Christianity no longer seems moral to me

[trophy33]

You're right, there is an anthropomorphic dimension to it. Reality is it flows the other way around, things that align with God's nature are moral while those that do not are not.

We could say God does moral choices because His nature is perfectly good. So, the best possible choices He chooses are taking the highest possible good (His nature) into consideration.

But we would need to define "good", then. And so on. The happiness of the largest possible number of beings?

 

[David Lamb]

We could say God does moral choices because His nature is perfectly good. So, the best possible choices He chooses are taking the highest possible good (His nature) into consideration.

But we would need to define "good", then. And so on. The happiness of the largest possible number of beings?

I would say that "good" is what accords with God's nature.

 

[trophy33]

I would say that "good" is what accords with God's nature.

That is not sufficient, because "good" or "evil" are moral judgement, while God's nature is just His nature.

When we say that God is good and not evil, we add something more than just "God is as He is". Something like that He cares about the happiness of His creation.

 

[David Lamb]

That is not sufficient, because "good" or "evil" are moral judgement, while God's nature is just His nature.

When we say that God is good and not evil, we add something more than just "God is as He is". Something like that He cares about the happiness of His creation.

But it isn't just us saying the God is good; Jesus says He is good.

 

[trophy33]

But it isn't just us saying the God is good; Jesus says He is good.

Which must mean something more than just "God is God". "God is good" is a kind of moral judgement, some moral quality in God.

 

[David Lamb]

Which must mean something more than just "God is God". "God is good" is a kind of moral judgement, some moral quality in God.

If so, who is making that moral judgment?

 

[trophy33]

If so, who is making that moral judgment?

The one who is saying that. Jesus, you, me...

And what we mean by that is basically that God cares about us.

 

[trophy33]

So dashing kid’s skulls in?

This is a leap from God's nature to biblical text. Biblical text is not perfect, not always reliable, not always historical etc. If something in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament, does not seem moral, I would just ignore it.

 

[Fervent]

We could say God does moral choices because His nature is perfectly good. So, the best possible choices He chooses are taking the highest possible good (His nature) into consideration.

But we would need to define "good", then. And so on. The happiness of the largest possible number of beings?

No, good in my mind has to be defined with God as the reference. So perhaps what brings most glory to God, though then we end up trying to chase down glory. I'm a believer in virtue ethics, where rather than seeking to define moral values the goal is to define virtuous character. Because then we just have to recognize how Jesus expressed God's nature.

 

[ViaCrucis]

This is a leap from God's nature to biblical text. Biblical text is not perfect, not always reliable, not always historical etc. If something in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament, does not seem moral, I would just ignore it.

The answer, in this particular case, is that the Psalmist's desire to see the children of his captors destroyed is an honest emotional expression--but one that we are not required to share. It's a much simpler biblical principle of description vs prescription. The Bible records people behaving badly, and saying terrible things, doing terrible things, and wishing terrible things--it would be bizarre to assume every recorded word, thought, or act is intended as a divine endorsement simply because it's recorded in the biblical text.

The historic Christian approach to the Bible doesn't allow for simplistic "good guys" and "bad guys"; the biblical "good guys" are constantly doing bad things, messing up, and God judges His own people; and at the same time the biblical "bad guys" often do good things, get things right, and God uses them as an example. The entire story of Jonah is a case study of this. Jonah was a prophet, a "good guy"; and the people of Nineveh are representatives of the very empire that destroyed the northern kingdom of Israel, the "bad guys"--but the whole story shows Jonah as a pretty miserable, awful person who is constantly disobedient--and in the end Nineveh is vindicated because of their repentance even as Jonah sulks in his misery. The bad guys end up "on top" in Jonah's story, because it's not about being a "good guy" or a "bad guy"--it's about justice and mercy. So when the Psalmist, a "good guy" desires the "bad guys" to suffer, including wishing to see the children of the "bad guys" have their heads dashed on rocks (a grotesque display of inhumanity toward humanity) we can sympathize with the plight of the Jewish people in exile without celebrating the wishes of the Psalmist who is revealing his own inward sinfulness and wrong-headedness; expressing a view that is out of alignment with the justice and mercy of YHWH.

Dividing the world between "good guys" and "bad guys" doesn't work from within the narrative structures of the biblical texts; and that itself should be a lesson we take away as we then look at and encounter the world. The world is complicated, messy, filled with human beings created in the Divine Image who, nevertheless, do bad things--there aren't "good guys" and "bad guys", there are only people. Messy, complicated, beautiful, ugly, human beings.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[trophy33]

The answer, in this particular case, is that the Psalmist's desire to see the children of his captors destroyed is an honest emotional expression--but one that we are not required to share. It's a much simpler biblical principle of description vs prescription. The Bible records people behaving badly, and saying terrible things, doing terrible things, and wishing terrible things--it would be bizarre to assume every recorded word, thought, or act is intended as a divine endorsement simply because it's recorded in the biblical text.

