Moreno, it depends on the moral situation and judgement. Most people have values that coincide with Christian values already, such as Killing or murder is bad, and stealing is bad, basic stuff. Of course that stuff is justified reasonably, by Christians, by not appealing to authority. Its when you get to the Bibles questionable morality, in which you’ll find these answers that apply to “because God said so”. This is not justified, and it can’t be justified because they don’t understand the morality or values of the moral situation. I’m not saying its all an appeal to authority, I don’t think that would be the case by my OP - as it specifically explains general Christian morality has become separated from this “objective Christian morality” over time. Today, people don’t kill adulterers regardless of what the Bible says. 400 years ago, that was a different story, because of what the Bible says.
By understanding and agreeing with a morale system, it becomes their moral system. You don’t necessarily need to practice a morality to make it your morality, remember, morality is a judgment of what is good or bad morally, and often we can go against even what we think is good or bad, morally. That goes for everyone, whether you’re Christian or not. While God is meant to be the final arbiter of good/evil, in Christianity morality has changed quite a bit the past 2,000 years as I’ve already pointed out. That is why this “objective” morality can be seen to not really hold water. If a morality was objective and pure, and one has received the “holy spirit” as is “gifted” to us from “God” to guide us in our actions nad understanding through subsequent generations after Jesus’ visit, then there ought not be any change to this morality of “God’s”. Of course, that really isn’t the case. We used to punish harshly, as might seem worthy for God, for any broken morality such as adultery. After all, God is going to punish much harsher in the afterlife, so its “best” to have a deterrent now, under guidance of this “holy spirit”.
Objective does not mean unchangeable. Since the world changes continuously, objective means being in synch with these changes.
That is demonstrated by evolution … changes in the environment determine which animals and plants survive, which produces changes in the characteristics of the animals.
Which means, at root, it is a complaint about how (his charactiture of) religious people act, and not an actual criticism of any value system. No surprise there. There’s not going to be any actual discussion of ethical systems in this thread, just a criticism of a stereotype of religious people, combined with an insistence that the stereotype applies enough to be relevant.
As civilization matures, judgements change because a mature mind can understand more complex reasoning. The morality adapts to the educational level and ability of the people. Jesus spoke in parables because that’s what his audience would understand.
As well, certain problems did not arise does to the limitations of the time. Therefore, Jesus said nothing about abortion or cloning. Now we have to think about new problems.
Also, Christianity =/ Evangelical Protestantism. Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox Church can and do change because the core of their faith is a living tradition, not a static text. If you take those two groups together, they are by far the majority of Christendom. This idea that Christians have ever and can ever believe things explicitly stated in a particular translation of the Bible comes from atheists who are only familiar with the American Midwest expression of Christianity.
It’s odd because WW3_angry said that he had a Catholic education, yet there is a distinct bitterness towards what most resembles Evangelical Protestantism.
How does “God” change his judgment? You’re saying judgments change, but yes, that’s of the people. But they already received the "word of God’ and that “doesn’t change”.
So you think that God would judge a child in the same way that He would judge an adult? Or judge a mentally ill person the same as a mentally healthy one?
The word is interpreted by men and women and they have changed.
Atheists are always complaining that the Bible is full of contradictory statements. And that’s true. A mature mind is better able to understand these contradictions and produce a better interpretation of “the word”.
I agree, the word is interpreted by men and women and they have changed. I don’t know of any theology that allows for god changing judgment for society for the 2,000 years since Jesus. You’re probably getting into some cult like religions that may try to justify some new morality. Perhaps the “God hates fags” group can rationalize their stance that way too. But what it all comes down to, is “interpretation”. But there’s not much room for interpretation difference on many things that change, nonetheless.
It’s weird. He studied Christian theology for 20 years, and yet he’s asking you to explain to him the basics of God’s speaking through Scripture and the Church. If he spent that whole 20 years ‘studying theology’ as a member of a Baptist Church I could perhaps understand it.
It does make you wonder why an alleged experienced Catholic is equating sola scriptura with basic Christianity.
Well, clearly you could interpret the meaning of the word ‘work’. And you could say that picking up sticks in your garden is not work.
And you could say that some work is acceptable since other moral considerations are more important. Therefore, emergency and medical work is justified.
Whatever, picking up sticks was a trivial example. Work in general. Picking up sticks is work for some, an a jolly good ole time for others, I’m sure. Might be even erotic for a select few.
What method do you all use to decide what is more likely fact and what is most likely fable?
How do you all qualify your beliefs and call them to knowledge?
