Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Moral reasoning (was Re: draft of Identity Task Force statement) Message-ID: Date: 11 Dec 90 08:46:11 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia Lines: 150 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , 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]