Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Changes in American moral views since 2001

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Paprika
    replied
    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
    Forgive me for going a bit off topic, but the earlier posts reminded me of an interesting point. As Craig Keener has argued elsewhere, due to the high rate of divorce in the Roman empire, if the early Christians had actually demanded re-married people divorce and return to their original spouses or remain unmarried, it surely would have been reflected in the contemporary record as it would have been such a threat to the existing social order.

    This probably wouldn't be enough to rise to that level, but I do find it an interesting example of how an argument from silence can be relatively convincing given certain factors.
    Reply will be terser than normal because of handphone:

    I am not saying remarried people should divorce and remarry their old spouses; as per Leviticus (?) they are defiled and this act would be an abomination before the Lord.

    Leave a comment:


  • KingsGambit
    replied
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    They're clearly used interchangeably in that instance: the one who is united with a prostitute is one soma with her, as it is written "the two will become one sarka.


    Hardly. Those who are united in one flesh should be remain united because they shouldn't be separated, therefore they should marry unless another higher concern (ie. they're already married) overrides.
    Forgive me for going a bit off topic, but the earlier posts reminded me of an interesting point. As Craig Keener has argued elsewhere, due to the high rate of divorce in the Roman empire, if the early Christians had actually demanded re-married people divorce and return to their original spouses or remain unmarried, it surely would have been reflected in the contemporary record as it would have been such a threat to the existing social order.

    This probably wouldn't be enough to rise to that level, but I do find it an interesting example of how an argument from silence can be relatively convincing given certain factors.

    Leave a comment:


  • hamster
    replied
    that huge divorce jump is sad. But America is still staunchly anti-animal cloning? Hooray.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paprika
    replied
    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
    This ultimately comes down to what Paul meant when using the two separate words, sarx and soma, and whether they were meant to compare or to contrast.
    They're clearly used interchangeably in that instance: the one who is united with a prostitute is one soma with her, as it is written "the two will become one sarka.

    Ultimately, the requiring of a marriage seems to be just as much an argument from silent with the presence of other exegetical possibilities.
    Hardly. Those who are united in one flesh should be remain united because they shouldn't be separated, therefore they should marry unless another higher concern (ie. they're already married) overrides.

    Leave a comment:


  • RumTumTugger
    replied
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    ...and those that do say different will be stoned to death, isn't that the way it goes?
    strawman argument noted.



    Unlike the good ole' days when the reverse was true! How the mighty have fallen!
    2nd strawman argument noted.

    Leave a comment:


  • KingsGambit
    replied
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    I do not myself hold to a direct equivalence; marriage is a social relationship while one flesh is a physical union. But it is pretty clear that the one flesh relationship constitutes and orders the marriage relationship, so if both parties are not already married they should marry.


    As above, I'm not arguing sex equals marriage but sex = one flesh. In any case ἀσχημονεῖν does encompass, for example, public unseemly behaviour without necessarily including the sex act.
    This ultimately comes down to what Paul meant when using the two separate words, sarx and soma, and whether they were meant to compare or to contrast. Your interpretation assumes the former but I believe the latter is a distinct exegetical possibility, and generally consonant with the rest of Scripture. (My mention of Paul's instructions is not intended to be an airtight case but rather to illustrate the general thrust of the passage. Ultimately, the requiring of a marriage seems to be just as much an argument from silent with the presence of other exegetical possibilities.)

    Having said that, I believe in many cases such a wedding would be an advisable course of action. I would not universalize this (if somebody has an affair with a non-believer, for instance).

    Leave a comment:


  • Paprika
    replied
    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
    I have considered this position based on 1 Corinthians 6:18. Ultimately, I don't hold to the sex = marriage position for a number of reasons but the strongest to me is that in John 4, Jesus tells the woman that she has been married five times and that the man she now has is not her husband. It seems very likely to me that a sexual relationship is in view.
    I do not myself hold to a direct equivalence; marriage is a social relationship while one flesh is a physical union. But it is pretty clear that the one flesh relationship constitutes and orders the marriage relationship, so if both parties are not already married they should marry.

    Also, in 1 Corinthians 7, Paul urges marriage as a corrective if one is acting improperly toward the one to whom they are engaged. If sex equaled marriage, his instructions would be akin to urging marriage to prevent edging toward marriage (or to prevent marriage itself).
    As above, I'm not arguing sex equals marriage but sex = one flesh. In any case ἀσχημονεῖν does encompass, for example, public unseemly behaviour without necessarily including the sex act.

