Soulster’s Christian Ethic
November 28th, 2006 by 
soulster
Christianity is a reform ethic
Several atheists on this blog have pointed out that the origins of morality (and perhaps ethics) is evolutionary at its core [see Can Atheists be Good?]. In other words, people, being social organisms, cannot help but develop morality of some sort, even in such situations where religion may or may not be present. I, as a Christian, would basically agree with this. After all, Paul says, “Even when Gentiles, who do not have God’s written law, instinctively follow what the law says, they show that in their hearts they know right from wrong” [Romans 2:14]. Without special revelation – in this case divine law-making – people will develop a natural sense of right and wrong. Paul views this as a simple fact drawn from observation.
I believe Christianity presupposes this and intends to work with pre-existent moral structures already in place from religion, culture, or any other source. It does not lay a particular ethical foundation, rather it matures a pre-existing one. It is about reforming, or tweaking, current systems, rather than removing them and replacing them with one of its own. Its intention is to reform all moral and ethical systems to be missional and transcendent – to participate in Missio Dei [wiki, TSK def] for the betterment of individual lives and the good of the world.
For example, Jesus’ ethical work was largely a reformation of Jewish morality understood from the Law of Moses (Torah) [wiki].  He opposed the traditionalism of the Pharisees [wiki] because it led to legalism, and the interpretations of the Sadducees [wiki], because they led to a certain kind of materialism. But he did support the basis for the Law as expressed in the Shema Yisrael’s V’ahavta [wiki] section. Jesus took the Law’s command to love God with your whole person (V’ahavta) and neighbor as oneself (an implication and command elsewhere) and futher developed it by describing and demonstrating such love. For example, in his parable of the God Sammaritan answering the question derived from the Shema, “who is my neighbor?”.
Likewise, Paul did not condemn or fully deconstruct Greek moral structures in his missionary work. Instead, he worked to refrom these structures and develop them futher in light of Missio Dei. The frist letter to the Corinthians is a great example of this. These believers were largely converted out of Greek polytheism, especially the worship cult connected to the Oracle at Delphi [wiki]. Paul’s teaching in the letter reforms practices that he thinks do not fit into Missio Dei, specifically which are counter to love, but lets other practices from Greek morality stand that do not hamper Missio Dei.
Likewise, Christianity may further develop ethical systems based on principles in reference to self: like “self-ownership” or “enlighten self-interest” as discussed elsewhere on this blog. In fact, I would say that even children raised in Christian homes began with such ethics or moralities that are cultural, and only later adopt the Christian ethic when they reach an age of comprehanding and participating in a missional ethic.
To summarize, I am claiming that Christianity’s ethic is reformational, not foundational, and singularly concerned with developing people to participate in God’s mission.
Christianity is a missional ethic
The Christian ethic is not intended to maintain something inert or static, such as a central prinicpal or axiom. I respectfully disagree with theologians and Christians who see our faith in this way. It is about producing motion (which fits well with our understanding of the universe through General Relativity which sees everything in freefall and nothing inert). The primary concern is moving people and society towards trancendence — towards being more than what they are — because it assumes that transcendence is loving (such as “I want a better life for my kids”). Christianity is content to allow other ethical systems to maintain order and personal rights, so long as they do not interfere with the mission, while it accomplishes this impulse.
The motion in the Christian ethic is produced by tension, as it is in most groups and social systems. For the Christian the tension is between two poles of “who I am” (raw reality) and “who I could be” (transcendent ideal), or, socially “who we are” and “who we could be,” or, finally ”who you are” and “who you could be”. The tension between these two produces motion towards nurturing relationship and whole living (shalom [wiki], the missional objective).
A Missional Ethical Narrative or Process
Here’s an example of how this works taken from Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount [esp. Matthew 5], paraphrased liberally, of course.
In chapter 4, the context for the sermon is set. Crowds have gathered from far and wide and are mostly the marginal, humble, unwanted, and unqualified. They have wondered at Jesus’ miraculous signs (hey, I’m telling the story, so just let ‘miraculous’ be for a moment), and are full of expectation as to what they mean.
Jesus begins with the Beatitudes — essentially a list of blessings and promises towards those who never really get what they want. He promises them these things in the context of the Kingdom of God — a theological term for God’s rule on earth over human lives — which the people, according to their own cultural narrative, had been waiting for for a long time. The idea is, in the Kingdom of God, the King will set everything straight and make the world right (global transcendence).
