Ed Babinsky wrote:
>1) Can you find any verses in the Bible that say polygamy, concubinage,
>slavery, or genocide are always and everywhere ?sins?? According to the
>Bible such practices seem perfectly acceptable to ?God,? even
>praiseworthy, depending on the circumstances. Is that >being "consistent?"
Glenn and Howard will obviously speak for themselves.
Such a long list of crimes? How can any of us answer your
objections? I don't see Solomon or David's example to be
one worth following on their handling of women, in fact,
it is clear that David and Solomon's household administration
was in need of serious improvement. Absolam's fate was one of
David's trajic regrets as a result (for example). God must work
with people from _where_ they are.
The slavery issues you raise are more
problematical to answer. During biblical times, slavery was
seen as a fact of life. To our 21st century eyes is it evil,
but it takes crossing a bridge to see that. At the core of it
all, "all men are created equal" bears some influence
from Jesus' teaching and Peter's sudden realization in Acts
10.34. Again the bible is not about people who have arrived,
but people who are striving in the right direction.
Finally, on the genocide or ethinic cleansing issues (your point 2)
these are most problematical. Why does God chose to wipe out whole
nations in Old Testament times? Indeed, some passages read
like the authors are happy about what they have done.
Aside from accepting that God is right and the devil wrong,
I struggle with these points too. There is however, a clear
evolution (perish the word!) of thought about what God is and
what God requires that had evolved into a very different view
by New Testament times. That view is still evolving (I hope),
although some days I wonder. Again, what is important is not what
people have done and rationalized away throughout history, but
where we can go from here.
As to your point 3), I don't know either. It is
sometimes said that the people get the government they
deserve. I don't think North Korea's leader deserves
to be in power, but such as it is. Maybe the people of
the US also has the leaders they deserve.
>
>4) Leaving the above questions aside, compare the view of the
>philosopher, Mary Midgley. And ask yourselves whether she doesn't make at
>least as much sense as either of your own notions of the theological basis
>of morality:
>
>MARY MIDGLEY: Darwin proposed that creatures like us who, by their
>nature, are riven by strong emotional conflicts, and who have also the
>intelligence to be aware of those conflicts, absolutely need to develop a
>morality because they need a priority system by which to resolve them. The
>need for morality is a corollary of conflicts plus intellect:
>
>Man, from the activity of his mental faculties, cannot avoid reflection・瘢雹
>Any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, would
>inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience as soon as its intellectual
>powers had become as well-developed, or anything like as well-developed as
>in man.
>- Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man
Which quote is this, Darwin's or Migdley's? I haven't read either
(but I should read Darwin at least).
[large snip]
>If this is right, then we are creatures whose evolved nature absolutely
>requires that we develop a morality. We need it in order to find our way
>in the world. The idea that we could live without any distinction between
>right and wrong is as strange as the idea that we -- being creatures
>subject to gravitation -- could live without any idea of up and down. That
>at least is Darwin?s idea and it seems to me to be one that deserves
>attention.
>- Mary Midgley, ?Wickedness: An Open Debate,? The Philosopher?s Magazine,
>No. 14, Spring 2001
Evolution simply moves from where we are. The likelihood that
we share common decent with other animals on this planet is
probably close to as certain as there is a moon in the sky.
However, the fact that we have evolved says little about what
is good or evil. Nor even why anything should be considered
right. G.E. Moore warned about making naturalistic falicies.
Even Star Trek, as trite as it is, explores the possibility
that whole societies can be built on different principles.
I was reading an article in Skeptical Inquirer recently by Kurtz
on this issue of using science to build ethical principles.
Paul Kurtz was very up front an honest at the beginning and
even cited G.E. Moore. However, he quickly devolved into
a rant about fundamentalists who misunderstand most of the
scientific issues on the hot button topics. These are things
that scientists with sufficient background can address without
appealing to higher ethical principles. In short, most of
them were rather mundane issues.
The greater tendency is to take revenge. As a Christian, I
am not supposed to do that. There have been times people
have done me wrong, and I had a good chance to get even.
I don't have one story to tell of any such person who repented,
so maybe I just lost my chance to get some satisfaction out
of it all. The only real hope of a repentant heart is one
who has received divine teaching, however.
And lets not forget that most of the people who protect
Jews from the Nazis were Christians, and people who protected
slaves were mostly Christian as far as I know. There were
Christians on both sides of the fence, but there is a great
difference between doers and hearers. Such strength takes
a kind of inner enduring courage I cannot begin to imagine.
>I find myself agreeing more with Midgley than theologians, I certainly no
>longer believe that ethics ?without the Bible? are ?completely relative.?
>People with no Bible to guide them still feel similar pains when stolen
>from, slapped, or called a stinging name. People with no Bible to guide
>them also feel similar pleasures when hugged, given a gift, or verbally
>petted. In other words, ?ethical authority? resides in our bodies and
>brains, and in the multitude of lessons learned during lives of
>interaction with our fellow human beings. Neither is it easy for a person
>to turn to anti-social behavior if they have been taught from childhood to
>view other people?s feelings and needs through the inner lens of their
>own. People also recognize (regardless of their religious beliefs or lack
>thereof) that ?joys shared are doubled, while sorrows shared are halved.?
>Such recognitions even form the basis for wanting to ?double? society?s
>joys, and ?halve? society?s sorrows.
>
[Again a very large snip]
Yes, we have emotions. Yes we all feel the same pain. Yes
all societies probably have a "do onto others" clause somewhere
in their sayings. I think what is interesting is that we have
a manifest feeling for what is right and wrong. If these are
simply evolved things, then there really is no such thing as
right and wrong: "only thinking makes it so". Theology starts
from the point of view that there is an objective truth. Our
observations of belief in it neither affirm or deny that God
has made these rules. I think God sets the rules, not molecules
or evolution, but that is in the last analysis, just my statement
of faith.
by Grace alone we proceed,
Wayne
Received on Fri Oct 8 22:39:07 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Oct 08 2004 - 22:39:08 EDT