Marriage
At the center of Paul message (in the undisputed letters, anyway) is the radical equality of all who live in Christ. While there are good texts to this effect in 1st Corinthians (e.g., 1 Cor 12:14-26), the classic expression of this radical equality comes from Galatians:
Galatians 3:27-28 As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.
I think it is important to really get this. Paul was not merely talking about a safe theoretical equality that doesn't require us to do anything differently—we're all the same before God—nor an equality that was limited to what happened within the congregation and its worship—slave, within these walls, you're my brother! He was creating a new society, a society in which everyone is equal, everyone is valued, and everyone is loved. As you read through 1st Corinthians, you'll see over and over again that Paul is battling the Corinthians' tendency to revert from his egalitarian vision to the norms of Roman society: divisions, food sacrificed to idols, sexual exploitation, the privileges of the rich, etc. And nowhere in the day-to-day life of a society are its norms more frequently encountered, or more rigorously enforced, than within marriage.
Roman society was built around the notion of power, the notion that some people had the right to do certain things to certain other people, or make those others do things for them. For the Roman, the law existed to define who had power, justice consisted of the unfettered application of the rights of power, and the legions existed to deal with anyone who resisted the perquisites of power. Within Roman marriage, men held power, and women did not. It was really that simple. The woman's role was to serve the man, and to be used by the man. Whatever power the woman had, e.g., over the domestic economy of the house, was delegated to her by the man, and the man could take that power away, or even cast her away entirely, if he chose. Women had no corresponding rights. In effect, women were property.
Christian society, as envisioned by Paul, is based on love, and radical equality. A Christian marriage is not built on power, nor even partnership, but union and love. Such high standards are difficult to obtain, especially when applied retroactively to marriages that formed under the old rules. Clearly the Corinthians struggled with this, at least this is the best explanation that I've heard for the following:
1 Corinthians 11:1-16 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ. Any man who prays or prophesies with something on his head disgraces his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head—it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil. For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man. Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all things come from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. But if anyone is disposed to be contentious—we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.
The claim (and this comes from Borg & Crossan) is that married women were using their new freedom in Christ to practice celibacy, and shedding their veils amounted to a public proclamation of this choice. Understandably, both the choice of celibacy and even more so the advertising thereof would have been deeply shaming to their husbands. But there is nothing new here. How many times have we heard about the abuse of a new freedom? It takes time and experience to learn to use any freedom responsibly and well. It is no wonder that the Corinthians struggled.
I do not doubt that there were loving unions in ancient times, just as there are abusive marriages today. But societal norms change. Sadly, the sense of radical equality advanced by Paul was lost as church and empire compromised with one another. It seems to me that the church, contrary to Paul's teaching, took upon itself the role ensuring that a woman's place in marriage was one of subjugation. This has changed in some of our churches, but not all.
It seems hypocritical to me that some churches decry the damage that has been done to the institution of marriage by the sexual revolution, when they've done far greater damage themselves by preaching and defending an unhealthy (Roman) view of marriage against a healthy (Pauline) view. Indeed, I believe that the sexual revolution has resulted not in a decline of marriage, so much as a winnowing of marriage, with healthy marriages encouraged and deepened, and diseased marriages healed or euthanized.
Homosexuality
I know that my readers are eager to continue the discussion of homosexuality, and Paul's apparent condemnation thereof, which began in Can't Anyone Here Play This Game. I'm sure that you'll all remember the distinction between μαλακός and ἀρσενοκοίτης in 1 Cor 6:9, and the observation from BDAG that what is condemned here are catamite (man/boy) relationships.
I came across an amusing source a few months ago, “Orgy Planner Wanted” on the remainder shelf at Powell's. (For the cognoscenti, that would be the original Powell's, on 57th Street, next to the Metra station.) This book does a fairly broad survey of occupations and lifestyles in the Roman world. It's written in a generally light and humorous style, and therefore is the kind of book that one hesitates to bring up in serious conversation. But it was great train reading, and offered some fascinating information that I think gives tremendous insight into why Paul condemned this particular kind of relationship.
In the Roman (and Greek) world, male-on-male sexual activity occurred between relatively rich men, and vulnerable young boys. Sometimes, this was a simple money-for-sex transaction (i.e., male prostitution), and sometimes it grew out of ‘mentoring’ where an older man would “take an interest” in a young boy. I suspect you already knew this.
But here are some particulars that you might not have known.
These were inevitably temporary relationships, even in the ‘mentoring’ case: the emergence of facial hair changed the older man's feelings towards the younger from desire to disgust. So the boys we're talking about here would have been roughly between the ages of 9 and 15. We all know how Paul felt about intercourse: it created a life-long union through the merger of two into one flesh. Moreover, the older man would have himself already been married, and therefore this was not only a promiscuous union, it was also adulterous.
If it became known in these societies that a male was anal-receptive, then they would lose their citizenship (if they had it). Moreover, they would be taken, stripped, have a radish shoved up their anus with the leaves hanging out, and paraded through town so that everyone knew. There was no corresponding lost of stature for older, penetrating male: Hey, if you want to bonk boys, that's fine by us, just let us know when you find one who's willing, so that everyone can get in on the fun! Thus, a catamite relationship incurred great risks for the boy. If discovered, he was invariably reduced to male prostitution until puberty, and then slavery or death. There was no path to re-entry to society.
So these relationships, practically by definition, were temporary, promiscuous, adulterous, inequitable, and exposed the vulnerable partner to catastrophic risks. You hardly need to get into the ‘ick’ factor to understand why Paul would have opposed such relationships: our obligation as Christians is to support and lift up one another, not to exploit or degrade one another; moreover, we should recognize ourselves as the vessel of God that we are, and not consent to our own degradation.
Finally, I'd like you to consider the following—that other “proof text against homosexuality” from Paul, in light of this discussion:
Romans 1:26-27 For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
How many times have you read or hear this, and heard in the last line that the crime was the punishment? On one hand, this seems ludicrous, if homosexual sex is the punishment for homosexual sex, then I suspect that most gay guys would say, bring it on! What's the problem here? And why does the church insist on adding other punishments to those that God has already imposed? Perhaps it's a bit different if you imagine a young boy, sick with pain and humiliation as he is marched through the marketplace, naked, with a radish up his ass and its leaves trailing behind like a tail.
The Greek text, by the way, reads “ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσιν,” literally, “males in males,” which is a good deal more explicit than our squeamish English translations. But what I want to call your attention to is Paul's choice of ἄρσην (male) rather than ἀνήρ (man). Every modern English Bible I have except for HCSB translates ἄρσενες in Romans 1:27 as ‘men,’ which bends the underlying meaning so that it seems targeted against homosexuality as we understand it today, whereas Paul's particular word choice conveys maleness, without conveying adult. It seems particularly worth noting given that Paul uses ἀνήρ forty-three times in the consensus epistles, and ἄρσην only four times—three times in this very verse—so Paul's word choice is very much an intentional choice to convey a nuance that the standard English translations (I suspected equally intentionally) obscure.
