Sex! Woohoo!

[whoosanightowl]

Sue,

I don't want to knock this thread to far afield, but I don't think the Bible claims to be perfect and it's quite obvious that it has the smudgy fingerprints of human beings all over it. Yet, for some reason, I think God breathed life into it and said something like "Yeah, learn from these words, they will teach you the better life." Why didn't God make it simpler, or tidier, or more logical? I don't know...but it seems to me that he values the process and the messiness of it all.

If you are anything like other atheist friends of mine, this is the point where you will say something like, "If my eternal destiny depends on me understanding and beleiving the words of the Bible, then why did the divine author make it so difficult to understand? So difficult that his own followers can't agree on what it means?!?"

My only response to that question is to say that maybe your eternal destiny doesn't depend on your understanding at all...which makes me either a callous Calvinist who gets off on God's sovereignty, or a milquetoast universalist who likes to obsess about God's mercy, forgiveness, and grace. Either way I'm doomed.

Anyway, thanks for the feedback.

Yep, you had my next question pegged alright. Guess we skeptics are a bit too predictable, eh?

[NH Baritone]

Yep, you had my next question pegged alright. Guess we skeptics are a bit too predictable, eh?

It's not just you who is predictable, but the entire conversation. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

[whoosanightowl]

Yep, you had my next question pegged alright. Guess we skeptics are a bit too predictable, eh?

It's not just you who is predictable, but the entire conversation. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

Just as most of these conversations have already been beaten to death I suppose. Heck I've nearly been around since day one, so I've definitely seen them all. But since not everyone here has been around that long, perhaps they have something new to add to the topics.

[tonyenglish7]

Sorry I didn't answer your question. I think there are two different points, one, there are some sins that are worse then others, and two, culture defines some behavior. On the second one, maybe ask Scott. But I agree that some things in society are cultural and we as Christians need to be wise in deciding these things. Some things are clearly moral issues. Everything in not cultural!

One example of an intertwined issue is the way women dress. It is moral for Christian women to dress appropriately based upon the instruction in the bible. However, in culture, what is provocative in one culture is not in another. In some cultures, women feel no need to wear a top, in others it is considered provocative to show leg. I think this is the sort of thing Scott is saying. But what I am saying is the moral point that women should not be out to seduce men at church, is true. How that get's worked out is cultural.

Regarding fornication, it is very clear what that is. There is no gray area the way Scott is trying to paint it in my opinion. This is clear from the intention of the writer, the common historical interpretation and can be seen as a common moral standard seen in other cultures.

Thanks for the comments, Tony. You made your position clear. I am not sure I agree with you, but I get it.
From my perspective, you can put your position and Scott's position on a cultural relativism continuum. Obviously you lean more towards literal interpretation and Scott leans more towards the context of culture. I would fall somewhere in the middle, but perhaps a little closer to Scott.
Here is why:
It is foolish for Christians to try to present the God of the Bible to unbelievers using a literal interpretation. There are just too many weird things (for lack of a better descriptor). How do we take Jesus' warning about lust or the teaching on fornication literally, but the whole pluck your eye out thing figuratively? How can we basically drop the whole Old Testament as a different dispensation or Covenant and then claim teachings from Psalms and Proverbs? How can we say "love thy neighbor" When Jesus wasn't exactly friendly with the Pharisees?
These are simplistic examples, I know. But the bottom line is context is king. The context of the Bible is profoundly influenced by the culture of the Bible. As a result, there are gray areas. Where the Bible is gray, so should we.
Have you done the word studies on "fornication"? Have you checked more than a few lexicons? If not, I suggest it. You might just find some shades of gray.

I agree, if you define "literal" that way. When Jesus said the sun rises in the east, it would be wrong to interpret that to mean he is making a scientific claim that the sun revolves around the earth. We need to strive to know what the author and speaker meant by their words. The closer we get to that, the more correct we are. If you define "literal" to mean that the word of God, as it is meant to be, is literally true, then I agree. If we determine that when the writers were speaking they meant that fornication includes sex outside of marriage, then and only then, it is imperative that we agree with that. I think it is clear that is what they meant.

