Help with my Ethics Assignment..

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I dont believe there is a heaven, I do believe there is a hell though.

So..... you're an optimist, in other words?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

6. What is your view of the Bible and what role should it play in our lives?

For me, it is a morale compass and not a road map that must be followed. I have read it enough times and I still dont understand everything. Its very difficult to understand because it was written in the context of that time, and in order to understand it, you need to learn the history which is very biased from every angle.

7. Do you go to church? If so, how often?

No, never have, never will. Church is un-needed in civilized (where people can read) society in this day and age. It was developed as the voice of the bible. Unfortunately like any organization it has veered away from its intended pupose and is now the voice of the few who pick and choose issues rather than standing firm on all issues. The pope is no closer to God (in fact he is probably farther away) than a prostitue on 17th Ave.

I find the above two statements a little odd. First, you suggest that the Bile ought to be taken very seriously, and that it serves as a "moral compass", but readily admit that it is beyond the comprehension of most people. I have no problem with this position—in fact, I find it more appealing than that which treats the Bible "plainly"; as if it should be read from cover to cover like any other book. It is what follows that seems to present an inconsistency:

First, the purpose of the Church was NEVER to serve as "the voice of the Bible". The Church always has and still does serve a much deeper sacramental purpose; the purpose of the Church in its most basic function was always to celebrate Christ: through prayer, through worship, and through the sharing of a communal meal, which eventually became the eucharist or it's protestant equivalent, communion.

Second, if the Church was always so critical as an institution to good biblical interpretation, then to declare it as irrelevant is to cut your own position off at the knees. By your own admission, the Bible is not easily understood, and because the Church has historically served as the vehicle through which the Bible is read, in removing it, you have removed the efficacy of the Bible as well, despite your confession that it is important enough to serve as a moral compass.

The Bible bears witness to the Word of God, and is revealed in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Bible is authoritative because of who Christ is, and because of how it is read in and by the Church. One cannot be removed from the other: the Church and the Bible are religiously symbiotic.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I find the above two statements a little odd. First, you suggest that the Bile ought to be taken very seriously, and that it serves as a "moral compass", but readily admit that it is beyond the comprehension of most people. I have no problem with this position—in fact, I find it more appealing than that which treats the Bible "plainly"; as if it should be read from cover to cover like any other book. It is what follows that seems to present an inconsistency:

First, the purpose of the Church was NEVER to serve as "the voice of the Bible". The Church always has and still does serve a much deeper sacramental purpose; the purpose of the Church in its most basic function was always to celebrate Christ: through prayer, through worship, and through the sharing of a communal meal, which eventually became the eucharist or it's protestant equivalent, communion.

Second, if the Church was always so critical as an institution to good biblical interpretation, then to declare it as irrelevant is to cut your own position off at the knees. By your own admission, the Bible is not easily understood, and because the Church has historically served as the vehicle through which the Bible is read, in removing it, you have removed the efficacy of the Bible as well, despite your confession that it is important enough to serve as a moral compass.

The Bible bears witness to the Word of God, and is revealed in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Bible is authoritative because of who Christ is, and because of how it is read in and by the Church. One cannot be removed from the other: the Church and the Bible are religiously symbiotic.

Good post, TC.

But what I found weirder about the previous poster's remark, in a cosmological sense, was the idea that there is a hell, but no heaven. It seems to me, Bible aside, that he's imagining a very dark and dreary reality. If there's hell but no heaven, that implies, as I understand it, the following:

1. There is a purpose to life on earth. It is to punish people for their actions/immoral character.
2. There is a creator--but his/her sole reason for existence is an all-consuming, dark sadism.
3. The only reason to be virtuous is to escape from life--to be rewarded by NOT being punished with an eternity of suffering.

Isn't that a worldview predicated on the darkest of emo "I hate everyone" despair?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

...what I found weirder about the previous poster's remark, in a cosmological sense, was the idea that there is a hell, but no heaven. It seems to me, Bible aside, that he's imagining a very dark and dreary reality. If there's hell but no heaven, that implies, as I understand it, the following:

1. There is a purpose to life on earth. It is to punish people for their actions/immoral character.
2. There is a creator--but his/her sole reason for existence is an all-consuming, dark sadism.
3. The only reason to be virtuous is to escape from life--to be rewarded by NOT being punished with an eternity of suffering.

Isn't that a worldview predicated on the darkest of emo "I hate everyone" despair?

Indeed. I should like to do a little more digging on this, but at a cursory glance, I believe a position like that of mykab may actually be more defendable biblically. The concepts of heaven, hell and eternity are generally absent from the Old Testament, as they were borrowed from Hellenistic cosmology after the 4th cent. B.C.E.; after most of the books of the Hebrew Bible had been penned. If we adopt the classical Christian position of the canon, which places everything subservient to the teachings of Jesus, I think that a very good case could be made for belief in hell, without a corresponding belief in heaven. Jesus's principle thesis through his teachings is the Kingdom (or more appropriatly, the "reign") of God. He speaks of the character of a world under the dominion of God Almighty, in which the oppressed, the frail and weak, the religiously and socially marginalized receive justice (often translated "righteousness" in the NT). He preaches religious reform in that external cultic observances and acts of religious obedience are usurped by the condition of the heart, and the importance of motives and attitude.

Jesus speaks frequently about "eternal life", the "Kingdom of Heaven", and "paradise", but in many respects, these concepts may be viewed as synonymous with his notion of the renewed creation tangibly present on earth that is a part of his Kingdom of God agenda. Jesus also spends a great deal of time dwelling on hell, eternal punishment, and everlasting repercussions of having a poor quality of faith and religion. He speaks frequently about the conditions of hell, but curiously, never describes a heaven.

I believe that the concepts of heaven and hell and eternity have poisoned and skewed much of the purity of the Christian faith. Too often, the threat of hell is used to forward a religious agenda, and similarly, the promise of eternal bliss and prosperity on a celestial plain is manipulated to one's own end. I have met too many in my life time who perform good and are concerned about being right and pure, not because these are virtuous characteristics which improve humanity, but because it is credited to their account. too many people are building an empire in eternity for the sake of it. The evangelist who wrote Matthew once wrote about Jesus teaching to "store up treasures in heaven", but in light of the tenuous and ambiguous nature of the Bible's understanding of "eternity", where does one draw the line between narration and analogy?

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I find the above two statements a little odd. First, you suggest that the Bile ought to be taken very seriously, and that it serves as a "moral compass", but readily admit that it is beyond the comprehension of most people. I have no problem with this position—in fact, I find it more appealing than that which treats the Bible "plainly"; as if it should be read from cover to cover like any other book. It is what follows that seems to present an inconsistency:

First, the purpose of the Church was NEVER to serve as "the voice of the Bible". The Church always has and still does serve a much deeper sacramental purpose; the purpose of the Church in its most basic function was always to celebrate Christ: through prayer, through worship, and through the sharing of a communal meal, which eventually became the eucharist or it's protestant equivalent, communion.

Second, if the Church was always so critical as an institution to good biblical interpretation, then to declare it as irrelevant is to cut your own position off at the knees. By your own admission, the Bible is not easily understood, and because the Church has historically served as the vehicle through which the Bible is read, in removing it, you have removed the efficacy of the Bible as well, despite your confession that it is important enough to serve as a moral compass.

The Bible bears witness to the Word of God, and is revealed in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Bible is authoritative because of who Christ is, and because of how it is read in and by the Church. One cannot be removed from the other: the Church and the Bible are religiously symbiotic.

The Chuch has nothing to do with the Bible - they are in my view completely different. Church today is no more than a perverse social club that uses the bible as the drug to get people to attend on Suday mornings.

The path of the Bible is not a Sunday 9am-11am tea party so I can get home and watch football event. It is a 24/7 365 day commitment to bettering youself and hopefully a few people around you.

As per heaven/hell. I believe in personal responsibility and I like to believe that those who arent properly punished in this life, are in death. Heaven to me is nothing more than the realization before you die that you were a good person and did what you could to better yourself and the few people around you that you care about.

This is a personally important issue for me, I know its not the same for some on this board (in fact its a joke) so before this discussion turns negative, this will be my last post on the issue as I dont wish to be banned. Thank you.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

The Chuch has nothing to do with the Bible - they are in my view completely different. Church today is no more than a perverse social club that uses the bible as the drug to get people to attend on Suday mornings.

The path of the Bible is not a Sunday 9am-11am tea party so I can get home and watch football event. It is a 24/7 365 day commitment to bettering youself and hopefully a few people around you...

