#241257 - 15/11/2004 14:29
Now that we're all clear on the evils of homosexuality...
|
addict
Registered: 23/09/2000
Posts: 498
Loc: Virginia, USA
|
Dear President Bush,
Congratulations on your election victory and for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose and support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. As you said "in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man a woman." I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.
However, I do need some advice from you regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how best to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - ev.15:19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev.11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#241258 - 15/11/2004 15:17
Re: Now that we're all clear on the evils of homosexuality...
[Re: Dylan]
|
addict
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 510
Loc: NY
|
Um, that's the old testament. It only counts when it's convenient.
_________________________
Heather
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." -Susan B Anthony
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#241259 - 15/11/2004 15:17
Re: Now that we're all clear on the evils of homosexuality...
[Re: Dylan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
I don’t know of anyone who’s even suggested applying the OT law to US citizens. You seem to suggest that Bush is doing so with regards to the issue of homosexuality, but he isn’t. He might be taking the principle of homosexual acts being sin from the OT, but he’s certainly not advocating homosexuals be put to death. So to claim we should be following the rest of the OT law explicitly is a false correlation. If Bush were advocating a death sentence for homosexuals then the above questions might have some merit. But he isn’t even talking about making homosexual acts illegal- only defining the question of what marriage is and what it isn’t. Even at that, I’ve not heard Bush say that the amendment is supposed to defend the bible’s stance on homosexuality. What I HAVE heard is that it should defend the people of the US’s view of marriage (which may or may not be derived from the bible and the OT).
I should mention as an afterthought that the reason no one advocates the US following the OT law is because it was given to a specific people (the Israelites) for a specific purpose (to reveal God to the world through His chosen people). Though underlying principles can be derived from the law, it was not intended as a blueprint for all societies.
Once again, let me say that I am not in favor of the amendment; I’m just trying to point out the fallacy in the above argument.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#241260 - 15/11/2004 15:27
Re: Now that we're all clear on the evils of homosexuality...
[Re: Dylan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31600
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Dylan, you did see the other threads where this letter was mentioned in reference to the West Wing episode that paraphrased it, right?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#241261 - 15/11/2004 16:08
Re: Now that we're all clear on the evils of homosexuality...
[Re: JeffS]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 13/09/1999
Posts: 2401
Loc: Croatia
|
Quote:
What I HAVE heard is that it should defend the people of the US’s view of marriage (which may or may not be derived from the bible and the OT).
What would be other candidates for source of such a view (especially since (I think) we have already established elsewhere that the difference between marriage and civil union is a religious or spiritual one)?
I understand your reasoning (to a certain extent) about the source and purpose of many rules in OT not even wildest of present evangelists think about trying to promote. But, most of 'supporters of moral values' do cherry-picking among them (as Heather noticed). Don't you think that OT law either should or should not be invoked uniformly when discussing modern day morality, and especially modern day law?
Quote:
Though underlying principles can be derived from the law [...]
Forgive me for repeating myself, but what underlying principles can be derived from the law banning two different kinds of crops side by side, or cloth from two different kinds of thread? On the other extreme, how about enslaving neighboring nations? Does that mean that it is still OK for one nation to consider itself above the other? OK, let's say that it was 'authorised' for 'greater good' of spreading the faith. When does such 'temporary license' expire? What about selling one's daughter?
Again, I don't intend disrespect for your beliefs. I am genuinely puzzled, and you are one of very few persons who were willing and able to provide some insight into this, for me so strange, worldview.
_________________________
Dragi "Bonzi" Raos
Q#5196
MkII #080000376, 18GB green
MkIIa #040103247, 60GB blue
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#241262 - 15/11/2004 16:38
Re: Now that we're all clear on the evils of homosexuality...
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 12/11/2001
Posts: 7738
Loc: Toronto, CANADA
|
I guess I'm too simple, because I just thought it was funny.  Bruno
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#241263 - 15/11/2004 16:56
Re: Now that we're all clear on the evils of homosexuality...
[Re: bonzi]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
Don't you think that OT law either should or should not be invoked uniformly when discussing modern day morality, and especially modern day law?
Depends on what you mean by “should”. I think the law ultimately reflects the will of the people, and they can decide for themselves the source of that will. In that sense there’s nothing in law that requires that people “should” invoke anything with uniformity. However, in the sense that on a personal level we should try to be consistent with our rational I agree. To that end, what I take from the OT law are the principles behind them. The context of a theocracy may not make sense to us, but God is not changing and those things He was trying to communicate to the Israelites are still important today. However, you have to be careful because there is a HUGE context here, including culture, history, and the specific part of God’s plan the Israelites played.
Quote:
Forgive me for repeating myself, but what underlying principles can be derived from the law banning two different kinds of crops side by side, or cloth from two different kinds of thread?
I regret not researching this further, but if the intent here was to emphasize the identity of the Israelites as set apart and special to God, the principle here would be for Christians to remember that we are to live not according to the principles of this world, but as a people set apart to a different standard.
Quote:
On the other extreme, how about enslaving neighboring nations? Does that mean that it is still OK for one nation to consider itself above the other?
This is getting into the “culture of the times stuff”. I have a lot to learn in that area, but I do know it was a barbaric time with nations routinely invading and enslaving one another. There’s a lot to be said here, but I don’t believe God was condoning slavery as an institution, but giving guidelines about how to work within the current culture. The “take away” principal here, I think, was not so much about the institution of slavery as holding to the identify of the Israelite nation as set apart for God (don’t enslave on another)/
Quote:
What about selling one's daughter?
The broader context of the passage cited here is about lessening the practice of slavery over that of the culture (slaves will be released after 6 years, etc.). God did give guidelines for dealing with the human institution of slavery (including selling your daughter into slavery), but usually these rules were more humanitarian (treat your slaves with respect, give them the choice of their freedom) than the practice of the day. The principle: treat one another with respect and mercy, even when the world has different standards.
In short, I don’t have all of the answers, nor can I attach a solid principle to every OT practice. One thing I can derive for sure is that I could never match up to God’s high standard and am in dire need of mercy. This is the overarching point of the OT law above all else, so while I can’t answer all of your (or my) questions, I feel like the biggest answer is clear to me in Jesus Christ.
Quote:
Again, I don't intend disrespect for your beliefs. I am genuinely puzzled, and you are one of very few persons who were willing and able to provide some insight into this, for me so strange, worldview.
I’d have never assumed you were being disrespectful. People often say this to me, and I’ve never understood why. It’s not offensive to expect me to answer questions about my faith. The bible commands in 1 Peter that I be prepared to do so. It is sad to me that Christians have earned the reputation of not being willing to discuss their beliefs openly, for that is pretty much one of our primary purposes on this earth: to reveal God and our beliefs about Him. I’m actually thrilled to answer any questions I can because it gives me that chance.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#241264 - 15/11/2004 16:56
Re: Now that we're all clear on the evils of homosexuality...
[Re: hybrid8]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 19/01/2002
Posts: 3584
Loc: Columbus, OH
|
Shoot, I'm a conservative Christian, and I thought it was funny. You can have all sorts of fun lifting things from context.
_________________________
~ John
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#241266 - 15/11/2004 19:24
Re: Now that we're all clear on the evils of homosexuality...
[Re: JBjorgen]
|
member
Registered: 10/09/2004
Posts: 127
Loc: Bay Area, CA/Anchorage, AK
|
Quote:
and I thought it was funny. You can have all sorts of fun lifting things from context.
My reaction was that I'd laugh if there weren't so many folks out there trying to cram their interpretation of God's laws and will down our throats, along with the rest of the world's...that makes me want to cry. In the narrower context, I have no problem with the notion of having two equally valid forms of marriage, the civil and the sacred, as long as they're both available to those who make them. Some churchs don't have a problem with santifying homosexual union, and that should be their right. As I've observed before, what marriage 'means' is defined by the two people involved, both within themselves and between each other---often on a day-by-day or evven minute-to-minute basis. The forms it takes in law should be determined by the churchs, not the State; the State's role should be regulation of such issues as property and inheritance. That is, if we're not to become a theocracy, in which case we need to do much more than amend the Constitution; we need to throw it out and start over! None of this piecemeal stuff.....
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#241267 - 16/11/2004 16:38
Re: Now that we're all clear on the evils of homosexuality...
[Re: JeffS]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 13/09/1999
Posts: 2401
Loc: Croatia
|
Quote:
in the sense that on a personal level we should try to be consistent with our rational I agree
Of course I meant that sense of 'should'. Like in that West Wing piece: quote OT outside the context to support your opinion, have OT quoted on you to make it ridiculous. (not you you, of course  )
On historical context
That's another thing that does not ring true to me in many mythologies, here the Christian one in particular: the absolute being, the Creator, after waiting patiently for millenia, chooses one day one group (tribe/nation/whatever) or one particular person to announce them how the things actually stand, and to use them as a vehicle for spreading the Truth. Why then, why them, why at all? Fits nicely in 'godless' explanations of source of religions (generaly attempt to explain the world or to find hope, siezed by a group, usually those in power, as a useful tool of control). Sorry for trivializing, but I hope you get what I am trying to say.
