Sexism Is Bad, Liberal Sexism Is Bad And Stupid...

[October's Autumn]

Good points October.

 

One of my favorite books is "The Harlot at the side of the Road" by Jonathan Kirsch. Its a book by a Jewish writer that deals with the so-called "dirty" stories found in the Old Testament. In the chapter on "Sodom and Gommorah" he retells the whole story from the point of view of Lot's daughters. When Lot goes to the door and attempts to placate the mob by offering his own daughters to be gang raped ,he doesn't come off as righteous, in this version.

 

It's interesting that conservatives/fundamentalists who are so outraged by the men of Sodom's actions don't seem as bothered by Lot's incest with his daughters. Joanathan Kirsch concludes the chapter with the image of Lot ,blind drunk, in sexual intercourse with the very daughters he had offered to the mob.

MOW

 

 

I start teaching a SUnday school class in September: Bible stories for adults: rated R! I'll have to find that book!

Edited August 9, 2006 by October's Autumn

[DCJ]

Most of what conservatives/fundamentalists think are admonitions against homosexuality are not. They are against rape (Sodom & Gomorrah), prostitution, and pedophila.

Other progressives here have claimed that Paul was indeed talking about homosexuality (though they said he was wrong). On what do you base your alternative interpretation? The topic of homosexuality in the Bible seems pretty clear to me, whether it's God instructing the young nation of Israel in the Old Testament, or Paul discussing general revelation in the New.

 

With Sodom and Gomorrah, does the text say that God destroyed those two cities because of rape? Or attempted rape? Keep in mind that God had already decided to destroy them well before the attempted sexual assault of Lot's male visitors, because they practiced "abominations", going after "strange flesh". While rape is condemned in Leviticus, it is homosexuality that is described as an "abomination".

 

The bible has nothing to say about same sex marriage because no such thing existed at that time. Just as it has nothing to say about computers, cell phones, cars, etc. We can only determine our beliefs (if we choose the bible as a guide for them) based on principles. Like: Do unto others. Love your neighbor. Judge not. etc.

And this one, from the lips of Jesus: "Haven't you read that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?" The Bible does have something to say about marriage.

[October's Autumn]

"it is homosexuality that is described as an 'abomination'".

 

 

So is mixing two different kinds of fabrics. You might want to check your labels. Your an abomination. Don't forget gluttony. And Gossip. I don't see you running around telling fat people they are going to hell.

 

 

 

Sodom & Gomorah was destroyed because of inhospitality. If you knew anything about the bible you would know that. The abominations was rape. What really is frightening is that you think a consensual act between two adults is horrible but not rape. Sick.

 

And are you really naive enough to think this was the first time they ganged raped someone? The men were not looking for a consensual sex act. Rape is about power. Straight men rape other men. As far as "strage flesh" goes, do you read Hebrew? I didn't think so. It could just as easily (and more likely) be refering to beastiality, rape, pedophila, etc. By the way, oral sex is also an abomination.

 

At one point in the Hebrew Bible does it say for men not to "lie" with men. There is no immediate context from which derive the circumstances. (There is nothing about females. Like I said, it is all about who the father is.)

 

There is one place where supposedly Paul appears to condemn same sex acts between people of the same gender. That is assuming of course that Paul actually wrote it. Since we know that men married women to have children and had sex with men. Again, we are not talking about a monogamous relationship. There is no context to condemn something that didn't exist.

 

Your last point is irrelevant. What does Jesus talking about marriage have to do with anything? Nothing, per your usual. Considering that same sex contact existed quite openly in Jesus day if he had an opinion on it he would have said something.

 

God says gay people should be allowed to marry. End of Discussion.

[JosephM]

Does this passages from Sacred Scripture offend you?

 

Saint Paul's Letter to the Epehsians 5:21-24

 

21 Being subject one to another, in the fear of Christ. 22 Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: 23 Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things.

 

(snip)

.

 

Hi All,

 

Wow.... What a long thread concerning a simple issue. I barely got through the three pages to the end

 

My response would be... Why should one be offended? Paul is merely expressing his own cultural opinions. He wrote it as a letter and I have never seen his permission given that it should become scripture.

1 corinthians Chapter 11 contains 15 versus more of the same 'stuff' but one must not stop before verse 16...

 

1 Cor. 11:16

But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

 

He clearly indicated that they were customs only and not applicable to the churches of God. In light of his more inspirational statements such as :

 

Galatians 3:27-28

For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. [28] There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

 

Taken in context, one can plainly see there can be no difference in Christ. All else is tradition and custom. Does not even the 'spirit' speak the same to you?