Jesus goes on to promise them an amazing destiny as the brightest most delicious people working with God to bring about the chaging of the world. Thus the transcendent ideal is set.
Next, Jesus tells them that they cannot enter this transcendent Kingdom by the removal of the Law, their own moral code which they, knowing themselves to be common sinners, have violated. What’s worse, he proclaims that they cannot see the Kingdom unless their righteousness surpasses the Pharisees — the most moral people of the day, according to the Law. This would have led to a lot of quick moral inventories for his audience. They would have become aware of their dysfunction and limitation. While upholding the existing moral system, Jesus has set the raw reality — “this is where you are”.
Now Jesus is going to explain how, by living in these tensions, we can join God in his Kingdom and mission. He is clearly reforming the morality of the people by beginning with “you have heard it said” (conventional wisdom), “but I tell you…”. He does so with a six stage process, using examples from everyday life. Without getting into the examples, which would require explanations of the historical-cultural context, I will jump to the concluding principles that can be drawn from them:
- Begin by ending violence, aggression, competition, and hatred by seeking reconciliation with all people. Place a higher importance on this, then on anything you feel is sacred. [Matthew 5:21-26]
- Next, learn not to treat people like objects, for in doing so you dehumanize them and yourself. [5:27-30]
- Take responsilibilty to nuture and support the people close to you and understand that your failure to do so has implications far beyond yourself. [31-32]
- Practice honesty that refuses to manipulate or coerce. Do not use negative or positive language to con people, but simply state your position and desire (let your ‘yes’ be ‘yes’ and your ‘no’ be ‘no’). Understand that manipulative communication and action comes from insecurity that leads to death of your psychological self and the same in others. [33-37]
- Once you have done the first four, there will still be people who wrong you and do not get along with you. Show them the error of their ways by making them face their own agreesion in passive resistance, and debunk their justification by showing your humanity in missional concern. [38-42]
- Finally, learn to love impartially, like God does: take agressive missional action to improve the lives of everyone. Make it your responsibility to nurture even those who would call you enemy, even if the responsibility is not naturally yours.
The ethical structure continues with some more complicated ideas about personal authenticity, health, use of resources for the mission, etc., but I don’t think we have time to go into that here. Read Matthew 6-7 if you would like more information.
In a nutshell, that’s my ethic. For me, it reforms a religious/cutlural ethic of “self-ownership” taught to me by my parents and teachers in school. It doesn’t change a lot of what they taught, but it gives me a sense of what’s next. What they taught me would keep me from being a criminal, but it had little or no ethic for forward motion from that point.
Posted in belief, definitions and descriptions, ethics | 
November 28th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
Soulster,
Good post! I like how you tie in self-ownership with Jesus teachings. And man, you know your scripture!
Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount was definitely one of his better moments (from my atheistic perspective). It is interesting to see how, in his sermon, he seems to spend most of his speech promoting human-centric, “self-ownership” values to others, and pays comparatively little attention to the importance of faith and putting God first in your life.
Ever since I became an atheist, I have maintained that it is not possible to have a moral system grounded in the dictates handed down by a God, for one must make a moral judgement in accepting such dictates (although, of course, those dictates can be incorporated into ones moral framework at their discretion).
In your post, Im not quite clear how your stance is in comparison to mine (the origin or grounding point of ones morality) based on the things you wrote. For example, you said:
I believe Christianity presupposes this and intends to work with pre-existent moral structures already in place from religion, culture, or any other source. It does not lay a particular ethical foundation, rather it matures a pre-existing one. It is about reforming, or tweaking, current systems, rather than removing them and replacing them with one of its own.
So I guess what I want to ask you is, “Is your moral system grounded in Scripture, or grounded internally within you and tweaked or enhanced by Scripture?” Or is it something else entirely that Im not understanding?
November 28th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
by the way, I made a couple posts promoting your blog:
http://killtheafterlife.blogspot.com/2006/11/kickass-new-blog-philaletheia.html
and
http://goosetheantithesis.blogspot.com/2006/11/kickass-new-blog-philaletheia.html
November 28th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
Good question. I’ll try to be brief (yeah, right!), but this is hard to talk about without getting into narrative. I think I grew up with an ethic based on “self-ownership” in combination with “enlighten-self interest”, using heavily the social theory of “publics” (aggregates that cooperate for mutual self-interest) and that was more American that Scriptural. It was based on enlightenment thinking, esp. social contract. Basic American individualism, with a lot of Lockean rationalism, which happened to be also present in the particular brand of Christianity I grew up with. In church, such an ethic was supported by proof texts from Scripture, though to say it was derived primarily from Scripture would not be honest. My parents at no point sat me down and said, “the Bible says this is right and this is wrong.” They simply delievered morals in their discipline based on their culture. As the church was mono-cultural, it was a public that reinforced this morality that all the parents participated in, adding the weight of Scriptural authority and supernatural consequences for non-confromity. The only foundational ethic system in Scripture is Hebraic, and mine was not that. So in my early experience of church and family morality, it was pretty much moral inculturation reinforced by religion, if you will. In fact, in reflection, I think the role of religion at this point was more a justification of conservative cultural leaning and a condemnation of competing liberialism and relativism.
