| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> > >
> > > > What makes the body happy in turn, I think, would also make the soul happy,
> > > > and vice versa. Christianity is not about denying the body in favour of the
> > > > soul. Whoever is spouting that brand of whatever hasn't understood the
> > > > simple and undeniable idea that God created the body, with all it's ability
> > > > to experience pleasure. Where's the problem in experienceing joy, love,
> > > > happiness, sensualness, whatever. Where in my Bible does it say to deny
> > > > these things?
> > >
> > > OK, so when Moses (or God, depending on what you believe) tells us not to
> > > covet the neighbor's wife, what do you believe you shouldn't do? Is it a
> > > sin to nail your neighbor's wife? What if she wants you to? What if her
> > > husband does too?
> > >
> > > There seems to be no lee-way in the commandments.
> >
> > Here's a thought--with freedom comes responsibility.
> >
> > Stop twisting and making irrelevant points--that point you made has nothing
> > to do with my idea, which is the non-separation of body and soul. Nowhere
> > in the 10 commandments does it command 'Thou shalt not derive physical
> > pleasure'. What they do say is to do things in a responsible manner, or
> > that which could be summed up into a golden rule 'do unto others...'
> >
> > Nailing your neighbours wife is not morally right, even if you, your
> > neighbours wife and your neighbours wife's husband think it's okay.
>
> I think Chris's point is that this is an absolute of Mosaic Law that goes
> against the "experiencing joy, love, happiness, sensualness, whatever" that
> was suggested as all ok in your comments. I'm certain that you didn't
> intend the "where-ever and however" that he infered in that quote, though.
And I think my point, reiterated, is that Chris twisted it into saying the
Mosaic law says you cannot derive pleasure from living, which is far from
the truth. Nowhere in the testaments does this concept even exist. I am
not a biblical scholar for decades, and I'm sure someone will find an
obscure quotation saying whatever, but if we take the 10 commandments as
they are written (and I always dislike taking anything from the bible out of
the context of the entire bible, context also being the good bit about
understanding it), no where does it say you cannot 'get any.' There's no
lee-way in the commandments is akin to saying there's no lee-way in the
speed limit. If you want some, get married and get all that your wife will
allow. Pointed out again, sex with your neighbour is wrong according to
Mosaic law as well as morally wrong. It doesn't matter if society has a law
saying that, 'If thy neighbour is a nice piece of whatever and her husband's
all for it, go head'. 'If it feels good, do it' is not a life choice, it's
a blueprint for disaster. Sex with your wife (or husband, depends on who
you are reading this) could be good (or not... that's another problem for a
different discussion) and without any moral, ethical or Mosaic law problems.
Now we place the 10 commandments, and the other Mosaic laws in context of
the entire bible. Old testament shows us time and time again the constant
nature of God. The Israelites lived in communion with God, they got
decadent, they fell from God, they were repressed, they cried to their Lord,
God 'sent' prophets, the people 'found' God again, and they prospered. The
cycle is repeated many times over. Now do I use this as a life statement?
Prob'ly not--there are many millionaire athiests and many poor Christians.
It is what it is--life sucks sometimes. Making wealth has no bearing on how
I conduct my life.
Further in the bible, Jesus admonished those who obeyed every jot and tittle
of the law without grasping the significance of what they were doing. To
not have an afair with your neighbours wife is well within the letter of the
law, but the idea of lusting is pretty much the same thing--the only thing
you didn't do was the physical part--you already did it in your mind. So
what we have here is a concept of the non-separation of body, mind and
spirit--that what happens to one impacts on all facets of your life. You
don't think what happens to your body has no impact on your mind and soul?
If someone looses an arm, or a leg, you think it just adversely affects the
physical body?
> > (this little post isn't a 'all laws are good' post--if a man made law is
> > unjust or needs changing, then go ahead and change it. Now show me where
> > *not* following any of the 10 commandments would be better for you (over the
> > course of your life, to battle against the 'well, nailing my neighbours wife
> > certainly "feels" better right when i'm doing it) than following them)
>
> A very solid case could be made to show that "Honor thy Father and Mother"
> could be very detrimental to someone's mental and physical health if said
> parents are abusive.
Honour your father and mother has nothing to do with staying in an abusive
situation. Respect does not equal suppressing what's right for you. You
don't think you're honouring an alcoholic when you want to get them into AA?
The alcoholic might not think you're honouring them at all by interventions
or pouring all their booze down the toilet, but *you* know you're honouring
them by doing what's right.
So no, a solid case cannot be made against the 'honour thy mother and
father' commandment. They may not like you getting them into counselling,
or even arrested for abuse, but it's the 'right' thing to do, it's the
honourable thing to do. Even I, with my limited education, understand that
concept.
> A very solid historical case *has* been made to show that "Thou Shalt Not
> Steal" can in some cases be dodged with impunity until the day you die. I
> point you in the direction of several medieval robber barons, some of whom
> got toppled; some of whom lived contentedly to a ripe old age quite >unpunished.
Sure it can be dodged with impunity, but it does not negate the
command--they still did wrong. Whether they get away with it is irrelevant.
If I'm a good thief, and never get caught, I'm still breaking the law, not
just the laws of our land, but that commandment.
>
> Mosiac Law includes the concept of Divine Wrath for mis-stepping very much
> *because* there is often no personal detriment to breaking it. It's (IMHO)
> an early moral standard enforced by a primitive understanding of God, to be
> as clear a guideline as possible for a less-developed human culture.
It may be abrupt and not as wordy as we like our laws to be, and I may say
for my life that I have a higher concept of justice and laws, but you have
to start somewhere. The Mosaic laws, as well, have to be taken in context
with the enitrety of the bible. If we want to point ot specific passages
and say, 'Oh we must hate homosexuals', not only am I reminded about Jesus
and the prostitute 'who is without sin can cast the first stone' but I am
reminded of Proberbs where it is written 'Answer a fool to his folly' in one
proverb, and in another 'Never answer a fool to his folly'. Contradictory?
On the surface, yes. In context, definitly not. If someone hasn't been
taught yet and does foolish things, you try to teach, to correct. However,
if someone just wants to stand in your face and just be a pain in the arse,
it's best just to walk away and not answer them. They may think they've
won, but we know better--we listended to the 'better angels of our nature'.
> Lots and lots of religions have had (and will continue to have, I'm sure)
> varying complexities of moral yardsticks, as the culture they are
> referencing changes and evolves. To pull two examples out of my hat, modern
> Christianity has in general a much more advanced moral understanding (Do
> unto others as you would have them do unto you) than early Old Testament
> understanding (Thou shalt...). Just as modern Wicca ('An it harm none, thy
> will be done') is a much more advanced moral standard than the ancient
> Druidic teachings it evolved from.
And I believe in a theory of moral absolutes (not for *everyting to be
sure), not moral relativism. But it's my theory and I will not thrust that
theory on others. I live as the anabaptists did, I try to live in the world
but not of it, and do what's right for me. Joshua (again, I think) said it
best when he said, 'They can beleive what they want. As for me and my
house, we shall follow the Lord.'
>
> thanks,
>
> James
Nice writing!
Dave K.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) <snipped the first chunk, becuase we're starting to argue in circles> (...) Not quite what I was saying; I should have been more specific. It is often necessary to the healing process for someone who has been in an abusive relationship to (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: slight
|
| (...) I think Chris's point is that this is an absolute of Mosaic Law that goes against the "experiencing joy, love, happiness, sensualness, whatever" that was suggested as all ok in your comments. I'm certain that you didn't intend the "where-ever (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
225 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