Quote:
I’d have never assumed you were being disrespectful. People often say this to me, and I’ve never understood why. It’s not offensive to expect me to answer questions about my faith. The bible commands in 1 Peter that I be prepared to do so. It is sad to me that Christians have earned the reputation of not being willing to discuss their beliefs openly, for that is pretty much one of our primary purposes on this earth: to reveal God and our beliefs about Him. I’m actually thrilled to answer any questions I can because it gives me that chance.
I understand and appreciate that. (I mean, I understand why you are willing to discuss your religion; why is that required of you, why God uses proxies to reveal Himself, is less clear, although you already tried to explain that ) However, I never know if and when I am crossing the line and appearing to mock something that is the most basic belief to the person I discuss with.
_________________________
Dragi "Bonzi" Raos
Q#5196
MkII #080000376, 18GB green
MkIIa #040103247, 60GB blue
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#241268 - 18/11/2004 15:59
Re: Now that we're all clear on the evils of homosexuality...
[Re: JeffS]
|
addict
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 510
Loc: NY
|
JeffS Quote:
I don’t know of anyone who’s even suggested applying the OT law to US citizens.
Uh, there was this judge who decided that this monument of the ten commandments (Exodus 20:1-17) belonged in a courthouse in Alabama...
Quote:
To that end, what I take from the OT law are the principles behind them.
Which is understandable , but what about this?
Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the law until everything is accomplished. (NIV Matthew 5:17-18)
or this?
The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the law. (NIV Luke 16:16-17)
or this one?
All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (NIV 2Timothy 3:16-17)
Now maybe I'm reading this wrong because I was taught Catholicism as a youngster (not quite raised in the faith, it was presented to me more as tradition, take whatever you can get from it) and have been told many times by Evangelical Christians that Catholics are not Christians but kind of a cult instead(not you, but if you could you explain that one to me, I'd be most interested). But in reading these in context with the rest of the book, do they not say that you should not be eliminating any part of OT law?
_________________________
Heather
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." -Susan B Anthony
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#241269 - 18/11/2004 16:18
Re: Now that we're all clear on the evils of homosexuality...
[Re: Heather]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/07/2000
Posts: 4180
Loc: Cambridge, England
|
Quote:
and have been told many times by Evangelical Christians that Catholics are not Christians but kind of a cult instead(not you, but if you could you explain that one to me, I'd be most interested).
This is probably a reference to (a) Mary and (b) saints. Pretty much everything Catholicism teaches about Mary (that she was a virgin, that she was assumed directly into Heaven, that she can intercede with God on our behalf) and about saints (intercession again) is completely unsupported by the Bible itself. It all comes from non-Bible sources, almost certainly syncretisation of existing religious beliefs -- a process which continues today, if you believe Eco's essay on Catholicism and Candomble in South America (from Faith In Fakes).
Peter
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#241270 - 18/11/2004 16:57
Re: Now that we're all clear on the evils of homosexuality...
[Re: Heather]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
Quote:
I don’t know of anyone who’s even suggested applying the OT law to US citizens.
Uh, there was this judge who decided that this monument of the ten commandments (Exodus 20:1-17) belonged in a courthouse in Alabama...
Sure, but I don’t think having a monument of OT law and applying those laws is the same thing. I don’t really know all of the facts, but I doubt he pointed to that monument and said “you were not honoring the Sabbath so I’m throwing you in jail”. Even he wasn’t expecting to enforce those laws; only pay respect to them (or so I suppose).
Quote:
Quote:
what I take from the OT law are the principles behind them
Which is understandable , but what about this?
Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the law until everything is accomplished. (NIV Matthew 5:17-18)
or this?
The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the law. (NIV Luke 16:16-17)
or this one?
All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (NIV 2Timothy 3:16-17)
. . . .But in reading these in context with the rest of the book, do they not say that you should not be eliminating any part of OT law?
Right. We should not be eliminating the law. However, what is key is the PURPOSE of the law. Both Paul and Jesus went through grate pains to illustrate that people were missing the point. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus gave several illustrations designed to show how those who thought they could keep the rules to the letter were failing. He was essentially calling the Pharisees out for taking the law and using it as a stick to beat other people over the head. His message: “You guys aren’t following it either, so quite whining about it!” (My paraphrase).
