Sex and Christianity

[Alexiev]

[
Actually, no.

And you can find that out for yourself, if you wish to take the time; so you don't have to take my word for it. But the later dictates of popes and councils have often even wildly gone against what Scripture has said. And that's actually what produced Luther's rebellion against the RC's, and generated the Reformation. It was that gap between the Bible and the RC authorities that was the cause of the conflict, and the reason that the Reformers insisted that "only Scripture" (sola scriptura) should be the rule of faith.

Why would their inclusion in the Bible by the same church whose other teachings are suspect suddenly make them irrefutable?

Catholic theology demands total obedience to the Pope. What the Pope declares from his throne (they call this "ex cathedra") is taken by Catholics to be the absolute word of God, and the more recent word of God than anything in Scripture. So it replaces whatever Scripture says, in their thinking, with something newer and more authoritative, they say.

Remember that this is the great "advantage" Catholics claim for their view of divine revelation: that they say it's "organic" and "grows" over time. This means it changes, and it changes to conform to whatever the Popes, bishops and councils declare it should say. But Protestants insist (or "protest") that only the Bible is authoritative, and any religious authorities must bow to God's revealed Word, the Bible. So "sola scriptura" it is, for them.

And now you know what made the Reformation happen. The differences between the two views of what the Word of God was became too profound. And Luther et al. noticed, and tried to "reform" the existing Catholic theology, bringing it back closer to the Biblical text -- obviously, without success.

You didn't answer the question. "Why would their (Paul's letters) inclusion in the Bible by the same church whose other teachings are suspect suddenly make them irrefutable?"

It seems to me that faith in the inerrancy of other dictates of the church is not so different from faith in the Bible. The church decided what writings should be canonized. If the church is fallable, doesn't it follow that the Bible is?

By the way, I don't doubt that Luther addressed these questions. But I don't know in what manner.

[Alexiev]

Luther, by the way, disagreed with IC about free will. One of his famous debates with Desiderius Erasmus focused on this issue. Luther thought original sin left humans incapable of good without divine intervention, and that God's foreknowledge proved that free will was impossible. Here is Erasmus:

“This kind of philosophy is situated more truly in the emotions than in syllogism, it is a life rather than a disputation, an afflatus rather than erudition, a transformation rather than reason. To be learned is the lot of only a few; but no one is unable to be a Christian, no one is unable to be pious, and I add this boldly, no one is unable to be a theologian. For that which is most of all in accordance with the nature descends easily into the minds of all. But what else is the philosophy of Christ, which he himself calls a rebirth, than the instauration of a well-founded nature?”

Here's Luther"

“Neither you nor I could ever know anything about Christ, or believe in him and receive him as Lord, unless these were offered to us and bestowed on our hearts through the preaching of the gospel by the Holy Spirit. The work is finished and complete; Christ has acquired and won the treasure for us by his sufferings, death, and resurrection, etc. But if the work remained hidden so that no one knew of it, it would have been all in vain, all lost. In order that this treasure might not remain buried but be put to use and enjoyed, God has caused the Word to be published and proclaimed, in which he has given the Holy Spirit to offer and apply to us this treasure, this redemption.”

So for Luther "works" (including "faith") are a gift from the Holy Spirit, not a matter of Free Will. Erasmus, on the other hand, thought that the Bible was often confusing and contradictory, and Christianity was an ethical and emotional transformation. Both were brilliant writers and theologians, and I haven't studied their debates very carefully.

[Immanuel Can]

[
Actually, no.

And you can find that out for yourself, if you wish to take the time; so you don't have to take my word for it. But the later dictates of popes and councils have often even wildly gone against what Scripture has said. And that's actually what produced Luther's rebellion against the RC's, and generated the Reformation. It was that gap between the Bible and the RC authorities that was the cause of the conflict, and the reason that the Reformers insisted that "only Scripture" (sola scriptura) should be the rule of faith.

Why would their inclusion in the Bible by the same church whose other teachings are suspect suddenly make them irrefutable?