When I became agnostic while studying ministry in college, my morality remained pretty much in tact, which is evidence to me that it was not closely tied to belief, but rather belief simply justified it. They must have been “self-evident” truths I did not discard without belief.
But when I came back to faith, through my experience of Jesus, that was another thing all together. Now, I’m not so much deriving an ethic from Scripture, but I am deriving an ethic from Jesus. This means my ethic comes not from proof texts or commands, but from my understanding of my relationship to Jesus, and through him to God. Because of this, my original ethics given to me at childhood are being edited and enhanced by my encounter with Christ in the similar way that a person is stirred and inspired by being a friend to Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. You might still be who you once were, morally speaking, but you are likely to be changed a great deal missionally, and this cannot help but change your original ethic in some ways (especially by maturing it and completing its sophistication) and move the core or center of you ethic in most ways.
Does that make sense? If not, please continue to dig. I like this exploration.
P.S. Thanks for the links ;). We’ll have to return the favor when we get some decent blog rolling around here.
November 28th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
Soulster,
That was, by far, the most satisfying and honest answer I have ever received from a Christian about where their moral framework came from.
I dont know if I can express enough to you how much I appreciated, and enjoyed reading, your response to my question!
You know, as an atheist who loves to argue about morality, and believes that morality comes from biological and physical fact (in the same way that gravity comes from the properties of matter), it has been very frustrating for me to hear Christians tell me “morality comes from the Bible! Period!” over and over again.
You seriously are the first to give me such a comprehensive, realistic, and satisfactory answer.
Thank you! You are definitely one of the good ones
And regarding the links, no problem. If you ever would like to link to my blog, I would be grateful. However, my blog is designed to be fiery, and the title itself, Kill The Afterlife, was just about the most aggressive and confrontational title that I could think of. Knowing that your blog is much more inviting and inclusive, I realize that my blog title might not be the best thing to be trumpeting around here. So if you arent comfortable with linking to me from your blog, I totally understand.
So here is a follow up question regarding morality:
I think that you and I both agree that Christians and atheists alike can be moral people and have good moral frameworks. I believe that it is impossible to have a moral system grounded upon the Bible, and that all Christians borrow/steal from my individualist moral framework in order to justify theirs (a belief that I presume you do not share hehe).
Here is the first part to my question: While you stated that your morality didnt originate entirely from the Bible, and indeed it was mostly intact during your agnostic phase, do you believe that a Christian can logically justify a moral system that is grounded solely on the Bible and Jesus’ teachings?
And here is the second part to my question: Do you believe that atheists like myself can logically justify my self-ownership moral framework if it is NOT grounded in the Bible or God? Or do you believe that atheists are doomed to moral relativity?
November 28th, 2006 at 6:33 pm
soulster,
I’ll be staying back from this conversation between you and Aaron Kinney. It’s so good, and I’d like to observe. However, I’d like to compliment you for an excellent post and subsequent comments. I’d hate to reiterate Aaron, but that was an incredibly honest and direct post.
Aaron,
I’d like to thank you as well for linking here. This is a special website, I hope, and it looks like you’ve certainly working to better atheist/Christian relations along with us.
While we may not agree sometimes on all the issues, I’m glad that we’re having voices from many forms of Christianity (for instance, soulster [aka. Ben Cheek with an evangelical Christian message] and Dave Armstrong [coming from a Catholic apologetic’s standpoint]), as well as different arguments and positions from atheist writers.
November 28th, 2006 at 9:36 pm
I don’t want to be too particular about words, but I’m not so sure about using the word “justify” in my response. It just feels like it’s one step from self-righteous. I used to use religion to justify my morality, which was the first step to condeming others self-righteously.
