And who says...
...the Gay rights movement isn't headed anywhere? They all just want to have loving, homosexual relationships, right? The line of morally flexibile reasoning that they use stops at having responsibile, adult relationships, right?
Yeah. Well, here's hoping that I can offend MORE people than normal. I'll try to maximize the 'offensive content' on my blog...at least to some people. Doh. I wrote a paper about things heading in this direction around 7 years ago. Sadly, I'm right. I'm a prophet. Crap. Until Next Time,
The Armchair Theologian.
posted by The Armchair Theologian at 5:39 PM
7 Comments:
Armchair, I do believe that you have confused homosexuality and pedophilia.
With pedophilia, gender is irrelevant to the arumgent, because the problem is not with gender, but rather with age, and the ability to consent.
Any person, having reached the age of maturity or adulthood, may have a loving and committed relationship with any other person who has also reached maturity, and as long as they are consenting, love commands that there is no limit to what they would do.
However, personal goals and desires will often place limits on a relationship.
Now, there may be some persons who would prefer to remove the love, or the consent, or the maturity level. And I don't think we would disagree that a relationship without all three is any type of relationship at all. And in fact, many states have laws in place to protect persons from becoming victim to such things.
And the only place from which to derive public morals is from the public law system, the laws which are in place for whatever state in which a person is living.
But you cannot force your own personal religious morality upon someone who does not accept your religious dogma. Because that person's dogma is also not being accepted by you. And therein you become the things which you are essentially arguing against: "you have different morals driving your life, and you're wrong". Each of you can repeat this statement as a mantra, but that does not ever make either of you correct. Nor does it oblige anyone else to submit to your moral system.
Now it would be very disappointing to know that some state has removed provisos to protect persons who are not consenting or have reached maturity, but as long as the state has majority rule, then you must submit to it. In fact, your own religion demands that you do!! (Romans 13:1-7)
8:57 PM
"I do believe that you have confused homosexuality and pedophilia."
The point is each is a sexual sin and wrong in the eyes of God.
"With pedophilia, gender is irrelevant to the arumgent, because the problem is not with gender, but rather with age, and the ability to consent."
I would really like for you to be able to tell me what the age of consent is please? and Why?
"Any person, having reached the age of maturity or adulthood, may have a loving and committed relationship with any other person who has also reached maturity, and as long as they are consenting, love commands that there is no limit to what they would do."
Ok, see above. Then please tell me where your authority is from to tell what love COMMANDS.
"However, personal goals and desires will often place limits on a relationship.
Now, there may be some persons who would prefer to remove the love, or the consent, or the maturity level. And I don't think we would disagree that a relationship without all three is any type of relationship at all. And in fact, many states have laws in place to protect persons from becoming victim to such things.
And the only place from which to derive public morals is from the public law system, the laws which are in place for whatever state in which a person is living."
Now I am starting to understand why you have problems with the whole sexual sin issue. You are a cultural relativist. If I am wrong you can tell me but according this you certainly are. Being a relativist means that ultimately you have no TRUE foundation from which to base your morality and ethical system. The problem with this is that you have no ground to even critique Armchair, or any one else for that matter, because if ethics are relative then his morality cannot be wrong.
Of course you will argue that morality is socially constructed and therefore we should follow majority rule. The problems with this of course are what happens is tomorrow the law is changed? Was the previous ethical system wrong? No, because law is relative to time and place, right? What then says that an individual’s morality cannot be right for them at that space and time? It is inconsistent to create a system that is subjective in one sense but not in all. So if you are saying the state law, country law, cultural acceptance, whatever it may be you are admitting to subjective ethics, once again eliminating any critique on ethics therefore making all of your claims against this sexual sin argument irrelevant by your own standard. Once again if you are not a relativist then please explain what you mean because this argument you are making here is definitely non-foundational.
"But you cannot force your own personal religious morality upon someone who does not accept your religious dogma. Because that person's dogma is also not being accepted by you. And therein you become the things which you are essentially arguing against: "you have different morals driving your life, and you're wrong". Each of you can repeat this statement as a mantra, but that does not ever make either of you correct. Nor does it oblige anyone else to submit to your moral system."
Of course not. But is one group argues that the world is flat and another argues that the world is rounds does that make there no earth? Or is it which ever position has the most followers as you would suggest morals should be? Either way I think the failure in these arguments is obvious. If not, ask and I will clarify more.
"Now it would be very disappointing to know that some state has removed provisos to protect persons who are not consenting or have reached maturity, but as long as the state has majority rule, then you must submit to it. In fact, your own religion demands that you do!! (Romans 13:1-7)"
Ok, we have already looked at the short comings of your ethical philosophy so I won’t address that here BUT your biblical understanding of this passage needs some work I am afraid. Yes, we are to submit to the authorities that God has put into power but what happens when those authorities create laws that are in direct contradiction to the scripture, in this case homosexuality. Are we as Christians then supposed to follow the laws of the state, while ignoring what the scripture teaches? No, our ultimate authority is God’s word. It is the judge and the jury on all issues…ALL issues. If I am living in Germany 1943 and told that if I harbor Jewish people I am guilty of a crime punishable by death should I give up all Jew to death? No. Because if I see a brother in need and do not help him how can the love of Christ be in me? It can’t. So even if it means being put to death by the state I am not going to follow rules that contradict the scripture. I am sure that Arm Chair will be able to give you a much better synopsis on the theology above but I know that for sure we’re the true authority is.
2:04 AM
Michael! Good to see you! Good comment too! Lots of meaty stuff to chew on! Well, let's see what needs clarification or correction:
1. I do believe I understand the difference between man-man sex and man-boy sex. My point was more that the same lines of argumentation used to authenticate relationships that were previously taboo (i.e. homosexuality) are now being used to authenticate relationships that are CURRENTLY taboo.
The NAMBLA people are selectively redefining morality and moral terminology to have ambiguity in their favor, just like the homosexuals have been doing for decades now. They've redefined "marriage", "love", etc. so that those terms now make room for their specific sin of preference.
The NAMBLA people are simply following their logic to a different conclusion...they're going beyond where the homosexuals went.
2. Like Dustin has already said, I would most certainly challenge your understanding of Romans 13:1-7. I would suggest that Romans 13:3 only makes sense in the light of a UNIVERSAL morality, the revealed morality of God's perfect law. Maybe that's why Paul talks all about the universal moral law in verses 8-14.
The right and wrong that a person does is ACTUALLY "right" or "wrong", not KINDA "right" or "wrong". There is no biblical concept of "state derived morality". The only morality that exists is God's universal morality, written on the hearts of men, and the state doesn't enforce THAT law, though many build their personal legal system upon it.
Romans 13:7 uses an example of submission; paying taxes. That's a state made law that's not in the Bible, but a universal principle of the universal law applies to the enforcing of that law...
...namely submission to God's universal law. As one submits to God, one submits to those God has placed in authority (13:1), but the law does not override the moral law from God. Adultery was legal in Rome, and was even encouraged. Still, Paul says it's "illegal" 13:8-10.
Paul recognized both sets of law, but he also recognized the priority of God's moral law. The Christian keeps God's moral law first, and in the submission to THAT moral law, the Christian then submits to the subservient laws of his current legal authority.
Rome's legalizing of adultery didn't make it permissible for the Christian though.
So what can I do? Can I enforce my personal religious morality upon the NAMBLA guys?
No.
But I CAN lobby against them and utilize the available powers of the state to stop them.
Do I have a personal religious morality?
Kinda.
I have an adopted morality, taken from God's universal morality. God tells me what's "right" and "wrong" and I adapt my morality to that. Therefore, I have access to a universal and authoritative moral standard. Then, and ONLY then, can I ask the question of whether their morality is "right".
So is their morality "right"?
No.
If their morality (and mine, for that matter) don't line up with God's universal morality, then they (or we) are wrong.
3. You said:
"...as long as they are consenting, love commands that there is no limit to what they would do"
Uh, where does love command that?
4:01 AM
If you had introduced your post with this:
"..the pedophilia rights movement isn't headed anywhere? They all just want to have loving, relationships, right? The line of morally flexibile reasoning that they use stops at having responsibile, adult relationships, right?"
Then I would have had nothing to say.
There is no universal morality because it does not exist. If such a thing did exist, then it would be adhered to by everyone, hence the universal modifier.
But then to claim that such an impossible universal morality is also divine, well that just doesn't make sense. Sure, there can be a divine morality, but not a divine universal morality, because the evidence suggests it's either not true, or your god is impotent, because this morality to which you refer is not universal.
Dusto:
There is a difference between homosexuality and pedophilia. Just because you've decided to categorise these as being the same does not negate their inherrent differences.
The age of consent varies widely, depending on the state/province/country, and what is being examined. In Canada, the age of consent for sex is currently 14 years. The US? I don't know, 18? 21? I have no idea. (Oddly enough, though sex with a person 14 years old in Canada is not illegal, recording such acts on some form of media is illegal. So, you can have sex but not star in a porn film until you're 18.)
Biblically? I would guess it's about the same time that a female has her first mentruation. So anywhere from 9 years old and up. Isn't the current view that Mary was as young as 12?
Unfortunately, you have not deduced correctly: I am not a relativist. And though I do believe in the God of the Bible and Jesus and all that, I do not pride myself with the arrogance to assume that this is ultimately final. The "church" does not have a monopoly on truth. And there are huge flaws in many interpretations which many churches propagate.
Also, I do not live, at least the last time I checked, in a theocratic state. Both Canada and the US have separation of church and state in their government and judicial systems. If we remove this, then we would be no better than a Muslim country.
Love commanding no limit is a figurative phrase. Of course there is a limit, and that is in a person's life ending in death, but only if death is veiwed as an end. Jesus said that the ultimate act of love was in sacrificing one's life for another person.
And for the record, christains redefined marriage long before homosexuals were even interested in having equal legal rights and obligations; it's called divorce.
As for this or that being a sin or not a sin, it's all slightly irrelevant when the one defining sin and judging others does not actively fulfill the ONLY mandate instructed succinctly by Jesus: love God, love others as you love yourself.
11:55 PM
So there is no universal morality simply because there's no universal adherence?
That is like saying that there is no speed limit because everyone speeds...
Micheal, the bible is clear that there is universal NON adherence. 1 Kings 8:46, Ecclesiastes 7;20, Romans 3:9-18 and 3:23 make that clear.
And you said:
"Sure, there can be a divine morality, but not a divine universal morality, because the evidence suggests it's either not true, or your god is impotent, because this morality to which you refer is not universal."
Now I'm thinking that you're suggesting that there cannot be a universal morality because we don't see it ENFORCED universally.
Bad stuff happens, so God is impotent to enforce his moral standard right?
Well, there is a very clear biblical teaching on that too.
God allows mankind to rebel against him for a time, but only to demonstrate his patience.
2 Peter 3:3-9 says:
"First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."
God will judge all mankind and uphold his moral law. Just because he's not doing it JUST THIS SECOND doesn't mean we ultimately won't buddy.
Be thankful, for if God DID enforce his moral law constantly and instantly, every single one of us would be screwed. We'd all be in Hell, receiving the earned wages of our disobedience to the Lord. Romans 6:23 says that the wages of sin is death.
And you said to Dustin:
"And though I do believe in the God of the Bible and Jesus and all that, I do not pride myself with the arrogance to assume that this is ultimately final."
So, if the God of the Bible and Jesus and all that SAY that the Bible is ultimatley final, then is THAT arrogant? Is it bragging if God CAN back it up? What about 2 Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:3, Jude 3, Acts 4:12, or John 14:6? (Or some other exclusive passage, like 1 Timothy 2:12?) What about those explicitly exclusivist passages in scripture?
The exclusive truth claims of many Christians are based on the exclusive truth claims of scripture, and the Bible itself is VERY arrogant. I know that there are many incompetent and arrogant men who handle the scriptures and pretend that they ARE God, but again, just because everyone falls short of the ultimate truth of the scripture doesn't negate it's existence nor ultimacy.
7:14 PM
Then you are right. Everything you have said now, ever said in the past, and ever will say in the future is correct. I submit my will to yours. With this single proviso: all things said are only examined within the context of your system of beliefs.
And though beliefs are never wrong, the thing in which one has a belief may actually not be true.
