The Upper Room - 2017-02-02

« first day (1989 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2654 days later) »

12:11 AM

@fredsbend Actually KorvinStarmaster was referencing when Yeshua and his disciples were picking grain on the Sabbath. Neither picking grain, nor picking it on the Sabbath, was against the Law. But it was against Jewish law. Yeshua brings up a story of David eating the shewbread, so as to say "Why do you find excuses for David when he clearly broke the Law, but you're accusing us when we haven't even broke it?" I think this answer sums it up well...

11

A: How does Jesus' argument from David and the showbread work?

Reading this passage today made me want to research it. Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath, and He came to fulfill the law not break it. This passage has several aspects that are best read together as Jesus combines them: Jesus and Disciples Pluck and Eat Grains on the Sabbath At that time Jesus w...

1 hour later…

1:27 AM

@fredsbend For whole groups of Jews or Christians, yes, the community aspect is important. But in today's fractured society, many people do not belong to a group or a congregation. I don't think this excludes them from observing the commandment to honor the Sabbath.

@anonymouswho What, exactly, constitutes "work" is not defined in the Ten Commandments themselves. That is left to interpretation. And there's no particular reason to believe that the Jewish leaders were wrong to define rubbing ears of grain on the Sabbath as "work." "Doing good" could also be considered "work." If nothing else, Jesus redefined what it means to "work" on the Sabbath, because the Ten Commandments don't spell it out explicitly.

Physically, rubbing ears of grain, pulling a sheep or goat out of the ditch, and so on, are work. But Jesus said it was okay to do these things. He said that doing good is lawful on the Sabbath. But "work" as most people do it is good. It provides good and useful goods and services to other human beings. So how could you avoid concluding that Jesus' teaching is that all work is lawful on the Sabbath, as long as it is good work?

And if all good work is lawful on the Sabbath, either the entire commandment is effectively nullified, or Jesus was pointing to a deeper, more spiritual understanding of the commandment prohibiting work on the Sabbath.

Spiritually, for those who are born again, doing good is not work. For the regenerate, doing good does not feel like work, because it is enjoyable, and comes from the heart. For the regenerate, even physically working very hard for a good cause is not "labor," but a joy. That's because "doing good on the Sabbath" comes from love and goodness in the heart. So it flows effortlessly, because as Jesus said, "my yoke is easy, and my burden is light" (Matthew 11:30).

1:50 AM

@LeeWoofenden I'm saying it excludes them by definition. The point is to have a community, not do it by yourself.

@fredsbend So you believe that it is impossible for a hermit or someone in solitary confinement to observe the Sabbath?

@Daniel1212 said:

> only faith appropriates forgiveness, and effects the righteous fruit that justifies one as being a true believer.

This seems to draw on the common Protestant idea that good works are "the fruits of faith." I find the biblical basis for this to be scanty, at best. There is certainly no explicit statement in the Bible that good works are the fruits of faith. And though though the two answers so far to my question below do a good job of showing that good works are associated with faith, they don't to me, show that the good works flow from or are the fruits of faith.

2

Q: What is the biblical basis for the belief that good works are the fruits of faith?

It is common for Protestant doctrinal statements to say that good works are the fruits of faith. For example: We confess that good works are necessary fruits of faith in the life of a Christian and that they proceed from a renewed heart that is thankful to God for His mercy and love. Although...

protestantism faith works

I believe that a much better biblical case can be made for good works flowing from a good heart, and of course, flowing from Christ within a person, faith being not the source, but the conduit for those good works.

2:08 AM

@fredsbend Though I don't necessarily disagree, I would be interested to know the basis for your statement that "Sabbath existed long before Moses." In the biblical text, the first use of the word "Sabbath" is in Exodus 16:23, just before the giving of the Ten Commandments. And an argument could be made that this close an association with the Ten Commandments still constitutes the Sabbath beginning with the Ten Commandments.

I'm aware, of course, of the seventh day of rest in Genesis 2:1-3. But in that location no Sabbath is commanded for people to observe, nor is the word "Sabbath" used, though its root word "rest" (shabath) is.

@LeeWoofenden It may not be the most precise language, but I can't really fault it. Good works are the fruit of the Spirit and the Spirit is received through faith.

@curiousdannii Which is pretty close to what I just said as an alternative to the "fruits of faith" idea: that good works flow from Christ (substituting the Holy Spirit for Christ--but it's still God as source), and faith is the conduit.

@LeeWoofenden I quite like Daniel1212's wording, that faith effects the fruit that justifies (taken in the demonstrates and authenticates sense)

When Jesus says, "I am the vine, you are the branches. Without me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), that seems pretty clear to me that good works (what "you do") flow from Christ.

I.e., that good works are the fruits of Christ.

2:25 AM

And as faith grows it grows a life which acts according to the will of God rather than a selfish rebellious human will

@curiousdannii I don't disagree with the general sentiment. But I still think that the good works are not the "fruits of faith," as if they flow from faith, but rather that they flow from God/Christ, through faith. So faith is not the source of the good works. Rather, it is the channel through which the good works flow from God, the faith directing those good works to be efficacious and according to God's commandments.

@LeeWoofenden Faith is never an abstract thing. Faith must be faith in something, and of course the faith we are talking about is faith in God's reliability and capacity to fulfil his promises. But because faith is always faith in that, it gets redundant to spell it out every time ;)

So faith is always relational, and the power of faith is always God's power

But it is meaningful to talk of faith (in God) effecting stuff rather than just God effecting because it emphasises the relational and covenantal nature of the Gospel. God can grow good works in us outside the gospel, but we talk of faith doing so because the promises are that God will grow good works in those who are reconciled to him in faith

@LeeWoofenden So I'd see faith less as a channel, and more as a glue. Or another way of talking about it is Union with Christ. Our good works come from our Union with Christ, and we are united through faith.

I think the Protestant or Reformed view would be much less of a channel and more along the lines of covenant/union

@curiousdannii But once again, it is through faith, not by faith. I believe that we are united to faith by love, or if you prefer, grace. Faith is not what actually unites us. Love or grace is. But faith provides the channel by which that uniting takes place. If we do not have faith, we reject God's grace, and therefore no union can take place. But it is still the grace, not the faith, that unites us.

> For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God. (Ephesians 2:8, italics added)

@LeeWoofenden I'm not sure I really such much of a meaningful distinction between being united through faith or by faith. Both faith and grace are abstract impersonal nouns, the actual actor is of course God.

@LeeWoofenden Ugh. Just missed the edit deadline. That should have been: "I believe that we are united to Christ by love." Not "to faith."

@curiousdannii But there is a distinct and real difference between grace and faith. The two are not interchangeable.

2:40 AM

@LeeWoofenden Definitely. But I'd have to think a lot more to see what kind of a difference there could be between through faith and by faith.

I find the Protestant penchant for putting everything under "faith" to be rather sloppy and not well founded in the Bible.

@curiousdannii Love/grace is the actor and source. Faith is the means or channel by which love acts. That is how I understand being saved by grace through faith.

And that, I believe, is also why of faith, hope, and love, Paul states that love, not faith, is the greatest.

It is God's grace/love that saves us. But if we do not have faith, there is no channel through which God's love can flow to us.

@LeeWoofenden The greek is actually χάριτί - dative grace, so 'in grace' would be a good translation too.

@LeeWoofenden And then διὰ πίστεως - so probably an instrumentative sense for faith there.

@curiousdannii Yes. But "good will, loving-kindness, favor" is also a good translation of χάρις. χάρις is one of Greek's bounty of different words for love.

@LeeWoofenden That wasn't the point I was going for. Actually I didn't have much point at all, was just reporting on my investigation of the Greek. But I think now that it's still not best to say the grace/love is the actor or source. That's God.

@curiousdannii And yes, that is possible. But I'm not finding any translation that interprets it that way.

2:49 AM

It's perspectives. From God's perspective of course it is all through his free gifts that anything happens. But from ours our faith is effective.

> God is love. (1 John 4:8, 16, italics added)

@LeeWoofenden Indeed. And John has interesting and important things to teach us, but Paul's point is neither the same as that nor is his means and use of language the same ;)

The meaning of the dative is not crystal clear. I'll grant you that. But it certainly has a closer connection with the "saved" than the "faith" does, which is qualified by the preposition διά, whose primary meaning is "through," which can be "by means of," "on account of," and so on.

I wouldn't want to build an entire theology on Ephesians 2:8. But I think it's pretty clear in making the grace closer to the source of the salvation than the faith. Both could be interpreted as "by means of," but "faith" is pretty definitely marked as something that the salvation happens through or by means of.

And I would not want to be caught trying to argue that we are not saved by God's love/grace as the primary actor.

@LeeWoofenden I agree and I think all well thought Protestants would too.

@curiousdannii Then why is it always "faith, faith, faith"? Why is justification by faith alone "the article on which the church stands or falls"?

There are five solas. But sola fide seems to be "the first among equals."

3:05 AM

@LeeWoofenden I'd be more inclined to say that grace alone is the one on which the church stands, as I'd describe grace alone as being about the basis for our salvation, and faith alone as a denial of other means of saving grace, but I know there are subtle differences in how these terms are used. But to answer your question: faith alone is so prominent because it was correcting something which was being strongly affirmed by the CC.

I'm not really sure if there are any denominations which want to say God isn't the primary actor. Maybe some arminians.

@curiousdannii I was quoting from the Sola fide page on Wikipedia, which says, "According to Martin Luther, justification by faith alone is the article on which the church stands or falls." If that's wrong, the Wikipedia page should be corrected.

Grace alone says works are no basis, faith alone says we don't receive the grace of God through things like the sacraments or penance, but only through faith.

@curiousdannii But did Martin Luther say that grace alone is "the article on which the church stands or falls"?

@LeeWoofenden My understanding may be off, or I may emphasise sola fide less because I run into far fewer people who think they'll obtain God's grace through sacraments

It seems clear enough that Luther thought that sola fide was the key teaching of the Church.

And I presume that Lutherans, at least, don't disagree with him . . . .

3:10 AM

@LeeWoofenden Yeah I don't dispute that. But what needs to be affirmed loudest depends on what else is being taught.

I'm a bit unsure on the original teachings of the solas, and have been meaning to ask some questions on that.

1 hour later…

4:17 AM

@LeeWoofenden I think it's impossible to claim your an adherent of Christendom and intentionally isolate yourself from society.

I think the Sabbath commandment reflects this.

1 hour later…

5:27 AM

@LeeWoofenden But it does say that God Sanctified the day.

I don't see why there would be a sanctification yet not also a Sabbath.

Does Elisha speak?

6:00 AM

-1

Q: Do you lose rep every time you downvote?

I've noticed that I lose 1 rep for every downvote that I do, even if I leave a comment to explain. Is this supposed to be happening? I thought that the rep penalty was only for if you downvote without leaving a comment?

support reputation downvoting

-1

Q: What Closed Catholicsm Questions would you reconsider opening?

I searched this list and compiled a list. I'm not going to mod-hammer open any of these, but I'd like people to take a second look because it'll give me a better understanding of exactly why things are off topic in the present state of the site. Are Catholics more likely to accept Platonism's ...

discussion catholicism reopen-request

6:44 AM

@fredsbend Is that your basis for saying that the Sabbath predates Moses?

@fredsbend The Sabbath commandment actually doesn't say anything about having to do it in community. It does specify a number of different individuals in the household and community who must observe it, with the implication that everyone must observe it. But it doesn't say anything about their having to do it communally, get together for it as a group, or anything like that.

Hard to do it separately when you all do it at the same time. Everyone does it all at the same time that it becomes part of culture, not just something people do individually.

@LeeWoofenden It's a good start. Do you have a retort? Why would the Seventh-Day be Sanctified at creation but not be celebrated as Sabbath until two thousand years later?

@LeeWoofenden There's a strong basis that all of The Commandments predate Moses. They weren't exactly groundbreaking rules, giving humanity some kind of superior enlightenment.

Compared to say Jesus' command that we love even our enemies. That's pretty groundbreaking for the time and even today.

@LeeWoofenden What's your basis for saying it can be undone, yet the other nine must remain? The Ten Commandments are not levitical law. They are above levitical law.

6 hours later…

1:24 PM

@LeeWoofenden Sorry I had to get the kids ready for bed and then I fell asleep. Looks like you guys have been having a nice conversation. I have a question. God says not to gather sticks for fire on the Sabbath. Did Yeshua mean that if you forget to prepare your food on Friday, and you get hungry, it's okay to gather sticks and build a fire to cook on the Sabbath?

