Right on, Dr. C. Just thought I’d address a few more issues in the article.
The most obvious result of putting this belief into practice is that it gives supreme power to the highest leaders of the Church. It is no wonder that religious leaders find moral absolutism so attractive…
So, I actually believe that morals are absolute because I want to control others? I had no idea I was wrapped up in such a diabolical power-struggle. This comment is simply insulting.
Conservatives may object that the power actually belongs to God, and the church leadership is simply transmitting the information. But history clearly refutes this idea.
No, it doesn’t. History gives us evidence about people and how they chose to deal with truth; simply looking at atrocities committed by the Church does nothing to detract from the idea that morals are absolute.
The argument that morals are absolute, then, despite their context, is completely inconsistent with Christian history and practice.
No. Some things are wrong in any context (let’s say, torturing babies). Some things are wrong, but with circumstantial exceptions (maybe driving 80 in a 65 because someone urgently needs to get to the hospital). Some things are cut-and-dry, some are less-so. Christian tradition acknowledges this very consistently.
In all these cases, Christians mumble something about the law no longer applying, and for once, they ought to be believed. The third problem with levitical law is that is clearly outdated.
I’m actually too frustrated to respond to this properly. Historical ignorance to this degree is unacceptable when writing something like this. No thought to what sort of nation Israel was to be, its peculiar relationship with God, etc. Plus, what about the fact that levitical law included laws way too advanced to be thought of by men at the time? For instance, the day on which boys were to be circumcised is also the day on which an infant’s platelet count is at its highest. Israelites were forbidden to hunt a certain type of hare - the toxicity of its urine would have been deadly to a desert-faring people with cracked feet. Camels were not to be eaten because it required so much grain to raise them to a reasonable age before slaughter. Many animals were simply unsanitary. I’ll stop.
Liberals note that Paul admitted that the laws of men are not perfect.
So do conservatives.
Paul writes that only God’s grace changes a person… God impresses the qualifications directly on the individual, without the interference of the corrupt powers of the church.
Individual responsibility falls upon the individual, corporate on the corporation. I don’t see the problem. Anyway, this is a knock at hierarchy, not absolutism. He needs to stick to the point.
We should not be surprised that any philosophy that preaches moral absolutism is destined to have lots of hypocrites.
I don’t think he realized what he wrote. Yes! We are hypocrites! It doesn’t mean we’re wrong!