 

The real problem comes from the consideration of all his epistles (letters) as being sacred scripture. Letters containing inspired words (and some not inspired), yes!, but sacred.... only to to those who believe all they are told.

 

Love in Christ, (where all are equal)

JM

[Mystical Seeker]

It is worth pointing out that Paul probably didn't write the letter of Ephesians. Although it is not considered as dubious as the pastoral epistles of Titus, 1 Timothy, and 2 Timothy, it is definitely in the "doubtful" category.

 

It is possible that the anti-egalitarian ideas expressed in Ephesias represented a backlash against some of the more egalitarian ideas that were prevalent in earlier Christianity, including what is found in some of Paul's bona fide epistles. It is worth noting that Paul wrote in Romans 16:7 of Junia, a woman, as a highly regarded apostle. Some conservatives have tried to work around that embarassing passage by interpreting it to mean that she was merely known by the apostles. I suppose just goes to show how ingrained sexism can be in certain segments of Christianity.

[October's Autumn]

It is worth pointing out that Paul probably didn't write the letter of Ephesians. Although it is not considered as dubious as the pastoral epistles of Titus, 1 Timothy, and 2 Timothy, it is definitely in the "doubtful" category.

 

It is possible that the anti-egalitarian ideas expressed in Ephesias represented a backlash against some of the more egalitarian ideas that were prevalent in earlier Christianity, including what is found in some of Paul's bona fide epistles. It is worth noting that Paul wrote in Romans 16:7 of Junia, a woman, as a highly regarded apostle. Some conservatives have tried to work around that embarassing passage by interpreting it to mean that she was merely known by the apostles. I suppose just goes to show how ingrained sexism can be in certain segments of Christianity.

 

 

And the translators of the NIV masculanized her name even though no such name exists in that time period!

[DCJ]

Your an abomination.

If you knew anything about the bible you would know that.

do you read Hebrew? I didn't think so.

What does Jesus talking about marriage have to do with anything? Nothing, per your usual.

End of Discussion.

You'd think these were the rantings of some bigoted, arrogant, intolerant evangelical. But no, they're from a supposedly "tolerant" progressive. Fundamentalists come in all shapes and sizes, I suppose.

[flowperson]

DCJ:

Taking "out of context" snippets from a more extensive post and then accusing the poster of being intolerant, arrogant, and bigoted;; and, doing so FOURTEEN DAYS after the fact is just plain wrong. I just wanted you to know that at least one person on this board thought so.

 

Have a nice day !

 

flow....

Edited August 23, 2006 by flowperson

[MOW]

Agreed Flow . DCJ , you've commited the logic fallacy of "straw man " when you did what you did in your post. The straw man logic fallacy is based on the image of someone in a fight with a large man . Unable to beat the large man, the opponent constructs a man of straw and proceeds to pulverize it and then claim victory , meanwhile the real man is untouched.

 

For example ,you claim that October said that"your an abomination". actually what she said was

"So is mixing two kind of fabrics. You might want to check your labels. Your an abomination. Don't forget gluttony and gossip. I don't see you running around telling fat people they are going to hell. " This was in response to your saying that the Bible says that homosexuality is an "abomination". Well the Bible says a lot of things are abominations like mixing fabrics, women who are menstruating being seen in public , working on the Sabbath, etc..

 

She was showing the inconsistancy of your logic and clearly bested you in the argument. So you resorted to taking one tiny quote ,out of context , and change the subject thus committing the straw man fallacy.

 

MOW

Edited August 24, 2006 by MOW

[darby]

Flow and MOW--

 

Are you two unwilling to acknowledge the condesension and personal aspect of OA's response? Ideology aside, DCJ presents some arguments on a DEBATE site, and OA responds to that post with points of her own AND gets personal. No 2 ways about it. And the question is why? Why not just refute the argument, as both are participating on a DEBATE site.

 

Is it only because you agree with her ideologically (and certainly disagree with DCJ) that you won't acknowledge this?

[flowperson]

Hi Darby:

 

Nice to hear from you again.

 

No that wasn't the issue with me. I too have had issues with OA's approach in some previous discussions, but saw no need to comment upon those situations. But in this case the way in which her post was attacked by DCJ seemed very unfair IMO. Since I have been married to two teachers in the past, I guess that you might say that I sympathize with her "mindset" in some ways, but certainly do not side with her in her approach to religious questions that often.

