<<Now, I must say that this is really really bad news (pun intended)
and would lead me to utter despair. For I know that I stand
condemned already before a God like this with no hope. And what
motivation have I to follow the moral commands of this God,
knowing myself to be condemned already? I know I cannot plead
with such a God by saying I'm moral most of the time. This would
be like telling the traffic cop that I don't run red lights
most of the time. And I cannot promise this God that I'll obey
his laws in the future, now that I'm aware of them, because I
know that I cannot obey them. So, I conclude that its hopeless.
Eat drink and be merry, for tommorrow we burn.>>
This is, of course, the precise reason why grace is the overwhelming gift that
it is, and why it should lead us not only to the foot of the Cross but to
moral action as well. This is the teaching of Titus 2:11-15.
<<Jim mentioned the gang member who killed a child in a drive by
shooting attempting to tie this fellows actions in with materialist
philosophy but failing to provide any evidence whatsoever for such
a tie. Perhaps his despair comes instead because someone told him
the bad news (axiom 1 and 2, Objective Moralist Logicalism) and
didn't tell him the good news.>>
By all means, tell the good news. The materialist, however, has no good news.
<<Before I blather on too much let's see if we can agree on our
terminology. Do you believe that there is a connection between
evolution as a science and racism? If so, for what reason?>>
The "science of evolution" CAN have consequences, and when one of those is
justification for, e.g., racism, you have a philosophy that may be termed
evolutionISM--all things assessed through the filter of materialist
presuppositions. But one is NOT compelled to this if one holds to
supra-natural view of evolution.
<<But this employs a circular argument. It is true that you, I and the
Islamic terrorist would agree that there is only one transcendent
moral system, however, you are using the tenets of yours (by claiming
an immoral application) to exclude his. He could do likewise.>>
It's not really circular. The argument does not pit tenet against tenet.
Indeed, one would use the holy text of Islam in an attempt at moral reasoning
with the terrorist. In fact, this is being done NOW in the Islamic world, with
beneficial results. The recent election in Iran is one sign.
The key is that the moral monists have the syntax to communicate about
objective values, even though they may end up disagreeing. The materialists do
not have such moral syntax.
Jim