Is this how the Jews would have interpreted what he meant by "its okay to do good on the Sabbath", since preparing food to feed your family is a good thing?

2:01 PM

@fredsbend it is this kind of rules-lawyering ( There's no indication that he redefined it or changed the day.) that Jesus specifically took the Scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees to task for. My citation of Mark 2 on the Sabbath is underlined by the point that comes up with some frequency in the gospels: if you go out of your way to uphold the letter of the law and miss the spirit of the law, you're doing it wrong.

@anonymouswho anon, are you familiar with the term Shabaz Goy? Also, if you prepare enough in advance, you don't have to cook on the Sabbath. (Bread usually stays good for a few days).

Does Elisha speak?

1

Q: Community Promotion Ads - 2017

It is a bit late into this new year, being that we're already in the second month, but we are now cycling the Community Promotion Ads for 2017! What are Community Promotion Ads? Community Promotion Ads are community-vetted advertisements that will show up on the main site, in the right sidebar....

discussion community-ads

2:30 PM

@KorvinStarmast Yes, I've heard of many loopholes the Jewish people have conjured up. I agree that if we prepare in advance, we don't have to cook on the Sabbath. But everyone seems to think it's okay to cook on the Sabbath. Or if you forget to grab potatoes on Friday, it's okay to run to the store and buy some on Saturday, because your child loves potatoes and you're doing a good work for them.

Or as Yeshua says, "...**Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.**" Matthew 15:6

4 hours later…

6:34 PM

@anonymouswho No problem. RL > SE.

@anonymouswho I presume you're talking about Numbers 15:32-36. If you read that passage carefully, you will see that God actually does not forbid gathering sticks on the Sabbath. The Israelites themselves apprehended the man, and considered him to be breaking the Sabbath. What God did was to impose the penalty, which Moses, Aaron, and the whole congregation did not know what they should do to him.

This may seem like a niggling point--that God didn't actually say that gathering sticks on the Sabbath was forbidden. But I think it is critical to understanding what was going on.

God gave a commandment in the Ten Commandments forbidding work on the Sabbath. But God gave very little information on what constituted "work." I can think of God saying not to gather the manna on the Sabbath (in Exodus 16). But in that instance God didn't even provide manna on the Sabbath, so it was somewhat academic anyway. Can you think of any more passages in which God specifies what constitutes "work"?

It appears that it was largely left to the Israelites themselves to determine what constituted "work." And if they saw someone doing what they considered "work," then that person would be punished with death.

The point here is that exactly what constitutes "work" doesn't seem to be the key issue in the commandment. Rather, whatever is considered "work," that is not to be done on the Sabbath. And those who do what they see as "work" on the Sabbath are to be punished because they have violated God's commandment to rest on the Sabbath.

Numbers 15:32-36 does not demonstrate that God forbade gathering sticks on the Sabbath. God doesn't actually say that anywhere in the Bible. Rather, it demonstrates that the Israelites considered gathering sticks to be work that was forbidden to do on the Sabbath. God pronounced the punishment, not on gathering sticks, but on breaking the Sabbath.

Fast-forward to Jesus. He did not abrogate the commandment not to work on the Sabbath. Rather, he redefined what constitutes "work" when he said, "It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath" (Matthew 12:12). In saying this, he was excluding "doing good" from the definition of "work" that is not to be done on the Sabbath.

That is the basis on which I say that Jesus raised the Sabbath to a higher, more spiritual level. Literally and physically, doing good certainly is "work." It requires physical effort, and sometimes is even quite laborious. Pulling an ox out of a pit requires some muscle and sweat. Yet Jesus pointed out that people do it anyway on the Sabbath, because doing it is a good thing.

Spiritually, however, doing good is not "work" or "labor," assuming the person has a good heart--which someone dedicated to keeping the Sabbath presumably does. It's no inner struggle to pull one's ox or child out of a pit. The mind and heart both concur that this is something that obviously must happen, so spiritually doing so is effortless. It flows easily and without conflict from the heart and mind of the person doing it.

If we try to continue to read the commandment against doing work on the Sabbath literally and physically, it's clear that Jesus and his disciples did break the Sabbath, and they should, under the Law of Moses, have suffered the penalty of death.

But Jesus redefined the Sabbath not to be about physical labor. All that's left, then, is that we are not to do spiritual, or inner, psychological labor on the Sabbath. We are to lay our spiritual struggles aside for a time period, relax our mind and heart, and focus on love for God and the neighbor.

"Good" is not a physical thing. It is a moral and spiritual judgment and reality. In a purely physical sense, nothing is really "good" or "evil." There is no "good" or "evil" in nature. There's just physical law, and how things work. It takes the human spirit for there to be "good" and "evil." So saying that "it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath" necessarily means that the Sabbath is about spiritual matters, not merely physical ones.

2 hours later…

8:42 PM

There is no indication that Jesus redefined the Sabbath or broke it at all. He only broke the Pharisaical laws on the Sabbath, which are not the same as the Biblical laws on the Sabbath. His explanation was a clarification on Biblical law, not a change to the law.

9:04 PM

@Birdie And what exactly constitutes "work" on the Sabbath according to Biblical law?

@LeeWoofenden Jeremiah 17 talks specifically about carrying loads out of your house (presumably to sell), and Nehemiah 10 talks about purchasing from those who work on the Sabbath. Other than that, no specifics are mentioned. We can however extrapolate from "on six days do all your work" as well as other passages talking about what God means by sanctifying things that the day is to be a set apart day, where we cease from our ordinary labour.

In the New Testament Jesus clarifies that works of mercy and necessity are allowed.

@fredsbend I'm aware of that. Swedenborg said the same thing 250 years ago. For the most part, they're pretty common laws. I don't necessarily disagree with you about the observance of the Sabbath predating the Ten Commandments. But I am curious what biblical or other evidence you can provide for that.

@Birdie So really, there is not much in the way of specifics about what constitutes "work" on the Sabbath. And presumably if "our ordinary labor" involves works of mercy and necessity, then even those are allowed. For example, doctors and nurses working on the Sabbath to save lives and tend to patients.

Where, then, do we find any real clarity in Biblical law as to what, exactly, is "work," and what we are and are not allowed to do on the Sabbath?

