Bringing a Feather Duster to a Gun Fight

Agreed.
see related BJ/PerfectHold discussion.

By using the phrase “member in good standing,” I do not refer to any particular view of the visible versus invisible church, any particular polity, or particular views on communion, covenants vs. dispensations, etc. I simply mean that people who are part of a congregation know one another. If somebody is behaving well, they should all approve of that. If somebody is misbehaving, they should all disapprove of that. The NT teaches that that disapproval, which it’s justified, should take the form of not “eating” with the miscreant. I’m of the opinion that “not eating” refers to sharing at the… Read more »

And if the elders say Joe X who has been coming for years and knows and loves all the folks there is not part of the congregation – do you claim to be agnostic on that point?

Does Joe X have a credible profession of faith?

To quote a pastor in the tribe: We agree it appears you are a fellow saint, a brother, but we will not agree to have you participate in communion here until you say the words the PCA book of order requires.

BCO 58-4 “Since, by our Lord’s appointment, this Sacrament sets forth the Communion of Saints, the minister, at the discretion of the Session, before the observance begins, may either invite all those who profess the true religion, and are communicants in good standing in any evangelical church, to participate in the ordinance; or may invite those who have been approved by the Session, after having given indication of their desire to participate. It is proper also to give a special invitation to non-communicants to remain during the service.”

Exactly. Thank you

Of the 5 questions they ask, which are you not willing to agree to?

They are allowed to ask anything they like.

They will answer to God about why they a-communicate recognized believers such as, for example Chesterton or Tolkien or anyone who often attends assemblies not on their pet list, or anyone who might even attend right there in their own assembly but hasn’t or can’t take their extra- post- biblical oath.

There is no extrabiblical oath in the BCO. There is a “public profession”. You should simply be asked 5 questions: 1) Do you acknowledge yourself to be a sinner in the sight of God, justly deserving His displeasure, and without hope save in His sovereign mercy? 2) Do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and Savior of sinners, and do you receive and rest upon Him alone for salvation as He is offered in the Gospel? 3) Do you now resolve and promise, in humble reliance upon the grace of the Holy Spirit, that… Read more »

Thankfully, the above five questions don’t ask for anyone to swear anything. But we are to be willing to publicly confess Him and the things He commands. It seems all 5 of these requests are things God requires as well.

I hope you are, nevertheless, in communion with a body of believers that doesn’t ask for something that binds your conscience, but that you can submit to.

“5) Do you submit yourselves to the government and discipline of the Church, and promise to study its purity and peace?” Five might be problematic. I told the elders in discussion that I do. Their issue was this, of course, is not sufficient to allow them to grant membership. I reply that I don’t recognize their right to grant membership, but rather their obligation to recognize me as a sheep they must care for and feed. They of course deny any such responsibility. What’s more, even if I were to swear to these five, they of course must immediately excommunicate… Read more »

So why not go to a church that you agree with?

You, my friend, have what it takes to join their brotherhood.

But seriously, why not go to a church you agree with?

Well i do feel obligated to at least have my family take communion so i found a Baptist Church franchise operation close by and after the president of that 501c3 corporation agreed he is obligated to admit all good Christian folk to the table we’ve started regularly attending there.

I guess what I’m getting at is if you hold all of these people in such low estimation, why not find a group you respect a bit more?

Do you read Paul encouraging folks to splinter into such sub-bodies, or dont you rather see him kicking butt and taking names?

When he and Barnabas couldn’t agree over John Mark, they parted company, and the world benefited.

You think theyd both pout and avoid taking communion together?

If they took their responsibility seriously to guard the flock, and they were afraid they might be harming the person who was trying to take communion by allowing them to do so, then yes, they should avoid giving communion. Pouting from either party is unnecessary.

In this instance from whom are they guarding the flock by refusing to feed one of its members? From whom?! The only time communion should be delayed is when awaiting others or when one is getting certain unexpressed sins aired out — but pastors don’t have any say in the latter do they? That’s between the two parties only, isn’t it?

You seem to be taking being part of the flock as a given when it’s not. Wolves can and do arise from within the flock, trying to lead others astray. Not everyone who claims to be a member of the body of Christ actually is one. Guarding is exactly what they ought to be doing. Discernment about who belongs in the flock or not is a part of being a shepherd. And it’s no help identifying the flock if one of their number is bleating “you’re not the boss of me”.

Balance is a good word. I’ve definitely seen authority abused, and I’ve definitely seen flocks abuse their shepherd. In accepting the role, the shepherds accept a lot of responsibility that they should take seriously and carefully.

Didn’t you say “they” — the leaders they! — were afraid they (those leaders) might be harming the person trying to take communion — by allowing him to take communion?

However / wherever did you get this idea that allowing a person to take communion might harm him??!!!

Is there someone who is poisoning the wine?

That, too. The old KJV said taking in an unworthy manner can bring “damnation”. The newer versions say “judgement”. And it goes on to say that some are sick and others have died because of it. So it’s very much like someone has poisoned the wine and is then drinking it. If the leaders care for the flock, they wouldn’t want that to happen.

