From: masimo@netcom.com (Michael Maas)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Into the highways and hedges
Date: 26 Jul 92 19:48:37 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <Jul.22.02.40.11.1992.19483@dumas.rutgers.edu> REXLEX@fnalf.fnal.gov writes:
>In article <Jul.21.03.58.32.1992.12218@dumas.rutgers.edu> masimo@netcom.com
>(Michael Maas) writes:
>>In article <Jul.10.02.59.38.1992.19449@dumas.rutgers.edu>
>REXLEX@fnalf.fnal.gov writes:
>>>In article <Jul.8.03.28.20.1992.24004@dumas.rutgers.edu>
>>>lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Louie Crew) writes:

>>I regret that I am not able to respond to all of your post but truthfully
>>I find much of it offensive and out of tune with the loving God that I join
>>Jesus in calling "daddy" that I fear I would have found you standing with
>>those men who so fatuously condemned the adulteress. 
>
>I fear that nothing will come of this discussion as clh has noted.  But you
>have based your view on synthetic reasoning. God's revealation is
>propositional.  

Alas, I too am afraid that little if anything will come of this. I can 
certainly see that we are on opposite sides of the fence.  Still I think 
some of the assumptions you appear to make bear questioning.  

To begin with, what do you mean by "synthetic reasoning" and "God's revealation
(sic) is propositional?"  

>You may find what I say offensive, but understand this, there
>is a justified righteous anger, and that is what I feel toward those who twist
>the Scriptures to justify their sinful actions.  Sinful by Scriptural
>definition.  

I find this accusation particularly ironic coming from you.  I have seen enough 
of your posts to know that you are somewhat of a literalist/inerrantist.  

Let me explain my attitude toward scripture as I am sure this will be a very
big difference between the two of us.  I see the Bible as a collection of 
historical records of a small segment of the world's experience with God.
Like all humans, the writers of the scripture and the societies and cultures 
from which they came were only able to express their understanding of God within
their own cultural milieus.  As a consequence the writings are by virtue of 
their human origin incomplete and often incorrect interpretations of God and 
God's relating and revealing of Godself.  Nevertheless they have much of value
to offer as well.  When I read the Bible there are certain things I ignore,
certain things I disagree with and certain things that literally bring tears
to my eyes.  But while reading it I always read it as the experience of humans
in relation to God.

The Bible, as I am sure you are aware was written over a long period of time
by many individuals. Not everyone involved in the effort was coordinating their
work with others, in fact it is probably safe to say that most of the books
are more independent of one another than they are dependent on one another.
Because of this I cannot take the Bible as a wholly consistent document, a
blueprint on which to build a religion as it were.  Rather I take it as a 
toolchest from which I can draw wisdom, succor, laughter, knowledge, hope,
faith and charity among other things.

So back to the point, when you say "Sinful by Scriptural definition."  I am
forced to look at the definition and decide if it was something that was a
direct revelation of God or if it might have been one of the writer's 
misunderstandings of God.  We are after all very good projectors of our own
desires onto God (present company included!) and it might well be that whoever
said that God condemned something might have been simply projecting what they
thought God would want rather than what God does want.

Now, I don't know who is twisting what scripture, I only know that what I
read of the actions of Jesus in the world of man, and what I know of the 
actions of the risen Christ in my own life lead me to believe that some of
the scriptural prohibitions laid down in the far distant past are incorrect, 
at least for our time.   

To summarize, I believe that scripture (the Bible and other religious works)
are records of human understanding of God's revelation, not God's revelation
per se.  

>If you mean judge, then yes.  I do not judge.  However, evaluation is another
>matter.  The Church elders must do this all the time.  If they are not allowed
>to then how are they to act upon the false teachers that come in? This is my
>contention, I believe that this idea of inclussion is a false teaching and it
>must be irradicated.  

I don't see the distinction between judging and evaluation as you are using
the terms.  You imply that the "sin of homosexuality" is somehow sinful by
scriptural definition.  You judged the moment you accepted that scripture as
defining sin.  I likewise judged that the scripture is wrong for our time and 
comes from other times and places where it might have been more appropriate 
(though I doubt it).  You then, based on your assumption that scripture is 
right accuse others of sinning.  I don't agree that that evaluation or 
judgement can be made on the basis of scripture.  I wish life were so simple
that we could get all of the rules from a book, but it doesn't work that way
for me.  I do not claim that gay relationships are not sinful, only that they 
are not sinful simply because they are gay.  Actually, I have yet to see any
relationship between humans that is not sinful, inlcuding my own with my wife
and children.  But then I have high standards and love that is not perfect
is sinful simply by its falling short of perfection.

As regards elders of the Church, they would do well to look at the relationship
of Jesus to the pharisees and saducees in the bible.  These people were good
Jews, proper, upstanding, law abiding citizens but like most of us they 
focused on propriety and appearance instead of the Love which they were
called to.  It is difficult to say what is false, and it is a great temptation 
to turn the decision over to someone or something else.  I suspect that this
is what lies behind the understanding of the Bible as inerrant.  

>Again, again and again, its "either/or" not "both/and." 

Well, this really states it succinctly doesn't it?  I would say exactly the
opposite of what you have said here.  What is needed in the world is a lot 
more "both/and" and a lot less "either/or".  "Either/or" thinking forces one
to put phenomena into a box that consists of imaginary edges around which 
one trims the excess.  Unfortunately it is all too often that the excess that
hangs out of the box and is trimmed off is more important that what remains
in the box.  Modern physics witnesses to this.  When examined closely the
edges or borders of apparently independent objects turn more and more ephemeral
the more closely they are examined.  At the atomic level and below all matter
is the same.  But I digress, the point is that many acts can be done for both 
right and wrong reasons, and therefore can contain both good and bad 
characteristics and can result in both good and bad results.  This is why
motivation is so important.  I think this is no less true for gay relationships
than for marriages.  

>>That it is better to look at the offender empathetically and forgive and 
>>correct.  

>Here you have made a mistake.  Sympathetically, a resounding yes. 
>Empathetically, a resounding no -based on the last verse of Rom 1.

Sorry, I should have said what the object of the empathy is to be.  The object
is not the "sin of adultery" but the state of being in sin, of knowing that
you too are a sinner and subject to temptation to put something else in front
of God, idolize if you will, whether it is women, drink, money, the Bible or 
even God for anyone who thinks they really know and understand God, knows some
lesser image of God and whoever attaches themselves to that image truly makes
God into an idol and in doing so shuts God out of their life.  Whether God
can overcome and is omnipotent is not really the issue; it is clear that God
even if God can, chooses not to or there would be no evil in the world.  

>>You are right,God's law is immutable. You are wrong if you believe that the
>>substance of that law is anything other than Love. 

>You need to study the attributes again.  Love does not rule over the other
>attributes.  They all rule over each other.  God is love, but His love is
>immutable, holy, truthful, eternal, righteous. 

Well, I think the Love of God is ontic while the other qualities you have
enumerated are more descriptive or adjectival.  

>Does He ever get mad,
>anthropomorphically we say yes.  His wrath is against those who constantly
>reject the illumination that is given to them.  This illumination is in part a
>revelation of His character, His nature.  This never changes.  By your
>statements, He over looks the sinful act of homosexuality, and loves the
>individual. This is incorrect.  To say that He looks over the sinful act to
>love the individual is vastly different.  Here is where you've made your
>mistake.

A nice distinction between "look over" and "over look".  However, I don't 
believe that homosexuality is really the issue, the issue is the quality of
love in the relationship between two individuals.  I really substantially
agree with you here exept for what is and isn't sin.

>>He probably will not. That is presumably not his purpose. But if they are 
>>serious Christians they repent and try to do better at loving their God, 
>>their neighbors, and themselves all the time anyway. 

>By repent, do you admit, yes or no, that homosexuality is wrong as revealed by
>God? 

I think you know better.  Repent means to reflect on your sinful nature and come
again to a state of metanoia where you are willing and able to accept the Love
and teaching of God.  God is with you at all times waiting for you to open the
door, but God leaves it up to you to open that door.  Again whether or not God
can break the door down is irrelevant, it is clear that God does not do so but
chooses to wait for us to make the choice out of God's respect for our freedom
and personhood.

>>Certainly I can, Love is God!  There I have said it.  

>Cute.  Here is the the text: "The one who does not love does not know God, for
>God is love." (1 John 4:8)  In the Greek you *cannot* turn the sentence around
>to say "love is God."  It is not allowed by its sentence structure.  When you
>say "Love is God" you are trying to draw a circle around Him and that you can
>not do.  THe Greek is specific and it is not without reason that the NT was
>written in Koine Greek.  Where else can you parse a verb 52 different ways?  

