- Sep 29, 2016
- 1,507
- 822
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
An argument that I've heard Roman Catholics bring up is the Epistemological Certainty argument in the past - and while I think it's quite ironic given that this argument can't even apply to Rome given the curious case of Pope Francis, it's still an argument nonetheless that is applicable to Orthodoxy, and it's an argument that I could never really resolve.
So, as a baseline, we must agree that God cannot change objective morality - the 10 Commandments will never be revoked, for example; adultery will always be sinful no matter what societal circumstances come about.
If God changes objective morality - that is, to change the Gold Standard of God, and to change what God is, that implies that God is neither perfect nor omnibenevolent, for to change to something implies God wasn't (and thus isn't) perfect, and He couldn't be just when judging us, for the standards would be arbitrary, unfair, and even tyrannical.
However, it must be the case that even though sin is sin and good is good, and baseline morality can never change, how this morality is applied must necessarily change.
For example, in the context of the Kingdom of Israel, it was perfectly legal to stone adulteresses for adultery - but it's something which, in the context of Christ, He opposed it. The underlying morality for both does not change, as adultery is a sin worth death, but the context of the unfulfilled Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant changed the significance of the practice put in place.
So, this is where the problem lies - if how morality is applied can change from time and place, how can we know that we are following what's appropriate or morally good for our society to follow?
Let's give an example: there's a famous story from Saint Benedict's life where he destroys statues of a Pagan Temple dedicated to the Pagan deity Apollo. He and his monks went in, destroyed the statues, and converted it into an Oratory dedicated to Saint John the Apostle, making it a Church.
Now, the question becomes this - if I got a group of monks and I went into a local Hindu Temple, smashing their statues, kicking everyone out, and converted it to an Orthodox Church - would this be morally acceptable?
Many would say no - but here's the thing. We can not know if this action is moral or not; Christ can judge me as sinning for not doing this action, but if I do it, Christ can also judge me for forcing conversions on people.
How do we know that our judgment on if such a thing is moral or not is a product of what the Church has taught, or is just a product of Enlightenment "Separation of Church and State" cultural "brainwashing"?
A more significant example is the recent case of the K9 service in the Greek Church. One commentator on the thread said "I feel like I cannot be a part of this community after reading these comments," suggesting that he / she felt it was morally just for such a service to occur given the context of the United States and the unique society we live in. However, most people see it as a scandal to the norms which were given in the past; who is being the Pharisee here, and who is being Christ-like, and how do we know?
This leads to even deeper questions about trusting my priest - how do I know that I can trust my priest? How do I know I can trust him for spiritual knowledge, and he isn't speaking heresy or suggesting nonsense to me?
I can see an answer being that it isn't my responsibility, I should just study the Saints and obey my Priest, and do my best, and hopefully Christ will judge me with salvation if I do so - but this leads to problems with Nestorius, Arius, etc., who may have had the best intentions ever.
I don't know, these thoughts occasionally pop up, and when I interact with them, I get stressed.
So, as a baseline, we must agree that God cannot change objective morality - the 10 Commandments will never be revoked, for example; adultery will always be sinful no matter what societal circumstances come about.
If God changes objective morality - that is, to change the Gold Standard of God, and to change what God is, that implies that God is neither perfect nor omnibenevolent, for to change to something implies God wasn't (and thus isn't) perfect, and He couldn't be just when judging us, for the standards would be arbitrary, unfair, and even tyrannical.
However, it must be the case that even though sin is sin and good is good, and baseline morality can never change, how this morality is applied must necessarily change.
For example, in the context of the Kingdom of Israel, it was perfectly legal to stone adulteresses for adultery - but it's something which, in the context of Christ, He opposed it. The underlying morality for both does not change, as adultery is a sin worth death, but the context of the unfulfilled Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant changed the significance of the practice put in place.
So, this is where the problem lies - if how morality is applied can change from time and place, how can we know that we are following what's appropriate or morally good for our society to follow?
Let's give an example: there's a famous story from Saint Benedict's life where he destroys statues of a Pagan Temple dedicated to the Pagan deity Apollo. He and his monks went in, destroyed the statues, and converted it into an Oratory dedicated to Saint John the Apostle, making it a Church.
Now, the question becomes this - if I got a group of monks and I went into a local Hindu Temple, smashing their statues, kicking everyone out, and converted it to an Orthodox Church - would this be morally acceptable?
Many would say no - but here's the thing. We can not know if this action is moral or not; Christ can judge me as sinning for not doing this action, but if I do it, Christ can also judge me for forcing conversions on people.
How do we know that our judgment on if such a thing is moral or not is a product of what the Church has taught, or is just a product of Enlightenment "Separation of Church and State" cultural "brainwashing"?
A more significant example is the recent case of the K9 service in the Greek Church. One commentator on the thread said "I feel like I cannot be a part of this community after reading these comments," suggesting that he / she felt it was morally just for such a service to occur given the context of the United States and the unique society we live in. However, most people see it as a scandal to the norms which were given in the past; who is being the Pharisee here, and who is being Christ-like, and how do we know?
This leads to even deeper questions about trusting my priest - how do I know that I can trust my priest? How do I know I can trust him for spiritual knowledge, and he isn't speaking heresy or suggesting nonsense to me?
I can see an answer being that it isn't my responsibility, I should just study the Saints and obey my Priest, and do my best, and hopefully Christ will judge me with salvation if I do so - but this leads to problems with Nestorius, Arius, etc., who may have had the best intentions ever.
I don't know, these thoughts occasionally pop up, and when I interact with them, I get stressed.