ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) (11/29/90)
How can there be justice without peace? How can there be peace without understanding? How can there be understanding without explanation? Therefore the Most High has said "Blessed are the peacemakers" and the Holy One would have us honour those that teach us. In article <Nov.23.02.10.08.1990.20098@athos.rutgers.edu>, i wrote > It would be a very great comfort to me if I could be shown how someone > claiming to get their moral views from the Bible could plausibly come > to a view which appears to be diametrically opposed to what the Bible > seems to teach. I'd have to eat a lot of crow, but I've been > sufficiently unhappy this year due to my inability to do what I saw as > a betrayal of my God that I am *eager* to eat that crow *if* I can do > so with integrity. Every time someone refuses to explain to me, that > just reinforces my suspicion that they haven't _got_ a rational > explanation, but hold their views because it is expedient to do so. I am not particularly interested in the subject of homosexual behaviour. I proposed consideration of a specific question: May Richard O'Keefe visit a legal brothel in Victoria? Several people have been kind enough to explain to me why I shouldn't. I know why I shouldn't, and that is why I shan't, although the temptation isn't negligible. What I want is an argument, either for "yes" or for "no", from someone who _doesn't_ basically reason "the Bible says no". I want this not for the sake of argument, but because I want to understand. If you don't want to carry on a discussion in this newsgroup, just send E-mail to me. If you don't want to _discuss_ it, but want to stop my mouth so that I can no longer say "those people *never* offer any reason" (again I want to stress that I have been told by ministers identifying themselves as liberals "we won't discuss it with you, you must just believe and accept"), then send me E-mail saying "here is my position and I don't want to discuss it _further_." Our moderator was kind enough to summarise what the problem is, except that he made a mistake at the beginning. > Since you ask how one can possibly > believe that the Bible allows homosexual behavior, I will try to > summarize the arguments we have heard in the past. No, that wasn't my question. My question was about fornication, a heterosexual mode of behaviour. Surely, if it is ok for two unmarried adult men to copulate, it must be ok for two unmarried adults of complementary sexes to copulate. I have been assured by some people identifying themselves as liberals that this is so, and that neither love nor commitment is necessary to make such heterosexual copulation good. THAT is what I am asking about. It's worth noting that the argument > (3) The sorts of homosexual > relationships that typically occured in the 1st Cent. are not those > being advocated by homosexual Christians. (They were often associated > with pagan worship, and they often involved exploitation of slaves and > children.) clearly applies, mutatis mutandis, to visiting a legal brothel in Victoria. Prostitution at the time of the NT was very often associated with pagan worship, and it often involved exploitation of slaves and children. Indeed, one of the standard arguments of the apologists was "When you visit a brothel, it might be one of your own daughters that you exposed to die as an infant that you copulate with". That is not the case in the Australian state of Victoria. So if that argument is sound, then the prohibitions of "fornication" are equally invalidated. Here's the moderator's summary of the problem: > There is clearly a difference in attitude towards use of the Bible. > Conservative Christians -- and I believe in this case we are talking > about the great majority -- believe that we can look to the Bible for > specific rules. Usually this means that (1) portions of the OT Law is > taken to be moral rather than ceremonial, and still applies to us. > (2) What Paul wrote to his congregations can be applied directly to > the 20th Cent. unless there is very clear evidence that it was > intended only for a specific circumstance. Liberal Christians > interpret Paul as saying that the Law has been abolished for > Christians, and that Paul's writings ought not to be used to create a > new Law, since they are often limited by the cultural context and his > beliefs. ... It is obvious to our liberal > readers that conservative Christians are ignoring the basic message of > both Christ and Paul, and are turning words that were intended to free > us from the Law into a new Law. I am slowly beginning to despair of > these discussions. There seems to be a paradox here. It is precisely this kind of thing which I don't understand and honestly _want_ to understand. If Paul's moral commandments "So put to death those parts of you which belong to the earth--fornication, indecency, lust, evil desires, and the ruthless greed which is nothing less than idolatry; on these divine retribution falls" (Col 3:5--6) are lacking in authority, how can his alleged abolition of the Law have any authority? How come Paul is a greater authority than the author of Matthew who put "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets ... Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingom of heaven ..." (Matt 5:17--20) on Jesus' lips? If fornication is now permitted, (contra Paul and Jesus both), is "greed" now permitted to us? These are honest questions: how does one tell what part of Paul's teaching is to be elevated to an absolute principle (you, my brothers, were called to be free -- Gal 5:13a) and what part is to be disregarded (but do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature -- Gal 5:13b)? What criterion is available to us that will enable us to be confident that it is _right_ to accept Galatians 5:18 and ignore Galations 5:19--21? I can imaginatively understand how someone who is not a Christian could look at the Bible and say "I like that bit, yes that bit's right, this bit fits, but _ugh_ that bit's wrong and that bit is evil". I can imaginatively understand a Jew quoting "the Torah has been given to men" and using that to explain how Gershom could ban levirate marriage. I can imaginatively understand the Mormon belief that they have a _continuing_ prophetic leader and that through the first presidency G-d has the power to change His mind (polygamy was sort of ok in the OT, then it was an "abomination" in the BoM, then it was an "everlasting convenant", and then it was off again). I don't agree with the presuppositions of any of these positions, but they make sense to me. But I honestly do not understand and very much *want* to understand how one can say (as some people identifying themselves as Liberals have said to me) "the Bible is the basis of my moral beliefs" and yet pick and choose a few bits from it and leave the rest to one side. What I do not understand is where we can get the principle for that choice. There is presumably some *reason* why it is known to be *right* to accept "you were called to be free" and Matt 5:17--20. I do not see how we can derive such a reason from a book containing both. So where _does_ it come from? Clearly, if the position that our moderator has outlined is correct, then I am radically mistaken in my approach to the Bible and I am in bondage. If anyone holding that position reads this: your giving me an explanation of how to pick the right bits and leave the rest could at best liberate me from bondage, at "middle" could make peace between me and someone very dear to me, and at worst would give me a good impression of you. > It would also be nice if sometime people would be satisfied with a > summary of this sort. But how _can_ I be satisfied with your excellent summary? It is a summary of the QUESTION, not a summary of an answer! How could I be satisfied with something that leaves me exactly where I stand? -- I am not now and never have been a member of Mensa. -- Ariadne. [Sorry for misunderstanding your question. I was commenting specifically on homosexual activity, not extra-marital intercourse. I see why you might conclude that the argument I summarized for allowing homosexual sex would generalize to allowing extramarital heterosexual sex. However the folks arguing for homosexual relationships in the past seem to have been talking about a relationship involving a long-term commitment. While they did not always say so specifically, I took them to mean a commitment of the same sort as marriage. I don't recall any past proposals here that Christians should engage in sex outside of such a relationship (unless you are making such a proposal, and you don't seem to be). Nor do I believe any of them proposed ignoring Paul's calls for sexual purity. They were instead suggesting a generalization of the sorts of relationships that would be recognized as pure. You raise a number of issues that could be pursued. I'm going to comment on two. First, you seem not to be convinced that the Law does not apply to Christians. You quote Mat. 5:17-20. There are several possible responses, one of which is that this was a hot topic in the early Church and the source behind the saying in Mat 5:18 may have been one of the Judaizers. However let's try taking it at face value. The simplest way to reconcile this passage with others that seem to challenge the Law is that in Mat 5, Jesus was preaching to Jews. The agreement in Acts 15 (and Paul's position) neither abolished the Law nor challenged its application to Jewish Christians. Jesus intended to call people to a life of moral strictness. For Jews that means obeying the Law, though with an emphasis on the spirit rather than the letter. While Mat 5:18 taken alone might seem to suggest a sort of ultra-legalist position, Jesus' known position on such issues as working on the Sabbath, the rest of Mat 5, and Mat 7:9-15 suggest that this cannot be what he meant. In 7:15 he seems to be uprooting all of the kosher laws, and the comment at the end of 7:19 makes it clear that this is the way the passage was understood by the editor. So I have to believe that his statement in 5:18 about not breaking the least commandment is to be thought of primarily as emphasizing degree of moral commitment required, and not as requiring attention to the letter of the Law. But even if this were not the case, we are not Jews. (At least I'm not. I don't know your background, but I'm going to assume for the moment that you are a Gentile Christian. The situation of Jewish Christians is sufficiently delicate that I do not presume to offer them advice.) Thus according to both Acts 15 and Paul's arguments, the Law does not apply to us. That does not abolish the Law, and thus does not contradict Mat 5:18. It simply argues that the Law does not apply to us. We are still called to a life of obedience and moral strictness, but the moral strictness is not necessarily going to be based on the Law. We do have an example of Jesus dealing with someone who was outside the bounds of the Law. In Luke 7 Jesus deals with a Centurion. He is clearly not Jewish. The elders (in 7:5) speak of him as apart from the Jewish people. Jesus (in 7:9) refers to him as not being part of Israel. Yet the Jewish leaders praise him as a righteous man, and Jesus accepts this judgement. Based on what is known of 1st Cent. Judaism, it seems reasonable to conclude that he was a "God-fearer", i.e. someone who accept Israel's God and presumably obeyed the Noahic laws, but not the Law. Such people were regarded as being as righteous as an Israelite, but as outside the range of applicability of the Law. So you ask, how do we decide what to take from the Bible. I think I disagree with your basic intent. Your basic presumption seems to be that the Bible is a source of rules, and that what I'm saying is that we somehow pick only some of them. I'm saying quite the contrary: I do not expect it to be an authoritative source of rules at all. I do not ignore any of Gal 5:13-21. I accept both that we are to be free and that we are not to use that freedom to indulge our sinful nature. I also accept his call to put to death those parts of us that are earthly (Col. 3:5ff). However I insist that some of his specific judgements on things that are wrong are open for discussion, because I do not believe Paul intended for his advice to be turned into a new Law. It was good advice: certainly good for the people to whom it was addressed, and by and large good even for us. But it is not a Law, and therefore is open to reexamination. The issue that you raise is how we can claim Biblical authority for standards when we also claim the freedom to change those standards. The best treatment of this question I've seen is in C.S. Lewis' book "The Abolition of Man". In it he discusses the development of morals. He suggests that it is an organic process carried out by people within the tradition. He doesn't say specifically what causes them to accept changes, but implies that normally it will be clear to people when changes are a further development along the direction of the tradition. E.g. (and I don't recall that this is an example he uses), it is obvious to most Christians that slavery is unacceptable. In fact the Bible accept slavery, even giving principles for relations between master and slave. But experience in trying to carry out those principles shows that it is impossible. It's all well and good to say that the master must treat the slave as a brother in Christ, and if one could do that, slavery might be acceptable. But experience shows it is not. Slavery involves too much power over our fellow man to be safe in the hands of sinful people. I claim that this conclusion is a genuinely Christian one, even though it is not present in the Bible, and is in some sense even contradicted by what the Bible says. To allow a process of development involves faith that the Holy Spirit will continue to guide Christians. It also requires a tolerance for disagreement. Not everyone will agree on a given change, at least not immediately. If you demand that Christianity give authoritative answers to all questions, this is going to seem unacceptable. Perhaps the most basic difference between "liberals" and "conservatives" is that liberals do not demand guaranteed rules, and this seems to be what conservatives want out of Christianity. I do not, however, suggest "situation ethics". This is the concept that you go into a situation with no fixed guidelines, and simply do what seems most loving at the time. This is dangerous, because it is too easy for momentary passions to overcome good sense. It also does not allow a place for long-term commitments, which are important in structuring our relationships. (I refer you to "Deeds and Rules in Christian Ethics" by Ramsey, for a more detailed discussion of why it is important to have rules.) I do believe we need ethical rules, and I do believe in carrying out commitments. However I argue that rules are subject to change over time. Presumably slow change, and with lots of discussion by the community, because of the temptation to ignore long-term considerations. One of the rules I am committed to is against sex outside of marriage (or an equivalent commitment for homosexuals). I have not seen any experience within the Church to suggest that this rule should be changed. (Indeed I haven't even seen any suggestions to do so, beyond some of the excesses of situation ethics.) You may believe otherwise. If you do, I trust it comes from serious consideration of the consequences of similar acts filtered through the experience of the Church. I will believe you are making a misjudgement, but I will not accuse you of violating the Law. --clh]
ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) (12/04/90)
In article <Nov.28.23.46.14.1990.12649@athos.rutgers.edu>, I wrote ROK> These are honest questions: how does one tell what part of Paul's ROK> teaching is to be elevated to an absolute principle (you, my brothers, ROK> were called to be free -- Gal 5:13a) and what part is to be disregarded ROK> (but do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature -- Gal 5:13b)? ROK> What criterion is available to us that will enable us to be confident that ROK> it is _right_ to accept Galatians 5:18 and ignore Galations 5:19--21? Our excellent moderator has provided a reply. Now, moderating soc.religion.christian is a very demanding task, and the last thing I want is to make it a discouraging one. I should make it clear that I am extremely grateful to Hedrick for keeping the signal/noise ratio in s.r.c. so high. (s.c.j. is not moderated. What a contrast.) Hedrick also does a superb job of remaining neutral but informative; even now I cannot be sure whether he was presenting his own views in his response to my question, or whether he was trying to maintain a balance. He is certainly amongst the peacemakers that Jesus called "blessed". The moderator wrote: Mod> [Sorry for misunderstanding your question. I was commenting Mod> specifically on homosexual activity, not extra-marital intercourse. I Mod> see why you might conclude that the argument I summarized for allowing Mod> homosexual sex would generalize to allowing extramarital heterosexual Mod> sex. However the folks arguing for homosexual relationships in the Mod> past seem to have been talking about a relationship involving a Mod> long-term commitment. While they did not always say so specifically, Mod> I took them to mean a commitment of the same sort as marriage. I Mod> don't recall any past proposals here that Christians should engage in Mod> sex outside of such a relationship (unless you are making such a Mod> proposal, and you don't seem to be). I really don't want to go into all the personal background of this, but I do need, I think, to make it absolutely clear that I am not asking abstract questions here. I tell you with all the earnestness that I possess that the question came up in ordinary life, that indeed I am reading soc.religion.christian as a consequence of meeting this question, that I have spent several hundred dollars on ethics texts this year and have asked a lot of people for help with it. What I am about to tell you is not the whole truth, but it is the truth. There is a woman I met in California who had wanted to be a missionary and had been accepted as a candidate for mission by one of the major USA denominations. She told me that - heterosexual intercourse - without love - without commitment - for the purpose of "exploring her sexuality" - with someone who "wasn't a priority" was a morally excellent thing for a Christian to do, and that accordingly she had done it. What is more, we had both been attending a church of that denomination, and the minister of that church - affirmed that this _was_ right - stated that her own beliefs were "more liberal" - commanded the first woman not to let her beliefs be questioned Both of them refused to give me any explanation of how this belief could be reconciled with the Bible, and demanded that I accept this belief as "Christian" _without_ explanation. The first woman further condemned my continuing virginity as "ingratitude to G-d". A minister I consulted here for advice also told me that I ought to just accept what they said as Christian and treated the problem I had doing so as a psychological problem rather than a philosophical/religious one. So the question hasn't come up _here_, but it really did come up in my life, with people in major denominations who identified themselves as liberals telling me I ought to accept this position as Christian but not being willing to give me any kind of rational argument. Our moderator insisted on dragging homosexual behaviour back into the discussion. Such interest as I have in _that_ question is entirely academic. I would point out, however, that these three people that I have in mind show that you can't draw a line: if today you say "anything goes as long as there is commitment", then tomorrow the condition on commitment will be dropped. Rightly so: we do not call a man righteous because he copulates with only one of his adult daughters and intends never to copulate with anyone else. [My father being a lawyer, I have heard at third hand of about five cases where a father and daughter above the age of consent were having sex and the daughter was extremely angry at having the relationship broken up by the rest of the family. Which is not to say that all incestuous relationships are like that. The majority aren't. But if commitment is the magic ingredient that makes a sexual relationship right, why not in this case?] So, - I am not proposing that it is right for Christians to copulate outside marriage - I have never thought or claimed that anyone has said so _in_this_newsgroups_ - however, people identifying themselves as liberal Christians who are in a position to teach others what is right and wrong _have_ made that claim to me in person - and I want to understand what seems like an extreme case of doublethink. From now on, ">" quotes the moderator, not me. > First, you seem not to be convinced that the Law does > not apply to Christians. You quote Mat. 5:17-20. ... > The simplest way to reconcile this passage with others that seem to > challenge the Law is that in Mat 5, Jesus was preaching to Jews. That simply won't do. Nearly _everyone_ Jesus preached to was a Jew. The promise of the Holy Spirit was made to Jews. Shall we then say that the Holy Spirit is only available to Jewish Christians? By no means! The Lord's Prayer was given to His Jewish discipines. Shall we then say that only Jewish Christians should pray it? By no means! "It is easier for heaven and earth to come to an end than for one letter of the law to lose its force." Where is that found? In Luke! Was Luke a Judaizer? The interesting thing there is that when we look at the whole passage, we find [REB] Luke 16:15 [Jesus] said to [the Pharisees], "You are the people who impress others with your righteousness; but G-d sees through you; for what is considered admirable in human eyes is detestable in the sight of G-d. :16 The law and the prophets were until John; since then, the good news of the kingdom of G-d is proclaimed, and everyone forces a way in. :17 It is easier for heaven and earth to come to an end than for one letter of the law to lose its force." So whatever v17 means, _"Luke"_ thought it was compatible with v16. What _do_ I believe about the Law and Christians? To be perfectly honest, I *don't* *know*. I am struggling with this question. A Jewish friend stumped me: "Why don't Christians follow the Law?" Well, perfect sacrifice once for all, mumble, grace, mumble, explicit cancellation of kashrut, explicit teaching about circumcision, mumble, mumble. "But you _do_ follow some of it; you talk about the 10 commandments, many of Jesus' commands are just like what I find in the Talmud. So how do you tell _which_ bits of the Law you'll keep?" Er, not sure, mate. I'll try to find out. [Interesting point: the woman who told me I was ungrateful to G-d because I am still a virgin is strict about Sunday observance and the one defence she ever offered for her opinion was that "there's nothing in the 10 commandments against it", not that Calvin agreed.] We have affirmation after affirmation in the NT, including statements from Paul, that the Law was *HOLY*. BEGIN DIGRESSION I have been helped a lot by some of Walter Kaiser's books. Probably the best one to read if you haven't come across him before is Toward Rediscovering The Old Testament Walter Kaiser, Jr Zondervan, ISBN 0-310-37120-1 Australian price AUS$31.95 (hardback) END DIGRESSION > The agreement in Acts 15 (and Paul's position) neither abolished the Law > nor challenged its application to Jewish Christians. Well, the agreement in Acts 15 says in the REB Acts 15:28 It is the decision of the Holy Spirit, and our decision, to lay no further burden upon you beyond these ESSENTIALS: :29 You are to abstain from meat that has been offered to idols, from blood, from anything that has been strangled, and from fornication. If you keep yourselves free from these things you will be doing well. Farewell. The relationship to the Noachian laws is obvious. It is also clear that these commands refer to things that weren't obviously wrong to the Gentiles. I have never to my knowledge eaten anything that had been offered to an idol, I always let the blood drain out of meat before I cook it (and never eat black pudding), I don't _think_ that the way meat is slaughtered here counts as strangulation, if I did think that I'd turn vegetarian (or else ask my Jewish friend where he shops (:-)), and I have refrained from any of the practices that counted as fornication. To be perfectly frank, I am relying on this passage as one of my principal reasons for not following the ceremonial and dietary parts of the Law. The only reason that I can appeal to Acts 15 as authoritative is because I _do_ accept its authority. It would not be honest for me to cite it as permission to refrain from reciting the eighteen benedictions unless I also accepted the "burden" which is equally claimed to be "the decision of the Holy Spirit". I should say that I accept the burden as a burden on _me_. I have never told my parents, for example, not to eat black pudding. They are old enough to read for themselves, and probably understand better than I do. I am _not_ advising anyone else in this newsgroup to stick to the letter of Acts 15. My point is that I don't see how I can appeal to part of Acts 15 and reject the rest and still retain my intellectual integrity. I don't know what Catholics teach about this passage. They _do_ have a method which allows a present-day Catholic to read a text other than literally; the Catholic Church offers its adherents an interpretative community which is continuous back to the 1st century, and can say "we have always understood that passage _thus_". Someone who accepts that the Catholic Church has faithfully maintained the traditions that were handed down clearly _can_ read the text in other than the obvious way and still retain his or her intellectual integrity, by virtue of using the best interpretive method believed to be available. Conservative evangelicals can and do appeal to the Fathers for clarification, although they do feel free to rank other considerations higher. The Mormons also have a method which allows them to contradict the explicit teaching of the BoM. They accept the continuing prophetic ministry of the First Presidency, and hold that G-d was able to change the status of polygamy because he was able to change his own law. I don't share that belief, but given such a belief they could alter their belief every time their prophet spoke and still retain their intellectual integrity. (I think.) As I see it, fidelity to scripture demands that I be corrigible. I do believe that Scripture has authority over me. I do _not_ believe that my _readings_ of Scripture are infallible. As a specific example (this may lose me some of the friends I've made so far) I don't read Genesis 1 literally, although I used to. Why not? Because In the Beginning Henri Bloch [author, title, or both may be wrong; the book is in another country and it's been about a year since I saw it] convinced me that another way of reading it was more faithful to the nature of the text. It's entirely possible that my mind may be changed by another argument. Let's look at Acts 15 again. The 4 commands don't mention murder, or theft, or rape, or incest, or extortion, or perverting justice. Are we to suppose that those things are permitted? I think Acts 15 has to be understood in the light of the Noachian laws, and that the point was to tell the Gentile Christians about things they didn't already know. They already believed in one G-d, for example, so they didn't need to be told to do that. > Jesus intended to call people to a life of moral strictness. Yes, but what does that _mean_? If I decide that I ought to mortify my flesh, and deliberately go out in a wee boat to the middle of the Pacific Ocean without food or water, is that ok as long as I have enough "moral commitment"? Margaret Thatcher had a great deal of moral commitment to her political vision, she sincerely believed that she was doing the best she could for Britain. Yet the woman who told me my virginity was "ingratitude to G-d", being English, had an effigy of Thatcher hanged by the neck in her car, and thought it right to condemn Thatcher no matter how earnest she was. Strictness about _what_? > Thus according to both Acts 15 and Paul's arguments, > the Law does not apply to us. But both Acts 15 _and_ the letters of Paul __purport__ to be giving us commandments that we ought to follow. Acts 15 goes so far as to call them "essentials". Paul says explicitly in 1 Cor. 6:9--10 Surely you know that wrongdoers will never possess the kingdom of G-d. Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolater, no adulterer or sexual pervert, no thief, extortioner, drunkard, slanderer, or swindler will possess the kingdom of G-d. [REB] We've got exactly the same question that we started with: how can we -- accept Paul's arguments that we are not "under" Law -- REJECT Paul's far more explicit lists of things that we shouldn't do -- and retain our intellectual integrity? If we do not trust Paul when he tells us unconditionally that "fornication" (yes, I know how broad its scope is) and so on are wrong, what right have we to appeal to anything else that Paul said? How can we be sure that the "rule" "we are no longer under the Law" is not itself one of the things that has changed? Let me state quite explicitly that I cannot claim to be holy. The Jews of today boast of their teaching against lashon ha'ra (slander when false, gossip when true). If we will take Paul and James at their word, then lashon ha'ra is equally (though less voluminously) forbidden to Christians, and I have been guilty of it. I go red just thinking about some of the things I've said and passed on. > We are still called to a life of obedience and moral > strictness, but the moral strictness is not necessarily going to be > based on the Law. But obedience to what? Strictness about what? If not based on the Law, based on what? How do we know _what_ to base it on? > We do have an example of Jesus dealing with someone > who was outside the bounds of the Law ... > was a "God-fearer", i.e. someone who accept Israel's God and > presumably obeyed the Noahic laws, but not the Law. Such people were > regarded as being as righteous as an Israelite, but as outside the > range of applicability of the Law. They were regarded as being outside the range of the Law given to Moses, outside the covenant with Abraham. But as our moderator has said, they were not regarded as being outside the covenant with Noah, or outside the 7 Noachian laws. This example would lead to the conclusion that the 7 Noachian laws _are_ (as my Jewish friend believes) binding on us Gentile Christians. I would be very happy with that conclusion. > So you ask, how do we decide what to take from the Bible. I think I > disagree with your basic intent. Your basic presumption seems to be > that the Bible is a source of rules Well, that's what it _purports_ to be (among other things). John 14:15 claims that Jesus said "If you love me you will OBEY MY COMMANDS." and in verse 21 that He said "Anyone who has received my COMMANDS and OBEYS them--he it is who loves me; and he who loves me will be loved by my Father; and I will love him and disclose myself to him." If I am not to trust that, how am I to trust anything in the Gospel of John? If Leviticus and Deuteronomy are of no value to us, why do we not throw them out, as Harnack suggested? > and that what I'm saying is that we somehow pick only some of them. No, you have misunderstood. > I'm saying quite the contrary: I > do not expect it to be an authoritative source of rules at all. It's when you say _that_ that it _seems_ to me that you are picking and chosing. There _are_ rules in the NT. If they are not authoritative, how is _anything_ in it authoritative? > However I insist that some of [Paul's] specific > judgements on things that are wrong are open for discussion, The question is, how do you tell *which*? If what Paul says about "fornication", say, is open for discussion, why not what he says about murder, or about greed, or about slander? It is important to draw a distinction here. I quite understand the attitude "I believe that such-and-such an apparent rule is authoritative, but I don't think we are sure about what it _means_, and we need to regard the interpretation as open for discussion." That's exactly what I believe about quite a lot of the apparent rules. It's quite another thing to say "I am confident about what the rule seems to be and I am equally confident that it is incorrect, we know better now." In order to say the latter, which is what you seem to be saying, you need a higher standard. What is that standard? How may I come to share it? > because I do not believe Paul intended for his advice to be turned into > a new Law. I can agree with the words exactly. But I mean something different: I think that Paul thought he was telling people what was _already_ true, _still_ true. When Paul gave *advice*, he said so! > The issue that you raise is how we can claim Biblical authority for > standards when we also claim the freedom to change those standards. > The best treatment of this question I've seen is in C.S. Lewis' book > "The Abolition of Man". In it he discusses the development of morals. Oh, that C.S.Lewis were alive to answer this! C.S.Lewis was not a Liberal. Whatever he meant, he didn't mean _that_. There's an illustration he used to make clear what kind of development he meant: Imagine that you have a friend who likes his vegetables fresh. -- development WITHIN a tradition is like telling him "why don't you grow your own and have them perfectly fresh?" -- development alien to a tradition is like telling him "why don't you eat bricks and centipedes instead?" He said more or less explicitly that development _within_ a tradition is such that someone _within_ the earlier version of the tradition can appreciate that the new teaching was already implicit in what he believed. To give an example where two opposing outcomes can both plausibly see themselves as developments within a tradition, consider abortion. (I am not stating my own view here, and I don't want to discuss abortion as such. The whole force of my argument is that _both_ sides have some claim to be developments of the tradition rather than revolutions against it.) The Tanach has no explicit teaching on abortion. There is one passage that deals with premature birth, and is a terribly unsatisfactory basis for argument either way. The NT has no explicit teaching on abortion either. People who oppose abortion on demand say -- we are taking the command "do not commit murder" and applying it, unborn children being innocent human beings it always _was_ murder so the wrongness of abortion was obvious as soon as it was considered. People who are in favour of abortion on demand say -- foetuses are not human, so they are not covered by that law, _we_ are making plain what love for our neighbour (the woman) always required Neither group (at least amongst Christians) disputes that "do not commit murder" is still valid or that "love your neighbour as yourself" is still valid, or any other law. The question is how those unchanged laws are to be applied. > He doesn't say specifically what causes them to accept changes, C.S.Lewis is clear in his writings that the answer to questions like that is Reason. He points out elsewhere that a lot of questions just didn't get considered for some time, and that when they were, reason was enough to extract the answers from the existing tradition. One clear test is that a _development_ presupposes the previous tradition as its own basis, the development itself cannot stand unless the previous tradition is accepted as valid. > Slavery involves too much power over our fellow man to be > safe in the hands of sinful people. I claim that this conclusion is a > genuinely Christian one, even though it is not present in the Bible, > and is in some sense even contradicted by what the Bible says. Slavery is a good example of development, as is polygamy. The Mosaic law _permitted_ both, but did not require it. We eventually realised that slavery was inconsistent with the Faith. Very well, no problem, there were no commandments requiring us to hold slaves. The Jews eventually realised that polygamy was risky: Pirkei Avos 2[8] "[Hillel] used to say: ... the more wives, the more witchcraft" and the commentary in the ArtScroll translation says "This condemnation of polygamy focuses upon the jealousy between rival wives. They may resort to anything -- even witchcraft -- to gain their husband's affection." Finally R.Gershom put polygamy under the ban. Very well, no problem, there was no commandment requiring polygamy. There is no denying that in the Tanach we see a "progessive revelation". Seth and Cain had to marry full sisters; only later were people told that brother/sister incest was wrong. Sarah was Abraham's half-sister (they had the same father but not the same mothe [Gen. 20:12] which at the time was not thought to count); only later was it made clear that that was wrong. Jacob married two sisters, only later was it made clear that that was wrong. Elkanah had two wives [1Sam. 1:2]; it took a long time before it became clear that that was wrong. Do we see a common thread? Yes: something which was _permitted_ but not _required_ is later understood as wrong. Jesus' command about divorce fits this pattern perfectly. > To allow a process of development involves faith that the Holy Spirit > will continue to guide Christians. Such a faith is neither necessary nor sufficient: -- not necessary: one may belief that "the Torah has been given into the hands of men" so that human reason is sufficient to discover what was always implicit -- not sufficient: if one also believes "G-d does not change like shifting shadows" (Jas 1:17) and that "the word of the Lord endures for evermore" (1 Pet. 1:23-24) one will test *changes* in order to see whether they are of the Holy Spirit or of some other spirit by checking whether they *develop* "the living and enduring word" or overthrow it. Ask a Pentecostal about this one (:-). > It also requires a tolerance for disagreement. The Catholic Church does not tolerate protracted disagreement, yet it develops! (I am not a Catholic.) What is more, we have to tolerate some level of disagreement, change or no change. I keep on pointing to the "Divorce and Remarriage" book from IVP. There is disagreement there, but all of the authors are committed to the project of discovering what Jesus taught about divorce and obeying whatever that means. > If you demand that Christianity give authoritative > answers to all questions, this is going to seem unacceptable. Perhaps > the most basic difference between "liberals" and "conservatives" is > that liberals do not demand guaranteed rules, and this seems to be > what conservatives want out of Christianity. This is not addressed to me. As my recent posting about long hair showed, I do not demand a guaranteed answer to every question. I could list the things I am not sure about, but it would be a long one. I cannot speak for conservatives. All I can say is that the issue for me is not getting authoritative guaranteed rules for all questions, but a much simpler problem: -- the Bible *purports* to present us with *some* explicit "enduring" rules; -- there is no hint anywhere in Paul that the commands he reminds his readers of may ever change; -- so how can we ignore any of those rules? As human beings we simply do not have the option of operating without definite rules. We only have a choice about whether we shall be conscious about the rules we obey. (This may be my AI background speaking here.) A moment's reflection on Goedel's incompleteness theorem, on complexity theory, or even the bandwidth of the human senses should suffice to convince us that there _might_ be valid rules for human behaviour which human computational capacity is insufficient to discover. > I do believe we need ethical rules, and > I do believe in carrying out commitments. However I argue that rules > are subject to change over time. Presumably slow change, But by what standard do we judge these changes? When will it be right to kill innocent adult human beings who are not willing to die and whose continued existence poses no danger? When will it be right to worship idols and hate the true G-d? If the answer is "never", then why are _those_ rules unchangeable and not others? It is important to distinguish between - the dispersion of knowledge of a rule among the people (which may change) - the depth of knowledge of a rule (which may change) - the range of situations to which a rule must be applied (which may change) - the inconvenience of following or affirming a rule (which may change) - the values of the parameters a rule is applied to (which may change) - our current belief about the correct expression of a rule (which may change) and the rule itself. If a rule has the form it is always wrong to do X at one time, and at a later time it has "changed" to some people may do X then the original form of the rule was ALWAYS wrong. If there is any rule, then it must have been some people in category C may do X and in the original situation there happened to be no people in that category. For example, Lionel Tiger (not a Christian or a homophobe) points out that giving pregnant rats barbiturates tends to feminise the male pups, and suggests that the rise in numbers of people adopting homosexual behaviours may be due to the thoughtless prescription of barbiturates for pregant women. If he is right, then the correct form of the rule for homosexual behaviour (the example the moderator continued with) might be men feminised by chemicals ingested by their mothers may form committed monogamous relationships that include male/male copulation, other instances of male/male copulation are wrong. and that would be a case where the earlier form of the rule was INCORRECT, but was tolerated because the relevant class was empty at the time, and the correct formulation of the rule would have been unintelligible to the people who had to transmit the tradition. But this would not be a case of what the rule really is changing, but a case where the form of the rule had *always* been incorrect, and there was a correct form which did not change. Again, one thing that the woman who brought this issue to my attention said was relevant is that she never thought she was likely to marry. Perhaps then the rule is not sex without love or commitment is always wrong but if you think you are unlikely to marry, it is ok to experiment, but otherwise sex without love or commitment is wrong. If whatever-the-rule-is-NOW permits sex without love or commitment outside marriage for even two people (a minimum of two being required (:-)), then the form of the rule that both I and the moderator accepthas ALWAYS been INCORRECT. Not that the rule has _changed_, but that I have always been simply _mistaken_ about the rule. > One of the rules I am committed to > is against sex outside of marriage ... Fine, so am I. But there are at least ministers in mainline demoninations who do not accept that rule. The woman I wrote of above told me that she was taught as a teenager in a mainline church in England that male/female copulation outside marriage was _not_ fornication and that it was fully in accord with Biblical principles. She has acted on that faith, and a USA mainline demonination found