 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Question? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/28/2003 10:31 AM (GMT -6) |   | You are ALL correct.
This is NOT about persons disagreeing. Many of the things that we say we ALL say. NO ONE is advocating hate or lack of human respect.
Where there is disagreement, though, by degrees, is SCATTERED across a landscape alternatively called "what we are willing to call sin" and "what we are willing to say the importance of sin is." I've seem in short space a vacilation between saying that homosecuality is not sin...to something amounting to saying that sin does not matter so what's the big deal is homosexual sin is sin or not. And the varience is not exhausted.
So, to that landscape let up cast our eyes.
We are no longer in a Traditional world. Nor are we in a Modern World. It is the Post-Modern world that we are in.
That admitted, here are some offerings from an article that has resurfaced in my brain during the morning commute.
quote:
In the post-modern "deconstruction" of the modern worldview traditional language, structures, symbols and rites are recreated to the point where their original content and meaning no longer remain at all, but are replaced by a whole new reconstruction of reality.
. . .
There is rather a creation of reality, or rather, more accurately, many creations of a plethora of pseudo-realities, produced by the subjective willings of individuals, parties and "interest groups" in the context of politics, power, self-creation and permissiveness. The tenets of modern liberal democracy now become objects of worship and ends in themselves in a politicized, hedonized world. Freedom becomes licence. Acquisition becomes a right. Differences are deified. And happiness, now understood as material and pseudo-spiritual pleasure, becomes obligatory for all.
. . .
H. Richard Neibuhr could say that in modern American liberal Protestantism "a God without wrath brings man without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross" (The Kingdom of God in America, 1937, p. 193), it can now be said that in the new age of most-modern pluralism divinity without sovereignty brings humans without dignity into an age without responsibility through the exploitation of a god or goddess of your choice without tragedy.
quote:
Christians today must be prepared to tolerate every error and evil while unmasking its falsehood and rebuking its sin.
. . . to affirm "whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious", with anything "excellent" and "worthy of praise", wherever and in whomever these divine realities are found (Phil. 4:8). And we must also be willing to exercise our privilege and duty as Christians to intercede before God and stand as advocates before His Face on behalf of all who, wittingly or unwittingly, have been led astray by the devil.
quote:
we must not: fall prey to the post-modern pluralistic worldview as some great new opportunity for humankind; to think that they and their churches are immune to post-modernism and untouched by its influence and power; imagining that we can reject the contemporary world by taking refuge in a world of our own making;
...another imperative for Christians in post-modern pluralistic societies: the calling to evangelize, witness and serve all people without domination, discrimination or condition, and, indeed without even the desire to convert or reform, which is God's job, not ours. We are only to announce the gospel, testify to truth, serve every person, and be ready to suffer the consequences which are surely to come.
quote:
Contrary to post-modern propaganda, such convictions need not necessarily lead to the imperialist domination by "Christofascists" who compel others to accept their dogmas, ethics and versions of history . . .
THERE ARE TWO EXTREMES TO BE AVOIDED: ONE ONE END IS JUDGEMENTAL DETACHEMENT; AND ON THE OTHER, SELF-DESIGNED TRUTH.
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 02/28/2003 3:40:17 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Terry_Baxter
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187
| Posted 2/28/2003 1:46 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Springs!
Springs: You are greeting these people [Tim, et al] in particular because you hold similar views or you are in relationship with them.
TB: I would say I’m on the ‘homosexuality is sin’ side. I don’t know if I agree with all the statements of all those people. Of those mentioned I think John has provided the most evidence and strongest arguments for his beliefs, so I wrote ‘especially’ to him.
S: Up to this point my interpretation is that you are admonishing Tim and A_Theist for their unprofessional debating skills. (and by inference… John and the others. However until just recently IMHO John & BBBC have done a good job in presenting their side objectively.)
TB: I was hoping to exhort *everyone* to a higher standard, and yes, I agree with you, John and BBBC have argued fairly and without a lot of tricks and attacks.
S: Okay, I think this is pretty straight forward…We all know there are a lot of interpretations or we wouldn’t be here discussing.
TB: Yes, but I’m saying it’s more than ‘we have different interpretations and they’re all equally valid.’ It’s that people can do amazing things to convince themselves that the Bible supports X when the entire slant of the Bible, textual evidence, and Christian tradition is clearly contrary to it.
S: an inference to the Icon’s post using interpretations of the Greek. (He is working hard at justifying sin, in your opinion)
TB: Generally speaking, the more one has to work—and the more words one has to pile up—to explain that the clear meaning of something “isn’t what it really means” the weaker the case is. It sets off a warning signal in the back of my mind. However, words, contexts, and translations are human inventions, so we can honestly argue that Paul meant X where he has been translated as writing Y.
By the by, this is also why I’m against a strong Open View position: The blood, sweat, and tears that Boyd et. al have had to generate in arguing against certain foreknowledge or ‘anti’ free-will passages is just too telling. At the same time, the traditionalists are forced to dance around several passages as well, so for that and many other reasons I don’t buy a strong Calvinist/traditional view either.
But, to answer you directly(!), I am *not* saying that “Icon uses false interpretations to justify his own sin.” I’m observing that those who have homosexual tendencies, or who are homosexual, or who have a homosexual loved one and refuse to criticize them, or who have been convinced by the culture that approving of homosexuality is the loving thing to do, will be motivated to assuage their guilt over it. In other words, I do believe God’s law (Natural law, whatever you want to call it) is universal, so that we have guilt when we do whatever is against God (cf. Rom 1.18ff) and an unavoidable angst motivates us to rationalize it away.
S: *Now here, you are saying that if you become an apologist, you have to take ad hominems, and insults in stride. I agree. But if you are inferring your opinion about the debating skills of people involved in this thread you should be more clear. This almost seems like a passive aggressive attack on other posters on this board. Did you mean to give that impression? Or is that just a subject interpretation that is wrong?
TB: I can’t answer this directly without angering the same people I was trying to avoid angering when I first wrote the section you’re referring to.  I will say that personal attacks are one thing, but there are also patronizing ways of treating people, or dismissing their beliefs with cute homilies or “your God is just different than my loving God.” When you put your Self into arguing against brothers and sisters and Christ, and receive those kinds of responses it is demeaning and every bit as damaging to Christian unity as the more obvious forms of rude argument.
quote:
Despite all that, I'm impressed with your efforts and, in most cases, your argument style. I don't have the patience for it any more.
S: * Do you mean despite the fact that sometimes debate is unfruitful, and despite the fact that they could learn to debate more effectively, you MOSTLY like their style...?
TB: I’m impressed that people who are constantly implicitly described as judge-happy hatemongers keep arguing in a kind manner. Of course, I’m not thrilled about the ‘filling our minds with filth’ type stuff either, but I think that’s the more OBVIOUS of the…distasteful argument and so is more easily dismissed.
quote:
But, as Paul might say, "Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God [or to homosexual apologists]; just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, so that they may be saved."
S: *BUT, they could work on debating without offense.
TB: Right. I don’t doubt that A_Theist thinks Icon or whoever is attempting to desensitize our hearts to a vile sin. And in that context, and given the freedom we have under grace, A_Theist is free to post strong words of reprimand. But… it’s too easy for Christians to do that to each other, and just because you’re free to respond to someone in anger doesn’t mean you should if your higher goal is winning them over.
S: *They are defeating themselves, and hindering the Holy Spirit by debating for Christ without his love.
TB: I offered that as a possibility, not a statement of fact. I think hindrance is likely, though. I think we all post many things on these boards that aren’t motivated by love; it sucks to be human. Fortunately, God can use even our hatred, of course. Yet research shows that the more someone feels personally attacked, the less likely they are to relinquish a stance even when they consciously know it is untenable.
