BruceDLimber
Well-Known Member
>Is everything permissible?
Depends on whom you ask!
But for anyone with any SENSE, clearly not!
Peace,
Bruce
Depends on whom you ask!
But for anyone with any SENSE, clearly not!
Peace,
Bruce
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is everything permissible?
- Thread starter doppelganger
- Start date
'Sense' to whom?
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
What isn't permissible, Bruce? And how do we know it isn't permissible?
BruceDLimber
Well-Known Member
Greetings.
Some of us rely on a combination of scripture and common sense to generate such answers.
(As ever, YMMV.)
And as it happens, the scriptures I follow state there is one thing worse than a bad system, and that's no system whatever (aka anarchy)!
Peace,
Bruce
Some of us rely on a combination of scripture and common sense to generate such answers.
(As ever, YMMV.)
And as it happens, the scriptures I follow state there is one thing worse than a bad system, and that's no system whatever (aka anarchy)!
Peace,
Bruce
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
Bump for relevance to recent sex and morality discussion.
lunamoth
Will to love
"Everything is permissible for me"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"—but I will not be mastered by anything.
I think that in context this is not Paul arguing for the idea that everything is permissible, but qualifying that belief as held by the Corninthians. The knowledge that lead to the view that 'everything is permissible' is the knowledge of God. The First Corinthians quotes are each smack in the middlge of Paul's dissertations explaining that sexual immorality is not conducive to life in Christ, and that while the eating of food sacrificed to idols is permissible, as nothing which goes into the body makes it unclean, it is not beneficial to do something that will cause one's brothers and sisters to fall away, including the eating of meat sacrificed to idols.
So he was not saying anything goes...actions need to be evaluated by the effect they have on our relationship with God and our relationships with each other.
Here's a bit from First Corinthians 8 that I think we need to keep in mind above and over the idea that "all things are lawful:"
(Now concerning food sacrificed to idols) We know that "all of us possess knowledge." Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. Anyone who claims to know something does not yet have the necessary knowledge; but anyone who loves God is known by him."
Thank you for starting an interesting discussion. :namaste:
I think that in context this is not Paul arguing for the idea that everything is permissible, but qualifying that belief as held by the Corninthians. The knowledge that lead to the view that 'everything is permissible' is the knowledge of God. The First Corinthians quotes are each smack in the middlge of Paul's dissertations explaining that sexual immorality is not conducive to life in Christ, and that while the eating of food sacrificed to idols is permissible, as nothing which goes into the body makes it unclean, it is not beneficial to do something that will cause one's brothers and sisters to fall away, including the eating of meat sacrificed to idols.
So he was not saying anything goes...actions need to be evaluated by the effect they have on our relationship with God and our relationships with each other.
Here's a bit from First Corinthians 8 that I think we need to keep in mind above and over the idea that "all things are lawful:"
(Now concerning food sacrificed to idols) We know that "all of us possess knowledge." Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. Anyone who claims to know something does not yet have the necessary knowledge; but anyone who loves God is known by him."
Thank you for starting an interesting discussion. :namaste:
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
I think Paul is carrying out a balancing act. His Gospel is that the mystery of the Christ sets those in Christ free from the bonds of the law, but he realizes that this can be misconstrued by those who aren't in Christ, so he's reminding his followers to be careful not to let their own freedom be a stumbling block to those who haven't grasped that freedom and might take it as though it were an exception to the law for those under it.
In The Brothers Karamazov, this balancing act is quite explicit, as Ivan conveys the same message as Paul, only to find out that it has been taken to mean something very, very different than he intended.
Regarding Paul, do you find it incongruous that he says to live as one under the law to help someone else not stumble, but publicly rebuked Peter for acting as one under the law and encouraging Paul's disciples to do so? After all, what else would one expect of one under the law, but to act self-righteously and accuse others of not behaving in accordance with the law? Did Paul make a mistake?
And what do you make of Jesus's rebuke in Matthew 23?