I think what Scott was saying is even if they meant that, times have changed and we need not follow that law anymore. OR at the very least, it is no big deal. This is dangerous, first, it opens the door to every man being right in his own eyes. Regarding the examples you give above, either, your understanding of the items is off, or, the bible has no authority at all, there is no way for a middle ground. I suggest working through an understanding of the issues. Jesus was pointing out that all are under a sinful nature when compared to the holiness of God, Jesus is God. Jesus spoke in metaphors and some metaphors are actually literal and some are not. It doesn't take rocket science to figure out which is which. And regarding love, apparently the new age definition of love meaning "you never disagree", is wrong according to the example of Jesus. Love must be different then that.

Going through these things can lead us to deeper understanding of truth. To dismiss the bible as culturally irrelevant is a huge mistake.

2 Peter 1:20  Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation.
21  For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
2 Peter 2:1  ¶But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.
2  Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.
3  In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

[ScottBarger]

Tony,

I am not sure you get what I am saying...

You said:

I think what Scott was saying is even if they meant that, times have changed and we need not follow that law anymore. OR at the very least, it is no big deal.

That is not what I am saying at all. My argument has been that we as interpreters often stand over the text and interpret its meaning in a way that is heavily influenced by culture. The example you gave of modesty is perfect to illustrate my point, your interpretation ignores what is stated explicitly and favors an implied more general teaching. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with that particular interpretation, but it is derived from a hermeneutic that is not explicitly taught in the Bible (no hermeneutic is). In fact, if we were honest with ourselves, we probably handle this text more generally because we don't want to go through the turmoil of enforcing a "no hair braiding" policy in our churches.

You have embraced a culturally derived interpretation of a text.

This is dangerous, first, it opens the door to every man being right in his own eyes. Regarding the examples you give above, either, your understanding of the items is off, or, the bible has no authority at all, there is no way for a middle ground. I suggest working through an understanding of the issues. Jesus was pointing out that all are under a sinful nature when compared to the holiness of God, Jesus is God. Jesus spoke in metaphors and some metaphors are actually literal and some are not. It doesn't take rocket science to figure out which is which. And regarding love, apparently the new age definition of love meaning "you never disagree", is wrong according to the example of Jesus. Love must be different then that.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

[tonyenglish7]

Tony,

I am not sure you get what I am saying...

You said:

I think what Scott was saying is even if they meant that, times have changed and we need not follow that law anymore. OR at the very least, it is no big deal.

That is not what I am saying at all. My argument has been that we as interpreters often stand over the text and interpret its meaning in a way that is heavily influenced by culture. The example you gave of modesty is perfect to illustrate my point, your interpretation ignores what is stated explicitly and favors an implied more general teaching. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with that particular interpretation, but it is derived from a hermeneutic that is not explicitly taught in the Bible (no hermeneutic is). In fact, if we were honest with ourselves, we probably handle this text more generally because we don't want to go through the turmoil of enforcing a "no hair braiding" policy in our churches.

You have embraced a culturally derived interpretation of a text.

This is dangerous, first, it opens the door to every man being right in his own eyes. Regarding the examples you give above, either, your understanding of the items is off, or, the bible has no authority at all, there is no way for a middle ground. I suggest working through an understanding of the issues. Jesus was pointing out that all are under a sinful nature when compared to the holiness of God, Jesus is God. Jesus spoke in metaphors and some metaphors are actually literal and some are not. It doesn't take rocket science to figure out which is which. And regarding love, apparently the new age definition of love meaning "you never disagree", is wrong according to the example of Jesus. Love must be different then that.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

No, regarding the braiding issue, you have to read the verse closely, it is stating that "adornment" must be in piousness, not jewlery. This is not a difficult interpretation. When you interpret a verse, it is in light of other scriptures and wisdom. Jesus taught it was not what is outside that that matters but what is in your heart. In light of that teaching, this verse becomes clear. "Adornment" is in the heart. I think the clearest reading of the text in light of other scriptures clears up the issue.

