Of course not. But if the Bible is to have any relevency today, we must separate the message of Scripture from the anti-scientific, superstitious, nonsense worldview of the First Century. That means letting go of the creation myth, of the ingrained prejudices, of the notion of strict literalism.
It also means examining situations that existed in those times and comparing them to what exist today. If there is no direct equivalency of situation, then we should not presume equivalency of condemnation or position.
Quote:
Paul was a product of The Law, which is even less ambivalent about homosexual relations.
The Law is moot.
Quote:
As for reading into the Bible whatever you think is reasonable, you aren't being internally consistant with the principles of a revelation-based God.
I disagree. By demanding literalism or that 21st Century Christians assume a 1st Century worldview that is filled with homophobia, superstition, misogyny and anti-Semitism is to render the BIble a dead and worthless document. The Bible must be reinterpreted to fit our times and our knowledge, or it is no use as a guide to us in the modern age.
My priest has a doctorate in Biblical studies, and I'm not saying anything he wouldn't agree with.
Kirkland, that statement is pretty odd given your exegetical leanings. First you have to establish that "The Law" (and what it really means to have a God who deals in terms of His creation in terms of a lawgiver) to have any relevance whatever. Second, you have to be able to take Paul at his word in terms of his rigorous education when he makes that statement, which feeds back on the validity of "The Law" in the first place.
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkland
......Why should I take your opinion over his?
Kirk
More or less, because your preist is providing you a religion that is no better than Gnosticism, with a God who either lies and decieves or has just plain left you alone.
How do this mesh a Barthian approach with your conception of the Chain of Being, the Resurrection, or Trinitarian doctrine? Once you start filtering what claims to be revelation, wouldn't that interfere with what it claims to be?
Damn I wish I could start an atheist colony on Mars for me to join.
Actually I'm not anti-god so much as anti-people-blinded-by-their-religions.
Ah yes, create a "city on the hill" on Mars, separating yourself from those blind or corrupt. Sounds a bit like the Puritans. I too would like to do what you say but for the irony of it all!
Kirkland, that statement is pretty odd given your exegetical leanings. First you have to establish that "The Law" (and what it really means to have a God who deals in terms of His creation in terms of a lawgiver) to have any relevance whatever.
Establish that "the Law" to have any relevance whatever?
That's not even remotely in English.
Quote:
Second, you have to be able to take Paul at his word in terms of his rigorous education when he makes that statement, which feeds back on the validity of "The Law" in the first place.
I don't for a moment doubt Paul's education. But why should I care what a long-dead Pharisee with a pre-scientific view of the world thought about homosexuality or women?
Quote:
More or less, because your preist is providing you a religion that is no better than Gnosticism, with a God who either lies and decieves or has just plain left you alone.
Thank you so much for insulting one of the finest men I know. And one of the few really true Christians I've ever encountered.
And Gnosticism was not a religion with a God who lies or deceives, but a religion much like the Scientology cult, with levels of revelation that only after paying certain dues or serving certain functions could one access.
Quote:
How do this mesh a Barthian approach with your conception of the Chain of Being, the Resurrection, or Trinitarian doctrine? Once you start filtering what claims to be revelation, wouldn't that interfere with what it claims to be?
The Bible is a collection of stories, and just stories. Written by human beings who may have been moved to write by an encounter with the divine, but they were not stenographers for Yahweh. They wrote from their own prejudices, with their own limited knowledge, and it shows in their works, which are sometimes laughably inaccurate in matters historical, factual, sociological, scientific, medical and psychological, to name but a few areas.
We must read any Scripture through a lens which filters out that which must be rejected as the ignorant worldview of the writers. You can't just pick up a Bible, read the words, take them at surface value, and come away with anything worthwhile. The Bible must be translated into modern times, which means leaving behind a lot of the bigoted detritus of the violent and uncivilized and uninformed eras which birthed it.
Doctrines like the Trinity shine through still ? though the Trinity is grounded more in Christian Tradition and Reason, not in Scripture.
The Resurrection is a unique issue to ponder. Clearly something magnificent impacted the lives of Christ's first followers after the three days, but the reports of the Bible are muddled. It seems unlikely, even from the Biblical text, that it was merely the physical resuscitation of his corpse, which some folks portray it as. Jesus is described as appearing differently, walking through walls, sometimes having physical presence. Paul makes no differentiation between his personal experience with the risen Jesus, which was totally non-physical and utterly spiritual, and the experiences of the Apostles between Easter and Pentecost. Paul also makes no distinction between Resurrection and Ascension, and Mark, the earliest Gospel, actually ended originally at 16:8, and thus included no Resurrection appearances.
Whatever it was that the first Christian encountered, it wasn?t as simple as moves like The Passion attempt to portray.
And until today I?d never heard of the chain of being. A quick look makes it appear to be a stupid attempt to create a diagram of the ?hierarchy? of beings in creation. Yawn. What do I care for such things?
But, frankly, the Bible is pretty much secondary. Christianity is not a book religion, and never has been. You could burn every Bible in the world, and Christianity could continue along just fine.
many great posts by Christians on these boards have a definite spirit . . . and yet they seem so far from what I loath as 'Christianity' and what usually passes as the stuff
He accused him of teaching heresy, which is a fairly insulting charge to level at any respected, intelligent, articulate member of the clergy.
Kirk
Wait, with all due respect to you and your priest, how are we suppose to have a theological debate if saying someone's wrong is going to be interpreted as an insult?
That's Kirk's strategy of debating. If someone disagrees with you they are insulting you or they hate you. It's the "I'm a victim." strategy, and people use it when they don't have anything else to fall back on.
If we're going to be citing Biblical Law with reference to marriage, here are some proposed Constitutional amendments which should be adopted forthwith for the sake of consistency and to avoid plainly justified claims of fundamentalist Christians as being hate-filled bigots who use to their Book to justify their fear and repression. dmz, take note: you clearly take your Bible seriously, so here's Chapter and Verse for you.
1. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)
2. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines, in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)
3. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If she is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)
4. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:109; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30
5. Since marriage is for life, neither this constitution nor the constitution of any State shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
6. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall either be slain or pay a fine of one shoe. (Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
Aaaand there's more. I'd like to draw your attention to Deuteronomy, 25:22-27.
When oh when is Bush going to press for an amendment to the Constitution to mandate the death penalty for adultery or infidelity by engaged couples?
Verse 22 quite clearly says that if any man "lies with the wife of another man" both of them shall be executed. If a man has sex inside a city, with a virgin who happens to be engaged to someone else, they must be taken out of the city and stoned to death.
(It's not all bad, though: Verse 25 makes it clear that if the man has his way with a virgin fiancee in the open country he's the only one that should die - no one would have heard her cries for help.)
Anyway, there's clearly not enough hate and fear in the American Constitution, and adopting these measure might go some way to redressing the balance.
(Could someone copy and paste these posts please? dmz has me on 'ignore'.)
If we're going to be citing Biblical Law with reference to marriage, here are some proposed Constitutional amendments which should be adopted forthwith for the sake of consistency and to avoid plainly justified claims of fundamentalist Christians as being hate-filled bigots who use to their Book to justify their fear and repression. dmz, take note: you clearly take your Bible seriously, so here's Chapter and Verse for you.
1. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)
2. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines, in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)
3. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If she is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)
4. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:109; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30
5. Since marriage is for life, neither this constitution nor the constitution of any State shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
6. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall either be slain or pay a fine of one shoe. (Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
Aaaand there's more. I'd like to draw your attention to Deuteronomy, 25:22-27.
When oh when is Bush going to press for an amendment to the Constitution to mandate the death penalty for adultery or infidelity by engaged couples?
Verse 22 quite clearly says that if any man "lies with the wife of another man" both of them shall be executed. If a man has sex inside a city, with a virgin who happens to be engaged to someone else, they must be taken out of the city and stoned to death.
(It's not all bad, though: Verse 25 makes it clear that if the man has his way with a virgin fiancee in the open country he's the only one that should die - no one would have heard her cries for help.)
Anyway, there's clearly not enough hate and fear in the American Constitution, and adopting these measure might go some way to redressing the balance.
I have a Christian friend who responds to that argument by saying Old Testament law is not treated the same or something.
And homosexuality is condemned in Romans and some other New Testament book, are two examples he gave me. I don't remember what they were exactly, but I checked them.
I mean, just to be fair. I am definitely no fan of Judeo-Christianity.
Wait, with all due respect to you and your priest, how are we suppose to have a theological debate if saying someone's wrong is going to be interpreted as an insult?
It is one thing to disagree. It is something else entirely to accuse someone of teaching heresy, much less Gnosticism, the oldest and most pernicious of early Christian heresies.
I don't care about disagreeing, but all dmz did was point a finger and scream "Gnosticism!" which is not the same thing.
Comments
Originally posted by dmz
You can't separate Paul from his background.
Of course not. But if the Bible is to have any relevency today, we must separate the message of Scripture from the anti-scientific, superstitious, nonsense worldview of the First Century. That means letting go of the creation myth, of the ingrained prejudices, of the notion of strict literalism.
It also means examining situations that existed in those times and comparing them to what exist today. If there is no direct equivalency of situation, then we should not presume equivalency of condemnation or position.
Paul was a product of The Law, which is even less ambivalent about homosexual relations.
The Law is moot.
As for reading into the Bible whatever you think is reasonable, you aren't being internally consistant with the principles of a revelation-based God.
I disagree. By demanding literalism or that 21st Century Christians assume a 1st Century worldview that is filled with homophobia, superstition, misogyny and anti-Semitism is to render the BIble a dead and worthless document. The Bible must be reinterpreted to fit our times and our knowledge, or it is no use as a guide to us in the modern age.
My priest has a doctorate in Biblical studies, and I'm not saying anything he wouldn't agree with.
Why should I take your opinion over his?
Kirk
Originally posted by Kirkland
The Law is moot.
Kirkland, that statement is pretty odd given your exegetical leanings. First you have to establish that "The Law" (and what it really means to have a God who deals in terms of His creation in terms of a lawgiver) to have any relevance whatever. Second, you have to be able to take Paul at his word in terms of his rigorous education when he makes that statement, which feeds back on the validity of "The Law" in the first place.
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkland
......Why should I take your opinion over his?
Kirk
More or less, because your preist is providing you a religion that is no better than Gnosticism, with a God who either lies and decieves or has just plain left you alone.
How do this mesh a Barthian approach with your conception of the Chain of Being, the Resurrection, or Trinitarian doctrine? Once you start filtering what claims to be revelation, wouldn't that interfere with what it claims to be?
Originally posted by johnq
Yawn.
It's 2004 not 36.
Damn I wish I could start an atheist colony on Mars for me to join.
Actually I'm not anti-god so much as anti-people-blinded-by-their-religions.
Ah yes, create a "city on the hill" on Mars, separating yourself from those blind or corrupt. Sounds a bit like the Puritans. I too would like to do what you say but for the irony of it all!
I prefer Antarctica. Mars is too extreme.
Originally posted by dmz
Kirkland, that statement is pretty odd given your exegetical leanings. First you have to establish that "The Law" (and what it really means to have a God who deals in terms of His creation in terms of a lawgiver) to have any relevance whatever.
Establish that "the Law" to have any relevance whatever?
That's not even remotely in English.
Second, you have to be able to take Paul at his word in terms of his rigorous education when he makes that statement, which feeds back on the validity of "The Law" in the first place.
I don't for a moment doubt Paul's education. But why should I care what a long-dead Pharisee with a pre-scientific view of the world thought about homosexuality or women?
More or less, because your preist is providing you a religion that is no better than Gnosticism, with a God who either lies and decieves or has just plain left you alone.
Thank you so much for insulting one of the finest men I know. And one of the few really true Christians I've ever encountered.
And Gnosticism was not a religion with a God who lies or deceives, but a religion much like the Scientology cult, with levels of revelation that only after paying certain dues or serving certain functions could one access.
How do this mesh a Barthian approach with your conception of the Chain of Being, the Resurrection, or Trinitarian doctrine? Once you start filtering what claims to be revelation, wouldn't that interfere with what it claims to be?
The Bible is a collection of stories, and just stories. Written by human beings who may have been moved to write by an encounter with the divine, but they were not stenographers for Yahweh. They wrote from their own prejudices, with their own limited knowledge, and it shows in their works, which are sometimes laughably inaccurate in matters historical, factual, sociological, scientific, medical and psychological, to name but a few areas.
We must read any Scripture through a lens which filters out that which must be rejected as the ignorant worldview of the writers. You can't just pick up a Bible, read the words, take them at surface value, and come away with anything worthwhile. The Bible must be translated into modern times, which means leaving behind a lot of the bigoted detritus of the violent and uncivilized and uninformed eras which birthed it.
Doctrines like the Trinity shine through still ? though the Trinity is grounded more in Christian Tradition and Reason, not in Scripture.
The Resurrection is a unique issue to ponder. Clearly something magnificent impacted the lives of Christ's first followers after the three days, but the reports of the Bible are muddled. It seems unlikely, even from the Biblical text, that it was merely the physical resuscitation of his corpse, which some folks portray it as. Jesus is described as appearing differently, walking through walls, sometimes having physical presence. Paul makes no differentiation between his personal experience with the risen Jesus, which was totally non-physical and utterly spiritual, and the experiences of the Apostles between Easter and Pentecost. Paul also makes no distinction between Resurrection and Ascension, and Mark, the earliest Gospel, actually ended originally at 16:8, and thus included no Resurrection appearances.
Whatever it was that the first Christian encountered, it wasn?t as simple as moves like The Passion attempt to portray.
And until today I?d never heard of the chain of being. A quick look makes it appear to be a stupid attempt to create a diagram of the ?hierarchy? of beings in creation. Yawn. What do I care for such things?