Catholic theology demands total obedience to the Pope. What the Pope declares from his throne (they call this "ex cathedra") is taken by Catholics to be the absolute word of God, and the more recent word of God than anything in Scripture. So it replaces whatever Scripture says, in their thinking, with something newer and more authoritative, they say.

Remember that this is the great "advantage" Catholics claim for their view of divine revelation: that they say it's "organic" and "grows" over time. This means it changes, and it changes to conform to whatever the Popes, bishops and councils declare it should say. But Protestants insist (or "protest") that only the Bible is authoritative, and any religious authorities must bow to God's revealed Word, the Bible. So "sola scriptura" it is, for them.

And now you know what made the Reformation happen. The differences between the two views of what the Word of God was became too profound. And Luther et al. noticed, and tried to "reform" the existing Catholic theology, bringing it back closer to the Biblical text -- obviously, without success.

You didn't answer the question. "Why would their (Paul's letters) inclusion in the Bible by the same church whose other teachings are suspect suddenly make them irrefutable?"

I didn't understand the wording of it. The Church didn't create the Bible. As I said before, it's better to say that the Tanakh and the events of the gospels are what constituted the Church, since the Church did not exist at all until Pentecost. So it seemed to me you were asking a question premised on a historical mistake. Can you explain better? Maybe I can still get what you're asking.

It seems to me that faith in the inerrancy of other dictates of the church is not so different from faith in the Bible.

Hugely different. What is pronounced by men is only pronounced by men. The Word of God is the Word of God.

By the way, I don't doubt that Luther addressed these questions. But I don't know in what manner.

Luther himself had been a RC priest. Did you know that? But he got reading the book of Romans, and it was because of that that he got in trouble with the Catholic clergy. He started asking uncomfortable questions.

[Immanuel Can]

Luther, by the way, disagreed with IC about free will.

Yes, he did. And he had several other things wrong with his theology -- which is likely to happen, if one has spent one's life being a Catholic priest, isn't it?

[Alexiev]

I didn't understand the wording of it. The Church didn't create the Bible. As I said before, it's better to say that the Tanakh and the events of the gospels are what constituted the Church, since the Church did not exist at all until Pentecost. So it seemed to me you were asking a question premised on a historical mistake. Can you explain better? Maybe I can still get what you're asking.

Here's my point. Paul was clearly a church prelate. His letters to the various congregations are not so different from papal encyclics (or whatever they're called). Of course, since they've been canonized, you presumably think they are somehow infallible. But Catholics think papal proclamations are infallible, too. They're reasoning is almost identical to yours, just as Paul's theological proclamations are similar to official Catholic Church theological proclamations. Why is one infallible, but the other is not? Both rely on the authority of the church.

[Immanuel Can]

I didn't understand the wording of it. The Church didn't create the Bible. As I said before, it's better to say that the Tanakh and the events of the gospels are what constituted the Church, since the Church did not exist at all until Pentecost. So it seemed to me you were asking a question premised on a historical mistake. Can you explain better? Maybe I can still get what you're asking.

Here's my point. Paul was clearly a church prelate.

Well, he's called an "apostle," (meaning a specially "sent one") like the disciples of Christ, rather than a "church prelate." Nobody after them is ever given that title.

But go on.

His letters to the various congregations are not so different from papal encyclics (or whatever they're called).

Very different, actually. But go on.

Of course, since they've been canonized, you presumably think they are somehow infallible. But Catholics think papal proclamations are infallible, too. They're reasoning is almost identical to yours, just as Paul's theological proclamations are similar to official Catholic Church theological proclamations. Why is one infallible, but the other is not?

Oh, that's easy.

Because the events and teachings of the NT are continuous with the OT. Both are consistent with Christ, who is the centerpiece of Christian faith. By contrast, remember, the point of Papal authority is not supposed to be merely to repeat Biblical truth, but rather to add to it and even contradict it. Remember the "organic" view?