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
This is something I wrote about a couple years ago on my blog
______________________________________________
"The Legal Paradox: Part I"
Paul suggests that "sinful passions" are "aroused bythe law." What does that mean? He goes on to explain in the second paragraph cited above (and in Chapter 8) that our sinful nature (selfishness) defines itself by what it knows is wrong under the law. As an example, Paul explains that our sin nature "seizes the opportunity afforded by the commandment" not to covet, in order to create the desire to covet.
But is this true in our experience? Do we really covet (or otherwise act selfishly) because there is a law against doing so? Or is there a law against doing so because we are inclined by self-preservation to seek what is most expedient and beneficial for ourselves?
I think that what Paul is getting at is that we are inclined by our self-awareness to be selfish - this is our "sin nature." But that we also have a desire that is an aspect of our being to step beyond our self and experience the fullness of life through grace and love. This is the "Spirit." The "law" is there for those who need the law. If one awakens to the Spirit of love, the desire to transcend one's self and come to others in their distress, the law is no longer necessary: "by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code." Indeed, Paul says elsewhere (1 Cor. 9) that he is himself not even subject to the law unless it is necessary to be a witness to those who find themselves under the law.
So is this a license to sin? Yes and no. Paul is writing to those who have awakened to the Spirit of love to confirm to them that the law of Christ, the law of Love, is complete in itself and needs no written code of "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots" created by humans to govern their selfishness. How is this so? Because the desire to love others, sacrifice my self, and even forgive my enemies will fulfill the the purpose of the law. And the spiritually awake person will endeavor to fulfill that law of love not out of a sense of obligation or fear of judgment, but rather out of a sense of connectedness ("I'n'I", in the Bob Marley song quoted at the top of this post) that the awakening to the Spirit of love brings to full life.
Thus, we have the following story about Jesus in Mark 7:
______________________________________________
"The Legal Paradox: Part I"
Hey, but I'n'I - I'n'I nah come to fight flesh and blood,
But spiritual wickedness in 'igh and low places.
So while, so while, so while they fight you down,
Stand firm and give Jah thanks and praises.
I'n'I no expect to be justified
by the laws of men - by the laws of men.
Oh, hey through Jah to prove my innocency,
I told you wicked think they found me guilty.
- Bob Marley, "So Much Things to Say"
In Chapters 7 and 8 of Paul’s epistle to the Romans, he goes on at length to describe the relationship between the "Law" and "sin." Paul writes in Chapter 7:But spiritual wickedness in 'igh and low places.
So while, so while, so while they fight you down,
Stand firm and give Jah thanks and praises.
I'n'I no expect to be justified
by the laws of men - by the laws of men.
Oh, hey through Jah to prove my innocency,
I told you wicked think they found me guilty.
- Bob Marley, "So Much Things to Say"
So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.
Paul’s discussion of the law contains an idea that might seem, at first blush, to be quite foreign to Christians because Christian tradition has continued to teach an obligation to be faithful to the law and the Commandments (based mainly on the Gospel of Matthew).What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.
Paul suggests that "sinful passions" are "aroused bythe law." What does that mean? He goes on to explain in the second paragraph cited above (and in Chapter 8) that our sinful nature (selfishness) defines itself by what it knows is wrong under the law. As an example, Paul explains that our sin nature "seizes the opportunity afforded by the commandment" not to covet, in order to create the desire to covet.
But is this true in our experience? Do we really covet (or otherwise act selfishly) because there is a law against doing so? Or is there a law against doing so because we are inclined by self-preservation to seek what is most expedient and beneficial for ourselves?
I think that what Paul is getting at is that we are inclined by our self-awareness to be selfish - this is our "sin nature." But that we also have a desire that is an aspect of our being to step beyond our self and experience the fullness of life through grace and love. This is the "Spirit." The "law" is there for those who need the law. If one awakens to the Spirit of love, the desire to transcend one's self and come to others in their distress, the law is no longer necessary: "by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code." Indeed, Paul says elsewhere (1 Cor. 9) that he is himself not even subject to the law unless it is necessary to be a witness to those who find themselves under the law.
