Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

First, on an unrelated note, dang, man! You had quite the little exchange over our Green Mountain State hissy-fit! And all that Biblical quoting, quite exhilarating. Second, on a lighter note, is hits Edward Fudge related to Cornelius Fudge, the Minister of Magic in the Harry Potter books? Just asking . . .
Fudge is both right and wrong. He is right that reading the Bible in context is always a good thing. But then he upsets the apple cart as it were by giving the wrong context. I have heard similar ideological justifications when fundies want to carry out OT punishment for "a man laying with a man as with a woman", which was a capital crime. Of course, we can't have good fundamentalist Christians going around killing our gay neighbors in the name of the Bible, so we come up with some weird formula that seems all sound and erudite and is a whole bunch of hooey designed to put a smiley face on their fascist heads.
 

Nice try there Geoff. But it doesn't address the issue of how one manifests his belief in Christ, who said we're to obey God's commandments. It doesn't address the distinction betweeen ceremonial and moral law and whether or not they are both somehow done away with by some NT mandate or correction. We can see ceremonial law put aside, but not moral law. To put it another way, it's been suggested that if I still believe certain Levitcal mandates hold, such as the man lying with man part, that I must abide stoning my kids for cussing me. Of course we're not to kill our kids, but by that logic, the kids are free to cuss me all they want. I don't think that moral law of respecting one's parents has been eliminated anywhere in the NT. So who's really doing the cherry-pickin' here?

BTW ER,

I really do enjoy the links you offer to support your opinions. I mean that sincerely even if I don't agree. I do learn things from them. Just not exactly the things you might hope for.
 

Having a little bit of interaction with the OT myself, I think 'good' Christian expositors of the OT would agree that original content and authoral intent are the first item on the agenda for intrpretation. (Well, actually the first job would be haivng a confident "reading"-i.e. reliable text from which to work).

Then, look at theological (even canonical principles) and finally homelical. But w/o the 1t two steps, our preaching is in vain.

now of course if you come at this from a postmodern hermenutical stand point, original audience and authoral intent is almost meaningless. But I don't think those you've called fundies are in any way postmodern (maybe premodern). But hey many people think I am a fundy, so who knows.
 

"who said we're to obey God's commandments"

Let's see. He was talking to Jews at the time, and they were living under the Law. The Law was the commandments to which he referred.

We are not Jews living under the Law. Well, I'm not.

Then there's the whole Love God, Love your neighbor thing, a Jewish axiom that in another context He said summed up the Law. And now those are the Christian's marching orders.

Another tar baby!

The second anyone makes anything other than the realization of Grace, and the passing of it along, the definition of Christianity, he's monekeyed up the works by moving the crux (!) of our relationship with God from God to himself.

I don't buy it. Because I don't have that kind of currency. Grace, thank God, is free. Or it's not Grace.
 

