A Dark And Quiet Room

62 comments

1. Huh.

   “Yes, that means gay marriage. Yes, that means abortion. Yes, that means socialism and being against Christianity and all that. That’s what it means to be an American.”

   Seth, I’m sideswiped by this line, in the midst of a flood of puzzlement. I guess we’ve never talked politics or religion.

   There’s so much miscommunication and misunderstanding packed into that sentence that I don’t even know where to begin. It means gay marriage – or, rather, it means that your opinion on what constitutes perversion does not get to constrain someone else’s life. It means abortion – or, rather, it means that your opinion on the proper apportionment of burden and individuality (cf. the violinist example) does not bind another to the same value set.

   It doesn’t, for the sake of the God who brings us clear diction, mean socialism; nothing even remotely resembling a nationalization of the means of production has ever been contemplated in your lifetime, and likely won’t in your daughter’s lifetime. There’s a lot of room for debate on how to redress historical and structural inequities in privilege, before we even come within artillery distance of Engels’ tomb.

   And even more emphatically, it doesn’t mean being against Christianity… the very idea boggles the mind. Care to bet on how soon, in the real world, an admitted atheist could possibly be elected President? It’s far less conceivable than that a black man, or a woman, or both, could succeed to the post. Christians have integrated themselves so intrinsically into the soul of the USA that they are literally one of the most Christian countries, in works and in words, in the world today.

   It should be a strong onus on all of us to be able to construe our opponents’ arguments, in our own words, such that they would agree they have been represented without error. That you can phrase what you oppose in such terms, which are literally nonsense in the light of what they actually believe, without shirking is a direct cry for you to go back and study what you hate.

   Consider, please, that there may be a reason why these opinions remain confined to a “lunatic fringe” – your words, not mine. And that if an entire movement misrepresents its opposition this egregiously, a diminution in numbers and strength might – just might – be a reflection of some of its members coming to realize how poorly they had construed the dialogue all along.

   I am a Canadian. It’s possible that after eight years of an Obama administration that is far more left-wing than is likely, your country might be only slightly less pro-choice, equal in marriage rights, “socialist” in the sense you are (mis)using the term, and secular in public policy, than mine is today. And it has not harmed us. It has not made us less moral, less compassionate, or less goodly in works. I would assert the opposite, and (looking at Canada’s history and reputation) not without some justice, I think.

   “That we are able to do good is of God, but that we actually do it is of ourselves.” – Pelagius

   Eric Finley, November 6, 2008
   permalink

2. Hey, Eric. Welcome to the blog!

   I’ll have to get back to you in a bit on this. I don’t have the time right now to give this the attention that I want to give it, but I wanted you to know that I saw it.

   Seth Ben-Ezra, November 6, 2008
   permalink

3. Seth,

   Okay. I like you and respect you and I have been looking forward to getting to know you better at upcoming conventions, so I need to put myself out there in response to what you’ve written. And I’m doing it because I respect you enough to respond instead of ignoring you.

   Jessica, and any others of you out there who might feel like Jessica, or like Seth, hi. This goes out respectfully to you, too.

   I’m Mick Bradley. I’m a Christian. I’m also an ideological progressive, and maybe that disqualifies me as a Christian according to some of you, but please bear with me.

   I spent most of my life in the Church. My family baptized me as a Lutheran when I was a baby, but more important to me personally, I listened to the Spirit one Sunday and went down to the altar during the invitation and professed my faith in Jesus Christ. A week later I was baptized by immersion. I went to a Baptist college. I’ve been a youth minister, a music minister, a preacher, and Sunday school teacher. I love the music and ministry of Rich Mullins and I cried and felt like crap for days when he died. I never did that for any other “celebrity”.

   My wife Leah is an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church and we are raising our kids in the faith. I make Web sites for a living and most of them are for churches and other Christian faith organizations. I believe what I am saying when I speak the creeds in church, and I believe the Bible is God’s Word to us.

   I voted for, and am an enthusiastic supporter of, Barack Obama. I agree that there has been a sense of near-idolatrous reverance for the guy from some quarters, and I agree with you, Seth, when you wrote before about human politicians not being able to bring about the kind of change that some people are clamoring for from Obama.

   I personally despise the notion of abortion, and I am extremely uncomfortable with the horribly casual way that some people seem to treat it. I would do whatever I could to try to lovingly and respectfully talk someone out of it if I knew someone who was wrestling with it.

   But in the end, my FAITH leads me to believe that ultimately it is not my right to force that belief upon someone else, and it is especially not the government’s place to impose it upon people. I realize that probably sickens you, and I accept that. You could conclude that I’m essentially saying I won’t stand up for my convictions. So be it. But it is what I’ve struggled with for my entire adult life and I believe it is what the Spirit leads me toward living out.

   As for most other moral and social issues that I profess, I actually believe that my progressive views are not in SPITE of my faith in Christ but rather BECAUSE of it.

   I don’t want to run on too much, so I’ll try to sum up. Basically what I’m saying is, I respect you and grok you on many levels but I resent your implication that Christianity is this thing with all these litmus tests and that anyone who doesn’t pass those tests is somebody on the outside of some circle that you believe the Christian church to have drawn.

   I often feel the same sort of angry disillusionment with the evangelical church as you seem to feel for our nation. Your brand of faith and ideology lies beyond my pale, too. But guess what? We can talk it out for eternity, brother, because the bottom line is, there is only ONE “litmus test” to be a Christian, and we’ve both passed it. So maybe one – probably both – of us will need to have God give us some loving correction on some things when we get to Heaven. But we’ll both be there. Oh, and by the way, so will Barack Obama, I’m pretty sure. So you’re going to have to spend eternity with at least two pro-tolerance, pro-alternate-lifestyle, pro-ecumenical, pro-interfaith, pro-choice, pro-gressive Christians.

   So, if I don’t see you at Forge Midwest or GenCon 09, I’ll see you in Heaven, brother.

   Love,

   Mick

   Mick Bradley, November 6, 2008
   permalink

4. Seth,

   I sympathise with one key point that you’ve made: America is not identical with Christian. For that matter, no nation state has ever been synonymous with Christian. It’s a theological impossibility. From that point of view, the Christian is in the minority. The Christian is against the flow and who should love in the face of violence and oppression.

   As for the parts of your post with which I have little in common, I think Mick Bradley’s comment covers some of them nicely.

   Andrew

   Comrade Andrew, November 6, 2008
   permalink

5. Not to mention that this viewpoint leaves no room whatsoever for members of other religions, not even the other Monotheists.

   There is also a very dangerous slippery slope lurking in the back of this point of view that could lead to the persecution of anyone who believes differently than the “lunatic fringe,” be it politically or religiously.

   Daniel M. Perez, November 6, 2008
   permalink

6. Hi Seth,

   Good post. Thank you for giving us all much to think about.

   I mentioned to James, yesterday, how shocked I was that Obama was elected. Silly me. I think it was like you said; since I am rarely around those who would ever dream of supporting Obama, I forgot that we are the minority. In fact, even by some who would oppose Obama for president, we have somehow been pushed to “the fringe.”

   But regardless of all that, we are where we are; and like you said, Obama is in office by God’s sovereign will. But I still think it’s wise to ask why. Not so that we can blame others, but so that we can repent of our part in getting him elected – even if it’s also on behalf of our countrymen.

   How many of the poor deceived folks who voted for Obama were loved by me? Not enough. Maybe that’s part of the problem.

   Why would we need welfare if the church was doing what the church is called to do? How can we reel in horror at the number of children murdered in the womb, when we ignore the simplest efforts to speak out against abortion, or to help in a crisis pregnancy? How can we be shocked at the legalization of same-sex unions when there are those who claim the name of Christ, and even preach in His pulpits, who are outspoken sodomites?

   We’re too consumed with our comfort zones, our social clubs, and our reputations to worry about the poor, the afflicted, the deceived, the unlovely – many of whom voted for Obama because they were promised “hope.” We’re too worried about being labeled extremists, intolerant, or “fringe lunatics” to speak and live God’s truth; and then we wonder.

   “The confession of evil works is the first beginning of good works.” Saint Augustine

   By His Grace,

   Stacy McDonald, An Anti-Pelagian housewife who is unable to do any good works (even dinky ones) without the power of God

   Stacy McDonald, November 6, 2008
   permalink

7. Hi, folks! I’ll be responding to everything (leastwise, I plan on it), but it will take me a while. So, please be patient while I work up responses. Thanks!

   Seth Ben-Ezra, November 7, 2008
   permalink

8. Hi, Eric. Welcome to the blog! Out of curiosity, how did you find your way here?

   Now, to the matters before us. You said:

   “It should be a strong onus on all of us to be able to construe our opponents’ arguments, in our own words, such that they would agree they have been represented without error. That you can phrase what you oppose in such terms, which are literally nonsense in the light of what they actually believe, without shirking is a direct cry for you to go back and study what you hate.”

   And I would be in general agreement with you on this point. However, in context, I was responding to Jessica’s discussion of “a man that stands for so many horrible and wicked things”. These are the kinds of things that she was discussing, and so I was working in shorthand. I’ve read Knife Fight; Christians aren’t the only ones who do this.

   That being said, your discussion of these various issues actually answers Jessica’s question well. You’ve laid out some reasons for your beliefs and, in all sincerity, I appreciate your doing so.

   However, I need to address the underlying issue in a couple of your responses, specifically about gay marriage and abortion. Since this is a comment on a blog post, I will be working in shorthand, simply sketching out my arguments, similarly to how you sketched out your arguments. (As it is, my “sketching” has become quite long!) I doubt that these will be new to you, but some things bear repeating.

   You state that I’m expressing my opinion on gay marriage and on abortion, and that my opinion is not binding. I agree that my opinion isn’t binding. But I’m not appealing to my opinion. I’m appealing to God’s revealed will to define “perversion” and the “proper apportionment of burden and individuality”. He has some things to say about homosexuality (Romans 1:26-27), marriage (Genesis 2:24), murder (Exodus 21:12-14), and the like.

   At this point, there are essentially two tacks that the rest of this argument can take. The first is where we debate whether or not the Bible is truly God’s revealed will. The second is where we debate whether or not I’m correctly interpreting the Bible. I’m going to assume, Eric, that you’d generally argue the first, while I’m guessing that Mick will argue the second. So, I’ll discuss the first issue here, and I’ll hold off on the second until I reply to Mick.

   (See what I mean about this taking a while? )

   At this point, the traditional approach would be for me to lay out the various evidences for the existence of God and then work from there to prove that the Bible is God’s Word. And, if you’re really interested, I can find some resources that do this.

   But, hey, why should I do the traditional thing?

   So, I’ll ask you this. Why in the world should your opinion be binding on me? You know, the opinion that says that I must accept homosexuality. Or, perhaps, the opinion that says that I must stand idly by while children are dismembered. You say that my opinion isn’t binding; why is your opinion binding?

   One traditional response is freedom, balanced by social responsibility, perhaps shaped by something like Kant’s categorical imperative. But, again, how can you bind me to social responsibility? What moral grounds do you have to insist on this from me? If I can’t force my opinions on others, how can you do the same to me?

   But I’ve seen a lot of the rhetoric. Again, I’ve read Knife Fight. I know that people like me are called bigots, looked down upon, even railed against. So, apparently, my opinion needs to change. And how will that be accomplished?

   Ultimately, that’s what the government is for, isn’t it? To quote Hegel, “The march of God in the world, that is what the state is.” (Quoted here.) Government is organized force, after all. (see George Washington and Mao Zedong). Therefore, its dictates can be made binding through force. That’s why there’s the push for the legalization of gay marriages or abortion or other such things. Folks with your opinion are seeking to bind mine.

   So, here we are, at an impasse. I insist that you need to listen to me, and you insist that I need to listen to you. Though, actually, we’re both appealing to our Big Guns. I’m saying that you need to listen to me because Jesus says so. You’re saying that I need to listen to you because the government says so…or ought to.

   So…who wins?

   (As an aside, I’ll note that I’m not an anarchist. God established governments among men as organized force (e.g. Genesis 9:6.) The issue here is not the government’s use of force to bind opinions. The issue is the submission of a government to its ruler Jesus Christ (Revelation 1:5) in determining which opinions to enforce.)

   I’ll touch only briefly on your other points. As far as socialism, I’ll just note that I’m aware of the technical definition of socialism. Personally, I see the current American political trends as a race between socialism (i.e. government ownership of the means of production) and fascism (i.e. government control of the means of production). And, yes, fascism is generally winning. But I can make a case for socialist trends in our current environment. For example, the recent government bailout included the purchase of equity in banks. In other words, the government now owns portions of the various banks that were being bailed out. How much they own, I don’t know. But, government purchase of private banks certainly seems to fall into the definition of socialism that you’ve put forth.

   As far as your point about Christianity, I’ll agree that the word “Christianity” seems to be necessary to wave about to get into political office. But what about a politician who says, “I submit to the authority of Jesus Christ as revealed in the Bible in all things, including my political life and views”? Those people are rare, and that’s what I mean by “Christian”.

   Finally, regarding Canada: how’s Stephen Boissoin doing these days? Is he still writing letters to newspapers? Would he agree with your assessment of Canada, I wonder?

