G
grannymh
Guest
They have a separate universe somewhere! Wow!
- Status
T
tonyrey
Guest
No one has ever explained how purposeless things can produce purposeful persons.
T
tonyrey
Guest
In a purposeless universe all activity is necessarily amoral because everything has a **physical **cause - which leaves no scope for choice.
T
tonyrey
Guest
That is true but in a purposeless universe what we want would also be beyond our control! We would be no more than cogs in an immense machine…
T
tonyrey
Guest
It is unreasonable to equate eternal bliss in heaven with hedonism because the hedonist puts pleasure before everything else and regards it as **an end in itself, **the supreme goal and value. It justifies every conceivable crime provided no one is made unhappy!
P
Portofino
Guest
That last sentence baffles me. What crimes are you referring to, that harm neither self, nor other – neither physically, nor mentally – and yet are still crimes?It justifies every conceivable crime provided no one is made unhappy!
And in a purposeful universe, what is the means of discovering this rational morality? How do we know it’s objectively immoral to murder, to steal, to lie, and to exploit? Is it a case of “we just know?” If that’s the answer, then you would sound just as question-begging as the moral atheist (but he, at least, invokes pragmatism, self-interest, and natural empathy).
Is discovery of this rational morality dependent on revelation?
And what does this objective, rational morality entail? Does it entail that it is immoral to eat meat on Good Friday? That is immoral for a woman to have her head uncovered? Or to consecrate a host? That it is immoral to reject the divinity of Christ? That it is immoral not to baptize one’s child? Wrong to reject the existence of Allah? Wrong to miss church on Sundays? Wrong to miss church on Saturdays?
What is this objective morality you speak of, and how is it discoverable?
You’ve heard our arguments. Let’s hear yours
T
tonyrey
Guest
You are putting words into my mouth! My statement was:
The issue is hedonism and the keyword is “unhappy”. An isolated person - such as a baby - can be killed painlessly - and secretly if necessary - without causing anyone distress.
Does it cease to be a crime?
Its rational basis is philosophical:
- If the universe is purposeful then life is not a fortuitous event but an immensely valuable gift.
- The principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are based on Christ’s teaching that we are all children of the same Father and not related solely by an accident of birth.
.
The issue is the rational basis and fundamental principles of morality, not particular precepts.
By the use of reason!
Over to you!
P
Portofino
Guest
I see – you are using the word “unhappy” very deliberately to describe the be-all-and-end all of my position
I do believe that life and the pursuit of pleasure are ultimately inseparable; if you take away my life, you take away any possibility I have of enjoying it. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was a well-chosen triad.Perhaps it is fair to say that my position is not purely hedonistic, because I posit two fundamental tenets upon which “morals” and “rights” are based – one, human beings would rather be alive than dead (right to life); two, human beings prefer pleasure to misery and pain (right to non-violence). From this I conclude that the “best society” is one that best serves these innate human interests. This is also ultimate foundation for social rights and laws. If you as an individual decide that you prefer pain to pleasure–because pleasure is immoral-- that is your choice and your right. But a society that serves these innate human needs does not give you the right to make that decision for others (i.e., you can sacrifice your own life if that is your concept of morality, but you cannot sacrifice someone else’s). In other words, you don’t get to decide how valuable an infant’s life is, even if you believe that killing that infant would serve the greater good. Nor do you get to decide that the infant “does not really want to live” and that it needs to prove that it desires to stay alive.
P
Portofino
Guest
I see what you’re getting at, but “life is an immensely valuable gift” does not logically follow, in and of itself, from “life is purposeful.” If life has a purpose, one first has to answer, “what is that purpose?” before concluding that it is an “immensely valuable gift.” For example, a sentence in Siberia serves the purpose of punishment for a political dissident. Just because that stay in Siberia had a purpose, does not mean that it was an immensely valuable gift.
Is the purpose of life discoverable through reason alone? Or do you need revelation and faith in what cannot be proven?