Hypothetically, I think it would be possible for someone out there to claim that their morality was based solely on Scripture, but this person would have to be very different from your average Christian who makes such claims. They would have to live almost completely in the narrative of the Jews as dictated in the Old Testament, then adopt the exact and literal reformations of Jesus (no reduction to cross-cultural principle; i.e. contextualization). In other words, they would need to tear down their own culture and morality, and adopt the culture and morality presented in the complete text.
For example, you would be hard pressed to find the concept of rights, as we know them, in the Bible, especially in the Hebraic system. There morality was based on a premodern tribalistic understanding of blessing and cursing as it related to health, survival, protection, and prosperity. To adopt the only foundational morality in the Bible, you would need to construct morality along similar lines. While I know some people who are trying to do this, believe it or not, I don’t think they’re getting much deeper than surface adoption of the Jewish culture and ethos.
So, I don’t think many people honestly could claim (though they do) that their morality is completely from Scripture. If so, why do most American Christians endourse capitalism and personal autonomy, neither of which are part of the Biblical ethic? I think this claim is most prevelent in fundamentalism, but I am not impressed with that movement’s honesty, either with themselves or the text. That’s why I left fundamentalism eventually.
Also, given my interpretation of Jesus teaching as reforming existing moral systems, I would think it next to impossible to force a system of reformation to be foundational. In other words, Jesus’ teaching are like a good teacher that matures and edifies a student beginning with where they are at and their context. Therefore, it would not be right to absolutize that teacher’s instruction to any particular student. Out of context, it doesn’t work. It’s not to be seen as an all-in-one ethical product. It is a nurturing interaction.
I would say that I believe in all of Jesus’ ethical teachings. But I would not say that I believe all my ethical understandings come from Jesus alone. He informs my understanding and use of those ethics which predated my relationship to him, but he does so missionally, redeeming and perfecting them. In fact, part of my faith is subjecting and subordinating those understandings to him (that is part of what it means to me to make Jesus Lord).
While some may claim to have no morals that do not come from Jesus, I think I could find some in short order for most. I hope my understanding is more faithful to Jesus’ intent and practice and more honest.
To answer you second question: we may all be “doomed to moral relativity” to a certain extent. I do not think absolutism works well in morals, nor does absolute relativism. Perhaps a “chastened relativism” with ample humility and commitment to broad understanding and cooperation would be good for all of us.
While I am convinced that atheists can develop ethical systems sufficient for personal control and the government of society, etc. without need of religion. There are enough atheists participating in society at this point to confirm such, I think. One of the questions I still have is how far the morality goes. I hope that question will be answered in the other post (Can Atheists be Good). To that end I intend to listen as any good researcher and human.
(The bigger question is not can atheists develop a moral structure, but is it possible for me to ever be concise in a response!)
November 29th, 2006 at 12:06 am
Soulster,
If I was a betting man, I would bet a few pennies that your are a Christian that holds to liberal theology. If you do, the difference between you and Atheist’s are very little, it’s no wonder you get great comments from Atheists! I’d have to point out though that the radical Atheist’s that are making great strides today like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins don’t like you any better than a full blown Fundementalist.
I just found out about your site and I don’t have time to post tonight, but I’m sure I will have a chance eventually. Thanks!
November 29th, 2006 at 12:39 am
Hey, you changed forum on me. (Which means I am going to post it here as well.
RE: “What I was saying was that we cannot merely justify a behavior because it has evolved.”
I think that human beings have always tried to create rules and codes for their groups. The survival of the group, or its success, (from a biological point of view) may have relied on the group’s ability to come to a consensus concerning what was a favourable habit or action, and when and why that action was appropriate.
If we consider perhaps one of the earliest human groups, which was probably the family group, maybe an extended family group; it would have been recognized to be to the group’s advantage that special privileges or rights would be afforded to the members of the group, as those special rights or privileges would have sustained the integrity of the group.
They would have been aware that they were capable of performing actions upon other groups in competition for food, land, breeding rights, that they would not want to be inflicted upon the own members of their family tribe; so, I think they would have afforded special privileges to their own group which may, or may not, have been demonstrated to all or any other group.
Some of these actions that they perpetrated upon other groups they certainly would not want their own group members to display WITHIN their own group. So, I think one of the first structures of a code of conduct was built upon a “us and them” mentality.
(As an aside, bonobo chimps regularly hunt, kill and eat other monkeys, though of course not monkeys within their own family group.)
So, it would have been ok to rob, rape, steal, plunder, or kill people who belonged to a different group, as they may have seen this as justifiable for their group’s survival.
