Why do more liberal churches tend to be the most ritual-driven and traditional?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

did Jesus and the Apostles interpret scripture literally?

That's an extremely vague question, considering none of them left behind any hint of an organized epistemology.

so, you're saying, based on their interpretations as recorded in scripture, there is no way to tell whether they interpreted the OT literally or not?

[useful idiot]

I've always find it kind of ironic, and rather frustrating that the most progressive churches that are the ones constantly condemned as heretics by the fundies also tend to be really traditional, full of a lot of mechanical rituals, won't play music past the 19th century and people would think you're crazy if you so much as put your hands in the air. Of course these are also the ones where people are more likely to dress up as well (though at least I'm sure if I went they wouldn't deny me entry or throw me out for wearing a T-shirt and jeans like might happen at some Southern Baptist or rural Pentecostal church.) Someone giving a pro-gay marriage sermon is far more likely to be wearing one of those pastoral robes than jeans. It seems that if anything this should be a very conservative attitude. And most of the churches that aren't "conservative" in that way at all still tend to be very fundie and conservative otherwise. Most new evangelical churches don't care how you dress either, at least outside the south.

What's frustrating is that while there are unsurprisingly still plenty of churches that are "conservative" in both areas including entirety of the Catholic Church, very casual, unritualistic and charismatic liberal churches are extremely rare and the "generally progressive but neutral on gay marriage and still regarded by some people here as insane holy rollers" one I'm going to now is the closest one I've found in those regards. It all strikes me as very ironic. Anyone have any ideas as to why?

Huh? I go to a fairly conservative SBC church and 40% of the congregation is wearing jeans on a given Sunday. Another 40% are wearing khaki's and a polo shirt or collared shirt without a tie. Only the old people and pastoral staff wear suits and ties or even a sports coat/blazer...

And that's more conservative dress-wise than I see at most other Southern Baptist churches (unfortunately, imo).

did Jesus and the Apostles interpret scripture literally?

That's an extremely vague question, considering none of them left behind any hint of an organized epistemology.

so, you're saying, based on their interpretations as recorded in scripture, there is no way to tell whether they interpreted the OT literally or not?

They didn't, not in the sense that he's speaking of. They interpreted almost everything Christologically, which as I'm sure you know has always been the gigantic stick in the spokes of traditional dispensationalism.

Of course the authors of the NT had a very high view of scripture, which is what people are really attacking when they throw out the "literal interpretation" slander.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

so, you're saying, based on their interpretations as recorded in scripture, there is no way to tell whether they interpreted the OT literally or not?

They didn't, not in the sense that he's speaking of. They interpreted almost everything Christologically

Granted, but teaching Christ from the OT is mostly all interpretation of the figurative anyway…but if we look at, say, the historical record within the OT or the commandments within the Law of Moses…we can certainly state that all evidence within the NT points to the fact that Jesus and the Apostles interpreted and accepted those as literal (regardless whether they gleaned any figurative Christological meaning from it).

[useful idiot]

so, you're saying, based on their interpretations as recorded in scripture, there is no way to tell whether they interpreted the OT literally or not?

They didn't, not in the sense that he's speaking of. They interpreted almost everything Christologically

Granted, but teaching Christ from the OT is mostly all interpretation of the figurative anyway…but if we look at, say, the historical record within the OT or the commandments within the Law of Moses…we can certainly state that all evidence within the NT points to the fact that Jesus and the Apostles interpreted and accepted those as literal (regardless whether they gleaned any figurative Christological meaning from it).

I certainly agree with that. Of course, in the liberal's mind, we don't really know if they did interpret the OT literally in that fashion because the NT can't be trusted.

I generally point people to John 5:45-47 to give them an idea of how Jesus felt about the OT.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I think I'm just going to put jmfcst on ignore from now on when I read this forum, I'll take him off for other forums of course.

How is it ironic? Most people's politics (and most priest's theology!) aren't driven by their dress sense.

Addendum: Happy Clappy churches are absolutely and utterly ritual-driven, almost to the extent that really OTT forms of High Church Anglo-Catholic churches can be (and they're more Catholic than the Catholics). It's just that their rituals are new.

I might as I often do be looking at things through the spectrum of the thought of young urbanites, but I've always associated a dislike of dressing up with more liberal politics. Even if it's silly logic like "How many people at your typical hardcore show are dressed up? How many Republicans are at your typical hardcore show?" type stuff.

For the second point: Well there's a ritual I won't deny, but it's quite different from what I'm thinking of. High Church traditional Lutheran services are full of all those response things, recitation of the same prayers and creeds every service and all that. There's a definite blueprint to my church's services, but it's way simpler. No responses, recitations of the same thing, and in fact no one prays out loud except the pastor/who's giving the sermon and the worship leader (and for her it's typically just "Oh God you are so awesome, you rule!" type things.) It basically goes like this:

Opening song
Worship leader typically says a short prayer in the manner described above
People greet each other and shake hands (no "peace be with you", we just say good morning)
Some announcements about upcoming events
Pastor/whoever is giving the sermon if it's a guest speaker comes up and gives their sermon (this has a format too, but it's just they give an introduction as to what the topic is about, say a short prayer in relation to this and then give the main part of it.)
Worship leader prays again and sometimes between songs, some more songs are played (during this time the collection plate is passed around and you can take communion, no set time for communion, there's just plates with crushed crackers and small plastic cups of wine in all four corners of the room you just take when you want to.)
Pastor comes up on stage again and gives the closing prayer (typically related again to the sermon topic and never pre-written)
Band plays one more song while some people stand up front and invite anyone asking for prayer to come up and ask them to pray with them (yes this is often for "healing" with the whole laying of hands thing too)

And the funny thing is this typically lasts around 80 minutes while those very mechanical traditional Lutheran services often clock under 50 minutes, even though a lot more things are done in them.

