seifert@mako.UUCP (Snoopy) (01/27/85)
Followups to net.religion.christian only, please. Thank you. Quotes edited for brevity. See the referenced article for the full text. > > ...but what about fornication, this is just as big a sin in God's eyes > > as adultery. > > > > By the way anyone who calls themselves a Christian and thinks > > its ok to have sexual intercourse with anyone other then their husband > > or wife, better find a Bible fast and start reading. > > > > Frank Morrell > > This article is by Bruce Malina and appears in Volume 14 of the > journal Novum Testamentum. The title is "Does Porneia Mean Fornication?" > Porneia is the Greek word that is usually translated as fornication or > sexual immorality in the New Testament. > > What makes a given line of conduct proneia, hence > unlawful, is that it is expressly prohibited by Torah -- both oral > and written. Now it would appear that in no case is pre-betrothal, > non-commercial, non-cultic heterosexual intercourse (what is called > "fornication" today) prohibited! The obvious reason for this is that > there is no injunction in the Torah prohibiting such "fornication". > > Pre-betrothal, pre-marital, non-commercial sexual intercourse > between a man and a woman is nowhere considered a moral crime in > the Torah. ... there is no evidence in traditional or contemporary > usage of the word porneia that takes it to mean pre-betrothal, > pre-marital, heterosexual intercourse of a non-cultic or non- > commercial nature, i.e. what we call "fornication" today. > -- > Stephen J. Hartley > decvax!dartvax!uvm-gen!uvm-cs!hartley Quite interesting!!!! Indeed, it seems that there *isn't* any rule against fornication in the Torah/Old Testament. Now, considering the number of rules contained there, and the amount of detail, and the importance of all these rules, a rule against fornication certainly couldn't have been *accidently* left out. No way, Jack. Thus I must conclude that fornication was perfectly acceptable according to the Torah/Old Testament. Anyone who disagrees, please speak up! Now, one of the major things in Christianity is that we are no longer under the Law. That we no longer have to worry about all those rules. Ok so far? For the moment, assume that the greek *was* correctly translated. If so, then what hat did Paul pull out this "no fornication" stuff from? Freeing us from the Law, and then setting up rules against things which were previously ok, just doesn't compute. On the other hand, if the greek *has* been incorrectly translated, it seems that quite a number of people have incorrectly translated it the same way !? How could this be? It appears to me, that Paul isn't so much laying down a new law, but mentioning an existing one, and assuming that everyone knows what he's talking about. If so, then where did this existing law come from, if not the Torah/Old Testament? Examples of sexual immorality mentioned are never "just" fornication, they're always adultery or incest, or some such. (correct me if I'm wrong) Also, it's interesting that Satan tempted Jesus with food and power, but not sex. I'd like to see some discussion on this!! Followups to net.religion.christian only, please. Thank you. _____ |___| the Bavarian Beagle _|___|_ Snoopy \_____/ tektronix!mako!seifert \___/
hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) (01/28/85)
In article <543@mako.UUCP> seifert@mako.UUCP (Snoopy) writes: >Followups to net.religion.christian only, please. Thank you. > >Quotes edited for brevity. See the referenced article for the full text. > >> > ...but what about fornication, this is just as big a sin in God's eyes >> > as adultery. >> > >> > Frank Morrell >> >> This article is by Bruce Malina and appears in Volume 14 of the >> journal Novum Testamentum. The title is "Does Porneia Mean Fornication?" >> Porneia is the Greek word that is usually translated as fornication or >> sexual immorality in the New Testament. >> >> What makes a given line of conduct porneia, hence >> unlawful, is that it is expressly prohibited by Torah -- both oral >> and written. Now it would appear that in no case is pre-betrothal, >> non-commercial, non-cultic heterosexual intercourse (what is called >> "fornication" today) prohibited! The obvious reason for this is that >> there is no injunction in the Torah prohibiting such "fornication". >> >> Pre-betrothal, pre-marital, non-commercial sexual intercourse >> between a man and a woman is nowhere considered a moral crime in >> the Torah. ... there is no evidence in traditional or contemporary >> usage of the word porneia that takes it to mean pre-betrothal, >> pre-marital, heterosexual intercourse of a non-cultic or non- >> commercial nature, i.e. what we call "fornication" today. >> -- >> Stephen J. Hartley >> decvax!dartvax!uvm-gen!uvm-cs!hartley > >Quite interesting!!!! > >Indeed, it seems that there *isn't* any rule against fornication >in the Torah/Old Testament. >... Thus I must >conclude that fornication was perfectly acceptable according to >the Torah/Old Testament. > >Anyone who disagrees, please speak up! > >Now, one of the major things in Christianity is that we are >no longer under the Law. That we no longer have to worry about >all those rules. Ok so far? That conclusion is unwarranted. The Old Testament is NOT equivalent to the Torah. Further, there is a large amount of oral tradition which is not completely recorded in the NT. However, some of this tradition was also a part of the early Church doctrine. As best as I can tell, at the time the NT was written, there were two sets of laws and traditions to consider. First, the Hebrew tradition of early, arranged marriages would imply that marriage was the first place actual sexual intercourse was likely to occur. I would appreciate it if any Jewish readers who are following this discussion could confirm or deny this. Secondly, Roman law prohibited sex outside of marriage except as part of religious activity. Oh, and by the way, the "not under the Law" point is highly debatable in its current form. GENTILES are not "under the Law" in any normal sense, except that we should still be observing the Noachic laws. That would mean that most Christians are in real trouble, since the standard means of butchering animals and preparing foods violates those laws. Hutch