I'm going to leave arguments of the afterlife out of this.

But I still cannot see how you can completely divorce the Bible from the Church, especially when it is the Church that was its author. Historically, the Bible always functioned in subordination to the Church, and never really served as a "moral compass". It was always considered more as testimony to the efficacy of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, and to the new covenant that God established through his sacrifice.

Scripture bore witness to the truth, but as far as morals and ethics and good conduct were concerned, these were always determined within the Church hierarchy, and disseminated through the Church's reading (and writing!) of the Scriptures.

You seem pretty jaded about "church", and if I shared your opinion regarding its corruption, I could not in good conscience make the decision to take my family every Sunday morning. Fortunately, my church functions NOTHING like what you described in caricature.

[Mayer]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

You seem pretty jaded about "church", and if I shared your opinion regarding its corruption, I could not in good conscience make the decision to take my family every Sunday morning. Fortunately, my church functions NOTHING like what you described in caricature.

I was thinking the same thing. Everyone talks about these corrupt churches. I'm sure they exist somewhere, but I have just never experienced it myself. I guess I'm just lucky.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Mayer

I was thinking the same thing. Everyone talks about these corrupt churches. I'm sure they exist somewhere, but I have just never experienced it myself. I guess I'm just lucky.

Weirdly enough, I think it's a stereotype that practically dates back to medieval times. To describe churches as "corrupt" now would indicate that they have some kind of official social or legal power. However, churches nowadays are private institutions, where people worship by choice, not because the state tells them to. (at least in our neck of the woods). To be "corrupt" you have to be weilding your influence for personal gain--and since churches have no official influence, it's a lot harder to be corrupt.

Unless you disagree with how they spend their money. But that's a whole nother issue, I guess. I'm not really an expert on how churches are funded.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

...Unless you disagree with how they spend their money. But that's a whole nother issue, I guess. I'm not really an expert on how churches are funded.

I suspect that this is the source for much of mykab's criticism. I will use my own church as an example, but one which I believe is fairly typical. Our church has on staff four full-time pastors and three more who are employed part-time, as well as a small administrative staff. in addition to salaries for the staff, our church pays weekly rent for the use of the High School facilities where services are held each week, and monthly for the office space which they use. Outside of what we might designate as "opporating costs" practically all the rest of the incoming monies are designated for charitable funding of local and international relief organizations. For instance, this Sunday's offering has been earmarked in advance in its entirety for community relief. Furthermore, it should be noted that our church engages regularly in local relief efforts with dozens of other churches from our community, with no regard for theological or denominational affiliation. Regardless of how you feel towards church doctrine, most actually do a fair amount of good, particularly at the local level.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I suspect that this is the source for much of mykab's criticism. I will use my own church as an example, but one which I believe is fairly typical. Our church has on staff four full-time pastors and three more who are employed part-time, as well as a small administrative staff. in addition to salaries for the staff, our church pays weekly rent for the use of the High School facilities where services are held each week, and monthly for the office space which they use. Outside of what we might designate as "opporating costs" practically all the rest of the incoming monies are designated for charitable funding of local and international relief organizations. For instance, this Sunday's offering has been earmarked in advance in its entirety for community relief. Furthermore, it should be noted that our church engages regularly in local relief efforts with dozens of other churches from our community, with no regard for theological or denominational affiliation. Regardless of how you feel towards church doctrine, most actually do a fair amount of good, particularly at the local level.

I'm not surprised at all. It's fashionable to focus on the ills of organized religion, but there are two sides to every coin. Slavery could not have been ended in the U.S. without the activism of christian abolitionists--that's just one example of a positive effect of organized religion.

Of course, a similar group was behind prohibition too, but that's another story.

[Sparks]

Originally Posted by Mayer

Like you said, creation is treated in a typical "christian" fashion. I believe (and it is taught this way at the school) in Creation over Evolution.

Why do they have to be mutually exclusive? That bugs the hell out of me. Maybe evolution is God's plan?

Originally Posted by Mayer

That being said, the prof's at the school (not all, but a lot) seem to be more open-minded about science than in the past.

Well, that's good. I'm starting to be more open minded about the idea of the earth revolving around the sun and mental illness not being caused by demon possession, too. This whole "using your brain" thing is neat. Maybe one day it will be more popular than getting all of our facts and morals from personal interpretation of ancient scrolls of dubious origin and questionable accuracy.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Sparks

Why do they have to be mutually exclusive? That bugs the hell out of me. Maybe evolution is God's plan?