Are you purposely leaving out the part about this refraining being the job of the communion-recipient and not the administrator?

Secondly, if you were to allow the priest to step in and take this position of graciously guarding the folks from possible poisoning, why not admit he’s protecting them from the big bad God who would presumably whack them if their lips got near the stuff?

No, I think two things from the context point to it being a responsibility of the shepherd as well as the individual. The first is that Paul is writing this warning. He has a vested interest in whether people are engaging in the dangerous behavior and he warns them against it. Paul is “fencing” the table with his warning, and he’s doing so as a minister of the Gospel. The second is that earlier in the book Paul compares his ministry to the ministry of others he has sent for their benefit, such as Timothy, who teaches what Paul teaches.… Read more »

Just to be clear — Who would otherwise produce / bring down / cause to occur the damnation unless the shepherd kept that sheep from eating this food?

The text gives two causes: “eat and drink judgment on themselves” indicates that they have initiated the judgement, and “when we are judged by the Lord” indicates that there is a judgement from the Lord. We have a similar situation if we say, “who sent Billy to prison?” Well, Billy broke the law, and the judge sentenced him. So it’s good and right to say “Billy sent Billy to prison” and “the judge sent Billy to prison”. If I’m not getting at the answer to your question, I may need you to clarify it for me.

So you’ve got the pastor getting in there to keep Billy out of a jam.
Your pastor is not here guarding the Communion from Billy, but guarding Billy from getting sentenced by the Judge?
He’s protecting Billy from what God would do if Billy might misstep?

The shepherd could be protecting a sheep from the consequences of his/her own actions, or he could be preventing a wolf from pretending to be a sheep. In either case, God is a Judge who judges justly, and he has graciously placed a number of safeguards to be heeded, including His word and His shepherds. But we ignore Him at our own peril.

somethingclever — the consequences of his own action = that is, his action of wanting to take communion??
You remind me of those twelve surrounding Jesus, keeping the riff-raff from getting too close.

Keep in mind that the sheep were told to refrain — the shepherds were not told to stick there nose in this business and take the role of “protecting” them from their own actions.

No, the consequences of taking communion in an unworthy manner, not of wanting to take communion. And I’m not sure what you mean by “riff-raff”, but if you mean sinners, then no. I’m that kind of riff-raff, and thanks God the table is a table for repentant sinners. But Paul’s warnings mean some people shouldn’t take communion for their own sake. Paul, as a minister of God, warns them of this, thus “fencing” the table. And he speaks of responding to their disobedience with either love or the rod. And he sent other ministers, such as Timothy, to do the… Read more »

You have lots of good company on this. Nowhere is the blood called or implied as poison for anybody, even the unrepentant. — you need to work on that. It is not a magical material, nor is turned into poison by God because it is being taken by bad actors. A shepherd should get into the faces of the disgruntled and the like and warn them that if they don’t even things out with their neighbor, they’ll experience not nutrition but a stomach ache caused by their own acid. But it is not his job or right to excommunicate anybody… Read more »

I do think mine is the historic view of Christianity, but the larger and more important question is what does the Bible say. You’ve asked me to articulate a lot about what I believe the Scriptures teach. If I need to work on something, you should demonstrate your case through exegesis as I have tried to do with mine. I don’t think the body and blood are magical, but I do believe that they are supernatural, in part because Paul tells us the cup is participation in the blood of Christ, and the bread is participation in His body. There’s… Read more »

If you mean to say real excommunication is self-inflicted, that is true.
We put ourselves in hell, so to speak.
Nonetheless it is also externally demanded, commanded & executed.

Communion is as supernatural as tortillas — which is to say, comprehensively.
No more, no less — which is to say, completely.

Your view goes all the way back to the Pharisees, who burdened the sheep with it way back when.

Your exegesis has failed to identify the self-a-communication seen in I Cor 11, and turned it into elder-identified and enforced.
You’ve turned the elder into a meddler.

I think this conversation has run its course. Thanks for taking the time to interact.

10/4 good buddy.

magical. Good thing those elders are there to cover us from it’s explosions.
Your position is why the RC church dances around it, and reserves some of it for adoration.

Not sure about particularly, but I’d go with “includes”

Why can’t you just serve communion to them?

Occasionally. Sure adds weight to the affair when with others, though. Ultimate would be a heavenly roomful — but PCA elders might still want to reserve the option to look the other way.

Hope you don’t mind me saying, but it sounds like you want to participate in a local congregation but you don’t want to submit to the local congregations elders, is that a fair assessment?

If your local elder told you not to await others at communion time, would you want to submit?

Of course I don’t want to submit to dingbat and contrabiblical admonitions like don’t baptize your own daughter — do you?

I doubt the rule at your church is simply: “No one can baptize his own daughter.” The authors of the Bible don’t care to make a dogmatic rule about who can do the dunking (or sprinkling…), but every example we see, baptism is conducted by an elder or an apostle. It appears to be an exercise of Church authority. So to maintain that standard may possibly be extrabiblical, but it’s perfectly reasonable.