OK, maybe I was a bit blase in my response, a bit too quick to simply dismiss the entire issue, so if you shall be patient, allow me my take here.
Ahem.
There are two related but separate issues at work here. First is the question of reading, specifically the Bible. The second is a theological issue of the place of Old Testament legal codes in the life of contemporary Christians. I suppose one can use the first as the larger context for how to do the first, but the relationship between them, as shown by fundamentalist mental gymnastics getting around the specific letter of various Levitical codes shows how dicey such an assumption can be, so we shall leave it last. As to reading . . .
Part of the problem reading the Bible is that we are dealing with a variety of styles of literature. There is history, poetry, the poetic novel (Job, Jonah), hortatory (Daniel), and prophetic prose and poetry. Finally, in much of Exodus and Leviticus, and parts of Numbers, there is casuistry or case law. One can read various parts of Leviticus without thinking of its source, but even a passing familiarity with legal literature should give one pause to realize that we are reading the summaries of various court decisions on a variety of issues - from theft and accidental death (the whole ox-goring thing) to issues of ritual cleanliness and social practice (the dietary codes and sexual morality). While it is true that, by placing them within holy writ, one can argue that what were distinct and contingent issues of the clarification of various legal issues has suddenly become transcendent; as a nation which claims the rule of law as paramount, however, we should not be so quick to criticize ancient Israelite attempts to sacralize the law.
Reading with the understanding that we are reading the results of various court cases sheds a whole new light on questions ranging from capital punishment to whether or not we are ritually clean after eating shellfish. All of this begs a variety of questions, not the least of which are questions of observance. A professor of mine in seminary, David Hopkins, did his dissertation on the role of the local environment - geography, meteorology, political geography - on the development of early Israelite society (his initial interest was the question of the Sabbath year, which became just one small part of the larger study). Published as The Highlands of Canaan, one of his theses was the exaggeration of Israelite political power in the Bible in reference to various neighbors. As various valleys provided natural roadways for both nomads and armies, the Palestinian lands were the Belgium of the ancient Near East, and Israel would never have been able to achieve anything like self-rule without a certain level of obeisance to various powers, whether Egyptian, Assyrian, or what have you. In order to survive, social practices would be encoded in law as a part of the larger social discipline necessary to keep society together in the midst of competing forces much larger and more politically attractive. Yet, this begs various questions again, not the least of which is whether or not the codes were actually enforced, or rather honored in the breach. Were men stoned for homosexual acts, or were they honored more in the breach, much as many states still have laws against adultery and pre-marital sex that are rarely enforced and now questionable in light of Supreme Court rulings on the sodomy laws.
All of this provides a background for reading that sheds light on the place of Leviticus in the lives both of ordinary Israelites and contemporary Christians. How relevant is the United States legal Code to the lives of ordinary Americans? Does it define us or is it rather part of the background music as it were, setting limits only when breaches occur? Do we sit around and ask questions concerning the transcendent nature of traffic laws and local zoning ordinances or do we only consider them as part of the structure that provides the limits within which we live, knowing that they are only as important as they are enforced?
As to the question of the theological issue reading the Old Testament, including Leviticus, as a Christian, we are, of course, in disputed territory. One can start with Jesus, who made contradictory remarks concerning the role of the law ("Not one letter of the law shall pass away . . ."; "I am the fulfillment of the law . . .") or one can start with Paul, who struggled his entire adult life with the role of the law in the various Christian communities, not the least of the questions being ceremonial acceptance in to the larger Jewish family through the act of male circumcision. I think Paul at least ended up with a position of what I consider light-hearted insouciance. Should one observe the law, great. If not, oh well. The issue of the law and its observance was a question for local Christian communities to decide on their own through an organic process of growth and debate and prayer. I doubt highly whether Paul, always the observant Jew, was comfortable with a position that let issues such as ritual cleanliness become unimportant, but I do believe he recognized that the efficacy of Christ's death and resurrection - the larger reality within which Paul now read Scripture - rendered these issues moot. God's grace became sufficient to replace the Rube Goldbergian structure of legal limitations on diet, social practice, marriage laws, and the like.
This all returns us to our original point, which was that Fudge got it both right and wrong. It is right to ask all sorts of questions before stoning our kids to death for sassing back; yet the questions he asks, and the answers he gives are both wrong and nonsensical. A good rule of thumb would be this, whether it is about stoning children or gay men or issues of dietary restriction - what is their relevance? Do we suddenly become discomfited when we read that we need to sacrifice a dove and refrain from religious observance for a few days because we has a lobster dinner, or do we shrug it off as a vestige of a culture that died 2500 years ago? Since that is so considered, can we not treat all of the legal codes as historical artifact, the remnants of a small, fragile society living in the midst of much larger empires, the descendants of whom do not seem to be too concerned with questions of observance?
 

I can't wait to see what MA has to say.

Geoff, you make me want to sell all that I have and ... go to seminary. Iliff beckons.

I lauhged out loud, in joy, and wept as well, reading some Borg last night. No one has all the answers, of course. But in light of the shackles I've been dancing around here the past few days, it was much-needed relief. Sprinkles of blessing on a breeze of grace. What do yout hink of Borg?
 

I will not be assimilated. Resistance is not futile!
Actually, I've never read Marcus Borg, so I can't comment. Sorry, by the way, for taking up so much space in your comments section. I get a bit, uh, "long winded", and once my fingers start dancing on the keyboard, they can't stop. It's like St. Vitus Dance of the fingers and brain. Please excuse my intrusion on your hospitality.
My wife almost went to Iliff. She even visited the campus, and went skiing when she visited. I'm glad she decided to go to Wesley, because we wouldn't be celebrating my little girl's sixth birthday today if she had decided to reside a mile high.
 

All interesting stuff, Geoff, and salient. But please! Put some spaces between your paragraphs!!

Like this, see?
 

MA said:

"We can see ceremonial law put aside, but not moral law."

Says who?

Not smarting off, but sincerely, where do Those-Who-Define-And-Set-Aside Ceremonial law get their data?

Except for the one case of dietary rules (specifically in regards to meat sacrificed to idols, I believe), there are no laws, rules, codices set forth in the OT specifically set aside in the NT.

As Geoffrey rightly pointed out, there are some conflicting passages in the NT about the law in general, but this Baptist was raised to believe that "we are no longer under the law but under Grace," and I thought that was the norm in evangelical circles - in theory if not in practice.

So, says who? Where do you get the notion that parts of the law we are free to ignore but parts of it we ought to obey? And that sometimes, those parts are separated only by a comma?
 

So why do you guys get in a :ggod" argument when I haven't got time to join it right.
Two quick points: Re: Israel as Belgium, see ER that's what I mean about adding the dimension of geography to the study. Helps make sense of it.

Re: As to the amount of law enforcement. Spent some time in Eithopia in the 1960's. The level of enforcement of the civil law was based in distance from the nearest police station and amount of money you had to spend. The level of enforcement of the Coptic theocracy's laws was dependent on the temperment of the priest and of his immediate superiors. And priest and churches had a much deeper penatration of prescence that did the civil authorities.
The distribution of people ment that everybody locally new everybodies business, thus anything of interest the priest knew almost instantly. I kind of think the Israel of the Bible would have been like that.
 