The alignment people needed was this: the law was not meant to be a list of rules that by obeying you pleased God. The law was an outward demonstration of a heart that loves God. Sacrificing an animal was a symbol of regret for sin, not a magical procedure that somehow erased sin. The law (and the sacrificial system) was not a means to God, but a description of man’s relationship with Him AND a foretelling of Jesus Christ and His ultimate sacrifice.
Paul says in Romans 3 that the purpose of the law was to reveal man’s sin:
Quote:
20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. 21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
Thus, the law’s purpose is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. His sacrifice did not undo the law, but it fulfilled it by giving us grace as it demonstrated we needed. The law was much greater than a list of rules for us to follow; in fact God is more interested in the “circumcision of the heart” than our actions. The law was ultimately created to drive us toward Jesus Christ and His unique ability to meet our needs.
Quote:
[ I ] have been told many times by Evangelical Christians that Catholics are not Christians but kind of a cult instead(not you, but if you could you explain that one to me, I'd be most interested)
I wouldn’t’ classify Catholics as a cult, but that might be semantics. There are some irreconcilable differences between the Catholic Church and Protestants, most notably around the issues of grace and the role of the church. Protestants believe that salvation is received by grace and that works are produced after a person is saved. Catholics believe (I think, I’m not exactly a Catholic apologist) that works are necessary for salvation, but that works are enabled by God’s grace. Most protestants don’t understand the distinction of the latter half of that statement and focus in on the “works are necessary for salvation”, which is completely against what we believe. So you can imagine this creates a huge barrier that is difficult to overcome between the two churches. The use of tradition is also a source of contention, as the Catholics believe the Church (meaning the “Catholic Church” as an organization in this instance) is equal to the bible in discerning truth about God. Protestants believe only the bible is the absolute source of truth about God. So while the Catholics can create new doctrine (the bodily assent ion of Mary) and base it on inspiration, Protestants reject this and require any doctrine must be supported biblically. While sometimes some extra biblical beliefs are adopted by Protestant churches, we have the option of going back and rejecting them. Once the Catholic Church makes a doctrine official, it cannot be changed. One of these doctrines that is of particular interest to Protestants is one that says (paraphrased) “If anyone says that works are not required for salvation, let him be cast out of the church”. As salvation by grace alone is the core of Protestant beliefs (and in my opinion the bible), this creates a huge disconnect between the two churches that cannot be reconciled (since it has now been solidified in Catholic Tradition).
All that being said, I personally regard Catholics as Christian, only with some (what I consider to be) flawed believes that are irreconcilable with my own. This is different from an Episcopal church, because while I might disagree with many of their doctrines (infant baptism, their view of the Lord’s Supper), we agree on the most important thing: salvation by grace alone through faith. I don’t regard the difference as a “cult”, but people use that word in different ways. There are some serious repercussions to that allegation, as Jesus said the world will never prevail over the church (meaning the church will endure in some form until His return) and there was a time when Catholicism with its present non-compatible beliefs (which it has not always held, BTW) was the only real Christian church. So to say it is a cult means that there was a time when there was no Christian church, which defies the words of Christ. Or at least that’s my take.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#241271 - 18/11/2004 17:31
Re: Now that we're all clear on the evils of homosexuality...
[Re: JeffS]
|
addict
Registered: 23/12/2002
Posts: 652
Loc: Winston Salem, NC
|
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#241272 - 18/11/2004 17:55
Re: Now that we're all clear on the evils of homosexuality...
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/07/2000
Posts: 4180
Loc: Cambridge, England
|
Quote:
and there was a time when Catholicism with its present non-compatible beliefs (which it has not always held, BTW) was the only real Christian church.
I know Catholics like to think that, but is it really true? The Nag Hammadi material seems to show that Christianity, or to prevent circular arguments let's call it Jesus-worship, covered a wide array of fairly divergent beliefs even before the end of the first century AD. Gnosticism, Catharism, Eastern Orthodoxy -- multidenominationalism is hardly a new thing.
And depending what's meant by "the world prevailing over the Church", surely the whole point of the Reformation was that worldliness (selling of indulgences, Borgia popes, etc) had prevailed over the Church at least enough to distort Christ's intentions, insofar as those intentions could be guessed from the available material?
Quote:
Protestants reject this and require any doctrine must be supported biblically.