So how should we regard modern homosexuality, which is very different from the catamite relationships Paul condemned? Note here that promiscuity is certainly sinful, and nothing that I've written should be taken as supportive of promiscuity, irrespective of sexual orientation. But we also know of dedicated same-sex partnerships that have essentially all of the attributes of healthy Pauline marriages (modulo plumbing): they represent true unions, in which two faithful partners chose to live lives together, sharing joys and sorrows for so long as both live. How should we react to these relationships? Shall judge them by the old taboos, even distorting scripture to do so? Or shall we consider how such relationships impact the people who enter into them?
Matthew 7:18-20 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits.
So here at last is the answer. If the fruit is good, so too is the tree that it came from. Lifestyles that support the life and health of the participants, which lift them up, should be supported. Lifestyles that cheapen life, or damage the health of people involved, should be opposed. So put down that cheeseburger, get some exercise, love and serve the people around you, and if you have a partner, give them a good squeeze so that they know that they are loved too.
Peace
34 comments:
except an adult homosexual relationship in Rome would have been exceedingly disapproved of as well. . .
GM—
except an adult homosexual relationship in Rome would have been exceedingly disapproved of as well
Undoubtedly. But the question wasn't whether or not Paul would have disapproved of it. It is reasonable to say, given that he was a man of his time and place, that he probably would have.
But the so-called literalists would have us believe that his writings included specific condemnation of homosexual relationships as they occur in the modern world, and that these writings constitute the WORD OF GOD, binding even in our time. My point is that the texts themselves testify against this, and that plausible reconstructions of Paul's unpublished opinions should not be given the full weight of the word of God.
I would identify two deeper problems here.
1. Paul's sense of right and wrong was both radically disconnected from Roman conceptions, and equally thoroughly embedded within them. To the extent that catamite youths were subject to severe societal prejudice, he would have those boys act in ways to avoid the prejudice. It seems ironic to me that the man who said, "Do not be conformed to this world," so often advised people to act in ways that would avoid conflict with society.
2. Society has changed. We acknowledge the existence of gay men and women, and the laws of our society increasingly provide them protection. They're not going back into the closet this side of a "Handmaiden's Tale" scenario. So we wonder what a "modern Paul" would advise. The problem is that any "modern Paul" is a work of fiction, with no more reality that Puff the Magic Dragon.
So as I see it, God gave us wisdom, history, scripture, and moral judgment so that we can work these things out for ourselves. We can only hope that if we get it wrong enough for long enough, he'll come back for another public visit, and give us the needed correction.
the question then becomes -- can we separate homosexual behavior from homosexual perversion?
that is, can you have gay folks without gay mardi gras?
moreover, how do we lesson/end the celebration of sex as recreation in our culture (which leathermen are but a sad part of)?
the question then becomes -- can we separate homosexual behavior from homosexual perversion?
that is, can you have gay folks without gay mardi gras?
I don't know. Can you have straight folks without straight perversion, i.e., can you have straight folks without a straight Mardi Gras? The evidence seems to be against it.
But let's look at this more carefully. I'd like to unpack your use of the word "perversion," where it seems to me that you're focussing on public displays as opposed to sexual behavior. But it seems to me that your argument is pretty weak. No one is making you attend a gay pride parade, or to watch one on TV. You can always go to another street, or change channels.
moreover, how do we lesson/end the celebration of sex as recreation in our culture (which leathermen are but a sad part of)
Well, it would be helpful if we were honest.
You're married. So presumably you know that sex can be a heck of a lot of fun, and that we're wired (both men and women) with sexual desires. Sending out messages that people should manage their sex lives in such a way as to eliminate all of the fun and spontaneity is talking nonsense, and people are smart enough to see through that and reject it.
I think we need to be honest in acknowledging the power as well as the ambiguity of sex. We need to talk about how promiscuity can damage a person, not because it is bad in some unprovable "the boogie man God is going to get you if you're bad" kind of way, but in the profoundly accessible that if we cheapen sex, we take away one of the most powerful tools we have for building an authentic union based on trust and love.
Finally, I think we need to get over the idea that we are going to be able to impose our sexual ethics on a non-Christian world. We can provide a model of healthy relationships, but only if we have them ourselves. Every Ted Haggard or Jimmy Swaggart does incalculable harm to our credibility. As Jesus told us, let's deal with the log in our eye first, then deal with greater society's specks.
Sure, own eye, etc.
But if we have enough trouble with keeping ourselves in check, why embrace another bag of cats?
And though no one is "forcing me" to go to a gay pride parade, people have shown up on the "wrong" day at Disney and been fairly shocked at the behavior there.
We visited New Orleans in September, staying in the Quarter (instead of Uptown like normal) because that's where we could trade a hotel for.
Little did we know it was "Gay Mardi Gras." We weren't "forced" to wear gore suits or anything but it was impossible not to be exposed to leathermen and boys on leashes and all fours in the middle of the street.
And I wasn't being dishonest.
When I said "sex as recreation" I meant it in its current societal iteration -- some sort of party thing that you pass around like a bong. The celebration of promiscuity, etc.
I think that because of gender politics and their close ties with Marxism and the idea of "no enemies to the left," "normal" gay people have had to throw their lot in with the perverts (as you say).
The question is -- is it politically possible to embrace one set of activities without embracing the other?
And I wasn't being dishonest.
I am sorry. I did not intend to accuse you of dishonesty. I assumed that we referred to the greater Church. And I think that the greater Church has been trying to push a "sex is bad" message that is neither true nor palatable.
I think that because of gender politics and their close ties with Marxism and the idea of "no enemies to the left," "normal" gay people have had to throw their lot in with the perverts (as you say).
Hmm. I'm not sure I get the reference to "no enemies to the left," but so be it. There are the log cabin Republicans. I don't believe that sexual orientation correlates with political beliefs, but the greater openness to diversity on the left, and a stronger commitment to broad based civil rights, carries with it a greater acceptance of gays, and therefore a greater willingness for gays on the left to be "out." Hence, gay rights often seem like an issue of the left, when common sense indicates that it has to cut across political identifications.
Also, I'm doubtful that I ever said "the perverts." My axis of distinction wouldn't be between "normal" and "perverted," but between "faithful" and "promiscuous." That said, I suspect that the relationship between "faithful" gays and "promiscuous" gays is complicated. Most of the political energy comes from the promiscuous/activist side, and the "faithful" side has clearly benefited from civil rights work driven by the activist agenda. On the other hand, this Onion article also expresses a truth, which I'm sure you'd assent to: Gay-Pride Parade Sets Mainstream Acceptance Of Gays Back 50 Years. NSFW, BTW.
You talk about Disneyland :-). Many years ago, when I was an undergraduate, there was a "Gay Bluejeans Day" at the University I was attending. Obviously, the plan was that a few straights would forget that "today is the day," and be exposed to the kinds of social prejudice that the gays felt. Well, the day came, and you've have never believed you were on a college campus. The women were wearing dresses, the guys had suits on if they had them, and dockers and broadcloth shirts if they didn't. And, of course, there were a small proportion of guys with an unusually acute fashion sense wearing jeans. And then it was over, never to be repeated. It made a nice break from the regularly scheduled Iranian student protests against the Shah.
The question is -- is it politically possible to embrace one set of activities without embracing the other?