But those same actions, they would NOT want displayed within their own group, as it may have led to the disintegration of the group.
So, whether or not these rules, or codes were written or an oral tradition, I think the first codes of conduct may have been based upon the desire to protect the group, but not OTHER groups.
If we also consider our ancient past, and if we are prepared to accept our genetic origins of common descent, (and I know that is a hurdle for many religious believers), we can understand that our human hierarchies have a basis in the hierarchy of our ancient ancestors.
I accept that human beings evolved and that we have a common ancestor with other hominids. I also think that the mapping of the human genome and its comparison with the chimpanzee genome is strong evidence for this claim. See : Ken Miller - On Apes and Humans http://beepbeepitsme.blogspot.com/2006/11/ken-miller-on-apes-and-humans.html
Primates tend to form what are known as “dominance hierarchies”. Animals higher in the hierarchy tend to displace lower ranked individuals from resources (mates, space, food). They tend to have higher reproductive success (either by mating more often, or by having more resources to invest in their offspring).
As I accept that we share a common ancestor with hominids, I also accept that human beings also create dominance hierarchies. But, it is obvious, nonetheless that we form dominance hierarchies without accepting evolutionary origin, as hierarchies are evidenced in our modern societies.
A hierarchy is a position of power that is assumed by an individual, or group of individuals, according to various attributes and characteristics. Ancient human hierarchies probably found favourable characteristics which we still find favourable today.
1. strength 2. intelligence 3. leadership 4. resourcefulness (etc etc - you get the picture)
So traditionally, though not always in ancient societies and groups, the position of dominance would have been held by “the alpha male” though this was not prescriptive.
The alpha male would gain the respect, and trust of the group through deeds. 1. a good hunter 2. a good negotiator 3. ability to forsee danger etc etc
So, early human beings developed hierachies which were similar in nature to their genetic origins, and our modern hierarchies, I suggest, also reflect these origins.
Alongside the development of human groups, tribes, family groupings was the development of beliefs. Beliefs that most of us today would consider to be myth, legend, folklore and supersitition.
And of course this is to be expected in a world where people had virtually no scientific understanding of the natural world around them.
Rocks, trees, plants, volcanos, stars etc were believed to hold special powers which influenced and acted upon the lives of men, either positively or negatively, depending on the circumstance.
People looked for the meaning as to why they were injued by fire, and fire became a substance of power, which they harnessed but also worshipped. Meteories falling from the sky became omens and potents of impending disaster as surely they must have been thrown from the sky by a powerful being/force/entity.
Mankind did not have control over this natural environemt which was both dangerous but bountiful and they sought to understand it as best as they could.
Those who claimed to understand the messages in the stars, or the powers of the rocks and trees, were revered as they had attained “special knowledge.” It didn’t matter if this knowledge was basically wrong from a modern perspective, as this “special knowledge” learnt through observation and false associations served their primitive purposes.
For example: it didn’t take an Einstein to work out, after viewing the smoke and ash displays of a volcano that something was gunna blow. To ancient man, it was obvious that something harmful possibly to them, their family and their environemt was about to happen - but why?
Thye had no scientific knowledge knowledge of lava, magma, plate tectonics, pressurised gases etc. So, it was inexplicable except as a mysterious power which must reside in the volcano.
One that must wish them harm for their misdoings. Of course, I am describing the human creation of gods.
So, with the formation of family groups, tribes, and hierarchies, we have the formation of “religious” belief systems.
This formation of belief systems opened up a place in the hierarchy for those who claimed “special knowledge” concerning the mysteries.
This position became a special position of power sometimes alongside that of the leader of the tribe, sometimes he/she was the advisor to the tribal leader and sometimes he/she assumed the role of leader.
These positions of “religious power” had a variety of names depending on the culture from which they sprang. (shaman, witch doctor, seer, prophet, necromancer etc etc), but they were all positions of power within the tribal/ family group.
One way the leader/ tribal elder/ alpha male had of consolidating his power over the group, enhancing his position and retaining it, was to claim the authority, or the agreement from, the member of the group who claimed “special powers.”
So, it was inevitable that under some societal structures, the prophet/seer/ shaman (whatever you want to call him or her), would assume leadership based on their claims of special powers or special understandings of the world.
Or, that the leader of the tribe would be supported by the shaman who received special privileges due to his support.
Codes of conduct could now be enforced according to NOT ONLY the will of the leader, but also according to the will of seer/prophet.
Those who stepped out of line within the group, could be quickly chastened according to the codes, but also with the approval and perhaps at the instigation of the shaman/witch doctor etc. (I am using these terms interchangeably to suggest that their origins are similar - claims of “special powers” and claims of understanding the “special powers.”)
The codes of conduct would have reflected not only the will of the leader, and his immediate successors, but also the will of the priest/ “religious advisor”.
This became a very efficient and successful way of dealing with dissent, and also a way to preserve the group, even though the group as a whole may or may not have had a lot of say in the formation of the codes.
The belief systems which were formulated would have been “tribe specific”. That is they would have been as a result of the development and the resultant dynamics specific to a region. So, they would have reflected the geo-political specifics of the tribe.
Of course, other tribes also created their own “gods” which reflected the geo-political specifics of their tribes but each tribe was convinced and encouraged to support the beliefs of THEIR tribe to the exclusion of other codes which may exist in other tribes.
These codes of conduct, behaviour etc were prescriptive for the members of the tribe, but did not necessarily apply to people outside of their tribe.
Battles for resources, land, food, women, slaves etc continued to be waged, but each tribe carried with it, the approval of their “religious leaders” .
Homages and sacrifices, chantings and mantras would have been performed by the one with special powers, and eventually by other members of the group; in the hope of effecting the outcome of such raids, ventures.
Of course, if the incursion failed, it was because the group had not ministered well according to the wishes of either the religious leader, or they had displeased the god in some way, and this was punishment for their “bad deeds.”
This hierachial arrangement was successful until a tribe came up against another tribe which was more powerful. The other tribe may have had more sophistocated weaponry, a larger fighting force etc. In which case the weaker tribe was subsumed by the more powerful one. By some, this would have seemed as an indication that the “gods” of the other tribe were more powerful than their own gods, so the survivors may have decided to adopt the beliefs of the victor.
In many instances, according to ancient history, the victors would not enforce the worship of their gods but would amalgamate their gods onto the gods of the defeated tribe. This ensured a certain amount of harmony if the defeated tribe’s religion was not entirely broken and destroyed.
This type of hierarchy has remained popular because of its ability to motivate the group in a common direction. It doesn’t require that any of the gods created actually exist for it to be an effective method of crowd control. All that it requires is that people believe they exist and that they will be punished, either according to a code of law, or according to the laws of the religion.
The notion of religious law, based on a belief in the existence of gods, has remained popular because it claims a “higher authority” than that of the leader of the group, the president, the prime minister, or the alpha male.
It claims an authority, which theoretically, unlike that of an elected leader, CANNOT be questioned under any circumstances. It has claimed the position of privilege where it’s rules are sacrosanct. (above and beyond question and criticism).
As, I said, it doesn’t require that any of the gods actually exist. Neither, the volcano god, the egyptian gods, the sumerian gods, or the ant god of africa.
Whether or not they exist, (and obviously, I don’t believe that any of them do,) has become irrelevant to their political function.
Religion and god belief has been a very successful political tool, used to apply and encourage all sorts of social, cultural, and economic stances.
Though of course this has not been without a considerable amount of bloodshed, but, as previously mentioned, the pattern had been set in those ancient tribal times that when you kill in a political arena for what you believe is for the preservation of the codes and religious beliefs of your tribe, it is not considered murder. It is considered a sacrifice for the benefit of the tribe. And obviously, the most “powerful god symbol”, would be one who was prepared to die so that others may live.
The major problem in our modern times is that most of the religions, god beliefs of the ancients have been subsumed by war, imperialism and evangelism.
There are basically 3 powerful political systems which use their tribal religion as a political tool. 1. christianity. 2. islam 3 hinduism. In reality it comes down to the first 2.
Each seek dominionism over the other. In the competition of the tribes, as from their beginings in ancient tribes, “there can be only one.” Neither in their extreme fundamentalist form, is prepared for pluralism as represented in a secular society.
They each seek a monopoly in the political arena, and dominionism over the rest of the planet. They do not seek a society where many people of various religions, or no religion, can live harmoniously within a political climate which offers equal protection for all regardless of their religious belief.
This is the position we find ourselves in, and this position, I suggest is evidenced from how, and why we created our codes of conduct and our religious codes to suit our geo-political origins in the very beginning.