1. for give the typos and mispellins above.
2. typing in "Israel" it occured to me that the "el" was "God" so I had to wonder what "isra" emtn. Isra: striven/saved El: God.
Israel: Saved by God.
May not be new to you guys, but it was new to me.
later.
 

Sorry about paragraph breaks. I shall try to be more attentive to such stylistic issues.

Like this. See?

As to the question of the distinction between "ceremonial" versus "moral" law - that is an anachronistic distinction added by later, quite honestly anti-Semitic, commentators. What is the difference, since the law here all related to communal righteousness before God? Like other distinctions I have read between what is and is not universal in the law, the idea of universality, like the above distinction between ceremonial and moral law is one that would have been literally unintelligible to the ancient Israelites, not because they were dumb but because such distinctions were not a part of their intellectual life. Why argue over things like this that have no relevance?
 

"I can't wait to see what MA has to say."

What I say is this: And you say it is the fundies who engage in mental gymnastics!

Honestly, at this present time, I haven't the time to read Geoff's entire thesis. I will say that the ancient Hebrews didn't have the context of Jesus' ministry in order to even have to make the distinctions, so that point doesn't seem relevant to me.

And one more quick thing---I don't know of any fundies who care to exact any OT punishments for violations of Levitical Law, since they believe Christ atoned for all sin. It's merely the belief that what was sin then is still sin as regards moral law.
 

As Marshall dodged the issue by uttering an irrelevancy (the question of Jesus' ministry for understanding Hebrew Scripture) and a factual error (there are plenty of fundies out there who want to enact the Mosaic code, at least as far as using it as a stick to punish gays is concerned), I shall simply say this:

What I engaged in was not mental gymnastics, but the complicated background for interpreting Scripture as real adults, serious Christians, do it. Reading anything is not easy. Reading the Bible is especially hard because there are millenia of baggage to sort through, figure out what to keep, what innovations work, what historical context is more clear and honest, etc., etc. I made explicit was is implicit and silent in the way we take all sorts of things in to consideration when reading the Bible. Sure it's long and complicated - but anything worth doing well is worth doing right, and that includes asking all sorts of questions about context that can have only vague answers.

The question of the place of the Law of Moses in the life of the Church is a perennial one, with no easy answer. To say that we can dismiss it glibly by the invocation of Jesus misses the point that even for the early church it wasn't that simple, and they were all practicing Jews. Whether one agrees or not with what I had to say, it is important to remember that the Hebrew Scriptures are still part of our Bible, therefore they have some kind of controlling role to play in our lives. How we live with that, and make peace with all the contradictions involved in that, is part of what it means to wrestle with the faith. I provided my answer, and yes it was long. I am waiting for yours.
 

It was in no way a dodge, but thanks for the assuming the worst. I suppose visiting this site sets me up for such assumptions and the ridicule that goes with it, but I can take it. What it really was was quick response to show I'm till engaged, but not so much at the time to read the entire post. As I wolf down a quick breakfast, I still don't have the time to study it, but I shall, muh man, I shall.
 

Sorry about the "dodge" business. I honestly didn't mean it as a snark at you. Profound apologies from me. I know what I wrote was long - too long - but, like I said, I was trying to be thorough, and I get a bit carried away. As a professor of mine in college said of my writing: "Shit, or get off the pot." (pardon my French).

I do look forward to your considered reply.
 

There ya go gettin' all thenthitive again, MA. I thought you said mockery was a fair tool.

Nah. I don't think so, although any of us can get carried away in the heat of argument.

Let's make a deal: Let's declare respect for one another right off the bat.

I respect all but two bloggers who ever darken the ER door. And of those two, it's actually the more apparently insane of the two that I come close to repecting, mainly for his consistency.

Everybody ele I just get oversteamed at once in awhile.
 

Got some time to look over the Mosaic (Horheb) Covenant itself and in the literature. The Covenant is silent on whether or not all the laws apply to women. Obiviously some apply directly to women only and some directly to men only. But in that most of the other laws are about things that are male only in nature one might assume they did not apply women. On the other hand it is traditionally understood that the Mosaic Covenant applys to all of the Nation of Israel, which should of course include women.
But the lack of specificity in the books containing the Mosaic Covenant itself, is compounded by the highly specific inclusion of women in the Deuteronomic (Moab) Covenant ( These are the terms of the covenant the LORD commanded Moses to make with the Israelites in Moab, in addition to the covenant he had made with them at Horeb) as refected in Deuteronomy 29:9-15:

9. Carefully follow the terms of this covenant, so that you may prosper in everything you do.
10. All of you are standing today in the presence of the LORD your God—your leaders and chief men, your elders and officials, and all the other men of Israel,
11. together with your children and your wives, and the aliens living in your camps who chop your wood and carry your water.
12. You are standing here in order to enter into a covenant with the LORD your God, a covenant the LORD is making with you this day and sealing with an oath,
13. to confirm you this day as his people, that he may be your God as he promised you and as he swore to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
14. I am making this covenant, with its oath, not only with you.
15. who are standing here with us today in the presence of the LORD our God but also with those who are not here today.
One could reasonably argue then that all of Israel was included in the Mosaic Covenant as well. Not being a Rabbi, one would have to be consulted as to whether a law specifically specifieing a male could be construed to apply to a female a well. However in that same sex sex in the female requires no penetration and no spilling of seed it is probably not prohibited. Besides what two male witnesses would be allowed into the womans's quarters to see it i9n order to be allowed to then testify to it in that being there in those quarters would also violate one of the 613 laws?
As a later Jewish author would write, it is a catch 22:).
 

Those are good points, Doc. It actually supports what I was inferring as regards to whom the Law mandated. Of course some laws must be sex specific. Men don't mestruate, so they aren't going to have to deal with the attached purifications. But if they touch blood, they have to purify. As for lesbian sex, women do secrete fluid during sex, and the secretion of any bodily fluid was seen in the same light from what I've been reading. Thus, since the said secretion was not for the purpose of procreation, it is a symbol of death in the same way as bleeding or any other fluid loss (I don't know about spitting or drooling). Death and decay came about after the Fall and because of it. God is life and death and decay are objectionable to Him, thus the need to purify after contact with death and decay. Death and decay is unclean.

But whilst speaking about women of the time, you have, intentionally or otherwise, inferred an attitude toward women that I said I didn't think was accurate. I cop to the second class status, the "chattel" status, but my point is that despite this, I don't think the men of the time were so heartless and barbaric as to not develop a true fondness for their mothers, wives, daughters and even concubines and neighbors. This is the distinction I was trying to assert.
 

One would hope that the men in that cultural would have such affection, but such assumptions may be an artifact of our own culture. Once you isolate the sexes a much as they had, the possibility exist that there wasn't much emotional connection.
I point to the extreme stories of wives, daughters, and/or concubines being thrown out for the pleasures of the male mob.
Also many of the wives of the Hebrews were not Hebrews at all, they were women of the conquered nations. This inadvertantly created many problems for Hebrews in that these women kept and brought into the culture their household gods and beliefs. The major one of these was Ashera (little ashera shaped loaves of bread were made when women baked), and Ashera was mentioned often in the OT by name and in relationship to her "groves".
In a modern sense I ran into "Honor Killings" years ago with a Pathan friend of mine explaining it all to me with great passion why a killing of a Pakastani in D.C. was not "murder". Honor Killings have become more widely known of late, but I still don't understand tracking down your own sister to kill her because she has fallen in love and has eloped, or is "accused" of have "improper" sexual contact with someone and thus has dishonored her family. There are many more examples of similar detached emotional behavior in the cultures of the world today regarding women.(re: Amhara customs, Masia customs, the Ho's of Rap, etc.)
Were most Hebrew men as harsh to their women as their culture would indicate? I'll ask my wife what she thinks and get back to you all.
 

Re, "I don't think the men of the time were so heartless and barbaric as to not develop a true fondness for their mothers, wives, daughters and even concubines and neighbors."

I'd concede that some, perhaps many, maybe even most, had genuine fondness for their wimmins. Jusdt as some, perhaps many, maybe even most Southern slaveowners had genuine fondness for their slaves-- a historically valid assertion, but terribly impolitic to say out loud since, oh, about Kenneth Stamps, I think it was, who knocked U.B. Phillips off his pedestal when it came to interpreting Southern slavery -- Simon Legree, again, being so monstrous because he was an outlier, even by the standards of downriver slaveowners.

DrLobojo, Sir! Present and accounted for, Sir! Ready for the usual teasing and abuse, Sir! ;-)
 

Affection is usually given to those who know their place and stay there. Kindness is usually extended to those who do not bite the hand that feeds them. When chattel knows what chattels is and chattel does what chattel is supposed to do then all is right with the world. Simon Legree and "Stoneing" are not needed and all seems well. It is always the exception that test the validity of the rule. Pun intended.
 

I can only think of two instances where women were thrown to a mob, both involving a fellow trying to prevent the homosexual gang rape of men in their charge. It gives one an idea of the understanding of God's Will regarding homosexuality as being so terrible as to justify sacrificing the women in order to prevent it.

I would add that I'm not concerned about what those other than ancient Hebrews or Christians do with their women. The discussion was focussed on Hebrew men and women and their relationship to each other. You seem far more extreme in you view than I, much more insistent on absolute knowledge of the times. I don't think, yes, I said again, I don't think that God's chosen were on par with the various examples you cite, particularly when there were great pains taken to show a distinction between them and the rest of the world. I wouldn't begin to disagree that those of other cultures, say, Islam, would have their basic natures twisted by their pagan beliefs, but I would disagree that people under God would behave exactly in such a manner. This isn't to say that there weren't assholes among the twelve tribes, there certainly are within the body of Christ.