So is this a license to sin? Yes and no. Paul is writing to those who have awakened to the Spirit of love to confirm to them that the law of Christ, the law of Love, is complete in itself and needs no written code of "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots" created by humans to govern their selfishness. How is this so? Because the desire to love others, sacrifice my self, and even forgive my enemies will fulfill the the purpose of the law. And the spiritually awake person will endeavor to fulfill that law of love not out of a sense of obligation or fear of judgment, but rather out of a sense of connectedness ("I'n'I", in the Bob Marley song quoted at the top of this post) that the awakening to the Spirit of love brings to full life.
Thus, we have the following story about Jesus in Mark 7:
Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?”
He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘ This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”
He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban”—’ (that is, a gift to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”
When He had called all the multitude to Himself, He said to them, “Hear Me, everyone, and understand: There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!”
Is this a truth that can be given to anyone? For those under the law and not awake to the Spirit of love, will this teaching mean something very different than what is intended?He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘ This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”
He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban”—’ (that is, a gift to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”
When He had called all the multitude to Himself, He said to them, “Hear Me, everyone, and understand: There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!”
lunamoth
Will to love
Yes, I agree that Paul is carrying out a balancing act in nurturing the growth of the new Christian community. It's like raising kids. We want them to learn and think for themselves, but to do so we need challenge them as well as encourage them. I think though Paul is concerned about those who are new in Christ (not only those who are not yet part of the Christian community), "weak in conscience," which I think does mean those who don't yet trust in their freedom.doppelgänger;1086696 said:
What do you mean?
Which passage about Peter are you referring to specifically?
But, just going by Paul's teaching for example that circumcision is not necessary, I think Paul is tailoring his teaching to his audience. Peter and the Jewish Christians should be stronger and more trusting (have faith in) God because of their heritage and direct relationship with Jesus. The Greeks, gentiles have further to go, and so need to be taught more gently.
Jesus was *strongly* making the point that the Pharisees were missing the point of the law, worried about the letter as opposed to the spirit, and worse, twisting it to suit their own purposes (maintaining their own power and comforts).
Not sure though how you are tying this in to the idea that everything is permissible.
lunamoth
Will to love
Thanks for posting the above...answers a couple of the questions I asked in my post. What can I say but that I agree with the above. Well said.the doppster said:I think that what Paul is getting at is that we are inclined by our self-awareness to be selfish - this is our "sin nature." But that we also have a desire that is an aspect of our being to step beyond our self and experience the fullness of life through grace and love. This is the "Spirit." The "law" is there for those who need the law. If one awakens to the Spirit of love, the desire to transcend one's self and come to others in their distress, the law is no longer necessary: "by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code." Indeed, Paul says elsewhere (1 Cor. 9) that he is himself not even subject to the law unless it is necessary to be a witness to those who find themselves under the law.
So is this a license to sin? Yes and no. Paul is writing to those who have awakened to the Spirit of love to confirm to them that the law of Christ, the law of Love, is complete in itself and needs no written code of "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots" created by humans to govern their selfishness. How is this so? Because the desire to love others, sacrifice my self, and even forgive my enemies will fulfill the the purpose of the law. And the spiritually awake person will endeavor to fulfill that law of love not out of a sense of obligation or fear of judgment, but rather out of a sense of connectedness ("I'n'I", in the Bob Marley song quoted at the top of this post) that the awakening to the Spirit of love brings to full life.
lunamoth
Will to love
doppelgänger;1086705 said:
OK, I've thought about this a bit more. I think this is a truth to be given to everyone. It's not an either/or situation, but a process, even if there are 'aha' moments along the way. The law is meant as a signpost pointing us toward love, but like other signs, it is sometimes mistaken for the thing it points toward and becomes an end unto itself. That does not mean that the sign itself is bad or wrong, but that it is most useful when understood for what it is. If we are heading for Jerusalem, we don't want to set up our tent at the crossroads that happens to lead to Jerulsalem.
