Church as moral leader

[The Terrible Sweal]

Given the numerous examples of utter moral failure attributable to various religions (e.g. curates sexually abusing children), do these institutions have any justification in making preachy public exhortations about what is 'right' or 'wrong'?

In my opinion, they should clean up their own act before they come blathering to the rest of us about these things.

[willy]

Christ is the model for the church. He is the example that they preach about. Do you have a problem with his leadership being the head of the church?

What guide in moral judgement do you think we should follow?

[Michael Hardner]

Given the numerous examples of utter moral failure attributable to various religions (e.g. curates sexually abusing children), do these institutions have any justification in making preachy public exhortations about what is 'right' or 'wrong'?

In my opinion, they should clean up their own act before they come blathering to the rest of us about these things.

The preaching isn't done only to outsiders, but to all sinners, which is to say all people.

The good part about religion is it exhorts people to be good. As religion slowly and surely dies, this good part is being replaced by materialism and sloth.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Mr. Hardner,

The good part about religion is it exhorts people to be good. As religion slowly and surely dies, this good part is being replaced by materialism and sloth.

I agree that the message of the Church, no matter which one, was that of good intentions. Transgressions by representatives of said churches are amplified by the apparent hypocrisy.

The Terrible Sweal wonders

do these institutions have any justification in making preachy public exhortations about what is 'right' or 'wrong'?

when 'right and wrong' do not change, only mankind's interpretation does.

[Tawasakm]

I can only suppose that the Churches can be judged in terms of their validity. Does their doctrine (theory) match the practical reality? (Bearing in mind that the world may be considered a very different place now then when that doctrine was put into writing) Does their behaviour hold consistently with a clearly understood and unpheld system of rules and ethics etc? Do their stated goals and actions coincide? Do their results match their goals?

If there are deviations between these things then how great must that deviation be to invalidate a church/religion? I don't know.

As to the answers the best I can offer is my view that it is all a mixed bag. I couldn't even begin to sort them all out.

My own personal view is that there is no clear overall evidence to strongly support the validity of religion on these grounds. But perhaps not so much deviance as to invalidate religion. It ends up looking a bit of a mine-field to me.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Emanuel Kant developed and defended a system of ethics. He also tested the apparent ethics articulated by Christ through his words and deed recorded in the four gospel according to these principles and found (as I do) that Christ's ethics holds up pretty well. But (without needed to assess whether Christ was divinely inspired) examining the principles shows no reason to think that it was necessary to have divine inspiration for them to have been articulated.

Unfortunately for Christianity it contains a whole lot more than simply the ethical foundations attributable directly to Christ. It is in these other elements that it fails to be valid.

[HybridConservative]

I can only suppose that the Churches can be judged in terms of their validity. Does their doctrine (theory) match the practical reality? (Bearing in mind that the world may be considered a very different place now then when that doctrine was put into writing) Does their behaviour hold consistently with a clearly understood and unpheld system of rules and ethics etc? Do their stated goals and actions coincide? Do their results match their goals?

If there are deviations between these things then  how great must that deviation be to invalidate a church/religion? I don't know.

As to the answers the best I can offer is my view that it is all a mixed bag. I couldn't even begin to sort them all out.

My own personal view is that there is no clear overall evidence to strongly support the validity of religion on these grounds. But perhaps not so much deviance as to invalidate religion. It ends up looking a bit of a mine-field to me.

First of all, Doctrine is far more than "theory". Theory is putting it VERY lightly.

Secondly, yes, these doctrines are updated constantly with the new rise of many technologies and whatnot.

Infact, everyone knows about Vatican II in the 60's when MAJOR reformation within the Church occurred... :angry: but thats a topic for another time.

Like I said in another post, there are bad people in every organization, evil people who will hide behind the goodness that the organization wants to and, REGARDLESS of these evil doers, CONTINUES to portray and promote.

So yes, they really DO have the right to continue telling us what is right and wrong.

Its worked for 2000 years.

Also, in reference to the ethics practices that are not those directly attributed to Christ...heh...I'd like to know what you think those are...and I will be happy to show you where those "ethics" or practices or traditions or whatever you'd like to call them, come from and ARE clearly attributed to Christ. Peace!

~H.C

[The Terrible Sweal]

Also, in reference to the ethics practices that are not those directly attributed to Christ...heh...I'd like to know what you think those are...and I will be happy to show you where those "ethics" or practices or traditions or whatever you'd like to call them, come from and ARE clearly attributed to Christ. Peace!

In this regard, I believe I indicated that the words and deeds of Christ as described in the four gospels embodied the ethics attributable to him.

The elaborations of 'Saint' Paul and later church 'fathers' are not directly attributable to Christ.

[HybridConservative]

First of all, we as Christians are taught to understand that ALL of the Bible is God's inspired Word. Since Christ Himself did not write it, he would obviously allow other writings to be submitted...because Matt, Mark, Luke and John werent around during Old Testament...the Old Testament is the basis of the New Testament and the New Covenant.

The works of St. Paul in his letters to the Thesselonians or the Romans or whomever, are also God's own inspired work. Further study and analysis of Paul's letters only SUPPORT what the Gospel's themselves say. We only derrive our ethics from Christ--thats what makes us Christian. EVERY ethic, whether is it our sexuality or abortion, is traceable to Christ and his Gospel.

Once again, I'd like you to present to me which ethic you believe is not. Or more than one. Heck, all of them I'd be pleased to show you!

Peace!

~H.C

[The Terrible Sweal]

First of all, we as Christians are taught to understand that ALL of the Bible is God's inspired Word. Since Christ Himself did not write it, he would obviously allow other writings to be submitted...because Matt, Mark, Luke and John werent around during Old Testament...the Old Testament is the basis of the New Testament and the New Covenant.

Well, first off I wonder who you mean by "we as Christians", since there are numerous flavours and various versions of the Bibble.

Second, for myself, I see no reason that a panel of fallible humans assembled by a pagan Roman Emperor should have the authority to declare what is and is not god's word.

Third, if one believes that the four evangelists captured the true words and deeds of the Divine Son of God, it seems odd that the words and deeds of the merely human "Saint" Paul should be given equal weight.

Fourth, any reasonably critical comparison of the words attributed to Christ with those spun by apostles and others paints a pretty clear contrast between the clarity and simplicity of the former, and the drivellous cant of the latter.

[Cartman]

First of all, Doctrine is far more than "theory". Theory is putting it VERY lightly.

Funny, I was gonna say that Theory is far more than "doctrine". The former requires that it be evaluated by scientific testing and possibly disproved. Doctrine is non-disproveable.