Postmodernism & pedophilia

Anne Hendershott traces a significant stream of postmodernist scholarship over the last decade that amounts to an academic defense of pedophilia.  After all, so say these scholars, both childhood and sexual morality are nothing more than social constructions.  A sample, though you’ll want to read the whole thing:

The publication of Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex [2003] promised readers a “radical, refreshing, and long overdue reassessment of how we think and act about children’s and teens’ sexuality.” The book was published by University of Minnesota Press in 2003 (with a foreword by Joycelyn Elders, who had been the U.S. Surgeon General in the Clinton administration), after which the author, Judith Levine, posted an interview on the university’s website decrying the fact that “there are people pushing a conservative religious agenda that would deny minors access to sexual expression,” and adding that “we do have to protect children from real dangers … but that doesn’t mean protecting some fantasy of their sexual innocence.”

This redefinition of childhood innocence as “fantasy” is key to the defining down of the deviance of pedophilia that permeated college campuses and beyond. Drawing upon the language of postmodern theory, those working to redefine pedophilia are first redefining childhood by claiming that “childhood” is not a biological given. Rather, it is socially constructed—an historically produced social object. Such deconstruction has resulted from the efforts of a powerful advocacy community supported by university-affiliated scholars and a large number of writers, researchers, and publishers who were willing to question what most of us view as taboo behavior.

Postmodern theorists are primarily interested in writing that evokes the fragmentary nature of experience and the complexity of language. One of the most cited sources for this is the book Male Intergenerational Intimacy: Historical, Socio-Psychological and Legal Perspectives. This collection of writings by scholars, mostly European but some with U.S. university affiliations, provides a powerful argument for what they now call “intergenerational intimacy.” Ken Plummer, one of the contributors, writes that “we can no longer assume that childhood is a time of innocence simply because of the chronological age of the child.” In fact, “a child of seven may have built an elaborate set of sexual understandings and codes which would baffle many adults.”

Claiming to draw upon the theoretical work of the social historians, the socialist-feminists, the Foucauldians, and the constructionist sociologists, Plummer promised to build a “new and fruitful approach to sexuality and children.” Within this perspective there is no assumption of linear sexual development and no real childhood, only an externally imposed definition.

Decrying “essentialist views of sexuality,” these writers attempt to remove the essentialist barriers of childhood. This opens the door for the postmodern pedophile to see such behavior as part of the politics of transgression. No longer deviants, they are simply postmodern “border crossers.” . . .

It appears that a number of postmodern pedophiles have taken the advice to heart. For a while, we lived in a culture in which man-boy sex was not only tolerated, it was celebrated. And while the furor over the allegations at Penn State and Syracuse reveals that male pedophilia remains contested terrain for most, women-girl sex, because of the power of the women’s movement, scarcely registers on the cultural radar screen.

“The Vagina Monologues,” for example, is still part of the standard dramatic repertory in student productions on college campuses—including Penn State and Syracuse. The original play explores a young girl’s “coming of age,” beginning with a 13-year-old girl enjoying a sexual liaison with a 24-year-old woman. Later published versions of the play changed the age of the young girl from 13 to 16 years old, and the play continues to be performed. Last year’s February production at Syracuse was enhanced by inviting an “all-faculty” cast to perform the play on campus.

via The Postmodern Pedophile « Public Discourse.

HT:  Joe Carter

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “The Vagina Monologues,” for example, is still part of the standard dramatic repertory in student productions on college campuses—including Penn State and Syracuse. The original play explores a young girl’s “coming of age,” beginning with a 13-year-old girl enjoying a sexual liaison with a 24-year-old woman.

    This is fiction. The fact that a fictional account in some play portrays this scene positively does not in fact somehow attest a real world equivalent. This is fiction. It comes straight out of the imagination of the writer.

    Last week or so ago, Veith pointed out the influence of fiction on our understanding of the world in his write up on Vaclav Havel.

    Part of the problem is just wanting to reorder society for the comfort and convenience of the powerful. Some of the powerful in our society would like to have consequence free sex with kids. So, here comes the propaganda campaign. Also, there is the equality problem. While it is normal and fine for a twenty five year old man to marry a sixteen year old girl, men and women are not equal. So you can’t flip that the other way which makes the equalitarian’s head explode.

    Just on the practical side, isn’t it bad enough that we browbeat women into promiscuity so that there are dismally few decent (virgin) girls to marry that men would now prefer video games to marriage, do we now need to debase even the pre pubescent?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “The Vagina Monologues,” for example, is still part of the standard dramatic repertory in student productions on college campuses—including Penn State and Syracuse. The original play explores a young girl’s “coming of age,” beginning with a 13-year-old girl enjoying a sexual liaison with a 24-year-old woman.

    This is fiction. The fact that a fictional account in some play portrays this scene positively does not in fact somehow attest a real world equivalent. This is fiction. It comes straight out of the imagination of the writer.

    Last week or so ago, Veith pointed out the influence of fiction on our understanding of the world in his write up on Vaclav Havel.

    Part of the problem is just wanting to reorder society for the comfort and convenience of the powerful. Some of the powerful in our society would like to have consequence free sex with kids. So, here comes the propaganda campaign. Also, there is the equality problem. While it is normal and fine for a twenty five year old man to marry a sixteen year old girl, men and women are not equal. So you can’t flip that the other way which makes the equalitarian’s head explode.

    Just on the practical side, isn’t it bad enough that we browbeat women into promiscuity so that there are dismally few decent (virgin) girls to marry that men would now prefer video games to marriage, do we now need to debase even the pre pubescent?

  • Booklover

    “And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck.”

    “See that you don’t despise one of these little ones, for I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.”

  • Booklover

    “And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck.”

    “See that you don’t despise one of these little ones, for I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.”

  • Susan

    Dr. Veith,

    There is another article at Public Discourse that goes well with the subject of your post. In the other article, they look at the Penn State rioters’ indifference to the molestation of the children and how this indifference was created by our culture. I find both articles scary in what they may portend for our future.

    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/11/4340

    Excerpt:

    …. there are two main reasons that we should not find ourselves surprised by this juxtaposition of silent indifference for the child victims of sexual assault, on the one hand, and massive support for those whose reputations have been sullied by the subsequent allegations, on the other. This disturbing outcry is consistent with how we approach child sexual abuse.

    First, this reaction of societal indifference to the reality of child sexual assault is not new. As any child abuse prosecutor will tell you, similar community reaction is par for the course. Often, community support is placed with the alleged perpetrator, a phenomenon whose roots are analogous to those of the Penn State protesters’ support for an allegedly complicit supervisor. Once a child has bravely disclosed sexual abuse by a public figure, the challenge for him or her is often not the trial, but the collateral public fallout; community members often respond hostilely to those who reveal the true nature of a socially integrated sexual offender, one who has gained the community’s trust in order to gain access to and assault children. Prosecutors find themselves preparing families for threats, bullying at school, protests in the media, public rallies in favor of the accused, and courtrooms packed with citizens who vouch for their accused pillar and ignore evidence that supports the accusation. In the face of such a societal reaction, the victim is lost, if not targeted.

    Why does this occur? Perhaps it is public denial, fueled by the desire to believe that this could not take place in one’s community, that one could not so egregiously have misjudged the perpetrator. Perhaps it is the scheming of the offenders, who count on this indifference and often select and groom victims who are at-risk, more vulnerable, and unlikely to be believed or valued. It could be fear, incited by the personalization of what before were just numbers: some studies report that 25 percent of girls and 16 percent of boys experience sexual abuse during childhood. It also could be the attempt of ordinary people to distance themselves from the horror and insidiousness of child sexual abuse, modeling the diverting eyes of adults who suspect—or, in this case, witness—and ignore inappropriate contact between adults and children.

    The second reason we should not be surprised by the callousness of Penn State’s protesting students may be a new one: they have been raised in a culture that has normalized children’s sexual objectification, defined by the American Psychological Association as “being made into a thing for others’ sexual use.”

    This generation has so regularly witnessed the sexualization of children that they have become numb to it. This is not a general complaint on the place of sexuality in media today. This is a more refined concern about the unhealthy messaging portraying children “as commodity” available for the consumption of adults. As a society, we have bombarded them with so many images and messages through the internet and various media platforms that they are not shocked by it. They have developed in a society where the average age at which girls and boys become involved in prostitution is between 11 and 14, and where a multibillion-dollar child pornography industry thrives. They have attended schools where their objectification is omnipresent: recently, the American Association of University Women released a study indicating that 48 percent of 7th- through 12th-graders surveyed experienced sexual harassment in the 2010–2011 school year. We subject them to media that label cases of adults sending sexual pictures to children, or asking them to do the same, as “sexting” rather than calling it what it is: solicitation, luring, or grooming. We glorify the concept of adult-child sexual relations by using titles such as “barely legal” or by selling child-size “pimp” and “prostitute” costumes at Halloween.

  • Susan

    Dr. Veith,

    There is another article at Public Discourse that goes well with the subject of your post. In the other article, they look at the Penn State rioters’ indifference to the molestation of the children and how this indifference was created by our culture. I find both articles scary in what they may portend for our future.

    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/11/4340

    Excerpt:

    …. there are two main reasons that we should not find ourselves surprised by this juxtaposition of silent indifference for the child victims of sexual assault, on the one hand, and massive support for those whose reputations have been sullied by the subsequent allegations, on the other. This disturbing outcry is consistent with how we approach child sexual abuse.

    First, this reaction of societal indifference to the reality of child sexual assault is not new. As any child abuse prosecutor will tell you, similar community reaction is par for the course. Often, community support is placed with the alleged perpetrator, a phenomenon whose roots are analogous to those of the Penn State protesters’ support for an allegedly complicit supervisor. Once a child has bravely disclosed sexual abuse by a public figure, the challenge for him or her is often not the trial, but the collateral public fallout; community members often respond hostilely to those who reveal the true nature of a socially integrated sexual offender, one who has gained the community’s trust in order to gain access to and assault children. Prosecutors find themselves preparing families for threats, bullying at school, protests in the media, public rallies in favor of the accused, and courtrooms packed with citizens who vouch for their accused pillar and ignore evidence that supports the accusation. In the face of such a societal reaction, the victim is lost, if not targeted.

    Why does this occur? Perhaps it is public denial, fueled by the desire to believe that this could not take place in one’s community, that one could not so egregiously have misjudged the perpetrator. Perhaps it is the scheming of the offenders, who count on this indifference and often select and groom victims who are at-risk, more vulnerable, and unlikely to be believed or valued. It could be fear, incited by the personalization of what before were just numbers: some studies report that 25 percent of girls and 16 percent of boys experience sexual abuse during childhood. It also could be the attempt of ordinary people to distance themselves from the horror and insidiousness of child sexual abuse, modeling the diverting eyes of adults who suspect—or, in this case, witness—and ignore inappropriate contact between adults and children.

    The second reason we should not be surprised by the callousness of Penn State’s protesting students may be a new one: they have been raised in a culture that has normalized children’s sexual objectification, defined by the American Psychological Association as “being made into a thing for others’ sexual use.”

    This generation has so regularly witnessed the sexualization of children that they have become numb to it. This is not a general complaint on the place of sexuality in media today. This is a more refined concern about the unhealthy messaging portraying children “as commodity” available for the consumption of adults. As a society, we have bombarded them with so many images and messages through the internet and various media platforms that they are not shocked by it. They have developed in a society where the average age at which girls and boys become involved in prostitution is between 11 and 14, and where a multibillion-dollar child pornography industry thrives. They have attended schools where their objectification is omnipresent: recently, the American Association of University Women released a study indicating that 48 percent of 7th- through 12th-graders surveyed experienced sexual harassment in the 2010–2011 school year. We subject them to media that label cases of adults sending sexual pictures to children, or asking them to do the same, as “sexting” rather than calling it what it is: solicitation, luring, or grooming. We glorify the concept of adult-child sexual relations by using titles such as “barely legal” or by selling child-size “pimp” and “prostitute” costumes at Halloween.

  • Dennis Peskey

    Note to self: Print article – then insert into Bible at the end of Romans 1 under subtitle, “Houston, the eagle of abomination has landed!” for we now truly are doing what ought not to be do with our debased minds and unclean spirits.
    Kyrie Eleison,
    Dennis

  • Dennis Peskey

    Note to self: Print article – then insert into Bible at the end of Romans 1 under subtitle, “Houston, the eagle of abomination has landed!” for we now truly are doing what ought not to be do with our debased minds and unclean spirits.
    Kyrie Eleison,
    Dennis

  • SKPeterson

    I will add one cautionary note to Susan’s post. There have been several high-profile cases of supposed child abuse in which prosecutorial misconduct and inappropriate coercion of testimony have resulted in the wrongful convictions of individuals for child sexual abuse. In many of these cases, the prosecutors have not faced any indifference or hostility on the part of the public, but have actually received support to effectively abuse the law in obtaining convictions. I would argue that at least some part of the backlash has to do with these sorts of abuses of the law (and of the children forced to testify) and their accompanying sensationalism. We have a public that is whipsawed by the emotionalism brought to bear in these instances which ranges from extreme to extreme with little space for the rational evaluation of evidence and testimony.

  • SKPeterson

    I will add one cautionary note to Susan’s post. There have been several high-profile cases of supposed child abuse in which prosecutorial misconduct and inappropriate coercion of testimony have resulted in the wrongful convictions of individuals for child sexual abuse. In many of these cases, the prosecutors have not faced any indifference or hostility on the part of the public, but have actually received support to effectively abuse the law in obtaining convictions. I would argue that at least some part of the backlash has to do with these sorts of abuses of the law (and of the children forced to testify) and their accompanying sensationalism. We have a public that is whipsawed by the emotionalism brought to bear in these instances which ranges from extreme to extreme with little space for the rational evaluation of evidence and testimony.

  • #4 Kitty

    If Jesus’ mother was under 18 does that mean God is a pedophile?

  • #4 Kitty

    If Jesus’ mother was under 18 does that mean God is a pedophile?

  • #4 Kitty

    Then what about Joseph?

  • #4 Kitty

    Then what about Joseph?

  • Patrick Kyle

    Truly, the Apostle John was right when he said ‘the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.’ 1 John 5:19

  • Patrick Kyle

    Truly, the Apostle John was right when he said ‘the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.’ 1 John 5:19

  • Steve Billingsley

    #4 Kitty
    Truly despicable.

  • Steve Billingsley

    #4 Kitty
    Truly despicable.

  • #4 Kitty

    @Steve Billingsley
    What’s despicable that many of your Bible heroes are pedophiles or that I dared to ask the question?

  • #4 Kitty

    @Steve Billingsley
    What’s despicable that many of your Bible heroes are pedophiles or that I dared to ask the question?

  • steve

    In my opinion, much of the Feminist agenda resulted in making it easier for men to have uncommitted sex with women. If I was a cynic, I’d say this was the plan all along. This movement, pushed by many of the same institutions, is no different except to replace women with even more pliable subjects.

  • steve

    In my opinion, much of the Feminist agenda resulted in making it easier for men to have uncommitted sex with women. If I was a cynic, I’d say this was the plan all along. This movement, pushed by many of the same institutions, is no different except to replace women with even more pliable subjects.

  • steve

    I don’t understand the point of post #6 except to start a flame war.

  • steve

    I don’t understand the point of post #6 except to start a flame war.

  • #4 Kitty

    @Steve
    No flame war. I’m just interested in what the Bible says of pedophilia. “In keeping with Jewish custom, the betrothal would have taken place when she was around 12, and the birth of Jesus about a year later.” ~Wikipedia.
    So, God impregnated a 12 year old?
    Yes, I agree~ “despicable”.

  • #4 Kitty

    @Steve
    No flame war. I’m just interested in what the Bible says of pedophilia. “In keeping with Jewish custom, the betrothal would have taken place when she was around 12, and the birth of Jesus about a year later.” ~Wikipedia.
    So, God impregnated a 12 year old?
    Yes, I agree~ “despicable”.

  • steve

    #13, Paul says Jesus was “born of a woman”. Speculate all you want but it will get you no further to the truth. Furthermore, you make a category mistake when you anthropomorphize God’s relation with Mary. But, certainly, that mistake is what allowed you to make your inflammatory comment so I doubt you were concerned much about accuracy.

  • steve

    #13, Paul says Jesus was “born of a woman”. Speculate all you want but it will get you no further to the truth. Furthermore, you make a category mistake when you anthropomorphize God’s relation with Mary. But, certainly, that mistake is what allowed you to make your inflammatory comment so I doubt you were concerned much about accuracy.

  • http://pseudepigraphic.blogspot.com Trent

    Kitty-troll,

    You cited Wikipedia; no one has to take anything you say seriously.

    Also, the same comment suggests that you, too, think that pedophilia is despicable. If you do, how would you define pedophilia?

    Christians do not believe that God had physical sexual relations with Mary (unlike Mormons), hence her continued virginity — some would even say that her virginity was perpetual (semper virgo), even after Christ’s birth. Either way, it’s a miracle. We believe that Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit, not by human flesh and blood. Admittedly, this is ridiculous. But we believe it. So, no, God’s not a pedophile; however, Mary was sexually mature, and, broadly put, had also become a young woman, taking on the responsibilities and duties of hearth and home that were proper to an adult woman. Her betrothal was normal, both when measured by the yardstick of natural law as well as that of Jewish cultural custom. It’s hard for us to imagine this, bound as we are by the contemporary understanding (tacit and explicit) that the years between birth and thirty (if it’s even that soon) comprise a period of extended adolescence free from duty and responsibility towards family and neighbors, during which time you screw off, follow your heart, and “find yourself.” Historically, this view is a novelty. The fruit it’s bearing has been pretty bitter, yet some would have us believe that it’s indicative of real freedom. I’ll bet you think so. Go figure — that’s a whole other conversation. Given your tone, though, I expect all of this bourgeousie patriarchal language of hearth, home, duty, and responsibility will rankle you and provoke accusations of chauvinism, sexism, oppressive male-ness, etc. Whatever.

    But I digress.

    I can already tell, Quad-Kitty, that you’re going to lose the flame war that you’re starting.

    Other sincere, polite readers of this blog, I intend to keep up this discussion as long as our feline friend is inclined to do the same. Let’s do our best to answer all of what she says in a spirit of gentility. Don’t rise to take the bait; she’s just trying to be avant garde and shock you. Clearly she needs to be educated. Let’s help her with that.

  • http://pseudepigraphic.blogspot.com Trent

    Kitty-troll,

    You cited Wikipedia; no one has to take anything you say seriously.

    Also, the same comment suggests that you, too, think that pedophilia is despicable. If you do, how would you define pedophilia?