But, frankly, the Bible is pretty much secondary. Christianity is not a book religion, and never has been. You could burn every Bible in the world, and Christianity could continue along just fine.
Kirk
Originally posted by Kirkland
You could burn every Bible in the world, and Christianity could continue along just fine.
But then the religious leaders wouldn't have anything to drill into the minds of sheep that flock into their processing centers every Sunday.
many great posts by Christians on these boards have a definite spirit . . . and yet they seem so far from what I loath as 'Christianity' and what usually passes as the stuff
in other words . . . good post
[reffering to Kirk's post]
Originally posted by pfflam
[reffering to Kirk's post]
But mine wasn't moving?
I try so hard.
Originally posted by Kirkland
Thank you so much for insulting one of the finest men I know. And one of the few really true Christians I've ever encountered.
Unless he edited his post or sent you a PM, dmz didn't insult your priest and friend, he just said that the guy's wrong.
Originally posted by Whisper
Unless he edited his post or sent you a PM, dmz didn't insult your priest and friend, he just said that the guy's wrong.
He accused him of teaching heresy, which is a fairly insulting charge to level at any respected, intelligent, articulate member of the clergy.
Kirk
Originally posted by Kirkland
He accused him of teaching heresy, which is a fairly insulting charge to level at any respected, intelligent, articulate member of the clergy.
Kirk
Wait, with all due respect to you and your priest, how are we suppose to have a theological debate if saying someone's wrong is going to be interpreted as an insult?
1. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)
2. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines, in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)
3. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If she is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)
4. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:109; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30
5. Since marriage is for life, neither this constitution nor the constitution of any State shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
6. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall either be slain or pay a fine of one shoe. (Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
When oh when is Bush going to press for an amendment to the Constitution to mandate the death penalty for adultery or infidelity by engaged couples?
Verse 22 quite clearly says that if any man "lies with the wife of another man" both of them shall be executed. If a man has sex inside a city, with a virgin who happens to be engaged to someone else, they must be taken out of the city and stoned to death.
(It's not all bad, though: Verse 25 makes it clear that if the man has his way with a virgin fiancee in the open country he's the only one that should die - no one would have heard her cries for help.)
Anyway, there's clearly not enough hate and fear in the American Constitution, and adopting these measure might go some way to redressing the balance.
(Could someone copy and paste these posts please? dmz has me on 'ignore'.)
Hassan i Sabbah
If we're going to be citing Biblical Law with reference to marriage, here are some proposed Constitutional amendments which should be adopted forthwith for the sake of consistency and to avoid plainly justified claims of fundamentalist Christians as being hate-filled bigots who use to their Book to justify their fear and repression. dmz, take note: you clearly take your Bible seriously, so here's Chapter and Verse for you.
1. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)
2. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines, in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)
3. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If she is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)
4. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:109; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30
5. Since marriage is for life, neither this constitution nor the constitution of any State shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
6. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall either be slain or pay a fine of one shoe. (Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
Aaaand there's more. I'd like to draw your attention to Deuteronomy, 25:22-27.
When oh when is Bush going to press for an amendment to the Constitution to mandate the death penalty for adultery or infidelity by engaged couples?
Verse 22 quite clearly says that if any man "lies with the wife of another man" both of them shall be executed. If a man has sex inside a city, with a virgin who happens to be engaged to someone else, they must be taken out of the city and stoned to death.
(It's not all bad, though: Verse 25 makes it clear that if the man has his way with a virgin fiancee in the open country he's the only one that should die - no one would have heard her cries for help.)
Anyway, there's clearly not enough hate and fear in the American Constitution, and adopting these measure might go some way to redressing the balance.
If I'm not mistaken, that's all Old Testament.
Originally posted by Ganondorf
If I'm not mistaken, that's all Old Testament.
That's right. Does that make a difference? That's the bit before God went "Oops, sorry, my bad, it's OK to fall in love whoever you like", right?
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Affirmed. That's still the Bible, no?
I have a Christian friend who responds to that argument by saying Old Testament law is not treated the same or something.
And homosexuality is condemned in Romans and some other New Testament book, are two examples he gave me. I don't remember what they were exactly, but I checked them.
I mean, just to be fair. I am definitely no fan of Judeo-Christianity.
Or dmz, perhaps.
Originally posted by Whisper
Wait, with all due respect to you and your priest, how are we suppose to have a theological debate if saying someone's wrong is going to be interpreted as an insult?
It is one thing to disagree. It is something else entirely to accuse someone of teaching heresy, much less Gnosticism, the oldest and most pernicious of early Christian heresies.
I don't care about disagreeing, but all dmz did was point a finger and scream "Gnosticism!" which is not the same thing.
Kirk