Certainly it is an exercise of “elder” authority — protecting the brand — “maintaining the standard” as you put it.

Regarding “every example we see” — you perhaps forgot about the former deacon Philip, at this point no longer a Jerusalem deacon, with that Ethiopian.

Good point. I had forgotten that. Although, re-reading Acts 8, I notice that Philip was literally on a mission from God – an angel told him to go south, where he met the Ethiopian. That’s pretty thin as a basis for saying that anybody can baptize anybody else.

So, if you like, I’ll amend my earlier statement: the vast majority of evidence indicates that administering baptism was reserved to the church leadership, with one exception that involved an angelic commission.

Well then there’s of course that John the Baptist guy.

Come to think of it — the Bible NOWHERE reserves these rituals to administration by church leaders, does it?

No, not explicitly, as I already granted. Which is why I would say that the PCA’s rule is reasonable, but possibly unnecessary. I don’t have a strong opinion on it myself.

But okay, so our vastly expanded list of those who can baptize now includes apostles, elders, those directly commissioned by an angel, and miraculously-conceived prophets who are blood relatives of the Messiah. Gosh, pretty nearly anyone can do this, huh?

1) PCA-ers reasonably keep good Christian folk away from a ritual they say is of inestimable value — a meal of which the Lord says Come, Eat — and they “reasonably”??? say, NOT HERE shall you. — What kind of reasoning is this? 2) Farinata — if you’re so dead set on keeping the rituals out of the hands of the faithful, you’ve got plenty of purported church leaders on your side — just no Scripture you seem able to find, right? But I will admit that plenty of Scripture DOES require leaders of the church to oversee these rituals,… Read more »

Jesus says “come, eat.” Paul establishes that the coming and eating is to be controlled – overseen, policed, what have you. They don’t disagree with each other. You object to one level of oversight, and favor a lower level, which is your right. But given that Christ’s command is not absolute, I see no grounds for outrage – the precise level of oversight is unspecified in the text, as you seem to agree. So why does your opinion have to be the rule for everyone else?

Paul did not establish controls — he expanded the correct understanding of what these rituals mean and how they should not be abused. That you see Paul doing some establishing is totally inline with the RC church’s take that the church produces the Word and can come up with such new rules, I’ll give you that. I find it ironic that “reformer”-based churches like the PCA still carry over such fundamentals they fought to correct. I think you meant to say “Chris’s command is not exhaustive” — not absolute? Regarding outrage at good folks not getting communion — isn’t that… Read more »

No, I actually meant what I said. He said “come, eat”, but not in an absolute or unrestricted sense: he also inspired the bits of Scripture that say some should not come – or at least, should not come until they their minds right. The PCA’s restriction is generally in line with this.

Paul said that unrepentant sinners should be excluded from the community of the faithful. That’s a control. What other word would you use for that?

1) the bits say to exclude THEMSELVES temporarily — NOT be excluded by an administrator — or shall we ignore that inspired bit?

2) the bits say IF you’re going to exclude any from the table, follow the procedure He gives — or shall we also ignore that bit?

1) your statement is false. 1 Corinthians 5: “2 And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. 3 For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. 4 When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his… Read more »

Farinata, this passage does indeed require the church folk to fence the table off from this, a now-excommunicated sinner. And there are right & godly procedures for informing such a person of their excommunication — and they should be followed. The passages & principals to which I was referring may be found in I Cor 11 and Matthew 5. There the potentially offending folk need to temporarily self-a-communicate; it not being the right or job of an elder to start wielding the table as a stick. A person is a sheep under the care of the elders whether they like… Read more »

Let us compromise: sometimes it is more appropriate for a sinner to remove himself from fellowship, sometimes that has to be imposed by the body, acting through representatives (the elders). Can we agree on that? *** I don’t think that’s right. When I moved from New York to South Carolina, I resigned my membership at my former church, and joined a different church. I don’t think I’m under the care of my former elders anymore – at least not in any concrete way. Had I chosen not to move, I would still be under their care. When I arrived at… Read more »

NEVER should a sinner remove himself from fellowship, ever. We must, and especially the pastor must, call “Come & Repent & Come & Eat” Of course you’re under the care of those old elders, but of course not so much in an active sense. If they caught you drunk about town they have the responsibility as a shepherd of God’s flock, of whom you are a member — to shake your fur right good, and call your regularly seen-by-you pastor and tell him what for. The only reason the elders at your current church wouldn’t know you from Adam is… Read more »

well then, please fill in whatever word suits you – I was trying to translate your neologism “self-a-communicate” into English. But I’m not under their care – I live like four states away. They wouldn’t see me about town because we don’t live in the same town. So any oversight they might theoretically retain is so attenuated as to amount to a qualitative difference. Are you suggesting that the elders at my new church are obliged to know and minister to every Christian in the state? Even if I am a member at a different church? That seems kind of… Read more »

Shepherds will answer for how they treat any and all of God’s sheep, whether or not those sheep regularly attend meetings elsewhere or not.

Batty, what with having all these brother keepers?!

Batty – nuts, crazy, unhinged, ill-thought-out. You appear to be arguing that elders are obliged to care for the souls of Christians whom they have never before clapped eyes on – that if my elders weren’t my elders and had never met me before, they would still answer for my soul. That’s a bizarre opinion, so I can only hope I have misunderstood you.

You’re on the right track.
Like saying you are responsible for your brother in Bangladesh.

Don’t try to get off the hook.

Do what you can.

So everyone is answerable to everyone – that’s kind of Tolstoyan. I like that. But I don’t think you really believe it. If I don’t know the name of some other random Christian, am I in sin? You’ve charged that elders who don’t know, who don’t live in the same town as me, are in dereliction of duty if they don’t seek me out. Well, tu quoque: you don’t know my hopes and fears or what I’m struggling with right now. Is that something you feel you need to repent? How you be responsible for me, in any real sense,… Read more »

Do your best with what you’re given

If those pastors of yours in your new location have not been given your identity or know your name at least they can give a good example of how to live life should you cross paths with them unawares

To be clear, I’m talking about elders and pastors of churches I didn’t join and never visited.

To be sure, every one of the shepherds there if they come across you and learn you are a member of the flock of Jesus should tell you to stop neglecting going to church they should get your name and number and follow up

I’m still not sure I’m being clear enough. So I joined a local church, and attend, and have elders and a pastor and all the rest. But there are like twenty other churches per square mile, and my point is that the leadership of those churches shouldn’t feel like they need to keep an eye on me, arrange for counseling appointments, “do life together” as the slogan has it… That’s what my local elders are for.

That certainly is. But should a pastor from another church get to know you and sees you misbehave he has every right and every application to kick your bahooty

In other words, responsibility means very little in practical terms – we can only do so much. Let’s see some of that modesty in your assessment of elders.

Read the passage and I think you’ll find it’s pretty comprehensive – including drunkards, fornicators, revilers, cheats… Taking it in the context of Matthew 19, the church has historically interpreted this to mean that excommunication is reserved for those in gross and unrepentant sin. I wouldn’t know about what “we” may or may not be doing, but I am perfectly content declaring, with Christ and his Apostle, that the purity of the church should be maintained.

great — then just follow the procedure He also says to follow.
Take it up between yourselves when applicable, then to the elders, then the congregation.

Exactly.

It is precisely a matter of belief, for faith is the conviction of things not seen.

You can’t love Christ without identifying with and loving his bride. You can’t trust Christ unless you trust his promise to make his church immaculate.

Well it is our job – many of us may be tools, occasionally, but as the saying goes, God uses tools. What is it when I seek to grow in holiness but contributing my part to the purity of Christ’s bride? And I don’t like all this “alleged” talk – that’s how slaves and lawyers speak. The church is pure: her sins are washed away and paid for. That’s part of what it means to be the church. Still ongoing, of course, the great work of restoration. But the battle was won on Calvary.

“To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. 28 Him we proclaim, warning everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone mature in Christ. 29 For this I toil, struggling with all his energy that he powerfully works within me.” Col 1:27-29

I sympathize with PerfectHold on this. I grew up in the home of a pastor, one of my brothers is a pastor, I have been around pastors all my life, I have listened to their discussions about these things. I have watched these things play out and PH is right. Believers are treated differently by church leadership depending on whether or not they have entered into the membership contract. Many times that difference is built right into the church constitution. So why are professing baptized believers, who are not members, treated differently than those who are? The answer is simple.… Read more »

Seminaries often includes course material to this effect.

Are you saying the problem is the leadership protecting themselves and the church but not believers taking other believers to court?

I did not have in mind the issue of believers suing believers. My comments were directed at the practice of membership vows, which I believe are un-biblical and originated in order to protect church leaders from lawsuits.

If there were membership vows (baptismal vows?) in the early church you think it was because elders were protecting themselves from lawsuits?

As far as I know, membership vows did not materialize until after the Reformation.

If that’s true, what was the purpose of membership vows in your opinion?

I have tried to find original sources for these things, but have been unsuccessful in doing so. My opinions in regard to why they exist now have to do with how I’ve actually seen them being used, and I have already explained that in the previous posts.

Okay, just wondering.

You are right that baptismal vows should be equated with membership vow by default, if by membership vow you mean a vow to enter into and be faithful to the head member and therefore all the other members of His body.

But alas, most current churches that have such membership vows have them in addition to baptismal vows.
They seem to seek more than an interest in whether someone is a member of Christ’s body.

I’m unaware of any early church “membership” vows as such, are you?

The law may differ from one state to another, but typically (according to the discussions that I’ve heard), if a member has agreed to abide by the government and discipline of a church, civil courts will let church decisions stand. On the other hand, a church that disciplines someone who has not taken vows, exposes itself to lawsuits from that person.

You can’t fire someone who’s not an employee. Both men were proud Catholics, and neither wanted to be Presbyterian. But I doubt that either of them would object to making a public profession along the lines that somethingclever noted.

Both made torrents of such public confessions.
But no self-respecting PCA elder could ever let them near the Table.

Is that the kind of church you cheer for?