@fredsbend Do you actually believe in or observe any of this yourself? Do you refrain from work on the Sabbath yourself? Why are you even so interested in this? I would think that your view would be that all of these laws are abrogated as far as being divine laws, since you don't necessarily accept that there is any divine to make them binding other than as human laws.

@fredsbend Also, where did I say that the Ten Commandments can be undone? I'm talking about what they mean, not whether they are in force. And I am saying that when it comes to the commandment not to work on the Sabbath, Jesus reinterpreted its meaning, allowing work that involved "doing good" on the Sabbath.

@Birdie Also, as Jesus himself pointed out, priests violate the Sabbath all the time by doing their regular work at the tabernacle or temple on the Sabbath. Every pastor in the world who serves a congregation breaks the Sabbath every Sunday (or Saturday for those who observe Saturday as the Sabbath.)

Having been a pastor myself, I can tell you that Sunday is the most intensive day of work for a minister. For a minister, the saying is not TGIF, but TGIM. ;-)

9:29 PM

@LeeWoofenden I can be a non-believer and still at the same time hold opinions on proper theology.

@LeeWoofenden Your argument is from a lack of evidence. My argument is that the default position is that Sabbath observance existed before Moses. It's listed among nine other commandments that were very likely observed previously as well. It makes no sense to insist that Sabbath was a new thing.

@LeeWoofenden Jesus also "redefined" murder and adultery, but in both cases it becomes abundantly clear that God's bar is set much higher than you can ever reach. So why was Sabbath made easier to do?

Also, "redefined" is not accurate at all. It's still wrong to kill somebody. It's still wrong to commit adultery.

@fredsbend Why even bother? If you're a non-believer, theology is a purely intellectual exercise with no real-world application.

@fredsbend I'm not making an argument. I'm asking you how you support your argument. I keep saying I agree with you on this point. But I am interested to know how you support it beyond generalities of, "Of course it existed before the Ten Commandments."

@LeeWoofenden You believe it. That seems practical enough to me. If I can't convince you out of it (my subjectively better option), I might as well give you internal consistency. I'd rather you at least be right in your own rule book. Or more conscious of willful neglect of what your book says, just like so many other Christians, if that is at the heart of your disagreement.

@fredsbend It's not at all "abundantly clear" that God's bar is higher than we can ever reach. I do not believe that God gives us laws that are impossible for us to keep. That is a Protestant canard that has little basis in the Bible but is required for their weird misinterpretation of Paul's teachings.

@fredsbend So you're hoping to school me on my own beliefs?

@fredsbend I'm saying, in contrast, that you've missed some of the most basic aspects of Jesus' message, because you're still stuck in a literal interpretation of OT law.

@LeeWoofenden Even thinking someone is a fool is to murder him in your heart. Even looking upon a woman lustfully is adultery in your heart. I defy anyone's ability to control such primal thoughts. Do you actually love your enemies? I seriously doubt it.

@LeeWoofenden I don't want to get stuck in that loop again. Your spiritual vs literal mantra is nonsense. Inevitably, it always leads to you insisting that a "spiritual" understanding is akin to yours, which, as I said, means nothing. I read the same words as you. Hidden meanings is not something the Bible is known for, at least in respectable circles.

@fredsbend For the most part, yes, I do love my enemies. I am concerned for their eternal well-being. Even if I want nothing to do with them, I wish them well, and hope they will end out in heaven, not in hell.

9:43 PM

Love is not "wishing well". Love is actions, not thoughts. 1 Cor 13.

@fredsbend And about that "looking at a woman lustfully" thing, Christianity in general has lightened and cheapened Jesus' words to the point where they think that if you have a sexual fantasy about someone, you've broken the commandment against adultery.

This sort of thinking results from a sloppy, superficial reading of the Greek text, where the word for "lust" is equivalent to the word for "covet" in the 10 Commandments, and it means a burning desire and intention to actually act upon one's adulterous thoughts.

The reason coveting and lust are prohibited in both the OT and the NT is that these are the desires that lead us to actually break the various commandments. It's not just about seeing a pretty woman and thinking, "Oooh! She's hot!"

If a man looks at a woman and fantasizes getting in bed with her, that is not "lusting after her" as Jesus uses the term. It is only "lusting after her" if, given the opportunity, or having an opportunity to make the opportunity, he actually would get into bed with her.

Men fantasize about women all the time with no particular intention of actually having sex with them. That is not "lust" or "coveting" as those terms are used in the Bible.

And women fantasize about men, too, btw.

These are just normal human sex drives in action in the human mind. They are not "lusting," and they are not breaking the commandment against adultery.

@fredsbend But if you wish someone well, you will act on it if you have the opportunity. When it comes to enemies, simply not attacking them, but leaving them to live their lives in peace even if you don't like them, is a form of love.

@fredsbend I rest my case. You are stuck in a literal interpretation of the Bible, and that is both why you don't understand the Bible and, I think, why you have left behind your former religion, which, from what I've been able to tell, was very literalistic and very OT in flavor.

You have too much intelligence and analytical ability for a literal understanding of the Bible to work for you.

But since you reject any other possible view, you're pretty much stuck in agnosticism.

Until that old literalism finally wears off--which I hope it will one day.

@fredsbend And I should add that it was only within the past few centuries that the bulk of Christian theologians started thinking that there isn't any deeper meaning in the Bible. Throughout the first 1,000 to 1,500 years of Christianity, most Christian exegetes saw the Bible as having multiple layers of meaning. They even developed a system of levels of meaning in the Bible. And they wrote extensively about the Bible's meaning on that basis.

Even Luther's sola fide didn't deny the Bible having deeper meanings. But Protestantism gradually rejected any spiritual meaning in the Bible, and became more and more literalistic. This is completely out of step with the whole sweep of previous Christian biblical exegesis.

10:03 PM

@LeeWoofenden "These are just normal human sex drives". True. "They are not breaking the commandment against adultery". False, as Jesus described it. It's a skill to be right and wrong at the same time. Most just call it cognitive dissonance.

@LeeWoofenden I don't reject "any other view". I reject your dichotomy. It's not a real distinction.

:35181737. Oops, I meant sola scriptura, not sola fide.

@fredsbend You simply don't understand what the Greek text says, or means, nor do you understand the OT background of what Jesus was saying. Neither does the Christian Church as a whole.

@LeeWoofenden They have to say there's more. There always has to be more. The theology is from an infinite God. There must be more. This is a classic self-fulfilling prophecy. They believe there must be more meaning, so they find it, no matter how intricate and strenuous of steps they must take to get there.

