Comments on Pitts' Sp•t: The Christian and Music (1): No Neutrality

Ok. I think I'm on board with you there. When I sa...

2006-06-18T23:23:00.000-04:00

Ok. I think I'm on board with you there. When I say "moral-in-itself," I am not saying that a thing necessarily stands in the same moral relationship to everyone.

All I am saying is that all things are always a part of at least one moral relationship. A dust particle from the remotest galaxy, which is of no concern to humans or angels, pleases God to the extent that it proclaims his glory. That's what I mean when I say it is not amoral.

The distinction, in my mind, between "moral-in-its...

2006-06-18T19:01:00.000-04:00

The distinction, in my mind, between "moral-in-itself" and "moral-in-relationship" is that a given object does not stand in relationship to all things in the same way, and thus takes on a different characteristic dependent upon the object of its relation. Say, for instance, a peeping-tom stands in a different moral relationship to a wife than a husband does, if you catch my drift.

The distinction between moral-in-itself and moral-...

2006-06-14T14:42:00.000-04:00

The distinction between moral-in-itself and moral-in-relation-to-a-responsible-person is lost on me.
That's why I've been emphasizing createdness: everything is inherently related to God. You cannot abstract thing away from createdness and then consider its morality. Things can be considered nothing other than created and therefore they are inherently related to the Moral Person and therefore must have moral affiliation.

Depending on the use of "affiliated," I agree to t...

2006-06-14T14:13:00.000-04:00

Depending on the use of "affiliated," I agree to the question. I would, presently, argue that morality of things depends on the relationship to beings of moral "aptitude" should we say. But I think you are arguing for the morality of the thing itself. So, I imagine that when you say that nothing is morally "unaffiliated" you mean that each thing is in the state of "moral" or "immoral." Is this correct?

Ok. The questions, as I understand them, are:
<...

2006-06-14T11:23:00.000-04:00

Ok. The questions, as I understand them, are:

(1) If we are to agree that no thing is morally unaffiliated, how are we to determine what is evil and what is good?

(2) Assuming the morality of all things and the universal reach of the curse of the fall, how are we to avoid the conclusion that every thing is acutally immoral.

I'll be thinking about my response and addressing it on Friday. Let me know if I've misunderstood the questions. I'm looking forward to further conversation.

I think Baylor raises good questions in this direc...

2006-06-12T21:22:00.000-04:00

I think Baylor raises good questions in this direction of distinguishing. At best you can argue uniform evil after the fall from the totality of creation. Then in turn look to re-creative acts to restore skewd images of God.

Again, I don't know where you are headed, but apart from a redemptive work whether that come directly from God, or the redeeming work of an artist, or the redeeming interpretation of a listener the creation would seem in its original state. To your argument...then it would all be morally evil.

I'll be watching for your unfolding arguments as well.

I guess my question goes more toward if we ought t...

2006-06-10T21:54:00.000-04:00

I guess my question goes more toward if we ought to assign a thing's morality on the basis of its createdness. If we assign morality to something by virtue of its creation, I think it will be difficult to distinguish between those things which are inherently good and evil since all things were created and since things subject to the fall. Perhaps not. I am interested to see which way your argumentation goes.

Responsible persons and impersonal "things" relate...

2006-06-09T20:25:00.000-04:00

Responsible persons and impersonal "things" relate to morality in different ways to be sure.

However, because every "thing" comes from God there is no such thing as a morally unaffiliated thing. We can't even legitimately imagine "thing" apart from the characteristic of createdness. To do so is to think outside of the Christian worldview.

I am not sure if I agree or disagree yet. What wo...

2006-06-09T15:58:00.000-04:00

I am not sure if I agree or disagree yet. What would prevent us from asserting that "things" are "relatively moral" or amoral . . . that is, they are moral or amoral by virtue of their connection to/relative relationship with a moral being (God, angels, demons, man)?