From what I see, you have the conviction that life is an immensely valuable gift, not just in your experience nor as a human experience, but as a universal truth. That is not a bad conviction, but it does require belief and faith. There is also the problem of evil — namely, in what way the death of an infant in a fire was an immensely valuable gift to that infant. Christians try to answer that problem of evil by positing “the Fall” and the sin of Adam. Unfortunately, this makes life not merely “an immensely valuable gift” but also a de facto punishment (albeit a “just” punishment). If you enjoy the consequences of sin – the immense privilege of sickness, old age, and death – you are kind of missing the point, if you are a Christian
For the majority of reasonable human beings who are not Christians, the teaching of Christ does not constitute proof of anything, vis-a-vis morality. Christ cannot be cited as an authority, as if no other explication were necessary. If what Christ taught was reasonable, then it should be discoverable without appeal to Christ. I am sure you would agree with that, even though you invoked him in this instance.
Many reasonable human beings who are not Christian frankly criticize Christ on moral grounds – for example, when he threatened those who disagreed with him with hellfire. His teachings on sexual ethics – e.g., divorce is immoral in all circumstances – are also not self-evident to reasoning non-Christians. Christ taught that, “whoever loves his life will lose it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it in life eternal” (John 25); a society based on that principle is not any society that I would want to live in. Worst of all, Christ taught that disbelief in his divinity was immoral, which is something that reasonable non-Christians cannot accept. Unless, of course, there is no such thing as a reasonable non-Christian
P
Portofino
Guest
.
The statement "we are all children of the same Father’ is a wonderful one, but you haven’t demonstrated that it is provable through reason. This is an article of faith, an admittedly wonderful one. I could argue that we are all brothers and sisters based on the genetic similarity between humans, and our belonging to the same species; our common origin from the Big Bang; our common belonging to the universe, which is made of the same stuff or material. But if I were to say, “we are all children of the same Father,” I would be going beyond reason and into the realm of faith and conviction.
“Liberty, equality, and fraternity” were taught by Christ, according to you; but how do you prove that these values are inherently moral? I’ve given my own argument for life and liberty – that they are innate human desires. How does one prove that they are objectively moral? Because Christ taught them? Because they are “self-evident”? Self-evident to us, or to the universe?
And I know you’ve credited Christ with the triad “liberty, equality, and fraternity” – which, ironically, was first formulated as a triad by secular, anti-clerical philosophers who were resisted by the Church! – but I don’t see Christianity as having been necessary for the discovery of these concepts, nor of Christianity having been the most perfect enunciator of liberty and equality in particular.
Indeed, let’s take “liberty”, which is the weakest of the three in terms of arguing that it was promulgated by Christ and Christianity. The right to “liberty” was nowhere expressly taught by Christ, but rather by Greek democracy and Roman Republicanism. Brutus killed Caesar in the name of liberty. Spartacus staged a slave revolt in the name of liberty. I’m not saying Christians had antipathy towards liberty, simply that it wasn’t a very conscious consideration. As we all know, Peter wrote in his epistle, “slaves, obey your masters.” Nor was liberty a fundamental value in Christendom, until approximately the Enlightenment. When Jefferson himself wrote of liberty, he was not thinking of Jesus – who never spoke of it, directly – but of the Roman Republicans.
“Fraternity” – that was a great Christian value, the greatest. There I agree with you entirely – Christ taught it.
“Equality” – more problematic. Once again, Peter enjoined, “slaves, obey your masters.” I will grant that equality was implied, but it was not explicitly and unequivocally stated. Nor was the equality of women posited; de facto, at least, men had more privileges. Look at Paul, who didn’t permit women to speak in church! The church is still dealing with this question of the equality between men and women, and what it should mean. Ironically, it is the secular proponents of equality that are proclaiming that the Church hasn’t gone nearly far enough, and that accuses them of positing a natural inequality between men and women, in terms of the rights and privileges to which they lay claim.
