PDA

View Full Version : Are religion-based values absolute and universal or situational?


TimCallahan
29th December 2009, 11:39 AM
In Matthew 18:15 - 17 (RSV) Jesus says:

"If your brother has sins against ou, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector."

On a separate thread, I argued that this passage should mean that Christians are constrained to avoid conflict and to seek the most amicable settlement of differences, rather than immediately jumping to, for example, a lawsuit. The context of my making this argument ws that a fundamentalist high school kid, Chad Farnan, had sued one of his teachers, James Corbett for violating his civiil rights, bacause Corbett had referred to creationism as "religious superstitious nonsense." I asked Corbett, who had joined the thread debating his actions if Farnan had first approached him privately, then gone to the principal, then the school board, seeking redress for his complaint before jumping into a lawsuit. It turns out he did not first approach Corbett, nr did he make a complaint to either the principal or the school board. Instead, he went right to the lawsuit. I contended that Farnan's actions betrayed the teachings of Jesus in the passage above.

AvalonXQ, one of our Christian posters, responded that it and other, similar passages in the New Testament ". . . are understood to refer to those within the family of God, not those outside it. In other words, keep your quarrels with other church members within the church, but outside the church the Law can arbitrate." He also points out that treating a brother as a Gentile as the last resort means the wasn't menat for outsiders.

I responded by quoting Luke 6:32, 33, where Jesus says:

"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same."

It woud seem to me that these, and other, passages in the NT are to be taken as absolute and universal. Yet, given the actions of Chad Farnan and the argument posed by Avalon HQ, I have examples of Christians arguing that such generous and fogiving behavior is menat to be directed only to coreligionists, not outsiders. Doesn't this make such values situtional?

Gestahl
29th December 2009, 01:19 PM
If you are speaking in the normative sense, then they are absolute in current theology of Christianity. Jews don't expect anyone else to follow their ethics (save for the Noahide laws), and Islam values definitely have a situational component as to whether you are Muslim or not.

The separation between the two views you espoused is the separation between early and late Christianity. Early Christianity was of, for, and by Jews, and it mirrored the mentality of the Law (which only applied within the in-group).

However, I don't feel there is a substantial difference between the two. I can easily have an absolute value that says "Killing is wrong, unless it's in self-defense, or to prevent death to another, or if the person is terminally ill and suffering and wishes to die peacefully, or the human isn't fully developed to some threshold level, or it's an animal (or maybe just a dumb-enough animal), or..." Is this situational or universal?

Or we can go down one level to moral maxims like the Golden Rule "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". If I were a schizophrenic or drug addict, locking me up in a mental institution or rehab may be the last thing in the world I would want. Does that make you (or the state) having me committed wrong? Caveats abound.

Gawdzilla
29th December 2009, 01:24 PM
The Ten Commandments are simply codifications of rules already extant, IMHO, at least in regard to living with the group. You don't kill in the group, you don't steal in the group, etc. The rules were already in place before they were written down and there's no reason to believe Hammarubi did anything original other than codifying them. (Pun intended.)

TimCallahan
29th December 2009, 07:05 PM
Okay, let me be a bit more specific: According to Mathew 18:15 - 17, are Christians morally obligated to try to resolve conflicts with unbelievers as they would with corleigionists? In other words, are they required to first try to talk to the unbeliever with whom they have a conflict, as they would with a fellow Christian? Or, are they, accordig to their own beliefs only required to treat their brthren that way, while being allowed to hire the biggest dorsal fin they can find to put the legal screws to an unbeliever without any attempt to resolve the matter amicably?

It seems to me that the material in Luke 6:32, 33 says that they are required to treat friend and enemy alike. If that's the case, how can any believeing Christian justify rushing into a lawsuit to putthe screws to us unbelieving scum?

I'd really like to hear from the Christians in this forum on this issue.