 

Debate and Dialogue means to me that issues are thoroughly discussed in an open and civil manner, without rancor or personally demeaning comments. It was my opinion in this case that DCJ stepped over those lines in his/her post, and waited two weeks to do it. Active discussions take place over shorter time periods, so that the give and take of comments may be shared in a timely way by the participants, and so that mutual understanding might have a more equable chance to emerge. I'd be the first to admit that negatively expressed attitudes do not facilitate communication. As I have stated above, that wasn't the issue here for me.

 

So to comment upon your assertion that I and MOW commented upon this situation simply because we were somehow cantering up on our armoured mounts to defend the philosophical honor of a sister in liberal religiosity, would be a totally false assumption on your part. I, of course cannot speak for MOW. He's certainly more than qualified to speak for himself. And, I hope that he will.

 

Now, lively discussions of a substantive nature seem to be few and far between on TCPC these days. They seem to have been magically "chilled" out of existence somehow, someway. I believe it is because many here come from a background of abuse, especially spiritual abuse, and simply to not wish to engage in written conflict over spiritual matters here. They're here to ask questions about matters of the spirit and obtain useful and meaningful answers from others who may have travelled a similar path.

 

So when someone comes zipping in and lowers the conservative "hammer" upon such exploratory discussions regarding the nature of Christianity, those who "perceive abuse" go away elsewhere searching to ask questions and to obtain meaningful information if not answers. I have since become active in another site that is more conducive to such explorations, even though I still check back here in the hopes that TCPC may recover from its maladies and become once again what it was a year ago. I know that going back in time doesn't work. Believe me, I've tried that, at least spiritually, and I'm gettin' my spiritual ya-ya's elsewhere for the time being.

 

I'm hopeful that my comments might start some sort of meaningful dialogue. Others have abandoned TCPC after trying to do so, but I don't plan to, because true spirituality is, IMHO, based upon belief in better things in the future. If I'm not mistaken, that's also one reasonable definition for "Progressive Christianity".

 

flow....

[October's Autumn]

You'd think these were the rantings of some bigoted, arrogant, intolerant evangelical. But no, they're from a supposedly "tolerant" progressive. Fundamentalists come in all shapes and sizes, I suppose.

 

 

You are taking them out of context. I was making a point. You call people who are gay an abomination yet do things that the bible calls an abomination. You should be lookin inward instead of condemning those Jesus does not condemn. You may also want to go and study Greek, at least. You don't have to master it, but actually study it. You'll find it quite enlightening.

 

Being progressive isn't about tolerance. Jesus was Progressive and he was in no way tolerant of the conservatives of his day (the Pharisees, for example). In fact, they pissed him off when they attacked those of his society who were without power. Just as you pissed me off for doing the same thing.

 

BTW, Progressives who think the bible condemns homosexuality? It is simply poor scholarship. You conservatives don't corner the market on that.

 

Flow and MOW--

 

Are you two unwilling to acknowledge the condesension and personal aspect of OA's response? Ideology aside, DCJ presents some arguments on a DEBATE site, and OA responds to that post with points of her own AND gets personal. No 2 ways about it. And the question is why? Why not just refute the argument, as both are participating on a DEBATE site.

 

Is it only because you agree with her ideologically (and certainly disagree with DCJ) that you won't acknowledge this?

 

 

"holds up a mirror" Seems to me you are the one doing this. MOW and FLOW both explained exactly what I was doing.

 

Thanks, btw.

[des]

>Now, lively discussions of a substantive nature seem to be few and far between on TCPC these days. They seem to have been magically "chilled" out of existence somehow, someway. I believe it is because many here come from a background of abuse, especially spiritual abuse, and simply to not wish to engage in written conflict over spiritual matters here. They're here to ask questions about matters of the spirit and obtain useful and meaningful answers from others who may have travelled a similar path.

 

I think this is sadly true. I don't really wish to get into these types of arguments, as I feel there is no

common ground. James or DCJ say something which I might (usually almost totally disagree with) but it

makes no sense to argue as we aren't changing anybody's mind and I have enough stress, teaching in

a public high school.

 

My spiritual abuse was a long time ago, so it isn't an issue with me so much anymore, but I still can relate (I think). However, I have had enough being pounded away by "Christianity" to try and avoid it-- perhaps at a personal cost. But I do miss the substantive discussion of a year ago (say).

