The impact of the decidedly post-metaphysical inclinations of our intelligentsia is not to be underestimated. (Though it may be symptomatic than causal.) The ink on the divorce papers (death certificate?) between the ideal and the real has been dry for some time in the academy.

“I’ve found the 10 Commandments to be a baseline for behavior with the Beatitudes and the Corporal/Spiritual Works of Mercy layered on as commentary, advice and example.” ~~EP (.# 8 May 2009 at 12:32 pm)

John Médaille said:
EP, the 10 commandments are a guideline mostly for what you shouldn’t be doing, the beatitudes the guidelines for what you should be doing. Obviously, the beatitudes are more perfect because morality is about doing things correctly, rather than not doing things, even thought there are things we ought not to do. It is late in the afternoon, yet all day long I have not killed even one person, nor seduced another man’s wife. This is not sufficient to make me moral. Only the beatitudes can give a blessing. (.# 8 May 2009 at 3:44 pm)

John,

Your illustrative description of the ten commandments is noted. Yes, the Beatitudes, “perfect” the Law. :)

Likewise, the “seven deadly sins’ (aka “Cardinal sins”) are examples of traits not to acquire. And, the “seven virtues” (4 Cardinal, 3 Theological) are traits to cultivate within one’s life.

Additionally, the “seven corporal works of mercy” and the “seven spiritual works of mercy” serve as examples of the seven virtues in action. They are; (sort of) of a yardstick, to gauge our progression in our walk with Christ. As we attempt to be charitable; that is exhibit Agape Love, towards others.

Why? Because God is love, mercy and justice combined as the eternal, glorious, totally omniscient, all-powerful force of life itself! :)

What framework other than the quote from Matthew is required? Everything else is supercargo; completely redundant.

Call it what you will, love thy neighbor, the golden rule, whatever – for most of us that is the framework we require.

Jake

We certainly view the world from different perspectives! :)

“And no, I don’t think of God as a meanie. I don’t think much of God at all….And saying that Islam REALLY has it in for gays, while true, is not an excuse for Christianity’s shortcomings…”

Fair enough, the above are not the best examples or statements on my part to illustrate my point.

Christianity doesn’t have shortcomings; people have shortcomings. One of the hallmarks of Christianity is tolerance for those who differ. That doesn’t mean that a Christian ignores what their see as “error” “sin,” or “uninformed of the issue.”

The Spiritual Works of Mercy encourage us to “Admonish sinners,” “Instruct the uninformed” and to “Be patient with those in error” with love, of course. :)

I don’t believe that I confuse “Freedom of Choice” with “absence of attachment.” (perhaps the Joplin quote was not the best choice) ;)

Choices have consequences. Desiring a framework of values to measure one’s choices and their consequences has everything to do with accepting one’s limitations as a created being.

Lacking a framework, such as most religions (or law codes) provide, leaves a person without a standard to gauge the responsibility of those choices and the consequences of any particular choice.

We are all created beings; created in the image and likeness of God.(My personal belief..my “choice” if you will).

“In fact, for those who truly embrace freedom of choice in their each and every act, attachment, love for their fellow beings both near and far, is a conscious act that has much greater significance than the unthinking acceptance of, say, ‘blood’ relations….

Because, EP, we are ALL blood relations. Some of us just refuse to recognize that fact.”

Correct me if I’m wrong; but I believe that the phrase: “We (mankind) are created in the image and likeness of God;” (which I’ve stated in prior posts at this site) says the same thing as your quote (above).

:)

And no, I don’t think of God as a meanie. I don’t think much of God at all.

And saying that Islam REALLY has it in for gays, while true, is not an excuse for Christianity’s shortcomings.

EP, you confuse freedom of choice with absence of attachment. Failure of attachment is a serious mental disorder, leading to all kinds of problems in life. I suggest the choice and attachment are not mutually exclusive. In fact, for those who truly embrace freedom of choic in their each and every act, attachment, love for their fellow beings both near and far, is a conscious act that has much greater significance than the unthinking acceptance of, say, “blood” relations.

Because, EP, we are ALL blood relations. Some of us just refuse to recognize that fact.

Jake

True, in the West there is a balance between the Church and the precepts of the Enlightenment. However, Christianity, thanks to Augustine, has embraced the western concepts of the scientific method and classical (Greek) philosophy such as “Natural law.” In Europe, the balance has shifted towards Secularism. For better or worse, Europe is about to receive a very rude awakening from hordes of unassimilated citizens. These people are repulsed by the very idea of equality and liberty…let alone fraternity!

If you think that Christianity has it out for gays; wait until you see what Islam offers. I know what I’m talking about, I have lived in both Saudi Arabia and Indonesia. “Lack of compassion” doesn’t begin to describe it!

From reading your posts; I get the impression that the “Christian God” (or for that matter “god”) is some sort of “meanie” who stomps around shaking his finger at folks and saying “No, no, no.” I see my faith as a framework for building a happy life on earth and (hopefully) in heaven.

I’m of the opinion that total freedom from all tradition, religion and the limits of Natural law is; as Janis Joplin succinctly said: “[Freedom is]..just another word for nothing left to lose…”. Freedom without the anchors of faith and family and a code of law (such as our Constitution) is just anarchy or chaos. The French and Russian revolutions were proof of that!

I prefer the separation of church and state because I don’t like the idea of an established state religion. However, I don’t believe that the separation of church and state is a license to promote “freedom from religion.” The Founders were deists who embraced the Enlightenment as well as their own faith. Their writings are peppered with remarks concerning the deity and “Providence.”

Sharia is an invention of man, and yes, it is closely tied to Islam. The Christian Church has no leg to stand on in it’s criticism of Sharia. Were it not for the Enlightenment, which largely bypassed Islam, there would be little to choose between Christian Law and Sharia.

So you can thank liberal European intellectuals for what little room Christianity has to criticize Islam.

Jake

You either didn’t read or you didn’t understood my post.(10 May 2009 @1:49pm)

You are mistaken regarding Sharia law. Islam is a total system of law, religion and politics. Islam can not be separated from Sharia law or Sharia law from Islam (BTW “Islam” means “submission”)

The above is why Islam is incompatible with Western concepts such as “Natural law,” equality for those who embrace other religions (or those who are female) and the separation of church and state. In fact, the separation of church and state is anathema to Islam.

Jesus said: ““Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” in three passages of the bible.(NIV translation, Matt 22:21; Mark 12:17 and Luke 20:25)

Jesus obviously believed that God and the state were not one inseparable unit. Therein lies one of the many differences between Christianity and Islam.

You’re right that Matthew 22:37-40 is a good passage to live by. :)

PS “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” ~~ Matt 5:14 Matt 5:17 (sorry about that–my bad)