November 29th, 2006 at 5:41 am
Rich said:
You might loose your few pennies, then ;). But, not to worry, you only bet a few anyway. The liberials certainly wouldn’t have me. Here’s some common descriptors to liberial theology according to wikipedia with my position in brackets:
So, on my liberal theology report card, I think I deserve a ‘D’ at best. I consider my self a post-conservative, but not a liberial. If you observe my practice, you will see much to back up this claim. I encourage you to view the website my name links to or visit my other blog at http://blog.thetruthtree.com. You may also read the draft of a book I’m writing [here].
As far as differences with atheists, that depends on what you’re talking about. I am very similar to them in biology and some of our opinions about culture. In regards to Jesus Christ, I think we differ very much. Likewise on the existence of God. But I care little if I sound like an atheist or am compared to one. If two people grow closer to any one truth, they will appear increasingly similar without reference to each other.
I hope I am getting the comments I’m getting because I am attempting to listen, to be transparent, to be authentic. My first goal in this blog is to blog with a missional ethic (that doesn’t mean conversion to the atheists out there). It simply means I want to express certain relational truths that I think can change things for the better. I believe how I behave in this discussion has a bearing on the world. Of course, I am sure to some Christians I am a sell-out simply from the fact that I’m not on the attack. For those, complimentary comments and good relations in general indicate a problem.
I agree with you that some radical atheists would not like me. Some non-radical atheists might not like me either. The first concerns me more than the second. There is currently a radical stream some are calling “the New Atheism” that I think might be dangerous because it sounds absolutist, which is one step from militant. I think statement’s like Elton Johns “all religion should be banned” are dangerous and can easily turn to uglier things. I would never say, “atheism should be banned”. I believe truth can prevail without legislating it, coercing others, or resorting to militantcy.
Please post as you have time. Your input is appreciated, and what a good question. It brought out so much of the real me.
November 29th, 2006 at 6:44 am
Here’s my morality…the fit survive, the weak perish.
After all, its how YOU got here in the first place.
Right?
November 29th, 2006 at 8:34 am
Emmanuel,
Isn’t that a fact, not morality? Why is it good that the most fit (sorry to correct evolutionary language use) survive more often and the less fit survive less?
November 29th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
While I do not wish to say this simply to offend, I think I need to express my opinion. If all we have is Mr. Goldstein’s “the fit survive, the weak perish”, we are not human, and we are infinitely dangerous.
Under such a lense, Hilter’s holocaust was the fit triumphing over the weak. So is the current war that has cost 600,000 Iraqi lives. So is the injustice of globalized captialism that is worsening the poverty of the developing world. I refuse to condone such things. I will oppose with everything I have anyone with an ethic who does endorse these simply on the argument of evolutionary fitness.
I am not objective in this. Too many of my friends and loved ones are not the most evolutionarily fit, and would not survive under such a could ethic without the help of the more fit. To dismiss them is to deny myself.
November 29th, 2006 at 5:36 pm
Emmanuel is describing “social darwinism.” (not to be confused with natural selection)
We have the ability to identify with the plight and needs of others. In other words, we can see other people’s needs and problems as if they were our own. (ability to have empathy)
I wouldn’t agree with hitler’s policies concerning the jews for the same reason that I wouldn’t want that policy to be applied to any other group.
And obviously not to any group of which I may be a member. (Let’s kill off all the aussies because they are related to convicts - has never seemed an attractive proposition to me.)
November 29th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
Part of the essense of being human is that we have the capacity to decide to go against the flow of evolution to a certain extent. We can help the weak to survive and in so doing there have been times that we have discovered the the biological evolutionary process is part of being human but our ability to transcend it is ALL of being human.
That said, all the negatives that allow us to commit atrocities are also part of that equation.
November 29th, 2006 at 11:39 pm
RE grendel
And perhaps our ability to display empathy is just part of many emotional traits which can be expressed genetically.
November 30th, 2006 at 9:47 am
I’ve noticed that the comments here have turned to the evolutionary origins line again. While I find that discussion fascinating and I’m glad for the discourse (I’ll be continuing the conversation on Can Atheists be Good and The Evolution of Religion), especially by the atheists involved, I would like to return to my ethic above by asking for some critique:
1. In general, what do you think of this ethic?
2. What do you think of the claim that Christianity only offers a missional/reform ethic and presupposes an existing ethic?
3. What do you think of the idea of tension-based ethical motivators, such as I described above, and their potential for missional (proactive) action?
4. Have you considered whether ethics should unltimately lead to primarily proactive action rather than reactive action?
Any thoughts, please.
November 30th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
I dont think that morality or ethics, for the nonreligious, originate from EVOLUTION per se.