S: * Do you mean that when the apologists (Icon, Semeia, and E) have a bad experience with homosexuals they will convert? Does this infer that the reason A-Theist et all believe the way they do is that they have had bad experiences?
TB: The more closely a belief or value is to our core definition of Self (“I am a loving, grace-filled Christian who doesn’t judge people” or “I am a faithful servant of the Lord attempting to rid myself of sin and exhort my brothers and sisters to do the same.”) the less likely we are to give it up. Thus, Christians get violent with each other over minor points of doctrine because attacking Christian Belief X is tantamount to attacking their Self Concept.
Being incorrect on homosexuality “feels” the same as being a “Bad Christian”. Without meaning to, by challenging another’s opinion, we (make them feel that we) are challenging their relationship to Christ.
Now, how do such beliefs ever change if they’re so close to our self concept? I’ve found only two ways. (1) People learn to appreciate being wrong and get more comfortable with a fluid belief set. They learn to disassociate “what I believe” from “who I am”. You can see that this has special challenges for a Christian! (2) The material world forces them to make changes. If insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results, non-insane people eventually change when the world beats them up enough. They stop dating abusive men after being beaten up enough times, etc.
quote:
But the more we offend as we argue our case hoping to win people's heads to our side, the harder we make it for our "enemies" to respond to whatever God and the world may be telling us.
S: *Again, I take this as an admonishment to raise the bar in the debate.
TB: You risk your identity when you admit “I’m wrong”, and the risk is higher the more personal the argument has become. It takes a special kind of humility to admit being wrong under those circumstances.
S: * Here again, is the encouragement to speak God’s truth with God’s love. My impression of this thread so far is that Semeia and Icon and E have gone out of their way to be loving, while Tim and A-theist have been dismissive.
TB: In society at large, this type of debate (abortion, death penalty, homosexual rights) tends to play out the same way. Both sides assume the moral high ground for different reasons.
One side is motivated by an ideology of compassion and benevolence, so they don’t attack openly—that wouldn’t fit their sense of self. They dismiss others who ‘just don’t get it’ or ‘aren’t enlightened enough.’ They look at ‘sinners’ and think, ‘THERE but for the grace of God go I.
The other side is motivated by an ideology of standards, progress, and holiness of some sort. They see opponents as those who see and know the standards (because they’re so obvious, don’t you know!) and still chose to deny them. Therefore, in attacking their opponents, they are truly defending themselves from an attack—an attack on our notion of what is Right and Wrong, for instance. Thus, they use terms like “baby killers,” and “god hates fags.” They look at SINNERS and think “there but for the GRACE OF GOD go I.”
By the way, guess which of these two groups society tells us is worse? Which are more often criminals or psychopaths in movies and TV?
S: *And here you end by saying it was not your intention to offend the “other side” but to admonish “your side” to debate more lovingly.
TB: As you may guess, I have more affinity with the latter group—the conservatives—I just described. I do think the Standards of the Bible are usually clear. I can’t count the times someone from the other camp has belittled my compassion, personal experience with a topic, commitment to help others, understanding of the ‘nuances’ of an issue, etc. etc.
But few people recognize that as the hateful, hurtful form of argument it is. And if you point it out to them, they get downright wounded because they would “never argue out of hate.” As if, like the rest of us, they aren’t struggling to overcome the sin nature.
S: I felt the whole point was the admonishment, even given the fact that you discount the other side. Do you get me?
TB: I’m struggling to represent both sides fairly despite my history with both sides. Hopefully this post is clearer.
S: For instance Tim would post bible verses and then expect us to read his mind, as to what he was trying to say. That is not debating.
TB: It is frustrating I’m sure, but see above for why someone (perhaps not Tim, I don’t know him) would do that. If the Truth is so Obvious, why not just post scriptures? Don’t try to find ‘nuances’ of meanings—that borders on defaming the canon!
S: And I really believed that your ending expression to Icon and Semeia was sincere, and that while you disagreed with them, you were not trying to offend them, and I would even go as far as to say that you appreciate the high caliber of their debating skills (ie loving, not hateful) Unlike my sister’s opinion that you were dissing them at
TB: I hope this post makes it clear that my expression was sincere (and why I expected I would offend them!) and that I was not, or not particularly dissing them.
Thanks for asking. *hugs* Asking “please share your thoughts” is one of the most loving things one person can do for another.
Terry
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 2/28/2003 3:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Terry Baxter
Yes, but I’m saying it’s more than ‘we have different interpretations and they’re all equally valid.’ It’s that people can do amazing things to convince themselves that the Bible supports X when the entire slant of the Bible, textual evidence, and Christian tradition is clearly contrary to it.
Empiress
The pro-slavery groups had the Bible on their “side” and the anti-slavery folks had to continually argue for applying the higher law of love and justice in place of these specific Biblical injunctions.
"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts."
-Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America
It was, initially, the Anabaptist groups (Mennonites and Quakers) who argued against slavery using Biblical passages that spoke more generally of justice, love, and mercy which they saw as overiding the particular Biblical injunctions.
Sure, the Bible is very CLEAR that “slaves obey your masters” but it was also clear to abolitionists that the Bible was NOT talking about the type of slavery that was occurring in America in the South. When Christians finally came to reject the validity of the pro-slavery passages in the Bible, they were forced to accept that the Bible could not be considered a totally reliable guide on civil and moral topics. Therefore, just because there are Bible verses to back up a particular position does not ensure that position is automatically “right” about what the most loving and moral thing to do is in any particular context. We need to remember –context-- in applying Scripture and yes, that can seem “complicated” and it can appear to be making that which is so “simple” into something more “complex.” But that too does not mean it is wrong. Our commitment is to deduce what the most faithful, just and loving thing is: Our righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees.
Iconoclast
Terry, would you agree that slavery is one of those issues that required people to do amazing things to convince themselves (and others) that the Bible does NOT support it even when the entire slant of the Bible, textual evidence, and Christian tradition was FOR it?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 2/28/2003 4:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Springs said:
quote:
Here again, is the encouragement to speak God’s truth with God’s love. My impression of this thread so far is that Semeia and Icon and E have gone out of their way to be loving, while Tim and A-theist have been dismissive.
Hm, so how do you propose that I could've been more loving on a message board where one can't readily tell how the other person is feeling? I find it pretty presumptuous for you to even make that statement when you don't know neither Tim or I's heart or motives. I've struggled with this lately, wondering how Christians could justify sin, and I asked other Christians around me their advice. In all of this, I was not discouraged in what I am standing for. Sure, we as Christians are called to be loving, but that doesn't entail clouding sin every time one is too emotional to deal with it.
Peace,
Paul
"The 'sovereignty' of God is not, I suggest, a very biblical idea, especially if one has a low opinion of the respect of sovereigns for the freedom of their subjects."
~Charles Hartshorne
Edited by - A_Theist on 02/28/2003 9:22:01 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 2/28/2003 4:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Terry Baxter,
Maybe you could examine the post I wrote to you on what was wrong with the post I made in which you encouraged me to reexamine what I said and answer my question.
Thanks,
Paul
"The 'sovereignty' of God is not, I suggest, a very biblical idea, especially if one has a low opinion of the respect of sovereigns for the freedom of their subjects."
~Charles Hartshorne | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 2/28/2003 7:13 PM (GMT -6) | | First, just a little response to honorman. My point was not to get into the issue of debating style. But what more are you expecting? The position can’t get much better or better articulated than that! Fine, accuse away, but I don’t know what more you want.
might-be-don said:
quote:
Some clearly seem to be worshipping the Loving God, some seem to be worshipping the Just God, and others the Loving/Just God.
I had to go back and read this….I think your formula may not be all that far off. Let’s try and work through this.
