This brilliant post really is a gem mine. This poster is a bible scholar that has studied scripture for years, judging by his posts. I have highlighted the jewels in this post so you can find them easily.
Good Job! You secularists out there have more that met your match.
Thread rules:
No debate
No whining.
Congrats only.
Let us consider the matter of ethics. How does one determine if ethics are either dyadic or triadic? The way in which we view matters of ethics is routinely decided in society on the basis of intertextuality. How does one regard the question of stealing for example? In society we have trusted in our ability to martial all of the existing fields of human knowledge and bring them to bear upon this human experience in order to determine its ethical status. This is very much dyadic because it begins in the material world of the human experience of stealing and then brings human reason (itself the product of material human experience) to bear upon the situation. Society then weighs what each field of accademic inquiry has to say on the subject of stealing and makes a decision based on the collective information. What this produces is an uninspired, invalid, dyadic, human standard of ethics. This renders ethics as context dependent. Since each situation must be judged according to the circumstances at the time, this means there is no absolute standard. What is right depends upon the conditions surrounding the event. This is what is known as “Situation Ethics”. In other words, stealing can never be regarded as an absolutely right or wrong because the same standard cannot be the basis for measurement in every case. Now, what if we submit the question of stealing to a triadic standard? In order to determine if stealing is an absolute right or wrong we would need a standard that transcends the nine fields of inquiry, a standard that is absolute, irrespective of individual conditions. Is it possible that such a standard exist? If so, what would this do to our current method for determining matters of ethics?
If we are to avoid contradictions in our application of ethics, it will be necessary to adopt an ethical standard that is consistent in all circumstances and equitable to all members of society. I contend that the word of God is the only standard by which this need can be satisfied. The application of ethical principles in scripture is never concerned with issues of ethnic, social, political, or economic considerations. Right and wrong are never determined by these factors. Without these prejudices, the application of judgments will always be just and equitable. If we take just the question of capital punishment, how do we decide whether this practice is right or wrong? Some argue that this practice, even in response to a capital crime, is uncivilized, cruel, and barbaric. The deontological argument would contend that the death penalty is a justly retributive measure which addresses the guilt factor. The utilitarian would even argue that it is a deterrent measure and should be imposed. I think both are correct. One valid issue that deontology recognizes is that we do not apply the death penalty in our society equitably. Often, the death penalty seems to be disproportionately determined by one’s social, economic or racial status. I am sure that most would find this an unacceptable application of capital punishment. If capital punishment is an issue of fairness where a life is demanded for a life, why is it not applied fairly across the board? Still, how does one justify the taking of a life under any circumstance?
One popular argument says that taking a person’s life is a devaluation of the individual. If the life is taken, there no longer remains an opportunity for rehabilitation or redemption. This argument misses the point. Justice is not satisfied by the rehabilitation of the murderer but by taking of his life. Failure to exercise the death penalty in the case of a capital crime is not intended to recognize the dignity of the guilty. It is intended to exact retribution. Failure on our part to uphold the death penalty is instead a failure to recognize the terrible nature of the crime. This brings up the question of who should determine the magnitude of the crime. Since God is the rightful giver and taker of life, perhaps we should allow revelation to influence the decision. The revealed standard demands that a life be taken for a life. “Of every man’s brother I will require the life of man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed”, (Gen.9:5,6). This law was given to Noah before the nation of Israel was eve born. This law was given as a divine law to Noah before the nation of Israel was ever born. This law was given as a divine mandate for man to punish the manslayer and was not given to a select group of people as was the Law of Moses. This is a divine mandate to reveal how man should represent the undue taking of a life. We need to see the seriousness of murder from the eyes of the Creator, not through any human value system. Rationalization for not observing the mandate is a rejection of the revealed standard. Observance of this mandate is predicated upon the understanding that man is created in the image of God. Murder then becomes an affront to the image of God. As far as God is concerned, this cannot go unchallenged. The arguments of rehabilitation and possible redemption call into question the validity of the revelation. These considerations have no value to the mandate of God and do not even figure into it from the vantage point of revelation.
Can the Christian support the death penalty? I believe there are actually two questions here. One is a matter of support while the other is a matter of involvement. I believe that God has granted this judicial mandate of capital punishment to be exercised by world governments. This is a matter appointed to the world powers that God has installed. If a Christian is functioning in a capacity of social authority such as a judge perhaps, then he must carry out the functions the office he holds. God has assigned this power to such offices and the fact that one is a Christian does not relieve him of this responsibility.
To respond to the question of homosexuality, I would like to bring revelation to bear upon this human experience using Romans 1:16-32. Our world is becoming increasingly tolerant of homosexuality. Society regards this lifestyle as an acceptable alternative, natural, and even as having received the blessing of God. Varying religious organizations have even consented to embrace and excuse those who choose to participate in homosexuality. It has become unpopular to speak out against this lifestyle and those who do are charged with being judgmental, intolerant, and homophobic. In response to this, I would like to point out that scripture has a good deal to say about homosexual perversion and NONE OF IT IS GOOD!
The context of Romans 1:16-32 is the pronounced state of man’s spiritual digression. The standard by which Paul measures this digression is the gospel. Paul qualifies this gospel as the power of God. This power is then demonstrated in two points. It is the power of salvation and the power of divine wrath. In human history, revelation is the standard by which God has chosen to reveal Himself to man. The absolute surety of this revelation has rendered all men in every age without excuse. Through this revelation, the continuum is brought full circle. The mind of God is made known to man. Man then had opportunity to bring this revelation to bear upon his material world in order to understand the nature of God. Failing to do this, man departed from the revealed standard thus removing him from the eternal continuum and dishonored God. Man is then forced to adopt an unrevealed standard by which to relate to his world. He then begins to worship the created rather than the Creator. He becomes a suppressor of the revealed standard (truth) and exalts human speculation above revelation. God says this is worthless. Without revelation, the heart becomes darkened. Revelation is light and God is its source. Now, God is the one who does the rejecting. He gives them over to the standard they have chosen. The human heart has now become man’s standard for ethics. God regards this standard as impure, dishonorable, deceitful, and idolatrous. Once man has digressed to this state, God gives them over again to an even deeper state of depravity. Homosexuality is the final state of this deterioration. Their lifestyle is governed by degrading passions. This form of degradation manifests itself in the homosexual lifestyle, but not in this alone. These acts do not describe forced sexual contact or homosexual rape as the homosexual community argues from this passage. These acts are described as mutual exchanges represented in the word allalous. This is consensual sexual contact of men with men and women with women. The text does not describe this as natural but an abandonment of the natural. It is described as indecent, an error, the result of a depraved mind, improper, self-destructive, and totally corrupt. The power of divine wrath that follows is DEATH. How should we respond to the ethical question of homosexuality? I suggest that we had better learn to see this sin and every other violation of the revealed standard of ethics the same way that God does. To do otherwise is to reject both the revelation and the God who had brought it to the mind of man.
Good Job! You secularists out there have more that met your match.
Thread rules:
No debate
No whining.
Congrats only.
