minsocal

The subject of this thread is "The Sanctity of Marriage". So far, it seems to me that the debate has centered on the definition of "marriage" and the word "sanctity" has taken on the aspect of an assumption. Yet I think that the two terms need to be considered together. How does "sanctity" relate to "marriage"?

I'm new here. Please forgive me if I intrude incorrectly.

 

If indeed we are viewing ourselves as Christians, progressive of course, it seems to me that the pivotal point is to be found in the central message of Yeshua, not before (OT) and certainly not afterward in the baggage of Paul (or those writing using his name.

 

My neighbor is everyone, including the LGBT community. If I cannot find my love for God (Allaha) to include my neighbor than I have turned my back on the central issue.

 

The OT can justify about any form of hateful behavior but we are not held to it. Paul and the writer of John can do the same and we are not held to it. The message is so simple it is always easy to miss.

 

Loving wastefully has no categories. It just is or it isn't.

 

Thanks for bearing with me.

 

Donald

Welcome Donald,

I share your view that "loving wastefully has no categories". I was taught that in Sunday School oh so many years ago, and it has stuck with me for 50+ years. Good to hear it again.

Myron

i liked when he asked the subjects to sign away their souls to the interviewer. I'm not sure if I would sign that piece of paper. i dont for a second believe that i would be actually signing my soul away, but i think i would certainly break a sweat if i was going to do it. what do you all think you would do?

I would not sign it, partly because I'm not sure whether it means "in this lifetime" or assumes an "afterlife". I have a small problem with Haidt on the matter of background assumptions.

Steve, that is essentially what Haidt says.

 

George

George,

That was me, Myron ... not Steve. I was commenting on the research from Damasio.

Myron

Yes he does, extensively. I counted 12 citations.

 

George

George,

Thanks. Then I can contribute here as I am very familar with Damasio as well as Haidt.

Myron

There is a suble difference between rationality and decision making. Patients with focal brain damage in or near the cingulate gyrus lack communication between the emotional processing center of the brain with the rational processing center. The can generate many rational options, but are unable to decide which one to use.

“Two – The Intuitive Dog and its Rational Tail”

 

 

In this chapter, Haidt gets into the evolutionary basis of morality. He says that emotions, something we share with apes, are building blocks for morality. He cites studies of brain damage to specific parts of the brain that disable emotion. People who suffer this damage have difficulty in decision making. They had no intuitive emotional reaction to right and wrong although they retain full rationality. He says that people make awful decisions when deprived of emotional input. He says that these situations were “a shocking revelation that reasoning requires the passions.”

 

George

This is almost identical to the Somatic Marker Hypothesis of Antonio Damasio. Damasio is well known for his book Descartes Error (1994). Does Haidt cite Damasio in this book? He is most likely the source of the research Haidt is talking about.

Myron

Myron

 

What home page are you referring to?

 

Dutch

http://progressivechristianity.org/

(edit to add)

It's the link on the upper left of this mesage board.

Myron

"

Point 6

Discuss Point 6 of the TCPC 8 Points...

By calling ourselves progressive, we mean we...

Find more grace in the search for understanding than we do in dogmatic certainty - more value in questioning than in absolutes.

or more recently and simply restated and re-numbered as Point 5...

Find grace in the search for understanding and believe there is more value in questioning than in absolutes."

Well George the real question is... Rational argument to who? For example there is this article. I am neither expressing agreement or disagreement with it but only making a point that "making a so called 'rational argument' of this issue " is highly subjective.

Joseph

The article is rather old school and reinforcing of the status quo.

Myron

Try this one: http://papers.ssrn.c...ract_id=1722155

Have not read much of the article. The abstract places it in the late 1800's as far as thinking goes on the subject.

Myron

I support the right to have an abortion until the point it becomes a late term abortion though even with late term abortions, it depends on the situation and motivations behind having the late term abortion.

Very good observation. If you were a doctor, how would you handle a choice between saving the mother or a fetus with the possibilty of primary consciousness?

Myron

I have thought about it but have never been able to figure out what I would want on my body my whole life. But now that they have become a sign of conformity instead of a sign of rebellion I have pretty much ruled it out.

Good point. Tattoos have been around for thousands of years. The tension between conform and rebel is cyclical.

Myron

Neon thanks.

 

Your quote ends ...

 

"This is the law in cases of jealousy, when a wife, while under her husband’s authority, goes astray and defiles herself, or when a spirit of jealousy comes on a man and he is jealous of his wife; then he shall set the woman before the Lord, and the priest shall apply this entire law to her. The man shall be free from iniquity, but the woman shall bear her iniquity." (emphasis added)

 

Myron

I think the real question here is whether Jesus rejected this notion. I think so.

