[randilover]

This conversation has become interesting again...

Originally Posted by Doggler

Call me pessimistic but some of that support and provision came at a price. Many of these poor and unfortunate were also targetted for conversion to Christianity. Though not as blatantly prevelant today, this sort of missionary work was quite common in the past many centuries. (although I'll admit that this might be a moot point as the motives for helping the needy cannot be pinned on overt 'conversion', instead could be intended as 'I do it out of love for God.)

You'd be hard pressed to consider conversion a "price" to pay for support and provision. Not to mention most missionary work is not set out with a pay to play mentality, that if you come to my church you'll get my medical supplies. Usually just the opposite.

Originally Posted by Doggler

to incredibly oversimplify this issue....North was(is?) less Christian than the South. North was more against slavery than the South. North was(is?) less racist than the South. Obviously not trying to paint a picture of "all Christians are slave-owning bigots" by any means, just pointing out that it wasn't because of Christians that slavery ended.

It's not oversimplifying at all. And slavery was a global issue, not an American one. Wilberforce was a Christian and because of his faith he may be single-handedly attributable with ending slavery in England. Plus the American abolitionists were by and large Christians. The north was not less Christian than the south (at least at that time), just a different "brand." Usually Christian was part of the "culture" of the south, not the reasoning for the slavery. Men like Lincoln directly attributed God with their value of human life (and you'd be hard pressed to come up with another way to value it).

I think we should also differentiate between people doing wrong and morals. I think some of what you guys are all saying is that everyone appears to be relativist because we all believe certain things are wrong but do them anyway. If I believe adultery is wrong, but cheat on my wife, that isn’t necessarily because I don’t think it’s wrong anymore and my morals have changed. As if I am confronted on the fact I will give such and such a reason of why the marriage was so bad that it didn’t matter anyway, or some such thing. By doing so, I will actually be confirming the idea that I think it’s wrong by the fact that I feel I need an excuse for it.

There are also what I will call conflicting morals, for lack of a better word. The war thing is a great example. Yes, murder is wrong, but so is a government not responding to injustice committed to it’s citizens. George Bush is a moral absolutist, he sees in black and white (proven by his use of words like evil, etc.), and I don’t think anyone would disagree with that. But that doesn’t mean he is moral relative because of his actions post 9/11.

Still left hanging on the idea of how there are no moral absolutes… except for the idea that there are no moral absolutes… in which case there are moral absolutes.