mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (09/19/86)
Mike Huybensz writes: [Joel Rives voiced similar comments] >> Well, that simply isn't true. In the Letter of James it says right out >> that the works are the evidence of faith. The faith is the source for the >> morality. If you throw away the fiath and just keep the morality you have >> something entirely different. > [W]hat are my works, if I am not a believer? How can they be evidence >of faith? This contradicts the Letter of James. They are your works. Jesus comments on morality saying that merely being moral is insufficient-- "even the heathen do as much." James says that "faith without works is dead." The point is that insofar as they are separate things, insofar as one exists without the other, then the person or attitude is not christian. >Third, once again you are trying to explain morality with theology: I see >no reason to nail the two together other than Christian vested interests in >the historical status quo. Well, the morality isn't particularly christian except insofar as it arises from the christian religion. There is certainly much more to christian writings than just morality, and others have from time to time come up with quite similar systems without the benefit of the church. If you want to be precise, you could refer to the moral system as that system "advocated by the church and by christian writings", but seeing as how (for instance) there are jewish writings in substantial agreement, I don't see how the argument that the morality is central can stand. >Two (and a half?) millenia of Christians have not been able to produce a >convincing justification for their theological ideas. However, some of their >moral ideas seem good to me. >The notion that you take the whole thing or nothing is the real crock. >The Jews could have used that argument against the early Christians (and >probably did) and so could the Catholics against any other schismatic sects >(from which most protestant demoninations evolved.) Ah, but the catch is that, while the Gospels are quite clear about the basic moral principles, they leave up in the air exactly what is implied by their application. So there has been considerable disagreement, compounded by deliberate abuse of the principles or of political position within the church. One CAN argue about what the moral principles and the theological statements mean. The whole nonsense about unmarried priests in the Roman church has never had any solid theological basis; recently the protestant churches, having thought over the question of WHY Paul tells the Corinthians not to have women in positions of authority, have gone over in large numbers to the notion that women as preists and ministers are what christian morality demands in this day and age. I should think that the tremendous dispute about what christian morality really is in this era, within the CHURCHES, at that, would seem to imply that trying to use a system of morality as an identifying mark of christians is not of much value. >Do you agree with my original point that there is something of value in >Christianity even if you don't believe in the resurrection? (I wonder if >some Unitarians would agree.) I've come to the conclusion that, should I loose my faith, I will continue to try to honor christian morality. I shall then, of course, no longer call myself a christian. C. Wingate