    Christians do not believe that God had physical sexual relations with Mary (unlike Mormons), hence her continued virginity — some would even say that her virginity was perpetual (semper virgo), even after Christ’s birth. Either way, it’s a miracle. We believe that Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit, not by human flesh and blood. Admittedly, this is ridiculous. But we believe it. So, no, God’s not a pedophile; however, Mary was sexually mature, and, broadly put, had also become a young woman, taking on the responsibilities and duties of hearth and home that were proper to an adult woman. Her betrothal was normal, both when measured by the yardstick of natural law as well as that of Jewish cultural custom. It’s hard for us to imagine this, bound as we are by the contemporary understanding (tacit and explicit) that the years between birth and thirty (if it’s even that soon) comprise a period of extended adolescence free from duty and responsibility towards family and neighbors, during which time you screw off, follow your heart, and “find yourself.” Historically, this view is a novelty. The fruit it’s bearing has been pretty bitter, yet some would have us believe that it’s indicative of real freedom. I’ll bet you think so. Go figure — that’s a whole other conversation. Given your tone, though, I expect all of this bourgeousie patriarchal language of hearth, home, duty, and responsibility will rankle you and provoke accusations of chauvinism, sexism, oppressive male-ness, etc. Whatever.

    But I digress.

    I can already tell, Quad-Kitty, that you’re going to lose the flame war that you’re starting.

    Other sincere, polite readers of this blog, I intend to keep up this discussion as long as our feline friend is inclined to do the same. Let’s do our best to answer all of what she says in a spirit of gentility. Don’t rise to take the bait; she’s just trying to be avant garde and shock you. Clearly she needs to be educated. Let’s help her with that.

  • #4 Kitty

    @Steve #14
    Custom dictates that she was between 12 and 13 years old. So, clearly Paul doesn’t think sexual relations with children this age constitutes pedophilia. And you’re accusing me of anthropomorphizing God? We’re talking about the Word becoming flesh here! You can’t get anymore anthropomorphical than that.
    And inflammatory? Did God or did he not get a middle school age girl pregnant? It’s just inflammatory because we’re not allowed to ask those sorts of questions.
    @Trent
    I don’t ask anyone to take me seriously. I’m a garden variety fool; I exercise bad judgement, talk too much, have no respect for authority, etc., etc.
    But you said,

    Mary was sexually mature, and, broadly put, had also become a young woman, taking on the responsibilities and duties of hearth and home that were proper to an adult woman.

    So, Mary~ at 13 was sexually mature? And even if God didn’t (physically) have sexual relations with her (he’s an invisible spirit after all) Joseph (as her husband) certainly did unless you buy into all of the perpetual virginity myths.
    If 13 year old girls were sexually mature during biblical times why aren’t they now? Is it because we live longer now?
    And right~ not defending pedophilia. I abhor the exploitation of children in every way. Even going so far as positing that the “No Pain; No Gain” mentality of athletics is exploitative and dangerous.

  • #4 Kitty

    @Steve #14
    Custom dictates that she was between 12 and 13 years old. So, clearly Paul doesn’t think sexual relations with children this age constitutes pedophilia. And you’re accusing me of anthropomorphizing God? We’re talking about the Word becoming flesh here! You can’t get anymore anthropomorphical than that.
    And inflammatory? Did God or did he not get a middle school age girl pregnant? It’s just inflammatory because we’re not allowed to ask those sorts of questions.
    @Trent
    I don’t ask anyone to take me seriously. I’m a garden variety fool; I exercise bad judgement, talk too much, have no respect for authority, etc., etc.
    But you said,

    Mary was sexually mature, and, broadly put, had also become a young woman, taking on the responsibilities and duties of hearth and home that were proper to an adult woman.

    So, Mary~ at 13 was sexually mature? And even if God didn’t (physically) have sexual relations with her (he’s an invisible spirit after all) Joseph (as her husband) certainly did unless you buy into all of the perpetual virginity myths.
    If 13 year old girls were sexually mature during biblical times why aren’t they now? Is it because we live longer now?
    And right~ not defending pedophilia. I abhor the exploitation of children in every way. Even going so far as positing that the “No Pain; No Gain” mentality of athletics is exploitative and dangerous.

  • fws

    if this article is talking about the line we modernist draw arbitrarily as when childhood ends, at age 16 or 18, then there is nothing at all wrong with the article and kitty, even though she could have been more toned down, has a point.

    the standard for passing to adulthood throughout world history was as soon as children passed through puberty. that was around 12-13 years old for girls and 14-15 for boys.

    so if the author is merely saying that childhood traditionally comes to an end at puberty, then I have no problem with that. in fact, it might be more biblical (1 cor 7) to get a 12 year old girl or 14 year old boy married off rather than have them burn with lust.

    but in our modern society , where the extended family/tribe doesnt exist any longer, this may not be a practical option

    these are issues that will come up more and more in the usa because cultures are moving here that have practices that look identical to OT practices as to marriage. we need to take a deep breath and discuss this all calmly.

  • fws

    if this article is talking about the line we modernist draw arbitrarily as when childhood ends, at age 16 or 18, then there is nothing at all wrong with the article and kitty, even though she could have been more toned down, has a point.

    the standard for passing to adulthood throughout world history was as soon as children passed through puberty. that was around 12-13 years old for girls and 14-15 for boys.

    so if the author is merely saying that childhood traditionally comes to an end at puberty, then I have no problem with that. in fact, it might be more biblical (1 cor 7) to get a 12 year old girl or 14 year old boy married off rather than have them burn with lust.

    but in our modern society , where the extended family/tribe doesnt exist any longer, this may not be a practical option

    these are issues that will come up more and more in the usa because cultures are moving here that have practices that look identical to OT practices as to marriage. we need to take a deep breath and discuss this all calmly.

  • http://pseudepigraphic.blogspot.com Trent

    This is fun.

    “And you’re accusing me of anthropomorphizing God? We’re talking about the Word becoming flesh here! You can’t get anymore anthropomorphical than that.”

    No, you’re anthropomorphizing God the Holy Spirit, by whom Jesus Christ was miraculously conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary. The Holy Spirit doesn’t have a body. He’s a spirit.

    By participating in an adult conversation, you are de facto asking people to give credence to your statements. Your last comment was marginally more serious; good job.

    “If 13 year old girls were sexually mature during biblical times why aren’t they now? Is it because we live longer now?”

    I have never heard anyone say that Mary was twelve or thirteen. Traditional accounts in both Eastern and Western Christendom calculate that she was fourteen at the time of the Annunciation, and probably fifteen when she gave birth to Christ.

    Furthermore, you’re interrogating a straw man. No one here is claiming that thirteen year old girls are not sexually mature; no is claiming that they are. The fact is, some are not, and some are. Girls reach puberty much sooner than boys, and girls today reach puberty even sooner than they used to due to a variety of different reasons. Perhaps your incidental mention of this fact would make sense if someone here were attempting to defend the rights of sexually-mature thirteen year-olds to fornicate with other thirteen year-olds, but not with adults. I don’t think anyone is, though.

    Pedophilia is a species of fornication, which is a species of adultery. It also very often a species of homosexuality. There is nothing inherently wrong with a thirty year old man marrying a fifteen year old woman. There is something inherently wrong with a thirty year old man sodomizing a fifteen year old man, because homosexuality (sodomy) is wrong. We don’t even need to say “and because…”. Likewise there is something wrong with a thirty year old man fornicating with a fifteen year old woman, even if it’s consensual, because fornication is wrong.

    In the above scenarios I intentionally used the words “man” and “woman” even when referring to people who would legally be minors. Why? To demonstrate that sexual maturity nor age of majority doth sexual morality make. Sexual morality is hedged in by natural law and — within that hedge — the sacred bond of marriage between a man and a woman. Now, this principle could be (and has been) put into the service of perverse casuistry: while there is nothing inherently wrong in theory with a thirty year old marrying a fifteen year old, there is much that makes such an arrangement generally inadvisable, and suspect. Marrying a sexually immature person (by using the term marriage I mean to imply that the person in question is of the correct, i.e., opposite, sex), is also inherently wrong, since such an arrangement is inherently exploitative, i.e., sexuality is intentionally separated from its procreative end. It’s wrong for the same reasons that homosexuality, sodomy, and masturbation are all wrong; it is, as Aquinas put it, “a sin against nature.” It also happens to be wrong for other reasons which can’t be spelled out quite as syllogistically. Indeed, I don’t like describing it so stoically as I feel that it warrants more reviling and condemnation than I am giving it.

    It’s much easier, and much simpler, to describe what is good than delineating in great detail the various perversions of a particular good. So, too, with sexual morality. For two excellent positive summations of what does sexual morality make, check out Dr. Christopher Oleson’s “Phony Matrimony” and Dr. Allan Carlson’s “Meaningful Intercourse”.

  • http://pseudepigraphic.blogspot.com Trent

    This is fun.

    “And you’re accusing me of anthropomorphizing God? We’re talking about the Word becoming flesh here! You can’t get anymore anthropomorphical than that.”

    No, you’re anthropomorphizing God the Holy Spirit, by whom Jesus Christ was miraculously conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary. The Holy Spirit doesn’t have a body. He’s a spirit.

    By participating in an adult conversation, you are de facto asking people to give credence to your statements. Your last comment was marginally more serious; good job.

    “If 13 year old girls were sexually mature during biblical times why aren’t they now? Is it because we live longer now?”

    I have never heard anyone say that Mary was twelve or thirteen. Traditional accounts in both Eastern and Western Christendom calculate that she was fourteen at the time of the Annunciation, and probably fifteen when she gave birth to Christ.

    Furthermore, you’re interrogating a straw man. No one here is claiming that thirteen year old girls are not sexually mature; no is claiming that they are. The fact is, some are not, and some are. Girls reach puberty much sooner than boys, and girls today reach puberty even sooner than they used to due to a variety of different reasons. Perhaps your incidental mention of this fact would make sense if someone here were attempting to defend the rights of sexually-mature thirteen year-olds to fornicate with other thirteen year-olds, but not with adults. I don’t think anyone is, though.

    Pedophilia is a species of fornication, which is a species of adultery. It also very often a species of homosexuality. There is nothing inherently wrong with a thirty year old man marrying a fifteen year old woman. There is something inherently wrong with a thirty year old man sodomizing a fifteen year old man, because homosexuality (sodomy) is wrong. We don’t even need to say “and because…”. Likewise there is something wrong with a thirty year old man fornicating with a fifteen year old woman, even if it’s consensual, because fornication is wrong.

    In the above scenarios I intentionally used the words “man” and “woman” even when referring to people who would legally be minors. Why? To demonstrate that sexual maturity nor age of majority doth sexual morality make. Sexual morality is hedged in by natural law and — within that hedge — the sacred bond of marriage between a man and a woman. Now, this principle could be (and has been) put into the service of perverse casuistry: while there is nothing inherently wrong in theory with a thirty year old marrying a fifteen year old, there is much that makes such an arrangement generally inadvisable, and suspect. Marrying a sexually immature person (by using the term marriage I mean to imply that the person in question is of the correct, i.e., opposite, sex), is also inherently wrong, since such an arrangement is inherently exploitative, i.e., sexuality is intentionally separated from its procreative end. It’s wrong for the same reasons that homosexuality, sodomy, and masturbation are all wrong; it is, as Aquinas put it, “a sin against nature.” It also happens to be wrong for other reasons which can’t be spelled out quite as syllogistically. Indeed, I don’t like describing it so stoically as I feel that it warrants more reviling and condemnation than I am giving it.

    It’s much easier, and much simpler, to describe what is good than delineating in great detail the various perversions of a particular good. So, too, with sexual morality. For two excellent positive summations of what does sexual morality make, check out Dr. Christopher Oleson’s “Phony Matrimony” and Dr. Allan Carlson’s “Meaningful Intercourse”.

  • http://pseudepigraphic.blogspot.com Trent

    @fws

    Nice to run into you again. I agree with what you’re saying. Advocates of “intergeneration intimacy,” as the euphemism goes, are not generally proposing early marriage, but rather seeking acceptance for sexual practices which are sodomistic, fetishistic, and generally anathema to marriage.

    It’s interesting that we don’t raise a hue and cry about two high-schoolers fornicating, but we do raise one if a well-to-do thirty year old man wants to take a sixteen year old as his wife and raise a family with her. If this was Kitty’s point, then it is a good one. But she ought to flesh it out more, and with more decorum.

  • http://pseudepigraphic.blogspot.com Trent

    @fws

    Nice to run into you again. I agree with what you’re saying. Advocates of “intergeneration intimacy,” as the euphemism goes, are not generally proposing early marriage, but rather seeking acceptance for sexual practices which are sodomistic, fetishistic, and generally anathema to marriage.

    It’s interesting that we don’t raise a hue and cry about two high-schoolers fornicating, but we do raise one if a well-to-do thirty year old man wants to take a sixteen year old as his wife and raise a family with her. If this was Kitty’s point, then it is a good one. But she ought to flesh it out more, and with more decorum.

  • #4 Kitty

    @Trent

    No, you’re anthropomorphizing God the Holy Spirit, by whom Jesus Christ was miraculously conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary. The Holy Spirit doesn’t have a body. He’s a spirit.

    God (an invisible sky pixie) becoming flesh and blood (Jesus) does not connote a form of anthropomorphizing?
    And Mary was 14 when she became pregnant ~ she was then, by our current standards, still a minor. God, on the other hand, was not a minor. And so, it makes no difference whether he did it in the spirit or whether or not he used his magical powers he still impregnated a child.
    You state above that homosexuality is wrong? What are you basing this on?

  • #4 Kitty

    @Trent

    No, you’re anthropomorphizing God the Holy Spirit, by whom Jesus Christ was miraculously conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary. The Holy Spirit doesn’t have a body. He’s a spirit.

    God (an invisible sky pixie) becoming flesh and blood (Jesus) does not connote a form of anthropomorphizing?
    And Mary was 14 when she became pregnant ~ she was then, by our current standards, still a minor. God, on the other hand, was not a minor. And so, it makes no difference whether he did it in the spirit or whether or not he used his magical powers he still impregnated a child.
    You state above that homosexuality is wrong? What are you basing this on?

  • Steve Billingsley

    fws @17
    #4 Kitty isn’t trying to make a point, she is just trolling to try to make oh-so-clever points that supposedly undermine or point out contradictions within the Christian faith. Engage in discussion if you would like, just know what you are dealing with.

  • Steve Billingsley

    fws @17
    #4 Kitty isn’t trying to make a point, she is just trolling to try to make oh-so-clever points that supposedly undermine or point out contradictions within the Christian faith. Engage in discussion if you would like, just know what you are dealing with.

  • #4 Kitty

    @Steve Billingsley
    The contradictions are what make our faith interesting. Otherwise we do nothing but build “sepulchres of the fathers”. I’m disappointed that the only category this approach deserves is that of “troll”.

  • #4 Kitty

    @Steve Billingsley
    The contradictions are what make our faith interesting. Otherwise we do nothing but build “sepulchres of the fathers”. I’m disappointed that the only category this approach deserves is that of “troll”.

  • fws

    kitty

    you make some good points, but then you express them in a way that shows no respect for the sensibilities of anyone here.

    I am not certain how you feel that is helpful or makes others feel invited to hear what you have to say.

    We are here, ideally, to serve each other.

  • fws

    kitty

    you make some good points, but then you express them in a way that shows no respect for the sensibilities of anyone here.

    I am not certain how you feel that is helpful or makes others feel invited to hear what you have to say.

    We are here, ideally, to serve each other.

  • fws

    trent @ 18
    “Sexual morality is hedged in by natural law and”

    I would like to point out that for the Lutherans here, the Lutheran Confessions quite intentionally and deliberately recategorize the ideas of St Thomas (whom I have come to love). Lutherans define the term “natural Law ” as narrowly and only meaning the law written by God in the reason of all men, even those without bibles per romans 2:15,. Then the Confessions set up a category called “Ordinances of God” into which fall what today we call “laws of nature” and things like the sex drive and things that, of themselves are amoral. Lutherans, in their public Confession of their faith would reject the Thomistic/Aristotelian definition of natural law as equaling moral imperative , or that description=prescription.

    Why? Look at the curses in Gen 3.

    work will be by sweat of brow,
    having children will be very painful
    the earth will produce thorns and thistles and not give good easily
    women will have a thing for men
    women will be under the thumb of me.

    None of thesse things are “natural” according to Genesis 3, and none of them are God’s will” or his “telos” or his “devine design”. They are all curses. This means, for example, that in the prefallen world, men and women were equal partners!

    And ….there will not be marriage in the resurrection.Marriage is one of the things that are “flesh that will perish with the earth” in Romans 8. Marriage is about mortification of Old Adam and death. It will end with this life and this planet.

    I am pointing this stuff out to you to encourage you to not just assume that the Lutherans here accept your definiton of “natural Law”. We do not. So it would be interesting for you to make that case and argument rather than assume it is self evident. To us Lutherans it is so very not.

  • fws

    trent @ 18
    “Sexual morality is hedged in by natural law and”

    I would like to point out that for the Lutherans here, the Lutheran Confessions quite intentionally and deliberately recategorize the ideas of St Thomas (whom I have come to love). Lutherans define the term “natural Law ” as narrowly and only meaning the law written by God in the reason of all men, even those without bibles per romans 2:15,. Then the Confessions set up a category called “Ordinances of God” into which fall what today we call “laws of nature” and things like the sex drive and things that, of themselves are amoral. Lutherans, in their public Confession of their faith would reject the Thomistic/Aristotelian definition of natural law as equaling moral imperative , or that description=prescription.

    Why? Look at the curses in Gen 3.

    work will be by sweat of brow,
    having children will be very painful
    the earth will produce thorns and thistles and not give good easily
    women will have a thing for men
    women will be under the thumb of me.

    None of thesse things are “natural” according to Genesis 3, and none of them are God’s will” or his “telos” or his “devine design”. They are all curses. This means, for example, that in the prefallen world, men and women were equal partners!

    And ….there will not be marriage in the resurrection.Marriage is one of the things that are “flesh that will perish with the earth” in Romans 8. Marriage is about mortification of Old Adam and death. It will end with this life and this planet.

    I am pointing this stuff out to you to encourage you to not just assume that the Lutherans here accept your definiton of “natural Law”. We do not. So it would be interesting for you to make that case and argument rather than assume it is self evident. To us Lutherans it is so very not.

  • fws

    steve @ 21

    I think Kitty is identifying herself as a christian. While I agree that her presentation of what she has to say leaves alot to be desired, we need to be careful as to how we understand what she is saying I would suggest.

    Kitty: see what I mean? It is not a good sign that others miss the fact that you claim to be a fellow christian. I would gently urge you to rethink your form of presentation to be of better service to others as we are called to be. (1 cor 6)

  • fws

    steve @ 21

    I think Kitty is identifying herself as a christian. While I agree that her presentation of what she has to say leaves alot to be desired, we need to be careful as to how we understand what she is saying I would suggest.

    Kitty: see what I mean? It is not a good sign that others miss the fact that you claim to be a fellow christian. I would gently urge you to rethink your form of presentation to be of better service to others as we are called to be. (1 cor 6)

  • Pingback: Illegal Aliens, Professional Pedophilia, No Borders, One Big Incest U S Family « A Rose by Any Other Name

  • Pingback: Illegal Aliens, Professional Pedophilia, No Borders, One Big Incest U S Family « A Rose by Any Other Name

  • #4 Kitty

    @fws
    I get it.
    1 Corinthians 13:4-7

  • #4 Kitty

    @fws
    I get it.
    1 Corinthians 13:4-7

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    FWS (@25), if Kitty wants to identify themself as Christian, they can do so for us now in an unambiguous fashion. But I believe your (good) intention to make the best construction may simply be reading too much into what they’ve written. I mean, best I can tell, all you’ve got to go on is a vague reference (@22) to “our faith”, without actually indicating that Kitty shares our particular faith. Weighing against that is Kitty’s much less vague accusation that the Incarnation was “despicable” (@13).

    Regardless, Kitty, your argument — such as it is — really makes no sense. I assume you are aware that Scripture doesn’t tell us how old Mary was at the time. No, you are instead forced to assume Mary’s age based on “Jewish custom” (@13) as delivered to us through anthropological research.

    Which is a fairly reasonable way to guess how old Mary was, but it completely misses the point that, well, that was Jewish custom!

    Of course, in saying that, I’m arguing that there is no universal understanding of pedophilia, sexual maturity, age of majority, and so on. So imposing our modern notions of these things (which, I would further argue, are themselves at odds with the biological facts of a much earlier date for puberty than 18 or whatever) back into first-century Palestine makes no sense.

    That doesn’t mean that pedophilia doesn’t exist, or that there aren’t some more concrete aspects to its definition. But it does allow for some variation among cultures and eras.

    Now, if all that I’m saying here is actually your point, then let me add to FWS’ note that you notably failed to convey it with your comments — which, I would add, certainly do come across as little more than modern secular-humanist trolling.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    FWS (@25), if Kitty wants to identify themself as Christian, they can do so for us now in an unambiguous fashion. But I believe your (good) intention to make the best construction may simply be reading too much into what they’ve written. I mean, best I can tell, all you’ve got to go on is a vague reference (@22) to “our faith”, without actually indicating that Kitty shares our particular faith. Weighing against that is Kitty’s much less vague accusation that the Incarnation was “despicable” (@13).

    Regardless, Kitty, your argument — such as it is — really makes no sense. I assume you are aware that Scripture doesn’t tell us how old Mary was at the time. No, you are instead forced to assume Mary’s age based on “Jewish custom” (@13) as delivered to us through anthropological research.

    Which is a fairly reasonable way to guess how old Mary was, but it completely misses the point that, well, that was Jewish custom!

    Of course, in saying that, I’m arguing that there is no universal understanding of pedophilia, sexual maturity, age of majority, and so on. So imposing our modern notions of these things (which, I would further argue, are themselves at odds with the biological facts of a much earlier date for puberty than 18 or whatever) back into first-century Palestine makes no sense.

    That doesn’t mean that pedophilia doesn’t exist, or that there aren’t some more concrete aspects to its definition. But it does allow for some variation among cultures and eras.

    Now, if all that I’m saying here is actually your point, then let me add to FWS’ note that you notably failed to convey it with your comments — which, I would add, certainly do come across as little more than modern secular-humanist trolling.

  • http://pseudepigraphic.blogspot.com Trent

    @fws

    You and I and some others did a pretty good job of sidetracking a post on Presbyterian “Federal Vision.” Looks like we’re going to do it again :)

    “I am pointing this stuff out to you to encourage you to not just assume that the Lutherans here accept your definition of ‘natural Law. We do not. So it would be interesting for you to make that case and argument rather than assume it is self evident. To us Lutherans it is so very not.”

    A few points:

    1. I don’t want to waste a lot of time articulating arguments that are better made elsewhere, hence my posting of links by Oleson and Carlson.

    2. I am a Lutheran. I understand that you are, too. I understand also that you are well-versed in the Confessions, etc.; however, I would politely submit that you are no more in a position to speak authoritatively than I as to what Lutherans think about the topic of natural law, and are, for that matter, begging the question even more than I. Like I said, I posted two excellent pieces.

    3. Furthermore, your point below is unclear:

    “Lutherans define the term ‘Natural Law’ as narrowly and only meaning the law written by God in the reason of all men, even those without bibles per Romans 2:15. Then the Confessions set up a category called ‘Ordinances of God’ into which fall what today we call “laws of nature” and things like the sex drive and things that, of themselves are amoral. Lutherans, in their public Confession of their faith would reject the Thomistic/Aristotelian definition of natural law as equaling moral imperative , or that description=prescription.”

    Lutherans do not reject Thomas’s and Aristotle’s definition of natural law in toto. The definitive expostulation of “the Lutheran view” towards Natural Law, insofar as there is one that is peculiarly Lutheran, was published last year by CPH: Natural Law: A Lutheran Reappraisal. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you, but I don’t see your point as at all militating against my own. I’m not actually sure I see your point.

    What argument against homosexuality would you offer our fellow-interlocutor Kitty here, if not the argument from natural law, hmmm? I’ll give you a big hint: the argument from the authority of scripture relies upon the argument from natural law. If you engage this point, please do so only after reading the link to Baker.

  • http://pseudepigraphic.blogspot.com Trent

    @fws

    You and I and some others did a pretty good job of sidetracking a post on Presbyterian “Federal Vision.” Looks like we’re going to do it again :)

    “I am pointing this stuff out to you to encourage you to not just assume that the Lutherans here accept your definition of ‘natural Law. We do not. So it would be interesting for you to make that case and argument rather than assume it is self evident. To us Lutherans it is so very not.”

    A few points:

    1. I don’t want to waste a lot of time articulating arguments that are better made elsewhere, hence my posting of links by Oleson and Carlson.

    2. I am a Lutheran. I understand that you are, too. I understand also that you are well-versed in the Confessions, etc.; however, I would politely submit that you are no more in a position to speak authoritatively than I as to what Lutherans think about the topic of natural law, and are, for that matter, begging the question even more than I. Like I said, I posted two excellent pieces.

    3. Furthermore, your point below is unclear:

    “Lutherans define the term ‘Natural Law’ as narrowly and only meaning the law written by God in the reason of all men, even those without bibles per Romans 2:15. Then the Confessions set up a category called ‘Ordinances of God’ into which fall what today we call “laws of nature” and things like the sex drive and things that, of themselves are amoral. Lutherans, in their public Confession of their faith would reject the Thomistic/Aristotelian definition of natural law as equaling moral imperative , or that description=prescription.”

    Lutherans do not reject Thomas’s and Aristotle’s definition of natural law in toto. The definitive expostulation of “the Lutheran view” towards Natural Law, insofar as there is one that is peculiarly Lutheran, was published last year by CPH: Natural Law: A Lutheran Reappraisal. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you, but I don’t see your point as at all militating against my own. I’m not actually sure I see your point.

    What argument against homosexuality would you offer our fellow-interlocutor Kitty here, if not the argument from natural law, hmmm? I’ll give you a big hint: the argument from the authority of scripture relies upon the argument from natural law. If you engage this point, please do so only after reading the link to Baker.

  • helen

    From Wikipedia (yes, I know, but I’ve read it in more responsible sources):
    “Historical shift
    The average age at which the onset of puberty occurs has dropped significantly since the 1840s.[51][52][53] This was dubbed ‘the secular trend’ by J.M. Tanner. In every decade from 1840 to 1950 there was a drop of four months in the average age of menarche among Western European females. In Norway, girls born in 1840 had their menarche at an average age of 17 years. In France, the average in 1840 was 15.3 years. In England, the average in 1840 was 16.5 years. In Japan the decline happened later and was then more rapid: from 1945 to 1975 in Japan there was a drop of 11 months per decade.

    A 2006 study in Denmark found that puberty, as evidenced by breast development, started at an average age of 9 years and 10 months, a year earlier than when a similar study was done in 1991. Scientists believe the phenomenon could be linked to obesity or exposure to chemicals in the food chain, and is putting girls at greater long-term risk of breast cancer.[54]“

    [I have read an article suggesting that hormones fed to chickens and cattle to increase marketable weight at a younger age have an effect on human development.]

    My point is that while Jewish culture commonly betrothed young people soon after puberty, the present day age for that cannot be assumed to be the usual age then. [Also the betrothal, while binding, was not immediately followed by marriage, as evidenced in Luke.]
    There has been a considerable drop in the age of onset, just in the last 150 years.
    I have read various supposed ages for Mary, based on “tradition” but I don’t know where or when “tradition” picked up its numbers.

  • helen

    From Wikipedia (yes, I know, but I’ve read it in more responsible sources):
    “Historical shift
    The average age at which the onset of puberty occurs has dropped significantly since the 1840s.[51][52][53] This was dubbed ‘the secular trend’ by J.M. Tanner. In every decade from 1840 to 1950 there was a drop of four months in the average age of menarche among Western European females. In Norway, girls born in 1840 had their menarche at an average age of 17 years. In France, the average in 1840 was 15.3 years. In England, the average in 1840 was 16.5 years. In Japan the decline happened later and was then more rapid: from 1945 to 1975 in Japan there was a drop of 11 months per decade.

    A 2006 study in Denmark found that puberty, as evidenced by breast development, started at an average age of 9 years and 10 months, a year earlier than when a similar study was done in 1991. Scientists believe the phenomenon could be linked to obesity or exposure to chemicals in the food chain, and is putting girls at greater long-term risk of breast cancer.[54]“

    [I have read an article suggesting that hormones fed to chickens and cattle to increase marketable weight at a younger age have an effect on human development.]

    My point is that while Jewish culture commonly betrothed young people soon after puberty, the present day age for that cannot be assumed to be the usual age then. [Also the betrothal, while binding, was not immediately followed by marriage, as evidenced in Luke.]
    There has been a considerable drop in the age of onset, just in the last 150 years.
    I have read various supposed ages for Mary, based on “tradition” but I don’t know where or when “tradition” picked up its numbers.

  • Steve Billingsley

    Just a thought. Any presentation of professed Christianity that characterizes God as a pedophile or an invisible sky pixie not only leaves a lot to be desired, but is either heretical, blasphemous, insane or all of the above.
    Just a thought.

  • Steve Billingsley

    Just a thought. Any presentation of professed Christianity that characterizes God as a pedophile or an invisible sky pixie not only leaves a lot to be desired, but is either heretical, blasphemous, insane or all of the above.
    Just a thought.

  • http://pseudepigraphic.blogspot.com Trent

    @helen

    Good points, all. Specifically I’ve heard that it’s best to stick with organic milk for one’s daughters, as the hormones in most mass-production dairies have been linked to earlier puberty in girls.

    @Kitty

    The following is your own admission:

    I don’t ask anyone to take me seriously. I’m a garden variety fool; I exercise bad judgement, talk too much, have no respect for authority, etc., etc.

    Soooo…OK. If you have no respect for authority, then no viewpoint in this discussion can be right, nor can any be wrong. This is all just rival perspectivalism, and, definitionally, a pointless discussion. Why are you participating? You ought rather to look blithely on with full approval of everything that is being said, as nothing can be said (according to your line of reasoning) that draws nearer to or departs farther from an authoritative position.

    Why do you feel the need to refer to God as a “sky pixie”? Are you a Christian? I’d like to read some honest answers to these questions, if you please. Otherwise I think I’m going to suggest to the other interlocutors that we sort of just forget that your comments happened and ignore what you post, since it will then be clear that you don’t take any of this seriously anyway and have no respect for honest dialogue. Some of us would like to discuss the matter at hand without (just) trying to be snarky.

    Please consider this an honest invitation to a real conversation.

  • http://pseudepigraphic.blogspot.com Trent

    @helen

    Good points, all. Specifically I’ve heard that it’s best to stick with organic milk for one’s daughters, as the hormones in most mass-production dairies have been linked to earlier puberty in girls.

    @Kitty

    The following is your own admission:

    I don’t ask anyone to take me seriously. I’m a garden variety fool; I exercise bad judgement, talk too much, have no respect for authority, etc., etc.

    Soooo…OK. If you have no respect for authority, then no viewpoint in this discussion can be right, nor can any be wrong. This is all just rival perspectivalism, and, definitionally, a pointless discussion. Why are you participating? You ought rather to look blithely on with full approval of everything that is being said, as nothing can be said (according to your line of reasoning) that draws nearer to or departs farther from an authoritative position.

    Why do you feel the need to refer to God as a “sky pixie”? Are you a Christian? I’d like to read some honest answers to these questions, if you please. Otherwise I think I’m going to suggest to the other interlocutors that we sort of just forget that your comments happened and ignore what you post, since it will then be clear that you don’t take any of this seriously anyway and have no respect for honest dialogue. Some of us would like to discuss the matter at hand without (just) trying to be snarky.

    Please consider this an honest invitation to a real conversation.

  • helen

    Trent
    Good points, all. Specifically I’ve heard that it’s best to stick with organic milk for one’s daughters, as the hormones in most mass-production dairies have been linked to earlier puberty in girls.

    Something I read recently said that homones fed to chickens concentrate in the skin, so if you haven’t got hormone free chicken, at least avoid eating the skin.

    [Pardon the digression, folks!]

    Kitty, it might be fun to disrupt discussion here, but I think Lutherquest is more your speed.

  • helen

    Trent
    Good points, all. Specifically I’ve heard that it’s best to stick with organic milk for one’s daughters, as the hormones in most mass-production dairies have been linked to earlier puberty in girls.

    Something I read recently said that homones fed to chickens concentrate in the skin, so if you haven’t got hormone free chicken, at least avoid eating the skin.

    [Pardon the digression, folks!]

    Kitty, it might be fun to disrupt discussion here, but I think Lutherquest is more your speed.

  • steve

    Trent, #18

    “No, you’re anthropomorphizing God the Holy Spirit, by whom Jesus Christ was miraculously conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary. The Holy Spirit doesn’t have a body. He’s a spirit.”

    Thanks for saving me the trouble. I think I’ll take your suggestion in post 31. If I can. The spirit is willing but…

  • steve

    Trent, #18

    “No, you’re anthropomorphizing God the Holy Spirit, by whom Jesus Christ was miraculously conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary. The Holy Spirit doesn’t have a body. He’s a spirit.”

    Thanks for saving me the trouble. I think I’ll take your suggestion in post 31. If I can. The spirit is willing but…

  • fws

    trent @ 28

    TRENT 1. Read the links to Oleson and Carlson..

    FRANK I will read them. Not everything written by Lutherans is Lutheran or Confessional of course. That goes for what I write as well! ;) I will react to them as I have time…

    TRENT2. I am a Lutheran. … you are no more in a position to speak authoritatively than I as to what Lutherans think .

    RESPONSE: GLAD to hear that. I discard what does not square with the Confessions. That includes what I write as well! What the Confessions say = “Lutheranism”. Nothing else. I call this restriction: “Theological Mortification of the Old Adam”

    TRENT QUOTING FWS 3. [this that you wrote ] is unclear:
    “Lutherans define the term ‘Natural Law’ as narrowly and only meaning the law written by God in the reason of all men, even those without bibles per Romans 2:15. Then the Confessions set up a category called ‘Ordinances of God’ into which fall what today we call “laws of nature” and things like the sex drive and things that, of themselves are amoral. Lutherans, in their public Confession of their faith would reject the Thomistic/Aristotelian definition of natural law as equaling moral imperative , or that description=prescription.”

    RESPONSE Explain what is unclear please brother Trent.

    TRENT Lutherans do not reject Thomas’s and Aristotle’s definition of natural law in toto.

    FRANK True! The confessions reject the following:
    The Image of God = conformity to the Law of God.
    The Law of God = The Eternal Will of God.
    Original Righeousness = Adamic conformity to the Law
    The opposite of sin is conformity to the Law.
    concupiscence = Aristotle’s baser instincts/natural appetites enflamed by emotion/desire
    “Natural Law” includes anything else besides the Law God has written in the Reason of ALL men, even those without Bibles (romans 2:15 is the basis for that assertion).
    That there is ANY morality that one can DO that cannot be known and done without any need for a bible.
    That there is a morality that God requires us to do that ONLY christians can know about.
    That anything beyond the Ethics of Aristotle can be demanded in order to be a moral person in society.

    That list is just for starters….

    TRENT The definitive expostulation of “the Lutheran view” towards Natural Law, insofar as there is one that is peculiarly Lutheran, was published last year by CPH: Natural Law: A Lutheran Reappraisal.

    FRANK The Lutheran Confessors were intimately familiar with St Thomas and categorically rejected his definition of “natural law” in our Confessions. So I must beg to differ with your words “definitive” and “Lutheran” in referring to that book that asks Lutherans to return to Scholasticism.

    I suggest that this is the equivalent of inviting Lutherans to adopt evangelical worship forms claiming that this will not eventually lead also to adoption of evangelical theology.
    The “reappraisal” was already done! Cf the Apology to the Augsburg Confession to read the “definitive and Gnesio Lutheran” version!

    TRENT What argument against homosexuality would you offer our fellow-interlocutor Kitty here, if not the argument from natural law, hmmm? I’ll give you a big hint: the argument from the authority of scripture relies upon the argument from natural law. If you engage this point, please do so only after reading the link to Baker.

    FRANK Yeah . I know. The compulsion for Lutherans to return to Scholasticism , which is the thinly disguised pagan philosophy of Aristotle, is the gay menace. There is (it is falsely claimed) no response from our Confession or scripture to this menace, so we must scurry back to Mother Rome .

    So we will win the battle and lose what is most precious to us. I am so sad to see this.

  • fws

    trent @ 28

    TRENT 1. Read the links to Oleson and Carlson..

    FRANK I will read them. Not everything written by Lutherans is Lutheran or Confessional of course. That goes for what I write as well! ;) I will react to them as I have time…

    TRENT2. I am a Lutheran. … you are no more in a position to speak authoritatively than I as to what Lutherans think .

    RESPONSE: GLAD to hear that. I discard what does not square with the Confessions. That includes what I write as well! What the Confessions say = “Lutheranism”. Nothing else. I call this restriction: “Theological Mortification of the Old Adam”

    TRENT QUOTING FWS 3. [this that you wrote ] is unclear:
    “Lutherans define the term ‘Natural Law’ as narrowly and only meaning the law written by God in the reason of all men, even those without bibles per Romans 2:15. Then the Confessions set up a category called ‘Ordinances of God’ into which fall what today we call “laws of nature” and things like the sex drive and things that, of themselves are amoral. Lutherans, in their public Confession of their faith would reject the Thomistic/Aristotelian definition of natural law as equaling moral imperative , or that description=prescription.”

    RESPONSE Explain what is unclear please brother Trent.

    TRENT Lutherans do not reject Thomas’s and Aristotle’s definition of natural law in toto.

