Gender Orientation: An Example of Error in Morality Analysis

[Danmark]

I submit that the problem some Christians have in their insistence that homosexuality is a sin comes from their failure to separate to properly analyze the essence of morality.
The central thesis of this claim is that the point of morality in general and that of Jesus of Nazareth in particular is the focus on the essence of morality: kindness and regard for the welfare and happiness of others. This essential aspect of morality gets obscured by the errant thinking that focuses on particular examples.

[Danmark]

An example of this theme is illustrated by the Pharisees complaint that Jesus and his followers were failing to observe the Sabbath.

One Sabbath he was going through the grainfields, and as they made their way, his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. And the Pharisees were saying to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?� And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God, in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?� And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

Mark 2:23-27 (ESV)

The point of this passage is to illustrate the intent and core meaning of the law which trumps the details or specifics of its application.

It is clear throughout the Jewish Bible and the Christian New Testament that there is a central command to not steal the wife of another and to not focus solely on pleasure at the expense of harming relationships thru dishonesty, failure to honor contracts, or disrespect for others. Altho' there are verses that can be construed as prohibiting masturbation and certain sexual positions even between a man and wife, these are mere details that serve to illustrate the central concern of treating others the way we want to be treated.

We don't see large numbers of Christians organized to wage war against the "evil" of masturbation or oral-genital sex between heterosexual marriage partners; however, when the same practices are performed privately between married couples of the same sex, there is a hue and cry among some Christians as if these "sins" were equivalent to child molestation, murder, and genocide. The essence of this subtopic is to suggest that these arguments against same sex marriage and other intimate relationships between members of the same sex represent a temporal cultural issue, not a true moral one.

[bluethread]

That is the essence of morality for the humanist, it is only A factor for the Torah submissive individual. In your example, Yeshua does not say one should not keep Shabbat, but points to how one should keep Shabbat. Though there are health and welfare arguments that can be made with regard to sexual relationships that are not male/female matrimonial, the bottom line is that there is no recognition of such relationships in HaTorah. Therefore, if one were to make an argument from silence, such relationships would have no restrictions. All of the things that are not permitted in a male/female matrimonial relationship would be permitted in all other sexual relationships based on the same argument from silence. Thus, such relationships are not acceptable among Adonai's people.

[Danmark]

That is the essence of morality for the humanist, it is only A factor for the Torah submissive individual. In your example, Yeshua does not say one should not keep Shabbat, but points to how one should keep Shabbat. Though there are health and welfare arguments that can be made with regard to sexual relationships that are not male/female matrimonial, the bottom line is that there is no recognition of such relationships in HaTorah. Therefore, if one were to make an argument from silence, such relationships would have no restrictions. All of the things that are not permitted in a male/female matrimonial relationship would be permitted based on the same argument from silence. Thus, such relationships are not acceptable among Adonai's people.

The reason I dismiss this argument is that in all of the Ten Commandments and in all of the parables of Jesus we see an essential point within the prohibition of a certain conduct.

With the Ten Commandments, they can each be reduced to not stealing or to loyalty to God. They all deal with some inner ideal, an essence of spirit, of love and loyalty.

Jesus made this clear when he dealt with the Pharisees on divorce. They were keen on compliance with the ritual, with attention to the detail or "letter" of the law without regard to the spirit of it. The focus of Jesus was not on the observance of divorce, but with loving one's wife. When it came to adultery, he focused on "lust," not on the act itself. When it came to murder and assault, He zeroed in on "hate," not on the act itself that caused the death.

In this way He saw the intent in the heart as opposed to the mere act. This approach is sophisticated and anticipates secular law which distinguishes accidental death, death by negligence, causing death in a moment of thoughtless panic, and premeditated murder.

The parallel I draw is that the essence of marriage is the loyalty, faithfulness, exclusivity, and patience required between a loving couple. The accident of the genitalia they were born with is incidental to spirit of love.

[Pompey]

I go into this a bit on this thread:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=27076

I would restate my thoughts but alas I'm short on time, here is what I said:

A sophisticated Christian (at least ones I talk to) would say this is a symptom of progressive revelation. That is, these things are just the Jewish people's laws, and like all other ancient cultures, they automatically attribute them to God. As you read the bible, which eventually accumulates into the New Testament, you see the Jewish people progressively developing a more advanced understanding of God. That is why, they claim, Jesus said he was coming at the "perfect time." The perfect time would be when the Jewish people were finally advanced enough, largely thanks to helenism, to have God actually come himself.

Jesus taught to not change anything about the OT, because if changed you would lose the important overarching story: That man continuously fails to properly discern God's will. The OT is therefore a story of the failure of man, and these absurd laws make sense in that they were indeed the distorted perception of man. The sophisticated Christian views the OT only in light of the NT, and Jesus.