My stance here is that we as Christians can and must make distinctions in what we believe, and what we support, that we as citizens should not make in the law. I think it is possible as a matter of faith to focus on faithfulness and love as the plumb line in evaluating human relationships. So I don't have a problem condemning certain types of heterosexual and homosexual relationships; and I don't have a problem affirming others. Moreover, I believe that this kind of distinction is a faithful witness to what God intends for us as humans. On the other hand, I think that laws against sexuality outside of marriage run afoul of the issue that I raised in Sexual Ethics, I, which is that kairos/chronos issue regarding the initiation of sexual activity in authentic unions. I don't believe we want to create laws that criminalize the natural pair-formation process, and anti-promiscuity ordinances are rarely written with sufficient wisdom to avoid this.
As for the "Gay Mardi Gras," I think you have reason to be pissed at the hotel, which certainly should have been aware that this was going to be happening, and should have mentioned it to you when you booked the room. For my part, that's a hotel I'd never go to again.
paul was also pretty adamant about gifts and roles
this does not preclude the idea of radical equality
it simply says
in the body of chrizt all the parts have their role
the women took on forms of actual charity which basically proviede "home" for people without home...the men took on the work of liturgy based on the templw worship of israel...and public preaching...and serving the women with physical help in the work of charity
the gospel words and acts of jesus regarding women were powerful in the mind of paul and the other discples
the fundamental problem with samesex stuff is that it comes to represent something...and it is essentially a mode of cowardice...and young people must not be led int he way of thinking that this is all OK that this too is a possible way of living out the christian life because it is not
at some point in behavioural development there is for most everyone a period of struggle for self knowledge and the "passion" associated with being attracted to people is basiclaaly irrational...to then say well how ever it works itself out is OK with god and the church is then to in effect say that however it works itself out be it in samesex arrangements or adult/child scenarios....i think to give moral approbation to one mode of sexual relationship or activity is to tacitly give a nod to every mode...and this was seen and is still seen in the sexually licentious atmosphere of western culture and the more crass cultural expressions of non christian socieites like thailand
as can be detected in the writings of the church fathers the sisters of basil and gregory were extremely forceful in defining how the philosopher theologians were going to live and if we take the writintgs of jerome seriously we cannot ignore how forceful were his companions paula and eustochium and this was a good thing...jerome was given to discilin it seems as long as he knew the basics of life which inculded the prcatices of daily prayer were being worked out and i would suggest that in most christian communities while the men probably did the official ritual stuff the women were in charge of the nuts and bolts of community life - food shelter providing for the sick and the poor
the only way we justify the samesex rebellion of today is through the cracked lense of humanist thought what the church saw as "modernism" and which grew out of the protestant social world by means of the enlightenment and eventually humanist doctrine in france in the 19th century
it is amazing to me how easily and uncritically we accept all of that...without the discernment of -is it good?-...it is more a very a naive set of principles which says oh we want to be fair and kind to everyone - even satan-
the business of christians these days in the realm of human sexual ethics needs to be prayers for forgiveness and penitence - nobody's getting a free ride - the only way is the ancient way of marriage of man and woman which since the time of peter lombard (and actually quite a bit before) has been recognized as "sacrament"
are we attempting to make god in our image?
that is what the homosexual agenda seems to be...the discernment of....o i am this way and god must love me so dactrine must be mistaken and the tradition didn't understand until freud came along
it's a pandoras' box of behavioural madness and we do well to be severe in the face of it all
that's my plan
and as a apologetic aside catholic history can boast the honoring af many women throughout history married and vowed religious who contributed in sometimes untold ways to the building up of the body
they learned that the best charity was worked out mostly in anonymous effort
i think the good fruit metaphor has to be taken in terms of reproduction...not just in terms of christian deeds and words...the samesex advocates cannot bear fruit...they can only act in ways that mimic and mock the good fruit of natural human reproduction...when they decide that they too want to be parents it is the obligation of the church to decide that this is wrong
american society on this matter is hoeplessly corrupt we may as well just listen to people like madonna or the foul mouthed comedians of our day...it's just that funny
j
The Romans were simply awful. If anybody did this to a child I knew I would have to kill the man who did it. I think any normal man would kill anyone who transgressed against their sons in this manner.
I don't know if genes however cause behavior. We don't really know if it's genes, or if it's learned behavior that makes for sexual identity.
If a person's personality is formed at birth, then that means they are simply an automaton. In general, Lutherans believe in free will. Doesn't that to some extent extend to sexual orientation?
Doesn't it extend to whether or not we are promiscuous at least?
I think we can think about our thinking, and change our actions. We aren't sexual automatons. People can regulate what they eat, as well as how they act.
We're not totally determined. There's still free will in many areas in which to act in accordance with both hygienic norms and theological norms.
The Amish can set norms and live within them.
Compare that to a gay pride parade that sets out a different set of norms altogether.
Maybe the gay pride parade sets out the norm that the only thing that is not permissable is prudence.
The same norm is missing at most heterosexual rock concerts.
Or rap concerts.
But prudence is a fairly good norm if you want to beat the odds of making it past 70, right?
Fun has limits that are set by nature. If you have too much fun: eating ice cream all day from morning until night, you will die from heart disease.
If your fun is sexual, then you will die from a sexual disease, and even the CDC's entire coffers won't be able to help.
If your fun is sleeping all day, then you will die in poverty.
Every kind of fun, taken to an extreme, becomes a sin.
There ARE seven deadly sins.
If your fun is getting into bar fights, then eventually you are going to sustain brain damage when a pool stick is broken across your forehead.
We do still allow for the concept of sin, don't we, Stu? Are you getting rid of sins over there in the ELCA now? Do they still talk of sins in their sexuality reports?
So, I wanted to see if you used the word sin or sinful and you did use it once! I copy pasted yoru entry, and then did a word count. There were 2,098 words, and the word "sinful" is used once.
And it is defined as "promiscuity."
I think I actually buy this, that promiscuity is sinful.
And I do know some gay women who are exclusive, and bound for life. I think in general gay women are less likely to have abundant sexual relationships.
There is a whole movement called sex-positive feminists who believe that promiscuity is good.
The notion is that your body is yours to do whatever you want with. It doesn't belong to God or to the patriarchy.
And there is no actual law against promiscuity at this point in America. You are permitted to have as many partners as you like. There is no actual law against adultery even.
You can't get married twice (yet), but you can have multiple partners, and the state doesn't regulate this.
PArtners will leave, of course, but if someone has an "open marriage," it's technically legal.
Why do you say that promiscuity is sinful? On what basis? Because it spreads diseases? Because you don't like it?
I'm just putting a little pressure on your definition to find out what's behind it.
I think that you, a mathematician, are likely to want a closed relationship. Mathematicians are more likely to not want to throw themselves from bed to bed.
But why should you be able to say what most rock stars and entertainers do is sinful?
I am personally on your side, but I am trying to find out why you regard this one thing (promiscuity) as SINFUL. And yet you regularize seemingly every other relationship.
If some young man (who's 21, was to marry his great grandmother who was 93) and they professed to be happy, and were totally monogamous, would that be something you'd bless?
I realize the PROBABILITY of this would not be great. however, with 5 billion people on the planet, anything can happen unless there are stated norms.
