Christian ethics and political liberalism

[LightSpectra]

Where do you get the idea that natural = moral and unnatural = immoral? In the new testament natural is often a synonym for carnal, worldly, or sinful, and is contrasted with the spiritual and good.

The definition of "good" is "purposeful." All beings have a purpose by nature (inductive insofar that every being is doing something simply by existing; deductive insofar that the Creator made every being with a divine intent of it fulfilling its Final Cause), and so everything that exists is good. Evil or badness is therefore a lack of being, or a lack of purpose. Now, as the Creator made every being with purpose (otherwise He would not have made them), we can say that the Final Cause of all beings is the Creator Himself. Therefore, the nature of being is to incline towards the Creator, i.e., God. Humans are only capable of evil because we have free will and reason, which allow us to contradict our purpose of inclining towards God.

So to answer your question: all beings that are good are natural, and evil is unnatural because it is a contradiction of purpose. All of the above is from reason, not Christian divine revelation; though the two are mutually supportive. Contrast what I've said with 1 Corinthians: Paul certainly isn't a dualist. He doesn't think matter is evil and the spirit is good. It's only the nature of humanity that allows us to be carnal, but our true natural state is to be spiritual.

This is my favorite subject, and I'm going to refer you to the Wikipedia article on Thomism which I wrote if you have any further inquiries of the issue.

Hebrew authorities at least are almost universal in the view that the sin of Sodom was their lack of hospitality and cruel treatment of the poor and foreigners who entered their city. Various sexual sins in general are sometimes added lower down on the list, but it is their xenophobia that ranks at the top.

In the gospels when Christ Himself mentions Sodom his emphasis is clearly on their lack of hospitality, not on any sexual deviancy.

Sorry to defer you to an outside source, but this puts it more eloquently than I could:

There is nothing in Genesis 18 or 19 which could support his theory that a lack of hospitality was the crime that caused God to annihilate Sodom and Gomorrah. In Genesis 18 God said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great, and their sin [singular] is so grave . . ." (v. 20). What was the sin which "cried out" for punishment?

Genesis 19 recounts the story of how Abraham's nephew, Lot, entertained two angels at his home in Sodom. Word got around that Lot had some visiting men in his home, and "the townsmen of Sodom, both young and old," gathered outside his home, clamoring for the two visitors to be turned over so that they could be homosexually raped: "Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we might have intimacies with them."

Notice what's going on here. The strangers had been shown hospitality by Lot and his family (vv. 1-3). The townsmen didn't cry out to Lot that they wanted to be "inhospitable" to the visitors, but that they wanted to have intercourse with them, which is something markedly different. Lot attempts to quell the mob by offering them his two virgin daughters, suspecting that because these men were homosexuals they would refuse. The entire account revolves around a single sin: homosexuality.

While it's true that later Old Testament prophets pointed out other sins the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of (Is. 1:9-20, 3:9, Ezek. 16:46-51, Jer. 23:14), it's clear that the primary sin, the sin which provoked God's wrath, was homosexuality.

If you examine the Old Testament passages in which God outlines the sins which would merit the death penalty under the Mosaic Law (Lev. 20:27, 24:10-23; Deut. 13:5-10, 21:18-21, 22:21-24), you'll see that homosexuality was condemned alongside such crimes as murder, idolatry, and blasphemy (Lev. 20:13). Search as you might, you won't find the Lord meting out the death penalty to persons guilty of inhospitality.

Source

 

[LightSpectra]

This whole discussion is based on interpretation of certain passages in the Bible. The real core of the matter, though, should be the fundamentals of sexuality in the realms of Christian ethics, however. Homosexual acts are wrong for the same reason extramarital sex, sex with artificial contraception and masturbation are wrong: because they're sex solely for the purpose of carnal pleasure, a dangerous exploitation of our psycho-biology, as opposed to reproduction.

Which isn't to say that it is wrong to take pleasure from sex in its proper environment, charitable marriage with the intent of reproduction. The pleasure or sexuality in themselves are not problematic, the problem is that sex solely for pleasure without the bond of marriage is a corruption.

 

[Karalysia]

Lot attempts to quell the mob by offering them his two virgin daughters

Christian morality at work?

 

[MobBoss]

Christian morality at work?

Technically, he would have been a hebrew...

 

[LightSpectra]

Christian morality at work?

Lot was never portrayed in Genesis to be a morally upright person. You don't even have to get to the New Testament to see that.

 

[useless]

So, if i read correctly homosexuality is a corrupting influence? Since homosexuals cannot get married in many countries.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

There's no practical way to limit extramarital sex, even though it's objectively immoral. The best that can be done is proper education. Divorce isn't inherently bad if there's a proper reason underlying it (spousal abuse or cautious diplomatic issues are the most common), but I do think remarriage -- especially when the previous bore children -- is about as bad as homosexual actions.

