Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Unto The Breach.

Join us! http://s6.zetaboards.com/Unto_The_Breach/register/

If you are already a member log in below


Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
Consequentialism versus; Nonconsequentialism in theology.
Topic Started: Dec 6 2004, 09:34 AM (404 Views)
colo_crawdad
No Avatar
Knight of the Realm
First, just a bit of explanation. Consequentialism reasons that an act is moral or immoral based on the consequences of that act. Nonconsequentialism reasons that an act itself is either moral or immoral. Consequentialism tends to describe the thinking processes of those who identify with utilitarianism, and "situational ethics. Nonconsequentialism tend to describe the thinking processes of those who believe in absolute truths.

My question is rather simple. Do Christian theologists accept both forms of thinking as rationale for belief. My question comes from a poster on another thread attempting to justify that practices of homosexuality are sinful (immoral) based on the following reasoning:

Quote:
 
Homosexuality promulgates physical and intellectual disease and discord and this is why it is proscribed by religion, which when all is said and done, is mainly an elucidation of rules of behavior THAT WORK.


My immediate thought is that , generally speaking, such reasoning would be quickly condemned and rejected by those believing that all morality stems from literal interpretation of scriptures. Yet no such outcry was raised. Does that mean that some believe that it is unimportant why another believes in something, rather just than in what someone believes is the only important thing?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Psycmeistr
No Avatar
Keeper of the Realm
Aside from discerning right and wrong, the Ten Commandments are there as a blueprint for a happy life. Yes, the wages of sin is death, both in the spiritual and physical sense. Aside from being morally wrong, the practices of sin also cause untoward consequences to those around us. So I suppose it is both.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fr. Mike
No Avatar
Abbot Monk, Vintner & Steak Knife Keeper, Purveyor of Stamps
Lowell,

I believe the other topic was focused on homosexuality--if I"M not mistaken.

I believe the quote you are using, confuses the subject at hand. Are we still discussing whether committing homosexual acts is moral or immoral?

Or--are we disecting another members choice of words?

Or is it simply a question --with no underlaying interpretation?

I'm confused.

Merry Christmas
Fr. Mike Xmastree

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Richard
No Avatar
Sir Galahad, Lord of the Realm
We have more language arts and crafts from Lowell.

Please consider this simple question:

Q: If a person believes that the morality of an act is defined by God, does this mean that immoral acts have no consequences independent of God?

I must think that almost all of God's laws are intended to help the faithful avoid harmful consequences in this life. Some pertain to the relationship between man and God, but most are very practical and applicable to every person's life including my own as an atheist. Consequentialism arises from a desire to bridge the gape between what is ethical and what is moral. It is intended to provide a mechanism to define morality absent the context of a God. I think it is ethical to be honest. This I accept as axiomatic and without proof, but I have no means to define it is "good" or "moral". Most people ( a personal observation ) who are atheist are somewhat reluctant to accept that they themselves are defining an internal, subjective ethical system when they reject God which provides an external, objective ethical system. Consequentialism is derived from a desire to avoid personal responsibility for such an internal system and seeks to find an external, authoritarian definition to replace God's morality. I also accept as axiomatic that a man must be responsible for himself, therefore I have no choice but to reject Consequentialism.

If I am to find relief from the responsibility of my own viewpoints, it will come from placing that burden on God through an act of faith and no consensus formed by secular intellectuals will be substituted in that role. Why should any man surrender the responsibility for his prudent judgments, his considered views, his core beliefs to any other man or men if he is unwilling to surrender them to God?

Best Regards,
Richard
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
colo_crawdad
No Avatar
Knight of the Realm
Fr. Mike
Dec 6 2004, 10:52 AM
Lowell,

I believe the other topic was focused on homosexuality--if I"M not mistaken.

I believe the quote you are using, confuses the subject at hand. Are we still discussing whether committing homosexual acts is moral or immoral?

Or--are we disecting another members choice of words?

Or is it simply a question --with no underlaying interpretation?

I'm confused.

Merry Christmas
Fr. Mike Xmastree

Neither one Richard. Just a straight forward question concerning philosophy and theology. I started a new thread in explicitly order to avoid confusing the issue. I used the example only because I believe the poster believed that an act was wrong because the act was wrong, not because it had negative consequences. but attempted to defend the "wrongness" of the act by its consequences.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
colo_crawdad
No Avatar
Knight of the Realm
Quote:
 
We have more language arts and crafts from Lowell.


Another "little personal shot" Richard? How very predictable. Or maybe I've just become paranoid from your prior posts. :)

Quote:
 
Please consider this simple question:

Q: If a person believes that the morality of an act is defined by God, does this mean that immoral acts have no consequences independent of God?