The real problems come from the realization that this may be still true for the New Testament, that is that man's views distort the teachings of Jesus. We see this in that Jesus seems to teach conflicting things at times. Matthew, for example, portrays a very Jewish Jesus, seemingly belittling to gentiles, while other gospels portray him as almost the opposite.

These topics have to be dealt with in the grounds of the New Testament, the OT is an old covenant, probably distorted by the developing Jewish people. Christians aren't going to have their minds blown when you point out seemingly radical OT passages.

addition for this thread:
This in mind, it puts a new spin on the homosexuality debate. Of course we still have Paul's words in the NT, which is what many Christians would refer to as the source of their issue with homosexuality, but these are Paul's words, not Jesus'. Despite the apparent different perspectives the gospels seem to have on Jesus, an overview of what we can agree were generally his teachings seem to line up with what the OP is saying. Jesus was concerned with the heart behind the law, not the law itself. Perhaps certain laws were indeed good for a certain cultural context, but if one exalts the law above the innate morality Jesus claims we have, they have mistaken the purpose of the law. These were the kind of people Jesus fought against, and eventually died doing so. That point is not emphasized enough: Jesus died because he fought the religious.

[Danmark]

I go into this a bit on this thread:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=27076

I would restate my thoughts but alas I'm short on time, here is what I said:

A sophisticated Christian (at least ones I talk to) would say this is a symptom of progressive revelation. That is, these things are just the Jewish people's laws, and like all other ancient cultures, they automatically attribute them to God. As you read the bible, which eventually accumulates into the New Testament, you see the Jewish people progressively developing a more advanced understanding of God. That is why, they claim, Jesus said he was coming at the "perfect time." The perfect time would be when the Jewish people were finally advanced enough, largely thanks to helenism, to have God actually come himself.

Jesus taught to not change anything about the OT, because if changed you would lose the important overarching story: That man continuously fails to properly discern God's will. The OT is therefore a story of the failure of man, and these absurd laws make sense in that they were indeed the distorted perception of man. The sophisticated Christian views the OT only in light of the NT, and Jesus.

The real problems come from the realization that this may be still true for the New Testament, that is that man's views distort the teachings of Jesus. We see this in that Jesus seems to teach conflicting things at times. Matthew, for example, portrays a very Jewish Jesus, seemingly belittling to gentiles, while other gospels portray him as almost the opposite.

These topics have to be dealt with in the grounds of the New Testament, the OT is an old covenant, probably distorted by the developing Jewish people. Christians aren't going to have their minds blown when you point out seemingly radical OT passages.

addition for this thread:
This in mind, it puts a new spin on the homosexuality debate. Of course we still have Paul's words in the NT, which is what many Christians would refer to as the source of their issue with homosexuality, but these are Paul's words, not Jesus'. Despite the apparent different perspectives the gospels seem to have on Jesus, an overview of what we can agree were generally his teachings seem to line up with what the OP is saying. Jesus was concerned with the heart behind the law, not the law itself. Perhaps certain laws were indeed good for a certain cultural context, but if one exalts the law above the innate morality Jesus claims we have, they have mistaken the purpose of the law. These were the kind of people Jesus fought against, and eventually died doing so. That point is not emphasized enough: Jesus died because he fought the religious.

Both Paul and Jesus address some of this. But I do not understand how Paul could go on at length about the fact that circumcision and dietary considerations are not essential, along with concerns about new moons and days of the week; yet he fails to speak out on other laws, separating essence from detail. He even adds some new silliness about hair length. My conclusion about all this is that Paul, like others, fails in this regard. He too gets swept up in the trivial, the merely temporal. The lesson is that each generation has its own blind spots that give rise to confusing cultural fads and trivialities with the essence of morality which is and always should be about love and respect and not about hair length, beard shape and who does and does not have a penis, circumcised or not.

[bluethread]

That is the essence of morality for the humanist, it is only A factor for the Torah submissive individual. In your example, Yeshua does not say one should not keep Shabbat, but points to how one should keep Shabbat. Though there are health and welfare arguments that can be made with regard to sexual relationships that are not male/female matrimonial, the bottom line is that there is no recognition of such relationships in HaTorah. Therefore, if one were to make an argument from silence, such relationships would have no restrictions. All of the things that are not permitted in a male/female matrimonial relationship would be permitted based on the same argument from silence. Thus, such relationships are not acceptable among Adonai's people.

The reason I dismiss this argument is that in all of the Ten Commandments and in all of the parables of Jesus we see an essential point within the prohibition of a certain conduct.

With the Ten Commandments, they can each be reduced to not stealing or to loyalty to God. They all deal with some inner ideal, an essence of spirit, of love and loyalty.

