Comments on: The Moral Tradition of Virtue: Kenneth Kirk & Conclusion http://www.religiocity.org/2009/03/07/the-moral-tradition-of-virtue-kenneth-kirk-conclusion/ political theology in the city Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:11:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Bob Hardister http://www.religiocity.org/2009/03/07/the-moral-tradition-of-virtue-kenneth-kirk-conclusion/#comment-70752 Bob Hardister Tue, 31 Mar 2009 00:23:27 +0000 http://www.religiocity.org/?p=659#comment-70752 I make my comment here based on the title of the article. I have not read the whole series and my comments that follow may be more appropriate to a new category. But, I thought I would try this 1st and follow-up at pub if needed. Here goes: I'm teaching a SS class on The Resurrection of the Son of God (TROTSOG) by N.T. Wright. In chapter 6 on the passages in Corinthians outside of 1 Cor: 15, a discussion of ethics around specific sins are discussed. Wright emphasizes that what we do in the body matters now because of the resurrection. So, here's my point. What if the NT ethical mandate is ontological not idealogical? That is that sin is like "bad art." You don't think of the violation of aesthetic laws when you experience bad art, you first experience and perceive its badness. So if what we do matters because of the resurrection, is that because we are making the reality of the resurrection in the present "ugly" when we sin (i.e. that is the definition of sin). Seems like this could have radical sweeping implications for how we think about why something is wrong and why we should want not to sin. I make my comment here based on the title of the article. I have not read the whole series and my comments that follow may be more appropriate to a new category. But, I thought I would try this 1st and follow-up at pub if needed. Here goes:

I’m teaching a SS class on The Resurrection of the Son of God (TROTSOG) by N.T. Wright. In chapter 6 on the passages in Corinthians outside of 1 Cor: 15, a discussion of ethics around specific sins are discussed. Wright emphasizes that what we do in the body matters now because of the resurrection. So, here’s my point.

What if the NT ethical mandate is ontological not idealogical? That is that sin is like “bad art.” You don’t think of the violation of aesthetic laws when you experience bad art, you first experience and perceive its badness. So if what we do matters because of the resurrection, is that because we are making the reality of the resurrection in the present “ugly” when we sin (i.e. that is the definition of sin).

Seems like this could have radical sweeping implications for how we think about why something is wrong and why we should want not to sin.

]]>