I've always find it kind of ironic, and rather frustrating that the most progressive churches that are the ones constantly condemned as heretics by the fundies also tend to be really traditional, full of a lot of mechanical rituals, won't play music past the 19th century and people would think you're crazy if you so much as put your hands in the air. Of course these are also the ones where people are more likely to dress up as well (though at least I'm sure if I went they wouldn't deny me entry or throw me out for wearing a T-shirt and jeans like might happen at some Southern Baptist or rural Pentecostal church.) Someone giving a pro-gay marriage sermon is far more likely to be wearing one of those pastoral robes than jeans. It seems that if anything this should be a very conservative attitude. And most of the churches that aren't "conservative" in that way at all still tend to be very fundie and conservative otherwise. Most new evangelical churches don't care how you dress either, at least outside the south.

What's frustrating is that while there are unsurprisingly still plenty of churches that are "conservative" in both areas including entirety of the Catholic Church, very casual, unritualistic and charismatic liberal churches are extremely rare and the "generally progressive but neutral on gay marriage and still regarded by some people here as insane holy rollers" one I'm going to now is the closest one I've found in those regards. It all strikes me as very ironic. Anyone have any ideas as to why?

Huh? I go to a fairly conservative SBC church and 40% of the congregation is wearing jeans on a given Sunday. Another 40% are wearing khaki's and a polo shirt or collared shirt without a tie. Only the old people and pastoral staff wear suits and ties or even a sports coat/blazer...

And that's more conservative dress-wise than I see at most other Southern Baptist churches (unfortunately, imo).

I never saw you as a Southern Baptist especially considering how Zionist they are...

I've never been to one and I'd be shocked if I ever do, but in any videos I see of Pentecostal churches I see lots of ties and I still remember those John Arthur Eaves ads with him and his songs leaving church all dressed in full suits, which actually shocked me a little because I never saw that growing up. But if only 40% of the congregation are wearing jeans and a majority are wearing a polo or collared shirt and anyone including the pastoral staff are wearing a suit and tie, that is way more formal than where I go. I doubt someone wearing this shirt and ripped jeans like I have done before would fit in well (not that I'd expect anyone at a Southern Baptist church to even know who that band is obviously), or any guys like this (that's basically what the new associate pastor who gave the sermon last week looks like for the record), or girls like this and probably not many girls in those hipster scarves that I love so much.

My parents go to probably the most liberal Lutheran church in my hometown (it's also the most casual and "happy clappy" though there isn't much of that swaying and hand raising), the pastor don't wear robes (though not jeans either), no one dresses up super-formally, but I still got glares and dirty looks from olds whenever I went there in holey jeans or a weird-looking band shirt. You can see how most people are dressed here and here, not exactly formal but way moreso than at the shows I go to or a club or coffeeshop. Having seen people leaving at that super-liberal Congregational church near me I see it's largely the same thing.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Oh here's a great example. Episcopal Easter service

Look at how the congregation is dressed. I'm pretty sure if I went there dressed in my standard band hoodie/shirt and jeans and started jumping around and throwing my hands in the air people would think I was some type of real life troll trying to disrupt the service instead of worshiping.

[useful idiot]

I never saw you as a Southern Baptist especially considering how Zionist they are...

My church is in a growing minority of Reformed SBC churches...

I've never heard any of the elders even talk about Israel(in the modern national sense) from the pulpit. We're self-consciously apolitical.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I've never ever heard of the modern-day Israel mentioned in church and was kind of shocked to find out how obsessed with Zionism some are and people like jmfcst can be.

But anyway are there ever people wearing band shirts or those type of hipster fashions? I just ordered this shirt and would have no problem wearing it to church, I have a tough time seeing that ever happen in any SBC church unless it was someone there against their will trying to protest or something. Same thing in a "high church" Episcopal.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

That's part of his charm. Where the jmfcsts believe that false modesty is a virtue, I hold that true arrogance is the hallmark of an authentic man.

doubt many posters here would consider me modest enough to even have a shot at being falsely modest.   

though I have my flaws with arrogance, I do believe my theology and doctrine are modest (not extreme)...I mean, after all, reading the bible and concluding homosexuality is OK is extremely extreme given all the evidence within scripture against it.

It's a considerably smaller amount of evidence, I hope you'll concede, than the evidence against usurping God's right to sit in judgment (something on which my feelings have changed even since a few weeks ago, actually, since I've been reading a lot of quietist theology lately; but this is why my spiritual life contains such an emphasis on praying for guidance and forgiveness, since I don't trust myself or any other human being to have what it takes to go at all times in the way that a person should). I'm not accusing you of doing this but it's common for people who hold your interpretation to end up doing it and it often doesn't end very well at all.

The idea that the Bible was given to the benefit of Man, similar to how, for instance, the Meiji Constitution was spun as a 'gift' from the Meiji Emperor to the Japanese people, is...well, it's one that I understand your disagreement with, since it's very easy for a certain type of person to come up with an entirely Man-centered theology based on that idea. The purpose should be to come to a God-centered theology, considering that the Bible is the word of God as given to, received by, and kept by Man, and hence at least in part (but not in full) a Man-driven document (whereas Jesus is the Word of God that was given to Man but rejected, tortured, punished, and ultimately murdered). Taking the Bible as the word of God, finding the various passages condemning different homosexual practices or favoring heterosexual marriage and family structures, and deciding on the basis of these that this is a necessary part of the divine plan for salvation is a perfectly reasonable way to go about things but there's a greater radicalism to accepting one's own absolute subordination to the will of God that can never be known in its entirety and simply trying one's best that taken into consideration, which (see two paragraphs down) can make sexuality in general questionable in ways that don't, at least in my experience, discriminate based on gender. The Bible contains all things necessary for salvation but it's nevertheless in some ways a quite slippery and tricksy thing to get a foothold on, which is a large part why more people (of whatever personal, political, or cultural stripes) aren't Christian.