    FRANK True! The confessions reject the following:
    The Image of God = conformity to the Law of God.
    The Law of God = The Eternal Will of God.
    Original Righeousness = Adamic conformity to the Law
    The opposite of sin is conformity to the Law.
    concupiscence = Aristotle’s baser instincts/natural appetites enflamed by emotion/desire
    “Natural Law” includes anything else besides the Law God has written in the Reason of ALL men, even those without Bibles (romans 2:15 is the basis for that assertion).
    That there is ANY morality that one can DO that cannot be known and done without any need for a bible.
    That there is a morality that God requires us to do that ONLY christians can know about.
    That anything beyond the Ethics of Aristotle can be demanded in order to be a moral person in society.

    That list is just for starters….

    TRENT The definitive expostulation of “the Lutheran view” towards Natural Law, insofar as there is one that is peculiarly Lutheran, was published last year by CPH: Natural Law: A Lutheran Reappraisal.

    FRANK The Lutheran Confessors were intimately familiar with St Thomas and categorically rejected his definition of “natural law” in our Confessions. So I must beg to differ with your words “definitive” and “Lutheran” in referring to that book that asks Lutherans to return to Scholasticism.

    I suggest that this is the equivalent of inviting Lutherans to adopt evangelical worship forms claiming that this will not eventually lead also to adoption of evangelical theology.
    The “reappraisal” was already done! Cf the Apology to the Augsburg Confession to read the “definitive and Gnesio Lutheran” version!

    TRENT What argument against homosexuality would you offer our fellow-interlocutor Kitty here, if not the argument from natural law, hmmm? I’ll give you a big hint: the argument from the authority of scripture relies upon the argument from natural law. If you engage this point, please do so only after reading the link to Baker.

    FRANK Yeah . I know. The compulsion for Lutherans to return to Scholasticism , which is the thinly disguised pagan philosophy of Aristotle, is the gay menace. There is (it is falsely claimed) no response from our Confession or scripture to this menace, so we must scurry back to Mother Rome .

    So we will win the battle and lose what is most precious to us. I am so sad to see this.

  • fws

    trent @ 28

    “Same-sex sex is sinful. Why? Because the Bible says so? That the Bible says it is sinful is not the same as saying, on the basis of Scripture, why it is sin. Same-sex behavior is sin because it is a full, frontal assault on God’s will revealed in Scripture and expressed in Creation, notably His desire to grow and to educate His human family through male/female marriage and child bearing/rearing.”

    This is an assertion of fact. This is not an argument. Where do I find the detailed arguments for the 5 assertions of fact in this statement?

    The article is an argument/advertisement for a “reappraisal of natural law”. surprise this is a book of which Dr Baker was the editor.

    Ok. The author says that anything that uses the labels homosexual or sexual orientation can be simply dismissed as “psychobabble.” Again an assertion of fact. Not an argument.

    Again. where do I find the detailed argument for this assertion of fact?

  • fws

    trent @ 28

    “Same-sex sex is sinful. Why? Because the Bible says so? That the Bible says it is sinful is not the same as saying, on the basis of Scripture, why it is sin. Same-sex behavior is sin because it is a full, frontal assault on God’s will revealed in Scripture and expressed in Creation, notably His desire to grow and to educate His human family through male/female marriage and child bearing/rearing.”

    This is an assertion of fact. This is not an argument. Where do I find the detailed arguments for the 5 assertions of fact in this statement?

    The article is an argument/advertisement for a “reappraisal of natural law”. surprise this is a book of which Dr Baker was the editor.

    Ok. The author says that anything that uses the labels homosexual or sexual orientation can be simply dismissed as “psychobabble.” Again an assertion of fact. Not an argument.

    Again. where do I find the detailed argument for this assertion of fact?

  • http://pseudepigraphic.blogspot.com Trent

    Frank,

    Don’t we all assert facts?

    Richard Weaver famously said that we “reason from facts, never towards them.” There’s nothing invalid about starting with the a priori assumptions that Baker starts with. You are correct that he states, and does not argue, that homosexuality is contrary to nature and a sin. In doing so he reiterates the testimony of Scripture to this end. His point, however, is that this testimony of Scripture itself is an iteration of the Law which is written on men’s hearts.

    Perhaps I assumed more general agreement here than was warranted; be that as it may, Baker is not trying to say all that can be said about the subject of sexual morality and natural law. He’s writing to an audience who accept that homosexuality is wrong, i.e., sinful. What is in question is not whether it is wrong, but why it is wrong, and what authority delineates it as such. His point is that we don’t need to have read the Levitical pronouncements against sodomy to know that it’s aberrant, contrary to nature, and perverse. Granted, knowing and identifying the aberrant qua sin, as not only contrary to nature but an abomination to God Most High — well, that’s a work of the Holy Spirit. But it’s the same Law. We don’t make use of the Law in its “three uses”; the Holy Spirit wields the Law upon us. All that having been said, even the pagans could distinguish between normative and aberrant sexuality and recognize the former as good and conducive to the wellbeing of the person and the community and the latter as destructive of the person and the community. Yes, I know that pederasty was common in both Greek and Roman societies. This does not undermine the truth of my point.

    Here is a fact that I will assert with the weight of Holy Writ behind it:

    Homosexuality — both in its desires and acts — is a sin. It’s certainly not an unforgivable sin. It’s not even the worst sin. But it’s a sin. Like stealing, murder, and adultery. None of these are unforgivable, obviously. But, like homosexuality, they’re sins. As with all sinners, there is forgiveness and healing for repentant homosexuals, too. Thanks be to God.

    Your screed against scholasticism is a bit much, to say the least. Scholasticism, like the Church of Rome, needed to be pruned, not burned. Chemnitz and Gerhard are rightly regarded as scholastic theologians; they did not throw the baby our with the bathwater as you are doing. I am at no risk of Romanizing, thank you; nor are the rest of the credible Lutheran scholars who have contributed to Natural Law: A Lutheran Reappraisal. Furthermore, it is wrong for you to insinuate that Rev. Baker is simply trying to sell his book, though if he were, would that be so wrong? Shame on you.

    I wrote my earlier statement saying that what you wrote was unclear because you seemed to be suggesting that it’s un-Lutheran to ascribe to the Aristotelian notion of four-fold causality, and that the teleological argument from natural law against homosexuality (it separates sexuality from its procreative end) is therefore invalid.

  • http://pseudepigraphic.blogspot.com Trent

    Frank,

    Don’t we all assert facts?

    Richard Weaver famously said that we “reason from facts, never towards them.” There’s nothing invalid about starting with the a priori assumptions that Baker starts with. You are correct that he states, and does not argue, that homosexuality is contrary to nature and a sin. In doing so he reiterates the testimony of Scripture to this end. His point, however, is that this testimony of Scripture itself is an iteration of the Law which is written on men’s hearts.

    Perhaps I assumed more general agreement here than was warranted; be that as it may, Baker is not trying to say all that can be said about the subject of sexual morality and natural law. He’s writing to an audience who accept that homosexuality is wrong, i.e., sinful. What is in question is not whether it is wrong, but why it is wrong, and what authority delineates it as such. His point is that we don’t need to have read the Levitical pronouncements against sodomy to know that it’s aberrant, contrary to nature, and perverse. Granted, knowing and identifying the aberrant qua sin, as not only contrary to nature but an abomination to God Most High — well, that’s a work of the Holy Spirit. But it’s the same Law. We don’t make use of the Law in its “three uses”; the Holy Spirit wields the Law upon us. All that having been said, even the pagans could distinguish between normative and aberrant sexuality and recognize the former as good and conducive to the wellbeing of the person and the community and the latter as destructive of the person and the community. Yes, I know that pederasty was common in both Greek and Roman societies. This does not undermine the truth of my point.

    Here is a fact that I will assert with the weight of Holy Writ behind it:

    Homosexuality — both in its desires and acts — is a sin. It’s certainly not an unforgivable sin. It’s not even the worst sin. But it’s a sin. Like stealing, murder, and adultery. None of these are unforgivable, obviously. But, like homosexuality, they’re sins. As with all sinners, there is forgiveness and healing for repentant homosexuals, too. Thanks be to God.

    Your screed against scholasticism is a bit much, to say the least. Scholasticism, like the Church of Rome, needed to be pruned, not burned. Chemnitz and Gerhard are rightly regarded as scholastic theologians; they did not throw the baby our with the bathwater as you are doing. I am at no risk of Romanizing, thank you; nor are the rest of the credible Lutheran scholars who have contributed to Natural Law: A Lutheran Reappraisal. Furthermore, it is wrong for you to insinuate that Rev. Baker is simply trying to sell his book, though if he were, would that be so wrong? Shame on you.

    I wrote my earlier statement saying that what you wrote was unclear because you seemed to be suggesting that it’s un-Lutheran to ascribe to the Aristotelian notion of four-fold causality, and that the teleological argument from natural law against homosexuality (it separates sexuality from its procreative end) is therefore invalid.

  • fws

    trent @ 36

    “Homosexuality — both in its desires and acts — is a sin. ”

    Interestingly, it seems that Roman Catholicism does not agree. They say it is “objectively disordered” or some such wording, yet it is not sinful in the Lutheran sense. We can discuss why that is if you like. Alas they have a different definition of “the image of God” and “original sin”.

    First: What screed? I agreed that Lutherans do not reject Aristotle or St Thomas in toto. In fact the confessions say this: “regarding morality, nothing can be demanded beyond the ethics of [pagan!] Aristotle. ” I LOVE St Thomas. And Aristotle. I would not think to screed against them. not even a bit. But I would bar the door of Theology to both of them. They both belong in the realm of morality that is common to pagan and christian alike. And there, they shine like no one else!

    And as to the Confessions: this is exactly what they say too. I learned this from them in fact. I insist that pagan philosophy be barred, and completely so from Theology.

    I welcome pagan philosophy in the area of earthly morality that exist to secure our hapiness and avoid punishment and suffering. But the Law (ie reason, ie pagan philosophy) pertains alone to this life and will end with it!

    Here is your takehome point in all I am saying: The “teleological end” of the Law, be it natural law or any other Law is your death Trent, in any way you wish to understand that. “the law ALWAYS kills . The Law always accuses.” This is what the law does according to our Confessions trent. It does NOTHING else. Mortification, latinate for “deathing” is the Law-in-action. Now the FRUIT of the Law is not what the Law does. The God desired fruit of the Law is IDENTICAL to the fruit of the Spirit (FC art VI!). The God desired fruit of ALL Law is peace , joy, forgiveness, mercy (which is always underserved unlike justice which is always deserved and demands our punishment) There is no Life in natural law or any other Law. There is only death. This is what our confessions teach.

    What should matter to you is why this is. The Apology says that we must bar philosophy from Religion because Reason is veiled by the Veil of Moses. the veil of moses is the opinion of Reason that we can appease or satisfy God by keeping the Law in the way a court or judge would demand. Therefore reason is veiled to that part of the Law of God that is peculiarly and only found in the First Commandment and that deals, not with conformity to the Law but rather with movements of the heart (apology IV). It is only in the fulfilment of that first commandment that sin can be stopped. And that cannot happen until the prophecy of Jeremiah 33 is fulfilled (apology III). But you dont seem interested in really reading our confessions . I would love to be wrong here.

    Go take a look at Apology art III “Love and the fulfilling of the Law” and art IV “justification” to see why this

    What is your definition of the Image of God? I am curious Trent. And what constituted Original Righeousness?

    The answer to these two questions is what caused the Lutherans of the Confessions to reject scholastic theology insofar as it followed Aristotle beyond the realm of morality. That is to say, Lutherans rejected that there was a ‘teleological” significance to the Law that the scholastics assigned to it.

    Agree that there is nothing the matter with starting with an assertion of fact or even an assumption. Assertion of a “fact” does not make a “fact” a fact. Nor does an assumption.

    By the way, Chemnitz was not a scholastic theologian even though he used the form of Loci. Show me I am wrong. (cf FC art I here) Melancthon was. Calvin was. gerhard was at the cusp of the reentering of Scholasticism in Lutheran systematics.

    as to y0ur assertion about scripture and homosexuality. Define homosexuality. the bible does not. And I would suggest it is an exercise in anachronism to insert and even use to translate the greek, a word that is a tecnical medical term with a definition that only existed as of 1980 and did not even exist, as a word, before 1890.

    so the bible nowhere addresses homosexuality. so what. Any sex that breaks the Law of God is sin.

  • fws

    trent @ 36

    “Homosexuality — both in its desires and acts — is a sin. ”

    Interestingly, it seems that Roman Catholicism does not agree. They say it is “objectively disordered” or some such wording, yet it is not sinful in the Lutheran sense. We can discuss why that is if you like. Alas they have a different definition of “the image of God” and “original sin”.

    First: What screed? I agreed that Lutherans do not reject Aristotle or St Thomas in toto. In fact the confessions say this: “regarding morality, nothing can be demanded beyond the ethics of [pagan!] Aristotle. ” I LOVE St Thomas. And Aristotle. I would not think to screed against them. not even a bit. But I would bar the door of Theology to both of them. They both belong in the realm of morality that is common to pagan and christian alike. And there, they shine like no one else!

    And as to the Confessions: this is exactly what they say too. I learned this from them in fact. I insist that pagan philosophy be barred, and completely so from Theology.

    I welcome pagan philosophy in the area of earthly morality that exist to secure our hapiness and avoid punishment and suffering. But the Law (ie reason, ie pagan philosophy) pertains alone to this life and will end with it!

    Here is your takehome point in all I am saying: The “teleological end” of the Law, be it natural law or any other Law is your death Trent, in any way you wish to understand that. “the law ALWAYS kills . The Law always accuses.” This is what the law does according to our Confessions trent. It does NOTHING else. Mortification, latinate for “deathing” is the Law-in-action. Now the FRUIT of the Law is not what the Law does. The God desired fruit of the Law is IDENTICAL to the fruit of the Spirit (FC art VI!). The God desired fruit of ALL Law is peace , joy, forgiveness, mercy (which is always underserved unlike justice which is always deserved and demands our punishment) There is no Life in natural law or any other Law. There is only death. This is what our confessions teach.

    What should matter to you is why this is. The Apology says that we must bar philosophy from Religion because Reason is veiled by the Veil of Moses. the veil of moses is the opinion of Reason that we can appease or satisfy God by keeping the Law in the way a court or judge would demand. Therefore reason is veiled to that part of the Law of God that is peculiarly and only found in the First Commandment and that deals, not with conformity to the Law but rather with movements of the heart (apology IV). It is only in the fulfilment of that first commandment that sin can be stopped. And that cannot happen until the prophecy of Jeremiah 33 is fulfilled (apology III). But you dont seem interested in really reading our confessions . I would love to be wrong here.

    Go take a look at Apology art III “Love and the fulfilling of the Law” and art IV “justification” to see why this

    What is your definition of the Image of God? I am curious Trent. And what constituted Original Righeousness?

    The answer to these two questions is what caused the Lutherans of the Confessions to reject scholastic theology insofar as it followed Aristotle beyond the realm of morality. That is to say, Lutherans rejected that there was a ‘teleological” significance to the Law that the scholastics assigned to it.

    Agree that there is nothing the matter with starting with an assertion of fact or even an assumption. Assertion of a “fact” does not make a “fact” a fact. Nor does an assumption.

    By the way, Chemnitz was not a scholastic theologian even though he used the form of Loci. Show me I am wrong. (cf FC art I here) Melancthon was. Calvin was. gerhard was at the cusp of the reentering of Scholasticism in Lutheran systematics.

    as to y0ur assertion about scripture and homosexuality. Define homosexuality. the bible does not. And I would suggest it is an exercise in anachronism to insert and even use to translate the greek, a word that is a tecnical medical term with a definition that only existed as of 1980 and did not even exist, as a word, before 1890.

    so the bible nowhere addresses homosexuality. so what. Any sex that breaks the Law of God is sin.

  • fws

    trent

    “Richard Weaver famously said that we “reason from facts, never towards them.” There’s nothing invalid about starting with the a priori assumptions that Baker starts with. ”

    everyone is entitled to his own opinions . But we are not entitled to our own facts.

    What you have produced is not reasoning from facts. It argues from “facts”.

    Consider this:

    “modern psychiatry knows for a fact, that there is nothing inherently disfunctional in homosexuals that would allow us to diferentiate them from the population at large”.

    Now to start with this assumption/”fact” is just fine. but then… if one intends to convince those who do not accept this “fact” as being fact, then what is the point.

    And that, so far at least, is the problem with everything so far you have presented. I have read it all now. Carefully. all the links you asked me to read. the problem is that assumptions are not all carefully identified and then proven from reason.

  • fws

    trent

    “Richard Weaver famously said that we “reason from facts, never towards them.” There’s nothing invalid about starting with the a priori assumptions that Baker starts with. ”

    everyone is entitled to his own opinions . But we are not entitled to our own facts.

    What you have produced is not reasoning from facts. It argues from “facts”.

    Consider this:

    “modern psychiatry knows for a fact, that there is nothing inherently disfunctional in homosexuals that would allow us to diferentiate them from the population at large”.

    Now to start with this assumption/”fact” is just fine. but then… if one intends to convince those who do not accept this “fact” as being fact, then what is the point.

    And that, so far at least, is the problem with everything so far you have presented. I have read it all now. Carefully. all the links you asked me to read. the problem is that assumptions are not all carefully identified and then proven from reason.

  • fws

    trent

    the problem is that, even if this stuff could be proven from reason, the end or telos of ALL of it is the death of our Old Adam. it simply does not apply to the New Man in Christ. Marriage for example? male and female for example? Fine to talk about how the Law of God says stuff about those things. natural law. whatever law. but both of those things will end with this life. that is the full extent of their “teleological ” significance.

    that is what our Confessions teach.

  • fws

    trent

    the problem is that, even if this stuff could be proven from reason, the end or telos of ALL of it is the death of our Old Adam. it simply does not apply to the New Man in Christ. Marriage for example? male and female for example? Fine to talk about how the Law of God says stuff about those things. natural law. whatever law. but both of those things will end with this life. that is the full extent of their “teleological ” significance.

    that is what our Confessions teach.

  • fws

    trent

    Since you see my objections to scholasticism as screed, lets try things this way?

    1) In what ways do you think scholasticism , especially St Thomas err and go contrary to what our Confessions teach

    2) How do you feel Scholasticism and roman catholicism are mistaken on the subject of natural law and the use of aristotelian philosophy applying it to theology?

    I am extremely curious as to what your answers to these two questions will be. thanks!

  • fws

    trent

    Since you see my objections to scholasticism as screed, lets try things this way?

    1) In what ways do you think scholasticism , especially St Thomas err and go contrary to what our Confessions teach

    2) How do you feel Scholasticism and roman catholicism are mistaken on the subject of natural law and the use of aristotelian philosophy applying it to theology?

    I am extremely curious as to what your answers to these two questions will be. thanks!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X