Adultery Diogenes?

Great Debates
21

Diogenes the Cynic:

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.

Poppycock.

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.

I agree there. Well, the “praise me or else” stance attributed to god throughout is pretty unified.

You’ll have to take that up with them. Polycarp can defend his church better than I can.

As we have both seen of late Polycarp can’t even defend his own beliefs against well reasoned arguments, I doubt he would do much better with that of his church.

You accuse Episcopalians of “disregarding” the Bible if you wish, but why do you think that’s an issue for me?

Cause you made the statement that it was a difference in interpretation of the bible between the Episcopalians and Jersey and offered an interpretation yourself.

quote:

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.

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?

Jesus as quoted by Matthew gave only one exception for divorce, you implied Jesus meant for more. Your cultural context adding to the motivations behind what Matthew made Jesus say is nothing more than a wild ass guess, regardless of how fat your Greek dictionary may be.

(Jersey quoted Matthew, btw, not Jesus. We don’t know what Jesus said.

I agree there. You might mention that to some “liberal Christians” we know when they pop off about Jesus’ 2 greatest commandments and how Jesus says he loves us.

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’ll take simple interpretations over tortured cherry pickings any day of the week.

I will just say that, moral authority for Anglicans does not derive solely from scripture.

If you say it comes from the their imaginations and the people they are around then you help make my point that it’s not from interpreting the bible.

Firstly, it’s all what someone else said that he said if you want to be technical.

Agreed.

Secondly, I think he only said a pretty small percentage of what is attributed to him.

Out of curiosity, what percent do would you guess he really said?

22

I quoted from The Message, so you could understand it better.
I realize ahead of time that you will not accept this, because it does not say “Rapture”. This brings me back to something I posted awhile ago:

:rolleyes:

Probably because we are not in church. Maybe you should read it a little more closely.

bolding mine
No, everybody doesn’t, only certain people.

23

A perfect example of the fundamentalist hypocracy that I’m talking about:

A pastor of a fundmentalist church in my town started boinking the church secretary. They both got divorced, married each other, and remained members of the same church, while the former husband and wife were also members!

Now, the guy is the pastor at another fundamentalist church across town!

Explain this to me, because I just don’t get it.

24

RoundGuy:

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?

Oh, believe me I agree with you.

How many fundamentalist congregations actually demand that their women remain silent and not wear jewelry? As required by a “straightforward” interpretation of scripture.

I think clearly they should. I’ve given my own fundamentalist mother crap for working at American Express, which is nothing more than systematized usury.

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.

Not when it comes to god loving them. Not when it comes to eternal paradise. Not when it comes to faith being a gift given to them and not us.

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.

Again I agree. However I would add that the liberals do the same picking and choosing in addition to their “interpreting” but at the same time give the pretense that they are so learned about their superstitious yet self serving beliefs. I find that even more hypocritical.

See Taran how I worked that in.:slight_smile:

25

RoundGuy:

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?

Oh, believe me I agree with you.

How many fundamentalist congregations actually demand that their women remain silent and not wear jewelry? As required by a “straightforward” interpretation of scripture.

I think clearly, to be consistent, they should. I’ve given my own fundamentalist mother crap for working at American Express, which is nothing more than systematized usury.

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.

Not when it comes to god loving them. Not when it comes to eternal paradise. Not when it comes to faith being a gift given to them and not us.

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.

Again I agree. However I would add that the liberals do the same picking and choosing in addition to their “interpreting” but at the same time give the pretense that they are so learned about their superstitious yet self serving beliefs. I find that even more hypocritical.

See Taran how I worked that in.:slight_smile:

26

So, you’re saying that both fundamentalist and liberal Christians are cherry-picking, interpret-scripture-to-your-own-advantage, self-serving, superstitious hypocrites?

Ok. I can live with that. :smiley:

27

It’s wrong. Maybe the congregation doesn’t know. I, personally, would not attend that church.
It stinks, but some people are liars and hypocrits. Keep in mind that you cannot judge all fundamentalist on this pastor or others who do the same.
That pastor, ideally, should step down from his position.
God will deal with him, though.

28

How so?

Except for the “praise me” part and the “or else” part.

So how is that an issue for me?

