posted
Tres, I totally believe you that that is the accepted definition of moral relativism in mainstream western philosophy. The thing is, my use of it didn't come out of the top of my head. The definition that I used is not my own, but rather one I culled from cross-cultural psychology, comparative mythology and religion, and the study of heresy in the Catholic Church. Other people in other fields have been using that term to mean something else, and I personally think that their definition makes a lot more sense.
This is especially in light of the way that you are using the term.
quote:I don't believe it is correct to say that something can be a sin "for me" but not "for you." If something is a sin, it is a sin for everyone, whether they think it is or not. This is especially true for the religious, who tend to strongly reject moral relativism.
I also think it would be particularly dangerous to teach kids to be moral relativists. I would think it would often lead them to think whatever moral system they've been taught is no better than any other, and thus can be discarded. After all, they are bound to ask at some point "Why is it a sin for me and not them?"
You are explicitly setting your definition of moral relativism as the logical opposite to moral absolutism, and yet, not only do I think that my definition is a much better opposite, I also think that it fits the situation that you're disagreeing with here. For example, Bob's definition of something being wrong for one person because of the context they bring to it but not wrong for another person with a different context fits exactly into what I said, but I really fail to see how it would work as an example of your definition. Or, in reference to the scripture that I brought up, the idea that the emotional context of actions is the defining aspect of their morality is a relativistic one as opposed to the absolutist idea that the actions themselves are the seat of moral rightness, regardless of why they are performed - such as an action approved by the Bible but intended in a specific instance to hurt someone else being ok. I fail to see how such a situation is could be called relativistic in your schema. Could you tell me what would the name for it be?
You say that we're using a term to mean other than it does. I'm fine with that. I'll call it whatever you want. The thing is, I think you're doing the same thing. What you oppose by calling it moral relativism is what I believe it to be and not what you're saying it is. You've defined the opposite of your preferred system as something that is neither a logical opposite nor even a particularly tenable idea. I don't know what they call that in philosophy, but in my field we call it a defense mechanism.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Plethics is far too close to pleather for me to be comfortable with it. Everybody knows those pleather people are a cult, with their plush, smooth clothing...and their haircuts...and their ways of talking. Then, 2 days later, I'm locked in a bathroom in the middle of New Hampshire with half a saltine cracker and a parrot that keeps repeating the lyrics to Beatles songs backwards. You can't tell me that's right.
quote:I mean really, why is Saul/Paul considered such a reliable source? He was at odds with the other apostles from the get-go on many things, not just conversion of gentiles.
Why do we even have the Gospel of St. Luke? Or Acts? Luke was a gentile, NOT a part of Jesus' ministry, never an apostle. . . His only claim to fame was that he was supposedly on speaking terms with Jesus' mother.
Paul, at least, was an apostle, and recognized as being a leading member of the early Christian church.
Why trust ANY portion of the Bible? None of it was written by the Protagonist. Feasibly, it was written by the followers of a martyred supposed prophet who only wanted to retain their power base. Why trust ANY of it?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
ScottR: Easy answer, you're right, there isn't a book in the Bible that doesn't have some sort of checkered past or question surrounding its source, treatment through various translations, and ambiguous interpretations over the years.
Better answer: Take Paul at his word. He was a holy man and certainly worth listening to. But he's not perfect and many of his prejudices are more to be forgiven than emulated.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Albert Schweitzer: "Where possible Paul avoids quoting the teaching of Jesus, in fact even mentioning it. If we had to rely on Paul, we should not know that Jesus taught in parables, had delivered the sermon on the mount, and had taught His disciples the 'Our Father.' Even where they are specially relevant, Paul passes over the words of the Lord."
Carl Jung: "Paul hardly ever allows the real Jesus of Nazareth to get a word in." (U.S. News and World Report, April 22, 1991, p. 55)
George Bernard Shaw: "No sooner had Jesus knocked over the dragon of superstition than Paul boldly set it on its legs again in the name of Jesus."
