CO CO Constantine

1568101113

Comments

  • 'And people who seem willing to endlessly discuss all these peripheral things but don't seem to read the actual scripture to know what it means.'

    Which 'people' are we talking about? In my experience ALL Christian traditions - both Big T and small t are keen to read, examine and discuss the scriptures. Heck, I've been to conferences where Orthodox, RCs and Anglo-Catholics have been debating scriptural passages as animatedly as any earnest evangelical.

    What you don't appear to be able to cope with is people reading the same scriptures as you do and coming to different conclusions.

    'Those nasty Catholics / Orthodox / Anglo-Catholics / Liberals / Whatever Else over there have different ideas to me. Therefore they can't be reading the Bible ...'

  • Point taken, Gamma Gamaliel. I'm going to have to do a piece on my ideas of proof-texting, I think....

    It was however a comment which I think was justified on the readiness of many Shipmates to go not just all round the houses but darn near round the whole country with all this stuff about different traditions and so on, in a way that, like that "There are other interpretations" thing, doesn't actually produce any answers to anything, but don't discuss the actual text I've put forward as a contribution. It's rather dangerous because it tempts me to believe that they aren't answering because they've conceded I'm right and all the other stuff is just avoiding making the open admission...!

  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    The actual text on which I’ve raised questions about your interpretation you’ve barely addressed at all. Instead you have referred to traditions such as the Westminster Confession, and the Schleitheim Confession.

    In the 21st century it’s rarely a question of whether we draw upon tradition or not, just which tradition(s) we draw upon, and how we use them.
  • Point taken, Gamma Gamaliel. I'm going to have to do a piece on my ideas of proof-texting, I think....

    It was however a comment which I think was justified on the readiness of many Shipmates to go not just all round the houses but darn near round the whole country with all this stuff about different traditions and so on, in a way that, like that "There are other interpretations" thing, doesn't actually produce any answers to anything, but don't discuss the actual text I've put forward as a contribution. It's rather dangerous because it tempts me to believe that they aren't answering because they've conceded I'm right and all the other stuff is just avoiding making the open admission...!

    But it clearly doesn't occur to you that they are equally frustrated when you apparently fail to address questions they've been raising with you time and time again only to be told:

    - That you've got a train to catch, a meeting to attend, need more time to fish out a proof-text or two ...

    - That they are misrepresenting you.

    - Some other reason that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

    I think you'll find that a lot of Shipmates are broadly in sympathy with your position. They don't like religiously motivated violence or coercion any more than you do.

    What, it seems to me, that those who point out that 'there are other ways to interpret/understand these things' are saying isn't a fudge or an attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

    Rather it's a reaction to the particular approach you take which is to throw out verses and your own observations as if they are somehow authoritative in and of themselves. That's what people find galling.

    Nobody here is arguing for the Spanish Inquisition for the imposition of any particular faith-position on anyone else against their will or anything of the kind.

    It might also actually help if you considered the possibility that your 'opponents' are posting in good faith and not trying to wriggle out of answering your points.

    There are all sorts of good and valid reasons for wanting a separation between church and state. No-one is suggesting otherwise, even those who consider that church-state links aren't intrinsically harmful in and of themselves - and there are very few people here who hold that particular position it seems to me. Even those who do hold to some form of church-state link appear to do so in a qualified kind of way.

    What they appear to be objecting to aren't the points you're making so much as they way you are making them.

    Just sayin'
  • BroJames wrote: »
    The actual text on which I’ve raised questions about your interpretation you’ve barely addressed at all. Instead you have referred to traditions such as the Westminster Confession, and the Schleitheim Confession.

    In the 21st century it’s rarely a question of whether we draw upon tradition or not, just which tradition(s) we draw upon, and how we use them.

    You really want the over two pages version? I'm not sure anyone else here would.... Perhaps it's time I checked on how to do private messages on the new Ship so I can let you have it without annoying everyone else.

