'Think rationally and honestly' according to whose standards of rationality and honesty?
Symptom or disease? Excommunicating injustice
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
'Think rationally and honestly' according to whose standards of rationality and honesty?
An honesty and rationality that addresses the Bible
I think that among diverse standards of what constitutes rational and honest are common components. One of the problems taxing the modern corpus Christi is that its institutional heritage, despite a history of reformation, schism, and reinterpretation, is marked by certain consistent limitations of perspective. All too often Biblical interpretation is exclusive, but any cleric or theologian will, in honesty, tell you that it should be inclusive.
Consider for a moment that one of the reasons I'm not thrilled by the current rise of atheism taking place in Western society is that it seems to depend in certain ways on the validity of the beliefs of those it pictures as ignorant or incorrect. I raise the point because it also leads back to exclusive interpretations.
When the atheist argues that Christianity and the Bible are inconsistent with themselves, what they are observing is the effects of diverse interpretations of the faith coming into conflict with one another. The problem, of course, is that all of these diverse interpretations come from people who are "wrong" to begin with, so how can anything they say accurately reflect the Bible?
And, actually, all that suggests is that the contention is personal, and not ideological.
Looking at the ideology, though, one of the consistent marks of institutional empowerment in Christianity is that its justifications must necessarily exclude Biblical passages that conflict with the fundamental assertion affirmed. This is what those atheists are exploiting, even if they don't understand what is taking place or what to do with the observation.
One striking example of the result is in the theopolitical discussion of homosexuality. As I have noted before, the Christian argument in the American debate relies on the Old Testament and the Pauline evangelism; that is, Christ is excluded from the consideration. One need not agree with my construction and the result it asserts, but at least that thesis accounts for Jesus' words.
In the issue of excommunication, I've gone through my reading of the Bible bites asserted in justification of the practice. And I've said what I think of that construction. And regardless of whether or not one agrees with how I read those passages, I would suggest that the empowerment they outline still conflicts directly with broader teachings of Jesus' ministry. Consider three episodes, the Sermon on the Mount (Plain)—
—the teaching at the Mount of Olives—
—and the Last Supper:
One could pause a moment to consider the Church's offering of Matthew 18.17 in light of other versions of the teaching offered in the Sermon on the Mount/Plain. Wikipedia cites The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church in noting,
The thesis, then, would seem arguable at the very least, and this is where the question of honesty and rationalism arises. The Church's failure to address the issues presented suggests that it disagrees with the prominence commonly attributed to the Sermon on the Mount. It is as if the Church is saying, "This is our justification. This over here, that appears to challenge that justification, isn't actually important."
To consider the question of Matthew 18.17, the verse reads:
But what, precisely is Jesus describing?
It is, in fact, a reiteration of something Jesus taught in the Sermons on the Mount and Plain:
In any telling, the lesson beseeches reconciliation; do not come before God with such burdens of dispute outstanding. The effort to twist and exploit the phrase as an empowerment to judgment and division flies in the face of the foundation of Jesus' teaching.
Yet, again, one need not agree with my judgment of the Church in this. Rather, the honest and rational consideration I would seek includes the resolution of such doctrinal conflicts.
One might suggest that the Bible is confusing, and while this is generally true, it is not so confusing that ecclesiastical authority should have difficulty understanding, "Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven".
I might accuse the Church of bucking the hierarchy of Jesus' teachings, and the Church would likely deny this. But it would help their case, as such, if they accounted for such obvious appearances of doctrinal conflict instead of receiving the teachings of their chosen Savior with a blind eye and cold shoulder.
One can easily accept that there may be a doctrinal explanation that satisfies the question. But in the absence of that explanation, what, are people supposed to just make one up out of thin air?
The standard of honesty and rationality I appeal to involves at least acknowledging what the Bible says. To that degree, at least, I don't think I'm being particularly excessive.
____________________
Notes:
Bible: Revised Standard Version. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/r/rsv/
"Sermon on the Mount". Wikipedia. Accessed March 28, 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sermon_on_the_Mount
Signal said:
I think that among diverse standards of what constitutes rational and honest are common components. One of the problems taxing the modern corpus Christi is that its institutional heritage, despite a history of reformation, schism, and reinterpretation, is marked by certain consistent limitations of perspective. All too often Biblical interpretation is exclusive, but any cleric or theologian will, in honesty, tell you that it should be inclusive.