   Finally, it’s cool about the “lunatic fringe” comment. As you say, those are my words. Honestly, I spend most of my time on the “lunatic fringe”, regardless of what I do. Think about it.

   I’m a gamer in conservative Christendom.

   I’m a conservative Christian in gamerdom.

   I’m a story gamer.

   I have six children.

   I’m a proud proponent of Forge theory .

   I’m an independent game designer.

   I’m not just on the “lunatic fringe”; I’m selling real estate here.

   Good talking with you, Eric!

   Seth Ben-Ezra, November 7, 2008
   permalink

9. Seth, I’m presently standing in an empty house with dropcloths all over the floors, clutching my iPhone and tap-tap-tapping this response. Hopefully, when I get home tonight, I’ll have the wherewithal to respond more in full. However, in brief:

   1) Very few folks in the LGBT community really want the nation, let alone you personally, to embrace what you see as perversity. Rather, the primary goal is that the state recognize the long-term domestic partnerships that already exist. Not embrace, just say, “I see you over there, doing your thing, which you have every right in the world to be doing, and oh yeah, you should probably be allowed to visit eachother in hospitals.”. In fundamentalist circles, this recognition has become seen as a validation, which isn’t what (most) LGBT folks are really after. Or to put it in fundamentalese, all we want is for you folks to let us make our choices and live our lives and we’ll see who was righteous and who was perverse after we’re all dead. Or we won’t. Whichever the case, your recognition of what exists should in no way be constituted as embracing, validating, or adopting what exists.

   2) You ask if you coreligionists are willing to serve their nation with their consciences; I would ask if you are willing to serve your church with your conscience. Your definition of Christian is a follower of Christ as revealed in the Bible. Christ said nothing about homosexuality. His follower Paul sort of gave some advice about marriage, but in the same breath noted that that advice was not dogma or a matter of right and wrong, but what seemed to him to be a good idea. This is, if memory serves, the same book where he declared that no one should wear bows in their hair, too. Your churches have selected some things as God’s immutable and infalliable word and quietly ignored others, then forwarded social and political programs with the intent to enforce those things on as many people as possible. Are you willing to serve with your conscience and question that?

   Note, I’m also using shorthand, here, and hopefully can elaborate with a real keyboard later!

   Josh Roby, November 7, 2008
   permalink

10. Josh,

    I’ll wait for your full response before replying. Plus others are in line ahead of you.

    But I had to mention that I’m impressed that you wrote all that from an iPhone. That’s dedication.

    Enjoy painting white on white, and I’ll talk to you soon.

    Seth Ben-Ezra, November 7, 2008
    permalink

11. Thanks, Seth.

    As often happens, the constraints of brevity have helped me be succinct. The above comment is most of what I’d want to say.

    Mostly, however, I am struck with the impossibility of any meaningful dialogue here, since it would take a whole lot of back-and-forth for me to figure out exactly which part of the ‘lunatic fringe’ you occupy, and thus what to talk to you about and how. Do you believe that same-sex couples even love each other, for instance, or are they just fooling themselves (breaking out the Lewis and throwing around agape vs eros)? Is homosexuality God’s personalized hurdle for them to overcome? Are they all part of a giant, satanic conspiracy actively trying to turn your children gay? All of those have been put forward by people of faith opposed to homosexuality. I don’t know where you fall on that one very specific matter, so I don’t know how to engage you.

    I don’t know if you’re one of the fundamentalists who doesn’t distinguish between morality and legality, if you believe (as the above post implies, but weakly, so maybe it’s accidental) that your job as a Christian is to use all your citizen’s rights to turn the entire nation to your religion, or if you believe that hindu marriages should be legally recognized or if churches that don’t worship Christ should get tax exempt status. I don’t know if you only have two toggles on whether a politician is Godly or not (the two toggles being, or course, Abortion and Gay Marriage), or if your account of a man’s faith depends on more than two issues. The list goes on forever.

    And then there’s the bedrock core of the matter, which is the very probable split that I base my worldview on empiricism and you base yours on revelation. In a very real way, there is no bridge that spans that gap, and no argument that parses the same way on both sides. I was raised in a fundamentalist church, and so I speak Jesus just fine, but there’s a certain level of disingenuousness when I use my facility with the tropes of your belief when I don’t believe them myself. In the end, it makes me tired, because I like you and I want to think you’re a rational guy, but in the end, you get your truth from a source I don’t trust, and your absolute trust looks like insanity to me (and I’m sure that goes both ways).

    The worst part of it is that split leads you to (presumably) support legislation that eliminates rights, which I find abominable. It’s one thing to disagree about where truth comes from, it’s quite another when that alien truth leads to action that destroys lives. I seriously don’t see any way to resolve that problem outside of violence (escalating to gunplay, as it were), which I worry our society will get to eventually. It’s one of the reasons I’m putting together my deregulatemarriage.com project: no matter which side ‘wins’ this election, the other side will be on the ballot the next round trying to reverse things. I don’t want to win; I want to resolve the conflict.

    That’s my real hope for the Obama presidency: that we can get past the bullshit false dichotomies that 90s machine politics instilled in the American mindset. Instead of two sides shouting, “Yes!” and “No!” at each other, I hope we stop for a moment, take a breath, and find something that works for everybody.

    Josh Roby, November 8, 2008
    permalink

12. Hi, Mick! Glad you posted. You said:

    “Okay. I like you and respect you and I have been looking forward to getting to know you better at upcoming conventions, so I need to put myself out there in response to what you’ve written. And I’m doing it because I respect you enough to respond instead of ignoring you.”

    And I appreciate that. Hopefully this conversation will help us launch a long and happy friendship.

    I don’t know if I’ll be able to make Forge Midwest or GenCon 2009. Crystal is due in April, which is when Forge Midwest usually happens, and I’m still trying to work out what I want to do about GenCon. Honestly, I’d rather drop GenCon than drop Forge Midwest. GenCon is about business, while Forge Midwest is actually about getting to see people. But, hey, we’ll see.

    Though, while we’re at it, where are you located? If you’re not too far from Peoria, you might want to drop in on one of the Go Play Peoria minicons. The next one is on December 6. I’d love to see you there.

    Now, to the matter of substance. In summary, you said:

    “I don’t want to run on too much, so I’ll try to sum up. Basically what I’m saying is, I respect you and grok you on many levels but I resent your implication that Christianity is this thing with all these litmus tests and that anyone who doesn’t pass those tests is somebody on the outside of some circle that you believe the Christian church to have drawn.

    I often feel the same sort of angry disillusionment with the evangelical church as you seem to feel for our nation. Your brand of faith and ideology lies beyond my pale, too. But guess what? We can talk it out for eternity, brother, because the bottom line is, there is only ONE “litmus test” to be a Christian, and we’ve both passed it.”

    I think that I might be able to address some of the disillusionment in my response to Josh, so I’ll wait to address that until I get there. Instead, I want to touch on the “litmus test” for being a Christian.

    So, like, what is a Christian, anyways?

    Here’s one good definition. A Christian is someone who has been reconciled to God by the Christ, who is Jesus. As Paul wrote:

    “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them[.]” (2 Corinthians 5:17-19a)

    An important part of this definition is that being a Christian isn’t primarily something that you do. Rather, it’s something that was done for you.

    However, a change of this magnitude produces evidence. Jesus established a litmus test for His disciples at the Last Supper:

    “[Jesus said, "]In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.” Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, “Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?” Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father’s who sent me.” (John 14:20-24; emphasis mine)

    Jesus says that you can tell who has been reconciled to God by one thing: is that person obedient to the commands of Jesus?

    The Apostle John was apparently paying attention to this, because in his first letter, he writes something similar:

    “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.” (1 John 2:1-6; emphasis mine)

    Now, to be clear, the commands of Jesus aren’t simply the words He spoke while He was here on earth.

    “So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.” (Ephesians 2:19-22; emphasis mine)

    So, yeah, I’m talking about obedience to God’s revelation, which has been recorded in the Bible.

    That’s the litmus test: are you obedient to the revealed will of God? It’s not enough to say that you’re a Christian. As the Apostle John says, if someone says that he is a Christian but isn’t obedient, then he is just lying. (1 John 2:4)

    So, based on this, I look at passages like this one:

    “God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment: “How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Selah. Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.” (Psalms 82:1-4)

    My understanding of this passage is that the “gods” in view here are human rulers (see Psalm 82:6-7). So, God calls on human rulers to “give justice to the weak and the fatherless”. At this point, I’m reminded of a story I heard once about the English dealing with the practice of sati in India. I found the quote at Wikipedia:

    You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.

    Mick, you have yourself stated that “I personally despise the notion of abortion, and I am extremely uncomfortable with the horribly casual way that some people seem to treat it.” Why do you despise abortion? Is it because a baby is being killed? Then, if that’s the case, isn’t it right for a government to outlaw such a practice? I mean, if someone were to murder an infant by putting a pillow over his face and smothering him, we would all want that person to be punished by the government.

    Wouldn’t we?

    Is Barack Obama willing to take a stand like this for the weakest citizens that are being entrusted to his care. By his own admission, he will not. Instead, he has promised to sign the Freedom of Choice Act when he takes office. How is this giving justice to the weak and the fatherless? How is this maintaining the right of the afflicted or rescuing the weak from the hand of the wicked?

    How is this being obedient to the revealed will of God?

    You also said, “But in the end, my FAITH leads me to believe that ultimately it is not my right to force that belief upon someone else, and it is especially not the government’s place to impose it upon people.” But, as I discussed in my previous comment, the government functions through force. That’s precisely what it does. So when the government acts, it is forcing someone to do something. The only question is what they are forcing people to do. God says that the government is supposed to use its force to protect the weak and the fatherless. You know, like unborn children.

    But, even with this, let’s say that Obama is really a Christian. This isn’t beyond the realm of possibility. That shouldn’t make me be quiet. Most of the prophets in the Bible were sent to God’s own people to call upon them to repent of their evil. In part, this was evidence of God’s mercy. He was sifting His people, determining who was really willing to be obedient, and who was just blowing smoke.

    At this point, I’m going to haul out one of my favorite verses:

    “Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy.” (Proverbs 27:6)

    Or, to use the Seth paraphrase, a friend tells you like it is, even if it hurts.

    (Admittedly, when that verse gets trotted out, it also usually means that it’s time to take cover. )

    Elsewhere, Mick, you said to me:

    I always get moved and shaken from my spiritual complacency when I read your posts, dude. On the surface, it’s easy to draw the conclusion that we’re in very different places ideologically, but I don’t think that’s as true as it might seem. Your stuff speaks to me, and I feel like we’ve come from a very similar place, and I believe we’re heading in the same direction, too.

    You make me want to wear my faith a little more openly, Seth. You walk the talk like few people I’ve known.

    What I’m talking about here is what it means to “walk the talk”. You say that you are spiritually complacent, and then you say that it’s your faith that tells you that you shouldn’t take a stand against abortion. Have you considered that those two items might be related?

    I doubt that I’ll ever have opportunity to talk to President-elect Obama. (And, note, he is the president-elect, and I will give him honor as such.) But I do have this opportunity to talk to you.

    You claim the name of Jesus Christ, and yet you are not living obedient to the word of Christ. The Bible says that judgment begins with the household of God.

    This is your chance.

    Look at your life. Look at what you have embraced in the name of Christ. You have remained silent when you should have spoken, and you have defended those who stand for wickedness in the places of power.

    Is this obedience to the word of Christ?

    Please, I beg you, repent.

    I say this as one who truly desires to be your friend.

    Please. There is still time.

    Seth Ben-Ezra, November 8, 2008
    permalink

13. I think that I’m going to take all the comments from Andrew, Daniel, Stacy, and Josh together, because I think that I can address all of them together. So, even though I’m going to address these comments primarily to Josh, I didn’t want the rest of you to feel left out.

    Josh, I really appreciated your posts. You touched on a number of important points that I’m pleased to address. In particular, I think that my interacting with your points might better establish where I’m coming from, not just politically, but as a Christian.

    First, your point about “empiricism vs. revelation” was really insightful. Ultimately, you and I appeal to different sources of authority for what we know and assert. And, given that these are axiomatic commitments, we can’t really argue them against each other. At the same time, I believe that both logic and sense input are created by God, so revelation doesn’t not compete against either but rather establishes them. So, I’ll insist that, although I have an ultimate commitment to revelation, I’m still a reasonable man. Or, at least, as reasonable as human beings get.

    (By the way, the fancy term for that in my neck of the world is “Van Tillian presuppositionalism”. I mention this because you seem like the kind of guy who might be interested.)

    On top of that, conversations across the Internet are difficult at best. I mean, really, this is the sort of conversation that requires a beer to go with it, preferably after a good game of some type. Something properly philosophical. (Oddly, for some reason, this issue about revelation made me think of this Polaris conversation that we had a while ago.) So, I’m hoping to write to explain my position and set forth what I believe. At this point, I doubt that I’ll persuade anyone at this time. But, if nothing else, perhaps we will both be better able to understand each other and interact with each other as time goes on.

