|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Religion: |
||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't know that Jesus' victory over slavery can be considered a victory for relativism. Jesus' authority was authenticated by his OT lineage, and his crediblity was established through his fulfillment of prophecies and his miracles. His emergence from the culture of the OT established him as the Son of God and enabled him to introduce a new way of looking at other human beings, all of whom are valued and important to God as spiritual sons and daughters, as revealed by Jesus' ministry of reconcilliation. Certainly, YHWH allows (and even commands the administration of) generational slavery in the OT. But Jesus, after his resurrection, commands us make disciples of every nation. He tells us to love our neighbors as ourselves and then, through the parable of the good Samaritan, makes it crystal clear that neighbors are the people around us, regardless of OT distinctions of Hebrew versus gentile. Jesus gives us the disinct impression that while he explicitly comes to the Jews first and then to the Gentiles, that he has in fact come to the whole world to recconcile it to its creator. This position is expounded by the apostle Paul, and throughout the NT. (Which makes any justification of slavery per the Bible moot, since the bible (including the old and new Testaments) establishes Christ's authority which he uses to command all adopted sons and daughters of YHWH (the saints) to spend their energy as his hands and feet in the world, ministering to it, both for His sake and in the hope that the ministry will draw the world to be reconciled to it's creator (parable of the prodigal son). You cannot simultaneously minister to someone as your potential brother and enslave him because he is an alien. I am still baffled by this.) Jesus' message didn't alter the OT with good feelings and a message that suddenly we need to be nice to folks who are different. His message is an outgrowth of OT theology. He said himself that he did not come to take away the law, but to fulfill it. (It is insightful to note that liberals quote the prophets and conservatives quote the law. It is also worth mentioning that very few people quote Jesus, who proports to fulfill them both equally.) Relativism suggests that Christ's message grows over time and that it applies differently in different situations because the message itself is plastic (meaning that it can be manipulated into different forms, not that it is inauthentic.) I disagree. Rather, the message is responsive to different situations because it is alive, and broader in vision than any given human situation or epoch or culture. We do not change the message; the message changes us. —Geoff Nelson
We agree that Jesus’ message has meant different things to different people over the centuries. If we agree that it walks like a relative ethic and quacks like a relative ethic, I don’t much mind if you say that Jesus’ message is nevertheless really and truly an objective ethic. And I wouldn’t much mind if you said that it was nevertheless really and truly a pickle. As a materialist, I concern myself with how things walk and quack, not in what people claim they really and truly are. If we don't stick to what's verifiable, we're left with faith, and the odds are stacked against faith. —JoT |
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
