|
|
 |
| [Jun 15, 2012, 10:34 am ET] - Share - Viewing Comments |
The Gospel Coalition - How to Respond to the Video Game Crisis.
So far I have never struggled with addiction to video games, and I can't speak to the psychological research and theorizing. Instead, I simply wish to provide in this article some clarity and nuance for a subject too often considered in an alarmist context, especially within the church. Video games are a comparatively new medium, and as such they are the object of much skepticism and intrigue. Those who do not play games often view the medium as a waste of time at best and a corrupting influence at worst. Meanwhile, video game proponents---permanently on the defensive---make excuses for bad art and actual corrupting influences. We Christians must be truthful about these things, but neither side right now is telling the whole story.
Post Comment
Enter the details of the comment
you'd like to post in the boxes below and click the button at
the bottom of the form.
 |
| 19. |
Re: Op Ed |
Jun 15, 2012, 18:40 |
Lukin |
|
|
Sambek_Z wrote on Jun 15, 2012, 18:15:
Moral relativism is a logical contradiction. If one is truly a moral relativist, then he should have nothing to say to someone whose morality is based on science, reading tea leaves, or believing in a god. Nor should he boast that he is moral to others or attempt to persuade others of his point of view, because that would be nonsensical. His morality is for his actions alone, how others think or behave should be irrelevant. Therefore, I find hypocrisy and logical self-contradiction in those who say they espouse moral relativism and yet advocate for it.
Rather, these people should realize that they are really moral absolutists who happen to conflict with the views of other moral absolutists.
I think you are misapplying these terms. Someone who sees morality as relative isn't saying that every concept of morality is equally valid, only that, in a given situation people have different views on what is best for themselves. If your idea of what is good is also good for many people, it would behoove you to try to convince those people to agree with you. And, it wouldn't be deceitful to make that argument because you could demonstrate it was better for the most people.
For example, let's say (given the religious topic) you believe that the belief in the supernatural is bad for most of society. You could try to convince a churchgoer this is true, but it might actually conflict with what is better for that churchgoer. The churchgoer has friends and family, all invested in the belief of the supernatural. Maybe he's employed by a religious institution. Therefore, it wouldn't be best for the churchgoer's immediate interests to forsake all things supernatural.
This doesn't mean that our society wouldn't be better off, in the long run, if people didn't believe in the supernatural.(This is just an example, I'm not saying this can be proven). Also, it doesn't mean that the churchgoer and the example-man couldn't join forces to stop someone who believed Satan was controlling him to kill babies. Even though the example-man disagrees with the churchgoer on the point of the supernatural, they agree that killing babies is bad for everyone.
Traditionally, Absolute Morality pertains to what god says. It is the belief that whatever god (or the president, or your dad, whatever) says is always right because they are an authority figure who knows best. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Twitter 