    That feels important to me. I really appreciated being able to meet you and Meghann at GenCon, and I appreciate being able to see your lives unfold 140 characters at a time. I was also honored that you shared the news about Squish with me. That might not be much to build a friendship on, but I’d like to think that it’s a start.

    Now, to matters political. The first thing that I want to do is confess some of the sins of my own people.

    Yep. Time to air some dirty laundry.

    As discussed by Leland Ryken in his book Worldly Saints, the Puritans were known to their contemporaries for being excessively happy. They were the ones who dressed in the trendy clothes, who laughed the loudest, who loved a beer and a good party, who embraced their wives in the twisted bedsheets of the marriage bed. All the while, they stood firmly on their commitment to the revelation of God in the Bible. They were rebels against a Pharasaical religious institution without ceasing to cling to their commitment to Jesus Christ.

    We, their spiritual descendents, have not upheld their tradition.

    Rather, conservative Christians have become known as being anti-alcohol, anti-sex, anti-joy, anti-fun. We are the Dour Do-Gooders, spreading our gloom across the nation in the name of Christ.

    Moreover, at various times in our nation’s history, we have decided that the way to bring lasting social change to our nation is by seizing the reins of power and trying to make people holy by force. This touches on your “morality vs. legality” point, Josh, which I agree with. Just because something is immoral shouldn’t make it illegal.

    As a classic example of this, I give you Prohibition. The push to make alcohol illegal was driven largely by Christians. Now, is drunkenness a sin? Yep. Is it bad for people? No doubt. Should it be illegal? Nope.

    But, Christians led the charge to ban alcohol, and they were eventually successful. And what did that get us? Al Capone. Thank you so very much.

    I apply the same sort of logic to the drug prohibition that goes on today. Drug abuse is bad for people, for families, and for society as a whole. Just read The Corner by David Simon and Ed Burns, and you can figure that out. But should drug use be illegal? Nope.

    As I’ve said in previous comments, the government is organized force. I liken it to a loaded gun. Politics is the process where we decide where to point the gun. Again, as I’ve elsewhere, this isn’t automatically a problem. But Americans have become used to the idea that the government exists to solve all social problems, so politics has become the equivalent of those movie scenes when the gun gets knocked onto the floor and everyone dives for it.

    And conservative Christians have been right there with all everyone else, rolling around on the floor, kicking and biting to try to get their hands on the gun.

    That is a sin.

    (In fact, this is precisely what was behind my post on abortion from a couple months ago.)

    So, here I am, part of a group of people who have been traditionally grumpy and Pharasaical, while scrabbling for the “gun” of government so that we can make everyone else like us.

    You asked me if I’d be willing to serve my own people with my conscience. Absolutely. Been there, done that, doing that until the day I die. In fact, that’s why I wrote my original post. Jessica isn’t just some person out there; she’s a teen in my church.

    I am of the opinion that my people need to give up their own idolatries. We need to stop grabbing for the “gun” of government to fix our social problems. We need to repent of being the killjoys that we are, and of presenting God as the Cosmic Killjoy. We need to repent of turning away from the broken people that drag their shit into our pristine churches.

    I know this, because this is who I was. Why do you think I write about it so much? I am quite familiar with what it’s like to be a Pharisee. But Jesus changed me, and now I can call upon my people to repent.

    But they are my people, and I will stand with them. Because, they are my people, and I love them. Just like I love America.

    All that being said, I still have to answer the question of what ought to be illegal, not just immoral. Based on the Bible, I can point at a couple of areas where the government should intervene. This is a brief summary. I’m not really trying to be persuasive; I’m just trying to line out my position.

    The first area is most definitely murder. “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” (Genesis 9:6) This is why abortion needs to be illegal, because murder needs to be illegal.

    The second has to do with public matters. I’m thinking here of things like tort law or contract law. However, this does include matters of sex and marriage. Marriage is a public institution where two people are joined together as one. That’s more than just a romantic issue or a physically sexual one. That includes economic matters (which is why we have the real estate concept of tenants in the entireties), issues related to child care, and issues of inheritance. That’s why divorce is so painful; you’re tearing apart two things that weren’t meant to be torn apart.

    Marriages form the fabric of public society. As such, God gave the government the charge of protecting and preserving the marriage arrangement in the public arena.

    Now, to be clear, I’m not saying that the government establishes what marriage is. God establishes what marriage is. But the government can’t simply be neutral on marriage and fulfill its mandate.

    You said:

    The worst part of it is that split leads you to (presumably) support legislation that eliminates rights, which I find abominable. It’s one thing to disagree about where truth comes from, it’s quite another when that alien truth leads to action that destroys lives. I seriously don’t see any way to resolve that problem outside of violence (escalating to gunplay, as it were), which I worry our society will get to eventually. It’s one of the reasons I’m putting together my deregulatemarriage.com project: no matter which side ‘wins’ this election, the other side will be on the ballot the next round trying to reverse things. I don’t want to win; I want to resolve the conflict.

    There’s a lot in this paragraph that I agree with. While I’m uncomfortable with the language of rights, I agree that any legislation which removes freedom that God has given is an abomination. I also agree that this discussion isn’t theoretical; real lives are at stake. And, sadly, I agree that our society is heading towards violent conflict about these issues. In fact, based on my prior analogy about the gun of government, I might even argue that we have taken the first steps down that path.

    But deregulating marriage won’t solve the problem. The government cannot be neutral on this matter. Your solution doesn’t actually remove the problem; it actually means that the government refuses to do its God-given job. That will only lead to anarchy in this area of society. Moreover, it demonstrates the government’s disobedience to God, and He is watching.

    As I quoted in my initial post:

    “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.” (Proverbs 14:34)

    Josh, I believe that you’re a patriot. You wrote Sons of Liberty, for crying out loud, and I know that you meant it as a tribute to the Founders who risked everything for their people. Please believe me when I say that I am also a patriot. As I said in my original post, I desperately love my nation and want nothing but the best for her.

    But, God also does not put up with wicked nations forever, and that includes nations that say that evil is good. (Isaiah 5:20) Or, to quote Thomas Jefferson:

    “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.”

    Seth Ben-Ezra, November 8, 2008
    permalink

14. I appreciate all the time you’ve taken to respond to us, Seth.

    There’s pretty much only one path I can think of that might bring us through what feels to me, today, like a terrible impasse.

    So I have a proposal. I’m going to spend one week praying specifically about this. I’m going to wrestle over this with extra openness and intensity. I’m going to bust my soul open and sincerely try to let the Spirit lead me.

    In the mean time, you spend the week praying for me. Get all the prayer warriors you trust to help you out. Pray that I’ll be opened up to the truth.

    Also, instead of my daily lectionary readings, you can choose a week’s worth of Scripture that you feel would be best. Send the passage references to me and I’ll read them and meditate on them.

    I will commit to this sincerely and then in a week, we’ll take our part of this conversation up again and see where things stand.

    Mick Bradley, November 8, 2008
    permalink

15. Mick,

    That sounds like a good plan.

    Um, it might be Monday before I can get those Scripture verses off to you. But I will!

    For my part, I appreciate your willingness to listen.

    Seth Ben-Ezra, November 8, 2008
    permalink

16. Hey, everyone! I’m going to be AFK for the rest of the weekend. I spent a *lot* of time writing today, and I need to do some other things, too. Go to church. Spend time with my family. Drink beer. You know, important things.

    So, please feel free to leave comments and all, but it’ll be Monday before I read them.

    Seth Ben-Ezra, November 8, 2008
    permalink

17. I don’t know that you really addressed my point in that big reply to Josh, Seth. From where I’m standing, your concept of America has no room for me, or anyone who isn’t Christian (not even Christian as you define it based on those verses in the NT), unless it’s in the “we’ll convert you soon enough” crowd.

    The truth is I really shouldn’t even be replying to this post, given how our religions are inherently incompatible due to the Jesus issue, but the fact that you have never struck me as a mindless bigot (actually, 100% the contrary) makes me stick around waiting to see if I can understand this whole thing.

    Mind you, not that you really owe me any kind of explanation. It might be that this is all an issue for you Christians to debate over and for me to just not touch with a 10′ pole. Judaism, especially the Orthodox kind I practice, certainly has its very explicit rules on homosexuality and abortion, but we differ on some very key points that make some of your arguments moot, not to mention that I am very much an Orthodox Liberal, one of very few.

    Daniel M. Perez, November 8, 2008
    permalink

18. Seth, I must admit your answer leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.

    You said:
    Moreover, at various times in our nation’s history, we have decided that the way to bring lasting social change to our nation is by seizing the reins of power and trying to make people holy by force. This touches on your “morality vs. legality” point, Josh, which I agree with. Just because something is immoral shouldn’t make it illegal.

    As a classic example of this, I give you Prohibition. The push to make alcohol illegal was driven largely by Christians. Now, is drunkenness a sin? Yep. Is it bad for people? No doubt. Should it be illegal? Nope.

    Now, it seems to me that you can take ‘drunkeness’ and replace it with ‘homosexual practices’ and the meaning is unchanged (except for the Al Capone part). Sure, you think it’s wrong, but making it illegal is nonsensical.

    You also said:
    Marriages form the fabric of public society. As such, God gave the government the charge of protecting and preserving the marriage arrangement in the public arena.

    And here you can do the opposite: replace ‘marriage’ with ’sobriety’ and the meaning is unchanged. In this case, you think it’s wrong, and now it’s your God-given mandate to force society to kowtow to what God said society should do. This sounds a lot like “seizing the reins of power and trying to make people holy by force.”

    Now, I can accept that relating your faith with public policy requires more than one argument. It’s a vast topic, and there won’t be just one easy syllogism to cover it all. Here’s the problem, though: I have not heard from you, or from anyone else in your faith, anything resembling a standard for what goes in the first it-doesn’t-hurt-anybody argument and what goes in the shape-society-to-God’s-will argument.

    There is nothing stopping you from putting sobriety into the God’s-will-for-society slot, or ribbons in hair, or all women wearing hats, or eating kosher, or animal sacrifices. All of those are in your Bible, and people of your faith sort them into the two arguments using, as far as I can tell, a process that is not in your Bible. That process twists on the winds, changes whenever a figure of enough stature and weight decides to push it, and thrives, not on reason or even revelation, but gut-level distaste for people not like you. And that scares the shit out of me.

    You also said:
    While I’m uncomfortable with the language of rights, I agree that any legislation which removes freedom that God has given is an abomination.

    Is free will, the freedom to choose to disobey God’s will, one of those freedoms? Because taking away the freedom to disobey God’s will sounds, again, like “making people holy by force.” We make murder illegal to protect people from being murdered, not to safeguard the murderer from sinning. Disallowing same-sex couples the ability to register their domestic arrangements with the government and thereby gain the right to visit each other in hospitals and file taxes together… what does that protect anybody from?

    I am increasingly getting frustrated writing this, Seth, because I keep coming up against “God said so.” Coupling “God said so” with “government dictates society” with “in a democracy I’m part of government” is a frightening leapfrog leading straight to theocracy. If you have a god-given mandate to narrow the definition of marriage to a one-man-one-woman thing that you’ve decided to read into your bible (where most of the marriages are polygamous), what’s next? Is adultery going to be illegal next? Sodomy? Oral sex? I mean, we can roll all the blue laws right back into effect. Is that your utopia?

    But I’m pretty sure you’re not really forwarding theocracy. I’m pretty sure you want Daniel and even his beliefs to have a place in the United States. And quite frankly, I don’t want you to be a rabid theocrat forcing Biblical law into US politics like the Sharia is embedded into the Middle East and Southeast Asia. I’d really like you to be a man of faith that participates in our democracy with a nuanced approach of applying your beliefs to your political action. The only problem is, I don’t see that nuance. I don’t see what makes you turn one moral imperative into a law and let another moral imperative be a matter of conscience.

    —

    Seth, the above is probably good fodder for a continuing discussion here. The following two paragraphs probably aren’t. The first opens a can of worms, and the second opens up a tangent. I’m including them here so you can get a sense of where I stand, but by no means do I expect you to respond, and quite frankly think that you responding would just schizm the discussion into unuseful-land.

    All of the above is bad, but here’s the real problem: the inability to articulate which argument gets applied when opens up you and the members of your faith to being cynically used in the political arena. The GOP, or at least factions thereof, have long used the two buttons (gay marriage and abortion, although euthanasia is being cultivated as a third button now) to secure your vote. Strategists found an issue that Christians find distasteful, probably living in the ‘wrong but not illegal’ slot, and they shoved it into the God’s-will-for-society slot. Then they either duct-tape the issue onto a platform (as McCain did), or register a ballot initiative that just so happens to go on the same ballot as recalling a Democratic governor (and thereby getting a higher conservative turnout). And they use you. In a lot of ways, I find Huckabee a lot less frightening than what McCain became, because Huckabee believed what he espoused. McCain overturned decades of his political support and his own voting record to say the things that would “energize the base.” And part of that was taking marriages that are legal in half a dozen states, marriages founded on love and respect and even the economic fabric of society, and dragging them through the mud. As a democrat, I want an opponent that I can respect, and one of the worst results of the gay marriage debate, in my opinion, is that it turns the GOP ugly. It makes people of faith pawns. And that makes a political process that I absolutely love something dirty and sad.

