Job 8-10

[wolfpurplemoon]

Job is still bemoaning his torment at the hands of Satan (with permission of God), he is definitely justified in his complaints.

Comments

[iopha.livejournal.com]

Hi Jaron,

It's frustrating to me how people like yourself show a total lack of understanding of what the Bible says and means. You sound AS IF you know what you are talking about though, so you more than likely lead people astray.

I'm sorry; it certainly isn't my intent to frustrate you here. The only point I was trying to make was that, as a matter of fact, there are very many competing interpretations of the Bible available. How to read it, and what to take away from the Old and New Testaments, is anything but self-evident. You claim that every rule no longer followed from the OT has a NT basis. But surely you recognize the fact that other Christians might practice and understand the Bible differently, and agreement on these matters is not forthcoming.

I didn't mean to imply that Christians have a duty to convert forcibly. It was just an example to bring out interpretational difficulties.

In the past, these interpretational conflicts led to religious war. On the European continent, the Peace at Westphalia brokered a tenuous religious peace that only secular governance guaranteed in the long-term. I'm not that interested in various arguments for or against Catholicism, Presbyterianism, Episcopalianism (or the hundreds of various sects and sub-sects). Rather, I just want to very humbly suggest a few political theses that we should be able to agree on:

First, the freedom to worship as one sees fit, or refrain from worship, should be respected. I think we're on the same page here.

Second, given the immense variety of religions in the world, monotheistic, polytheistic, and so on, and the doctrinal differences within religions, our political systems should take no stand or promote any particular sect, creed, or dogma. Government should neither promote atheism nor Christianity.

Third, arguments in the public sphere should be argued with what I'll term "public reasons." A public reason is something that can, in principle, be intelligible to everyone regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof. For example, I'm not a Christian; so defending a certain moral prescription on a purely Biblical basis is not going to persuade me. However, since we've agreed that morality is rational, with or without a God, you can provide me with non-Biblical arguments. I think this is an important civic duty to perform.

So, while it may the case that homosexuality is condemned both in the OT and NT, because I don't recognize the authority of the Gospels (along with Jews, Buddhists, Muslisms, and so on), I will ask for the reasons why the NT says this, and evaluate these reasons. Likewise, our political system should never make laws on a solely Scriptural basis.

The reason I brought up the case studies of Norway and Sweden was to show that these secular countries are quite capable, without direct Biblical inspiration, of allowing their citizens to prosper and enjoy their freedom. Of course as a private citizen you are perfectly free (and should be perfectly free) of following any moral rule you see fit that goes over and above what secular consensus achieves.

In Canada, where I live, no Church, priest or minister is forced to perform gay marriages against their will; but gays and lesbians can marry if they so choose. This seems right to me.