A lot of Protestants, at least as Protestantism is practised in the UK, hold that Biblical support for doctrinal matters is necessary but not sufficient proof: in other words, that while God is divine and Christ was divine, the Bible is a human enterprise and thus potentially flawed, and "tradition" (especially as mediated by a 2000-year-old, immensely wealthy, political bureaucracy, with all the dangerous temptation to self-interest that implies) is a very human enterprise and thus potentially very flawed.
Peter
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#241273 - 18/11/2004 18:12
Re: Now that we're all clear on the evils of homosexuality...
[Re: peter]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
I know Catholics like to think that, but is it really true? The Nag Hammadi material seems to show that Christianity, or to prevent circular arguments let's call it Jesus-worship, covered a wide array of fairly divergent beliefs even before the end of the first century AD. Gnosticism, Catharism, Eastern Orthodoxy -- multidenominationalism is hardly a new thing.
And depending what's meant by "the world prevailing over the Church", surely the whole point of the Reformation was that worldliness (selling of indulgences, Borgia popes, etc) had prevailed over the Church at least enough to distort Christ's intentions, insofar as those intentions could be guessed from the available material?
Good points. Clearly there is a lot of discussion to be had in this area, and unfortunately I'm not very well versed in the history of the Catholic church. I do know that the Catholic church is not doing a lot of the things that the Protestants were against, and while it still regards itself as the one true Christian Church (of course), I do believe it is more recognizing of Protestants now than it was initially.
Quote:
A lot of Protestants, at least as Protestantism is practised in the UK, hold that Biblical support for doctrinal matters is necessary but not sufficient proof: in other words, that while God is divine and Christ was divine, the Bible is a human enterprise and thus potentially flawed,
Yes, there are multiple beliefs about how the bible is "inspired". But then a lot of this also comes down to how conservative or liberal a protestant church is. There are many churches today that hardly regard the bible at all. In Evangelicle churches the bible is genreally regarded as infallible, but the context elements such as the culture of the time, the author, etc. must be taken into account to truly understand it properly.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#241274 - 18/11/2004 23:20
Re: Now that we're all clear on the evils of homosexuality...
[Re: peter]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 20/11/2000
Posts: 279
Loc: Pacific Northwest
|
Quote:
A lot of Protestants, at least as Protestantism is practised in the UK, hold that Biblical support for doctrinal matters is necessary but not sufficient proof: in other words, that while God is divine and Christ was divine, the Bible is a human enterprise and thus potentially flawed, and "tradition" (especially as mediated by a 2000-year-old, immensely wealthy, political bureaucracy, with all the dangerous temptation to self-interest that implies) is a very human enterprise and thus potentially very flawed.
I've heard this of the UK before and I find it very sad. Failing to take the Bible literally really leaves one w/o a solid foundation for one's faith. I have great value in traditions, but to supersede scripture doesn't work for me. The last half of this article, the section called SUBJECTIVISM IN THE CHURCH: THE CONTEMPORARY AUTHORITY CRISIS really speaks to that issue. It sums up many thoughts and concepts much better than I could. Worldviews are important!
The Authority of Scripture is an article that speaks from Scripture about Scripture. It is found on this page.
Jeff, You have a great way with expression and I wish I could be as well-spoken as you are in your responses. Keep up the good work. (Plus I'm just so squeezed for time that I can't seem to reply with any promptness--just this took me all day!)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#241275 - 18/11/2004 23:36
Re: Now that we're all clear on the evils of homosexuality...
[Re: time]
|
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 08/02/2002
Posts: 3411
|
Quote:
Failing to take the Bible literally really leaves one w/o a solid foundation for one's faith.
How so? Would you rather have completely blind belief in words that most scholars believe weren't written down for many years after Jesus' death and then written in a language that wasn't translated into English for years? Haven't you ever played Chinese Whispers?
I'd prefer to accept that there are errors in the bible myself. And have faith that most of the meaning somehow perservered through all the centuries and multiple translations.
_________________________
Mk2a 60GB Blue. Serial 030102962
sig.mp3: File Format not Valid.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#241276 - 19/11/2004 09:22
Re: Now that we're all clear on the evils of homosexuality...
[Re: time]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/07/2000
Posts: 4180
Loc: Cambridge, England
|
Quote:
Failing to take the Bible literally really leaves one w/o a solid foundation for one's faith.
Well, naturally as an atheist I don't think anyone's got a "solid" support for their faith (so it feels a bit weird defending Christian beliefs here), but I can certainly imagine people who'd perceive a faith based on causing human misery by opposing homosexuality, as being "less solid" than one based on disregarding as flawed the Biblical passages -- none even reported as the words of Christ -- which are intolerant of it.
