From: altheimm@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Murray Altheim)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Liberal/New Age Religion (Was: Santeria and animal-sacrifice)
Date: 12 Nov 92 08:02:52 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

{My apologies for the length...}

In article <Nov.11.02.29.10.1992.14838@geneva.rutgers.edu>
   schnaufe@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Bernard A Schnaufer) writes:
>>altheimm@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Murray Altheim) writes:
[...]
>>Why are so many people more afraid of thinking freely than they
>>are of God? Nowhere in the bible is thinking proscribed. If your beliefs
>>are so weak as to not stand up to any scrutiny, then maybe the necessary
>>response is fear, dogma and blindness. It's not the way I want to live,
>>nor is the way I believe God intended. 
>
>Thinking freely is one thing.  Thinking recklessly is another.  These two are
>confused by many so-called "free thinkers," as well as "unfree thinkers."

One must allow for the most reckless freedom to question one's belief. Why
do you fear this? Your belief should be able to stand up to the harshest 
criticism, or it is a weak belief. Shouldn't one fully understand the 
beliefs of one's opponent in order to be truly secure in those we hold
dear? Hiding behind dogma allows only for spiritual death, just as stopping
breathing kills the body. When you place your trust in God for the life
thereafter, why can you not place your trust in God in this life? 

>What many people would rightly be cautious about is an attitude that assumes
>I can come up with my own morality, as if there wasn't a standard of morality
>that has already been established by God to measure against.  This kind of
>thought is reckless.  It does not take pains to consider what the Lord has
>revealed through the Bible or the Church.  As in all we do, whether thinking
>or actions, we need to do it with a spirit of reverence for the way in which
>God has created us and what He has created us for.

I suppose the fundamental difference between you and I, and one that I doubt
will change in either case, is that while you seem to believe that the text
of the Bible is infallible, it is a belief I do not hold. A quick glance at
the many contradictions leads me to this. Is this the "free-thinking" you 
are accusing me of?

>	I would also have to slightly disagree with the statement that nowhere
>in the Bible is thinking proscribed.  Jesus clearly teaches that lustful
>thoughts are sinful.  I think this is in keeping with what I've said in the
>above paragraph.

This brings the matter down to its lowest common denominator, morality. 

The matter of thinking freely, or as you've rephrased it in the more
negatively charged "free-thinking", has little to do in my argument with
the danger of lustful thoughts, which I consider a petty issue. What I
was referring to, which you conveniently sidestepped, was the more 
profound matter of questioning dogma itself. This is the freedom I was 
speaking of, and I don't see a proscription, nor believe God would ever
allow that prohibition. What you are not allowing is _that_ freedom.

Dogma is by its nature unmoving, and adherence to it assumes that people,
and by corollary society, do not change or evolve over time. We can see this
movement whether we agree with its progress or not. There is an immediate 
tendency to pretend that there was a "golden age" when things were better,
but change in all matters physical, mental and spiritual is inevitable. And
I find little to suggest that in matters ethical or moral, there was ever a
"golden age" when the world was much better or worse than now.

Do people (and society) change? Right or wrong, yes we do.
Does our thinking change? Right or wrong, yes it does.
Does God change? A very good question. Why would we assume God to be a
    static being, and not one that moves with the entire universe?

>	Also, I think that dogma, or other formulas which articulate a moral
>truth, serve a useful purpose.  These are used because they are tried and true
>ways of expressing a revealed truth from God.  Dogma is often criticized for
>being stale and cold.  I don't think that it is the fault of dogma that the
>truth which it expresses is not alive in the hearts of the people that recite
>the statement.  We should be challenged to understand the meaning of a dogmatic
>statement and then, perhaps, rephrase it in a way that touches our hearts more
>clearly.
>
>God Bless,
>		B Schnaufer

So what I understand your last statement to mean is that if we cannot 
understand or accept dogma, we should rephrase it until we can, or just 
accept it blindly.

This somehow assumes that the dogma was too difficult to understand in the 
first place. The proscription against women taking an active part as
ministers in the church is quite clear. The convolutions, or "re-phrasings"
that apologists have taken in order to work around this do not bely the
existence of this dogma, which originates not in the words of Jesus, but
in the creation of the early church. Whether these words were twisted
from Jesus' original teachings when written down, or whether they are 
how being twisted in reinterpretation, is immaterial. Jesus was also very
clear about divorce, yet many theologians have found ways of finding some
"revealed" truth that allows for it. Two millenia ago women were treated
as possessions, as they are in many areas of the world today. 

My point is that words spoken or written two millenia ago reflect the
people, society, thoughts, and God of two millenia ago. Two millenia 
have passed, and issues that did not exist then exist now, just as some
that existed then do not exist now. Times have changed, have you noticed?

One cannot put one's head in a hole and pretend, nor force society to
conform to an unchanging, two millenia old dogma. How can anything that
by definition does not change, be anything but cold and lifeless? Even
the rocks themselves have changed in two millenia.

I'm not arguing that morality should cease to exist, just that pretending
that an ancient application is still _entirely_ valid is to ignore and
invalidate the potential and power of the human mind to change with his/her
environment. Adultery is still adultery, murder is still murder. But
issues such as women in the church are, by church dogma, issues that are
not to be discussed, much less considered for change.

Again, we may just differ on this issue, but I believe the church was 
just plain wrong in prohibiting women from being ministers. I don't need
to dig up the actual verse do I? If I remember correctly, not only are
women prohibited from being ministers, they are prohibited from even 
speaking aloud within the assembled congregation. This is dogma. Do
you allow for it to change? It is not an issue of morality, it is more 
profound. It is allowing that all things change, and the admission that
it is our responsibility to recreate ourselves and society every minute
of every day in response to this constant evolution.

Blessings,

Murray

-- 
Murray M. Altheim      "Ils ont l'orteil de Bouc, & d'un Chevreil l'oreille,
Instructional Consultant    La corne d'un Chamois, & la face vermeille
CSU, Sacramento          Comme un rouge Croissant: & dancent toute nuict
altheimm@csus.edu       Dedans un carrefour, ou pres d'une eau qui bruict."