tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post4118212686439017206..comments2023-09-02T07:14:49.753-04:00Comments on Atheism And The City: The Perceived Fear of Moral Progression Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-86458430921005560962012-12-14T09:37:10.179-05:002012-12-14T09:37:10.179-05:00God has required that his own people live in exemp...God has required that his own people live in exemplary decency in whatever setting they find themselves. The only 'rigid' things are the love of God and of the fellow man. Specifics are relative to the community setting.<br /><br />God requires everyone else to comprehend life in terms of a good conscience, and will hold them accountable to that.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00333883745996024119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-12427240758971306382012-11-29T17:17:35.314-05:002012-11-29T17:17:35.314-05:00Do you or do you not believe as a Christian, that ...Do you or do you not believe as a Christian, that there is one god and that he has one rigid set of morals that he has commanded us to live by, regardless of whether they change over time or not?The Thinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303015383137218932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-59603103224556882922012-11-29T06:18:06.009-05:002012-11-29T06:18:06.009-05:00Qualification: 'we' refers to Christians i...Qualification: 'we' refers to Christians in that final paragraph...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00333883745996024119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-18497581069387757952012-11-29T06:15:03.063-05:002012-11-29T06:15:03.063-05:00Morality is a question of community. That's c...Morality is a question of community. That's consistent with anthropology and sociology. In one community, arranged marriages are considered the pinnacle of moral uprightness. In others it is offensive. in some, violence is practiced as part of vital coming-of-age ceremonies, and in others violence is considered 'wrong' in all circumstances. That's very socio-culturally relative.<br /><br />Ultimately, the liberal democracy is founded on the principle of such relativity. Whatever the people want, the people get. Even if they want a changed constitution! The short history of democracy is sufficient to demonstrate profound changes in 'morality'. It's not slowing down. Morality is relative to the express interests of the community. Is that a good thing? It completely depends on your point of view: conservatives say no (that's what conservative actually means: morality is enshrined in traditions).<br /><br />An judeo-christian faith community does have a couple of non-negotiable axioms: love of God, love of one another, service to others. Beyond that, the surrounding culture's sense of decency should dictate the mores of the faith one. That's not my opinion, it's what the bible demonstrates!<br /><br />Indeed, another axiom of the faith is that withdrawing from 'the world' is not spiritually mature. When charismatic leaders seek to create isolated communities they are in error. The results speak for themselves. They don't have to be religious, either. Non-religious personality-cults are just as dangerous as religious ones. Religion is merely the convenient tool of the charismatic leader.<br /><br />On the definition of 'Christian', it means 'of Christ'. Thats what I am. <br /><br />What most Christians don't realise is that much of what they consider 'Christian' would be foreign to Jesus, in whos name they live. Not necessarily offensive, but certainly unrecognizable. Democracy, for example...<br /><br />Oh, and I didn't say that the Bible is *not* inspired by God. I simply express the nature of that inspiration in very different terms. Ancient Israel contemplated (from within their cultural paradigm) a holy God, and discerned certain laws. My argument is that we should contemplate the same God in our milieu to discern modern instructions.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00333883745996024119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-1530868278413111062012-11-28T19:49:10.413-05:002012-11-28T19:49:10.413-05:00Well you don't seem to be a Biblical literalis...Well you don't seem to be a Biblical literalist and I think that's great. There are so many shades of "Christian" that "Christian" is really like an umbrella term covering many beliefs similar to "religion".<br /><br />It is true that a Christian can simply just believe in Jesus' divinity and resurrection and nothing more, and therefore is not bound at all to any OT commandments. Most Christians however, do accept the Bible as the inspired word of god. If you do not grant OT morality as the commandments of god, then you say they might be all the musings of an ancient desert tribe. In that case, no one is under any obligation to obey them. I would agree basically.