How is extramarital sex objectively immoral? I might take that personal. Please explain.

And before I continue, is this your personal take on it, or are we talking about a 3rd person Christian viewpoint?

Homosexual acts are wrong for the same reason extramarital sex, sex with artificial contraception and masturbation are wrong: because they're sex solely for the purpose of carnal pleasure, a dangerous exploitation of our psycho-biology, as opposed to reproduction.

Oh do go on. How is sex purely for pleasure a dangerous exploitation of our psycho-biology?

 

[useless]

Sin, the devil and all that good stuff!

 

[Lone Wolf]

And before I continue, is this your personal take on it, or are we talking about a 3rd person Christian viewpoint?

Both, I presume.

Oh do go on. How is sex purely for pleasure a dangerous exploitation of our psycho-biology?

Many Christians consider sexual pleasure to be objectively immoral, redeemed only by babies. Body desires that aren't governed by necessity are, by that view, bad - sex-for-pleasure is immoral for the same reason gluttony is. There's a reason why Catholic clergy is celibate, you know. Once you accept that viewpoint, everything else flows from here.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

"Once you accept" indeed. But that still does not explain why it's a "dangerous exploitation of our psychobiology". This could have a scientific explanation (I am guessing it refers to neurobiology) and although I'm not very familiar with that line of biology, it never hurts to learn does it?

 

[Lone Wolf]

But that still does not explain why it's a "dangerous exploitation of our psychobiology".

Apparently, it's a fancier way of saying "immoral". If someone starts to do sex for pleasure, he will, most likely, become a sex-crazed animal who never cares or thinks about anything but his own sexual and other body desires. Only by chaining sexual desire to the confines of marriage and reproduction, through strict self-control, mankind can emerge triumphant over that monster of sexual debauchery and will be able to focus on good, spiritual matters.

That's my take on it, anyway.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I see. It's kind of like the "one more turn" syndrome in Civ.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I see. It's kind of like the "one more turn" syndrome in Civ.

Exactly! If humans have a hard time abstaining from a strategy game, even if they want it, how can you say that they, without the aforementioned confines, can abstain from debauched sex? Humans, and humanity in general, are very prone to temptation.

 

[HannibalBarka]

The definition of "good" is "purposeful." All beings have a purpose by nature (inductive insofar that every being is doing something simply by existing; deductive insofar that the Creator made every being with a divine intent of it fulfilling its Final Cause), and so everything that exists is good. Evil or badness is therefore a lack of being, or a lack of purpose. Now, as the Creator made every being with purpose (otherwise He would not have made them), we can say that the Final Cause of all beings is the Creator Himself. Therefore, the nature of being is to incline towards the Creator, i.e., God. Humans are only capable of evil because we have free will and reason, which allow us to contradict our purpose of inclining towards God.

So to answer your question: all beings that are good are natural, and evil is unnatural because it is a contradiction of purpose. All of the above is from reason, not Christian divine revelation; though the two are mutually supportive. Contrast what I've said with 1 Corinthians: Paul certainly isn't a dualist. He doesn't think matter is evil and the spirit is good. It's only the nature of humanity that allows us to be carnal, but our true natural state is to be spiritual.

This is my favorite subject, and I'm going to refer you to the Wikipedia article on Thomism which I wrote if you have any further inquiries of the issue.



Sorry to defer you to an outside source, but this puts it more eloquently than I could:

So if Sodom and Gomorraha men asked Lot for his daughter and not the guys, would that have made heterosexuality immoral? what looks "bad" in the stroy is them asking to have sex with people without their consent, no?

 

[HannibalBarka]

This whole discussion is based on interpretation of certain passages in the Bible. The real core of the matter, though, should be the fundamentals of sexuality in the realms of Christian ethics, however. Homosexual acts are wrong for the same reason extramarital sex, sex with artificial contraception and masturbation are wrong: because they're sex solely for the purpose of carnal pleasure, a dangerous exploitation of our psycho-biology, as opposed to reproduction.

Which isn't to say that it is wrong to take pleasure from sex in its proper environment, charitable marriage with the intent of reproduction. The pleasure or sexuality in themselves are not problematic, the problem is that sex solely for pleasure without the bond of marriage is a corruption.

and what about sex outside marrriage for the purpose of reproduction than?
and sex beween married but unfertile people? or in the "unfertile" period of the cycle?
and how is having 24 kids "better" than having just 2 or 3?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Hmm, either political liberalism is defined entirely by its view of homosexuality or this thread has gotten more specific than it could be . . .

