 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Racaela Fultz
Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | Indiana USA |
| Posts: | 146 |
| First Name: | Racaela | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Nondenominational, will be Catholic Advent 2007 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 10th, 2007 07:29 pm |
|
In the Old Testament, the Jewish people had a very clear purity code, levitical law. This included things like what foods to eat, what cloth to wear, what to do with menstrating women, etc.
After Jesus came, the New Testament writers make it clear that that purity code was abolished, was no longer in place, was no longer a salvation issue.
Though Paul did not tell the Jewish Christians to stop living by the former purity code (pertaining to meat sacrificed to idols, for instance), he did make it clear that they were not to force Gentile Christians to live by these purity codes.
My question is, how does this relate to the sexual issues that were all very much a part of that purity code? Somethings obviously aren't in affect anymore - for instance, women can actually have sex during menstration (I think...in reality, I don't know much about this stuff at all, due to lack of experience - of course!), a man does not need to help his brother's widow concieve, etc. So, how do we know what was abolished and what wasn't? Is there a simple straight forward answer to that?
It is important also to remember that back then women were viewed as property, and they aren't today. Does that change things at all?
I guess the main question is, if Jesus abolished the purity code of the ancient Jews, was it his intent to set up a new purity code, and if he did set up a new purity code, what was it and exactly what was its purpose?
I know this is random...but I like to think about things...especially if they have to do with understanding theology and history...
Last edited on Sat Nov 10th, 2007 08:28 pm by Racaela Fultz
____________________
"To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant" - Cardinal Newman
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1714 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 10th, 2007 11:17 pm |
|
Not a purity code per se, Racaela, but certainly a moral code has been established within the Church over the past 20 centuries. Some of it has been established in dogmatic form.
One of the less evident areas (because of the surrounding society’s current flouting of it) is the virtue of modesty. But some of the others (e.g., strict monogamy, rejection of contraception) are truly embattled areas wherein the Church is taking on not only secular society but other Christian entities as well to defend some fundamental points such as the value of marriage and the married state.
If you look at what the purity code of the Old Testament consisted of, you will see that it corresponded for the most part to the region’s cultural morality. Now cultural morality is precisely what is in rebellion against God and the Church at this point in history.
What we see, then, is that culture does not remain the same from place to place and from one century to the next. But the Church has held fast to the revelation given to it in the beginning, which — being universal in scope — is not and cannot be confined to any one culture or any one time. This is why we see Christian morality expressed in principles rather than rituals and codes. The human race is given latitude in its expression so long as the principles are preserved.
Does this answer your question?
David
|
|
|
beachmoss
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 13th, 2006 |
| Location: | Simpsonville, South Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 270 |
| First Name: | Beth | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Catholic (raised Baptist) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 11th, 2007 01:45 am |
|
Racaela Fultz wrote:
My question is, how does this relate to the sexual issues that were all very much a part of that purity code? Somethings obviously aren't in affect anymore - for instance, women can actually have sex during menstration (I think...in reality, I don't know much about this stuff at all, due to lack of experience - of course!),
Racaela,
I just wanted to touch on this one point of yours. Although there is no longer a prohibition against having sex during menstruation, there is a reason it was there to begin with. During this time of a woman's cycle the cervix is opened, therefore it can be an entry point for bacteria. At the time of the Old Testament medicine was not as advanced as today, and it would have been difficult to fight an infection.
And the man's seed would have been washed away with the flow. Probably considered a waste to those commanded to be fruitful and multiply.
Also there is the cleanliness aspect. Yuck!
And to ancient Jews blood was the life of a person (or animal). I do not know for a fact, but I feel that there must have been something almost sacred and/ or scary about a woman pouring forth life itself.
Beth
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1714 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 11th, 2007 11:52 am |
|
beachmoss wrote:I feel that there must have been something almost sacred and/or scary about a woman pouring forth life itself.
This is correct, and it’s why a menstruating woman or one who had just given birth was declared unclean. “Unclean” in this usage does not mean “dirty” or “bad,” but actually “sacred” or “set apart,” due to the natural loss of blood (“life”) and other bodily fluids.
David
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4979 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 11th, 2007 12:10 pm |
|
All good points, but I think in general we need to take a deeper look at what Jesus taught.
