The flaws of NT-based morality

[Sparko]

Right, again there's only one human race. If you ever bother to read scientific literature, or peer review publications, you will see that when "race" is mentioned it's in inverted commas just as I have done in this thread, because it is not an objective reality in biology, sociology, or anything else. It's an old primitive belief that people different to you are fundamentally different somehow, and that's simply not true.

There are different languages, different cultures, different ethnicities, different beliefs and world-views, etc, but we're all the same human race.

Great! There is only one race, the human race, so that means there is no such thing as racism. problem solved! Great way to get rid of a problem that has been plaguing us for so long, just deny it exists!

[Zymologist]

Please don't disingenuously pretend to others that I'm not 100% consistent on this. As I've said dozens of times here, I believe the important thing is level of mental function. Thus the point at which having an abortion is worse than killing an animal is the point at which the mental function of the fetus is higher than the animal. Cows have more mental function, more sense of self, more memories, more intelligence, than a human fetus, hence killing a cow is morally worse than abortion. Clear?

Does this mean that killing stupid people is less morally wrong than killing intelligent people? Is there a way to quantify how much less the life of my brother with Down Syndrome (for example) is worth than, say, my life?

[Darth Executor]

There were 12 tribes of Israel. They were all the same ethnic group.

They were the same ethnic group in the sense that they were all descendants of Abraham. They were distinct ethnic groups in the sense that each tribe was a descendant of a DIFFERENT son of Jacob. The world is scalable and is used that way, just like race used to be before its definition changed from "biologically distinct group of organisms" to "Voldemort".

There are many nations in the middle east that are all the same ethnic group and race.

Not according to them. The "nations" of the middle east aren't nations in the same sense as Europeans are, where the nations correlate with ethnic groups, they are geographic areas carved out by Europeans after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

[Darth Executor]

It's always fascinating to watch you bury yourself in these little exchanges of ours.

You live in a bubble that's gonna pop in our lifetime. We'll see how fascinated you are when you find out you've been digging your way to China all along.

Or, better yet, I'm simply citing a familiar Bible passage.

Mine appears to have beaten yours up.

[Sparko]

Does this mean that killing stupid people is less morally wrong than killing intelligent people? Is there a way to quantify how much less the life of my brother with Down Syndrome (for example) is worth than, say, my life?

Can he give milk?

[Zymologist]

Can he give milk?

If he did, would it morally outweigh his taste for meat? He's a meat-eater for sure.

[Sparko]

If he did, would it morally outweigh his taste for meat? He's a meat-eater for sure.

If he could give milk then he could be categorized as a cow and his life would be spared by Starlight.

[seer]

If he could give milk then he could be categorized as a cow and his life would be spared by Starlight.

Well no, if he could self-identify as a cow he would be safe. Teach him to moo and feed him grass...

[Mountain Man]

Indeed, and NorrinRadd seems unaware of the historical impact of 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 and other similar passages on Christian societies.

1 Cor 7:3-5
The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

It was only relatively recently (~1970-1990s) that the UK and US legally recognized marital rape as a crime. Even today there are Christians who are convinced the idea of 'marital rape' is nonsensical.

I like how you explicitly bold one verse and quietly ignore the one which immediately follows, and which undercuts your argument. The Bible explicitly commands mutual respect, honor, and love in marriage. Elsewhere the Bible commands husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, which exemplifies a selfless, sacrificial love. That is at odds with any notion that husbands are permitted to rape their wives.

[Mountain Man]

Christians are not limited to the NT. I thought you knew that?

Indeed. A central part of Jesus' teaching was affirming the moral laws of the Old Testament.

[hedrick]

I agree with the OP that the NT doesn't provide a real sexual ethic. Jesus' general principle of basing behavior on caring for other people, forgiveness and reconciliation for a basis, but many of the things we'd expect to find in a sexual ethics aren't there.

On why Jesus didn't talk about domestic abuse as a cause of divorce, I don't think he was talking about legitimate reasons for divorce. Mark said it started with a question: "Some Pharisees came, and to test him they asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” This was a question debated by the rabbis at the time. One view was that a man could divorce his wife by saying "I divorce you." Others didn't. Jesus took the position that you couldn't. In the 1st Cent context he was defending wives. Most critical scholars don't think the exception in Matthew for infidelity was actually something he said. I'd guess that's because he wasn't speaking about legitimate causes for divorce, but was dealing with an abusive interpretation of the Law. However in adding an exception for infidelity*, surely the Church who had to put his teachings into practice was right that there were situations when the least damaging alternative is divorce.

