rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (09/28/84)
<Bob Brown> > All this theorizing on Mr Tillich's part was quite > interesting but just shows to go ya' what happens > when you cut yourself loose from what's pretty plain > in the Scriptures >>Jeff G >> >>Bob, I think you have missed one important point. What Professor >>Tillich (or at least those theologians I am more familiar with) wants >>to argue is that the teachings of the Scriptures make sense only when >>seen in their own culture and context. Jesus' teachings have to be >>seen in the light of a Jewish nation that viewed its self-identity >>in terms of the law (Torah) of Moses. Similarly, Paul's instructions >>to the Corinthians are addressed to a rough port city where >>prostitution and eating meat were commonly integrated into the >>worship of idols. >> >>Whenever we try to make the Bible relevant to 20th Century America >>we are involved in *interpretation* - taking principles and analogies >>we think are important, and drawing ethical conclusions from them. >>This is exactly what Professor Tillich and others have done. Those >>of us (note the pronoun) who want to say that sexual activity outside >>of marriage is wrong in light of the Scriptures are going to have >>to do better than "what's pretty plain in the Scriptures." We're >>going to have to show why Jesus' command to cut off the offending >>hand and poke out the lustful eye is not meant to be applied >>*literally* today, but his command against fornication (porneia - >>all types of immorality) should be interpreted strictly. We're >>going to have to show why Paul's injunction to the Corinthians not >>to be married (if they can handle celibacy) is no longer relevant, >>and yet his condemnation of a man who slept with his [deceased] >>father's wife [e.g. step mother], and condemnation of [temple] >>prostitution, translates into a contemporary ban on pre-, post-, >>and extra-marital sex. >> >>Anyone up to the challenge? >> >>Jeff Gillette ...!duke!phs!lisa Jeff, you make an excellent point, - yes the Scriptures need contexting both for religious and cultural reasons, but in almost every book of the Bible I find "universal" passages when a writer like Paul is indeed dealing with issues that go beyond the immediate. For instance wouldn't it be absurd to contend that Jesus, when inviting men to be saved, was only speaking to Jews and other locals when He said "Whosoever will may come.." ? I apply this same type exagesis to Paul in his letters to the Ephesians and the Corinthians when he teaches them on marriage and sexual behavior Let's consider marriage : I would say that marriage is figurative of God's union with Israel (Is 54:5) and more recently Jesus' mystical union with the Church (Eph 5:23-32). Now for Christians marriage is a physical, soulful, and spiritual union between two m.o.t.o.s. The physical union is represented by that most personal of all physical contact - sex. Because of the sacred nature of marriage and the Biblical basis for it ( don't the RCs have marriage as a sacrament ?) the physical token is not to be abused (not just by Corinthians !). Paul teaches us very clearly in I Cor 6:13-20 the proper and improper role of sexual intercourse. Do you really think these principles are for Corinthians only or are they for all Christians ? Notice I phrase the question around Christians rather than pummel the unsaved with the baggage of sexual morality when they have much more serious theological problems. Remember we don't fully understand the full implications of the parallel between man/wife and Christ/church - there is some mystical element there. We violate that unrepently at our own risk ! Paul warns us that sexual immorality hurts our bodies directly as well as spiritual damage. Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%UCB) (10/02/84)
>Remember we don't fully understand the full implications of the parallel >between man/wife and Christ/church - there is some mystical element >there. We violate that unrepently at our own risk ! Paul warns us that >sexual immorality hurts our bodies directly as well as spiritual >damage. > >Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb} Two questions arise in my mind: 1. If we don't fully understand the parallel, how can we know if we are violating it, repentantly or not? 2. I can understand accepting Paul as a spiritual expert (after all, millions of good people have), but I don't know of his physilogical credentials. I have not seen any scientific study which shows that what Paul belived to be sexually immoral is physically damaging. Yet, since we are talking about physical harm to our bodies, one would expect such evidence to exist. I have seen studies showing that _guilt_ can cause physical harm, but that can be prevented by changing one's attitude, and then the sexual immorality could be continued without physical harm, from the guilt anyway. So what physical harm are we discussing here? (Let us not degenerate to some extreme examples of sado- masochism which are not only harmful but rather rare.) Ken Arnold