In article <vUAKj.3686$4Q1.3342@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, shegeek72 says...
>http://www.ppmcc.org/About_the_Bible.html
>The Bible is a collection of writings which span more than a thousand
>years recounting the history of God's
>relation****p with the Hebrew and Christian people. It was written in
>several languages,
Several? It is odd to call three 'several'. Or are you saying
'several' because you don't _know_ what languages it was written in?
>embraces many literary forms, and reflects cultures very different
>from our own. These are im****tant considerations for properly
>understanding the Bible in its context.
Considerations you regularly ignore, except for the lip service you
give to them here.
>There are vast differences in doctrines between various Christian
>denominations, all of which use the same Bible.
'Vast' is an overstatement. If you want 'vast', take a look at the
difference between all the varieties of Hinduism -- or between any
form of Hinduism and any of Christianity.
>Such differences have led some Christians to claim that other
>Christians are not really Christians at all!
And if you had attentively read Charles' FAQs for this NG, you would
know that that is not at all an unreasonable position.
>Biblical interpretation and theology differ from church to church.
So what? That in no way justifies your wildly irrational conclusions
below.
>Biblical Interpretation and Theology also change from time to time.
And in some churches, the change is good, and in others, not good. So
what _is_ your point?
>Approximately 150 years ago in the United States, some Christian
>teaching held that there was a two-fold moral order: black and white.
That sounds like gross distortion to me. I seriously doubt even the
worst of them could so completely overturn the Epistels of Paul as to
embrace a "two-fold moral order".
>Whites were thought to be superior to blacks,
This was always a position based on gross ignorance. It was _never_
endorsed, for example, by any of the churches that accept the Seven
E***enical Councils. On the contrary: ever since earliest days, the
Roman Church was quite clear on the matter: blacks and indians have
souls too, therefore are just as much in need of salvation and grace
-- and often capable of very great service to the Church, such as
St. Moses the Black.
There is even a small but substantial minority of scholars that
believe that Augustine was black.
>therefore blacks were to be subservient and slavery was an
>institution ordained by God.
You are confusing different issues. Whether or not blacks were
inferior and whether or not slaver was 'ordained' by God are different
issues.
>Clergy who sup****ted such an abhorrent idea claimed the authority of
>the Bible.
Well, so what? They were under anathema when they said these monstrous
things.
>The conflict over slavery led to divisions which gave birth to some
>major Christian denominations. These same denominations, of course,
>do not sup****t slavery today. Did the Bible change? No, their
>interpretation of the Bible did!
This could be an example of a good change...
>Lesbians and gay men face discrimination because of societal
>attitudes.
Ah yes. The setup for your favorite false analogy, that between
prejudice against blacks and 'prejudice' against depravity.
>Unfortunately, these attitudes are often taught by the
>church.
Nothing 'unfortunate' about that.
>Sadly, the Bible is often used as a weapon to "bash" gays and
>lesbians.
Even more sadly, people like you use this as a red herring, to fool
people into feeling a false sympathy for you.
>It is im****tant to remember that such hurtful things are not a
>reflection of Christ, or the way God wants the church to be, or even
>what the Bible really says.
How typical of your love of fallacy! You say "it is im****tant to
remember" what is not even true!
>They are the products of the fallible and imperfect human beings who
>guide these churches.
You claim to see so keenly when others teach the "products of the
fallible and imperfect human beings", yet you fail to see how _your_
teachings are even more fallible? This would be funny if it weren't so
tragic.
>Ultimately, a Christian's personal faith should not depend upon a
>particular church or clergyperson, but rather it should be solidly
>placed in Jesus Christ.
Yours cannot be, since you are waging a propaganda war against His
teachings.
>In addition to the biased teachings of certain ministers,
Such as what you show us is the biased teaching of ministers in the
"Metropolitan Community Churches"?
>Scripture sometimes presents a stumbling block for people who are
>both homo***ual and Christian.
Why, yes. It does. So why are you so determined to explain it away
with fallacies?
>Thoughtful Bible study reveals that the Bible does have Good News for
>gays and lesbians, and it does not say what you may have thought it
>did about homo***uals!
You have _never_ presented the fruit of "thoughtful bible study"
here. You have always presented only very _thoughtless_ 'study.
>Understanding The Bible In A New Way... There are at least two
>im****tant things to keep in mind when reading the Bible. First, you
>must always consider its context. In order to understand any writing
>(whether it be a letter, a speech, or even the Bible) it is necessary
>to understand its background.
But if you _ever_ did this, you would keep in mind the intense hatred
the Hebrew culture of the time had for homo***uality. But this is
embarassing to you, so you avoid it. You avoid it zealously.
>Think about who is speaking, to whom it is addressed, why it written,
>and what the culture was like.
Again: this is what you never do.
>In the case of Scripture, the cultural and social context of Biblical
>times was very different from our own. For example, when the Bible
>says God commands humanity to "increase and multiply," remember,
>among other things, this was addressed to Israel, a small, desert
>nation surrounded by many enemies.
This is a great example of how you misread the context. The command
was addressed to all Man, through Adam and Eve.
>They needed to "multiply" just to survive.
What you miss is that the command was not given to the first _Hebrew_,
it was given to the first man and woman. The Hebrews did not come
along until MUCH later.
>Secondly, the Bible began as an oral tradition and then was written
>in ancient languages (primarily Hebrew in the Old Testament and Greek
>in the New Testament) over many centuries. It was copied and re-
>copied in the original languages, and then translated into other
>languages. As anyone who speaks or reads more than one language will
>understand, translating requires interpretation and personal
>judgement. Even with the best of intentions, translators and copyists
>are quite capable of human error.
Well, of course they are. But the worst of their errors pales in
comparison with yours.
>The most beautiful word in the Gospel of Jesus Christ is "whosoever" .
Not even close.
>All of God's promises are intended for every human being.
This isn't close either.
>This includes gay men and lesbians.
The promise is for those who REPENT. If they do not repent, then it is
not for them. You have not repented, as you make clear by your
continued propaganda war against His teachings.
>How tragic it is that the Christian Church has excluded and
>persecuted people who are homo***ual!
No, what is tragic is that you insist on 'including' them, when this
only increases their punishment on the Last Day, when they will be
punished for the gross hypocrisy of pretending to be practicing
Christians when they are cut off from the Church by their hardened and
impenitent hearts.
[snip]
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
|