Bishop John S. Spong (Episcopal Bishop of Newark): "Paul's words are not the Words of God. They are the words of Paul- a vast difference." (Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, p. 104, Harper San Francisco, 1991)
Thomas Jefferson: "Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus."
Thomas Hardy: "The new testament was less a Christiad than a Pauliad."
Wil Durant: "Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants can be found in the words of Christ." & "Fundamentalism is the triumph of Paul over Christ."
Walter Kaufmann (Professor of Philosophy, Princeton): "Paul substituted faith in Christ for the Christlike life."
Carl Sagan: "My long-time view about Christianity is that it represents an amalgam of two seemingly immiscible parts--the religion of Jesus and the religion of Paul. Thomas Jefferson attempted to excise the Pauline parts of the New Testament. There wasn't much left when he was done, but it was an inspiring document." (Letter to Ken Schei [author of Christianity Betrayed])
Hyam Maccoby (Talmudic Scholar): "As we have seen, the purposes of the book of Acts is to minimize the conflict between Paul and the leaders of the Jerusalem Church, James and Peter. Peter and Paul, in later Christian tradition, became twin saints, brothers in faith, and the idea that they were historically bitter opponents standing for irreconcilable religious standpoints would have been repudiated with horror. The work of the author of Acts was well done; he rescued Christianity from the imputation of being the individual creation of Paul, and instead gave it a respectable pedigree, as a doctrine with the authority of the so-called Jerusalem Church, conceived as continuous in spirit with the Pauline Gentile Church of Rome. Yet, for all his efforts, the truth of the matter is not hard to recover, if we examine the New Testament evidence with an eye to tell-tale inconsistencies and confusions, rather than with the determination to gloss over and harmonize all difficulties in the interests of an orthodox interpretation." (The Mythmaker, p. 139, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1986)
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look, when Paul says "hey, this is my opinion." I don't feel obligated to treat the rest of what he says as unquestionable. I reserve the right to use my own conscience and intellect. That's all.
I don't have to be "better" than Paul to realize that he may have been wrong in some of his opinions.
And certainly it's a matter of conscience as well as intellect to decide whether to follow someone's advice, no matter who it is. Otherwise, what are you doing but attempting to become an automaton. A knee-jerk Christian? Who ever heard of such a thing? Not something I aspire to at any rate.
Perhaps you can intellectualize a belief that what Paul says must be true in all respects, but I can't and never have been able to. That doesn't mean I haven't considered his point of view. It means I've considered it and rejected some parts of it as being antithetical to what I believe is true about Christ's teachings.
I have a very difficult time reconciling statements like "I don't let women teach men" (I'm paraphrasing of course, but that's basically what he said) with a message of love and Christian community. Why would that be in any way desireable? Because the men can't keep their hands off of the women? Because their pride would be hurt? Because women make mistakes when they teach that a man wouldn't make? Some of the most important lessons of my adult life (and childhood of course) have been learned from women. If I were closed to that source, I'd be less of a man and less good as a person. Paul's message runs exactly counter to my experience.
His stuff on celibacy is also not very easy to reconcile with the larger message I read in the New Testament. Even today's Christians justify their stance on homosexuality based in part because it is considered anti-family. How much more anti-family can you get than celibacy?
Frankly, it sounds like the echo through the ages of a guy who had trouble with women and was screwed a little too tight. I don't like this kind of thing in the people I choose as my models. Jesus wasn't like that.
Also, I've read The True Believer and recognize a lot of what is in there in Saul/Paul. The sudden conversion from one movement to its polar opposite and rabid devotion to the new faith. There's a lot to admire in Paul, don't get me wrong, but I'm always skeptical of people like him when I meet them in real life. So when I read him in the Bible I can't help but wonder whether he was an UberChristian for reasons that had less to do with a calling from God and more to do with a basic flaw in his character.