Those on the “Loving God” side may not agree with your formula. Though they want to interpret the warnings, commands, and admonitions as “rules”…this doesn’t mean that they don’t believe in justice. They clearly see that there can be a danger in elevating love to such a place of prominence that it covers practices which are in fact contrary to God’s intent. And so, they have a response to that too. That response would be that justice is served by “loving committed long term relationships” as opposed to those that are promiscuous. Those on the “Just God” side do not deny that the theme of a “Loving God” can be found in the Bible either. But sometimes they take justice in a move toward legalism. Another detriment.
And this is where the problem is as I see it. And I want to be clear on this as much as possible, cause I don’t think I have been. Hopefully I will be able to respond to some things that Miss E has put forth.
There is no doubt that the Bible has a “love ethic” as well as it issues a call to justice, when viewed in its entirety. I think Miss. E has articulated a very important hermeneutical principle: that the “part” must be understood in light of the “whole.” That is, the “whole” is the “love ethic” and the “part” or the “particulars” are the commands, the warnings, the admonitions, etc. The contemporary focus on these are NOT misguided. The problem is when exegetes move beyond sound hermeneutics. That is, the interpretation is such that they place the central themes of the Bible as a whole in conflict with the teaching of the texts that censure homosexual behaviour.
And this is where we come into the problem of implementing the love ethic. Miss. E in response to my problems of implementing the love ethic said this:
quote:
But Brandon, we are "left to ourselves" to the extent that even with the Bible we are still forced to use our brains.
And then she proceeded to go on to speak again, about how we don’t have a unified sexual ethic and that:
quote:
God wants us to live creatively and dynamically and passionately and to learn from our mistakes and grow in love and to think.
But I find this to be highly individualistic. For it still does not answer the question:
On what basis can we conclude that we are in fact operating in accordance with love (and justice)?
Miss E would respond with something like, “When the relationship is long-term and committed and whenever two consenting adults voluntarily enter into a sexual relationship, (whether it be homosexual or heterosexual).” Though this proposal looks attractive, it is rather tricky. Here's why.
Has anyone ever heard of sexual abuse? Sexual abuse ought to cause us to realize that even when we DO have mutual consent, such consent may in fact NOT ONLY be lacking, but actually impossible. Mutual and meaningful consent requires full knowledge AND power to say “no.” Hence, consent can only be given when a certain balance of power exists between the person’s involved.
And power can be expressed in a variety of ways. Some main ones are:
A. A person influences others by threatening adverse consequences (condign power).
B. Offering affirmative reward, that is, something they value (compensatory power).
C. Appeal to what others believe to be natural, proper or right.
What happens in many situations is that a person enters into a relationship with a definite power advantage over another. That is, there is a “power differential” which works to the detriment of the powerless person in the event that the advantaged party desires to introduce the sexual element into the relationship. The “weaker” party may not be in the position to withhold consent. They may be so overwhelmed by the power of the other person that they simply do not have the ability to say no. This undermines the consent question as definitive for measuring the presence of love and justice in a sexual relationship whether homosexual or heterosexual. But let’s go a step further.
Let’s say that mutual consent is operating at 100%. It still could not be the mark of a loving, just, relationship. I mean, we would not say that EVERY sexual liaison or act to which participants voluntarily consent to is ethically proper!? If consent is what is loving, then it would require that we affirm such practices as incest among adults, group sex and polygamy (which was practised in the Old Testament) just to name a few.
Long-term commitment is likewise as problematic for it begs the question as to what qualifies as long-term as well as like the above, it erroneously assumes that all acts connected to long-term commitments are ipso facto ethically proper.
The bottom line is is that humans need guidance as to what love entails. And this is where the precepts, commands, and admonitions gain significance. Question.
What is the relationship of the law to Christian ethics?
Even if we did live in perfect accordance with the law, we would still fall short in reflecting God’s own relationality, that is, person to person relationships. Though we can’t live out the law perfectly, this by no means makes the law unimportant. Scriptural injunctions and prohibitions serve to indicate the parameters within which the relationships God desires for us can flourish. And this is where the role of the Spirit comes in (which has been lacking in this discussion). As we seek to live within the realm toward which the law points, the Spirit seeks to create among us the kind of relationships that God honors. Though the Spirit takes us beyond the dictates of the law, the Spirit does not routinely lead us outside of the law. The Spirit does not transgress the law (when the law is properly understood). We need to check our motivations when we are tempted to act against the law. For these impulses may be of an as-of-yet not eradicated sinful disposition rather than the prompting of the Spirit.
Brandon
"And don't say it's love that broke your heart when you trusted someone. Cause love's the victim, not the crime."--Jody McBrayer, Love Can Break Your Fall www.jodymcbrayer.com
Edited by - BBBCanada on 03/01/2003 12:19:33 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
might-be-don
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830
| Posted 3/1/2003 3:11 AM (GMT -6) | | Brandon says:quote:
Scriptural injunctions and prohibitions serve to indicate the parameters within which the relationships God desires for us can flourish.
Reminds me of something one of my favorite authors, Authur Pink, said...
"But how do you reconcile the Christian’s danger with his safety? There is nothing to reconcile, for there is no antagonism. It is enemies and not friends who need reconciling, and warnings are the Christian’s friend, one of the safeguards which God has placed around the truth of the security of His people, preventing them from wresting it to their destruction. By revealing the certain consequences of total apostasy Christians are thereby cautioned and kept from the same: a holy fear moves their hearts and so becomes the means of preventing the very evil they denounce. A lighthouse is to warn against recklessness as mariners near the coast, so that they will steer away from the fatal rocks. A fence before a precipice is not superfluous, but is designed to call to a halt those journeying in that direction. When the driver of a train sees the signals change to red he shuts off steam, thereby preserving the passengers under his care. The danger signals of Scripture to which we have called attention are heeded by the regenerate and therefore are among the very means appointed by God for the preservation of His people, for it is only by attending to the same they are kept from destroying themselves."
peace and love, don
---
"No Rules, just Right" Outback Steakhouse | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 3/1/2003 3:41 AM (GMT -6) | | ‘How one "does" Christianity can look very different depending on one’s interpretation of Scripture’.
Gen 2:15-17 …And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it…
God put Adam into the most spectacular paradise this world has ever seen, but God put Adam there to do work (to tend and keep it). Work is something that is good for me, and was part of Adam's perfect existence before the fall, today, I am not to fond of it, because I have to go do such a thing  .
"The ideal state of sinless man is not one of indolence without responsibility. Work and duty belong to the perfect state." - Leupold
Why did God make such a tree, just to tempt Adam? Why was this tree ever necessary? Because, for Adam to be a creature of free will, there had to be a choice - some opportunity to rebel against God. If there is never a command, never something forbidden, then there can never be a choice, and God wants our love and obedience to Him to be the love and obedience of choice.
Cool perspective might-be-don…
God is Love,
Tim
2Ti 2:19…Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 3/1/2003 6:55 AM (GMT -6) | | POW said: quote:
I've seem in short space a vacilation between saying that homosecuality is not sin...to something amounting to saying that sin does not matter so what's the big deal is homosexual sin is sin or not.
I've not heard anyone say that sin doesn't matter. Sin matters A LOT. Could you point me to wherever you thought someone was saying that sin doesn't matter?
Thanks.
----------------
Brandon asked: quote:
On what basis can we conclude that we are in fact operating in accordance with love (and justice)?
Miss E would respond with something like, “When the relationship is long-term and committed and whenever two consenting adults voluntarily enter into a sexual relationship, (whether it be homosexual or heterosexual).” Though this proposal looks attractive, it is rather tricky. Here's why.