    I did earlier comment on the 'allotriepiskopos' thing and made the point that the context is how Christians might respond to an expected persecution. And for example, in contrast to groups like the Zealots and modern Ulster paramilitaries, not think that would justify killing and stealing which would just look like murder and theft to the society around. That is, the context of the word is very much civic rather than personal.

    I believe in using tradition - I just believe that it is necessarily in the end subordinate to scripture. Some people definitely use the idea of tradition in a different way which I think is in the end an misuse.

    Westminster I referred to because it puts a particular distinction fairly clearly. Schleitheim specifically on the issues of 'the Sword/warfare' and secular rulers. Given how often people have accused me of just making it up to suit myself, I wanted to show that I'm not alone in my views.....
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    I did earlier comment on the 'allotriepiskopos' thing and made the point that the context is how Christians might respond to an expected persecution. And for example, in contrast to groups like the Zealots and modern Ulster paramilitaries, not think that would justify killing and stealing which would just look like murder and theft to the society around. That is, the context of the word is very much civic rather than personal.

    I believe in using tradition - I just believe that it is necessarily in the end subordinate to scripture. Some people definitely use the idea of tradition in a different way which I think is in the end an misuse.
    Murder and theft are acts of individuals, as is meddling or busybodying. Peter is here addressing how individual Christians should behave in the face of actual (not expected) persecution. It is about the behaviour of individuals, not about how the church as s body chooses to engage with wider society. Indeed in the face of actual persecution it is unlikely that there was scope for the church as a body to engage with wider society, so considerable care needs to be taken before applying that teaching to a world in which the existence of the church is accepted and/or tolerated.

    Your argument on tradition appears to amount to “I use tradition to show I’m not alone in my view, other people use it to contradict scripture.” But it seems to me that they are simply invoking tradition to say that your interpretation of scripture is contradicted not just by them, but also by other Christians.
  • It was the obvious one to mention; but not by a long way the only case where Jesus uses the scriptures in a clearly authoritative way.
    But what does it mean to use the scriptures in an authoritative way? ISTM that Jesus' approach to the scriptures was not that he was 'under' them. He was able to use them to back up what he was saying when he wanted to, but was happy to reinterpret and rephrase. He ignored his namesake Joshua completely, selectively quoted the commandments, and radically reinterpreted them to the point of, in practice, reacting against the principles of the commandments, especially on the clean/unclean stuff in the Law.

    And this goes to what you're saying about Scripture being the 'primary authority' above all others. The problem comes in the practicalities. So, is 1 Chronicles 21:1 or 2 Samuel 24:1 authoritative?

    If we have the view that there is one consistent voice in Scripture, that there aren't different (sometimes) conflicting stances and attitudes, then we'll end up ignoring the full tapestry by trying to homogenise it. To me, that does it a disservice. We're supposed to enter into the debate and take sides, and, innovate in the same Spirit as we live in our times, with new challenges and opportunities.

    I hear too many Evangelicals try to treat Scripture as a legal document that must be applied, or a static all-encompassing manual for individual and church life. We might want God to have given us that, but it's not what we got.
    The point being rather that we have to be careful that various extra developments don't end up nullifying scripture.

    Yeah, you've said that. But as I've said three or four times now, I think you need to be careful with your interpretation of Mark 7. You keep on with this certainty that Jesus is making your point for you, but your interpretation is dependent on the phrase "The Word of God", and what it's shorthand for. If Jesus is using it as shorthand for "The Bible", then your assertion stands. But if he was using it differently, which I would contend, then what Jesus is talking about in Mark 7 is not about whether tradition is trumping Scripture, but if their traditions are against the Spirit of the Law - i.e. the heart/values/principles/character of God. That's subtly different, and requires a lot more discernment to explore.

    Just because "The Word of God" is co-terminous with "The Bible" amongst Evangelicals today, doesn't mean it is with everyone, or always has been.
    All of this discussion can too easily end up as the justification for in the end just making it up to fit what we want; I find scripture doesn't often allow me to do that....

