tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post4416772162841888032..comments2024-02-19T07:24:42.397-08:00Comments on Anglican Curmudgeon: Jesus and the Sinful Tax CollectorsA. S. Haleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-24957039079515083842008-08-19T21:35:00.000-07:002008-08-19T21:35:00.000-07:00Thank you, TU&D, for visiting and for your com...Thank you, TU&D, for visiting and for your comments. You are quite correct---in the link in my post to the text of the NET Bible for the passage from John to which you refer, there is a substantive note explaining that the verses from John 7:53 to 8:11 are "not contained in the earliest and best manuscripts," and that goes on to give in much greater detail the reasons for regarding the passage as a later addition. Be that as it may, Jesus' words to the woman simply echo his words to the Pharisees in the two passages I quote in the post, <B>Mt</B>9:13 and <B>Lk</B>5:32: Jesus calls sinners to <I>repentance.</I> So I do not think the citation to John 8:11 undercuts the main argument (and with your knowledge of the texts, I am sure you already realized that). It is always good, however, to have clarity about what the Bible says and does not say---so once again, I thank you for your contribution here to that clarity.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-1045322468937516102008-08-19T17:26:00.000-07:002008-08-19T17:26:00.000-07:00Dear Anglican Curmudgeon,Much, much thanks for a m...Dear Anglican Curmudgeon,<BR/><BR/>Much, much thanks for a most excellent post!<BR/><BR/><I>"He said it plainly to the woman whom he saved from stoning: "Go, and sin no more."</I><BR/><BR/>Just a minor technical observation. That short passage in the Bible is under some dispute as to whether it actually belonged in the original autographs.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-90098317454637037912008-08-17T08:48:00.000-07:002008-08-17T08:48:00.000-07:00I think this all becomes a little clearer if we al...I think this all becomes a little clearer if we also consider that once one engages in self-serving self-deception, it becomes that little bit easier to become self-servingly deceptive to others. And I mean this not solely because one then relies on the self-deceptively adopted false conclusion, but because one also has in the first instance lowered one's standards of truthfulness to be applied in subsequent instances.<BR/><BR/>What I am suggesting is that, as an example, being unable to recall a time when I was (a) sexually aware, and (b) sexually attracted specifically to members of my own gender, I then conclude that God has instantiated me as a person defined in part by homosexual orientation. The conclusion does not follow, irrespective of any other first premises I may have relied on. For me to rely in that conclusion is to adopt flawed logic. But once I have done so, I now have (a) a premise on which I can base an argument for the blessedness of my state, and (b) the laxity of adherence to logic and logical truth necessary to use that argument to support whatever other conclusions serve my personal interest.<BR/><BR/>Honesty, however painful to the self, is really the best policy, not because it will necessarily get me what I may desire, but it will get me what I need, namely, to the truth.<BR/><BR/>Blessings and regardsMartial Artisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06263275204186256135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-91870302658186820252008-08-16T11:07:00.000-07:002008-08-16T11:07:00.000-07:00A P.S. to my previous comment, Perpetua. The Angli...A P.S. to my previous comment, Perpetua. <A HREF="http://anglicanscotist.blogspot.com/2008/08/post-lambeth-this-is-going-to-take-alot.html#c8075377092333998996" REL="nofollow">The Anglican Scotist</A> thinks he has constructed an airtight argument in favor of Biblical sanction for same-sex relationships, but he---a philosopher, to boot---has succumbed to the same error of category confusion. Can you spot it? (It occurs between steps 4 and 5.)A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-11413933211109451992008-08-16T10:59:00.000-07:002008-08-16T10:59:00.000-07:00So to argue would be another clear confusion of ca...So to argue would be another clear confusion of categories, Perpetua. Paying one's taxes to the state is an obligation imposed by law; extorting money on top of what is legitimately owed is a violation of the law.<BR/><BR/>But same-sex relations are a voluntary choice, not a State-imposed obligation. There is really no parallel to be drawn there at all. In advising people to pay their taxes, Jesus was doing nothing more radical than urging people to obey the law. The fact that He did not advise people to enter into healthy, wholesome and monogamous same-sex relationships is actually consistent with what the Old Testament says against homosexual practice, and cannot be used to argue that therefore he must have approved of such relationships. Otherwise, you could argue that because he didn't say anything against bigamy (or whatever other practice you want to substitute for which we don't have a saying of Jesus), he must have been in favor of it. The argument from silence always proves too much, or as we lawyers like to say: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-71282232311253013482008-08-16T09:29:00.000-07:002008-08-16T09:29:00.000-07:00The Bible History site citation you provide says ...The Bible History site citation you provide says "He [Jesus] never taught that there was anything inherently wrong with paying tribute to the Roman Government or collecting the tax. He was opposed to extortioners ..."<BR/><BR/>I guess the progressives would argue that the parallel is that "The Bible doesn't teach that there is anything inherently wrong with same sex relations. The Bible is opposed to sexual abuse (extreme inhospitality) and promiscuity."<BR/><BR/>How should we respond to that?Perpetuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16632860530530786486noreply@blogger.com