But "liberty " – I can’t credit Christ or Christianity with having invented it, or being its most eloquent proponent. If anything, Christian concepts of “fraternity” were antithetical to liberty — freedom of worship, for example, took a very long time to discover, and it took a lot of help from non-Catholics and from secular non-Christians.
And liberty and equality – does it mean the liberty of women to become ordained and to consecrate a host, in the name of equality? Does it mean the liberty of same-sex persons to marry, in the name of equality?
Brotherhood is so much easier, in principle
T
tonyrey
Guest
None of those facts is an adequate basis for morality. An accident of birth imposes no obligations.
Then the UDHR is in the same category.
They are implicit in the teaching of Christ. They are inherently moral because they are the basis of personal and social development and fulfilment.
Desires are not necessarily moral.
They are the only rational basis for personal and social development and fulfilment.
Christianity is based on the example and teaching of Jesus. It is not falsified by the failures of Christians.
Christ’s entire teaching is based on the necessity and significance of choice between good and evil. He made it clear that we have a moral obligation to give to God what is God’s and to Caesar what is Caesar’s. And, as Kant pointed out, “ought implies can”.
Both Jesus and Peter advocated civil obedience at a time when violent revolts against Roman authority were common and futile. They both knew that the most powerful revolution is achieved by love and forgiveness without condoning evil. The condemnation of “the nest of vipers” and “whited sepulcres” for their hypocrisy and exploitation of the poor was one factor which led to the arrest and execution of Jesus. His intervention in the case of the woman taken in adultery is another example of His challenge to patriarchal inequality and injustice.
Since it applies to everyone without exception - exemplified in His attitude towards Gentiles as well as Jews and women and children as well as men - it also implies liberty and equality.
Paul’s Pharisaic background in a patriarchal society influenced his attitude to women in church but at the same time he respected their positions of authority.
Their accusation is false because the different vocations of men and women do not entail inequality. The unisex mentality undermines their cultural identity and their functions in the family and society.
The continual onslaught of false doctrines on the teaching of the Church made it essential to safeguard the faith at a time when Christians were being savagely persecuted. It is understandable that the bishops were often overzealous in their concern to prevent their flock from being led astray.
You seem to be equating liberty and equality with anarchy!
But this question would take us far astray from the topic…Only in a patriarchal society!
P
Portofino
Guest
Laws do impose obligations, however. Assault, murder, and battery will not be made legal tomorrow, if enough people stop believing in God.
I have the subjective experience that we are all brothers and sisters through our membership in the same species, and that there is innate potential for us to love each other, and that our only chance for happiness is for us to love each other or, at least, to peacefully co-exist; therefore, that potential ought to be cultivated, if we want to live and be happy. You have the subjective experience that we are all children of an invisible, transcendent God, who gives our lives value where we ourselves cannot.
The problem is, what you believe is the only adequate basis for morality cannot itself be proven. You also seem to acknowledge that you cannot even prove what that morality is, except in the most general and humanistic of terms. You seemingly don’t think you can prove, through reason, that meat on Good Fridays is objectively immoral, or that the ordaining of women is objectively immoral. Nor that denying the divinity of Christ is objectively immoral – a violation of the universal moral law. Or that non-attendance at Mass on Sundays a violation of the moral law of the universe or the heavens.
Or maybe the orthodox Jew is right, that mixing meat with dairy is an abomination of the objectively, rationally-based moral law. The orthodox Jew, on the other hand, eats meat on Good Friday and has never been baptized.
The only tenets of morality that can be agreed upon? Just so – the pragmatically-based ones (don’t steal, don’t murder); as well as the ones that can be grounded in human psychology (“don’t lie, don’t cheat others, because it will come back to bite you; I’ve never met anyone who enjoys being cheated and lied to; do you want to have no friends, and be surrounded by enemies?”).