Seeking power and influence, for example.
And that kind of rabid devotion to a cause is almost always dangerous, IMHO. It can pervert the true faith and derail it from the path set by those who actually started it.
Now, I'm not saying Paul's influence has been wholly negative. But he is the source of much that is unbalanced in modern Christianity, IMHO. The call for Catholic priests to remain celibate. The barring of women from ministerial callings by some sects. The separation of men and women's worship in some sects. The continued "issues" with homosexuality and sex in general.
All of these "wound too tight" attitudes are to be found in Paul more than anywhere else. Is that a coincidence? Was Paul speaking for God? Or was Paul a bit over the top?
If Paul were a friend of mine, I'd be worried about him. I'd want to try an intervention or something.
I don't have nearly the problems with people trying to follow Jesus' example as I do with people trying to follow Paul's.
Something about him just doesn't feel right.
Oh well. That's just my opinion.
I'm not trying to start a new religion. Or get anyone to renounce an old one.
Paul just doesn't do it for me. He speaks and I cringe. He's not a good source of learning or doctrine for me. That's all.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Paul drives me nuts. I have a list of scriptures of things he wrote that drive me crazy and I can barely believe. If the only testament of Christ I had was Paul, I'd have a hard time believing in Him. The best of what Paul wrote is mentioned in more detail in other places in the scriptures.
Homosexuality is a sin (for everyone), but, fortunately for clarity, Paul is NOT the only prophet to speak of it as such.
[ January 07, 2004, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do hope Paul isn't invited to the plethics intervention session . . . but just in case . . . *finds extra-strength gut-rot to serve* (JOKE, people, just an early-morning JOKE)*
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm afraid this conversation has escaped my ability to catch up.
But Javert, it's Paul who drives you nuts? Jesus (at least as the Gospel writers portray him) talks about hell ten times as much as Paul. It was Jesus, not Paul, who took a whip to a bunch of seemingly inoffensive merchants on the temple grounds. Jesus wasn't any less argumentative than Paul; perhaps more so, considering the limited scope of his preaching.
You know what, though? I like him that way. I like my religion to challenge me, not just match up perfectly to what I already think is right. Most of the time the positions people find me arguing about morality, here, are not my positions in the sense of growing out of my personality or the things I think are appropriate. They're the positions I think Christianity teaches. My personal preferences? Dust and ashes. I might as well complain that I'd like a flat Earth better.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, Paul is the primary NT source for that doctrine.
The OT source is mainly Leviticus, isn't it?
I'm drawing a blank on the other "prophets" who mention homosexuality as a sin -- fortunately or not. Unless you are referring to LDS scripture, of course.
Oh, by the way, I never answered your question about modern revelatory scripture.
I think that anyone deciding what is and what is not scripture is taking on a job that is either the province of God or the province of every person on their own -- i.e., what to believe. Believing oneself to be devinely inspired is usually hubris. Believing that someone you trust is divinely inspired seems fine, but does it matter? I mean, if a trusted spiritual advisor recommended a book, wouldn't you read it and look for it's message to you, regardless of whether that person said it had the "force of scripture" or not?
What is scripture but a set of books that men in the past have decided belong on everyone's list of good books to learn from? Did God dictate it...I'm not convinced of that. Does that make it less valuable? Not to me. What other written sources have such continuity and depth? I read it because it is what it is, not because someone said I should or must.
What I believe about its origins doesn't affect it's message one iota, IMHO.
Modern scripture is the same as old scripture as far as that goes.
If it is good and useful in my life, does it matter where I found it or whether I believe that God intended me to read it?
I'm not sure I need a NEW scripture, though. I mean, if the new is inconsistent with the old, I'll end up rejecting it anyway. If it is consistent with the old, isn't it more or less redundant? Perhaps I'm better off viewing new "scripture" more as reinforcement, commentary and expansion on the old?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm not sure I need a NEW scripture, though. I mean, if the new is inconsistent with the old, I'll end up rejecting it anyway. If it is consistent with the old, isn't it more or less redundant?
