Distributed Mind

Ok, well, I guess we should have some diversity anyway, so here is a (short) religious post for you all.

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding in the (Christian) church today. Frequently, I have heard people ask questions in the form of, "Is it alright for me to ...?" Often the question comes from good intentions, and sometimes it is even a good question, but much of the time it misses it mark. Paul wrote to the church in Corinth (part of which was stuck on the idea evidently that being set free from the law meant they could do whatever they wanted),

"Everything is lawful," but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is lawful," but not everything builds others up. (I Corinthians 10:23, NET)

The real question should be "Is this beneficial?" This frequently will give us a much better idea I think.

And I hope non-Chrisitan readers can see the first idea is much more prone to lead the legalism of which the church is so often accused, but it is the second idea which is actually applied in the Bible itself. Which is not to imply that a careful application of this principle may not occasionally make us look more legalistic in one sense (for example, imagine what would happen to television watching if we actually tried this) and indeed it does broaden the definition of sin, but I think there is a crucial difference in motivation, and there is less occasion to condemn another, but rather to guide them into a better way of doing things. (I should point out that there are still some things in Christianity presented with clear boundaries, e.g. sexual immorality, where Paul and others frequently do condemn persons for practicing, but there are many things that are somewhere in the middle. And even things that are clearly sins, I think the idea that they are not benedicial often gives us a clue to why these are not good things.)