Referring back to the chattel angle, if women were nothing more than property, of equal status to a man's goat or golf clubs, what would be the point of a separate commandment regarding coveting? Dosen't make sense in the least. Property is property, no?
 

Excellent point MA. That is why the prohibition for coveting a man's wife is place in a list of his property:
"You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
Exodus 20:17
 

I see where you're going, I just think it's more a case of being specific. That is, "Thou shalt not cover...anything that belongs to your neighbor." Not so much the equating of people to things. I acknowledge women's second class status then, but I don't think that necessarily equates them to the furniture. Perhaps you don't either, it's just not clear from your comments.
 

BTW, that's "covet", not "cover". But you knew that.
 

I would like to respond (finally) to Geoff's lengthy comments. I must re-iterate the point that it isn't the traditionalist who engages in mental gymnastics in order to support his position, since he's merely following what has gone before for generations. It is more accurate to say the modernist is doing the juggling, since he's changing what has been understood to be true for so long. This is not say that there could be discoveries that can alter perception or more narrowly define a truth, but that isn't the case here. That case has yet to be made.

You begin YOUR gymnastics here: "One can read various parts of Leviticus without thinking of its source..." but the Source is so very pertinent to this discussion. Objective acheological investigations might rightly view all ancient cultures through the same lense, without regard for whether or not the spiritual side of a given culture is fact or fantasy, but that is not a consideration in this discussion. To my understanding, all involved here believe in the God of Abraham, but how involved He was in the Law is what is in question.

As to the Israelites and their understanding, or more precisely, according to Scripture, the Law was given directly to them through Moses and was regarded in that manner througout. Thus, there was no need to "sacrilize" the Law, for to them, that's the way they came. Their theocratic government was built around this point. Our laws in the USA are not a direct mandate from God, though our rights are part of us as individual creations of God. The likelihood of anyone sacrilizing our laws is low and worthy of derision.

Israel's ability to self-rule was also a direct result of God's protection, as is constantly shown througout the OT. Once again, from the objective archeological POV, it might not garner peer support to put forth that notion, but the Bible is a historical tome as much as anything else. The secular and sophisticated might dispute the quality of it's history, but it is history nonetheless. That history includes the miraculous and thus, there's a little more than geography involved in their autonomy and status in the world at the time. While they were right with God, they were unbeatable, and when they turned from Him, school girls could kick their butts. This is part of the history of the Bible and for this discussion of the spiritual, it is highly pertinent, as it is in the discussion of Levitical Law.

I don't think "contradictory" is the proper word for the Jesus quotes you've presented. "Complementary" is a better choice. But if Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law, to disregard the Law is to disregard Jesus. I also don't see so much a struggle in Paul's writings, but the drawing of distinctions between what he was and what he became after his contact with Jesus. I would imagine any contact with the Lord would make prior concerns no trouble.

None of this, however, matters in the issue of Grace. Grace is only free if you want it. How does one show one really wants anything but to prove it by actions? If dying to one's self isn't complete, how can Grace be expected? So it has to be believing and accepting on God's terms, not one's own, and those terms include realizing how we're to act by following behavioral laws in the Bible.
 

BTW, I have begun posting at my own blog, which has been gathering dust since it's inception. There was a piece from which I exerpted a chunk that in relevant to this ongoing discussion and align's with my beliefs and understanding of it, as well as does the entire essay, to which I have a link. It articulates far better than I what I believe is true for us as brothers in Christ. Take a look. I'm at marshallart.blogspot.com. All are welcome. Just wipe the mud off your boots.
 

Thanks for the heads-up about your own joint, MA.

I'll save the discussion over the historicity of the OT -- most of the non-epistle NT for that matter -- for later.


But this boggles:

"Grace is only free if you want it. How does one show one really wants anything but to prove it by actions?"

Faith and works, then. Because if Grace isn't utterly free, utterly undeserved, and utterly sloppy, it's not Grace. It's something else. It's a transaction. If ... then.

"If dying to one's self isn't complete, how can Grace be expected?"

See above. And, dying to one's self is a daily, hourly, continual, lifetime process that is never complete until the self actually physically dies. There is none perfect, no not one -- saved or unsaved.

"So it has to be believing and accepting on God's terms, not one's own, and those terms include realizing how we're to act by following behavioral laws in the Bible."

"God's terms" are what is in dispute, and they have been, among Christians, since the advent of modern scholarship. And cosmology. And science in general.

The chief behavioral law in the Christian Testament? Repent (turn to God). Love God. Love neighbor as yourself. Everything else is up for grabs, IMHO.

One of the fundamentalist Baptist preachers of my youth, God love him, got it right: "Love Jesus, and do what you want to." The point being that one's growing relationship with God through Christ will change one's "want to's" -- and that, I further assert, is impossible for you to judge in me, and impossible for me to judge in you. So, Christian behavior as tied to salvation is inscrutable.
 