Now, if a mere mortal wants to add to the Word of God, he needs more than a pointed hat and a cane. He needs authority from God. But in Scripture, even in the New Testament, there is no Papacy, nor any mention of such things as prelates. There are local churches, with elders -- always a multiplicity of equals -- who oversee them under the authority of God Himself and in conformity with the Scriptures. Jesus Christ, the apostles and Paul always taught accordingly, and criticized those who do otherwise (see, for example, Galatians 1:8-9).

So the burden would be on those who believe in a Papacy to show how that is Scriptural...and they cannot. This is yet another reason why they have to default to the "organic" argument, and to refer to councils and prelates rather than to the authoritative source material: they can't find warrant for what they do and teach in the Bible. In fact, they can find the opposite.

Both rely on the authority of the church.

No, actually: one relies on the authority of Scripture. "Sola Scriptura," remember?

[Alexiev]

No, actually: one relies on the authority of Scripture. "Sola Scriptura," remember?

The scripture was canonized by the church.

In addition, scripture often contradicts itself. The Gospel of John is often at odds with the other three gospels. The Book of James seems at war with the Pauline letters. in Romans, Paul concludes: "a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." This recapitulates Paul's usual contempt for the Torah. James claims: "Ye see then how by works a man is justified and not by faith alone." James Chapter 3 seems an antidote for both the gospel of John and the Pauline letters. Indeed, it is here that James seems to war with Paul, and criticizes him.

(I'll grant that I'm no biblical scholar, although I have an interest in literature and am a careful reader. I'm discussing the literary impact of James, and have no idea about how James and Paul are reconciled by the faithful.)

[Immanuel Can]

No, actually: one relies on the authority of Scripture. "Sola Scriptura," remember?

The scripture was canonized by the church.

But it wasn't written by the Church. It was simply recognized after the fact for what it is: the Word of God.

In addition, scripture often contradicts itself.

I don't agree. But if you can provide examples, I'll consider them.

In Romans, Paul concludes: "a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." ...James claims: "Ye see then how by works a man is justified and not by faith alone."

Yes, that's an old one. In fact, Luther didn't know what the answer was to that one, and so he dismissed James. But better scholarship has easily resolved it, as would careful reading of James, actually.

James is saying, "If you have faith, but no evidentiary works accompany it, then your supposed faith is open to doubt and criticism." But he is not saying, "Works, not faith, are the way to salvation." In other words, works are evidence of a real faith, not the substitute for faith. And thus the superficial conflict merely disappears.

(I'll grant that I'm no biblical scholar, although I have an interest in literature and am a careful reader. I'm discussing the literary impact of James, and have no idea about how James and Paul are reconciled by the faithful.)

Just as above, actually...by careful reading and by not jumping to unwarranted conclusions. The supposed "conflict" turns out to be a harmony with different emphases.

Paul never denigrates the doing of good works. James never denigrates faith. Both held that faith is the road to salvation, but whereas Paul emphasizes the uselessness of works in achieving salvation, James emphasizes the emptiness of a supposed faith that has no evidentiary works following from it. Both are quite easy to reconcile, actually.

The combined wisdom is that faith saves; but if it's real faith, it is always followed by works. So works confirm what faith achieves.

[MikeNovack]

James is saying, "If you have faith, but no evidentiary works accompany it, then your supposed faith is open to doubt and criticism." But he is not saying, "Works, not faith, are the way to salvation." In other words, works are evidence of a real faith, not the substitute for faith. And thus the superficial conflict merely disappears.

But there is a problem with "In other words, works are evidence of a real faith".

You are far from alone with this, but it is both problematical and annoying to those doing good works who do NOT have Christian faith (or possibly not any). We do not like being told "by what you do you show what a good Christian you are." Or conversely, if you aren't a Christian then your works are not good works.

It is one thing to claim non-Christians cannot have (Christian) salvation. Quite another to imply they cannot be good people, people whose works are good.