that acceptable, and a minister of that denomination stated quite explicitly that _she_ believed that it was in accord with reason and experience and that her own beliefs about what was permissilble were "more liberal". We are not talking about straw men here. This is _real_. > I will believe you are making a misjudgement [if you accept fornication], > but I will not accuse you of violating the Law. But I *would* be violating the rule *you* hold, even if you don't think it is Law. So the question is, what kind of grounds can you have for your belief that it is wrong? To hold something as a moral principle is to hold that it is universal. You hold this principle, the four people I have mentioned (but will not name) do not. You cannot with logical consistency believe that they are *right* (though you may with logical consistency believe that they have come by their opinions honestly and are entitled to them). So how can you be sure that you are *right* that male/female copulation without love or commitment is to be avoided in the USA in the last quarter of the 20th century and that those four people (three of them ministers and one accepted as a candidate for mission) with a contrary people are mistaken? Why is it RATIONAL for a Christian to live according to this rule? I personally believe that reason and experience are sufficient for this one. Musonius Rufus came to the same conclusion, and he was no Christian. But I am talking here about real people who claim the opposite, although three of them were unwilling to explain how come. (I never met the 4th.) I am not interested in accusing anyone of anything at all. What I want to know is "how can I know what to do?" I am a bear of very little brain, my reasoning powers are limited, my knowledge and experience are ludicrously inadequate, and I am prone to self-deception. Yet I must live; I must act. On my understanding of the Scriptures, which *purport* to provide rules, although they do not purport to provide a *complete* set of rules (that would be impossible), I do at least have a standard against which I can cross-check my reasoning. When I detect a contradiction between what I think is right and what I think the Bible is saying, I must revise one or the other or both. As soon as I accept that rules the Bible purports to provide were ok for _then_ but aren't (necessarily) valid now, then I am suspended 70,000 fathoms over an abyss: either I accept what other people tell me as my standard against which to judge both myself and the Bible, or I am left with no standard at all to check my reasoning. And as soon as I accept that the Bible's claim to provide enduring rules is invalid, I am left in the same giddy position: _everything_ must be doubted. I think we may have succeeded in narrowing the question down: -- given that there are things in the New Testament which are on the face of them unconditional rules, commands, or prohibitions, 1a. how can we tell when one of these rules should be modified so that what used to be forbidden is now permitted, 1b. and given that everyone in the dispute about such a change will claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit, how can we tell who _is_? 2. and if those claims can be invalidated by the passage of time, why should we place any greater trust in the rest of the NT? -- I am not now and never have been a member of Mensa. -- Ariadne. [I'm less clear than you on why changes should always be in the direction of being stricter. A change is a change. I guess my basic perspective is simply very different. I don't see any unchangeable rules in the NT at all. It's hard to come up with a non-controversial example of a weakening on the rules, because of course there are people who believe as a matter of principle it's not possible to happen. I see the increased role of women as one. Becoming Christian involved a radical change in perspective. I see no reason to think that all the consequences of that change were immediately apparent, even to Paul. The principle is clear: in Christ there is no male or female. But in the 1st Cent. situation I am not surprised that it wasn't completely carried out. (It even makes sense. Their goal was to proclaim Christ, not to become known as innovators in social relationships. Having scandalous changes in the role of women would detract from the basic scandal of the cross.) I guess I see dealing with the NT in areas of ethics as being a more complex process than you do. Simply finding a place where somebody says not to do something doesn't end it for me. I start wanting to know why he said it. Was he giving advice specific to the situation, either of the particular people he was talking to or of the culture as a whole? Does it follow from the Gospel in a direct way, or does he ends up saying, "well, if you don't agree with me there's nothing I can say except we don't do it that way." (I Cor. 11:16) So I think my basic disagreement is over the claim that Scripture purports to provide rules. I believe one of the basic messages of Christianity is that there are no rules binding on a Christian. However as you say, we have to live somehow. In principle I think everyone has responsibility for their own standards. However in practice I expect to start with standards from the Christian community (my own, since Christianity is far from uniform). I use the Bible to judge it. But what I expect to get out of the Bible is not final judgements so much as examples of how a Christian makes decisions. Unless my situation is the same, I won't necessary expect to get the same result. However it should be possible to trace my judgements back to the same starting point in the Gospel. The problem with this is that I'm not going to be able to say "this is Wrong" or "this is Right" and have a clearcut way to prove it. But I am not convinced God intended us to have assured truth. When you look at the world, or even just the Church, it seems to me that you either have to take a very narrow view -- there's an absolute truth, and only I know it, and 99% of the world is damned -- or you have to conclude that God is simply not as concerned about complete agreement as we are. As far as I'm concerned you do your best to determine the right way to act, and you trust to God's grace to rescue you from your mistakes. But you shouldn't expect to know for certain that you are Right. To me that's what the Tree of Knowledge represents: a guaranteed source of knowledge about what is right and wrong, that would eliminate the need to depend upon God. --clh]
JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu (Joy Haftel) (12/06/90)
[Richard O'Keefe tells of someone he met who believed that heterosexial intercourse without love or commitment for exploring her sexuality was an excellent thing to do, and that her denomination endorsed it. Further, her own views were "more liberal" (I assume this means she went even further??) --clh] But not "more Scriptural." [They refused to explain it on Scriptural grounds, but simply affirmed it was right, and treated criticism as ingratitude to God. --clh] >So the question hasn't come up _here_, but it really did come up in my >life, with people in major denominations who identified themselves as >liberals telling me I ought to accept this position as Christian but not >being willing to give me any kind of rational argument. 2 Tim. 4:3-5 says: 3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 5 But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry. It sounds to me (although I have never heard a Christian give the position you just outlined as belonging to a "mainstream" denomination), as though these people are being deceived, due to the overwhelming pressure for and drive for sex in this culture and in their bodies. My gosh, Christianity *can't* mean self-control, can it? I *want* to fornicate. *I* think I will go right ahead. Well, let me check my Bible. The Ten Commandments says "thou shalt not commit adultery." Well, I'm not married! I guess it's all right! Oh, drat! Paul forbids it too. Well, I'll just write him out. We're not under the Law! Goody, I can do what I want now! The process is not reasoning, it is rationalization. You take your conclusions and then twist the scriptures to your purpose. The devil is good at this. The concept of self-denial, especially in an area such as sex, is really difficult for a lot of people to handle. It's *hard*, darn it, and I don't particularly like it. In fact, of all the laws in the Bible, it's the one that I like least. But my desires really don't show me the truth of things; there are many things I dislike that are true enough. If I were to fornicate, I could not in intellectual honesty say that I was doing something that I believed to be consistent with the standards of the Bible which I try to hold for myself. I would be a hypocrite, but I would be more of one if I said that fornication was OK in order that I might do what I liked and not feel guilty, and thus lead others into sin. >So, > - I am not proposing that it is right for Christians to > copulate outside marriage > - I have never thought or claimed that anyone has said so > _in_this_newsgroups_ > - however, people identifying themselves as liberal Christians who > are in a position to teach others what is right and wrong _have_ > made that claim to me in person > - and I want to understand what seems like an extreme case of doublethink. I think it is an extreme case of doublethink. >We've got exactly the same question that we started with: how can we > -- accept Paul's arguments that we are not "under" Law > -- REJECT Paul's far more explicit lists of things that we > shouldn't do > -- and retain our intellectual integrity? We are not "under" the Law to the extent that we are not condemned by it. We are not capable of keeping all of it; that is why we need redemption through Christ so very much. Once we have our salvation, we need to live upright lives? What is upright, now that the Law is not "binding" for us? Paul gives us guidelines, not a new Law. But he says OVER and OVER again not to fornicate. Therefore, Paul, who was inspired by God (assuming), thought this was a fairly important act to abstain from to still live a life that is pleasing to God (for we ought to please Him just as we love Him). Joy Haftel "A thing of beauty is a joy for ever." JKH107@PSUVM --Keats [We've got a problem in this discussioon, since no one here seems to be prepared to defend fornication. Your theory about what motivates their position probably isn't going to settle anything. It's the classic ad hominmen argument: conservatives believe liberal just don't want to follow the Law and are rationalizing their desires. Liberals believe conservatives are legalists who are unable to cope with Christian freedom. We can hypothesize unworthy motivations for each other all day, without settling anything. Unless someone is willing to defend the viewpoint, we probably aren't going to be able to go anywhere. I know most of the "liberal" denominations (though not Unitarian Universalist), and don't know any that endorse fornication. --clh]
ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) (12/06/90)
Concerning the permanence or otherwise of moral rules,
our excellent moderator wrote:
> However I argue that rules are subject to change over time.
Popper has of course no Christian authority, but I think the
following quotation from section 26 of "The Poverty of Historicism" is
illuminating. (Sorry to post before my previous followup shows up, but
this was too good to wait.)
"We now turn to the historicist contention that in the social sciences
we must never assume that we have discovered a truly universal law
since we cannot be sure whether its validity extends beyond the
periods in which we have observed it to hold. This may be admitted,
but only in so far as it applies to the natural sciences as well. In
the natural sciences, it is clear, we can never be quite certain
whether our laws are really universally valid, or whether they hold
only in a certain period (perhaps only in the period during which the
universe expands) or only in a certain region (perhaps in a region of
comparatively weak gravitational fields). In spite of the
impossibility of making sure of their universal validity, we do not
add in our formulation of natural laws a condition saying that they
are asserted only for the period for which they have been observed to
hold, or perhaps only within "the present cosmological period". It
would not be a sign of laudable scientific caution if we were to
add such a condition, but a sign that we do not understand scientific
procedure. For it is an important postulate of scientific method that
we should search for laws with an unlimited realm of validity.
IF WE WERE TO ADMIT LAWS THAT ARE THEMSELVES SUBJECT TO CHANGE,
CHANGE COULD NEVER BE EXPLAINED BY LAWS. It would be the admission
that change is simply miraculous. And it would be the end of
scientific progress; for if unexpected observations were made, there
would be no need to revise our theories: the ad hoc hypothesis that
the laws have change would ``explain'' everything.
These arguments hold for the social sciences no less than for
the natural sciences."
Now Popper regards "laws of historical development" such as the inevitability
of communism as anti-scientific bunk (my phrasing), but affirms that
statements like "you cannot construct foolproof institutions" have the
potential of being developed into scientific hypotheses. Ethical "laws" can
be cast in the form of universal statement that Popper is talking about here.
The sentence I put in capitals above and the two following thus have analogues:
If we were to admit ethical rules that are themselves subject
to change, then change itself could never be explained ethically.
It would be the admission that ethical change comes from OUTSIDE
the ethical system. And it would be the end of ethical development;
for if an inconsistent change were made, there would be no need to
justify it: the ad hoc hypothesis that right and wrong had
changed would ``justify'' everything.
If a community claims to have the power to determine what right and wrong
ARE (as opposed to determining how existing moral principles are to be
applied in a new situation, or to exhibiting that an accepted behaviour
is inconsistent with accepted principles), then that community cannot
rationally expect to sway other people to its beliefs by *moral* reasoning,
As Lewis pointed out, if a proposed new ethical rule conflicts with my
existing ethical principles, I can have no _moral_ reason for accepting it.
