Friends, Romans, Countrymen…
Do Christians have duties in today’s society?
If yes, what are those duties?
Or, what should those duties be?
Do Christians have any roles in today’s society?
If yes, what are those roles?
Or, what should those roles be?
What do you envision for today’s Christian?
How do you envision today’s Christian?
Is it useful to be a Christian in today’s society? Why or why not?
Please take this thread where you will…
-Thirst
The Christian in today’s society has a primary duty to his own religion, I would say- in light of the way society is changing, Christian must first and foremost specialize in preserving their own beliefs against cultural drift as much as possible. When one feels they have a firm foundation, they could then move on to things like evangelism, moral teaching, and so on. There’s really a lot of work for a Christian to do in what we still sometimes call the “Christian World”.
I believe the Christian’s first and foremost duty lies with passing on the love they recieve from God to those who do not know God as well. Today’s “Christian” goes to church on Sundays, says “God is great, God is good,” at dinner, and is nice to those who are nice to him. It’s a tragedy to me that Christianity has been dumbed down to reflect the atmosphere of our culture.
I think the role of Christianity in modern society is like any other major religion/base.
First off, it provides a firm foundation for a follower to stand on, as well as a means for the follower to improve themselves within a community.
Additionally, it serves as a spoiler for society. Right now, as Einstein said, “It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.†So then it is the duty of religion to act as a breaking mechanism to allow our humanity to catch up with our humanity. That does not mean that religion should be anti-scientific, but rather that religion ought guide the more enthusiastic scientists and keep them from applying their research in immoral ways.
IMO the Christian has no obligation to society at all. The bible clearly teaches that we are to live as if aliens and citizens of a different kingdom. The only obligation as I see it, is to live in obedience to Christ. We are concerned with the affairs of society only to the extent that Christ is concerned with the affairs of society. The primary way this will be observed is that the Christian should be communicating the message of the gospel in word and deed to all those around him. That this is rarely the case is a failure of Christians not a failure of Christianity.
Hi X,
And you would define ‘immoral’ in what way? Some would suggest that to pursue stem cell research is immoral. A fact declared by many including the president of the United States. And yet, those lives that might be saved by the results of such research might find that the real immorality is politicians dictating to the sufferers what is moral. How does religion, Christian or other, answer that?
Ah, but the dialogue is good.
I think that stem cell research is very good. So much so that I think it is out-and-out immoral to be opposed to it.
But I also don’t have a problem with cloning (theraputic or otherwise) and frankly, I think people working on influenza ought be able to assay their mutants by checking for plaque-forming units (Steven King’s The Stand starts out with something like this going on).
For me, scientific progress is vital and much of what is moral is contained in that progress.
Now, there is a chance that I might be a little too enthusiastic about that. By engaging in a dialogue, I know better where I stand and people point out various concequences that I might not have seen before.
Dialogue is good. And religion ought serve as a major part of that dialogue. Additionally, I feel that religion is a reactionary force and should be applied as such. Not all progress is good, not all that is old is outdated. Religion helps us keep this in mind.
The potential benefits of stem cell research are way over-emphasised. If one takes a step back 15 years ago you’ll find that “gene-therapy” was the hot thing and was likely going to “revolutionize modern medicine”. Yet today you’d be hard pressed to find a scientist who thinks that gene therapy is a great answer to any problem in medicine. In fact the only proven beneficial application of gene therapy is in the treatment of SCID patients (a rare immunological genetic deficiency). Yet even a proportion of treated SCID patients develop leukemia as a result of gene therapy. I’m not saying it’s not good, just it’s never as good as advertized.
It’s always like this in science. Scientists extrapolate their findings such that they will cure cancer in 10 years or generate an AIDs vaccine. The reality is that medicine advances in very small increments. The potential benefits of stem cell research should be viewed dispassionately in this light.
Hey now, let’s not be too tough on gene therapy . . .
There is some great work going on in Fanconi Anemia right now.