The theological leaders of the Christian Church, like the leaders of the Jewish religion in Jesus' day, have "bound heavy burdens, hard to be borne, on the shoulders of others." They have added massive amounts of law and regulation to what the Bible said, condemning as evil and sinful vast numbers of things that the Bible itself does not condemn, or even talk about at all.

For example, there is no rule against masturbation in the Bible. But traditional Christianity has built up a massive taboo about masturbation, causing untold and completely unnecessary suffering for hundreds of millions of men and women.

I get people, usually young men, coming to my blog all the time certain that they're going to hell because they can't stop masturbating. It's ridiculous. And completely unbiblical.

@LeeWoofenden I know an overwhelming message in Old and New Testaments is that God wants you heart, and he want to purify it, if it's not already. And from the heart pours actions, as the book says. You've stepped backwards from Jesus' words and insist the actions are more important. The lust is proof that you would act. Making a habit of rubber necking is an indication of a heart that would commit adultery. This is the message the book gives.

You take it to a strange "spiritual" place that leaves it without meaning.

In fact, you interpretation is simpler, not deeper, so who's calling the kettle black?

@fredsbend You seem to think that people can become regenerate all in one go. It doesn't work that way. We have a lifetime to work upon ourselves, to let God work upon us, and to become born again. Being born again and saved is a process, not an instantaneous event. And we have a lifetime to progressively move away from unclean thoughts and desires toward cleaner ones.

@fredsbend Just because you don't see the meaning, because your mind is stuck on the literal and physical, that doesn't mean there is no meaning.

10:12 PM

@LeeWoofenden Ridiculous, yes. Unbiblical, I think is a lesser case than the one arguing it is biblical.

Again, right and wrong at the same time.

But that is precisely why the deeper, spiritual meanings were not revealed to the ancient Israelites. They were wholly materialistic in their thinking. They understood little beyond right and wrong behavior. And that's why God had to give them a religion that was almost entirely about behavioral laws.

@fredsbend Show me a place in the Bible that says masturbation is wrong.

@LeeWoofenden This, I did not say. In fact, I think it's very clever that you can never meet God's bar. It keeps you trying and busy thinking about that, instead of something else more important, more real.

@LeeWoofenden I see your meaning, but put upon you the charge you've put upon me. It is simple and incorrect.

@fredsbend But it's not a "bar" in the sense of, "if you don't make it, you're screwed." It is, rather, a goal and an ideal. Yes, it's one beyond what any of us can reach. But its purpose is not to condemn us and say, "Screw it, there's no way I can do this anyway. I'll just throw myself on God's mercy," as Protestants seem to think. Rather, it is to give us aspirations beyond what we can reach so that we will always keep moving forward and upward.

Just because you have to take some mind bender though the greek doesn't make it a deep understanding.

We humans will never attain to the perfection of God. But we will spend eternity always moving in that direction, so that we never run out of room to learn and grow in understanding, love, and wisdom.

@fredsbend Just because you want to ignore the Greek and just listen to traditional slop Christian theology doesn't mean you actually know what the Bible says.

I am, in fact, astounded at how traditional Christians can read the plain words of the Bible and just . . . totally ignore them.

Their theology is not based on the Bible. It's based on the Council of Nicaea, Anselm, Augustine, Luther, and Calvin.

10:17 PM

@LeeWoofenden Didn't say that either. In fact, such a belief would undermine the faith, leaving everyone saying "What a waste of time; I'll never make it.". Instead, the crawl back praising God that they only wacked it three times this week, instead of six.

Oh, and Aquinas, of course. He's the one who wrote the soteriology that the Catholic Church still takes as official doctrine.

And that was some 1,200 years after the Bible was written.

@fredsbend The whole thing is ridiculous, and completely outside anything taught in the Bible.

And I'm not saying this in intentional deception on anyone's part. I'm saying that the religion wouldn't have survived if it didn't work out that way. A religion is like a complex organism that must propagate successfully to continue through the ages. Christianity accomplishes that very cleverly.

@fredsbend Each religion is adapted to the culture and the age in which it thrives. Ancient Judaism was adapted to a very guttural, materialistic, external culture. At the time of Jesus, humanity was going through a paradigm shift away from that complete materialism. That's why not only Christianity, but also Judaism itself became a completely different religion than the ritualistic, Temple- and sacrifice-centered religion that existed up to Jesus' time.

@LeeWoofenden How much time have you spent around protestants really? Yes, the "throw themselves at God's mercy", but at the same time they are always working on themselves in regards to being a "better christian".

Your characterizations of protestants is often sweeping, and sometimes just plain wrong.

@fredsbend Yes, Christianity adapted itself to the culture that existed during the time it reached its ascendancy. But a few centuries ago humanity began going through another paradigm shift, which would, once again, carry it beyond the existing ascendant religion of the previous era.

That's why in the educated West especially, Christianity is in heavy decline, and has nowhere near the clout and hold over the minds and cultures of the lands where it had become the dominant religion.

@fredsbend Fortunately, most Protestants don't really pay that much attention to their own fundamental teachings when it comes to how they live their lives. Their dogma is that salvation is by faith alone. But they live as if it is by faith and works. And that's why they're saved.

10:22 PM

@LeeWoofenden I don't know why you always say this like it makes a point one way or the other. The religion that survives is the one that resonates best with the populace.

If modern christianity is so "materialistic" then you should look at the culture it thrives in, instead of blaming thousand years dead theologians.

@fredsbend Incidentally, during my ten-year pastorate in Massachusetts, I was a key figure in the local Council of Churches and Clergy Group. I worked with Protestant clergy and laypeople every month, attended their services, they attended mine, and got to know them very well. Most of them are really fine people. And most of them believe in practice that you must do good works if you want to go to heaven.

I see overtones of the world's mystery being explained, leaving little room for amazement, which has historically been attributed to God, or the gods. The common person today believes everything they experience can be explained. This leaves little room for the "divine mysteries" of the old days.

@fredsbend The theologians gain their ascendancy because they develop things that go with the zeitgeist of the populace. Protestantism developed a highly legalistic soteriology at a time when constitutions, law, and the legal profession were gaining a key position in the popular mind and culture.