I read these as a statement of convictions – which I have no problem with, as I believe that individuals are entitled to their opinions (“live and let live”) but these are statements, not proofs. That’s the problem with metaphysics, including a metaphysics of morals. The adherents of a particular metaphysical view consider that they have proven their position through universal reason. It’s so obvious, in their minds – so incontrovertible. Unfortunately, they’ve been unable to obtain universal agreement from reasonable individuals. This is why evolution or the theory of relativity are represented as facts; belief in God or in a metaphysical substrate for human morality, as a hypothesis or conviction. This is not to say they cannot be true, merely that they cannot be proven in such a way that the subjective experience of feeling convinced does not need to come into play. Einstein’s theory of relativity, on the other hand, is not dependent upon feeling convinced.
Someone who accepts a proof for the existence of God ultimately says, “I feel convinced by this; it makes sense to me.” Or perhaps they say, “I cannot conceive of God not existing.” To tell you the truth, I still cannot conceive of how an airplanes flies (so heavy
). My common sense has a hard time imagining that the earth is moving, even though I know it feels as if it is standing still, and even though I have never been made dizzy on its account. My point is that what is difficult – nearly impossible – for us to imagine not being true, is not thereby proven to be true.I have no problem with someone saying any of the following: “I have faith”; “I have what appears to me as evidence, and which I find personally convincing”; “I’ve had intuitions”; “I believe you’ve had intuitions, even if you don’t acknowledge them as such – innate knowledge”; “I believe and we believe because, if we didn’t, our lives would not be livable.” What I can’t accept, however, is that someone would say, “I’ve proven it; it’s been proven, established as fact. No one can disagree with me on this, without being refuted.”
It’s a very ironic proposition anyway, to try to prove articles of the Christian faith through reason. If it succeeds, it undermines itself – because faith is no longer indispensable. God or angels don’t need faith. Human beings do.
P
Portofino
Guest
I like this. It took many centuries for Christians and others to figure out what Christ “meant” to imply on this subject, but it bore fruit nonetheless.
I have to give the peace churches (Amish, Quakers, Mennonites) the palm there, based on your statement; “just war theory” supplements love and violence with the sword, which is a departure from this ideal.
I could see it, potentially (that it is a challenge to patriarchy itself). He at least had women followers.
In my opinion, though, the Christian churches of today have been rather behind the curve in promoting equal rights for women with sufficient vigor. I regret greatly that the argument “Christ was male” and “Christ’s apostles were male” is considered so normative, in terms of being grounds for denying women the privilege of being ordained as priests.
Here, in my estimation, the palm goes to those Christian bodies who have not interpreted Christ’s actions – “Christ had male apostles” – as being so literal in intention. As you wrote about revolt, so I think that Christ knew that any woman in those times belonged to somebody (to her husband; to her father; to her brother). The commandment, “sell everything you have, and follow me” (let alone become an apostle, who will carry this message to the world) would have gotten that woman stoned as someone who had abrogated her obligations.
And a menstruating woman? The Jews viewed menstruating as unclean, needing to be segregated from men. If Christ had chosen female apostles, Christianity would have been associated *solely * with a religion that turns the “proper” relationship between men and women upside down.
I do think that a notion of equality can be read into the Gospels. There is a complete disregard for social hierarchy (which is ironic, because hierarchy would become so pronounced in Christendom!) The poor are equal to the rich; children are equal to adults. Ultimately, no one is better than anyone else – all are children of the same Father.
Liberty is tougher. We conceive liberty largely in terms of individual rights – in other words, I shouldn’t have to attend Mass on Sunday, if I do not want to do so. A woman should not have to marry that man, if she does not want to do so.
Freedom of conscience is obviously fundamental to liberty. For many centuries, obviously, there was no liberty not to be Christian and not to be an adequately practicing Christian, to boot. At best, it was equality that implied that there should be no slavery. But this was never explicitly stated, and slaves were enjoined to obey their masters. Even if there were pragmatic reasons for having enjoined this, it still meant that the concept of liberty was rather poorly developed.