I may hold the belief that I am a millionaire, and I can believe it all I want, but when the credit card bill arrives with the bank statement, the evidence suggests I re-examine my belief. Because simply put: I am not a millionaire.
Just as you may believe that there is a universal speed limit for operating a motor vehicle. But I can assure you there is not a universal speed limit. In my city alone, speed limits range from 30 km/h up to 100 km/h, depending on the road, and once on the highway out of the city, the limit is 110 km/h.
In this, you have but two options, continue in upholding your belief, or examine the evidence presented to you and re-think your belief. (In the case of the speed limits, your belief is verifiably incorrect.)
Also, you may believe there to be a universal morality, and spitefully reject the evidence that there is no universal morality, but your rejection still does not and will never make your belief to be true.
Morality cannot be enforced, because it cannot be legislated. A person defines ones own principles by which to live, and those principles and the adherence to them is what defines one as being moral.
If that same person chooses to adhere to the rule of law, then that person is said to be ethical.
I am not a moral person if I operate my motor vehicle at a maximum speed which does not exceed the posted speed limit. Though I am ethical, because I am adhering to the rule of law, doing so in good conscious knowing that I am behaving fairly within a defined society.
Though, if I were to choose the maxim "thou shall not speed" and adopt it as a principle to be part of my moral conduct, then I would be both moral and ethical for not exceeding the speed limit.
Furthermore, if my maxim were "thou shall speed", then by exceeding the speed limit I would be a moral person, in fact, to NOT speed would render me immoral. However, I would fail to be ethical.
There is no univseral morality, and especially no divine universal morality.
And as to the finality of the Bible, and as you claim that it is the only source of truth, I have got to ask: What does the Bible say about the things it says nothing about?
Psychology.
Philosophy.
Neuro-Science.
Rock and Roll.
Literature.
Slavery.
Abolition of Slavery.
Economics.
Politics.
Social Justice.
Mathematics.
Physics.
Geology.
Geography.
Extra-Biblical History.
Sure, I can't cook a goat in its mother's milk, but how do I stop a brain embolism?
Sure, women are supposed to remove themselves from the community and live on the outside of the village during menstruation, but how do I remove a cancerous tumour from the cervix?
Sure, it's wrong to kill another person, but then why is George Bush / Mahmoud Ahmadinejad so bent on killing people? And why were they both voted into power in democratic states?
It is my belief that people who think the Bible is the only source of truth, that it claims it is exclusive and has a monopoly on truth, are just plain stupid. They refuse to examine the evidence which is piled high against their belief.
But you don't have to believe that my belief is valid or correct in order for it to be true.
To continuously condemn people, reminding them that they are wrong (only because they don't agree with you) is not quite what Jesus was referring to when he told us that the greatest commandment was to love God and then love others. Love is not rejecting someone simply because of a disagreement.
5:49 PM
Oh boy. I get to toss out the same argument twice in one day. Well, here goes:
1. You said "Also, you may believe there to be a universal morality, and spitefully reject the evidence that there is no universal morality"
Micheal, there is no evidence for or against universal morality. There is only data, and data BECOMES evidence upon it's interpretation within the confines of a worldview.
So I don't find any evidence suggesting that there is no universal morality. I see data itself DIFFERENTLY than you do, within a different worldview, and I thereby interpret that data differently, seeing evidence for one worldview where you see evidence for another, totally different worldview. There is no such thing as objective observation of evidence, nor rational neutrality. You encounter every fact and every piece of data within your own worldview, and interpret it according to your worldview.
2. You definitely make a good point though, recognizing a point that needs to be expanded, when you say:
"In the case of the speed limits, your belief is verifiably incorrect."
You hit it on the head with that comment.
How do I verify my belief about speed limits? I check with the laws of the land. There is a ruling goverment that establishes the laws of the land. They are the AUTHORITY above the laws of the land, and if my belief corresponds with their AUTHORITATIVE decrees/legislations regarding the limitations of maximum allowable speeds for motor vehicle operation, then when I say "The speed limit is 110 KM", my statement can be verified.
Now, I think we would both agree that statements regarding morality would also be the same, but we seem to disagree regarding where the AUTHORITY lies for making declations regarding morality.