 

>So when someone comes zipping in and lowers the conservative "hammer" upon such exploratory discussions regarding the nature of Christianity, those who "perceive abuse" go away elsewhere searching to ask questions and to obtain meaningful information if not answers. I have since become active in another

 

I still don't know why a conservative would WANT come to a progressive site if not to incite.(I'm sure there are exceptions). But I wouldn't want to go to a conservative site and try to straighten everyone out. Of course, since I don't think they are going to hell, I don't have any motivation I guess.

 

flow....

 

 

--des

[October's Autumn]

I still don't know why a conservative would WANT come to a progressive site if not to incite.(I'm sure there are exceptions). But I wouldn't want to go to a conservative site and try to straighten everyone out. Of course, since I don't think they are going to hell, I don't have any motivation I guess.

 

--des

 

I've seen some who come seeking. They may not be Progressive but they are progressive. They are usually the ones who come asking sincere questions. They don't post aggressively.

 

Fundamentalist and Conservatives are already in a hell. I've found that people will move from those positions to Progressive when they are ready to give up their idols of inerrancy, hell, etc. I saw an experienced it when I was in Seminary. Attempting to convert is useless, ime. Motiviation for me is the truth but it comes to a casting pearls before swine. Until there is a change of heart to really hear God then nothing we say will make a difference. Progressive/Liberal Christianity has a voice to those who are already seeking. I have commented to several people at church that it took me 19 years to find the UCC. It was only a few months before I started going that I even knew such a church existed. There are many like me out there.

 

I normally ignore the comments for the reason you stated (in fact I have some on ignore) but I draw the line when people start using the bible and God to attack people who GLBTQ.

[Quaker Way]

"...wholesale revision of history and Sacred Scripture which is currently taking place under the guise of tolerance and political correctness."

 

This is an interesting statement. I read most of the original post without raising an eyebrow because it continues a discussion that is well worn and, frankly, rather superficial and boring. Let's consider for a moment the above quote. This one part of a sentence provides more in terms of a personal statement than anything else in our Friend's post. Apparantly the author feels there is an iron-clad connection between his sacred scripture and history, in other words, the Bible IS history. But what Bible? What version? Written by who? Are we to believe the Bible was written by God and is not to be questioned? And exactly what 'history' is contained in the Bible that is not to be revised? Such statements are simply the repitition of official positions taken by various and sundry denominational churches who stand to loose their monopoly on their faith business. Hence the scary statements, the fist-pounding, the heretic-baiting, etc. Once people of Faith begin to question, investigate, look closer, debate, research, and formulate outside of and apart from the authority of the Vatican, the pulpit, the corporate mega-church, the faith-o-tainment performance artists on Sunday morning TV, we begin to build a truely personal Faith. Doctrine and dogma are not the same as Faith. At the core of such nail-biting over 'historical revisionism' is fear. The Vatican and denominational/corporate mega-church authorities stand to loose their home-made magical connection with the Divine if we beging to view Paul as a human being who lived in a certain historical time and in a certain society and reflected the prejudices and social structure of his world and the society in which he lived. In other words, the 'Sacred Scriptures' are products of people living in societies in specific historical settings. All we need in order to have Faith is God...no Bible, no Vatican, no Church to give money to, no priests telling us what to believe in or how to live our lives. Just God. God keeps it simple...people make it complicated.

Edited August 25, 2006 by Russ

[flowperson]

Russ:

 

I agree, with the following exception.

 

It is inevitable that when a viable thread of religious belief is uncovered and extended into the future, the people cannot do it on their own. Denominational structures and all of the bells and whistles that go with that automatically become necessary. Perhaps we have too much such baggage in such structures these days, but much of it is carry-over from prior times, IMHO.

 

But I also believe that "places of belief" are beginning to be augmented and transformed from building-centered gathering places to network-centered gathering places where people who are like-minded in their pursuit of religious guidance may converse and share information at their convenience and need. I view TCPC as such a place, and as such is a clear representation of the future, which really scares fundamentalist-oriented believers. But then, I figure that's their problem, not mine. I guess they figure that it is their duty to bring the fight to us. That probably explains the situation we see here.

 

flow....

[October's Autumn]

"...wholesale revision of history and Sacred Scripture which is currently taking place under the guise of tolerance and political correctness."

 

But what Bible? What version? Written by who? Are we to believe the Bible was written by God and is not to be questioned? And exactly what 'history' is contained in the Bible that is not to be revised?

 

You can also add "which manuscript." I tell you, study Greek, understand how the bible was put together and is put together today. The idea of inerrancy will fly out the window!