    For what it’s worth, on the abortion thing, I can understand your stance completely. I don’t even know where to begin on resolving that mess, since it boils down to when personhood begins, which we have no good and widely-accepted standard for. (I’m sure you have a standard, but let’s just say I find it unconvincing.) To my eyes, we have a mother whose quality of life is threatened, and a fetus who may or may not have a quality of life to threaten. You weigh in on the side of the fetus, and that’s a reasonable interpretation of caution; it might be a person, so terminating the pregnancy might be murder. I weigh in on the side of the mother (and her wider community), because that’s also a reasonable interpretation of caution; she’s certainly a person, so terminating the pregnancy avoids threatening her quality of life. I understand and appreciate your stance; I think we’re both formulating stances based on incomplete information, and your caution and my caution are both understandable.

    Josh Roby, November 9, 2008
    permalink

19. Seth, please do me the favor of not replying to my comment above; if had the ability to delete it, I would. This isn’t an argument I wish to have with you because there’s no way either of us is going to win with rational arguments, and the moment we go to religion, we’ll be incompatible as well.

    So, let’s just agree that we both believe that it is G-d’s will that the person He wanted was elected, whatever His reasons are, and that our job as citizens of the nation and believers in G-d (regardless of the flavor) is to accept His will and make the most of it.

    Daniel M. Perez, November 9, 2008
    permalink

20. It seems to me that there are two key aspects to this argument.

    1. What is the basis for ethical behaviour?
    It’s important to get this out on the table early and I think both Josh and Seth have done this. The problem is that the foundational assumptions of both are incompatible. The details (including the examples of abortion or NT quotations) are not a useful place to locate the debate. Better to go back to the assumptions of both sides and debate those. The alternative is, as Wittgenstein indicated, that each participant in the debate will be arguing according to rules of different language games.

    It’s like trying to resolve a conflict in which one person is using D&D rules, and another is using PTA rules, and neither side is the GM.

    The unfortunate consequence is that since both positions are statements of faith, arguments are based on experience (including religious experience). As a wiser man than me said to me one day, “The person with an experience is never at the mercy of the person with an argument.” It leaves little room for argument, because faith originates outside of rationality. If it didn’t, it would be called called something other than faith.

    2. What is the intersection between legislation and ethics?
    This is more complex than the first aspect, but its simplest form both Paul (the Christian) and Badiou (the atheist) agree that a positive ethic is one that is illegal; that is, cannot be legislated. By “positive ethic” I mean one that is not comprised of prohibitions. The “You shall not…” is the example of the negative ethic. It defines only the space of evil and permits inaction, rather than defining the space of good and insisting on action.

    Little wonder, then, that Jesus said, “You SHALL love.” For a thought-provoking exposition on this, see Kierkegaard’s book “Works of Love.”

    I think that the Christian existence is not one of adherence to legislated prohibitions. Instead, it exists separate to legislated existence and there is no connection between the two.

    Our Prime Minister, before he won the 2007 federal election, wrote a good article on the intersection of politics and faith. He is a practising Christian, and on a similar side of politics to Obama (Australian Labour Party). It’s lengthy, and you can find it here.
    http://www.themonthly.com.au/tm/?q=node/300

    Seth, I like these little gems of debate that you open up.

    Andrew Smith, November 9, 2008
    permalink

21. Josh is so totally on target, in a way that is articulate and respectful without pandering. I think I’m a little guilty of pandering by using idioms from my evangelical upbringing to try to get through some of the barriers between us. I apologize for being a bit disingenuous.

    I think we’re mostly done here. But aside from all of the issues that are excellently covered by Josh’s posts, there IS one more thing I wonder about:

    In your call for me to repent, are you asking me to repudiate my wife’s ordination and vocation? Should I divorce her if she refuses to reject her ministry? What would Jesus do, in your opinion?

    Mick Bradley, November 10, 2008
    permalink

22. Daniel, yeah, I’m cool with letting that topic sit.

    Seth Ben-Ezra, November 10, 2008
    permalink

23. Sounds good.

    Daniel M. Perez, November 10, 2008
    permalink

24. Mick,

    >In your call for me to repent, are you asking me to repudiate my wife’s ordination and vocation? Should I divorce her if she refuses to reject her ministry?

    Nope. Here’s what I’d say:

    * A woman shouldn’t be ordained, but a woman who *is* ordained is really ordained. So I don’t think that you should say that she isn’t “really” ordained.

    * Divorce is only allowable when the marriage covenant is broken. A wife being ordained doesn’t count. So, you shouldn’t get divorced.

    And, honestly, I wasn’t thinking about your wife’s ordination at all when I wrote to you.

    And I’ll be praying for you throughout this week.

    Seth Ben-Ezra, November 10, 2008
    permalink

25. Josh,

    At this point, I’m going to start winding down this particular discussion. As you’ve noted, there’s a huge amount of territory to cover, and I don’t think that we’ll be able to address it in a series of comments under a blog post. However, as I continue to write here at my blog, I will try to answer some of your points over time.

    However, I’d like to clarify a couple of points, then I’ll yield the floor for any closing points you’d like to make.

    You said:

    “Here’s the problem, though: I have not heard from you, or from anyone else in your faith, anything resembling a standard for what goes in the first it-doesn’t-hurt-anybody argument and what goes in the shape-society-to-God’s-will argument.”

    My understanding on the relationship of God and politics is shaped greatly by a certain school of thought called “theonomy”. The various authors in this school of thought (e.g. Greg Bahnsen) emphasized the issue of a “standard” for ethics in all areas of governance (self-government, familial government, church government, and civil government). The answer is the Law of God as set forth in the Scriptures. That has to be the standard. Yeah, it’s an appeal to revelation, but then, that’s probably not a surprise at this point.

    Here’s the deal though. I don’t believe that government dictates society. It is a part of society, to be sure, but it is not the primary force that shapes society. This is precisely the point that I attack regularly in political debates.

    When I’m trying to apply the Scriptures to political matters, I’m not asking the question, “What are bad things that must be stopped?” Rather, I’m asking, “What did God order governments to do?” I mean, there’s an actual civil code included in the Bible. If nothing else, that’s certainly a model for how God wants a government to be ordered. That’s what I point at as our standard.

    For me, politics is an end, not a means. I have no interest in rolling around on the ground, scrabbling for control of the “gun” so I can impose my will on others. I’m only interested in seeing the government be obedient. So, I see Biblical evidence for the protection of the marriage bed by the government (e.g. Exodus 22:16-17). Therefore, I say that the government has a role in that area of life. I don’t see evidence for the government regulating drunkenness, even public drunkenness, even though the Bible specifically condemns drunkenness (e.g. Proverbs 23:20-21,29-35). So, I don’t think that the government has a place in legislative against drunkenness. (And, within that, I do include the use of marijuana and the like.)

    But, you know what? I honestly don’t think that politics is the most important area for Christians to be spending their time right now. As I mentioned in my previous post on abortion, the more important issue is that the hearts of the people are changed. And that cannot happen through governmental intervention. It can only happen through the work of God through the preaching of His Word.

    I don’t want to engineer society through the government. In fact, I’m firmly opposed to that form of social engineering, and I want my fellow Christians to stop trying as well. I believe that Christians are called to proclaim the Gospel to every creature under heaven, which includes the duty to be obedient to their Creator. That just so happens to include governments. Therefore, since everyone is talking politics right now, I’m saying that governments have to be obedient to the Gospel, too. Because, you know, that’s what everyone is talking about.

    But, as the election furor dies down, I’ll return to my regular relationship with the government, which is to pray for my leaders that we might live a peaceful life (1 Timothy 2:2). Politics doesn’t consume my life, because I’m persuaded that the peaceful rule of Christ doesn’t come through the works of the government but the word and works of the Church. And I can do that, regardless of who is in office.

    Oh, you said:

    “All of the above is bad, but here’s the real problem: the inability to articulate which argument gets applied when opens up you and the members of your faith to being cynically used in the political arena.”

    I totally agree. Totally! That’s why I’m not a Republican, by the way. Because the GOP shamelessly manipulates the “religious right”, and I want nothing to do with it.

    Seth Ben-Ezra, November 10, 2008
    permalink

26. Okay, everyone. At this point, I’m all tuckered out. Feel free to leave final comments and all that, but I think that I’m going to bow out.

    I don’t consider our conversation to be over, and I will try to post further on these topics as I have time. Just, for now, I don’t think that I can keep up with the Internet. So, I’m suggesting that we fight the tyranny of Internet time, and hopefully we can continue this conversation in the future.

    Seth Ben-Ezra, November 10, 2008
    permalink

27. P.S. Or, maybe over a beer at a con or something.

    Seth Ben-Ezra, November 10, 2008
    permalink

28. Ooh! Craziness!

    Cal Thomas appears to be saying pretty much what I’m saying:

    RELIGIOUS RIGHT R.I.P.

    Seth Ben-Ezra, November 10, 2008
    permalink

29. Over a beer or equivalent is definitely ideal. I’ll try to be as brief, and (upon review) succeed about as poorly.

    Josh@18, above the fold, channels my sacred essence of truth in his comment. God clearly has many words, and says many things in the Bible. And some of them are considered essential, nonnegotiable, and legislable, and some of them aren’t. The triage process in the middle simply doesn’t make sense to either of us, and sometimes appears to consist of equal parts appealing to baser emotions and shouting loudest.

    The question you asked me, of why I would presume to dictate my own morality to you, is a perfectly fair one. It’s the classic question of the Christian to the atheist; in the absence of a reliable (and present) judge, why should either one get to be the default?

    However, because it’s a classic question, I have a simple answer. The guy who gets hurt? He gets to judge. Neither you, nor me. Him. We’re bystanders, community, context.

    Thus, if our society proffers certain legal rights to couples, the couples who get told ‘no’ are the ones who’ve been hurt by that negation. And they’re the ones whose voice we should hear, first and foremost. Other voices are relevant only inasmuch as they point out that this preference is ill-informed (food safety), injudicious (drug addiction), dangerous to others (drunk driving), or socially detrimental (tax evasion).

    So long as a same-sex marriage is risk-informed, clear-headed, safe, and socially benign… we outside counselors do not hold sway. We’re the Moons in their story and “it shall not come to pass.”

    We are, in fact, deprotagonizing them. Deeply and inhumanely (hospital visiting rights? Child custody?).

    So I would assert that I’m not setting my own morals above yours, except in the following value statement: I think that someone’s own values, with regards to their life, and all else being equal, shall not be overridden without empirical cause.

    And I betcha you’d agree with everything except the penultimate word. Which brings us right back to first causes.

    Abortion, to me, is similar. The mother is empirically real. The fetus’ personhood is the value judgment being asked. To presuppose the affirmative is quite simply to presuppose the answer to the question, and so I personally can find no meaningful nontautological way in which the fetus’ questioned rights can trump the mother’s undisputed ones.

    Hence the violinist theory – I’ll stipulate that the fetus is a person if you’ll stipulate that it does not own the mother’s body, and (more importantly) her development as a person, and the course of the rest of her life. With your six, and my three (or seventeen, depending on how you count), we both know full well that a child does own the rest of your life.

    But to have that child own it through fiat and force? Egad. Star and I are foster parents; we help fix the consequences of mothers bringing children into this world who – and I will say this publically – should not have been. Seventh fetal alcohol cases from one womb, babies born addicted to cocaine, and so forth. Our adopted daughter hails from this list; she should not have been brought to term. Her fetus’ rights should never have trumped those of her mother, and the overstressed social welfare system, to allow her to be born. But she was, and she’s ours, and cold dead hands and so forth.

    I would far rather that the mother either gave the rest of her life to her child willingly… or did not give it at all… than that she have it wrested from her by fiat of the state. Abortion is the act of declining to give away something precious and irreplaceable… to someone who does not yet exist.

    Hurrah for those who do give the gift… but let us not condemn (nor forbid!) those who don’t.

    The last word is yours, if you want it. And thank you, Josh; your post crystallized something I’ve been wanting to say for years.

    Eric Finley, November 10, 2008
    permalink

30. It sounds, Seth, like it’s always shaping society to God’s will, then, which makes me sad. That means that there is no place for me or for Daniel in your America. Your goal is the “every knee shall bow” bit, which probably seems nice and righteous to you, but just reminds me of everybody else in our planet’s history who has worked towards every knee bowing to them or their ideologies. You are not in very good company, Seth. I suppose it’s all right, though, because God told you so.

    I am trying very hard not to be bitter, here, but it is difficult. Mostly, I feel rather cheated, and a little bit used. Certainly there was no guarantee on your blog that my comments would be considered in the slightest, so maybe I just read too much into your civil exterior. I thought we might discuss this as equals, but instead you are backed up by your infalliable God, and I’m just the poor lost soul that your shiny beacon if faith is supposed to shine in righteous example. I suppose I should have gone with the initial reaction of feeling used when I was held up as an example of Them, to valiantly struggle against no matter how reasonable I might sound. I mistook your “colleague” statement as some modicum of respect, when in fact there cannot be any such respect when you are enlightened by divine revelation and I am just fooling myself into believing anything other than your creed. So yeah, trying to overcome that little bit of bitterness, there.

    I’m going to go paint my house, man. Here’s hoping that, at some point in the future, we can talk, instead of being talked at.

    Josh Roby, November 10, 2008
    permalink

31. [...] more perspective … Jump to Comments This from Seth ben Ezra’s [...]

    And more perspective … « Rancho Miller, November 11, 2008
    permalink

32. Josh,

    I don’t normally post on my husband’s blog, or anywhere online for that matter. It always seems to be a mistake. I am not as good with words as my husband. But I really feel that I have to here.

    My husband has done nothing but try to be civil and treat you with the greatest of respect. My husband has always spoken very highly of you and your game. He was truly excited about Squish, and we keep tabs on how all is going. Actually we all do, as a family.

    Maybe you have felt stepped on or you just plain don’t like my husband’s opinion. And that’s fine if you disagree. No one expected you to agree, honestly. But don’t begin calling him a fake or a liar or question his respect for you as a colleague just because you have a worldview disagreement. Of course you don’t agree. You already knew that before the discussion began.

    My husband is truly struck by your sudden attack on his integrity. And worse, that you have broken your friendship with him. My husband probably has no intention of responding to you, not because of anger, but because he probably has no idea what to even say now.

    I, on the other hand, am hormonal and have anger problems. And on his behalf, I’m pissed off.

    I just hope you’ll reconsider your words.

    Crystal, November 11, 2008
    permalink

33. i was almost certain i had something to add to the discussion, but by the time i finished reading the comments, i’m sure i can’t remember what it was.

    jon, November 12, 2008
    permalink

34. Crystal, I don’t feel as though Josh has written anything that he needs to reconsider. I completely understand what Josh has expressed about the impenetrable and unbendable level of Seth’s certitude and I also feel pretty much the same as Josh. I accept that maybe we’re not getting what Seth has really been trying to say, but essentially, I have to second the motion that as his words in this thread currently read, Seth has expressed himself in such a way as to assert himself as absolutely in tune with God on these matters, and the rest of us are essentially all sharing a handbasket to Hell.

    Mick Bradley, November 12, 2008
    permalink

35. If anything, Josh simply expressed the fundamental disconnect that empiricists feel when confronted by a frank, unquestioning appeal to revelation. It leaves no room for discourse at that point.

    And thus Josh’s frustration, if I read it correctly, is an outburst of the frustration we feel when encountering this sort of (to us) illogic, far too frequently, except here in a context where it had seemed like discourse would be possible.

    Distilling it down: Have you no interest in where religious morality and secular morality intersect, overlap, or interact in the public sphere? Josh seems to feel that Seth’s posts simply answer this question ‘no.’ Which sure as hell is frustrating.

    I’m not sure I read Seth’s statements the same way.

    Perhaps a question to clarify: Seth, how certain are you that your interpretation of God’s commands (with regards to the tasks of the state) is correct? Versus, how open are you to discussion which might reveal alternate approaches which remain consistent with the Bible and your faith?

    If your certainty is that strong, the process by which it is derived is unclear. I’m pretty sure you don’t offer up animal sacrifices, for example. And that your reason for doing so does not stem directly from the Bible, but has a social and interpretive dimension to it. Is it not humility to listen to other approaches to the problem, and see if they cannot be reconciled with your primary sources?

    Eric Finley, November 12, 2008
    permalink

36. > Seth, how certain are you that your interpretation of God’s commands (with regards to the tasks of the state) is correct? Versus, how open are you to discussion which might reveal alternate approaches which remain consistent with the Bible and your faith?

    That’s a helpful clarifying question.

    I have conversations with fellow Christians about this issue (tasks of the state) on a regular basis. We don’t always agree, but we are constantly honing each other’s understanding. My thoughts and ideas have changed over the years, and they continue to be refined. So, I’m not saying that I have the final word on this.

    At the same time, I *am* saying the following:

    *I am absolutely committed to the core principle that God’s self-revelation as given in the Bible is the standard to which we appeal. Can’t budge me off that one at all.

    *I’ve been studying these matters off-and-on for around fifteen years, including sitting under the teaching of some who have made this area of study their specialty. So, when it comes to specific application, I need to be fairly impressed before I’ll change my mind. But it can happen.

    But see, as far as the second point, that’s how I tend to approach anything. Take Big Model theory. I was involved in Big Model discussions back when it was GNS discussions on the Gaming Outpost. Like, before the Forge had forums, right? I’ve been doing it for a while. So, if someone on RPGnet were to say something like, “GNS is dumb. I play games to have fun!”…well, I’m probably not going to listen to that person. Someone comes onto a forum, demonstrates that he’s familiar with the theory, and then proceeds to debate a point of theory, I’m more likely to listen.

    So, in this discussion, basically we’re debating the first point: is the Bible the source of authority and the standard to which we appeal for determining what the State does? That’s axiomatic, just like empiricism is axiomatic to Josh and Eric. You’re not going to budge me off that point.

    But if someone were to come onto this thread and say, “Have you considered such-and-such a passage and how it relates to government welfare?”…I’d respond to that differently.

    Funny story: at GenCon 2007, Ron read his copy of Dirty Secrets and then proceeded to explain this aspect of my personality to me. He said that he could hear it in the “voice” of that book.

    Well, I think it’s funny….

    Anyways, does that help clarify? Or does it just dig me deeper?

    Seth Ben-Ezra, November 13, 2008
    permalink

37. Well, it clarifies that there won’t be any further discussion, I’m afraid. At least not on the basis you define. Because we’re not going to be able to quote chapter and verse; the best we can do is proffer an alternate viewpoint and hope that some common underpinnings might be found. Which would require you to do the Biblical heavy lifting on your end, just as we’re trying to do the secular-humanist careful thought on ours.

    We won’t and can’t take the burden of restricting ourselves to that form of argument. So if nothing else is admissible, then that’s that.

    Would it, perhaps, be useful for us to try and point out the places where your teachings appear to be inconsistent with the priorities they claim? Might that provide a handle on where we get stuck – help at least get past the problem of apparently nonsensical and self-contradictory appeals to revelation? I’d be fine with leaving it at appeal to revelation if the results appeared to be self-consistent and moral; at present, they don’t.

    For example, on abortion:

    1) In vitro fertilization disposes of dozens of fertilized embryos for every one which is succesfully implanted. In fact avoiding multiple births in this manner is a serious issue in that field, and the number of terminated fertilized eggs is far greater than the number of abortions. Yet no one loudly condemns the practice of in vitro. Nobody bombs fertility clinics. Why not? A line has to be drawn somewhere – why is the one you’ve chosen special? (And, relatedly, where the fuck does the Bible talk about when life begins? It seems to me that the viewpoint that protectable life begins at, e.g., viability would be just as scripturally defensible.)

    2) If abortion is murder, it should be criminal. The analogy, to me, would be the abortion provider as hitman, the consulting doctor as consigliere, and the mother as mob boss. Surely, when it comes to crime, the guy who gives the orders is as culpable, and should do at least as much jail time, as the guy who pulls the trigger. Yet no one advocates this viewpoint. Why not? The only answer I have ever heard is blatantly misogynistic and robs women of agency, and I cannot believe that I would hear that one from your lips.

    3) I don’t know your denomination, nor particularly care except where germane here. But do you agree with the Catholic church’s stance on contraception? If so, how do you square this with the ecological reality of overpopulation, and with any attempts to lessen the horrible pressures which drive women to have abortions?

    4) Relatedly, if socialism is to be condemned, then how is it that abortion is criminal, yet mothers starving to death in the gutter is merely regrettable and a matter for churchly charity, not a matter for acts of the state? Why does the right to life apply so much more strongly before birth? And in similar vein, how is it that one can in conscience permit the state to allow, nay promote, a situation wherein bearing an unwanted child will cause the mother so much unwanted suffering – dropping out of school… probable relationship breakdown and loss of support network… foreshortening of life of the mother (I’d have to look up the figures but do you deny the actuarial likelihood?)… hunger and privation and stigma.

    All of these are visited all too often upon young unwed mothers, and no amount of voluntary charity has EVER rid us of these problems. Not in this world. Whereas state intervention of various kinds has, and does, help. (Note that I’m not fond of statist intervention per se, and would often self-identify as a left libertarian… but that hasn’t been tried and thus I won’t present it as a proven option here.) Yet you would condemn socialism, in favor of some perfectly moral divinely-led quasicapitalist polis which – be honest – will not occur within the lifetime of those women who are currently condemned to suffer?

    If abortion prohibition came along with a lifetime guaranteed living wage, it would at least be self-consistent. The right to life, from wedding bed to grave. Yet this is essentially unheard of on your side of the aisle. What the hell?

    —————————————-

    That’s just a few of the tremendous problems I see with prohibition of abortion and the package of assumptions which seems to go along with it. If any of them don’t reflect your perspective, great; I’d like to hear that too. But taken all together, they paint a picture which is frankly both nonsensical and cruel. Thus I presume I do not understand it properly, and submit myself for enlightenment.

    Eric Finley, November 13, 2008
    permalink

38. FWIW, my issue isn’t with your commitment to God’s revelation, it’s with your apparent certainty of the rightness of your interpretation of God’s revelation.

    I probably *could* quote some chapter and verse. I doubt that would budge you, either. I have a theological education, I’ve worked in the Theology and Worship office of my denomination’s national headquarters. I’m married to a woman with a Master of Divinity degree who preaches and teaches all over the Midwest as part of her job. I read the Bible. I study it, meditate on it, and open myself to its truths. I’ve been at that for over 25 years.

    So what? Does that give me the right to claim that I know anything more about the human condition than Josh, Daniel, Eric, or you? No. I can believe all I want, but I have no authority to assert my beliefs on others in any binding way. I’m not sure I could reasonably have that authority even if I did KNOW – but the point is, I don’t know – I have faith. Faith is malleable. Faith is living. It breathes. It grows. It doesn’t harden like cement into cold certainty. And in my reading of your POV, Seth, you are claiming that sort of certainty.

    See, the way your rhetoric comes off to me, you don’t have faith in a deity, you have faith in your interpretation of a book. You have faith in a system, a cold stone rock of legalism that is more akin to the paradigm that Christ came to rail against than the paradigm he came to champion.

    You wanna know what I think I need to repent from? I think I need to repent from my anger and rage at the professed certainty that pervades the Church. I need to repent from making you the convenient scapegoat for all that anger. I should not spew at you like this because I know there’s no love in it. So for that I apologize. You’ve hit me in my major sore spot, and you’ve inadvertently kept hammering at it, and now I’ve painted you as one of “them”, and I ought not to be painting anybody as a “them” because that’s what “they” do and I don’t want to be like “them” and yes, I get the irony of what I just wrote.

    So, bottom line, I’m not asking you, Seth, to soften your belief in the revelation of God itself. Just be willing to filter your response to that belief through the dark-glassed reflection of our mortal fallibility. Because even if it is true that God has revealed all we need to know, none of us still gets it. None of us can claim it, none of us can grasp it.

    Mick Bradley, November 13, 2008
    permalink

39. Hey, Eric. I’m going to answer your questions briefly.

    1) I do condemn this practice, as do the folk I’m around. In fact, I am generally of the opinion that fertility treatment (at least, of the type that you’re discussing) is the result of selfishness on the part of the parents. If adoption is an option, then why do these infertile parents turn to these medical treatments? Is it because most of the babies available for adoption are brown-skinned?

    1a) One example of a passage that assumes life from conception is Psalm 139:13-16. Another is Luke 1:41-44, where the pre-born John (at 6 months, which is not generally considered viable) leaps for joy to hear the voice of Mary. (Passages are hyperlinked for your convenience!)

    2) You’ve just outlined how I view abortion, as do the folk I’m around. Of course, I also believe in the free offer of forgiveness through Jesus to all those people, too.

    3) I do not believe that barrier methods of contraception are abortion, because they predate the fertilization of the egg. Methods that prevent implantation, however, are indeed murder.

    And, as far as the “ecological reality of overpopulation”, you might want to check out <ah ref=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG2IZEzUmA0″this trailer. And no, to the best of my knowledge, this was not made by Christians. And yeah, we can argue this point, but “overpopulation” is not a given.

    4) While there are definitely issues to address in this paragraph, none of them are applicable to abortion. Would it be okay to say that single mothers get a pass on shoplifting? I’ve heard no one arguing for this point. Stealing is wrong; end of story. In the same way, if abortion is truly murder, then it’s simply not an option, and we will have to care for these women and their children in some other way.

    On top of this, I will point out that you are discussing “young unwed mothers”. Let’s be straight with each other. Most young unwed mothers were not raped. Rather, they are pregnant because of their own irresponsible choices. The solutions that you’re discussing, be they abortion or living wages, are attempts for that woman to dodge the consequences of her actions.

    Of course, that makes me look like a monster, so I need to follow up that point rapidly with another point. Christians are on the forefront of caring for unwed mothers and their children. In the U.S., that’s what the crisis pregnancy center movement is all about. However, there’s a vitally important difference between CPCs and what you’re calling for.

