Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



11/20/2017 4:03 am  #11


Re: Hart's review of Feser's death penalty book

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

But this distinction you are drawing between Christianity and natural law  is controversial and unexplained, as  are your claims about what Christianity says regarding the death penalty.

Maybe, if you have another authority over and above NT. Otherwise NT speaks for itself.

 

11/20/2017 4:14 am  #12


Re: Hart's review of Feser's death penalty book

But your interpretation of the NT is controversial and unexplained, that is the point.

     Thread Starter
 

11/20/2017 4:35 am  #13


Re: Hart's review of Feser's death penalty book

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

But your interpretation of the NT is controversial and unexplained, that is the point.

 
Can you explain which point in particular is controversial and unexplained? For me, in OT "Thou shalt not kill" and in NT, "But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment (etc.)" is clear enough. We are judged for much smaller things, long before the death penalty enters the discussion. (This does not mean that secular authorities don't get to use lethal force and capital punishment, but they do it precisely by virtue of being secular authorities.) What is controversial about that?

 

11/20/2017 4:48 am  #14


Re: Hart's review of Feser's death penalty book

The interpretation of passages like that are highly controversial. For a start, if applied universally they would have consequences extreme and absurd. This is presumably why the Church, including the apostles, have not interpreted them in this way.

The strong distinction you make between the Christian and the secular requires a lot more detail. At the moment you seem to be driving a complete wedge between the two, and it is hard to see how you could show the Christian doesn't have to condemn the state and its concerns wholesale (leaving aside he isn't supposed to be judging). The point is not that the Church is going to be administering punishments itself, but simply that Christianity is not in fundamental opposition to the state and its legitimate authority.

     Thread Starter
 

11/20/2017 5:12 am  #15


Re: Hart's review of Feser's death penalty book

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

The interpretation of passages like that are highly controversial. For a start, if applied universally they would have consequences extreme and absurd.

Why would you apply them universally? They apply to Christians. Is everybody Christian?

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

This is presumably why the Church, including the apostles, have not interpreted them in this way.

Never ever say "the Church" without specifying which church you mean. It is highly controversial to assume that the Roman Catholic Church is all the Christianity there is.

And it's highly controversial to assume that the apostles attempted to apply the cited passages universally. They applied them to Christians alone.

 

11/20/2017 6:04 am  #16


Re: Hart's review of Feser's death penalty book

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

The point is not that the Church is going to be administering punishments itself, but simply that Christianity is not in fundamental opposition to the state and its legitimate authority.

Actually, one of the arguments by Dr. Feser (if the reviews are right) is exactly that the popes have administered these punishments themselves, as in employing executioners. Whether this is scripturally legitimate for a Christian church to do is exactly the issue.

I fully grant that within the framework of Roman Catholic doctrine the Church has the right to do and think as it has done, and Dr Feser is defending that framework. My point is that this is not a Christian framework, it does not represent the scriptures (particularly NT) and it does not represent the apostles and (early) Church Fathers.

Catholics may think they have discovered a universal rulebook for everyone in the world. It may be a pretty good book indeed, but concerning Christians in particular, the scriptures say that we are not of this world, so non-catholics easily see how Catholics have strayed away on this point.

Last edited by seigneur (11/20/2017 6:10 am)

 

11/20/2017 3:52 pm  #17


Re: Hart's review of Feser's death penalty book

They aren't supposed to apply just to Christians. Are you suggesting that the Sermon on the Mount and its ethical teaching were to be applied by Christians only to Christians?

​I'm not a Roman Catholic. I'm not sure I qualify as a Christian at all, but I lean towards Eastern Orthodoxy, or Anglo-Orthodoxy, so far as I am one. I was talking about the universal Church, that is all the large, traditional denominations (the Eastern Churches, the Roman Church, Lutheranism, Anglicanism, and mainstream Reformed Churches) have not interpreted those passages in the sense you are doing, which would mean some kind of complete pacifistic anarchism for a start.

     Thread Starter
 

11/21/2017 3:36 am  #18


Re: Hart's review of Feser's death penalty book

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

They aren't supposed to apply just to Christians. Are you suggesting that the Sermon on the Mount and its ethical teaching were to be applied by Christians only to Christians?

Are you saying that the world must obey the gospel? Isn't the world the world precisely because they reject the gospel?

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

I'm not sure I qualify as a Christian at al...

So you are pretty much undefined. This explains a lot, really.

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

...traditional denominations (the Eastern Churches, the Roman Church, Lutheranism, Anglicanism, and mainstream Reformed Churches) have not interpreted those passages in the sense you are doing, which would mean some kind of complete pacifistic anarchism for a start.

Actually they have interpreted them precisely in this manner.[*] Following their own interpretation is another matter. For example, Acts 4:32-35 practically prescribes Communism, but who obeys it? Maybe some monastic order does, but no denomination does. At the same time, every denomination, if it claims to be Christian, must concede that this passage prescribes Communism or something like it (for the Christian community, not to society at large).

* If you have some specific author in mind, cite him, and I will cite mine. As long as you don't, I won't either and this discussion remains on the level of barking.
 

 

11/21/2017 4:46 am  #19


Re: Hart's review of Feser's death penalty book

The distinction between the world and Christianity you seem to be drawing seems practically Manichean.

I'm unaware of any traditional, mainstream denomination as interpreting the NT to say communism is mandatory or morally obligatory. It may be practised amongst monastics and religious orders, but it is not binding on all Christians, let alone on all society. Similarly, I know of no.such denomination that takes the NT to advocate some sort of pacifistic anarchism as a universal moral code for Christians. If you have sources that suggest otherwise by all means post them; otherwise, you seem to be offering some questionable, non-traditional interpretations in need of further explanation and support.

     Thread Starter
 

11/21/2017 7:45 am  #20


Re: Hart's review of Feser's death penalty book

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

I'm unaware of any traditional, mainstream denomination as interpreting the NT to say communism is mandatory or morally obligatory.

Nobody says "communism" so that's why you won't find it. However, NT is scripture for everyone and Acts 4:32-35 says what it says. Try to make anything else out of it than what it says. Bendictine Rule is a good starting point at a practical application.

And, again, as long as you are not quoting anyone to show what you are aware of, as opposed to unaware of, I don't feel obligated to quote any sources either.

 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum