There is indeed much with which I find myself in agreement with you, looking at the nonsensical separation between secular reasons and religious reasons. I too have made this observation, in my new article on this topic, wherein I outlined the approach and positions with a [at first] more neutral stance, I addressed precisely this issue in the perception of some people.
As I perceive your argument, "religion" stands as equivalent to "non-secular." Thus, my initial inquiry would be that: does there exist another form of non-secular, something that is not religion? If not, how would you propose to approach the definition of religion, as you use it?
For myself, particularly when I intertwine it with philosophy, religion appears as a form of metaphysics resp. ontology that encompasses a [living] entity associated with meaning or purpose. In the instance of Christianity, this entity serves as the very foundation of meaning and purpose.
Secondly, while I concur that what you have described is a subset of sodomy, I am puzzled as to why you do not extend the same judgment to the relations between two women. At first, I considered that the frequent usage of the term "man" in relevant biblical verses might be the reason. However, you have stated:
"God created male and female, and the human reproductive system, and sodomy is a rather obvious rejection of that," framing this within the context of blasphemy, which you named the root or core of sodomy. From this, it seems to follow that the same prohibition could be applied to women.
Finally, in regards to your statement:
"Thus for every person who opts out of being a ‘breeder,’ whether from sodomy or some other perversion, that increases the responsibility on others."
This appears to imply, though I do not presume so, that even those who renounce family life for the service of God, such as monks, nuns, or apostles, fall under "some other perversion." I would personally suggest to add that there exist virtuous reasons for abstinence, just so there can be no misunderstandings, for this sentence could be understood in multiple ways.
A long comment, which will require several replies. Perhaps even a letter exchange?
But the point I would address first is why I deal with male on male sexual activity in the first instance:
1) Biblically speaking it is the first instance: literally the story of Sodom, which comes even before the writing of the law.
2) I happen to believe that it is logically prior: that men begin to push for this perversion long before women really get into it as a political/philosophical/religious issue.
3) While female vs female sexuality is to be, and is, condemned, it does not involve the spilling of seed.
4) I believe that man, meaning men, are those who are called to spiritual leadership.
Now, there is another reason which is more linguistic. If you dedicate a few hours to reading the entire set of exchanges between Addam and myself, you will find him continually saying things such as ‘who I love’. I have another post coming out on this issue, but that is obviously a massive red herring. The issue is ‘who you choose to have sex with’. So I have thought it good to be very, very specific.
I am fully prepared for someone to come quoting the dictionary and talk about how men and women can ‘commit Sodomy’ together, so I tried to very, very clear and semi-explicity.
I concur with the role of the man as a spiritual leader, and when I wrote my previous comment, I recognized that within society, the breakdown of male leadership contributes to the emergence of further "fornication." I like to use the German term "Unzucht" as a general term for all sexual immorality, and hope fornication serves as a translation good enough.
Yet, we must here draw a distinction. Is the aspect of the definition of sodomy, as you optimally employ the term, tied to spiritual responsibility all the way down? Or is this merely a type of sodomy, the most grievous one? Surely, I believe you would agree that women also bear spiritual responsibility, over the children, the natural world, and both man and woman together over the animal kingdom and their creation. Accordingly, would you agree that between man and man we are confronted with *grave* sodomy, in distinction to between woman and woman with [mere] sodomy?
Secondly, regarding the issue of "spilling the seed," what rank of perversion does masturbation hold compared to the homosexual act between two women in your view? This could aid me in understanding your perspective if you wish to offer a judgment or guess on this matter.
Thirdly, at the moment I have quite little time if it indeed takes some hours, yet I shall note down to pursue this conversation between you and Addam, as it appears to have been interesting.
>>Secondly, regarding the issue of "spilling the seed," what rank of perversion does masturbation hold compared to the homosexual act between two women in your view?
I think I will expand this discussion a bit in order to be more accurate. Let us speak at the same time of masturbation, female on female sexual activity, and various forms of birth control.
I believe that for each of these there are a variety of sins that are involved, indeed a variety of people that are being sinned against. Spilling seed is one that occurs in masturbation and birth control, sexual perversion in female on female sexual activity, two people in at least two of them, and possibly all three.
I believe that all of these need to be judged in the light of all of these issues. And in the light of the deliberateness of the issues.
So I won't be making a sliding scale... but I will say that male on male sexual activity seems worse on its face because it adds perversion, two people, unfruitfulness, and spilling seed. Indeed, worse than spilling.
>>Accordingly, would you agree that between man and man we are confronted with *grave* sodomy, in distinction to between woman and woman with [mere] sodomy?
I would use the word 'sexual perversion' here, just because of the problem with the modern English use of the word 'Sodomy' in light of the Biblical use.
However, yes, as I state below, I believe it is worse.
No, seriously, yes, man’s responsibility goes all the way down… but that doesn’t eliminate other responsibilities. The General may be above the entire army, but the Colonel has his bit under him, and the Captain, and the LT, and the sargeant….
Indeed, and that caused my confusion around the argument of calling one sodomy and not the other, for both have spiritual responsibility, yet the one over the other. However, I was not aware that the term sodomy is used in some non-optimal way today in English. Thus, I shall concur to use it your way, and when I speak of my way - that is, equal misuse but in other spiritual dimensions of responsibility - I call it "fornication".
Oh, yes. If you get into a debate on ‘Sodomy’ on the web, it usually takes about ten minutes for some bright boy to mention that what Sodomy ‘really means’ can involve a man and a woman.
If you really wanted to expand beyond the technical act on that word, to better fit your definition, a compound word like, "andro-eroticism" might suffice. But it would need to be clearly defined and also could be misunderstood.
>>As I perceive your argument, "religion" stands as equivalent to "non-secular."
I guess I wasn't clear here. I was not attempting to equate 'religion' and 'non-secular', I was trying to deny 'secular'. I don't think it is a useful term. I am attempting to say that everything that we do has underlying reasons, and these, in the end, are profound expressions of what we think is right, of how the world came to be, etc etc.
I agree that everyone lives according to either concious or subconcous philosophical assumptions.
My question is perhaps more precisely this: is it sufficient for you to consider every person religious on these grounds alone, or must a subset of these assumptions include that an ontological entity is purpose-grounding? According to my understanding, there are indeed secular worldviews. These are held by individuals who attempt to comprehend reality without such grounding, simply without God (maybe with "gods" of little-g's though). However, such worldviews also consist of "underlying reasons," many of which remain unreflected upon by most. That is sufficient for me to say everyone has a worldview, yet not to say everyone is religious.
Religion and secularity were teached to me as simply the negation of the other. Or rather, funnily enough, religion as substance and secularity as the negation of it. Is then the reason you do not like to use the word religion here because it adds mud to the waters and you like to avoid points that could make a reader ignorant towards what you are trying to say, or because per definition you see religion not being on the same scale as secularity and non-secularity at all?
The problem is the word 'relgion' can mean so many different things.
My point is that what people mean by 'secular' typically short circuits the ideas of eternal values. They have this vision that there is some 'secular' level of discussion that can occur. Which is impossible.
The “Pizza Discussion” is a letter exchange with Fallible Father . In it we discuss issues of the importance of religion, God, and morality… comparing them to the importance of Pizza and Sushi. It started when he posted a post entitled ‘Religion’ and specifically comes from this line: “Arguing over religion strikes me as the same as arguing over whether sushi or pizza is better.” Russell Gold has also contributed.
»This appears to imply, though I do not presume so, that even those who renounce family life for the service of God, such as monks, nuns, or apostles, fall under "some other perversion."
I think that this is a complex subject, so this is not a blanket statement but, in general, I would argue that entangling vows of celibacy are at best unBiblical, and at worst either heresy or perversion.
I wonder what you make out of 1 Corinthians 7:8-9:
"(8) I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. (9) But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."
(1) Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”
(2) But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.
(3) The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.
(4) The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.
(5) Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
(6) I say this as a concession, not as a command.
(7) I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
I would say these are the themes, then:
[1] The negation of sexual relationship between a man and a woman is good [for a man].
[2] However, there is danger of sexual immorality. Therefore: Sexual relations should take place between a man and his wife, and a woman and her husband.
Note: That presumes already a marriage-relationship, as it is between a man and *his wife*, and a woman and *her husband*.
[3] There are mutual marital duties. Therefore: Again, the above belongs within marriage.
[4] In that scenario: authority over one's own body is given to the other.
[5] Only here should mutual sexual abstinence occur, if: (a) mutually agreed upon, (b) temporary, and (c) due to devotion to prayer. Reason for not longer: so that the devil may not tempt one.
[6] But this possible abstinence [see 5] is voluntary.
[7] Paul wishes that everyone were like him. But each has their own gifts.
[8] Therefore (because everyone has their own gifts): it is good to remain unmarried if one is currently unmarried. That is now speaking about another group of people, for [2] to [6] spoke about within marriage, with [2] speaking about how to defeat the danger of sexual immorality if one is in marriage. Now it is about the question whether to marry at all.
