Liberal and Conservative

[Halbhh]

There is an obvious, I think, rift in the Protestant Church. There are conservatives, who apparently believe the entire Bible is the inerrant Word of God. And there are liberals, who seem to believe we are bound to nothing the Bible says. Has anyone ever wondered if there is some middle ground?

The first is correct, but(!) people misunderstand scripture when they rely on isolated verses -- especially when someone has told them some doctrine to filter/slant/reduce the verses into -- without the full reading through the books the verses are in that would give them correct understanding (if they are humble to listen and hear).

 

[dreadnought]

The first is correct, but(!) people misunderstand scripture when they rely on isolated verses -- especially when someone has told them some doctrine to filter/slant/reduce the verses into -- without the full reading through the books the verses are in that would give them correct understanding (if they are humble to listen and hear).

But the Lord made it very clear that homosexuality is a sin (Leviticus 18:22). Liberals ignore this verse entirely.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

But the Lord made it very clear that homosexuality is a sin (Leviticus 18:22). Liberals ignore this verse entirely.

I agree, when it comes to homosexual relationships God put this issue to rest already in the Leviticus.
How people can be so blended by their own secular ideology that they circumvent this is puzzling.

 

[hedrick]

But the Lord made it very clear that homosexuality is a sin (Leviticus 18:22). Liberals ignore this verse entirely.

Of course, but even conservatives consider the Holiness Code to be non-binding on Christians. It is not ignoring the Bible to disagree on the way the OT applies to Christians.

 

[dreadnought]

I agree, when it comes to homosexual relationships God put this issue to rest already in the Leviticus.
How people can be so blended by their own secular ideology that they circumvent this is puzzling.

And painful.

 

[dreadnought]

Of course, but even conservatives consider the Holiness Code to be non-binding on Christians. It is not ignoring the Bible to disagree on the way the OT applies to Christians.

Clearly, the commandment regarding homosexuality was meant for all of us.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

Of course, but even conservatives consider the Holiness Code to be non-binding on Christians. It is not ignoring the Bible to disagree on the way the OT applies to Christians.

Jesus touches this topic implicitly many times in the gospels too and so does Paul in his letters.

 

[dreadnought]

Of course, but even conservatives consider the Holiness Code to be non-binding on Christians. It is not ignoring the Bible to disagree on the way the OT applies to Christians.

As my new pastor pointed out, it's good to be diverse, but not good to let our diversity change the message.

 

[Halbhh]

But the Lord made it very clear that homosexuality is a sin (Leviticus 18:22). Liberals ignore this verse entirely.

Sinners, we all are, and that's one among many that people can confess and repent from.

But the Lord made it very clear that homosexuality is a sin (Leviticus 18:22). Liberals ignore this verse entirely.

The first part is right if you know it's actually sodomy, that man - woman couples can also do this sin.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

This thing about homosexuality is quite unique and hard to rationally explain theologically to be honest. Other liberal idea such as female priesthood and such is traditionally developed through so called eisegesis which unlike exegesis read stuff (ideologies) into the text and then makes use of said text to defend an introduction of heterodoxy into a church.

Female priesthood is a great example of eisegesis as it claims that since Christ never explicitly condemned this, it can be justified.
This is an obscure way of working with scripture and there are few limits of just how messed up this theology can become...

(BTW, I'll withdraw now as I'm Catholic and have intruded enough already)

 

[JackRT]

There is an obvious, I think, rift in the Protestant Church. There are conservatives, who apparently believe the entire Bible is the inerrant Word of God. And there are liberals, who seem to believe we are bound to nothing the Bible says. Has anyone ever wondered if there is some middle ground?

Actually liberalism is the middle ground. The atheists and agnostics have either left or been turfed out.

I do not accept the Bible as the "Word of God" for the very simple reason that from Genesis to Revelation it is full of scientific errors, historic errors, contradictions, fiction, mythology, mistaken and unfulfilled prophesies, metaphor, allegory and midrashic literature. For these reasons I take the Bible seriously but cannot accept it as either inerrant or literal. It is very human document.

I am convinced that a 'plain reading' of the Bible can often lead us to incorrect understandings and conclusions. Some advise to 'read in context' but even reading several verses before and after is not sufficient. A full context would include an understanding of Jewish history and culture, their cosmology, their religious beliefs and traditions and also of the Jewish literary traditions. An understanding of all of this can lead us into drawing quite different conclusions from some stories than most people are used to.

I approach the Bible like a prospector would approach his claim. I am prepared to spend a lot of time and effort searching for the shining nuggets of wisdom and insight but I am also prepared to have to shift a lot of rubble in order to find them.

 

[dreadnought]

This thing about homosexuality is quite unique and hard to rationally explain theologically to be honest. Other liberal idea such as female priesthood and such is traditionally developed through so called eisegesis which unlike exegesis read stuff (ideologies) into the text and then makes use of said text to defend an introduction of heterodoxy into a church.