Consider for a moment that one of the reasons I'm not thrilled by the current rise of atheism taking place in Western society is that it seems to depend in certain ways on the validity of the beliefs of those it pictures as ignorant or incorrect. I raise the point because it also leads back to exclusive interpretations.
When the atheist argues that Christianity and the Bible are inconsistent with themselves, what they are observing is the effects of diverse interpretations of the faith coming into conflict with one another. The problem, of course, is that all of these diverse interpretations come from people who are "wrong" to begin with, so how can anything they say accurately reflect the Bible?
And, actually, all that suggests is that the contention is personal, and not ideological.
Looking at the ideology, though, one of the consistent marks of institutional empowerment in Christianity is that its justifications must necessarily exclude Biblical passages that conflict with the fundamental assertion affirmed. This is what those atheists are exploiting, even if they don't understand what is taking place or what to do with the observation.
One striking example of the result is in the theopolitical discussion of homosexuality. As I have noted before, the Christian argument in the American debate relies on the Old Testament and the Pauline evangelism; that is, Christ is excluded from the consideration. One need not agree with my construction and the result it asserts, but at least that thesis accounts for Jesus' words.
In the issue of excommunication, I've gone through my reading of the Bible bites asserted in justification of the practice. And I've said what I think of that construction. And regardless of whether or not one agrees with how I read those passages, I would suggest that the empowerment they outline still conflicts directly with broader teachings of Jesus' ministry. Consider three episodes, the Sermon on the Mount (Plain)—
"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
(Matthew 5.43-48)
"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the selfish. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.
"Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For the measure you give will be the measure you get back."
(Luke 6.32-38)
(Matthew 5.43-48)
• • •
"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the selfish. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.
"Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For the measure you give will be the measure you get back."
(Luke 6.32-38)
—the teaching at the Mount of Olives—
"When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. Then the King will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.' Then he will say to those at his left hand, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' Then they also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?' Then he will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.' And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
(Matthew 25.31-46)
(Matthew 25.31-46)
—and the Last Supper:
"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."
(John 13.34-35)
(John 13.34-35)
One could pause a moment to consider the Church's offering of Matthew 18.17 in light of other versions of the teaching offered in the Sermon on the Mount/Plain. Wikipedia cites The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church in noting,
To many, the Sermon on the Mount contains the central tenets of Christian discipleship, and is considered as such by many religious and moral thinkers, such as Tolstoy, Gandhi, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Martin Luther King, Jr. It has been one of the main sources of Christian pacifism.
The thesis, then, would seem arguable at the very least, and this is where the question of honesty and rationalism arises. The Church's failure to address the issues presented suggests that it disagrees with the prominence commonly attributed to the Sermon on the Mount. It is as if the Church is saying, "This is our justification. This over here, that appears to challenge that justification, isn't actually important."
To consider the question of Matthew 18.17, the verse reads:
If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
But what, precisely is Jesus describing?
"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector."
(Matthew 18.15-17)
(Matthew 18.15-17)
It is, in fact, a reiteration of something Jesus taught in the Sermons on the Mount and Plain:
"You have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire. So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift."
(Matthew 5.21-24)
(Luke 6.41-42)
(Matthew 5.21-24)
• • •
"Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye."(Luke 6.41-42)
In any telling, the lesson beseeches reconciliation; do not come before God with such burdens of dispute outstanding. The effort to twist and exploit the phrase as an empowerment to judgment and division flies in the face of the foundation of Jesus' teaching.
Yet, again, one need not agree with my judgment of the Church in this. Rather, the honest and rational consideration I would seek includes the resolution of such doctrinal conflicts.
One might suggest that the Bible is confusing, and while this is generally true, it is not so confusing that ecclesiastical authority should have difficulty understanding, "Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven".
I might accuse the Church of bucking the hierarchy of Jesus' teachings, and the Church would likely deny this. But it would help their case, as such, if they accounted for such obvious appearances of doctrinal conflict instead of receiving the teachings of their chosen Savior with a blind eye and cold shoulder.