No, that is not my "guideline" and it is a Strawman fallacy to present it as such. I would say, as I did in a previous post, the basis by which we judge ANYTHING with love as our guide is to ask:
1. whether what is being done is destructive, hurtful, and detrimental to any persons
2. If it is (as in the case of war for example) we have to ask ourselves whether it is the lesser of two evils that we are forced to choose between (as in going to war and killing some innocent people in order to save a greater number of people) and hence some kind of greater good may come from it. In other words: What is the most loving thing?
This basic "ethic" can be applied to almost anything and I see it as a model we gain from Scripture in the life of Jesus. Jesus put the love of neighbor and God above all else and combatted evil and suffering in all he encountered. Jesus lived out #2 when he broke minor laws in order to uphold the greater law of love, eg healing on the Sabbath or submitting to torture and death on a cross in order to save humanity.
Brandon: quote:
Has anyone ever heard of sexual abuse? Sexual abuse ought to cause us to realize that even when we DO have mutual consent, such consent may in fact NOT ONLY be lacking, but actually impossible. Mutual and meaningful consent requires full knowledge AND power to say “no.” Hence, consent can only be given when a certain balance of power exists between the person’s involved.
Right, and sexual abuse fails the test immediately.
Homosexuality can be said to pass the ethical test in that:
1. no one is being destroyed or hurt when two homosexual adults are in love and live out that life of love in a committed relationship together
2. even if a person contends that homosexual relationships are somehow inherently destructive (despite there not being any evidence for this), it can still be said to be the "lesser of two evils"....the evil of a life of life of promiscuity on the one hand or unchosen estranged loneliness without the possibility for intimately loving relationships on the other.
Brandon said: quote:
Though we can’t live out the law perfectly, this by no means makes the law unimportant. Scriptural injunctions and prohibitions serve to indicate the parameters within which the relationships God desires for us can flourish.
Scripture has given us clear "guidelines" on a whole host of things that you and the majority of the Church do not implement. Why do we allow remarried couples back into the House of God even though they freely chose to enter into sin and continue to "live in sin" but not homosexual couples? How did we as a Church determine this was the more "just and loving" thing to do with remarried couples? Why not keep all remarried couples out of the Church as we do homosexual couples??? Talk about choosing and picking Scripture! This is far more inconsistent and quite suspicious. The only difference I can see between remarried couples and homosexual couples is that:
1. The Bible never addresses the issue of homosexual monogomous couples while it addresses remarriage specifically
2. Jesus never spoke about homosexuality but he was very clear about the sin of remarriage
3. Remarried couples freely choose to remarry and cannot be said to be genetically predisposed to "remarriage" while homosexuals are predisposed (if not determined) to homosexuality.
On every count I see the argument for condemnation of remarried couples to be much, much greater than that for homosexual couples if we take the Bible and all the evidence seriously. And yet, the Church continues to be "loving and merciful" towards remarried couples while preventing homosexual couples into the household of God. Again I must ask in desperation: What gives!?
At least allowing homosexual couples into the our churches takes the Bible seriously enough to to apply it consistently, if nothing else!
quote:
And this is where the role of the Spirit comes in (which has been lacking in this discussion). As we seek to live within the realm toward which the law points, the Spirit seeks to create among us the kind of relationships that God honors. Though the Spirit takes us beyond the dictates of the law, the Spirit does not routinely lead us outside of the law. The Spirit does not transgress the law (when the law is properly understood). We need to check our motivations when we are tempted to act against the law. For these impulses may be of an as-of-yet not eradicated sinful disposition rather than the prompting of the Spirit.
You're saying it requires discernment. I wholeheartedly agree. In applying the Bible we need more than just the Bible, we need discernment. Being a Pharisee doesn't require the Holy Spirit at all because rules are applied blindly, but our righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees.
Peace,
~E
Edited by - Empiress on 03/01/2003 11:59:45 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Springs
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636
| Posted 3/1/2003 7:03 PM (GMT -6) | | A_Theist: Could you point out where I ad hominemed?
Here’s a few for ya:
quote:
A_Theist: Believe me, there is no clarity. You are just clouding are mind with filth. Sin is sin, stop trying to justify it because you feel sorry for people who fail to give up their burdens to God.
I guess our God's are in disagreement.
Thanks for the response Terry.
quote:
I will say that personal attacks are one thing, but there are also patronizing ways of treating people, or dismissing their beliefs with cute homilies or “your God is just different than my loving God.” When you put your Self into arguing against brothers and sisters and Christ, and receive those kinds of responses it is demeaning and every bit as damaging to Christian unity as the more obvious forms of rude argument.
Okay, I get it now. I just didn’t want to jump to any conclusions. I usually come on the board to learn something new, or to try to figure something new out. I attempt to understand what people are saying. That is difficult enough, but on this thread one has to figure out what is being said indirectly also. It’s hard enough to debate what is being verbalized without having to deal with inferences. I see a gradation here. First we have A_Theist who doesn’t even recognize when he is insulting, then we have me who tries to take arguments at face value, and then we have some others that are trying to infer each other to death. Well, you can have it, I’d rather wrack my brain over on the Bivalance thread than try to figure out who can indirectly insult who the most.
peace
Thy love did read by rote and could not spell. - Friar Laurence. - Shakespeare | | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 3/1/2003 8:55 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Here’s a few for ya:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A_Theist: Believe me, there is no clarity. You are just clouding are mind with filth. Sin is sin, stop trying to justify it because you feel sorry for people who fail to give up their burdens to God.
I guess our God's are in disagreement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And how is that "attacking the man"? You said a few, where are the other two that consist of three which means a few?
quote:
First we have A_Theist who doesn’t even recognize when he is insulting
Yeah, I haven't realized it because I haven't been doing it. Please don't take your failure to understand my position as in insult to others, because you really don't know me or my intentions.
Thanks,
Paul
"The 'sovereignty' of God is not, I suggest, a very biblical idea, especially if one has a low opinion of the respect of sovereigns for the freedom of their subjects."
~Charles Hartshorne
Edited by - A_Theist on 03/02/2003 02:03:07 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 3/1/2003 10:04 PM (GMT -6) | | A_Theist:
Believe me, there is no clarity. You are just clouding are mind with filth. Sin is sin, stop trying to justify it because you feel sorry for people who fail to give up their burdens to God.
Semeia:
Paul, the three accusations in that statement are:
1)Empiress is just "clouding" your mind with "filth."
2) Empiress is trying to "justify" sin because she feels "sorry" for gays.
3)Gay people "fail to give up their burdens to God."
Each one of these is an unfounded accusation which attacks the person and for which you have offered no evidence.
1) If your mind is "cloud[ed]" with "filth" that is one thing, and only you can know the truth of that, but I think most observers to this conversation would not find any causal connection between Empiress's arguments and the level of filth you might find in your mind. To suggest that there is a connection is to accuse Empiress of being a person who fills people's minds with filth, which is indeed a serious accusation and judgment.
2) This is another accusation for which you have no evidence, that attacks Empiress as the type of person who is looking for a reason to "justify sin." This also discounts everything Empiress herself has said on this issue, without giving any reason for why her own statements about it contradicting this characterization should be ignored. As such, it is an attack.
3) This is a direct attack against gay people. The accusation is that gay people are gay because they "fail to give up their burdens to God." This is a serious accusation that is unsupportable unless one happens to be a mind reader. As a human being limited to your own mind, and failing to be God, you cannot possibly know the truth of that statement concerning any human being other than yourself. It is, in fact, what it means to judge another human being: from your limited, human perspective you look over at your brother and judge his heart. You say, gay people "fail to give up their burdens to God." Is there anyone but God who knows what burdens we've given up to Him?
Paul, you may very well have not meant these things as an attack, but they are in fact serious accusations against a person or persons, and the impact they have is a negative one.
