OST is closed for business but its spirit survives on my blog.

Re: On the Origins of Morality: Supernatural, Biological, ...

Re: On the Origins of Morality: Supernatural, Biological, ...

You wrote:
“I would say, no. If I interpret the resurrection story to be symbolic and you interpret it to be real, neither of us must be correct. It seems to me that we just have two different interpretations. Like art and art critics, however, not all are seen as equal—some interpretations are more acceptable than others. What is most important is that you live out your faithful commitments to Christ—regardless.”

I believe you are missing the point. Either Christ really did rise from the dead or He did not. One of those two views must be historically correct. My point is that whether I believe that he did (or didn’t) rise from the dead doesn’t change the historical fact that he either did (or didn’t) rise from the dead.

You wrote:

You, as a committed follower of Jesus, should respond accordingly. Yes, your perception of his reality (do you see him as a welfare king? or do you see him as the least of these?) makes a concrete difference in his life.”

Well said. I agree. But I wasn’t trying to create a dialogue on how one should react to his situation or whether how one acts will make a difference in his life. I was merely trying to find another way to illustrate that my perception of reality doesn’t change another persons current reality (with the caveat per your comment that if I act on my perception that may change his future reality).

On the Origins of Morality: Supernatural, Biological, and Relational Possibilities By: Jacob (99 replies) 21 March, 2009 - 03:10