<br /><br />You say that the community or the church should determine for itself how to interpret god's will. What about the Lord's Resistant Army, or a cult leader like David Koresh's Branch Dividians Sect, or any other Christian off-shoot sect or cult, that may have a leader that proclaims himself a prophet in direct communication with god? Do you really place morality to be that socio-culturally relative? The Thinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303015383137218932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-86954049102432760962012-11-27T05:11:11.218-05:002012-11-27T05:11:11.218-05:00>> "Christians are forced to believe th...>> "Christians are forced to believe these were morally good back then"<br /><br />Some are. Those who are determined that the Bible has been dictated word-for-word by God.<br /><br />I'm not so "forced", at all! But that requires an understanding of the Bible which is at variance to the "verbal-plenary" notion of "divine inspiration". For example, see my article: http://wp.me/p2qCI2-uG "Is the Bible actually 'the word of God'?"<br /><br />It should be cautioned, however, that imposing modern sensitivities on ancient civilisations is a form of moral absolutism, and is fraught. It is precisely that kind of anachronism that underpinned the cultural imperialism of the 17th-19th centuries. Simply because something is not considered "a crime" now, is not a reason necessarily to declare a death penalty for it in another culture at another time is "immoral".<br /><br />In my country, it is considered immoral to put *any* criminal to death. In the USA it is legally sanctioned by a number of states for certain criminals.<br /><br />Imposing one's morality one others is always ethically questionable. To some, of other cultures or eras, certain of the values that you consider "inalienably good", could be considered offensive or immoral.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00333883745996024119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-45178513887199439922012-11-26T15:56:04.737-05:002012-11-26T15:56:04.737-05:00Well I applaud you for recognizing the moral relat...Well I applaud you for recognizing the moral relativity of Christianity. I don't argue for total moral relativism, I agree like you, that some degree of relativism exists, but there seems to be a few unchanging cores, like love as you say. <br /><br />I might even be less of a relativist that most Christians because I don't believe old testament morality was good at the time it was commanded. I still think most of those morals were wrong, regardless of where and when and who they took place with. The people in the OT times were simply ignorant of the knowledge needed to make informed moral decisions, and that's why their morality is so skewed. So to me slavery was always wrong, and the stoning to death of homosexuals, accused witches and adulterers was always wrong. It was not even right in the context of the OT. Christians are forced to believe these were morally good back then because god arbitrarily commanded it so, but some are not necessarily now, while the atheist can call them all out as wrong. The Thinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303015383137218932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-86045204796103546662012-11-26T09:22:17.237-05:002012-11-26T09:22:17.237-05:00I (a theist) would go further. I would say that Je...I (a theist) would go further. I would say that Jesus was arguing for cultural relativism. Far from proposing any moral absolutes (except the axiom of love), Jesus deliberately demonstrated that the absolutism of his contemporaries was flawed.<br /><br />I don't know if you allow a commenter to include hyperlinks, but I'll try: http://wp.me/p2qCI2-JQ<br /><br />That is an article I wrote, systematically looking at matters that Christians generally consider "core" and immovable moral absolutes, and show how they are actually fluid through the Biblical narrative.<br /><br />In fact, what can be said of the historical Judeo-Christian faith, is that what it's authors were concerned with was not so much *imposing* a normalcy on society, but with *discerning* what "decency" looked like, and ensuring that the faith community was exemplifying it. That's relativism.<br /><br />Of course, for large sections of time in the narrative, and for many centuries in the post-Constantine world, this faith has been in a position to write and enforce laws for a civil society. In that context, theological principles are used to try and guide the process. But at other very important times in the narrative (like Abraham's, and Jesus' time), the cultural norms were dictated by foreign cultures. What was important, then, was to be *decent*, whatever that meant.<br /><br />For Abraham it was polygyny, for example, whereas for Jesus and Paul it was monogomy, with a certain special reverence for celebacy (for the purpose of religious service).<br /><br />I have had it suggested to me that it is impossible to talk of "morality" without reference to God. I (the theist...) disagree. I think the best axiom on which to base it would be "community", and all morality can be then measured in that context. If only Christians and other theists used that axiom (which is arguably what the Bible actually commends), some of the more hurtful and flat-out crazy nonsense could perhaps have been avoided at various times in history.Kevin Bennetthttp://www.onefaithonechurch.comnoreply@blogger.com