In important respects, the notion of liberty was much more explicitly unpacked by the Greeks and the Romans. They at least knew what liberty was, even if they didn’t guarantee it to all their people (only to “citizens”). Indeed, “democracy”–including representative democracy – is not a Christian invention, but a Greek one. Christianity may be compatible with democracy, but it did not invent it.
I’m glad you acknowledged that, about Paul. It’s also relevant to add that those who require women to be veiled believe that they are the only ones who truly respect women. From one standpoint, they have a valid argument – they say that the covering of their women is a sign of respect, whereas sexual objectification of women in the west – used in advertising, exploited in magazines – is what constitutes true disrespect for the body of the woman. Of course, “liberty” goes by the wayside, in guaranteeing this respect.
This I have a problem with. It is the “separate but equal” argument. There is no convincing reason why a woman cannot execute the duties of President of the United States – nor why she cannot fulfill the offices of a priest, bishop, or pope.
That a woman “cannot” do something has to mean, “whenever a woman tries, a woman fails.” I do not believe in any “should nots” for women, that have not been grounded in “cannot” (i.e., she will fail at it).
P
Portofino
Guest
As I’ve pointed out, “liberty” is the area in which the church has had the weakest record. Athenian Greece accepted pluralism – the Stoics; the Platonists; the Epicureans; the Cynics; the Aristotelians; the Skeptics. Each school of philosophy had its own adherents. They had practices and views which united them, and practices and views which kept them separate. But it was a more pluralistic society. Christians took a long time to recognize that “one holy, catholic, and apostolic” was no justification for depriving others of their liberty – or their lives!
All of those schools were forcibly shut down, as we know, upon the coming of Christianity. Freedom meant “the freedom to be Christian” – which was, in their minds, the only true freedom, anyway (reminds me of the joke, “it doesn’t matter whether you’re Catholic; Episcopalian; Methodist; as long as you’re Christian”).
True! The very word, “fraternité,” was very tellingly male-focused. Women were shut out of the French Revolution, just as they were shut out of the “May 68” movement in France.
I like very much the expression, “woman is the future of man”
R
ReapReason
Guest
agreed
I see no “legal” reason why a women cannot do anything a man can do.
This has nothing to do with legality. While a women can fulfill the function of a priest or even a pope, that does not mean that God intends for women to fulfill that function. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the idea that God intended us to fulfill different functions.
It would only be wrong, if in fact it is not true that God wanted only men to be priests.
T
tonyrey
Guest
T
tonyrey
Guest
It is hardly surprising the full implications of Christ’s teaching have taken centuries to understand and appreciate considering the barbaric mentality of the age - with Roman crucifixion and stoning to death by the Jews.
Would you not defend your community from unjust aggression?
A significant concession!
The doctrine of infallibility does not apply in this context.
Precisely!
Indeed!
If you respect the authority of an organisation it is reasonable to abide by its rules.
The failure of Christians leaves the truth of Christ’s teaching unscathed.
They didn’t know what true liberty is because they restricted it and thereby themselves to a false view of humanity…
Jesus did not come to establish a political system!
There has to be compromise at some point.
From a secular point of view.
Are you quite sure about that?
T
tonyrey
Guest
No response!
Would you not defend your community from unjust aggression?Code:*I like this. It took many centuries for Christians and others to figure out what Christ "meant" to imply on this subject, but it bore fruit nonetheless.* It is hardly surprising the full implications of Christ's teaching have taken centuries to understand and appreciate considering the barbaric mentality of the age - with Roman crucifixion and stoning to death by the Jews. *I have to give the peace churches (Amish, Quakers, Mennonites) the palm there, based on your statement; "just war theory" supplements love and violence with the sword, which is a departure from this ideal. *
*
His intervention in the case of the woman taken in adultery is another example of His challenge to patriarchal inequality and injustice.