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/2/2003 1:39 AM (GMT -6) | | A poster above asked this question: I've not heard anyone say that sin doesn't matter. Sin matters A LOT. Could you point me to wherever you thought someone was saying that sin doesn't matter?
I'm not going to give the kind of answer that in my judgement that post asks for. And here's why.
My post was not about WHO says something about sin, or even the details of WHAT anyone posts. The quotes posted were about HOW sin gets regarded in a PostModern dominated world--as is our world. This is no long shot. There is plenty of shell-game switching.
So I'm not going to say WHO (avoiding making it personal), or argue about any single instance of WHAT (leading inevitably, here, to that same person hunting). But there has been enough shell sliding to make observent commentary on the HOW of PostModern influence to be both useful and timely.
Since the last post fell off onto the end of page fifteen, I'll repost the quotes here. Maybe the name calling can stop. (Repeat after me: transitive verb, intransitive verb; active voice, passive voice.)
----------------------------------------------
We are no longer in a Traditional world. Nor are we in a Modern World. It is the Post-Modern world that we are in.
quote:
In the post-modern "deconstruction" of the modern worldview traditional language, structures, symbols and rites are recreated to the point where their original content and meaning no longer remain at all, but are replaced by a whole new reconstruction of reality.
. . .
There is rather a creation of reality, or rather, more accurately, many creations of a plethora of pseudo-realities, produced by the subjective willings of individuals, parties and "interest groups" in the context of politics, power, self-creation and permissiveness. The tenets of modern liberal democracy now become objects of worship and ends in themselves in a politicized, hedonized world. Freedom becomes licence. Acquisition becomes a right. Differences are deified. And happiness, now understood as material and pseudo-spiritual pleasure, becomes obligatory for all.
. . .
H. Richard Neibuhr could say that in modern American liberal Protestantism "a God without wrath brings man without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross" (The Kingdom of God in America, 1937, p. 193), it can now be said that in the new age of most-modern pluralism divinity without sovereignty brings humans without dignity into an age without responsibility through the exploitation of a god or goddess of your choice without tragedy.
quote:
Christians today must be prepared to tolerate every error and evil while unmasking its falsehood and rebuking its sin.
. . . to affirm "whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious", with anything "excellent" and "worthy of praise", wherever and in whomever these divine realities are found (Phil. 4:8). And we must also be willing to exercise our privilege and duty as Christians to intercede before God and stand as advocates before His Face on behalf of all who, wittingly or unwittingly, have been led astray by the devil.
quote:
we must not: fall prey to the post-modern pluralistic worldview as some great new opportunity for humankind; to think that they and their churches are immune to post-modernism and untouched by its influence and power; imagining that we can reject the contemporary world by taking refuge in a world of our own making;
...another imperative for Christians in post-modern pluralistic societies: the calling to evangelize, witness and serve all people without domination, discrimination or condition, and, indeed without even the desire to convert or reform, which is God's job, not ours. We are only to announce the gospel, testify to truth, serve every person, and be ready to suffer the consequences which are surely to come.
quote:
Contrary to post-modern propaganda, such convictions need not necessarily lead to the imperialist domination by "Christofascists" who compel others to accept their dogmas, ethics and versions of history . . .
THERE ARE TWO EXTREMES TO BE AVOIDED: ONE ONE END IS JUDGEMENTAL DETACHEMENT; AND ON THE OTHER, SELF-DESIGNED TRUTH.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 3/2/2003 4:24 AM (GMT -6) | | Just a couple of prelims before I respond to Miss. E
I have been thinking a lot ‘bout what Terry said:
quote:
If you've ever studied Mormonism, for instance, you know that huge numbers of people can believe something despite an amazing amount of contrary factual, textual, and even social evidence.
And what Miss. E said about polygamy:
quote:
Nice post! Have you ever argued with a Christian polygamist before? They are indeed around, although likely no one from this board. *looks around*
That’s cute. “Looks around.” as if the people on the board are where she is presently located. (By the way, don’t take, “That’s cute” as some sort of put down…it seriously made me chuckle when you wrote, "looks around," some people will flip because I said that). Anyway, I was thinking about how people will believe almost anything despite evidence to the contrary. I was thinking of something closer to home that ALL OF US could relate to. How ‘bout…”NEWSPAPER ESCHATOLOGY!?” Think about that in terms of what Terry said in the above last couple of posts. It’s ironic how people will have no problem seeing that the thoughts that Terry says above are clearly applicable to end times scenarios and that sort thing, but when it comes to sexuality all of a sudden everything is rather ambiguous. I think of racism and how some will argue for the supremacy of the white race from the Bible (as Miss E posted above, “Have you ever argued with a Christian white supremacist before?”), yet, NO ONE HERE (including those on the “affirming” side) takes them seriously or believes their views are legit. It’s not even a question. Seems to me to be politically motivated arguing homosexuality and polygamy this way. If you agree that something is morally repugnant (i.e. racism, sexism) then it is not all THAT ambiguous, no matter how well one argues their case for it. You know BETTER! And why is disagreement ALWAYS in the "sexual domain" area?
Anyhoo, Miss E said: quote:
On every count I see the argument for condemnation of remarried couples to be much, much greater than that for homosexual couples if we take the Bible and all the evidence seriously.
This is ad hominem. It implies that those of us that disagree with you or those on the affirming side of this question don’t take the Bible and all the evidence seriously. Please try to refrain from statements like these. Your thesis is now an “A” from an “A+” 
Lastly, Miss E said that I was using a “Strawman fallacy” when I said:
quote:
On what basis can we conclude that we are in fact operating in accordance with love (and justice)?
Miss E would respond with something like, “When the relationship is long-term and committed and whenever two consenting adults voluntarily enter into a sexual relationship, (whether it be homosexual or heterosexual).” Though this proposal looks attractive, it is rather tricky. Here's why.
I really don’t think I used a straw-man argument at all. As a matter of fact, I believe you are in agreement with me. Let’s go over this again. It has been stated by Greg, yourself, Semeia and Iconoclast that there is a difference between “voluntarily, mutually consenting, long-term homosexual relationships” and promiscuous homosexual relationships.
The mutually consenting ones would be the “loving, just” ones. The promiscuous ones would be the “destructive, hurtful, and detrimental ones.” Certainly, the mutually consenting ones are not destructive, hurtful, and detrimental! That doesn’t make sense if they were. It is assumed they are not.
In other words, Miss E, you ARE in agreement that “voluntarily mutually consenting, long-term relationships” are just and loving and are ones that are not, “destructive, hurtful, and detrimental ones.”
Merely being, “voluntarily, mutually consenting, long-term homosexual relationships” and therefore, loving and just (in your opinion) doesn’t make it so (loving and just). Why? Because:
A. Living in a fallen world, we have “power differential” problems.
B. Even if “voluntarily, mutually consenting, long-term homosexual relationships” are working at 100% capacity, this alone is not a mark of a loving and just relationship. For we could give merit to any kind of sexual liaison.
C. It begs the question of how long is long.
D. It erroneously assumes that all acts connected to long-term commitments (which are loving and just because they are not “destructive, hurtful, and detrimental ones”) are ipso facto ethically proper.
Therefore, I conclude that I did not make a straw-man argument and that Miss E is in agreement with me because it is assumed that, “voluntarily, mutually consenting, long-term homosexual relationships” are NOT “destructive, hurtful, and detrimental ones.”
Brandon
"And don't say it's love that broke your heart when you trusted someone. Cause love's the victim, not the crime."--Jody McBrayer, Love Can Break Your Fall www.jodymcbrayer.com
Edited by - BBBCanada on 03/02/2003 09:32:13 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 3/2/2003 4:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Brandon said:
quote:
Seems to me to be politically motivated arguing homosexuality and polygamy this way.
