Subject:
|
Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 15 Nov 2001 17:10:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
809 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes:
> > Some thoughts:
> > 1) Would you not scoff that I required the absurd if I asserted that one must
> > adopt the worldview/mindset of a 15th century monastic to become a Christian?
> > From my perspective, it seems that you find the idea of experiential
> > developments in Christianity peculiarly unpalatable (or perhaps
> > untrustworthy), though no doubt accepting change and refinements in the other
> > humanities as quite ordinary and respectable. What would you prefer? (And
> > indeed, you *can* legitimately have the better of the two.)
> > 2) The market has changed, if by market we mean the developed moral
> > sensibilities and expanded scientific knowledge of 21st century man over, say,
> > 14th century B.C. man, or, 18th century A.D. man.) We sell cars because we no
> > longer ride donkeys, to coin a bad--though perhaps workable--analogy (2).
>
> Herein lies the dilemma. The appeal of science (particularly mathematics) is
> that it doesn't change. Did science change when Einstein theorized that time
> wasn't constant? Nope. Only our understanding of reality changed. To posit
> Christianity likewise, we get problems.
Indeed. I do not posit Christianity as an unchanging Thing. I do assert,
however, that Christianity claims to have some insights about the ultimate
nature of reality, insofar as it concerns us. Science didn't change with
Einstein's theories, but our application of science did change; in many ways,
science was, by us, more rightly applied. I doubt that the nature of God
changes, but our applied interaction with him and with each other does change
when new theories change our understanding of him and the nature of said
interaction. Our interaction is more rightly applied, so the Christian
believes.
>
> If the Christian Truth doesn't ever change, just our understanding:
> - How wrong are we now? Are we wrong enough such that we'll be punished?
What punishment would you expect God to exact if we are in error on some point
of applied morality or ethics?
> - If so, isn't that unfair, since we were simply born at a time of
> ill-understanding? Can we be held accountable for such?
God will only hold us accountable for matters in which we are indeed
accountable. I doubt that the robustness of our Christology or our
understanding of the finer points of applied ethics will be appealed to as
criteria for our "fitness" to enter Heaven. A Christian's answer is that
matters of the heart are the crux of the issue. "Peter, do you love me?" asked
Christ thrice to Peter after the resurrection. Our relationship with God is
meant by Him to mirror that of a Father to his Children. Do I think that we
will be punished for matters of ignorance? No. Will they have some bearing on
our "status" in Heaven? Who knows? How does it matter now? All we can hope to
do is our best. "This year, or this month, or, more likely, this very day, we
have failed to practice ourselves the kind of behavior we expect from
otherpeople." (C.S. Lewis - The Case for Christianity.) Being found lacking on
that point is what we should have more reason to fear punishment, rather than
from being found without a comprehensive understanding of the nature of Truth
(with a capital "T.")
> - If not, how about Christians living in the time of the Crusades? If I
> understand the Truth equally as them, am I still entitled to a lack of
> punishment?
If Crusader X really understood Truth (as opposed to the less rigorous "truth"),
then he would understand that jihads are Bad (as opposed to the less rigorous
"bad"), and would therefore be entirely culpable for doing what he knew to be
wrong. You and Crusader X might have the same overall level of understanding of
Truth, but you would be unequal in your application of it; in other words, 11th
century French Peasant X may have a more complete and on-the-mark understanding
of the nature of God in regards to some mystical quality than you (and indeed
I), but he might be completely deficient in his concept of applied ethics (which
you, a 21st century American have a much greater grasp of.) If you are arguing
that you and he could theoretically be equals in terms of your overall grasp of
Truth, but possessing different traits in different measures, then I heartily
agree. This may be true. You would both, I expect, be culpable to God not for
that part which you do not grasp, but for that part which you do--and which you
have willfully neglected.
Now, perhaps I have not answered the real question: Will an honest Crusader be
punished by God? I don't know that I can answer this. Being a theologian of
hope, I hold that God's mercies are wide, and as such, the ignorant Crusader,
like myself, may receive Grace, i.e., undeserved forgiveness.
> - If so, then what does morality matter? Why can't I just go be moral
> to the level of my understanding? Isn't that just relative morality?
> - If not, what criterion am I being judged upon?
Once you realize that you are "just so moral," then you've become enlightened as
to your inadequacies, and have therefore realized that you fail to measure up to
a higher standard; thus, you understand that you have room for improvement, and
are culpable (if to your own conscience, if to nothing else), if you fail to do
that which you are convinced is right (i.e., becoming more morally-ethical.) If
I refrain from kicking dogs simply because I can find no dogs to kick, it does
not therefore mean that I am a kind person. We will all be judged, I expect,
for those times when we have chosen to do other than that which we knew to be
right.
>
> Basically, the ideals of "morality" and "justice" are that they are unchanging,
> and capable of being understood equally well by everyone. If they're not, then
> things like the Bible don't matter, and the question arises, "so what?" If they
> are, then where's the exact line?
I do not say that morality and justice are concepts which all humans are equally
endowed with an innate ability to comprehensively grasp and apply. Moral
thinking necessitates some ability to comprehend the abstract and to weigh
causal traits; some may be more able to do so than others, just as some men are
colorblind, though most are not. Though I began at an early age, I never became
a virtuoso on the piano, for I had not the gift. That does not mean that I
cannot enjoy a tune, or cannot be moved by music, though I have no special
talent for the art. Some people may have impaired moral faculties--even
impaired consciences--yet even the unrefined ones still work (just as my
unrefined ear for music still allows me to find pleasure in sound) insofar as
even rudimentary concepts of right and wrong, love and hate, can be experienced
and understood to a workable degree by those with unrefined palates.
Does the Bible matter? Does any moral teacher matter? Of course. Morality and
Justice matter, and even if we cannot be thorough in our understanding and
application of the two, we'd still do well to try. To do otherwise would be to
throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water.
> With science, it's easy. The answer is "tough noogies". You don't understand
> how to cure malaria? Tough. You die. It's very straightforward. Science doesn't
> have the same necessity to be fair across time and human understanding that
> religion/morality/justice does. People expect consistant, "fair" responses from
> these things, but not from science.
Scientific principles simply exist, whether or not we understand them. So do
moral principles, I'd argue. Don't we expect of the scientist fidelity,
honesty, and good intent as he researches and applies his discoveries? Do we
not hope that he keeps our good in mind if his work will affect us? Is the
scientist immune from principles of justice simply because his subject is the
immutable? Morality is the tool by which sentient creatures interact with
eachother. The scientist who applies somber physics to kill his fellows is not
immune from judgement simply because his craft is timelessly straightforward.
Do I comfort the man dying of malaria (If I cannot cure him) with the words
"Tough. You die."? Of course not. I do not particularly expect "science,"--
i.e. the universe arranged in certain molecular patterns and processes--to be
fair to me, because the universe can do nothing but simply Be; inanimate matter
simply exists, and I can offer no reasonable protest that a cloud of hydrogen
gas isn't fair to me. I can, however, appeal to principles of fair play when
the sentient scientist manipulates that cloud of hydrogen in such a way so as to
affect my survival. And, I can reasonably expect that these moral principles
will not be wholly foreign to the scientist simply because the principles do not
apply to the tools of his craft.
james
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
117 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