It is necessary to tell children not to eat certain foods, not to engage in certain practices, etc. We must be very specific. It does no good to explain the reasons for many rules as they won't understand them anyway. The early Jews were people of an immature faith. The rules were based on common sense. The rules in general make them physically stronger and better able to defend themselves. They helped to insure a long life and fewer illnesses, as well as purity of the bloodline, and so the Jews are the only early people of the Middle East who survived as an ethnic group without being absorbed by their many conquerers.
How does God inspire? Did God tell Moses the people were not to eat pork, or did Moses see that people who ate pork that was improperly cooked got sick and died? Circumcised men were seen as deformed by women of other ethnic groups, so the integrity of the Jewish bloodline was maintained. We all know how important it is to wash our hands before eating. Again, did God command this of Moses, or did Moses see that people who washed their hands after using the bathroom and before eating didn't get sick as often?
So what did Jesus change? As he said, he came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it. He calls us to a maturity in our decisions that was unknown in earlier times. He says don't look at the letter of the law, look at the spirit. Don't look for a laundry list of behavioral rules, but decide for yourself how you will live your faith.
He says there are two guidelines: Love God and love your neighbor as yourself. He says there is one criteria for judgment: What did you do for the least of his people? All the rules, all the decisions, MUST be judged against those criteria. If a rule helps to follow that path, keep it. If it gets in the way, throw it out. If it's irrelevant, ignore it. Rescue your sheep on the Sabbath. Eat with sinners. Forgive prostitutes. Befriend lepers (and HIV/AIDS patients). Don't reject Samaritans (and people of other races and ethnic groups). All of those things are against Jewish law!
They were important for a people fighting for survival, whose faith was immature. They are not important today. We must look beyond rules such as those. We must stop looking for the least we get away with, and look to how much we can do to spread the Kingdom of God.
So yes, the Jewish Purity Code, the Jewish Dietary Law, and most of the other "rules" of Levitical law, were fulfilled (not abolished!) by Jesus. Jesus says don't look to obey rules. Love God and your neighbor, and then you won't need rules.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Jackie
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | Jersey Shore, New Jersey USA |
| Posts: | 114 |
| First Name: | Jackie | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 15th, 2007 11:36 am |
|
Cajunrick wrote:
He says there are two guidelines: Love God and love your neighbor as yourself. He says there is one criteria for judgment: What did you do for the least of his people? All the rules, all the decisions, MUST be judged against those criteria. If a rule helps to follow that path, keep it. If it gets in the way, throw it out. If it's irrelevant, ignore it. Rescue your sheep on the Sabbath. Eat with sinners. Forgive prostitutes. Befriend lepers (and HIV/AIDS patients). Don't reject Samaritans (and people of other races and ethnic groups). All of those things are against Jewish law!
I'm tripping over my stupidity Rick, so expound your thought more.
Thanks J
|
|
|
Jackie
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | Jersey Shore, New Jersey USA |
| Posts: | 114 |
| First Name: | Jackie | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 15th, 2007 11:42 am |
|
okay now I'm really freaking out  I underlined the above Rick because thats what I want you to address
:?
Last edited on Thu Nov 15th, 2007 11:46 am by Jackie
|
|
|
Ken Follis
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | San Antonio, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 40 |
| First Name: | Ken | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Charismatic Episcopal Church; Roman Catholic Church (1999) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 15th, 2007 12:36 pm |
|
I removed my original post... The question about the purity code has been answered.
Last edited on Thu Nov 15th, 2007 01:35 pm by Ken Follis
____________________
Jer. 6:16 "Stand, Look, Ask and Walk!"
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4979 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 15th, 2007 02:39 pm |
|
Jackie wrote: If a rule helps to follow that path, keep it. If it gets in the way, throw it out. If it's irrelevant, ignore it.
I'm tripping over my stupidity Rick, so expound your thought more.
My point, Jackie, is that Jesus taught us what matters is the spirit behind the law, not the rule itself. I don't need to worry about the first few commandments; if I love God with my whole heart, soul, mind, and strength, I will place God first, I will honor the Lord's Day, I will stay faithful, I will love myself because I am a temple of the Holy Spirit. I don't have to worry about the rest of the commandments because if I truly love my neighbor as myself, I would never steal from them or hurt them, I would always honor my parents and siblings, I would never cheat on my spouse, and I would want good things for my neighbor, not to take away the good things he already has. If I truly love God and my neighbor, it makes following the other, significant rules automatic.
As for the other rules, they are irrelevant. Let's take eating pork as an example. There were valid reasons for Moses to prohibit eating pork. Jesus says that it's not what goes into a man's mouth that defiles him, but what comes out. Will eating pork interfere with my salvation? No. Does it interfere with my love of God and my neighbor? No. So the rule is irrelevant and there is no need to follow it.
It's easy to get bogged down in technicalities. An observant, orthodox Jew cannot flip on a switch to turn on a light on the Sabbath, but he can flip a switch that flips another switch that turns on the same light. Flipping a switch to turn on a light is considered work; flipping a switch that flips a switch is not work, even if the end result is that the same light comes on. So in the Book of Acts the apostles decided that while the Jewish members of the Christian faith were following Jewish law because the still considered themselves Jews, gentile members would not be bound by those same laws. They recognized that Jesus had superseded the law; he had fulfilled it and brought a level of maturity of faith that didn't exist in Judaism at the time. Once the Christians were expelled from Judaism, the law no longer applied to any Christian, although some who originally were Jews no doubt still chose to follow it.
As Jesus said, the law was made for man, not man for the law. The law serves man by bringing him closer to God. If it doesn't, if it gets in the way of the relationship between God and man, the law must give way to the greatest commandment, which is to love God with your whole heart, soul,and mind, and then to love your neighbor as yourself.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Racaela Fultz
Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | Indiana USA |
| Posts: | 146 |
| First Name: | Racaela | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Nondenominational, will be Catholic Advent 2007 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 15th, 2007 10:54 pm |
|
Okay Rick, apply what you just expounded upon to permarital sex.
____________________
"To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant" - Cardinal Newman
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4979 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 15th, 2007 11:49 pm |
|
Racaela Fultz wrote: Okay Rick, apply what you just expounded upon to permarital sex.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Do you mean to imply that premarital sex is no longer prohibited? I think that's wrong. Sex is the most intimate sharing between a man and a woman and should be reserved to the ultimate commitment. In marriage, and man and woman literally become one flesh. They are committed as intimately as God and the Church.
But let me answer like this.
I grew up in the 50's and 60's. I started college the year of Woodstock. HIV and AIDS did not exist. The women of my generation were really the first to have no fear of pregnancy because of the birth control pill, and no one claimed it caused any harm. Humanae Vitae had not been written, so the Church didn't even teach against contraceptives. Drinking was legal at 18, drugs were everywhere, and it was really easy to find a sexual partner. If you couldn't find your own, you could always find a group and dive in. I am not exaggerating.
I wasn't the best looking or most popular guy on campus, and I certainly wasn't a saint. I found out there were two kinds of girls.
First, there were the ones who were interested in having sex. They didn't really care so much who it was with. They would set out to get drunk or high or both, and then to have sex. I went to a lot of parties with girls like that. What I found is that I had no respect for them. Sex was too special, too intimate for me to share myself with someone who literally didn't care who she was sleeping with. So every time I found myself with a girl like that, I ended up walking out.
Then there were the girls who were really special. I enjoyed their company, got to know them really well, and really cared for them. We reached the point fairly often where sex was expected as the next step. But when I got to that point, I always found that I cared for them too much to use them like that. I ended up walking out.
The first person I had sex with is also the last person I had sex with, and the only person I've ever had sex with. We've been married for 35 years. Our first time together was also our first time. Neither of us has ever had another partner. Neither of us was willing to give ourselves physically to someone until we were ready to give our lives to them. We have been through some awful times together including serious health and financial problems. We are still together, and we will be until death do us part.
The thing is that I never made a decision not to have premarital sex. At the time, I don’t think I could honestly say I believed it was wrong. I certainly wanted to! But I loved God, and I loved my neighbor as myself, and I couldn't do it. A rule didn't matter. I would have broken a rule (I broke a lot of them back then). But I couldn't break through that love. I loved myself too much to have sex just for fun, and I loved them too much to have sex with someone I wasn't ready to make a commitment with. Oh, but I wanted to! I promise, boys that age don't think of anything else.
But I didn't.
Does that answer your question?
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Racaela Fultz
Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | Indiana USA |
| Posts: | 146 |
| First Name: | Racaela | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Nondenominational, will be Catholic Advent 2007 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 16th, 2007 07:01 am |
|
I guess what I was asking, Rick, was, could someone make the argument that premarital sex does not, in every situation, involve breaking the principles "love God, love others"? In which case, premarital sex would not always be wrong.