My point is rather that I doubt they would want to come. Chesterton in particular thought of Calvinism as a throwback to Paganism. My preference is for open v. closed communion – I think that anyone who makes a profession of faith that isn’t obviously belied by his lifestyle should be admitted to the table. But the Bible doesn’t touch on that issue directly, which makes it a matter of conscience. I suppose we can agree that elders in a local church have some duty to police the boundaries of fellowship? A community can choose to draw those lines more… Read more »

You’re very nice. Becoming indignant about seeing shepherds piously starve the sheep for their own good might be out of place, I admit. But the Bible DOES touch on this issue directly, and in a big way. It is not a matter of conscience. Ask Doug, for example, about the pious fencing of children from communion — you’ll get an earful. The OFFICIAL reason PCA elders are not to allow Tolkien, or a nondenominational Calvary Chapel attendee for that matter, to the table — is one of denominational power and franchise brand protection. Maybe it’s not “invidious”, but it should… Read more »

You may be a sheep, but if you are unwilling to grant a particular set of elders authority over you, it’s a bit rich to complain they aren’t treating you like one of THEIR sheep. At best I suppose they could treat you like a rebellious sheep. I don’t know what Doug thinks about piously fencing children from communion, and see little relevance to his views. Weren’t we talking about Scripture? If you want to argue that the Bible legislates open communion or something like it, I’d like to see some Biblical texts. The “OFFICIAL reason”, huh? Links or it… Read more »

Farinata — Where was it that you found an elder’s authority established by grant of sheep?! I encourage elders to treat rebellious sheep as such. However what elders have no right to do is disown / ignore / not feed / excommunicate ANY sheep without due process. I do not in the least “grant” authority. It was Jesus who made them elders, and He granted them authority to feed and protect, not to starve. It was Jesus who railed against those elders for acting like wolves, harming the sheep. It was Jesus who encouraged the sheep to REBEL against the… Read more »

If you look at the qualifications passages (I Timothy, Titus), I think you’ll see that a prospective elders’ reputation weighed heavily in determining his fitness. That’s a democratic standard. But this is a silly argument: obviously your local Session is not going to threaten your family to get you to do what they say. They clearly don’t hold authority over every Christian; their practical authority over you (and the others for whom they are responsible) only extends so far as you are willing to obey. ADDED: you contradict yourself. The authority to feed some is implicitly authority to starve (i.e.… Read more »

Your position encourages man-pleasing, favor-seeking leaders.

There are enormous practical things shepherds can do to move stubborn sheep along.
Calling them, for example.

But many “pastors” can’t be bothered to do even that.
Too busy prepping half a week for the 30 minute sermon.

My position? Say rather, the teaching of Holy Scripture. Paul clearly teaches that elders are to be well-esteemed in their communities. Sorry if that bothers you, but I didn’t write the thing. Take it up with the Apostle.

I agree with you that pastors should pastor, that there are many good and salutary steps to correct parishoners before any form of discipline is on the table, and that too many elders, to their great shame, ignore their duty in this matter.

Sorry — I understood you were suggesting elder choice comes about by majority vote (a democratic standard).

Yes, exactly – he finds in the Puritans most of what was admirable and all that was detestable in Seneca. I think it’s in Orthodoxy that he calls it Islam 2.0, because of the iconoclasm. There’s a kind of reason in it, but he’s painting with such an absurdly wide brush that it’s not very helpful in making a real historical evaluation.

His poetry is fantastic – like Kipling but Christian. Ballad of White Horse in particular – amazing stuff.

I loved Orthodoxy for its wordplay and humor. However, I found the actual logic behind it to be a bit juvenile. Chesterton was a really smart man, but at least in that book, he gave me the impression of someone who applies his intellect broadly and shallowly rather than with depth. There may be other books where he takes a different tact…but I got the impression of someone who would be great in a debate, but not do much for my faith.

Not agnostic — just not sufficiently informed about the circumstances of Joe X. If the elders find that Joe X makes a point of rejecting the commands of Hebrews 13, then I would side with the elders. If the elders are merely on a power trip and require Joe X to do something forbidden by the NT, then I would question why Joe X is still attending there in the first place. Maybe you could clarify. P.S. I’ve read a lot of your comments here on the thread. My honest feedback: You appear to have too much of a hang-up… Read more »

Bro Steve — I thank you for these ideas. I’m confused about what related commands you find in Hebrews 13? You want clarity of why JoeX would still attend. First, he hopes the elders will relent not from a power trip, but rather from their strict adherence to the rule of presbyterian franchise PCA law they’ve bound themselves to. I mean, the elders flat out tell him: “We love you; we see you as a brother; we’ll eat this meal with you in heaven; but sorry, our rule book won’t allow us to eat with you here; but please keep… Read more »

That’s a south Georgia colloquialism for a man who uses prostitutes often.

It also parallels pretty well how the SJWs of the world talk. My suggestion is to not make anyone choose sides until you are sure that they’ll choose your side.

Because empirical data has a nasty habit of turning out to be right. And you don’t think those who opposed race mixing were making moral judgments based on authority?