Fascinating. And here I thought we had nothing in common religiously, Bob.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Perhaps I'm better off viewing new "scripture" more as reinforcement, commentary and expansion on the old?
Sure. That works perfectly.
The Lord sent his people prophets in the past to lead them. If one prophet said everything, then why stop when it did? Why not stop the OT prophets with Isaiah?
Reinforcement The Book of Mormon is another testament of Christ, and it comes from a different part of the world, from a different people, and speaks of the same message that was told to those in Jerusalem. It's more evidence of a caring and loving God who really meant what he said over there. It's a second witness to an event. Reinforcement is always nice.
Commentary When Lehi and his family left Jerusalem, they carried the scriptures that had been written up to this time. This includes Isaiah, and a big chunk of the first third of the Book of Mormon consists of quotes of Isaiah and commentaries on it by Nephi and Jacob, Lehi's sons. This is great.
Expansion I don't think prophets work by downloading all of God's knowledge. Like with us, they get answers to questions that they have, and not all the prophets had all the same questions. There's a section in Alma where Alma is questioned about what happens after people die, and he goes and prays about it, and then teaches the people what the Spirit has taught him. It is an expansion, and it's an expansion brought on by some specific questions that this prophet had.
Nephi said that the Book of Mormon and the Bible work together. That the two books would testify of each other. I do know that a good chunk of the reason I do value the Bible - especially after reading Paul - is because its veracity is attested to in the Book of Mormon. It's still scripture, and it's scripture that supports and expands the scripture we have now. Much of the Bible is an explanation and commentary on what happened before. Jesus spends a fourth of the gospels explaining the prophecies that came before and how he is come to fulfill them.
As for modern revelation, the Lord sent prophets to lead his people before. Why not now?
[ January 07, 2004, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because after God's Revelations to John which set forth the End Times, there was nothing more to prophesize and foretell?
Jesus came and set forth how to live and why to live that way. God revealed to John how it would end. After that, why would God need to reveal more?
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: If it contains more than the Bible, it contains too much. If it contains less than the Bible, it contains too little. If it contains something different from the Bible, it contains the wrong thing. And if it is exactly the same as the Bible, why not just use the Bible?
(Source unknown--it's been repeated too many times. Originally was in reference to creedal statements.)
[Addit: I'm inviting comment, preferably with a sense of humor, not trying to make this a debating point.]
By the way, I really liked Chris Bridges' post up there. I never knew any of that. I came to my opinion of Paul's stuff mostly on my own (after seriously studying the Bible for the first time a few years ago). He just didn't fit...for me.
But that was great stuff. I'd love to see what Thomas Jefferson did in trying excise Paul. I wonder how he'd do if he had access to more recently discovered texts.
As for the Book of Mormon, etc., I can't really say I've formed much of an opinion. I never really finished reading it. I didn't get far enough into it to figure out whether there was a message there for me. It was more like an unfamiliar history that I had no way to judge the veracity of.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, I'm honestly not sure if you're laughing at my wit or at me, but I'm going to comfortably assume you think I'm as funny as I think I am.
I have to agree with you about Paul. He just seriously, seriously bothers me, and has since I read the New Testament. I found my list, and this is an example:
quote:From 1 Corinthians 5:
7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
9 I wrote unto you in an aepistle not to company with fornicators:
10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
What the heck? Don't hang out with people with a bad reputation because it looks bad? Don't let people who have sinned come to church because it looks bad? That not only goes against what Jesus DID, it goes completely against what the Book of Mormon says (3 Nephi 18: 28-34). It just bothers me from both ends.
Paul did say lots of things that I like, and I'm sure that the above passage could be justified in some way, but I just don't like it.
