Christian Morality vs. Humanist

Altheus

Right, first up, I myself am agnostic, and foremost a relative humanist. Secondary to that belief, my concept of how we should live should not come from a book written through inspiration, but a relative libertarian existence, with rationale towards what would generally be considered "detrimental" acts.

So, please don’t be insulted by my comments, I'm looking for critical comments not personal attacks.

I've been reading and watching a lot of stuff lately on quantum mechanics, new age religions, Christianity, anarchy, sadism and various other 'couture' subjects. I realise this so please don't flame me for asking a few questions of the enlightened people of this board.

It occurred to me although science has a magnificent capacity for naming things, creating, fixing, destroying and processing things, it occurred to me that in my head, the most significant argument I had against religion (Catholicism primarily) was that the words held within the Bible are not feasible. Then throw in the 2000 years of severe injustice, crusades, a crude Roman Empire hierarchal structure, and for me ongoing atrocities through non-action.

All in all I’ve got good logical reasoning, and also some fundamental moral reasoning for it.

Anyway, back to the point at hand. Christianity is quite like science in the sense that an accurate deconstruction of a model is required for correct analysis. In the case of Christianity, this would be the Bible. Unlike science, you cannot prove a theory in a controlled circumstance, and therefore prove it is correct. And likewise you cannot disprove a theory based on an unknown (God doesn’t exist, therefore), although I do believe in the argument, “God is not proven to exist, therefore“ although you must have valid counterpoint in your argument.

Therefore I would ask, to a Christian, is your belief held with the words of the Bible itself, a hierarchal interpretation, a personal interpretation, or a sociological/philosophical proof via history?

Next I would ask, Christianity has no doubt had to evolve, because a lot has happened in 2000 years, although basic human nature has not. I am unsure as to what the Bible/Christian belief is regard “detrimental” human nature, or at least the root of it. I would have always presumed that “evil” is believed to be inherit in human beings in the allegorical tales of Adam & Eve, or even in some sort of battle between “good” and “evil”.

My personal theory and somewhat belief (based on my own experience), is that “good” and “evil” do not exist, but are a measure of what consequences are brought about by detrimental cognitive thought. I don’t really think it’s necessary to comment on what happens afterward, be it a karma-tic or dogmatic. A wiser man than I always thought me never to cast stones.

Down to the brass knuckles of this post. I’m not trying to catch out Christianity on a scientific technicality.

However, at what level can a Christian control his faith and belief systems, according to either Bible or hierarchal advisory.

I mean, if for instance, your brother had AIDs, and you knew he was sexually active despite desperate advice, and condemnation of the act. You however had access to contraception. What do you do?

It’s a rhetorical question, of course. My point is that, in a situation where a human being is unable to control, or at least relinquishes control of what I consider a cognitive process, would you consider this a relinquishing control to some stronger power?

While the nurturing and encouragement of will power is of course the direct methodology, where do some Christians derive the use of contraception or abortion as an immoral act?

Please do not address the question directly; it’s a situational response I’m looking for.

solas

I mean, if for instance, your brother had AIDs, and you knew he was sexually active despite desperate advice, and condemnation of the act. You however had access to contraception. What do you do?

not have sex with my brother?
..
Your asking a similar question that is posed in the bible "am I not my brotheres keeper"
But as the old saying goes, you can take a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

where do some Christians derive the use of contraception

the issue the church has with contraception is derived from specific scripture which in my opinion has been badly misinterpreted. (like much of the bible)
The first reference to spilling seed in the Bible is in Genesis 38:9.
"but onan knew that the child would not be his, so whenever he slept with his brothers widow he spilled the semen on the ground lest he give an heir to his brother. What he did was displeasing to yahwey, so he took his life as well."
The interpretation I have here is that
"During this age of primitve customs and morality, the bible does not insist on certain aspects of sexual morality. What is important is the transmission of promises made to Jacob which are to benefit the descendants of Judah.
Onans sin consists in having refused to father a son who, later would not belong to him.
(there was an obligation for him to give the child to his brother)"
So it was considered that he "wasted the seed".
Funny how that is interpreted as "contraception is a sin" by the modern church. Some people extend this concept to argue that all 'spilling of seed' is wrong (ie. every sexual act should result in the possibility of conception). When placed in context of the scripture it relates to the story/ancestory of the two tribes, of Judah and Joseph.

...There are lots of questions, would prefer to think about them before answering the rest.

Altheus

Firstly, thanks for your answers, although I was not looking for a Biblical reference in direct response. I'm looking for a situational response, (i.e. what you have done is reference the Bible directly).

Also in the context you've taken me up on the brother comment, I'm talking about providing access to contraception to stop the further spread of AIDs due to his sexual activity (which you cannot stop). Again, this is just an analog for a situational response I'm looking for, i.e. How a Christian should come to reason such a topic ethically and faithfully?

solas

k..

altheus wrote:

How a Christian should come to reason such a topic ethically and faithfully?

well I can only speak for myself and say I would use good old fashioned common sense. I don't generally reference the bible, I'm just doing my best to understand why "God would tell people not to use contraception". As it happens when you look, you find no such thing.
If I knew someone had aids and was consciously spreading it I was inform the relevant authorites, even if he was my brother. Surely thats a crime, endangering the lives of others and doing so purposefully is akin to murder right?
But just to be sure about the question.
Are you implying that your hypothetical "brother" is a christian and that is the reasoning as to not using contraception?

smidgy

solas wrote:

I don't generally reference the bible, I'm just doing my best to understand why "God would tell people not to use contraception". As it happens when you look, you find no such thing.

I read a similar comment to one of my posts before where somebody had looked in the bible to see the biblical guidance on abortion, but alas he found no such reference. The bible does not encompass guidance on every moral issue that will ever manifest itself during the course of existence. When Jesus died he left the spirit with us to guide us on such issues. As Jesus said to his apostles that he was leaving the spirit with them is would be a continuation of that idea which leads me to believe that the authority of the spirit rests with the church which in turn lends us moral guidance from the spirit.

Forgive me but I am somwhat lost in the complication of the original post. Providing access to contraception to somebody spreading aids is a difficult question to answer in light of the churchs response to the crisis in africa. Common sense would say that (abstinence is the only solution) contraception is the lesser of the two evils while the churchs view might indicate otherwise. If you provided access to contraception you are just offering him a choice. The responsibility of whatever decision he takes lies squarly with him, and it seems in the eyes of the church either desicion is against God.

A christian must understand God and apply his teaching to a given situation. But reasoning out some moral issue may not be the way of the christian as he 'believes' in the teachings of god and so 'reason' is not always the basis for his position.

Altheus

smidgy wrote:

Forgive me but I am somwhat lost in the complication of the original post.

What I am trying to gather is how a Christian comes about making a decision on such a subject, and there where is the breaking point from religious grounds to humanism. I'm not try to create an analogy, or ask your specific opinion.

For instance, I'll give my view on how I would come about the decision. I would take every step without direct intervention to provide security for humanity however I can. Then if it comes to a point where I feel direct action is needed I will take it, licensed by morality, extending only as far a result can be seen.

In this case, my brother, I would provide contraception, ahead of any view on the topic, as in this regard it would protect him. Now I could try and lock him up, or sever his penis, but that's irrational.

What I am asking is how a Christian would come about reasoning the subject, and at what point if any, does faith come behind function.