by Shining One 102 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Well, if you cannot dare to look at the weaknesses in your own argument, Rex, you are doomed to play the buffoon.
In case any of you are watching, I'm signing off for an hour or more. The sun is shining, and I am sitting in my garden with a good book. Be back later.
How many cups off coffee does it take to become a philosopher??
Only kramer knows for sure
Hellrider,
Sorry I am late in answering:
I feel the original thrust of the NT to be strongly amoral -- from the Pauline "salvation by faith not works" to the Gospels' "do not judge," ;"do not resist evil" or;"the first will be the last".I realise that "salvation by faith not works" has been the leading principle in protestant christianity. But until Luther had that epiphany about the translation of "salvation" from the greek, christianity had a different view on this, for 1400 years, wouldn`t you agree?
Certainly -- btw I should have written "justification by faith not works".
And in my opinion, when the Gospels say that Jesus said "do not judge" and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" etc, then these commands are expressions of what I would call "universal, eternal ethical standards" (or whatever). To command the followers to not be judgmental, is to say that it is wrong to be judgmental, and right not to be judgmental. Jesus didn`t say: "well, in my opinion..."
Yes it is expressed as an absolute. What I question is its ethical character. It does relate to ethics but in a paradoxical way.
There is always more to religion than morals, otherwise it would not be something else. But both the Sermon on the Mount and Paul oppose a "moral religion" which would simply posit a divine reward for good and a divine punishment for evil. They do so in very different ways -- in Matthew it is a radical, unpractical ethics which turn common morals upside down; in Paul, a straightforward denial of morals as the basis for judgement (at least positive judgement, aka "justification").
Kierkegaard clearly separates the "ethical" from the "religious" and shows (especially with the example of Abraham accepting to sacrifice his son) that stepping from the former to the latter involves a "suspension of ethics". Reducing religion to morals (a permanent temptation) results in denying its very essence imo.
Even if it hurts, people need to hear the gospel for the very salvation of their souls. Some will not accept the gospel but some will. People can't 'sit on the fence' when it comes to belief in the savior of the world. He doesn't allow it. His message is that He is God incarnate and you have a choice to believe or not. Christians are all called to a ministry of reconcilliation. There is no 'grey area' when it comes to the essentials and you should know that. There are no 'second chances' once this life is over.
The stakes are too high to 'play at debating games', eternal lives are in the balance. I love these people: they are not my enemies; you are not my enemy. My enemies are not made of flesh and blood nor is my struggle with flesh and blood.
So, your motivation for these threads is to save our "souls" from eternal damnation! OK, now that we've got that out of the way, I've got a few questions for you.
If I believe that killing is wrong, but that premarital sex or gay marriage might be ok, will I go to hell? In other words, is there a list of absolute truths that I must adopt before I die in order to avoid hell? Is it based on a percentage? Like say I believe that 4 out of 5 on the list are absolute truths but am not sure about the remaining one, will that get me in? Or is it all or nothing? And can you provide me the complete list, so I can at least see what all it is that I must believe is absolutely true in order to avoid damnation?
Is it based on a percentage? Like say I believe that 4 out of 5 on the list are absolute truths but am not sure about the remaining one, will that get me in? Or is it all or nothing? And can you provide me the complete list, so I can at least see what all it is that I must believe is absolutely true in order to avoid damnation?
Narkissos:
I understand what you are saying (I think), but some things puzzles me. The thing is, I have always looked at it like this (and I`m gonna step back in time now to the age of 17 when these things puzzled me): Some of the things said about morals, right and wrong etc, thruout the NT, are easy to accept, easy to agree with, such as "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and "judge not" and 1Corinthians 13 etc...but then I always felt that all the bad stuff, such as Abraham taking his son up the mountain just because God was feeling down and needed someone to prove that they loved him () and all the killing in the OT in general, and also the stupid, stupid things, such as the dietary laws, were just stuff that whoever wrote it just messed up. I guess I was thinking of it in terms of "this isn`t Gods word, it`s the human writing it that inserted it". But are you saying that even the good stuff has a different motive than ethics? That when Jesus is saying that the Law is summed up by love for God and love for thy neighbour, then the authors motive here is not ethics?
Kierkegaard clearly separates the "ethical" from the "religious" and shows (especially with the example of Abraham accepting to sacrifice his son) ;that stepping from the former to the latter involves a "suspension of ethics". Reducing religion to morals (a permanent temptation) ;results in denying its very essence imo.Yes, I agree that religion is much more than, and goes beyond morals. The religion goes beyond scripture, the scripture that is written in the heart. And that`s the part about it all, that I didn`t like, I guess (should have read some Kierkegaard when I was 17, maybe).
nor is my struggle with flesh and blood.
No your struggle is with reality itself!
I think of morality more as a natural result of actions and reactions within a system. I don't think of it as an absolute, but relative to both situation/conditions, and perspective of the moment. The "system" I'm talking about is the universe or multiverse if you will. However, to simplify lets consider a smaller system the human body. Within the system of the human body there are various organizations of life forms existing within. Some kill and reproduce. Some just reproduce and build. You may think of some as being destructive if you were to zoom in on their little world and only watch what they do. However, zooming out and seeing the system as a whole you may see that their seemingly destructive actions may actually provide for the overall health of the entire system.
I think that a system in general wants to be healthy overall and we might say that actions that contribute to the overall health of the system are the most moral. However, for any one part of the system to "know" whether what they are doing contributes to either the overall health or destruction of the system, they need to expand their point of view somehow in order to communicate with the other parts or the system as a whole and get a better feel for their overall place within the system. I think when a human body is in a state where all it's systems are well connected and communicating, the health of the overal system of the human body increases... and when parts of that body become more disconnected and communication is constrained or cut off, then individual members of the system (cells/organs) begin to have a more destructive impact on the system as a whole (perhaps cancer is an example of this).
Perhaps the universe as a whole is not so different. I think perhaps morality is determined by whether our actions on the whole or greater picture tend to promote health toward ourselves and others, or they tend to cause sickness, and destruction. As we see in the human body, some pain, death, killing, etc can actually be beneficial to the whole... and obviously I think intention has something to do with that as well. However, I think that to establish set in stone laws governing morality is the easy, short sighted, narrow/simple minded approach to a more complex process or system. People are always trying to make things as easy and simple as possible... but some problems can never be so simple, and to try and simplify them does not do them justice or promote the best health of the system overall.
On the Jgnat Merry-go-round, no end is in sight as she spins in the same circles until all of the people riding are bored enough to quit.....
Rex
MKR,
You are just another clanging symbol seeking to add to the noise.....
Rex