“Don’t bother me with facts; my mind is made up.” Thank you for making my point far more eloquently than I could.

I agree that if you believe that revelation supersedes data, then data is basically irrelevant. But for those of us who don’t, the factors to consider are whether homosexuality causes social harm and whether persecuting homosexuals causes social harm. And there is a whole boatload of research that indicates that harassing homosexuals means they aren’t using their talents and resources to benefit society as they could, so society suffers along with them. Allow me two anecdotes to serve as examples. 9/11 happened, in part, because several Arabic translators had just been fired from the Navy for being gay, leaving no… Read more »

I do acknowledge that middle position. I know a number of people who hold it. I just disagree with you, and with them, as to the implications of that position.

K2, in the intel and political world, homosexuals were always a high security risk because the majority of homosexuals from all sides sold their nation’s secrets.

No, they were a high security risk because they were threatened with loss of their jobs if it was known they were gay, which made them susceptible to blackmail. Now that they can serve openly, the blackmail risk is gone. The anti-gay regulations actually created the possibility of blackmail.

And by the way, do you have a citation that “the majority of homosexuals from all sides sold their nation’s secrets”?

K2, unfortunately the actual figures and names of many are still classified. The risk was the homosexual individual long before established laws in homosexual activity were printed. They would be upset over slights and head to the other side. However those in the intel community used to be very familiar with the facts. Today when our classified material is freely given away by blockheads who lose laptops, take their work home on flash drives and then lose the drives on the metro, or just transmit classified material over unclassified devices the homosexual issue takes a back seat. No K2, the… Read more »

I believe it was Richard Nixon who said it’s a good thing homosexuality isn’t a security risk given how many have security clearances.

Dave, I don’t know when I have read so much stereotyping into four short paragraphs. The idea that a gay person would get his feelings hurt and then retaliate by selling secrets is of the same type as the idea that black men are lazy and prone to criminality. If all you’ve got is stereotypes, then I think we’re done.

K2, I am not sterotyping but mentioning real world events that didn’t make the evening news. Facts are facts and it’s too bad that your world view doesn’t accept simple facts but instead rejects them as sterootype.

Perhaps sterotypes are born from a multitude of real world events with the same nature. In this case, homosexuals are a known security risk.

No, homosexuals are not a security risk, known or otherwise:

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1345&dat=19911009&id=pyhRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=D_oDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6017,1204133&hl=en

Of 117 espionage cases, 7 involved homosexuals.

To suggest morality is empirical is to disregard what both words mean.

Sorry, you don’t get to win by re-defining words.

I just said that.

But you mis-applied it to me rather than to yourself. You’re the one claiming that utilitarian morality isn’t really morality. Of course it is.

No it isn’t. It isn’t universal. Nor has it any grounds for being so.

Specific applications of it may differ from one time and place to another, but the underlying principles are indeed universal.

Well, okay, I see you think that. But why should anybody agree with you? Christian ethics are at least logical – God makes rules because he has the right to do so. Even if he doesn’t exist, the system is coherent. Who put you in charge?

I’m extremely skeptical that there will ever be empirical evidence showing that pedophilia is anything other than harmful, so the hypothetical is somewhat akin to asking me what I would do if I encountered a pink unicorn. We can talk about what, in theory, I would do if I ever encountered a pink unicorn, with the understanding that I think the chances of that actually happening are about zero. Likewise, I think the chances of you finding me some data that supports pedophilia aren’t great either, though we can have a hypothetical discussion about what would happen if you did.

But the safety valve is that my world view requires data. I do not accept nose counting as a method of determining what is moral. You may or may not be right that at some point in the future social views will change and pedophilia will become acceptable — though if anything we seem to be moving in the opposite direction; there is far more awareness of pedophilia and increasing hostility to it, as evidenced by the sex offender registries that did not exist until fairly recently. But even if that happens, my world view not only allows me, but… Read more »

I do not assume that every Christian conservative feels personal hostility toward homosexuals. However, you don’t get a free pass for your prejudices by dressing them up in religion. Someone who says that the Bible teaches racial segregation and that blacks were meant to be slaves is indeed a racist, even though the basis for his racism is a belief that that’s what the Bible teaches. And even if he really does have black friends whom he loves and cares for.

No, that’s not it. I’m not saying you can’t hold a religious belief. I’m saying that if your beliefs lead to bad results, they don’t get a free pass because they’re religious. Otherwise, how can you criticize the 9/11 hijackers? They were acting on their religious beliefs too.

Their *false* religious beliefs. Driving home from work is not the same as driving on the sidewalk to chase down pedestrians. Even if both involve the verb “to drive”.

The fact that you believe one and not the other doesn’t mean yours is right and theirs is wrong.

No, of course not. But they are not the same, and the mere fact you can attach the verb “believe” to either one does not establish sufficient similarity to dismiss them both.

There’s no reason to believe yours over theirs. There is just as much evidence — which is to say not much — for one as for the other.

Nor is there any reason to disbelieve them, for the matter of that. Mere skepticism is as groundless as credulity.

No, the person claiming something is true has the burden of proof.

