Evidence for God from Science

We went over relative ethics in class, and it was pretty obvious that even Christians are relative in their ethics sometimes-which is wrong, because ethics is based on God's nature, and it never changes from situation to situation.

What do you mean?

Finding money of ground or what ?
If I found a wallet I would take it to the police.
If I found a large sum of money I would like to think that I would take it to the police.

good job there, going from a dollar to a million.

good job there, going from a dollar to a million.

I hope that wasn't sarcasm. I'm trying to show a point-if taking money is bad in one situation, why is it right in another (and then this applies everything else, such as the nefarious "white lies" and half truths, etc, etc...)

somebody lost the money.... no matter if it was 1 dollar, or a million, or even a penny. This is a very slippery slope. I had the same question brought up in my philosophy class, only we used my big fat obnoxious fiancee as a visual aid. a chick (girl/woman/lady) was willing to lay her family honor on the line for money. ($500,000 for her&her family) It ended up "all good" and she won $500,000 for herself and $500,000 for her family. my personal beliefs are that she should never have agreed to this (in order to win she had to lie to her family for 2 (or more) weeks straight) and that no amount of money could make better what she had done.

paxChristos wrote:only we used my big fat obnoxious fiancee as a visual aid.

Um you mean ex fiancee right if my husband spoke that way about me he wouldn't be my husband very long.

Reality show^^^

just to make sure everybody understand what "my big fat obnoxious fiancee" is. It was a fox "reality" tv show (i know, im a hic from wisconsin, maybe it only showed up here....) where a chick (woman/girl/lady) was approached by a tv producer, and she agreed that in order to win 1/2 million dollars, she'd just have to convince her family that she was getting married to a complete jerk. The twist (all "good" "reality" rv shows need one) is that her fiancee was a actor, and if she could win the 1/2 million, she'd end up winning a 1/2 million for herself and a 1/2 million for her family.
-paxChristos
(sorry about any confusion)

paxChristos wrote:just to make sure everybody understand what "my big fat obnoxious fiancee" is. It was a fox "reality" tv show (i know, im a hic from wisconsin, maybe it only showed up here....) where a chick (woman/girl/lady) was approached by a tv producer, and she agreed that in order to win 1/2 million dollars, she'd just have to convince her family that she was getting married to a complete jerk. The twist (all "good" "reality" rv shows need one) is that her fiancee was a actor, and if she could win the 1/2 million, she'd end up winning a 1/2 million for herself and a 1/2 million for her family.
-paxChristos
(sorry about any confusion)

lol lol lol

What? Am I gilligan and every thread I start a small pleasure boat? I've started to threads on different sites and nobody has stayed on topic...

What? Am I gilligan and every thread I start a small pleasure boat? I've started to threads on different sites and nobody has stayed on topic...

i'd have to agree with you there..... same thing happens to me too, it seems....
-paxChristos

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:We went over relative ethics in class, and it was pretty obvious that even Christians are relative in their ethics sometimes-which is wrong, because ethics is based on God's nature, and it never changes from situation to situation.

This is a misrepresentation of true moral relativism. Relativism doesn't only mean moral actions change under certain circumstances or conditions. It also takes into account differences of moral values being relative to persons or groups.

A better example of showing varying moral choices under certain circumstances would perhaps be is it wrong for someone to steal for no reason? Yes. Is it wrong for someone who would otherwise die of starvation to steal food? What we have in the latter example is a more complex scenario which creates a moral dilemma. Just because people may concede it is better for a person to steal than die, does not mean stealing is now alright. Is it good to steal? No. Is it good for someone to unnecessarily die? No. This is a moral dilemma. Yet, I'd say within such a scenario, it is better for someone to steal rather than die which is more serious. Anyone who can't see this, likely places the moral value of trustworthiness over and above fairness or human worth. Yet, the moral values underpinning this issue are still realised by all.

Now for something to be truely relative, moral "values" (not just moral "laws") have to be subjective to persons or groups. If it is truely alright for one person to be dishonest, but not for another person under the same circumstance, then we have moral relativism. Some people often try to point to differences in morality by pointing to people who commit moral wrongs. "See," the relativist will say, "you consider killing wrong, but that person doesn't because he has killed." Yet, this does not prove moral relativism, for people can commit actions they know to be wrong. For example, Richard Wurmbrand, who was tortured for his faith recalls his the words of his torturers from within a communist prison:

• The communist torturers often said, 'There is no God, no Hereafter, no punishment for evil. We can do what we wish.' I have heard one torturer even say, 'I thank God, in whom I don't believe, that I have lived to this hour when I can express all the evil in my heart.' He expressed it in unbelievable brutality and torture inflicted on prisoners.

