Jeff, the question was, "can man live up ANY standard of right and wrong?" A standard is something that must be met. The term "standard" implies measurability. With the ideas you put forth, I believe it obvious that they are impossible to exactly measure. (Q) Why did you lie to me? (A) It was just a mistake so don't worry about it. (A2) I made a personal decision to not hurt you with the truth, so I lied.
Perry, as you admit in your next paragraph, I am talking about things that are subjective, while you are talking of them as absolutes. Notice your own phrasing. "A standard is something that must be met". You have missed a key step; A standard must first be accepted before it is met. That is exactly why when it comes to standards of right and wrong relating to human behavior, one must question their premise. You continue to maintain that standards as understood in your flavor of Christianity must be met. I have accepted some of these standards personally, for my own reasons. Others I reject. Please note that my rejection of certain Christian ideals has not ripped a hole in the fabric of rule of law vs anarchy. I gave the very specific example of homosexuality, which the bible condemns as wrong. This is a standard that if my memory serves, you support. Again, personal behaviors engaged in do not affect you Perry, me, or anyone else.
My point is precisely that not all standards need to be met without critical thinking and analysis. And your question is a bit self serving, because you are not advocating living up to "ANY" standard Perry. You are advocating living to a specific theistic understanding of right and wrong according to your interpretation of the bible. It is this premise I reject.
So I reject YOUR premise. Your terms "mistakes" and "personal decisions" are completely subjective and thus synonyms for a lack of standard, which of course was the original question. You could have maintained a logical position by simply stating that that question could not (or should not) be asked of humans. Instead you change the question.
Logically, mistakes and personal decisions are indeed subjective, as they will differ from person to person. I don't believe I presented them as otherwise, but if I did, I apologize. You are quite correct. However, it is precisely because mistakes and personal decisions are subjective that I believe you are in error. I do not view mistakes and personal decisions as sinful. You do. For you to win this arguement, you must convince whatever audience is reading, (me or whoever) that to depart from your standards as you believe and accept them is sinful, as opposed to the other possibility, that such would merely represent a personal decision that differs from your own personal standards. Now that I have cleared that up, since you imply that I have dodged the question, I will quote it again:
Jeff, the question was, "can man live up ANY standard of right and wrong?"
And I will call you out. Do you want to discuss ANY standard, or your Christian standard? Because you clearly are defending a Christian agenda. I am more then prepared to discuss the Muslim standard, the Buddhist standard, the Jainist standard, and the like? Are these "standards" the "ANY" that you refer to? Perhaps you should make clear and come clean as to which standard you are talking about. If you would care to simply admit that you are acting as an apologist for the Christian standard, then we can move on. But for you to imply that the only standard worth considering is your Christian one is extremely myopic.
Doesn't the complexity of government actually prove that man cannot live up to the standard "love thy neighbor"? How much govt. would be necessary otherwise? Doesn't man have to be threatened with punishment every day just to function? Even then it barely works (morning traffic for instance). And of course, just a threat isn't enough is it? It has to be actually demonstrated to have an effect doesn't it?
I really love Jesus teaching of "love thy neighbor". And you and I both know that his command as it is written is to an individual, not to a government. Ironically, it would be unconstitutional to enforce this law. This is a philosophy for living, not a mandate to be enforced by a human. I understand that you are defending the bible and its contradictory teachings that basically commandsus to"love your neighbor, or else..." I personally think you have hit on something here: man is inherently selfish. To submit to a rule of law is altruistic to a point, because it acknowledges that we cannot live as if we were on an island. Thus, we must be responsible citizens, pay our taxes, and pretend to go the speed limit when the radar detector lights up.
To love is the answer. To accept is the answer. To seek to understand what is different from us is the answer. It is idealistic, and will not always work. However, I would strongly say that as the Western world and democratic governments have become less zealous in its pursuit of Christian theistic standards, and instead have adopted a more rational and accepting approach to people and personal decisions, our times have become more peaceful, with less hate and divisiveness. Perhaps this is because a more evolved undertanding that Western Europe and the liberal crowd of the United States accept is that in the greater context of Jesus words, to love your neighbor is to accept your neighbor, not punish him.
If our governments function this way, why would you deny this responsibility to God?
Where is he again Perry? Where has he been?
In areas where you and I agree, do you believe that if there is an all seeing God, that he would be derelict if he saw wrongdoing and he did not punish the perp?
If "god" saw:
- a muder happening,
- or someone being assaulted and injured
- or a war started,
- or millions more lacking food and dying without ever having a chance to get to know "god"
- or millions of people being wiped out by genocide,
- or entire governments oppresing their subjects as they grow rich and fat off of taxes,
- or billions of women being abused and treated like 2nd class citizens around the earth,
then yeah, lets punish the perp. Or better yet, lets pretend that god has the power to do something. DO SOMETHING! Don't tell me that punishment will come later on. Step in NOW! Justice delayed is justice denied! God should be held to this highest of standards first. Let him fix what he claims is broken, but let not a man try to spin his inactivity as loving beneficial wisdom, or a way to push a theistic agenda woefully short on logic and common sense.
But as you say, I do believe that god is derelict.