What if a woman has a monogamous relationship with a dog. Would you allow them to marry?
If promiscuity is the ONLY thing you'd regard as sinful, I still foresee problems.
Look up bestiality and you'll see it's a growing movement all over the internet. Lots of pictures of people doing everything they can think of with giraffes, hippos, cats, and dogs, and other more readily available species.
Would monogamy be your only criterion for a blessed marriage?
A quick remark, more later—the lawn awaits the mower.
We do still allow for the concept of sin, don't we, Stu? Are you getting rid of sins over there in the ELCA now? Do they still talk of sins in their sexuality reports?
I counted 31 occurrences with the root of "sin" in the the draft Sexuality study. So, yes, we in the ELCA still speak of sin, and still address it, even with specificity in the context of sexual conduct. But we're more reticent than some to use the word as a weapon in discourse, as sin is a common failing of humanity.
Let's do one of those Greek etymology things with regard to "sin," when the mowing is done, ok?
The word is odd, and since it isn't used outside of Christian discourse, it would be interesting to get a better grasp of its parameters.
You did use it once, which really surprised me. And you gave it a very specific meaning: promiscuity.
Is that the only definition you'd give it?
Let's do one of those Greek etymology things with regard to "sin," when the mowing is done, ok?
Sure. There are 33,003 words in the NRSV translation of the "First Paul" corpus. Of these, there are 83 occurrences of words with a root form of sin. I suppose that from this you can estimate that Paul is about 12x as hung up on sin as I am—which sounds about right. Here are the details, per Accordance:
sin = 60
G0264 hamartano ἁμαρτάνω = 8
G0265 hamartema ἁμάρτημα = 1
G0266 hamartia ἁμαρτία = 51
sinful = 3
G0266 hamartia ἁμαρτία = 2
G0268 hamartolos ἁμαρτωλός = 1
sinned = 6
G0264 hamartano ἁμαρτάνω = 4
G4258 proamartano προαμαρτάνω = 2
sinner = 1
G0268 hamartolos ἁμαρτωλός = 1
sinners = 4
G0268 hamartolos ἁμαρτωλός = 4
sins = 9
G0264 hamartano ἁμαρτάνω = 2
G0265 hamartema ἁμάρτημα = 1
G0266 hamartia ἁμαρτία = 6
You can see the Greek root form ἁμαρτία through this, which means (per BDAG) 1. a departure fr. either human or divine standards of uprightness, a. sin, b. special sins; 2. a state of being sinful, sinfulness; 3. a destructive evil power, sin. The form ἁμάρτημα means a specific act which is sinful, and ἁμαρτάνω is the verb "to sin." The form προαμαρτάνω means "to sin before." The BDAG entry is long, with lots of references, but I don't see any hint of special fireworks.
I ascribe to the traditional Lutheran definition, which is that sin means separation from God, and that actions can be sinful (in that they tend to separate us from God), but do not constitute sin per se.
You did use it once, which really surprised me. And you gave it a very specific meaning: promiscuity.
Is that the only definition you'd give it?
Actually, what I said was "Note here that promiscuity is certainly sinful, and nothing that I've written should be taken as supportive of promiscuity, irrespective of sexual orientation." This hardly limits the possibility of sinful acts to promiscuous acts. So to be precise, I believe promiscuity is sinful, but it does not exhaust the category of sinfulness.
As for your being surprised, it is simply because you're overgeneralizing. You think of me as being a lefty, and therefore ascribe default lefty beliefs to me. But you also know that I'm a lifelong, active member of a relatively conservative and theologically deliberate confession, and this is hardly a lefty default.
Working backwards...
I think I actually buy this, that promiscuity is sinful.
Very nice, a proposition not specifically derived from the creeds that you, jh, and I can all agree to. I think we can move on to the shape of the conference tables, and the height of the flagpoles :-).
And I do know some gay women who are exclusive, and bound for life. I think in general gay women are less likely to have abundant sexual relationships.
I'm not aware of any specific data, but my intuition agrees with this.
There is a whole movement called sex-positive feminists who believe that promiscuity is good.
I think we can both agree that they're misguided. But the sinfulness is not their's alone. Society has long defined the female role within marriage as subservient, I would say contrary to the will of God, jh would say in accordance with the will of God. But it is hardly surprising that bondage finds its mirror image in abolition.
As I said before, what we can do is to work on the health of our own relationships, so that they can provide a healthy model to society as a whole.
Why do you say that promiscuity is sinful? On what basis? Because it spreads diseases? Because you don't like it?
Because it is contrary to God's will for us.
God wants us to love and be loved, and while of course God himself loves us, he wants us to feel that love in a more corporeal way. When we form unions, we build one another up, and we place another's interest ahead of our own, and so in some small way follow the example that Jesus set for us as to how to live in the world. And often we can generalize from those examples, and place children, or others (through diaconal service) ahead of ourselves. Unions are good practice for a Christian life.
Promiscuity detracts from our ability to form unions, and so tends to isolate us in a world in which we never love or experience love. So I'd be opposed to promiscuity, and call it sinful, even without the public health consequences.
I think that you, a mathematician, are likely to want a closed relationship. Mathematicians are more likely to not want to throw themselves from bed to bed.
You've never heard the joke about why Mathematicians should have both wifes and mistresses? It's so they can go to the office, and work on Mathematics. And their wives will think they're with their mistresses, and their mistresses will think they're with their wifes. But, yeah. I'm much happier with an orderly life, and a mistress wouldn't fit.
But why should you be able to say what most rock stars and entertainers do is sinful?
Good question. But I don't single them out, and I don't threaten them with damnation. I would, if confronted with such a situation, provide a witness for the happiness that I have, both in my married life, and through my faith.
Before we get too far down hypotheticals, you do realize that Luther blessed the bigamy of Philip of Hesse? I'd argue that he blew it there, but this was part and parcel of Luther's concern for maintaining the civil order.
What if a woman has a monogamous relationship with a dog. Would you allow them to marry?
I wouldn't. The dog is not capable of returning the same love, and providing the same support through a long life that a human partner is. This is not a relationship that can ever become a union.
Pretty good answers.
I think Phillip of Hesse wasn't actually seeing the former wife and the Catholics wouldn't let him get a divorce, so Luther let him off the hook for a price.
He seemingly had his eye on Phillip of Hesse's wallet iirc from the Bainton biography first read 20 years back.
I guess the problem with yourself as the example of marital happiness is that not everybody is a mathematician who has other things to do aside from having sex. Rock stars could easily point to themselves and tell you to learn how to sing at the top of your lungs, and get a bevy of groupies.
I think in a nutshell this is the problem of multiculturalism.
Everybody wants to begin with themselves.
How to get some universal norms.
GM and I would agree with union, and with meaning, and with upbuilding mutual relationships as the source of sexual norms.
But, I know more than a few gosh darned secularists who would go for the open marriage thing, and thenof course three are the people who say that dogs really are people in disguise.
I guess with them though you just can't have a conversation of any kind? There has to be at least some principle that you can agree on before you can start to argue about how it should be applied in practice?
I think all of us agree on the principles of mutuality, no coercion, decency, respect for human dignity, and a lot else.
