Homosexuality v. Christianity -- A FEW QUESTIONS:

now look what you made me do!

http://www.silcom.com/~peterf/images/hcnew2.gif

0 Replies

Yes, and Frank is going to think we are all drinking:

Drunk

0 Replies

hmmmmmm, there's a plan.
maybe something in the ice tea when i get back from the next round of dog walking. :wink:

0 Replies

truth
Well, for that stab at Dubya, I forgive you, LW. No need to move. I have a brother living near you (in Yorba Linda). I have to call him now and call off the hit. :wink:

0 Replies

Oh, good -- I can remove the barbed wire from around the house! The barbed wit as far as slamming politicians I cannot seem to remove.

0 Replies

truth
And in the words of Martha, It's a good thing.

0 Replies

deleted

0 Replies

I agree with part of what you say.

However, the key question is: How do you discern what comes from God from what comes from man? Or more precisely, since those human events (and the stories they generated later) carry both (1) God's Revelation, and (2) purely contingent, cultural, historically determined "truths" (the human element is unavoidable), how do we decide?

The danger: Using the prevailing (and very human) "spirit of the times" as our only or even main tool to attempt such discernment. We need something else which is key...

[Another problem: To what extent our very discernment of God's revelation is also culturally and historically determined? I think the solution ought to avoid in some way the dichotomy 'divine / human'; 'necessary / contingent'. The notion of Revelation requires the presence of God in human history--that is, the presence of the absolute right in the middle of (within) the contingent... as radically as in the Incarnation, by which the human and the divine become inextricably united (redeemed humanity is divinized humanity). Faithful interpretation should keep this union between the divine and the human as a guiding principle.]

Some believe that a fundamentalist / literalist reading is the only one possible / honest for a believer. This would force us to accept everything the Bible as coming directly from God (without human intervention). This would imply that everything in the Bible is equally absolute truth (as if it were a homogeneous code of intemporal laws). Anybody who reads the Bible finds out that this is an untenable position. It would lead us to neglect the historical developments that one can see in a collection of books that was written over a span of 2000 years.

The other extreme position sees everything in the Bible as purely human and, therefore, devoid from divine truth.

The Church navigates in between both extremes. The Church is guided both by the divine and the human, to discern both the divine and the human.

:wink:

angie wrote:

underlying assumption in many of the other posts here that the christian bible is an all-or-nothing thing. The bible is a book put together by fallible men (some of whom had a definite and obvious agenda). That said, however, it would not be impossible for believers to feel that there is at least some "truth" within its chapters.

If someone believes in "god", and further believes that this god may have sent representatives to reach out to and teach human beings, he or she will believe in the truth of those teachings, but not necessarily as conveyed in the recorded documents of flawed human beings.

0 Replies

maliagar wrote:

Some believe that a fundamentalist / literalist reading is the only one possible / honest for a believer. This would force us to accept everything the Bible as coming directly from God (without human intervention). This would imply that everything in the Bible is equally valid (as if it were a homogeneous code of intemporal laws). Anybody who reads the Bible finds out that this is an untenable position. It would lead us to neglect the historical developments that one can see in a collection of books that was written over a span of 2000 years.

Actually, anyone who reads the Bible at all finds that the entire book is flawed beyond all ability to rationally or intelligently 'believe'. Ultimately, the only way to view the Bible is not to at all. You really can't logically claim that any part of it came from a 'god' because it's so wholly flawed from end to end.

0 Replies

Quote:

Actually, anyone who reads the Bible at all finds that the entire book...

Mistake #1: The Bible is not a book. It is a library, a collection of separate books. They were composed by many authors, using many literary styles and genre (poetry, legal codes, songs, letters, etc.), over a period of 2000 years.

Quote:

You really can't logically claim that any part of it came from a 'god'...

Mistake #2: To attempt a logical analysis of such a diverse collection of separate books. :wink:

Quote:

the entire book is flawed beyond all ability to rationally or intelligently 'believe'.

Mistake # 3: The Bible's purpose is not to impress you to the point of faith. Its aim is not to generate "belief". Those who read it hoping to "feel" something that would become "faith", or to be "persuaded", are approaching the Scriptures with false expectations. The fact that they do not obtain "faith" does not prove that the Bible is "false", just that their expectations were totally wrong.

Jewish or Christian faith NEVER started by reading a book or set of books... To expect otherwise is to ignore how faith actually occurs today or 2000 years ago...

:wink:

0 Replies

More low comedy.

0 Replies

The notion of Christianity is a human construct, with the rules shifting from time period to time period. The only thing remaining constant in the mish mash is belief that a Jesus Christ exists: Something there is no real proof of.

0 Replies

Cephus

In response to you, Maliagar wrote:

maliagar wrote:

Quote:
Actually, anyone who reads the Bible at all finds that the entire book...

Mistake #1: The Bible is not a book. It is a library, a collection of separate books. They were composed by many authors, using many literary styles and genre (poetry, legal codes, songs, letters, etc.), over a period of 2000 years.