@fredsbend But Christianity is on the wane in the more advanced countries. In Europe, Christianity has fallen away to the periphery of society. The U.S. is a bit of an anomaly in that regard. But even here, traditional Christianity is fighting a rearguard battle against massive social and cultural change that it neither understands nor accepts. And it is inexorably losing that battle.

There is a resurgence of Christianity in Africa and other parts of the developing world. But I predict that as the various third-world nations become first-world nations, with stable government and a solid economy, they, too, will go the way of Europe when it comes to Christianity.

@LeeWoofenden You just affirmed what I said. You want to blame someone else, but really, you're just blaming the whole world for doing it wrong. Sorry, but religion is a cultural phenomenon, not an authoritative organization or figure. If you don't like modern Christianity, it's because you don't like modern culture where it thrives.

Christianity as an institution worked well in medieval, feudal cultures. But the developed world has moved beyond that sort of culture and society, and the developing world is nipping at its heels. The Christianity that worked well in the previous cultural paradigm does not work so well in the new paradigm.

@fredsbend I'm not "blaming" anyone. I'm talking about the spiritual development of humankind, and the various religious paradigms that rise and fall as humanity goes through its spiritual cycles and spiritual development.

Christianity as it existed up to now was reasonably okay during the time of its ascendancy. It was probably the best we were going to achieve at that time. But humanity is moving on, and that Christianity is no longer appropriate to the new era that humanity is now entering.

Even the Trinity of Persons, which I believe to be absolutely false, was probably the best compromise available between the truth of Christ's divinity and the limited ability of the culture of the day to understand what that really meant. It held Christianity together for over a thousand years. But its time, too, is coming to an end.

@fredsbend Having said all that, I think even you have to admit that Christianity got pretty heavily corrupted over the centuries. Why else would Luther & Co. rebel against it? But pretty soon they, too, were burning "heretics" at the stake and slaughtering their religious enemies in pitched, and very literal, bloody battles.

I see very little resemblance between what Christianity became and what Jesus taught in the Gospels.

10:43 PM

@LeeWoofenden Saying that the Bible is not literal, and then saying that it has nothing to say about masturbation seems quite contradictory. It may not explicitly mention masturbation (among with a multitude of other sins) but it is very clear that anything sexual outside of the bounds of marriage between one man and one woman is sin.

Only a strict literal interpretation of the Bible that restricts meaning from it only on the basis of explicit command allows for legitimate masturbation and many other sins.

We draw doctrine from Scripture not only on explicit command, but implicit directives and instruction as well. 2 Timothy 3:16 explains this well; not all Scripture is explicit command or literal, but all Scripture instructs and rebukes and commands.

@Birdie No, that's really not clear. Extramarital sex happens in the Bible all the time. And there were specific rules for dealing with it. The Bible is far more pragmatic about these things that is traditional Christianity--which has built up all sorts of rules and taboos that don't exist in the Bible.

The Bible documenting sexual immorality is not the same as the Bible approving sexual immorality.

Solomon himself was the result of a relationship that started with extramarital and adulterous sex.

Also 2/3 of the tribe of Judah. And there are many other examples.

@LeeWoofenden Yes, and not only are the sons not punished for the sins of the fathers, but it is very clear that David sinned and was punished for his sin.

@LeeWoofenden So opens every Barna book I know of. Yes, Christianity was spawned from an ancient culture that no longer suits human culture today.

10:47 PM

@Birdie But he remained king. The main punishment was that he lost the first child born of the union. Whereupon he went on to have at least one more son from that union, who became his dynastic heir.

@LeeWoofenden And? The Bible didn't approve of his sin. It also explicitly punished him for it, and explicitly forbids the sins he committed.

Can you imagine any Christian church today saying, "Okay, you committed adultery and murdered the man whose wife you slept with, but we're okay with that now, so just carry on"?

The Christian Church of today has far more stringent standards than most of the standards in the Bible. Sometimes that's a good thing. Other times it's not so good.

@LeeWoofenden While the murder would typically involve the person going to jail, most Christian churches I know of would have a path back into the church after falling greviously in such a way. If they give what appears to be a legitimate repentance and turn from their sin then yes, carry on in the Christian faith.

@LeeWoofenden "Corrupted" is a subjective value judgement. I'm not a believer, so I have the luxury of avoiding that altogether. I'll grant you "changed and developed", but so does everything. This insistence that institutions remain solid frankly comes off as ignorant of the plain fact that things, including people everywhere, change.

The standard of the Bible was that adultery is forbidden, the same as the standard of churches today.

10:49 PM

@Birdie So do you think any major Christian denomination today would allow an adulterer and murderer to be the top official in the church? Or consider it okay for an adulterer and murderer to become the top secular official in the land?

@Birdie And so it is when you enter the ring with Lee.

@fredsbend So you think that all the slaughter and all the skimming off of wealth and all the political oppression that the medieval church engaged in was not really wrong or evil, but just a matter of value judgment? There's no right or wrong. Things just happen.

@LeeWoofenden The restrictions on eldership would probably not allow it, as given in the Bible. David was of course treated somewhat unusually by God, but divine directive for special circumstance does not set a general rule.

@LeeWoofenden Well, you move the goal posts, I'll have to kick again. We were talking about theology, not history.

@Birdie Okay, then how about Judah. Two of his three surviving sons were the result of extramarital sex--he thought, of sex with a prostitute, though that's not what was actually going on. And yet Judah was the dominant one of the twelve sons, and through attrition of Israel, his tribe became almost the entirety of Judaism.

It seems to be actually quite common for shifty, adulterous, law-breaking characters to be the top people blessed by God in the Bible.

Jacob was a liar, a deceiver, and a thief. Yet God chose him over Esau, who never engaged in any of the sort of trickery and treachery of his brother.

@fredsbend The theology leads to the history. But even if we're talking about theology: Do you think that theology is just arbitrary? It can be any old thing, and it doesn't really matter whether it's true or false, as long as it works?

@Birdie Joseph, the other dominant brother among the twelve, had both of his sons through intermarriage with a foreign woman, of a different culture and religion, which was strictly forbidden. And yet his son Ephraim became the dominant tribe of the northern tribe of Israel, and Joseph was the primary challenger to Judah for primacy in Israel.

It's actually rather hard to find a dominant figure in the Bible who really lived by the rules. Even Abraham lied about his wife, as did his son Isaac.