aeq@pucc-h (The Blackguard of the West) (01/29/85)
From Dave Seifert (mako!seifert): > Indeed, it seems that there *isn't* any rule against fornication > in the Torah/Old Testament. Now, considering the number of rules > contained there, and the amount of detail, and the importance of > all these rules, a rule against fornication certainly couldn't > have been *accidentally* left out. No way, Jack. Thus I must > conclude that fornication was perfectly acceptable according to > the Torah/Old Testament. I remember this issue being discussed not too long ago, perhaps in net.religion, and I think someone mentioned a law that if it was found that a man had deflowered a woman without marrying her first, he was required to pay her bride price to her father, or something like that. I don't have the passage (or the article referring to it) at my fingertips; anyone know the spot I'm referring to? In any case, this does not suggest that fornication was perfectly acceptable; however, it does suggest that it was not in the same class as adultery (for which the punishment was death by stoning). This makes sense, actually, because in adultery the sin is not so much the sex itself as the breaking of a commitment, a bond, between the participants and their respective mates (or mate, if only one is married). > For the moment, assume that the greek *was* correctly translated. > If so, then what hat did Paul pull out this "no fornication" stuff > from? Freeing us from the Law, and then setting up rules against > things which were previously ok, just doesn't compute. Dr. John White, in his challenging book "Eros Defiled", focused on Paul's verse, "The body is not for fornication, but for the Lord" -- i.e., that we have better things to do than to fornicate. The book is worth reading; I'm not sure I entirely agree with it, but it is thought-provoking. On the other hand, we are, indeed, perfectly free to fornicate. However, Paul also commented (in passages on a different topic, but it applies here) "Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak", and "'Everything is permissible' -- but not everything is beneficial. 'Everything is permissible' -- but not everything is constructive." > On the other hand, if the greek *has* been incorrectly translated, > it seems that quite a number of people have incorrectly translated > it the same way !? How could this be? A side question on this: Does anyone know what "fornication", the English word, denoted in the 17th century, when the King James came out? Did it mean the same as now? In answer to Snoopy's question, I have a wild hypothesis: The medieval prejudice against all sexuality continues to influence for ill the attitudes of many today, doubtless including many Bible translators and preachers. Perhaps they have tended to be harsher than the original intended. > I'd like to see some discussion on this!! So would I. And not just for academic reasons! I am in some relationships where the question of relating sexually could become quite vitally important, and I'm not sure what I would do or should do if push comes to shove (oh dear, what a pun). This is a main topic of my prayers, but I haven't come to a resolution yet. -- -- Jeff Sargent {decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq "Head him off at the pass!" (advice by a mother to her daughter)
chris@pyuxc.UUCP (R. Hollenbeck) (01/29/85)
The discussion of what the Torah/Old Testament has to say about fornication is interesting, but not necessarily the point. Churches tell their flocks not to fornicate, and the point is reinforced by families, schools, the media, etc., so for all practical purposes, modern Western religions seem to prohibit fornication.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Pesmard Flurrmn) (01/30/85)
> On the other hand, we are, indeed, perfectly free to fornicate. However, > Paul also commented (in passages on a different topic, but it applies here) > "Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a > stumbling block to the weak", and "'Everything is permissible' -- but not > everything is beneficial. 'Everything is permissible' -- but not everything > is constructive." [SARGENT] Why MUST everything we do be be "beneficial"? "Constructive?" Isn't life full of things that are neither (though not antipodal to either)? Don't many of those things heighten the overall experience of life? Just a question. (Or four.) It does seem that many people see their religions as a way of ordering their lives to distinguish what they "SHOULD" do from what they "SHOULDN'T", so that they can adhere to a list of such things and order their lives around it. -- BRIAN: "You're all different!" CROWD: "YES, WE'RE ALL DIFFERENT!" Rich Rosen MAN: "I'm not ... " {ihnp4 | harpo}!pyuxd!rlr
larry@cci-bdc.UUCP (Larry DeLuca) (01/30/85)