Quote:
The Authority of Scripture is an article that speaks from Scripture about Scripture.
I like the way that on that page this argument is presented as if it were "reductio ad absurdum":
Quote:
Where do you draw the line? If Jesus was wrong in His view of Scripture, maybe He was wrong in other areas too. Who decides whether He is right or wrong? We must, so Jesus loses His authority.
Sounds about right to me
Oh, and their "defence" against criticism of circular reasoning? 7a appeal to authority 7b a defence of reasoning not circularly but linearly unfounded (who proves Peter?) 7c an admission that it is circular reasoning but that's OK because it's all about the faith anyway. Not compelling, sorry.
Peter
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#241277 - 19/11/2004 12:29
Re: Now that we're all clear on the evils of homosexuality...
[Re: peter]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
I can certainly imagine people who'd perceive a faith based on causing human misery by opposing homosexuality, as being "less solid" than one based on disregarding as flawed the Biblical passages
I understand the desire to ignore passages in the bible, but for me that just causes the whole thing to lose its ability to teach us anything. Once I start deciding what I want to keep and what I want to put aside, then I'm just defining faith acording to what I think is right. I realize with the current trend to "believe in yourself" this seems pretty reasonable, but I know myself well enought to know that I do some pretty crummy things and am probably not the best person to know what is and is not true in the world. Rather I look to the bible which appears to me (despite assertions to the opposite) to be the best external source of truth about faith there is. There are lots of reasons I believe the bible is true, but the most compelling for me is that it is so consistent with what I've experienced as a Christian and the numerous prophetic predictions that it asserts and have verifiably happened (see Daniel).
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#241278 - 19/11/2004 13:09
Re: Now that we're all clear on the evils of homosexuality...
[Re: JeffS]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 13/09/1999
Posts: 2401
Loc: Croatia
|
Quote:
Once I start deciding what I want to keep and what I want to put aside, then I'm just defining faith acording to what I think is right. I realize with the current trend to "believe in yourself" this seems pretty reasonable, but I know myself well enought to know that I do some pretty crummy things and am probably not the best person to know what is and is not true in the world. Rather I look to the bible which appears to me (despite assertions to the opposite) to be the best external source of truth about faith there is.
So, you don't trust yourself to decide what is 'the right thing', although it is only you who can decide what is 'the right Book' (that is, the Bible, as opposed to Torah, Koran, Vedas...., or Dianetics...., or Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten..., or nothing at all).
Quote:
There are lots of reasons I believe the bible is true, but the most compelling for me is that it is so consistent with what I've experienced as a Christian...
Isn't this a bit circular? You use the Bible as guidance because it agrees with your beliefs drawn from Bible...
Quote:
... and the numerous prophetic predictions that it asserts and have verifiably happened (see Daniel).
Now, is there a religion (or wierder belief systems) that does not claim that?
_________________________
Dragi "Bonzi" Raos
Q#5196
MkII #080000376, 18GB green
MkIIa #040103247, 60GB blue
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#241279 - 19/11/2004 13:55
Re: Now that we're all clear on the evils of homosexuality...
[Re: bonzi]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
So, you don't trust yourself to decide what is 'the right thing', although it is only you who can decide what is 'the right Book'
Well, I have to decide something, don't I? So yes, I do have to do my best to make an objective decision regarding the source of my faith, but as for its guidelines that's when I turn to the bible.Quote:
Isn't this a bit circular? You use the Bible as guidance because it agrees with your beliefs drawn from Bible...
Not quite. It's more of a building process. My experiences align with what I've read in the bible, confirming its truth. I realize you have to beware of confirmation bias, but to me there is WAY too much that I've experienced that cannot reasonably be explained any other way. Answered prayers, God's shaping of my life to bring me to the right places at the right times, etc. As I apply truths that the bible teaches, over and over again its truth is confirmed. I recognize that most of this "testimonial" aspect of my faith doesn't translate into scientific proof for others, but that doesn't make it any less powerful in my life.Quote:
Now, is there a religion (or wierder belief systems) that does not claim that?
Well, give Daniel a read along with the history of the region directly after it was written. Admittedly there are some prophecies that are a little vague, but some are so crystal clear they’re pretty much impossible to dismiss. The only possible secular explanation is to change the timeline of Daniel so that it was written after the events it predates (which some have tried to do), but even some of the (admittedly less clear, though still pretty powerful) predictions concern the rise and fall of the Roman empire which we KNOW came after the book of Daniel.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#241280 - 19/11/2004 15:49
Re: Now that we're all clear on the evils of homosexuality...