I do wish he had talked about domestic abuse, though no one could think it is OK based on Jesus' general teachings. It's probably the OT prophets who came closest. While they didn't speak explicitly on domestic abuse, one of the most common accusations against Israel was not defending widows, orphans, and immigrants, i.e. those who are least able to defend themselves. This is echoed in a limited way in Mark 12:40. But I agree things we'd like to see today aren't there.

The most creative use of the Bible I've seen in dealing with this is a study of passages in 1 Sam dealing with Saul's abuse of David. David wasn't exactly his son, but he was a young adult in a position to be abused, and if you look at it in detail, a lot of the elements common in abuse are there. (In my opinion there are also undertones of a gay relationship with Jonathan, which I think was part of the cause of the abuse.) Col 3:19 is also not consistent with abuse. But I haven't seen any passage that makes these points explicitly, and some of the teachings about submission really should have had more qualification.

The Bible is not an instruction manual for life, despite what some Christians claim. It is an account of God's dealings with Israel. A lot of it is history, and Jesus' teachings are typically through stories. Jesus' followers are left with the responsibility of more specific decisions on how to implement his principles. They should have dealt with this a lot sooner than they did. And to be frank, it was largely pressures from outside the Church that pushed Christians into dealing with abuse of both spouses and children, often with resistance from Christians.

----------

* I say infidelity because that's the usual understanding of the exception. The Greek word is "porneia." This was a broad term, covering a variety of immoral sexual behavior. I'd be willing to argue that this includes abuse of a sexual partner. However it wasn't understood that way historically, and there's no reason to think that those who added the phrase to Mat 5 understood it that way.

[Tassman]

I like how you explicitly bold one verse and quietly ignore the one which immediately follows, and which undercuts your argument. The Bible explicitly commands mutual respect, honor, and love in marriage. Elsewhere the Bible commands husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, which exemplifies a selfless, sacrificial love. That is at odds with any notion that husbands are permitted to rape their wives.

This doesn't alter the fact that the husband is given authority over the wife and for much of history the wife has been legally deemed to be her man's chattel.

[hedrick]

This doesn't alter the fact that the husband is given authority over the wife and for much of history the wife has been legally deemed to be her man's chattel.

I don't think you'll find NT support for chattel.

While the NT doesn't take the modern egalitarian view, still most of the problem is how Christians carried out what is in the Bible. Women were told they had to submit to abusive husbands, using passages that weren't intended to teach that. I'm guessing the author of Ephesians thought he was guarding "submit to your husband" with a section on the husband's duty to love and care for his wife, and making the overall topic be "submit to each other." But no wording is safe in the hands of abusers, or a Church unwilling to face the issue. In retrospect, language involving submission is inherently dangerous, a danger that I don't think the NT authors realized.

Some historians have noted that the Christian cult of virginity (not something that I think is explicitly Biblical) was freeing for women. In the traditional culture, there was no honorable alternative for a woman other than marriage. Christianity provided an alternative, for those that didn't want to be bound to husbands.

[Mountain Man]

This doesn't alter the fact that the husband is given authority over the wife and for much of history the wife has been legally deemed to be her man's chattel.

I see you have the same problem with selective reading as Dimbulb.

According to your reasoning, the man is also the woman's chattel since the passage goes on to say that "likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does." Why, it's almost like God was commanding mutual love, respect, and authority within the marital relationship! What a concept!

[Tassman]

I don't think you'll find NT support for chattel.

While the NT doesn't take the modern egalitarian view, still most of the problem is how Christians carried out what is in the Bible. Women were told they had to submit to abusive husbands, using passages that weren't intended to teach that. I'm guessing the author of Ephesians thought he was guarding "submit to your husband" with a section on the husband's duty to love and care for his wife, and making the overall topic be "submit to each other." But no wording is safe in the hands of abusers, or a Church unwilling to face the issue. In retrospect, language involving submission is inherently dangerous, a danger that I don't think the NT authors realized.

Some historians have noted that the Christian cult of virginity (not something that I think is explicitly Biblical) was freeing for women. In the traditional culture, there was no honorable alternative for a woman other than marriage. Christianity provided an alternative, for those that didn't want to be bound to husbands.

It all rests with the interpretation. The NT has been selectively interpreted to reflect the values of society throughout its history...from slavery to racial discrimination, the submission of women and to discrimination against LGBT folk. But, sooner or later, the Church is dragged kicking and screaming into the acceptance of the changing social mores.