I agree that is a good question, but my question was, and is: is an act immoral because of the act or because of the effects of the act. I really do not believe that theologians will suggest that one can have it either way. I think they will tell you that some moral acts may have bad effects given situations but the situation and effects cannot justify an immoral act.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OzarkPreacher
No Avatar
Sir Lancelot
Lowell, I guess I need to offer an apology to you as I had from reading prior posts and viewpoints of yours had you pegged as a secular humanist. Now I read on another thread that you are saying you are of Christian faith. I must ask what denomination is it that you belong that allows this belief of yours concerning homosexuality and other sin?


I ask because I know of no mainstream Christian denomination that accepts the beliefs you espouse.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Richard
No Avatar
Sir Galahad, Lord of the Realm
"... is an act immoral because of the act or because of the effects of the act ..."

Consequentialism:
A is bad if A results in negative consequences.

Religion:
A is bad if God says A is bad.

What you insist on ignoring is that God is perfectly capable of making judgments about consequence. Many of the things that God says are
bad would also be defined as bad by Consequentialism.

Quote:
 
Homosexuality promulgates physical and intellectual disease and discord and this is why it is proscribed by religion, which when all is said and done, is mainly an elucidation of rules of behavior THAT WORK.


This statement recognizes that the reason God has defined many things as sinful or wrong is because they have negative consequences. I see nothing at all inconsistent in this statement even if causality is are not clearly presented. Thus the import of my question in response to yours.

The logical problem with accepting Consequentialism for the Christian is that one must also accept the contrapositive as equally true, if there are no negative consequences, then the act must be good. If A implies B then not B implies not A. The homosexual community would like us to think that there are no negative consequences to homosexuality and therefore homosexuality is not immoral. We have heard this argument many times and quite a few believe it, and I must think this is why the original poster was emboldened to make the statement that he did. Perhaps you might giving him a little Christian forbearance when considering his statements. Did you not comprehend his meaning?

Have fun with your word games. I prefer just taking things at face value and giving them there honest meaning. If you where confused by his statements you could have simply asked him for clarification.

Regards,
Richard
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
colo_crawdad
No Avatar
Knight of the Realm
Richard,

1. I don't believe that I had any "confusion" about the post which I quoted. For your benefit, I did ask about the utilitarian nature of the philosophy behind it.

2. If you see a discussion about philosophy and theology as being just "word games," tell me why in the world you chose to insert yourself into this discussion. Oh, I forgot, any chance to take a personal shot at me. OK.

Lowell
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Richard
No Avatar
Sir Galahad, Lord of the Realm
If you desire to make yourself a victim, nothing I can say will dissuade you from the endeavor.

Do you, as a self professed Christian, reject Consequentialism?

Have a nice day.
Richard
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
colo_crawdad
No Avatar
Knight of the Realm
Quote:
 
Do you, as a self professed Christian, reject Consequentialism?


When it deals with religious beliefs, ABSOLUTELY. I do hope that is considered a clear and direct answer devoid of "word games."

Richard, there is little that you can do to dissuade me from attempting to discuss the straight forward philosophical and theological question, " is an act immoral because of the act or because of the effects of the act."

While the atheist viewpoint is important, I do wish someone other than a self-professed atheist would provide some input. I do not mind the atheist input, but I think one a bit more highly trained in theology would provide very helpful input. I have a substantial background and training in philosophy, but not in formal theology.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
colo_crawdad
No Avatar
Knight of the Realm
OzarkPreacher,

I am a member of a Methodist church in the Denver metro area. I'm not convinced that homosexuality is necessarily "a sin." I realize and accept that you so believe, but remember, I posted the just the opposite belief from a student of Catholicism.

Thanks for asking.

Lowell
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Richard
No Avatar
Sir Galahad, Lord of the Realm
Lowell, is the question of the morality of homosexuality addressed by the Christian religion, is it a religious belief?

I am most pleased to note that you are well trained in philosophy and hope that you will share some measure of the knowledge. It is always interesting to discover how contradictory ideas can share an apartment in the same mind.

Regards,
Richard
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
colo_crawdad
No Avatar
Knight of the Realm
Richard,

It is my understanding that homosexuality and the practice thereof is addressed in different ways by various parts of the Christian religion. Some argue that it is a sin, others argue differently. It appears to be a matter of interpretation of the Scriptures.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hotrod
No Avatar
Realm Handyman
colo_crawdad
Dec 6 2004, 03:22 PM
I'm not convinced that homosexuality is necessarily "a sin." 


How then would you explain why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah? According to the Bible, all the men in sodom wanted to "Know" the 2 Angels that cam to see Lot. The even got mad when Lot offered his daughter instead of the angels. I am sure you know the story so I wont bore you with it.
I will also add that God will be the Judge of " is an act immoral because of the act or because of the effects of the act."


A little something to ponder!
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination;
they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them. — Leviticus 20:13
This lets me know that homosexuality is a sin. No ands, if or buts about it!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Richard
No Avatar
Sir Galahad, Lord of the Realm
Lowell,

Do you agree that one of the three statements must be true,

a: homosexuality is a Christian sin
b: homosexuality is not a Christian sin
c: Christianity does not address the morality of homosexuality.

It appears from your response that your recognize that statement "c" is false as many Christian denominations address the question of the morality of homosexuality from a scriptural standpoint even if they do not agree. If this does not accurately reflect your views, then I apologize.

It is therefore safe to conclude that as you ABSOLUTELY reject Consequentialism when it comes to religious beliefs, then you must think that one group of denominations "a" or "b" are ABSOLUTELY correct and the other group of denominations are ABSOLUTELY wrong. You might not be willing to offer a view as to which is which but you have no rational choice but to admit that they can not both be true or both be false.

You state that you are unsure as to what the proper understanding ( interpretation ) of scripture should be in the case of homosexuality but let me ask you if you are aware of any scripture that portrays homosexuality in a positive manner instead of a negative manner? It is certainly the position of your own denomination, the Methodists, that homosexuality is a sin. Are there other positions of your church that you also reject. For example, are you equally uncertain about bestiality? In the case of the homosexual question, what steps have you taken to determine which position "a" or "b" is correct?

I do not mean to "pick" on you but I would truly like to know how you think about this problem as it does not present any significant difficulty to my mind. I must think that the problem you have in accepting one reading or another does not arise from an ambiguity in the scriptures but from a conflicts between two values firmly held, modern liberal tolerance and Christian faith. I am most interested to see how a you deal with this dilemma. Many atheists are so by lazy habit and I must think the same is true of many Christians, but you appear to be a thoughtful man and such inconsistencies in strongly held views must be an irritant constantly requiring attention and reflection.

Best Regards,
Richard
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Psycmeistr
No Avatar
Keeper of the Realm
"... is an act immoral because of the act or because of the effects of the act ..."

It is my assertion that an immoral act is immoral on its face, and God has deemed it so in part due to its deleterious effects on His Creation. The effects of the act are those that arise out of an immoral act, as no acts are without consequence.

The effects of such an act may or may not be readily apparent. The effects of the perpetrator of the act may affect only the perpetrator's sense of mores, for example, in the short term, but in the longer term may affect how that perpetrator treats others, and so on.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mainecoons
No Avatar
Keeper of the Royal Cattery
Well, since my quote seems to be at the heart of this thread, perhaps I need to expand on it. My point was very simple and Richard elucidated it nicely--there is this fiction that homosexual practices are harmless. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, there are serious psychological and public health side effects, including the spread of aids which, as you know, is largely limited to the homosexual/bisexual/sexually promiscuous community in this country. And there are other sexually transmitted diseases associated with this dysfunction as well.

Actually, Leo has made the point I was trying to make precisely:

Quote:
 
It is my assertion that an immoral act is immoral on its face, and God has deemed it so in part due to its deleterious effects on His Creation. The effects of the act are those that arise out of an immoral act, as no acts are without consequence.


Lowell, I interpreted your various remarks on this topic as trying to contend that homosexuality is, at worst, an act that is largely free of consequences. This is patently false. The religious law clearly mirrors natural law in that both proscribe harmful behaviors and mete out suitable punishments to those who practice them. Mother nature can be a real bitch when you cross her! :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
colo_crawdad
No Avatar
Knight of the Realm
Quote:
 
Lowell, I interpreted your various remarks on this topic as trying to contend that homosexuality is, at worst, an act that is largely free of consequences.


I take it that you do not have that interpretation of my remarks anymore. Thanks. :)

Lowell
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Richard
No Avatar
Sir Galahad, Lord of the Realm
It must be that Lowell is just short on time as he has not responded. That is understandable at this time of the year.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
colo_crawdad
No Avatar
Knight of the Realm
Quote:
 
Do you agree that one of the three statements must be true,

a: homosexuality is a Christian sin
b: homosexuality is not a Christian sin
c: Christianity does not address the morality of homosexuality.



Richard,

I honestly think one has to add another category as a possible choice.

d: various segments of Christianity address the morality of homosexuality differently.

Having added "d," that is the answer I would give to your question.
It is the only honest answer available. (unless one just labels those with whom one disagrees as "Christian In Name Only" or some other negative acronym. I know that one can win an argument by definition that way, but I don't think it advances honest and open discussion.

Lowell
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pastor Charlie
Unregistered

Perhaps the whole struggle here is not how homosexually is defined by a Christian but rather who it is that claims to be a Christian?

It is plain that Jesus taught that not all who said Lord, Lord would be saved. If an unrepentant sinner claims to be a Christian does that in fact make him so?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
colo_crawdad
No Avatar
Knight of the Realm
This tactic of defining the problem away by suggesting that anyone who does not interpret the Scriptures as do I is not a Christian reminds me of the radical left's arguments concerning communism when I was a college undergraduate. It didn't matter what example you gave of a communist nation failing, the response was consistently, "but that not real communism or true communism. It appears that tactic has now been adopted by one segment of Christianity.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pastor Charlie
Unregistered

Apparantly the segment that takes Jesus at His Word.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
colo_crawdad
No Avatar
Knight of the Realm
Or at least their interpretation of His Word.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pastor Charlie
Unregistered

Well I will allow you to be the Judge of that.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
OzarkPreacher
No Avatar
Sir Lancelot
colo_crawdad
Dec 6 2004, 02:22 PM
OzarkPreacher,

I am a member of a Methodist church in the Denver metro area. I'm not convinced that homosexuality is necessarily "a sin." I realize and accept that you so believe, but remember, I posted the just the opposite belief from a student of Catholicism.

Thanks for asking.

Lowell

So, I take it that this is a personal rather than a denominational doctrine? I have visited with other methodists (some on this foum) that do not see it this way. It is my understanding that the methodist denominaton as a whole does not majoritively (is that a word?) subscribe to this doctrine either.

I ask for clarity on this because I don't want anyone who is not familiar to be misled that this is mainstream methodist doctrine that you are stating.

In His grip, OP
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Citizen Eric
No Avatar
Eric the Brave
:popcorn
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
colo_crawdad
No Avatar
Knight of the Realm
OzarkPreacher
Dec 6 2004, 10:54 PM
colo_crawdad
Dec 6 2004, 02:22 PM
OzarkPreacher,

I am a member of a Methodist church in the Denver metro area.  I'm not convinced that homosexuality is necessarily "a sin."  I realize and accept that you so believe, but  remember, I posted the just the opposite belief from a student of Catholicism. 

Thanks for asking.

Lowell

So, I take it that this is a personal rather than a denominational doctrine? I have visited with other methodists (some on this foum) that do not see it this way. It is my understanding that the methodist denominaton as a whole does not majoritively (is that a word?) subscribe to this doctrine either.

I ask for clarity on this because I don't want anyone who is not familiar to be misled that this is mainstream methodist doctrine that you are stating.

In His grip, OP

No, not just a personal doctrine. It is the explanation given by our minister. He has been consistent in his interpretation for the past 30 years. You probably noticed on another thread that there is a rather major disagreement by various leaders within the Methodist church about this issue and the interpretation of these scriptures.

Sincerely,

Lowell
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
No Avatar
Duke of Dilbert
I would like to address this issue...

God said to Noah, "Be fruitful and multiply". Homosexuallity will not accomplish this.

The act of sex has a purpose. The purpose is to "be fruitful and multiply". It is not recreation, as most people today suppose. This is why homosexuality is an "abomination", because it twists the true purpose of sex.

Homosexuallity also has bad side effects like AIDs and rectal problems. In addition, in a male only environment, it becomes a particularly humiliating way way to abuse other men (This is why the military doesn't want to allow it...). Prison is an example of what happens when you remove the moral imperitive to not commit such acts.

Therefore, homosexuality is not a sin because of the bad effects, it is a sin because it twists the true purpose of sex.

That being said, consequencalism is usually an act of wisdom. If something bad will happen if I do this, then I shouldn't do it. If God tells us not to do something because something bad will happen, shouldn't we be grateful?

One thing about the Methodist church....Some of these churches have decided that the Bible is not always true. These pastors say that certain things are true and certain things are not true, irrespective of how the things are presented in the Bible. The Bible is quite clear about homosexuallity, it is a sin.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Admin
No Avatar
Keeper of the Castle
In my over 45 years of being a Methodist I have never heard a Methodist preacher get up on the pulpit and say that homosexuality is not a sin. At the same time homosexuals along with all other sinners(read that as everyone) are welcome to come in our doors and celebrate Christ.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hotrod
No Avatar
Realm Handyman
A lot of good points and examples from a lot of different angles. All seem to point in the direction of that homosexuality is a sin. There is not a place in the Bible that says it is okay for men to be lovers of men or women of women. The Bible is very clear and there is no need for interpretation. This is why we have so many denomanations and religions. We dont need this all we need is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ(mas :thumb ) an he will let you know what is right or wrong!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Richard
No Avatar
Sir Galahad, Lord of the Realm
colo_crawdad
Dec 7 2004, 03:03 AM
Quote:
 
Do you agree that one of the three statements must be true,

a: homosexuality is a Christian sin
b: homosexuality is not a Christian sin
c: Christianity does not address the morality of homosexuality.



