From: masimo@netcom.com (Michael Maas)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Into the highways and hedges
Date: 28 Jul 92 06:57:46 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <Jul.26.16.00.32.1992.17054@dumas.rutgers.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>In article <Jul.21.03.58.32.1992.12218@dumas.rutgers.edu> masimo@netcom.com (Michael Maas) writes:
>
>>..."  This is because Jesus did not think of sin as specific
>>acts but rather of acting without love.  
>
>Jesus did also think of sin as specific.  He said, as we see in Matthew 15
>verse 19," For out of the heart proceedeth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries,
>fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies."
>
>Living without love manifests itself in other sinful actions.
>Jesus said, if you love me, keep my commandments."  John wrote to love God
>was to keep His commandments.  Only when we truly love God can we desire to
>please Him so much that we are able to keep His commandments.
>
Link,,

I understand what you are saying and I agree with it.  The question is what
are the commandments.  The fact that Jesus enumerated sinful acts does not 
mean that those acts he did not enumerate were/are not sinful.  If we take
specific prohibitions as commandments we are left with an awful lot that is
not covered.  This is the beginning of "legalism".  For this reason, and 
also because I think that Jesus also felt this way, I prefer to think of
sin as a state of being rather than an act.

>>Likewise, there are situations where intercourse can occur outside of 
>>marriage in a truly loving manner and insofar as it is loving it is without
>>sin.
>
>Jesus did not think so.  He said of fornication and adultery and of the
>other sins above, "These are things which defile a man...."  These
>specific actions come out of an unloving defiled heart.  

Again, I think we agree.  I prefer to focus on the "unloving defiled heart"
rather than the acts that arise from having such.  

As far as fornication goes, I am aware of the dictionary definition of the
word, but I'm not sure it can be applied in the same way to both our culture
and that of the Jews of Jesus' time.  I think you will find that marriage was
a quite different animal at that time than it is now.  Many now speak of the
American style of relationship between man and woman as serial monogamy
meaning multiple partners, one at a time.  While this is not my style, I do
not condemn those who pursue it because I can  not know their reasons and
their feelings but can easily conceive of situations where it would not be
immoral.  The same is true of gay relationships. 

>Sin is not always defined by our mores and morality (though some lines are 
>drawn by our consciences) but rather by the revelation of the perfect moral
>character of the unchanging God.  

Why do you think that God is unchanging?  I believe that God is infinitely
changeable in God's attitudes and interactions toward each of us.  Therefore
God is able to meet each of us where we are and work with us there.  If God
were as rigid as you seem to imply, God would be forced to give up a great
deal of God's freedom. 
 
>Keeping commandments is very important.  But we must keep them out of 
>love and a desire to please God.

Again, I think we agree on the need to keep God's commandments, the real
question is what are the commandments that we are to keep.  As I pointed 
out to try to take every prohibition, or even a given subset of them, as 
commandments, is to move rapidly toward legalism.  I find the two great
commandments adequate to define what is and what is not sinful.

>Link Hudson.

In Christ,

Mike Maas