[9] If one burns with desire, one should marry. Because then one is under the temptation of sexual immorality, and [2] to [6] counts as the God given measure to protect against it.
Ok, let’s go back to verse two… cause your interpretation don’t fit with the words. I agree it fits with other commentators.. but not the actual words:
1Co 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
1Co 7:2 Toutefois, pour éviter l'impudicité, que chacun ait sa femme, et que chaque femme ait son mari.
1Co 7:2 Aber um der Hurerei willen habe ein jeglicher sein eigen Weib, und eine jegliche habe ihren eigenen Mann.
1Co 7:2 but because of fornication, let each have his own wife, and let each have her own husband.
Comparing to:
1Ti 5:14 Therefore, I desire the young women to marry, to bear children, to rule the house, giving no occasion to the adversary on account of reproach.
1Ti 5:15 For some already have turned aside behind Satan.
Thus my view: marriage is normative, and an antidote to sexual sin. To the extent Paul used the word ‘every’ here.
Entangling vows of unmarried life, then, fall afoul of this passage. First of all by keeping a man from having his wife, and secondly by keeping him from getting one.
Even for your translation, ‘each man should have sexual relations with his own wife’ does not imply ‘if he is married’. It implies he is married. IE that is normative.
Yet, this interpretation appears somewhat at odds with verses 7, 8, and 9, wherein the Apostle Paul first acknowledges the diversity of gifts among individuals in this context and subsequently, in verse 9, stipulates, "IF they cannot contain, let them marry." Herein lies a clear condition, and similarly, verse two can also be interpreted in both ways: each man let have a woman. Or: each man who has a woman, let the following be the case. From the context of verses 7-9, it becomes evident, as I perceive it, that marriage is enjoined upon those who might otherwise find themselves in danger of sexual immorality, which, let it be clear, is almost everyone in the modern west.
A general point of disagreement *may* be that I hold marriage as a measure to protect your soul and grow in the faith together/helping the other [1] and marriage as a measure to reproduce [2] to be of perfectly equal importance as one. Both are of necessity if you seek a wife or a husband, and both are of equal blessings. And a denial of even one opens a gate for the devil. But I haven't looked at my noted advocating for the equality of both domains for some years, and I hope I find them still.
Ummm, I didn’t quit understand all of that. But I have written A GREAT DEAL on marriage, so I’m sure if you look you’ll find some interesting areas of disagreement :)
I think when I write about why I am not a baptist anymore, though "still in spirit" of it very much, that will give us a great opportunity to do that! Other than that, the disagreements seem to be very little as far as I saw in your posts until now, or of matters not of interest simply because we live in different countries.
Didn’t Paul offer a ‘secular’ argument, referring the Romans not to Deuteronomy, but to truths about human nature? This is the Natural Law tradition. My friend Dr Richard Howe explains:
A natural law argument is not a secular argument. The doctrine of 'natural law', such as found in Romans 1, is founded, as Romans 1 points out, in the doctrine of creation. If you reject the doctrine of creation (which is, of course, not a 'secular' argument) then there can be no 'natural law'.
Hmmm. Of course until the Big Bang theory, those who rejected creation believed that the universe always was. And that universe still might have a certain character. So as I understand Natural Law theory, feel free to check up on this, don’t take my word for it, the relevant aspect is that things (like human beings) have certain natures, and fulfilling their natures (rightly understood, in accordance with the theory) is what “good” consists of for a thing. So it might be the rejection of essentialism, that things have essences, or natures, that is fatal, not necessarily a particular view of origins (creation vs evolution, etc)
I suppose it is possible for an atheist to make a go at some sort of ‘the universe is like this, therefore this is right’ kind of doctrine… directly violating the is/ought divide… but that is definitely not what Paul does in Romans 1. He ties the acceptance of sexual perversion directly to the rejection of God as creator.
My gratitude for writing this article.
There is indeed much with which I find myself in agreement with you, looking at the nonsensical separation between secular reasons and religious reasons. I too have made this observation, in my new article on this topic, wherein I outlined the approach and positions with a [at first] more neutral stance, I addressed precisely this issue in the perception of some people.
As I perceive your argument, "religion" stands as equivalent to "non-secular." Thus, my initial inquiry would be that: does there exist another form of non-secular, something that is not religion? If not, how would you propose to approach the definition of religion, as you use it?