10:58 PM

@LeeWoofenden Haven't I been saying the exact opposite? The theology that survives is the one that resonates with the believers. It is not always (even more commonly, is almost never) the one that makes the most internal consistency. People gravitate toward what "works", and simply ignore, redefine, obfuscate, etc. uncomfortable truths.

I'm not sure what your point is. All that shows is that the most godly people in history were terrible sinners, which is one of the five points of Calvinism: total depravity. All humanity is totally depraved, not in that they do the worst they possibly could, but that everything they do is tainted by sin as a result of the Fall.

That is human nature, and recognizing it, rather than pretending it's not there, aids understanding.

Saul was a total mess. David was an adulterer and a murderer. Solomon married 300 foreign wives, and took 700 concubines. Yet his kingdom remained intact, and only his son Rehoboam was punished for Solomon's sins.

I repeat: documenting sin is not approval of sin.

@Birdie And yet, there is a whole line of errant sinners whom God blessed and through whom God called the lineage and dynasty of Israel. These are not just ordinary people. These are the top figures in the religion of God.

11:00 PM

@LeeWoofenden So?

Are you suggesting that God approves of sin?

@Birdie Today's Christian church would never countenance such errant sinners being the leading figures of its religion and culture.

@Birdie No. I'm saying that the Bible is nowhere near as strict as today's Christianity is. And as I said, in some cases that's good, and in other cases that's bad. But to try to claim that all of this strict sexual and moral propriety is "based on the Bible" is just a little bit silly when the entire narrative of the Bible simply doesn't support it.

And in some cases, such as masturbation. Christianity has invented entirely new "sins" that the Bible never even mentions, let alone forbids.

@LeeWoofenden Firstly, the Bible is where the Christian church gets its standards for leaders in the church. Titus 1, 1 Timothy 3 for example.

@Birdie I do think that Christianity made some improvements over ancient Judaism in ethics and morality. But it also went far overboard in some areas.

Secondly, the entire narrative of the Bible forbids ALL sin and is quite stringent in its explicit requirements, but doesn't explicitly mention every possible sin. The laws are general, not specific, for the most part.

The Bible forbids adultery, this is a general law which covers a vast amount of specific sins.

@fredsbend Yes, that does happen. But what people believe and what is true are not necessarily the same thing. And I happen to think that understanding and believing what's true has advantages over believing whatever is expedient for the times.

11:04 PM

@fredsbend Having spent most of my life as agnostic, I have found that the difference between reading about scripture and theology, and actively living (or trying to live) a Christian life is night and day.

Some of these have been specified: bestiality, adultery, fornication, lustful thoughts etc.

Others are implicit: masturbation, polygamy, pedophilia, pornography (which hardly could even exist back then, certainly not in the way it does today) and so on.

@fredsbend Attempting to filter out the experiential from the doctrinal is like trying to have a human body without blood. It doesn't work.

@Birdie Adultery has a specific definition. It is having sex when one or both participants are married to someone else. Adultery does not mean "all sexual evil."

And "fornication" is not clearly defined in the Bible.

Christianity has made its own definitions. But they really don't have any particular biblical basis other than, "since we think this is sinful, we're going to apply biblical notions of sin to it."

@LeeWoofenden So anything that is not explicitly forbidden or commanded in the Bible is permissible?

@Birdie "Anything" still needs to stand the test of the greatest commandment. (Matthew) I think that might be called "working from first principles ..."

11:08 PM

@KorvinStarmast I don't disagree with you, but I want to hear what Lee has to say on the matter.

@Birdie No. But some things Christianity has decide are wrong and immoral and terribly, horribly sinful I think they're mistaken about. Such as masturbation. The Church perpetuated all sorts of ridiculous and false notions about the physically deleterious and even deadly effects of masturbation, which we now know to be a lot of hooey.

@birdie Sorry, I'll head back to the cheap seats and get some more popcorn. 8^D

@KorvinStarmast Haha don't want to sideline you or anything, just don't know that I disagree at all with you and I know where I stand on the issue.

@LeeWoofenden If permissiveness is not based on explicit command then how can we accurately determine doctrine based on non-explicit instruction?

And the reality is that for the most part, the main damage of masturbation is that Christians think it's horribly evil because that's what their preachers have told them, but they do it anyway, so they think of themselves as lost, condemned, and so on. All of which is totally unnecessary, since masturbation, if not taken to extremes, has none of the damaging effects the church says it does, and is actually fairly normal human sexual behavior.

Normal human behaviour is to sin.

I was never told masturbation was wrong, I worked it out from Scripture.

11:11 PM

Obviously people who go overboard with masturbation, as with almost anything, are going to have some negative effects. But a behavior is not judged based on its excesses, but on its ordinary engagement and manifestation.

@LeeWoofenden A little bit of lying never hurt anyone, right?

I have to go, but I am interested in hearing how exactly you propose we draw doctrine from Scripture, if we do not limit ourselves to explicit command. Ideally with at least one example of a sin not explicit in Scripture which you are able to deduce is forbidden.

@Lee the issue might be, from a Catholic frame of reference, is masturbation a venial sin or a mortal sin? Let's for a moment call it a venial sin, in that it gets us focused on the flesh and not the spirit and thus predisposes us to mortal sin.

@Birdie One way to determine whether something is evil and sinful is to watch and see whether it causes any actual damage. And masturbation simply doesn't cause any damage if it's kept in its place, which is satisfying sexual drives when, for whatever reason, that cannot be done within a faithful, committed, loving marriage relationship, or at least a faithful monogamous non-marital relationship (which is certainly less ideal).

@LeeWoofenden Granted, I think the Catechism refers to it as a disordered act, but by itself does it necessarily lead to mortal sin? I'll need to check, I think Pope John Paul II's "Theology of the Body" series had something on that.

In forbidding masturbation altogether, the church actually drives men (and also women) into engaging in even worse sexual behaviors. You simply can't indefinitely suppress the human sex drive. Not in most people. In trying to prohibit any sexual activity outside of marriage, the church has set an impossibly high bar, and actually caused much more serious immorality.

I don't think it's coincidental that pornography usage is highest in the most strictly conservative Christian states. And that fundamentalist and evangelical leaders are commonly caught with their pants down, sleeping with prostitutes, going to gay bars, and so on. If you try to suppress all non-marital sexual activity, eventually the dam will burst, and people will engage in even worse sexual behaviors.

