The most common definer of 'right' apart from God is usually a sense of commonly held norms. What a community deems to be right is what defines right. Even on the surface, this is flawed. What about the indigenous tribes of Bolivia that, until recently, buried twins alive because they thought they were evil. It was the norm. It was deemed right (to keep them alive jeopardized the well being of the tribe - it was for the good of the group that this attrocity was justified). On such a reasoning, racism in the south was right, if the majority agreed it was right.
No, there must be some greater definer of right/wrong, good/evil than a communal sense of it. But what is it? Can anyone make any case for any definition of 'righteousness' apart from God?
1 comment:
Sure--it's just what "we" agree is right. I could argue that even Christians tend towards this definition in practice! It may not be rational, but rationality isn't all that popular any more....
BTW, regarding racism and the South, it wasn't always a question of majority opinion but rather the opinion of those with power.
Righteousness apart from God? Of course not. But righteousness manifest apart from the Law? It's all in Romans!
(Mark keeps harping on that Law thing.)
Post a Comment