Ship of Fools: Consequentialist Theology

Thread: Consequentialist Theology Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025298

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

So, I was reading something on facebook about the Pope's recent comments on whether atheists are redeemed and capable of good works (perhaps misreading that, but it's tangential.) Here's a link if you haven't heard this on yet.

Anyway, I was talking to someone and it got me thinking about what the ethical consequences of a soteriology could be. So, what if you think that works are irrelevant? How might an outsider view this notion that your existential security is more precious to you than their life-saving scientific breakthrough? How could you possible evangelize to them in good faith with that assumption?

Or what of the consequences of a faith that says that your work is redeemed regardless of your ethical behavior? That ideology has some bad history behind it....

On the other hand, I think I know folks (some of whom may or may not be on this board, I'll let people out themselves as they'd like) who seem to think that accepting genocidal maniac God or cosmic bully God is a sign of faith, they're willing to commit to something that goes against their ethical common sense, which is certainly a difficult commitment. Or it shows that they are true to their form of sola scriptura and their willingness to make or rationalize morally repugnant attitudes is a sign of their fidelity.

I might be straw manning in the latter; it's hard to describe a view one disagrees with without doing it to some extent.

Good Lord, this is getting long. So, does "By their fruits ye shall know them" apply to theologies? If I can logically comprehend that "this theological view creates an incentive to be a jerk," does that make it wrong?

[ 23. May 2013, 12:18: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
If I can logically comprehend that "this theological view creates an incentive to be a jerk," does that make it wrong?

No. But it makes it dangerous and problematic and something to be taken with extreme caution. Wrong is a whole different kettle of fish.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

And to add more detail, whether a theology is right or not is a claim of truth. If God really is the jackass of the Old Testament, theology based on that is right. If not it's wrong.

What you then decide to do about it is another issue entirely. And it's at this point that the consequentialism comes in. As does what you consider the right position to take with respect to God.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

This seems to be a dupe of the Univcersalist Pontiff thread. I'm closing this one. Post on the other thread.

--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0