    You are insisting that these women deserve the care that they receive, regardless of their personal culpability. (As an aside, does this mean that these women have no moral agency?) In contrast, I am saying that these women do not deserve care, but rather that we ought to give it as a matter of grace. As Christians, we have been forgiven much because of God’s grace to us. Should we not then act with grace towards others?

    But grace cannot be demanded. And yet, that is precisely what you are doing. You are saying, “These women sinned, and now you must feed and clothe them, regardless of whether or not they repent.” I am saying, “These women sinned, and we need to reach out to them with love and grace. But grace is not a right, nor is it earned.”

    See, I don’t believe in the right to life. Rather, I believe that God made us in His image, and therefore we have a responsibility to Him to preserve His image in others. But we do that in the ways and manners that He has established.

    Seth Ben-Ezra, November 13, 2008
    permalink

40. Just in affirmation of what Seth is saying:
    As a person not much unlike Seth yet different, I agree with Seth and what he has said of abortion in this discussion. But I’ve also considered every one of the 4 points Eric has listed in his last post. I am frustrated that most discussions on abortion among people who disagree are mere statements of position rather than the defense of that position . I don’t believe that’s been a problem so far in this discussion. We need people to be compassionate to the hurting and helpless and I see both mother and child as fitting those categories. Neither the mother nor child should be neglected in forming our opinions about the issue.

    Micah R., November 13, 2008
    permalink

41. Mick,

    The theological answer is that I believe in the perspicuity of Scripture: i.e. that Scripture is sufficiently clear.

    “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.” (Deuteronomy 29:29)

    “For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it. ” (Deuteronomy 30:11-14)

    But see, this isn’t faith in a dead system. The author of Hebrews writes,”For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.” (Hebrews 4:12-13)

    For that matter, read Psalm 119. Yeah, the whole thing.

    God relates to His people through His statutes. In fact, looking at the Hebrews passage, you can even say that there’s a profound connection between God and His Word.

    Mick, you’re trying to oppose faith and knowledge. But that is not the teaching of Christianity. Nor is a lively faith one that refuses to admit knowledge. Rather, we embrace the knowledge that is given to us by God. (Psalm 19:7-10)

    And, ultimately, I’m seeking to follow the command of Paul:

    “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:14-17 ESV)

    Paul commends Timothy for “firmly believing” in what he had learned from the “sacred writings”. Indeed, Paul says that the sacred writings are the wellspring of faith.

    So, if Timothy was commended for clinging to the Bible, why should I do any differently?

    Seth Ben-Ezra, November 13, 2008
    permalink

42. I DO commend you for your belief, Seth. I’m merely suggesting that you don’t own exclusive rights to that belief.

    To me this seems so obvious. Christian history is full of examples. Highly educated theologians differ in their beliefs and in their conclusions about interpretation. Spiritual exemplars who spend most of their waking lives in prayer and study differ in their beliefs and in their conclusions about interpretation. People of faith can spend entire lifetimes devoted to sincere and committed prayer and study and still come to different conclusions about how to live out the things set down in the Bible. And you know I’m not just talking about the obvious ideological lines. People who attend the same church, people who live in the same house, people who are committed to a lifetime of love and mutual support for one another – all differ. And that’s not to mention that individuals can differ with themselves from day to day.

    And if we Christians are not all of one mind on the issues of our faith and practice, then how can we possibly claim any right to certainty in relation to the beliefs of any human being?

    It only takes a cursory exploration of your blog to realize that you’ve taken some heat from people in your own camp because you play roleplaying games and drink beer. What do you say to those Christians – and I know there must have been some – who told you that the Bible clearly condemns drinking alcohol of any kind, and that God’s word clearly forbids the sort of activities that occur at the gaming table? If they are, in good conscience, firmly holding to the clear revelation of Scripture and their clear interpretation of it, and if they know in their hearts that the Spirit is leading them to lovingly urge you to repent from drinking and gaming, how do you respond?

    I can’t say for sure, but I think I can make an educated guess that your response likely is similar to the methods you use here in this thread – to explain your beliefs with support from your own interpretation of God’s revealed word. But still – can you be sure that maybe in some sense, the very practice of roleplaying, or playing Magic: the Gathering, or whatever, is NOT a sin? If a Christian in good faith and conscience is trying to tell you that they know in their hearts and can support with Scriptural citation that what you are doing is wrong, and is coming at you from essentially the same ideological baseline that you yourself are standing on, then how do you decide which of you is actually correctly interpreting the clear commandments of God?

    See, to me it seems fairly easy to be the one standing to the right of somebody else, holding to the firm belief that you are standing squarely upon the clear mandates of Scripture and that the other person is not, and they need to come over to where you are if they are to have any hope of redemption. But what happens when you turn around and see all those people who are standing to YOUR right, firmly insistent that the ground you are on is actually pretty shaky and you need to go stand where THEY are if you are to have any hope?

    We have to talk. We have to strive and struggle and learn and grow. And in order to do that, we MUST be willing to listen, and be moved, and be open.

    But even short of that, we’ve got to stop behaving like we’ve got it in the bag. Because when we think we’ve got it in the bag, it is oh so easy to start judging the people that we think don’t have it. And it is easy to to be manipulated into believing that anyone who disagrees with us is either deluded or evil, and then if we don’t succeed in correcting them out of their delusions, all we have left is to think they’re evil. And Barack Obama becomes a socialist-terrorist-baby-killer, Progressive Christians like me are not really Christians at all, and Jews like Daniel and agnostics like Josh and Eric have no place in the “real” America.

    But look to your right, Seth. I’m betting there’s somebody over there who is certain that you’re on pretty shaky ground yourself. How does that feel?
    I imagine that you don’t think you’re behaving that way, and you probably agree in principle with the danger of that behavior. All I’m saying to you is, to me it seems that’s how you’re coming across anyway.

    Mick Bradley, November 14, 2008
    permalink

43. Mick,

    There are a couple factors that I think you’re missing.

    The first is the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit. Paul writes:

    But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him”– these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

    (1 Corinthians 2:9-16)

    When Paul talks about the “spiritual person”, he is talking about someone who has been filled with the Holy Spirit. We have not been left alone to work these things out for ourselves. As Jesus said:

    “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.” (John 16:12-13)

    Beyond that, I am surrounded by people who are quite willing to tell me what to think and then point to the Bible to justify their concerns. That group is called my church. “Where there is no guidance, a people falls, but in an abundance of counselors there is safety.” (Proverbs 11:14) And, because God has placed me in community with them, I listen to them. Do we always agree? Of course not. But we live and work and worship together, and through that process God reveals His truth to all of us.

    I have plenty of conversations where I am left with things to think about, things to repent of, things to do differently in my life. And I do.

    But not everything is up for grabs. Right, Mick?

    I mean, here you are, a week after my original post, still trying to persuade me. That takes a lot of time and effort. (Believe me, I know. ) If you don’t really think that you’re right, then why bother?

    For that matter, if you aren’t sure that you’re right, then why are you judging me? That’s what you’re doing, after all. You think that I’m a proud legalist that Jesus opposes. That’s judgment. But, who are you to judge?

    Why do you keep writing back?

    It’s because you do believe certain things that must be obeyed. You believe that no one has the right to judge. You believe that true ethical knowledge is impossible. You believe that religion should be silent in the public arena. And you won’t be content until I agree with these things and am obedient to them.

    To put this in your own words, you are “standing to the right of me”, claiming that I’m on “shaky ground”, because I insist that God has established moral absolutes that are both comprehensible and binding on all.

    My words violate your orthodoxy, and so you continue to argue with me. Because you have judged me by your creed, and I fall short.

    And yet you won’t tell someone that it’s wrong to murder a baby, because you might be wrong.

    Your priorities are a bit out of whack, Mick.

    Seth Ben-Ezra, November 14, 2008
    permalink

44. Here’s something pulled from an article on “Biblical Marriage”. The full article is here: http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/equality/biblical_marriage.htm

    I haven’t cross-referenced every passage the author cites yet, but I’m working on it. So far, his conclusions are accurate. This is a compilation of what the Christian Bible actually says about marriage. This is the Word of God, in all its clear, inspired glory.

    12 Biblical Principles of Marriage

    1. Marriage consists of one man and one or more women (Gen 4:19, 4:23, 26:34, 28:9, 29:26-30, 30:26, 31:17, 32:22, 36:2, 36:10, 37:2, Ex. 21:10, Judges 8:30, 1 Sam 1:2, 25:43, 27:3, 30:5, 30:18, 2 Sam 2:2, 3:2-5, 1 Chron 3:1-3, 4:5, 8:8, 14:3, 2 Chron 11:21, 13:21, 24:3).
    2. Nothing prevents a man from taking on concubines in addition to the wife or wives he may already have (Gen 25:6, Judges 8:31, 2 Sam 5:13, 1 Kings 11:3, 1 Chron 3:9, 2 Chron 11:21, Dan 5:2-3).
    3. A man might chose any woman he wants for his wife (Gen 6:2, Deut 21:11), provided only that she is not already another man’s wife (Lev 18:14-16, Deut. 22:30) or his [half-]sister (Lev 18:11, 20:17), nor the mother (Lev 20:14) or the sister (Lev 18:18) of a woman who is already his wife. The concept of a woman giving her consent to being married is foreign to the Biblical mindset.
    4. If a woman cannot be proven to be a virgin at the time of marriage, she shall be stoned (Deut 22:13-21).
    5. A rapist must marry his victim (Ex. 22:16, Deut. 22:28-29) Рunless she was already a fianc̩, in which case he should be put to death if he raped her in the country, but both of them killed if he raped her in town (Deut. 22:23-27).
    6. If a man dies childless, his brother must marry the widow (Gen 38:6-10, Deut 25:5-10, Mark 12:19, Luke 20:28).
    7. Women marry the man of their father’s choosing (Gen. 24:4, Josh.15:16-17, Judges 1:12-13, 12:9, 21:1, 1 Sam 17:25, 18:19, 1 Kings 2:21, 1 Chron 2:35, Jer 29:6, Dan 11:17).
    8. Women are the property of their father until married and their husband after that (Ex. 20:17, 22:17, Deut. 22:24, Mat 22:25).
    9. The value of a woman might be approximately seven years’ work (Gen 29:14-30).
    10. Inter-faith marriages are prohibited (Gen 24:3, 28:1, 28:6, Num 25:1-9, Ezra 9:12, Neh 10:30, 2 Cor 6:14).
    11. Divorce is forbidden (Deut 22:19, Matt 5:32, 19:9, Mark 10:9-12, Luke 16:18, Rom 7:2, 1 Cor 7:10-11, 7:39).
    12. Better to not get married at all – although marriage is not a sin (Matt 19:10, I Cor 7:1, 7:27-28, 7:32-34, 7:38).

    Mick Bradley, November 15, 2008
    permalink

45. That’s a nice summary, Mick. However, it mostly concerns the ideals of Jewish marriage from the 2nd temple period and earlier. I’m sure Daniel P (if he is still following this discussion) could clarify the matter.

    I think one of the great things about Christian marriage is how it doesn’t integrate into the natural human sexuality. Normal human-mammalian drives are far from monogamous. But if the Christian way has a common demand, it is one of self-denial for the sake of the Other, and I think that Christian marriage has this feature too.

    There are other models of marriage that also have this, to be sure, but perhaps for other reasons.

    Comrade Andrew, November 16, 2008
    permalink

46. Hey Mick,

    First off, I’d be hesitant to accept a theological article on a site that includes an ad for Adult Friend Finder and similar services. I’m not persuaded that it would have the amount of theological rigor that I’d like to see in addressing the text.

    But, that aside, I noticed that this list left off a fairly significant passage: Genesis 2:18-25.

    Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. (Genesis 2:18-25)

    This is the passage that Jesus cites when discussing divorce in Matthew 19 and the parallel passages.

    I cite this for a couple reasons. First, it demonstrates the lack of rigor in the original article. The Genesis 2 passage is the foundational passage for the “one man, one woman” definition of marriage, and Vaughn Roste doesn’t even mention it.

    Second, this passage shows God’s creation decree of marriage, including the fact that it is the joining of a man and a woman. The bulk of the passages that Roste cites are narratives; in other words, they are relating what happened, not necessarily prescribing what should happen. (The fancy terms are “descriptive” and “prescriptive”.)

    For example, let’s take Roste’s first citation: “And Lamech took two wives. The name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.” (Genesis 4:19). Roste asserts that this is an example of the Bible supporting polygamy. But that’s silly. It’s simply a statement of what happened. We read things in the news all the time that describe horrific acts, but we don’t think that the news is somehow supporting those actions as being morally acceptable.

    I also appreciated Roste’s unsupported assertion that “[t]he concept of a woman giving her consent to being married is foreign to the Biblical mindset.” Except that this isn’t true. Probably the most famous arranged marriage in the Bible is the marriage between Isaac and Rebekah in Genesis 24. There are all sorts of people making decisions in this passage, except one: Isaac. Rebekah gives her consent to go (Genesis 24:58), but Isaac is presented with his father’s choice for a bride. Now, he seems to have been quite pleased with the result (Genesis 24:67), but the fact remains that this story tells about a time where the woman had a say, but the man did not.

