Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

Post by TheEditor » Wed Mar 12, 2014 2:48 pm

Hi Peter,

I'll bite. I'm saying this partly from the tendancy for my mind to use synthesist methodology in thinking.

I have always had a problem with total idealogical thinking, regardless of the idealogy, even though my feelings commiserate with idealogical thinking. Take the pure libertarian philosophy, for instance (since that is what we are discussing).

You sight Locke's understanding:

"the notion that a mans body belongs to himself, and that his body is not in some way partially owned by others. It can be argued that, in principle, denying this proposition leads inevitably to self contradictory ideas"

Leaving God out of it (since I assume we both agree He has some say in the matter); as it pertains to this converstaion regarding being forced to provide services, I take it the objection is based upon the "forcing" of one's use of his or her body to provide such services. Are we not, though, constrained on all sides as to how to use our bodies? I am constrained in the use of my body in using it to harm others. I am constrained from using my body for any variety of reasons that may violate the rights of others in a free society. It seems that part of the libertarian philosophy that is troubling (to me at least) is the notion that two people can contract to do whatever they want, as long as some unknown third party is not harmed in the process. I would suggest that there are any number of things that a decent society should object to, even if the only harm being done is to those in the two-party contract. Disagree?

Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

thrombomodulin
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am

Re: Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

Post by thrombomodulin » Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:55 pm

Thanks for replying Brenden,
TheEditor wrote: Leaving God out of it (since I assume we both agree He has some say in the matter); as it pertains to this converstaion regarding being forced to provide services, I take it the objection is based upon the "forcing" of one's use of his or her body to provide such services.
Your reply is a correct summary of my present understanding. Yes, I agree that He has a say in the matter.
TheEditor wrote: Are we not, though, constrained on all sides as to how to use our bodies? I am constrained in the use of my body in using it to harm others. I am constrained from using my body for any variety of reasons that may violate the rights of others in a free society.
Indeed, we are so constrained. I am affirming that one does not have a right to infringe upon another's body or their lawfully acquired property.
TheEditor wrote: It seems that part of the libertarian philosophy that is troubling (to me at least) is the notion that two people can contract to do whatever they want, as long as some unknown third party is not harmed in the process.
I would suggest that there are any number of things that a decent society should object to, even if the only harm being done is to those in the two-party contract. Disagree?
Indeed, in a libertarian society people wouldn't be prohibited by the State from sinning in the various ways which do not afflict a third party. I don't find this to be particularly troubling, for I don't see any scriptural mandate for believers to do anything about the fact that their neighbor is sinning through forceful/political means. I see the mandate for Christians is that we are to try to pursuade men to follow Christ. If men chose not to follow, it is God himself who will hold them accountable for such sins at such a time and place as He wishes to do so.

In the Old Testament, during the time of the Judges, we see that God held the role of the King and a significant amount of evil doing went unpunished. It was only with His disapproval that an earthly King was established, which replaced the role God had reserved for himself. I am thinking that there is something to be said for returning to a state of affairs such as existed before King Saul.
1 Samuel 8:7 wrote: The LORD said to Samuel, "Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them"
Best Regards,
Peter

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

Post by TheEditor » Wed Mar 12, 2014 8:13 pm

Hi Peter,

I realize that it is not the business of the church to tell the govenment how to govern. But, given my drothers, there are a number of protections afforded by government that I believe are not inherently bad things. For starters, I would rather not go back to the days before child labor laws, the Meat Protection Act or a repeal of the 14th Ammendment (which, idealogically, one could argue that if someone WANTS to be a slave.....)

I guess these are a few areas that I am not likely to want to jettison in favor of a "Judges" era government. Don't really want to volunteer for that concubine dismemberment thing either...... :D

Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

Tychicus
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 2:55 am

Re: Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

Post by Tychicus » Wed Mar 12, 2014 8:26 pm

steve7150 wrote: Re marriage , constitutional law will guide the culture about the definition of a civil marriage but that doesn't mean it's a biblical marriage.
It is clearly true that constitutional law will determine the definition of a civil marriage in our country. It is determined by our legal experts, and at times can be greatly influenced by current political-ideological views.

But this has little to do with a worldwide consensus of what (in general) a marriage is. Only a few years ago there used to be such a consensus: a marriage is a union of a man and a woman who will be responsible for the raising of their offspring.

Marriage laws in our country, until just recently, used to be based on this general understanding, as were marriage laws in virtually every other country. The details could vary, but they all accepted this basic understanding. And the raising of offspring is always a major consideration, which obviously will influence the success of the nation in the generations to come.

