James.Quilty@comp.vuw.ac.nz (James William Quilty) (04/04/91)
I have some (I think) important things to say in this (lamentably) long posting so please (if you are interested) try to "bear up under the strain" ! In article <Apr.3.02.56.06.1991.10405@athos.rutgers.edu>, RJB@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu (Rich Belcinski) writes: > Sin, strictly defined, is anything that does not conform to the > character of God. So... what is the character of God like, you ask? points: 1) I know what the character of God is like in my relationship with God. My perception of God is different from yours [we are individuals]. 2) Your definition is paralogical, it leads to a contradiction: PROPOSITIONS p : God is perfect in character. q : anything that is not perfect is against God's character. r : Nothing in this world is perfect. THEREFORE: The world that God has created is against God's character, and ANY action that we take will be against God's character (including worshiping God) because we are not perfect. This is in contradiction to "For God so loved the world...", et hoc genus omne, and it assumes that imperfection (the world) was created by perfection (God). NOTE: 'world' means planets, stars, humans, etc. The conclusion can be shown to be valid, so if you would disagree with it, you must take issue with either p,q or r !! I would make my opinion quite clear: "There can be no 'universal list' of sins that will apply to everybody. We are all individuals, we are all different, we all come before God individually, in our own way, and God relates to us in the same manner, individually ! How can 'what is good' for someone else be 'good' for me ? I see God in a different way from everone else, I see my own personal God, and I have faith, and will continue to have faith, in God and Jesus on that level - directly, not through the faith of someone else (i.e. believing what they say !). So my 'sin list' is individual to me, I can't in all good concience compel others to obey my 'sin list' nor can others in all good concience compel me to obey theirs. And my 'sin list' is this: NOT loving myself NOT loving others as I love myself NOT loving God. that's all that I see to be sin, within my faith in Jesus." > As for Mathhew 5:28, I'm not really sure of its context in relation > to this thread. It had to do with homosexual thoughts. > However, it addresses the essential point that there > is a "right" way to look at somebody, and a "damaging" way to look at > somebody. Lust is the obsessive desire to possess something. The > Bible does *not* say "never appreciate a woman" (or man for that > matter), but it *does* say that lust crosses the line between > appreciation of God's good work and idolatry. This is something that > has to be worked-out between the Christian and his in-dwelling > spirit. The "lust thresholds" are different from person to person. I am in no way bound to your interpretation of this verse, am I ?! I don't think that 'Lust' is wrong ! God created 'Lust' in us, remember ? (anything we are, we are from God's creation - God created you, me, etc.) I disagree with the "if you think it, you've done it" mentality, I don't think that was what Jesus was getting at in this verse. Read the verse again. Disagree, if you want, but don't say that I am wrong !!!! I am not, and nor are you !!!! Each of us follows Christ in our own ways - one is not better than the other, one is not 'sinful' and the other 'pure', how could they be ??? If some human defines the list of rules to be followed "if you are a true christian" then you are no longer a Christian, you are a desciple of that person ! If some human defines a list of actions that are 'sins' how can you follow them without giving up some of your faith in christ ??? This person is just 'playing god' with your religion and that is (philosophically) wrong. > As far as Gay Ordination (subject of this thread, I think), the > Bible is clear on what is acceptable sex practice and what is not. And on what is appropriate socail practice also. Do patriachal soicial laws come from God ? Must we still obey the Hetero-sex definitions of 4000 years ago ? Is that what is important in our religion ? If so, let us cast aside our faith in Jesus and become Jewish !!! Are we still bound by the social constraints that were part of the culture when the Bible was written ? If so, how can people from other cultures be christians ? Are we constrained to worship in a particular manner (women on this side, heads covered, etc.) or are we freed of such patriachal concepts and stand before God as equals: Women, Men, Homosexuals, Lesbians, and so forth ? Who are we as humans to judge the actions of others ? None of us is answerable to the other, we all answer to God, and if a homosexual says "God approves of me being a homosexual" how can we say that is NOT true - each person will answer to God, and we are in no position to say "God says this is sin" because God relates to each one of us differently !!! [see my stuff earlier this posting] > It is not logical to ordain practicing sinners in a church which > believes that the Bible is the Word of God. You can rant and rave > all you want about "how it doesn't make sense," etc., but a Chris- > tian has every right to believe that homosexuality is a sin > (since God tells them so), and that Gay ordination is wrong. Points: 1) I don't rant OR rave ( :-) ! 2) Please set forth your 'logical' reasoning. I would guess that one of your premisses (probably "homosexuality IS a sin") are at fault. NOTE: I speak in logical terms, so such terms as 'fault' are relevant. 3) There are many theories as to why the Judeo-Christian religion has created a society where Homosexuality, Masturbation, Lesbianism, etc. are villified - "The Hite Report" has a syncretised summary that interested parties might like to read. I find human sexuality a fascinating subject, so I have researched such matters a little - hence the reference. > This should not be interpreted as license to persecute gays. The Christian > church (ideally, anyway...) preaches love, and I have no problem with > gays being church members as long as they're not practicing sinners. > ("practicing" == "doing it without repentance before God.") > Does that mean that it's O.K. to indulge in 'sin' as long as you are repentant while you do it ???? :-) > Usually, thoughts that are completely "out-of-character" from a person > are interpreted by people as "evil-spirit." Interpreted by which people ? Why are they correct ? Could they be wrong ? > I don't think you really expect me to logically prove that there > is a Satan. If you did, I'd ask *you* to prove that there was a sub- > conscious (pick your definition!). I CAN logically prove there is a sub-concious (it follows from the proof of conciousness). The proof of Satan's existence is irrelevant - I would just like proof, from anyone, that a thought they have had has "come from the Devil", as such. > >Once again, who is it that has decided what a 'sin' is ? > >If I 'defend homosexuality' would you say that I have sinned ? > >Are you in a position to tell me what sin is for me ? for anyone ? > > There are lots of general guidelines (no murder, rape, etc...) These things (murder, rape) are PHILOSOPHICALLY wrong, no question, but does that necessarily make them 'sin' ? I think that since God is logical, as God is perfect, (an illogical, perfect being is an oxymoron) then God does not approve of actions that can be shown to be illogical - like murder, rape and discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation !!! > But otherwise: no. No-one can tell you what is sinful for you > except God, who is the only one who has your "owners' manual." Good, I agree, and would suggest a definition of 'sin' that you might agree with: "'sin' is anything that takes you futher away from God (in your relationship)" NOTE: That is not to say that anything that is NOT sin brings you closer to God !! Jim.