    I find that people can make Scripture fit all kinds of points of view... because it does. You can find a verse to justify pretty much anything.

    However, Scripture does invite us into its ancient conversation and exploration. We have to pick sides. It doesn't just tell us what to believe.
  • Mr SmiffMr Smiff Shipmate
    edited April 2018
    Sorry to butt in on someone else's argument, but are we talking about Mark 7:1-13, particularly verses 7-9? Because if so, then all the translations I've found so far (the 3 linked there, the NET translation, the Good News and the KJV) all translate the word Steve's translating as "Word of God" (which he takes to mean 'Bible') as "command" or "commandment". None of them translate it as "Word" in any sense which could mean "Scripture" or "Bible". So even if you disagree with the way goperryrevs is talking about the using and interpreting Bible, on a purely straightforward level Steve's translating that passage wrongly. Making it say what he wants it to say?

    Of course, if it's not that passage, then ignore me and I'll go and mumble to myself in the corner...
  • It was a Mennonite who told me: "Jesus is the Word of God", and thus I exited conservative evangelicalism.

    tbf, I'd been kicking at the door for ages, but that was what finally ushered me out.
  • Well done that Mennonite. As I've said several times, I do believe they have a lot to bring to the table. The problem here is that their representative is Steve Langton.

    Steve doesn't strike me as your typical Mennonite - if indeed there is such a thing. He simply strikes me as a bog-standard reformed flavoured evangelical of a particular vintage with a few bolt-on Anabaptist views that he's come across in 'interesting books' and which he hasn't fully digested properly ...

    But he's not alone in that sort of thing. We can all do that to some extent with whatever views we espouse.

    The Steve Langton stage is populated by a very few pantomime villainous characters: C********, Theodosius, Mary Whitehouse, Ian Paisley, the Anglican Establishment and The Pope.
  • Mr Smiff wrote: »
    Sorry to butt in on someone else's argument, but are we talking about Mark 7:1-13, particularly verses 7-9?
    Yeah, it's that passage, but the "Word of God" comes in verse 13, where Jesus is repeating himself, but using different phraseology.

  • Mr SmiffMr Smiff Shipmate
    Mr Smiff wrote: »
    Sorry to butt in on someone else's argument, but are we talking about Mark 7:1-13, particularly verses 7-9?
    Yeah, it's that passage, but the "Word of God" comes in verse 13, where Jesus is repeating himself, but using different phraseology.

    Ah, thanks - and apologies to Steve. However, I'd argue that from context that Jesus is continuing to speak of a particular commandment or "word", rather than "the Bible".

    But I shall go and mumble in the corner now...
  • Mr Smiff wrote: »
    I'd argue that from context that Jesus is continuing to speak of a particular commandment or "word", rather than "the Bible".

    Well, yeah! Exactly! Happy to mumble with you.

  • Ah, the old favorite canard. I love Scripture and you don't.
  • MooMoo Kerygmania Host
    Here is Young's Literal Translation of Mark 7:1-13
    7 And gathered together unto him are the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, having come from Jerusalem,

    2 and having seen certain of his disciples with defiled hands -- that is, unwashed -- eating bread, they found fault;

    3 for the Pharisees, and all the Jews, if they do not wash the hands to the wrist, do not eat, holding the tradition of the elders,

    4 and, [coming] from the market-place, if they do not baptize themselves, they do not eat; and many other things there are that they received to hold, baptisms of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and couches.

    5 Then question him do the Pharisees and the scribes, `Wherefore do thy disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but with unwashed hands do eat the bread?'

    6 and he answering said to them -- `Well did Isaiah prophesy concerning you, hypocrites, as it hath been written, This people with the lips doth honor Me, and their heart is far from Me;

    7 and in vain do they worship Me, teaching teachings, commands of men;

    8 for, having put away the command of God, ye hold the tradition of men, baptisms of pots and cups; and many other such like things ye do.'