I would suggest that the Bible teaches that God has a universal moral law. In Romans 2:14-15, the Bible says:
"Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them."
Now we would simply disagree on the AUTHORITY of the Bible regarding morality.
You basically do NOT hold to the authority of scripture on issues of morality.
The question then becomes threefold:
a. Why do I hold to the authority of scripture?
AND
b. Why do you not hold to the authority of scripture?
AND
c. On what authority do we hold/not hold to the authority of the scriptures?
3. You asked
"What does the Bible say about the things it says nothing about?"
The bible says plenty about the things that it doesn't directly address. The Internet wasn't around in Jesus' day, but Jesus gave general and universally applicable instruction regarding idolatry, greed and lust that can instruct me on a majority of my internet related struggles.
Neither Descartes, nor Kant, nor Polkinhorne (among thousands of others) were around at the time of Jesus (or Moses, or Paul, or whoever else). Yet, the Bible gives articulate and universally applicable instruction regarding epistemology and metaphysics. The Bible comments quite extensively on the nature of truth and reality, and gives a general framework for the operation of philosophy, medicine, mathematics, music, art, and every other school of thought/field of practice.
You seem to read the Bible like it's a cookbook. It's not a collection of "truth recipes".
It's God's revelation of himself, giving Christians everything that they need to be complete and mature for life (doing what is righteous) and godliness (knowing and being righteous) (2 Peter 1:3 and 2 Timothy 3:16-17 address this). The bible contains wisdom for living, not step by step instructions for programming a VCR.
4. To answer your quesitons:
Sure, I can't cook a goat in its mother's milk, but how do I stop a brain embolism?
- However the medical professionals figure out that brain emolisms are stopped.
Sure, women are supposed to remove themselves from the community and live on the outside of the village during menstruation, but how do I remove a cancerous tumour from the cervix?
- However the medical professionals figure out that cancerous tumours from the cervix are removed.
Sure, it's wrong to kill another person, but then why is George Bush / Mahmoud Ahmadinejad so bent on killing people? And why were they both voted into power in democratic states?
- Because they are sinners (which only proves my previous post's comment about universal non-adherence to universal morality). As for your second question, I'd have to say that they were voted into power because the populace (whether rightly or wrongly), thought that they would be the best choice for a leader.
5. It is my belief that people who think the Bible is the only source of truth, that it claims it is exclusive and has a monopoly on truth, are just plain stupid.
Well, partially agreed. I don't believe I've ever suggested that the Bible is the only source of truth. The bible does make exclusive truth claims though.
In Acts 4:10-12, Peter stood before the Sanhedrin and said:
"It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. He is " 'the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone. Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."
How do you get around that exclusive truth claim? If Peter says "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved", you either believe it or don't believe it.
You can call me stupid for claiming that the Bible makes exclusive truth claims like that. You can call me whatever you want to call me. Name calling doesn't change statements of fact. I don't want to be rude Michael, but it's actually more of an evidence of rational desperation than anything. If you don't actually have an argument, then call names and hope that people don't see the ad hominem attack or false appeal to humor for being what they are.
If you claim that the Bible DOES NOT make exclusive truth claims, I'd simply suggest that you're consciously and irrationally rejecting the most plain and obvious reading of scripture and I would ask you to provide ample reasoning for abandoning the most plain and obvious reading of scripture.
6. You said:
"To continuously condemn people, reminding them that they are wrong (only because they don't agree with you) is not quite what Jesus was referring to when he told us that the greatest commandment was to love God and then love others."
And I would certainly agree.
So what does the Bible say about what it means to love God and others?
In John 14:15 Jesus said "If you love me, you will obey what I command"
and in John 14:23-24 Jesus also said "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me."
The apostle John also understood this when he wrote:
"If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin." (1 John 1:6-7)
"The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did." (1 John 2:4-6)
"No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him. Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous." (1 John 3:6-7)
'Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." (1 John 4:7-8)
"This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. This is love for God: to obey his commands." (1 John 5:2-3)
Do I even need to make an application? No. No need giving you reason to toss out a clear reading of scripture because it's simply MY interpretation.
4:40 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home