There is no worldwide consensus for "gay marriage". It has only come up in one generation (ours), and has a very powerful socio-political ideology behind it. For the most part it is only accepted in parts of the Secular Western culture. It is based more on "individual rights" than on the well-being of children or the potential impact on future generations. And its willingness to use its immense power to pressure others to conform is apparent; just look at the recent Olympics in Russia.

In my view we are being foolish to make this kind of change so quickly. And this has nothing to do with whether you believe the Bible or not.

thrombomodulin
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am

Re: Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

Post by thrombomodulin » Wed Mar 12, 2014 9:58 pm

TheEditor wrote: I realize that it is not the business of the church to tell the govenment how to govern. But, given my drothers, there are a number of protections afforded by government that I believe are not inherently bad things. For starters, I would rather not go back to the days before child labor laws, the Meat Protection Act or a repeal of the 14th Ammendment (which, idealogically, one could argue that if someone WANTS to be a slave.....)

I guess these are a few areas that I am not likely to want to jettison in favor of a "Judges" era government. Don't really want to volunteer for that concubine dismemberment thing either...... :D
There is a lot of ground to cover in the post. Let me begin by saying that I do not favor a notion of lawlessness. Rather, I see law as not something arbitrarily legislated, but rather as something which can be generally recognized or discerned by men, and as something that is immutable. For example, I would consider that fraud, which is pertinent to one of the examples you raised, could easily be recognized by all as a violation of law.

Child Labor Laws: I would favor their repeal, for I see the upbringing of a child as the unalienable right of his parents. It is not inconceivable that a child would be better off working than otherwise (e.g. consider the case of a family at the level of poverty found in a third world country -- it is better work so as to attain the means to eat, than be malnourished but still get an education).

Food Safety: I am in favor of having standards privately defined and observed (e.g. underwriters laboratory), but I see this as an area for the private sector not for government. Every standard has an associated cost, and I think it is best for the free market to work out whether the cost of adopting any standard is worth the benefits attained by following it.

Concubine: Well, the Benjamites did bear a consequence for their sin. This seems fitting as per Genesis 9:6 "Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man". I would like to suggest that the carrying out of such retribution does not necessitate a State, as other persons or institutions are capable of this task (e.g. the next of kin would avenge a murder in the OT).

I haven't given much thought to the 14th amendment, so I'll pass on commenting on this particular unless you feel it is a strong point that I ought to give attention to.


In closing this post, I would like to share a quote, that I am reminded of, which comes from a book called "The Law".
Frederic Bastiat wrote: Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.
Regards,
Peter

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

Post by TheEditor » Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:08 pm

Hi Peter,

I certainly hope you don't feel I am engaging in Socialist-think. Far from it. But I do not believe that market forces work as well as their champion's insist. Take the Meat Act. Teddy Roosevelt was against it, as he was suspicious of the "socialist" leanings of those that proposed the idea. So, he commisioned men to investigate. He was so horrified by what he found, that he became a supporter of it. When ideologies are allowed to run with free reign, there will always be a few very gifted at their use that they will become the ones on top, whether it be a free-market system without regulation; an autocracy without checks or a socialist system that runs amuk. This is a recipe for frustrated masses shedding blood. I cannot see how a return to robber-baron capitalism would not engender more class warfare than the liberals have already ginned-up now.

As for child labor laws; I'm pretty sure that the example you cite was not the catalyst for the laws. I think company stores owning 9-year old boys and entire families, and then pulling up stakes and leaving the residents high and dry was probably more the working model that peaved the ones who crafted the law. But what do I know, I paint houses for a living. :D

Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

thrombomodulin
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am

Re: Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

Post by thrombomodulin » Thu Mar 13, 2014 11:25 am

TheEditor wrote:I certainly hope you don't feel I am engaging in Socialist-think. Far from it. But I do not believe that market forces work as well as their champion's insist.
No, my intent in quoting Bastiat wasn't to say your a socialist. Rather, I quoted it to point out that:

1. I share your view that certain things ought to exist (e.g. Food safety standards as per the meat act).
2. It is not valid to assume that the State is the only entity which can provide various services (e.g. inspection of a food processing business).

I will try to take some time this weekend (or next) reading up on the meat act and child labor so I can reply to your examples from a better informed perspective than what I possess now.