For example, Hedrick says that he regards extra-marital (with a suitably
broad interpretation of "marriage", and there he and I are in agreement,
I think) sex as unacceptable. Yet I have met three people identifying
themselves as liberal Christians who strongly disagreed, and would regard
even his mild attitude as "judgemental". If the underlying rule can change,
then it is impossible for these people to have a rational _moral_
argument. One could have a pragmatic argument about the consequences (such
as my calculation from statistics that were readily available to me in the
USA but not here, being statistics about the USA, that the chance that the
woman who got me thinking about all this stuff is now sterile because of a
disease she didn't notice catching is about 1 in 50). One could have a
social argument "you are out of step with 70% of the USA populace, who
regard sex without love as wrong", but that is not a moral argument, for
the majority could be mistaken. The kind of argument they can't have is
a _moral_ one: "this action is wrong", "No, the world-spirit is moving
towards acceptance of this, we are in the vanguard, and the new rule is
that it is right". The very example of slavery shows that counting noses
at any one point in time is not a reliable way of telling which of two or
more opinions is correct.
If a change in the rules is discerned by the Holy Spirit moving the
community from one state to another via the instrument of prolonged
discussion, then some rather uncomfortable conclusions follow:
-- because a moral argument for accepting a changed rule that
is inconsistent with the existing moral basis is impossible,
nobody in the community can change their opinion on *moral*
grounds, therefore the change in the community as a whole
will not be *morally* based on the old consensus
-- because a trend is not a law of nature, it is impossible to
*know* what the decision of the community will be (Popper
has arguments to show why this sort of prediction is not
possible), it is not possible to have rational grounds for
adopting the new rule on the *moral* basis of the new
consensus until the new consensus actually exists, so the
change in the community as a whole will not be *morally*
based on the new consensus either
-- there appear to remain three possibilities:
a) a calculated leap: forming an estimate of how likely each
alternative is to become the new consensus, and gambling
on the apparently most likely
b) a leap based on non-moral interest
c) a leap based on the counsel of the Holy Spirit.
The last one seems to be what is needed for the kind of "change in ethical
basis by consent of the community" to have any kind of _Christian_ validity.
But _does_ the Holy Spirit do that kind of thing? I don't recall any
promise in the Bible that She[*] would do anything of the kind. "Lead us
into truth" is not strong enough to bear _that_ weight. And to revert to
the moderator's example of homosexual behaviour just to establish that
dissent on a topic may not cease: why has the Holy Spirit vouchsafed this
new revelation to one part of the community and not another, and how are
those who have not received this insight enabled to determine the
authenticity of the revelation to the rest?
[*] <ruah> (Heb.) and <pneuma> (Grk) both have feminine grammatical gender.
Paul, by the way, appears to refer to 1 Corinthians as "commandments of G-d";
the word <entole> used is the same word used to refer to the Written Law.
Sorry not to provide the exact reference, I forgot to bring my Bible in today.
--
I am not now and never have been a member of Mensa. -- Ariadne.jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (12/06/90)
Here's what was posed:
-- given that there are things in the New Testament which are on
the face of them unconditional rules, commands, or prohibitions,
1a. how can we tell when one of these rules should be modified so
that what used to be forbidden is now permitted,
1b. and given that everyone in the dispute about such a change will
claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit, how can we tell who _is_?
2. and if those claims can be invalidated by the passage of time,
why should we place any greater trust in the rest of the NT?
Morally speaking, law is an objective norm of right action. Moral law
originating with God can be divided into two kinds:
- natural law
- positive law
Natural law is the moral law written in men's hearts. The natural law
is the 10 commandments, basically. Natural law is knowable to mankind
through the exercise of human reason. St. Paul speaks of the natural
law in Romans 2:14-15:
For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those
things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law unto
themselves: Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts,
their consciences bearing witness to them, and their thoughts
between themselves accusing, or also defending one another.
Divine positive law is known through revelation, since it proceeds from
the free will of God. Much of the Mosaic law is divine positive law.
One important difference in the two kinds of law immediately follows:
natural law is immutable, while positive law is not.
Thus, murder is always and has always been immoral, and always will be
immoral, because it is natural law. The particular Old Testament kosher
laws, however, are no longer in effect; they were Divine positive laws
for a particular people and a particular time.
I think that answers the issues underlying most of 1a and 2.
Underlying your questions is the rule of Faith of the Reformation: the
Bible. Choosing this as the rule of Faith has made mincemeat of the
Faith. In addition to the Bible, you have to at least have a means for
deciding what the Bible means. The Reformers didn't provide this. Thus
the uncertainty being introduced on moral matters. Human opinions are
getting mixed in with matters of Faith, with no standard means to
distinguish them.
As far as 1b goes, here is one test that works pretty well: beliefs
proceeding from Faith do not admit of doubt. If a person can change his
mind in a matter of Bible interpretation, his belief proceeds from his
own reason, and not the grace called Faith.
Joe Buehlerok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) (12/11/90)
In article <Dec.6.03.11.12.1990.23257@athos.rutgers.edu>, our moderator noted: > [Richard O'Keefe tells of someone he met who believed that heterosexual > intercourse without love or commitment for exploring her sexuality was > an excellent thing to do, and that her denomination endorsed it. > Further, her own views were "more liberal" (I assume this means she > went even further??) --clh] Correction: although each of the four people I mentioned is a member in good standing of the two denominations involved, entrusted with teaching, none of them claimed to have the endorsement of their denomination as a whole, and I didn't say that they did. The one of the four who I did not meet myself but was said to have taught that "fornication doesn't include sex between unmarried people, that's not wrong, only unjust or exploitative sex is wrong" was in fact a minister of the denomination I was baptised into, as was the minister I sought counsel of here in Melbourne. Yet in that same denomination, the teaching I was given about sex and dating was virtually identical to 80% of a pamphlet on the subject I've been loaned by an Orthodox Jewish friend. As for the other denomination involved, I have read a commentary on the Bible by the founder of that denomination, and he would have been outraged. My claim is that 1. A minister of the denomination I was baptised in taught this 2. A woman raised in that denomination accepted and practiced it and was accepted as a missionary candidate by another denomination 3. A woman minister of the second denomination gave her _personal_ endorsement of this view and said that her "own views are more liberal than X's" 4. Another minister of the denomination I was baptised in told me that I ought to accept that what X thought and had done was Christian About the _practice_ of 1, 3, and 4 I have no information, and none of these people claimed to have denominational support. One of the four went so far as to say that if I believed that there were such things as rules that everyone should follow whether they thought so or not I was "psychologically abnormal". > [They refused to explain it on Scriptural grounds, but simply affirmed > it was right, and treated criticism as ingratitude to God. --clh] A misconception here: it was my _virginity_ that was classified as ingratitude to G-d, my failure to have conducted such an exploration of my own. My question "every English and every Koine Greek dictionary I have checked classifies this kind of act under the heading "fornication" or "porneia", while admitting other acts as well, so how can I accept this as right without denying what appears to be the plain sense of Scripture?", _that_ was treated as "extremely judgemental", but not as ingratitude. The refusal was refusal to explain on _any_ grounds. Quotes: (2) "I refuse to justify what I consider right", (3) "Richard, I'm not going to try to reason with you", (4) "Don't get so worked up about rules, just accept that it's right for her". JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu (Joy Haftel) wrote ironically: > Well, let me check my Bible. The Ten Commandments says "thou shalt not > commit adultery." Well, I'm not married! I guess it's all right! Believe it or not, I was told exactly this. "It isn't in the 10 commandments." There are of course two answers to that. One is that neither are incest and rape literally there in the 10 commandments, yet none of the three people I actually _met_ would endorse either. The other is that commentators such as Calvin and Wesley and for that matter Barclay _do_ see all of these things as being implicit in the 7th commandment. > The process is not reasoning, it is rationalization. You take your conclusions > and then twist the scriptures to your purpose. The devil is good at this. I would like to say that it is my honest belief that #2 did what she did because she believed it to be ok, and that she believed it to be ok because she was taught that in church. #2 is a very honest person, and I can't seriously believe that she did any twisting of her own. I'm very much afraid that my own horrified reaction may have left her convinced that only horrible people disagree with such kindly humane "Christian" principles. The thing is, if it is ok to explore your sexuality "freely and happily" with a friend and then drop them, and if the argument that the prohibition against homosexual acts was really concerned with its religious background and exploitation of slaves and children, then in a state where prostitution has no pagan religious background and involves only willing adults doing what they do "freely and happily", exploring one's sexuality with someone who cannot possibly delude themselves that you might after all have permanence in mind and is far less likely to pass on a disease must surely be ok too. That's why I chose the question "may Richard O'Keefe visit a legal brothel in the state of Victoria", because such an act seems to me much less likely to cause harm. (Also because whenever I walk up-hill a few blocks from RMIT to visit my friends at Melbourne University I pass two legal brothels. I have, as it were, means, motive, and opportunity.) Our moderator finally wrote: > [We've got a problem in this discussion, since no one here seems to > be prepared to defend fornication. ... Unless someone is willing > to defend the viewpoint, we probably aren't going to be able to go > anywhere. --clh] I wonder how many people read s.r.c.? I've had helpful E-mail from several people who hold to the traditional view, giving me rational arguments for that position, and in some cases personal experiences. Only Hedrick has provided anything like a liberal response. I would have appreciated a rational argument from a liberal point of view as to _why_ fornication is wrong, or as to how we can be _confident_ that it is wrong (two different questions), but it doesn't look as though I am going to get either. Let's take this show off the air. I am still very interested in hearing any defence of sex-without-love-or-commitment-as-excellent-for-a-Christian, but E-mail will do fine. I'll close with a personal anecdote. I hadn't thought about this for years, but when I was a teenager a male Christian friend and I went to see the play "King Lear". As we walked out the door afterwards, I was struggling with tears, and saying over and over "Your law is holy!" I still say that. But G-d's perfect law is not the same as my present understanding of it. The dispute having arisen, I had to put my beliefs to the strongest possible tests. Well, now I have. -- The Marxists have merely _interpreted_ Marxism in various ways; the point, however, is to _change_ it. -- R. Hochhuth. [Note that my "liberal" response has been to the issue of Law as a theological principle. I do however support the concept of moral guidelines. I believe that they should develop within a context that is rooted in Scripture, even if the result may sometimes challenge the letter of some passages in Scripture. In Scripture I see sex associated exclusively with marriage. Christian tradition (when it isn't too blue-nosed to deal with such things) has generally seen the joining of bodies as an almost sacramental action, symbolic of a joining of souls, with the whole thing seen as symbolic of Christ's relationship to the Church. I'm willing to consider generalization to include homosexual relationships, if they involve the same sorts of commitments and relationship as marriage. But the ideas you quoted seem to rob it of its interpersonal character, and particularly of the dual symbolism. I can imagine one might argue for loosening things in specific circumstances. E.g. I've heard proposals for what amounts to a "trial marriage". I see dangers to that, and am not advocating it, but at least I can see how one might argue for it. But the sort of "exploring your sexuality" thing sounds on the face of it like a bad idea. If sexuality is in its essense relational, then how can you explore it outside the context of the appropriate relationship? I've tried to stick to more theoretical issues of the role of the Law and avoid giving a specific argument on this issue. The reason is very simple: Sexuality is a sufficiently human thing that it's dangerous (not to mention presumptuous) for a Vulcan to make judgements in that area. However as you point out, I'm the only one who has been defending the "liberal" viewpoint, so I owe it to you to give at least some idea of the sorts of considerations I would use in making a specific judgement. However I would feel much safer if someone else would try to answer. --clh]
ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) (12/13/90)
Here is what the Bible has to say about sex, even if it is between two unmarried people: " Do you not know that your bodies are memebers of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in the flesh? For it is said, 'The two will become one flesh' (Mt. 19:5) But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit. Flee from sexual immorality. All other sin a man commits are outside his body, but HE WHO SINS SEXUALLY SINS AGAINST HIS OWN BODY. Do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holt Spirit, who is in you, whom you have recieved from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore, honor God with your body." I Chorinthians 6:15-20 This passage is telling us that even though fornication may not "harm" anyone God sees it as a sin because it is a sin against your own body. When you unite sexually, you become one flesh with another person. If you are a Christian, then you have just united your body, which is the temple of God, in a sinful act with another person. This is why it is wrong to have marriage outside of sex. In regard to homosexual acts, they are strictly forbidden by the Bible. "...neither the sexually immoral....nor homosexual offenders.... ...will inherit the kingdom of God." I Chorinthians 6:9-10 Why then do people become homosexuals? It is not because 'God created them that way." NO, not at all! It is because : "For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking because futile and their foolish hearts were darkened....Therefore, God gave them over to the sinful desires of their hearts to the sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator..... Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions." Roman 1:21-27 Notice that these passages forbid ALL homosexual acts. There are no conditions. It does not matter if two homosexuals love each other or whatever. HOmosexual relations are strictly forbidden. Saying that it is OK to commit fornication or homosexual acts as long as "two people love each other" is like saying it is OK to murder someone as long as you are angry with him.
