Hi, caught this response over on that thread about how gay Christians are;) but didn’t want to highjack it.
Diogenes the Cynic:
Quoting JerseyDiamond:
Now when the Pharisees tried to get Jesus to choose between the plans made for divorce, the Hillel, (which was a liberal) and Shammai, (which was conservative a position) Jesus told them what God’s plans were, by saying, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder”
Also, Jesus said that whoever divorces there wife, except under the circumstances of fornication, and that person marries someone else, commits adultry.
So if we are saying that Robinson is married I guess he has commited adultry, and this too would rule out the blameless thing.
Nope, Robinson was married. His wife and his Church have released him from those vows. They are no longer binding. There is no sin. Your personal interpretation of the Bible has no relevance here.
How can you say that? Jesus was pretty clear in the scripture quoted by JerseyDiamond. If Jesus were here now he would probably ask “did I stutter?” Jersey is taking Jesus at his word.
Also Jesus was talking about a specific practice of men abandoning wives for new ones for selfish reasons.
As apposed to the altruistic reasons men abandon their wives in today’s society? Please show me where Jesus specified a specific kind of divorce that was ok, aside from fornicating as already mentioned by JerseyDiamond. Cause if you ask me it is you who is making the stretch with regards to interpretation.
It was different culture in which a divorced woman suffered great social consequences. The standards of that culture are no longer relevant in that culture. The practical consequences of divorce are different.
I don’t see how you can say that in regards to the Christian religion, I missed the verse where Jesus said that heaven and earth will pass away but these words will not pass away until the culture changes sufficiently to make my commandments irrelevant.
If they want to interpret the Bible to say that Jesus was an alien from Pluto, that’s their fucking business and that interpretation is just as legitimate as yours is.
I disagree with that too. Some parts of the bible are pretty vague and require a good deal of interpretation to get some sort of coherent message out of it. Other parts seem pretty darn clear. This adultery thing being one of them, and those who try to “interpret” their way around it are pretty disingenuous as they make their Christian morals “of this world.”
So… what exactly are we debating? Are we discussing differing interpretations on what constitutes adultery? I would also like to bring into the fray that what we’re reading (I’m assuming you’re not reading the original language the Bible was written in) isn’t what Jesus said by any stretch of the imagination.
But the most important thing is that you need to clarify what it is that you want to debate. It wasn’t that clear to me, anyway.
It strikes me that this is less a debate about Bishop Robinson and more about his church. Some churches recognize divorce under any circumstances, some under a handful, and some almost never. The only difference in the situation with Bishop Robinson is that his wife literally released him from his vows. They both went through a rite mutually dissolving their marriage. Where does one stand on this issue?
And if Diogenes really believes that the Bible can be validly interpreted to conclude that Jesus was from Pluto… well, let’s just say that he just dropped a few magnitudes in my esteem.
badchad, I’m not arguing for or against any particular interpretation. As an agnostic I have no dog in the theological fight. I was only pointing out that different churches interpret the Bible differently and set their policies inre: stuff like adultery and divorce accordingly. If you have a problem with the way Episcopalians interpret the sayings of Jesus, argue with them, not with me. I’m not saying either way is correct, only that they’re different-- and since this is America, any church can interpret the Bible any way they want. Whether they’re right or wrong is totally irrelevant. My point is that one church has no right to tell another church how to interpret scripture.
TVAA, I was only making a rhetorical point about intellectual and philosophical freedom. I don’t actually think that a persuasive case could be mad for Jesus being an alien from Pluto. I was making an extreme example to illustrate a point. When I said legitimate I meant religiously legitimate. All religious beliefs and interpretations are equally valid AFAIAC, since none of them can be proven and any of them can be sincerely believed.
Did you miss that part? The context is that he said that interpretation is just as legitimate as what I said. So obviously he thinks plain direct language can be legitimately interpreted to say completely opposite things.
Actually, I always use several sources. This helps me understand what I am reading. I like to make sure what is being translated, is translated the same in several different places.
I use a 1550 Stephens Textus Receptus, (with Strong’s Hebrew/Greek Concordance) The Torah for the OT, KJV, and The Message.
So, what I am reading is what Jesus said.
