Let's see...
If I were a nun... ahem… a teacher, I’d send Frank to the blackboard and write a trillion times:
“I should not interpret the Bible on my own. Leviticus is not the Bible.”
“I should not interpret the Bible on my own. Leviticus is not the Bible.”
“I should not interpret the Bible on my own. Leviticus is not the Bible.”
Man, nobody would mess with those nuns! But since I’m not a nun, and I cannot use the ruler to help him understand, Frank keeps messing with us trying to get away with mischief (those Lutheran colleges…).
I concede defeat. I wanted to avoid a war of Bible verses, but now it seems that’s the only way of seeing if
Frank Apisa’s theory of exegesis holds. I already asked how would Frank interpret the following passages:
Quote:"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Pe 1:20-21)
"Since on the seventh day God was finished with the work he had been doing, he rested on the seventh day from all the work he had undertaken." (Gen 2:2)
"When they heard the sound of the LORD God moving about in the garden at the breezy time of the day, the man and his wife hid themselves from the LORD God among the trees of the garden." (Gen 3:8)
I got no response. No problem. Let’s be optimistic and quote some more Scripture, to see if light can be made. I’ll
start with Frank’s favorite verse, the very verse with which this forum was created
ex nihilo:
Quote:"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." Leviticus 20:13
Frank BELIEVES that if Jews and Christians were honest in the way they read the Bible, they would have no choice but to go and kill homosexuals.
For in Frank’s mind, honesty involves taking this verse as the literal word of “the god of the Bible” .
Frank’s
moral reasoning goes something like this:
1. Jews and Christians
should be honest.
2. Honest and truthful interpretation of any text means that one
should focus
only on what a text literally says.
3. Honest and truthful interpretation of any text means that one
should not cloud our understanding of what a passage literally says by bringing other passages from elsewhere.
4. Therefore, honest Jews and Christians
should focus on the literal meaning of Leviticus 20:13, disregard other passages (because they are irrelevant to our understanding of that specific verse), and kill homosexuals.
Now, Frank’s “facts”:
1. Jews and Christians are not killing homosexuals.
2. The reason: Jews and Christians are not understanding Leviticus 20:13 for what it literally says.
3. The reason: Jews and Christians
mix Bible verses
arbitrarily to avoid their literal meaning when they cause
controversy.
4. Therefore: Jews and Christians are dishonest and untruthful.
The problem is in points 2 and 3 of Frank’s moral principles and statements of fact. They are SIMPLISTIC beyond belief. Let's see:
For a believer, the Bible is
both a collection of separate books, and one single book.
Separate books, if we consider their widely different human circumstances, authorship, literary genre, date of composition, theological outlook, and such.
One book if we consider God as its author.
In other words,
we not only need to discern what the human author may have meant (in a social, historical, and religious context that is several thousand years removed from ours), but once we capture what he literally meant, we only start the process of
discerning the Word of God for us. And
since from the perspective of faith the Bible is one single book, to be faithful to God’s Word we do need to take into account ALL OF SCRIPTURE.
Frank misses this point, and BELIEVES that for Jews and Christians the human meaning intended by the author of Leviticus is (or ought to be) the meaning intended by God. However, for a Jew and a Christian, to take the literal meaning of Leviticus 20:13 as the meaning intended by God is equivalent to disregarding all other revelation, and to canonizing the human intentions of the author of Leviticus as if he was God. [I had already explained this…]
Once again: If you focus on the literal meaning, you get the human meaning alone. And this is of interest for historians and archaeologists. Not for spiritual pastors. [Here I won’t deal with the fact—already mentioned—that both in Judaism and in Christianity,
the people existed first, and Scripture later. This has an key impact in defining what is Scripture, what’s is relationship with the community, how it is to be read, and how this community is to discern its meaning through its pastors… which brings to the fore the ESSENTIAL notions of Authority and Tradition]
From Leviticus 20:13 (and from other passages)
we certainly get the idea that homosexuality goes against God’s plan, and that this is no small offense. To find out more about this issue, we need something else (the totality of Scripture, Tradition, and the Church). Unless, of course, you want to take the human meaning of the author of Leviticus as if it were God’s will for us.
Let’s see how this works in practice. Take a look at the following Biblical verses:
Quote:If a man commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death. Leviticus 20:10
If a man is discovered having relations with a woman who is married to another, both the man and the woman with whom he has had relations shall die. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. Dt 22:22
Now, compare them with the following passage:
Quote:The scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, they say unto him, "Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?" This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him [Frankie?]. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not so when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast the stone at her," and again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground, and they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, "Woman where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?" She said, "No man, Lord." and Jesus said unto her "Neither do I condemn thee: go and sin no more." John 8:1-11
Which passage is to be used as a key to understand the other? Should we use Leviticus to understand John? Or vice versa? Christ knew Leviticus and DISREGARDED the punishment there proposed. Capisce? Christ himself did not stop at the literal meaning of a verse (as the scribes, the Pharisees, and Frank suggested). Christ himself
taught us how to read Scripture and discern in it what came from God and what came from man (Timber would call this “pick and choose”). In other words, we find in the Bible itself (Gospels and other books) guidance on how to read it!!!! Christ gave us the
KEY OF KEYS (for moral issues):
Quote: When the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together, and one of them [a scholar of the law] tested him by asking, "Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?"