mib@geech.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) (12/14/90)
In article <Dec.13.04.59.02.1990.621@athos.rutgers.edu> ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) writes:
Why then do people become homosexuals? It is not because 'God
created them that way." NO, not at all! It is because :
"For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor
gave thanks to him, but their thinking because futile and their
foolish hearts were darkened....Therefore, God gave them over to
the sinful desires of their hearts to the sexual impurity for the
degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the
truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things
rather than the Creator..... Because of this, God gave them over
to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations
for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural
relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.
Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in
themselves the due penalty for their perversions." Roman 1:21-27
Oh dear. Here we go again. I dread this, but, lest people forget how
to read, I'll say it again. "In the same way the men also abandoned
natural relations..." Quiz question: In all other passages, how does
Paul use the word "nature"? Hmm...we find, with the aid of any
concordance, that "nature" is used in the NT to describe one's
personal nature, which is also often termed sinful. There certainly
isn't any concept of nature as the source of moral rightness, or of
any kind of impersonal abstract "nature" which applies to everyone.
What to make of Romans 1? Not too tough here. There were quite a few
in the ancient world who were so lustfilled that they abandoned
*their* natural passion for ones unnatural *to them*. Paul here
doesn't say *anything* about someone whose natural passions differ
from heterosexuality.
-mib
--
Michael I. Bushnell \ This above all; to thine own self be true
LIBERTE, EGALITE, FRATERNITE \ And it must follow, as the night the day,
mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu /\ Thou canst not be false to any man.
CARPE DIEM / \ Farewell: my blessing season this in thee!ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) (12/17/90)
I *really* don't want to get into the topic of homosexual behaviour; I strongly dislike the hate mail one tends to receive. PLEASE bear in mind that this posting is ONLY concerned with the (ab)use of concordances and how to interpret a text. In article <Dec.14.04.27.14.1990.28250@athos.rutgers.edu>, mib@geech.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes: > Quiz question: In all other passages, how does > Paul use the word "nature"? Hmm...we find, with the aid of any > concordance, that "nature" is used in the NT to describe one's > personal nature, which is also often termed sinful. There certainly > isn't any concept of nature as the source of moral rightness, or of > any kind of impersonal abstract "nature" which applies to everyone. Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Paul, of course, didn't use the word "nature" at all, and unless you use a GREEK concordance your word study is going to be at serious risk of misleading you. (The big NIV concordance is a splendid place to start. There are several Greek concordances keyed by English headwords.) People who just want to read the Bible and take its lessons to heart for themselves don't need all this apparatus, but people who want to teach others, and especially people who want to tell others that what they believe is wrong, ought to prepare _thoroughly_. Several different words are translated "nature" in the NIV. The one Michael I Bushnell appears to have in mind (because it is often paired with the word "sinful") is <sarx>, meaning "flesh", "body". The word <morphe> "form" is sometimes translated "nature", as in the reference to Jesus having the "nature" of G-d and putting on human "nature". Now the word "natural" in Romans 1 is a completely different word, <phusikos> "natural", and is used in Romans 1, 2 Peter 2:12, and (a related word) Jude 1:10. It means "produced by nature, according to instinct, guided by nature, inborn". "nature" <phusis> is even used in the phrase "divine nature" in 2 Peter 1:4. "natural" is also used to contrast with "cultivated"/"artificial". Looking at the dictionary entry for <phusikos>, the conclusion seems inescapable that when Paul talks about men who "abandoned <phusikos> relations with women" he is implying or assuming that the inborn human instinct is to behave heterosexually. As for nature as a source of moral rightness, Romans 2:12 "... do by <phusis> things required by the law" 1 Corinthians 11:14 "does not the very <phusis> of things teach you that..." shows that Paul DID use the concept of natural as a source of moral information. > What to make of Romans 1? Not too tough here. There were quite a few > in the ancient world who were so lustfilled that they abandoned > *their* natural passion for ones unnatural *to them*. Paul here > doesn't say *anything* about someone whose natural passions differ > from heterosexuality. This interpretation won't fit the text, or the background. The background is the Roman world, and homosexual behaviour was _illegal_ in Roman law. Paul's thought is said to have some contact with Stoic thought, and the Stoics (such as Musonius Rufus) were quite clear that homosexual behaviour was "unnatural" (contrary to the inborn nature of all human beings). It is highly unlikely that Paul's readers would have thought that there was a category of people to whom such behaviour was <phyusikos>, and given Paul's Jewish background, it is incredible in the extreme that he could have meant any such thing. One may of course argue that Paul was simply wrong. But let's not twist the text! -- The Marxists have merely _interpreted_ Marxism in various ways; the point, however, is to _change_ it. -- R. Hochhuth.
mib@geech.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) (12/19/90)
In article <Dec.16.22.41.43.1990.24198@athos.rutgers.edu> ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Paul, of course, didn't use the word "nature" at all, and unless you use a GREEK concordance your word study is going to be at serious risk of misleading you. (The big NIV concordance is a splendid place to start. There are several Greek concordances keyed by English headwords.) People who just want to read the Bible and take its lessons to heart for themselves don't need all this apparatus, but people who want to teach others, and especially people who want to tell others that what they believe is wrong, ought to prepare _thoroughly_. Never fear, my comments were based upon the greek words, not the English. Several different words are translated "nature" in the NIV. The one Michael I Bushnell appears to have in mind (because it is often paired with the word "sinful") is <sarx>, meaning "flesh", "body". The word <morphe> "form" is sometimes translated "nature", as in the reference to Jesus having the "nature" of G-d and putting on human "nature". Now the word "natural" in Romans 1 is a completely different word, <phusikos> "natural", and is used in Romans 1, 2 Peter 2:12, and (a related word) Jude 1:10. It means "produced by nature, according to instinct, guided by nature, inborn". "nature" <phusis> is even used in the phrase "divine nature" in 2 Peter 1:4. "natural" is also used to contrast with "cultivated"/"artificial". What about Galatians 4:8? "When ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods". The word nature here is <phusei>. The concept of natural law was nonexistent. Looking at the dictionary entry for <phusikos>, the conclusion seems inescapable that when Paul talks about men who "abandoned <phusikos> relations with women" he is implying or assuming that the inborn human instinct is to behave heterosexually. Now look at the preposition preceding <phusikos>. <para> is not properly translated "against". <para> is used to indicate "excess" or even "more than". In virtually all its uses it is only translatable as "beyond" (KJV tranlates it as beyond in the phrase "beyond God" when referring to Christ, for example). In all the Latin translations, the passage in Romans was translated beyond ("extra naturam" or "ultra natruae") and not "contra". > What to make of Romans 1? Not too tough here. There were quite a few > in the ancient world who were so lustfilled that they abandoned > *their* natural passion for ones unnatural *to them*. Paul here > doesn't say *anything* about someone whose natural passions differ > from heterosexuality. This interpretation won't fit the text, or the background. The background is the Roman world, and homosexual behaviour was _illegal_ in Roman law. Not true in the least. Do you have a reference? This has been little studied, unfortunately, but there isn't actually any real reason to believe that the Romans made homosexual behavior illegal until very late in the empire. Certainly not before Constantine. Paul's thought is said to have some contact with Stoic thought, and the Stoics (such as Musonius Rufus) were quite clear that homosexual behaviour was "unnatural" (contrary to the inborn nature of all human beings). It is highly unlikely that Paul's readers would have thought that there was a category of people to whom such behaviour was <phyusikos>, and given Paul's Jewish background, it is incredible in the extreme that he could have meant any such thing. The fact that stoics considered homosexual behavior is irrelevant, unless you are an adherent of stoic philosophy. There were also people who understood homosexuality as normal for them, and Paul could not have been ignorant of that. One may of course argue that Paul was simply wrong. But let's not twist the text! Please. When you can look at the text *without* the intervening centuries in an honest attempt to hear what it says, then this discussion is feasable. But the claim that, for example, the Romans made gay sex illegal is simply false, and without historical justification. -mib -- Michael I. Bushnell \ This above all; to thine own self be true LIBERTE, EGALITE, FRATERNITE \ And it must follow, as the night the day, mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu /\ Thou canst not be false to any man. CARPE DIEM / \ Farewell: my blessing season this in thee!
