Robhu: in response to atreic's post

[jack]

Rob, I assumed you wouldn't mind me cross-posting this. It's a continuation of what I asked when you realised you wanted to be Christian, inspired by atreic's post. I didn't want to assume what you did think, but wanted to ask (and sorry for putting you on the spot).

I said to rob in his 'I have become Christian post' that I thought it was probably good that he is Christian, but that if that was based on conviction and observation, then I didn't see it need change his mind on, eg. when having meaningful non-marital sex is ok, or what has a soul. I know some people have very good reasons for some or all of those things, but they're not a necessary part of Christianity. Indeed, I should probably ask him directly *crossposts*.

ETA: some or all of what I thought rob thought was garbled and incorrect, I apologise for not checking first!

I get the impression you have changed your mind on several similar issues, for instance the post-fertilisation contraception atreic linked to. Do you think that's right? Obviously believing in God could make you consider the question more closely, but I get the impression you accepted things as part and parcel of believing in God maybe you didn't need to. Do you know what I mean?

Comments

[redbird]

It's worth remembering that "Christian" is a broad group of categories. I don't know Rob, so I don't know which one(s) he falls into. Over here in the U.S., Christian includes friends of mine who are openly and cheerfully queer and/or polyamorous, as well as people who are living a more conventional monogamous heterosexual lifestyle and trying to do good works, as well as, alas, the people who think that their god cares more about my sex life than about whether they treat their loved ones or employees right or give to charity. (And those who use the label Christian as an excuse to try to legislate sexism and other forms of oppression, often while violating the sexual rules they want to punish me for refusing to accept. But I assume your friend is not of the "it's a sin, it should be illegal, but it's okay if I do it because I'm a white-hat Republican Congressman" sort.)

[cornute.livejournal.com]

"And those who use the label Christian as an excuse to try to legislate sexism and other forms of oppression, often while violating the sexual rules they want to punish me for refusing to accept."

We call those "Bullies for Jesus."

[robhu.livejournal.com]

I very much haven't changed my view on contraception or abortion. It remains as it was before I was a Christian. Briefly: it is a fuzzy 'to be a person who have to have a brain / neurons', 'killing people is bad', and 'I'm not sure when having some neurons means a embryo has a brain and so therefore is a person, but I would prefer a cautionary principle to be exercised' approach.

[Bad username or site: atreic' / @ livejournal.com] completely misunderstood what I said in the thread that this all began in, I was saying "If you're a person who believes life begins at conception (which I don't) then..."

Now I look like the bad guy all over LJ.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

OK, sorry, mea culpa. Then I don't have any problems with what you think on this.

(Obviously there's a lot to say on the subject, such as the difficulties of where to draw the line, but isn't relevant here.)

[robhu.livejournal.com]

Just to throw myself to the lions: Yes, my positions have changed on some things. I don't think this is a stupid thing to do, I believe that there is good reason to believe (objective and subjective reasons) that God is real, and that it is this particular God who has written down stuff (through human writers).

Given that I believe that, when I find conflicts between my own understanding of things and what it says in the text I can either say "Well, it was written by clueless bronze age farmers so who cares?" or "In some sense God wrote this, so I ought to take it seriously, understand what it really means (rather than what people think it means or what it appears to mean at first glance), and how that works with the things I think I know already". In some cases I will choose to override my existing views with the ones in the Bible. I don't see that that is an illogical or stupid position. It's only stupid if you take the position to the Bible that an atheist might take (for instance), but I don't take that position, so while my view of the Bible might be illogical, given that I take that position with the Bible, the effect it has on my other beliefs seems reasonable.

I also question what the point would be of being a Christian, or being an anything if it had no effect at all your beliefs / thoughts / actions.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

*hugs* Sorry for dredging it out. I don't think you're stupid, and I agree believing in God ought to potentially impact any aspect of your life. And obviously you've studied it more than I have.

I agree with what you say in the second paragraph, but on many things, (for instance whether having sex in a meaningful, committed, but not necessarily permanent relationship is a good idea) but I know many other Christians have concluded there's nothing to be said against sex in a MCBNNPR at all (nor against having gay sex, nor having more than one MCBNNPR at once), and to me this seems to fit your experience better.

If I converted, as you have, I'd certainly re-examine a lot of things:

(a) if something had seemed a bad idea but unimportant, I might face up that it really was a bad idea
(b) if the bible explained why something was a bad idea, I might be convinced that it actually was a bad idea.
(c) if a commandment seemed to come incontrovertibly from God, I might believe there was a good reason I didn't understand, and follow it
(d) if a commandment seemed to come incontrovertibly from God, I might follow it out of respect for God even if it wasn't inherently useful
(e) if something was in the bible at all, I might consider if there was a reason it was applicable to me
(f) if something was believed my most Christians, I might consider if there was a reason it was applicable to me

But you seem to be in a similar position, and yet I disagree that any of those apply to sex in a MCBNNPR (or a variety of other issues). Obviously I can't tell what you believe, but I wonder if you may have assumed some things are more supported than they really need to be.

I don't see why sex in a MCBNNPR is a bad idea, indeed, I think it's on balance a good idea. Why should this be together with "thou shalt not steal" in the "God intended this for me" category, rather than the "this was intended by God for someone else, or was not dictated by God, or is otherwise not directly applicable to me" category, along with "thou shalt not boil a kid in it's mother's milk"?

I apologise for analysing you with a guess, but I get the impression your great and sincere belief in God may have leaked over into accepting other propositions that aren't necessary, and if an equally respectful but less believing approach to the bible might not be what God intends you to take?

[robhu.livejournal.com]

I don't understand why everyone is so hung up about sex.

Other Christians might have concluded different things to me - but how did they come to those conclusions? Christians are pretty diverse in how they reach these conclusions.

Christians are pretty diverse too. There are 'christian atheists' if you can believe that. I want to live my life according to what Christ said / believed, and he believed that God wrote stuff down through human authors in a big book called the Bible. If another Christian disagrees with something God wrote in the Bible then I respect their right to reach conclusions another way, but I don't think it's following the approach Christ followed.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

I don't understand why everyone is so hung up about sex.

Sorry, I thought it was a good and important example, but I think the same thoughts probably apply to other examples (I may be wrong). I'd rather pick something people are less hung up about. But I think I know what you think about this one, and it's a good example; I can pick another example, but only if I know what you think about it, if that makes sense... I think exactly the same arguments apply on both sides to whether two Christian gay people[1] having sex is ok too, but that's also a controversial topic.

[1] Of opposite sexes :)

Christians are pretty diverse

Totally.

(And sorry, I wouldn't presume to tell everyone what to think, and I'm not intending to criticise you, but I thought you would be interested in what I thought about what you thought and what I thought might be helpful... I can drop it if you like, I don't intend to criticise/disagree[1] with you.)

[1] We already disagree about whether God exists, I'm not trying to argue you should believe what I believe :)

I want to live my life according to what Christ said / believed, and he believed that God wrote stuff down through human authors in a big book called the Bible.

LOL. Good point.

If another Christian disagrees with something God wrote in the Bible

As I say, I don't think that's "disagree with what God wrote (or caused to be) in the bible", but disagree that God caused it to be in the bible, or at least that it was necessarily applicable to everyone[1].

Jesus did (I think) support doing things that were right, but potentially breaking torah law (or at least seeming to do so)?

Anyway, you definitely know more about it than me. But "following the approach that Christ followed" is exactly it. What would Jesus do? (Well, if he came back today he'd no doubt confound everyone's expectations again. But.) I would have thought that what God would tell you that you know what is right, and the bible is important, but actually very far from an innerring guide. And I think these sorts of disagreements between what you might think and what the bible seems to say are signs that parts of the bible are not applicable.

However, I'm obviously being incredibly cheeky on the off-chance of being helpful. You will find out what God wants you to do, and I obviously can only take a wild guess, so I apologise for being presumptuous, and only ask that you consider it if you would like to.

Footnote

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

[1] For instance, the most famous mention of homosexuality is in leviticus. But parts of Leviticus are pretty plainly intended for the Israelites specifically (at least to me), they start with God saying to Moses "Say to the priests, the Israelites..." and finish with a good description of how prevent the spread of mildew and plague. People obviously disagree, but if you assume God said exactly what the Leviticus says he said, I think some parts are still best interpreted as applying only necessarily to the Israelites at that time.

Others (AIUI) describe rituals that form a covenant with God, later superseded by Jesus individual covenant. Others describe things that are potentially applicable to everyone.

You know more about the discussion than I do, but the point is, just because God said it, doesn't mean it's applicable. The prohibition on homosexuality is right next to other forbidden sexual acts, many of which we still think are wrong (such as many forms of incest).

But which category does it fall into? I think that's very far from obvious. Was there a good reason for it at the time? Who knows?

I don't really know, except that it's complicated. (The Talmud will have a lot of details on how this is interpreted, even sans Jesus.) But that even if you believe in God, and think Jesus was his son, good, and as described in the bible, it's no contradiction to adopt beliefs in the bible very carefully, rather than to reject them very carefully. (Or some mix).

Sorry for wittering at length...

[liv]

You know, this is exactly the kind of reasoning that leads people to accuse me of trying to treat Christianity as if it were Judaism. You might be somewhat less likely than me to accidentally do that, but apparently not that much less. *hug*

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

ROFL. I think we agreed I'm dispositionally predisposed to a Judaism way of thinking. Like loving Talmud stories :)

Of course, I'm conflicted because I like nomic games, and constitutional wrangling and imagining that the perfect interpretation of a set of rules will solve everything. But I'm not able to subscribe to any absolute morality, nor any completely subjective morality. My main point here was to seek inner guidance on which parts of the bible to follow, which is actually a rather uncomfortable position to espouse... :)

[aldabra]

I think the problem with absolute moralities is that writing them down necessarily makes them too low-resolution. I'm quite happy with the idea that there's a Platonic absolute morality out there, but I think it's going to be very situation-dependent. (For example, the availability of reliable contraception is going to have *some* influence on the wrongness of sex in impermanent relationships, and the availability of unilateral and groundless divorce is going to have *some* effect on how sure you can be that a relationship is permanent.)

So our subjective moralities, in the best case, are the closest approximation to the Platonic ideal that we can manage. And even if you think the Bible is God's attempt to communicate the Platonic ideal to the Israelites he's working through the medium of language to a non-literate people, so it's going to be a crude approximation, and they live in the desert and don't have contraception so he's going to reveal the bits that are relevant to what they do have.

[cornute.livejournal.com]

We are all out of hungry lions, alas. Christians these days have to settle for being licked to distraction by housecats.

"I also question what the point would be of being a Christian, or being an anything if it had no effect at all your beliefs / thoughts / actions."

I really just wanted to say that I liked this bit.