jefff@locus.com (Jeff Fields) (03/11/91)
Reading the Book of Leviticus, one finds rules and ordinances of the old covenant that Yahweh made with the Israelites, His chosen people. Reading the Gospels, one finds that the New convenant was ordained with two commandments, that fulfill all the ancient Laws. The rules governing the New covenant are simply stated: Love God with all your heart, mind, and soul. Love your neighbor as yourself. To sin is to violate these rules. Rightiousness is to follow these rules, in one's heart, soul and mind. Christ gave us these two guidelines for living a good life. Although it is easy to grasp these guidelines in concept, in practice it is often hard to be loving of God our fellow humans, and ourselves. The pridefulness of our egos and the pain and suffering often afflicted upon us by others and the circumstances of life cause us to err and to sin. I hope that God's children, of whom Christians are just a part, will have the love in their hearts to embrace all of God's creation, fellow humans, animals, plants, earth, air, and water. Alas, I discern that many people, including us Christians, follow short in their embrace. We often condemn exhort others for what we believe to be sins. There has been some argument this newsgroup over what is sin. Some condemn the gays, others exhort those who engage in premarital sex, while even others warn others not to "unequally yoke" themselves with mates who are not Christians. If all these "sinners" are merely acting according to the love in their hearts, are we not sinning in their exhortation and condemnation? The "sins" that some claim that are so emphatically declared in the Bible must stand the ultimate yardstick of love. The Laws of the old covenant are many, and confusing to one who has been born of the new covenant. I believe we must cast out the old laws where they conflict with the new. Let us love eachother as we have been commanded to do. Peace, sisters and brothers. -Jeff
brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) (03/12/91)
In <Mar.11.02.52.39.1991.5544@athos.rutgers.edu> jefff@locus.com (Jeff Fields) writes: >The "sins" that some claim that are so emphatically declared in the Bible >must stand the ultimate yardstick of love. The Laws of the old covenant are >many, and confusing to one who has been born of the new covenant. I believe >we must cast out the old laws where they conflict with the new. >Let us love eachother as we have been commanded to do. One is reminded of a scene from the radio play "The HItchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". Arthur Dent is being shown around the planet building workshop of Slarty Bartfast. Barfast is complaining about the fact that he is being criticised for using glaciers to construct the coast line of Africa on a rebuilt Earth. Bartfast: They say that glaciers are not "equatorial" enough. Well I ask you? I like glaciers. I'd far rather happy than right. Dent: And are you? Happy I mean. Bartfast: No, you see. That is where it all falls down. By all means, put these sins of promiscuity and fornication to this loving test. They always fail. -- Brendan Mahony | brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz Department of Computer Science | heretic: someone who disgrees with you University of Queensland | about something neither of you knows Australia | anything about.
mib@churchy.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) (03/13/91)
In article <Mar.12.04.50.31.1991.1988@athos.rutgers.edu> brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) writes:
[These three lines quoted from Douglas Adams: ]
Bartfast: I'd far rather be happy than right.
Dent: And are you? Happy I mean.
Bartfast: No, you see. That is where it all falls down.
By all means, put these sins of promiscuity and fornication to this
loving test. They always fail.
Do they? Let's ask: have you put them to the test? Do you have any
experimental data to support this rather bald statement? Do you know
anyone personally who has put them to the test? Christians and
non-Christians? Americans, Africans, Chinese, Russians, ...? What
about people who disagree with the statement you make and are
promiscuous? Are they all unhappy too? Have you checked with them?
Have you conducted broad surveys of people having extra-marital sex?
Do they universally (remember the word that you used: "always") find
themselves unhappy?
It is grossly irresponsible to make assertions like this which are
experimentally testable, *have been tested*, and have been found
false. In fact, it's just that sort of irresponsibility which leads
many people to conclude that Christianity is a superstitious religion
not worthy of concern by thinking people. I do wish it would somehow
stop.
I agree that promiscuity (by which I mean sex without regard for the
people involved) and fornication (by which I mean sex outside a
committed loving relationship) are evils to be avoided. But I believe
that *not* because they somehow always bring one to ruin, for that
simply doesn't always happen.
