Comments on: Tradition Without Truth

By: Sergio Méndez

Sergio Méndez — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 00:11:51 +0000

Michael Currrie:

Does “obeying God” or “Obeying the ten commandments” strike you as a GOOD reason for not murdering? So If God commanded us to murder (as he certainly has done in many passages of the bible – say with cannanites, or the famous Isaac sacrifice of his own soon) it will be ok?

By: Michael Currie

Michael Currie — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 13:49:36 +0000

several years ago I decided to do a little experiment among people that worked for me and others that I knew. It involved the question “why not murder”. I had one caveat, their answer had to be the one that convinced them. The answer could not be one that they could think of irrespective of whether they believed it or not. The results were appalling. Of the twenty or so people that I asked only one answered with coherence, though by my lights it was not clear that he believed it. It was Hobbesian. He said I won’t shoot you so you won’t shoot me. The rest were stumped or made some feeble effort regarding it being against the law, some even said that there were some people that needed to be killed.
I made the comment to most that if the question had been asked just fifty or so years ago the answers would have been quickly forthcoming and of some uniformity. They would have referenced God or the ten commandments and in all cases would have said it was a sin against God and man. Even if the form of their reply took a different form the substance would have been the same. What does it say about a culture that significant numbers of its’ citizens stumble on such a basic question. Am I making more of this than I should. Is it possible that I just happen to ask a bunch of miscreants who only represent themselves.

By: Michael PS

Michael PS — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 09:19:09 +0000

Garry Simmons is wrong to think that Catholics regard the procreative purpose of marriage as primary and the unitive aspect as secondary; although they would maintain that only through acts that are open to new life can true spousal unity be attained.

The unitive end of marriage is a good in itself and the purpose of marriage; children are the natural fruit of that union, not its purpose.

Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body has done much to correct misunderstandings on this point.

I do not believe Catholics would object to his formulation, although they might wish to see some mention of consecrated virginity and voluntary celibacy. I could cheerfully subscribe it.

By: Truth Unites... and Divides

Truth Unites... and Divides — Thu, 06 Jan 2011 18:33:09 +0000

Tradition Without Truth

Mainline Liberals.

By: Albert

Albert — Thu, 06 Jan 2011 17:17:52 +0000

Tradition is necessary, but indeed not sufficient apart from truth.

But, who cultivates our traditions? Primarily, contemporary cultural leaders embedded in institutions. Who is exercising that cultural leadership for Christians, and in what institutions?

By: Tom Gilson

Tom Gilson — Thu, 06 Jan 2011 12:24:41 +0000

Sarah, I really appreciate your insights. Thanks for this.

By: Gary Simmons

Gary Simmons — Thu, 06 Jan 2011 05:04:25 +0000

Excellent post, Sarah.

So it is that the changing traditions in our culture today correspond to the irrelevance of Christian values—not due to an inability to make Christianity popular, but to make it meaningful.

And, in some cases, it’s due to people just not liking the meaning and refusing to accept it. But what you said is much more often the case.

Speaking as a Protestant, I think it’s vital for churches to incorporate a brief statement on sex in their statements of faith. An example:

“We believe that sex is a heaven-sent privilege meant for the intimate union of a man and a woman in marriage. In its intensity and drive, it is parallel to the way God loves His Church. Sex is a procreative act, and is a blessing from God that He allows us to participate in His ongoing act of creation and sustenance of the human race.

Sexual intercourse is a privilege and not a right; nor is it a need. Coitus is not a necessary part of being fully human. Sexual activity is not restricted because it is dirty or unclean; it is restricted because it is holy and clean, and it is a sin to abuse this privilege and defile what is holy.”

While this does not restore a proper taboo, such a policy statement will at least lay the proper theological framework. [I realize Catholics and some others would likely give greater emphasis to the procreative aspect. I am speaking purely from a Protestant viewpoint here.]

By: JGY

JGY — Thu, 06 Jan 2011 04:58:37 +0000

“But in practice, sexuality and ethics have been deemed mutually exclusive categories.”

One doesn’t have to look far to discover evidence to the contrary. Let’s cool it with the social conservative hysteria.

By: Benjer McVeigh

Benjer McVeigh — Thu, 06 Jan 2011 04:55:17 +0000

A gifted Bible teacher commented on this when guest teaching our high school group last month. She specifically said that if we have rules without reasons, it leads to either failure or rebellion. Great insight!