You have to understand, though, that in a theological system that champions the unchallenged superiority of the Bible, the two must be mutually exclusive because the principles of evolution very clearly challenge the primitive pre-scientific account of creation in Genesis 1 and 2. For conservative evangelicals the only rule of faith is the Word of God, and the only accessible Word of God is found in the protestant Bible. Because it is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice, it is very important that the Bible remain perfectly reliable. The classical evangelical doctrine of inerrency and infallibility cannot tolerate myth, inconsistencies, political forces, authorial and poetic license, editorial adaptation, or social and political impacts upon the text. It is argued that if it is indeed the Word of God, the Bible can never be incorrect. About anything. Period. I'm sure you can readily see why this is such a counter-productive position to hold, and surely you can understand why it is then impossible for most conservative evangelicals to embrace any form of biological evolution.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I'm not surprised at all. It's fashionable to focus on the ills of organized religion, but there are two sides to every coin. Slavery could not have been ended in the U.S. without the activism of christian abolitionists--that's just one example of a positive effect of organized religion.

Of course, a similar group was behind prohibition too, but that's another story.

"Evil" and "Good" do not subscribe to any religion. They are both quite comfortable in practically every context.

[Mayer]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

You have to understand, though, that in a theological system that champions the unchallenged superiority of the Bible, the two must be mutually exclusive because the principles of evolution very clearly challenge the primitive pre-scientific account of creation in Genesis 1 and 2. For conservative evangelicals the only rule of faith is the Word of God, and the only accessible Word of God is found in the protestant Bible. Because it is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice, it is very important that the Bible remain perfectly reliable. The classical evangelical doctrine of inerrency and infallibility cannot tolerate myth, inconsistencies, political forces, authorial and poetic license, editorial adaptation, or social and political impacts upon the text. It is argued that if it is indeed the Word of God, the Bible can never be incorrect. About anything. Period. I'm sure you can readily see why this is such a counter-productive position to hold, and surely you can understand why it is then impossible for most conservative evangelicals to embrace any form of biological evolution.

True. But what about those who don't interpret the 7 days as 7 actual days? I don't know the exact argument, but I thought I'd heard that the Hebrew translation for day doesn't neccesarily mean 24 hours. Apparently it means "a certain length of time" ? Like I said, I'm not positive on this at all, but if what if each "day" was millions of years?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Mayer

True. But what about those who don't interpret the 7 days as 7 actual days? I don't know the exact argument, but I thought I'd heard that the Hebrew translation for day doesn't neccesarily mean 24 hours. Apparently it means "a certain length of time" ? Like I said, I'm not positive on this at all, but if what if each "day" was millions of years?

I'm hesitant to go down this road, because the evolution/creation debate has been staged in multiple threads on this forum over the years, and it's a debate that I think is often doomed because the assumptions of the two parties are irreconcilably different. However--your earlier comment was that you believe in "creation" rather than "evolution"--which is different from saying that the earth is billions of years old and evolution is God's plan. When people say "I don't believe in evolution," they're generally denying that humans are primates, or that we evolved from more primitive apes. To make that claim ignores the evidence of the fossil record, not to mention DNA--but nevertheless, it's not really compatible with the compromise position that evolution happened and it's God's plan.

The thing is, science makes no stipulations as to the existence of God. It's not knowable with scientific methodology. Religious methodology is just as poorly equipped to make judgements about the physical world. It's called metaphysics for a reason--because religion is intended to make sense of a whole different category of truth claims that have nothing to do with the empirical truth that science is interested in.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Mayer

True. But what about those who don't interpret the 7 days as 7 actual days? I don't know the exact argument, but I thought I'd heard that the Hebrew translation for day doesn't neccesarily mean 24 hours. Apparently it means "a certain length of time" ? Like I said, I'm not positive on this at all, but if what if each "day" was millions of years?

Like IFF said it's not just a long timeframe that's required, it's the whole idea that humans and all other life have a common ancestor that's the problem. Plus each day would have to be billions of years.

I think Textcritic nailed it, the infallibility of the Bible standpoint is not compatible with observed reality, the only two choices are to either interpret the Bible in the context that it was written, or to disbelieve science based on dogma.

