Subject:
|
Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 15 Nov 2001 18:23:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
877 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes:
> Indeed. I do not posit Christianity as an unchanging Thing.
Let me see if I can phrase it better. I expect that you posit Truth (moral,
judicial, 'heavenly') and God as unchanging; while Christianity (human
understanding of Truth) changes as time goes on. Is that correct?
> > 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?
Not necessarily morality or ethics. If I understand the Christian belief of
Truth correctly, humans are judged by God against certain criterion. The
result being ultimately desireable to be judged "good" by God, and undesirable
to be judged "bad". And I've been told in the past that the "good" and "bad"
deemed by God aren't simply on a moral scale but on a scale of faith, etc. The
"wrong" above doesn't just apply to morality, unless you deem it so. Whatever
criterion God is said to judge upon, *that*'s what I mean. And
punishment/reward is likewise up to you, unless you posit that there is no
reward or punishment. But I don't find that option to be Christian. At least
I've never seen an example of such. I'm open to a new interpretation if you'd
like.
> > - 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"),
Do you claim to know so much about Truth as to make that judgement? Clearly at
one point in time, it was thought to be good... Is that Crusader held
accountable for not understanding morality to the extent that you do? I think
you say that he's not. Here's the zinger, though (the one question I was hoping
for a response on!):
> > - 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 we're only judged (only the moral side of judgement, I'm ignoring the faith
judgement side for the moment) on our understanding of morality and not on an
"ultimate" morality, how does that differ from relative morality? In this case,
why does having an ulitmate morality matter, if it's never used?
> 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.
The example is highly open to interpretation. Let's try Forrest Gump. Let's say
he was told that it was God's will to go out and fight. And being of limited
understanding as he is, says ok. He's incapable of understanding morality on
the level that you might be, but shouldn't God be equally fair based on
Forrest's ability to understand? If he truly meant well, isn't that what
matters in God's eyes, regardless of its disposition against "ultimate"
morality?
> 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.
Exactly. Going back to what you said before:
> 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.)
That's why it's unpalatable towards other things. They aren't expected to be
"fair". They're just expected to "be".
DaveE
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