"The point being that one's growing relationship with God through Christ will change one's "want to's""

Change it to what, exactly? I don't disagree with the sentiment, only that you leave wide open what that "what" should be or might be. So how does one find what that "what" should be? Prayer and meditation? How does one confirm the results of such activity as God-inspired without some basis for comparison?

I would further insist that the dispute regarding God's Will has been caused by modern scholarship, not discovered by them. I'm sure it wouldn't surprise you to know that I fear the biases and world views of modern scholars far more than those of the past. Technological advances, scientific discoveries, etc., have brought added temptations, delivered reasons to justify as well as reasons to dismiss, all for the benefit of the scholars rather than for the glory of God. It's a self-centered, not God-centered, world view that drives the Bishop Spongs and buffoons of the Jesus Seminars of the world. People reject the old ways in this case not because of some special insight or enlightenment, but because it provides no permission for their personal lusts and desires. And you've bought into it all becoming an enabler for their cause.

But I do agree that we all have to live with our own perceptions of God's Word. I just hope more of us are close enough than fewer.
 

You apparently skipped over this, which I believe:

"The chief behavioral law in the Christian Testament? Repent (turn to God). Love God. Love neighbor as yourself. Everything else is up for grabs, IMHO."

And, of course, I disagree with you on the aims and benefits of biblical scholarship. Totally. If I thought lusts and desires had ANYTHING to do with it, I'd desist. But don't.

And if you think I'm an enabler, when I see myself supporting honesty in the face of supersition, so be it. I think you're a mossback.

The difference is: I think neither that you are 1., going to hell, 2., something less than a Christian (whatever that might be). or 3., leading people astray.

You think something of the sort of me. I think you're wrong and I will fearlessly wait -- pray for! -- God to straighten me out if I am doing harm to the cause of Christ.

That whole Romans 8:38-39 thing makes me doubt it, though.

If I'm taken out for thinking, I will ask why I was given a brain in the first place. If he slaps me down and throws me in the alleged Lake of Fire for being a failed human, despite my trust in Christ, then He was no God in the first place, but a monster.
 

MOSSBACK!!??!!??? Now you've done it!

If Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law, how can one act contrary to the Law and still show faithfulness to Jesus? Again, I don't condemn, I warn against you condemning yourself for believing that which isn't true. Of course, we all take our chances on that score. But the case for your side falls far short despite the effort put into it to make it. It seems to me that your side of the debate goes farther out of its way, and farther away from Scripture, to find support for your case. Hence, the accusation of mental gymnastics on the part of traditionalists seems goofy.

As for "That whole Romans 8:38-39 thing..." there's a difference between His Love and His Salvation. I don't question God's Love for His Children, but I don't doubt that some ain't makin' it. I'm sure He loves bin Laden. Doesn't mean we'll see him in heaven.
 

condemned for believing that which isn't true?

As you may see elsewhere, I don't believe that salvation turns on what one believes in the first place -- I mean under the big umbrella that is the Christian faith.

If you believe that what one believes is what salvation is all about, then I believe you have missed the whole point. Nothing I believe can save me. Nothing I believe can condemn me. Nor you.

The fact that some have made "being a Christian" mere assent to a list of alleged facts and assertions is wack.
 

So apparently what you're saying is, "Everybody gets to go!" This is what I'm trying to determine. There are no boundaries whatsoever, no guidelines, no firm and tangible rules or absolutes of anykind. This is why I keep at it with you guys. I just don't see that there's anything there except this etheral notion of God's Grace given to absolutely anyone without any condition whatsoever. For this I need something to substantiate the claim. It's just too wishy-washy, even for "liberal" Christians.
 

No. As I said, I'm talking about ideas "under the big umbrella that is the Christian faith."

I'm talking about Christians, by definition. Christians "get to go," by definition.

However, I do find myself leaning toward universalism. Not ready to go there, because people who reject God outright -- as opposed to those who believe this or that as part of their faith in God through Christ -- do reject God's Grace. Not getting the doctines right is not rejecting Grace!
 

Re, "God's Grace given to absolutely anyone without any condition whatsoever ..."

The condition is that they accept it, which enables them to have faith and enables them to do works -- but neither of those has anything to do with assenting to a set of doctrinal assertions or claims of historicity.

Dang it, it's 5:33 and I've let myself be distracted from work. Later.
 

Your welcome.

Ya know, I have this feeling that it's possible that where we part company is akin to simply walking on opposite sides of a river while heading in the same direction. If this is true, it's no different than most of the Christian denominations. At the same time, one side might lead to a sheer rock wall jutting straight up several hundred feet and the person who gets that far believes he's gone all the way, while the other guy continues on his side of the river now running along that cliff. (Paint a pretty picture, don't I?)

