I'm taking out some of jibes and attitude, because you have some very interesting statements here, that are themselves some pretty big assumptions, and I want to think about them.
You do realize, I am sure, that you are in a vast minority who would hold up the Bible as authoritative while simultaneously saying that Bible disagrees with itself and needs to have an 'interpretation' that has to be filtered to properly service the values of the Bible.
There is a vast difference between people who think that every word and event of the Bible is an exact historical accounting, to those who proclaim the Bible consistent and inherent truth. Specific details might differ, but the truth being revealed does not contradict itself. The statement you made basically absolves the Bible as an authority, places that authority on a collective of people who decide which best interpretation to impose on the collective whole. Now, I doubt that is what you mean, but that is what you just said.
That is a gross simplification of the variances of the meaning of 'literal'. I find it difficult to believe that any person, who is at all earnest in faith and a Biblical scholar can so casually cast such a wide and errant generality.
But while you walk around feeling all superior, you are depending on a simplistic view of Biblical work that means you might actually be incapable of understanding what I am saying. The Bible disagrees with itself. You know that, right? Therefore, in order to have an interpretation that values the whole Bible, you have to get past the concept of Biblical Fact. What can we learn from both Nehemiah and Ruth, despite them being so inconsistent with each other, and written at more or less the same time? The multiple creation stories? The four Gospels?
You do realize, I am sure, that you are in a vast minority who would hold up the Bible as authoritative while simultaneously saying that Bible disagrees with itself and needs to have an 'interpretation' that has to be filtered to properly service the values of the Bible.
There is a vast difference between people who think that every word and event of the Bible is an exact historical accounting, to those who proclaim the Bible consistent and inherent truth. Specific details might differ, but the truth being revealed does not contradict itself. The statement you made basically absolves the Bible as an authority, places that authority on a collective of people who decide which best interpretation to impose on the collective whole. Now, I doubt that is what you mean, but that is what you just said.
We are not ignoring any part of the Bible (though, as I admitted before, I can miss parts occasionally when dashing off a Messageboard reply. Are you gonna talk about my concession on the Paul's saying or just pretend I didn't make it?) rather, we are working with the work as a whole, which is something that no self-avowed "literalist" ever does. They can't, because if they did, then they would have to call one verse "right" and the other verse "wrong".
That is a gross simplification of the variances of the meaning of 'literal'. I find it difficult to believe that any person, who is at all earnest in faith and a Biblical scholar can so casually cast such a wide and errant generality.
Presbyterian Church (USA) passes Amendment 10-A.
- 11/05/2011 05:39:29 PM
1436 Views
*NM*
What's the language? Did they at least TRY to give a doctrinal justification?
- 12/05/2011 02:10:46 AM
980 Views
Thank you for that rousing argument against married priests.
- 12/05/2011 03:36:51 AM
916 Views
Why ARE you letting women into the priesthood?
- 12/05/2011 04:16:50 AM
860 Views
Because Episcopalians don't listen to the Bible much.
- 12/05/2011 05:47:03 AM
806 Views
That's just fine as far as I'm concerned
- 12/05/2011 02:23:44 PM
815 Views
Yes, I suppose a church could go that route.
- 14/05/2011 07:38:02 AM
772 Views
I'm not attempting to impose a dichotomy on the Bible.
- 14/05/2011 03:25:30 PM
845 Views
I don't even know what following the Bible in its entirety means.
- 14/05/2011 09:09:10 PM
1016 Views
As an exercise, I tried to think of how I would justify allowing homosexuals as clergy.
- 14/05/2011 04:19:43 PM
825 Views
Thanks (I'm actually OK with women priests though).
- 12/05/2011 07:09:11 AM
900 Views
There's ample precedent for female religious leaders, even within the bible.
- 12/05/2011 06:51:05 AM
932 Views
Since when is Moses' society the be-all end all?
- 12/05/2011 07:12:41 PM
801 Views
Since never, which is why I referenced five other eras you completely ignored.
- 14/05/2011 01:11:30 AM
907 Views
They did so, via negativa.
- 12/05/2011 04:22:17 PM
955 Views
Sorry for the delay, particularly since it looks like I'll be spending a fair amount of time here.
- 14/05/2011 12:31:33 AM
760 Views
Your church has a constitution?!
- 12/05/2011 03:36:41 AM
823 Views
My Church has a congress! 
*NM*
- 12/05/2011 03:37:52 AM
403 Views
*NM*
- 12/05/2011 03:37:52 AM
403 Views
Haha no way! *NM*
- 12/05/2011 03:46:32 AM
355 Views
Well, we have one group of laity and one of bishops, so it is only mildy utter chaos. 
*NM*
- 12/05/2011 05:51:09 AM
398 Views
*NM*
- 12/05/2011 05:51:09 AM
398 Views
I'm happy to hear this, personally. I also wonder how you reconcile this with the Bible.
- 12/05/2011 04:11:31 AM
1010 Views
Every direct reference to homosexuality in the Bible is a reference to rape.
- 12/05/2011 04:12:43 PM
841 Views
Every single word that you wrote in your response is complete bullshit.
- 12/05/2011 05:50:07 PM
969 Views
Knock off your eisegesis, try some exegesis
- 12/05/2011 07:02:45 PM
888 Views
I'm trying to figure out just what your "gifts" are, because I don't see any.
- 12/05/2011 07:30:39 PM
857 Views
There are cases in which hypocrisy is far better than the alternatives.
- 12/05/2011 10:04:32 PM
930 Views
Hypocrisy is better than, say, setting gays on fire, yes.
- 12/05/2011 10:10:40 PM
905 Views
My statement is that, from a pragmatic point of view, hypocrisy shouldn't be discouraged too much.
- 13/05/2011 10:05:39 PM
904 Views
Oh, is that how we're playing this, then?
- 13/05/2011 06:29:31 PM
858 Views
Re: Oh, is that how we're playing this, then?
- 13/05/2011 07:02:35 PM
832 Views
I'm not playing. I'm pointing out some glaring errors on your part.
- 13/05/2011 07:25:08 PM
754 Views
The Bible says what it says. The problem... people like to tell us just what else it's saying.
- 13/05/2011 05:31:29 PM
820 Views
You don't reconcile... you pick the parts you like and adjust the rest to suit you.
- 13/05/2011 09:33:54 PM
753 Views
Another example...
- 12/05/2011 09:19:52 AM
754 Views
If you claim to follow the entire Bible, then you are completely correct.
- 12/05/2011 06:04:38 PM
754 Views
On the contrary, this move will take some butts out of the seats.
- 12/05/2011 07:16:22 PM
793 Views
We both know that isn't the case
- 12/05/2011 07:55:41 PM
897 Views
Cool cool. I have a question on a semi-related note, about Protestant Gospels
- 12/05/2011 05:33:49 PM
858 Views
No Protestant denomination has added so much as a word to the Bible
- 12/05/2011 05:58:16 PM
730 Views
So, everyone hates Judith, then?
- 12/05/2011 06:40:11 PM
808 Views
The Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Churches accept Judith as part of Scripture.
- 12/05/2011 07:51:27 PM
770 Views
Does the Eastern Orthodox Church also segregate deuterocanonical works like Roman Catholicism does?
- 14/05/2011 02:19:03 AM
1081 Views
The Eastern Church bases everything on the Septuagint.
- 14/05/2011 02:34:41 AM
820 Views
That sounds appealing, and makes sense.
- 14/05/2011 02:44:56 AM
838 Views
Oh, I just enjoy calling Protestants "heretics" to remind them not everyone agrees with them.
- 14/05/2011 03:25:42 AM
783 Views
Re: Cool cool. I have a question on a semi-related note, about Protestant Gospels
- 12/05/2011 08:52:48 PM
807 Views
The NIV is terrible. The NASB has the best translation I have found (of the NT, at least).
- 12/05/2011 10:43:58 PM
946 Views
I find this really weird, to be honest
- 13/05/2011 05:48:28 AM
817 Views
Well, it wasn't just Athanasius. But yes, we are lucky in that respect. *NM*
- 13/05/2011 06:32:48 AM
338 Views
Athanasius's list reflected the victory of Pauline Christianity
- 13/05/2011 02:52:53 PM
770 Views
There's a school of thought that says that's a strong vindication of Athanasius. 
- 14/05/2011 02:37:49 AM
731 Views
- 14/05/2011 02:37:49 AM
731 Views