Myron

I'd like a tatoo, but given my age and physical condition, it's not likely. A recent series of rather aggressive skin infections make this unreasonable. So I'll just join in and say go for it it if you are young and healthy.

I'm using the NRSV bible and this is from Numbers 5:11-21.

Neon thanks.

Your quote ends ...

"This is the law in cases of jealousy, when a wife, while under her husband’s authority, goes astray and defiles herself, or when a spirit of jealousy comes on a man and he is jealous of his wife; then he shall set the woman before the Lord, and the priest shall apply this entire law to her. The man shall be free from iniquity, but the woman shall bear her iniquity." (emphasis added)

Myron

It's this passage here

Neon,

I know this is something of a bad pun. Could you provide the Bible translation source and the verse numbers from Numbers. I'm having trouble finding a match. I use a search engine with many different translations. The numbering would help as you said "Numbers 5" and that is what I looked for.

Myron

In Numbers 5, God uses abortion as a form of truth serum to determine if a woman had an affair.

Neon,

Not having the best of days here, but I'm a bit confused.

Numbers 5 (New Revised Standard)

"1 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 2 Command the Israelites to put out of the camp everyone who is leprous, or has a discharge, and everyone who is unclean through contact with a corpse; 3 you shall put out both male and female, putting them outside the camp; they must not defile their camp, where I dwell among them. 4 The Israelites did so, putting them outside the camp; as the Lord had spoken to Moses, so the Israelites did. 5 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 6 Speak to the Israelites: When a man or a woman wrongs another, breaking faith with the Lord, that person incurs guilt 7 and shall confess the sin that has been committed. The person shall make full restitution for the wrong, adding one-fifth to it, and giving it to the one who was wronged."

Myron

Weeks? 21 weeks? As opposed to 21 months - i.e. a child nearly 2 years of age?...is what I was joking about.

Paul,

Yes, I meant weeks. Your good humor prevails.

Myron

(edit to add)

I did a Freudian Slip here. It was Frued who coined the term ID which means child is an "IT" for the first few years of life, not quite a person. Freud leaves me more than a bit uncomfortable.

I think 21 months might be viewed as murder, Myron!

I agree. Evidence indicates awareness has developed by this time. In different terms, the fetus is now a person at 21 months.

Myron

I think you are defining your personal 'moral' line. Where do you think the 'legal' line should be drawn above which it would be murder?

 

My personal moral line is viability and maybe my preferred legal line as well. The problem is that some of these lines are fuzzy and changing (with medical technology). So, drawing a clear legal line between conception and birth can problematic from an enforcement point of view.

 

George

George,

I some states the view I presented is also the legal line. I think the line is drawn at 21 months.

Myron

My own view draws a line at when the fetus reaches the point of development where pain is experienced. I'm not talking here of simple reflex reactions, but of that point in brain development where the fetus begins to exhibit reactions similar to a new born. Is the fetus minimally conscious at this point? I can't answer that question with certainty. On the other hand, if primary consciousness begins at some point in the womb, I would think there might be a conceptual connection to what some call ensoulment.

Myron

I do not think Haidt is making the case that emotions and intuitions exhibit instrinic morality. Rather, he is saying that we have innate emotions and intuitions that are the foundation of a rational view of morality. The issue for Haidt, and others like him, is that evolution has given us a foundation for adaptatation and one of those adaptations is the capacity for a moral sense. Capacities are not causal, in the strict sense of the word. They are enabling. The feature of emotions and intuitions that is important is that they exhibit intrinsic intentionality. That is, they direct us to important aspects of our environment that have adaptive significance. What we make of this develops over time and is not fully predictable.

Myron

We have forum dedicated to Bishop Spong subscribers. This is good. Could we have a forum dedicated to issues raised on the home page of this website? I think that would help engage more visitors here.

Myron

Myron,

 

I wanted to know more about Family Systems Theory, and found a good intro to Murray Bowen on Wikipedia. Thanks for the introduction. I can see how trying to put his theory into practice would be very challenging, particularly in the relationship between adults and their parents, where ways of avoiding emotional 'danger' can be deeply entrenched.

 

Annie

Annie,

I am glad you found the Wiki intro informative. There is also this link ...

http://www.thebowencenter.org/pages/theory.html

There are times I am reluctant to post this kind of information here because of the difficulty in discussing these matters. At the same time, I think Progressive Christians need to keep moving upstream, and should be aware of these theories and the related research.

Myron