    Honestly, the “descriptive/prescriptive” principle addresses many of the citations that Roste makes. Principles 1, 2, 3, 7, and 9 are undercut just like that.

    Though, here’s an interesting quote from Roste’s article:

    All told I looked up over 800 references. Exempting the references which are narrative (e.g. “Adam named his wife Eve” Gen 3:20) or metaphorical (Christ’s marriage to the church, Rev 21:9), I was able to distil those 825 verse references into 12 general principles: 12 Biblical “rules” or guidelines regarding marriage which encompass the gamut of scripture.

    Emphasis mine.

    In other words, it would appear that Roste is familiar with the distinction between descriptive and prescriptive texts. So why does he cite Genesis 4:19 as a proof text, when he ought to know better?

    Something smells here.

    See, Roste isn’t actually studying the Bible and reporting conclusions. Rather, he is mocking the Bible. That’s why he conveniently applies the “prescriptive/descriptive” principle to Genesis 3:20 but not Genesis 4:19. So, this is not a good representation of what the Bible teaches concerning marriage. This is only a caricature.

    Mick, earlier you said:

    I probably *could* quote some chapter and verse. I doubt that would budge you, either. I have a theological education, I’ve worked in the Theology and Worship office of my denomination’s national headquarters. I’m married to a woman with a Master of Divinity degree who preaches and teaches all over the Midwest as part of her job. I read the Bible. I study it, meditate on it, and open myself to its truths. I’ve been at that for over 25 years.

    This being the case, why didn’t you spot this glaring weakness in Roste’s arguments? I saw it as soon as I read your comment.

    It’s because you are also mocking the Bible, not trying to understand and apply it. I mean, look at the conclusion of the article that you cited:

    To rely solely on Scripture for church policy is to ignore the possibility that the Holy Spirit has been active at all in the sixteen centuries since the canon was closed in 405 CE.

    So, relying solely on Scripture is bad. Backwards, even. Definitely being out of touch with the Holy Spirit.

    Yet Paul writes:

    All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
    (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

    And in Ephesians 6:17b he writes of “…the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God…” showing that the Spirit works through the Scriptures, not in opposition to them.

    Mick, I have answers for the various points that Roste brings up. Yet, I don’t think that you’re looking for answers. Instead, you’re still trying to attack the Bible and, in this way, attack the God of the Bible.

    I never sent you any Scripture to read last week. Based on your comments, I didn’t think that you were really interested. If I was wrong about that, I sincerely apologize. However, I do have a recommendation for you. Read the book of Jude. It’s not long. I’ll even put a relevant portion here:

    Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day– just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones. (Jude 1:3-8)

    Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for practicing that which you support, Mick. They burned with fire from heaven, because God wanted to make sure that we understood exactly what He thought about this issue.

    But you say that God is okay with this, and, indeed, you attack those who say otherwise. But here is a word for you:

    “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20)

    You are making an enemy of God, and that is a serious thing. I don’t know if anyone else is still reading a thread of 40+ comments…but God is. He knows what you have been saying about Him, Mick, and He will not be silent forever.

    Again, I urge you: repent. Repent and throw yourself on the mercy of God. Because He truly is merciful! I’ve been quoting the Apostle Paul a lot, right? He was a murderer of Christians! Yet God showed him mercy.

    And He will show you mercy, if you will repent.

    Otherwise, He will visit you in His wrath, and you will need to give an account, as one who claims the name of Christ and yet defiles His name.

    As Hebrews says:

    For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (Hebrews 10:26-31)

    Seth Ben-Ezra, November 17, 2008
    permalink

47. Yeah, I really REALLY blew this argument.

    I continue to feel in my heart that what I believe – and what millions of other progressive Christians believe – is legitimate, defensible, and above all, Christian. It is as true an expression of what the Spirit is leading us to embrace as your ideology is for you.

    But you wouldn’t know any of that from the way I’ve framed most of my arguments.

    Seth, you’ve whupped me soundly. You are really good at this, and there’s no denying your conviction and your ability to back it up.

    I’m not saying my beliefs are wrong, I’m not stepping off the path that I know in my heart that Christ has me taking, and I will not repent from nor apologize for it.

    But yeah, in terms of the manner of this discourse, you have me outclassed and outgunned. And you’ve reminded me of some realities about America and Christianity that I think I’d ignored for awhile.

    So, I’m conceding the field to you now, before I embarrass myself further and make it impossible for us to ever be able to get along.

    Peace be with you.

    Mick Bradley, November 17, 2008
    permalink

48. Two comments:

    To Comrade Andrew, on Mick’s list in comment #44 above:
    Those items do not represent a checklist of Jewish concepts of marriage. Some laws are derived from some of those passages, but it isn’t a laundry list. Our concept of marriage is just as the Christian one (with the obvious differences).

    In comment #46 Seth says:
    Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for practicing that which you support, Mick. They burned with fire from heaven, because God wanted to make sure that we understood exactly what He thought about this issue.

    Actually, Sodom and Gomorrah burned for a completely different reason, but for that you’d have to believe in the Oral Torah, including the Midrash, the Mishnah, and the Talmud.

    Just an aside to point out that when it comes to Scripture, not everything is as clear as it may seem. Carry on.

    Daniel M. Perez, November 18, 2008
    permalink

49. Hey, Daniel!

    Yeah, I wasn’t thinking that the list was an accurate list of Jewish beliefs either.

    And, as far as Sodom and Gomorrah, I was specifically citing the passage from Jude…which is of course from the New Testament. So, yeah, at that point it becomes a matter of discerning what is God’s revelation.

    But I’m figuring that you’re probably not wanting to wrangle that point. So, instead, I throw out a random factoid that might be of interest to you.

    Did you know that my grandfather is Jewish (of Turkish descent), and my grandmother is Puerto Rican? My grandmother’s mother and father actually moved to New York from Puerto Rico, and my grandmother’s first language was Spanish.

    It’s true!

    Seth Ben-Ezra, November 18, 2008
    permalink

50. Hey, Mick! If you’re still reading this….

    I read your blog post today.

    You said this:

    I suppose the way this relates to roleplaying games is this – for all our obvious ideological differences, I still really respect Seth as a game designer and rpg theorist. I like his passion for the hobby, I like his games. I like Seth. And if we get to see one another at a con, I’ll be happy to drink with him and break bread with him and call him a friend. Because there’s still a kinship there. Our hobby is a bridge over all the mess, and we can meet upon that bridge and be friends.

    And I think that’s cool. I’m totally thankful for it.

    You know that I think the same, right? Like I said earlier, I’d love to see you at a Go Play Peoria. Sure, Louisville is a bit of a haul, but you’d be welcome to crash at my house.

    All those things I said earlier about wanting to be your friend are still true.

    Seth Ben-Ezra, November 18, 2008
    permalink

51. Hey Seth:
    No, it wasn’t about discerning what is Revelation to each of us, rather more a point that, be it for your or my view of Revelation, Scripture itself is not immutable and thus why we each have a long tradition of commentaries and exegesis to help us discern what G-d is telling us.

    Re: your family – thanks, that explains the Ben Ezra (I’d been wondering about that since I first heard your name but realized you weren’t Jewish). So you’re from Newyorican stock? Yeah, I’m afraid that makes us kinsmen, dude.

    Daniel M. Perez, November 19, 2008
    permalink

52. Yeah, my father was born in Brooklyn. When he was six, the family moved to Freehold in central NJ, but my grandfather commuted to the city for years until he eventually started his own small business.

    My sister Gabrielle can do a fine New York/Jersey accent, too.

    Seth Ben-Ezra, November 19, 2008
    permalink

53. (Been a long week…)

    Hey, Seth. Thank you for addressing those points I raised. Your answers are… very interesting.

    With respect to the first two (in vitro and criminalization of the mother) I am startled to hear that you espouse the consistent view. I mean, I applaud it from a consistency standpoint… but I am startled from a media exposure viewpoint. Because I have never heard either of your opinions on these fronts expressed by the proponents of your side. Ever, until now. So I would suggest that even if you may be consistent here, and bravo, there’s a certain lack of consistency in fervour, or in emphasis.

    Also as a note on criminalizing the mother, are you of the opinion that divine forgiveness should negate worldly justice (jail time and so forth)? Or is the prospect of the mother doing ten-to-life simply not important, in the face of the forgiveness she (can) receive for the sin of the murder? Obviously, to me, the ten-to-life is a big deal. Interestingly, and only about half tongue-in-cheek, perhaps there’s some kind of middle ground there, of a sort… if the jail time isn’t sufficiently important to you, and is a horror to me, then surely we can work somethin’ out here.

    Please remember that “killing a child” presupposes the conclusion. Of course sane pro-choicers oppose the killing of children. We just don’t consider previable fetuses to be children, and you do. So “killing a child” is either fightin’ words, or is a rhetorical dodge of the actual meat of disagreement. This is, for reference, why we (or at least I) insist on neutral language like fetus. Because in order for the word “child” to be meaningful in your argument, you have to have already won said argument. Tautology.

    And on the socialism front, I’m afraid your position remains apparently incoherent to me. I do not advocate the arbitrary suspension of consequences on pity grounds (though I often do so on utilitarian and consequentialist grounds, cf. the failure of the ‘war on drugs’ and similar).

    What I do advocate, strongly, is the view that these consequences are themselves social constructs. They are effects of a political structure, one to which there exist defenisble alternatives. So the fact that a young single mother with an unwanted child – I say nothing of rape, that’s a straw man distinction IMO – is forced into a largely unlivable position… that’s a wrong that we, as society, do to her. It’s not a necessary physical consequence of bringing a child to term. We can choose otherwise. And if we did, then the fetus’ more negoiable rights (from our POV) would probably carry the day against the mother’s very concrete ones, since the harm done to her would be diminished. At which point the secular humanists would come over to your side of the abortion battle. Right now, however, that harm is simply too real and too concrete to outweigh the rights of a quasiperson, to me. You’re within your rights to drop the ‘quasi’, at which point I simply contend that you don’t have the right to insist that all people do so.

    So yes, the question of the suffering of the unwed mother – even if she chose this course, by default or even by stupidity – is relevant. It’s the other side of the scales of justice here.

    Okay, Heather. Either you accept a 25% XP penalty for the rest of the campaign compared to the other PCs, or your fetus must roll its ‘arguable nonpersonhood’ score as a save vs. death magic. Yes, the decision sucks. So I’m not going to make it for you.

    I’m not going to convince you. I can tell that at this point. You’ve made your argument well and grounded it firmly on your beliefs, and those beliefs include the right to make Heather’s decision for her. But I hope that you can at least perceive where, in the absence of your certitude, one could fight tooth and nail to allow Hather her right to choose.

    God, I’m glad I’m a Canadian. Now to punt our Republican-lites out of office…

    Eric Finley, November 20, 2008
    permalink

54. (There’s a link in the “failure on the war on drugs” bit above, by the way. Your CSS could use a tweak, dude.)

    Eric Finley, November 20, 2008
    permalink

55. Hey, Eric.

    Before I launch into my replies, I thought I’d share something with you. Bizarre as this might seem, this particular conversation strikes me as having something of a Forge vibe. Like, actual paragraphs being written, ideas being formulated, and the like. Strange that the Forge taught us how to argue on the Internet. I’ll bet that Ron wasn’t thinking about anything like this when he insisted on certain standards of discourse in roleplaying.

    Anyways, to the matter at hand.

    You said:

    “With respect to the first two (in vitro and criminalization of the mother) I am startled to hear that you espouse the consistent view. I mean, I applaud it from a consistency standpoint… but I am startled from a media exposure viewpoint. Because I have never heard either of your opinions on these fronts expressed by the proponents of your side. Ever, until now. So I would suggest that even if you may be consistent here, and bravo, there’s a certain lack of consistency in fervour, or in emphasis.”

    First, just for disclosure, I fixed the tags on this part of your post. (You used BBCode instead of HTML, which I do on a distressingly regular basis.)

    As far as media exposure, you may be right. Again, the majority of the Christian circles I move in wouldn’t find these positions particularly controversial. As far as the larger media exposure, you’re probably right that there’s a “certain lack of consistency in fervour, or in emphasis”. And I would consider that to be a problem.

    You said:

    “Also as a note on criminalizing the mother, are you of the opinion that divine forgiveness should negate worldly justice (jail time and so forth)?”

    Nope. There was a case a few years ago where a man on death row became a Christian. He admitted that he was indeed guilty of murder and was actually asking people not to try to protest against it. He insisted that he needed to face the punishment for his actions. (Sadly, I can’t locate a link to the news story right now.) Yes, I know that there are folks in evangelical Christianity who would want such a man to be let off at this point, but this convicted murderer understood forgiveness better than they.

    And now to the heart of the matter.

    You said:

    “Right now, however, that harm is simply too real and too concrete to outweigh the rights of a quasiperson, to me. You’re within your rights to drop the ‘quasi’, at which point I simply contend that you don’t have the right to insist that all people do so.”

    Yeah, but at that point, one of us is wrong. Either it’s a fetus and a quasi-person, at which point you can do whatever the hell you want to it, or it’s a person and therefore an image-bearer of God who must be protected.