Best Regards,
Peter

Tychicus
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 2:55 am

Re: Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

Post by Tychicus » Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:51 pm

thrombomodulin wrote:It seems to me that the simple recognition that a persons private property is that which truly belongs to himself, and that therefore he has the right to dispose of it as he pleases - even if that involves discrimination - solves this issue [of civil rights]. In saying this, I am following the same line of reasoning as John Locke in his second treatise on civil government. I am not saying this view is right simply because it is the classical understanding, but rather be because it proceeds from the notion that a mans body belongs to himself, and that his body is not in some way partially owned by others.
In your view, who is responsible for a child that is born? Is the child the "property" of the mother, and thus can be disposed of as she pleases? Does the "father" (however you define "father", e.g. by marriage or the genetic father) also own this "property"? Or does the child have civil rights, and thus cannot be disposed of in any way the "owners" choose?

If the child has civil rights, who is responsible for their care? Would you propose that it be by legal contract? For example would you allow a rich man to buy children and bring them up as he sees fit, only requiring him to meet some minimum standard of physical care? Or would you say that the parents have to be responsible? And how would you define "parents"?

How do you think John Locke would have addressed these issues? How would you handle them?

thrombomodulin
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am

Re: Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

Post by thrombomodulin » Sat Mar 15, 2014 11:45 am

Tychicus,

In the part that you quoted, I was speaking in the context of physical property and addressing the situation morbo3000 raised about whether discrimination should be allowed by a merchant who does not sell their flowers to a potential customer because of their sexual orientation. John Locke did not address the topic of the civil rights of children in his First and Second Treatise on Civil Government, but I will express my thoughts about it in response to your question.

In my view the biological parents bear the responsibility for their children. They are accountable to God, rather than other men, for their actions and failure to act in raising a child. The parents may choose to delegate the upbringing of their child to someone else by contract (e.g. adoption). Thus, there is a way for someone else to assume the role of the parent, in part or whole, as per the wishes of the biological parents expressed through the terms they define in such a contract (e.g. the rich man in your example is constrained by the terms specified by the biological parents).

I am not convinced one way or the other whether the anarcho-capitalist or minarchist approach is the correct view of the State. For the most part, I find the former position is easier to defend in principle than the latter. The an-cap position, however, does have a few pragmatic difficulties - it is not by any means a utopia. The questions you have raised are directed at one of the difficulties, so I will proceed to share my thoughts about it. I would appreciate and welcome your feedback on these thoughts. Let us consider the worst case treatment of a child by their parents: The difficulty is who, if anyone, has the responsibility of avenging a child if they are murdered by their parents? If indeed the anarcho-capitalist position is the correct view, then I think a responsibility falls either to the nearest relative (follow the next of kin law fro m the OT), or it falls to no one at all. I would not rule out the possibility that the retribution could be voluntarily undertaken by another person or non-State organization as appears to be permissible by the instructions given in Genesis 9:6. The problem in the an-cap position is that a parent might choose to murder their child, and it could happen that no human being would necessarily have taken it upon themselves to avenge a child's death. In that case, God alone would retain the sole responsibility to bring about the retribution the parents deserve*. This is a valid pragmatic concern.

Though this concern is valid, it does not seem to me to be sufficient grounds to proceed to reject the an-cap perspective. For, one might recognize that parents do have a tendency to love their children, and would generally be inclined for this and other reasons to offer them up for adoption rather than murdering them should hard times arise. Thus, my present assessment is that this would occur infrequently enough that it would not be difficult to argue that the pragmatic problems caused by the existence of a State are of greater magnitude that this particular difficulty (e.g. loss of life in wars).

Peter

*To some degree any system of government involves this already, for some mothers are able to succeed in secretly ending a pregnancy in the very early stages, and no one has knowledge of its occurrence. Thus retribution for their sin does will occur through God alone, not through other human beings.

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

Post by TheEditor » Sat Mar 15, 2014 12:54 pm

Hi Peter,

Pardon me for being blunt, but this is at best, Polyanna thinking. A cursory look at human history would show that such disposing of children would be, though not common-place, common enough to cause real problems. This undersocres precisely my objection to these philosophies. It's not the philosophies per-se, but rather the inevitable outcome of their application.

Also, I do admit to finding it a bit amusing that you offer: "I would not rule out the possibility that the retribution could be voluntarily undertaken by another person or non-State organization". So, by your lights, if the avenging organization were "non-State", then it would be appropriate, but if it is a "State" avenging, it's not? It seems an awfully big stretch.

Plus, you keep referenceing OT principles and the era of the Judges, etc. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Iraelites have a unique position with God? Didn't they, in essence, say to God, "Okay, we'll live like you say, and You will bless us. If we don't, You can curse us"? And, in that arrangment, doesn't that assume God will act when humans fail to? We don't have such luxuries today as being able to march around cities and have them fall down and go boom.

Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

Post Reply

Return to “Teachers, Authors, and Movements”