-mibjefff@locus.com (Jeff Fields) (03/13/91)
In article <Mar.12.04.50.31.1991.1988@athos.rutgers.edu> brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) writes: >In <Mar.11.02.52.39.1991.5544@athos.rutgers.edu> jefff@locus.com (Jeff Fields) writes: > >>The "sins" that some claim that are so emphatically declared in the Bible >>must stand the ultimate yardstick of love..... >By all means, put these sins of promiscuity and fornication to this loving test. >They always fail. > >Brendan Mahony | brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz >Department of Computer Science | heretic: someone who disgrees with you Promiscuity may fall short of the test of love, and so may fornication depending on one's definition of the term. I personally know non-promiscous monogamous couples who would die for eachother their love is so strong. They make sexual love, but are not married. I see no sin in this. However I do see loveless marriages of couples who follow all the traditional Christian morals. Although they are sexually faithful to eachother, there bond is not firmly cemented by love. My heart aches for these people because there is a great void in their lives. They most certainly have failed the test of love. We should not hasten in our pronouncements of sin based solely on outward social appearances. We must look deeper to see if there is a bond of love in a relationship before making exhortations to not sin. -Jeff Fields
tja@mullauna.cs.mu.oz.au (Tim ARNOLD) (03/19/91)
jefff@locus.com (Jeff Fields) writes: >I personally know non-promiscous monogamous couples who would die for eachother >their love is so strong. They make sexual love, but are not married. I see no >sin in this. Who cares whether you see sin in it or not? The crucial question is does God? (Other than of course a concern for your understanding of the way God works) >However I do see loveless marriages of couples who follow all the traditional >Christian morals. Although they are sexually faithful to eachother, there >bond is not firmly cemented by love. My heart aches for these people because >there is a great void in their lives. They most certainly have failed the >test of love. This is your test not God's. Show me where God reveals such an attitude to marriage or sexual relationships and I'll have to change my mind. Show me your opinion and I'll test it against the Bible. >We should not hasten in our pronouncements of sin based solely on outward >social appearances. Unless of course the Bible is quite clear on the matter. The Bible tells us that we judge a person's commitment by outward activities and God judges by the heart. We should be reluctant to play God but never-the-less there are some objective tests which require our attention and rebuke of those who profess to be following Christ but deny his commands. >We must look deeper to see if there is a bond >of love in a relationship before making exhortations to not sin. Sin is ultimately an offence against God (even though it may be one against others as well). To define something as sinful we are presuming God's mind. God has left us guidelines as to what he considers sinful. As people declared righteous through Jesus' death we are called into a life of obedience to God. These guidelines are for our benefit. God is concerned for his creation and wants us to fill our correct role in his creation so the whole of creation is renewed. We ignore his guidelines at our own expense as well as at God's. That is why as a Christian I can boldly say that sexual activity outside of marriage will lead to more suffering than if it is avoided because God gave us his laws for a reason and I trust God's judgment better than I trust my own. >-Jeff Fields Tim. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Arnold | Law/Science (Computer Science) | simil justus tja@cs.mu.oz.AU | The University of Melbourne | et peccator =============================================================================
jefff@locus.com (Jeff Fields) (03/20/91)
[This is a response to Tim Arnold's posting. >God ... wants us to fill our correct role in his creation so >the whole of creation is renewed. We ignore his guidelines at our own expense >as well as at God's. That is why as a Christian I can boldly say that sexual >activity outside of marriage will lead to more suffering than if it is avoided >because God gave us his laws for a reason and I trust God's judgment better >than I trust my own. --clh] I understand and I agree that Christians are called into a life of obedience to God. I would extend this to say that God's grace is apparent to all who see the glory of God's creation and the love he has for his creation. To sin is to harm part of God's creation. There are guidelines, as you point out, in the Bible that are for our benefit. I disagree, however, with your interpretation of what scriptural guidelines we should follow to not sin. Leviticus and Deuteronomy are filled with legal definitions of sin. The letters of Paul are filled with injunctions against immorality derived from ancient Jewish tradition and his conversion to his faith in Christ. When I look to these sources, I am confounded by many rules that I believe in my heart are imperfect transmission of God's message. So, I turn to the words of Jesus when he sums up all the legal definitions of sin in three sentences. "Love God with all your mind, body, and soul. Love your neighbor as yourself. On these two laws, hang all the laws and the prophets." (Sorry, I cannot provide the chapter and verse.) I trust God's judgement more than my own, more than the judgements of the prophets, and the apostles, and church leaders. Because they were and we are imperfect creatures, our own judgements cannot be trusted without looking to God as the ultimate adjucator of sin. So, as I Christian I cannot boldy say that all sexual behavior outside of marriage is sin or will lead to more suffering than if avoided. I can say that sex without love does lead to more pain and suffering than if it were avoided. Any act that is committed for selfish reasons or is committed without love for God's creation inflicts pain and suffering and is therefore a sin. -Jeff Fields