maas@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Mike Maas) (12/25/90)
[Elizabeth Tallant quotes I Cor 6:15-20 about the seriousness of sexual sin. "He who sins sexually sins against his own body". Even though fornication may not "harm" anyone, it is a sin. She goes on to say (underlined) that it is wrong to have marriage outside of sex. I suspect she means to say that it is wrong to have sex outside of marriage, though there are both Jewish and Christian views supporting the first version as well. --clh] Does this mean that the bible implies (I know it doesn't state it outright) that if I am married I must have sex? (Lots of smilies here Elizabeth!) >In regard to homosexual acts, they are strictly forbidden by the Bible. > >"...neither the sexually immoral....nor homosexual offenders.... >....will inherit the kingdom of God." I Chorinthians 6:9-10 You are right of course the bible does indeed say that. Do you have any idea of the situation to which Paul was speaking? Do you have knowledge of the Greek? Perhaps even more relevant do you have a deep enough understanding of Paul himself to be able to attribute the kind of intentionality to his words you seem to? I don't have absolute answers to any of these issues and therefore I feel safer in not accepting them as categorical imperatives, for regardless of how they were intended, they almost certainly were not intended in that way. When I think about issues like this I find them to be a very ambiguous and instead of looking for a statement in the bible to make a determination about the correctness of the issue at hand I look to the teachings of our Lord. Immediately two things come to mind about those teachings "Let he who is among you who is without sin cast the first stone..." and "...Love your neighbor as yourself." Moreover, if we wish to quote Paul "...and the greatest of these is Love." or John "God is Love" where I believe the verb is fully copulative. Taking all of this information I would like not to suggest an answer to the generic question of sex outside of marriage but rather to propose a way to examine more specific instances. It seems clear to me that as Christians our primary objective should be to love; to love God and to love our neighbors. Moreover, it seems to follow that when we love we come closer to being perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect. Finally, then, I would argue that where there is Love there is no sin and where there is sin there is no Love. In other words, sin is not this act or that act, but any act that is done without Love. Most acts are a mixture of sin and Love and not wholly either. Let me move now to a specific example/application. Let us take a marriage which is by and large a happy one. The individuals have their differences as most if not all couples do. Sometimes those differences are over whether tonight is a good night to share their physical love with one another. Let us say that the husband is not really in the mood, but the wife is. He gives in not because he wishes to share himself in this way but rather to please his wife whom he loves very much. Let's also state that the wife's desire is primarily a physical one but tinted or shaded with a desire to share her love with her husband as well. How then might we describe their actions and attitudes in terms of Love and sin? We might say that the husband is acting selflessly to give his wife her desire even though he may not have the same desire; is this not love? I think so. We might also say that the wife while she does desire her husband in a truly loving and selfless way, is primarily acting out of physical desire. Might we say that she is in a sense "using" her husband. I think that this may indeed be the case. The point is that in most situations we are at best a mixture of motivations when we interact with others. It can be truly said in this sense that we are all sinners. Occasionally, this hypothetical couple is completely in touch with one another, completely and wholly interloving in such a way as to truly touch one anothers' souls. When this happens they may be nearer to God than at almost any other time. In such situations, the sexual aspect is nearly lost in the bliss of their mutual love. This is one of the great benefits of the marriage bed. Does Paul speak of this? Why not? I suspect it is because it was a very foreign experience to him. Now let's carry this example out a little further. Let's assume that the husband and wife we have been speaking of are not husband and wife but unmarried life partners. Does the quality of their experience change due to their not having been married? I would argue that it does not necessarily change as a result of that lack of validation of church and state. I would suggest that in fact they may be every bit as close to God in those moments as any married couple sharing similar experiences. Could this apply to a gay couple as well? I see no reason why not. The experience does not depend on anything other than themselves and their openess to God (Love). However, let me hasten to say I am speaking here of experiences that probably only happen for most of us a few times in a lifetime. What about the more mundane day to day existence we lead? Let's examine our hypothetical husband wife situation again briefly. When either of them uses the other to benefit themselves they are acting selfishly and are using their partner as an object with which they can gratify their needs. This objectification of others is the opposite of loving them and is how we fall into sin. Is it bad? Probably. Is it human? Absolutely. This is what it means to be a sinner. Insofar as we are separated from Love and God we are in sin, and this means things as minor as treating a store clerk as an object from which you will derive benefit or as major as ignoring someone who is desperately in need of lifesaving support we could give. Let's just come back to the partner examples for one more point. Unfortunately, many gay relationships are marked by exactly this kind of objectification of individuals. When this is the case, I condemn gay relationships, but not because they are gay, but because they are sinful in the way they allow the participants to treat one another as objects. However, not only is the same thing true of many heterosexual relationships, it even worms its way into holy matrimony. I think we will both agree that all three varieties of relationship fall short of the Glory of God insofar as they allow this objectification to happen. Moreover, this kind of objectification constantly threatens even the most dedicated and cautious of all of us. Lest I leave the impression I have somehow trivialized sin let me bring up one more factual example. With apologies to any oriental and Vietnamese in particular I want to relate something about my experience in Vietnam. While going through Field Medical Training at Camp Pendleton we were encouraged to begin thinking of enemies in less human terms. By the time I arrived in Vietnam we were not fighting men, we were fighting gooks. Now does a gook sound human? Not to us. It was in fact the very act of naming these people as something other than people that allowed us to objectify them and to them make them into something lower than human. What did this lead to? Have you heard of My Lai? Have you heard of Hitler? This kind of dehumanization is just exactly the same thing as we talked about above but carried out to a much more extreme example. >Why then do people become homosexuals? It is not because 'God created them ^^^^^^^^^^^ How about sinners instead of homosexuals, we heterosexuals are not exempt! >that way." NO, not at all! It is because : > >"For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks >to him, but their thinking because futile and their foolish hearts were >darkened....Therefore, God gave them over to the sinful desires of their >hearts to the sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one >another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served >created things rather than the Creator..... >Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women >exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men >also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for >one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in >themselves the due penalty for their perversions." Roman 1:21-27 For where their treasures were, there too were their hearts. It also looks like the context of this passage indicates frustration on the part of Paul with the fertility cults which practiced ritual prostitution. If Paul were here today, he might have a lot to say about cocaine, Michael Milken, maybe even some varieties of Christianity. What to you suppose our Lord would do if he were here walking the earth with us today? He who ate with imbibers and tax collectors. Do you have any idea how low a tax collector was considered to be? Do you think he might sit down with gays? I think he very well might; And when he did, what would he ask of them? He would call them to become Lovers of their fellows and their God in a new way just as he called his disciples then and as he calls us now as the risen Christ. >Notice that these passages forbid ALL homosexual acts. There are no conditions. >It does not matter if two homosexuals love each other or whatever. HOmosexual >relations are strictly forbidden. > I think that it might be worthwhile to point out to you that this is your opinion and nowhere in the text you have cited nor in the bible will you find this condition expressly considered. Paul was probably not dealing with homosexuals in long-term relationships, he was dealing with them in cultic prostitution and other general debauchery. >Saying that it is OK to commit fornication or homosexual acts as long as >"two people love each other" is like saying it is OK to murder someone >as long as you are angry with him. I think your analogy is poorly framed and unduly hostile. However, I must admit you are right in the first half of the analogy but probably for the wrong reasons. Fornication and a large number of homosexual acts as well as too large a number inside of good Christian marriages are not founded on a deep love that leads one closer to God but rather on a short lived physical urge that tempts us to use others for our own physical gratification. These are sins even if the participants truly love one another; when they are using one another they are not loving.
vm0t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Vincent Paul Mulhern) (01/07/91)
Responding to the post by Mike Maas...
The Bible tells a married couple not to "deprive" each other for a
long period of time, unless it's a mutual desire (1 Cor 7:5) so I think
mood changes are natural enough and were addressed by Paul.
Second...The Bible says what it says. Saying, "Maybe there's a
cultural aspect to this that nobody has found that makes <Paul's
statements> specific only and not really general principles" is so bogus
it isn't even funny. Come on...sin is sin. There are some things GOD
says, "DO NOT DO THIS." about. Like, eat the fruit, etc. etc. Well,
HAVE SEX WITH SOMEONE YOU AREN'T MARRIED TO is in there. Gal. 5:19.
Eph. 5:3. Elizabeth Tallant cited I Cor 6:15-20. It's there, and it's
clear. God did not stutter. It doesn't say, "Don't fornicate with
selfish motives." It doesn't say, "Don't fornicate unless you really
love the person sincerely and with the love of God." It says, "DON'T
FORNICATE."
About the cultural context bit...yes, there is a context to be
considered. Paul says the same thing to several DIFFERENT CITIES in the
Roman empire. I've some schooling about this time period...guess what
the context is...Roman culture said that SEX (when you want it, how you
want it, where you want it) was not really bad.
Well, guess what OUR culture says...same thing. So Paul's
instructions are quite applicable in this matter today. It's not easy.
It's not always fun. But it's obediance to God. If Jesus is "savior
and lord" then we're "savee and servant". If we expect Him to do His
part, then He can expect us to do our part. Was what He did easy?
natural? fun? harmless? No. Then none of those are valid criteria
for OUR behavior, either. Was what He did obediance to the Father no
matter what the Father's demands were? Yes.
Jesus is Lord!
Vince Mulhernmaas@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Mike Maas) (01/26/91)
Note: this is late in coming as our news server has been down for over a week. In a post responding to my earlier response to Elizabeth Tallant Vincent Mulhern says: >Responding to the post by Mike Maas... Vincent, I think that what I hear you saying in your post is that you believe that you can read the bible as a set of strict guidelines; that whatever Paul says, or anyone else in the bible for that matter, can be taken as literally a transcription of God's law. I don't agree with that viewpoint, although I do respect your right to hold it if you wish. If this is an accurate assessment of your position, I do hope you will read my own position in an open-minded spirit. I think we may never agree, but we can still listen. In fact, if we don't hear one another, we never have the chance to agree, as one can't agree with something one hasn't heard in the first place. If my assessment of your position is incorrect, please say so. > The Bible tells a married couple not to "deprive" each other for a >long period of time, unless it's a mutual desire (1 Cor 7:5) so I think >mood changes are natural enough and were addressed by Paul. Fair enough. This doesn't really address the points I was making however. Regardless of whether it was addressed by Paul or not, if one partner takes advantage of the other for their own pleasure, insofar as they do, they are objectifying the partner and, I would argue, falling into sin. Note, I am making this argument from the perspective that we are all sinners, and it is a matter of degree. Further, remember I stated my definition of sin in my original reply to Elizabeth in this context to be: "God is Love" where I believe the verb is fully copulative....It seems clear to me that as Christians our primary objective should be to love; to love God and to love our neighbors. Moreover, it seems to follow that when we love we come closer to being perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect. Finally, then, I would argue that where there is Love there is no sin and where there is sin there is no Love. In other words, sin is not this act or that act, but any act that is done without Love. Most acts are a mixture of sin and Love and not wholly either.... > Second...The Bible says what it says. Saying, "Maybe there's a >cultural aspect to this that nobody has found that makes <Paul's >statements> specific only and not really general principles" Whoa! I hope your quotes above are not meant to imply that I said what is in the quotes. I would thank you to use my words if you are going to respond to my post and not summarize them innacurately as you have here. To set the record straight, what I did was ask Elizabeth rhetorically if she had enough knowledge to know whereof she spoke. I think it is clear that Paul wrote in a context, not in a vacuum. If we don't know the context it is dangerous, if not outright foolhardy, to assume we do and then to further assume that our understanding is the same as Paul's. The fact is we can never know the intentionality of Paul, I don't believe I even know my own intentionality much of the time. Many scholars have invested whole lifetimes in critical study of Paul, and they can tell us more than we might otherwise know, however throughout even their studies, we find their own understandings of Paul and his thought constantly couched in words such as "probably" or "possibly". Moreover, Paul's statements were specific. They were specifically addressed to his community at his time and through his understanding of the Gospel. They most certainly were not spoken with any idea that there would be a bunch of us communicating about his and our Lord's thoughts over electronic media. I don't believe that human nature has changed much if any, nor do I believe that the Gospel is somehow outdated. However, there is no question in my mind that we have a better understanding of nature now than Paul did then, and particularly of those things that are in and out of our control. The "nature vs nurture" debate is not by any means fully resolved, but we know more all the time. Much of Paul's thought, perhaps even most, is every bit as applicable today as it was when he delivered it. However, a reasonable person will admit that some of it is not. >is so bogus >it isn't even funny. Come on...sin is sin. There are some things GOD >says, "DO NOT DO THIS." about. Like, eat the fruit, etc. etc. Well, >HAVE SEX WITH SOMEONE YOU AREN'T MARRIED TO is in there. Gal. 5:19. >Eph. 5:3. Elizabeth Tallant cited I Cor 6:15-20. It's there, and it's >clear. God did not stutter. It doesn't say, "Don't fornicate with >selfish motives." It doesn't say, "Don't fornicate unless you really >love the person sincerely and with the love of God." It says, "DON'T >FORNICATE." Hey, Vincent, give me a break. The only place I addressed the problem of fornication was in response to Elizabeth's last comment. Here is what I said: ... Fornication and a large number of homosexual acts as well as too large a number (of acts) inside of good Christian marriages are not founded on a deep love that leads one closer to God but rather on a short lived physical urge that tempts us to use others for our own physical gratification. These are sins even if the participants truly love one another; when they are using one another they are not loving... In general I tried to show how the real issue is love, not a literal interpretation of a translation of a letter written by Paul. If you read my post carefully, you would know that fornication is the last thing I would argue for. But since you brought it up, let's examine it. Let's take first the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). Here we see a young lawyer ask for the definition of "neighbor." Jesus then illustrates who is a neighbor with the parable. Now, the implication is that the Lawyer believed that in loving his neighbor meaning his fellow Jews that he was meeting the letter and the spirit of the law. However, our Lord pointed out to him in this parable that neighbor is a much more expansive term than fellow Jew, that in fact a neighbor in the context of the second great commandment is anyone in need. Let's try to expand the meaning of "fornication" in a similar way. Let's try defining fornication as entering into sexual relations outside of a permanent, long-lasting, God-filled relationship between two people rather than simply entering into sexual relations outside of marriage as we find it defined in the dictionary. Moreover let's also say that fornication can enter into that same relationship insofar as it lacks the love that is a sign of God's presence. In such a situation, the word fornication takes on a wider meaning. It is possible to enter into sexual relations outside of "marriage" (meaning marriage in an official sense, for the word "marriage" can also be expanded in depth just as we are expanding "fornication", and just as Jesus expanded "neighbor") and still not fornicate and it is also possible to fornicate within marriage. When Jesus used the parable of the Good Samaritan, he was teaching a direct lesson about the fact that a neighbor is another human in need, regardless of who they might be Samaritan, gay or any other category of person. However, a second and less direct lesson here is that literal interpretation of scripture, the letter of the law, often leads one away from God's Truth, the spirit of the law. Until the lawyer had his eyes opened by Jesus' expansive use of language he understood only the letter of the law. Subsequently, we hope that he understood the spirit of the law as well. Just a couple more notes: It may seem to be stretching the language when we arbitrarily expand definitions of words. Words are important and as one who is constantly pained by the misuse of "disinterested" and "fortuitous" I am very aware of the objections to be raised. However, I also believe that language itself is symbolic and that the underlying reality it symbolizes often requires us to expand language and to use it in innovative ways to better point to that reality. As I have said before, that reality, the ultimate reality, for me is that reality that is symbolized by such symbols as "the Love of God", or "Love", or "grace", or "logos" or the "word" or the Chinese "tao" as in Tao Teh Ching etc. > About the cultural context bit...yes, there is a context to be >considered. Paul says the same thing to several DIFFERENT CITIES in the >Roman empire. I've some schooling about this time period...guess what >the context is...Roman culture said that SEX (when you want it, how you >want it, where you want it) was not really bad. > Well, guess what OUR culture says...same thing. So Paul's >instructions are quite applicable in this matter today. It's not easy. >It's not always fun. But it's obediance to God. If Jesus is "savior >and lord" then we're "savee and servant". If we expect Him to do His >part, then He can expect us to do our part. Was what He did easy? >natural? fun? harmless? No. Then none of those are valid criteria >for OUR behavior, either. Was what He did obediance to the Father no >matter what the Father's demands were? Yes. There are few things I find objectionable in these two paragraphs and many that I agree with. I'll leave it up to you to figure out which is which. >Jesus is Lord! >Vince Mulhern May we open our hearts to the Lord so that He might bless us with His Peace which surpasseth all understanding, Mike Maas
hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) (02/06/91)
! In a post responding to my earlier response to Elizabeth Tallant Vincent
! Mulhern says:
!