> > For the moment, assume that the greek *was* correctly translated. > If so, then what hat did Paul pull out this "no fornication" stuff > from? Freeing us from the Law, and then setting up rules against > things which were previously ok, just doesn't compute. > > On the other hand, if the greek *has* been incorrectly translated, > it seems that quite a number of people have incorrectly translated > it the same way !? How could this be? we spend a lot of time wondering whether the greek was translated correctly...what about the other languages before it? what about the oral tradition that surely started long before...? who's to say what was and wasn't implemented for practicality as opposed to true objections on god's part (a good portion of the kosher laws, for example...if you tell people they'll get sick if they eat uncooked pork they ignore you -- tell them god will kill you for it and they listen up real fast)... > > Examples of sexual immorality mentioned are never "just" fornication, > they're always adultery or incest, or some such. (correct me if I'm > wrong) Also, it's interesting that Satan tempted Jesus with food > and power, but not sex. many of the sexual references are also fairly vague...for example, sodom and gomorrah...while one translation of the hebrew led to the current definition of the word "sodomite" another and equally valid translation indicates a different form of abuse altogether, with no sexual connotations whatsoever... and if people are going to look at the exact words written, who's to say some homophobic or just plain stodgy editor added a word here or there or translated something a bit liberally... it doesn't seem to make much sense that "a man shall not lie with a man as with a woman. it is an abomination." should mean that male homosexuality is inpermissible, but that there is no mention of lesbian sexual practices (are lesbians a product of the twentieth century, or is it the men that wrote the bible got off on watching two women go at it, or is it just that they (being shepherds) were so busy molesting the sheep (which is also not mentioned) that they didn't notice...? larry... -- uucp: ..mit-eddie!cybvax0!cci-bdc!larry arpa: henrik@mit-mc.ARPA This mind intentionally left blank.
gregbo@houxm.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (02/01/85)
> From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Pesmard Flurrmn) >> From: aeq@pucc-h.UUCP (Jeff Sargent) >> On the other hand, we are, indeed, perfectly free to fornicate. However, >> Paul also commented (in passages on a different topic, but it applies here) >> "Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a >> stumbling block to the weak", and "'Everything is permissible' -- but not >> everything is beneficial. 'Everything is permissible' -- but not everything >> is constructive." [SARGENT] > Why MUST everything we do be be "beneficial"? "Constructive?" Isn't life > full of things that are neither (though not antipodal to either)? Don't many > of those things heighten the overall experience of life? I, for one, can't think of anything that is "neither". However, beneficial/ constructive depends on one's point of view. For example, one of my Christian friends prided herself on being active in all sorts of things (swimming, various church groups, weightlifting) whereas I felt that I shouldn't have to be active all the time (I like having some time to myself just to relax, sit back, put on some music, close my eyes ...). She felt that Christians should never be idle but always about God's work. Well, even Christians need their rest (after all, God created a day for it). The question to ask is: is fornication beneficial? is it constructive? Perhaps a better question to ask is: who does fornication serve, you or God? A Christian should strive to glorify God in all that he/she does. Now, if for- nication glorifies God in some way, I guess it's ok. Otherwise, it isn't. -- If you wanna ride, don't ride the white horse. Greg Skinner (gregbo) {allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!houxm!gregbo
aeq@pucc-h (The Blackguard of the West) (02/01/85)
From Pesmard Flurrmn (pyuxd!rlr) [what's he doing in this group, anyway? This is where we all went to avoid him]: >> On the other hand, we are, indeed, perfectly free to fornicate. However, >> Paul also commented (in passages on a different topic, but it applies here) >> "Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a >> stumbling block to the weak", and "'Everything is permissible' -- but not >> everything is beneficial. 'Everything is permissible' -- but not >> everything is constructive." [SARGENT] > Why MUST everything we do be be "beneficial"? "Constructive?" Isn't life > full of things that are neither (though not antipodal to either)? Don't many > of those things heighten the overall experience of life? Can you name any examples of non-beneficial, non-constructive things that enhance life? The opposite of constructive is DESTRUCTIVE, and I am trying to get away from that. I do not think that Paul was setting out a MUST, but rather saying "If you are wise, if you *really* know what is best for you, you won't do certain things, because they are not good for you; and if you are a really caring person, you won't do certain things because they could mess up other people." He was saying these things, not to lay down a rigid law, but rather as part of the whole program of God, which is to lead to an optimal life for people. This idea of the good life is even seen in the Old Testament. In a passage in Jeremiah, where it is prophesied that the people will return from the Babylonian captivity, God says: "They will be my people, and I will be their God. I will give them singleness of heart and action, so that they will always fear [in the sense meaning "respect"] me for their own good and the good of their children after them. I will make an everlasting covenant with them: I will never stop doing good to them, and I will inspire them to fear me, so that they will never turn away from me. I will rejoice in doing them good and will assuredly plant them