    9 And he said to them, `Well do ye put away the command of God that your tradition ye may keep;

    10 for Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, He who is speaking evil of father or mother -- let him die the death;

    11 and ye say, If a man may say to father or to mother, Korban (that is, a gift), [is] whatever thou mayest be profited out of mine,

    12 and no more do ye suffer him to do anything for his father or for his mother,

    13 setting aside the word of God for your tradition that ye delivered; and many such like things ye do.'

    It appears to me that 'word of God' in verse 13 is synonymous with 'command of God' in verse 8.



  • by Gamma Gamaliel;
    The problem here is that their representative is Steve Langton.

    I am no kind of representative of the Mennonites. As I've made clear before, I'm part of the UK Anabaptist Network - and no official representative of them either. People in the Network explore Anabaptist ideas, and in cooperation with actual Mennonites. The Mennonites have deliberately NOT set up a full church/denomination organisation in this country but have set up a kind of advice mission making their ideas available to as many Christians as possible in all parts of the Church. The current Mennonite Centre UK is run by a couple called Mike and Cheryl Nimz based in Birmingham.

    Some of what you've said above will need more work than I can give it tonight; but

    1) I'd definitely not be disputing that Jesus is the Word of God.
    2) Jesus uses the phrase 'word of God' himself in Mark 7 to protest a situation where two texts (the commandment on honouring parents and the provisions for dedication to God) had been manipulated by at least some legalistic Jews of his day to defeat the proper intent of both. I certainly don't think his intention is limited just to the specific texts, indeed this usage surely rather depends on seeing the word of God as wider - I think you'd have to accept at least the Torah as intended.
    3) I've seen people on the Ship so keen to limit the idea of 'word of God' to Jesus and not scripture say Jesus himself never refers to the word of God; on this occasion he did and likely means as I say at least Torah. It may not prove the whole evangelical case, but it's significant evidence of Jesus' view.
    4) As himself THE Word of God Jesus is clearly not 'under Scripture', as also witnessed by the way he taught "with authority, not like the scribes"; but what he does say seems to imply that the rest of us are 'under' scripture.





  • 1) I'd definitely not be disputing that Jesus is the Word of God.
    Good, but it still seems you fell into the Evangelical trap of forgetting it, and mentally replacing it with ‘Bible’.
    2) Jesus uses the phrase 'word of God' himself in Mark 7 to protest a situation where two texts (the commandment on honouring parents and the provisions for dedication to God) had been manipulated by at least some legalistic Jews of his day to defeat the proper intent of both. I certainly don't think his intention is limited just to the specific texts, indeed this usage surely rather depends on seeing the word of God as wider - I think you'd have to accept at least the Torah as intended.
    I think it’s more simple. ‘Word’ here is simply coterminous with ‘Commandment’ (singular, not plural). There’s nothing deeper going on - there wasn’t yet the theological baggage ‘logos’ would later gain after John wrote his gospel. I think you’re backwards-reading, and post-hoc rationalising. But you’re not alone. This is the standard Evangelical approach.
    3) I've seen people on the Ship so keen to limit the idea of 'word of God' to Jesus and not scripture say Jesus himself never refers to the word of God; on this occasion he did and likely means as I say at least Torah. It may not prove the whole evangelical case, but it's significant evidence of Jesus' view.
    I’ve never seen that here, but it would be equally wrong. There are a few different Greek and Hebrew words for ‘word’, and they can all have a variety of meanings.
    4) As himself THE Word of God Jesus is clearly not 'under Scripture', as also witnessed by the way he taught "with authority, not like the scribes"; but what he does say seems to imply that the rest of us are 'under' scripture.
    Hmm. Well, the apostles seemed to adopt a similar strategy towards Scripture as Jesus. Paul was even happy to alter a quoted passage to convey the inverse as the original (Ephesians 4, the ‘lavishing gifts’ bit - from memory). I’d say the better way to see it is as Jesus described the Sabbath. Scripture was made for humans, not humans for Scripture. Too many Evangelicals act as if the former was true.
  • by goperryrevs;
    it was too easy for the upper classes in a church full of nominal Christians