[ January 09, 2004, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Javert, I think you're misreading this passage. "The wicked person" Paul is talking about is someone in the church. The local church has been avoiding people outside the church on the grounds that they are sinners, but freely associating with blatant sinners who are Christians. Paul points out that they've got it backwards--they have an obligation to judge those inside the church, but people outside it are out of their jurisdiction.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Food for thought from Mr. Card himself, taken from his essay confronting virulent protesters of his Homecoming series - I thought it might apply to the conversation at hand:
quote:There is an unfortunate tendency among some members of the Church not many, but enough to cause great grief to many to think that their obligation as Saints is to spend their time watching for and stamping out all incorrect actions or incorrect opinions.
Hmmm. I'd like to interpret church in the "catholic" or "universal" sense.
quote:For example, Bob's definition of something being wrong for one person because of the context they bring to it but not wrong for another person with a different context fits exactly into what I said, but I really fail to see how it would work as an example of your definition. Or, in reference to the scripture that I brought up, the idea that the emotional context of actions is the defining aspect of their morality is a relativistic one as opposed to the absolutist idea that the actions themselves are the seat of moral rightness, regardless of why they are performed - such as an action approved by the Bible but intended in a specific instance to hurt someone else being ok. I fail to see how such a situation is could be called relativistic in your schema. Could you tell me what would the name for it be?
I'm not sure what you mean by bringing a context to the situation.
But as for the instance of an action approved by the Bible but intended in a specific instance to hurt someone, I think that action would be wrong, and I think that should be called an example of absolutism.
Absolutism isn't just saying "X is always wrong, no matter what the circumstances." It also includes context-specific moral theories, like "It was okay for Bill Clinton to lie to the American people about his affair to protect his personal privacy during the Lewinsky scandal, in that particular instance." I think it includes any moral theory in which there are objectively correct moral answers to situations, whether deciding it with universal laws or situation-specific judgement.
The thing all absolutist theories have in common is the suggestion that if you were in the exact same situation as me, the right thing for you to do would be the same as the right thing for me to do in that situation. Or, in other words, the right action doesn't depend on who is judging it. Right is right, and wrong is wrong, as they say. Relativism is the opposite - suggesting that we could be in the exact same situation, yet the right choice for me in that situation might be the wrong choice for you. With relativism, the right answer changes based on who is doing the judging.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I believe that the issue on homosexuality was settled by Christ, if not in word, then by his deeds and associations. To understand, however, you must look at who Christ spoke to and his overall message: love of each other, no matter what and faith in our individual salvations no matter our individual sins.
While homosexuality is mentioned in the Old Testament, it is mentioned far less than the sins of prostitution, usury, robbery and others. But whom did Christ associate with? Who did he speak to? Who are some of the most important personalities in the New Testament? They came from dubious backgrounds and some downright "sinful" ones. And who did he speak against? Pharisees and Sadducces (sp?) who believed in their own personal holiness at the expense of those around them, their willingness to be the first to cast a stone.
In Jesus' entourage were former prostitutes, moneylenders and others. Who was the first to be guaranteed a place in Heaven? A thief crucified right beside Christ. He not only spoke of love for his fellow human beings, but also acted upon that, offering the greatest of blessings to anyone, no matter their circumstances.
His words may have omitted speaking directly about homosexuals, but his actions show that everyone was and is welcome in the salvation he offers. To believe otherwise is to place words in his mouth that one cannot back up.
Now Paul, well, he is a tough one to reconcile at times and I will be reading his writings in a slightly different light this time around. I thank you for providing that bit of different insight into his life and times.
But, let's look at Corinthians as Kat has quoted there. We shouldn't take it out of context necessarily, though. According to the historical interpretation found in The Life Application Study Bible , NIV, 1 Corinthians was sent as an epistle to the Christian chuch at Corinth as certain outside pressures threatened to decimate its membership.