11:17 PM

@LeeWoofenden I was right, @cccc2352 it is an offense against chastity/disordered act. That goes back to the "seven deadly sins" answer I offered a while back where a deadly (not mortal) sin is compared to a virtue. As to non maritial sexual activity, I've been faithful for 28+ years. Tempted? Sure. But I always chose not to fall.

The church is supposed to be leading to better morality, not worse morality. But the most sexually suppressive churches tend to have some of the worst records when it comes to sexual misbehavior.

And just to throw a bomb in here, I'm not talking only about Protestantism, but also Catholicism, whose ideal of celibacy for the most "holy" of its people has, I believe, led to all sorts of sexual misbehavior, including the rampant pedophilia among many of its priests that the church is now paying for so dearly.

@LeeWoofenden From my years in the Navy, masturbation had numerous euphimisms: my favorite was "extinguishing the prostate overpressure light" and "avoiding terminal white out." I don't know if it was "many" or "some" priests fiddling with kids, but it was enough to shake confidence among many of the faithful.

That sort of widespread abuse simply doesn't happen in more sexually liberal churches. Not that they don't have their sexual misbehavior. But it is almost always between consenting adults, and is nowhere near as abusive and destructive as the sexual misbehavior that takes place in the more sexually strict denominations.

@LeeWoofenden Reading the CC a bit further, since the article is under issues covered by the commandments, it may be that it is grave enough to be classified a mortal sin on that basis. Will need to do some research on that.

@KorvinStarmast There was a similar outbreak of pedophilia in the two very conservative and rather sexually repressed branches of the Swedenborgian Church that really damaged their priesthood (yes, they have priests, not ministers). But nothing like that ever happened in the more liberal denomination that I belong to. Yes, there were some sexual wrongs. But no sexual abuse of children, no frequenting prostitutes, and so on.

11:23 PM

@LeeWoofenden Ah, so Jimmy Swaggert wasn't Swedenborgian. 8^D

The general pattern seems to be that the more strict a church's rules banning any sort of extramarital sexual activity, or even imposing celibacy, the worse the actual sexual evils committed by its leadership, and to a lesser extent by its laity.

@KorvinStarmast Not too much lol

@KorvinStarmast I don't see any biblical basis for considering masturbation a sin at all, venial or mortal. That, to me, is pure human-invented doctrine, based on the idea that sex is sorta dirty, so we'd better pretty much avoid it as much as possible.

@LeeWoofenden I understand your point, and I think I commented to Geremia the other day that the Sin of Onan wasn't the seed spilling per se, it was his blatant defiance of the law where he was supposed to take in his brother's wife and (presumably) breed with her as well.

@KorvinStarmast And quite frankly, I have little respect for a celibate Catholic clergy thinking that it is qualified for making rules about human sexuality.

@KorvinStarmast Yes. I got so annoyed at the poor answers to a question about that over at BH.SE that I wrote one myself:

6

A: What was Onan's sin?

Onan's sin was entirely related to his refusal to perform his levirate duty. Quickly about the other three: Coitus interruptus is not masturbation. It is a (very unreliable) method of birth control. Onan was attempting not to get Tamar pregnant because he did not want to provide an heir for hi...

@LeeWoofenden Not disagreeing with you, it's a real hard issue when you can't lead by example. The clergy weren't always celibate. Eastern Rite (Catholic) priests, in some cases, can marry. Greek Orthodox priests can marry ...

Onan's sin had absolutely nothing to do with masturbation. The very idea that it does among many in the church demonstrates their complete lack of comprehension of the biblical text.

@KorvinStarmast It's very hard for the Catholic Church--or any church, for that matter--to admit that it is wrong. But yes, even in Catholicism the clergy was not always celibate. I have some vague hope that the pedophilia scandal will drive the Catholic Church to reconsider its stance on clergy celibacy, and return to its earlier roots.

So much of what the Catholic Church does and stands for today is a departure from its earlier history.

11:31 PM

@LeeWoofenden I hope so too as it will open wide a much larger pool of candidates for the priesthood. We have a (former) Lutheran priest in our diocese who wished to convert, and after (a non trivial process) was accepted and ordained a Catholic priest in our diocese. It's not without precedent, but it's not that common.

@KorvinStarmast The very coining of the (now archaic) term "onanism" for masturbation showed that the people who originated and employed that term did not understand the Bible.

@LeeWoofenden I am bookmarking your BH.SE answer, it's superb.

@KorvinStarmast Thank you.

With one more vote than mine, you may break 300 rep there! Shall I tell my friends?

@KorvinStarmast Hmm, so I will! But it will come in its own time. I'm not at all active on BH.SE. I don't find the culture there to be particularly inviting or interesting.

11:50 PM

@LeeWoofenden On a personal level, that may be true for you, but not others. On a societal level, it's not true at all. Society charges toward function, not truth.

@fredsbend Do you think there is any objective reality at all?

@KorvinStarmast I agree. Different thought patterns entirely. I was Christian most of my life, so I'm just coming from the other direction.

@fredsbend I think that function happens according to definite laws, which can be seen as truth.

@LeeWoofenden Yes, certainly, but you will never know if you've met it.

Truth isn't just an abstraction. It's the way things work. Which I happen to believe is non-arbitrary.

@fredsbend So in your view, we cannot know truth?

11:55 PM

No, we cannot know if we know it or not. As far as we're all concerned, we know it now, and function as if what we know is truth. This keeps society rolling. This keeps us alive sometimes too. It's a vital human trait.

But it's also why utter falsities can persist for many many years after being proven wrong.

@LeeWoofenden At any moment, some fact can reveal itself that blows everything out of the water, and without the imminence of that revelation, we'd never know any better, so we'd persist in ignorance forever.

But society would still function just fine.

I'm not saying we can't know the truth. I'm saying that the truth is not really a pragmatic issue.

And if we're having conversations about making the world a better place, I'd rather focus on more pragmatic things.

@fredsbend I don't entirely disagree. However, I think it's possible to know that we know the truth on a particular level of truth that is within the ability of our minds to grasp.

« first day (1989 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2654 days later) »

Transcript for

Feb '172

The Upper Room

General discussion for Christianity.SE, pseudo-meta support, a...

christianity discussion

join this room
about this room

00:00

06:00

12:00

18:00

all times are UTC

site design / logo © 2024 Stack Exchange Inc; legal

mobile