    Agree with the general idea of that - but for the scripture to work for humans we still have to read it and understand it. And be sure that we aren't just making it mean what we wish it had said.... I'll get back later tonight.
  • Sorry, for some reason my computer shoved in a quote from the other thread instead of the intended one, and I can't seem to fix it; trying again, the quote should have been
    by goperryrevs;
    Scripture was made for humans, not humans for Scripture

    with the same comment that
    Agree with the general idea of that - but for the scripture to work for humans we still have to read it and understand it. And be sure that we aren't just making it mean what we wish it had said.... I'll get back later tonight.

  • Sorry, for some reason my computer shoved in a quote from the other thread instead of the intended one, and I can't seem to fix it; trying again, the quote should have been
    by goperryrevs;
    Scripture was made for humans, not humans for Scripture

    with the same comment that
    Agree with the general idea of that - but for the scripture to work for humans we still have to read it and understand it. And be sure that we aren't just making it mean what we wish it had said.... I'll get back later tonight.

    Back later tonight with more of the same inanity ...

    'And be sure that we aren't just making it mean what we wish it had said ...' oh the irony ...

  • Mr SmiffMr Smiff Shipmate
    Steve, how can you be sure that you aren’t making the Bible mean what you want it to mean?
  • ISTM that, ironically, this is exactly what’s happened with the Mark 7 passage.

    Of course, it’s something we’re all guilty of. It’s the standard criticism levelled at those more liberal by those more conservative; but conservatives do it just as much IMO.
  • Mr Smiff wrote: »
    Steve, how can you be sure that you aren’t making the Bible mean what you want it to mean?

    But it's so CLEAR to Steve that his reading is correct.
  • Yes, goperryrevs, I think it's something we all do. The issue is whether we have sufficient self-awareness to be aware of it.

    Steve, bless 'im, seems to have this rather odd view that slavery was understandable - if not ideal - to some extent because there are various scriptural references that can be deployed. Whereas church-state relations - however benign or otherwise - can in no wise be sanctioned as they don't have proof-texts to back them up.

    Rather than accept that the NT isn't at all prescriptive on any of these issues he piles weight upon weight upon his favourite proof-texts to bolster his position - blissfully unaware, it seems, of the anomalies and inconsistencies he creates as a result.

    Church-state links: wrong, bad, evil, wicked, the worst thing since the Fall.

    Slavery: It wasn't really that bad because I can find a few proof-texts that support it and I'm highly selective in my view of history.

  • mousethief wrote: »
    Mr Smiff wrote: »
    Steve, how can you be sure that you aren’t making the Bible mean what you want it to mean?

    But it's so CLEAR to Steve that his reading is correct.

    That's the nub of it. And why he finds objections such as, 'there are other ways to interpret/understand these things' so unsatisfactory.

    He wants it all battened down in chapter and verse. Provided those chapter and verse references accord with his particular take.

    Not much way around that. How do you discuss/argue with the man who is always right?
  • Yes, goperryrevs, I think it's something we all do. The issue is whether we have sufficient self-awareness to be aware of it.
    This is why, when writing up their field studies, anthropologists nowadays have to include some sort of "apologia" stating "where they are coming from", as they know that any observations and conclusions they make can never be entirely objective.

  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    edited April 2018
    GG:
    Not much way around that. How do you discuss/argue with the man who is always right?
    With one finger?
  • And as a fairly relevant aside* this morning's In Our Time (link) was on Roman Slavery - the link also leads to the podcasts for anyone interested.

    * OK, so it's a Purgatorial comment, but I didn't want to take away from Leaf's last comment on that thread.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    But it's so CLEAR to Steve that his reading is correct.

    I think the experience is much like arguing with a conspiracy nut or 911-Truther. they instinctively won't accept any evidence you put forward - so its just filed away to be dealt with at some unspecified point in the future - meanwhile they flood you with a veritable Gish's Gallop of disconnected facts.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    But it's so CLEAR to Steve that his reading is correct.