Or, perhaps if you look up, you'll find you're not quite under that umbrella as you think, or that others might not be. More to the point, your idea of just how big that umbrella is might be off (which is not to say that I have it right). So let's try it this way: A seeker comes to you willing to be saved. You can only tell him words that reflect this: "The condition is that they accept Grace, which enables them to have faith and enables them to do works." If he has no Bible or any further imput from you or other Christians, against what can he measure his works in order to insure they are pleasing to the Lord? If he is filled with compassion for the unborn, and his compassion leads him to destroy abortion clinics and/or kill those who make their money aborting, what becomes of him? In his eyes it's a total justice issue and his intention is not to destroy, though his methods he feels are required, but it is to save lives. This is a complete hypothetical, not a question of judging a real human being, and only your opinion based on your understanding of Christianity is desired. It isn't a test, though you will be graded on penmanship. I'm just trying to get a better handle on whence you come, for the sake of clarity.
 

Re, "against what can he measure his works in order to insure they are pleasing to the Lord?"

Nothing.

Anyone who measures his works against what he deserves is missing the point. He's still thinking as if God is adding up points. And he's not.

Repentence mean one thing: Turn to God. Life as a Christian means learning what that means.
 

Re, "A seeker comes to you willing to be saved."

I say to him: YOU ARE SAVED. That's the good news!

If he accepts that bald fact, then he is washed in Grace, his heart is renewed and his life starts to change, which means he, formerly with his back to God, feels the heat of God's light and love, and turns toward Him. And that's repentance.

But I'm sorry, I will not agree with any list of doctines or any specific behaviors.

Fruits of the Spirit are another thing, and include seeking to develop a relationship God, seeking fellowship with other Christians, loving God and neighbor as himself, and seeking to do justice, love mercy and to walk humbly with God.

But not even any of that is automatic. We all start as babes in Christ.
 

BTW, I think God's umbrella is bigger than either of can even imasgine.

Why do you seek to keep people out from under it? Why do you want a small umbrella? Seriously.
 

"Turn to God. Life as a Christian means learning what that means."

Exactly. But how can one without Scripture. If you pare it down to just "Love God...Love your neighbor..." How should manifest that concept? How can one know that one has the right POV as far as God is concerned? Do you feel that mere acceptance translates to immediate transformation ala Clark Kent exiting a phone booth? Or is it more a gradual learnig process for most? As I keep saying, it is one thing to say one believes and accepts, it's quite another to actually have done so in a manner that actually provides salvation. You act as if acceptance means works that are pleasing to God will just begin to happen, and I say that the desire to please might happen, but the methods of doing so might still be lost without some explanation of what it means to do so. If the desire to please is enough, but it manifests itself in some heinous behavior, how can this be reconciled with nothing (like the Bible) to compare with?

"Why do you want a small umbrella?"

I don't. I want that people aren't getting wet thinking they're under that umbrella. I'm saying that saying there's an umbrella without providing any info as to how to get there does the seeker no good. Saying there's an umbrella and just assuming the one you're standing beneath is the right one isn't enough either. The Bible serves as a guide to get there and describes the right umbrella by the character and behaviors of the people beneath it. The Bible describes the Law of which Christ is the fulfillment. You have to understand the Law to understand the meaning of Christ being the fulfillment of it. To accept Christ means to accept the Law. It's up to God to determine who's followed it enough to prove their faith on His terms. It's up to each of us to guide, to the best of our ability, those who wish to know. Detail is helpful. You provide far too little.
 

Yes. The Bible is THE guide. You and I agree on that. The dead horse between us is how to understand-interpret it, and whether to take it literally, and whether it is the "Word of God" in any way other that colloquially. Yes. Break out the Bible and let's see what says -- but also what it means, which depends on what it meant, which depends on all the things I insist are critical and that you dismiss, such as original; author, intent, recipient, kind of writing, etc. But let's agree to agree that the Bible, and its study, are the primary Christian practice, but not the only one, for determining how to live the Christian life.

But.

"You have to understand the Law to understand the meaning of Christ being the fulfillment of it. To accept Christ means to accept the Law."

No. You have to know something about the Law to understand howe the earliest Jewish Christians interpreted their encounter with the divine, with God. In another culture, in another place, that encounter would have been interpreted through other experiences that would have provided the framework for seeing and understanding God's bridging of the chasm that exists between Him and his creation. The Christ would have been, and has been, seen differently. Western missionaries have encountered tribes that basically said, "Ah. Jesus. Thank you for telling us His name." THEY ALREADY BELIEVED, already trusted God, trusted that He had made provision for them to commune with Him, without knowing the details. They came to understand the story and their faith was made richer for it -- THAT's what I partly believe the Gresat Commission is all about: "Teach all nations" -- teach those Gentiles, those godfearers not fortunste enough to be living around Jews, who have nonetheless already blindly accepted God's Godness and God's Grace, teach them about Jesus, so they can have a fuller relationship with God.

But, you're right: To understand how the earliest Jews who became Christians interpreted their encounter with the Divine, you should know something about the Jewish Law.


Re, "It's up to God to determine who's followed it enough to prove their faith on His terms."

Yes, and He does so by looking on Christ, who we have put on.

