I need to seriously sort out my career/calling so as ever I can't wade in too deep each day. But hopefully something to chew on. J, your q about morality in the Bible. Something Dawkins devotes a lot of space to. Just to clarify a bit first where I'm coming from. While I identify myself as a Christian, I still have plenty of qs myself about my faith and the bible. Faith has always been an ongoing exploration for me. Obviously to continue calling myself a Cn, I must have a basic sense that it's true and reasons for believing, but my faith is more of a dynamic than static thing. There sre always qs to explore. From my perspective, there is a constant danger in this type of discussion of degeneration into mere intellectual argument, so to redress the balance I wd remind that I engage in it out from a sense of being in a relationship with God. Of course you don't have to share that for meaningful discussion to happen, but it affects how we're approaching it. It isn't just an intellectual debate for me.
Back to the morality q. A couple of points. From your qs and comments, B and J, I'd say that along with RD there's a fundamental problem of understanding the nature of the bible, how it developed and was put together. You seem to regard it as if it purports to be a complete moral guidebook for contemporary living, and as if it shd be that. It's not; it's a library of books, written and compiled over centuries through changing cultural contexts. But yes, Cns do believe that it reveals, perhaps in an evolving, progressive way - wd need to discuss further - timeless principles of ethics and morality. But you have to read it intelligently; you can't just say Billy that it says stone homosexuals so it's stupid. Further, as a friend pointed out, a fundamental problem of RD's treatment is the complete lack of contextualisation. One example: eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Failure to acknowledge that in the context of the vengeance ethic of the surrounding cultures in the OT, this expressed radical restraint and was therefore ethically a big improvement.
Enough for today.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.JPG)
8 comments:
Bruce-
before I comment later on today's post, a reminder of an important question I asked before.
You said-
"We humans have a sense of purpose, and personality with all its qualities such as capacity to love (as well of course as hate), appreciate beauty and all the rest. And it's difficult to see how such attributes and qualities could have arisen in creatures in this universe unless they, or qualities greater than them, are not present in the ground of being, in the foundations of reality."
And I asked-
"You believe that such things come about through being present in the "foundation of reality", but let me ask you this. Assuming that you are right, imagine a place where such things are not part of the foundation. How do you think creatures of that universe would behave? What would be so radically different about them?"
I appreciate you probably know it's due for an answer, but since the post is about to disappear off the end of the pasge, I thought I'd ask again.
Jonathan.
Back to the morality q. A couple of points. From your qs and comments, B and J, I'd say that along with RD there's a fundamental problem of understanding the nature of the bible, how it developed and was put together. You seem to regard it as if it purports to be a complete moral guidebook for contemporary living, and as if it shd be that. It's not; it's a library of books, written and compiled over centuries through changing cultural contexts.
Yes, I know! It is however used as a guidebook for contemporary living and that is undeniable. How many times have you heard someone say that verse x was the answer to dilemma y. The bible itself claims its value in such things:
“2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
But yes, Cns do believe that it reveals, perhaps in an evolving, progressive way - wd need to discuss further - timeless principles of ethics and morality.
This is a departure from your earlier claim of moral absolutes. This is inconsistent thinking on your part. I asked you earlier to provide an example of moral absolutes. Can you provide one?
But you have to read it intelligently; you can't just say Billy that it says stone homosexuals so it's stupid.
Now Bruce, where did I say that? I said the bible says to stone homosexuals, THEREFORE IT IS IMMORAL!
Further, as a friend pointed out, a fundamental problem of RD's treatment is the complete lack of contextualisation.
Really, then your friend is wrong. When is it ever right to kill babies because of what someone else has done (see exodus 11). In fact, when is it ever right to kill babies?
One example: eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Failure to acknowledge that in the context of the vengeance ethic of the surrounding cultures in the OT, this expressed radical restraint and was therefore ethically a big improvement.
Wrong again I’m afraid. I really annoys me when Christians make up this myth – “oh you think that was bad, you should see what everyone else was doing at the time.” A Sumerian tablet (dating to 3000 – 3500 BCE) called the councils of wisdom basically says to forgive others and not to hold grudges. The Greeks even esteemed homosexuals. We even have ancient Egyptian and Sumerian laws and justice codes that rival our own, so that claim is just plain wrong.
Now, concerning these nasty laws, they were given by your god. Are you claiming that he made allowances for people’s bad behaviour? That seems strange coming from a god who hates and punishes sin. It is also unbiblical. Consider Psalm 19:7 for example “The law of the lord is PERFECT, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.”
Then Jesus says that the law will never pass away, that it will always stand Mat 5:18. Paul even endorses the law by saying that with out Jesus it is the only way to salvation – by doing so, he is saying that it must be perfect (genocide, misogyny, intolerance, rape, the lot).
Gal 3:11 ”CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM."
I will publish more on the immorality of the law later. The law was intended to show what righteousness was: Rom 7:7” 7 Well then, am I suggesting that the law of God is sinful? Of course not! In fact, it was the law that showed me my sin. I would never have known that coveting is wrong if the law had not said, “You must not covet”
Note also Romans 7:10 “So I discovered that the law’s commands, which were SUPPOSED to bring life, brought spiritual death instead.”
The Law was most definitely given to be an absolute moral code – Work of God or work of bronze age savages with an agenda?
Billy
Bruce-
"But yes, Cns do believe that it reveals, perhaps in an evolving, progressive way - wd need to discuss further - timeless principles of ethics and morality".
Alright- paying particular attention to the example you gave. Leaving aside the whole "vengeance ethic of other cultures" which Billy has already covered. If ethics and morality are being revealed in a progressive way, the question then becomes why?
Why reveal the morality so slowly? First the Israelites have their vengeance restricted, then they are told not to take vengeance at all. Why the step-wise approach? Why not have one of the Ten Commandments be "Thou shalt turn the other cheek, and not take vengeance upon those that wrong you".
If these are underlying moral precepts (as Billy said- example of one needed) why would God not reveal these right away?
To me, it seems like an attempt to explain away changing moral standards. There are parallels with our time. When did God "reveal" that being gay was ok, that women deserve equal rights, and that slavery is immoral? He certainly didn't say it in the Bible. Even ignoring Paul, Timothy and their ilk, JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF did not impart these lessons.
Jonathan.
Can't blog today cos was chatting with friends in NZ on Skype for an hour. I will try and sustain the momentum but if I miss the odd day here or there don't worry. Trying to get a more ruthless 9 t 5 type work routine going! Oh well, an extra day for your comments to percolate.
We want Bruce! we want Bruce!
Did you check out the site about monkeys with a sense of justice?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/science/nature/3116678.stm
Wasn't the Binnies you were talking to by any chance?
Bruce-
Chatting with friends on Skype? Where are your priorities?
Jonathan.
I hate the way this site truncates links. Here come the monkeys in two parts
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/science
/nature/3116678.stm
Billy
Yes, I just set up skype on this laptop today - what fun. It was indeed the Binnies, Billy - they're doing well. Pretty stormy in NZ in the spring.
Post a Comment