One can easily accept that there may be a doctrinal explanation that satisfies the question. But in the absence of that explanation, what, are people supposed to just make one up out of thin air?
The standard of honesty and rationality I appeal to involves at least acknowledging what the Bible says. To that degree, at least, I don't think I'm being particularly excessive.
____________________
Notes:
Bible: Revised Standard Version. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/r/rsv/
"Sermon on the Mount". Wikipedia. Accessed March 28, 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sermon_on_the_Mount
Last edited:
If you can neither figure it out nor get any one else to agree that it is rational and honest; then you aren't there yet.
Then they should close down all philosophy departments at all universities, remove all philosophy from school curricula, and burn all the books, this instant!
Matthew 7 vs Luke 6
Isn't it funny how the infallible bible can't agree on what precisely JC said on his big speech?
This and that
I think that's a bit extreme, don't you?
There are competing theories about that. One says the sermon is derived from the mysterious Quelle, or Q source that would explain the commonalities of the synoptic gospels. Another suggests that these are the same event adapted from oral traditions, and a third proposes that they are different events, and Jesus had something of a routine going so that what we see are variations on a theme.
The Gospels don't need to be spot-on perfect. But given what churches teach as the central themes of Christianity—e.g., love, compassion, nonjudgmentalism—it is a curious spectacle to consider the number of institutions working toward other ends. Perhaps it is an extreme comparison, but the device is similar: This hurts me more than it does you; I'm doing this because I love you.
And there's something amiss about that.
Signal said:
I think that's a bit extreme, don't you?
• • •
Swarm said:
There are competing theories about that. One says the sermon is derived from the mysterious Quelle, or Q source that would explain the commonalities of the synoptic gospels. Another suggests that these are the same event adapted from oral traditions, and a third proposes that they are different events, and Jesus had something of a routine going so that what we see are variations on a theme.
The Gospels don't need to be spot-on perfect. But given what churches teach as the central themes of Christianity—e.g., love, compassion, nonjudgmentalism—it is a curious spectacle to consider the number of institutions working toward other ends. Perhaps it is an extreme comparison, but the device is similar: This hurts me more than it does you; I'm doing this because I love you.
And there's something amiss about that.
Challenger78
Valued Senior Member
Injustice is when the farce that is society shows its ugly face.
Not at all.
That:
is an example of precisely the sort of tyranny that you have been arguing against. Except that yours is clad in more liberalist garments.
When the light turns blue with orange and lavender spots
I don't know, Signal. I mean, today the sky here is gray-white. This is because there is an overcast. But above that, the sky is blue. While I accept that the sky might appear chartreuse or mauve to some, it suggests more a confusion of terms between parties. That is, we define the words differently. More than likely, the wavelengths that predominate the color of our Terran sky have not changed so dramatically.
But the catch there is that everything else would be subject to similar shifts. If someone acknowledges that your blue shirt is blue while suggesting the sky is chartreuse, you can probably doubt the good faith of the claim.
All I'm getting at is that if you can look up and see that the sky is blue, and someone insists that it is chartreuse, the best one can say of the claim is that it requires statistically deviant means to reach that outcome. You are either dealing with an exceptional circumstance, or someone is trying to convince you that the sky is vivid yellow-green.
And when you can see that the sky is blue?
Signal said:
I don't know, Signal. I mean, today the sky here is gray-white. This is because there is an overcast. But above that, the sky is blue. While I accept that the sky might appear chartreuse or mauve to some, it suggests more a confusion of terms between parties. That is, we define the words differently. More than likely, the wavelengths that predominate the color of our Terran sky have not changed so dramatically.
But the catch there is that everything else would be subject to similar shifts. If someone acknowledges that your blue shirt is blue while suggesting the sky is chartreuse, you can probably doubt the good faith of the claim.
All I'm getting at is that if you can look up and see that the sky is blue, and someone insists that it is chartreuse, the best one can say of the claim is that it requires statistically deviant means to reach that outcome. You are either dealing with an exceptional circumstance, or someone is trying to convince you that the sky is vivid yellow-green.
And when you can see that the sky is blue?