Originally posted by NemesioDon't forget the proper sacrifices to be made upon the birth of a child, ritual uncleanliness in women and what to do about it, etc.
In fulfilling the Law, does that mean that you are or are not beholden to cleansing rites? Do you or
do you not have to keep kosher? Will you or will you not stone a person caught in adultery?
Since I assume that you answer in the negative for all of these and the thousand other things I can
list from the Law, why do you feel that holding on to one te ...[text shortened]... h homosexuality?
Nemesio
P.S., Do you find I Corinthians 11:1-7 to be God-breathed or not?
Originally posted by NemesioI suppose it depends on what you mean by literalism. For example, if I were a Biblicial literalist would I not think that one needed to sell all that they had in order to be saved after reading the comment from Jesus? Therefore, if I do not take every passage as literal, is the Bible still an idol to me? I find this allogation of idol worship nothing more than an attack on how my interpretation of the Bible differs from yours. In fact, I could accuse you of idol worship for interpreting Pual's message of wearing ones hair as literal. I am the one not interpreting the scripture as literal as where you are!!
Originally posted by whodey
[b]After all, I thought you were into Biblical literalism.
I am utterly opposed to Biblical literalism for it turns the Bible into an idol.
So if Christ was only talking to a specific person or persons and adressing their personal situation, why can't Paul be doing the same?
Because St Paul was testif you still haven't confessed whether you find this part of Scripture to be
God-breathed or not.
There is an interpretive element to all passages of scripture. You say that Paul talked about the "nature of things" thus not to specific individual, however, I would say that perhaps it was the common societal perception that it was the "nature of things" to wear you hair a certain way. Therefore, if Pual had gone against this percieved nature then it would be nothing than a needless hinderence in regards to spreading the good news. In this sense I do find it to be God-breathed.
Originally posted by NemesioWould you be shocked if I said I agreed? I only brought it up to prove a point, however, and that point is that you seek to pursue taking Pauls message as literal but not Christs.
Christ made the statement that one must sell all that they have and give to the poor did he not?
Jesus' statement about richness in general was one to be applied generally, naturally. Jesus' statement
for this one individual is one to be applied specifically to the one individual. This exegesis is supported
by the text.
Nemesio[/b]
Originally posted by NemesioI believe the Mosaic law to be God breathed inspiration as I do what Christ said about the rich entering heaven as I do Pauls message about hair.
In fulfilling the Law, does that mean that you are or are not beholden to cleansing rites? Do you or
do you not have to keep kosher? Will you or will you not stone a person caught in adultery?
Since I assume that you answer in the negative for all of these and the thousand other things I can
list from the Law, why do you feel that holding on to one te ...[text shortened]... h homosexuality?
Nemesio
P.S., Do you find I Corinthians 11:1-7 to be God-breathed or not?
I will attempt to give you a rough draft of my theology. Perhaps we can agree on one aspect of scripture that is coherant throughout scipture. What is it you may ask? What we should all agree with is the # 1 commandment throughout the Bible which is to Love the Lord thy God with all of thy heart and love your neighbor as thyself. If you do this you will keep all of the laws of the prophets without even trying. If this makes me an idol worshiper of scripture than so be it! Moses said it, Christ said it, and Paul said it. Now in terms of their teachings this all plays out. In terms of the Mosaic law the laws against such sinful practices as adultery were aimed at helping to preserve that society. Granted, killing people for certain transgressions was harsh, however, the transgressions were also harsh in nature that should be seen as so. Transgressions that erroded the family unit such as adultery were corrosive in regards to the society at large and were aiding in helping to destroy such a society. To let it continue and spread would be a very unloving thing to do.
Now when Christ came on the scene he said in Matthew 5:17, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." For example, when he was confronted with the woman caught in adultery and he showed mercy on her and spared her from certain death, he said go and sin no more. Why? Sin against what? If Christ had come to destroy the law, why would he then say to go sin no more? What is there to sin against if Christ had negated the transgression of adultery? Are you seriously suggesting that adultery was not seen as a sin by Christ? Having said that, Christ became the perfection of the law of love that was forshadowed by the Mosaic law. Through the power of Christ, the sin in our lives such as adultery can now be dealt with via the power of the cross. Now instead of destroying the sinner to destroy the sin, one need only turn to Christ in order to destroy the sin so that the sinner may be preserved in the process of destroying the sin.