Right. You assert that agnosticism is a normal, neutral starting place, that a mere man has the faculties to stand in judgment of the universe and decide whether it, or its maker, truly exists. I say this claim is preposterous on its face, and all the human race roars its ascent. Theism and supernatural belief are what normal people do. Your pretending otherwise is unnatural.

I cannot prove that God doesn’t exist. I cannot prove that Santa Claus doesn’t exist. What I can say is that I don’t believe things for which there’s no good evidence.

And your assertion of neutrality – as if you’re standing outside the universe, objectively measuring and discerning things – is patently delusional. A man might just as well attempt to argue over whether his mind exists. Nor can you mount an argument to justify your demand for “evidence”. But leave that aside. In fact, there is evidence in front of you – the world exists! You exist! Just open your eyes, for pity’s sake! Cats don’t come from dogs, fish don’t hatch out of pine cones, and being does not come out of non-being. But of course you reject this… Read more »

Most of what you say is nonsense, but for sake of argument let us assume you are right about everything. The problem remains that even if I have no answers, that does not obligate me to accept your answers for which there is no evidence. Your arguments could equally as well be made by someone claiming that the universe was created by pink unicorns, and why shouldn’t I accept his world view rather than yours?

The question of which is logically subsequent to the question of whether. We were talking about whether; you just moved the goalposts.

If you have no answers, and no way to justify your questions… perhaps humility is indicated? Perhaps you should learn from those who do?

You’re new here. The conversation you’re trying to have is one we’ve already had multiple times here, and my reluctance to engage you is more from being tired of repeating the same things over and over than it is from not having any answers. Go back and read the archives and you’ll find that this has been thoroughly discussed already.

I will say that I think it’s hilarious that you, who claim to have the creator of the universe as your best friend, seems to think that I’m the one with the humility issue.

Answer, or not, as you choose. I answered you.

But I will say that your “hilarious” observation doesn’t even rise to the level of irony. I don’t think I deserve to be his friend. He’s my friend because he’s nice. To the extent my ego is involved in the transaction, it is diminished.

And maybe you can get back to us when you succeed in proving that negative we discussed last time we had this conversation.

If it makes you feel better to believe that, knock yourself out.

Well to be fair, he is not presupposing an unprovable, omniscient, intercessory being ahead of everything like you are. He doesn’t get to play with the same pieces on the circular logic board.

You assume the basic existence of that (god) which your own claims for morality are based on. The very definition of circular logic. I get to say I don’t know. You should try it sometime- many avenues open before you.

TAG, you’re it.

You are unfortunately conflating axioms of logic which dictate forms of argument (not content) with your unfortunate presuppositionalist ‘axiom’ which in this case can only dictate the content of your particular circular argument.

As the one claiming the christian god as the basis for morality you have the responsibility of providing proof of your claim. Yet you are seemingly unable to do so. Happy to wait. In the meantime you don’t get to invoke that god to explain himself or his gift of morality. As good as that feels to you.

Greetings Katecho, I found this article in the Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1998/04/the-biological-basis-of-morality/377087/) that has the following quote: “Either ethical principles, such as justice and human rights, are independent of human experience, or they are human inventions…In simplest terms, the options are as follows: I believe in the independence of moral values, whether from God or not, and I believe that moral values come from human beings alone, whether or not God exists.” I seem to find myself aligning with your positions, and ultimately back to my faith in what God has said in His Word. However, to your antagonists, if they believe… Read more »

Ethics are objective, and humans discover them, much as we discover the laws of math and science. If slavery is wrong today (and it is) then it was wrong 100 and 1000 years ago too. Unfortunately, humans don’t seem to be quick learners.

The former.

Humans don’t do well unless they live in community, and living in community requires that some behaviors be encouraged and others be suppressed, and that is the fundamental basis for ethics.

They may have known; not every one cares if their conduct is moral. If they didn’t, it was for the same reason they didn’t know about quantum physics — it hadn’t been discovered yet.

Frustrated katecho resorts to not addressing my point which is that he is dishonestly conflating two different uses of a logical concept to hide that fact that he is holding the bottom end of the stick. He loves a good tarring with the misrepresentation brush. Continue painting your circular TAG.

And announcing that something is axiomatic does not make it axiomatic.

Katecho, not sure if you did this deliberately, but your statement that “it is the contention of atheists that God cannot be derived and proven logically” is, while technically true, also thoroughly misleading. Logical proofs are not the appropriate mechanism by which one would prove the existence of God, if God exists, and so of course God cannot be derived and proven logically, but that does not mean there would not be other evidence of his existence. If I wanted to prove the existence of the pope, would I resort to logical proofs and derivations? Of course not. I would… Read more »

“In Krychek_2’s case, I have explained how his materialistic presupposition contradicts the necessary conditions for things like morality, prescription, intentionality, etc. He has simply chosen to ignore these problems in hopes that no one will call him out when he waxes moralistic on us.” Last time we had this conversation, I pointed out that proving this negative requires that you show that there is no set of facts or philosophical argument, including those as yet undiscovered, that could possibly account for non-theistic morality. You have convinced yourself (although I disagree) that they don’t exist now, but can you prove to… Read more »

About to leave to catch a plane, so these quick comments are it for me. First, materialism works just fine, even for Katecho, unless and until it conflicts with his revealed religion. As a practical matter, from the time Katecho gets out of bed in the morning until he goes to bed at night, Katecho makes materialist assumptions that work in actual practice. It’s only when materialism announces that it has no need of a God hypothesis that it becomes a problem. Second, unlike the tiling problem, Katecho hasn’t come close to showing that materialism contains any internal contradictions. By… Read more »

Are you self-taught in this? Or are you one of those 20 Standard Deviations out sort for whom this stuff is pepper on scrambled eggs?