Female priesthood is a great example of eisegesis as it claims that since Christ never explicitly condemned this, it can be justified.
This is an obscure way of working with scripture and there are few limits of just how messed up this theology can become...

(BTW, I'll withdraw now as I'm Catholic and have intruded enough already)

Intruded? I enjoyed your contributions.

 

[dreadnought]

Actually liberalism is the middle ground. The atheists and agnostics have either left or been turfed out.

I do not accept the Bible as the "Word of God" for the very simple reason that from Genesis to Revelation it is full of scientific errors, historic errors, contradictions, fiction, mythology, mistaken and unfulfilled prophesies, metaphor, allegory and midrashic literature. For these reasons I take the Bible seriously but cannot accept it as either inerrant or literal. It is very human document.

I am convinced that a 'plain reading' of the Bible can often lead us to incorrect understandings and conclusions. Some advise to 'read in context' but even reading several verses before and after is not sufficient. A full context would include an understanding of Jewish history and culture, their cosmology, their religious beliefs and traditions and also of the Jewish literary traditions. An understanding of all of this can lead us into drawing quite different conclusions from some stories than most people are used to.

I approach the Bible like a prospector would approach his claim. I am prepared to spend a lot of time and effort searching for the shining nuggets of wisdom and insight but I am also prepared to have to shift a lot of rubble in order to find them.

 

[dreadnought]

Actually liberalism is the middle ground. The atheists and agnostics have either left or been turfed out.

I do not accept the Bible as the "Word of God" for the very simple reason that from Genesis to Revelation it is full of scientific errors, historic errors, contradictions, fiction, mythology, mistaken and unfulfilled prophesies, metaphor, allegory and midrashic literature. For these reasons I take the Bible seriously but cannot accept it as either inerrant or literal. It is very human document.

I am convinced that a 'plain reading' of the Bible can often lead us to incorrect understandings and conclusions. Some advise to 'read in context' but even reading several verses before and after is not sufficient. A full context would include an understanding of Jewish history and culture, their cosmology, their religious beliefs and traditions and also of the Jewish literary traditions. An understanding of all of this can lead us into drawing quite different conclusions from some stories than most people are used to.

I approach the Bible like a prospector would approach his claim. I am prepared to spend a lot of time and effort searching for the shining nuggets of wisdom and insight but I am also prepared to have to shift a lot of rubble in order to find them.

Do you believe we should obey the Lord's commandments?

 

[hedrick]

I don't support eisegesis. I know it sometimes happens. But I think we should be honest about what we're doing. I'm not, therefore, prepared to argue that 1st Tim accepts female leaders, even though you can probably make a reasonable argument that it does. But the undisputed letters of Paul actually do accept female leaders, although Paul does see the man as being in some sense the head of marriage.

 

[JackRT]

But the Lord made it very clear that homosexuality is a sin (Leviticus 18:22). Liberals ignore this verse entirely.

Actually, no we don't:

Leviticus 18:22 states the principle: "You [masculine] shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." The second (Lev. 20:13) adds the penalty: "If a man lies with a male as a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them."

Such an act was considered as an "abomination" for several reasons. The Hebrew prescientific understanding was that male sperm contained the whole of nascent life. With no knowledge of eggs and ovulation, it was assumed that the woman provided only the incubating space. Hence the spilling of sperm for any non-procreative purpose -- in coitus interruptus (Gen 38:1-11), male homosexual acts or male masturbation -- was considered tantamount to abortion or murder. (Female homosexual acts and masturbation were consequently not so seriously regarded.) One can appreciate how a tribe struggling to populate a country in which its people were outnumbered would value procreation highly, but such values are rendered questionable in a world facing total annihilation through overpopulation.

In addition, when a man acted like a woman sexually, male dignity was compromised. It was a degradation, not only in regard to himself, but for every other male. The patriarchalism of Hebrew culture shows its hand in the very formulation of the commandment, since no similar stricture was formulated to forbid homosexual acts between females. And the repugnance felt toward homosexuality was not just that it was deemed unnatural but also that it was considered unJewish, representing yet one more incursion of pagan civilization into Jewish life. On top of that is the more universal repugnance heterosexuals tend to feel for acts and orientations foreign to them. (Left-handedness has evoked something of the same response in many cultures).

Homosexuality and the Bible by the late Walter Wink,

Former Professor of Biblical Interpretation, Auburn Theological Seminary, New York City.

 

[dreadnought]

Actually, no we don't:

You don't obey it.

 

[hedrick]

Do you believe we should obey the Lord's commandments?

Yes, but only if they are really the Lord's commandments.

 

[JackRT]

You don't obey it.

Being heterosexual I have never disobeyed it, but even so I do not consider it binding on Christians today. I also eat clams, scallops, mussels and shrimp and have been known to wear clothing of two fabrics. Oh, crab and oysters too.

 

[dreadnought]

Yes, but only if they are really the Lord's commandments.

And Leviticus 18:22 is obviously a commandment.