Jesus made this clear when he dealt with the Pharisees on divorce. They were keen on compliance with the ritual, with attention to the detail or "letter" of the law without regard to the spirit of it. The focus of Jesus was not on the observance of divorce, but with loving one's wife. When it came to adultery, he focused on "lust," not on the act itself. When it came to murder and assault, He zeroed in on "hate," not on the act itself that caused the death.

In this way He saw the intent in the heart as opposed to the mere act. This approach is sophisticated and anticipates secular law which distinguishes accidental death, death by negligence, causing death in a moment of thoughtless panic, and premeditated murder.

The parallel I draw is that the essence of marriage is the loyalty, faithfulness, exclusivity, and patience required between a loving couple. The accident of the genitalia they were born with is incidental to spirit of love.

As you say, you dismiss the argument based on how you choose to view Yeshua's midrashim. In the same way, I do not accept your analysis, because you appear to see Yeshua as replacing action with intent. Though Yeshua does point out the importance of intent, nowhere does he reject what is written in HaTorah. He is primarily focusing on rabbinic interpretation of HaTorah. Now, one could argue that what I said is rabbinic interpretation, but the same can be said with regard to your view. The advantage of my view is that it rejects neither HaTorah, nor the words of Yeshua.

[bluethread]

Both Paul and Jesus address some of this. But I do not understand how Paul could go on at length about the fact that circumcision and dietary considerations are not essential, along with concerns about new moons and days of the week; yet he fails to speak out on other laws, separating essence from detail. He even adds some new silliness about hair length. My conclusion about all this is that Paul, like others, fails in this regard. He too gets swept up in the trivial, the merely temporal. The lesson is that each generation has its own blind spots that give rise to confusing cultural fads and trivialities with the essence of morality which is and always should be about love and respect and not about hair length, beard shape and who does and does not have a penis, circumcised or not.

Paul's primary consideration in Romans and Hebrews is about salvation. If one examines the passages regarding circumcision, unclean meats and the appointed times, one sees that he is addressing either whether they are necessary for salvation or if they are rabbinic additions to HaTorah. In 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, he is talking about social order. In these latter cases, I can see some argument regarding general cultural standards. However, in none of these cases does he reject HaTorah.

[Danmark]

Both Paul and Jesus address some of this. But I do not understand how Paul could go on at length about the fact that circumcision and dietary considerations are not essential, along with concerns about new moons and days of the week; yet he fails to speak out on other laws, separating essence from detail. He even adds some new silliness about hair length. My conclusion about all this is that Paul, like others, fails in this regard. He too gets swept up in the trivial, the merely temporal. The lesson is that each generation has its own blind spots that give rise to confusing cultural fads and trivialities with the essence of morality which is and always should be about love and respect and not about hair length, beard shape and who does and does not have a penis, circumcised or not.

Paul's primary consideration in Romans and Hebrews is about salvation. If one examines the passages regarding circumcision, unclean meats and the appointed times, one sees that he is addressing either whether they are necessary for salvation or if they are rabbinic additions to HaTorah. In 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, he is talking about social order. In these latter cases, I can see some argument regarding general cultural standards. However, in none of these cases does he reject HaTorah.

How is Paul's claim that circumcision is not necessary not a rejection of the Torah?
"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love."
Galatians 5:6

[bluethread]

Both Paul and Jesus address some of this. But I do not understand how Paul could go on at length about the fact that circumcision and dietary considerations are not essential, along with concerns about new moons and days of the week; yet he fails to speak out on other laws, separating essence from detail. He even adds some new silliness about hair length. My conclusion about all this is that Paul, like others, fails in this regard. He too gets swept up in the trivial, the merely temporal. The lesson is that each generation has its own blind spots that give rise to confusing cultural fads and trivialities with the essence of morality which is and always should be about love and respect and not about hair length, beard shape and who does and does not have a penis, circumcised or not.

Paul's primary consideration in Romans and Hebrews is about salvation. If one examines the passages regarding circumcision, unclean meats and the appointed times, one sees that he is addressing either whether they are necessary for salvation or if they are rabbinic additions to HaTorah. In 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, he is talking about social order. In these latter cases, I can see some argument regarding general cultural standards. However, in none of these cases does he reject HaTorah.

How is Paul's claim that circumcision is not necessary not a rejection of the Torah?
"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love."
Galatians 5:6

This is talking about rabbinic circumcision, ie circumcision for salvation. the whole issue stems from Acts 15:1 "And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved." Paul eludes to this in the verse prior to the one you quoted. "For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith." It is not the purpose of circumcision to make one righteous. Circumcision is a form of identification with the covenant. It is faith in the Covenant that makes one righteous.