Agreed.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This is a leap from God's nature to biblical text. Biblical text is not perfect, not always reliable, not always historical etc. If something in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament, does not seem moral, I would just ignore it.

I don't. Mainly because I'd rather question it, and after I question myself about what it is I think I'm reading, I also question those who, in turn, question it. It keeps things philosophically (and ethically) interesting that way.

 

[trophy33]

I don't. Mainly because I'd rather question it, and after I question myself about what it is I think I'm reading, I also question those who, in turn, question it. It keeps things philosophically (and ethically) interesting that way.

The problem is that there are so many verses in the OT that we would not have time for anything else. That is why basically all Christians ignore the most of it. Sure, we can have some luxury to debate the few most controversial ones.

If canonization was continuously reflecting what Christians really use and find useful and not rigidly fixed in the medieval decision, I think our Bibles would look quite differently.

 

[Sabertooth]

I think it might be okay to mention that I have schizophrenia/bi-polar if this seems like a stupid read.

Do you have a home church?

If not, see...

The Church & Mental Illness...

These USA churches are good at dealing with mental illnesses (such as schizophrenia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, etc.), Vineyard, Assembly of God, Foursquare Church (Links above are locators.) They are present in other countries, as well...

www.christianforums.com

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The problem is that there are so many verses in the OT that we would not have time for anything else. That is why basically all Christians ignore the most of it. Sure, we can have some luxury to debate the few most controversial ones.

Far be it from me to argue over what may be morally archaic ephemera. Although, I will argue over what is considered to be appropriate moral evaluation in our contemporary world.

If canonization was continuously reflecting what Christians really use and find useful and not rigidly fixed in the medieval decision, I think our Bibles would look quite differently.

Yes, I can see your point. But whatever the essence of canonization has happened to be in the past, the criterion of being "useful" isn't my choice for deciding which books (or really, in my case, down to which sentences....) in the Bible to take seriously.

 

[trophy33]

Yes, I can see your point. But whatever the essence of canonization has happened to be in the past, the criterion of being "useful" isn't my choice for deciding which books (or really, in my case, down to which sentences....) in the Bible to take seriously.

What would "taking seriously" something that is not useful look like?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What would "taking seriously" something that is not useful look like?

It would rely upon a different epistemology, one that discards pragmatic terms for those of coherence; it would discard "useful" and replace it with "true and meaningful."

Personally, I don't think it's the moral questions about the Bible that should determine whether it's believable or "useful" or not.

Moreover, if we decide to apply modern critical sauce to the moral framing of the biblical books, then to be cogent and fair we need to apply the same sauce to our modern day notions of morality and ethics as well. In other words, we need to also engage Meta-Ethical issues rather than giving Modern day notions of morality and political ethics a free-pass, allowing these to all too easily sit at the head of the table in our ethical evaluations. The same goes for other philosophical aspects of personal outlook as well.

 

[trophy33]

It would rely upon a different epistemology, one that discards pragmatic terms for those of coherence; it would discard "useful" and replace it with "true and meaningful."

Personally, I don't think it's the moral questions about the Bible that should determine whether it's believable or "useful" or not.

Moreover, if we decide to apply modern critical sauce to the moral framing of the biblical books, then to be cogent and fair we need to apply the same sauce to our modern day notions of morality and ethics as well. In other words, we need to also engage Meta-Ethical issues rather than giving Modern day notions of morality and political ethics a free-pass, allowing these to all too easily sit at the head of the table in our ethical evaluations. The same goes for other philosophical aspects of personal outlook as well.

I have no idea what you wanted to say.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I have no idea what you wanted to say.

That's probably because I had to edit what I originally wrote in that post. My apologies.

The first thing to grapple with here, trophy33, is to discern the limits of using "useful" as a cogent epistemological tool. "Useful" belongs to the position of Pragmatism, and as far as I can tell, pragmatism shouldn't be the litmus test for Ethical and Moral deliberation, or for the analytic act of interpreting, understanding, or even attempting to evaluate, discern or criticize the Bible.

Also, I wouldn't lean too hard on only the most Minimalist, Critical bible scholars. Read them and learn from them, sure. But don't assume they always have the "best" answers.

 

[trophy33]

That's probably because I had to edit what I originally wrote in that post. My apologies.

The first thing to grapple with here, trophy33, is to discern the limits of using "useful" as a cogent epistemological tool. "Useful" belongs to the position of Pragmatism, and as far as I can tell, pragmatism shouldn't be the litmus test for Ethical and Moral deliberation, or for the analytic act of interpreting, understanding, or even attempting to evaluate, discern or criticize the Bible.

Also, I wouldn't lean to hard on only the most Minimalist, Critical bible scholars. Read them and learn from them, sure. But don't assume they always have the "best" answers.

The process of canonization of biblical texts was much more primitive than what you propose for their critique.

What practical view of the Bible do you recommend for a common Christian, so that he can use it effectively, without going back and forth in unending useless labyrinths and focus on good works instead?