I’m not saying there isn’t some interesting work, just that 15 years ago it was hailed as the future of medicine. Does anyone today believe that?
Oh certainly. I should have included a smiley, but I’m not sure which one. Maybe 
?
Though I do by-and-large agree with you, but I do think that these things have to be investigated before we can make that decision. Gene therapy looked like it was going to be awesome (and may still find a variety of applications) and it was explored. It ended up not being as exciting as we thought it might be. Like anything else, I doubt that stem cells will be the panacea that people hail it to be, but it might yield cures to a disease or two and possibly many, many more. We won’t know until we explore that option.
I completely agree with your assessment. I guess I’m just tired of hearing people who don’t actually know what a stem cell is, telling me how great it’s all going to be. You and I know it is likley to be much less than a revolution in modern medicine.
Obviously I’m against stem cell research for other reasons. But if society as a whole elects representatives who will pass a stem cell bill then they are entitled to do so. But I wont be voting for those representatives and I wont be doing any embryonic stem cell work in my lab.
Hey, that’s all a man can ask for.
Errrrr.
I mean.
No, damnit! You have to have stem cell research in your lab! I demand that you personally remove the inner cell mass!
Why?
Errrrr.
Progress!!!
Alzheimers!
Parkinson’s!
X and Ned,
I too pay little attention to the fluff talk. Almost all medical advances start in a lab and after all the promises fall flat, the advances begin to come into the field about 20 years later. My concern is that to declare such research as immoral, and suppress the basic research just extends that 20 year timeline. I remain sensitive to some of the issues that offend my personal morality, but I think it is dangerous to make decisions on religious grounds. The plurality of a dynamic society says that religious morality is a component, but not the governing force of the whole society.
As long as the subject has come up, I’ve been wondering this for a while:
Has any reason been given to expect that embrionic stem-cells can do something (anything) useful that umbilical-cord stem cells can’t do?
Anyways,
Ned Flanders
I don’t believe this can be true. If you eat food you didn’t grow, or drive on roads you didn’t build, you’re a part of society and then have certain obligations to it just for being a human being. A Christian human being’s obligations may be unique, to the extent that being a Christian makes them unique. For example, having access to certain truths the rest of the world hasn’t come to understand yet (or thinking we do, as a concession to the rest of y’all.)
I know we’re supposed to live in the world and not as a part of it. (Which is actually something I read a Sufi say, but it agrees with the mentality of those who try to be most Christ-like, I think.) What about the concept of Christendom – of living in a culture influenced by Christian values? This project lasted several centuries and is only apparently coming apart now. (“…and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”)
?
postscriptum: About stem cells, I bet they find adult stem cells show less chance of rejection in patients than from foreign sources, like embryos.
I think it comes down to efficiency. It’s not easy, but you can reliably get stem cells from early embryos. Getting them from cord blood or bone marrow is possible but it’s akin to putting on a blindfold before playing tennis, you might beat the odd person who can’t hold a raquet but it’s more likley you’ll lose. Given the moral problems with early embryos I would obviously prefer these techniques. But if you don’t have any moral qualms about embryos it must seem rather silly.
I expected someone to challenge my overly bold statement.
So, why don’t you tell me an obligation to society that you think a Christian is bound to follow. If you can think of one that isn’t expressly commanded in scripture I’d be interested.
Good ridence to Christendom is all I can say! What a disaster of an idea…
Would you care to elaborate on that?
Ned Flanders
Well, no. If the bit of a person we're considering is the Christian bit, then I think all the obligations will be Scriptural. But we aren't just Christians, we're Christian philosophers, Christian fire-fighters, Christian hot-dog vendors and so on. For example, a Christian philosopher should be trying to bring a philosophy based on Christianity to the world- that's part of the unique burden he took on himself by playing the philosophy game.
I don't think someone who adopts a purely monastic lifestyle (vow of silence, living in a vineyard somewhere) has shirked any of their duties to mankind necessarily, do you?