in this land with all my heart and soul." (Jeremiah 32:38-41) In other words, God's real idea all along has been, not to clamp people into a restrictive, unnatural lifestyle, but to give them a good life. > Just a question. (Or four.) It does seem that many people see their > religions as a way of ordering their lives to distinguish what they "SHOULD" > do from what they "SHOULDN'T", so that they can adhere to a list of such > things and order their lives around it. True; as is well known, I have done this myself and still tend to, though I am moving away from it. It is much safer and easier to just have a list of do's and don'ts rather than the freedom that God wishes us to experience. > BRIAN: "You're all different!" > CROWD: "YES, WE'RE ALL DIFFERENT!" > MAN: "I'm not ... " I like this .signature; it's clever and not obnoxious. -- -- Jeff Sargent {decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq "Head him off at the pass!" (advice by a mother to her daughter)
seifert@mako.UUCP (Snoopy) (02/01/85)
In article <610@pyuxc.UUCP> chris@pyuxc.UUCP (R. Hollenbeck) writes: >The discussion of what the Torah/Old Testament has to say about >fornication is interesting, but not necessarily the point. >Churches tell their flocks not to fornicate, and the point is >reinforced by families, schools, the media, etc., so for all >practical purposes, modern Western religions seem to prohibit >fornication. For me, it is the point. I don't *care* what "modern Western religions" *seem* to prohibit. I care about what *GOD* *in fact* prohibits. yes, I'm aware of the bit about "if you are with a brother who doesn't believe in eating meat offered to idols, then you shouldn't either." I believe it means that you shouldn't eat that meat *in the presense of* that brother, not that you can't ever eat it. A big thank you to everyone who has replied/follow-uped on the subject. _____ |___| the Bavarian Beagle _|___|_ Snoopy \_____/ tektronix!mako!seifert \___/
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Fred Mertz) (02/04/85)
> From Pesmard Flurrmn (pyuxd!rlr) [what's he doing in this group, anyway? This > is where we all went to avoid him]: [SARGENT] So nice of you to admit it, Jeff. (To avoid what, one might ask...) Also so nice to bring my name up every so often (Brown, Marchionni) in my "absence". >>Why MUST everything we do be be "beneficial"? "Constructive?" Isn't life >>full of things that are neither (though not antipodal to either)? Don't many >>of those things heighten the overall experience of life? [ROSEN] > Can you name any examples of non-beneficial, non-constructive things that > enhance life? The opposite of constructive is DESTRUCTIVE, and I am trying > to get away from that. [SARGENT] Thus, all things in the universe are either one way (A) or the exact opposite (not-A), and of course there's nothing in between and no neutral ground and no exceptions. Examples of things that are "neither" abound (sorry, Greg Skinner), and in fact these very things are often the basis of discussion (i.e., often violent argument) between the religious and the non-religious. For example, homosexuality. Is it CON-structive? Is it DE-structive? There are numerous other examples, among them: open sexual relationships outside of marriage, individualism in sex/family roles (actually, this is quite constructive!), and, last but not least, NOT devoting all of one's life to god. > I do not think that Paul was setting out a MUST, but > rather saying "If you are wise, if you *really* know what is best for you, > you won't do certain things, because they are not good for you; and if you > are a really caring person, you won't do certain things because they could > mess up other people." He was saying these things, not to lay down a rigid > law, but rather as part of the whole program of God, which is to lead to an > optimal life for people. I'd hope he was. Fact is, I for one still don't agree with all of what he thought was "best". He was human. He could have been wrong. But try and tell that to some people. (Comments have repeatedly been made about Paul's own "biases".) >>BRIAN: "You're all different!" >>CROWD: "YES, WE'RE ALL DIFFERENT!" >>MAN: "I'm not ... " > I like this .signature; it's clever and not obnoxious. [SARGENT] Oh! Pardon me for ... It comes in a matched set of .signatures that includes the following oldie but goodie that (quite appropriately for this article) precedes the one above: -- BRIAN: "No, you've got it all wrong! You don't have to follow me! You don't have to follow ANYONE! You've got to think for yourselves! You are all individuals!" CROWD: "YES, WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS!" Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
seifert@mako.UUCP (Snoopy) (02/06/85)
>>> From: aeq@pucc-h.UUCP (Jeff Sargent) >>> On the other hand, we are, indeed, perfectly free to fornicate. >>> However, [...] "'Everything is permissible' -- but not >>> everything is beneficial. 