Now in terms of Paul, Paul stresses the importance of love in 1 Corinthians 13. He goes into great detail in terms of the importance of loving others and loving God. In fact, he goes as far as saying that without love you are NOTHING!! Paul exemplifies this teaching in 1 Corinthians 8:9 when he teaches us not to become a stumblingblock for those who are "weak" in the faith. If those who are weak in the faith see you doing something or behaving in a way that may cause them to stumble in their faith then avoid those things entirely such as eating flesh in front of another brother that may be offended at such a spectacle. This is how I interpret the teaching of the hair.
Just as a side note, when Christ confronted the rich man who asked what he must do to inherit eternal life, Christ first described all of the laws that were needed to be kept in order to walk in love with your neighbor such as not stealing, killing, bearing false witness etc. However, he then perceived that he loved his riches above all else which was in direct violation of loving God above all else. This is why Chirst made the comment that he must sell all that he has and come follow him. Christ once said that those who love father, or mother, or son, or riches etc above him were not worthy of him, thus, the rich man was violating the greatest commandment which was to love your God above all else. My question to you is, who keeps these two great commandments? Who loves their neighbor as well as their God always? No one, that's who. However, we can love our God enough to surrender those things that seperate us from the love of our God and place him first.
Originally posted by whodey
I am the one not interpreting the scripture as literal as where you are!!
As I mentioned, I have a ponytail.
I do interpret the passage literally. I think St Paul genuinely believed that one's hairstyle was
as essential to a person's sinfulness as he claimed. I also think he was totally wrong. There is
no inspiration to this passage.
I think any honest individual would have to admit that St Paul was wrong -- that one's hairstyle or
hair covering has absolutely no impact on whether God appreciates your prayer in any place or time.
There is an interpretive element to all passages of scripture. You say that Paul talked about the "nature of things" thus not to specific individual, however, I would say that perhaps it was the common societal perception that it was the "nature of things" to wear you hair a certain way. Therefore, if Pual had gone against this percieved nature then it would be nothing than a needless hinderence in regards to spreading the good news. In this sense I do find it to be God-breathed.
Well, since he said 'Does not nature herself teach...,' there is no reason to conclude that St Paul
felt otherwise. Unless you believe that the nature of disgrace or sinfulness can change, you have
to account for this usage. Remember, he said that such 'disgrace' would not be found in God's churches.
Given that he said other controversial things that may have pushed people away from the Gospel --
you know, like the need to love your enemy, or to dismiss the kosher requirements, or to say that
in God there is no male or female -- it would seem that dismissing hairstyles would be a simple thing,
unless it was really important to St Paul.
Either St Paul was wrong about the nature of man and woman or he was right. Which one do you pick? Or that nature of what makes a person's choices sinful or not can change...
So what do you think?
1) It's really a sin for a woman to have short hair or a man to have long hair;
2) St Paul was totally wrong on this issue; or
3) What constitutes sin has changed over time.
Unless you see another choice, this is what you have to figure.
Nemesio
Originally posted by whodeyI don't know if you're being obtuse or just a jerk, but I'll assume the former.
Would you be shocked if I said I agreed? I only brought it up to prove a point, however, and that point is that you seek to pursue taking Pauls message as literal but not Christs.
St Paul's comment on hair is not analogous to Jesus' comment to the man. St Paul's comment testified
to the general nature of things. Jesus' comment was a specific instruction to a specific individual.
St Paul's comment on hair is analogous to Jesus' comments about the dangers of riches.
Both comments testify to the general nature of things.
This is why whatever point you were 'proving' makes no sense. Both St Paul's and Jesus' general comments
were intended to be taken literally by their respective followers.
Nemesio
Originally posted by pawnhandlerThere are two issues here. The first of which are animal sacrifices. When Christ came he said that he was the fulfillment of the law not the destroyer of the law. Having said that, is a blood sacrifice still needed for our sins? If you are a Christian, then the answer is yes. If you are not a Christian, then the answer is no. Christ was the perfect sacrificial Lamb that was forshadowed during Mosaic times. He was the perfection of such laws and rituals.