He said to him, "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments." (Mt 22:34-40)
That’s the key. That's why the Catholic Church has always read the Bible so very differently from you, Frank, and from the many others who through the centuries sought to confuse people by bringing up one intriguing verse or another. Too many self-appointed "teachers" have brought confusion as a result of this pretense--especially in the United States.
Frank and Timber believe that to be selective about what the Bible says is tantamount to being dishonest (Christ himself was therefore dishonest). No need to worry: their views do not hold.
To them, one shouldn’t even interpret the Bible, for interpretation necessarily involves selection. One should just read and apply, as if we were dealing with the civil code (as if the Bible was a civil code!!).
But then, how would they APPLY this verse?:
Quote:"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Pe 1:20-21)
Or this one?
Quote:…consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. (2 Pe 3:15-16)
They don't say how THEY interpret those passages.
What should we do with the “contradictions” that have been mentioned? They don’t say either. They don’t even attempt to solve them. Perhaps they believe that the Bible is a set of documents essentially contradictory to each other, and that the only honest thing to do is to throw it out the window. They despair, for they cannot see beyond the human intention of the human authors of the Bible. They despair, for they try to make sense of Scripture while rejecting the only sure guide we have in these issues (the Church). They despair, and want to drag everybody else along... The Church, however, ought to see beyond all of this.
Let’s see what else we can learn about reading the Bible:
Quote:there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official... Seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah.
The Spirit said to Philip, "Go and join up with that chariot."
Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?"
He replied, "How can I, unless someone instructs me?" So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him. This was the scripture passage he was reading: "Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter, and as a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he opened not his mouth. In (his) humiliation justice was denied him. Who will tell of his posterity? For his life is taken from the earth."
Then the eunuch said to Philip in reply, "I beg you, about whom is the prophet saying this? About himself, or about someone else?"
Then Philip opened his mouth and, beginning with this scripture passage, he proclaimed Jesus to him.
What are the lessons here?
1. It is possible for us not to understand (duh! Frankie?).
2. Who is going to explain it to us? Not just anybody, but an Apostle who has the authority.
3. Full understanding takes place in the context of faith.
4. Full understanding goes beyond literal meanings.
I hope you finally see these points. If not, I’ll have to send you to Sister Petrine. She’ll straighten you out. :wink:
-------------
A few final comments on the many things you say:
Quote:When the church gets the opportunity to explain its stand on an issue -- it simply ignores any passages in the Bible that cause conflict.
There is a difference between "ignoring" a passage, and putting it into context. You're the one ignoring inconvenient passages. But
the "picking and choosing" of the Church is perfectly justified, while yours is not. The Church has the key and the authority. You have neither.
Quote:You have not offered one word as to how the Church explains that issue -- and you have offered not one word of explanation from the Church as to how it explains it.
I have offered pages upon pages, but you don't read carefully.
Quote:That probably is because the church doesn't explain it in any way -- IT IGNORES IT -- pretends it is not there -- and then justifies this insult to logic and reason by asserting a "holistic approach" to interpretation. There is no "holistic approach", Maliagar, it is avoidance and deception by the Church...
I've shown this to be false.
Quote:The god of the Bible (who is the god of Leviticus and the god of all the rest of the Bible) specifically says that homosexual conduct is an abomination.
I already said this, without getting a response from you. That very same God also says: "Do not judge others, forgive, be merciful" What are you going to do about this piece of evidence? Ignore it yet once again?
Quote:How do you, with a straight face (I'm assuming a straight face), assume that I cannot grasp its literal meaning, let alone its spiritual meaning -- ...?
Several times I asked for your take on the Gospel's command of mercy and forgiveness. And not once did you bother to even attempt to think of an answer. I wonder about your straight face... This is the only "response" you had the nerve to present:
Quote:I have attempted to resolve it -- and it is my opinion that it cannot be resolved logically or ethically. It is my opinion that the only way past it is to avoid the passage and pretend that it is not there -- something I feel honor and ethics bound not to do.
Well, that's your opinion. And I should certainly TRUST that you have tried. But you haven't done it here. You haven't shown us your logic. And you haven't given me any arguments in support of this particular opinion. You've just declared your conclusion, as if your vehemence and assertiveness were proof of anything.
Quote:I think I am on higher moral ground than you or your church in this instance.
That's soooooo evident... :wink:
Quote:Show me where the Church quotes the passage from Leviticus -- and gives any kind of explanation for it. Show me where the Church quotes the passage from Leviticus and give a coherent reconciliation of it -- vis a vis any other passages they consider germane.
I've already given you a lot.
Quote:If you are a lover of truth and logic -- it is even more dangerous to allow the Catholic Church to do the Biblical interpreting for you. They are like snake oil salesmen when they do it.
This is not (a) a statement of fact, or (b) an argument. This is just a statement of your values... a projection of your own personal feelings (fears?).
Quote:You are even more fixed at ducking the words and passages from the Bible that are troublesome for you.
For me the Bible is not a problem AT ALL. See, I don't take upon myself the task of deciding its real meaning. I let the teachers do their thing. (Of course, as an informed Catholic, I want to know how they do it. And I do.)
Quote:What you want to do is for everyone to pretend that the words are not there -- or if they are there, they should not be considered.
That's what I want to do?
What a powerful argument...
Quote:It would be laughable if you weren't so intelligent, Maliagar.
Laugh if you want... :wink: Anybody can be intelligent. The real thing is to do our homework. I've done it; you haven't.
:wink:
