Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu (Joy Haftel) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Moral reasoning (was Re: draft of Identity Task Force statement) Message-ID: Date: 6 Dec 90 08:11:13 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Alphabetical Lines: 91 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu [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]