We could probably make pages and pages of stuff we basically agree on.
That promiscuity is ruinous is one building block.
I don't think anyone going to my blog on a regular basis would dispute that central point unless it was Tom.
Tom plays around, or at least Ithink he went in that direction a few years back.
I think all of the rest of us are thoroughgoing monogamists.
Not sure if there is any other principle on which we totally agree. But that can be the basis for a LOT of agreement!
I think we'd also all agree on the absolute equality of women to men in intellectual and spiritual matters, and on the ability of women to have a public role equal to that of men.
I wouldn't say that women are as physically strong as men.
In certain cases of course there are women that are stronger, but I think the mind is the infinite part of a person, and that relative physical strength is meaningless.
If we're equal, then there should be mutuality, and this argues for monogamy, and perhaps has an everlasting aspect. I hope it does at least.
Luther said that anything that isn't eternal is of the devil. So love within a marriage ought to be eternal according to that definition.
The Romans were simply awful. If anybody did this to a child I knew I would have to kill the man who did it. I think any normal man would kill anyone who transgressed against their sons in this manner.
Right, but sons with fathers generally aren't vulnerable, and don't need the support and protection only an older man can provide. Don't you get it? Only sodomize the orphans!
I don't know if genes however cause behavior. We don't really know if it's genes, or if it's learned behavior that makes for sexual identity.
Sexual identity is a tricky thing. The latest theory is based on the observation that higher your male birth order, the more likely you are to be homosexual. The difference isn't genetic, but has to do with the hormonal environment in which the fetus is formed.
The adaptionist argument here is that from the mother's biological point of view, it doesn't matter which of her sons pass on their genes. But more males means more competition, and therefore more risk of fratricide. So there is an advantage to having the later sons be gay -- as they're more likely to help their hetero brother raise his kids, than to kill or be killed in competition with him.
Yeah, it sounds a bit suspicious to me, too, but the hormonal angle seems pretty solid.
If a person's personality is formed at birth, then that means they are simply an automaton. In general, Lutherans believe in free will. Doesn't that to some extent extend to sexual orientation?
Doesn't it extend to whether or not we are promiscuous at least?
Good questions. I think we do have a certain amount of free will, but also that if you're going to bet against biological tendencies, you're going to loose a lot more often than you're going to win.
And the losses can be pretty devastating in this game—e.g., when a middle aged married man with three kids suddenly "discovers" that he's gay. Yeah, he fought the good fight. Now explain to his ex-wife how he was really trying to do the right thing when he married her.
As for promiscuity, there are a lot of factors that enter into this, and opportunity is not the least of them.
The Amish can set norms and live within them.
A gross oversimplification. Living as an Amish is a choice, not a compulsion. Look up rumspringa, if you're not familiar with the concept.
Compare that to a gay pride parade that sets out a different set of norms altogether.
OK, we have our values as a culture, which both the Amish and the gay pride folks reject. Both groups set up cultural norms quite different from society at large, and both live lives largely apart (except for necessary business relationships) from the culture they reject. Is that what you're looking for?
I'm just trying to show how flexible free will is to project and live within given values.
An Amish person who was raised on Christopher Street wouldn't necessarily cut their bangs straight, or stand very straight, just as a child of a gay father on Christopher Street raised among the Amish probably would do those things.
They are both recognizably different enough from mainstream American culture to serve as examples, and as opposite to one another enough to show a gap.
That's all I'm doing.
You're fun to argue with because you don't cheat and you do acknowledge points here and there. It's a great rarity and a great treat. Thanks!
I've heard of the birth order possibility with regard to gay likelihood but the statistical percentages aren't determinative, if that's a word. It's on the order of a 5% difference, which could be indeed cultural -- the smaller kids go gay in order to avoid getting an elbow through the teeth when a pretty girl walks by.
Still, we don't know.
It's not like if you're the seventh son of the seventh son you're automatically gay.
James Dobson just claims that it's about non-identification with the father figure that makes a gay man. And this can be changed by turning God into your male figure.
I don't know, and I don't know even if we even have a one-size fits all definition of gayness. Some gay men say they were never attracted to women. Some say they weren't sure.
Some flip-flop.
Ginsberg went out with men and women, and children, seemingly finding any kind of sex hunky dory.
There's your promiscuity for you.
I think he must have had 10,000 partners, and yet, he considered himself quite gay (happy).
Until he died of Hepatitus C at the age of 70.
He told me he wasn't worried about AIDS because by the time it killed him he would already be dead.
He's considered a great poet on almost all score cards. I like his poetry a lot but prefer the poetry of his great friend, Gregory Corso (you helped me with one of Corso's poems about Luca Pacioli).
An Amish person who was raised on Christopher Street wouldn't necessarily cut their bangs straight, or stand very straight, just as a child of a gay father on Christopher Street raised among the Amish probably would do those things.
They are both recognizably different enough from mainstream American culture to serve as examples, and as opposite to one another enough to show a gap.
I had to look up Christopher Street :-). I'm a central coast guy, not a New Yawkar.
I think you're right that the kids would tend to pick up the basic cultural language of their parents, at least until their mid-teens, when they'd rebel against it. Even then, you could probably figure out which was which.
Here's the thing, though. I doubt that children raised by gay fathers have a substantially higher propensity to be gay themselves. It would be interesting to know, as this would enable an estimation of the extent to which sexual orientation depends on social factors.
You're fun to argue with because you don't cheat and you do acknowledge points here and there. It's a great rarity and a great treat. Thanks!
Thank you. Sadly, I'm inclined to agree that most people enter debate dishonestly—their goal is only to convince, without any willingness to be convinced themselves. My goal is to learn—to seek truth. I don't assume that my opinions are privileged, and I'm always willing to learn. Some people want to change the world. I'm content if I just change me. Anything more is just a bonus.
I've heard of the birth order possibility with regard to gay likelihood but the statistical percentages aren't determinative, if that's a word. It's on the order of a 5% difference, which could be indeed cultural -- the smaller kids go gay in order to avoid getting an elbow through the teeth when a pretty girl walks by.
Absolutely! Correlation isn't fate, especially when the dependent random variable is binary (i.e., you're gay or straight). A good way to think about this is that you're given a die, and some faces are labeled "gay," and some "straight." Whatever comes up, that you are. The correlation part is about how many of those faces of the die are labeled "gay," and how many "straight."
but if there are 6 faces, 5 labelled "straight," and 1 labelled "gay," and you roll "gay," then that's what you are. The big questions is these: when does the die get rolled?, and what other factors determine the labeling of the faces? And, of course, is this really the right model? For my part, I think the model is pretty good, and I suspect that the die gets rolled fairly early.
It's not like if you're the seventh son of the seventh son you're automatically gay.
Exactly right.
James Dobson just claims that it's about non-identification with the father figure that makes a gay man.
My opinion of James Dobson is pretty low. I think that listening to, or reading Dobson, makes a person less informed. There are folks on the evangelical right that I respect. Mr. Dobson is not one of them.
And this can be changed by turning God into your male figure.
