|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: If Only God Weren't So Prejudiced!
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
I was following this exchange in another thread and thought it bore discussion on its own terms.
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You mean "I wish God weren't a sexist, but apparently he is. Shame, but I can't change his mind on this."
Surely, if God is sexist as you apparently believe, you shouldn't be "wishing it were otherwise" and agree with God's opinion on this and be sexist yourself. Why apologise for him?
I was once a liberal: I understand the attractiveness of the equality position. I happen no longer to hold it, but that doesn't mean I don't desire the Church to be less at war with itself: to re-word, were this an issue capable of change, I would believe that it should be changed. It isn't. This is a shame insofar as it distracts us from unity and service. It is not insofar as it is (according to me &c) God's will.
I've often heard various discriminatory actions defended in terms of "I'd love to not discriminate against people because of their [race/gender/religion/sexual orientation/whatever], but God said I have to so my hands are tied". To what extent is "because God said so" being used to justify actions that are otherwise unjustifiable, and to what extent is it allowing people to be the "Good Cop" opposite God's "Bad Cop"? And to what extent do we consider God-based hate more acceptable than personally-derived hatred?
I'm putting this thread in Dead Horses because it will likely deal with homosexuality and "the role of women in church and Christian households", since those are the most popular forms of God-based discrimination in Western societies these days.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
There is some comedy gold in it - 'regretfully, and against my own judgment, I have to condemn women priests and queers. I have nothing against them personally, but as you may know, God has told me that this is the correct procedure, so my hands are tied'. OK, I am exaggerating a bit.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
IME, the distinction between those who are trying to be faithful to scripture or tradition and the genuine bigots is, say, when something happens beyond the pale. At which point the basically decent sorts will say something along the lines of: "much as I deplore the liberal wing of the Church of England the pronouncements of the Rev'd Smith are utterly unChristian" whereas the real bigots will complain that someone called the Rev'd Smith a wankbadger on Twitter.
Years ago, in the UK, there was an Act of Parliament that reduced the age of consent for sexual relations between gay men from 18 to 16 equalising it with the age of consent for heterosexuals (I forget now when they sorted the Lesbians out because when the Victorians criminalised homosexuality Queen Victoria was unable to accept that a laydee could do such a thing and so for many years Lesbian relations were untouched by the Majesty of the English Law). Anyway, the day after the vote in the House of Commons took place I was chatting to an elderly goodhearted gentleman who was aghast, simply, aghast, that Parliament seemed to favour sixteen year olds having homosexual relations. I took a deep breath and said something along the lines of: "I'm not sure that sixteen is the ideal age for people to be having sex, but if they are I can't see that the matter would be much improved by sending them to prison". There was an awkward silence before he said "Good point". And that was the end of the matter.
Now, as it happens he was a member of the same parish as myself but that doesn't really matter. I think that the key questions are a) Do you dislike group x so much that you want to deny them the sort of civil rights that you take for granted? and b) are you prepared to engage with people who argue that on the standards of basic decency that you take for granted you really ought to think a bit harder about question a? My elderly gentleman passed that particular test. Others would not have done. I think, candidly, that if he had not I might have cut him some slack because of his age, and upbringing, and because, all things considered, I rather liked him but less so if he had pinged back at me a quote from Leviticus.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Old reply, Croesos, but it works for me. I think that MLK's "I have a dream" address, by extension, covers this issue. I look forward to a time when children and adults are judged, not by the colour of their skin, or their gender, or their race, or their religion, or their size, or their various abilities (and disabilities) but by the content of their character.
I think people have difficulty with this because the bible and church history both point in different and, so it seems to me, contradictory directions. On the one hand, there is a principle re conversion which is that God does not discriminate. And in a couple of places, being "in Christ" means joining a society in which such distinctions no longer exist - all are one in him.
Now I take this to be a central kingdom value and so have worked actively in my life in support of that ideal. If that is an ideal value, then the principle applies to the way we look at everyone, and what we work towards. In other words, prejudice is against a fundamental Christian principle concerning what is just.
On the other hand, the history of the church makes it perfectly obvious that people have not only not believed that. Many have said the opposite, for various reasons.
There's a discussion going on re a bit of scripture which says "Jacob I have loved but Esau I have hated". There is some concept of "the chosen ones", the "elect" at work. It seems to lead folks to different conclusions abut fairness.