The second part of the post was a direct response to his reference to Jesus's so called hard sayings and metaphors regarding lust, and plucking eyes out etc. I think the thing that helps us understand these sayings is the fact that he is talking to religious people at the time who thought their good works and restrictive life style was making them holy based upon some words that were written. But Jesus, who out of who he is, grounds the law and morals, was telling them the real standard to make clear their own sinful state. They were not clear they needed forgiveness. Remember when Jesus said, "you have heard it said but I say to you..." He was the final authoritiy regarding sin and morals... When you read his hard sayings with a clear understand of who he is, they make sense.

[ScottBarger]

Tony, I think we are miscommunicating here, but I am not sure how else to clarify what I have been saying, so I will bow out of this part of the conversation so as not to bog the thread down in a debate about hermeneutics.

[tonyenglish7]

Tony, I think we are miscommunicating here, but I am not sure how else to clarify what I have been saying, so I will bow out of this part of the conversation so as not to bog the thread down in a debate about hermeneutics.

It is probably a "cultural" thing... (:-0)

[ScottBarger]

Tony,

You are probably right. So what's your Christian cultural experience? Theological tradition?

I'll tell you mine if you tell me yours.

[tonyenglish7]

Tony,

You are probably right. So what's your Christian cultural experience? Theological tradition?

I'll tell you mine if you tell me yours.

I was raised Catholic, was an atheist until my 17th year, but in the late 70's (yea I am old) heard the gospel at a Calvary Chapel (Chuck Smith), rock concert type of thing. I went to a Calvary Chapel which is a so called "Non-denominational" church but I would say they were Wesleyian of sorts, pre-trib etc...

I went for a masters at what was called Simon Greenleaf now Trinity College in Philosophy but I got busy and never finished. There I experienced a whole range of different traditions and opened my eyes to the different views which to me were facinating, especially since I love moving closer to the truth on any subject large or small. (and since I think it is a worth while enterprise but not always easy).

I am now a one-point Calvanist (1=God Saves Sinners). Not sure about end times i.e. pre, post or whatever, I believe in an old universe (14.6 Billion years or so), string theory and micro evolution. (not macro). I have a masters degree in Marriage Family Counseling but still cannot figure out women.. (:-) Bachelors in Business, and I work as a Real Estate Broker.. for now.... Married, four kids, 23(Archeologist) , 18, 15, 13....

Probably more then you wanted to know but I had a cup of coffee this morning and you got it all....

[ScottBarger]

Tony,

Thanks, I always find it interesting to learn about the spiritual journeys of other people. It also helps to provide a framework for understanding what people say and why they believe what they believe.

As for me...

I was raised Grace Brethren (a segment of the Anabaptist movement...kissing cousins to most other flavors of "Brethren" as well as the Mennonite and our more distant relatives, the Amish). My home church was moderately conservative (in theology and practice) but I attended a hyper-fundamentalist Christian school for junior and senior high. Very legalistic. Rebelled against that all the way.

Though I knew about Jesus my whole life (a life inundated with bible schools, 5 day clubs, Christian camps, and youth groups) it never really sunk in that my beliefs ought to shape my actions. I also never took seriously the call to follow Jesus...at least not until I was in college.

I earned a bachelors in biblical studies from a brethren college, and then became a youth pastor. I sucked at that job. I later went to seminary and became a pastor.

During those seminary years my theology, which up to that stage of my life was primarily conservative, Calvinist and dispensational, slowly became dismantled. I realized that much of what I believed was built on a system of theology not so much on the teachings of the Bible. I became fascinated with the study of the Bible, threw myself into learning the biblical languages, and began reading theologians who were WAY outside my theological camp.

About 7 years ago I was introduced to and invigorated by an underground, grass roots movement within North American evangelicalism that described itself as "the emerging church conversation." It was an amazing experience. A whole subculture of people who were questioning and exploring their faith, challenging the status quo, and taking seriously the call to live out their faith. People from all different segments of Christianity discussing the changing landscape of our culture and the subsequent impacts these changes would have on the Church.