[Kay]

Jesus believed the Scriptures to be God's word, and that's a powerful motivator for me to as well.

 

That has come to mean a lot to me over the past few months.

 

I'm still not an inerrantist, I think men's opinions are in the Bible as much as God's are, but even with that, I look at each scripture (even the objectionable ones) and try to find the truth within it. Reason and interpretation definitely play a role.

[darby]

I think it's safe to say that this forum is at best a dialogue, not a debate forum. When people truly begin to debate ideas here, IMO, people get offended. I think that's probably why people have peeled away. It's certainly why I have not posted in months and now only occasionally check in.

 

Des, as to why a conservative might check the site out....I won't speak for everyone, but I originally came after reading some stuff from guys like Tony Campolo/Brian Mclaren, some of which I agreed with, and guys like Spong, who I definitely did not agree with. I came trying to see where there might be some agreement, and where there would not. Certainly not to convert or be converted. I'm certainly not scared of the progressive movement....just perhaps trying to understand it. Although it has been neat on those few occasions where a few of us have found agreement.

 

I can certainly sympathize with Des regarding a debate when both sides are firmly entrenched and firmly opposed...at some point, it leads to "what's the use?" One thing I don't understand, and never have, is the idea of getting so offended or wounded at someone else's IDEAS. It seems like that happens alot here.

 

I just got off the phone with a Muslim aquaintance of mine who helps me with some remodelling. He and I have had some deep theological discussions. I think he has missed it,and is wrong. Likewise, he definitely thinks that I, by believing Jesus is the son of God (and God himself), have missed it and am wrong. And he tells me this.

 

Where's the foul? I'm not angry with him. He hasn't wounded me or "disrespected" or abused me. His belief that he has the answer, or "the way", and that I'm not on it doesn't affect me one bit. At the end of one of our spiritual discussions, we part amicably, and are none the worse for it. And both still leave feeling we're right and the other is wrong.

 

Enough for now...hope everyone has a good weekend.

[MOW]

Hello darby

 

Flow pretty much summed up my feelings in an earlier post. I took great pains to describe the Straw Man logic fallacy. I gave an example of what it was . I carefully explained why I thought DCJ was commiting it . The Straw Man fallacy is an invalid form of logic, whether its used by liberals or conservatives. But its like you didn't hear it . You never mentioned it in your post and just assumed I was just taking her side.

 

I'm heterosexual myself, but I have a relative who is gay. As you may know I'm a musician who, in addition to working for the church, have many years playing in musical theatre and for dance companies. Needless to say I know many gay people . In addition to them I know that Tschaikowski, Aaron Copland, Leonard Bernstein, Billy Strayhorn, Charles Griffes etc. are not "abominations".

 

You ask how we could be offended personally by someone's ideas. It's not us personally that's offended ,but they are attacking people we love and respect ;and we know what they are saying is untrue. Suppose your Muslim acquaintence was more than that ,and was a friend. How would you like it if some conservative called him a "terrorist' . You wouldn't just stand there and say"well that's just his opinion".

It's also true ,in a different reality (if you had been born in another country perhaps) you could be the Muslim and he could be the Christian.

 

 

MOW

[des]

>darby said:

I think it's safe to say that this forum is at best a dialogue, not a debate forum. When people truly begin to debate ideas here, IMO, people get offended. I think that's probably why people have peeled away. It's certainly why I have not posted in months and now only occasionally check in.

 

I think it is the tendency of groups to get more contentious in time. Sad but true. I have noticed this in forum after forum and before the web as an entity really existed. Yes I know i date myself. :-)

Maybe it's just entropy. I haven't noticed too much extreme nastiness- flaming, that sort of thing. But heavy handed debate and argument apparently for argument sake. It's why I haven't stuck around much either. Also I think the quality of discussion has gone downhill. Look at some early threads and see for yourself.

 

>Des, as to why a conservative might check the site out....I won't speak for everyone, but I originally came after reading some stuff from guys like Tony Campolo/Brian Mclaren, some of which I agreed with, and guys like Spong, who I definitely did not agree with. I came trying to see where there might be some agreement,

 

 

Aw gee, darby, I didn't mean you. :-)

Actually the reason is that you have been fair. (I don't always agree with Spong, either, although I think you might say never. He wouldn't be my recommended author for curious conservative readers. ;-))

 

>and where there would not. Certainly not to convert or be converted. I'm certainly not scared of the progressive movement....just perhaps trying to understand it. Although it has been neat on those few occasions where a few of us have found agreement.