How convenient for Mr. Dobson. Certain groups on the evangelical right, Mr. Dobson among them, believe that you can "cure" homosexuality. Don't expect anyone who does so to publish five-year relapse rate statistics. I don't believe their lying, so much as they're deluding themselves.
to me it sounds to some extent that you're doing eisogesis sith paul
paul along with many others were so taken by christ that to folow him completely to carry out the ministry to procalim the word to mold the knowing world to HIS body ws the passion of hsi life
in his writings this is all too obvious
in recent years in religious life it has become fashionable to "understand" one another in freudian terms
i find this most distasteful and will not abide any of it
my sexual orientation is to perfect chastity my status in life is vowed and celibate...nothing else matters...as soon as you try to make it significant regarding ones proclivities you've misunderstood the human ethics of jesus..it is never about who or what you're attracted to but to what extent you debase another person or desire to exploit that person...i never think of myself as a heterosexual monk
i may get lonely and wish to get layed
but i don't define myself in terms of my carnal desires fulfilled or not...nor in terms of who i may be attracted to...to begin the discussion in terms of empirical data from humanpsychophysiology is to ignore the weight of historical observation
i think we need to begin with the possibility that paul and others knew perhaps more about he individual and larger social dynamics about these matters than we are willign to allow...perhaps they had insights that are more pertinant than our superficial reliance on psychology (as fact)
like look at the "substance" of dreams and calling it data
there are no gay theologians
they are all miserable assholes
(just kidding)
there are only theologians who think freud has something to say to us as christians
and of course
he doesn't
we have made a huge mistake in thinking he might...i never understood why he based his research in the context of greek myths...i mean there's plenty in the hebrew scriptures to give one honest pause in discernign the wayward ways of humanity in search of god's will...of course he simply thought we could all be existentially content
as a matter of fact i'd like to never speak of all this again
like good parents we should admonish against and then ignore the ill behaviour of the children
we can't say they were born pyromaniacs
or overeaters
or kleptomaniacs
or speed demons
or addicts
or anything else in the realm of personal satisfaction of the desire for pleasure
we are not defined by our inclinations but by the learning and the efforts of virtue which we pursue in order to live beyond the temptations of sin
people seem to want sexual ethics without reference to doctrine
the church(es) need to say
'we don't talk about those things here'
j
jh—
I find your comments to be a delight and a challenge. I'm not yet sure how to respond, because your mind works in so different a way from mine. So for now, I'm usually content to pick out a few thoughts, and respond. I hope to learn how to engage you more completely in the future.
paul was also pretty adamant about gifts and roles
this does not preclude the idea of radical equality
it simply says
in the body of chrizt all the parts have their role
Right. But I don't see much evidence that Paul thought that gender determined who got what role.
the men took on the work of liturgy based on the templw worship of israel
Actually, 1 Cor 11:5 is absolute proof that (a) women had a liturgical role in the Corinthian Church, and (b) that Paul approved of this role. Romans 16:7 even names a female apostle. It was only beginning around 100 CE that the church began to systematically discourage participation by women as equals in worship. This, somehow, corresponds with the lost of charismata in the church.
it is amazing to me how easily and uncritically we accept all of that...without the discernment of -is it good?-...it is more a very a naive set of principles which says oh we want to be fair and kind to everyone - even satan-
I believe that I actually tried to analyze relationships by discerning whether or not they were good, i.e., whether or not they tended to nurture their participants, and to provide them an opportunity to practice loving, to experience being loved. Please note that I have been quite careful to distinguish between love and lust, and that I view union as the plumb line. And I've come to the conclusion that some of the relationships that have been traditionally discouraged meet this test, and some of the relationships that have been traditionally encouraged fail this test.
I don't mind at all if you come (or are bound) to different positions, but I'd prefer it if you'd acknowledge that I am working within a discernment bound process.
are we attempting to make god in our image?
I don't believe that I am. I acknowledge the temptation to see the world solely through the lens of my experience. The distinction that I'd make is that I understand that others are doing likewise, but through their experiences, which might be quite different from mine. Finally, I recognized that God's perspective is infinitely larger than mine, which makes it foolish even to think that my thoughts can approximate his.
As I said before, we use the tools we have, and these include our own moral sense, scripture, etc. I've always felt that we should test our arguments and beliefs, and not simply fall in love with our own ideas. I hope that if I get it wrong, but retain the willingness to listen, God will speak to me. Perhaps, perhaps, through you.
and as a apologetic aside catholic history can boast the honoring af many women throughout history married and vowed religious who contributed in sometimes untold ways to the building up of the body
they learned that the best charity was worked out mostly in anonymous effort
I don't disagree, even as I find the inference, "we acknowledge anonymous effort" to be a bit of an oxymoron.
i think the good fruit metaphor has to be taken in terms of reproduction...not just in terms of christian deeds and words...the samesex advocates cannot bear fruit.
This is a reasonable interpretation, but I believe mine is too. The broader context is prophesy, and how we will know false prophets (cf. Mark 7:15-20). This seems to support my broader interpretation over your narrower interpretation.
jh—
to me it sounds to some extent that you're doing eisogesis sith paul
Eisogesis was a new word for me, thank you. I've been explicit about my citations and my sources, and the basis for my inferences.
my sexual orientation is to perfect chastity my status in life is vowed and celibate
I absolutely respect this.
it is never about who or what you're attracted to but to what extent you debase another person or desire to exploit that person
Right. And correspondingly, to what extent you build up, and share in the life of that other person. That's my benchmark.
to begin the discussion in terms of empirical data from humanpsychophysiology is to ignore the weight of historical observation
As I recall, the discussion really began with Paul, and how to interpret his writings. It is perfectly reasonable to argue that the 12th century doctors of the church had knowledge and discernment. But that doesn't mean that they alone held it. We need to understand their arguments, and their positions, for truly they were men of faith. But we are too. They were human, just as we are human. They are fallible, just as we are fallible. They sought God, just as we seek God. May God have mercy on us all.
there are only theologians who think freud has something to say to us as christians
and of course
he doesn't
I'm not particularly interested in Freud. It seems to me that his theories of psychoanalysis were not scientifically well grounded.
people seem to want sexual ethics without reference to doctrine
I think, more precisely, there is a view that doctrine was culturally conditioned, and therefore can be approached as a good, but not infallible guide. You take doctrine as if it were infallable. I am more skeptical about both scripture and doctrine than you are. But I am not more skeptical about God.
in the catholic tradition doctrine is alive
and any pope is obliged to recognize this
it is a way of both honoring and inspiring the process of
theological mystagogy
the ongoing illumination of god's plan through the minds and acts of men and women
doctrine is never a closed book
it is a dialectic
and time is a factor
the problem i have with the jesus symposium or whatever those guys call it
is they do all this work but they are really answerable to no one
all kinds of orthodox biblical scholars have done much better work and they must have some sort of imprimatur if they want their work to be recognized as useful in an educational forum
and they all claim dependence on the ongoing theological development of the tradition
Only a minor note: Freud was working largely within a German academic tradition that had come to see the Greek myths as a universal language of the human mind. It's why he used them as a lingua franca.
We don't think this way about the Greek myths any longer, but you see this way of thinking in Schleiermacher, Schopenhauer, and virtually all the German romantics.
Even in more contemporary Germans like Paul Tillich you see this kind of thing from time to time about the Greeks.
