Overturning Taboos & Replacing Them with New Ones

"We have been discussing the findings of Eric Kaufman, professor of politics at the University of London, whose article The Great Awokening and the Second American Revolution studies the 'cultural revolution' being pursued by many American progressives.  He observes that one way they are proceeding to shape cultural opinion is to overthrow old taboos and to replace them with new ones" - Veith

508 reads

Power and Moral Purity

"The leftists who are in ascendancy in the Democratic party are motivated by a strong sense of the moral rectitude of their cause. ...their moral convictions about human equality and the worth of each person derive directly from the Christian and Jewish religions. And yet, for the most part, they reject those religions. This contradiction puts them in a difficult position and helps account for the Left’s emphasis on power, their rejection of persuasion, their ends-justifies-the means tactics, and their insistence on moral purity." -

706 reads

“The existence of morality as most of us commonly define it is at odds with traditional Darwinism.”

"In the preface to their book Science and the Good: The Tragic Quest For the Foundations of Morality, James Davison Hunter and Paul Nedelisky proffer the stunning admission that, 'While the new science of morality presses onward, the idea of morality – as a mind-independent reality – has lost plausibility for the new moral scientists. They no longer believe such a thing exists.'" - John Ellis

744 reads

“77 percent of Americans are at least ‘fairly worried’ about the country’s morals, with 43 percent describing themselves as ‘very worried.’”

Can Anything a Human Does Be Morally Neutral? A Look at 1 Corinthians 8:8 (Part 1)

In a recent exchange here at SharperIron, I was asked what I thought 1 Corinthians 8:8 meant. I had just asserted that a being bearing the image of God could not possibly do anything that is morally neutral — neither right nor wrong, because such a being must either express that imago dei, or in some way insult it (or both at once, in different ways).

1 Corinthians 8:8 seems to say otherwise.

After offering a brief explanation of how Paul’s meaning there could be understood as consistent with the view that human actions are always moral, the question continued to nag me. My answer felt inadequate. And, since any answer to the question could have a lot of implications, it seems important to be confident.

Hence, this brief study.

The Passage

First, a bit of context. The apostle Paul is helping the Corinthian congregation work through how to behave in the matter of consumption of meat that had been offered to idols. He has just asserted that idols are not really real (1 Cor. 8:4), in the sense of representing or connecting to some deity (but cf. 1 Cor. 10:21, another study for another day). He then points out that not everybody understands this (1 Cor. 8:7), and 8:8 comes as further explanation of the true nature of eating this idol-associated food.

Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. (ESV, 1 Cor. 8:8)

18246 reads

Moral bar slipping in U.S., Gallup poll finds

"67 percent approve of homosexuality, compared to 40 percent in 2001; 69 percent approve of premarital sex, compared to 53 percent in 2001; 76 percent of Americans say divorce is morally acceptable, compared to 59 percent in 2001; and 65 percent of Americans approve of childbirth outside of marriage, compared to 45 percent in 2002 when Gallup added the practice to its poll." BPNews

1013 reads