Not following you here...could you please explain more. Are you saying my arguments are somehow politically motivated? Total confusion.
Brandon said:
quote:
If you agree that something is morally repugnant (i.e. racism, sexism) then it is not all THAT ambiguous, no matter how well one argues their case for it.
You're exactly right. I find it morally repugnant that anyone would be automatically excluded from the household of God because of any genetic/psychological trait they did not freely choose.
Brandon said:
quote:
Anyhoo, Miss E said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On every count I see the argument for condemnation of remarried couples to be much, much greater than that for homosexual couples if we take the Bible and all the evidence seriously.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is ad hominem. It implies that those of us that disagree with you or those on the affirming side of this question don’t take the Bible and all the evidence seriously. Please try to refrain from statements like these. Your thesis is now an “A” from an “A+”
This is not an example of the ad hominem fallacy, people are playing really loose with these concepts. The ad hominem is defined in the following way:
"An ad hominem argument is an informal fallacy which argues that some claim is false because of some disqualifying characteristics of whomever has made the claim. The basic form of the argument is:
There is something objectionable about person X. Therefore, person X's claim is false.
This fallacy is a mirror image of the appeal to authority, which argues that a claim should be accepted because of some positive characteristics of whoever is making the claim. "
Whether or not you see my statement as some kind of personal attack, I don't know, but it is not intended as such. It is ironic however, because it has been said repeatedly in many different ways on this thread that the people arguing in favor of mercy for homosexual couples "do not take the Bible seriously." My point is that the same charge can be made against those who don't apply the the same standard with homosexual couples that they do with remarried couples. NEITHER side on this issue believes the other side is using the Bible responsibly...that is not personal attack for either of them, it is merely divergent opinions about what it looks like to use the Bible responsibly, eg "seriously."
Brandon said:
quote:
Lastly, Miss E said that I was using a “Strawman fallacy” when I said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On what basis can we conclude that we are in fact operating in accordance with love (and justice)?
Miss E would respond with something like, “When the relationship is long-term and committed and whenever two consenting adults voluntarily enter into a sexual relationship, (whether it be homosexual or heterosexual).” Though this proposal looks attractive, it is rather tricky. Here's why.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon said: quote:
I really don’t think I used a straw-man argument at all. As a matter of fact, I believe you are in agreement with me. Let’s go over this again. It has been stated by Greg, yourself, Semeia and Iconoclast that there is a difference between “voluntarily, mutually consenting, long-term homosexual relationships” and promiscuous homosexual relationships.
I think you're missing a major point here...your conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. While we have all said and agree that monogomous, mutual-consenting relationships have the potential to be loving, it does not follow that this is the "way we determine what is in accordance with love": that is where your Strawman fallacy occurs; you've got the cart in front of the horse. The way I determine what is in accordance with love is NOT by asking, "is it voluntary and monogomous"? The WAY I determine what is "in accordance with love" is by applying the two ethical tests I explained: asking whether it is detrimental/destructive and then whether it is the lesser of two "evils." Do you see the difference here? The reason promiscuity is "bad" and monogamy is "good" isn't anything intrinsic to the concepts themselves, it is because promiscuity is destructive physically and emotionally while monogamy is not.
By saying that the -way- I determine what is in accordance with love is to ask: is it monogomous, committed, and mutually consentual?" is to build a false argument, eg a Strawman argument. The -way- I determine what is in accordance with love is by using the two ethical tests I have provided in several posts. Is this clarifying things??
Brandon said:
quote:
Merely being, “voluntarily, mutually consenting, long-term homosexual relationships” and therefore, loving and just (in your opinion) doesn’t make it so (loving and just).
Right, I'm sure we all agree. The reason why is that we cannot determine if a relationship is loving and just based solely on that criteria. Isn't it obvious to everyone that just because a relationship is "mutually consentual, voluntary, and committed" doesn't mean it is moral? What if the individual is consenting to being treated like an animal because they have low self-esteem? Again, to claim that this is the criteria I use to judge what is loving and just is a strawman.
quote:
Because: A. Living in a fallen world, we have “power differential” problems.
And how does that apply to loving homosexual relationships? We could much more easily apply it to heterosexual relationships in which males are generally physically and psychologically more dominant and powerful than females...nevertheless, I don't see the relevance of this point when we begin with the assumption (as I do) that anything destructive is morally questionable.
quote:
B. Even if “voluntarily, mutually consenting, long-term homosexual relationships” are working at 100% capacity, this alone is not a mark of a loving and just relationship. For we could give merit to any kind of sexual liaison.
How so? Name one type of "sexual liason" that is not inherently detrimental to those who engage in it. I cannot think of any. The only sexual relationship that is NOT inherently destructive is that which is monogomous, within the context of a life long commitment, and occurs between two consenting adults who love one another. All other forms of sexual relationships can be shown to be destructive in some way.
quote:
C. It begs the question of how long is long.
How?? We're talking commitments that are intended for life, same as any marriage relationship.
[quote] D. It erroneously assumes that all acts connected to long-term commitments (which are loving and just because they are not “destructive, hurtful, and detrimental ones”) are ipso facto ethically proper.
Sorry, I don't follow this point. Need more information.
Peace,
~E
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/4/2003 4:15 AM (GMT -6) | | Some LINKS found with a quick websearch: (using "BONHOEFFER" and "homosexual")
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 03/04/2003 1:59:57 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 3/4/2003 6:37 AM (GMT -6) | | Empiress,
Sorry I haven't responded to your last post. I have some comments as well as questions. Hopefully within the next couple of days. Coo? 
Brandon
"And don't say it's love that broke your heart when you trusted someone. Cause love's the victim, not the crime."--Jody McBrayer, Love Can Break Your Fall www.jodymcbrayer.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 3/4/2003 10:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Brandon,
That's coo. And I'm going to respond to a few things you said on the other thread when I get a chance too.
~E
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 3/4/2003 11:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Coo!
Brandon
"And don't say it's love that broke your heart when you trusted someone. Cause love's the victim, not the crime."--Jody McBrayer, Love Can Break Your Fall www.jodymcbrayer.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 3/6/2003 7:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Terry,
I've been meaning to mention this to ya concerning when you posted this:
quote:
It is hard for society to kick against the goads. And, in homosexual permissiveness, like in abortion we'll most likely end up after years of kicking with only bloody feet and bowed heads.
I think it interesting that you made reference to "kicking against the goads." In that text, Acts 9, it is Saul who is kicking against the Church and therefore, Christ and not the other way around. In our context here, it is a few individuals who are kicking something that has a long standing within Church history and still maintains a strong hold within conservative Christian circles. It has been only within the last 25 years that there has been some major "kicking" to change this standard.
But let me explain the point that I'm driving at. Richard Mouw wrote a book called, "Consulting the Faithful: What Christian Intellectuals Can Learn from Popular Religion." In the chapter entitled, "The Sense of the Faithful" Mouw states that many Christian scholars have developed a disdain toward "domestic popular culture." This stems from a failure to develop an adequate theological understanding of ordinary religious people. To correct this, Catholic theology has been developing what is called, "the sense of the faithful"--a topic Mouw says, that is "given surprisingly little treatment by Protestant theologians."
Basically, what Catholic theologians are doing is taking into account the laity's perspective in assessing a theological or ethical teaching--something they were quite passive about in the past. That is, Church leaders are taking seriously "a sort of instinct, or "phronema", deep in the bosom of the mystical body of Christ" as Cardinal Newman wrote back in the nineteenth century.
This "sense" (sensus fidelium) should be contrasted with "consent" (consensus fidelium). That is, sensus refers to the active discerning, or capability of discerning, the content of faith, whereas consensus is the consensual result of that discerning.
