Recently I've been discussing theological things with other people, and having theology discussed concerning me. A lot of these discussions centre around the notion that whatever is in the Bible is right, by virtue of it being in there: "God said it, and I believe it" seems the bottom line in these things. There's no place for higher criticism nor any tolerance for anyone who espouses such. The incidents of genocide, for example, is one that causes some problems especially when it comes to an understanding of the goodness and love of God. The black and white really is black and white.
As I see it, the difficulties arise because of 2 different viewpoints: nominalism vs. realism. Nominalism says that good=whatever God does, therefore if God sanctioned the slaughter in Canaan then it was, by definition, a just and good action. Realism, on the other hand, says that we humans have an innate understanding of what is good and what is evil and so we are able to discern whether an act which is attributed to God is true or not.
The conservative/progressive divide splits roughly down in this fashion. Brace yourselves! I would take the progressive line that Realism, rather than Nominalism, is the only way to go, otherwise we are left with the "do as I say, not as I do" option which grates against me. I cannot worship a God whom I don't respect ethically.
1 comment:
I have to admit that whenever I hear people make excuses for the genocide stories in the Bible, it really sends me over the edge. I have a hard time understanding how anyone can take the point of view that genocide is okay as long as God sanctions it. This is such a morally bankrupt position, I really have to wonder what is going on in people's heads when they make pronouncements like that.
I think that there is a certain irony here, because many of these same Christians who defend biblical genocide are the biggest opponents of things like "moral relativism" and "situational ethics." And yet in the next breath, they themselves espouse their own version of moral relativism that says that there is no fixed standard of morality, but rather it is subject to God's whims, and God's whims are furthermore capricious or at least impossible for us to comprehend and make logical, consistent sense of.
I think this is an example of the moral and logical twists that biblical literalism leads some people to engage in.
Post a Comment