Posted on 02/23/2005 11:25:18 AM PST by Gamecock
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "excusing sin because
of extrinsic cicuumstances" which leads to moral relativism. The person in the early church who had (in my
opinion) the best personal existential analysis of the
nature of sin was St. Augustine. God does not "excuse" sin,
he forgives it to the penitant who amends his ways.
Sin, according to Augustine (and the Bible), is part of
human nature -- often called "original sin". Because we
are all born into humanity, we are all born with a HUMAN
nature that inevitably leads us to care more about
ourselves than our neighbor or God's will. Thus, we all
stand in need of divine grace. If we, as sinful selfish
humans,try to use those "extrinsic circumstances" as
a rationalization for our own misbehaviour -- and don't
realize our need of God's grace -- we have missed the
whole point. The secular law recognizes a sort of moral
relativism because it is dealing with crime - not sin.
Even the medieval church could claim that it burned NONE
for heresy -- it delivered the heretic over to the SECULAR
authority for punishment -- with a prayer for mercy (HA! HA!).
I hope you are being facetious. The fact is that the Greek word is "Anthropos" which would better be rendered as human beings. But the language of Elizabethan English rendered the word "men" to mean humans. So if you read the words as Paul wrote them under the guidance of the Holy Spirit it is clear that he was referencing all human beings.
Regardless it appears to me by that comment that you are being argumentative for no other reason than to be argumentative.
So if the passage were rendered "all humans" would you still disagree with everything that was in the quote I posted?
And do you know who the author of that missive was?
Who used the power of the state to persecute and kill the Donatists. Another Moral Relativist.
You don't know -- or more likely just don't care -- what you're talking about.
Augustine, of course, would not defend himself by saying it was okay for him or for that time or in his circumstances. He would say persecuting heretics is a moral obligation on all orthodox believers whenever we have the secular power to do it, and he would criticize us for laxity. He'd be wrong, but not a relativist.
When defending your position has you resorting to things like that, it's time to reconsider the position.
Did you have a point?
You called Augustine a moral relativist. This was a stupid thing to say.
The fact of the matter is that he used the power of the state to do evil to the Donatists. What he did was objectively evil. He justified the evil in his own mind, appealing to whatever extrinsic circumstances he wanted to use to justify it. Purity of the Church is no excuse. Jesus did not admonish us to persecute and kill our enemies but to love and to pray for them.
My charge of Augustine's Moral Relativism was in response to T.L. Sinks post in which he chided the Medieval Church for claiming that they did not burn any heretics, but turned the heretics over to the state for disposal.
Times were different then, huh AJ? Well if you can claim that something evil by objective standards can be excused because of extrinsic factors (everybody's doing it), then your morality is relative to your times and seasons. Hence Augustine was a moral relativist. And those who defend his actions because of the times and seasons are likewise moral relativists.
BTW, AJ, is it possible for you to make a point on these threads without tossing out an insult or two?
Of, for God's sake. Folks really seem to be horrified that an almight Deity might actually (gasp!) DELEGATE a responsibility to someone (accept salvation, evanglize), and in doing so somehow not be omnipotent anymore.
Last I checked, when the President delegates a task to the Sec. of Defense, he is stil the President.
Excuse the typos. It's late.
A typographical relativist, huh?
Relatively speaking, yes. :-)
I don't think you understand the implications of what you're saying (more anon), but I'm not advocating civil penalties for heretics, so this is all mostly unnecessary.
Times were different then, huh AJ? Well if you can claim that something evil by objective standards can be excused because of extrinsic factors (everybody's doing it), then your morality is relative to your times and seasons. Hence Augustine was a moral relativist. And those who defend his actions because of the times and seasons are likewise moral relativists.
1) I'm not sure exactly how I'm expected to reply to comments like this without calling them stupid. After a certain point, it seems a waste to make any deeper reply.
In #44, I said, "He'd be wrong [in his defense], but not a relativist."
What part of "wrong" strikes you as an appeal to everyone else doing it? Or any kind of defense? Did you read #44 at all?
2) But even as stupid as your attack on ME was, you then actually said, "Hence Augustine..." Augustine was born in 354 and died in 430. I'm writing in 2005. So what can *my life* possibly prove about Augustine? He was already long dead a thousand years ago!
3) I repeat: Augustine defended his position as right on general principles. This can be wrong, but not relativist. Let it be noted that the Circumcellions, at least, really did need to be suppressed.
4) If an act which would be evil apart from other considerations cannot be defended by "extrinsic factors", such as what the victim had been up to, we need to abolish the legal system. Or will you try to explain why heresy isn't an extrinsic factor but crime is? But that assumes heresy isn't illegal. The whole dispute between Augustine and us is over whether that ought to be the case.
Or more accurately, crime is a factor extrinsic to the acts themselves which make locking a person up, taking his money, or killing him lawful for the magistrate to do. Why one set of factors, but not another? That's the dispute, and it calls for political philosophy, not glib stuff about relativism. (And for the record, the answer should be something that applies everywhere and always, and should not include heresy as a civil crime.)
But Augustine (and Calvin) did.