 

I like it when you have me thinking about something in a new way. No you haven't converted me. But I think that your participation has been totally positive. It does seem that some of the conservatives here are

out to convert or change hearts and minds or something.

 

>I can certainly sympathize with Des regarding a debate when both sides are firmly entrenched and firmly opposed...at some point, it leads to "what's the use?" One thing I don't understand, and never have, is the idea of getting so offended or wounded at someone else's IDEAS. It seems like that happens alot here.

 

They take their ideas PERSONALLY!? Just a guess. I am not sure that applies to me, as I recall the times I have been offended and it was a personal thing and not my ideas. One recently in fact.

 

>I just got off the phone with a Muslim aquaintance of mine who helps me with some remodelling. He and I have had some deep theological discussions. I think he has missed it,and is wrong. Likewise, he definitely thinks that I, by believing Jesus is the son of God (and God himself), have missed it and am wrong. And he tells me this.

 

I personally would not enjoy this. But I once had a friend and she was a Missouri Synod Lutheran and we had interesting discussions on religion. We didn't usually debate, but would talk about various topics--- Christian Science was one of them. She was also an amateur astronomer so she did not like taking Genesis one quite as literally, so that was interesting. That's where I came up with the idea of "soft literalism". I have since read about it, but it is where you say, ok the Bible is literally true, but you get to certain topics or areas and you say, "Nah".

 

MOW described to me the kind of situation where I get personally offended. I have gay friends and aquantances. I think the "terrorist" analogy was an apt one.

 

 

--des

[October's Autumn]

You ask how we could be offended personally by someone's ideas.

 

It isn't just *someone's ideas* it is someone claiming to be speaking for God and knowing what God thinks! While it is wrong to call someone who is gay an abomination it is even more wrong to claim that God believes such. It makes me sick to see someone use God to justify their own hatred.

[October's Autumn]

That has come to mean a lot to me over the past few months.

 

I'm still not an inerrantist, I think men's opinions are in the Bible as much as God's are, but even with that, I look at each scripture (even the objectionable ones) and try to find the truth within it. Reason and interpretation definitely play a role.

 

 

The notion that Jesus held the scripture to be God's Word is an interesting concept, allbeit a misconception. The New Testament didn't exist at the time. The idea of "God's Word" didn't exist at the time. It is a modern idea.

 

Judaism has traditionally been a religion of discussion and debate. Interpreters freely disagree with each other about what means what.

 

Certainly you can find truth anywhere so the bible would not be any different than a piece of artwork, a poem, a song, a book, newspaper article or a speech.

 

It is when the bible becomes a weapon in the hands of some that I draw the line. Some use it to decide who is "in" and who is "out." When Conservatives and Fundamentalists put gay people "out" they automatically become in as far as God is concerned. Read what Jesus has to say about the religious leaders of his time and their desires to determine who is "in" and who is "out." THose who they determined to be "out" were the same people who Jesus said were "in."

[Quaker Way]

Someone asked in my blog's comments (gratutitous advertising - http://jamesamdg.blogspot.com) so I'm back. Hopefully I can stick around for a bit and while I'm here, let's pick a fight.

 

This is part of the original post that I responded to. Liberal-baiting and the propping up of dogma and proof texts isn't discussion, it's antagonism. I really have no patience for it myself on a website that aims at fostering dialogue among progressive Christians. To take this post seriously is to fall into the trap set by the author.

[Kay]

The notion that Jesus held the scripture to be God's Word is an interesting concept, allbeit a misconception. The New Testament didn't exist at the time. The idea of "God's Word" didn't exist at the time. It is a modern idea.

 

I didn't think Jesus was referring to the "New Testament" but to the Law and the Prophets. It's unfortunate that nowdays the terms "scripture" and "bible" and "God's word" are used interchangeably. I do it myself and kick myself when I do it.

 

Judaism has traditionally been a religion of discussion and debate. Interpreters freely disagree with each other about what means what.

 

That's something that Rob Bell (my current favorite Christian thinker) makes a big deal about in his book "Velvet Elvis." That scripture is open-ended and that it's meant to be interpreted, discussed, debated and delved into IN A GROUP.

 

Certainly you can find truth anywhere so the bible would not be any different than a piece of artwork, a poem, a song, a book, newspaper article or a speech.

 

I do look at the Bible as being a bit more inspired and inspirational than those things, but I don't rule out finding truth in those things either.

 

It is when the bible becomes a weapon in the hands of some that I draw the line.

 

Yup. Me too.