Don't forget the proper sacrifices to be made upon the birth of a child, ritual uncleanliness in women and what to do about it, etc.
Now in terms of other seemingly archaic laws such as ritual cleansing and avoiding certain foods, I veiw many of them as simply being hygienic in nature. For example, do not touch dead things, do not eat fat, do not eat animals that have high fat content such as pork, do not drink blood, quarantine those that may be infectious etc. I veiw these laws as laws given in love so as to help people live longer and healthier lives.
Originally posted by whodeySo you don't follow these laws?
Now in terms of other seemingly archaic laws such as ritual cleansing and avoiding certain foods, I veiw many of them as simply being hygienic in nature. For example, do not touch dead things, do not eat fat, do not eat animals that have high fat content such as pork, do not drink blood, quarantine those that may be infectious etc. I veiw these laws as laws given in love so as to help people live longer and healthier lives.
You find these laws optional?
You are a breaker of these God-given laws?
Am I correct?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioOne thing did occur to me after reading this. Perhaps the hair styles in question were seen as "gender bending". In such a case one blurrs the natural distinctions between the sexes that God had created.
So what do you think?
1) It's really a sin for a woman to have short hair or a man to have long hair;
2) St Paul was totally wrong on this issue; or
3) What constitutes sin has changed over time.
Unless you see another choice, this is what you have to figure.
Nemesio[/b]
Originally posted by NemesioTo be honest I avoid drinking blood, I try to avoid fatty foods such as pork, I attempt to be cleanly etc. Does this answer your question?
So you don't follow these [b]laws?
You find these laws optional?
You are a breaker of these God-given laws?
Am I correct?
Nemesio[/b]
Originally posted by NemesioI view trying to take care of yourself as simply loving yourself as well as those who care about you. In other words, my focus is on loving my fellow man and my God. Therefore, my focus is in the spirit of the law and not the letter of the law. Chirst breaking the Sabbath to heal someone is a prime example. Sure he was breaking a Mosaic command, but in letter only. In fact, if he had not done so he would have been breaking the spirit of the law altogether. In this regard, I am not a literalist.
So you keep the entire Law?
Nemesio
Originally posted by whodeyDo you suppose that if two men or women love each other so deeply that they are willing to live
I view trying to take care of yourself as simply loving yourself as well as those who care about you. In other words, my focus is on loving my fellow man and my God. Therefore, my focus is in the spirit of the law and not the letter of the law. Chirst breaking the Sabbath to heal someone is a prime example. Sure he was breaking a Mosaic command, but in le ...[text shortened]... uld have been breaking the spirit of the law altogether. In this regard, I am not a literalist.
their lives in undying devotion to each other through God -- do you suppose that this is in the spirit
of God's Law?
Nemesio
As I read through this discussion—and others like it—I come to the following conclusions:
_________________________________________
Non-inerrantists get to pick and choose which portions of scripture make sense to them.
Inerrantists get to pick and choose which portions of scripture make sense (to them) of others, so as to preserve the notion of inerrancy.
Non-inerrantists get to read into the text whatever makes sense to them.
Inerrantists get to read into the text whatever they think they need to preserve the notion of inerrancy.
Non-inerrantists get to pick and choose in the face of contradictions.
Inerrantists get to pick and choose whatever makes the contradictions disappear.
Non-inerrantists get to pick and choose which laws they think still apply.
Inerrantists get to pick and choose which laws they think still apply.
Literalists get to pick and choose which verses may actually be metaphor or allegory, or the like.
Non-literalists get to pick and choose which verses may actually be literal/factual.
Those who claim the Bible must be interpreted offer their interpretations are interpretations.
Those who claim the Bible is self-interpreting deny their interpretations are interpretations.
Everybody picks and chooses which texts contextualize the others so as to support their own theological understanding.
Some people quite honestly interpret the texts in ways that conflict with how other people, equally honestly, interpret the texts.
Everybody picks and chooses. Everybody interprets. There are those who own up to it, and those who don’t.