djdaneh@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) (04/06/91)
In article <Apr.4.01.26.35.1991.15409@athos.rutgers.edu> James.Quilty@comp.vuw.ac.nz (James William Quilty) writes: > 2) Your definition is paralogical, it leads to a contradiction: > PROPOSITIONS p : God is perfect in character. > q : anything that is not perfect is against God's > character. > r : Nothing in this world is perfect. > This is in contradiction to "For God so loved the world...", > et hoc genus omne, and it assumes that imperfection (the world) > was created by perfection (God). NOTE: 'world' means planets, > stars, humans, etc. It occurs to me to wonder. . . "There is none that is perfect but God, not one." The only possible perfection, perhaps, *is* God. In that case, the only possible perfect thing that God can create is God. And God does self-create, eternally, as we know, but it would appear that God's nature is such that God would create more than Themselves. So They created an imperfect world. By necessity! But -- and here is the wonder of it -- from that imperfect world can arise beings that are not perfect, but perfected through God's work. If we are made perfect, we are still not God, for we were imperfect but will have been made perfect, while God has never been imperfect. >I would make my opinion quite clear: "There can be no 'universal list' >of sins that will apply to everybody. Yes, there can: but it is very short. It consists of three things: Failing to love God; Failing to love yourself; Failing to love your neighbor as yourself. (The second is a necessary concommitant of the third. If we do not love ourselves, then to love our neighbors as ourselves is not any great service to them or to God: but we are specifically told to love our neighbors *as* *ourselves, so QED we must love ourselves.) >We are all individuals, we are >all different, we all come before God individually, in our own way, >and God relates to us in the same manner, individually ! How can 'what >is good' for someone else be 'good' for me ? This is true in a limited sense. God has given us each work to do. To do another's work is to ignore our own, and that is not "good," it is sinful. But in a broader sense, what is "good" for you is to do God's will, and that is "good" for me also. James, I realize that you didn't say this next thing, but I don't know who did (you deleted his name from the article when you quoted). I wish to reply to that individual, and hope that s/he will see this: >> It is not logical to ordain practicing sinners in a church which >> believes that the Bible is the Word of God. Then it is not logical to ordain anyone. "There is no one who is perfect save only the Father, not one." Do you really believe that your ministers or priests or whatever are without sin? Then you are amazingly optimistic. Again, not to James: >> I don't think you really expect me to logically prove that there >> is a Satan. If you did, I'd ask *you* to prove that there was a sub- >> conscious (pick your definition!). That's very easy. You don't consciously control every breath you take, but your breath *is* controlled by your mind. Similarly, many other functions, physical and mental, which are definitely controlled by the mind nonetheless proceed some or all of the time without our conscious control or awareness. Since they are not conscious but they are mental, there must be some part of the mind below (Latin, "sub," below) the level of consciousness which performs these functions. No other explanation is sufficient to fit the data. QED. Now, can you show some data for the explanation of which the existence of Satan is necessary? >These things (murder, rape) are PHILOSOPHICALLY wrong, no question, >but does that necessarily make them 'sin' ? If you can conceive of a situation in which murder (NOT just killing) or rape (NOT just mock-violent intercourse) as being consistent with love of God and one's neighbor, why then I suppose under those that circumstances they would not be sinful. Can you suggest such a set of circumstances? >I think that since God is logical, as God is perfect, (an illogical, >perfect being is an oxymoron That's a perfectly illogical conclusion to draw. Where is the evidence for this? Logic may be "perfect" in its own sphere, but it is decidedly limited. What on earth is logical about a perfect and self-sufficient being loving such awful things as humans, to the extent that it would condescend to become one, be abused by them, suffer for them? That is not logic: that is Love, which is higher than logic. The Roach