Now I choose to believe that MLK had it right about racial prejudice and if he had it right about that you can extend it to other prejudices simply by an argument about consistency.
That's a departure from what many regard as traditional beliefs. What I believe is a reformed belief, but not necessarily a Reformed belief. Martin Luther's antisemitism is notorious and condemned. Where Traditionalists and Reformers have used a selective understanding of fairness to others, I think they have been in error.
I feel there is a moral imperative at work in me. It goes so far as to say "feel free to shoot me if I'm wrong; I'll die believing I got this right".
Within my beliefs, I'm answerable to God for my view of prejudice. I feel very much at peace about that. Prejudice is evil. It has profoundly evil effects. So I'm agin it. What that says about God, I'm not sure. I trust that His Justice on this issue at least is what I believe it to be.
But I cannot prove that. I can only try to live it.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
PS. To avoid confusion, please add sexual orientation in there. I was overloading "gender".
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
This seems to be an example the Euthyphro dilemma, "which is found in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks Euthyphro, 'Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?' (10a)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
Is there an objective morality regarding issues such as gay marriage and women's ordination that God commands because it is morally right, or are these things morally right (and hence binding on believers) merely because God commands them?
If it is the first case, we can argue that objective goodness is something that we humans can know and discuss at least to a degree without referring to divine Revelation, so when Revelation (ie, Scripture or the Tradition of the Church) seems to be violating that objective morality, we must be interpreting it wrong because God would only command what is good.
If it is the second case, God gets to decide arbitrarily what is good and what is evil. This is an oversimplification but thinkers like William of Ockham have written that God could have commanded us to hate him if He had willed it. So if God says gays can't have gay sex and can't have same-sex marriage and women can't be ordained, there is to be no discussion of whether it is fair or not because God wills it.
It's a dilemma because if goodness is independent of what God says goodness is, then God's omnipotence is limited (He can only do and will what is good). Plenty of philosophers, Aquinas included, have argued that this is a false dilemma, but I think the wikipedia article is worth a read.
The resolutions of the dilemma usually say something along the line of goodness being part of God's nature and not some separate Platonic ideal that is over God. Aquinas says that God in His omniscience and omnipotence has nothing hindering Him from knowing and doing the Good in all things. God's freedom and power are still unlimited and absolute because there is no such thing as a freedom to do evil.
To quote the wiki:
"Aquinas frequently quoted with approval Aristotle's definition, "Good is what all desire."[111][112] As he clarified, "When we say that good is what all desire, it is not to be understood that every kind of good thing is desired by all, but that whatever is desired has the nature of good."[113] In other words, even those who desire evil desire it "only under the aspect of good," i.e., of what is desirable.[114] "Evil, be thou my good," says Milton's Satan.[115] The difference between desiring good and desiring evil is that in the former, will and reason are in harmony, whereas in the latter, they are in discord.[116]
Aquinas's discussion of sin provides a good point of entry to his philosophical explanation of why the nature of God is the standard for value. "Every sin," he writes, "consists in the longing for a passing [i.e., ultimately unreal or false] good."[117] Thus, "in a certain sense it is true what Socrates says, namely that no one sins with full knowledge."[118] "No sin in the will happens without an ignorance of the understanding."[119] God, however, has full knowledge (omniscience) and therefore by definition (that of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle as well as Aquinas) can never will anything other than what is good."
The RCC teaches that a person should always follow his/her conscience when deciding what to believe and what to do. Some of the Church's teachings might seem unacceptable, though, to someone with an improperly-formed conscience (because of abuse or negligence by others or because the person with the conscience has not gone to good places and people in order to discern and seek to develop his/her conscience). Basically, if an unchangeable Church doctrine seems unjust to someone's conscience, there must have been something wrong in the development of that conscience or the person might think that s/he is listening to his/her conscience but in fact s/he is listening to something else.
I am sure that one of the RC posters who are faithful to the teachings of the RC Magisterium can explain that better than me. Naturally, I would come to different conclusions about these dead horse issues than they would.
