"I'm not interpreting it; that's what it says."

[Autumnleaf]

You make a good point. There are those who tryu to redefine what is fairly clear. But homosexual acts are one case where one sees both sides of this issue. The story of Sodom (the most cited it seems) does not point to homosexuality per se, rather inhospitality. Other verses often cited refer to temple prostitution. Still some verses remain that do point to homosexual acts per se.

But nowhere is homosexuality or homosexual acts made out to be the sin of sins as many seem to treat it. In fact those who single out homosexuality are really doing exactly the same things that you say (correctly) that homosexuals are doing, trying to minimize their own sins.

No, people who single out homosexuality are pointing out a grave sin. People who disagree with them are trying to avoid what God says is wrong. There is no interpretation of the Bible I know of or have heard of which says a man porking a man is ok. It takes someone with a vivid imagination to interpret that from the Bible.

 

[quatona]

When you decide to post what interpretation you believe in let me know. Until then I will probably suspect you are moving the goal post yourself for your own agendas.

Well, what is it with you and these attempts to evade the OP question by making assumptions about those who ask this question? This is your third attempt of doing it.

 

[cantata]

I wonder, Autumnleaf...

'"I am the living bread that came down from heaven."' - John 6:51

Is it a grave mistake to think that Jesus wasn't actually, literally, a loaf of bread? I mean, those are his words.

I'd be interested to know, also, what your interpretation is of texts which give useful information about slavery or polygamy, for example.

All reading is interpretation.

 

[Autumnleaf]

I wonder, Autumnleaf...

'"I am the living bread that came down from heaven."' - John 6:51

Is it a grave mistake to think that Jesus wasn't actually, literally, a loaf of bread? I mean, those are his words.

I'd be interested to know, also, what your interpretation is of texts which give useful information about slavery or polygamy, for example.

All reading is interpretation.

As a Catholic I've been taught Jesus is bread every day they have a mass and transubstantiation happens. I don't get it but that's what they tell me. God doesn't seem to have a problem with slavery or polygamy. When the meaning of a statement is clear there is only one valid interpretation.

 

[ReverendDG]

No, people who single out homosexuality are pointing out a grave sin.

is it worse than murder? shaving your beard? eating shellfish? because those are grave too according to the book

People who disagree with them are trying to avoid what God says is wrong.

ironies of ironies,

There is no interpretation of the Bible I know of or have heard of which says a man porking a man is ok. It takes someone with a vivid imagination to interpret that from the Bible.

the debate is not over whether its ok, its whether its really even in the book.
people use different translations, different translators had different agendas, for instance the KJV, has so much stuff in it about "homosexuals" simply because the translators had problems with king james, who was gay
most of the anti-gay verses are translated badly, paul gets really mutilated by people claiming that they will not get into heaven, but its not talking about homosexuals

 

[Mling]

is it worse than murder? shaving your beard? eating shellfish? because those are grave too according to the book


ironies of ironies,

the debate is not over whether its ok, its whether its really even in the book.
people use different translations, different translators had different agendas, for instance the KJV, has so much stuff in it about "homosexuals" simply because the translators had problems with king james, who was gay
most of the anti-gay verses are translated badly, paul gets really mutilated by people claiming that they will not get into heaven, but its not talking about homosexuals

That's an excellent point. It's easy enough to interpret "homosexuality" when the word "homosexual" shows up in English. But when the Hebrew word *clearly* meant "prostitute" (literally, "Holy One")...makes a person wonder why the word "homosexual" is there at all.

 

[TeddyKGB]

When the meaning of a statement is clear there is only one valid interpretation.

A fair approximation of a tautology, that.

What importance do you place on the fact that the Old Testament appears to condemn male homosexuality roughly a billion times more than female homosexuality?

 

[cheese007]

I wonder, Autumnleaf...

'"I am the living bread that came down from heaven."' - John 6:51

Is it a grave mistake to think that Jesus wasn't actually, literally, a loaf of bread? I mean, those are his words.

I'd be interested to know, also, what your interpretation is of texts which give useful information about slavery or polygamy, for example.

All reading is interpretation.

Actually, there's photographic proof for that one!
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f375/cheese93007/bread_jesus_p.jpg

God doesn't seem to have a problem with slavery or polygamy. When the meaning of a statement is clear there is only one valid interpretation.

The fact that you don't see a problem with this disturbs me a bit.

 

[NavyGuy7]

Hahah, I love the picture.

 

[cantata]

When is the meaning ever completely clear?

