Sexual (im)morality and cultural differences

[Eleveness]

Is it stealing to assist in the escape of a slave?

Only if you think slaves are property. (You can't steal that which wasn't property to begin with.)

 

[dayhiker]

Thanks for the great read.

I once viewed things are very much black and white. But the more I read history and tried to deal with ideas and what the Bible taught the more I saw things as not being black and white.

I really like the final authoity being love. But its love as decided by the other person. So I'm free as long as the other person isn't being hurt. But even then my sacrificing my liberty to not hurt my neighbor can't be taked to the extreme that I don't have what I need to supply my family's need.

So I find that those who always talk black and white don't actually live a life that is as black and white as they says.

When I look at God this is what I see. A God who talyors an action to each persons need. Those the NT doesn't just repeat the OT but gives a massage that meets the need of NT people. That is what preachers of each generation tailor a meassage for the generation they are preaching to and don't repeat Spergean's message over again.

dayhiker

 

[Crazy Liz]

Only if you think slaves are property. (You can't steal that which wasn't property to begin with.)

According to what the individual thinks (private opinion) or consensus of the culture, as embodied in its laws?

 

[Eleveness]

According to what the individual thinks (private opinion) or consensus of the culture, as embodied in its laws?

According to what the person contemplating freeing the slave, thinks. If that goes against the "consensus of the culture", the person contemplating faces a dilemma: either incur the culture's wrath by setting the slave free, or allow the slave to continue to be enslaved, thus becoming an accomplice to the slavery.

 

[Thekla]

On the issue of slavery, St. Paul's letter to Philemon could be consulted as a starting point ... though it seems the definition of slavery has shifted. In order to 'witness' to the slaves of the Virgin Islands, several Moravian Christians agreed to sell themselves into slavery. St. Patrick wrote the first (at least extant) condemnation of slavery. In these cases, there seems to be an attempt - in various ways - to undermine a cultural norm at variance with the understanding of God as the "sole owner" of the person.

 

[Thekla]

I do think, on the issue of adultery, Christ was pretty clear -- to look at another woman in lust is adultery (a narrower definition, IIRC, than Leviticus).

 

[Joykins]

According to what the person contemplating freeing the slave, thinks. If that goes against the "consensus of the culture", the person contemplating faces a dilemma: either incur the culture's wrath by setting the slave free, or allow the slave to continue to be enslaved, thus becoming an accomplice to the slavery.

http://www.quotesandpoem.com/literature/literaryworks/Twain/The_Adventures_of_Huckleberry_Finn/31

 

[Armistead]

Goodness.
So if I decide myself that something isnt harmful to others and isnt sin, then that makes it so ?

Sorry, but that sort of subjective truth is part of what is sending many in the church straight into hell.
WE dont determine what is right or wrong.
Im VERY sure we could go just thru the NT and compile a list of things meant as INSTRUCTION to the church to REFRAIN from.
Heck, Ill just toss out ONE passage here;

I wrote to you in my epistle not to associate with fornicators.
Yet I certainly did not mean with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world!

But now I write to you not to associate with anyone named a brother, who is a
fornicator, or
covetous person, or an
idolater, or
abusive person, or a
drunkard, or a
swindler--
not even to eat with such a person.

For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside?
Do you not judge those who are inside?
But those who are outside God will judge.
Therefore "put away from yourselves the evil person."
(1Co 5:9-13 EMTV)
​

That list covers a ton of things and its only a handful of verses.
Are some here actually claiming we CANT understand Paul here?
Are we saying that it no longer applies ?
It was given under THIS covenant..it DOES apply and its written simply to cover some sin in the church....and not of it is so alien that we cant figure out the intent.

Sorry, but Ill keep to my bible and the INSTRUCTION therein as closely as possible.
If God has a problem with it, He can deal with me later and explain to me WHY He felt to INSPIRE the instruction to begin with

​

Biblically, Paul advised many times for people to act based on their conscience. Certainly, I agree there are things that are clearly sin, but there are also many areas that may or may not be sin. One area is drinking. It may be a problem for some, but not for others. If a person has trouble with alcohol, he should never drink, but that doesn't make it a sin if I do. However, I should follow the bible and not be a stumbling block for that person, which means I don't tempt the person. There are many areas like this we each must judge for ourselves.

 

[HuntingMan]

Biblically, Paul advised many times for people to act based on their conscience. Certainly, I agree there are things that are clearly sin, but there are also many areas that may or may not be sin. One area is drinking. It may be a problem for some, but not for others. If a person has trouble with alcohol, he should never drink, but that doesn't make it a sin if I do. However, I should follow the bible and not be a stumbling block for that person, which means I don't tempt the person. There are many areas like this we each must judge for ourselves.

I agree that things like wine are up to the individual and not sin except for excess.
If man drinks wine with his dinner we are in no place to judge.
If, however, he drinks MANY cups of wine all the time and is a drunkard we would not be out of line in disassociating with him at a point where it becomes obvious that he refuses to quit.

 

[Archivist]

You and Liz, as well as myself and everyone else here, are entitled to opinions.
Ive seen enough on this forum to know that Ill keep my black and white, thank you very much.
If some here feel that its better to keep the waters muddied, that is your own choice.
*I* choose to reject that belief...as I am entitled to do.

No one said that you were not entitled to your opinion. My experience is that very little in life is black or white--most things are various shades of grey.

So to prove your point you find some sort of loophole ?

Intellectual property is hardly a loophole in western culture. We have all sorts of laws regarding intellectual property in western nations.

Sorry, but REGARDLESS of whether the law can prosecute the act or not STEALING is STEALING..
Do you genuinely believe that its only 'stealing' if you can be prosecuted ? Is that how you define the word ? knowing this: that the law is not laid down for the righteous, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for killers of fathers and killers of mothers, for murderers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is opposed to sound doctrine,
Without crime, there would be no NEED for the law.
It is because of thieves that there are laws against stealing.
If someone tells me their idea and I take it and claim it is my own, yes, its 'stealing' whether the law of my country can prosecute it as such or not.

You are imposing western values on other cultures. If intellectual property is not recognized as "property" in a different culture, how is using the ideas of another stealing? Under the laws that existed in the time of Jesus it wouldn't have been regarded as stealing because the concept of intellectual property didn't exist.

Perhaps to draw this closer to the OP, is it wrong for women to go topless in places where that is culturally accepted. I certainly don't think so. Fortunately our western culture is giving way on this issue.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Mods, please move this thread someplace where posts by non-Christians don't have to be deleted.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Mods, please move this thread someplace where posts by non-Christians don't have to be deleted.

This thread was moved from Christian Philosophy and Ethics to E&M, as a result of my request.

Thank you, D'Ann.

 

[savedbyjesus]

Biblically, Paul advised many times for people to act based on their conscience. Certainly, I agree there are things that are clearly sin, but there are also many areas that may or may not be sin. One area is drinking. It may be a problem for some, but not for others. If a person has trouble with alcohol, he should never drink, but that doesn't make it a sin if I do. However, I should follow the bible and not be a stumbling block for that person, which means I don't tempt the person. There are many areas like this we each must judge for ourselves.

Good Post,

In Christ

Paul

 

[quatona]

Goodness.
So if I decide myself that something isnt harmful to others and isnt sin, then that makes it so ?

No, but neither does deciding yourself that the god you believe in considers it harmful to others make it so.

 

[dayhiker]

STEALING is STEALING..
Do you genuinely believe that its only 'stealing' if you can be prosecuted ? Is that how you define the word ?
If someone tells me their idea and I take it and claim it is my own, yes, its 'stealing' whether the law of my country can prosecute it as such or not.

But Hunting, stealing intellectual property isn't just claiming its our own, that also includes listening to it when its not ours, writting it when we don't hve premission. So often when is written in message boards like this don't acknowledge who was the orginal author of an idea and so are stealing as I understand your point of view. Then when we read those stolen ideas we are participating in that theft.

I certianly wouldn't want to live a life that saw theft in that way. I guess that's why I see Jesus having so much fun undoing the legalism of the Pharisees!

dayhiker

 

[Texas Lynn]

Only if you think slaves are property. (You can't steal that which wasn't property to begin with.)

True. Yet part of Huckleberry Finn concerns Huck's guilt over helping the slave Jim escape. Conventional wisdom of the slave states of the day (and the Fugitive Slave Law) was that to abet slaves escaping was to steal. Huck made the decision to help Jim anyway because it was right, declaring, "So I'll go to hell then."

So it is with conventional shibboleths and moralities of today as well. Sexuality has long been an issue where reality and conventionality are separated by a wide gulf. Traditionalistic views of sexuality are NOT ironclad rules of morality in any sense, merely aspects of social custom. Moreover, like any aspect of culture they are constantly changing.

Just as now we find abhorrent the slavery practiced of 100 years ago, so also will we find efforts to enforce sexual conformity in the present day equally bizarre and abhorrent, one hundred years from now.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

The only interpretation of adultery I will stand for is Jesus' interpretation.

Matthew 5:27-28 (English Standard Version)


Lust

27(A) "You have heard that it was said,(B) 'You shall not commit adultery.' 28But I say to you that(C) everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.Cross references:

1. Matthew 5:27 : Matthew 5:21
2. Matthew 5:27 : Exodus 20:14; Deut 5:18
3. Matthew 5:28 : Job 31:1; Prov 6:25; 2 Sam 11:2

If that is the definition of adultery then I commit it at least 10 times a day.