For myself, particularly when I intertwine it with philosophy, religion appears as a form of metaphysics resp. ontology that encompasses a [living] entity associated with meaning or purpose. In the instance of Christianity, this entity serves as the very foundation of meaning and purpose.
Secondly, while I concur that what you have described is a subset of sodomy, I am puzzled as to why you do not extend the same judgment to the relations between two women. At first, I considered that the frequent usage of the term "man" in relevant biblical verses might be the reason. However, you have stated:
"God created male and female, and the human reproductive system, and sodomy is a rather obvious rejection of that," framing this within the context of blasphemy, which you named the root or core of sodomy. From this, it seems to follow that the same prohibition could be applied to women.
Finally, in regards to your statement:
"Thus for every person who opts out of being a ‘breeder,’ whether from sodomy or some other perversion, that increases the responsibility on others."
This appears to imply, though I do not presume so, that even those who renounce family life for the service of God, such as monks, nuns, or apostles, fall under "some other perversion." I would personally suggest to add that there exist virtuous reasons for abstinence, just so there can be no misunderstandings, for this sentence could be understood in multiple ways.
With respect and wishes of blessings,
Justus.
A long comment, which will require several replies. Perhaps even a letter exchange?
But the point I would address first is why I deal with male on male sexual activity in the first instance:
1) Biblically speaking it is the first instance: literally the story of Sodom, which comes even before the writing of the law.
2) I happen to believe that it is logically prior: that men begin to push for this perversion long before women really get into it as a political/philosophical/religious issue.
3) While female vs female sexuality is to be, and is, condemned, it does not involve the spilling of seed.
4) I believe that man, meaning men, are those who are called to spiritual leadership.
Now, there is another reason which is more linguistic. If you dedicate a few hours to reading the entire set of exchanges between Addam and myself, you will find him continually saying things such as ‘who I love’. I have another post coming out on this issue, but that is obviously a massive red herring. The issue is ‘who you choose to have sex with’. So I have thought it good to be very, very specific.
I am fully prepared for someone to come quoting the dictionary and talk about how men and women can ‘commit Sodomy’ together, so I tried to very, very clear and semi-explicity.
Thanks for the fast reply.
I concur with the role of the man as a spiritual leader, and when I wrote my previous comment, I recognized that within society, the breakdown of male leadership contributes to the emergence of further "fornication." I like to use the German term "Unzucht" as a general term for all sexual immorality, and hope fornication serves as a translation good enough.
Yet, we must here draw a distinction. Is the aspect of the definition of sodomy, as you optimally employ the term, tied to spiritual responsibility all the way down? Or is this merely a type of sodomy, the most grievous one? Surely, I believe you would agree that women also bear spiritual responsibility, over the children, the natural world, and both man and woman together over the animal kingdom and their creation. Accordingly, would you agree that between man and man we are confronted with *grave* sodomy, in distinction to between woman and woman with [mere] sodomy?
Secondly, regarding the issue of "spilling the seed," what rank of perversion does masturbation hold compared to the homosexual act between two women in your view? This could aid me in understanding your perspective if you wish to offer a judgment or guess on this matter.
Thirdly, at the moment I have quite little time if it indeed takes some hours, yet I shall note down to pursue this conversation between you and Addam, as it appears to have been interesting.
>>Secondly, regarding the issue of "spilling the seed," what rank of perversion does masturbation hold compared to the homosexual act between two women in your view?
I think I will expand this discussion a bit in order to be more accurate. Let us speak at the same time of masturbation, female on female sexual activity, and various forms of birth control.
I believe that for each of these there are a variety of sins that are involved, indeed a variety of people that are being sinned against. Spilling seed is one that occurs in masturbation and birth control, sexual perversion in female on female sexual activity, two people in at least two of them, and possibly all three.
I believe that all of these need to be judged in the light of all of these issues. And in the light of the deliberateness of the issues.
So I won't be making a sliding scale... but I will say that male on male sexual activity seems worse on its face because it adds perversion, two people, unfruitfulness, and spilling seed. Indeed, worse than spilling.
Indeed, a case that contains everything is the most bad.
>>Accordingly, would you agree that between man and man we are confronted with *grave* sodomy, in distinction to between woman and woman with [mere] sodomy?
I would use the word 'sexual perversion' here, just because of the problem with the modern English use of the word 'Sodomy' in light of the Biblical use.
However, yes, as I state below, I believe it is worse.
Turtles all the way down….