The Corinthians, living among the Greeks, had to deal with a society that was much more open to what we might call sexual freedom and other mores that might cause us to blanche in this day and age. In short, they were losing membership in the congregation to basically the decadence of a long-standing society.
Paul's advice was to do something that preachers to this day still take up as a tool of their work: the idea of revival and a call back to doing what is right. The trick to salvation is that once you've been saved, it is your job to live rightly as best you can after that point. His words of advice to the church leadership there were to cajole and condemn those who were getting too involved in the Greek lifestyle in the hopes that they would be shamed into coming back or possibly strengthened in their resolve to live and do better.
Still, like I said, this time through the Bible, I will pay more attention to reading Paul's letters and contrasting that to Jesus' teachings. I'm a Christian, but I am still a striving Christian with much, much more to learn.
And I'm sorry if I can't speak on Mormon teachings about homosexuality, but in light of my personal beliefs, I'll put my faith in what the Bible says first and foremost.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Psst, not Greek lifestyle. Roman. And as for homosexuality, when did Christ ever mention it? He did mention loving others as we would ourselves, and yet we don't afford those gay others the same legal rights we do ourselves. How Christ like we must be.
Posts: 346 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why should we accept the current version of the Bible when it is filled with inaccuracies and contradictions?
Here is an interesting URL; I apologize for the apologetics, but you take what you get. The only other site that I found that actually listed the 'missing books' of the bible was an Islam site that muddled Christian beliefs.
Keep in mind that we're not talking apocrypha above.
EDIT: One exception I take with the apologetic link above is this:
quote:Jeremiah possibly edited and/or condensed the original source (by inspiration of the Holy Spirit) into the book of Kings, sometime before or during the Babylonian exile. This new, inspired book of Kings provided a summary of the histories of Israel and Judah for the captives to carry with them—a much smaller, lighter book than the original detailed work.
My understanding of Jewish scripture writing is that no Jew would ever attempt to condense scripture. Each word was to have been copied precisely-- and if one was miscopied, the whole text was tossed.
I could be wrong though. It's happened before. Once.
EDIT PART DEUX: I completely disagree with Smith's conclusion-- basically, that these books aren't important at all, and that we have what God wants us to have. For proof, he offers nothing other than tradition and his own word.
Discussions like this (whether or not homosexuality is a sin) make a good point to the idea that the Bible really isn't clear on some things, and that some clarification is needed.
[ January 10, 2004, 07:49 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sopwith, yes, those people were part of Jesus' entourage. But how did they come to be there? Why did they listen to him? These people gave up their sinful activities. They repented. Nothing prevented Pharisees from doing the same, except that most of them were blind to their own faults.
When people weren't willing to repent, generally they decided Jesus wasn't for them and left. (I wonder why?) Occasionally some people tried to make unrighteous use of Jesus himself, by making him a focus of a rebellion. He slipped away and left them.
I see nothing in the Scriptures to indicate that Paul's standards were any different from Jesus'. But Paul, unlike Jesus, did not have the opportunity to remain with the same group of disciples at all times, so that sometimes people got out of hand. So we end up having more of the restrictions spelled out by Paul as he tries to restore order.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, what exactly does the site have to do with your accusation of contradictions and inaccuracies?
(It's nice to see Apologetics Press is still up and running. Hadn't seen anything from them lately.)
[ADDIT] As I understand it, only those writings considered sacred are copied in the painstaking manner you describe. Royal annals would ordinarily not fall into that category. Does anyone know better?
posted
As for contradictory, here's something off the top of my head:
quote:Acts 9: 3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
Acts 22
6 And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me.
7 And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
8 And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.
9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
Not to mention the contradictions of faith vs. works or other doctrinal quandries.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Absolutism isn't just saying "X is always wrong, no matter what the circumstances." It also includes context-specific moral theories, like "It was okay for Bill Clinton to lie to the American people about his affair to protect his personal privacy during the Lewinsky scandal, in that particular instance." I think it includes any moral theory in which there are objectively correct moral answers to situations, whether deciding it with universal laws or situation-specific judgement.