I recommend Nicholas Lash's book Theology on the Way to Emmaus, and particularly his chapter on Performing the Scriptures.

"In order to do the job properly, Christian discipleship, the performative interpretation of scripture, needs (just as much as does the interpretation of Beethoven and Shakespeare) the services of scholarship and critical reflection."

 

[TheManeki]

I thought that one of the great things about the Protestant reformation was that it encouraged the person to study and interpret the Bible, instead of following the Roman Catholic Church's take on things.

And yet here we are, with far too many Christians unquestioningly repeating what they were told by their preachers, instead of studying and critically thinking for themselves. And it seems that the first lesson from the pastors is "These aren't my words, they're the words of God."

 

[Athene]

It's both naive and arrogant to claim that while 'I' just pick up the Bible and read what it says, if you disagree with what I read then it's you who has the agenda, it is you who are using presuppositions. It's also absolute nonsense, nobody just picks up the Bible and reads it, we all wear a pair of cultural/sociological/historical/theological glasses. We interpret the Bible through a framework and there is no exception to this as not one of us can step outside of our cultural, historical, sociological contexts and read the Bible objectively.

 

[Verv]

It's both naive and arrogant to claim that while 'I' just pick up the Bible and read what it says, if you disagree with what I read then it's you who has the agenda, it is you who are using presuppositions. It's also absolute nonsense, nobody just picks up the Bible and reads it, we all wear a pair of cultural/sociological/historical/theological glasses. We interpret the Bible through a framework and there is no exception to this as not one of us can step outside of our cultural, historical, sociological contexts and read the Bible objectively.

To an extent I agree with that but the goal of Christianity should be a universal body of Christians who view things from similar cultural points. We should not be viewing things through an altered form so tos peak but to view it from the same view as we were intended to.

People shouldn't have the power to come up with extreme interpretations.

We need a dynamic, unified Christian culture.

 

[NavyGuy7]

I thought that one of the great things about the Protestant reformation was that it encouraged the person to study and interpret the Bible, instead of following the Roman Catholic Church's take on things.

And yet here we are, with far too many Christians unquestioningly repeating what they were told by their preachers, instead of studying and critically thinking for themselves. And it seems that the first lesson from the pastors is "These aren't my words, they're the words of God."

Gee, if ONLY we wouldn't tell the truth... how horrible!

But some pastors do get it wrong. Thankfully, my church would CORRECT the pastor if he got something wrong. But lovingly, and kindly, not, "HE got something wrong! GET HIM!!!!!"
LOL, i can see the mess THAT would be.

 

[Autumnleaf]

I thought that one of the great things about the Protestant reformation was that it encouraged the person to study and interpret the Bible, instead of following the Roman Catholic Church's take on things.

And yet here we are, with far too many Christians unquestioningly repeating what they were told by their preachers, instead of studying and critically thinking for themselves. And it seems that the first lesson from the pastors is "These aren't my words, they're the words of God."

The thing the Protestant reformation did was fracture Christ's Church which he prayed would stay together. The result was Protestants and Catholics killing each other which finally turned into the mess we have now of some churches accepting every immoral behavior under the son from its leaders and parishoners.

 

[Athene]

The thing the Protestant reformation did was fracture Christ's Church which he prayed would stay together. The result was Protestants and Catholics killing each other which finally turned into the mess we have now of some churches accepting every immoral behavior under the son from its leaders and parishoners.

The mess we have now? Which history books have you been reading?

 

[phoenixgw]

Interpretation, in a Biblical sense, means to untie or loosen, as in a ball of string full of snags and knots (Heb. pashar). To interpret scripture is to untie a mystery so that one can see God's message to the reader in the text. In other words, the scripture is reading you. This day to day struggle with Biblical interpretation (individually or in groups) enriches our spiritual life and relationship with the living God.

Most people have relied on church doctrine to interpret scripture. For 1260 years, that meant that the church did not translate the Bible in a language laity could understand, nor did the church allow the laity to read the text. The OT and NT were effectively witnesses in sackcloth for 3.5 prophetic years.

Once the Bible was printed in many languages, people started to read it for themselves. Two distinct interpretative styles developed; liberal and conservative. The liberal extreme is to read the Bible allegorically in order to receive a moral lesson or a divine truth. These readers do not trouble themselves whether or not certain Biblical events happened, for they see no benefit from it. What counts is what the text is revealing to the reader--right now. The past nor the future is not an immediate concern to the liberal reader of the Bible.