I'm not saying premarital sex is okay, I'm just trying to apply your principles and see if it holds or what is different.
____________________
"To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant" - Cardinal Newman
|
|
|
Ken Follis
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | San Antonio, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 40 |
| First Name: | Ken | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Charismatic Episcopal Church; Roman Catholic Church (1999) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 16th, 2007 09:48 am |
|
The Church, St Paul says in Eph. 3, manifests the manifold wisdom of God. She is the Rock and Pillar of all truth so she has the ability, by the Holy Spirit, to define what love is, what marriage is and what the spirit of the Law is so that we, as Christ did, can fulfill it (Galatians 5:14, 6:2). Her canons (found at http://www.vatican.va) reveal her disciplines and her catechism, also found there, describe her doctrines and dogmas. Christ gave the ability to bind and loose (disciplines, etc.) to St. Peter. For all those interested, the book "Jesus, Peter and the Keys" documents, in an excellent way, the biblical and historical support for this authority.
"In everything you say and do, remember that you will be judged by the law that makes people free." (James 2:13)
The Catholic Church's precepts help me to love God and neighbor so I can fullfill this law of liberty (see James 2:8)
Last edited on Fri Nov 16th, 2007 11:19 am by Ken Follis
____________________
Jer. 6:16 "Stand, Look, Ask and Walk!"
|
|
|
Jackie
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | Jersey Shore, New Jersey USA |
| Posts: | 114 |
| First Name: | Jackie | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 16th, 2007 04:14 pm |
|
Cajunrick wrote:So in the Book of Acts the apostles decided that while the Jewish members of the Christian faith were following Jewish law because the still considered themselves Jews, gentile members would not be bound by those same laws. They recognized that Jesus had superseded the law; he had fulfilled it and brought a level of maturity of faith that didn't exist in Judaism at the time. Once the Christians were expelled from Judaism, the law no longer applied to any Christian, although some who originally were Jews no doubt still chose to follow it Okay because Jesus in Matt 23 speaks to the crowd and His deciples about them following what the scribes (teachers of the law) and the pharisees tell them to do. He makes the point though that they should follow what they say and not what they do. (their hypocrisy)
|
|
|
DrDave
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | Mildura, Australia |
| Posts: | 211 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Cradle - Lapsed - Renewed Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 17th, 2007 05:09 am |
|
Racaela Fultz wrote: I guess what I was asking, Rick, was, could someone make the argument that premarital sex does not, in every situation, involve breaking the principles "love God, love others"?
When one engages in sex outside of marriage, one of two scenarios generally apply:
1) one engages in sex using contraception and by this choice is saying to God "I reject the purpose and design that you built into the act of sex." I would suggest this would contravene the "love God" principle by showing disrespect for how he chose to create his creation.
2) one engages in sex without using contraception in the hope that conception does not occur, and with an attitude of "if it happens we'll deal it then." By engaging in the act with this attitude I would suggest that the partners are showing a disregard for each other, and a disregard for their potential child by not giving due regard for the possible (huge life changing) ramifications of their actions, thus failing to "love thy neighbor"
One might wonder what if the couple engaged in sex after having made a firm resolve between each other to form a stable firm family unit so that if a child results from their union it would find itself in a situation where it was loved and cared for? Well thats what a marriage is! and in the Catholic understanding of the Sacrament the couple themselves are the ministers of the Sacrament so in a very real sense they already are married!
Now to clarify, for the marriage to be a Sacrament in the eyes of the Church, at least one member of the couple needs to be a baptised Christian (possibly both I can't remember off the top of my head) if neither, the marriage would be seen to be valid but not Sacramental.
The final twist I see in this convoluted scenario would be if one of the couple were Catholic. In that case the Catholic party would know (if they were catechised properly) that it is a requirement of the Church that their marriage be witnessed and blessed should circumstances allow, and a willful failure to follow the dictates of the Church would again be seen as a rejection of the one who gave her that authority, and so we're back to violating the "Love God" rule
I hope that helps
Regards Dave
P.S. My eldest daughters birthday is on 12/2, will be thinking of you
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1714 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 18th, 2007 03:08 pm |
|
Racaela, due to long hours at work, I’ve not been able to follow up on this thread. As your question became more clearly defined, I wanted to provide a more systematic line of thought. Let us start here:
CajunRick wrote:The rules were based on common sense.