    ETA: Paul gives no instructions about what to do if one does become one flesh with a prostitute such as carrying along with such a "marriage". Rather, he says not to do it.
    That's at the very best an argument from silence.

    Leave a comment:


  • KingsGambit
    replied
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    Why not? They have become one flesh.
    I have considered this position based on 1 Corinthians 6:18. Ultimately, I don't hold to the sex = marriage position for a number of reasons but the strongest to me is that in John 4, Jesus tells the woman that she has been married five times and that the man she now has is not her husband. It seems very likely to me that a sexual relationship is in view.

    Also, in 1 Corinthians 7, Paul urges marriage as a corrective if one is acting improperly toward the one to whom they are engaged. If sex equaled marriage, his instructions would be akin to urging marriage to prevent edging toward marriage (or to prevent marriage itself).

    ETA: Paul gives no instructions about what to do if one does become one flesh with a prostitute such as carrying along with such a "marriage". Rather, he says not to do it.
    Last edited by KingsGambit; 06-07-2015, 10:01 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paprika
    replied
    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
    I do not hold to the need for an "emergency wedding"
    Why not? They have become one flesh.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tassman
    replied
    Originally posted by RumTumTugger View Post
    Unlike Starlight I choose God and His TRUTH over the world and it's lies. Good is Good and Evil is Evil no matter how many people try to say differently.
    ...and those that do say different will be stoned to death, isn't that the way it goes?

    Originally posted by Abigail View Post
    Lots of powerful gays about in all walks of life. Being gay/lesbian increasingly opens doors for people and conversely being Christian closes them and gets you sidelined and even into court etc etc.
    Unlike the good ole' days when the reverse was true! How the mighty have fallen!
    Last edited by Tassman; 06-06-2015, 10:47 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam
    replied
    Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
    I think that happened sometime before he stated that in the future we will need to evangelize robots.
    Fun Fact: Sam Harris wrote an article relating to machine AI that's published today though it naturally has more to do with the consequences of artificial intelligence on society than the potential moral consciousness of machines.

    Leave a comment:


  • KingsGambit
    replied
    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
    Presumably if you think sex outside marriage is wrong, then you think that having a baby outside marriage is wrong for the same reason.

    Some people do seem to think that sex outside of marriage is fine, but that an emergency wedding is needed if the woman gets pregnant. The 7-8% difference between people's answers to the two questions of sex outside marriage vs baby outside marriage is presumably capturing that group's views.
    These are both non sequiturs. I do not hold to the need for an "emergency wedding" yet I fall firmly within that 7-8%. It is neither difficult not logically inconsistent to differentiate between the beginning of a process and living up to one's obligations based on the choices they previously made.

    Christianity is clear that good can come from evil. Consider the account of Joseph being sold into slavery by his brothers, and concluding that in the end, good came out of it despite the evil intentions on his brothers' part.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by mossrose View Post
    Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
    EGGzackly!!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • mossrose
    replied
    Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

    Leave a comment:


  • Starlight
    replied
    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
    I don't like the question about "having a baby outside of marriage." I don't believe it's a sin to be pregnant out of wedlock. The sin was already in the past when the conception happened.
    Presumably if you think sex outside marriage is wrong, then you think that having a baby outside marriage is wrong for the same reason.

    Some people do seem to think that sex outside of marriage is fine, but that an emergency wedding is needed if the woman gets pregnant. The 7-8% difference between people's answers to the two questions of sex outside marriage vs baby outside marriage is presumably capturing that group's views.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by seer, Yesterday, 10:48 AM
41 responses
207 views
0 likes
Last Post Diogenes  
Started by Ronson, 03-23-2023, 07:35 PM
21 responses
94 views
0 likes
Last Post Ronson
by Ronson
 
Started by tabibito, 03-23-2023, 07:29 PM
78 responses
322 views
0 likes
Last Post Starlight  
Started by CivilDiscourse, 03-20-2023, 07:30 AM
26 responses
118 views
1 like
Last Post Sparko
by Sparko
 
Started by Machinist, 03-20-2023, 06:32 AM
128 responses
797 views
0 likes
Last Post NorrinRadd  
Working...
X