    Saying that I have the right to drop the “quasi” means nothing. It is essentially telling me that I have the right to be deluded. Because, when I say that a fetus is a person, and therefore is a baby, this view has consequences for everyone. This even applies to my silence. If I stand by idly while babies die, then I share bloodguilt.

    Our views cannot peacefully co-exist. One of them has to lose. That’s logical necessity, n’est pas?

    You said:

    “So “killing a child” is either fightin’ words, or is a rhetorical dodge of the actual meat of disagreement.”

    You’re right. They are fightin’ words, and I intend them as such.

    Consider this: in my nation’s history, there have been a number of occasions where blacks were lynched. Murdered, simply for being black. What about their personhood? It was questioned, after all, right? Or what about the Jews in Nazi Germany? Wasn’t their personhood also questioned? Isn’t that how Auschwitz was justified?

    At this point in our history, we look back and say, “Why didn’t anyone speak for those victims?” When we discover those who bravely stood against society, we applaud them. We idolize the abolitionists and cheer for those who hid Jews from the death squads.

    All this, despite the perfectly logical arguments presented in favor of these horrific acts. Check out the Reich Citizenship Law. Section 2.3 states that only a Reich citizen has full political rights.

    Or how about the poster being displayed in the Wikipedia article about the Holocaust? Check out that caption: “60,000 RM is what this person with genetic defects costs the community during his lifetime.” Because the needs of the community apparently outweigh the needs of the individual. But wait! The caption goes on: “Fellow German, that’s your money too…” Because my needs outweigh your needs. And I’m willing to kill to ensure that my needs are met.

    How are our actions different? We deprive an inconvenient class of people of their “personhood”, and then we kill them at will. We even perform experimentation on the dead babies! The chicken pox vaccine was developed using an aborted baby. And what about harvesting stem cells from embryos? We are appalled that the Germans performed experiments on the Jews and then we do the same.

    (Yes, I realize that I just proved Godwin’s Law, but it nevertheless seemed applicable. That’s a link, BTW, because my CSS does need to be tweaked, and I’ll need to see about fixing it.)

    You assert that the person who gets hurt gets to judge morality. But that’s not really what you mean. Because I stand here saying that the unborn child is being hurt, and you say that doesn’t matter, because that pain cannot be empirically verified, whereas the mother’s can. But empiricism is rooted in the senses. Specifically, rooted in your senses. So, again, you make yourself judge of whose pain matters. If I can’t prove the baby’s pain to you, then it does not matter.

    Now, maybe the “you” in that paragraph isn’t you, personally. It could be a judge or other socially appointed person. The fact remains that someone makes the judgment. And that makes your claim that we’re just “context” ring a little false.

    Which leads up to my final statement.

    You said:

    “I’m not going to convince you. I can tell that at this point. You’ve made your argument well and grounded it firmly on your beliefs, and those beliefs include the right to make Heather’s decision for her. But I hope that you can at least perceive where, in the absence of your certitude, one could fight tooth and nail to allow Hather her right to choose.”

    When I was taught logic, my teacher stressed that logic could not prove first principles. An argument can string together principles, but it cannot pass value judgments. Logic tells us if an argument is valid; it cannot tell us if it is true or good or beautiful.

    So, to answer your question, I perceive the logic of your argument, and I acknowledge that it all hangs together. But a logically valid argument is not necessarily a righteous argument.

    I follow your logic, but I can only label it as wickedness.

    Or, to put it a different way….

    Upthread, you said:

    “Our adopted daughter hails from this list; she should not have been brought to term. Her fetus’ rights should never have trumped those of her mother, and the overstressed social welfare system, to allow her to be born. But she was, and she’s ours, and cold dead hands and so forth.”

    So, that now your daughter is on this side of a uterine wall, you’d be willing to die to save her life. But, when she was on the other side of a uterine wall, you’d let her die because she would be a strain on society. Indeed, you would have made that choice yourself.

    Do you think that you’ll ever tell her that? Will you look into her eyes and say, “I think that you shouldn’t have been born”? Will you tell her, “It would have been better if your birth mother had ‘terminated your pregnancy’”?

    How do you think that she would respond to that? Do you think that she will respond positively to the logic of your position?

    Would you?

    Seth Ben-Ezra, November 21, 2008
    permalink

56. Hah.

    Said daughter is the one who I never try to predict. Her FAS and ADHD are extremely severe. So I’m damned if I how how she’d respond. But yes – I am quite comfortable with the idea of telling her that I feel that way, someday. Only once she’s able to hold conversations on this level of sophistication, though – which may well be never – since otherwise the words would be quite misunderstood. And there’s no point in speaking when you know, with the certainty of the one who taught this girl to speak, that she will not understand.

    I do not disagree that there exist parallels between the ’cause’ of the fetus and the disputed personhood of various victims over the ages. Godwin’s law winced at and forgiven. But the Jews were not, in fact, literally bloodsucking parasites on the Nazis, and I use this inflammatory diction with intent. Not because it’s literal, but because I do not believe that the parallel is sufficiently exact that it serves any useful dialectical purpose.

    Similarly, to argue that the mother’s pain derives validity because of its presence in my senses is, I’m sorry, solipsism of the first water. I literally don’t know what you were thinking with that paragraph, and with your permission I will ignore it because obviously one of us isn’t understanding the other here, and I don’t think it’s hugely germane at this point. Of course if a baby suffers it is a wrong; but once again it’s a tautology to assert the baby’s personhood (including suffering) as proof of its personhood. So this argument on your side, to me, appears to once again reduce to circular reasoning, even where it escapes solipsism.

    But to the meat of it.

    My daughter is not different on one side of a uterine wall and on the other.

    She is different because she is real, not potential.

    I used to imagine a son, a biological son to be a brother to Aria (our oldest and our only bio child). It was very important to me that I have a son, for reasons of genetics and emotional roots etc. We agreed that his name would be Martin. Martin James. We used to talk about him, what he’d be like. But Star’s pregnancy was very hard even by the standards of pregnancy, and the nursing actually worse. And we’ve adopted twice since, and been very happy with what came of that, and now consider ourselves “full up” on kids, thank you very much. So, dreams aside, she’s not going through that again. Which is fine. But it means that Martin James Finley will now (probably) never come to be. I have Jamie, our adopted son, instead, who is an utter delight (if completely different from Martin as envisioned). He’s the apple of my eye.

    I have also been the father to an aborted fetus. I won’t say with whom, it may or may not be Star as well, because that’s private and not germane here. But my part in it I can share. I consider Martin’s nonexistence to be a substantially greater loss, to the world and myself and even to him, than this fetus who never reached the end of first trimester nor acquired a name.

    Because I believe that a child becomes a child when it is born. It’s that simple. To be honest, when I articulate these arguments for abortion, what I’m doing is groping for words to describe why I consider this to be, not the necessary, but the wisest, the default, and the most rightful interpretation of the cycle of life.

    You believe that a child becomes a child when it is fertilized. I guess where I get hung up is that on empirical grounds, there is no a priori reason to take one belief about the beginning of life over the other. And thus when I articulate reasons why one might choose one belief over the other, from the viewpoint of this world and this life, I hope to be answered with reasons why someone might choose your belief instead. Reasons which don’t root themselves in a book in which I do not vest credit.

    So I see, on the one side, my belief about when life begins, and articulations which do not depend on that belief of why this belief – personhood begins at birth – has socially beneficial results. And on the other side I see your belief about when life begins, and socially negative results therefrom. So if you omit the tautologies and refuse to presuppose the conclusion, I can’t see how I could end up on your side of the fence. This is why I focus on the welfare of the mother; because it does not depend on the conclusion, it is an independent issue that I can look at when attempting to weigh one belief against the other.

    (To be more precise, actually, I believe that life begins at the exact moment that the mother – and father if relevant – commit in their hearts to bearing this child to term. Actual birth is simply the point where the choice necessarily gets made, even if you’ve failed to commit previously. What matters to me is the moment that the child becomes real in their desired vision of the world and of their lives; the moment they impart the gift of personhood to their baby, in their hearts and flesh. But this reduces to the pro-choice position, even more strongly than many pro-choicers… since in this construction the choice is itself an essential part of the procreative act… and thus it is not actually productive to bring this in, in my experience, as compared with defending the “standard” pro-choice position.)

    So, since I am honest with myself and others, yes, I may someday have that conversation with Cassandra. It’ll be very interesting to see what she says. But I am not going to jump the gun and do it now, when on a bad day she has the emotional maturity of a two-year-old.

    (And as to your note re the Forge… I’m pretty sure that I brought this sort of tendency with me when I discovered the Forge, because I remember the sense of coming home. But I certainly wouldn’t argue that Ron gave us a wonderful arena to practice in.)

    Eric Finley, November 24, 2008
    permalink

57. Hey, Eric.

    At this point, I think that I’ll invoke the Forge again and suggest that it’s time to close the thread. Seems like we’ve stated our positions pretty clearly, and anything further will just be running in circles.

    Thanks for the conversation.

    Seth Ben-Ezra, November 25, 2008
    permalink

58. Hai. Thank you, too. Very interesting.

    Now it’s back to boardgame design for me…

    Eric Finley, November 25, 2008
    permalink

59. Seth,

    It appears that the topic went on without me, and that’s probably for the best. I’m afraid I let frustration get the better of me and posted my last comment when I should have stepped away and come back later. I would like to apologize for that, and I would like to explain my agitated state of mind a bit.

    The debate about the definition of marriage may be a mostly academic topic in Peoria, but it is not where I live. I am in California, and Prop 8 eliminated my right to marry if I love another man. This is not a matter of the rights, lives, and families of a minority of Those People Over There. This debate, right here and right now, is about me, my rights, and my family. Essentially, 52% of California just told me what shape my family must be. Imagine the state just told you that six children is enough, and if you had a seventh, the state would take it away from you. That’s how I’m feeling these days.

    Then this guy I knew from the Internet, met once, shared a meal with, traded ads in our books… (this is you, by the way)… This guy posts a link to my twitter feed and my girlfriend’s feed, using us as examples of… and here language fails me. Are we examples of heathens? Left-coast liberals? Gay sympathizers? Whatever the specifics, we were used as examples of Them, in a post addressed to your coreligionists. I read this as charitably as possible as an invitation.

    While I’m sure that you have nothing against me commenting here, I think it’s pretty clear that an invitation was not your intent. As we talked back and forth, it became clear that you weren’t really interested in discussing our differing politics here (which I hasten to point out is fine; your blog, and this article had a very specific point, which wasn’t the political arguments that we’ve been tossing around). But as it became clear that discussing my politics was not the point, I started to wonder why I was involved at all. Why had my name been invoked in your article? I realized that I was on display. I was on display because I disagreed with you and your church. And, given that you are so certain the your beliefs are backed by God, that meant I was on display because I was wrong. I felt like a zoo animal.

    So if you’re keeping score at home, I was told by the state what shape my family had to be and then I was put on display. And I was put on display by a guy who thinks I should be told what shape my family can be. Now, I must admit that, in my head, I conflated you and the Yes on 8 crowd, which isn’t quite fair. You didn’t eliminate my rights, you just said it was a good idea to do so. Which I’m still rather disappointed about, but you did not, as it felt when I made my last comment, trample my rights and then hold me up for derision when I was angry about it. Part of that is my overreaction, which I will totally cop to. But I can’t help but feel like part of it is your trespass, too — you used me and my life without asking my permission or explaining to me why you were doing so. Were you obligated to ask my leave? No, not really. But it would have been nice, and it would have avoided a lot of frustration and bruised feelings.

    I’m not going to belabor this comment with anything more — I certainly don’t want to reopen the debate that was so clearly unproductive upthread. The bottom line is, you used me. And it seemed to me that you felt that you had some kind of right to do so because you were backed by your God’s infallible word and I was just some poor lost soul wandering in the wilderness. The amount of privilege you wrapped yourself in throughout this thread was staggering — and maddening. And while I should have shown better self-restraint when I posted last, I hope I’ve been able to explain where all that anger and frustration came from.

    I hope to talk with you again, Seth.

    – Josh

    Josh Roby, November 26, 2008
    permalink

60. Lots of room up here in Canada, dude. We’ve even got a basement suite going begging right now. And a functional banking system and everything.

    Eric Finley, November 26, 2008
    permalink

61. A functional banking system? Highly overrated. (removes tongue from cheek)

    Actually, just to share, this article asserts that this bailout cost the U.S. government…well…a lot:

    Bailout costs more than Marshall Plan, Louisiana Purchase, moonshot, S&L bailout, Korean War, New Deal, Iraq war, Vietnam war, and NASA’s lifetime budget — *combined*!

    Seth Ben-Ezra, November 26, 2008
    permalink

62. Josh,

    Yeah, let’s put this topic down for now and move on.

    By the way, I actually still owe you an ad. I’m planning on putting it in Showdown, which is beginning to lurch into production. When I have a final book size, I’ll let you know. (We’re currently looking at something about 4″ x 6″, but I don’t know for sure yet.) It’ll definitely be a better fit for a Sons of Liberty ad than A Flower for Mara would have been.

    Seth Ben-Ezra, November 26, 2008
    permalink

Leave a comment