Earlier, I had mentioned that “the purity code of the Old Testament… corresponded for the most part to the region’s cultural morality.” Same thing. This is what Catholic tradition refers to as natural law. It is a system based on human reason (the branch of philosophy called ethics), accessible to all mankind (Catechism of the Catholic Church §37). The fact that the divinely revealed Mosaic Law established the prevailing code, with a few important changes, as binding on the Israelites shows that God is the author of natural law (CCC 1952). The Catechism has a section about the natural moral law at CCC 1954–1960.
In the Christian dispensation, CCC 1953 expresses morality’s source and goal:
The moral law finds its fullness and its unity in Christ. Jesus Christ is in person the way of perfection. He is the end of the law, for only he teaches and bestows the justice of God: “For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified.” (Romans 10:4)
This is what I meant by the Christian “moral code.” As Christ indicates in the gospels (and as others have spelled out at length), this is internalized, in Catholicism, without removing the external, objective principles on which it stands.
Compare the Catechism’s summary statement with this from An Introduction to Moral Theology, by William E. May (a book that I recommend, if you have the time to read it):
In the light of faith, we know who we are.… We know… that we are… unique among earthly beings in being called to be God’s very own children. Indeed, as the Fathers of Vatican Council II have reminded us, “it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man truly becomes clear.… Christ the new Adam,” they continue, “in the very revelation of the mystery of the Father and of his love, fully reveals man to himself and brings to light his most high calling (Gaudium et spes, no. 22).
…To put matters another way, through faith we know that, if we fully become the beings God wants us to be, we will be, as it were, other Christs, for the Risen Jesus is now the being we are meant to be.… [The author then cites a lengthy passage from Gaudium et Spes, no. 22, which I suggest you read in its entirety] (Op. cit., pp. 24)
So Christian morality has as its purpose to make us Godlike, to united us with the Father of Jesus Christ in much the same way as he is one with the Father (John 10:30; compare 1 Peter 1:4).
Unlike the Pharisees’ view of morality (entirely external) and that of certain Protestants (entirely internal), the Catholic moral basis is both internal and external. It is external because there has to be an objective basis, and it is internal because the person has to be moral in order to be Godlike, for our God is He Who Is.
What Jesus did during his public ministry, as exemplified in the Sermon on the Mount and his criticisms of the Pharisees and others, was to distinguish between what is revealed (established “from the beginning”: Matthew 19:3, 8; cf. Genesis 2:8 Douay; Isaiah 45:20 and many other passages which speak of God’s eternal decrees; see also my initial post above, fourth paragraph) and what is of natural origin (“Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives” – Matthew 19:8). He then insisted on the divine will as expressed in revelation as the true norm. Subsequent Catholic tradition and theology (sometimes ending in dogma) have followed this same rule.
This differentiation is what Rick means when he says, “If a rule helps to follow that path, keep it. If it gets in the way, throw it out.” That is, if the principle is divinely revealed, so as to lead us to become more Godlike, we must follow it. But if the principle came about through human discernment only, it probably has some built-in human defects (like Moses’ rule for divorce, which presupposes that man cannot follow the original divine law of lifelong marriage; little wonder that our secular culture’s pragmatic dictum of “they’re going to do it anyway, so let’s provide a way to get it done with a minimum of hassle” is so popular, eh?), so it should be rejected. His radical pronouncement is startling because he does not make the principle explicit.
Regarding premarital sex, the very fact that its acceptance is based on an equivocation of the word “love” shows that it is a false morality. For there is a love that is according to the divine mandate, and there is another “love” that is not. Sex, as you know, is not love. It is a physical and psychological expression of love which builds a real bond between a man and a woman, but it is not itself love, which in its essence is spiritual (1 John 4:7–9, 15–17). I’m sure you have been taught this, one way or another, in your background as a Christian.
What others have given you are examples of how this equivocation plays out in practice. They have, however, not enunciated the principle itself of distinguishing between what is revealed and what is “discovered” at the human level. My own mind works more like yours, Racaela, in that I need to see the whole forest, not just a few individual trees. I said at the outset that general principles and a certain internalization (objectivity and subjectivity working together) are what distinguish Christian morality from all others, including that of the Old Testament. What do you think? Does this ring true for you?
David
|
|
|
Current time is 09:59 pm | |
|
|
|
|
|