[Re: JeffS]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 13/09/1999
Posts: 2401
Loc: Croatia
|
Quote:
Quote:
Isn't this a bit circular? You use the Bible as guidance because it agrees with your beliefs drawn from Bible...
Not quite. It's more of a building process. My experiences align with what I've read in the bible, confirming its truth. I realize you have to beware of confirmation bias, but to me there is WAY too much that I've experienced that cannot reasonably be explained any other way. Answered prayers, God's shaping of my life to bring me to the right places at the right times, etc. As I apply truths that the bible teaches, over and over again its truth is confirmed. I recognize that most of this "testimonial" aspect of my faith doesn't translate into scientific proof for others, but that doesn't make it any less powerful in my life.
Heh, something like positive feedback: good for faith, bad for amplifier design
But isn't "deciding" on validity of dogmas, truth of the Bible etc based on "observations" (like prayers answered, or good and bad, "deserved" and "undeserved" events in life) a no-no? At least that's what my Catholic brother told me (commenting on our mother's childhood "severing the ties" with God after untimely death of her mother). (BTW, I find it much easier to discuss religion with you than him - perhaps that Catholic vs. Protestant thing )
Quote:
Well, give Daniel a read along with the history of the region directly after it was written. Admittedly there are some prophecies that are a little vague, but some are so crystal clear they’re pretty much impossible to dismiss. The only possible secular explanation is to change the timeline of Daniel so that it was written after the events it predates (which some have tried to do), but even some of the (admittedly less clear, though still pretty powerful) predictions concern the rise and fall of the Roman empire which we KNOW came after the book of Daniel.
Well, I will have to look it up...
_________________________
Dragi "Bonzi" Raos
Q#5196
MkII #080000376, 18GB green
MkIIa #040103247, 60GB blue
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#241281 - 19/11/2004 17:27
Re: Now that we're all clear on the evils of homosexuality...
[Re: bonzi]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
But isn't "deciding" on validity of dogmas, truth of the Bible etc based on "observations" (like prayers answered, or good and bad, "deserved" and "undeserved" events in life) a no-no? At least that's what my Catholic brother told me
This sort of depends on what you mean by “observations”. If we simply defer everything we believe to our own interpretations, then we end up inventing a religion that tells us what we want to hear, and history tells us what evil that can bring (along with bending an established religion to meet an agenda). As an Evangelical Christian, all such inspirations must be aligned up with the bible, as it is considered by use to be the “infallible rule of faith.” If I truly feel like homosexuality isn’t a sin, but the bible says it is, then I must defer. This is because we as a church have found enough of the bible to be true that we believe its claims of being our source of instruction (that positive feedback loop again
However, that is not to say it is unacceptable to challenge a belief or to listen to “observations”. The Christian faith is absolutely open to challenges of established beliefs and reasonably questioning doctrine. Before I go on, I should mention that there is a significant difference here between Catholics and Protestants: I think the Catholic Church officially takes the responsibility of doctrinal interpretation upon itself, meaning that average people do not have the right to read scripture and decide for themselves what they believe. I could be wrong in how strong I’m putting this, as I’m coming from an “I’m a Protestant and that’s what I’ve heard the Catholic Church believes” viewpoint, which is not unbiased.
What I do know more, about, is the Evangelical Christian church. One of our fundamental beliefs (and one major reason for the reformation) is that the burden of determining belief rests with the individual. It is the individual’s responsibility to read scripture and derive truth from that. That’s not to say that an individual should simply go what whatever feels or seems right, and to that end there is a huge role for teachers and tradition to provide shoulders to stand on. But the responsibility ultimately lies with the individual, and with that comes the important question of how to respond to “observations”. And of course, many times it is these “observations” that allows a person to come to faith in the first place. I should mention that one of the weaknesses to this approach is that individuals do not take this responsibility seriously enough and simply adopt whatever the strongest person around them believes. The Catholic Church doesn’t have this problem (as it sets down exactly what the people are to believe), but Protestants view this as an acceptable risk for the freedom the individual has to forge his or her own beliefs.