! >Responding to the post by Mike Maas...
!
! > Second...The Bible says what it says. Saying, "Maybe there's a
! >cultural aspect to this that nobody has found that makes <Paul's
! >statements> specific only and not really general principles"
[Some of Mike's comments regarding Paul's context
removed because I want to address a different point.]
! >is so bogus
! >it isn't even funny. Come on...sin is sin. There are some things GOD
! >says, "DO NOT DO THIS." about. Like, eat the fruit, etc. etc. Well,
! >HAVE SEX WITH SOMEONE YOU AREN'T MARRIED TO is in there. Gal. 5:19.
! >Eph. 5:3. Elizabeth Tallant cited I Cor 6:15-20. It's there, and it's
! >clear. God did not stutter. It doesn't say, "Don't fornicate with
! >selfish motives." It doesn't say, "Don't fornicate unless you really
! >love the person sincerely and with the love of God." It says, "DON'T
! >FORNICATE."
! In general I tried to show how the real issue is love, not a literal
! interpretation of a translation of a letter written by Paul. If you read my
! post carefully, you would know that fornication is the last thing I would
! argue for. But since you brought it up, let's examine it.
I was under the impression that the RSV was considered a pretty
reasonable English-language translation. I find:
Gal. 5:19-21:
Now the works of the flesh are plain: immorality,
impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery,
enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness,
dissension, party spirit, envy, drunkenness,
carousing, and the like.
Eph. 5:3-5:
But immorality and all impurity or covetousness must
not even be named among you, as is fitting among saints.
Let there be no filthiness, nor silly talk, nor levity,
which are not fitting; but instead let there be thanksgiving.
Be sure of this, that no immoral or impure man, or one who
is covetous (that is, an idolator), has any inheritance
in the kingdon of Christ and of God.
I Cor. 6:15-20:
Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?
Shall I therefore take the members of Chirst and make
them members of a prostitute? Never! Do you not know
that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one
body with her? For, as it is written, "The two shall
become one." But he who is united to the Lord becomes
one spirit with him. Shun immorality. Every other sin
which a man commits is outside the body; but the immoral
man sins against his own body. Do you know know that
your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you,
which you have from God? You are not your own; you
were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
So Paul condemns in God's name "immorality", "impurity",
"licentiousness", "covetousness", and "filthiness." Okay.
But he never actually comes right out and tells us what
exactly we are to consider immoral, impure, licentious,
covetous, and filthy. Perhaps my translation is not a
fair one, or maybe my concordance weak, but I really feel
that we are left to our own understanding (fortified as
always through prayer and study) when it comes to what
Paul is actually telling us not to do or not to do.
[More of Mike's ideas edited out here.]
! When Jesus used the parable of the Good Samaritan, he was teaching a direct
! lesson about the fact that a neighbor is another human in need, regardless
! of who they might be Samaritan, gay or any other category of person. However,
! a second and less direct lesson here is that literal interpretation of
! scripture, the letter of the law, often leads one away from God's Truth, the
! spirit of the law. Until the lawyer had his eyes opened by Jesus' expansive
! use of language he understood only the letter of the law. Subsequently, we
! hope that he understood the spirit of the law as well.
I agree that the Good Samaritan is an excellent example that
illustrates the point about expansive use of language. It's
not necessary, however, to read the Scripture "expansively"
in this particular case to make your case. It is enough to
read the Scripture rather literally and show that it actually
says less than some people seem to think.
! >Jesus is Lord!
! >Vince Mulhern
Amen.
! May we open our hearts to the Lord so that He might bless us with His Peace
! which surpasseth all understanding,
! Mike Maas
Amen.
============================================================
Mark W. Schumann 3111 Mapledale Avenue, Cleveland 44109 USA
Domain: catfood@ncoast.org
UUCP: ...!mailrus!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!catfood
============================================================
[The Greek word is "porneia". There's some debate about how specific
its meaning is. It seems to be used with a range of meanings from
adultery to licentious sex. RSV and TEV have opted for a general
reading, translating it as "immorality". NRSV has gone to the more
specific "fornication". Whether that's a good translation depends
partly upon what you think the English word means. If you think it's
a technical term meaning precisely all sex outside of marriage, that
probably implies a bit more precision than is really there. --clh]ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) (02/11/91)
In article <Feb.6.05.02.06.1991.26773@athos.rutgers.edu>, hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes: > I was under the impression that the RSV was considered a pretty > reasonable English-language translation. I find: > Gal. 5:19-21: > Eph. 5:3-5: > I Cor. 6:15-20: > > So Paul condemns in God's name "immorality", "impurity", > "licentiousness", "covetousness", and "filthiness." Okay. > But he never actually comes right out and tells us what > exactly we are to consider immoral, impure, licentious, > covetous, and filthy. This is rather like saying "Mr Plod the policeman told me always to stop at a red light. But he never actually came right out and told me what exactly I am to consider red, or a light." Paul was not writing in a vacuum. He was a member of a culture with a long tradition of ethical monotheism. While Paul attacked Jewish ritual, he seems to have accepted Jewish ethics as valid. It would be surprising if Paul meant by "porneia" and the like anything seriously different from what his fellow Pharisees were calling "z'nus". When Jesus spoke against (whatever it was that was translated as "porneia") He apparently didn't give His hearers a lengthy definition of what it meant, so presumably He was appealing to the idea His hearers already had of what counted as porneia/z'nus. (It has been observed that Jesus' recorded sayings suggest that He was steeped in the Targums and expected His hearers to be familiar with them.) Paul's teaching, like Jesus', must be interpreted against the background of the Tanach, including Deuteronomy. > Perhaps my translation is not a > fair one, or maybe my concordance weak, but I really feel > that we are left to our own understanding (fortified as > always through prayer and study) when it comes to what > Paul is actually telling us not to do or not to do. Mr Plod the policeman didn't leave you to your own understanding when he told you to stop at red lights. Mr Plod expected you to understand him in *HIS* context. The attitude "we don't have an ISO standard for the words Paul uses, so they mean what *I* say they mean" is dangerous. Mohammed prayed. Joseph Smith prayed. To be sure, we have to *apply* the meanings of Paul (or any other writer) in our own context, but that's another question. I have actually written to the translators of the Revised English Bible on this particular point. They _don't_ use the magnificently vague "immorality", so I asked them how they understood "porneia" in the relevant passages. I've not received a reply yet. > [The Greek word is "porneia". There's some debate about how specific > its meaning is. It seems to be used with a range of meanings from > adultery to licentious sex. RSV and TEV have opted for a general > reading, translating it as "immorality". NRSV has gone to the more > specific "fornication". Whether that's a good translation depends > partly upon what you think the English word means. If you think it's > a technical term meaning precisely all sex outside of marriage, that > probably implies a bit more precision than is really there. --clh] It's broader than that. In many passages of the NT, "porneia" is a metaphor for idolatry/false worship (especially in the Revelation). This usage is copied directly from Jewish usage. I checked about a dozen modern English dictionaries, and the consensus definition was "fornication = voluntary sexual intercourse between unmarried adults". But of course any word has metaphorical extensions. "porneia" is certainly *wider* in scope than that, even when referring to sexual behaviour. One point to note is that many cultures have a notion of marriage "by usage" (the term "common-law husband/wife" reminds us that the notion existed in European culture) and Jewish culture was one of them. Paul might well have considered a couple living together, not as fornicators, but as _married_ (and married just as permanently as any other couple). Somebody wrote: > ! In general I tried to show how the real issue is love, not a literal > ! interpretation of a translation of a letter written by Paul. Unfortunately, if "immorality" is magnificently vague, "love" is SUPREMELY vague. I "love" : ice cream, the music of Monteverdi, Prolog, Scheme, Kierkegaard, my parents, Jeanene, hot showers, ... C.S.Lewis's little book "The Four Loves" missed several ones out. I don't know if Americans ever watch Dame Edna, but `she' (Barry Humphries) often says extremely critical things, adding "I mean that in a very loving way". Real people are like that too. If the real issue is love, does that mean affection, or benevolence, or solidarity, or charity, or what? It's time we had a moratorium on the L-word. -- The Marxists have merely _interpreted_ Marxism in various ways; the point, however, is to _change_ it. -- R. Hochhuth.