I'd like to see the comments of theists and atheists alike about this column that just came out concerning Erica Brown, the daughter of my DUCY coauthor Alan Schoonmaker.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/op...=2&ref=opinion

I am not sure what you are looking for. It was obviously a favorable article. I know nothing about Erica Brown, but based on the article I was impressed.

Sounds like she is good at what she does...... no problem with that.

But eternal life has nothing to do with being good at doing the old testament law. It has everything to do with believing in Jesus Christ who is the end of the law, who fulfilled all the old testament law and ushered in a new time, a new administration, the Grace administration.

I think these two comments from readers of the column capture my reaction reasonably enough.

She offers a path out of the tyranny of the perpetually open mind by presenting authoritative traditions and teachings

The easy way out. Sells itself to many, all you need is the right packaging.

I'm not a big fan of the hard-ass approach, but I'm not a fan of the limp-dick approach either. And most every approach seems to be one or the other.

I like to stand off to the side and watch everybody have at it.

Yeah, a hard ass and a limp dick don't go well together.

They do if you want to avoid OT wrath.

David maybe you should take one of her classes.

There really is not much as far as RGT content goes outside of brief mentions of teachings from the bible/torah, and without any specific examples it is difficult to comment on that. That limits my reaction to 'he wants to come across as if she impressed him' although to be perfectly honest, he has not quite sold me. It reads more as if he wants people to think he was impressed rather than that he actually was.

She (kind of) had me up until the Late Seat. Wonder what would happen if someone just refused to sit in it.

Have them leave the class, I suppose.

"it is necessary to expose a friend’s adultery because his marriage is more important than your friendship."

Then why risk destroying his marriage?

It was destroyed the moment extra-marital lust entered the picture.

I'm not sure how serious of an inquiry this is...

I'd sit in it and try to usurp her authority. Never give the problem student extra attention, folks. Unless you're positive they don't have any chutzpah.

I'm not sure how serious the responses are.

You guys really can't envision a stable marriage that includes cheating? Sometimes I wonder what world people are living in.

Though, if you're smart you don't blab to your ultra-religious mutual acquaintances in the first place.

I think he means if their continued marriage is more important to you then telling her is not an ldo answer.

It depends on what the personal/cultural expectations for marriage are. And I would say that if the personal/cultural expectations allow for "cheating" then it's really not "cheating."

+1

I have been forced to the front of the class many o' times in my day, and it never worked out well for the teacher.

This is awfully vague.

Personal: Husband doesn't give a **** or treat his wife differently, doesn't get caught.

Cultural: Italy or South America.

Do these qualify as not "cheating?"

I agree with Steve Buscemi's character in that "I Think I Love My Wife" movie, if that's what you mean.

Culture is not inherent to a geography, but a people group. So you might already be understanding it differently.

Personal is really more intra-personal. One would only feel a moral compulsion to "expose a friend's adultery" if such an action is a violation of the expectations of the marriage (intra-personal). If the couple had agreed that their marriage does not include an expectation of sexual fidelity, then it's not "cheating" and informing the friend about the adultery would not constitute anything more than an informational item like "I saw your wife at the store today."

And it may be that the intra-personal agreements of a particular marriage violate the cultural expectations, which is why I included both as considerations. One can imagine existing in some sort of culture in which this type of behavior is condoned, in which case it's once again a non-issue.

But the fact that one would feel some sort of moral dilemma already implies that such a behavior is a violation of the expectation. So it's not some sort of lack of imagination that's involved, but rather dealing with the situation in the confines of the dilemma being presented.

I do not understand this reference, but if it's not important then it doesn't matter.

Italian Italians aren't the same people group as, say, Italian Americans. "South America" was awfully broad, but seems to hold based on my experience.

Are you saying intrapersonal or interpersonal? The context seems to say the latter.

The point is that the logic used here (utility for the marriage) doesn't justify the conclusion (revealing the cheating). Principle is irrelevant here, the logic provided is based on outcomes.

I told you why years ago. The only time someone shouldn't be told is if it is clear they would not want to be told. Otherwise keeping silent means that you are depriving someone the opportunity to make a choice that they won't make if they don't have all the information. (I realize that my argument is probably a different one than Erica Brown's.)