I tried to describe my understanding of the Anglican interpretation (that they interpret it within a specific historical and cultural context). I apologize if it sounded like I was proposing a personal interpretation (although I do happen to think the Anglican interpretation is quite reasonable). I’m actually not too sure about that quote. Since I don’t think Jesus was God or that he thought he was God, I think it’s unlikely that his intent was to deliver some universal, eternal command about marriage. He was talking about marriage practices as he knew them. He had no way of knowing what marriage would be like in 2000 years, in some other culture, where the practices he was addressing no longer existed. (And that’s if he said that line at all).

Once again, this is an issue that you will have to take up with the Episcopalians, not me. I can get into a windier discussion of this issue but I will just say that, IMO, Jesus (or Matthew) was simply condemning a specific practice in a specific historical and cultural context. The “exception” was the only acceptable one in that culture, at that time. Jesus was telling men not to discard women like used cars and get new ones. That was the moral point of his admonition. It was not intended to an absolute, literal injunction for all time. That’s a fucking stupid, overly legalistic way to read it and that kind of pedantry was exactly what Jesus hated in religion.

I have pointed out that Jesus wasn’t the first to advocate those two commandments. They were proffered by Rabbi Hillel before him. The addition of the parable of the Good Samaritan was a pretty nice illustration, though.

And I’ll take reasoned and compassionate contemplation over mindless literalism. Tomato, tomahto. :wink:

The Angican position is that interpretation of scripture should be guided by the Holy Spirit. make of that what you will. At least it offers an alternative to irrational, “infallible” literalism.

[/quote]
**Firstly, it’s all what someone else said that he said if you want to be technical.

Agreed.

Secondly, I think he only said a pretty small percentage of what is attributed to him.

Out of curiosity, what percent do would you guess he really said? **
[/QUOTE]

Maybe 25%. Maybe less.

Basically, I think think he said the stuff in the earliest sayings gospels (Q and Thomas), some stuff in Mark and some stuff in the non-Marcan, non-Q parts of Luke.

Essentially I think the parables and the beatitudes are original to Jesus as well as a scattering of wisdom sayings and possibly some of the exchanges with his critics.

29

It’s a small town. Everybody knows.

The pastor was defrocked at the original church, but allowed to remain a member(?!). What possessed the church across town to hire him as senior pastor is anyone’s guess.

Oh, believe me, my judgement of fundamentalists is based on far more experience than just this one incident. The track record thus far is not encouraging…

30

Sorry for the hijack, but what’s “Q” in this context?

31

You quote from The Message, perhaps the worst interpretation of the Bible I’ve ever seen, and you’re accusing Diogenes of selective interpratation?

Damn, Jersey, you own me a new irony meter. You just blew mine to tiny bits. Carry on.

32

1.) The passage you cite is not about the “Rapture” as envisioned by John Darby and Left Behind fans. I don’t say that because it doesn’t say the word, “rapture,” (that’s derived from the Vulgate) but because it doesn’t say that there is going to be some sort of preliminary ascension of the “saved” followed by a bunch of tribulations. The passage you quoted is merely an assurance to early congregations (who were still expecting Jewsus any day) that those who had already died waiting would still go to heaven (and that they would, in fact, rise up first before the living.) That’s all it meant. Nothing more.

There is nothing in the Bible that says anything about a bunch of Christians going up, then a bunch of “tribulations,” then the final parousia. That is the made up part and it was made up in the 1800s. (along with all the contorted conflations of Revelation and Daniel and the “antichrist” in the epistles of John and all the rest of that Hal Lindsey/Damien stuff).

2.) Timothy 2: 11,12
11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

I don’t see anything about this only pertaining to church. Soounds like a selective interpretation to me.

33

It strikes me as humorous to see you choose the words “bias” and “objective” in the same sentence. Choosing the Jesus Seminar as your standard in this instance betrays the bias clearly. For those with a more objective mindset, perhaps they’d care to see this site: The Coming Radical Reformation
in which Funk, founder of the Jesus Seminar, lists among his group’s conclusions:

  1. There is no personal God.
  2. The doctrine of special creation is dead.
  3. God does not interfere with nature. Miracles are an affront to the justice and integrity of God.
  4. Prayer is meaningless.
  5. Jesus is not part of the divine triune nature of God.
  6. Atonement is subrational and subethical.

This group began with a baised approach to the Gospels, and lo and behold, found exactly what they expected. Big surprise.

The Jesus Seminar is not affiliated with either the Society of Biblical Literature of the other international association for New Testament scholars, the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas. It does not, therefore, represent anything like a consensus view of scholars working in the New Testament, but only the views of a group that has been - for all its protestations of diversity - self-selected on the basis of a prior agreement concerning the appropriate goals and methods for studying the Gospels and the figure of Jesus. bolding mine
Dr. Luke Timothy Johnson,
R.W. Woodruff Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins,
Candler School of Theology,
Emory University

The Jesus Seminar represents an extremely small number of radical-fringe scholars who are on the far, far left wing of New Testament thinking. It does not represent mainstream scholarship.
Dr. Gregory Boyd,
Professor of Theology,
Bethel College

This self-selected group, though it includes several fine scholars, does not represent a balanced cross section of scholarly opinion. Furthermore, the criteria for judgment that are employed are highly questionable.
Dr. Richard Hays,
Professor of New Testament Studies,
Duke Divinity School

Other scholars have had much harsher words for the Jesus Seminar: Dr. Howard C. Kee calls them “an academic disgrace”, and Dr. Jacob Neusner calls the Seminar “the greatest Jscholarly hoax since the Piltdown Man.”

So, just to be clear; the Jesus Seminar does not constitute mainstream scholarship on the NT, is not sponsored by either of the two major scholarly societies, and is highly criticized by conservative and liberal scholars for approach, methodology, and a priori assumptions which predetermine the outcome.

One would do better to read works authored by Craig Blomberg, R.E. Brown, F.F. Bruce, William Lane Craig, Simon Greenleaf, Gary Habermas, Luke Timothy Johnson, Sir Frederic Kenyon, Paul L. Maier, Bruce Metzger, Julius Muller, Edwin M. Yamauchi.

34

goodness gracious. what a suprise.

2.) Timothy 2: 11,12
11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

I don’t see anything about this only pertaining to church. Soounds like a selective interpretation to me.
[/QUOTE]

Shakes head
For Goodness sake, try reading the whole thing Diogenes.

LOL

35

goodness gracious. what a suprise.

Shakes head
For Goodness sake, try reading the whole thing Diogenes.

LOL

36

Q is the term for the common written source which is embedded in Matthew and Luke. Those two gospels contain quite a bit of material (mostly sayings of Jesus with some narrative framework) which agree word for word in Greek. The agreement both in the sayings and the narratives is so identical that they cannot have been composed independently. Q (from the german word quelle meaning “source”) is the name given to a hypothetical “sayings” gospel which was used by Matthew and Luke. There are no extant copies of Q but there is no question that those gospels used a common written source.
Probably more than you really want to know about the Q gospel

37

I hate this laptop!!! :mad:
sorry

38

The surprise is that anybody would ever get the “Rapture” from that verse to begin with. Why don’t you just try actually reading what it says. Tell me how you the “Left Behind” scenario out of that.

While you’re at it, why don’t you tell me why no one ever interpreted it that way for the first 1800 years of Christian history and why the majority of Christianity still doesn’t believe in the Rapture?

Shakes head
For Goodness sake, try reading the whole thing Diogenes.

LOL **
[/QUOTE]

Of course I read the whole thing. No “church only” loophole to be found.

Here is the entire chapter:

Show me where it says that these rules only apply in church.

39

Actually, you’re wrong. Morgan Edwards, founder of Rhode Island College, now known as Brown University, wrote an eschatological essay for a class, which was published in 1788 as: Two Academical Exercises on Subjects Bearing the Following Titles; Millenium, Last-Novelties.

40

1.) No quibble from me.
2.) It’s not quite dead but it is quite stupid.
3.) Not a shred of evidence to contradict this, is there?
4.) ditto
5.) ditto

The Jesus Seminar is a historical project, not a religious one. You can’t compare historical scholarship with a devotional study of the Bible. The J.S, uses the same methodolgy and analysis for Jesus as would be used for Julius Caesar or Socrates. It would be decidedly unhistorical and unscholarly to accept allegations of miracles or any supernatural event without proof. I’m sorry it upsets you so but that’s the way it has to be if the JS is going to function as a credible and ethical scientific enterprise.

Can you prove a single miracle? Can you prove that Jesus was God? Can you prove that God exists at all? Why should any objective historian accept any of those assertions without proof?

The JS is quite well respected. btw. They are resented by conservative Christians, that’s true, but those conservatives can’t find any flaws in their methods they only whine about bias (such as the “biased” assumption that impossible stuff is impossible).