong believer in science. However science cannot in itself deliver us a moral sense: only provide some Windex for that dark glass we look through. Sometimes we only end up smearing. Some types of science – psychology and medicine for example – can shed light on the distortions inherent in the glass itself. This is particularly the case when we think about sexuality and sexual morality.

cont.

Martin, I don’t personally feel the need to postulate a God for a universal moral law to work, any more than for the laws of physics to work. To me, debating which competing moral claims have genuinely emanated from God is a fruitless task. At the same time I respect those who ground their sense of universal values in their religious faith and experience, when those values result in good for people – which is the measure of a true universal value.

Thank you for the link to Spengler. He makes many important points, but overall my view of Islam’s ability to respond to modernity is less pessimistic. I can only hope I’m right.

I don’t predict the death of Christianity. Like monotheistic belief in general, it has proven to respond to changes in the world by reinventing itself time and time again, in myriad forms, some inspired, some catastrophic. I also agree that the science and the Enlightenment project can ossify: but the scientist has a tremendous strength: the inner voice constantly asking: am I really right about this, and how do I really know?

Philo,

Your principle is indeed a sound one, though I hope I don’t have too many enemies. Perhaps I haven’t been on OLO long enough.

Martin
How do I respond to the wierd links which you posted?

As regards the arguments found at the site concerning the caananites. It is based on the FALSE assumption that the basis of morality is god & that without God's guidance we cannot know right from wrong we can only make assumptions. You yourself argued against this when you argued that a sense of right & wrong was built into the natural world. Yet when people use that instinctual sense of right & wrong to judge your God you contradict yourself & proclaim they are working on assumptions. So which is it Martin? Do we have a reliable sense of right & wrong? Or is it only relaiable when it agrees with you?

Secondly the author of that site proclaims that any condemnation of genocide per se is based solely on assumption. Hardly! Ever heard of logic Martin? Deontology? Even natural law? Both of these condemn genocide in all its form & for ANY reason Martin. ANY REASON!

Now as to your site concerning the persecution of the Cathars.
What a load of rubbish, twisted facts & outright distortions that site contained.
A) It listed Will Durant as a secular historian [fact: Durant was an evangelical christian]. The work was also printed in 1935. Antique opinion indeed.

b) The Cathars are alleged to have stolen from the wealthy & this was why the church persecuted them. Rubbish. If this was so why did those very same rich christians protect the Cathars? To quote from Lea "They [the Cathars] were liked & respected both by the upper classes and by their Catholic neighbors to such an extent that, when the Abigensian crusade commensed many Catholics chose to die rather than turn over their Catharan neighbors to the Church." But wait perhaps this author is biased Martin. Let's see what a determined foe of heresy like Bernard of Clairvoux said about them shall we?

If you interrogate them [the Cathars], nothing could be more Christian; as to their conversation, nothing could be less reprehensible, and what they speak they prove by deeds. As to the morals of the heretic, he cheats no one, he opresses no one, he strikes no one, his cheeks are pale with fasting, he eats not the bread of idleness, his hands labour for his livelihood."

Ooh what a danger to society they must have been Martin. But wait if they weren't a danger to society (& they obviously weren't) then why did the pope tell all those tall tales about them? Why was the Albigensian crusade (not the inquisition by the way) fought? One reason only. Power. The Popes [Alexander III & Innocent III] saw the Cathars as a threat to their power. How do we know that the tales spread by the Popes of Catharan atrocities were just tall tales? Two reasons. 1) People like Bernard gave a report totally at odds with the Churches pronouncements. He was ignored. 2) The people in the region sided with the Cathars. They obviously did NOT believe the tall tales. And they had every reason to believe them [if they were true]. After all they rubbed shoulders with the Cathars every day. Surely they would have been the first to hear about these atrocities if they existed.

As to the Pope's pronouncements on the crusade - try reading Urban III's address at the synod of Clermont. He desribes the Saracens as "an accursed race, a godless race" & then adds that Killing them "is the only slaughter which is righteous"