Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (17481)	6/29/2001 1:04:29 AM
From: Greg or e	Respond to of 82486

Title: The Polemic Shot In the Foot Speaker: Ravi Zacharias Date: 06/27/01 Some time ago I was speaking at a university in England, when a rather exasperated person in the audience made his attack upon God. "There cannot possibly be a God," he said, "with all the evil and suffering that exists in the world!" I asked, "When you say there is such a thing as evil, are you not assuming that there is such a thing as good?" "Of course," he retorted. "But when you assume there is such a thing as good, are you not also assuming that there is such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to distinguish between good and evil?" "I suppose so," came the hesitant and much softer reply. "If, then, there is a moral law," I said, "you must also posit a moral law giver. But that is who you are trying to disprove and not prove. If there is no transcendent moral law giver, there is no absolute moral law. If there is no moral law, there really is no good. If there is no good there is no evil. I am not sure what your question is!" There was silence and then he said, "What, then, am I asking you?" He was visibly jolted that at the heart of his question lay an assumption that contradicted his own conclusion. You see friends, the skeptic not only has to give an answer to his or her own question, but also has to justify the question itself. And even as the laughter subsided I reminded him that his question was indeed reasonable, but that his question justified my assumption that this was a moral universe. For if God is not the author of life, neither good nor bad are meaningful terms. This seems to constantly elude the critic who thinks that by raising the question of evil, a trap has been sprung to destroy theism. When in fact, the very raising of the question ensnares the skeptic who raised the question. A hidden assumption comes into the open. Moreover, as C. S. Lewis reminds us, the moment we acknowledge something as being "better", we are committing ourselves to an objective point of reference. The disorienting reality to those who raise the problem of evil is that the Christian can be consistent when he or she talks about the problem of evil, while the skeptic is hard-pressed to respond to the question of good in an amoral universe. In short, the problem of evil is not solved by doing away with the existence of God; the problem of evil and suffering must be resolved while keeping God in the picture. Copyright (p)(c) 2000 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM)

To: Greg or e who wrote (17481)	6/29/2001 5:09:06 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Good does not change, because it is fixed in the character of a holy God. Although societal standards may vary the principals behind them do not. What was evil a thousand years ago is still evil today, and vise versa. Are you saying that if you had been raised in a wealthy family in the pre-Civil War south, you would not have kept slaves? If you had grown up in 13th century Mongolia and marched with Genghis Khan, you would not have raped and pillaged along with your comrades? If you had been a good Christian in Salem, Massachusetts in the 17th century, would you have refused to put an accused witch to death? If you had been a good Christian marching west across America in the 18th century, you would not have believed that the only good Indian was a dead one? For most of human history, members of the other tribe, the other religion, the other race, have been fair game for any atrocity one cared to commit. That was the moral code of the day, and it was universally believed, by religious authority and secular, to be right and just. It is a code vigorously endorsed by the old testament. The notion that this was "evil" is really quite recent. Were all of those people evil, because they accepted the moral code of their day, a code which differed from the one you hold today? Perhaps you could give me some specific examples of what you think might be considered "Evil in the future that is "good" today. If knew the future, I wouldn't be yakking away here, I'd be busy making money on the markets. But given the speed and thoroughness with which the moral compass has changed in the past, it seems pretty audacious to claim that it will not change in the future. Mr. Zacharias indulges in the old technique of setting up a silly argument, attributing it to his opponent, and answering it with an argument very nearly as silly. If, then, there is a moral law," I said, "you must also posit a moral law giver. But that is who you are trying to disprove and not prove. If there is no transcendent moral law giver, there is no absolute moral law. If there is no moral law, there really is no good. If there is no good there is no evil. This assumes that we cannot decide for ourselves what is good and what is evil. It assumes that we have to be told. But if we have to be told, who told us? And why did that entity tell different people such very different things? All the evidence that I see suggests that our concepts of good and evil are things that we have learned, not things that have been revealed to us. How else can we explain why they have changed so much over time, and why they are so different in different cultures? Of course that would mean that good and evil are not absolutes, but I'm not going to ignore the evidence because it leads to a conclusion that some find difficult to accept. The rabbi goes back to the old hand-wringing claim that "if there is no god, then all is permitted". This of course is nonsense: since there is no god, we must decide what is permitted. This is of course a big responsibility, and it doesn't surprise me that many prefer to abandon it and fall back on superstition and the dubious authority of the religious intermediary. But the more people accept the responsibility and start thinking seriously about what we want our society to be and how we think we can move toward that goal, the better off all of us will be.