Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!usc!apple!sun-barr!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: mtxinu!sybase!shanti!maas@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Mike Maas) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Moral reasoning (was Re: draft of Identity Task Force statement) Message-ID: Date: 26 Jan 91 04:32:32 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Sybase, Inc. Lines: 175 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu 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 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