'Everything is permissible' -- but not >>> everything is constructive." > For example, one of my Christian >friends prided herself on being active in all sorts of things (swimming, >various church groups, weightlifting) whereas I felt that I shouldn't have to >be active all the time (I like having some time to myself just to relax, sit >back, put on some music, close my eyes ...). She felt that Christians should >never be idle but always about God's work. Well, even Christians need their >rest (after all, God created a day for it). > >The question to ask is: is fornication beneficial? is it constructive? >Perhaps a better question to ask is: who does fornication serve, you or God? >A Christian should strive to glorify God in all that he/she does. Now, if >fornication glorifies God in some way, I guess it's ok. Otherwise, it isn't. > >Greg Skinner (gregbo) >{allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!houxm!gregbo I hope the following makes sense. My ideas on the subject have been changing radically in the last few days. (e.g. this may be a little half-baked.) How does swimming and weightlifting glorify God? How is God glorified by my eating this piece of pizza? Swimming and weightlifting, (done in moderation) can be very beneficial. Eating is quite necessary for *survival*, much less living or glorifing God. Does relaxing glorify God? Maybe, but I don't see how. Is relaxing beneficial? Yes. Who is being served here, the individual, or God? I think the individual is. Can fornication be beneficial? yes. Can it be harmful? yes. Who does it serve? I think it mostly serves the individuals. Engaging in fornication for the wrong reasons *can* serve the devil, but abstaining for the wrong reasons can also. I suspect it depends on the individual, abstainance being right for some people, and fornication being right for others. Paul also said he thought it was better to remain single, but I see an awful lot of devout Christians getting married. I have a *real* problem with people who tell you to do/not-do something for the wrong reasons. When I did the confirmation bit, they said that you shouldn't drink alcohol. Ok, fine, but why not? Because, you see, you are supposed to use the grain to make bread for the poor. What a crock. Now there *are* reasons to not drink alcohol, but that's got to be the *worst*. The Bible doesn't say to not drink, it says to not get *drunk*. In fact, 1 Timothy 5:23 says, "Stop drinking water only, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses" (NIV) Well, I'd better send this out before my GTE phone line kicks me off-line again.. <grumble> (and be thankful for emacs' habit of checkpointing files often!) _____ |___| the Bavarian Beagle _|___|_ Snoopy \_____/ tektronix!mako!seifert \___/
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dinsdale Piranha) (02/07/85)
> How does swimming and weightlifting glorify God? How is God glorified > by my eating this piece of pizza? Swimming and weightlifting, (done > in moderation) can be very beneficial. Eating is quite necessary > for *survival*, much less living or glorifing God. Does relaxing > glorify God? Maybe, but I don't see how. Is relaxing beneficial? > Yes. Who is being served here, the individual, or God? I think > the individual is. [SEIFERT] This is the point I was trying to make in my earlier article. Thanks, Snoopy. > Can fornication be beneficial? yes. Can it be harmful? yes. Who > does it serve? I think it mostly serves the individuals. Engaging > in fornication for the wrong reasons *can* serve the devil, but abstaining > for the wrong reasons can also. I suspect it depends on the individual, > abstainance being right for some people, and fornication being right > for others. Paul also said he thought it was better to remain > single, but I see an awful lot of devout Christians getting married. This is the biggest single problem I see with dogmatic rule-oriented religion. A very good point is made here: some things are right for some people, and not right for others. Other things may be right for those other people, but not necessarily for (still) others. A whole lot of things were right (and wrong) for Paul. Does the fact that his book sold millions of copies make them right for everyone? Why is poor Jeff Sargent trying to squeeze certain things into his life that may be hopelessly inappropriate for him, just because it says so in a book? Uniform monolithic rules for everyone not only stagnate the human race by making everyone the same (or close to it), but they also deteriorate the quality of each individual life. Desiring a world in which everyone obeys such rules of behavior (beyond simple non-interference laws) is the same as desiring to see the world force-fit into your mold, and desiring to lay down what others can and cannot do. > I have a *real* problem with people who tell you to do/not-do something > for the wrong reasons. When I did the confirmation bit, they said > that you shouldn't drink alcohol. Ok, fine, but why not? Because, > you see, you are supposed to use the grain to make bread for the poor. > What a crock. Now there *are* reasons to not drink alcohol, but that's > got to be the *worst*. The Bible doesn't say to not drink, it says > to not get *drunk*. In fact, 1 Timothy 5:23 says, "Stop drinking > water only, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your > frequent illnesses" (NIV) I guess they thought wine had medicinal properties of sorts. (?) But the point is to discover rational reasons for doing or not doing things, as they apply to your needs as an individual. Well said. This is actually getting interesting. I would hope that there are Christians who would ask and answer some of these questions, instead of being "disgusted". -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (02/07/85)
> it doesn't seem to make much sense that "a man shall not lie with a > man as with a woman. it is an abomination." should mean that male > homosexuality is inpermissible, but that there is no mention of lesbian > sexual practices (are lesbians a product of the twentieth century, or > is it the men that wrote the bible got off on watching two women go > at it, or is it just that they (being shepherds) were so busy molesting > the sheep (which is also not mentioned) that they didn't notice...? ^^^ It was mentioned. Same chapter. > This mind intentionally left blank. Who can resist? -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois | --+-- Vegetarian Geology: Is it a True Concept? | |