The thing all absolutist theories have in common is the suggestion that if you were in the exact same situation as me, the right thing for you to do would be the same as the right thing for me to do in that situation. Or, in other words, the right action doesn't depend on who is judging it. Right is right, and wrong is wrong, as they say. Relativism is the opposite - suggesting that we could be in the exact same situation, yet the right choice for me in that situation might be the wrong choice for you. With relativism, the right answer changes based on who is doing the judging.
I think you've defined something that might be called contextual absolutism, which is not absolutism in any sense I've ever heard of it before. Absolutism has never meant "know the context" in any way that I've ever heard it explained to me (by it's proponents at least, not actual trained philosophers).
And frankly, it smacks of humanism. "If you were in my shoes, you would've done the same thing..."
Also, I think you have a mistaken impression of relativism. The acting person's context is the same as saying "if you were in my shoes (being a Somali street urchin or a Wall Street CEO, or whatever) you would do the same thing I did..."
The actor and the judging person each have contexts that go beyond the proximal situation. They have a culture, their own family background, etc. etc.
Once you let "context" in at all, it becomes more and more important in deciding whether something is right or wrong. Where do you draw the line with something like "context?"
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The acting person's context is the same as saying "if you were in my shoes (being a Somali street urchin or a Wall Street CEO, or whatever) you would do the same thing I did..."
I think you're looking at different variables than I am. I wasn't suggesting that the people be judged by the context of their actions. I was suggesting that the actions be judged in the context of the situation. I even used the words "conditions" and "situations" several times, honest.
If two different people were in the exact same situation with the exact same conditions and they reacted in different ways, I would judge them on what they did and why.
If two different people were in different situations and committed the same action (the killing in self-defense vs killing for sadistic fun thing) I would judge them on their actions in context.
But even still, an action can be sinful for one person and not for another, because the sin is not truly in the action. Bob's pastor and his injunctions against alcohol is a good example.
For the pastor, indulgence in alcohol is a grave error that will cause harm to himself and others. For Bob, it's a beverage that goes nicely with Italian food. That's because alcohol is not at all sinful, but indulgence and selfishness (putting your own desire for the drink over the consequences of drinking it) is, and that's what the pastor should have been preaching against. That's the kind of judgment that I flatly disagree with.
When should context cease to matter? When context no longer changes the intent of the action.
[ January 10, 2004, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, the particular "contradiction" you listed is downright easy to reconcile. I'd do it, but all that has accomplished in the past is causing someone to hand me a laundry list of supposed contradictions. Most are simple, like this one, generally the result of variations in the way particular words are translated, or are used in English. "Stood", for instance, has become a common way of saying "stayed", or "remained" and doesn't inherently suggest a particular posture. I understand in some parts of the South it's perfectly legit to wish you'd stood in bed.
But I digress, and I always forget threads if I take time off to actually research. Sooner or later I'd have to go hunting for the solution to some knotty problem you posed, and when I forgot to come back with the answer, it'd just confirm to you that you were right, there are contradictions.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Macc- I agree; but the contradictions are there. Paul's strong reliance on faith vs. Christ's emphasis on works, for example.
If the Bible were a perfectly complete document, I submit that there'd be no room for interpretation. But with 2000 plus Christian churches in America alone, it's pretty easy to see that a great many people are confused by what is written therein. The ordinance of baptism, the nature of the Holy Spirit, resurrection, even the weekly holy day-- all are debatable topics, and all positions are supportable using verses from scripture.