I think that God is infinitely good while still omnipotent. I also just cannot get my head or my conscience around prohibiting women's ordination or requiring gays to be celibate. I am inclined to think that maybe that is not what God is really telling us to do. But I fit the description of a heretic pretty well, so I'm not sure if I'm the person to be asking about these things.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I think that God is infinitely good while still omnipotent. I also just cannot get my head or my conscience around prohibiting women's ordination or requiring gays to be celibate. I am inclined to think that maybe that is not what God is really telling us to do. But I fit the description of a heretic pretty well, so I'm not sure if I'm the person to be asking about these things.
That's part of the problem, isn't it? God seems to hate all the same people His earthly representatives hate. Quite the coincidence!
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
What bothers me, Croesos, is that believers who believe like I do get it in the neck for being morally "fashion conscious". Yet my reading of our ancient texts is that while they challenge cultural norms to some degree, they also conform to them. There is an assumed morality there which is not of lasting value. It is better that we no longer think of women as property (10th commandment). It is better that we no longer think of slavery as a permissible norm, provided the owner treats the slave well (Philemon). These things are not about fashion-conscious morality, they are about uncovering a better way from what went before according to developing understandings of justice, mercy and faith. There is a dialogue at work, based on the building blocks we inherit.
Here is Desmond Tutu articulating what an increasing number of us believe.
quote:
We are made for goodness. We are made for love. We are made for friendliness. We are made for togetherness. We are made for all of the beautiful things that you and I know. We are made to tell the world that there are no outsiders. All are welcome: black, white, red, yellow, rich, poor, educated, not educated, male, female, gay, straight, all, all, all. We all belong to this family, this human family, God's family.”
― Desmond Tutu
There is a flow in the understanding of God in the OT, from henotheistic tribal Jahweh, to the monotheism and light to the Gentiles in Isaiah, to the love of enemies proclaimed by Jesus, to God is to the impartial God Peter perceives in the house of Cornelius, to God is Love in the letter of John. And the flow goes on, sometimes in fits and starts, leading to Desmond Tutu's courageous articulation of what many of us now see as a better way. At least I believe Desmond Tutu is in the right flow, the right stream. I'm trying to be the same. It is not a flow of fashionable morality. It is sensing what is good and trying to go where good leads.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Desmond Tutu, of course, explicitly rejected the "I wish God wasn't prejudiced but what can I do?" line by saying that if God was homophobic, he'd rather go to hell.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Excellent post, Barnabas62! ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
and let's not forget that the same true believers in the unchanging god think he's nearsighted; he can see if the priests have penises but not if they are uncircumcised.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
One of the odd things about this dead horse core of prejudices is that they are the ones that God has somehow been able to communicate to the majority of human societies, regardless of the religions practiced in those societies. Almost as if they really are the only things he is bothered about. Feeding the hungry...not important - Not killing people... who cares - Caring for the sick... minor issue - not abusing those who do not fit the clause following... that's what they are there for, isn't it. But, having the right sort of bits and doing the right sort of thing with them, that's what all the manifestations of divinity are concerned with, and only that.
Funnily enough, I find that very, very hard to believe, or to see as the end of the development of the understanding of God as revealed in scripture. Since it is there at the most primitive level, and has survived, with very little written to support it all the way from the first camp fire to the present, Kipling was wrong about that particular set of tribal lays. It isn't right.
[ 09. January 2014, 23:09: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Yet my reading of our ancient texts is that while they challenge cultural norms to some degree, they also conform to them. There is an assumed morality there which is not of lasting value. It is better that we no longer think of women as property (10th commandment). It is better that we no longer think of slavery as a permissible norm, provided the owner treats the slave well (Philemon). These things are not about fashion-conscious morality, they are about uncovering a better way from what went before according to developing understandings of justice, mercy and faith. There is a dialogue at work, based on the building blocks we inherit.
I agree. But the consequences of this are somewhat interesting... To the society to which it was written, the Bible thus calls people to live in ways which are morally superior to that of their general society at that time. However, over the millennia, as our society has grown in our knowledge and understanding of justice, fairness, and human rights, we have progressed significantly past the standards of the society in which the bible was written. As a result, the Bible records and accept many practices which we today find immoral and abhorrent. While it is true that the Bible contains many timeless moral teachings of love, justice, and caring for others, these are extremely mixed in with historical cultural norms. Thus the value of the Bible as a "guide to morality" to a person in today's society is extremely questionable. So while 'following the Bible' may have, 2000 years ago, been a decent guide to improving one's morality as compared to the moral standard inherited from standard cultural norms, in today's world I see a lot of people whose morality is being impaired by them trying to follow the bible (the rights of women and gays being the obvious examples). In a sense, I think that while our society was in a sense 'founded' on Christian values, we have now developed beyond them, and those Christian values seem now to be more often a hinderance to morality that helpful to it.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
I heard the story of a man in Nazi occupied Europe, I forget what country, who was a member of a very antisemitic sect that believed what the Nazis were doing to the Jews was God's way of punishing them for the murder of Jesus. One night a young Jewish man on the run from the Nazis knocked on this man's door and begged for help.
The man took him in and sheltered him for the entire Nazi era. Why? Because he felt it wasn't up to him to dole out God's punishment, and it was his place to act as a decent human being. That man is now remembered at Yad Vashim as one of the Righteous Gentiles.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
It is the Asimov paradox, Starlight. The biggest challenge the church faces.
quote:
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right." Salvor Hardin, Foundation
There are findings in the field of morality which produce developments, improvements. It isn't about moral relativism at all. I think people are right to be concerned about rationalising over moral decision making, rather than wrestling, reasoning, weighing carefully. Rationalsing, as I understand it, is justifying prior motives to ourselves.
In terms of Dead Horse themes, beliefs in the inerrancy of scripture underpin a lot of this. Also from science fiction, there is a remarkable quotation from James Blish's brilliant book "A Case of Conscience" about a dilemma facing a Jesuit priest concerning another world. The quote does not concern him, but one of his travelling companions.
quote:
He wanted nothing to change, and now was unchangeably nothing
A moral code is essential, but unless subject to test by real world findings it can be fatal. "You have heard that it was said, but I say to you ...". "He who has ears to hear, let him hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches". Or this from Rowan Williams, which I found the other day.
quote:
If the Christian way were simply an experimental spirituality loosely inspired by a dead foreigner, we should no doubt be spared a lot of trouble; we should also be spared the transformation of the human world by God’s mercy in Christ.
Grace and mercy, freed from judgmentalism. Being grateful for the legacy, but willing to wrestling, to sift, to find the application which goes with the grain of what is good. Look at my sig. Keeping these sorts of questions before us; keeping them alive.
[ 10. January 2014, 07:45: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Missed the edit button " ... willing to wrestle ..."
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Years ago, in the UK, there was an Act of Parliament that reduced the age of consent for sexual relations between gay men from 18 to 16 equalising it with the age of consent for heterosexuals (I forget now when they sorted the Lesbians out because when the Victorians criminalised homosexuality Queen Victoria was unable to accept that a laydee could do such a thing and so for many years Lesbian relations were untouched by the Majesty of the English Law).
Good post in general, but this earns you a QI alarm and minus 10 points. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
This "only obeying orders" schtick is one of my pet hates. It's moral cowardice, and no excuse for supporting backward or discriminatory views. As stonespring says, Euthyphro's interruptions become deafening once you start insisting that God wants something, so you do that even though you're so unhappy about it that you keep apologising for this divine command.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Oh Pooh, another illusion shattered!
Mind you, the idea that the Victorians refused to criminalise lesbianism for fear of drawing the phenomenon to their wives attention is, if anything, even funnier!
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
What many people are perhaps missing is that our disagreement or discomfort with Divine Order is a symptom of the Fall: of a problem with our feelings rather than God's will. We feel that precept A is wrong not because we have superior moral centres, but because our moral centres are disordered. To put our own moral sense above what we find taught by Holy Church/Scripture/insert criterion here, is positively promethean in its arrogance.
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
What many people are perhaps missing is that our disagreement or discomfort with Divine Order is a symptom of the Fall: of a problem with our feelings rather than God's will. We feel that precept A is wrong not because we have superior moral centres, but because our moral centres are disordered. To put our own moral sense above what we find taught by Holy Church/Scripture/insert criterion here, is positively promethean in its arrogance.
So sexism is actually good and right and belief in equality and treating people fairly and equally is wrong?
Folk use the same argument to argue that I'm wrong to be appalled by the genocides in Joshua as well. The logical conclusion there, similarly, is that genocide is fine and it's only our disordered moral centres that make us appalled at the thought of mass murder.
[ 10. January 2014, 11:05: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
What many people are perhaps missing is that our disagreement or discomfort with Divine Order is a symptom of the Fall: of a problem with our feelings rather than God's will. We feel that precept A is wrong not because we have superior moral centres, but because our moral centres are disordered. To put our own moral sense above what we find taught by Holy Church/Scripture/insert criterion here, is positively promethean in its arrogance.
So sexism is actually good and right and belief in equality and treating people fairly and equally is wrong?
Folk use the same argument to argue that I'm wrong to be appalled by the genocides in Joshua as well. The logical conclusion there, similarly, is that genocide is fine and it's only our disordered moral centres that make us appalled at the thought of mass murder.
Yes, it seems to produce an upside-down moral universe, where my feelings about equality are the product of evil. Oh wow.
I suppose you could argue then that increasingly liberal views, on for example, gays, women's rights, racism, divorce, contraception - are actually signs of a breakdown in our moral compass.
God increasingly sounds like a retired colonel in Cheltenham, disturbed (and envious of) all these sexual shenanigans going on in the Wicked City he keeps reading about in the Daily Mail. Damn all the queers, damn all those suffragettes, damn all the darkies coming here.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
This from Gumby's sig also has something to say here.
quote:
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
Was thinking about that in the context of Gumby's second link. Religion is no excuse for bigotry. That is true. But submission to a higher authority is a moral act, not an abdication of personal responsibility. How do these things get squared off? For some of the readers around here, this may be teaching you how to suck eggs, but I guess it may help others.
If you begin to see something as bigotry, don't hide behind obedience. Work out what you do think in the light of the teaching of the church. Review honestly. And if after that, you decide to submit your own conscience to what you believe is a higher authority, then I think that is a different moral choice. It may be a brave one, or it may be a craven one. You need to know which it is. Otherwise you are fooling yourself. And voluntary cognitive dissonance is lot to be taken lightly.
If you do not have some inner peace over the choice to submit, you haven't submitted. To submit is not to agree. In fact submission only really bites when disagreement is in the air. But if you have peace about submission, that's OK.
What does this illuminate? A man persuaded against his will is of the same opinion still? Think Winston Smith. Two plus two does not equal five, no matter what the Party may say. With electric shock treatment thrown in as a reinforcer. But more often, moral choices can get a lot closer than that. How much do they matter to you? As orfeo observed, Tutu will accept Hell if he is wrong. And that isn't hyperbole. His life speaks out in this respect.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
What many people are perhaps missing is that our disagreement or discomfort with Divine Order is a symptom of the Fall
I think this alternative wording may illustrate the circularity of that thought.
"What many people are perhaps missing is that our disagreement or discomfort with the definition of Divine Order is a symptom of our awareness that the definition and ourselves contain evidence of the Fall".
You presuppose an infallible definition of Divine Order, which in your context may be so. But not in mine. My discomfort is with the defining process itself, and what it asserts to be handing down. Not everything is given. Nor may we fully understand what has been given. We work out our salvation in fear and trembling, believing that Christ is at work in us, both to will and to do.
[ 10. January 2014, 11:37: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Based on my long post above, there is another, particularly Christian dilemma.
If a person's conscience is in a sense the natural longing of all to seek God and His truth, spurred on by the Holy Spirit, then it is to be followed. However, as Vade Mecum points out, concupiscence distorts our ability to properly form our consciences on our own and discern what our consciences are saying. Hence the need for Divine Revelation and the teaching authority of the Church.
I differ though in my belief (highly heterodox) that "the gates of Hell shall not overcome it" does not mean that Church leaders up to the highest levels cannot think and say that something is doctrine when it in fact isn't. It's scary because it means we don't have as clear a beacon of Truth as traditionalists think we have.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
What many people are perhaps missing is that our disagreement or discomfort with Divine Order is a symptom of the Fall: of a problem with our feelings rather than God's will. We feel that precept A is wrong not because we have superior moral centres, but because our moral centres are disordered. To put our own moral sense above what we find taught by Holy Church/Scripture/insert criterion here, is positively promethean in its arrogance.
Wasn't Prometheus basically right?