Again, I am talking not about people whop are trying to bargain with God, those who believe their specific beliefs, or their "good" actions get them in God's graces or keep them there, or that their "bad" actions or lack of understanding keep them *from* God's graces. I'm talking about people who seek God, through Christ, actively, regularly, reverently, honestly and as completely as they know how, recognizing that nothing they can believe or do can save them, and nothing they can believe or do can damn them, for without God they are damned in the first place. I'm talking aboout Christians.
 

Just a bit more before this thread is relegated to the archives where we won't want to keep going.

"Yes. Break out the Bible and let's see what says -- but also what it means, which depends on what it meant, which depends on all the things I insist are critical and that you dismiss, such as original; author, intent, recipient, kind of writing, etc. But let's agree to agree that the Bible, and its study, are the primary Christian practice, but not the only one, for determining how to live the Christian life."

First of all, it isn't true that I dismiss what you think I dismiss. More accurately, and it may be where that dead horse really lies, is that it hasn't been shown how those points counter my position. And the position to which I refer is that which kinda started this whole conversation, that Levitical Law regarding, "Thou shalt not lay with a man as thou wouldst with a woman." means ANY homosexual behavior, whether in a "loving, committed monogomous" relationship or any other. That lead to Mosaic Law in general and it's application for today's Christian, the authority of the Bible, and on and on up to now. So at least the circle has come together that much and I'm still left wanting. Much of the argument seems to be based on things that don't really have authority or relevance. We can look at history, as best as it's been preserved, and make certain judgements about the people of the time. Your side seems to separate the miraculous and even tends to humanize too many aspects of Scripture that should not be humanized.

When you speak of the experiences of the ancient Jews, your words imply a state of being that is only in the physical realm, with an avoidance of the spiritual as regards the miraculous. This comes across when you speak of the Jews' interpretation of God's revelation. Yet the Book says the contact, as pertains Mosaic Law specifically but not uniquely, was direct. If your boss (if you have one) says, "Thou shalt not drink on the job." What interpretation is necessary for you that the words themselves don't fulfill? If you were to craft an employee handbook for future employees from the mandates of the boss, anything he said that didn't make sense or wasn't crystal clear you'd most likely request clarification. If your choice of words didn't make sense to the next guy, he'd ask as well, either you or the boss. This is what we see during the ancient times in question. There could be no confusion with the Lord hovering nearby in a cloud by day and if fire by night.

Now if you seek validation in history books or archeological studies, you are not likely to find such. To the historian, it's just another culture. To the archeologist, all has not yet been deciphered. This begins to explain how the Bible is our authority for knowing God and His Will for us. What we experience, through daily living, through prayer and meditation, HAS to be laid against Scripture to see if it meshes because we don't have the same type of direct contact, that is, God speaking to us as we do to each other.

Another example is your link to the site for the "homo" take on the story of the Centurion. Despite all the background info and historical examples of the ancient use of the word for the servant, none of it says anything about how the practice was viewed by the cultures to which he referred, so that we only know that it took place. In other words, because it happened, it doesn't mean that the culture in general approved. Some bits from the link I posted on the subject at my blog suggests as much. So the site's author provided a lot of stuff showing that there were homos in ancient times. So what? Roman military were not to wed so SOME of them kept boys and young men for sex. It doesn't mention if the practice was condoned, encouraged or approved of in any way. It also doesn't mean that the Centurion in question used his servant for sex. But if he did, Jesus' silence on the subject is not tacit approval since he spent time with sinners constantly without comment on each's particular sin. It is also suggested that some early interpretations suggest it wasn't a Centurion, but an official, even a Jewish one, and the boy was his son. And the word used to describe him is used as a sexual servant, but also just for "boy".

So what I'm using far too many words to say is, if the outside source materials don't PROVE a point, they are almost garbage for our purposes of learning and teaching about God and His Will for us. If they don't prove the point, they may be useful as historical enlightenment, but not as interpretive "adjusters" as it were.

Thus, and really, I'm almost done here, the points about Grace and acceptance are points taken. As to repentance and being born again as a new person in Christ, one needs to know from what one must repent. Those behaviors are in Scripture, both OT and NT, and concerns about ritual & dietary laws and methods of atonement have been answered. What's left is the thou shalt nots, or behvioral laws, mandates and directives. Jesus didn't spend a lot of time on incest and bestiality, but I'm pretty sure those are still out.

And finally, this has been a completely kick-ass discussion and debate. I want you to know that I am not as hard-core hung-up on literal interpretation as you might think, but I put nothing past my Lord. With Him all things are possible. Every miracle in the Book is possible and even likely because of who He Is. I hope you're not "afraid" to believe in something like the Great Flood, or people living 900 years, or any of the "metaphors". He doesn't exist within our physical world, anymore than an author exists in the stories or "universes" he creates on paper. But both can insert themselves anytime they want and even erase any trace of themselves. For us the important thing is our faith in Christ and how we live our lives, and that I know we both agree with. I step back from this debate until such time as it rears it's head months hence.
 

And the bloggers aaid, "Amen."