Quote:
You really can't logically claim that any part of it came from a 'god'...

Mistake #2: To attempt a logical analysis of such a diverse collection of separate books. :wink:

Quote:
the entire book is flawed beyond all ability to rationally or intelligently 'believe'.

Mistake # 3: The Bible's purpose is not to impress you to the point of faith. Its aim is not to generate "belief". Those who read it hoping to "feel" something that would become "faith", or to be "persuaded", are approaching the Scriptures with false expectations. The fact that they do not obtain "faith" does not prove that the Bible is "false", just that their expectations were totally wrong.

Jewish or Christian faith NEVER started by reading a book or set of books... To expect otherwise is to ignore how faith actually occurs today or 2000 years ago...

:wink:

Actually, what Maliagar wanted to say here was that you should allow the Catholic Church to tell you what the Bible says and means -- because they are the final authority on it.

He also wanted to assert that the Catholic Church does this by treating the Bible in a holistic way - that the Catholic Church explains away all of those inconsistencies in a logical, sensible, understandable, and ethical way.

The only problem with Maliagar doing any of that asserting is that it is a bunch of bullshit. The Catholic Church does nothing of the sort.

The Church does not explain nor interpret the Bible or any parts of the Bible. What they do is to pull out selective quotes that establish what they want to establish -- and pretend passages that they would prefer not to be there -- actually aren't there. If it is trouble, they ignore it or pretend it is not there - which is what Maliagar does in his personal life - ignores anything that might be trouble; pretends it is not there..

You have a much, much better picture of this issue than Maliagar does, Cephus. Don't ever doubt that.

He's a superstitious guy who is terrified of the barbaric god described in the Bible -- and he will do anything to suck up to this god. He probably doesn't even know it, but he is doing what Pascal suggested with his Wager observations. This farce being played out is one of the reasons I think Pascal's Wager is such silliness.

0 Replies

Quote:

Quote:
Actually, anyone who reads the Bible at all finds that the entire book...

Mistake #1: The Bible is not a book. It is a library, a collection of separate books. They were composed by many authors, using many literary styles and genre (poetry, legal codes, songs, letters, etc.), over a period of 2000 years.

The bible? It's an occasionally interesting, not particularly well-written, collection of historical fiction.

0 Replies

Quote taken from above; "Jewish or Christian faith NEVER started by reading a book or set of books... To expect otherwise is to ignore how faith actually occurs today or 2000 years ago..." In actuallity, most people of faith just followed their parent's religion. Most were not "converted" into their faith. It's only one of those phenomenon of birth; follow what your parents do and say. c.i.

0 Replies

truth
A fault I find with the Catholic mind-set (or theological strategy) is its policy of treating its most bizarre/esoteric assertions, those which are so contradictory or inconsistent with human experience as (sacred) "mysteries," thus affording themselves the power to ignore our reservations. To me, a major mystery is why so many intelligent people are here willing to engage Maliagar in so fruitless a discourse. The issues he or she raises have to do with a "culture" so alien to most of us that we can't possibly make any progress in communication with him or her. At least the relativism vs absolutism issue addressed in discourse with Ican remains a concern with most secularists.

0 Replies

Maliagar wrote: "How do you discern what comes from God from what comes from man?"

First of all, the question presupposes that god exists, ...... but we're not going to "solve" that one here.

Whether god exists or not, however, in answer to M's question .....
Of course we can't know "what comes from god and what comes from man". My question would be, "Who cares?"

What matters is the "what" that is in each of us, how we live our lives and how we treat others. Certain principles of human character and behavour seem to appear again and again in different cultures and throughout history, principles we instinctively believe are "good", without being told or taught by anyone or Anyone.

In the context of the original question raised here, it seems inherently unfair and wrong to deny our gay brothers and sisters their basic human rights based solely upon who they are.

0 Replies

Maliagar wrote: "How do you discern what comes from God from what comes from man?"

How do you maliagar? Do you have a batphone or something?

0 Replies

angie, It's not so much "who they are," but how other people seem to belittle their lifestyle as 'unnatural' and against religious teaching without considering all the faults and blemishes of 'natural' unions - as if marriage between a man and woman is always perfect. c.i.

0 Replies

"Do you have a batphone or something?"

Thank you, Cav! Excellent, long laugh enjoyed here.

I know the Times is the old grey lady, a centrist ol' rag (with terrific reporting nonetheless). But it wins my allegiance over and over again. This evening (in spite of our local power outage) I've been reading the Sunday NYTimes by Coleman lantern. For several months, in their weddings and engagements section (with photos), they've begun to print "partnerships" and civil unions and the like. Yesterday's paper had, ta-da, a wedding of two men. (The actual legal ceremony took place, of course, over the border, in civilization.) I find all this quite joyful and happy and I'm rooting for any human of any size, shape, color, or specialized equipment who makes this extraordinary commitment. The couple also looked sensible and happy. Do I hear cheers?

0 Replies

Homosexuality v. Christianity -- A FEW QUESTIONS:

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know