 

[Elrohir]

This whole discussion is based on interpretation of certain passages in the Bible. The real core of the matter, though, should be the fundamentals of sexuality in the realms of Christian ethics, however. Homosexual acts are wrong for the same reason extramarital sex, sex with artificial contraception and masturbation are wrong: because they're sex solely for the purpose of carnal pleasure, a dangerous exploitation of our psycho-biology, as opposed to reproduction.

Which isn't to say that it is wrong to take pleasure from sex in its proper environment, charitable marriage with the intent of reproduction. The pleasure or sexuality in themselves are not problematic, the problem is that sex solely for pleasure without the bond of marriage is a corruption.

Psh. There's such a thing as taking things too far. (If you can show me Scriptural support for prohibitions against contraception, masturbation, or having sex for fun with your spouse, I'd be very interested.)

 

[GhostWriter16]

Here's my comments:

Funny. I'm Christian and I don't think any of them are inherently immoral. Prostitution is unpleasant, certainly, but it's hardly fundamentally immoral.

While I will not tell you you are not a Christian, you definitely don't take the Bible very literally, and as such Plotinus' point would not apply to you. Also, from our discussions you sound like more of a Universalist than a Christian (Read the narrow way passages to see why they are exclusive.)

In shocking news, it's the Old Testament that has the vaguely negative stance against homosexuality. The New Testament is mostly composed of either the Gospels or the letters attributed to St. Paul and he was hardly the leading Christian at any point.

Ummm... Calling for execution of homosexuals is a "Vaguely" negative stance. We should keep in mind that [URL="death was not necessarily the actual penalty for it[/URL], and that that law was specifically for OT Israel as the chosen nation (Liberal Democracies today should not ban it of course), but it is clear the Scriptures consider it immoral.

As for Paul "Not being the leading Christian", yeah he kinda was. Now, that doesn't mean Paul can't be wrong, but he can't be wrong when his writings were inspired by God.

This of course, being where things go astray. I don't think Christians are in anyway unique for believing something to be wrong and believing it shouldn't be within legal rights.

This. While I disagree with social conservatives, some of them are sensible, and the sensible ones want a morality system that is suitable for non-Christians. If we are going to have a moral system, it needs to be one all (Reasonable) people can live under. For instance, while I personally do not agree with banning drug use, it does make sense, from a certain point of view, to ban it because it causes harm to families and yourself significantly. I personally do not believe prostitution should be illegal, but from a certain point of view it makes sense too because it could end up getting yourself and others AIDS, and it is also immoral enough that most people would not morally approve of it (There's a reason only one state has decided to allow it.)

But to ban homosexuality or worse, lying? (Someone mentioned the idea here.) Prepostorous. We might as well ban all other religions as well! Ancient Israel did it! But that law just wasn't meant for anywhere else.

As for Christian Libertarianism, Libertarianism is perfectly compatible with the Bible. While I don't agree with everything the site says, that holistic politics site in MagisterCultuum's signature makes some very good points in favor of being libertarian according to the Bible.

The only political issue the Bible is clear on is abortion:
http://www.covenantnews.com/cspa990830.htm

And, if anyone tries to argue that this law was just for Israel, don't try. If a feotus is a life in Israel, its a life everywhere. The same does not apply for morality enforcing laws.

However, if it was a moral law in the OT (Not a ceremonial law) it is still wrong today. Christ said not one jot or tittle will be changed of the law. The ceremonial law was fulfilled in Christ, but the moral law still applies. However, that does not mean we need to enforce it, and of course, non-Christians aren't going to follow all of it because there is no reason for them too.

 

[Arakhor]

I'd hate to see you on a grumpy day if condemnation to death falls under your definition of "vaguely negative."

This is the Old Testament we're talking about, which basically calls for death for anyone who violates the endless rules mentioned there, including such gems as wearing polyester, looking at altars with glasses on and wearing polyester.

Domination, I believe in God and that Jesus was the Son of God. If I'm not a Christian, I'm certainly not anything else.

 

[warpus]

This. While I disagree with social conservatives, some of them are sensible, and the sensible ones want a morality system that is suitable for non-Christians. If we are going to have a moral system, it needs to be one all (Reasonable) people can live under. For instance, while I personally do not agree with banning drug use, it does make sense, from a certain point of view, to ban it because it causes harm to families and yourself significantly. I personally do not believe prostitution should be illegal, but from a certain point of view it makes sense too because it could end up getting yourself and others AIDS, and it is also immoral enough that most people would not morally approve of it (There's a reason only one state has decided to allow it.)

using that logic you could say: "While I disagree with the banning of alcohol, it does make sense, from a certain point of view to ban it, because it causes harm to families"

It's not really a good way to justify the bannaninage of things.