Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site phs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!duke!phs!lisa From: lisa@phs.UUCP (Jeff Gillette) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Re: Christians and sex Message-ID: <932@phs.UUCP> Date: Sun, 23-Sep-84 20:03:26 EDT Article-I.D.: phs.932 Posted: Sun Sep 23 20:03:26 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 26-Sep-84 05:15:46 EDT Organization: Duke Physiology Lines: 40> All this theorizing on Mr Tillich's part was quite > interesting but just shows to go ya' what happens > when you cut yourself loose from what's pretty plain > in the Scriptures Bob, I think you have missed one important point. What Professor Tillich (or at least those theologians I am more familiar with) wants to argue is that the teachings of the Scriptures make sense only when seen in their own culture and context. Jesus' teachings have to be seen in the light of a Jewish nation that viewed its self-identity in terms of the law (Torah) of Moses. Similarly, Paul's instructions to the Corinthians are addressed to a rough port city where prostitution and eating meat were commonly integrated into the worship of idols. Whenever we try to make the Bible relevant to 20th Century America we are involved in *interpretation* - taking principles and analogies we think are important, and drawing ethical conclusions from them. This is exactly what Professor Tillich and others have done. Those of us (note the pronoun) who want to say that sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong in light of the Scriptures are going to have to do better than "what's pretty plain in the Scriptures." We're going to have to show why Jesus' command to cut off the offending hand and poke out the lustful eye is not meant to be applied *literally* today, but his command against fornication (porneia - all types of immorality) should be interpreted strictly. We're going to have to show why Paul's injunction to the Corinthians not to be married (if they can handle celibacy) is no longer relevant, and yet his condemnation of a man who slept with his [deceased] father's wife [e.g. step mother], and condemnation of [temple] prostitution, translates into a contemporary ban on pre-, post-, and extra-marital sex. Anyone up to the challenge? Jeff Gillette ...!duke!phs!lisa