Genesis 19

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Ok, so "The Church" gets to interpret the Bible? Or are you suggesting we channel the authors?

The problem is, "The Church" cannot seem to get its ducks in a row and agree on a single interpretation. Whcih one shall I choose, if you please? Protestantism, Catholicism, Judaism?

TheSkipper

If a group of Supreme Court judges decided to break away and form an "Alternate Court", who would you recognise as the "official" interpreter of the Constitution?

Originally posted by TheSkipper
.. But the notion of biblical interpretation leads to some fairly uncomfortable truths. For instance, if my interpretation of the Bible is no less valid than anyone else's then I know some Christians that are going to take serious issue with the result. ...

TheSkipper

Not all interpretations are equal. It's not even the case that there are many valid interpretations of scripture - some are certainly irrational. The standards by which we judge those interpretations should also be understood. I think the easiest standard is to say interpretations should result in non-contradictory propositions. This in itself would go a long way towards resolving many differences in interpretation.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
If a group of Supreme Court judges decided to break away and form an "Alternate Court", who would you recognise as the "official" interpreter of the Constitution?

I would probably stick with the original court, probably. Here is the thing though, my politics, or opinions may be more reflected in the views of the "alternate court" and because I'm certainly entitled to my opinion then I may decide the "alternate court" is doing a better job of interpreting the constitution and follow their lead.

However, with the Bible, it is not about my opinion. It is about what is right and what is wrong. If I choose wrong I burn in hell. I want qualifications, I want assurances and I want a structured system worthy of such an important decision. Are you starting to grock my concerns?

TheSkipper

Originally posted by Coletti
Not all interpretations are equal. It's not even the case that there are many valid interpretations of scripture - some are certainly irrational. The standards by which we judge those interpretations should also be understood. I think the easiest standard is to say interpretations should result in non-contradictory propositions. This in itself would go a long way towards resolving many differences in interpretation.

Let's make sure I understand you. It is the position of many Christian churches that Gay marriage is sinful and against God. Presumably, because practicing homosexuality (at least the sex) is a sin. The Church is so confident in this that it is encouraging the US ammend the constitution to reflect these concerns.

Could my non-contradictory interpretation be that if homosexuals cannot get married because they are sinning, then people who drink to excess may not get married, people who masturbate cannot get married...because they are sinning?

TheSkipper

Originally posted by TheSkipper
I would probably stick with the original court, probably. Here is the thing though, my politics, or opinions may be more reflected in the views of the "alternate court" and because I'm certainly entitled to my opinion then I may decide the "alternate court" is doing a better job of interpreting the constitution and follow their lead.

However, w ...[text shortened]... stem worthy of such an important decision. Are you starting to grock my concerns?

TheSkipper

I think the basics are there for even the "un-scholarly" to understand. If you can read, you can understand the Bible well enough to gain the knowledge that saves. Those things that must be believed in order to be saved are plainly seen.

It would seem that it takes a fair education to really twist scripture. 😉

The Bible is not the province of the academics and theologians only. If we leave it up to them - we get all sorts of rubbish.

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Let's make sure I understand you. It is the position of many Christian churches that Gay marriage is sinful and against God. Presumably, because practicing homosexuality (at least the sex) is a sin. The Church is so confident in this that it is encouraging the US ammend the constitution to reflect these concerns.

Could my non-contradictory interpre ...[text shortened]... get married, people who masturbate cannot get married...because they are sinning?

TheSkipper

The issue of homosexual marriage is a red-herring used by both sides of the isle for political propaganda. Marriage itself should have never become a State issue. We never should have let the State license marriages to start with. That should be a function of the Church alone (which ever religion you happen to hold).

Homosexuals should not get married in my church. If they want to get married under whatever religion that will allow it - they have that option. If sin was the issue - then we could debate the on those grounds, but I think it's about Civil Government going where they never should have been in the first place.

Originally posted by Coletti
I think the basics are there for even the "un-scholarly" to understand. If you can read, you can understand the Bible well enough to gain the knowledge that saves. Those things that must be believed in order to be saved are plainly seen ...[text shortened]... ns only. If we leave it up to them - we get all sorts of rubbish.

Perhaps, you would agree with me then, when I claim that God is likely far less concerned with the rules than we are.

In my reality, God knows my heart and he knows that I'm trying to understand his desires as best I can...honestly. If I get something wrong here or there surely he can recognize that the Bible is not exactly the most precise document ever written.

It seems many peoples solution to my problem is to dive as far and deep into the conservative side of all issues, just to be on the safe side, as they can. I think this renders too many Christians ineffectual when it comes to extolling the virtues of Christianity to more liberal or progressive minded people. We cut ourselves off to roughly half the population, in effect...at least in this country.

TheSkipper

EDIT: Well that was arrogant of me wasn't it? Here I am on an international website assuming everyone is an American, no wonder so many people hate us. When I say "at least in this country" I'm talking about the United States. Sorry.

Originally posted by Coletti
The issue of homosexual marriage is a red-herring used by both sides of the isle for political propaganda. Marriage itself should have never become a State issue. We never should have let the State license marriages to start with. That should be a function of the Church alone (which ever religion you happen to hold).

Homosexuals should not get married i ...[text shortened]... I think it's about Civil Government going where they never should have been in the first place.

Well, that is refreshing, and intellectually honest. Good point on all counts.

TheSkipper

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Let's make sure I understand you. It is the position of many Christian churches that Gay marriage is sinful and against God. Presumably, because practicing homosexuality (at least the sex) is a sin. The Church is so confident in this that it is encouraging the US ammend the constitution to reflect these concerns.

Could my non-contradictory interpre ...[text shortened]... get married, people who masturbate cannot get married...because they are sinning?

TheSkipper

The Church teaches that gay "marriage" is against God not because practising homosexuals are sinners; but because the union itself is sinful (not to mention ontologically false - two members of the same sex can be no more married than a male parent be a "mother"😉.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The Church teaches that gay "marriage" is against God not because practising homosexuals are sinners; but because the union itself is sinful (not to mention ontologically false - two members of the same sex can be no more married than a male parent be a "mother"😉.

Oh sweet, so all we need to do is call it "unions" give them the same rights (equal protection under the law is very important in this country) and call it a day. Glad we settled that. 😉

TheSkipper

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Oh sweet, so all we need to do is call it "unions" give them the same rights (equal protection under the law is very important in this country) and call it a day. Glad we settled that. 😉

TheSkipper

As I've said elsewhere, that's a solution I can live with - provided these unions are not allowed to adopt children.

EDIT: How did a thread on Gen 19 turn into a discussion on same-sex unions? Kirksey - did you get the interpretations you were looking for?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
As I've said elsewhere, that's a solution I can live with - provided these unions are not allowed to adopt children.

What the heck? Really? No adoption? I cannot believe I'm going to do this...but...could you explain to me why? As this is highly off topic I will let you respond and then not comment. My only desire is explanation, not confrontation. 😉

TheSkipper

Originally posted by lucifershammer
As I've said elsewhere, that's a solution I can live with - provided these unions are not allowed to adopt children.

Feel the love! 🙄

Originally posted by lucifershammer
As I've said elsewhere, that's a solution I can live with - provided these unions are not allowed to adopt children.

To say homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to adopt children is even more unconstitutional and discriminatory than to say they can't be allowed the legal status of marriage because we don't like their sexual practices. Isn't it time to get this moral judgment of other people's sex acts hogwash out of our laws, Lucifershammer?

Originally posted by bbarr
Feel the love! 🙄

Would you say that the mother of a 4-year old who restrains her kid from playing with matches does not love her child?