The Ethical Straitjacket

[jimmyjimmy]

Here is part 3 of 6 of the most common objections to Christianity (from a Western perspective) taken from: DECONSTRUCTING DEFEATER BELIEFS:Leading the Secular to Christ. By Tim Keller, Senior Pastor, Redeemer Presbyterian Church.

Each of these brief responses to particular arguments against Christianity are just that, brief; although, they are dense. What I hope to do is to unpack and discuss each one and provide unbelievers with at least something to think about. There are existentially satisfying' and intellectually credible answers found in Christianity.

The Ethical Straitjacket

The Argument: "In Christianity the Bible and the church dictate everything that a Christian must believe, feel, and do. Christians are not encouraged to make their own moral decisions, or to think out their beliefs or patterns of life for themselves. In a fiercely pluralistic society there are too many options, too many cultures, too many personality differences for this approach. We must be free to choose for ourselves how to live — this is the only truly authentic life. We should only feel guilty if we are not being true to ourselves — to our own chosen beliefs and practices and values and vision for life."

Brief Response: "Individual creation of truth removes the right to moral outrage. 1) Aren't there any people in the world who are doing things you believe are wrong that they should stop doing no matter what they believe inside about right and wrong? Then you do believe that there is some kind of moral obligation that people should abide by and which stands in judgment over their internal choices and convictions. So what is wrong with Christians doing that? 2) No one is really free anyway. We all have to live for something, and whatever our ultimate meaning in life is (whether approval, achievement, a love relationship, our work) it is basically our 'lord' and master. Everyone is ultimately in a spiritual straitjacket. Even the most independent people are dependent on their independence and so can't commit. Christianity gives you a lord and master who forgives and dies for you."

Please either expand on these things in agreement or argue against them in disagreement, presenting an alternate "way out" of the logical conclusions of the unbeliever who is still outraged over any moral issue and thinks himself free from his own straightjacket.

 

[[serious]]

I notice you are presbyterian. You should perhaps consider posting these in christian apologetics rather than here.

That said, this is a poor argument. At it's heart, it's a bait and switch. In your recap it says "Christians are not encouraged to make their own moral decisions, or to think out their beliefs or patterns of life for themselves." but then instead of addressing this, the response is "Individual creation of truth removes the right to moral outrage."

The unstated assumption is that people who think about morality must come to the conclusion that no moral judgements can be made. That of course does not follow. Many models of morality exist apart from religion.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

In Western post-modern society there are no rules, except one: everyone must be the free choice his or her our rules. This is the highest good. This is sacred. The individual must be allowed to "express" himself in whichever way he chooses. Everyone chooses his own truth and what make makes him "happy". You have probably heard someone say, "that's *your* truth, and that works for *you*, but it's not *my* truth.

Keller, (and I) argue that if this is how you arrive at truth, at right and wrong, you then lose the all right to moral outrage over anything. If the individual and his self-expression are the ultimate determination of good, then what ground do we stand on when we object to someone else's self-expression. We can no longer point to anything and call it objectively wrong.

Secondly, no one is actually free from of rules which conform and limit them. Everyone is ultimately in a spiritual straitjacket. Everyone is living by and bound to rules which are derived from one's meaning in life.

Please either expand on these things in agreement or argue against them in disagreement, presenting an alternate "way out" of the logical conclusions of the unbeliever who is still outraged over any moral issue and

 

[[serious]]

In Western post-modern society there are no rules, except one: everyone must be free chose his or her our rules. This is the highest good. This is sacred. The individual must be allowed to "express" himself in whichever way he chooses. Everyone chooses his own truth and what make makes him "happy". You have probably heard someone say, "that's *your* truth, and that works for *you*, but it's not *my* truth.

Keller, (and I) argue that if this is how you arrive at truth, at right and wrong, you then lose the all right to moral outrage over anything. If the individual and his self-expression are the ultimate determination of good, then what ground do we stand on when we object to someone else's self-expression. We can no longer point to anything and call it objectively wrong.

Secondly, no one is actually free from of rules which conform and limit them. Everyone is ultimately in a spiritual straitjacket. Everyone is living by and bound to rules which are derived from one's meaning in life.

Please either expand on these things in agreement or argue against them in disagreement, presenting an alternate "way out" of the logical conclusions of the unbeliever who is still outraged over any moral issue and

I'm unaware of any anarchist or libertarian so absolute as to subscribe to such a statement.

Even an abject ethical egoistic would recognize the utility of the social contract.

 

[juvenissun]

Here is part 3 of 6 of the most common objections to Christianity (from a Western perspective) taken from: DECONSTRUCTING DEFEATER BELIEFS:Leading the Secular to Christ. By Tim Keller, Senior Pastor, Redeemer Presbyterian Church.

Each of these brief responses to particular arguments against Christianity are just that, brief; although, they are dense. What I hope to do is to unpack and discuss each one and provide unbelievers with at least something to think about. There are existentially satisfying' and intellectually credible answers found in Christianity.

The Ethical Straitjacket

The Argument: "In Christianity the Bible and the church dictate everything that a Christian must believe, feel, and do. Christians are not encouraged to make their own moral decisions, or to think out their beliefs or patterns of life for themselves. In a fiercely pluralistic society there are too many options, too many cultures, too many personality differences for this approach. We must be free to choose for ourselves how to live — this is the only truly authentic life. We should only feel guilty if we are not being true to ourselves — to our own chosen beliefs and practices and values and vision for life."

Brief Response: "Individual creation of truth removes the right to moral outrage. 1) Aren't there any people in the world who are doing things you believe are wrong that they should stop doing no matter what they believe inside about right and wrong? Then you do believe that there is some kind of moral obligation that people should abide by and which stands in judgment over their internal choices and convictions. So what is wrong with Christians doing that? 2) No one is really free anyway. We all have to live for something, and whatever our ultimate meaning in life is (whether approval, achievement, a love relationship, our work) it is basically our 'lord' and master. Everyone is ultimately in a spiritual straitjacket. Even the most independent people are dependent on their independence and so can't commit. Christianity gives you a lord and master who forgives and dies for you."

Please either expand on these things in agreement or argue against them in disagreement, presenting an alternate "way out" of the logical conclusions of the unbeliever who is still outraged over any moral issue and thinks himself free from his own straightjacket.

A Christian is free to do anything. A Christian may even commit any form of crime.
But, there is no free lunch. There will be consequences.