*
*I could see it, potentially (that it is a challenge to patriarchy itself). He at least had women followers. *
A significant concession!
The doctrine of infallibility does not apply in this context.Code:*In my opinion, though, the Christian churches of today have been rather behind the curve in promoting equal rights for women with sufficient vigor... *
The Jews viewed menstruating as unclean, needing to be segregated from men. If Christ had chosen female apostles, Christianity would have been associated solely with a religion that turns the “proper” relationship between men and women upside down. *Code:*Here, in my estimation, the palm goes to those Christian bodies who have not interpreted Christ's actions -- "Christ had male apostles" -- as being so literal in intention. As you wrote about revolt, so I think that Christ knew that any woman in those times belonged to somebody (to her husband; to her father; to her brother). The commandment, "sell everything you have, and follow me" (let alone become an apostle, who will carry this message to the world) would have gotten that woman stoned as someone who had abrogated her obligations....
Precisely!
It applies to everyone without exception - exemplified in His attitude towards Gentiles as well as Jews and women and children as well as men - it also implies liberty and equality.
*I do think that a notion of equality can be read into the Gospels. There is a complete disregard for social hierarchy (which is ironic, because hierarchy would become so pronounced in Christendom!) The poor are equal to the rich; children are equal to adults. Ultimately, no one is better than anyone else – all are children of the same Father. *
Indeed!
If you respect the authority of an organisation it is reasonable to abide by its rules.Code:*Liberty is tougher. We conceive liberty largely in terms of individual rights -- in other words, I shouldn't have to attend Mass on Sunday, if I do not want to do so... *
The failure of Christians leaves the truth of Christ’s teaching unscathed.Code:*Freedom of conscience is obviously fundamental to liberty. For many centuries, obviously, there was no liberty not to be Christian and not to be an adequately practicing Christian, to boot...*
They didn’t know what true liberty is because they restricted it and thereby themselves to a false view of humanity…Code:*In important respects, the notion of liberty was much more explicitly unpacked by the Greeks and the Romans. They at least knew what liberty was, even if they didn't guarantee it to all their people (only to "citizens"). *
Jesus did not come to establish a political system!Code:... *Christianity may be compatible with democracy, but it did not invent it. *
There has to be compromise at some point.Code:*I'm glad you acknowledged that, about Paul. It's also relevant to add that those who require women to be veiled believe that they are the only ones who truly respect women.... Of course, "liberty" goes by the wayside, in guaranteeing this respect. *
That accusation is false because the different vocations of men and women do not entail inequality. The unisex mentality undermines their cultural identity and their functions in the family and society. *
This I have a problem with. It is the “separate but equal” argument. There is no convincing reason why a woman cannot execute the duties of President of the United States – nor why she cannot fulfill the offices of a priest, bishop, or pope.*
From a** secular** point of view.
Are you quite sure about that?Code:*That a woman "cannot" do something has to mean, "whenever a woman tries, a woman fails." I do not believe in any "should nots" for women, that have not been grounded in "cannot" (i.e., she will fail at it). *
P
Portofino
Guest
It’s a relevant question, for a Christian in particular. One has also asked, “would you not defend yourself from unjust aggression?” Jesus didn’t defend himself; he had his reasons. But neither did Peter or Paul defend themselves, in imitation of Christ.It is hardly surprising the full implications of Christ’s teaching have taken centuries to understand and appreciate considering the barbaric mentality of the age - with Roman crucifixion and stoning to death by the Jews.
Would you not defend your community from unjust aggression?
The particular question you are posing – “would you not defend your community from unjust aggression” – did not require Christ’s teaching or his mission on earth. Greek pagans were fighting in defense of their country, before the birth of Christ.
