From: Graham E. Morbey (gmorbey@wlu.ca)
Date: Thu Jul 10 2003 - 07:43:39 EDT
Here's another thought:
Maybe "All things are permissible for me..?" are not the words of Paul
but the slogan of the Corinthians that he answers with " But not all
things are beneficial..." Richard B. Hays has an extended discussion of
this in his First Corinthians INTERPRETATION commentary.
Graham
Don Winterstein wrote:
> Here's a thought: Why not approach Christian morality from the words
> of Paul in I Corinthians 6 & 10, "All things are permissible for
> me..."? That is, under the NT law of love, no act of any kind is
> intrinsically sinful if it is done by a sanctified Christian and
> motivated by agape. This would not be to say there are
> no intrinsically sinful acts, but that a sanctified Christian
> motivated by agape would not do such things. Intrinsically sinful
> acts would be any that could not be done in fellowship with God.
>
> One could make a strong case that the NT supports such a principle.
> The rules stated in Acts 15 concerning blood and food offered to idols
> certainly were not intended to be universal. The only fly in this
> ointment that comes to my mind is Jesus' comment on divorce in Matthew
> 5: "...Anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery." Why
> couldn't a sanctified Christian man motivated by agape marry a
> Christian woman divorced out of a bad marriage and not be committing a
> sin? If I'm not mistaken, divorced women get married with Christian
> ceremonies all the time. Are we allowed to say that this comment
> attributed to Jesus was actually added later by a scribe?
>
> In any case, such a principle of Christian morality would provide
> a useful basis for drawing conclusions about relations among
> homosexuals. That is, if the relationship was between sanctified
> Christians, and their sex acts were motivated in part by agape, they
> would not be sinning.
>
> I suspect the professional clergy would be uncomfortable with such a
> liberal principle of morality on grounds that some things may be
> intrinsically evil but lots of Christians wouldn't be able to
> recognize them as such. So they'd need some authority figure to point
> them out.
>
> Don
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Graham E. Morbey <mailto:gmorbey@wlu.ca>
> To: John W Burgeson <mailto:jwburgeson@juno.com>
> Cc: gmurphy@raex.com <mailto:gmurphy@raex.com> ; asa@calvin.edu
> <mailto:asa@calvin.edu> ; pastorcraigpeterson@yahoo.com
> <mailto:pastorcraigpeterson@yahoo.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 9:23 AM
> Subject: Re: Sin?
>
> I am very much in agreement with both Burgy and George where they
> demonstrate uncommon love for gays and lesbians over against hardened
> prejudices and proof -texting. But Burgy's comments on texts to
> explain
> what Paul did or didn't mean is also a kind of proof-texting, I
> suggest.
> Paul is not so ignorant as Burgy portrays him. It is highly likely
> that
> Paul knew a lot more about human sexuality and homosexuality than
> Burgy
> credits him for. He was a learned man steeped in the things of his
> faith, knowledgable about the philosophies/theologies/sciences of the
> surrounding cultures of his day and with a deep sense of history. He
> was also a travelled man who could wax poetic to grasp truth (eg.
> Colossians 1:15-20). A distorted view of Paul could be the
> occasion for
> a distorted view of sexuality.
>
> Graham
>
> John W Burgeson wrote:
>
> >George commented (in part): "I think you are reading Romans too
> narrowly.
> > 1:18-31 is not about one group of
> >manifestly bad people as distinguished from a group of better
> people who
> >don't do
> >obviously bad things. It is about the fundamental sin of idolatry -
> >i.e., violation of
> >the 1st Commandment. ... This is just the beginning of a
> section that
> >continues
> >through 3:20 & that concludes that all are sinners. "
> >
> >I disagree that I am reading Romans too narrowly, for I agree
> with your
> >point above. What I am doing is simply using it as a measure,
> pointing
> >out that it cannot be used as a warrant for the position that
> same-gender
> >domestic living arrangements are necessarily sinful. That's all.
> A very
> >narrow argument.
> >
> > "... the fact that all persons sin stems from
> >a tendency to wickedly suppress the truth - i.e., in one way or
> another
> >to put something
> >other than God ahead of God. That's true of me, you, and your
> friends,
> >independently of
> >our sexual activities."
> >
> >Yes.
> >
> > "Now Paul may indeed have had in mind only particular types of
> what we
> >call today
> >homosexual practices and he probably did not have the concept of
> >"homosexual
> >orientation" as it's developed in recent years."
> >
> >I'd word it a little more strongly than that, (the word
> "probably" I'd
> >not use). Otherwise, agreed.
> >
> >" (& by the same token one can't argue that he intended to _omit_
> >homosexual acts within a committed loving relationship from the
> negative
> >statements he does make about same-sex relationships.) "
> >
> >I did not argue this. Only that we have no warrant for insisting
> that he
> >did intend to include them The subject is simply not addressed. When
> >people argue that he DID intend to include them, they are, IMHO,
> guilty
> >of adding to scripture -- of reading into scripture their own
> >preconceived ideas.
> >
> >The defenders of slavery 150 years ago were guilty of this. With much
> >"clearer" scriptures to cite.
> >
> >BTW, I will agree that we are all prone to do this, me as much as
> >(perhaps more than) anyone. That is one reason I dislike proof
> texts as
> >reasons for taking a position on moral matters.
> >
> > "But I think it's clear that he lists homosexual activity, to
> the extent
> >that he was aware of it, as one
> >of the sins consequent upon the fundamental Sin."
> >
> >Again, agreed. The operative phrase is "to the extent he was aware of
> >it." Most of us (me included) have been fed a distorted view of the
> >gay/lesbian community. Gay men in movies are generally "soft," limp
> >wristed, pansies. Not the ones I know. Lesbians are "dykes." Not
> the ones
> >I know. When I saw and heard the Denver Gay Men's Choir at a
> service in
> >Montview Presbyterian Church last month, they looked (to me) like
> a bunch
> >of ordinary folks. Of the 50 or so in the choir, I don't think
> even one
> >resembled the Hollywood image. Not one I would have "suspected"
> of being
> >gay. Just normal men, black, white, Hispanic, young, old, short,
> tall,
> >bearded, clean shaven, stocky, skinny, etc. All in love with
> Jesus Christ
> >and His church.
> >
> >It is highly unlikely that Paul had any concept of homosexual
> activity
> >beyond that which was a daily "feature" of the local pagan
> temples. Which
> >is justly condemned.
> >
> >Peace
> >
> >John Burgeson (Burgy)
> >
> >www.burgy.50megs.com
> >
> >
> >________________________________________________________________
> >The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
> >Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
> >Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com <http://www.juno.com> to
> sign up today!
> >
> >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jul 10 2003 - 07:46:20 EDT