Thus, IMO, the need for living prophets and modern day scripture.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand why you would think that, Scott. But to me, the introduction of living prophets only complicates matters more--since, basically, anyone can claim to be one and there's really no way to verify it.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Bible never comments on itself. By the time the books (Bible = biblia = books) were put together, the scriptures in the old world had stopped being written. The editors and compilers didn't add an epilogue, and Revelation occurs at the end because it discusses the end times, not because because it was the last book written.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Paul is indeed Scripture, then the Bible does comment on itself. Baptists are very VERY fond of the quote from Paul about Scripture being the word of God and useful in instruction, etc. etc.
Sorry I don't have my SWORD software on this laptop, or I'd copy the exact passage.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It comments on scripture, but not to the Bible as a whole book. It's the passage from Timothy, and it's great, and there are lots of passages that comment on the goodness/usefulness of scripture, but there's nothing that talks about the books we know as the Bible, as a whole. No epilogue at the end, and no "this is all there is."
There is the scripture in Revelations, but considering Revelations was written before most of the New Testament, it either could only refer to Revelations or else we have throw out most of the testament.
[ January 13, 2004, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't read the whole thread, but as to Bob's original question:
We have to make choices. Therefore, we have to judge. You cannot make choices without judging.
It is ok to judge the 'why', the 'what' and the 'how' or in other words peoples behaviour and deeds. It is not ok to judge the 'who'. To judge who someone really is, whether they are evil or have no love, that's not for us to do. So never reject a person, only what a person does.
Posts: 1247 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if this thread is dead or what, but I'll throw my say in anyway.
It's important to recognize who Paul was and what prupose he working for when you're talking about his writing. In contrast to Peter and James and the rest of the Nazarenes, Paul was a highly educated and cosmopolitan guy. He grew up in Greece, and, as a young man came to Israel to rise in the Jewish hierarchy. As such, he initially participated in the Jewish persecution of Christians. -Sidenote: I think it's also important to realize that Jews around Jesus's time enjoyed a favorable position in comparision to other Roman conquests. They were given a degree of freedom and self-grovernment far beyond most other Roman subject populations. Thus, their persecution of Jesus and his followers takes on a different shade when you see it as a sort of "Stop pissing off the overlords." thing. -
However, Paul converted to Christianity, although his version was extremely different from that of the Apostles. While they were content to preserve the teachings of Jesus and more or less keep Christianity to a limited group of people, Paul felt that his role was to bring as many people to Christianity as possible. It's important to recognize that the thinking of the time was the second coming and thus the end of the world was right around the corner. Paul was trying to get as many people under the wire as he could. Even later, when he realized that maybe Jesus wasn't coming right back (Some of the people Jesus had told "You'll be alive when I return." had died.) and he made the remarkable shift to "God is just and as such is waiting to end the world until we can get a whole mess of people to convert to Christianity." he was desparately trying to convert people. Because of this, Paul adopted a political orientation and used a certain latitude when it came to the definition of Christianity. For example, he pretty much introduced the idea of blatant syncretic adoption whereby pagan beliefs and festivals got pretty much wholesale copied into Christianity. Also, Paul played upon his audiences' sympathies. Where they were pro-Roman, he (and his version of Christianity) was pro-Roman, where they were anti-Roman, so was he. His number one goal was to get as many people as possible to adopt Christianity (whatever it's particulars) as their one and only path to salvation.
I think this makes some of his more bizzare statements more understandable. In Jewish society of the time, marriage was almost a sacred duty and an unmarried man was held in low regard. And yet, Paul advocated people to adopt abstinance, resorting to marriage only if they couldn't control themselves any other way. From a viewpoint of establishing a 2000 year tradition, this doesn't really make a lot of sense, but if you understand that Paul thought that the world was going to end, maybe as soon as next week, I think it seems more rational. Likewise, Paul directs many of his admonitions towards what other people (i.e. potential converts) will think. He was geared towards making the emerging religion as palatable as possible, even if this meant adopting local customs even when they conflicted with parts of Christ's message. Only Paul really put forth the idea that faith in Christianity is the sole component of salvation. Again, all this makes sense if you understand the purpose he was directing his ministry towards.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