I think that they originate from facts of reality, just like evolution originates from facts of reality.
For example, my moral framework (which I contend is the same moral framework for everyone) originates from axioms like existence, identity, and causality.
Evolution need not be true for the self-ownership moral framework to be true.
Soulster,
Getting back to what you and I were discussing, you seem to have conceded a lot of moral ground to me.
You have also explained how you dont get your entire moral framework from the Bible.
So I wonder, do you truly think that morality is what it is because God says so, or do you think that God says what he says about morality because thats the way it is regardless?
In other words, I guess Im bringing up the Euthyphyro (sp?) dillemma.
Im a bit unsure of how to approach the morality topic with you until I get your take on the Euthyphyro dillemma, since you have given me concessions in this discussion that Ive never received before from any Christian (in regards to morality that is).
November 30th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
I'm not sure about this. If I've been more honest than some, good.
I've admitted common origins and starting points, but I would not universalize at this point and say all ethics are from the same place or even of equal value or power. I just want to be sure we don't think we're someplace in the conversation where we're not.
I'm not sure what you're asking here. Did God invent morality? I don't know, that's difficult. He invented humans according to my belief, so even if humans invented morality, one could argue that God invented morality also, or not. Most of that would be mental gymnastics anyway. And I'm not espousing the idea that morality is somehow outside of God or over him in some way…but that might not be what you are asking.
In the context of Christianity I see it as this: God creates man (through whatever process) and gives man certain attributes including critical thinking and creativity. Somehow, this ability is applied to the creation of culture, a survival technique, a subset of which is morality. Man, exercising his impulse to create culture creates moral systems of different kinds relating to existential problems, worldviews, and meta-narrative (part of our evolution, I think). God rejoins man in interacting with their moralities to develop them missionally (esp. in the case of Christ). It is a martix of interaction with considerable complexity and freedom.
Arguably, according to the Gensis narrative, morality as we know it was not part of the absolute will of God, but a by-product of our taking the "knowledge of good and evil" for ourselves (which would fit into God's permissive will), and so moving beyond our symbiosis with God in some way. It is interesting that the first moral decision in that narative was about nakedness which is exceedingly variable by cultural and of questionable benefit. It is then a work of redemption that he works with morality to reform it — a joint creative process. But all this is quite propositional, while the reality would be practical (thus it would be better to speak of it in complete narrative then what I'm trying to do here).
I have never read the Euthyphyro (wikipedia doesn't even have it) and could find nothing but references on the web. Would you post a link, so I can at least read a summary or if one does not exist, could you provide one?
November 30th, 2006 at 10:13 pm
You may have guessed by my name that I am related to Ben (soulster). I am his father.
This will probably be my only post since I don’t feel intellectual enough to give valuable input.
I just wanted to say that I find it very encouraging to see a Christians and atheists talking to each other. Sometimes it is hard for people from different Christian backgrounds to talk. I find the posts to be very interesting and helpful. They are helpful in my own thinking as they help to broaden my understanding.
While I take no credit (or blame hehe) for Ben being the person he is today, I can honestly say that , for a Christian, he is very open minded. And I mean that in a good way Son. May I simply encourage each of you to keep talking and searching for truth.
November 30th, 2006 at 10:22 pm
Terry,
You’re a very lucky man. Your son is a wonder to write with. As co-host of this website, sometimes I marvel at his words. He’s very bright, and unlike some people I’ve met on the Internet, Ben (soulster) is actively searching for the truth, and willing to dialogue. If there’s anything you would like to talk about, you can always email me at drunkentune[at]gmail[dot]com.
December 1st, 2006 at 7:49 am
Pre-existing before what? Us?
December 1st, 2006 at 10:22 pm
beepbeep:
I assume your commenting on:
When I say “pre-existing” I mean moral structures developed out of culture with roots pre-dating Christianity, sometimes going all the way back to our prehistory. Likewise, it would also mean moral structures a person had before they encountered Christianity, or a basic morality they were taught before they reached the point where they could comprehend and participate in a missional ethic. I do not think that there were any moral structures before humanity, or the dawning of the first cultures, since morality is a subset of culture.
December 9th, 2006 at 8:09 pm
RE soulster:
Thanks for the clarification.
And hi to soulster’s dad.
January 16th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
hey someone wanted a text of euthyphro, heres the url. its a dialogue.
http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/ancient-greece/plato/plato-euthyphro.asp
January 17th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Quinn:
Thanks for the link. I look forward to reading it.