This is important work and it is an important witness to Christians (and EtR when he eventually hears and sees).

You are doing God’s work katecho. Blessings to you.

I encourage you to write a book on the matter–“The Materialistic Dilemma” has a nice ring to it…; perhaps Cannon (Canon?) Press or Castalia House will publish it for you.

I’m interested in developing formulations and expressions of the materialistic dilemma that demonstrate why it is not a knowledge problem, but a category problem….

What is a category problem?

Is it akin to scanning the Periodic Table of the Elements hoping to find C?

It is good to know that you are working in the matter; it gives me comfort .

cheers.

If you’re going to define words in a way that is not the common definition, then you need to explain how you are defining them so that other people will understand what you are talking about. You are welcome to define “cigar” as “a pig with wings” if you wish; just make sure that everyone knows that you are using the katecho definition and not the dictionary definition.

That would be illogical.

My childhood cautions about Mr. Spock (who I admired) where intuitive and correct. Mr. Spock, while logical and admirably Vulcan lived in, acted on and was a creature of unspoken axioms.

There are still racists out there, and probably always will be, but being an open racist is the social equivalent of deliberately farting at a dinner party. It’s not a crime, but don’t expect to be invited back. And candidly, Doug’s real concern is that being anti-gay is heading in that direction too.

That would be rational if high IQ and low crime were the only relevant factors.

I don’t see that your conclusion follows my premise, but whatever.

I don’t think opinion polls count for much of anything; if morality is determined by nose counting, then presumably anything might be acceptable in some benighted place. I do, however, have a deep and profound respect for empirical data. The empirical data show beyond question that children who have been sexually exploited suffer harm, usually for the rest of their lives. They are more prone to dropping out of school, substance abuse, suicide, criminality, and emotional problems. They have difficulty maintaining good relationships, and they are more likely to become abusers themselves. Among professionals in the field, this is not… Read more »

The standard is whether it harms society, not whether it benefits me personally. Those harms I listed for victims of sexual abuse create social costs too, as does theft, that far and away outweigh the benefits they provide to child molesters and thieves.

If Sodom and Gomorrah ever actually existed.

Humans only do well if they live in communities. Living in community requires that certain behaviors be encouraged and others be suppressed, and that, ultimately, is the basis for morality. It’s a little more complicated than that, but that’s the basic outline. Read some Hume and Bentham.

Because sacrificing human hearts does not actually impact whether the sun comes up. You can’t just go with what people believe; you have to look at whether those beliefs have a basis in reality. And ultimately, reality trumps everything. There is a disconnect between objective reality, and the limitations on how well humans understand reality, but that problem will exist no matter which system you implement. And the mirror image to your question is what happens if we live in a Christian theocracy in which people mistakenly believe the Bible teaches that blacks should be slaves. In both cases, the… Read more »

If there’s no way to disprove, and not real reason not to believe, then how would I reach the conclusion on my own that there’s no link between human sacrifice and sunrise? The only way this would be an issue for me would be if somehow I managed to figure out the science of it on my own, and in that case, the only way I could persuade others would be by making whatever arguments that I myself found persuasive.

Oh, wow, I’ve never thought that Krychek was a Christian. Maybe I am missing something.

And what harm did it actually cause 75 years ago?

I’m currently doing volunteer work with an organization that helps people with medical bills they can’t pay. One of my clients there is a gay individual whose partner has stuck with him through twenty years of ruinous medical bills, one health issue after another, and virtually no normal home life because of the illness (and before anyone asks, no, it’s not AiDS related). That does not sound like narcissism, making sex a virtue or devaluing family relationships to me. If he were any of those things, he’d have been gone long ago.

The average relationship does not involve a partner who is chronically ill for 20 years, but I’ve seen many gay couples over the years who have stuck with each other for better or worse. Maybe not in such extreme circumstances, and they often did so in the face of hostility from their families and governmental refusal to recognize their relationship. Maybe you should find out what gay relationships are like rather than whatever caricatures of them you may have heard. I could make lots of caricatures about Christians too, but that’s all they would be. His family started off hostile… Read more »

Of course he does and it’s a thoroughly Biblical principle. Therefore shall a man leave both his father and mother and cleave to his wife.

In his case he has a husband but the underlying principle is the same. Once a union has been established, the partner comes first.

Try not using a double standard.

It was at the expense of because his family chose to reject his relationship, and not the other way around. And some families do have children, yes, including gay families.