Subject:
|
Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 18 Dec 2000 19:57:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
344 times
|
| |
|
|
Kevin,
Thank you for taking the time to respond. You wrote:
> I don't even know whether it's possible for this
> discussion to change either of our views. It
> seems to me that we start from such different basic
> assumptions that whatever logic or reason we apply,
> we are bound to end up with different conclusions.
> I might agree with all your rational arguments,
> as arguments... except that since I don't share the
> starting point, I don't agree with the conclusions.
Well, you know more about my basic assumptions, I think, than I do about
yours. If you care to take a moment to state the differences, as you
understand them, perhaps we could build a bridge or two. Also, I think it's
rare that any one line of argumentation changes someone's mind overnight,
and in particular where motivations as powerful as sexual habits and
appetites are concerned.
More specifically, though - as I've already mentioned - I don't believe that
the ethic I described depends on any specific connection to Christianity. I
cited the words of Christ, that's true, but I appealed to him in much the
same way that Aquinas appealed to Aristotle: as a source consistent with the
position espoused.
> Here's a question for you, on the more general
> subject of christian morality:
>
> Why does it change so much?
>
> From one sect to another, and from one century to
> another, what moral and what's not changes quite
> considerably. The obvious current division is between
> Catholics who are not allowed to use certain birth
> control methods, and other christians who are. Are
> they not both christian? Who is right? Some Christian
> sects now bless homosexual unions. Are they reading
> different books from the ones you quoted? Historically
> things change even more startlingly: I don't need to go
> into the parade of historic events approved and even
> initiated by the christianity of the time which would
> now be seen as horribly immoral. Thou shalt not kill...
> unless it's an Albigensian heretic, a greek Orthodox
> christian (if you're a frustrated crusader with time to
> kill in Constantinople), a Protestant (if you're an English
> catholic under Mary I), a Catholic (if you're an English
> protestant under Elizabeth I a few years later), a German
> (if you're a Brit in WW1 or II), an englishman (if you're
> a German in WWI or II), a native american (if you're an
> American pioneer in the 19th c)..... ect etc etc.
>
> Is it likley to change more? (yes :-) ). What will it
> change to?
Big question. I would respond by saying that Christian Morality (capital
'M') has never changed, although Christians have both changed and fallen
short across time and culture. The standard remains constant despite
efforts to the contrary.
There are a variety of reasons for the record of inconsistencies you
mentioned above. Some are epistemic - we don't have a completely detailed
and explicit account of morality in the Bible; rather, we have a lot of
history (from which we can derive principles) and some explicit instruction.
It's just a fact of human existence that we are limited and we make
mistakes. And it should not go without mention, despite its rigorous
intellectual tradition on the whole, that the church has often failed to
educate its people. I think that's particularly true of this last 100 or
150 years. As a result, the church today in many cases is just as
postmodern as the culture around it, and "Christian morality" is left up to
the individual. The other primary reason is that many who have called
themselves Christians have exploited the name of Christ to further their own
agendas: power, wealth, pleasure...you name it.
My advice to anyone looking in at Christianity from the outside is to look
to the person of Christ, not to those who take his name. It's a shame one
can't do the latter. That hasn't always been true; the early church often
formed its apologetic in the form of an appeal: "Examine our lives..."
> Nope, not taking any of it as a personal attack.
> The stuff you quoted did make me feel *indignant*
> when I read it, but not at you personally. That's
> why I waited before replying. I haven't seen the
> kind of arguments you quoted anywhere else, so
> I'm still interested.
>
> Kevin
Well, at least I've got your interest. I think the next line of
argumentation (concerning sex outside of marriage) may have more appeal for
you; it may also be the "long way around" to the same conclusions I
presented earlier.
Take care, and thanks again for your willingness to dialogue.
Steve
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
| Steve Thomas wrote in message ... (...) Stipulated for the sake of argument that this is so, how can anyone tell which of the current brands of christianity are closest to Christian Morality - the "real thing"? What is that core which has never (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
| Hi Steve, That was interesting, and it certainly makes a change from Leviticus and the crimes of Sodom :-). However, I don't think it tells me anything that makes me more sympathetic to the Christian POV on sexual morality, or changes my own views. (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
34 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