    I think the experience is much like arguing with a conspiracy nut or 911-Truther. they instinctively won't accept any evidence you put forward - so its just filed away to be dealt with at some unspecified point in the future - meanwhile they flood you with a veritable Gish's Gallop of disconnected facts.

    Well put.
  • I do love being told that I'm not arguing with Steve but with God.

    Extra points.
  • I find Steve's stance on slavery strangely refreshing. Most evangelicals have a weird kind of hermeneutic cognitive dissonance when it comes to things like slavery and polygamy.

    If you read the slavery passages in Scripture with the same hermeneutic lens that evangelicals read the wimmins/gayz passages, then the natural conclusion you should come to is "slavery's ok, but you should be nice to your slaves". That was the dominant conservative "scriptural" view that Wilberforce challenged.

    With polygamy, it's similar. The natural evangelical stance should be "men can have as many wives as they want, unless they're church leaders".

    Of course, these views are too unacceptable today, so they're hermeneutically bypassed by the evangelical community. I expect the same will happen on currently controversial issues, as bigoted opinions become more socially unacceptable.

    It'd be nice if the hermeneutic approach itself could be refined, rather than case-by-case specifics amendments (see also food sacrificed to idols / meat with blood in it / usury).
  • by Gamma Gamaliel;
    Steve, bless 'im, seems to have this rather odd view that slavery was understandable - if not ideal - to some extent because there are various scriptural references that can be deployed. Whereas church-state relations - however benign or otherwise - can in no wise be sanctioned as they don't have proof-texts to back them up.

    Steve sees it that in dealing with biblical references to slavery you need to see a progression in which God starts where people are, and ultimately leads them to a better way; and to criticise the early stages because God doesn't just ban the practice overnight, as I've seen done on the Ship, is a failure to recognise how plain plumb 'ornery' sinful humans are and how difficult it is for God to deal with them if he wants real heart change rather than just superficial conformity.

    And Steve sees it that Jesus did in fact give positive teaching on church-state relations; which is why in turn the 'Christian state' lobby face a dearth of proof-texts - because the NT teaching decidedly goes the other way.

    I'm working on a comment for the other thread, responding to GG's comment there about whether Voldemort ('You-Know-Who...) and Theodosius 'created' the church, which you may find enlightening on this....

  • To be honest, I'm not holding my breath.
  • My point, Steve, is that if you see a progression in terms of views on slavery then logically, one could argue that there is a progression in terms of issues like church-state relations.

    There's no point in complaining that Saints Aidan and Cuthbert, say, had to get the permission of the King of Northumbria to preach the Gospel, because there was no other way of operating in that particular society and context. What we can do, as Bede did, is rejoice that St Aidan was counter-cultural in the way he handled gifts from the royal court - he gave them away to the poor - and in so doing - according to Bede when the king was angry with him - pricked the royal conscience.

    You don't appear to differentiate between 'heroic' societies or medieval or early-modern societies and modern pluralistic states. You seem to expect that because Anglicans were highly Erastian in the 18th century that all Anglicans are going to remain that way underneath despite how attenuated that position has become.

    Heck, on an earlier discussion you didn't even appear to 'allow' Mousethief, as an American, to hold to separation of church and state simply because many (most?) of his fellow Orthodoxen in Russia and elsewhere might well hold to close church-state links.

    Anglicans today are not like 18th century Anglicans. 20th century Mennonites are not like 16th century ones.

    I think goperryrevs has made an interesting point though about your hermeneutic - and I'm grateful to him for pointing it out.

    For what it's worth, I'm not comfortable with close church-state ties either. For a whole raft of reasons. I don't expect to find a single, definitive proof-text to back that position up.

    We are where we are and there's a mixture of good, bad and indifferent in whatever system or setting we find ourselves in. There are no magic bullets.

  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    How wonderfully convenient.

