Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cica!iuvax!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: brandy@mimsy.umd.edu (Brandy R. Provine) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Looking for some thoughts on moral theology Message-ID: Date: 22 Feb 90 08:34:12 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742 Lines: 106 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Dave Mielke writes several things which I find questionable: >A very common tendancy today is for people to ignore those commandments >which do not appeal to their sinful nature. Each time this is done, >however, it is no less than a deliberate act of rebellion against God, >even when it is cleverly hidden behind such seemingly learned >statements as "I choose to believe that God did not really mean it to >be interpreted that way" which won't hold any water whatsoever on >judgement day. Firstly, I do not `choose to believe' anything. Either I am convinced or I am not, and to the best of my ability I leave personal preferences at the door on my way in. You seem to be saying that people who disagree with you are being intentionally rebellious, and you totally ignore the possiblity that there are those who simply think you are wrong. (Whether it is they who are mistaken is irrelevant.) For example, _I_ think you are wrong, about several things. Are you going to reply by saying that I am being deliberately rebellious? Do you wish to stand in judgement that my opinions are dishonestly held? If not, I would appreciate a retraction of your paragraph. If so, well, do not bother responding. The reason I consider this paragraph worth the effort is that you have created a false dichotomy. Either: I interpret everything in Scripture the way you do or I am ignoring the parts I don't like. You have left out: I interpret things differently. If you read carefully, you will notice that I have not described your opinions as dishonestly held, merely wrong. Is there some reason you cannot extend that same courtesy to those with whom you disagree? It would be a small matter for me to claim that you are imposing your opinions on top of Scripture, but since I have no way of knowing what you are thinking that would be groundless speculation. Why is it you think you know what I am thinking? Also, your last phrase suggests that Jesus' atoning sacrifice is not enough to cover theological errors. If a human must have 100% correct beliefs on Judgement Day, then I don't think there's much hope for anyone; I would hope that Christians recognise that Salvation is also for the mistaken -- but the position that a believer cannot merely be in error implies that perfect beliefs are in fact necessary. >>2. Some statements were for a particular place and time and group of >> people, and were not intended to be universalized. > >This is a very convenient, and apparently logical, way to attempt to >eliminate those teachings which a given person does not like. There is, >however, absolutely no Scriptural foundation for making a claim of this >nature. Once again, we have the problem that you are assigning motivations to other people. This need not be `an attempt to eliminate those teachings which a given person does not like', but could be a way to make sense of the fact that the OT tells people to do no work on the Sabbath, and Paul tells people that it doesn't really matter (Romans 14)%. Why do you feel qualified to state that this sort of thinking is done "to eliminate those teachings which a given person does not like"? How can you judge others' motivations in this manner? Secondly, Galatians 3:23-25 pretty clearly states that the law given to the Israelites was to lead people to Christ, and "now that faith has come, we are no longer under supervision of the law." So Paul himself has stated that some of Scripture was for a particular place and time and group of people, and was not intended to be universalised.% Is this what you mean by "absolutely no Scriptural foundation"? ------ % - I am aware that there is disagreement about these interpretations, and refer the Gentle Reader to my above paragraph about theological error. ------ >Carried to its extreme, we may as well ignore the entire Bible. Nobody is saying this should be carried to its extreme& -- only that since God gave the gift of reason, it should be used. Neglecting one of God's gifts strikes me as rather irresponsible. ------ & - Well, somebody might... ------ >No one of us, basing his decisions solely on his own sinful thinking, >ought ever declare that even one word of God's message to mankind is >anything less than profoundly important! Nobody said that it wasn't important -- they are just wondering if, like the law in the OT (which Scripture states is not for everyone%), some of the commentary in the NT is also not intended for everyone. ------ % - Ditto the previous comment with a `%'. ------ brandy@cs.umd.edu Brandy R. Provine ...uunet!mimsy!brandy "The only place where he never contradicts himself is his firm refusal to recognize that he has contradicted himself." -- David M. Tate