More generally people have challenged the teaching of the church and the usual interpretation of scripture in all sorts of areas such as civil rights for Jews, votes for women, the abolition of slavery, religious tolerance, the Heliocentric theory of the solar system and so on and so forth. Were Galileo, Macaulay, Wilberforce and Bright promethean? If not, why not? People who invoke the authority of scripture and tradition in these Dead Horse debates are effectively arguing that the moral sense of the human species came to its perfect and ultimate culmination at some indeterminate point in the early sixties before the rot set in - around the time of the signing of Dignitas Humanae and the Civil Rights Act but prior to Woodstock. I must say that this strikes me as being implausible.
And if our moral sense is disordered, could it not be the case that the disorder might also consist of clinging to an interpretation of scripture or tradition rather than following the argument boldly where it leads?
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
What many people are perhaps missing is that our disagreement or discomfort with Divine Order is a symptom of the Fall
I think this alternative wording may illustrate the circularity of that thought.
"What many people are perhaps missing is that our disagreement or discomfort with the definition of Divine Order is a symptom of our awareness that the definition and ourselves contain evidence of the Fall".
You presuppose an infallible definition of Divine Order, which in your context may be so. But not in mine. My discomfort is with the defining process itself, and what it asserts to be handing down.
Naturally. There must be an assent of the will somewhere. Pray for grace that we may assent rightly.
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Yes, Vade Mecum. To be troubled in one's Spirit is sometimes a response to a wrong, rather than a sign that we ourselves are wrong. The work of the Holy Spirit in convincing the world of sin may be rather more complex than just self-blame.
We have this nice couplet, which is a kind of gospel summary, which comes to mind at this point.
"Jesus came to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."
We must take responsibility for what we make of discomfort, bear in mind that our fingers will always be pointing back at us. But maybe, just maybe, they do point correctly at the authority of the church and say, as to the ancient leaders of Judaism, "Haven't you lost the place on the wider issues of justice, mercy and faith?"
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Gildas wrote:
People who invoke the authority of scripture and tradition in these Dead Horse debates are effectively arguing that the moral sense of the human species came to its perfect and ultimate culmination at some indeterminate point in the early sixties before the rot set in - around the time of the signing of Dignitas Humanae and the Civil Rights Act but prior to Woodstock. I must say that this strikes me as being implausible.
Nicely put. I have actually met Christians who argued that this perfect culmination occurred in the Victorian age, which again strikes me as implausible in the extreme. Think of Dickens' indignation at the poverty and injustice in the London of his time.
The trouble is that arguments of this kind seem to end up in a kind of infinite regress - there must have been a time when we got it right, and it obviously isn't now. Or, alternatively, we have never got it right, or it's impossible for us to get it right - which seems to lead to a kind of hermeneutic chaos.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
This from Gumby's sig also has something to say here.
quote:
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
Was thinking about that in the context of Gumby's second link. Religion is no excuse for bigotry. That is true. But submission to a higher authority is a moral act, not an abdication of personal responsibility. How do these things get squared off? For some of the readers around here, this may be teaching you how to suck eggs, but I guess it may help others.
Interesting. Why is submission to a higher authority a moral act? What if that higher authority is wrong? What if you don't fully understand that higher authority? What if (not just being mischievous, but playing Devil's Advocate a little) that higher authority is all in your mind?
I agree with everything you say after this point, but I struggle to see submission as a moral act in the way you do. Maybe it depends how you define "higher" - if it means "morally superior", then submission may be a moral act, but it doesn't sit well with me.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
This from Gumby's sig also has something to say here.
quote:
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
Was thinking about that in the context of Gumby's second link. Religion is no excuse for bigotry. That is true. But submission to a higher authority is a moral act, not an abdication of personal responsibility. How do these things get squared off? For some of the readers around here, this may be teaching you how to suck eggs, but I guess it may help others.
Interesting. Why is submission to a higher authority a moral act? What if that higher authority is wrong? What if you don't fully understand that higher authority? What if (not just being mischievous, but playing Devil's Advocate a little) that higher authority is all in your mind?
I agree with everything you say after this point, but I struggle to see submission as a moral act in the way you do. Maybe it depends how you define "higher" - if it means "morally superior", then submission may be a moral act, but it doesn't sit well with me.
I think he means that it's an action in the moral sphere, rather than an absence of action, or "an abdication of personal responsibility". Approbation is not implied: sin is a moral act in this sense: a bad one.