jss@sjuvax.UUCP (J. Shapiro) (02/09/85)
[Aren't you hungry...?] A statement was made in one response which is not right, and is a common misconception. The statement implied that the laws of Kashrut were layed down for reasons of health. Sadly, it is all too common that even Rabbis (though usually reform Rabbis making an effort to honestly ease things for their congregations) have propagated this. It is not quite right. It is certainly true that trichinosis is and was a good reason not to eat pork. An equally good reason to differentiate ones eating habits lies in the limitations on sociablility with non-Jews it imposes, and the consequent limitation of conversion from Judaism and preservation of Jewish identity and culture. Good though these reasons may be, from the observant Jewish standpoint they are not the reasons for the laws of Kashrut. The laws of kashrut are classified as laws for which *the reason is not known.* A better answer to "Why do the laws say keep kosher?" is something on the order of: Man doesn't know why certain laws are given in the bible. The laws of Kashrut are among the laws for which we don't know the reasons. Personally, I believe that it may be that these laws were given for reasons of health/identity/your-reason-here. Usually the use of explanation loosely has little ill consequence. When shoddy explanations become considered facts even in the group which ought to know, it is long past time to attempt to correct the mistake. Jon Shapiro Haverford College
hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) (02/11/85)
In article <457@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Fred Mertz) writes: >> From Pesmard Flurrmn (pyuxd!rlr) [what's he doing in this group, anyway? >> This is where we all went to avoid him]: [SARGENT] > >So nice of you to admit it, Jeff. (To avoid what, one might ask...) Also so >nice to bring my name up every so often (Brown, Marchionni) in my "absence". One might indeed ask. This newsgroup was created to provide a forum in which we Christians could discuss issues relevant to Christianity without the continual carping and the same old tired, boring, and half-baked presumptions about our intellect, background, and reasoning powers which YOU, RICH ROSEN, continually spew out upon us. When net.religion.jewish was created it was created to provide a similar forum for Jews to discuss their common religious and cultural heritage. Of the approximately 20 articles which you have put out to this forum, maybe three or four (generously speaking) have been polite, not presuming that we were all a bunch of loonies for the Enlightened Rosen to administer the balm of his superior wisdom upon. Well, Rich, the three or four articles were welcome. The rest of your postings have been less than worthless. >>>Why MUST everything we do be be "beneficial"? "Constructive?" Isn't life >>>full of things that are neither (though not antipodal to either)? Don't many >>>of those things heighten the overall experience of life? [ROSEN] > >> Can you name any examples of non-beneficial, non-constructive things that >> enhance life? The opposite of constructive is DESTRUCTIVE, and I am trying >> to get away from that. [SARGENT] > >Thus, all things in the universe are either one way (A) or the exact opposite >(not-A), and of course there's nothing in between and no neutral ground and >no exceptions. Examples of things that are "neither" abound (sorry, Greg >Skinner), and in fact these very things are often the basis of discussion >(i.e., often violent argument) between the religious and the non-religious. >For example, homosexuality. Is it CON-structive? Is it DE-structive? >There are numerous other examples, among them: open sexual relationships >outside of marriage, individualism in sex/family roles (actually, this is >quite constructive!), and, last but not least, NOT devoting all of one's life >to god. To provide an honest answer to the best of my beliefs, even though you haven't phrased this as a question... We can identify things which are directly and inherently constructive. These are those things which we are instructed to do (Love the Lord, love our neighbors, help the helpless, feed the hungry, etc.) We can identify as inherently DEstructive anything which works against those aims. For example, it is hard to love our neigbors when we are engaged in gossip against them. Incidentally, a lot of the Law consists in identifying these destructive things. Anything else which is neutral becomes subject to situational ethics. Yes, I advocate situational ethics, under constraint. Is it good to feed the hungry? Yes, but if I give money to a street drunk, he will most likely spend it on more booze not on food, and food is what he needs. Is it good to participate in sports? Well, yes, if the sport doesn't cause you to hate your neighbor (or incite others to hate their neighbors) and no, if you come to place that sport in control of your entire life (the Lord is supposed to be in control of that.) One is devoting ALL of one's life to the Lord when one makes certain that all one's activities are in harmony with His intentions for that life. How can you tell? Prayer, careful study of scripture, and considered and careful thought and planning. This is not the same as that mindless drooling obedience to the dictum of some charismatic preacher which many non-Christians seem to think is the standard Christian mindset. Hutch (the opinions I give above, except for the quotes, are my own, formulated with at least as much thought and care as I could give them, and influenced by study of Christian scripture and study of the beliefs and thoughts of others, both Christian and non-Christian. They do not constitute the ONLY Christian view.)