Richard,

I honestly think one has to add another category as a possible choice.

d: various segments of Christianity address the morality of homosexuality differently.

Having added "d," that is the answer I would give to your question.
It is the only honest answer available. (unless one just labels those with whom one disagrees as "Christian In Name Only" or some other negative acronym. I know that one can win an argument by definition that way, but I don't think it advances honest and open discussion.

Lowell

Lowell,

Your "d" is certainly a true statement, that different "Christian" denominations have different views on homosexuality but it is also true that both groups of denominations can not be simultaneously correct as homosexuality is either a sin or it is not a sin. I would think that every Christian, desiring to live a life in obedience to God's will, would strive to determine which is the correct reading of scripture and would be very unsatisfied with "d" simply recognizing that there is disagreement.

As far as CINO are concerned, it is not so much a matter of views but a matter of process. Honest and convicted Christians can certainly hold views that contradict each other but all true believers will seek to find God's truth and subordinate their own interests to his. I find it humorous when people talk about a feminist-theology or a homosexual-theology or a oppressed-theology as the formulations of these groups of ideas are clearly influenced by worldly desires and agendas instead of a search for God's true meaning. They represent the ascendancy of the individual or the minority group instead of a surrendering to God's grace and I find such an approach to be antithetical to basic Christian ideas. Churches that accept homosexuality and do not consider it a sin are Christian in Name Only not because they do not consider homosexuality to be a sin but because this view arises from a secular desire to be accepting of the homosexual.

Please consider the sin of bestiality instead of homosexuality. Does there exists any Christian denomination that does not consider bestiality to be a sin? I do not think that the scriptures speak to the issue of bestiality any more specifically or substantially then they speak to the issue of homosexuality, probably less so, but yet we lack any significant controversy over this issue. Why?

If the disparity of views over homosexuality as sin arises from a lack of clarity in the scriptures concerning the issue instead of a penetrating intrusion of secular thought into Christianity, where is the similar disparity of views over bestiality as sin? When the Lord told Moses "...[t]hou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination..." how is this any different then the very next law "...[n]either shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith...", Leviticus 18? Why does one statement engender a storm of controversy and the other uniformity?

Issues like baptism by immersion or sprinkling, pre or post tribulation, child baptism, Christian good works,... at el, all appear to arise from your different interpretation of scripture but issues like homosexuality do not arise from ambiguity in the scripture but from external advocacy. When a Church is responsive to those external pressures it abandons the missions of serving God in preference to serving secular interests. It is not disagreement over interpretation that gives rise to CINOs, it is process and agenda. When you dismiss the issue of homosexuality as simple arising from different interpretation of scripture, you are ignoring the massive and sustained influence of secular culture on the doctrines of various Christian denominations and you are changing God's word from absolute to relative.

Please reconsider you position and your motivations.

Regards,
Richard
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
No Avatar
Duke of Dilbert
Please forgive my slam against certain Methodists, I should slam ALL the denominations for certain churches in their membership for inaccuracies in the teaching of the Bible.

People seem to think that you shouldn't anger anyone with something that the Bible teaches that is contrary to current thought. They dismiss the Bible as "old fashoned" and written before we became "enlightened", so we don't chase anyone away.

The purpose of the gospel is to change people's hearts, and help them repent from their sins, not to make them comfortable the way they are.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mainecoons
No Avatar
Keeper of the Royal Cattery
Let's face it--the "disparity of views" is all about individuals who want to call themselves Christians, or Muslims or any other of a host of religions that proscribe homosexuality, while re-writing the rules to suit themselves.

What part of "thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind" is ambivalent or hard to understand? It is a sin and one with serious consequences as we all well know. So is "thou shalt not kill", "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" and etc.

All major religions have a similar code of behavior and proscribed behaviors. This is because, as pointed out earlier, God speaking through various religions, has laid out a simple set of rules for human harmony and happiness through the avoidance of behaviors that are destructive to individuals, the people around those individuals, and indeed whole societies.

You either believe or you don't believe. There is no middle ground.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Ye Olde Unto the Breach · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1

Theme by Don of The Light Fantastic