People can say that “I AM” for example, means something silly like Tulip. We are free to make as much stuff up as they want. That does not make it so.
I do not make stuff up. To me, it is what it is.
But we are free to be as silly as we want.
I’m not talking about logic, I’m just talking about religious belief which has nothing to do with logic. A belief that Jesus was an alien is just as valid and has just as much proof as a belief that Jesus was a god.
Kind of ironic coming from someone who believes in the Rapture which is…wait for it…COMPLETELY MADE UP.
If you can believe in something as tortured, illogical, unliteral, untraditional and frankly heretical as Darbyism, then you don’t have much room to criticize how someone else interprets a passage on divorce.
Anyway, doesn’t the Bible tell women to keep their mouths shut? Why aren’t you following that passage?*
*I do not actually believe that women should keep their mouths shut (except for Ann Coulter). I am only making a point about how everybody uses selective interpretations.
badchad, I’m not arguing for or against any particular interpretation. As an agnostic I have no dog in the theological fight.
I know your agnostic but that doesn’t make you unbiased. I would say you have a strong tendency to argue in favor of the “liberal interpretations” of the bible as opposed to the fundamentalist versions. Personally I think you do it cause you like one version and it’s proponents better than the other, not because one version makes more sense.
I was only pointing out that different churches interpret the Bible differently and set their policies inre: stuff like adultery and divorce accordingly.
In this case I don’t see it as one church interpreting the bible differently but rather one church completely disregarding the bible and the teachings of Jesus and just teaching their own thing in the pretense of Christianity. To call it a mere difference in interpretation is a little less than honest.
Also you gave what seemed to be your interpretation with a fairly certain tone as you dismissed what Jersey said:
”Also Jesus was talking about a specific practice of men abandoning wives for new ones for selfish reasons.”
Note how you added details to the scripture that Jesus didn’t say. Jersey quoted Jesus as written without embellishment.
If you have a problem with the way Episcopalians interpret the sayings of Jesus, argue with them, not with me. I’m not saying either way is correct, only that they’re different-- and since this is America, any church can interpret the Bible any way they want. Whether they’re right or wrong is totally irrelevant. My point is that one church has no right to tell another church how to interpret scripture.
Again my point is if Episcopalians want to say divorce is ok for reasons other than fornication, then they are not getting it from any scripture and interpretation has nothing to do with it. Thus one side (Jersey’s in this case) can correctly state that the other is not following the teachings of Jesus according to the bible.
Quote JerseyDiamond
So, what I am reading is what Jesus said.
You’re reading what somebody else said that he said.
See here’s an example of your bias. When JerseyDiamond quotes Jesus on something you don’t like, it’s all of a sudden something somebody else said he said. However you don’t make this distinction when you talk of what Jesus said. See below:
Also Jesus was talking about a specific practice of men abandoning wives for new ones for selfish reasons.
As a fellow agnostic, I would say yes, you are perhaps correct in that observation. That is my tendancy as well.
But only because “liberal interpretations” tend to be more rational, logical, and intellectual. Whereas, fundamentalist interpretations tend to be … well, stupid.
Actually, I have a bias towards an objective historicist view than for any theological one. I do have some background in understanding the lingusitic, historical and cultural contexts of the Bible. I also know something about the composition of the Bible which allows me to look at the intent of a given passage or book and the intent of the author in the dialogue he give to his characters. The fallacy is in thinking that there is any need to reconcile the whole Bible as representing a consistent, holistic presentation of some specific theology. It’s a library of books, not a singular document. It was written by people, not gods. It was written over a period of centuries and represents many different and often contradictory viewpoints. Trying to somehow force it all into some unified, harmonious, literal message is impossible. The idea that the Bible is the infallible, literal word of God is, itself, an arbitrary, irrational and unsupportable assertion. The Bible cannot be logically read that way so it must be read another way. I think that a non-literal interpretation is more rational than a literal one, but personally, I probably disagree with both liberal and conservative interpretations more than I agree with either of them*. I don’t believe in God. I don’t believe Jesus was God. I don’t believe he died for my sins. I don’t believe in miracles or the resurrection. I don’t believe Jesus said three quarters of what is attributed to him in the Gospels. I believe he did even less. Those are some pretty major things to disagree about
You’ll have to take that up with them. Polycarp can defend his church better than I can. You accuse Episcopalians of “disregarding” the Bible if you wish, but why do you think that’s an issue for me?