[Immanuel Can]

James is saying, "If you have faith, but no evidentiary works accompany it, then your supposed faith is open to doubt and criticism." But he is not saying, "Works, not faith, are the way to salvation." In other words, works are evidence of a real faith, not the substitute for faith. And thus the superficial conflict merely disappears.

But there is a problem with "In other words, works are evidence of a real faith".

You are far from alone with this, but it is both problematical and annoying to those doing good works who do NOT have Christian faith (or possibly not any).

Good works are the automatic outcome of faith. They are not impossible to non-Christians, but they are not automatic. Where Paul and James agree, though is that in neither are they salvific: meaning, they do not produce salvation, either for those with faith or those without.

Faith produces salvation. Salvation produces good works. Sometimes, even unbelievers produce those things which look like good works, but which are of no particular value in the eyes of God. And the reason they are of no value to Him is simply that they are things being done by those who hate Him, and who stand in no desirable relation to Him at all. So what is it to him, if they do this or that? Maybe they make themselves look good to themselves. They don't impress God. There's no divine interest involved.

You see, God's first interest is not in the works of man, one way or the other. It's in man's heart. The heart that is His, he is interested in seeing purified; the heart that is not...well, that's its own concern, and nothing to Him. It's all about relationship, not some kind of works performance.

Or, to put it Biblically, "And shall we be saved? For all of us who have become like one who is unclean, and all our deeds of righteousness have become like filthy rags." (Isaiah 64:5-6)

We do not like being told "by what you do you show what a good Christian you are." Or conversely, if you aren't a Christian then your works are not good works.

Well, does the phrase "we do not like" have some special significance to you? It doesn't, to me.

It really does nothing to ward off any truths. They'll remain what they are, whether anybody "likes" them or not, right?

So if the truth is that Bible says that Christians ought to manifest good works, and if it says that the works of those who hate God are like "filthy rags" to God, -- and it does say both -- then what does "we don't like being told" it add to the situation?

Not much, right?

[MikeNovack]

We do not like being told "by what you do you show what a good Christian you are." Or conversely, if you aren't a Christian then your works are not good works.

Well, does the phrase "we do not like" have some special significance to you? It doesn't, to me.

It really does nothing to ward off any truths. They'll remain what they are, whether anybody "likes" them or not, right?

So if the truth is that Bible says that Christians ought to manifest good works, and if it says that the works of those who hate God are like "filthy rags" to God, -- and it does say both -- then what does "we don't like being told" it add to the situation?

Not much, right?

What arrogance! No, Jews, Muslims, Buddhist, secular humanists, etc. do NOT like being told "oh what good Christians you are". (because of our doing good)

And Isaiah 64 is NOT talking about anybody hating God. That theme "we are the clay, you are the potter, have mercy on the pottery" is in one of the more famous Yom Kippur pyotim. Isaiah 64 is asking for MERCY.

[Immanuel Can]

We do not like being told "by what you do you show what a good Christian you are." Or conversely, if you aren't a Christian then your works are not good works.

Well, does the phrase "we do not like" have some special significance to you? It doesn't, to me.

It really does nothing to ward off any truths. They'll remain what they are, whether anybody "likes" them or not, right?

So if the truth is that Bible says that Christians ought to manifest good works, and if it says that the works of those who hate God are like "filthy rags" to God, -- and it does say both -- then what does "we don't like being told" it add to the situation?

Not much, right?

What arrogance!

Well, He is God, after all. He has the right to set the terms of the relationship.

No, Jews, Muslims, Buddhist, secular humanists, etc. do NOT like being told "oh what good Christians you are". (because of our doing good)

That's why we never say that. What we say, instead, is what the Bible says about us: namely, that we're all sinners, all alienated from God, and it's only His grace by which we have a road to Him. And it's His road, not ours.

As Titus 3:5 puts it, "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we did in righteousness, but in accordance with His mercy..." That's the truth for all of humanity, not just for a special class of people, and certainly not for those who consider themselves good.