For a doctrine of non-violence, I grant that the teachings of Christ are necessary (in the west, at least, and assuming one is not Jainist). For a doctrine of self-defense of one’s community against an outside aggressor, the teachings of Christ are not necessary.
Regarding women, my own hypothesis is not only did Jesus accept women as his disciples – which is obvious, if the Bible is to be trusted – but that it would have been the will of Christ for women to become priests and deacons, just as – per what you maintain – it would have been the will of Christ for every last slave to be freed.
If it’s true that the non-eligibility of women for the priesthood is not infallible teaching – though I suspect many Catholics would disagree with your opinion here, and claim it must be assumed infallible, unless stated otherwise – then there is hope that we’ll never see the day where a woman is president of the United States, but is still not capable of becoming a parish priest.
I respect the Church’s authority over its members as I respect France’s authority over its citizens, even though I am not French myself.If you respect the authority of an organisation it is reasonable to abide by its rules.?
I think the mistake Christendom made is that it assumed that everything it needed to know was either taught explicitly by Christ, or could be found in the Bible (today, only Fundamentalist Christians still believe this). Western democracies, for example, would be unthinkable without the example of Athenian democracy and the Roman Republic. Without Greece and Rome, our conception of “liberty, egality, and fraternity” would be incomplete.
My own thesis is that “liberty, egality, fraternity” – which you’ve posited is fundamentally Christian in nature – could not have been formulated without the Judeo-Christian heritage of the west on the one hand, and the Greco-Roman heritage of the west, on the other. “Fraternity” leans heavily toward the side of the Judeo-Christian heritage; “liberty” leans more heavily toward the side of the Greco-Roman one. “Equality” leans perhaps more slightly to the Judeo-Christian side, but is more of an even balance between the two heritages (“citizens,” at least, had equal rights).
You’ve acknowledged that Christendom made many errors, as well. It sold women short; it was too complacent about slavery; it didn’t understand that liberty was just as important a quality as fraternity, even if it meant the liberty not to profess Christianity.
He didn’t but – as mentioned above – political systems are indispensible to human life, and largely intersect with moral principles. Christendom seemed to think that the type of political system that Christianity should entail was “self-evident” (in other words, no freedom not to be Christian, and no need to consider tolerance for pluralism as a requirement of liberty). As mentioned, without the Greco-Roman heritage, “liberty, egality, and fraternity” could not have been formulated – because their application was largely political, and Christ never taught politics.
I have no issues with being “beaten” by a girlAre you quite sure about that?
T
tonyrey
Guest
It does not follow that everyone has an obligation to turn the other cheek. Jesus and His apostles had a mission to establish a community in a hostile society. It was inevitable they would be executed but unlike the Buddhists His followers are expected to fight against injustice, using force where necessary as He did in the Temple. If we turn a blind eye our tacit consent makes us accomplices.
I did not claim Christ was the author of belief in self-defence.
He knew there are limits to what can be achieved in a patriarchal society in spite of His example and teaching. His message is not based on wishful thinking but a deep understanding of human nature.
Whether they disagree or not doesn’t alter the fact that it has never been proclaimed as an infallible doctrine.
The Church teaches that our conscience is our ultimate authority.
Catholics have been compelled to develop doctrines to combat heresies right from the time of the early Church until the present day. Christianity is a living organism not a fossilised institution.
In every century philosophers and theologians have been discovering the full implications of Christ’s teaching in the light of scientific progress and social change.
Belief in universal equality did not exist until Jesus affirmed that we are all children of the same Father. Women, slaves and children were not accorded the same rights as “citizens”. Attempts at democracy were based on expediency and short-lived because they lacked a rational foundation.
Belief in liberty presupposes belief in free will which is precarious - and often rejected -in a Godless universe.
The formulation of those principles could not have occurred without the teaching of Christ preserved and disseminated by the Church for two thousand years.
I have no issues with being “beaten” by a girl .Are you quite sure about that?
The issue is whether men and women have precisely the same vocations.
- Status