I added cultural context to the quote which is perfectly fair. It would be pretty idiotic to read every quote in a contextual vacuum, would it not?
(Jersey quoted Matthew, btw, not Jesus. We don’t know what Jesus said.
Again, that is an issue for you and Jersey to take up with the Episcopalians, not with me. My point is that the Episcopalians have no obligation whatever to follow your’s and Jersey’s definition of Christianity or your simplistic interpretations of scripture. I will just say that, moral authority for Anglicans does not derive solely from scripture.
[uqote]**Quote JerseyDiamond
So, what I am reading is what Jesus said.
You’re reading what somebody else said that he said.
See here’s an example of your bias. When JerseyDiamond quotes Jesus on something you don’t like, it’s all of a sudden something somebody else said he said. However you don’t make this distinction when you talk of what Jesus said. See below:
Also Jesus was talking about a specific practice of men abandoning wives for new ones for selfish reasons. **
[/QUOTE]
Firstly, it’s all what someone else said that he said if you want to be technical.
Secondly, I think he only said a pretty small percentage of what is attributed to him. It’s not a question of what I like or don’t like. It’s a question of objective historical criticism. I happen to incidentally like most of the stuff he did say (and even some of the stuff he didn’t say ;)) but whether I think a saying is authentic to Jesus has nothing to do with whether like it or not. Scholarly attempts to separate fact from fiction in the Gospels are neither arbitrary nor driven by personal agendas. I refer you to the Jesus Seminar for more information.
(BTW, sometimes if I say, “Jesus said…” I’m just using a literary convention. It;s the same as if i might say that “Huck said…” if talking about Huckleberry Finn. Of course I know that It was really Mark Twain that said it…and not even Mark Twain but Samual Clemons…but it would be pretty tedious, not mention annoying to the reader if I constantly phrased it as “Mark Twain said that Huck said…”
Now if someone came along and thought that Huck was an actual person who actually said something i would correct them.)
*As a fellow agnostic, I would say yes, you are perhaps correct in that observation. That is my tendancy as well.
But only because “liberal interpretations” tend to be more rational, logical, and intellectual. Whereas, fundamentalist interpretations tend to be … well, stupid.*
I would draw a distinction between viewpoints into the realities of the world and interpretations of the bible. With regards to the former as an atheist I would agree with you that I don’t think the fundamentalists have thought things through very far with regards to evolution, world flooding, etc. making them easy targets for a dogpile However with regards to interpretation of the bible for the most part the fundamentalists are pretty straight forward while the liberal explanations are tortured at best. Certainly so in this example.
If any religious viewpoint that is sincerely believed is valid, then all such viewpoints are invalid. Since every viewpoint has an equal and opposite negation, all viewpoints are negated. Therefore, religious belief is irrelevant, as it cannot lead to any conclusion.
I’m sure that isn’t the conclusion you want to forward, but it’s the one that proceeds from your stated principles.
I guess you can look at it that way. I was trying to say that no religious belief can ever be proven to be more valid than any other religious belief so it’s a pointless thing to argue about. It’s all just assertions clashing with counter-assertions. There are no axioms, just presumptions. If those presumptions are different then you have no predicates for a logical debate.
All unproven assertions are equally valid or unvalid. My whole point vis-a-vis the Robinson thing was that the unproven assertions of fundamentalist Christians have no more inherent validity than the unproven assertions of non-fundamentalists.
But in regards to “this example”, how many fundamentalists practice what they preach? How many remarried men and women are actually shunned, and called adulterers? As required by their interpretation of scripture.
How many fundamentalist congregations actually demand that their women remain silent and not wear jewelry? As required by a “straightforward” interpretation of scripture.
At least the liberals, who believe that these types of teachings are nothing more than first-century cultural phenomena, are consistent in their approach to interpretation throughout of all of scripture.
The fundamentalists are far more literal (and “straightforward”), but pick and choose what they do, or do not, want to hear. I find that extremely hypocritical.