No, seriously, yes, man’s responsibility goes all the way down… but that doesn’t eliminate other responsibilities. The General may be above the entire army, but the Colonel has his bit under him, and the Captain, and the LT, and the sargeant….
Indeed, and that caused my confusion around the argument of calling one sodomy and not the other, for both have spiritual responsibility, yet the one over the other. However, I was not aware that the term sodomy is used in some non-optimal way today in English. Thus, I shall concur to use it your way, and when I speak of my way - that is, equal misuse but in other spiritual dimensions of responsibility - I call it "fornication".
... or sexual perversion.
Oh, yes. If you get into a debate on ‘Sodomy’ on the web, it usually takes about ten minutes for some bright boy to mention that what Sodomy ‘really means’ can involve a man and a woman.
If you really wanted to expand beyond the technical act on that word, to better fit your definition, a compound word like, "andro-eroticism" might suffice. But it would need to be clearly defined and also could be misunderstood.
>>As I perceive your argument, "religion" stands as equivalent to "non-secular."
I guess I wasn't clear here. I was not attempting to equate 'religion' and 'non-secular', I was trying to deny 'secular'. I don't think it is a useful term. I am attempting to say that everything that we do has underlying reasons, and these, in the end, are profound expressions of what we think is right, of how the world came to be, etc etc.
I agree that everyone lives according to either concious or subconcous philosophical assumptions.
My question is perhaps more precisely this: is it sufficient for you to consider every person religious on these grounds alone, or must a subset of these assumptions include that an ontological entity is purpose-grounding? According to my understanding, there are indeed secular worldviews. These are held by individuals who attempt to comprehend reality without such grounding, simply without God (maybe with "gods" of little-g's though). However, such worldviews also consist of "underlying reasons," many of which remain unreflected upon by most. That is sufficient for me to say everyone has a worldview, yet not to say everyone is religious.
Again, I would not try to force the word ‘religious’ into that debate, but I would insist they are ‘non-secular’.
Religion and secularity were teached to me as simply the negation of the other. Or rather, funnily enough, religion as substance and secularity as the negation of it. Is then the reason you do not like to use the word religion here because it adds mud to the waters and you like to avoid points that could make a reader ignorant towards what you are trying to say, or because per definition you see religion not being on the same scale as secularity and non-secularity at all?
The problem is the word 'relgion' can mean so many different things.
My point is that what people mean by 'secular' typically short circuits the ideas of eternal values. They have this vision that there is some 'secular' level of discussion that can occur. Which is impossible.
So, secuarity is the peoples term for nominalism/naive nihilism?
Or, how I called it, a myth without justification.
For some of your other questions, I wonder if my 'Pizza' discussion might be a helpful place to deal with some of them?
https://vonwriting.substack.com/i/139314767/pizza-discussion
Thanks, I will read it.
The Pizza link only redirects me to the table of contents, what is the topic?
The “Pizza Discussion” is a letter exchange with Fallible Father . In it we discuss issues of the importance of religion, God, and morality… comparing them to the importance of Pizza and Sushi. It started when he posted a post entitled ‘Religion’ and specifically comes from this line: “Arguing over religion strikes me as the same as arguing over whether sushi or pizza is better.” Russell Gold has also contributed.
»This appears to imply, though I do not presume so, that even those who renounce family life for the service of God, such as monks, nuns, or apostles, fall under "some other perversion."
I think that this is a complex subject, so this is not a blanket statement but, in general, I would argue that entangling vows of celibacy are at best unBiblical, and at worst either heresy or perversion.
I wonder what you make out of 1 Corinthians 7:8-9:
"(8) I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. (9) But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."
One of my favourite passages, and one I often teach out of. But let’s start back at verses one and two, eh?
The verses before 8-9:
(1) Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”
(2) But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.
(3) The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.
(4) The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.
(5) Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
(6) I say this as a concession, not as a command.
(7) I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
I would say these are the themes, then:
[1] The negation of sexual relationship between a man and a woman is good [for a man].
[2] However, there is danger of sexual immorality. Therefore: Sexual relations should take place between a man and his wife, and a woman and her husband.
Note: That presumes already a marriage-relationship, as it is between a man and *his wife*, and a woman and *her husband*.
[3] There are mutual marital duties. Therefore: Again, the above belongs within marriage.
[4] In that scenario: authority over one's own body is given to the other.
[5] Only here should mutual sexual abstinence occur, if: (a) mutually agreed upon, (b) temporary, and (c) due to devotion to prayer. Reason for not longer: so that the devil may not tempt one.
[6] But this possible abstinence [see 5] is voluntary.
[7] Paul wishes that everyone were like him. But each has their own gifts.
[8] Therefore (because everyone has their own gifts): it is good to remain unmarried if one is currently unmarried. That is now speaking about another group of people, for [2] to [6] spoke about within marriage, with [2] speaking about how to defeat the danger of sexual immorality if one is in marriage. Now it is about the question whether to marry at all.
[9] If one burns with desire, one should marry. Because then one is under the temptation of sexual immorality, and [2] to [6] counts as the God given measure to protect against it.
Ok, let’s go back to verse two… cause your interpretation don’t fit with the words. I agree it fits with other commentators.. but not the actual words:
1Co 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
1Co 7:2 Toutefois, pour éviter l'impudicité, que chacun ait sa femme, et que chaque femme ait son mari.
1Co 7:2 Aber um der Hurerei willen habe ein jeglicher sein eigen Weib, und eine jegliche habe ihren eigenen Mann.
1Co 7:2 but because of fornication, let each have his own wife, and let each have her own husband.
Comparing to:
1Ti 5:14 Therefore, I desire the young women to marry, to bear children, to rule the house, giving no occasion to the adversary on account of reproach.
1Ti 5:15 For some already have turned aside behind Satan.
Thus my view: marriage is normative, and an antidote to sexual sin. To the extent Paul used the word ‘every’ here.
Entangling vows of unmarried life, then, fall afoul of this passage. First of all by keeping a man from having his wife, and secondly by keeping him from getting one.
Even for your translation, ‘each man should have sexual relations with his own wife’ does not imply ‘if he is married’. It implies he is married. IE that is normative.
An interesting perspective.
Yet, this interpretation appears somewhat at odds with verses 7, 8, and 9, wherein the Apostle Paul first acknowledges the diversity of gifts among individuals in this context and subsequently, in verse 9, stipulates, "IF they cannot contain, let them marry." Herein lies a clear condition, and similarly, verse two can also be interpreted in both ways: each man let have a woman. Or: each man who has a woman, let the following be the case. From the context of verses 7-9, it becomes evident, as I perceive it, that marriage is enjoined upon those who might otherwise find themselves in danger of sexual immorality, which, let it be clear, is almost everyone in the modern west.
A general point of disagreement *may* be that I hold marriage as a measure to protect your soul and grow in the faith together/helping the other [1] and marriage as a measure to reproduce [2] to be of perfectly equal importance as one. Both are of necessity if you seek a wife or a husband, and both are of equal blessings. And a denial of even one opens a gate for the devil. But I haven't looked at my noted advocating for the equality of both domains for some years, and I hope I find them still.
Ummm, I didn’t quit understand all of that. But I have written A GREAT DEAL on marriage, so I’m sure if you look you’ll find some interesting areas of disagreement :)
And I love to do letter exchanges, so if you find anything interesting, feel free to suggest an exchange.
I think when I write about why I am not a baptist anymore, though "still in spirit" of it very much, that will give us a great opportunity to do that! Other than that, the disagreements seem to be very little as far as I saw in your posts until now, or of matters not of interest simply because we live in different countries.
Didn’t Paul offer a ‘secular’ argument, referring the Romans not to Deuteronomy, but to truths about human nature? This is the Natural Law tradition. My friend Dr Richard Howe explains:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vcw0ptxOmxg&pp=ygUacmljaGFyZCBnIGhvd2UgaW50b2R1Y3Rpb24%3D
A natural law argument is not a secular argument. The doctrine of 'natural law', such as found in Romans 1, is founded, as Romans 1 points out, in the doctrine of creation. If you reject the doctrine of creation (which is, of course, not a 'secular' argument) then there can be no 'natural law'.
Hmmm. Of course until the Big Bang theory, those who rejected creation believed that the universe always was. And that universe still might have a certain character. So as I understand Natural Law theory, feel free to check up on this, don’t take my word for it, the relevant aspect is that things (like human beings) have certain natures, and fulfilling their natures (rightly understood, in accordance with the theory) is what “good” consists of for a thing. So it might be the rejection of essentialism, that things have essences, or natures, that is fatal, not necessarily a particular view of origins (creation vs evolution, etc)
I suppose it is possible for an atheist to make a go at some sort of ‘the universe is like this, therefore this is right’ kind of doctrine… directly violating the is/ought divide… but that is definitely not what Paul does in Romans 1. He ties the acceptance of sexual perversion directly to the rejection of God as creator.
🤔