    Organized religion resists progress such that it has to be dragged, with much miserably flailing and gnashing, to even tolerate progress. And that's "god's plan" for leading people to be better.
  • Fair comments, but I'd say it's a wider issue than simply 'organised religion'. It applies to societies in general.

    It's a tricky one, though, because 'God's plan' can cover a multitude of sins. Literally.

    For my money, Richard Rohr the Franciscan author was good on the idea of progressive revelation ... and he's had some influence on both post-evangelical / Emergent circles in the US and on some US Anabaptists I think.

    In fairness, I think in this aspect Steve's hermeneutic isn't as flat as that of the conventional conservative evangelicals. But it sort of plateaus off before reaching its logical conclusion. He blunts the edge of his own argument if I can put it that way ...

    Although I remain painfully aware of anomalies and inconsistencies in my own approach.
  • [Gamma Gamaliel] For what it's worth, I'm not comfortable with close church-state ties either. For a whole raft of reasons. I don't expect to find a single, definitive proof-text to back that position up.

    We should be a bit wary of 'proof texts' anyway. So even if there were some we should still keep an open mind and sense the 'spirit of the thing'. 'Proof text obedience', strikes me as a slippery slope into legalism and salvation by works. You know, got to get it 'right' otherwise it's the hell hole for all those who don't. The Pharisees were experts at 'proof texts'.

    Some take great stock by them though, from whether a woman is allowed to 'say the special words over the bread and cup', to whether the queen is Head of The Church of England or whether you got plunged as an adult or sprinkled, poured over or plunged as a baby. It all makes such a 'proof text' difference to so many 'true believers'.

    Rules, rules, and still more rules and it's all written there in a book, with 'proof texts' which are binding upon the whole human race or so we are told.
  • by goperryrevs;
    If you read the slavery passages in Scripture with the same hermeneutic lens that evangelicals read the wimmins/gayz passages, then the natural conclusion you should come to is "slavery's ok, but you should be nice to your slaves". That was the dominant conservative "scriptural" view that Wilberforce challenged.

    With polygamy, it's similar. The natural evangelical stance should be "men can have as many wives as they want, unless they're church leaders".

    It's perhaps not easy when we're hopping a bit between here and the Purg thread, but I've pointed out there that I think the NT took things further towards Christians giving up slavery among themselves, even if as 'resident aliens' they weren't going to force that on society at large. I actually think that one of the problems is that the progress of Christian thinking in that direction got interrupted by the 'nationalisation' of the church in which the emperors were not going to face the massive disruption of dismantling their slave-based culture. And look on to even England in the medieval era - a supposedly Christian country, but what chance of persuading the Norman lords to free their serfs? Especially when most (if not all) of the high-up church leaders would be from those aristocratic families who would lose by it?

    On polygamy; I don't know about you but I always felt polygamy to be a bit at odds with the initial Genesis teaching on a man and his (one) wife becoming 'one flesh'. AIUI, by NT times most Jews had come to a similar conclusion and were normally monogamous. The 'only one wife' passage in the epistles reflects the mission among Gentiles where polygamy would still be comparatively common. And as I read it Paul wouldn't be suggesting the cruelty sometimes seen among Victorian era missionaries of forcing the polygamous to actually give up their wives, which might leave them very vulnerable. Me, in a modern situation and depending on the surrounding society, I might be willing to accept a polygamous elder until things changed to make 'one wife' elders more available. But I'd do it very cautiously.


  • by Gamma Gamaliel;
    My point, Steve, is that if you see a progression in terms of views on slavery then logically, one could argue that there is a progression in terms of issues like church-state relations.

    That's exactly what I am arguing, GG. That in the NT we see a massive progression - to a different relationship between church and world - and that it would be horrendously 'retrogressive' for us to go backwards from that, backwards to continuing the old-style religious state and similar ideas like the 'Religious Right'.
  • Glad to see the 'Religious Left' gets a clean bill of health. Forward, comrades!
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Glad to see the 'Religious Left' gets a clean bill of health. Forward, comrades!