Cardinal Newman's use of "phronema" alluded to Aristotle's virtue of "phronesis" (prudence). That is, the process of moral discernment could never be fully thematized or formulated or justified in theoretical form. For Aristotle, criterion for moral judgement was the virtuous person. Mouw goes on to say that this means "that there resides deep in the bosom of Christ's mystical body, a profound moral wisdom." That the laity "possess an important share of this discerning power, and no account of what is Christianly right or wrong is adequate without taking into consideration the laity's prudent sense of how moral prescriptions are to be lived out in the concrete realities of practical existence." Though Newman wrote this with regard to Doctrine, we can presume that he was talking about things theological. Therefore, what Newman was trying to say was that leaders need to take into consideration the laity's prudent sense of how our doctrines are to be lived out in the concrete realities of practical existence. Hence, it is vital that the what goes on in propagating the faith is that teaching actually "takes" in the hearts and minds of the people. To quote Mouw:
If the church sets forth something as true, it will be a good sign of its truth that it is actually recieved as true by the memebership.
This is grounded in a profound respect for the laity's practical wisdom. "It's not just that it is good to have them on board when clarifying the mind of the church;" as Mouw says, but "their deep practical grasp of spiritual matters is an important resource for the church's theological task.
I think this should be seriously considered by those on the "affirming side" of this debate. Any thoughts?
Brandon
"And don't say it's love that broke your heart when you trusted someone. Cause love's the victim, not the crime."--Jody McBrayer, Love Can Break Your Fall www.jodymcbrayer.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 3/7/2003 12:46 PM (GMT -6) | | Ok. Miss E.
I have been wanting respond to your last post to me on this thread. First, let me say that you are correct. I thought that you were using ad hominem when in actuality you were not. Back to an “A+”.  And so I think of Terry’s timely words,
quote:
Not every statement that relates to a person rather than an idea or text is an ad hominem. Not every method of pointing out the ramifications of a line of thinking is unfair.
Also, when you said that what is in accordance with love is not whether something is a “voluntary consensual monogamous relationship” but whether something is detrimental/destructive-- calling it a Strawman Fallacy. I have to concede to that as well. You understand a relationship that is mutually consensual is not grounds for it being loving and just. Cool. No problem there. I think both sides on this debate would agree.
Now, we come to the biggie. The big kahoona. The mother of ALL mothers. Ready?
Why is it that you determine whether something is loving or not whether it is detrimental/destructive/harmful or not? On what basis, do you make this assumption? Why should ANYONE follow this? What makes this an adequate basis for ethics? I understand that you say:
quote:
The reason promiscuity is "bad" and monogamy is "good" isn't anything intrinsic to the concepts themselves, it is because promiscuity is destructive physically and emotionally while monogamy is not.
and
quote:
Name one type of "sexual liason" that is not inherently detrimental to those who engage in it. I cannot think of any…”
But this seems an insufficient basis for morality. You seem to be assuming something that you have not proved. There is a huge “WHY?” question there. Let me know.
P.S. This is more of an ethical question than a question homosexuality itself. That is, it is a question that is trying to "get at" the basis for morality, rather than the specifics of homosexuality.
Brandon
"And don't say it's love that broke your heart when you trusted someone. Cause love's the victim, not the crime."--Jody McBrayer, Love Can Break Your Fall www.jodymcbrayer.com
Edited by - BBBCanada on 03/07/2003 5:52:18 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/7/2003 4:04 PM (GMT -6) | | May I jump in?
Empiress said, and BBBC quotes: The reason promiscuity is "bad" and monogamy is "good" isn't anything intrinsic to the concepts themselves, it is because promiscuity is destructive physically and emotionally while monogamy is not.
That is to miss the fact that in Genesis God states of the totality of humanity as male and famale that it "is very good." And it is to miss the fact that in Genesis that Marriage is instituted by God.
It strikes me as being very nominalistic (in the Medieval sense, and not what modern philosophy texts call nominalism) to take relationships and distinguish merely by consistency, thus missing the matter of the very nature of the relationship. Marriage is unique in all the human realm!
BBBC is absolutly correct in saying that this is a MUCH bigger issue that the other. Failing to have this in right order is to be ill equiped to understand humanity in toto.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 3/7/2003 5:03 PM (GMT -6) | | BBBCanada
If the church sets forth something as true, it will be a good sign of its truth that it is actually received as true by the membership.
This is grounded in a profound respect for the laity's practical wisdom. "It's not just that it is good to have them on board when clarifying the mind of the church;" as Mouw says, but "their deep practical grasp of spiritual matters is an important resource for the church's theological task.
I think this should be seriously considered by those on the "affirming side" of this debate. Any thoughts?
Iconoclast
I love this line of thought. I totally agree with it and have given it much consideration in coming to my conclusions regarding homosexuality.
Christopher Alexander, who is an architect, wrote a book called The Timeless Way of Building. In it he showed that if you ask 5 architects what they believe to be good architecture you will get at least 5 divergent opinions. However, if you take those same 5 architects and put them in an actual concrete part of a building and then ask them how they feel about being in that spot they will all come to agreement. I am a software architect and I will vouch that if you take 5 software architects and ask them what good software architecture is you will get at least 8 divergent opinions – often more. I can also vouch that I have personally taken a set of architects who were in violent disagreement about how to construct a field typing system in Java and after building two actual field typing systems and taking them through it we all came to unanimous agreement about which was better. It was truly an amazing thing. Our “goodness” detectors ONLY work when we are placed in the concrete situation.
30 years ago the Christian church mostly agreed that divorced and remarried persons were “living in sin” and thus could not be considered to be Christians unless they returned to their original spouse or broke up and remained celibate. Today the Christian church mostly agrees that a divorced and remarried person can not only be considered to be a Christian but that they can also take leadership positions in the church. Why? Because between then and now many people got divorced and remarried and Christians then found themselves in the actual concrete situation and realized that their “goodness” detectors were telling them that these people obviously loved God and loved their neighbor and were every bit as “good” of a Christian as anyone else.
Today the Christian church is at the very beginning of this sea change related to homosexuality. Up until recently gays simply stayed away from the Christian church and mostly hid themselves in society at large as much as possible because of rampant and brutal discrimination. Now that society is awakening to this gross injustice gay people are coming out of hiding and insisting on being dealt with fairly. This will cause the people in the Christian church to start interacting with known gay people and over time come to the same realization they did regarding divorced and remarried people.
So, yes, Brandon, the “affirming” side has not only considered this phenomenon but is, in fact, counting on it to eventually turn the tide of the debate from a debate based on abstract “legal” considerations to a debate based on the concrete reality of a living person.
For myself, I was once in the camp of seeing homosexuality as some horrible sin. I based my view on scripture and my internal experience of how I felt when I thought about homosexual behavior. Like most heterosexual males (I assume) the very thought of homosexuality (associating myself into intimate contact with another man) is viscerally abhorrent. My view then was that homosexuality was a sin that came to dominate people and directly led to all sorts of negative and unloving behavior – I believed that homosexuality was the root cause of the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah.
It wasn’t until I actually allowed myself to get to know some gay people without this filter of judgment on that I realized how false my view really was. I came to see that gay people were not dominated by sin. I came to see that they were just like me except that they felt toward people of the same sex the way I felt toward people of the opposite sex. To Americans it is “natural” to drive on the right side of the road and in England it is “natural” to drive on the left side of the road.
Once I realized how false my presuppositions were I went back to researching just exactly what the Bible had to say about homosexuality to make sure I had the right understanding. I still assumed it was “living in sin” but I now had direct evidence that it didn’t causally lead to the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah. Much to my surprise I started to realize how incredibly tenuous the Christian church’s view of it being “living in sin” or it being a “sin” at all really is.