Having said all of that, the Protestant church does has a few non-negotiable beliefs: the doctrine of grace being the most fundamental, though there are a handful of others. But it’s not that you can’t question these; just that if you do and you decide that you don’t believe them, then you’re not a Christian. There’s much more to say about this (what are the essentials? What about churches that disagree, etc.), but I don’t want to get sidetracked. The bottom line is that Protestant churches generally encourage questioning of beliefs, which is why my best friend and I go to churches that have completely different views on baptism (his believes in infant baptism, mine only in baptism for believers) and yet we still consider one another strong Christians and brothers in Christ. I think baptism is an important doctrine, and I truly think he’s wrong in his belief, but the beauty of Christianity is that we serve the same Christ, despite our differences. Even more to point, I don’t agree with my own church’s belief about the pre-tribulation rapture (which is a big deal among evangelicals) however that doesn’t cause any real issues at our church because those I worship with respect our differences.
In reality, there are many issues that have become a dividing line in the Protestant church that shouldn’t have. That’s the problem with having a church full of people! The great thing about being a Protestant is that we can question our beliefs and overcome false doctrines even if they’ve been engrained for a while. You’d be surprised to know the number of issues that evangelical churches wrestle with today (“Are seeker sensitive services appropriate?”, “is expository or topical preaching better?”, “Is speaking in tongues a valid worship practice?”, “Should our music be hymns or more contemporary”, the list goes on). Sometimes these cause divisions, but many times we just agree to disagree, knowing that we all share the most important component of our faith in Jesus Christ.
But the bottom line is that faith to an Evangelical Christian is not a blind belief without premise; rather it is an informed belief carried to its logical conclusion. Or put another way, just because it is unseen doesn’t mean it is unreasoned.
edit: sorry for the long post. I'm just sensing a disconnect between what you've observed and my daily experience as a Christian. Since you have expressed interest in understading this better I'm trying to give you as compelte a picture as possbile. Also, I'm just longwinded!
Edited by JeffS (19/11/2004 17:29)
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#241282 - 20/11/2004 23:38
Re: Now that we're all clear on the evils of homosexuality...
[Re: JeffS]
|
addict
Registered: 23/12/2002
Posts: 652
Loc: Winston Salem, NC
|
Quote:
I realize you have to beware of confirmation bias, but to me there is WAY too much that I've experienced that cannot reasonably be explained any other way. Answered prayers, God's shaping of my life to bring me to the right places at the right times, etc.
As a Christian, I can strongly testify to this, as well.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#241283 - 21/11/2004 09:49
Re: Now that we're all clear on the evils of homosexuality...
[Re: JeffS]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 13/09/1999
Posts: 2401
Loc: Croatia
|
Thanks for an interesting 'longwinded' ( ) answer. What I was aiming at is that one is not supposed to feel one's faith strenghtened or dimminished based of whether one gets "one's prayers worth back" (hence the example of my late mother). Anyway, risking that someone proposes another Off-off-topic area titled "Bonzi the atheist pestering Christians", another question: You explained a bit about differences between two of three main 'flavors' of Christianity. More that a billion of people follow various kinds of Islam; there are many Budhists, Brahmanists, Hinduists, Shintoists..., even leaving animist, Viccans and various recent cults aside for the moment. How do you see them? Do you see them as worshiping "the same God" as you do, albeit through distording tradition (at least monoteists)? How comes their equaly strong beliefs are so different from yours? What do you think (if such contemplation is permitted or indeed possible) is "your God's view" of them?
_________________________
Dragi "Bonzi" Raos
Q#5196
MkII #080000376, 18GB green
MkIIa #040103247, 60GB blue
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#241284 - 21/11/2004 18:50
Re: Now that we're all clear on the evils of homosexuality...
[Re: JeffS]
|
addict
Registered: 24/07/2003
Posts: 500
Loc: Colorado, N.A.
|
Quote:
Having said all of that, the Protestant church does has a few non-negotiable beliefs: the doctrine of grace being the most fundamental, though there are a handful of others. But it’s not that you can’t question these; just that if you do and you decide that you don’t believe them, then you’re not a Christian.
Oops, did I detect a contradiction, Jeff? If those (like me, a man without an established church, who nonetheless professes to be Christian) who dare question the doctrine of grace CANNOT be Christians, how can you consider those Catholics to be Christians again? For me, I believe in making every attempt at a certain amount of Christ-like good works in this life, and if I need to define the word "Christian," I choose to rely on the trusty (but certainly very fallible!) Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate, definition (#1a).
_________________________
-- DLF
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#241285 - 21/11/2004 23:13
Re: Now that we're all clear on the evils of homosexuality...
[Re: bonzi]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
I'm just passing through and will likely not be able to get on the internet again for the rest of the week, but I'll get back to these questions (yours and Dans) when I get back. If I don't, feel free to remind me. I think this is an interesting discussion and I'm glad for the questions!
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index