I've realized recently that I'm less a Christian fanatic than I am a religious fanatic whose personal beliefs happen to be centered around the idea of God as the supreme judge of fates and men Who sent into the world His Son as a savior, expositor, and ransom. I believe strongly in faith as a force in general, which is part of why I'm a bit leery of attempting to interpret the Bible or any text that's important to me in isolation.

I also might point out that I'm more than a little leery of sexuality in general and that when I argue in favor of this sort of tolerance it's on the understanding within myself that considering what a whole mess of religious and secular pitfalls sexuality is it seems to me that the genders of the people involved shouldn't particularly compound matters any more than they already have to be. It's a somewhat mordant view that I do accept criticism of but usually, actually, from very different sorts of places than the criticism apropos to more theologically liberal approbation of gay relationships. (I apologize if my phrasing here doesn't make much sense; I'm in a bit of a rush and also pretty tired, plus I think I might have a cold.)

_________________

As far as the OP's question goes, jmfcst's interpretation of why this is, however, is I think more or less correct in that churches that don't adhere to sola scriptura interpretations are indeed more likely to (a) have scriptural interpretations that hew towards the tolerant on the specific issue of homosexuality (though if you gave me time to think about it I'm sure I could find issues that they/we are less tolerant on) and (b) follow the modes of dress and ritual that originate from secular formal wear of the late Roman Empire rather than secular casual or semiformal wear of the late American Hegemon.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I suppose the whole driving point here is the traditional-style is more likely to be favored by olds while the charismatic style is more likely to be favored by youngs, yet it's obvious who is more supportive of gay marriage in those two groups.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

[differences of opinion in the role of scripture]… The purpose should be to come to a God-centered theology, considering that the Bible is the word of God as given to, received by, and kept by Man, and hence at least in part (but not in full) a Man-driven document (whereas Jesus is the Word of God that was given to Man but rejected, tortured, punished, and ultimately murdered). Taking the Bible as the word of God, finding the various passages condemning different homosexual practices or favoring heterosexual marriage and family structures, and deciding on the basis of these that this is a necessary part of the divine plan for salvation is a perfectly reasonable way to go about things but there's a greater radicalism to accepting one's own absolute subordination to the will of God that can never be known in its entirety and simply trying one's best that taken into consideration, which can make sexuality in general questionable in ways that don't, at least in my experience, discriminate based on gender.  The Bible contains all things necessary for salvation but it's nevertheless in some ways a quite slippery and tricksy thing to get a foothold on, which is a large part why more people (of whatever personal, political, or cultural stripes) aren't Christian.

1) Jesus wasn’t called the Word of God in order for us to believe obedience to God’s word is optional, and 2) You’re arguing that obedience to God’s word is radical and lacks a foothold, which is the exact opposite of what Jesus said:

Mat 7:24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.  The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock.”

Seriously and with all due respect, I have put up with this for nearly 10 years on this forum, and my patience is wearing thin…and although, Nathan, your post was thoughtful, I found it adrift - lacking direction.

When I was saved in '92 and sent to witness to my friends in a legalistic church, I soon found out they didn't interpret scripture the way I did, even though we both considered the bible the standard for the Christian faith...so I needed a proper standard to determine how I should be interpreting scripture, and for that answer, I went back to the bible to see how the people of the bible (e.g. Jesus and the Apostles) interpreted scripture:

How did they use the scripture…how much weight did they give it…how did they derive doctrine…how did they reconcile supposed contradictions…etc, etc, etc.

And if you can’t study their approach and come to the conclusion that they believed certain sex acts were forbidden within scripture and had to be repented of and overcome lest a person be condemned at judgment…then I don’t know what book you’re reading.

But you’ve already made it clear that you understand the bible preaches against homosexuality…so, as far as I can tell, there is no reason for your position other than you simply refuse to or can not accept what the bible is clearly saying. And that being the case, I’m not going to waste much time in this conversation.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

1) Jesus wasn’t called the Word of God in order for us to believe obedience to God’s word is optional, and 2) You’re arguing that obedience to God’s word is radical and lacks a foothold, which is the exact opposite of what Jesus said:

That's...not what I meant, but okay. I think we may be going on different senses of the word 'radical' here.

But you’ve already made it clear that you understand the bible preaches against homosexuality…so, as far as I can tell, there is no reason for your position other than you simply refuse to or can not accept what the bible is clearly saying. And that being the case, I’m not going to waste much time in this conversation.

It's not that I can't accept what it's saying as much as...actually, you're right, it's probably not going to be very fruitful to discuss this, since you and I have radically different views of what precisely the Bible is there for and presumably always will, but I at least don't really view that as how I think when I think about the way that I think (for, you know, whatever that's worth).

I'm happy that you found my post thoughtful (even if qualified; I know it lacks direction, I wrote it late Saturday afternoon after spending the vast majority of that day obsessively editing a Japanese presentation so forgive me for the low-ish level of internal coherence), and I'm sorry that you consider this conversation a waste of time. I certainly don't.

Probably we aren't going to end up treading any new ground anyway, though, so I think you might be right that this particular theological discussion should stop here for now.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

you and I have radically different views of what precisely the Bible is there for

what does the scripture itself have to say about its own purpose?  that's the answer you need to search for.

To me, finding the answer to that question is an extremely straight forward process: 

1) start at the beginning of the bible and go through it, both OT and NT, and highlight every passage explaining the reason why scripture is written...then assemble that list of passages and see if there is a stated common purpose.

2) take that common stated purpose and go back through the bible, OT and NT, and see if that is how the charachers of the bible used the scripture

3) if 1 & 2 mesh, you've found your answer

it aint rocket science, it's simply a common sense approach to finding an answer…In fact, “What purpose did the author have for writing this?” is a question every grade school child is asked – motive is a fundamental question in understanding the intention of the writer.

That’s why these discussions have tired me over the last 9.5 years - they are so transparently childish and asinine.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Treating the figures in the Bible as an ideologically or spiritually homogeneous group of people? Attempting to use particularly simplistic techniques for sophomoric literary analysis on something that was written by about four dozen or so different people and compiled by scores of rabbinical and ecumenical councils over a span of almost a millennium? Treating the Bible as a monolithic entity that carries the same sort of weight within itself as the Napoleonic Code and remains unchanged over time rather than as the first ring going out in a massive complex of grasping and sojourning signs surrounding the colossal figure of the Son of God? Ascribing it a special significance either more or less than that of an artifact of an imperfect bridge between Earth and Heaven that describes and signifies the perfect Bridge, Who came into the world to save sinners? Not recognizing that believing in this kind of importance pays it and the blood and treasure spilled on our salvation far more respect than analyzing it the same way we would any other book?



(I would give a classier rebuttal but I really am swamped with work right now. In a few days I'll see about starting a new thread about views of the Bible if there's any interest, but we've strayed very far off topic by now from BRTD's sociological question.)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Treating the figures in the Bible as an ideologically or spiritually homogeneous group of people? Attempting to use particularly simplistic techniques for sophomoric literary analysis on something that was written by about four dozen or so different people and compiled by scores of rabbinical and ecumenical councils over a span of almost a millennium? Treating the Bible as a monolithic entity that carries the same sort of weight within itself as the Napoleonic Code and remains unchanged over time rather than as the first ring going out in a massive complex of grasping and sojourning signs surrounding the colossal figure of the Son of God? Ascribing it a special significance either more or less than as an artifact of an imperfect bridge between Earth and Heaven that describes and signifies the perfect Bridge, Who came into the world to save sinners?

You forgot to mention that they probably used different pigments for their ink over the span of all those centuries…but did Jesus and the Apostles use such excuses to avoid assigning authority to scripture – even though the historically complex way they received the OT is pretty much on par with the way we’ve received BOTH the OT and NT?

Clearly not.

So, despite the historical complexity involved in the handing down of scripture, the overriding question still remains:  How did Jesus and the Apostles view the authority and use of scripture?

That’s a very simple and to the point question…a question you refuse to address, mainly because you and the church you go to stand in such obvious contradiction to the question’s obvious answer.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Treating the figures in the Bible as an ideologically or spiritually homogeneous group of people? Attempting to use particularly simplistic techniques for sophomoric literary analysis on something that was written by about four dozen or so different people and compiled by scores of rabbinical and ecumenical councils over a span of almost a millennium? Treating the Bible as a monolithic entity that carries the same sort of weight within itself as the Napoleonic Code and remains unchanged over time rather than as the first ring going out in a massive complex of grasping and sojourning signs surrounding the colossal figure of the Son of God? Ascribing it a special significance either more or less than as an artifact of an imperfect bridge between Earth and Heaven that describes and signifies the perfect Bridge, Who came into the world to save sinners?

You forgot to mention that they probably used different pigments for their ink over the span of all those centuries…but did Jesus and the Apostles use such excuses to avoid assigning authority to scripture – even though the historically complex way they received the OT is pretty much on par with the way we’ve received BOTH the OT and NT?

Clearly not.

We're both assigning authority to scripture. Your somewhat narrow, though admirably rigorous, definition of authority is not my concern.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wasn't addressing it because there were other aspects of what you were saying that I wanted to address first, namely that that's not at all, in itself, the obvious way to read any text. I've been studying medieval Japanese literature for long enough to know that the author is not always to be trusted as far as he or she can be thrown with regards to his or her own text, which becomes more true, not less, when the text in question deals with the life other than mundane.

You can say whatever you want about me but I will not hear you badmouth the Bride of Christ.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

How perfectly IRONIC!  That’s simply contrasting the weight of the ritual commandments (the Sabbath) verses the weightier commandments to show mercy to those in need…but Jesus’ citation of the story about David is from scripture, so Jesus was able to prove his scriptural point by pointing to a scripturally recorded case of how David interpreted scripture…which is EXACTLY what I am proposing with the question, “How did Jesus and the Apostles regard scripture?”

---

And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Unnoted miracles by Christ is not the same as unnoted doctrinal teachings of Christ.  BUT, at the very least, even if you think some of Christ’s teachings are not written down, you obviously have to conclude that these unnoted teachings would NOT contradict what was dully noted.


---

Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

Paul is saying the Law of Moses of Moses was given to the people for a period of time until it would be superseded by the New Covenant that was put into place by the new Mediator, Jesus Christ.  Paul was NOT arguing against the authority of the whole of scripture, rather he is simply arguing against the continued authority of the Law of Moses, which the Galatians had mixed with Christianity.

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wasn't addressing it because there were other aspects of what you were saying that I wanted to address first, namely that that's not at all, in itself, the obvious way to read any text.  I've been studying medieval Japanese literature for long enough to know that the author is not always to be trusted as far as he or she can be thrown with regards to his or her own text, which becomes more true, not less, when the text in question deals with the life other than mundane.
 

WOW, WOW, and WOW!!!  So, you’re telling me that my approach to scripture (studying the way Jesus and the Apostles handled scripture in order use it as a role model) is “not at all, in itself, the obvious way to read any text”…when you yourself just quoted Jesus using that very same approach when he referred his detractors to the scriptural evidence of the way David handled scripture?!

What are you trying to convince me of, exactly?  Dude, open your eyes, you yourself just quoted Jesus using the exact approach you’re arguing against.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

How perfectly IRONIC!  That’s simply contrasting the weight of the ritual commandments (the Sabbath) verses the weightier commandments to show mercy to those in need…

Strangely, I agree verbatim.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which I'm not disagreeing with at all. All I am disagreeing with is your answer to that question. The question itself is entirely legitimate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I know that. That wasn't really the part of the verse I was referring to anyway.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I didn't claim otherwise, and the relevant portion of the quote, since we're discussing the purpose of scripture, is the second part, not the first.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I know that too.

You've incidentally mixed Paul's theological arguments with the eternal Word of Christ, which even though they're both canonical and scriptural are there for different things. Do you also hew to Paul's position on his own ABSOLUTE RIGHTNESS AND SUPERIORITY to EVEN A MOTHERFCKING ANGEL?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I'm telling you that Jesus is not using some bizarre authorial intent standard, which is the aspect of your approach that I'm questioning. He's referring to the scriptures as a series of self-referential, occasionally self-critical or self-correcting texts, whereas you, again, are, consciously or not, treating it as a homogeneous mass. May I argue analogically for a moment? Jesus is treating the scripture the way Tendai Buddhists treat the Lotus Sutra--essentially, as a 'paradox spiral' that signifies the center of the mad and transcendent faith. You're treating it the way Nichiren Buddhists treat it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not actually the approach I'm arguing against. I'm trying to convince you that, as I keep saying, the Bible is only perfect within the context of the knowledge of the people who wrote it. Among things that the people who wrote the Bible didn't know about or foresee are astrophysics, non-Great Man approaches to historiography, psychological and biological discussion of where gender concepts come from, and (in the OT) the fact that there would at some point in time arise societies that didn't have an entirely survivalist and tribal ethic (which is part of the thrust of the NT!). Everything else holds up very well: The discussion of the different iterations of Law and Grace, the blazing love of God, the signification of the colossal figure of the Christ. It's tragic that insisting on a method of interpretation mostly without basis of any kind in the first eighteen centuries of Church history creates a great big honking window of opportunity for the whole thing to get thrown on the rubbish heap as equally mediocre and banal, because in reality nothing in the Bible is at all medicore or banal or mundane.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which I'm not disagreeing with at all. All I am disagreeing with is your answer to that question. The question itself is entirely legitimate.

Ok, now that you agree the central question is legit, then let’s answer it.

---

You've incidentally mixed Paul's theological arguments with the eternal Word of Christ, which even though they're both canonical and scriptural are there for different things. Do you also hew to Paul's position on his own ABSOLUTE RIGHTNESS AND SUPERIORITY to EVEN A MOTHERFCKING ANGEL?

I am not sure what you’re worked up about here, are you saying I put too much weight in Paul’s writings?….if Paul’s teachings mesh with the rest of scripture, then quoting Paul’s writings shouldn’t be a problem.  But, if you think Paul’s teachings contradict other parts of scripture, then please cite chapter and verse and make your argument.

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not actually the approach I'm arguing against. I'm trying to convince you that, as I keep saying, the Bible is only perfect within the context of the knowledge of the people who wrote it. Among things that the people who wrote the Bible didn't know about or foresee are astrophysics, non-Great Man approaches to historiography, psychological and biological discussion of where gender concepts come from…

The bible also does NOT tell me how my car works, for that is NOT the purpose of scripture, rather the scripture deal only with the issues that related to your salvation.

---

The discussion of the different iterations of Law and Grace, the blazing love of God, the signification of the colossal figure of the Christ.

All of which is in vain if you’re condoning condemnable actions:

Jude 1:4 “For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality…”

---

It's tragic that insisting on a method of interpretation mostly without basis of any kind in the first eighteen centuries of Church history creates a great big honking window of opportunity for the whole thing to get thrown on the rubbish heap as equally mediocre and banal, because in reality nothing in the Bible is at all medicore or banal or mundane.

Dude, stop wasting my time with your dance, I’ve seen it all before, performed by many other  posters, so an additional perrette or two isn't going to impress me.  Does the NT condemn homosexuality., yes or no?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

No, I'm telling you that Jesus is not using some bizarre authorial intent standard, which is the aspect of your approach that I'm questioning. He's referring to the scriptures as a series of self-referential, occasionally self-critical or self-correcting texts, whereas you, again, are, consciously or not, treating it as a homogeneous mass.

I agree with the self-referential part of your statement, but please expound upon the occasionally self-critical or self-correcting texts...

what exactly are you calling self-correcting, and please give an example of it.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which I'm not disagreeing with at all. All I am disagreeing with is your answer to that question. The question itself is entirely legitimate.

Ok, now that you agree the central question is legit, then let’s answer it.

I would say: As a whole semantic thicket, certainly worthy of more respect than other such thickets because of its partially Divine provenance. Can we agree on that much?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I admit I was kind of venting steam at that point, since I dislike a lot of Paul's writing simply on a rhetorical level (I also love a lot of it on a rhetorical level, but for instance the beginning of Galatians, which was what I was referencing with the angel thing, is something I've never much liked). Sorry (apology directed more to Paul than to you).

I would generally, myself, consider Paul a very highly-ranked secondary source, though, rather than 'straight from the horse's mouth' as it were.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, yes, but there's quite a bit in the Bible that's incidental to salvation. Do you think that, for instance, some of the historical material in Chronicles is necessary for salvation?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Agreed with this, though if we have enough of a disagreement over what constitutes immorality in a particular realm this becomes to an extent sophistry (then again, a lot of what we've been talking about has been sophistry, in which I've by no means been guiltless).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you mind if I answer this in detail and then give my short answer?

Romans 1.26-27 certain tend to present themselves that way. The word used in 1 Corinthians 6.9-11 and 1 Timothy 1.8-10 is arsenokoitēs, which does have roots related to 'man' and 'to bed' but which was also a neologism which doesn't appear anywhere at all in contemporary literature outside those two passages and which it's more than possible Paul simply invented as a pithy summary of a phrase used in the Septuagint reading of Leviticus 20.13, which there's a long tradition (Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 54a and b; Josephus, Against Apion 2.199; Philo, Abraham 135) of arguing is only really interested in anal sex. (I know gay men who would be upset with the idea that anal sex is an unclean abomination, but from a public-health standpoint among others...well, it kind of is.)

There's also the question of how to read the 'for this cause' in Romans 1.26. It can easily mean 'as a punishment [for idolatry]'. It can just as easily mean 'for purposes of [idolatry]'. Obviously that's an important phrase to get right, but it's grammatically ambiguous in the Koine.

So, the short answer: In a bizarre neologism referring to anal sex, and in a passage that either refers to it in the context of cult prostitution or considers it, basically, the punishment for itself (which is a common tack to take in the ancient world, particularly considering, as mentioned, health issues), yes, but it never rises to the level of a major theme in the NT and it's mostly the same sorts of throwaway mentions that Paul gives to, for instance, the issue of women who won't shut up in church.

Shorter answer: It casts the same sort of approbation on seedy gay sex that it casts on any sort of sex outside the context of a Christian marriage. Then you're left with the definition of Christian marriage, which honestly becomes arguing in circles. On both sides of the question.

what exactly are you calling self-correcting, and please give an example of it.

Perhaps self-correcting wasn't the right word to use. More like building upon itself, sometimes in ways counter to the expectations of the people involved in putting together the earlier portions. For one thing, Jesus Himself, while certainly the Messiah, wasn't the kind of Messiah that the Jews were expecting; the OT corrects itself on factual errors quite a lot, and things happen in it that were without prior precedent, such as conversion to Judaism coming into play in the Book of Ruth as a previously mostly unforeseen development. I can't think of any other dramatic moments where it's obvious that the understanding of something changed, but I should think that the coming and ministry of Christ is a dramatic enough instance all its own to make up for that. (Remember, this is from the point of view of the people who were involved in putting the thing together and what their expectations were and the Chinese-whispers process by which they worked; obviously God wasn't actually correcting or criticizing Himself). There's also theological multiplicity between or sometimes within OT books, such as Ecclesiastes's quietism, Deuteronomy's legalism, the triumphalism of many of the Psalms, the rage of the Jeremiads...here's a whole book on this subject if you're interested, which I'm recommending because OT theology (as opposed to textual analysis) isn't really my forte at all:

http://books.google.com/books?id=nE-xfAGv3ScC&pg=PA1&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

tl;dr mainly what I'm referring to there is instances of people breaking the letter of the law for its spirit in the OT, like what Jesus mentions, and the changes in understanding from Jesus Himself and His coming.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Ok, now that you agree the central question is legit, then let’s answer it.

I would say: As a whole semantic thicket, certainly worthy of more respect than other such thickets because of its partially Divine provenance. Can we agree on that much?

Sorry, not your fault, but your vocabulary is about four grade levels too high for me to understand without rereading your sentences four to five times.  Can we just use regular conversation American English as if we were discussing baseball?

---

but there's quite a bit in the Bible that's incidental to salvation. Do you think that, for instance, some of the historical material in Chronicles is necessary for salvation?

well, the historical lessons from the bible provide a cloud of witnesses to help us understand the consequence of not obeying God’s word….so, since obedience is foundational, the role of these stories help prevent a “failure to communicate”.

---

Agreed with this, though if we have enough of a disagreement over what constitutes immorality in a particular realm this becomes to an extent sophistry (then again, a lot of what we've been talking about has been sophistry, in which I've by no means been guiltless).

[after rereading four to five times and consulting a dictionary]…are you questioning the literalism of the statements regarding homosexuality in the bible?

---

There's also the question of how to read the 'for this cause' in Romans 1.26. It can easily mean 'as a punishment [for idolatry]'. It can just as easily mean 'for purposes of [idolatry]'. Obviously that's an important phrase to get right, but it's grammatically ambiguous in the Koine.

There is enough context in Rom 1 to make it very clear he is referring to homosexual sex:

Rom 1:24  Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.  28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. .[/b]
---

… it never rises to the level of a major theme in the NT and it's mostly the same sorts of throwaway mentions that Paul gives to, for instance, the issue of women who won't shut up in church.

Yeah, right!  The language of Romans 1 describing and listing the how many lines homosexuality crosses is the strongest language of the NT.

Of how does one “throwaway” and ignore the strongest language of the NT?

---

Perhaps self-correcting wasn't the right word to use. More like building upon itself…

In building upon itself, I take it you mean the continued unveiling of God’s plan, as more and more of it is explicitly revealed…then we’re in agreement

But, in the case of homosexuality, the only thing the bible reveals in more and more explicit denunciation of it.


But let’s examine your mindset against the landscape of the bible as a whole by taking other examples of sexual activity and seeing if they mesh with scripture…


Bestiality:  The NT is completely silent on the subject of bestiality (unless you consider it encompassed within “sexual immorality”).  But the NT doesn’t have to explicitly mention bestiality because the NT is set against the backdrop of the landscape of the OT, in which there is absolutely no basis for the allowance of bestiality, since it goes against the God given context for sex given in Genesis (prior to the Law of Moses), and is explicitly condemned within the Law of Moses….therefore, bestiality is contrary to the OT, both before the Law of Moses and within the Law of Moses.