balistik@nevada.edu (SHAWN HICKS) (03/25/91)
In article <Mar.18.11.49.46.1991.8245@athos.rutgers.edu> tja@mullauna.cs.mu.oz.au (Tim ARNOLD) writes: >as well as at God's. That is why as a Christian I can boldly say that sexual >activity outside of marriage will lead to more suffering than if it is avoided >because God gave us his laws for a reason and I trust God's judgment better >than I trust my own. >Tim. When I read this a question popped into my head, perhaps you can answer it for me. When you or anyone says 'marriage' what do you mean? Are you refering to the social/legal marraige where a Justice of the Peace declares you wed or are you refering to a religious wedding? Usually christians get wed in church and register that marriage with the government so that it can be legally recognized. Sexual activity outside marriage in the christian church is a sin. Fact. Is it a sin if the wedding was performed in a church but without legal documentation? What about a wedding between two christians by a Justice without the Sacrament of Marriage? If two people get married outside of the church and then find God later in life, do they have to remarry to prevent sin in the eyes of God? //Shawn// [I don't know of any case where a church would do a marriage without also registering it with the State, at least in the U.S. I've seen ceremonies for the latter situation that in effect rededicate the marriage to God. However it wouldn't be viewed as remarrying. I don't know of any Christian body that would advocate remarrying. --clh]
ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) (03/27/91)
In article <Mar.25.04.21.31.1991.7565@athos.rutgers.edu>, balistik@nevada.edu (SHAWN HICKS) writes: > When you or anyone says 'marriage' what do you mean? Are you refering to the > social/legal marraige where a Justice of the Peace declares you wed or are > you refering to a religious wedding? Usually christians get wed in church and > register that marriage with the government so that it can be legally > recognized. Sexual activity outside marriage in the christian church is a sin. > Fact. For the record: the idea of marriages needing to be registered with the State is rather recent. For example, "Marriage by Declaration" (where if a man and a woman eligible to marry say in front of witnesses that they are married, then they _are_ married, no church or state intervention required) survived until quite recently in Scotland, and someone told me that it survived even later in some of the American States. Then there's "common-law marriage"; it used not to be a euphemism. In the Common Law of England, if a man and woman eligible to marry lived together for a year and a day, they were _married_. The Napoleonic code changed things in many European countries; my understanding is that a church wedding in (say) the Netherlands has no legal status, so the custom is to have the civil wedding and then procede immediately to the church. A book I've got (but not handy) on the former English custom of "wife-selling" (which, interestingly enough, made it to Australia, but seems to have died out) states that sometimes even witnesses weren't required; it gives historical examples of marriages where the only ceremony was someone saying "Do you agree to be my wife now" and the other saying "yes", and of such marriages being defended in court. The idea that a marriage _had_ to be recorded by the State or _had_ to involve some kind of religious ceremony would have come as a surprise to Paul, from both his Jewish background and his Hellenistic background. So if two people eligible to marry regard themselves as permanently committed to each other, especially if they have said so in front of witnesses (and I'm thinking of the cliche "we don't need a piece of paper to keep us together" here), then for religious purposes I would regard them as married. So would some ministers I know (not liberals, either). -- Seen from an MVS perspective, UNIX and MS-DOS are hard to tell apart.
chappell@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Glenn Chappell) (03/27/91)
In article <Mar.25.04.21.31.1991.7565@athos.rutgers.edu> balistik@nevada.edu (SHAWN HICKS) writes: >When you or anyone says 'marriage' what do you mean? Are you refering to the >social/legal marraige where a Justice of the Peace declares you wed or are >you refering to a religious wedding? Usually christians get wed in church and >register that marriage with the government so that it can be legally >recognized. Sexual activity outside marriage in the christian church is a sin. I'd like to point out that the idea of "marriage in the church" is not found in the Bible. (Marriage *to a believer* is...but that's a different concept). Indeed, I would doubt that the early church performed marriages at all, since when Christianity began, it was not recognized as a legal religion by the Roman Empire. Thus, any marriage ceremony performed within the church would not be recognized as legally binding. Although the Bible does not talk about "marriage in the church", it certainly does talk about "marriage". It can be reasonably assumed, then, that what the Bible means by "marriage" is just what was commonly meant by "marriage" when spoken of by the people of that time. Now, we live in a time when, increasingly, the definition of "marriage" is being questioned, so "what is 'marriage'" is an increasingly difficult question to answer. However, I would suggest that alot of this speculation is rendered moot by the fact that we are told (in the Bible) to submit to the governing authorities over us (certainly only so long as such submission will not cause us to disobey God). Thus, "if you want to get married, get legally married (at least)" makes an awful lot of sense. GGC <>< P.S. I gather, from the article that I am following up, that the writer comes from a Catholic background, as is really wondering what the R.C.'s have to say about all this. I wouldn't have any idea about that.
hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (03/30/91)
In article <Mar.25.04.21.31.1991.7565@athos.rutgers.edu> balistik@nevada.edu (SHAWN HICKS) writes: >When you or anyone says 'marriage' what do you mean? Are you referring to the >social/legal marriage where a Justice of the Peace declares you wed or are >you referring to a religious wedding? ... (The moderator comments) >[I don't know of any case where a church would do a marriage without >also registering it with the State, at least in the U.S. ... I believe the moderator is correct as far as the U.S. goes. However, this does not apply to all countries. When I was a missionary in Peru (over 25 years ago, can I really be that old?) the Peruvian government did not recognize church weddings. The custom among the people was to have 2 weddings, one in the church and one before the government authorities. Most Catholics I talked to regarded the church wedding as the important one and many of the poor people skipped the legal ceremony entirely since it was rather costly from their point of view. I don't know if this was an official Catholic position or if it was just the belief among the people. My own church (LDS) regarded the legal marriage as important and missionaries frequently assisted couples with the paperwork etc. so their church marriage could be legalized. I think the reasoning is that marriage should have legal protection and that since these marriages were for this life only anyway they should be sanctioned by the authorities of this life, namely the government of the country. In fact while I was there our church succeeded in arranging for marriages in our chapels in Lima to be recognized by the government. In answer to Shawn's question then, I suspect different churches would have different answers. The LDS church would insist that the marriage be recognized by the appropriate government. Other churches will likely feel differently. I'm sure you can guess my view that the marriage should be legally sanctioned by the government and enjoy the protection governments usually give to a marriage. Marriage is a covenant which ought to protect those involved, particularly wives and children. Without legal sanction this protection is usually missing.
piet@cs.ruu.nl (Piet van Oostrum) (04/01/91)
>>>>> ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) (RO'K) writes:
RO'K> _married_. The Napoleonic code changed things in many European countries;
RO'K> my understanding is that a church wedding in (say) the Netherlands has no
RO'K> legal status, so the custom is to have the civil wedding and then procede
RO'K> immediately to the church.
In the Netherlands it is ILLEGAL to have any church ceremonies before the
civil wedding. A few years ago a Roman Catholic priest was convicted for
doing this.
--
Piet van Oostrum <piet@cs.ruu.nl>conan@wish-bone.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe) (04/02/91)
In article <Mar.30.02.51.41.1991.14838@athos.rutgers.edu> hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) writes: >I believe the moderator is correct as far as the U.S. goes. >However, this does not apply to all countries. When I was a >missionary in Peru (over 25 years ago, can I really be that old?) >the Peruvian government did not recognize church weddings. The >custom among the people was to have 2 weddings, one in the church >and one before the government authorities. Most Catholics I talked >to regarded the church wedding as the important one and many of the >poor people skipped the legal ceremony entirely since it was rather >costly from their point of view. I don't know if this was an >official Catholic position or if it was just the belief among the >people. > I believe that this is the official Catholic position. While I am not conversant with the exact details of canon law, I do know that friends of mine who had a civil wedding later had it "blessed" in an official church ceremony--and only after this ceremony was their wedding recorded on their baptismal records. Yours in Christ, David Cruz-Uribe, SFO
jhpb@cbnewsm.att.com (04/02/91)
In Catholic theology, marriage is a Sacrament, thus under the overall jurisdiction of the Church, but it is also a social contract of great importance to civil society, thus the state has say in marriage law also. The situation that Hal L. described in Peru probably arose from there being an anti-Catholic government there.
hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (04/05/91)
In article <Apr.2.03.51.35.1991.19900@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@cbnewsm.att.com writes: >In Catholic theology, marriage is a Sacrament, thus under the overall >jurisdiction of the Church, but it is also a social contract of great >importance to civil society, thus the state has say in marriage law >also. >The situation that Hal L. described in Peru probably arose from there >being an anti-Catholic government there. Good guess, but not so. The Peruvian government at the time (and for a while before I was there) was rather pro-Catholic. I found it a bit ironic that our church (which was a very small minority) was able to get church marriages recognized by the government while marriages of the majority church were not. After reading David Cruz-Uribe's remarks I'm inclined to think the Catholic Church just didn't think it important to ask for similar recognition. I realize it's dangerous to make such remarks about other religions and I could be wrong. However, David appears to me to be the most knowledgable Catholic on the net so I tend to place some trust in him.