If one wants to take the standpoint that God "used" evolution that's fine, but it's done in such a way that it is not distinguishable from a natural process.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Mayer

True. But what about those who don't interpret the 7 days as 7 actual days? I don't know the exact argument, but I thought I'd heard that the Hebrew translation for day doesn't neccesarily mean 24 hours. Apparently it means "a certain length of time" ? Like I said, I'm not positive on this at all, but if what if each "day" was millions of years?

I have some expertise in biblical Hebrew, and I can confidently say that the "long ages" interpretive argument from Genesis 1 is total rubbish, and not at all textually defensible. And this is the problem the "old-ager"s face: in order for something (anything!) to be true, it must be defensible from a very particular reading of the biblical text. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the author of the first creation myth in Genesis 1 very clearly meant six 24-hour literal days when he wrote the sequence. The Hebrew "yom" ordinarily means "day"; specifically, a "working day" defined according to the space of time between sunrise and sunset. It is abundantly clear that this was the intent of the author, who went a step further to define the parameters of each of the six days of creation with the following formula: "And there was evening and there was morning, day one" (Gen 1:5; cf. vv. 8, 13, 19, 24, 31). Mind you, this was in accordance with other popular creation myths of the time, and presented no philosophical/cosmological difficulty (I hesitate to say "scientific", because there was no such thing 2000 years ago, or 2500 years ago; however old you believe Genesis to be).

The concern of the author was more calendrical than anything: he was opperating from a programme that sought to establish two critical arguments: First, that there is only one supreme God, and that he was responsible for all of creation. Second, that the calendar week and the religious observance of Sabbath rest were rooted in creation. In his exposition through the rest of the Book of Genesis, he very skillfully constructed a narrative of the Jewish people that rooted their existence and their self-identification in creation, and in the purpose of God.

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

...The thing is, science makes no stipulations as to the existence of God. It's not knowable with scientific methodology. Religious methodology is just as poorly equipped to make judgements about the physical world. It's called metaphysics for a reason--because religion is intended to make sense of a whole different category of truth claims that have nothing to do with the empirical truth that science is interested in.

And this is where the hyper-rationalists who invented the doctrine of biblical inerrency went totally awry. They were well intentioned, yes, in as much as they sought to reform the Christian faith, and to return it to a more intimate, relational religious experience with God. They had been jaded by centuries of heirarchical chruch corruption, which (perhaps rightly) caused them to be highly suspiscious of Church "tradition" and leadership as canons of the faith. In their estimation, the only reliable source of truth had to be Scripture, and for Scripture to conform to this impossibly high ideal of infallibility, it was determined that it must be impervious to challenges of science and history. Lost on this generation was the power of religious myth and metaphor, and they tragically have passed down to their benefactors an inept type of faith, which is no faith at all. Christians of the conservative evangelical tradition are encouraged to pursue "reason" and "evidence" in the place of faith. In doing so, most are either willfully ignorant of scientific and historical facts, or they are theologically bankrupted by the truth.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

And this is where the hyper-rationalists who invented the doctrine of biblical inerrency went totally awry. They were well intentioned, yes, in as much as they sought to reform the Christian faith, and to return it to a more intimate, relational religious experience with God. They had been jaded by centuries of heirarchical chruch corruption, which (perhaps rightly) caused them to be highly suspiscious of Church "tradition" and leadership as canons of the faith. In their estimation, the only reliable source of truth had to be Scripture, and for Scripture to conform to this impossibly high ideal of infallibility, it was determined that it must be impervious to challenges of science and history. Lost on this generation was the power of religious myth and metaphor, and they tragically have passed down to their benefactors an inept type of faith, which is no faith at all. Christians of the conservative evangelical tradition are encouraged to pursue "reason" and "evidence" in the place of faith. In doing so, most are either willfully ignorant of scientific and historical facts, or they are theologically bankrupted by the truth.

Wow. Dude, what church do you go to?

[Bobblehead]

Interesting stuff, Textcritic. I really appreciate your explanations. I've said it before and I'll say it again - you be an interesting guy to to sit in a pub and discuss this over a few pints.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Interesting stuff, Textcritic. I really appreciate your explanations. I've said it before and I'll say it again - you be an interesting guy to to sit in a pub and discuss this over a few pints.

I'm in for that conversation--if you guys don't mind a secular/humanist freeloader bogarting your Guinness.