crm@duke.UUCP (11/09/83)
The statement that "x is a sin is proved because the Bible says so" is miserable logic and not very convincing at all! First of all, it has as a (hidden) assu (oops) assumption that if The Bible says it is so, it must be so. What about rest of us? We Buddhists beleive that meat-eating is a sin (at least many of us do.) Should we exclude meat eating from being mentioned on the net too? beyond that, what LOGICAL reason exists for some act which is a) pleasurable and b) not possibly damaging to anyone that doesn't choose to participate not to be "good"? This is a quick flame, but I think the article that set it off points out a particular problem in most religious discussion -- fallacious argument passed off as if it had meaning. Specifically, this is an examplke of the fallacy of "appeal to authority". Don't expect ME (at least) to take your arguments seriously until they are presented in a manner NOT FALLACIOUS and NOT CIRCULAR. Charlie Martin ...!duke!crm
djhawley@watmath.UUCP (djhawley) (11/21/83)
Let me inject a ?new? idea on why God would consider homosexuality a sin: Sexuality in the bible is legitimized only in a marriage('till death do us..) type of relationship. Genesis quotes manking being created in two modalities, which complement and complete each other (at least potentially ). Anything that subverts this image/instruction on human sexuality hurts us (in our communal aspect), and so is condemned. More to the point, marriage is also used as a metaphor for the Jewish nation's relationship with the Creator, and in the New Testament as a metaphor for the relation of Christ and His Church (true believers). Hence, it is my speculation that behaviour that defaces this metaphor is wrong, in that it detracts from God's revelation of Himself. In summary, sexuality is treated as important to our understanding of ourselves. To misunderstand our sexuality is ultimately self-damaging. Comments ? David Hawley PS : I think that the "natural" argument is specious too. Natural is what IS is what is RIGHT is what is Natural is ....
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (11/22/83)
I think that David Hawley has expressed, fairly succinctly, the sum of the Roman Catholic Church's arguments against proscribed sexual behavior, which would include, but not be limited to, homosexuality, masturbation, extra-marital sex, remarriage after divorce, and contraception. If you accept the Church's metaphor--mixing marriage, the individual, Christ and His Church--then everything falls neatly into place; a set of Thomist axioms describing the physics of souls and salvation. A problem arises when you try to apply this rigid theory to human beings and their daily situations. Immediately, the brittle beauty of its logic begins to clash with human reality, to the point that to many believers the law (lower case) becomes sadly irrelevant. It is for this reason that most Catholic couples in the U.S. practice contraception despite the official teaching of the Church, and, in fact, are supported by their confessors. Likewise, the Party Line against masturbation is considerably toned down these days, simply because a more strident approach would appear ridiculous. Of course, homosexuality is still an acceptable whipping boy, simply because the majority of the Congregation of the Faith has not measured the teaching against this reality. I am not saying that public opinion does (or should) drive dogma. Rather, I am saying that many people have grappled with official teaching, and have resolved the issue with their conscience. What does one do with the argument that David Hawley presents, if you cannot accept his premises? What about a Protestant who agrees, in general, but does not accept the inclusion of contraception and divorce? What about the homosexual who perseveres in both his membership in the Church and his lifestyle? Who sets up these axioms, and who will judge? I tend to shy away from "X is a sin because..." arguments for precisely these reasons. They are exercises in human reason and human justification. -- /Steve Dyer decvax!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbncca
djhawley@watmath.UUCP (David John Hawley) (11/25/83)
For clarification of my previous article, and Steve's response : 1) I am a Protestant, and my "religious" background/thinking is garnered from that position 2) I don't see how proscribing contraception is a necessary outcome of the principles I claim are biblical. I can see why masturbation might be ( narcissistic sex? ). Homosexuality seems a more obvious contradiction of the biblical imagery. I wholeheartedly agree that saying "X is sin because ..." is valuing my reason above God's revelation; my thoughts on the subject are ?"thinking God's thoughts after him"?, not corrective, normative, or supplementary. For similar reasons, I don't see that appealing to "real-life" is normative either, although our experiences force us to reevaluate our dogma. I think that our moral stances evolve from a number of sources, weighed by the authority we cede to each source, and by our evaluation of how well we understand what each source tells us. I trust my understanding of certain things in the bible more than I do my understanding of certain "real-life" situations. Sorry I ran on so long, David Hawley