My first transformation of thought came about when I realized that divorce and remarriage was “living in sin” no different than a gay monogamous union. And yet Jesus presupposes that the woman WILL remarry. This line of thought ended up blowing away for me the whole concept that people who are “living in sin” aren’t really Christians. It has since become clear to me that we are ALL “living in sin” pretty much all of the time.
The second transformation of thought came about when I realized that the whole “abomination” thing in the Old Testament applied to purity laws as well. I always associated my feeling of abhorrence of homosexuality with the Bible calling it an “abomination”. But when you see some other things that are abominations that are just purity law sorts of things then suddenly that force is completely lost. I now see the Old Testament proscriptions against homosexuality as no different than the purity laws.
The third transformation of thought came about when I realized that Paul’s sin list was really all about a person whose character has become dominated by sin. They are sins that dominate a person and prevent them from taking loving action. It is clear to me that the gay people I know are not dominated by being gay – they are every bit as capable as me of taking loving action – of denying themselves to help another. And THEN when I actually looked into the Greek words that Paul used, how they have been translated over the years and what we actually know about what they mean I think it is just an outrage.
At this point in my thought process it was still clear to me that homosexuality was a sin. But a sin only in the sense that it is not God’s original ideal for us – no different than divorce and remarriage. God made us male and female.
But let's just look at this idea of “God’s original ideal” for us. If something that is not “God’s original ideal” for us is by definition a sin then wouldn’t wearing clothes have to be considered a sin? Wouldn’t feeling shame when naked be considered a sin? God created us naked and unashamed. As a result of the fall we felt shame about being naked. God didn’t tell us to just quit sinning and get over our shame. God accommodated us by lovingly making clothes for us to cover our shame. None of us choose to feel shame. It is just wired into us because of the fall. The fall changed us. The fall changed us from God’s original ideal. One aspect of that is that we all feel shame. Another aspect of that is that a certain percentage of us are wired to have our “help meet” be someone of the same sex rather than someone of the opposite sex. God said that it was not good that a man be alone. Why would we deny someone their “help meet” when God lovingly clothed us to help us with our shame?
Now, POW wants to argue that OK maybe it’s not sin to be homosexual but it IS sin to choose to act homosexually. To which I would say, yes, but just as we don’t choose to feel shame we DO choose to wear clothes. Now, if POW wants to say that choosing to wear clothes is a sin then I will just have to agree with him that choosing to act homosexually is, in the same way, also a sin.
My conclusion is that gay monogamous marriages are NOT sin at all and should be sanctioned by the church to prevent gay people from burning with passion – just like Paul said.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Edited by - Iconoclast on 03/07/2003 11:05:26 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/8/2003 4:35 AM (GMT -6) | | CREATION
FALL
REDEMPTION
RESTORATION (in the ESCHATA)
quote:
Iconoclast:
Now, POW wants to argue that OK maybe it’s not sin to be homosexual but it IS sin to choose to act homosexually. To which I would say, yes, but just as we don’t choose to feel shame we DO choose to wear clothes. Now, if POW wants to say that choosing to wear clothes is a sin then I will just have to agree with him that choosing to act homosexually is, in the same way, also a sin.
My conclusion is that gay monogamous marriages are NOT sin at all and should be sanctioned by the church to prevent gay people from burning with passion – just like Paul said.
Icon has missed the second part: the Fall; and with it the need for Redemption and Restoration--human actions are presented as sufficing.
Same way with his model of the architects--it left out the Holy Spirit, and even more problematic, that analogy left out the need for the Holy Spirit. When the Church says "it seemed right to us and to the Holy Spirit", as it did at all Eccumenical Councils it did not just say "it feels good."
VERY HUMANISTIC, ICON. VERY NEW AGE.
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 03/08/2003 09:37:01 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 3/8/2003 4:56 AM (GMT -6) | | Brandon said: quote:
I have been wanting respond to your last post to me on this thread. First, let me say that you are correct. I thought that you were using ad hominem when in actuality you were not. Back to an “A+”.
:) Thanks Brandon! Brandon gave me an A+ !! woot!
Brandon said: quote:
Also, when you said that what is in accordance with love is not whether something is a “voluntary consensual monogamous relationship” but whether something is detrimental/destructive-- calling it a Strawman Fallacy. I have to concede to that as well. You understand a relationship that is mutually consensual is not grounds for it being loving and just. Cool. No problem there. I think both sides on this debate would agree.
Yes, I think we all agree on that. Very cool.
Brandon said: quote:
Now, we come to the biggie. The big kahoona. The mother of ALL mothers. Ready?
Why is it that you determine whether something is loving or not whether it is detrimental/destructive/harmful or not? On what basis, do you make this assumption? Why should ANYONE follow this? What makes this an adequate basis for ethics?
Thank you for asking me this question! I actually really need to answer it more clearly for myself. Okay, here is my reasoning:
1. It is not an adequate basis by itself for ethics no, it is just a starting point. We have to take Scripture, reason, human experience, etc. into account. And as I said, EVEN if we determine something is or isn’t harmful, we’d still have to determine the lesser of two “evils” or the better of two “goods”! And then people disagree on whether or not something even is harmful or not! And so ethics is much more involved than that of course.
2. I use it as a starting point because it cuts through a lot of the intellectualizing at the forefront and gets at what we’re really trying to accomplish which is: loving God and loving our neighbors as ourselves. Often we can determine whether or not something is loving by asking how it affects people…if it hurts and harms them, that is an indicator, at the very least, to look more deeply at our actions. (The Golden Rule) We may decide that we MUST hurt them in order to be loving, but often we will find that there is better way to love them.
3. The real FOUNDATION of my reasoning is rooted in my understanding of God. I believe that God does not set up arbitrary rules for his children. That is, I don’t believe God has established rules “just because.” I believe that God has only given us rules that are for our “best” and that are reasonable to our minds on some level. (Otherwise God would be like lazy parent who, when kids ask why they must do something says, "Cause I said so!") For example, the reason I think monogamy is the preferred mode of Christian life Biblically (although God has made concessions) is that it really is the ‘best’ and healthiest way for us because promiscuity is emotionally hurtful and unhealthy. My “ethics” really go back to my view of God. God isn’t in the business of setting up rules that aren’t for our best…that don’t ultimately heal us and reconcile us to God. I also believe God expects us to know his heart and intentions and to be able to live likewise: we ought not to set up rules for others unless we have good reason to and that can be determined by how it affects them. Do the rules ultimately bring about a greater good?
I would say in the case of homosexual marriage, the answer is "yes." Ultimately it is a greater good than forcing homosexuals to live outside of a sanctioned monogamous relationship or be totally alone...especially when not everyone is capable of celibacy as Paul indicates.
Okay, that’s all for now. But Icon wrote a beautiful testimony that I’m sure you’ll want to interact with some more!
-----
POW said:
quote:
May I jump in?
You’re always welcome. :)
quote:
Empiress said, and BBBC quotes: The reason promiscuity is "bad" and monogamy is "good" isn't anything intrinsic to the concepts themselves, it is because promiscuity is destructive physically and emotionally while monogamy is not.
That is to miss the fact that in Genesis God states of the totality of humanity as male and famale that it "is very good." And it is to miss the fact that in Genesis that Marriage is instituted by God.
Oh, you may misunderstand what I mean. I do believe that that some things are intrinsically “good” such as human beings and maleness and femaleness, etc. I am speaking more in terms of actions…certain actions are “good” because they bring about good and loving results while other actions are “bad” because they are destructive. When I said “monogamy” versus “promiscuity” I was referring to them as actions, not the institution of marriage. I agree that marriage is a sacrament instituted by God.
Thanks,
~E
| | Back to Top | | |
| 264 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 8:48 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|