Bluenose

Ever see the movie "Fiddler on the Roof" ?

What do you remember ? The music, the action, the scenery or the moral of the story ?

How about the times the father quotes cliches or slogans from the "good book" and his wife asks "Where does it say that?"

People tend to remember what seems most important and not all the many details.

Doctor X

Hmmmm . . . conveniently neglect the John passage where Junior denies salvation to good men.

Mk does the same.

As always, we demand "literal" interpretation when it supports our beliefs and "allegorical" when it does not.

It is hypocritical.

What is more interesting--if you believe a Journal of Biblical Literature article from about two years ago--I will have to look up the reference, sorry--the Levitical passages do not forbid homosexuality, they forbid a position . . . "always better to give than receive. . . ."

If that is valid then by citing such a passage is not the "fundamentalist" only condeming a "position?"

Hence the drive against biblical scholarship, for it may reveal things people do not like.

Another recent article--from the President of the Society of Biblical Literature's address--mentions the rather clear demands of child sacrifice in the OT.

So . . . should we reinstitute the practice, particularly if the brat is obnoxious and will not eat his vegetables.

These are not absurd questions. By what criteria do we interpret a passage "strictly" or "loosely."

--J.D.

fatherphil

i'm not as worried about the dmv as i am about God, although because God's repercussions seem so remote i may find myself responding more diligently to the dmv's rules than to God's. yet i certainly know when i'm just paying lip service to either.

i appreciate God's concept of treating all sin the same and not making some little hierarchy of sin we can use to make ourselves feel better about which ones we commit and which ones we don't.

Biff the unclean

You just proved my point. Without really knowing me…
How is it that you can make one hundred and thirty-eight posts, each giving your thoughts, and then contend that we don't know what you were thinking?
but knowing I am a born again,
If that doesn't speak volumes nothing does
you've labeled me according to your negative stereotype without taking the time to see me for who I am.
The negative label was custom fit just for you. It didn't come from a stereotype but resulted from your 138 posts.
Without any understanding of who I am, you've managed to dump me in with the Klan, the Nazis and the most narrowminded bigoted yahoos.
You've already boasted of being a member of such a group-the "born agains"-if you wish to denounce them then feel free. But if you don't then it is you, and not me, that has dumped you with the yahoos
I'd be one of the first people targeted by those groups despite my Christianity and their so-called Christianity.
And the jackals would be the first to be targeted by the hyenas…it doesn't make them French poodles

Please show me where in my life I have tried to change anyone?
Well you have declared homosexuals sinners, as opposed to an English guy on these boards a couple of weeks ago who explained how the bible was completely misinterpreted on the subject. You want them to stop "sinning" don't you?

Or are you basing this on your negative viewpoint of fundies?
The negative viewpoint of Fundies comes from observation not prejudice. They cannot behave so dreadfully and then expect people to admire their behavior

The same scenario can occur in the workplace environment that is not religious. Would you also condemn that boss for his inhumane attitude?
Yes
Or is it just a Christian you will chastise?
The Christian gets chastised twice. Once for being inhumane and a second time for being a hypocrite. Hypocrite in that he was behaving in a manner in direct contradiction to his own preaching of values.

Perhaps you need to take a look at a church. I’ve seen plenty that focus on all of these behaviors. Although to take sides for a moment, how many people are shoving those other behaviors into our faces and demanding we all accept them whether we wish to or not.
Morals have evolved. The Episcopal Church-the American branch of the CoE- is liberal in the extreme and openly welcomes gays. They find prejudice to be contradictory to the teachings of the Christ character. Apparently you do not.

Please, you know what I was saying. You’re trying to twist my words around to mean something else.

John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

John 3 is one of the stupidest things I have ever read.
First the god didn't love the world, he had condemned it to Hell.
Second he didn't "give" his son to anybody, he still has him.
Thirdly nobody has eternal life, everyone dies. If this is supposed to mean some nonsensical "spiritual life" the same myth says that people already had it. There were already souls in Hell and in the "Bosom of Abraham." No need for Jesus on that front.
And if this can somehow be twisted to mean that everybody in the entire world isn't saved from god, but only a handful of Born Again Christians™ then it makes the God character out to be an incompetent failure. John 3 is idiotic.

winstonjen

Are they condemed and legislated against to the same degree as homosexuality? Why isn't the church trying to make those behaviours illegal?

Afterlife blackmail. Proof that he DOESN'T love the world.

emur

Absolutely! But the Christian is worse, because as Biff said, he/she is a hypocrite. Do you agree with the higher-up in my scenario?

Ah lassie, I've seen many churches. Mostly evangelical. And gossip and being unloving are well tolerated. Especially that aimed at other non-Christians who promote a secular agenda and at Christians who disagree with them.

This isn't the issue. But I suppose with the reality of evangelical Christian behavior staring you in the face, evading the point is all that you are left with.

Mel

AJ113

Tu quoque again. Are you allergic to keeping to the point or maybe it is some sort of obsessive compulsive disorder?

Please, you know what I was saying. You’re trying to twist my words around to mean something else.

John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

I make the assumption that by posting this biblical quote you actually subscribe to it. Earlier you said this:

....We try to lead a Christ-like life. We try to live a life without sin. We know we will fall short but we try anyway.....

And she's buying a stairway to heaven. Why do you bother with all of this when the quote from John clearly states that by believing in god's only son you shall not perish but have eternal life?

....Many of the things we try to follow are written in the New Testament.....

Which only goes to show the hypocritical nature of the NT. One minute we're told that all we have to do is believe in Jesus in order to be saved, the next minute we're given a depressingly long list of tasks to perform and morals to hold in order to achieve salvation. FFS we're even told that certain types of thoughts are going to result in us being sent to Hell!

If you can buy your way in to heaven by keeping to all these rules, there's no need for Jesus, really, is there? Which is just as well, because after he "paid for our sins" he got his life back again, fucked off back to heaven and was never seen again.

CJD

Moi? I would rather think it depends on whose talking. From my perspective, the liberals I know of would not dare consider themselves "Trinitarian theists," much less "waste" their time exegeting and defending the Scriptures.


Implicit in the above statement are two possibilites:

1. In order for someone to call another person a "cherry picker" that someone must know the cherry tree better than the one to whom the accusation is tossed. I'm assuming that was not your intention (we can always go to the "formal debates" forum if you think otherwise ).

2. Most probably, you are assuming the "cherry tree standard" is encapsulated in modern fundamentalism. You could be no further from the truth. Historic, orthodox Christianity resembles little the past 110 years of American fundamentalism. In other words, anything beyond the Apostle's Creed, for example, is cherry picking. Thus, every Xian is a "cherry picker" in that sense. It is, after all, what the biblical analogy of "the body" means. No one group has the corner on Truth, and every legitimate group adds to the Body.


Finally, the OP question is meaningless. There are as many different opinions as there are people in the world. The Christian Church is every bit as dynamic and diverse as the "Freethinking Church." Why? Because we humans are by nature selective--all seeking cognitive rest, all fooling ourselves when we think we've found it.

Regards,

CJD


*edited to add the following: Doc X asked: "By what criteria do we interpret a passage "strictly" or "loosely[?]"

The simple answer is "context and genre, while engaging the literary devices used therein." But I think you know the answer already. It takes a lot of work to rightly interpret ancient texts--far more than what most posters here have done. At one level, it is no different than any other field that involves textual criticism.