In #44, I said, "He'd be wrong [in his defense], but not a relativist." What part of "wrong" strikes you as an appeal to everyone else doing it? Or any kind of defense? Did you read #44 at all?
If he'd be objectively wrong, and if you are defending his position because even though he was wrong, you have to take into consideration what was going on at the time, then YOU would be a moral relativist. Yes it was wrong for Augustine to advocate the killing of heretics to protect the purity of the Church. Objectively it was wrong. Biblically it was wrong. You admit it was wrong. That should be the end of the argument. We ought not defend that which is wrong because of the times and seasons. We ought not to defend killing in the name of Christ. To justify it in any way is to practice Moral Relativism.
3) I repeat: Augustine defended his position as right on general principles. This can be wrong, but not relativist. Let it be noted that the Circumcellions, at least, really did need to be suppressed.
Just because you can argue that your sin was justifiable based upon "general" principles does not mean that you are not practicing moral relativism. Wrong is wrong. What he did was wrong. Even you admit that. So don't try to justify it. You can try to understand his position, but if you attempt to justify it, then you are engaging in Moral Relativism.
Moral relativism results in an inability to see your own sinful actions as sin. That is where the danger is. Everyone (including me) has a tendency to downplay their own wrong and to attempt to justify it some manner (It was the woman you gave me) but just because you can defend a sin on "general principles" does not take it out of the realm of sin and resorting to general principles to defend it is no excuse. It is Moral Relativism.
If he'd be objectively wrong, and if you are defending his position because even though he was wrong, you have to take into consideration what was going on at the time, then YOU would be a moral relativist.
Good thing I'm not doing that, then.
Yes it was wrong for Augustine to advocate the killing of heretics to protect the purity of the Church. Objectively it was wrong. Biblically it was wrong. You admit it was wrong. That should be the end of the argument.
Well, if we were even arguing about that it woud be. But we're not. Or rather, I'm not. You're arguing random crap with an imaginary debater, it seems.
We ought not defend that which is wrong because of the times and seasons. We ought not to defend killing in the name of Christ.
Good thing I didn't do that.
To justify it in any way is to practice Moral Relativism.
No, to justify it in one particular way is moral relativism. Words mean things, and whether you know it or not, there are wrong ethical views every bit as absolutist as yours.
Just because you can argue that your sin was justifiable based upon "general" principles does not mean that you are not practicing moral relativism.
Yes it does!
Wrong is wrong.
And moral relativism is moral relativism.
You DO realize that moral relativism is a specific believe, not a synonym for "bad stuff", right? I mean, at some point it has to get through to even your mind that being in the wrong does not automatically equal moral relativism.
What he did was wrong. Even you admit that. So don't try to justify it. You can try to understand his position, but if you attempt to justify it, then you are engaging in Moral Relativism.
Good thing I'm not trying to justify it. I'm defending against one specific false charge, that Augustine was a relativist. Frankly, calling Augustine a relativist is so obviously wrong I shouldn't have bothered.
Moral relativism results in an inability to see your own sinful actions as sin. That is where the danger is.
Well then, we should avoid it, shouldn't we?
Everyone (including me) has a tendency to downplay their own wrong and to attempt to justify it some manner (It was the woman you gave me) but just because you can defend a sin on "general principles" does not take it out of the realm of sin and resorting to general principles to defend it is no excuse. It is Moral Relativism.
No, it's pretty much the opposite of moral relativism.
You can believe that something is right everywhere and always (and therefore not be a moral relativist, since moral relativism asserts that nothing applies at all places and times) and still be wrong and even in sin. And that's a different matter from moral relativism.
Then why are you so compelled to do it, and to sprinkle your reply with ad hominems and insults? That does seem to be your modus operandi. I've laid out my position, you've laid out yours (complete with insults to my intelligence).
I'd say we are at an impasse, so unless you have some more insults to throw out, I'd say we leave it at that.
Actually, what he said was "anthropoi." It meant everyone in that language at that time.
You are suggesting that the TRANSLATOR should have used the word "people" instead of "men."
The argument about "some" and "all," however, does not have that ready explanation available. The writer could have used a word other than "all" if he had intended something other than "all."
In that I use the NIV far more than any other version, and that the translators of that version being very knowledgable concerning the Greek and Hebrew languages; I assume that they used the best English words availabe to convey the intent of the original authors.
Maybe suzyaruki is simply unaware that the man, Edwin Palmer, who headed up the NIV effort was a staunch Calvinist. Clearly the usage of the word 'men' most often includes males and females unless they are specifically contrasted in a passage of scripture.
Gen 1:27 "So God created man in his own image,in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
NIV at IBS International Bible Society NIV at Zondervan Zondervan
Seems pretty obvious that 'men' includes both males and females.
I understand the difference between the Reformed view and the Arminian view in interpreting the passage in context. As my Senator (Boxer) says when I write to her, "I guess we will just have to agree to disagree."
Charles Spurgeon delivered a lot sermons and spoke a lot of words. I doubt that anyone would agree with everything he said.
Good response, suzy. It has been beat to death.
It would be interesting to find out if there's anything to resolve the debate.
What process would enable the debate to be resolved?
In most situations, a difference of opinion would go up the chain of command, which would be easy if we were RC. =^oo^=
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.