Is there a reason other than the fact that the writers were mostly of the 
class that spoke Koine?  As far as parsing verbs different ways there are many 
other languages that are similarly highly inflected.  My greek is so rusty it 
is almost nonexistant at this point but an analogous reversal can be made, 
the question for me is will the suffix of the verb to be currently "estin"
change and will the article for "theos" "ho" change?  I don't know. I do know 
it works in Chinese (but then Chinese is probably one of the least inflected
languages known).  Anyway, if you will recall I stated that when I said it 
I was reluctant to say it and tried to show how the language is inadequate to 
the task.  Moreover, I do not rely on scripture nor am I restrained by it for 
my understanding and consequent expressions of God and God's actions in my life. 

>If God's love is in harmony with His other attributes, which by difinition they
>have to be, then God can love someone that is going to be sent to hell because
>His justice, righteousness, holiness, truthfulness demand it. 

I suppose this is true but I don't really have an opinion about hell.  In any 
case, I find it unlikely that many go there if there is such a place.

>     You seem to think that you can make a confession of faith and then go sin
>as you wish because "god loves me."  Your "God" is not the God of the OT & NT. 

On the contrary, if I don't confess my sins and my faith I find it all too
easy to forget what sin is and what a sinner I am.  My God is the God of Love,
the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and of Rebeccah, Ruth and Sarah.  The One
who best taught about my God though, was Jesus of Nazareth.

>Christ did not "accept" those who He knew would not have a "change of heart." 
>You trifle with this concept of the male-female imagery that God Himself
>ordained.  It wasn't Adam & Steve in the garden because He did not create them
>that way. Procreation is very much part of this. Being made in the image of God
>has many implications that you obviously have not considered.  

Ever heard of evolution?  The story of Adam and Eve is a myth.  I do not mean 
this in a pejorative or derogatory sense.  It is an explanation for a number
of phenomena that an ancient people developed in order to understand the human
propensity for sin, the downfall from innonence that is brought on by the
development of knowledge (which by the way has interesting implications for
your "either/or" statement above) and the origin of humanity to name a few.  
When you take a myth like this and attempt to make it into a literal truth as 
you apparently are trying to do, you do an injustice to yourself in that you 
subjugate yourself to something that is patently unlikely if not untrue; to God,
because by predetermining that relations between "Adam and Steve" are forbidden 
you have closed the door to the possibility of God teaching you otherwise and to
your fellow human beings because having classified them as "sinners" you have 
dehumanized them and can now and apparently do now treat them as less than the 
children of God they are.

>>God is infinitely personal and God wants to meet us as the persons we are
>>and work with us there.  We are not perfect but God is and wherever we are
>>there God is waiting for us to open our hearts and minds and souls to him.
>>Because God is infinitely personal he understands and values the nature
>>of personhood.  Will God ask you to change?  Absolutely, but not as a 
>>condition for his love.  Rather God will ask you to change as a result
>>of his love.  Likewise, we can only ask one another to change through
>>love. 
>
>If I read this as a stand alone statement, I would agree with you, however, in
>context of your previous statements I think you are trying to justify sin in
>the life of a believer.

Now it is my turn to ask a question?  Do you believe that you are now, have
ever been or ever will be without sin?  

>>The Gospel condemns no one.  We condemn ourselves by our own shortcomings.
>>But these shortcoming have simply to do with our inability to accept the
>>Love of God and our inability to love unconditionally as Jesus taught us to. 
>>Gospel means good news and the good news is that God loves us and that God
>>will help us to love one another.
>
>As a fellow Christian I can love an individual who has come to Christ carrying
>his homosexual sins.  However, when that individual refuses to acknowlege that
>this lifestyle is sinful and to repent, turn from it, then I will do as Paul
>did it I Cor. -"{I have decided} to deliver such a one to Satan for the
>destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord
>Jesus." (1 Cor. 5:5)  Harsh, I think not.  When my child wilfully disobeys, he
>is disciplined.  

This doesn't appear to be very charitable.  Why not try imitating Christ 
instead of Paul?

>The man who is asked by another what he thinks of his work, is put to the
>torture and is not obliged to speak the truth."  Samual Johnson
>

I have perhaps been too direct at times in this response.  If you had drawn
a picture, built a house or even said something more innocuous about your
religious beliefs, I might have responded as Samuel Johnson implicitly suggests
in your quote above.  However, these are matters of the highest importance
and I am obliged to speak the truth as I understand it.

>As iron sharpens iron, 
>So one man sharpens the wits of another."  Prov 27:17

>Nothing is more stimulating than 
>friends who speak the truth in love."  Os Guinness

I hope you can take this in a spirit of love.  It is what I intend.

In Christ,

Mike