Of all the pathetic excuses legalistic Christians try to appeal to when someone does not bow to their extra-Biblical demands of others, there is one that leaps beyond epistemological and Biblical errors (since they must pretend to "know" that something is Biblically required when the Bible does not say it). Legalists might assume that the motives of anyone who pushes back against or rejects their arbitrary whims is only trying to sin and make themselves feel or believe they are somehow justified in doing this. Instead of addressing the actual crux of the matter--whether conscience or tradition have any epistemological or metaphysical value and whether the Bible actually condemns or permits something--this type of legalist will slanderously attack someone's motives. One of several key errors here is the idea that everyone who knows or even blindly believes that something is not sinful does not always want to partake in it.
Not everyone who realizes the Bible does not condemn alcohol (directly or indirectly) and understands Deuteronomy 4:2 actually drinks or even wants to drink alcohol--this is for some reason one of the less controversial examples that could be given, yet it remains controversial some evangelical churches all the same. Not everyone who realizes that profanity is Biblically nonsinful actually uses or wants to use profanity, despite knowing it is objectively not evil on the real Christian worldview as opposed to the asinine misconceptions of it that are popular inside and outside of the church. It does not logically follow from perfectly understanding the permissibility of something in a certain worldview, whether or not there is proof of or evidence for that worldview, that everyone who embraces that ideological system will do everything that is permissible therein.
Other examples could be given. Not everyone who knows that masturbation is Biblically nonsinful will actually perform the action. Perhaps they think they would become addicted to it, or they have no interest at all. They might have interest but be distracted or more concerned with other activities and thus by happenstance not devote time to enjoying an act that is not at all sinful in itself according to the Bible (even when paired with mental imagery, thoughts or images of people of the opposite gender, and so on). In addition to this, someone might fully realize the nonsinful nature of seeing sexual or nonsexual nudity in entertainment but, without making any philosophical assumptions or contradicting the truth, not be personally comfortable with viewing such a thing.
This does not mean that abstaining from everything that is nonsinful by Biblical standards is always nonsinful. For instance, refusing to have friendships with one gender or the other or with people of certain nationalities or skin colors is sinful because this is illicit discrimination disregarding the Biblical doctrine that everyone bears God's image, having the same moral rights and obligations. It is nonsinful to have close friends of the opposite gender or to bond deeply with people of other skin colors, to name some examples, but it would be hypocrisy to discriminate against entire groups of people by intentionally avoiding them or failing to interact with them as if they are fellow humans.
It is just demonstrably true that it does not follow from something being nonsinful that everyone wants to do it or, even if they would like to, that they really engage in those activities. A belief to the contrary might be in mind when an evangelical tries in vain to think of a rational and Biblical objection to something like profanity or basic erotic media: they might erroneously say that "The only reason you think that activity is not sinful is because you want to do it!" In reality, they are the deluded fool, desperate to contradict their own supposed worldview for the sake of conformity with unbiblical traditions or mere subjective preferences. Legalism is every single one of its forms, from the smallest and least clear condemnation of something nonsinful (or prescription of that which is not obligatory) to the most extreme, destructive kind, is only emotionalism or cultural norms confused for Biblical demands.
No comments:
Post a Comment