The teaching does mean different things to different people, depending on where we are in our journey.
The Weak and the Strong
Romans 14-1 New International version
Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgement on disputable matters.
14-2
One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.
14-22
So what ever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves.
Romans 14 sheds a light on what faith can do for a person.
Lets take drinking for instance. Drunkenness is the sin, not drinking. Jesus turned water into wine and some people think that wine was absent of alcohol. That is wrong! That wine was the best wine ever to be drank in all of time.
So should a Christian drink? Not on his front porch offending his neighbors. Not around a reformed alcoholic where it could cause a stumbling block for him and cause him to start drinking again. Should a Christian get drunk and kill some one by driving their car on the road? Hell No!
An intelligent Christian strong in their faith knows, nothing is unclean unto itself. If you decide to bring a six pack cooler with you to church and knock down a few while listening to a sermon and are offending people, it is wrong!
There is a time and a place for everything under heaven and Jesus turned water into wine at a marriage celebration. Right time right place.
Happy is the man for the one thing he alloweth.
It's all in Romans 14 and I believe ties in to the conversation.
The message I recieved from this is, two people could be doing the exact same thing and one would be committing a sin and the other one would not.
If you believe something to be a sin, for you it is. Everyone else is not your problem, that is between them and their Lord.
Romans 14-1 New International version
Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgement on disputable matters.
14-2
One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.
14-22
So what ever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves.
Romans 14 sheds a light on what faith can do for a person.
Lets take drinking for instance. Drunkenness is the sin, not drinking. Jesus turned water into wine and some people think that wine was absent of alcohol. That is wrong! That wine was the best wine ever to be drank in all of time.
So should a Christian drink? Not on his front porch offending his neighbors. Not around a reformed alcoholic where it could cause a stumbling block for him and cause him to start drinking again. Should a Christian get drunk and kill some one by driving their car on the road? Hell No!
An intelligent Christian strong in their faith knows, nothing is unclean unto itself. If you decide to bring a six pack cooler with you to church and knock down a few while listening to a sermon and are offending people, it is wrong!
There is a time and a place for everything under heaven and Jesus turned water into wine at a marriage celebration. Right time right place.
Happy is the man for the one thing he alloweth.
It's all in Romans 14 and I believe ties in to the conversation.
The message I recieved from this is, two people could be doing the exact same thing and one would be committing a sin and the other one would not.
If you believe something to be a sin, for you it is. Everyone else is not your problem, that is between them and their Lord.
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
Galatians 2:
Whether you or Jesus thought they were "twisting" it is beside the point. The purpose of the law is to be twisted to suit the purposes and power of the "law givers." They were doing what the law and tradition commanded of them. The fact that you think that the tradition should be different is irrelevant so long as you still support tradition and authority. You substitute one law for another, but no real transformation occurs.
Paul in Galatians 2 said:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Thanks for bumping this thread. I had forgotten where I left this pearl.
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
That's a good one, Nate.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
doppelgänger;1087241 said:
I'll be here all week.
:takeabow:
The pearl I can appreciate, Nathan. Does your interpretation include compassion, or is that another concept entirely?
I see that everything is permissable with perfect wisdom and perfect compassion - the "two wings of the bird."
Peace,
Mystic
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Only if the wise-person deems it nessary. I would say that a wise person knows when to have compassion and when not to, according to their wisdom.
EDIT: Then again, I do not claim to be a wise-person, so I may be mistaken in the finer definitive qualifiers.
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
This is the thread that prompted me to bump this one, BTW:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/62813-mans-law-gods-law-sex.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/62813-mans-law-gods-law-sex.html
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Yes - thanks, dopp. I think about this question often.