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Desmond Tutu, of course, explicitly rejected the "I wish God wasn't prejudiced but what can I do?" line by saying that if God was homophobic, he'd rather go to hell.
I'm sure that Tutu, a great human being btw, was using poetic license to some extent, but I am surprised that no one has compared this to Lucifer's line from Paradise Lost that it is "better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven" (ok, that's probably a paraphrase).
I think the difference (and we talked about the fall of angels in purgatory) is that Lucifer was given a legitimate order to do good from a legitimate authority (God) and Lucifer clearly knew that. Lucifer disagreed with the way God wanted him to go about doing good and so rebelled by doing things differently. Since angels are incorporeal and immortal, this sin resulted in immediate damnation. When humans get an order from a leader in the Church, they have to discern whether or not the order really is to do something good and whether or not the person giving the order is acting out of divinely given authority or acting out of flaws in her/his personality. Humans have to take their best guess about what is good and what is evil, and then believe that an order to do evil cannot possibly be really coming from God. So what Tutu means is that God could not possibly order to do what is evil, so he is choosing to do/believe what the false God imagined by some would damn people for because his conscience leads him to believe that the true God could not possibly will that.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I'd say a sin was an immoral act!
Gumby, you put your finger on something in my post that bothered me when writing it. I'm going to try to unpack commitment, submission, humility, personal responsibility and morality in a few lines so it's bound to be approximate. Talk about overlapping goalkeepers! Here's an attempt.
Humility is a virtue. It includes not over-estimating our own capabilities. It includes a recognition that others may know better.
Commitment is a normal part of the Christian journey and if we are in any church, there is always some established authority. Commitment to any church always involves submission to those who have responsibility before God for order. We don't, we can't, expect to get our own way over everything. We are there to serve others. That is also a normal part of virtue.
Submission is a natural consequence of commitment and membership. If we agree with a leadership decision we can say Amen. But if we don't, we do not necessarily leave over one thing. Submission involves a necessary acceptance of things with which we may disagree. It is a specific acceptance of the authority we have committed to accept in general. That is not, unquestionably, a moral act. But if it is a conscious choice, made on grounds of humility and obedience, then I think it is a moral act. What distinguishes it from abdication of personal responsibility is the conscious decision to trust.
Personal responsibility operates in all of those spheres. We choose humility and turn our backs on pride. We choose commitment, and turn our backs on being lone rangers. We choose submission to authority as a general consequence of commitment and membership. And we choose submission specifically after wrestling with our consciences.
The short version is that the choices are "put up" or "get out". Each can be a moral choice or an immoral choice. When in difficulties over conscience, neither decision should be taken lightly.
Those were the sort of things I had in mind.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
PS Gumby
Just thought of this illustration. In Animal Farm, Boxer the horse had two guidelines by which he lived. "Comrade Napoleon is always right" and "I will work harder". I think he was a trusting and virtuous horse, if not as bright as Benjamin the Donkey. Despite the fact that the authority to which he willingly submitted was an untrustworthy bunch of pigs, who sold him to the knackers yard.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Desmond Tutu, of course, explicitly rejected the "I wish God wasn't prejudiced but what can I do?" line by saying that if God was homophobic, he'd rather go to hell.
I'm sure that Tutu, a great human being btw, was using poetic license to some extent
On the deepest level, he believes he is right about this and he really does not believe that God will turn out to be different in His goodness.
Desmond Tutu is brave. In another fight against prejudice, during the apartheid era, he was planning to lead prayers for peace with a congregation of opponents of apartheid, many of whom had come from abroad. Suddenly, the doors of the cathedral were flung open and armed police and armed militia came in, with both means of arrest and means of recording events, and surrounded the congregation. Many of whom were, understandably, terrified by this display of force. But Desmond, all five feet nothing of him, stood tall and faced them down, reminded them for all their apparent power, that God was not mocked. "You have already lost", he thundered. Then he smiled, began to bounce on his feet and said. "So - since you have lost, why not join the winning team?" He began to sing "We are marching in the light of God", stepped down into the congregation and, singing this song, led them to safety out of the cathedral. Nobody stopped him.
(My memory of a vivid account by Jim Wallis, who was there)
I do not presume to attribute to Desmond any other meaning than the plain one to what he said. He nails his colours to the mast.
Vade Mecum, do you truly believe this man is a rebel against the authority of God?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