It was a 19th century tradition, and Freud came out of that tradition.
I don't think he was right about anything at all in particular, but he threw the whole culture off its course, and so you have to read him in order to figure out what went wrong.
Jung is even worse. He considers myth in general to be a universal language and that Nut can be correlated with Mary, for instance simply because they are both depicted holding babies.
Tell it to Susan Smith. She held babies, too -- under the water until they stopped breathing. Does that make her the same as Mary?
Jung would say, yes!
still, you have to read those guys to see why everyone is so stupid these days, and to figure out the WAYS in which they're stupid, which are manifold and unending in their delightful variety and multicultural blockheadedness.
the problem i have with the jesus symposium or whatever those guys call it
is they do all this work but they are really answerable to no one
I disagree. They publish their work, and make it accessible to all of their colleagues, and even to dilettantes like us. We are free to comment on it, add to it, or criticize it. They put their reputation on the line whenever they publish, and in academe there is nothing more valuable.
I think part of the confusion here is that theirs is a research function, not a teaching function. If they were engaged in a teaching function in the church, then they should certainly be answerable to the proper authorities of the church. But they're doing research, and should be granted the freedom to do so. There is no compulsion within any confession that I am aware of to ascribe to the Jesus seminar findings. People are free to believe (if belief is consistent with their confession's doctrine), or disbelieve (if disbelief is consistent with their confession's doctrine), or remain undecided (if indecision is consistent with their confession's doctrine), or ignore the matter altogether (if their confession's doctrine is inconsistent).
I certainly feel no compulsion to believe or disbelieve Borg & Crossan. Instead, I take each argument on its merits. There are a few that I find inadequately supported, but most of their arguments seem to me to be worthy of consideration.
it started with luther
and guttenburg
there is so much confusion concerning scripture
and now everyone more or less believes at least outside the teaching ministry of the church that they can interpret and then proclaim without credentials
(of course you have some credentials)
recently read karl rahners article on the magisterium
it occurs to me that he evokes a spirit of certainty about revelation that has been preserved and reinterpreted and refined for successive generations...in some ways there were even efforts to address the philosophical degenerations of the 20th century before they began in earnest...back in the 19th century
the bigger point i make here is that mechelle scott can spew her exegesios and superficial theology all over the media...who's to say anything...most televised evangelicals are not beholden to superiors...certainly not theological superiors...unless they are compromised socially
the unity of christianity must encircle the body of truth and the ongoing theological dialectic with the world...i'm feeling more and more that there needs to be a consensus...a real ecumenical council where people are willing to put their faults on the table
there is this ongoing unspoken presumption from all the protestants : we're just as legitmate as you...we're equal in church status...we make of our eucharist what we will or make nothing of it at all and that is just as valid as what the RCs do
relativism makes for very thin soup
the early christians did not argue sexual propriety from scripture but rather from common sense and the insight of what is best for the community...informed from scripture but also from philosophy and the ongoing wisdom of greek and latin and persian and hebrew culture
i havea friend who quotes borg and crossan a lot and it invariably reaches a point of frustration where i can't explain to him what rahner says or what john l mckenzie said or what cypriano vaggaginni said because he has no clue about catholic theology or social teaching...he's only read some of the bible and crossan and borg and this makes sense to him when he reads it and it usually means a dismissal of religiouos principle based on the fact that jesus probably did not say this or that thing according to JS
i tend to avoid theological discussion with him anymore
on one hand he is curious
on another he wants the easy answer which somehow verifies his skepticism
and i think this is widespread
and in terms of popularization of scriptural interpretation it carries with it the same fastfood attraction as fastfood
my sense is that there are more and mroe people who find it easy to ignore the effort in faith and theology because it has all gotten so readily accessible and easy to read and Crossan and borg say so why bother going anywhere else
the other principle that was the real diggin in of the heals with counter-reformation was the interpretation of scripture
the ancient practice was always that it was something that required great intellect great discipline and a reflective patience in study which has almost been eradicated in modern education
and that it happened within the confines of the church under the watch of authority...now did this lead to occasional misjustice...i suppose it did...but the intention has always been to preserve the integrity of the truth in every age...amongst catholic theologians this is a given and it is accepted as necessary (perhaps there is some dissent....schillebeeckx in holland pioneered a form of practical 20th century skepticism for which he was dragged over coals and later was thought of as a possible cardinal)
there are i sense just too many pitfalls in trying to appropriate modern sympathies in the area of sexuality with christian doctrine...the protestant impetus appears to be purely a scripturally based justification of morality while in catholic circles we are constantly referring to the theological tradition which reflects the lived experience and observations of the best minds...therein lies the big gap...i have come to believe that even the gifts of modern biblical study have muddied the waters almost hopelessly because outside of catholic tradition there has been very little by way of intelligent continuity...thus relativism is the watch word...it's all OK as long as we're doing our job in our "confession"
we have to be universal in our approach to truth nad beauty
we have to be inclusice of all cultures
we have to discern the good in ethnic expression
but we are also obliged to be discrete to a fault where matters of faith and practice are concerned and proclamation must be i say must be linked to the wisdom we have inherited
or else
the whole mess goes under
the religion of atheistic secular humanism is powerful and most people even in catholic circles find a way to justify their luke- warm faith in terms of the prevailing winds of social adjustment...this i find pathetic
i guess i see it as a pollution of sorts and we simply have to accept it all because you can't fight big industry ( or can you?)
what i think you do not say about paul is that in his jewishness he was quite naturally opposed to any osrt of sexual arrangement outside of marriage or perfect chastity the perfect chastity part coming from his reflection on the words of christ
but in torah the word for adultery has the broad meaning of any form of sexual contact that is not fundamentally directed to marriage of man and woman not simply the violation of the marriage by indiscretion or wanton lust
so paul's legal views were defined by torah study and his christian inspiration takes that one step further to a place even the jews could not accept...yet the agreement in christian practice upholds with paul the terms and demands of christian sexual ethics
in our day we have more science more medicines more psychology more options for rationalizing our behaviour and moderating it chemically or professionally if we need to...so why bother with christian (catholic) morality...no fun in that
if it is true it must be true for all ( i point to doctrine)
it is not a relativistic concept
paul and all the christian communities when they were struggling to get it all right were turning the world upside down
the poor were served as nobility
women were given great social status
all people were understood to be children of god
this did not compromise the imperative for a higher moral code and the concommitant demand for the followers of jesus to submit and live out that moral highground
my basic critique is that we are not more enlightened today
we are benighted
i suspect there are things that paul saw that we miss
i trust very little that passes for insight in the market place today
there is more information and far less wisdom
there are far more college degrees and far less thinking going on
we have been swept into the tidal pools of summer
and the stink is rising
i will turn to my guitar and solve my problems
thanks for this post
it gets me depressed
the gulfs are wider than i have ever expected
so
more light
more faith
maybe that's all i can do
i am more and more delighted not to have to face the aberrations of society in the cities
it's all i can do to humbly accept the delusions and decptions that pass for credibility in my own house
i think i'll have to be a hermit
gday
j
If children are the highest good then any kind of sex that can't produce them must be of a secondary nature?
Union is good, but what about production of viable healthy children?