aeq@pucc-h (The Blackguard of the West) (02/13/85)
From Dinsdale Piranha (pyuxd!rlr): >> Can fornication be beneficial? yes. Can it be harmful? yes. Who does it >> serve? I think it mostly serves the individuals. Engaging in fornication >> for the wrong reasons *can* serve the devil, but abstaining for the wrong >> reasons can also. I suspect it depends on the individual, abstinence >> being right for some people, and fornication being right for others. >> Paul also said he thought it was better to remain single, but I see an >> awful lot of devout Christians getting married. [Seifert] > This is the biggest single problem I see with dogmatic rule-oriented religion. > A very good point is made here: some things are right for some people, and > not right for others. Other things may be right for those other people, but > not necessarily for (still) others. A whole lot of things were right (and > wrong) for Paul. Does the fact that his book sold millions of copies make > them right for everyone? Why is poor Jeff Sargent trying to squeeze certain > things into his life that may be hopelessly inappropriate for him, just > because it says so in a book? [Rosen] Apparently either you have not read either my postings or my letters to you, or else you have filtered them through your negative preconceptions -- contrary to your claimed intention to see all things objectively. You will note that my recent writings talk a lot about FREEDOM in Christ; perhaps you are slow to adjust to the fact that Christ can change people quickly if they let Him. I am finding, for instance, that I actually would prefer *not* to fornicate, that I actually would *prefer* to keep sex in a context of full trust and commitment -- not because of anything the Bible says, but because that's what I really want. (I admit that I'm not sure what I would do if a woman with whom I had a really trusting relationship short of marriage wanted to add a sexual dimension to it; this depends on so many factors that it's useless to speculate.) > Uniform monolithic rules for everyone not only stagnate the human race by > making everyone the same (or close to it), but they also deteriorate the > quality of each individual life. Desiring a world in which everyone obeys > such rules of behavior (beyond simple non-interference laws) is the same as > desiring to see the world force-fit into your mold, and desiring to lay down > what others can and cannot do. It is true that many people who claim to be presenting Christianity actually present various flavors of religion with strict rules (or at least a generally legalistic attitude). However, I have finally begun recently to understand and experience for myself the truth that I have encountered here and there in Christian writings: that freedom means being free to do what you were designed to do = what God wants you to do = what you, in your heart of hearts, really want to do. God made you and loves you, and "His commands are not burdensome"; and it would be illogical on His part, as well as unloving, for Him to make you so that your truest desire was at variance with what He wanted for you, since then you would be always in a suboptimal state -- you would either be doing His will, which was not what you really wanted, or you would be doing what you really wanted, but uncomfortable because it was not His best for you. He gives us the opportunity of both satisfying our deepest desires and being in close fellowship with Him; indeed, the first follows from the second, since it has taken me years of prayer to come to this realization myself. This may be getting a bit confusing. Let me clarify: What the Bible says is true, that as one becomes a slave to Christ, he actually becomes truly free. As I have gone on for years, opening up to Him my hatred, anger, envy, fears/defense mechanisms, desires (even the ones that seemed innocent), I have been freed of quite a bit of stuff that interferes with my happiness and joy and my ability to give love to those around me. I've certainly got a long way to go; I have the habits of almost 30 years of hating to reverse -- but, seeing that now, I can choose to do so (or not to! -- this is real freedom we're talking here). I will continue to open my feelings, thoughts, desires, etc. to God; things are just starting to get interesting, as some first hints of genuine goodness start to show up in me. It's exciting; I'm curious and hopeful as to where I'll end up. God will continue to show me how I can most fully live my life (John 10:10), if I choose to see it, and to give me power, if I choose choose to receive it, to cast aside all that hinders me from having the full and creative and loving life He and I hope and want for me to live. However, one point that has been made is that God is not likely to give someone a special revelation on a point that has already been made in the Bible. But the Bible is *not* intended as a set of rules to be imposed on people from without; rather it provides guidelines, hints if you will, as to what you would discover to be the optimal way of life if you worked at it long enough and gave it a chance, as I am beginning to do. Since not everyone has made these discoveries (though they can make a lot of them by observing the effects of other lifestyles on those who follow them), it is still wise for people to apply these rules (they will feel like rules) to themselves -- not to obey based on fear of eternal punishment or temporal ostracism, but to decide that these are the best way, and believe that God will show them so in more detail later on. While it is true that all are individuals, all are also humans, and thus have some things in common. The Bible presents indications of both the commonalities (the basic functioning of all humans) and the differences (mention is made in several places of different gifts, and of all the diverse parts which constitute the Body of Christ), with neither of them considered unimportant. Put it this way: If the Bible is (mis)used as a book of laws -- especially if it is used to support the control of most people by a few "religious" leaders who have taken the power onto themselves -- then it will indeed lead either to a society of people who are all alike, or to a society of very discontented and rebellious people (actually, probably a mixture). But if individuals freely choose to use the Bible, intimacy with God, and the counsel of others in the faith (including those older and wiser who are leaders, but not theocrats), to help them mold their own lives, there will be certain similarities among all of them, but they will be most free to be fully the glorious and beautiful individuals they were created to be. -- -- Jeff Sargent {decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq "Head him off at the pass!" (advice by a mother to her daughter)