And Isaiah 64 is NOT talking about anybody hating God.

Actually, it is. And it's talking directly to the Jewish people first, those who considered themselves the most righteous of doers. Isaiah was no Gentile, after all.

Here's some more of the same passage:

Behold, You were angry, for we sinned,
We continued in our sins for a long time;
Yet shall we be saved?
For all of us have become like one who is unclean,
And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment;
And all of us wither like a leaf,
And our wrongdoings, like the wind, take us away.
There is no one who calls on Your name,
Who stirs himself to take hold of You;
For You have hidden Your face from us
And have surrendered us to the power of our wrongdoings.

Who is the "we"? Well, first and foremost, obviously, Isaiah's own nation. But I think we can fairly extend it to the whole human race, don't you? I mean, nothing Isaiah says there isn't equally true of Gentiles. But what a thing Isaiah has to say about the very people who were supposed to represent HaShem, "the Name [of God]" and keep His Law... It does indeed sound like they had contempt for their God, and needed to repent of it, wouldn't you say?

The point is that we human beings are not the righteous judges of our own status. God judges, and judges rightly. And our assessments of our own deeds mean nothing to Him. Again, He's interested in relationship, and in the heart, not in mere superficial performances. As is written in 1 Samuel, "Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart."

[Alexis Jacobi]

The major problems and conflicts that IC’s ultra-Christian position arouses are to be located in a not sufficiently thought-through metaphysics. Were the principles better explained, and if dear IC himself understood them, huge progress could be made in his sharing of these principles. Sadly, IC is stuck in a rigid religious story which, many or most, cannot any longer accept. If only because metaphysical categories — the realm of “God” and “soul” — no longer exist for man. I.e. they are not knowable by tangible means, and when philosophy attempts to explain that domain, it constantly fails. So IC has made no headway in well over a decade of effort.

If the fight is between Catholicism and Protestantism that battle will rage endlessly but is largely a waste of time unless the core metaphysics are defined. The metaphysics are however intangible (invisible if you will) and unknowable through mechanical means and science. The only way to “know” is by direct experience and this involves attempting a different methodology (of knowing). But almost no one (on this forum at least) has confidence in such declarations about “other ways of knowing” and most regard such as illusory or as related to mental derangement.

This entire problem dear IC cannot solve and he is in reality useless in helping anyone to solve the problem of metaphysics.

[Immanuel Can]

This entire problem dear IC cannot solve and he is in reality useless in helping anyone to solve the problem of metaphysics.

I invite you to go ahead and describe this "problem" of "metaphysics" that you seem to allege you've solved and I've allegedly failed to solve. I think everybody would find that interesting.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I invite you to go ahead and describe this "problem" of "metaphysics" that you seem to allege you've solved and I've allegedly failed to solve. I think everybody would find that interesting.

I would not use the word “solved”, that is too final, yet I can definitely say that I am aware of the profundity of the metaphysical problem. And I am extremely aware that many who write on this forum, who are involved in late-date philosophical problems, are locked out of the possibility of living through enunciated and clear metaphysical principles.

I think that what you have not solved is that the metaphysics of the spirit and of, say, genuine spirituality are not at all confined to the Christian revelation. You suffer from being locked into a conventional picture that, I suggest, is outmoded. That is why I say that you have not solved the problem. And at least one small piece of evidence (related to not solving a larger problem) is that you have moved and convinced (or converted) precisely no one in over a decade writing on this forum of Occidental philosophy. It is necessary to say that you drive people away.

As I have said many times, to me you and all of this has been and is very useful. In relation to your failures you have convinced me 1) that the Christian-Judaic system absolutely must be transcended, and 2) if the metaphysics that Christianity shadows is to be preserved, then it must be re-explained. I do not propose that some paragraph of verbal formula that I would offer will move anyone of those (here) who seem often so materially bound, yet I strive for a way to communicate certain essences which can contribute to life on higher planes (as opposed to mere existence with sheer physical mutability).