Bottom line:  bestiality does not mesh, regardless of the fact that it is not explicitly mentioned in the NT.

Homosexuality:  Basically the same pattern emerges – there is absolutely no basis for the allowance of homosexuality within the OT, since it goes against the God given context for sex given in Genesis (prior to the Law of Moses), and is explicitly condemned within the Law of Moses….therefore, homosexuality is contrary to the OT, both before the Law of Moses and within the Law of Moses.

So, before we dive into the NT verses condemning homosexuality…let’s pretend for a moment that those verses didn’t exist and let’s pretend the NT was as silent on the subject of homosexuality as the NT is on the subject of bestiality.  How do you make homosexuality fit within the landscape of confines of biblical sexual activity?  Again, even ignoring the NT verses condemning homosexuality, how do you make homosexuality mesh with the rest of scripture?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm not saying the language in question isn't literal, if anything I'm taking a narrower literal reading of the Greek vocabulary and grammar than you are. I'm not denying that the Bible comes out very strongly against anal sex, cult prostitution, the practice of taking catamites, and pretty much every other form of homosexual activity that existed at the time. Those aren't, with some exceptions that even most gay people find pretty seedy and unfortunate, the forms of homosexual activity that people who argue from my theological perspective are interested in. Indeed, I'm not particularly interested in sex at all; it's affection that's my primary concern here. If anything I think that altogether too much of an emphasis is placed on sex (in a positive sense; as in, I think sex is prioritized too much over other concerns) in general.

Basically, gay people shouldn't be having a lot of the kinds of sex that they're having. The same is true of everybody else.

The most generalized any of the condemnations at hand get is the Romans verse at issue, which--I mean, your position on it is concordant with that of many, many churches and theologians. Mine is concordant with that of many, many other churches and theologians. I don't think Romans 1.26-27 is going to be a particularly fruitful thing for us to continue to debate the meaning of in the light of all the ink that's already been spilled over it. Let me just say that I don't think it's the strongest language in the NT by a long shot, though.

Bestiality to be perfectly honest isn't something I have occasion to think about all that much, but I would submit that there's a very broad multiplicity of reasons even outside scripture to condemn it, on top of all the stuff inside scripture.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Bestiality to be perfectly honest isn't something I have occasion to think about all that much, but I would submit that there's a very broad multiplicity of reasons even outside scripture to condemn it, on top of all the stuff inside scripture.

but we're not talking about outside of scripture, rather we're discussing what meshes with scripture.

Why can't you, without all the song and dance, just come out and say, "Bestiality does not mesh with, and is contradictory to, biblical teaching.  Period." and be done with it?

The fact is you can't take that cut and dry approach to sin and hold the beliefs that you do, cause your beliefs are contrary to the bible.

====

and if you don't think Rom 1 is the strongest language within the NT, then please cite an equivalent rant with the NT that surpasses the following list of character traits of the homosexual mind mentioned in Rom 1:
1) sinful desires of the heart
2) sexually impure
3) degrading of their bodies with one another.
4) exchanged the truth for a lie
5) worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator
6) shameful lusts
7) exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones
8 ) abandoned natural relations
9) inflamed with lust
10) committed shameful acts
11) received the due penalty for their perversion
12) refused to retain knowledge
13) did what ought not to be done
14) became filled with every kind of wickedness
15) became filled with every kind of evil
16) became filled with every kind of greed
17) became filled with every kind of depravity.
18) full of envy
19) full of murder
20) full of strife
21) full of deceit
22) full of malice
23) gossips
24) slanderers
25) God-haters
26) insolent
27) arrogant
28) boastful
29) they invent ways of doing evil
30) they disobey their parents
30) they have no understanding
31) they have no fidelity
32) they have no love
33) they have no mercy
34) they ignore God’s righteous decrees even though they carry a death penalty
35) they continue in their homosexual error
36) they approve of those who practice homosexuality

Furthermore, these people described in Roma 1 are NOT acting on their own, rather God himself is active in Rom 1:

1)   God gave them over to the sinful desires of the heart (v 24)
2)   God gave them over to shameful lusts (v 26)
3)   God gave them over to a depraved mind (v 28)
God is basically saying, “Hey, if you’re going to ignore me and run after those things, then ‘Go For It!’  In fact, I’ll make it easy for - I’m releasing your conscience so that you can be fully deceived.”

The truth is, Romans 1 is NOT describing the actions of people involved in the rituals of pagan temples, rather it is describing Christians within the church who ignore biblical warnings and worship their own natural desires:

Rom 1:32 “Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.”
What righteous decree against homosexual sex involving a death penalty is Paul referring to if not those found in the OT?

---

So, show me in the NT where there are 36 negative traits listed to describe as single sinful activity.  And this is a passage which you stated was “mostly the same sorts of throwaway mentions that Paul gives to, for instance, the issue of women who won't shut up in church.”?!  Really?!  Why shouldn’t I consider your attitude exactly the same as the one Paul described which ignores God’s righteous decrees involving condemnable actions?  See, it doesn’t matter if Paul listed 36 negative traits or 3600 negative traits, you’re still going to choose to ignore it.  Which is why this conversation is a total waste of time, because you have already made the choice to reject what the scripture says in this area and you’ve have attempted to cover your tracts by clouding the waters with a song and a dance and a dictionary full of words to make your conclusions sound high-minded.  But your act is nothing new, Paul confronted the every same line of argument, and he was sick of the folly of Christians, just as I am sick of it, who dance around the entire landscape of scripture in order to justify their actions…which led Paul to pen the most condemning rant of the entire NT.  See, it’s not homosexuality in itself which led to Paul’s rant, it’s the stupid intellectually insulting song and dance that accompanies Christians having scriptural knowledge who attempt to justify it.  Oh, and to wax political for a moment, our POTUS Obama, who claims to be both intelligent and a Christian, called Paul’s rant in Rom ch 1, “vague”.  So, sorry Paul, you’re list of 36 adjective was just too vauge for us to catch your drife. Next time, don’t beat around the bush, Paul, tell us what you really think, then maybe we’ll lend an ear.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I don't need to hear from somebody who can't tell the difference between actual gay relationships and sexually promiscuous idolatry, or who disagrees on the relative clarity of Biblical passages with people who have actually made a study of them and then insults them for having differing opinions.

I use 'song and dance' because the world is song and dance. It's an exuberant and whirling dance-play made for the glory of the Lord who is similarly without contingency or purpose. Forgive me if I'm unable to consider being compared to the nature of the whole world an insult. If anything is intellectually insulting it's the puerility of your understanding of the lay of the whole world.
___

jmfcst, have you ever heard of the kakure Kirishitan? These were ‘hidden’ Christians who continued to practice in secret after the Shimabara Rebellion in 1637-1638 and the Tokugawa bakufu's subsequently stringent enforcement of the preexisting ban on Christianity in Japan.  They worshipped in secret rooms in private homes. As time went on, the figures of the saints and the Virgin Mary were transformed into figurines that looked like the traditional statues of the Buddhas and Shinto gods and goddesses. The prayers were adapted to sound like Buddhist and Shinto prayers, yet retained many untranslated words from Latin, Portuguese and Spanish (which led to many later generations of Kakure Kirishitan forgetting what the words actually meant, only knowing that the words were some sort of prayer).

Because the Catholic clergy had been expelled around 1600, the KakureKirishitan community relied on lay readers to lead the services; baptism was the only sacrament that had truly survived, though they do practice a sort of Eucharistic ritual during Otaiya (Christmas Eve) using three bowls of rice and three bowls of sake.

The Bible was passed down orally; it was only put in paper much later, under the new title of Tenchi Hajimari no Koto (天地始之事, ‘The Beginnings of Heaven and Earth’). One could notice that the stories were gradually 'corrupted' by time and are not purely from the Bible; there are also borrowings from Catholic tradition and iconography, as well as some folk embellishments.

For example, the account of the virgin Mary's ( さんた丸屋, ‘Santa Maruya,’ from Sancta Maria) life:

'Mary (Maruya) was born from a country called Roson (羅尊国, ‘Roson-koku;’ the name came from the Island of Luzon in the Philippines) of poor parents. Even though she was poor, she was very wise, and always thought about the salvation of mankind. By the age of 12, she received a command from Heaven that she is to remain a virgin (びるぜん, ‘Biruzen,’ perhaps from Portuguese ‘Virgem’). The king of the land heard about her and wanted to take her as his wife, but to no avail. In order to demonstrate her total commitment to her vow of chastity, Mary's prayer once caused snow to fall during either June or August (note: taken from the story of Our Lady of the Snows) which piled several feet high. While the king and his men were astonished, she was taken up to Heaven in a 'flower-chariot' (花車, kasha), where she talked with the King of Heaven named Deus (i.e. God; Japanese デウス, ‘Deusu,’ from Portuguese ‘Deus’), who, in turn, promised her a place in Heaven. Thus she was sent back to earth. Then, San-Gamuriya-Arikanjo (さんがむりやありかんじよ, from Portuguese ‘São Gabriel Archanjo;’ i.e. the Archangel St. Gabriel) appeared to her, saying she will be the mother of the Lord. One night, Deus, in the form of a butterfly, came and entered her mouth and immediately she bore a child in her womb. When her parents saw this, they were deeply troubled (since if this news reaches the king of Roson, they would get in deep trouble) and sent Mary away. She wandered across fields and mountains, finally reaching the country of Belen (べれん国; ‘Beren-koku;’ from Portuguese Belem, ‘Bethlehem’), where she gave birth to a son inside a stable, named Jusu-Kirihito (じゆすきり人, from ‘Jesucristo’). Since Mary gave birth in winter, the animals inside the stable tried to keep the newborn child warm by breathing on Him (which attempts to explain the practice of abstinence from meat during Wednesdays and Fridays). When the owner saw Mary and the Child inside his barn, he was moved with pity, accomodated them in his irori (a type of traditional sunken hearth in Japanese homes). Jusu-Kirihito grew up, preaching and healing. Eventually, the king of Belen, Yorōtetsu (よろう鉄; from ‘Herodes’) had Him arrested and crucified, which was commemorated on February 28 under the name Haritsuke (磔, ‘Crucifixion’). Later, Mary once more received a command from Heaven: that she should climb the mountain called Oribete (おりべて山, i.e. ‘Mount of Olives’). Thus she did, and she was taken up into Heaven, where the former promise made to her was fulfilled and she became known as Suherutosan (すへるとさん, ‘Spiritu Santo;’ i.e. the Holy Spirit).'

In other parts of Tenchi Hajimari no Koto ‘Deusu’ creates ‘Adan’ and ‘Ewo’ in a Japanese Garden of Eden. Pontius Pilate is split into Ponsha and Piroto, who are twins. Jusu-Kirihito says ‘The person who eats his rice with soup every morning is the one who will betray me.’ Maruya's friend composes a prayer at the River Abe - ‘Maruya, full of grace, to you I bow.’ Consequently, the prayer becomes known as the ‘Abe Maruya.’