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (02/14/85)
>>This is the biggest single problem I see with dogmatic rule-oriented religion. >>A very good point is made here: some things are right for some people, and >>not right for others. Other things may be right for those other people, but >>not necessarily for (still) others. A whole lot of things were right (and >>wrong) for Paul. Does the fact that his book sold millions of copies make >>them right for everyone? Why is poor Jeff Sargent trying to squeeze certain >>things into his life that may be hopelessly inappropriate for him, just >>because it says so in a book? [Rosen] > Apparently either you have not read either my postings or my letters to > you, or else you have filtered them through your negative preconceptions -- > contrary to your claimed intention to see all things objectively. You will > note that my recent writings talk a lot about FREEDOM in Christ; perhaps you > are slow to adjust to the fact that Christ can change people quickly if they > let Him. I am finding, for instance, that I actually would prefer *not* to > fornicate, that I actually would *prefer* to keep sex in a context of full > trust and commitment -- not because of anything the Bible says, but because > that's what I really want. (I admit that I'm not sure what I would do if a > woman with whom I had a really trusting relationship short of marriage wanted > to add a sexual dimension to it; this depends on so many factors that it's > useless to speculate.) [SRAGNET] What's been filtered by my "negative preconceptions" is how little what you claim has changed you has in fact really changed you. Are your preferences formed before or after presumption, etc. are important avoided questions. It's fine to want or not to want to "fornicate" (what a disgusting word for simply "sexual enjoyment"!) But don't do so on the basis of what you're told that you SHOULD or SHOULDN'T do, especially when you can't see a clear valid reason for the SHOULD/SHOULDN'T restriction. Obviously I don't consider "it's in a certain book" to be a "clear valid reason". But neither is peer pressure, or media brainwashing that you're "supposed" to do something. It works both ways. That's all I'm saying, and I'd venture that a lot of real Christians would agree. >>Uniform monolithic rules for everyone not only stagnate the human race by >>making everyone the same (or close to it), but they also deteriorate the >>quality of each individual life. Desiring a world in which everyone obeys >>such rules of behavior (beyond simple non-interference laws) is the same as >>desiring to see the world force-fit into your mold, and desiring to lay down >>what others can and cannot do. > It is true that many people who claim to be presenting Christianity actually > present various flavors of religion with strict rules (or at least a generally > legalistic attitude). However, I have finally begun recently to understand > and experience for myself the truth that I have encountered here and there in > Christian writings: that freedom means being free to do what you were > designed to do = what God wants you to do = what you, in your heart of > hearts, really want to do. That's fine if you already believe the premise of god, which you obviously do. But the notion that YOU, Jeff Sragnet, were designed to do certain things and be a certain way and that a book holds all the answers to what those certain things and certain ways are is both self-destructive and erroneous. The best way to find out how to live is not to read a book (any book) to "tell you how", to tell you what you were "designed to do", but rather through the process of life itself. I'm sure that's one more things many Christians would agree with. > God made you and loves you, and "His commands are > not burdensome"; and it would be illogical on His part, as well as unloving, > for Him to make you so that your truest desire was at variance with what He > wanted for you, since then you would be always in a suboptimal state -- you > would either be doing His will, which was not what you really wanted, or you > would be doing what you really wanted, but uncomfortable because it was not > His best for you. All this is based on an a priori assumption that there IS a god and that THAT is how he/it is going to behave (a point I've been trying to make to Jeff and to others for some time). But it's irrelevant to this particular discussion. > If the Bible is (mis)used as a book of laws -- especially > if it is used to support the control of most people by a few "religious" > leaders who have taken the power onto themselves -- then it will indeed > lead either to a society of people who are all alike, or to a society of > very discontented and rebellious people (actually, probably a mixture). I.e., the world today. > But if individuals freely choose to use the Bible, intimacy with God, and > the counsel of others in the faith (including those older and wiser who > are leaders, but not theocrats), to help them mold their own lives, there > will be certain similarities among all of them, but they will be most free > to be fully the glorious and beautiful individuals they were created to be. If individuals freely choose to use their own reasoning and figure out what's best for them as individual human beings, then and only then will they be "most free". -- "Pardon me for breathing which I never do anyway so I don't know why I bothered to mention it--Oh, God, I'm so depressed." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr