>Yet those who did all these 'evils' claimed that it was based on the bible
>? So perhaps the bible does not allow for an objective standard ? Perhaps
>your casual reading of the four gospels will provide you with some
>standards but how can you say that this standard will be the same for all
>others who browse through these
>chapters ?
CW: If you're one of those postmodern dudes that centers the meaning of
words
in the reader rather than the author, then we *literally* have nothing to
discuss. If not, then I challenge you to read the four gospel books and
demonstrate that the meaning, taken as a whole, is unclear.
So you claim and others disagree. And why are you limiting yourself to the
4 gospels ? The meaning of the words depend on the reader especially since
we do not have the authors available to explain it to us.
>CW: OTOH, materialism has no moral base with which to condemn evils
>committed in the name of materialism.
>
>And neither does christianity have a moral base with which to condemn
>evils commited in the name of christianity either then.
CW: Yes it does -- the teachings of Jesus Christ.
That is not a moral basis. It is a subjective interpretation of morality
and furthermore hearsay.
>CW: No act can "distort" materialist morality, it can only violate your
>personal, subjective "empathy". Indeed, if materialism must rely on a
>concept as nebulous and subjective as "empathy" for a moral base, it
>cannot even define evil an any universal sense.
>
>And the same applies to christian morality as well. No objective standard,
>no eternal standard, no universal standard.
CW: Pim, you can argue coherently that Christ's teachings are not
universal,
not eternal (though He Himself clearly stated otherwise), but to argue that
they are not objective is absurd. They are right there, waiting to be
read, and not at all difficult to grasp. Try it, you may like it.
Only two problems 1) how can you claim they are objective 2) the
interpretation of these teachings is subjective as well.
>Any condemnation of evils
>committed in the name of christianity are based upon a personal subjective
>interpretation of the teachings and morality of the bible. History has
>shown this all too clearly.
CW: I addressed this in a previous post. Christian ethics are certainly
capable of being distorted; materialist ethics -- well, you can't distort
what isn't there.
How do you know that they are based on distortion rather than on
interpretation ? If there is no materialist ethics then there is also no
christian ethics. Both are subjective interpretation, not universal and
certainly not eternal.