    Define the 'Religious Left' please.... And whatever it is, wasn't it covered by my phrase above 'similar ideas'?
  • by Gamma Gamaliel;
    Heck, on an earlier discussion you didn't even appear to 'allow' Mousethief, as an American, to hold to separation of church and state simply because many (most?) of his fellow Orthodoxen in Russia and elsewhere might well hold to close church-state links.

    If I remember rightly my query there was about Mousethief "hold(ing) to separation of church and state" not as an Orthodox but "as an American"! Here is a guy who constantly wants me to accept that his church's tradition is somehow superior to biblical Protestantism, yet on this one it seemed he put the American Constitution even ahead of his church as an authority! I was ever so slightly - er - gobsmacked!


  • Biblical Evangelicalism.

    Bollocks. Oxymoron.

    These are all just words, folks. Any resemblance to a coherent thought is purely accidental.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    Biblical Evangelicalism.

    Bollocks. Oxymoron.

    These are all just words, folks. Any resemblance to a coherent thought is purely accidental.

    Yes, and when you're ready to give us some coherent thought....
  • Mr Smiff wrote: »
    Mr Smiff wrote: »
    Sorry to butt in on someone else's argument, but are we talking about Mark 7:1-13, particularly verses 7-9?
    Yeah, it's that passage, but the "Word of God" comes in verse 13, where Jesus is repeating himself, but using different phraseology.

    Ah, thanks - and apologies to Steve. However, I'd argue that from context that Jesus is continuing to speak of a particular commandment or "word", rather than "the Bible".
    Which is consistent with the Jewish practice of referring to the Ten Commandments as “the Ten Words” (aka, “the Decalogue”).
    by Gamma Gamaliel;
    Heck, on an earlier discussion you didn't even appear to 'allow' Mousethief, as an American, to hold to separation of church and state simply because many (most?) of his fellow Orthodoxen in Russia and elsewhere might well hold to close church-state links.

    If I remember rightly my query there was about Mousethief "hold(ing) to separation of church and state" not as an Orthodox but "as an American"! Here is a guy who constantly wants me to accept that his church's tradition is somehow superior to biblical Protestantism, yet on this one it seemed he put the American Constitution even ahead of his church as an authority! I was ever so slightly - er - gobsmacked!
    I would submit that your gobsmackedness was completely due to your lack of understanding about what Orthodoxy teaches. mousthief was, as I recall, quite clear that the American constitutional separation of church and state does not conflict at all with the teachings of Orthodoxy, and that specific instances of state churches in Orthodoxy (such as, historically, in Russia) are based on historical situations, not on any teachings of Orthodoxy, except insofar as Orthodox teaching does not necessarily prohibit such an arrangement.

    But it appeared that what mousethief said didn’t fit with your preconceived understanding, so being gobsmacked that he could say such a thing resulted.



  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Thanks, Nick.
    I think maybe you were responding to @goperryrevs?
    Mind you, realising that the other answer was from goperryrevs means, when I look at it, you haven't actually answered what I asked yourself.... I need a smilie at this point and still haven't sorted that out on the new Ship; but a nice smilie in this case!
    No, I didn’t answer your question (whatever it was, I don’t remember now), because it was a total tangent to and distraction from what I was talking about. I’ve given up for the time being trying to engage in discussions on this issue with you. But I was willing to at least try to help you understand how you may not be communicating as clearly as you may think you are, that your style of posting hurts rather than helps you in furthering discussion. That’s what I was trying to engage you on.

  • MrsBeakyMrsBeaky Shipmate
    I visit this thread every day (I know, I need to get a life) and I have found myself wondering on more than one occasion about what would happen if we all just agreed with Steve that he was right......would he then leave, mission accomplished or would he continue in the same vein?
  • @MrsBeaky you are thinking too hard about this.

    @Steve Langton it was satire of your ridiculous post, you utter peanut.
  • I might have time to discuss other issues on the Ship - that would be nice....
This discussion has been closed.