At the other extreme, we have the conservative, verbal plenary inspiration, which essentially means that the very words in the Bible are God-breathed into the writers and onto the pages of Scripture. The doctrines and confessions of their church shape their perception of the text and their interpretations. There are enough discrepancies in the Gospels alone to blow this theory out of the water. http://ffrf.org/books/lfif/?t=stone To hold the Bible in this view is to look at the backside of a tapestry and never see its true beauty or perfection.

Both the liberal and conservative views are lacking. Rather than allowing God to reveal to us the perfection he is weaving out of human imperfection, the Bible becomes sets of Rorschach drawings from which we make our judgments. Most of the infighting and debates on these forums are based on Rorschach judgments rather than revelation received by Scriptural interpretation.

"Therefore, I urge you, brothers (and sisters), in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will" (Romans 12:1,2 NIV).

"No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him" (1 Cor. 2:9, NIV).

May you encounter the living God in your prayers and interpretations of Scripture.

 

[TheManeki]

I figure this would be a good time to share an article at the Slacktivist blog called "The Exegetical Panic Defense."

"We see through a glass, darkly," St. Paul said, warning against the temptation to chase the will-o'-the-wisp of certainty. But American evangelicalism is largely based on the idea that certainty is not only possible, but necessary. Mandatory, even. This certainty can be achieved thanks to the one-legged stool of the Evangelical Unilateral.

That's a made-up term, but it describes something real. It's a play on the "Wesleyan Quadrilateral" -- an approach to theological thinking that relies on the four foundations of scripture, tradition/community, reason and experience.

The evangelical approach to theological thinking is exactly like this Wesleyan method, except it doesn't include tradition or community. Or reason. Or experience. All of those things are viewed, instead, as potentially corrosive threats to the pure certainty offered by scripture alone -- by the unambiguous and self-evident, prima facie "literal" meaning of scripture. Such an approach requires not only that the text itself be pure, accessible, infallible, inerrant and impervious to misinterpretation but also that the reader of the text be pure, insightful, infallible, inerrant and incapable of misinterpretation. It requires that the reader be some kind of Platonic ideal, a blank slate uninfluenced by culture, language, intellect or life experience. That is, of course, impossible. The point here, however, is not to evaluate or criticize this evangelical epistemology, or to point out all the ways in which it does not and cannot work, but rather to acknowledge descriptively that this is how American evangelical Christians attempt to view the world.

When faced with apparent contradictions amongst scripture, tradition, reason and experience, a Christian applying something like the Wesleyan Quadrilateral will attempt to reconcile them. A Christian applying the Evangelical Unilateral will, instead, determine that they don't need to be reconciled and that any apparent contradictions between scripture and reason, or between scripture and tradition (i.e., how others have interpreted that same text), or even between scripture and their own life experience must be settled by embracing the apparent meaning of the former and rejecting the apparent meaning of the latter...

For some other Christian, someone relying on something like the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, this can be an instructive experience. Those kinds of Christians are allowed, and even required, to learn from their experience, from their reason and conscience...

But for an evangelical relying on the Unilateral, weighing your own experience against the purportedly crystal clear teachings of scripture is verboten. Something's gotta give and that something, in this case, is their own experience, conscience and instincts. That's when the panic-inducing cognitive dissonance kicks in and fight-or-flight takes over. And then anything could happen.

 

[lawtonfogle]

To an extent I agree with that but the goal of Christianity should be a universal body of Christians who view things from similar cultural points. We should not be viewing things through an altered form so tos peak but to view it from the same view as we were intended to.

People shouldn't have the power to come up with extreme interpretations.

We need a dynamic, unified Christian culture.

By extreme, you mean different from the average interpretation(s) by some degree agreed upon by those who hold the average interpretation(s)?

 

[lawtonfogle]

Gee, if ONLY we wouldn't tell the truth... how horrible!

But some pastors do get it wrong. Thankfully, my church would CORRECT the pastor if he got something wrong. But lovingly, and kindly, not, "HE got something wrong! GET HIM!!!!!"
LOL, i can see the mess THAT would be.

If only it was the truth...


Oh, and when you try to correct the pastor, it is seen as a student telling a teacher she is wrong. Very few take it kindly, and you can be attacked for doing it. So most people bottle up all the 'wrongs' their pastor commits, and sooner or later, everything just happens at once. Nasty business, kills churches, destroys their ministry, harms those old enough to be caught up in what is happening but not old enough to be able to fight for themselves.