Doesn't that cement the union?
It's strange. There is a totally normal looking woman in my town who I thought was normal in every way. Then it turns out as soon as she has a baby with a man she leaves, and starts to try to have a baby with another man. She doesn't take care of the babies she has, and leaves them for other men and women to care for. It's preposterous, especially because this is a small town, and she seems so small town and is always nice to everybody, and yet she acts like that!
So I take back what I just wrote in the previous post! Maybe children are not a universal cement. Maybe they're different for each person.
What if everybody is an aberration and there are no Norms?
kirby
i think people like the woman you describe are symbolic
she in her life expresses something very important
she is and icon for our culture
i often think that the convicts in prison
even the creepiest ones
are more representative of the way our culture has really turned out
than are the "model citizens"
we can talk about the good and virtuous stuff that has happened
but in fact the true picture is pretty dark
and the dark picture has children that are reflections of the darkness and they grow up to show us something important
and it's not that i think the criminals should be let out it's just sometimes i think it's all backwards and inside out...and the "aberrations" are the real representatives of what our society has become
the lady in your town sounds like the perfect feminist to me
she's free to use men and be a woman in the truest sense of the word
she's probably happier than gloria steinem
maybe somewhere deep down inside she knows that her genetic contribution is very important
and she just has to get it out there
wow
what a world
j
there is so much confusion concerning scripture
and now everyone more or less believes at least outside the teaching ministry of the church that they can interpret and then proclaim without credentials
I think that anyone can propose, but also that anyone who is willing to do so much consider alternative arguments in good faith. Simple appeals to doctrine seem sufficient for you, for me, I'd like to understand the arguments that underlie doctrine, and to be able to evaluate them along side of my own.
One of the questions that his opponents asked Luther was, "Are you alone wise?" Sometimes, the answer is yes. But not often. It is a mistake to fall too in love with one's own theories, especially before they've been tested. But I also believe it is a mistake not to consider theories, simply because they challenge our a priori beliefs.
there is this ongoing unspoken presumption from all the protestants : we're just as legitmate as you...we're equal in church status...we make of our eucharist what we will or make nothing of it at all and that is just as valid as what the RCs do
As St. Paul said in reference to similar issues in Corinth, "Let all be fully convinced in their own minds." [Rom 14:5] So it must be -- who enters a discussion believing themselves to be wrong? This is not mere relativism, which would hold that you're right for you, and I'm right for me. I think that real progress in such circumstances often involves finding new language that all parties can hold onto.
i havea friend who quotes borg and crossan a lot and it invariably reaches a point of frustration where i can't explain to him what rahner says or what john l mckenzie said or what cypriano vaggaginni said because he has no clue about catholic theology or social teaching...he's only read some of the bible and crossan and borg and this makes sense to him when he reads it and it usually means a dismissal of religiouos principle based on the fact that jesus probably did not say this or that thing according to JS
Proofs from authority are never stronger than the authority. For my part, I prefer to extract the arguments and compare them. Acknowledging the source of a particular argument is merely a scholar's compunction on my part, and are never arguments in their own right.
i tend to avoid theological discussion with him anymore
on one hand he is curious
on another he wants the easy answer which somehow verifies his skepticism
and i think this is widespread
and in terms of popularization of scriptural interpretation it carries with it the same fastfood attraction as fastfood
Truth is sometimes to be found in difficult arguments, and sometime in easy ones. If you don't consider both, you're going to miss important truths.
schillebeeckx in holland pioneered a form of practical 20th century skepticism for which he was dragged over coals and later was thought of as a possible cardinal
Luther was also offered the opportunity to be a Cardinal—after Worms. This seems to have been only rediscovered recently (i.e., within the past 30 years). I wonder what the terms were, and how history might have been different if he'd have agreed.
the protestant impetus appears to be purely a scripturally based justification of morality while in catholic circles we are constantly referring to the theological tradition which reflects the lived experience and observations of the best minds...therein lies the big gap
Actually, in the dance between Protestants and Catholics, there has been an odd change of positions. Protestants have historically looked to scripture first, as a tonic against the mere theorizing of man. Yet Protestants (at least, some Protestants) have been much more willing to embrace modern textual criticism (which has really undergone a revolution since the discovery of papyri). Catholics, on the other hand, tend to reject textual criticism, even though embracing it would help them make the argument in favor of the utility of considering the "oral" (kerygma) tradition.
what i think you do not say about paul is that in his jewishness he was quite naturally opposed to any osrt of sexual arrangement outside of marriage or perfect chastity the perfect chastity part coming from his reflection on the words of christ
but in torah the word for adultery has the broad meaning of any form of sexual contact that is not fundamentally directed to marriage of man and woman not simply the violation of the marriage by indiscretion or wanton lust
so paul's legal views were defined by torah study and his christian inspiration takes that one step further to a place even the jews could not accept...yet the agreement in christian practice upholds with paul the terms and demands of christian sexual ethics
Actually, I agree with everything here expect the part about my not saying so :-). Please reconsider my posting on Paul's Christology. I think it only makes sense to understand Paul within the context of his pre-existing Judaism, into which he integrated a believe of "Jesus as Lord." This is as true of his writings on sexuality as anything else.
my basic critique is that we are not more enlightened today
we are benighted
i suspect there are things that paul saw that we miss
i trust very little that passes for insight in the market place today
there is more information and far less wisdom
there are far more college degrees and far less thinking going on
we have been swept into the tidal pools of summer
and the stink is rising
I'm a bit more optimistic, but I share the notion that there is much in modern society which would better be rejected. I'd start with materialism and with an over-emphasis on individuality. I also think it is all but inevitable that if post-secondary education is suddenly necessary to provide for almost all of society, there will be a dilution in what the degree means. But this does not mean that there isn't just as much good hard thinking being done—it just means that merely possessing a degree is not evidence of the capability.
catholics do do textual criticism
we went through a brief phase it seems where we thought it was everything we had missed
preachers were preaching and it sounded like graduate school research
boring
my point is that the philosophical theology tradition was and is the theological basis for proclamation
and for a great deal of the writing
as well in catholic circles
the bible is overrated
it can't hold up
without the constant reflection of men's minds (i included women in that) and the reflection needs to be one rooted in sound philosophy...and preferrably a wide dose of other reading in literature and history
without the "humanities" it all becomes rhetorical tyranny
i can't begin to tally the number of sermons i've heard in recent years that were based in the behavioural sciences
mamby pamby bullshit
people trying to be o so sensetive about other people's feelings
and while i don't gravitate to the sentiments of the hardcore disciples of the magisterium i prefer their conservative rants to the superficial sweet jesus stuff i've had to sit through
higher education has given itself over to the pragmatist...at least in this country...people who go to college are being shortshrifted by the thought that it has to be utilizable....there was a time when the general understanding of university training meant a degree in philosophy in all the disciplines a Phd meant that the person was versed in the philosophical tradition as it applied to that discipline...this is no longer the case....i meet phds all the time who know precious little of the thinking tradition and nothing about metaphysics...this is epistemological madness...it very definitely means that people are less and less capable it means they are un-educated with degrees... if we're not training people to think seriously and freely we are training them to be automatons
blah
Post a Comment