What is significant about this scenario, is that the torturers' consciences revealed that they knew what they were doing was morally wrong. Therefore, just because some people might act out on what is wrong, does not mean such a wrong action is morally right for them.

Other scenarios often raised by moral relativists are varying cultural practices and diverging opinions on moral issues within society, or across societies. Doesn't this show moral relativism is true? Well, allow me provide some examples of differences in other cultures/societies who have different customs and seem to differ regarding basic moral values.
<ul><li>Strangling ones parents when they old was practiced by tribes in the 17th century at Hudon Bay. It seemed completely "moral" to them as Tom Beauchamp describes: "Members of these tribes practiced a custom of killing their parents when they had become old and incapable of supporting themselves by their labor. Elderly parents were strangled by their children, who, natives believed, had an obligation to perform this ritual act.... Should a tribe member suffer the misfortune of having no children to perform this duty, the custom was to request the service from friends.... A refusal was viewed as a humiliation for the person making the request; dying for the sake of the group was a point of honor in these tribes."</li>
<li>In India before the British were there, Hindu widows practiced suttee. In this practice they threw themselves alive on the funeral pyre of their dead husbands.</li>
<li>Then there are differences of opinions on abortion, euthanasia. Is such practices really wrong?</li></ul>It seems to appear that the moral values here are very different, however a closer look reveals another picture. As Gregory Koukl points out:

"Apparent moral differences often represent differences only in perception of the facts of a circumstance and not a conflict in the values themselves.

Facts are descriptive, answering the question, What is the case? A fetus is or isn't human. Euthanasia is or isn't an example of murder. Values, on the other hand, are prescriptive, answering the question, "What ought to be the case? One ought not murder. Life ought to be more important than choice.

Unjusified killing of human beings (murder) has been wrong in every culture at every time in history; what has changed is the concept of justification. Hitler justified killing Jews because he considered them subhuman. In the Hudson Bay tribes, children strangled their own parents as an act of kindness instead of letting them live to what they saw as an unproductive old age. "Dying for the sake of the group was a point of honor in these tribes." The underlying moral rule that it is noble to die for the welfare of many is one all cultures share. Indeed, that's what soldiers do." (Francis J. Beckwith and Gregory Koukl, Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-air).

So the apparent moral differences are not because of conflicting moral values, but because of facts pertaining to the common values everyone shares. C.S. Lewis writes in "Mere Christianity" that, "If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks, and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own."

Thus, one has their work cut out for them if they wish to prove relativism correct. The way we live life thinking some things really are wrong such as unfairness, hatred, irresponsibility, dishonesty, while other things such as love, respect, fairness and trustworthiness are right, seems to point to a consistency that would be found in objective moral values. Despite whether or not someone (or everyone) thinks torturing and raping an innocent little girl is morally good, such an act is still morally wrong. If there is even one thing you believe is wrong for everyone, then you embrace objective moral values (moral values that exist regardless of anyone). The next question that needs answering is, "what is the nature of the existence of moral values if they exist apart from us?"

Kurieuo.

It is never right to take money that is in a wallet or has identification. When I find change on the floor, I pick it up. Coins that hit the ground are very noisy and few people actually mind losing them. I also see it as a little help from God sometimes as well (there's a story behind this) :

Sometimes I stay late at my High School for extracurricular activities, well usually I can call my mom to pick me up (I'm not old enough to drive and the late busses come very late, much later than I stay) on my friend's cell phone. However, this time they decided to not stay after, so I was alone. I had 40 cents in my pocket and I found two nickels on the floor, I had JUST enough to use the payphone to call my mother. I attribute this to God seeing my problem and giving me a solution, because I did ask for some help before I found the change.

On the other hand, it becomes wrong when the money is in a wallet, or is clearly owned by someone. If someone drops a quarter and I see it, and they don't notice, I pick it up and give it to them. If I saw a wallet filled with hundred dollar bills, I'd turn it into the police. I never pick up bills either, I only pick up change.

I'd pick up and keep any money that doesn't have any ID on it(unless its like a huge sum, in which case it would be better to turn it in to the police since it could be counterfit)