Of course, the phrase "Emergent Church" was later hijacked by the "machine" of pop-christianity. It was branded, marketed, and packaged as some sort of hip new version of Christianity for those who were too "postmodern" to play nice with our suit-wearing forebears. That's why I claim no affiliation with the so-called Emergent Church. It has become a product I am not interested in buying.

Recently I have not only been wrestling with my own theology but also with what it means to practice community with a group of people (the Grace Brethren) who hold to a different theology. It has been a challenging pursuit. I have become very comfortable owning up to the weaknesses in my theology, even though the questioning sometimes keeps me up at night.

My favorite areas of biblical study are the Gospel of Mark, Ephesians, Hebrews, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs.

How's that for a rambling, self-absorbed bloviation?

[tonyenglish7]

Scott, thanks so much for that response, I really feel honored to have you open up like that. The whole emergent church issue is huge for me right now. My pastor of 30 years, who I respect and love, moved in that direction, so much so that he eventually had to leave the pulpit. We were friends and he is a very well known pastor so I will not use his name but a few things I realized in the process. I don't think there is a clear definition of "emergent" so please do not hold me to it but there are a few things going on. There is a huge need for the church to be more relevant in this culture. I am constantly fighting internal debates with strong Christians who accept things common within the community of Christianity but are not really true, many times these things have to do with decision making, science, prosperity and those issues.

More to the point, we in the church need to have these discussions, how to do we convince the world that we are loving, yet still oppose abortion, homosexuality and individual respect with human rights. The church comes off as arrogant, condescending and judgmental. We need to improve that. But the world wants us to agree with their world view, even though it is wrong and in error, that is not possible. Tolerance has been redefined as agreeing with everybody. We tolerate as a Christian virtue, those that we disagree with but that is another subject. We deserve tolerance of our specific views, right or wrong.

What happened to my pastor is he started reading all the Jesus Seminar people and liberal theologians without any filter. Pretty soon he was pulled away from the conservative view. I know he has a heart for people and wants desperately to be relevant. I fully understand that. The real issues are how we determine truth. Is there a guide from the bible or is it simply relative to every person’s preferences. When we discuss an issue, is it a worth while discussion? Can we move to a more precise view of something through increased knowledge? If so, knowledge of what? The bible is a source of authority for Christians and it claims this for itself. So wisdom comes into play on seeking a more correct world view. Reality is another testimony of the truth.

So, I think the bible is an amazing living miracle, with fulfilled prophecy, cutting truth and a story that rings true in detail and in the macrocosm. Are there challenges in some few instances? Yes, but the big picture is the best view of reality and explains more then any other world view I have seen, including humanism, liberalism and atheism. We are therefore bettered if we seek the accurate meaning of the bible, even when it is against what we wish were true.

I think we need a movement towards a more relevant church, more loving, more Christ like, but that includes the very exclusive statements of Jesus as well, because those are true as well. It is not loving to keep the bad news from those who are going to die in their sins. Whatever version of Christianity you ascribe too, Jesus is still the only answer, otherwise it is not Christianity.

[whoosanightowl]

Scott and Tony, '
I'm gald to see that you two have kissed and made up! And I also enjoyed reading your stories. Thanks for sharing.

[Atheist37]

Yes, thanks for sharing. I mean this in the most positive way... reading your stories is almost like reading about Maasai tribesmen or something. It is really fascinating and strange.

You see, I was raised outside of any faith, my wife was raised the same way, there are maybe two people in our extended families who even attend a church of any kind. So I guess I always figured, you either believe the old tales or you don't. Sure there are different religions, but it always seemed to be a trivial thing -- like different coffee houses, or different grocery stores. Everyone has their favorite but they're all pretty much the same. I guess not, huh?

[whoosanightowl]

A37 wrote:

So I guess I always figured, you either believe the old tales or you don't. Sure there are different religions, but it always seemed to be a trivial thing -- like different coffee houses, or different grocery stores. Everyone has their favorite but they're all pretty much the same. I guess not, huh?

Are you kidding, some denominations are as different as a coffee house and a karaoke bar! They can be as opposite as night and day in both their theology and their practices. yet most believe theirs has "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help them God";
So if someone says, "Will the real Christians please stand up!", they'll all rise.